What would you do...

[dwai]

if you met a stranger in a public place and started a conversation. You start discussing all and sundry topics under the sun, and then there is one which both of you feel strongly about. You feel one way about it, and the other person feels strongly it in different way. 

[Emaciated Ascetic]

Summarizes my relationship with the world and other consciousnesses'. Spent most of my life to realize that there are no falsehoods even in creative truths and I just gotta stand by my word for things to be accurate. Just gotta live the ones that I enjoy.

[Lukks]

I wouldn't argue at all.

 

I would just understand his point of view and I would agree with him, I wouldn't even try to show him my point of view, because as soon as I show that I think different, the other person might start arguing.

 

I won't change his mind, he won't change my mind, so there's nothing to discuss. I won't waste my time and energy trying to prove a point. 

 

If  someone wants to start a fight, just disagree on one of these:  politics, religion, football.

 

 

 

 

[dwai]

How do you think it changes with people online? 

[old3bob]

just talking is one thing or just at one level, but Gandhi said that at some point one may or must fight instead of rolling over...which would be cowardly.

[liminal_luke]

I listen more than I talk, especially about controversial subjects, so chances are I would discover our difference of opinion before the other person became aware that we disagreed at all.  Chances are the other person would never become aware of our disagreement because I would not share my opinion.  I´m not saying this is the best way to be -- perhaps I´d benefit from being more assertive and forthcoming -- but this is how I am.

 

I have an uncle who is a medical doctor.  Not the kind of medical doctor that sees patients, but rather the kind of medical doctor that is employed by chemical companies to argue that twinkies aren´t toxic, that kinda thing.  Years ago, he arrived at a family lunch announcing that he´d just come back from a panel discussion where he´d argued that alternative medicine was bunk.  I disagreed but said nothing.  Later, an in-law took me to task: why hadn´t I stood up for my beliefs?  I was quiet because I knew the situation was unwinnable.  Nothing I might say would change his mind and I preferred to eat in peace.  

 

To share a more recent conundrum, I have political opinions that are at odds with the views of my friends and family.  They don´t know what I think.  The situation is a bit isolating: would people still like me if they knew?  Ironically, it´s easier to be forthright here online because I´m not so invested.  I want to be liked, even here, but my world won´t come crashing down over a disagreement.

 

 

[dwai]

23 minutes ago, old3bob said:

just talking is one thing or just at one level, but Gandhi said that at some point one may or must fight instead of rolling over...which would be cowardly.

Can share the source of this wrt Gandhi? 

[Nintendao]

That “All of the above” option is awfully tempting. Only the first three IRL, but the last three in my imagination the whole rest of the day . Maybe not so much these days, as thankfully equanimity and acquiescence are starting to bear fruit. I remember a few times in years past though getting really emotional over certain comments. If I think all the way back to the occasional after school dust-up with perennial frenemies, the fisticuffs did even come into play . Today I more easily see the validity of different views, and option one would probably be as far as it went. Maybe do a little counterpoint only if the other person appears receptive and nonjudgmental.

[snowymountains]

23 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

I listen more than I talk, especially about controversial subjects, so chances are I would discover our difference of opinion before the other person became aware that we disagreed at all.  Chances are the other person would never become aware of our disagreement because I would not share my opinion.  I´m not saying this is the best way to be -- perhaps I´d benefit from being more assertive and forthcoming -- but this is how I am.

 

I have an uncle who is a medical doctor.  Not the kind of medical doctor that sees patients, but rather the kind of medical doctor that is employed by chemical companies to argue that twinkies aren´t toxic, that kinda thing.  Years ago, he arrived at a family lunch announcing that he´d just come back from a panel discussion where he´d argued that alternative medicine was bunk.  I disagreed but said nothing.  Later, an in-law took me to task: why hadn´t I stood up for my beliefs?  I was quiet because I knew the situation was unwinnable.  Nothing I might say would change his mind and I preferred to eat in peace.  

