The Value of values

[Sotha]

Here I you seem to be making two separate points:

 

1) you shouldn't judge someone's values

 

2) coming on strong about someone's values is likely to make them defensive

 

While I agree with 2, I absolutely disagree with 1. Because, as I said before, values influence behaviour, and it is therefore in our best interest to ensure that people hold values that result in the least amount of harm to others. I don't want to live next to someone who values the freedom of his dog to bark more than the right of his neighbours to sleep, for example. And if someone holds values that make them want to dehumanize or harm others, that's absoutely a value we should judge and condemn. To do less is actually immoral.

 

Just a clarification to point 1. It wasn't separate from the defensive side. It was meant to be a cause->effect -relation.

 

The point I tried to convey was that

1) Value discussion is good

2) It is not good to condemn the values of others in the discussion outright. (Which is the same as "coming on strong about someone's values is likely to make them defensive")

 

If you do 2), you ruin the discussion, because once the other is defensive, nothing will move forward. You can see this example in this thread. An aggressive debating style is problematic when working with values. As seen from this thread the pattern is clear:

1) Declare other opinions than own hypocritical/worthless/stupid/irrelevant.

2) Begin debate.

 

Here you see that the whole value discussion will be in vain because of the simple mistake done in the start. Values divide people. As seen, they can be rational or emotional. They can be very sore points for some. Thus, I would recommend approaching the topic with curiosity to the other's beliefs instead of direct dismissal and rebuffing.

 

Someone here, on this very forum, put it so well many years ago (I will not forget it): "The opinion itself does not matter, but the REASON AND JUSTIFICATION for the opinion is most interesting."

 

So, it is better to be more soft or considerate about it. If you start like in our little experiment here, many people who might have interesting things to say will be scared off by the strong talkers. Also, blaming, commenting going into the person or intentions of another debater, I think, it is just an indication we are maybe not yet mature enough to handle topics like this. Looking back at the original title of the topic "Children in TDM..." It somehow suited the debate here, in a silly way.

 

Perhaps in the future.

[lowenz]

Our values have a strong impact on our behaviour, and the behaviour of other people can potentially affect both me and the society I live in. That's why discussion of values takes up a large part of social conversation, and so it should.

Yes but values are not always "simple guiding principles".

To see values as "simple guiding principles" is a danger.

[Airship Ballet]

Looking back at the original title of the topic "Children in TDM..." It somehow suited the debate here, in a silly way.

Unless I'm really mistaken--and somebody by all means tell me if I'm losing my grip on reality--having your opinion called hypocritical and latching onto that instead of developing a response is childish. I even made the connection with the title and said nothing, because it would have been childish and passive-aggressive of me. I'm 99% done with being wordy about it: grow up and develop thicker skin while you're at it.

 

Yes but values are not always "simple guiding principles".

To see values as "simple guiding principles" is a danger.

You're right, but I can't see where anybody said that, I'm probably just being blind. They're guiding principles, certainly, but they're pretty complex, or at least the process by which we get them is. Values are developed subconsciously, to a point where they're eventually questioned and we have to actually explore them ourselves before formulating a response, because we're not entirely sure how or why we have them. They're really intricate, built up from all sorts of thoughts and events in the past that we didn't know affected us. It's one of my favorite elements of discussing beliefs: being made to explore your own beliefs and figure out why you hold them. Debating is a pretty great window into self-discovery, really, and is why most people do it in addition to learning about other points of view and, usually to a lesser degree, engaging in rhetorical fisticuffs.

[Sotha]

I'm 99% done with being wordy about it: grow up and develop thicker skin while you're at it.

 

The personal bashing you seem to do at every turn puzzles me. Why do you do it? Maybe writing a PM to me would help? Let out all the steam you have if it helps.

[lowenz]

You're right, but I can't see where anybody said that, I'm probably just being blind. They're guiding principles, certainly, but they're pretty complex, or at least the process by which we get them is.

Nobody said that here, but for the most people "value"=SIMPLE principle to choose "good" or "evil"

Simple 'cause you must make a choice within time boundaries

Edited September 11, 2014 by lowenz

[Airship Ballet]

Oh God, don't mention "good or evil" in a topic that's already been completely philosophical at times: I want to go home at some point.

[lowenz]

Oh God, don't mention "good or evil" in a topic that's already been completely philosophical at times: I want to go home at some point.

Or God

[Springheel]

If you do 2), you ruin the discussion, because once the other is defensive, nothing will move forward. You can see this example in this thread. An aggressive debating style is problematic when working with values.

 

An aggressive debating style can be problematic with all kinds of topics, depending on what you want to achieve. However, I think part of the issue in play here is that your fairly reasonable opinion that "if you are aggressive in discussions about people's values they will probably get defensive and the discussion will deteriorate" is getting conflated with the idea that "it is wrong to criticize people's values". One does not lead directly to the other. I don't think you mean to say that it does, but your wording could have been interpreted that way.

