Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

DISCUSSIONS - comunicating or deaf's talkings?

0 helpful
29 replies

by voldar

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Although I am very aware that everybody here has his/her own beliefs and her/his own way of judging things and maters, I would like to ask you about a thing:
- who is the right person to tell you to stop when you obviously went way too much away from the subject of the discussion or with your ?ideas? about a given subject. And are you going to listen ?that person??

I don?t say that I don?t like to have a ?vive? discussion on a subject with anyone, as long as a bit of respect exists, of course. I think the best ?show? is when two people although having different opinions know how to argue and counter-argue on a given subject keeping themselves in, lets say, a ?reasonable perimeter? of their statements.
You all have to agree with me, when nothing ?pops ? up? from time to time in a discussion, we very soon get tired or bored. The monotony of discussions sometimes makes me think why someone really started it. And I am not talking here about the discussions in the TR. I am talking about the day-to-day life discussions also.

I am sure that most of us have at least a minimum self-control, some sort of a ringing bell that sometimes gives us a sign to ?cool down? for a while ? but what if we have not? What if in fact we don?t know how to discuss? In everyday life we talk about the importance of communication. What if we, so much occupied in ?communication? forgot how to communicate? Could be this a real fact or only my bad impression?

We discussed a lot about the fact that the Technical Q&R and the Discussion links in the main page of the TR website would be great to switch places. And yet, they have the same places in the new one. I am not trying to offend someone from TR, but also, I can ask myself if is it anyone in fact listening our suggestions? I was extremely pleased when I saw the last days the ?web-designer? asking us about the new look of the new ?main web page?, and truly he did a great job ? starting asking for opinions. I am looking forward to see how this is going to end. I really hope that it is not going to be a ?discussion for discussion sake?.

29 replies

by thechas

Both the Technical Q&A and the Discussion Center forums are peer monitored.

TR does not have a moderator for the forums. Nor, can we assume that they read all postings.

TR staff does browse both the Q&A and discussions to look for topics for articles.

If you have a specific question or problem with a peer or a thread, I suggest that you contact the appropriate TR staffer via the email links on the help pages.

Same for suggestions for web site issues.

Chas

by voldar

Chas, and it was not a discussion I started because of someone in special, just looking to know what do you really think about communication, that's all. And exactly, because there are no moderators, and I like this, I wanted also to know what is driving us to behave. That's all.

by oldefar

Possibly a very insightful observation.

I think this is a learned trait, and perhaps too many are not learning either in school or in social settings. A side effect of too much TV, too much video game, and too much organized youth sports? Is Jerry Springer now setting the accepted standard of discussion? Are kids losing the chance to practice discussion and disagreement with social boundaries? Are the schoolyard scuffles a critical part of learning social graces and interaction?

Outside of the regular schoolyard sessions, I learned around my grandparents' dining room table during and after Sunday dinner. No topics were off limits, no person was excluded (although Mom and most of my cousins chose not to participate), and the rules were simple.

- any statement was open to challenge.
- challenges were fair game.
- no one hogged the floor. Everyone had a chance to comment on a statement before the rebuttals began.
- statements/positions were challenged, not people.
- prestige was never taken. No one claimed victory for another person's change in postion.
- prestige was sometimes given, with the left hand. "Tim, you might be right on that. Hell, stranger things have happened."
- no "sides" were taken. Each stood alone on their position even when all but one held a common perspective.

As for control, if someone began to lose objectivity they would step out for a bit either on their own or with some gentle encouragement from the others. Between in-laws and out-laws, I never did see the heat of the moment lead to violence. In the end, a desire to maintain social integrity won out over all else. Now those sessions ended with hugs and kisses and at worse an acknowledgment that "You're an a**hole, you have always been an a**hole, and you will always be an a**hole, but you're my a**hole and I still love you."

Outside of family, we retreat to the neutral discussions of great beer and music until we find common ground again.