 

To share a more recent conundrum, I have political opinions that are at odds with the views of my friends and family.  They don´t know what I think.  The situation is a bit isolating: would people still like me if they knew?  Ironically, it´s easier to be forthright here online because I´m not so invested.  I want to be liked, even here, but my world won´t come crashing down over a disagreement.

 

 

 

Assertiveness is actually a good thing, hence all these assertiveness trainings, it's a core skill.

For some people (not saying for you in specific) lack of assertiveness leads to anger and for some in turn anger leads to aggressiveness.

 

Anger is ok too, not demonising it by any means, people have a right to be angry but in practical terms it's more difficult to deal with anger than cultivate assertiveness.

 

Quote

Per Aristotle:

 

Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.

 

I don't agree with Dwai's options nor with the way this was rolled, I didn't vote from the beginning for that reason, as how it would roll was fairly obvious.

Perhaps these are the only tangible options dwai sees and he may see it as flat across-the-board actions. Ofc he's free to view the world as he wishes, but ultimately his a)b)c)s are a very limited view.

[dwai]

33 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

I don't agree with Dwai's options nor with the way this was rolled, I didn't vote from the beginning for that reason, as how it would roll was fairly obvious

What would your options be? Just curious  

[snowymountains]

22 minutes ago, dwai said:

What would your options be? Just curious  

 

For one it is better to open the thread for what it is intended, online discussion at TBD.

A stranger in a public space is not a close analogue, unless it's a place where people gather to talk about certain topics yet remain unaffiliated in their private lives. 

 

For one what is missing in these options is context.

 

context matters, a lot, e.g. your last two choices are effectively preceded by labeling the other person ( internally ) before external behavior manifests in the choices you made.

 

Labeling/judging is ( internal ) means of saving time but automatically it also puts the other person sitting opposite, not next to you - even if the label is technically correct.

So it all comes down to what is the intent, do you want to help someone? if the reasons you would label them for are the very same reasons that are blocker for them, then one should follow a different internal process ( too long to discuss here ).

However if e.g. a thread is not about helping someone in some way, then may as well label, there's no fundamental reason not to.

 

Two, the means of externalising the labeling of a person or a position, aka behaviour, has various degrees.

You however you reduced it to "name calling" as the only option provided.

Externalising a view, can actually be something very healthy.

 

Another thing that is missing is that these are very interrelated.

E.g.ironically too much of the first option, can lead to the calling names option.

The "calling names" option ( fistfight being impossible in a message board ), often is anger which has built, sometimes due to lack of assertiveness in previous threads. ( btw not saying anger is always due to lack of assertiveness, but lack of assertiveness often leads to anger ).

Edited Saturday at 04:58 PM by snowymountains

[Lukks]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

How do you think it changes with people online? 

People tend to be more agressive online, they feel safe to say whatever they want.

This happens a lot in online games, mainly the competitive ones, the amount of people swearing on others for minimal mistakes is just absurd, but I bet if they were in person the numbers would reverse, so we would have less people swearing and more people trying to cooperate together.

If I'm not mistaken there are already studies showing how people tend to be more agressive online because they feel safe behind a computer screen.

 

 @liminal_luke It's amazing how we think the same way, I could've wrote your post without removing a single word from it, I also act like that with my family and friends, the same situation

 

[liminal_luke]

@Lukks Nice to know I´m not alone.  

 

 

[Emaciated Ascetic]

This aggressive connection can likely form the opposite. Oddly enough I think the psychotic reach of minds protected from outside reach suffer online communications far more and are subdued. I find that my own psychically charged behavior easily comes into contact with foreign anomalies, perspectives that can be alive, or connections that could possibly spark.

Leaves me far more preserved online than in person. In person communication is easy, everything inside boxes neat and ordered.

In contrast, the sensation of other minds from online conversation is a huge strain that is impossible to avoid.

