Do We Really Have It Right?

[Lem]

… addresses the potential for person A, to possibly see person B, as an unserious person or a silly jokester - And that was the point I was trying to lay before all of us as we consider this as a community.

(I can’t quite tell what “did they get it right” means?)

Well, in my mind, I would say it's entirely possible that person A sees person B as an unserious, immature, buffoon who has no interest in discussing important things. (Even though person A witnessed a very small sample of the extremely long and many years resume on this board of person B. And that was/is the point I was trying to put before the board)

Once we take away the assigned attributes and consider how many millions of variations there could be besides just those two, it becomes a far more realistic example. Really, wouldn’t it be a better baseline, when considering the anonymity and variation of possible readers, to just start with the assumption that they are both basically intelligent, roughly equally skilled in various areas of communication and interface, and both at least somewhat experienced in navigating the internet? Obviously I’m not talking about children or people who really do need our assistance, but the general case of communicating with equals where the feeling of being obligated to protect or rescue fades considerably. I think that approach leaves us in a more realistic, but of course admittedly more complex, position to talk about online personas.

These are really good points, in my opinion - But I wasn't talking about online personas, specifically, when I offered my fictional A nd B person scenario. I was specifically trying to launch a discussion about how/why/if the various and different reasons why people post here (the various motives) play a role, or multiple roles, regarding the thread question, "Do we really have it right?" , And in my opinion, they not only play a role, they can play a very significant role.

Ok. So I can clarify, the point you are trying to lay before the board, as illustrated in this one fictional example out of many possible ones, is that Character B considers themselves to be misinterpreted by Character A, and you would like to explore what it is about Character A’s motivation for posting that causes Character A to misinterpret Character B. According to Character B.

I think I understand.

[ceeboo]

… addresses the potential for person A, to possibly see person B, as an unserious person or a silly jokester - And that was the point I was trying to lay before all of us as we consider this as a community.

Well, in my mind, I would say it's entirely possible that person A sees person B as an unserious, immature, buffoon who has no interest in discussing important things. (Even though person A witnessed a very small sample of the extremely long and many years resume on this board of person B. And that was/is the point I was trying to put before the board)

These are really good points, in my opinion - But I wasn't talking about online personas, specifically, when I offered my fictional A nd B person scenario. I was specifically trying to launch a discussion about how/why/if the various and different reasons why people post here (the various motives) play a role, or multiple roles, regarding the thread question, "Do we really have it right?" , And in my opinion, they not only play a role, they can play a very significant role.

Ok. So I can clarify, the point you are trying to lay before the board, as illustrated in this one fictional example out of many possible ones, is that Character B considers themselves to be misinterpreted by Character A, and you would like to explore what it is about Character A’s motivation for posting that causes Character A to misinterpret Character B. According to Character B.

I think I understand.

Lem - Thanks for staying with this and continuing to engage.

In my mind, I would say you almost understand (really close) - What I am saying is that it can (and often does) go both ways and that it is the motives, quite often, that create these various possible "Do we really have it right?" scenarios.

Assumptions for the purposes of this discussion: Poster A finds poster B to be a silly person who isn't interested in serious topics, or learning, or Mormonism. Poster B thinks poster A is way too serious of a person and needs to start appreciating the value of banter and a few shared laughs between board members.

Motives: Person A is here to discuss Mormonism and to learn. This person happens to be also seeking support and advice for something they are going through - In this fictional scenario, a serious faith crisis. Person B has a completely different motive for participating on this board. This person is here for mostly fun, sharing laughs, creating banter and maybe they engage in serious topics too.

So, given the assumptions made - It can clearly go both ways regarding the question - "Do they really have it right? - I would say it's entirely possible that neither of them "really have it right."

And what I am REALLY trying to say with all of this, Lem (as I tried to do in my OP) is that I probably "really don't have it right" concerning many of the board members that I have made assumptions and/or judgements about over my many years on this board. And because of that, I started the thread and I have been extremely pleased with the many thoughtful and thought provoking contributions to this point (yours included.)

[ceeboo]

Having just reread the thread, I wanted to bump this part of a Xeno post. I think it's worth seeing it on the thread again.

I say that only to remind us all that a little kindness, grace, and leniency goes a long way... especially for yourself.

[honorentheos]

I came to the conclusion that discussion only really happens when both parties extend respect to the other. When I see people engaging with respect I generally expect both sides are seeking to explore the topic in good faith. When one or both parties clearly lack respect for the other then it's usually clear the discussion is taking place as a kind of performance.