Perhaps we need a timer on TR postings. Only one post on any given discussion in any 60 minute period. A little time for more people to consider a response.

by voldar

you are right, and you very well "underlined" the fact that first of all it is an education mater. And, also YES, I agree with you, even sometimes we loose control (and this can happen to anyone), it's good to reconsider the situation after 5 minutes, and to admit the fact that nobody is perfect, and that maybe acting under the "pressure" of the discussion, you went too far with your affirmations, and to apologize for that or end all the "bad" situation with a good joke. Do we lose the sense of humor? I think not!
A good laugh is anytime very welcome thing when discussion falls into something that leads nowhere.

by oz_media

I think you are confusing DISCUSSION with DEBATE.

A discussion is usually a much looser forum with less fact from one side being challenged by fact from another.

A discussion is an exchange of ideas, not a fact finding session. If we discuss the weather, it could be based on personal experience for the week and one person feeling the seeing as it is sunny all week, it wil probably be suny next week. The other person(s) in the discussion may say they FEEL that rain is due if it has been sunny for a week.

Neither is right or wrong, they are opinions based on experience and observation, and should be accepted as such.

What I find here is that a discussion will START this way, but within a few posts, someone will say, "You must be stupid, double doppler proves it is going to be cloudy, no rain or sun. What gave you such an insane idea?" THis would be turning discussion into debate.

So, either rename
Discussions to Debates and outline that only factual statements are accepted so you better do your homewrok to resist being lambasted as a moron OR keep it as an open Discussion where people are alowed to exchange ideas and thoughts without being badgered to provide proof to support feelings.

I think the line is fine but easily misunderstood.
These are NOT fact finding missions (in off topics anyway) they are discussions and one should be able to express feeling in a discussion, not just learned or found knowledge.

by voldar

there is a so thin difference between them, and yet so much difference. Anytime a discussion can turn on a debate, but never a debate into a discussion. Why? Because I believe that a debate is already a discussion! When we talk about a subject, is it a debate or a discussion? As for myself, as long as from a discussion or debate, at least someone learn something, it's a good thing, and I don't mind the name I use for this. I don't say that I also agree that discussions or debates can not reach their goals, but what a heck, we can always debate on "that" discussion :D.

by oldefar

On this particular thread I haven't seen any reference to needing facts.

As for opening with personal attacks, what has that got to with debates? Generally such an approach is against the rules of a debate, which are much tighter than the social boundaries of discussions.

Now as for challanging an opinion because it is contrary to known facts, that seems a valid approach in a discussion. Of course, there are facts and there are facts, but we already discussed that in a post last year. :-)

by jardinier

I have recently started a discussion titled "The Prime Directive," which relates closely to part of your question. So far it has not received a single posting.

I like the suggestion of a "cooling off period" before any particular member can repost, but I would be thinking of something like 5 minutes.

All too often someone hones in on a particular portion of the posting, and hits the "Post a reply" button without reading the full posting and seeing the selected portion in its context.

This type of knee-jerk response does not constitute either discussion or debate, and as often as not, degenerates into mud-slinging, which constitutes the theme of my "Prime Directive" discussion.

by voldar

I am very sorry I did not saw your "Prime Directive" discussion, and I am happy that you replayed on mine. Yes, you mention about the fact that not everybody knows in fact what the subject of the discussion was at the beginning.
This is what I call a ?deaf? discussion. In fact, you don't know what is the talking about, but you mention your position, just because you feel that's your duty, LOL. And I am not talking about the TR discussions; I am talking about the day-to-day life.
This situation reminds me a show on TV, when the reporter asked the people on the streets about a "bogus" thing. And yet, even though the people did not know anything about that, they still tried to give explanations, instead of simply respond "I am sorry, never heard about". Is that because we don't want to show off our lack of knowledge? Why is that? At the end, we can't know everything about anything, even though we'd wish that.

by oz_media

A debate is an attempt to prove right from wrong or prove one opinion as being more viable than the oppositions. As politicians have when runnig for office.

A discussion is an open sharing of thoughts and ideas, not really facts. As you would have over a beer or cup of coffee with friends. You can DISCUSS whether or not someone's red shoes suit their jacket well, it is an open subject for opinion without fact.