 

Someone here, on this very forum, put it so well many years ago (I will not forget it): "The opinion itself does not matter, but the REASON AND JUSTIFICATION for the opinion is most interesting."

 

That was me.

 

grow up and develop thicker skin while you're at it.

 

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Airship Ballet]

This is why we can't have nice things.

The thread was a nice thing before I inadvertently offended Sotha with something that's never offended anybody before, the only conclusion I can draw being that he's a bit too sensitive. The upside is that there are two equally interesting threads now.

[Sotha]

Just to clarify, I got the opposite impression. I wasn't offended, and was simply discussing, until you apparently were offended by something I said, went haywire and started immature attacks at my person.

 

But let's not start it all over again. I now know your style well enough to know I will not want to have anything to do with it. I also now know that you are the kind of person that just must have the final word. I will grant you this privilege. Go ahead.

[demagogue]

I think about the cognitive origins of values sometimes, since its the kind of thing one does researching legal issues, especially human rights. To put things in perspective, people don't appreciate how wildly complex it is, e.g., to get computer vision AI to successfully identify a hat, and understand that a person with and without a hat are actually the same person (if it can identify that it's a person at all). How likely is it we're going to adequately understand the role of all the cognitive factors that go into value-laden decisions.

 

That said, I think there's lots you can still say about it.

I like the coding analogy, actually. I go in assuming the cognitive work would probably be the equivalent of trillions of lines of code. But just because we can't grasp all trillion lines of code doesn't mean we can't understand a few key lines of code by careful methods and even do a little bug checking.

 

If I got started on my actual cognitive theory of normativity, though, it'd have to take a lot more than a forum post.

[Lux]

Just to clarify, I got the opposite impression. I wasn't offended, and was simply discussing, until you apparently were offended by something I said, went haywire and started immature attacks at my person.

 

But let's not start it all over again. I now know your style well enough to know I will not want to have anything to do with it. I also now know that you are the kind of person that just must have the final word. I will grant you this privilege. Go ahead.

 

I've spoken to Merry at length in PM and there are reasons she exibits this behavior that you may be unaware of. I'm not defending her as she can defend herself. I'm just saying the old toem, "don't get wrapped up in the messenger and miss the message," applies here. She has good things to contribute as we all do; sometimes we just don't present them in the best way.

 

I've enjoyed what both of you have contributed to the conversation.

 

Personally my main objective is to treat others the way I want to be treated, whether in conversations or in actions. I am guilty of sometimes treating others the way they treat me, or at least the way I feel they're treating me at the time. This is a defensive posture and only causes the other party to become more defensive as well. We're all guilty of "pushing other peoples buttons" at times though it is a bad habit to convey information.

 

I've found the best way to convey information is not to involve the other person at all. That way nothing is directed at them and they can freely listen. Such as telling the person that I understand where they're coming from because I also once felt the same way and then going in to a story about a life experience that changed MY mind and, how and why it changed MY mind, and how I think differently now because of it.

 

Then others can listen without being a target and that message plants a seed they can refer back to individually and relate to future experiences and grow from without being told directly, "this is how you should think".

Edited September 12, 2014 by Lux

[Airship Ballet]

I've found the best way to convey information is not to involve the other person at all.

Yeah, definitely, it's generally only in politics where you get that bitchy try-to-indirectly-denounce-the-opponent crap. Grown men being passive-aggressive on-stage has always irked me: I'd much prefer if they just worked out all that tension in the ring. Still, in my experience it's fine to ridicule somebody's argument because, well, that's generally how debates go: you don't get anywhere until you're prompted to back up your side with elaboration. I 100% blame my time in formal debate groups for that if it's actually a bad thing, because putting pressure on the other team and having your own points picked apart in return was a major part of high school and university for me. I was under the impression that it was the norm to challenge one another to move things along, but clearly something went awry somewhere for it to turn into a bitchy back and forth here. Really, though, it's like walking through a field for a few minutes only to get halfway across and have the ground explode in your face because it was a mine field and you had no idea. People picking apart one another's arguments all over the place, some even using the exact same phrasing as me, only to have it blow back on me in particular. Inadvertently offending someone and having them snark you into the ground back out of nowhere is bound to lead nowhere good, but it's hardly human nature to not retort.

[lowenz]

Personally my main objective is to treat others the way I want to be treated, whether in conversations or in actions.

The famous "golden rule" has some serious flaws.

What if you're a masochist (not in sex role-play, in more serious and harming forms)?

[Lux]

Heh, its a rule I use because of my nature. By no means am I saying its for everyone or even anyone else. It comes from a place of personal consideration for others. A masochist may or may not have much consideration for others. Masochistic behavior in general is something one usually reflects upon themself. It may not be how the act openly to others.

 

There are plenty of "what ifs", its just how I try to govern myself not always successfully I might add.

[OrbWeaver]

The famous "golden rule" has some serious flaws. What if you're a masochist (not in sex role-play, in more serious and harming forms)?