So do we have it right? Given the only thing I am certain of is certainly is fatal to knowledge, I am always skeptical. What does one do with that skepticism? Well, I guess it depends on if I'm willingly extending respect or just performing.

[ceeboo]

Hey honor!

I came to the conclusion that discussion only really happens when both parties extend respect to the other. When I see people engaging with respect I generally expect both sides are seeking to explore the topic in good faith.

I think you're probably right - but I want to ask you to extend that line of thought a bit further down the track. With regards to extending respect, do you think this is more likely decided or given on an individual post by post basis, or more likely decided or given based on a collection of past interactions/posts?

When one or both parties clearly lack respect for the other then it's usually clear the discussion is taking place as a kind of performance.

Bold mime.
I bolded this part because I think it's so spot on. Not only do I agree with you that it's a kind of performance, I also believe the performance has a specific audience in mind and I believe it has an intended message it wants to deliver. I can't offer an opinion on other discussions boards, as this is the only discussion board I participate on, but as far as this board goes, I think you can see these performances on the board pretty regularly.

So how would you answer the thread title question "Do we really have it right?"

If you're interested - I would enjoy hearing your thoughts, opinions and/or perspectives concerning the "online persona" discussions in this thread as well.

Thanks for the post, honor.

[Chap]

I came to the conclusion that discussion only really happens when both parties extending respect to the other. When I see people engaging with respect I generally expect both sides are seeking to explore the topic in good faith.

I'd see that working the other way round:

When discussion* between two posters really happens, both parties are extending respect to the other by taking part in that activity.

*In the context of a board such as this, I use the term 'discussion' to mean that people set out a position in good faith, and support it with argument and evidence; they then engage openly and honestly with any queries, criticisms, or alternative positions that others may advance. This does not of course exclude the use of humour. It does, however, exclude efforts to block or divert discussion by troll-like distraction, posts designed purely to take up bandwidth, and insults. Fortunately we now have an active Mod team to deal with that kind of thing

[Cultellus]

Everyone is welcome. Every opinion is welcome.* Therefore, do not "de-invite" anyone or suggest that they go elsewhere.

[ceeboo]

Hey Chap

*In the context of a board such as this, I use the term 'discussion' to mean that people set out a position in good faith, and support it with argument and evidence; they then engage openly and honestly with any queries, criticisms, or alternative positions that others may advance.

I think this is a good point - I also think it is a very common and a legitimate way to engage on the board.

In addition, I think this is yet another "motive" we can add to the list of motives - and another possible "online persona" factor to consider. That being that some people treat this board as a courthouse filled with lawyers and attempt to argue a case in front of a jury. To be clear, I'm not at all suggesting that this isn't appropriate - Nor am I suggesting that this type of format doesn't work well in fleshing out discussions. I am simply suggesting that I think I found another motive concerning what motivates some people to participate here.

Thanks for the post, Chap.

[ceeboo]

Hey Cultellus

Right-wingers are the worst at this. Trumpsters are the absolute worst at it. Everybody is better at this than someone who watches Alex Jones inject horseradish in his veins at the Q Conference.

And this would be another motive to add to the ever growing list of motives. Some people participate here using neon lights, sledge hammers, extremely loud sirens, and heavy doses of satire in an attempt to illustrate the stereotyping, broad-brushing and unbalanced positions of other posters.

[Chap]

Hey Cultellus

Right-wingers are the worst at this. Trumpsters are the absolute worst at it. Everybody is better at this than someone who watches Alex Jones inject horseradish in his veins at the Q Conference.

And this would be another motive to add to the ever growing list of motives. Some people participate here using neon lights, sledge hammers, extremely loud sirens, and heavy doses of satire in an attempt to illustrate the stereotyping, broad-brushing and unbalanced positions of other posters.

I am not sure that the poster whom you bring to my attention through quoting is engaged in any "attempt to illustrate the stereotyping, broad-brushing and unbalanced positions of other posters", if that is what you meant.

I think he may equally, or even more probably, be engaged in an enthusiastic exercise of broad-brushing and stereotyping of others, or just plain old 'trolling by distraction'. HIs post was, after all, a response to my post so far as I can see - and did I make any reference to the supposed vices of "Right-wingers" or "Trumpsters"? Nope. It is this aspect of his posting habits that has led me to put him on ignore.