However, to have a DEBATE on the same subject would require one person to say WHY red shoes match the jacket and show fact to support it, after stating their case, the firest speaker waits while the second shows facts and supoprting arguments to prove that the red shoes do not match the jacket.

What we see too often on TR is friendly OPEN discussions being turned into DEBATES by someone refusing to accept an opinion and demanding fact to support ideas. Thus changing it from a DISCUSSION to a DEBATE.

As for a DEBATE to become a discussion, BOTH parties would need to step down from the podium and agree that neither is correct and that it is just a sharing of opinion and any opinion is accepted. Obviously this is not possible as the debator would lose credibility instantly, it just isn't possible.

On TR, we constantly have discussions turned into debates by those who insist on any statement being factual and supoprted, not just supported though, but supoprted by an agreeable source. This is also impossible as the person is SEEKING conflict of opinion in this case.

If techs knew how to talk to each other instead of trying to out do one another, Discussiona would remain intact and debates wuold be left for the politicians.

by oz_media

The morning radio show today was talking about a recent poll that shows (I assume in Canada, though it wasn't specified)that out of a list of the most shady people or people you could not trust. Used car salesmen got 2nd place with 16% of the vote and politicians were the number one mistrusted occupation at a whopping 54%! That's a BIG gap between first and second and second was a USED CAR SLAESMAN!!
No wonder we laugh at our own government, nobody believes a damn word they say!

by oz_media

I assume your are referring to another thread.

If it is relevant, just post a link to it.

Thanks

(Note: Without seeing your splitting hairs message, my retort to your comments would be, the color of the shoes is not relevant at all in such a discussion. Both the people see them as red and simply DISCUSS what would look better with them, not WHY, PROVE IT and YOU'RE NOT A DESIGNER HOW CAN YOU OFFER SUCH AN OPINION?.

by voldar

I got your point, and from this point of view, looking at the DEBATE as a form of "quarrel" I have some points to add. Never in my life I thought a DEBATE is not something constructive in terms of information, although I very well know that a DEBATE is much sensitive to switch into a real fight. Why is that? Because you have prepared yourself before going into a DEBATE, and you are not only well prepared, but much of the times you are very sure that you already know the truth about the things discussed, and so you are less open to any different ideas.

In fact, I agree with you when you talk about egos and everything else, but I don't really think that is something that belongs only to debates. In fact, in any discussions you can meet contradictory points of view, the problem is how far during the discussion the interlocutors are able to understand what the others say? At which point we stop being interlocutors and start having ?monologues?? What is it that drives us to pass this point?
I do think also, that a discussion started only for discussion, sometimes is better not to start. I hope I did not start one of those LOL.

What I wanted to find out from my thread was the following facts:

Does the ?DISCUSSION / DEBATE? for whatever reason have started found their goals? If NOT, why and which is the fact that they did not reach their goal? Is it a problem of communication and/or a problem of ?knowing to listen the other opinions??

by oz_media

Ok Vlad, now this is getting interestnig. It has also been a DISCUSSION and not a debate. As nobody claims to have 'THE' ultimate solution but opinions are offered.

GOALS, the goal of a debate is to SELL your opinions and beliefs to counter those of a given opponent. If your debating skills win the majority of the audience, by producing facts and statements, that would be a successful debate.

DISCUSSIONS, on the other hand should have NO goal other than to gather and compare opnions. They should be weighed and if unbelievable can be explained to iterate the persons point of view, but factual statements are not a prerequisite.

If a DISCUSSION and a DEBATE were the same, ther discussion would be horrible as no matter who's opinion was offered, the ultimate goal is to seek fact and truth, not opinion, thus making it a DEBATE.

The GOALS are that a DEBATE has a goal of seeking facts, the DISCUSSION has the goal of seeking opinion, not fact.

by jardinier

I think I can offer a simpler and clearer definition of a formal debate. A topic is chosen, and one team has to validate the topic while the other has to invalidate it.

The winning team (or individual if it is a debate just between two people) is NOT the one which presents the most plausible arguments to validate or invalidate the subject, but the one whose arguments are the most carefully and correctly constructed.

by oz_media

You thought that one out and expressed it well.

