Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

The Value of values


Sotha

Recommended Posts

<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>

LOL

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This belief is self-contradictory" was twisted into "your values are incorrect. Change them, you hypocrite."

 

The line between, "your views are hypocritical" and "you are a hypocrit" is easy to miss. However, the above statement was in a response to me, and given the context I see no reason to assume Sotha was claiming anyone made that statement, any more than my bringing up 'values that dehumanize others' was a claim that someone in this thread had done THAT. Some of the discussion was in a more abstract, philosophical sense, spawned by the original comments but moving beyond them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About "dehumanizing": if values are a so important to human mind, every "cold" analysis is sort of "dehumanizing" operation for people who firmly believe in some of them, just think about zealot people!

"You can destroy me but not my principles!", a martyr vision.....a totally reversed and twisted vision about values.

 

Strong believers are doomed to soon become "crusader freaks"? 'cause too much "value of values" can poison and.....dehumanize a mind too.....

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About "dehumanizing": if values are a so important to human mind, every "cold" analysis is sort of "dehumanizing" operation for people who firmly believe in some of them, just think about zealot people!

 

Dehumanizing means to treat someone like they are not a human being. I see no connection between that and being critical of someone's values--an action that can ONLY apply to other humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dehumanizing means to treat someone like they are not a human being. I see no connection between that and being critical of someone's values--an action that can ONLY apply to other humans.

It's formally correct but force the reaction of someone who built his very own identity on a set of values and you will see the terrible value of values :P

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're saying that some people are very defensive when their opinions are challenged, I would accept that as a truism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Defensive" is an euphemism sometimes :P

So many people think about themself as some kind of "true human nature" crusader, bound to non-negotiable values: for this people to challenge a value (it's not an opinion!) is definitely an assault, and they're eager to react badly to enforce the truth!

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, the world is full of unreasonable people. With reasonable ones, anything should be a valid subject for rational discourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On non-negotiable values and truth enforment.

There are also, I think, different goals for the discussion for different people.

 

What is the purpose of a discusssion for you? In general, it a a nice and activating way to spend time. But what do you look to get from it? Is it a game? A competition? Is it a tool of for thought organization? Something else?

 

The competetive discusser is easy to identify. They will constantly push forward and oppose the other discusser. Even when it appears their logic is flawed, they will switch to delay tactics and start reforming their earlier comments so that they suit better a new position that is easier to hold. It is a game and a little intellectual dishonesty is worth winning the debate. They are often not inclined to give the other debaters arguments any merits, because they are busy shooting them down. They are unlikely to allow the other debater to save face, but will rather celebrate their own victory and show their cleverness to everybody.

 

A though-organizer operates somewhat differently: they are interested in getting into new territory with the discussion. They may have difficulties sticking to a single topic because, every topic leads to another and the overlap areas may bring a new approach to things. They are interested why people believe like they do and are not interested in showing the other their mistakes unless they really have to. The discussion is not about their position winning or proving the other that they are wrong, but more like an method to i) getting new perspective and developing old ones, ii) experimenting socially, to see how people react to different things. They are likely make new openings in a discussion, and typical comment is: "so what do you guys/gals think about X. My intial take on the topic is Y. Let's discuss/brainstorm." If the other debater is having trouble defending their position, thought organizers sometimes soften their position, or change the topic, just to keep the discussion flowing, because -well- a good discussion with nice people is just fun! You learn about yourself and you learn about the others

Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isolate the "competitive discusser" and you win :D

But what if a "veteran competitive discusser" masks himself, in a sophisticated way , as a "though organizer"? :P

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are also, I think, different goals for the discussion for different people.