But people tend to feel pleasant about what makes them appear psychic, as I do. The ritual strain starts to become worthwhile, and the opportunity for movement that is unnatural becomes like an adrenaline rush.

Edited Saturday at 05:14 PM by Emaciated Ascetic

[liminal_luke]

I think it´s hard to construct this kind of a survey and include all the variety of human responses.  We´re so varied!  I didn´t answer the survey because my typical response --- decline to share my opinion -- was not listed among the options.  Another option not included would be to lie and pretend to agree with the other person.  There are people who actually do this although I´m guessing few would admit it.  Perhaps not surprisingly, the answer in the lead at the moment is "try to understand their perspective."  Maybe I run with a particularly close-minded crowd, but I don´t see a lot of this in the real world, or here on the forum for that matter.  True openness to understanding the opinions of others about controversial topics is a rare quality, a rarer quality than the results of this survey would suggest. 

 

 Dwai asks how our responses online are different from our in-person responses.  It´s often said that people who fight online would get along just fine if they met in real life.  I think this is true.  Something about online life brings out the fighter in many of us.  There´s something inherently dehumanizing about communicating through this medium; because we can´t see or hear each other, it´s easy to forget there´s a real person on the other side of our keyboards.  

Edited Saturday at 05:29 PM by liminal_luke

[snowymountains]

1 minute ago, liminal_luke said:

I think it´s hard to construct this kind of a survey and include all the variety of human responses.  We´re so varied!  I didn´t answer the survey because my typical response --- decline to share my opinion -- was not listed among the options.  Another option not included would be to lie and pretend to agree with the other person.  There are people who actually do this although I´m guessing few would admit it.  Perhaps not surprisingly, the answer in the lead at the moment is "try to understand their perspective."  Maybe I run with a particularly close-minded crowd, but I don´t see a lot of this in the real world, or here on the forum for that matter.  True openness to understanding the opinions of others about controversial topics is a rare quality, a rarer quality than the results of this survey would suggest. 

 

 Dwai asks how our responses online are different from our in-person responses.  It´s often said that people who fight online would get along just fine if they met in real life.  I think this is true.  Something about online life brings out the fighter in many of us.  There´s something inherently dehumanizing about communicating through this medium; because we can´t see or hear each other it´s easy to forget there´s a real person on the other side of our keyboards.  

 

One could flip that the other way, most people (not referring to tdb members in specific) are way more inhibited offline, more than they can afford to be.

[dwai]

31 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

For one it is better to open the thread for what it is intended, online discussion at TBD.

A stranger in a public space is not a close analogue, unless it's a place where people gather to talk about certain topics yet remain unaffiliated in their private lives. 

 

For one what is missing in these options is context.

 

context matters, a lot, e.g. your last two choices are effectively preceded by labeling the other person ( internally ) before external behavior manifests in the choices you made.

 

Labeling/judging is ( internal ) means of saving time but automatically it also puts the other person sitting opposite, not next to you - even if the label is technically correct.

So it all comes down to what is the intent, do you want to help someone? if the reasons you would label them for are the very same reasons that are blocker for them, then one should follow a different internal process ( too long to discuss here ).

However if e.g. a thread is not about helping someone in some way, then may as well label, there's no fundamental reason not to.

 

Two, the means of externalising the labeling of a person or a position, aka behaviour, has various degrees.

You however you reduced it to "name calling" as the only option provided.

Externalising a view, can actually be something very healthy.

 

Another thing that is missing is that these are very interrelated.

E.g.ironically too much of the first option, can lead to the calling names option.

The "calling names" option ( fistfight being impossible in a message board ), often is anger which has built, sometimes due to lack of assertiveness in previous threads. ( btw not saying anger is always due to lack of assertiveness, but lack of assertiveness often leads to anger ).

Very interesting. So you’re basically saying that starting with the example of a in-person interaction in a public space is different from an online interaction in a public space, and different rules/modes of behavior would apply? And that it depends on the intention behind the interactions? 
 