There is a VERY big difference even though the words are often used to mean the same thing, incorrectly of course.

by maxwell edison

.
There's really no significant difference between a debate and a discussion. Merriam Webster Dictionary defines discussion as, "A consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate". Debate is defined as, "A regulated discussion of a proposition between two (or more) matched sides." When the definition of two different words use the other word in the definition, one can probably surmise that they are so closely related that they could be interchanged much of the time. Moreover, if you look at any Thesaurus, you'll see that the two words are indeed synonymous. If there's any difference at all, it's probably in formality and structure, but both serve the same purpose of allowing two or more people to converse on an idea or ideas and share opinions and observations.

Whether you call it a discussion or debate is really not relevant to what starts the tangents these "discussions" so often take. Depending on the particular member you're looking at, there is probably something unique about each and every one of us, and we go off on these tangents for different reasons. I won't be presumptuous enough to suggest what might push other people's buttons, per se, but in my case, it's the proliferation of misinformation and false information. And whether you call it a debate or a discussion, if a person's posted opinion (or contention) is based on misinformation or false information, depending on the subject matter, I might fell compelled to chime in. This is especially true if I have a differing opinion than the one being offered, the one which is based on that misinformation.

I suppose I'd like to think that I could (emphasis on could) change someone's mind on an issue if I point out the flaw in their thought process. Conversely, if my thinking is flawed, or if my opinion is based on a false premise, I'd welcome the opportunity for someone to point that out. I consider that to be open-minded. But many people, obviously, take offense to it, although I don't understand why. Think of this as my desire to form my opinions on a rational thought process similar to a rational computer program. We've all heard the computer axiom, garbage in, garbage out, and I'd certainly want to correct the "garbage in" portion of my thought process. I'd like to think that others would as well, but, like I said, there are others who must take offense to that, and they might make the claim that I am trying to deny them their opinion, when that is not really the case at all.

Look at this particular "tangent", for example. Someone said that there's a difference between discussion and a debate, and therefore..........

It's the "therefore what" that is their point, and the "therefore what" that is the heart of their opinion. And if their premise is flawed, what does that make their opinion? Maybe it's just me, but that's my pet-peeve, and that's what will, most often, compel me to take one of these tangents.

by oz_media

Would you then object to anyone offering opinion that is unresearched to the same extent as yours even if they FEEL they have received it from a credible source? Why?

What qualifies a source?

In the explanation you've given, discussions would not be discussions at all. They would be Questions, answered with facts and links to supoprt them, this would belong in technical Q&A, or political Q&A or ...Q&A.

Question, with an answer, no discussion, no further posts, just an answer. How can you discuss something if all opinions are simply based on fact and within the given fact only a single source is accepted as credible fact?

That is not open discussion at all, it is fact finding, debating (barely), and definitely not anything that would generate multiple opinions or interests. Two or three posts at most.

"What is....?"
"It's, this. http://www........"
"No it isn't, it's this, http//www........"

"Oh yes, you're right."

End of 'discussion?"

No wonder our discussions go nowhere.

by oldefar

My wife takes a keen interest in using only products that are not tested on animals (typically rabbits) and even tolerated my beard until she found a shaving cream that met her standards. She tolerates my carnivore meals only because I listen patiently to her lectures and limit my defense to "I know, but I am just a man."

If she gets wind of discussions about hare splitting that I have participated in, I may be permanently cut off!

(Just trying to keep things a discussion)

by jardinier

we know what your "pet-peeve" is ... you remind us of it all too frequently.

Now while this has nothing to do with the current discussion, I will share with you all MY pet peeve: unsolicited advice.

And did I cop an overdose of it before going into hospital. While I felt very sick, and looked pale (I do have a mirror in my apartment) any number of people felt the necessity to point out to me that I looked unwell, and asked if I had seen a doctor. Well the last thing you need when you are feeling very sick is to have someone tell you that you look sick.