It depends on the nature of the topic. There's no such thing as a perpetually competitive and argumentative person as far as structured, reasoned discussion goes unless it's an actual competition. People tend to change their approach depending on the topic or their stake in it, though, so if it affects them personally they'll take it to the ends of the Earth. Since nobody has a real stake in the children topic (no "my daughter died in a video game!" responses), for example, nobody's going to go to extreme lengths to defame others who hold an opposing opinion. That said, the topic is a binary one that garners two opposing sides with different perspectives to contribute rather than free flight of varied opinions. "Do you think it's alright to have children in video games, yes or no." That's grounds for a debate, where people split up on opposite sides of the fence and test the strengths and weaknesses of one another's points while both sides and those on the fence consider both. It's like a crash test for opinions, where the less valid ones fail to put out but all fall on either side of the predefined fence, varying distances from the middle. This is specifically for binary questions that construct opposing sides by nature, whereas a "what's your favorite X" thread will turn into a discussion where everybody's happy to hear about one another's opinions and broaden their horizons while they're at it. It's there that a true asshole would show themselves, and go around saying "surely you don't like that trash" to everybody who doesn't share their tastes. It's there that you have a problem child, not when you're taking part in a debate and somebody challenges you to back up your opinions with evidence or sound logic. Questions like the children one aren't grounds for a symposium, which is basically what you outline when you talk about nobody trying to outdo one another, or one of those "favorite X" threads. If you want to get somewhere with binary debate-based propositions, you have to tackle the opposite opinion to see how far it can be taken and have yours tackled in turn, because it's borderline impossible to get anywhere if both sides simply stand in the door saying "no I insist" until it's time to go home. Of course you've never said what you actually think about rhetorical clashing, but it's reasonably clear from the language you use that you prefer to take part in a symposium rather than a debate. That's fine, but you must understand that not all progress is borne from polite sharing and accepting of opinions and values, nor is it any show of intelligence or maturity to live your life without ever challenging the opinions of others. Everybody is free to have their own opinion, but in exactly the same sense everybody is free to call it flawed and tell you why.

 

tl;dr symposiums and debates are not the same thing, there's nothing wrong with challenging other's opinions and doing so ≠ a lack of maturity or respect for others, and ironically enough, thinking as such displays a desire for intellectual and moral superiority that you demonise others for supposedly having.

Edited by Airship Ballet
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lowenz, those are just caricatures. In real people, same features do not of course occur 100%. My impressions of competitive and though-organizing comes from the fact that I used to be the former. Then I realized "winning" a debate is worthless if the price is making people angry. People in losing position often do. That is normal.

 

Then I noticed that I get more fun discussions with the thought-organizing way.

 

I know these two archetypes, because I am familiar with them. I was interested how other debaters see themselves. You seem to have an inquisitive/curious style with many leading questions. Or how do you see it yourself? What is your aim and what do you like in a discussion?

Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] there's nothing wrong with challenging other's opinions and doing so ≠ a lack of maturity or respect for others, and ironically enough, thinking as such displays a desire for intellectual and moral superiority that you demonise others for supposedly having.

 

Sure, the experienced debater (which I'm clearly not in the least) may disregard what you're saying, or "trim" the manner in which you've presented it from the conversation because they're aware that defensive emotions in a debate do not foster agreement and so they dispose of sections/discolorations of the argument which don't suit them.

 

With the majority of people though, they most likely won't respond well to having their opinions challenged directly, and so, whether you're speaking to an average Joe or an experienced debater (which you may not be aware of as is the case with internet-forum-goers, presenting the challenge eloquently and not so abruptly will foster communication vs. possibly forcing the opposing party in to a defensive stance. This however requires thinking before you speak which many are not practiced at. Its much simpler with forum posts though because you can always review what you've written prior to posting.

 

Of course, if you're the competitive debater, you can also force the other person in to a defensive stance knowing that it will weaken their position and then continue to berate their experience with debating and use that inexperience as a wedge to further your argument.

 

In the end, when its not a competition, there's no reason to use practiced debating skill against unpracticed opponents and if you are a practiced debater you should be aware of that, and be more understanding and educative as you proceed through the argument; otherwise you're just pumping your own ego up and not fostering communication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Then I realized "winning" a debate is worthless if the price is making people angry.

 

 

It depends.

 

Someone may be angry at the time, but after they've cooled down realize that you're right and their position isn't tenable.

 

Some may be angry and double-down, becoming even more convinced of their opinion because they're now on record as defending it publicly.