[snowymountains]

11 minutes ago, dwai said:

Very interesting. So you’re basically saying that starting with the example of a in-person interaction in a public space is different from an online interaction in a public space, and different rules/modes of behavior would apply? And that it depends on the intention behind the interactions? 
 

 

The way it's phrased, the rules are different, the analogue with the closest rules is a public place for debate, where people would see each other again, debate about similar topics but have separate private lives.

Otherwise, realistically, who would bother debating someone they don't agree with e.g. on the bus stop 😁

 

Yes, it depends on intention as well. E.g. to take it to the extreme, for the sake of clarity, a doctor helping addicts might not label internally to be able to help the addicts but they may label when seeing exact same behavior that addict may have in a different context, eg see the same behavior in their private lifes.

Also the intention is not static per who the other person is, same person in different contexts may mean different intentions, different behavior - it's not like we (the people) are a thingie that's a flat line, we're reactive to all the parameters and context of our environment.

 

Imo it's entirely reasonable to moderate behaviour, all places moderate behaviour, just as someone can't go to the bus stop naked, they shouldn't use slurs online - but this is a different topic entirely.

Edited Saturday at 05:43 PM by snowymountains

[liminal_luke]

Is the Daobums a place for debate?  I often debate here (I might be debating now) but I´m at my best when I´m not debating.  I´m at my best when I´m simply reading.  Other Bums have helped me so much!  They´ve given me practices and expanded the way I look at the world.  I´ll give a like here and there, but I doubt that those who have touched my life know it.  I appreciate quietly.  

[snowymountains]

2 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

Is the Daobums a place for debate?  I often debate here (I might be debating now) but I´m at my best when I´m not debating.  I´m at my best when I´m simply reading.  Other Bums have helped me so much!  They´ve given me practices and expanded the way I look at the world.  I´ll give a like here and there, but I doubt that those who have touched my life know it.  I appreciate quietly.  

 

It's for anything you wish, up to you, but the options in dwai's poll are behaviours during debating - ie almost none applies for a thread you read or even to a thread where you ask questions either. A disagreement implies some form of debate/external behaviour taking place.

In the role of an observer, you're not engaging the other person, which is fine ofc, but it's not the same.

[forestofclarity]

10 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

  I´m at my best when I´m simply reading. 

Something few online posters seem to get. Our conversations here are not private between two people. Who knows how many people read our posts, in the present or sometimes even years in the future? 

[Shadow_self]

I was told  to never talk to strangers  

Edited Saturday at 07:39 PM by Shadow_self

[dwai]

2 hours ago, snowymountains said:

Otherwise, realistically, who would bother debating someone they don't agree with e.g. on the bus stop 😁

I’ve seen absolute random strangers discuss and even vigorously debate politics and sports in public places (like tea shops in India). You’ll be surprised how alike interactions IRL and OLL are.  
 

I’ve had debates with complete strangers on a train (36 hr train ride through India). 

Only thing is; mostly IRL people do it for fun, or simply to counter boredom. Some even strike up great friendships. 

 

[snowymountains]

Just now, dwai said:

I’ve seen absolute random strangers discuss and even vigorously debate politics and sports in public places (like tea shops in India). You’ll be surprised how alike interactions IRL and OLL are.  
 

I’ve had debates with complete strangers on a train (36 hr train ride through India). 

Only thing is; mostly IRL people do it for fun, or simply to counter boredom. Some even strike up great friendships. 

 

 

IRL I'm almost exactly how I am online. I actually do engage in small talk with strangers (when time allows it).

 

It's not the case for most people though, IRL vs online shows different behaviour patterns ( for most, not all ).

[doc benway]

My general approach is to be quiet and listen for a while. 

I truly want to understand others' perspectives.

If I think it is worthwhile, eg they are interested and willing to listen, then I'll present my perspective. 

If I don't think they're really interested in hearing and considering an alternative position I will usually disengage. 

I have no interest in escalating. 

Opinions just aren't that important.