And as for "have you seen a doctor?" well I think I am mature enough to recognise when an illness is getting worse, and it is time to see a doctor. It would would be about half a century since I needed my mother to make this decision for me.

by oz_media

I would see those questions as concerned probing.

Gee you lok like you're sick, is a way of asking someone whats wron. Many will say, yes I've had flue, or no, I'm just tired etc. Saying 'you look sick', is expressing concern and askign what's worng at the same time.

Telling someone they need to see a doctor is the same. It expreses concern and also asks whether the person has seen a doctor and been diagnosed with something.

Health is an issue many will pussy foot around and not want to ask direct questions. "Gee Julian, are you dying or something man?" Sounds a little more polite as, "Gee Julian, you're not looking well, have you seen a doctor?"

Mum's always 'badger' us, but we find out later in life that they are just extremely concerned with their children's health. Friends do the same, they express concern when friend's are doing well as a means of showing they care and asking what may be wrong.

Don't get pissed at people who care. If they are just being idiots though, you have my expressed authority to knee 'em in the knackers.

Cheers mate,
OzMedia

by oz_media

Sorry Max, I couldn't see it until I refreshed the page, must be all the danm scrolling.

by voldar

for notifying the difference between DISCUSSION and DEBATE. Now, I understand your point, and I agree with you.
But still, I think also that discussions are profitable also. Look, for me, I learnt something more! :)

Vlad

by oz_media

I am not too sure exactly which post you are replying to but I will assume it was mine as you are posted under me, sorta.

Ok, onthis perticular thread you have seen nothing pointing to needing facts. Well this seems to be a thread about threads. I have ALWAYS been abolished for opinion and pushed to only provide factual statements, this removing personal opinion fro the discussion, much like a web search for an answer.

Opening with personal attacks? Not too sure what you are referring to, I noted that although discussion start out as open topics, they are quickly turned into fact comparissons.

Challenging an opinion that goes against known fact is 100% acceptable. Saying someone is full if S&^T because their opinion doesn't match what YOU believe is fact is not professional at all.

by oz_media

In my eyes Debates are an archaic and overrated way of learnign anything, unless you are learning to debate.

Debates often don't reveal truth they just allow the person that is most prepared to validate his point of view. You can take almost ANY argument even ridiculous ones and find supporting evidence on te internet. debates teach you nothing other than who did thier homework, not neccessarily what is right, even proven facts can be wrong as they age.

Discussion are a fantastic learning resource, mroe important than learning facts you learn how peolpe think and feel. People's thought and feelings are so much more important than facts, who cares what a book says if everyone is doing something different.

That's a major problem I see with computing, it removes the individual and replace it with text.

There's little or no voice inflection, so everything is misunderstood. There is no expression or body language to judge opinion by. It turns everyone into fact machines, they can simply find an article and post thier findings.

Does this make you intelligent? No.
Does it make you right? No.
Does it show your opinion? No.
Is it productive? Not really.

I'd much rather have 20 people explain to me in their OWN words how they felt about the war in Iraq, IT outsourcing etc. Than to have the same 20 people browse for facts. I can search the internet myself, weed through what I believe and what I don't.

If I ask a question of a PEER group, I want the personal opinions of MY PEERS, not some idiot with a website or some magazine/newspaper, I've already seen those.

Tell me what you think, not what you've found.

by jardinier

Actually Oz, on returning home from hospital I quickly learnt that, in most instances, the people who were genuinely concerned about me were the ones who had NOT offered unsolicited advice.

Having observed (and being irritated by) this phenomenon over a long period of time, I have deduced that in most cases the people offering unsolicited advice were actually projecting onto me, issues in their own lives which they had not dealt with.

So you might care to make a mental note of this, and see if you can recognise this in unsolicited advice which you may receive in the future.

by oz_media

No grey areas here. If I think omeone's sick, I'll say damn you look like S*&T, go home and get some help.

If someone sees me looking Ill I hear, get the hell away from me, sicko go get some help!

The only person who would really have false concern is the bank, OH NOOOOOOO You're looking sick! (which means) Will you still be able to pay your mortgage next month or will you be dead?

This discussion is closed to new replies.