 

Even people with "masochistic" or self-harming tendencies still have limits on what sorts of behaviour they will accept from other people. Just because someone cuts themselves doesn't mean they will be happy for you to walk up and punch them in the street. So the Golden Rule can still apply just as it does for "normal" people.

[Sotha]

Lux, your principles sound like mine. I am usually curious why people think how they do. As you seen from my posts, I am also interested how things make them feel. As we have seen here, emotions can come up quite easily in the most sensitive ones.

 

When debating stuff, I think, there is one of the most important rule that is taught at school. The conversation should be about the topic at hand, and not the other debater or their properties. That is a simple starting premise, which is, sadly, often forgotten nowadays. It is the topics arguing, not people.

 

When people start throwing mud, the entire endeavor loses its appeal. But I know some people enjoy it. I don't. I like a sensible, thoughtful and polite discussions, where the participants have an open mind and new thoughts and ideas are generated. Like sort of a brainstorming session, but with an arbitrary topic. Luckily we have those occasionally here, but too often the emotions go wild.

 

Perhaps it is the Internet as a forum that is the problem. Often people misinterpret each other because you do not have to social contact. It is easy to tell people bad things when you do not have to tell it towards their face.

[Springheel]

The conversation should be about the topic at hand, and not the other debater or their properties

 

Yep.

[Airship Ballet]

Of course, that's obvious, but problems arise when someone has a lower threshold for what constitutes an insult than others, or just plain misinterprets a statement. I've never had somebody take their argument being called hypocritical as a personal attack, ever, and I've been in a discussion before, on this forum, where it's been agreed that people need to differentiate between arguments being picked apart and personalities being picked apart. If someone says that what I said is hypocritical, I'll look for the contradiction and explain myself better or concede that it's a hypocritical point but I still think that way for whatever reason, not assume I'm being called a hypocrite and then retaliate, then retaliate to retaliation until there's an argument about nothing. It's difficult to differentiate when it gets heated, but this wasn't heated, and came out of the blue before escalating to a point where it was heated, unproductive and irrelevant. Tiffs develop from misunderstandings all the time, but being based on communication problems doesn't make them any less heated or capable of burning bridges.

[OrbWeaver]

I like a sensible, thoughtful and polite discussions, where the participants have an open mind and new thoughts and ideas are generated. Like sort of a brainstorming session, but with an arbitrary topic. Luckily we have those occasionally here, but too often the emotions go wild.

 

You should see what the rest of the internet is like.

 

This forum is practically a philosopher's debating society compared to the cess-pits of immaturity, name-calling and needless aggression that constitute other game-related discussion boards, where you can be threatened with physical violence and encouraged to commit suicide for daring to suggest something that another poster doesn't like.

[Airship Ballet]

[Springheel]

This forum is practically a philosopher's debating society compared to the cess-pits of immaturity, name-calling and needless aggression that constitute other game-related discussion boards

 

Yes, and I'm rather proud of that fact. Makes it a pleasant place to show up to each day.

 

I've never had somebody take their argument being called hypocritical as a personal attack

 

Did anyone do that here?

[Airship Ballet]

Mhmm, Sotha thought I was calling him a hypocrite when I said that one of the common opinions with regards to kids in games is hypocritical. "This belief is self-contradictory" was twisted into "your values are incorrect. Change them, you hypocrite." He got on the defensive and started indirectly implying things about me, I got on the defensive back and tried to explain myself while getting increasingly irritated, cue derailment and falling out over nothing in particular. In an ideal world you'd be able to tackle opinions without anybody taking it personally, myself included, but it's not an ideal world.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Airship Ballet

[Bikerdude]

<off topic>

 

On a lighter note, when I see the title of this thread I can't help hearing the voice of the arcade machine in Bioshock "welcome to the circus of values"

 

<topic resumed>

[Sotha]

You should see what the rest of the internet is like.

 

This forum is practically a philosopher's debating society compared to the cess-pits of immaturity, name-calling and needless aggression that constitute other game-related discussion boards, where you can be threatened with physical violence and encouraged to commit suicide for daring to suggest something that another poster doesn't like.

 

Yes. I think I've seen some. This is the only forum on the internet I frequent, but I've seen places like DayZ reddit, which is full of the stuff.

 

Experience indicates that the reasonable maturity of our community should not be taken for granted. Even this forum could, over time, be infiltrated by enough people who could make our little debating society to -if not collapse- to fracture. We must foster and nurture our discussion culture. But how? Post some sort of guidelines how to avoid the common pitfalls in a discussion? Basic debating skills are apparently much taught these days in schools.

 

Did anyone do that here?

 

I was one of the talkers, and did not notice that happening.

 

<off topic>

 

On a lighter note, when I see the title of this thread I can't help hearing the voice of the arcade machine in Bioshock "welcome to the circus of values"

 

<topic resumed>

 

Haha! Yes, a circus it sometime is! "Circus of Values!" could have been an excellent title for this topic.