 

Regardless of how the other individual reacts, your debate may make an impact on other people watching, who are less entrenched in their views.

 

Obviously, only caring about "winning" should never supersede caring about what's actually true...someone who is unwilling to change their mind, regardless of the evidence, is doing it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to have an inquisitive/curious style with many leading questions. Or how do you see it yourself? What is your aim and what do you like in a discussion?

It's exactly so, sir! And this can make people angry too, in a different way (kind of disorientation) :D

I like to unfold every tiny bit of an argument and see how people react to :P

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, the experienced debater (which I'm clearly not in the least)

Don't play yourself down! You're smarter than your Luxian self-deprecating asides give you credit for.

presenting the challenge eloquently and not so abruptly will foster communication vs. possibly forcing the opposing party in to a defensive stance

I'd say it's not so much the eloquence as the content. "That argument makes no sense" and "you're a fool and your father smells of elderberries" are equally eloquent but the former is critique of a statement and the latter is objectively and categorically an insult. Look at us: we're getting along fine while bouncing differing opinions off one another with no interest in making the other look stupid, but at the same time we're disagreeing in pretty plain English. It simply depends on the people and the context, and whether or not the people involved can refrain from sending and receiving points personally. Sometimes when you're emotionally involved that's borderline impossible, but obviously this isn't a context where anybody wants to outdo anybody until there's executive command riding on the outcome. When it comes down to it, some people perceive competitiveness or animosity where there is none, because it's only natural given the basic nature of a debate. You can't blame anybody for momentarily feeling defensive when they're challenged, and no matter how lightly you put it you're either challenging their belief or you aren't. The difference lies in the individual, and whether or not they have the humilitas to be challenged without succumbing to that initial "no but I'm right though, shut up, stop being mean" feeling that everybody gets. Some people just can't, and will get uppety about it, but the line in the sand that denotes "offensive/not offensive" never changes, while our perception of its place does, which is where eloquence can occasionally come in with the touchier sorts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends.

 

I suppose it sorta depends on the form of the debate. Scientific debate, for example, happens at a slow pace with everything put down in writing and properly referenced so you can check the veracity of what's being said.

 

But mostly, it's just not what debate is for. Debate is a spectator sport. The point is not to change the mind of your opponent ~ it could happen, but folk are often opinionated so good luck with that. The point is to show other people that your opponent is wrong (or if time is short, that your opponent is smelly or has a lurgy or is bad tempered or is in some other way not a person to want to be associated with). It'd be nice if it weren't so, but actually the point is to win. It's nice to be open to changing your mind of course, but generally speaking folk are at least fairly convinced of their position by the time they start debating it.

 

I suppose an analogy is a court of criminal law. Your legal defence team will argue your defence to the hilt, even if the evidence is laughable and it's obvious you're guilty of heinous crimes. And the system kinda breaks down if they don't. The point ain't to get the defence team to concede. The point is to sway the jury.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends.

 

Someone may be angry at the time, but after they've cooled down realize that you're right and their position isn't tenable.

 

Some may be angry and double-down, becoming even more convinced of their opinion because they're now on record as defending it publicly.

 

Regardless of how the other individual reacts, your debate may make an impact on other people watching, who are less entrenched in their views.

 

Obviously, only caring about "winning" should never supersede caring about what's actually true...someone who is unwilling to change their mind, regardless of the evidence, is doing it wrong.

 

Agreed. However, often it may be a good idea to spend a moment thinking whether the debate topic (or the other debater, or the audience) are worth the conflict that would ensue from the discussion.

 

It's exactly so, sir! And this can make people angry too, in a different way (kind of disorientation) :D

I like to unfold every tiny bit of an argument and see how people react to :P

 

Here, the problem is that your position is never very clear, and we have to guess from the questions what do you really think. Or do you have an opinion? It could be just an experimental poke into the beehive (which can be a lot fun for the curious.)

 

But mostly, it's just not what debate is for. Debate is a spectator sport. The point is not to change the mind of your opponent ~ it could happen, but folk are often opinionated so good luck with that. The point is to show other people that your opponent is wrong (or if time is short, that your opponent is smelly or has a lurgy or is bad tempered or is in some other way not a person to want to be associated with). It'd be nice if it weren't so, but actually the point is to win. It's nice to be open to changing your mind of course, but generally speaking folk are at least fairly convinced of their position by the time they start debating it.

 

I suppose an analogy is a court of criminal law. Your legal defence team will argue your defence to the hilt, even if the evidence is laughable and it's obvious you're guilty of heinous crimes. And the system kinda breaks down if they don't. The point ain't to get the defence team to concede. The point is to sway the jury.

 

Or maybe another analogue: a boxing match. You have the opponents, the audience and the referee. An important part of the analogue I cherish are RULES. No hitting in the nuts. No biting.

 

Similarity, in a debate (as spectator sport) a debater would disqualify their position immediately by violating some basics: ad hominem arguments and stuff like that. The problem is that somehow the majority of the people don't understand that these are fallacies which show the worth of the debater. In my country, there was a politician who, in a public talk, defended a silly position with so sloppy "slippery slope" argument that it sent shivers down to my spine. People vote people to power who can base their decisions on such weak grounds.

Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't play yourself down! You're smarter than your Luxian self-deprecating asides give you credit for.

 

Thanks I guess? I'm not quite sure what that means exactly. Also, intelligence and public speaking I don't believe are linked - I mean, Sarah Palin pulled it off right? (sarcasm)

I'm mainly self deprecating because no matter what I'm doing, I always want to do it better, more efficiently, etc. so that is just how I am. Also, my father was a perfectionist....YAY...party at my house! lol. All kidding aside, he was an incredible person regardless of being my father and I learned much from him.

 

"you're a fool and your father smells of elderberries" are equally eloquent but the former is critique of a statement and the latter is objectively and categorically an insult.

 

Actually the latter is misquoted, "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries." :P My kingdom for a shrubbery! (are we quoting Monty in a discussion about values? lol)

 

It simply depends on the people and the context, and whether or not the people involved can refrain from sending and receiving points personally. Sometimes when you're emotionally involved that's borderline impossible,

 

I agree to some extent and I don't like to leave it to the person taking it personally or not, unless I'm deliberately taking a jab at someone. I think when not in a debate (like most internet forum discussions) its better to lead with questions by asking the opposing party about your viewpoint. It proposes without directly challenging.

 

e.g., "Don't you think that statement is ____?" vs. "That statement is _____."

 

The first is not so in-your-face-matter-of-fact while still conveying your own obvious slant towards what you believe to be true. It also allows you the benefit of listening to how the person takes the question and how they respond.

 

A quesiton is more of a feeler. It introduces a new possible term in to the discussion the people can repond to and takes some of the personal focus off the person and keeps it on the arguement. Questions also further the conversation by encouraging responses and filling in the blanks of previously unknown information. You gain further details that may not have been previously introduced.

 

It could be down to personal style though it seems to me the best way to foster communication is take the people out of the equation where possible, lifting the targets off of peoples' chests up in to the sphere of thought.

Edited by Lux
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recent Status Updates

    • Petike the Taffer

      I've finally managed to log in to The Dark Mod Wiki. I'm back in the saddle and before the holidays start in full, I'll be adding a few new FM articles and doing other updates. Written in Stone is already done.
      · 4 replies
    • nbohr1more

      TDM 15th Anniversary Contest is now active! Please declare your participation: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/22413-the-dark-mod-15th-anniversary-contest-entry-thread/
       
      · 0 replies
    • JackFarmer

      @TheUnbeholden
      You cannot receive PMs. Could you please be so kind and check your mailbox if it is full (or maybe you switched off the function)?
      · 1 reply
    • OrbWeaver

      I like the new frob highlight but it would nice if it was less "flickery" while moving over objects (especially barred metal doors).
      · 4 replies
    • nbohr1more

      Please vote in the 15th Anniversary Contest Theme Poll
       
      · 0 replies
×
×
  • Create New...