Thanks for the feedback so far, guys. I stickied this thread because I didn't want it to vanish into the usual weekend posting dropoff, and also because I feel these concerns are ongoing. If someone doesn't notice it or feel like taking the time to think about for another two weeks that's OK, it will still be relevant.
Irvine511 said:
...so i'm confused by this exercise -- perhaps Yolland or said contributor could expound and explain a bit more?
Unfortunately, I'm not sure whether said contributor is still with us, as they haven't posted in awhile now, their last post was an angry one and they've since deleted most of their journal. Hopefully that will change but at any rate, while I can't speak to their intentions precisely, I think I can fill in a little bit.
The exercise was originally intended for a contract negotiations setting, a rancorous dispute in which dialogue between the two parties had ground to a halt because neither side was willing to acknowledge that some cooperation and compromise would be necessary to advance the status quo beyond a hostile standoff. So strictly speaking, the analogy to a discussion forum is not precise--we're not in the business of drawing up contracts here, and so far as it goes it doesn't mean a discussion won't be productive if people stand by their original positions (i.e., decline to compromise). However, as anyone who's been a party to any sort of contract dispute can attest, most of the problems that arise don't hinge on unwillingness to compromise per se; rather they have to do with more general failures to listen constructively, to give the other side's concerns their due and a full airing rather than defensively batting them away, and to reconsider whether any potential common ground exists within one's own position from which to evolve the discussion by reframing parts of one's own argument in a way that constructively addresses the other side's concerns--which ideally will consist of
both more focused critique, and attempts to acknowledge and address what seems worthwhile in those concerns.
So, as applied to the ranking system proposed here, I guess what it comes down to is attempting to evaluate the overall attitude one usually approaches discussions with--not so much trying to quantify how many of your responses might be argued to fit under one ranking category or another. Yes, you're right, of course any good debater will examine presentations of the opposing POV, if only to detect the cracks in their argument or show how they might even be argued to further prove one's own point. And debate
is part of discussion, although not the whole of it; they're distinct words for a reason. But above and beyond all this, there's the question of attitude towards the general purpose of discussion to begin with--the social element, so to speak. Do I typically come to a discussion interested and curious to see and understand how other participants think, and to improve my own grasp of the array of possible perspectives on the topic, thus enriching my own thinking? or am I really more here to demonstrate my debating chops, line up my preferred talking points, and pound home the superiority of my own POV--"placing too much importance on the rebuttal of a line of thought," whether pre-emptively or in response, as you put it? I think the collective answers to this have major impact on how enjoyable and productive our discussions are, and on whether they illuminate in a useful way or an alienating one.
"Maintaining a presence" I interpreted to mean the sort of contributions that effectively say "Hi, I'm here" but little else--one-sentence comments which merely affirm something already expressed, things like that. As with any other category of response, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with this sort of post--in fact, I don't think I do it enough, specifically in the form of posting simply to say "Great post X, that was very well said"--but if it becomes a habitual pattern at the expense of more considered replies (which needn't necessarily be long), then it amounts to, well, simply "maintaining a presence."
i do think, though, if i might venture a moment of speculation, that the intent of this thread is to point how much discussion appears to have devolved since mid-summer, and certainly since 2005 or so. i wonder if this has to do with fewer people visiting Interference due to a relative lack of U2 activity (the album is old, the tour is over), if (since this forum tends to be dominted by Americans) American politics has become so polarized and bitter over the past few years that it's virtually impossible to posit an opinion that can't be read as de facto support for one side or the other (neutrality is not an option), if the internet has gotten us to a point where we've heard all (or most) of the arguments before and have read (or been fed) the counter-argument to nearly any point we might encounter, or if we're all just getting lazier.
i see myself doing some of these things, and as someone who contributes a great deal (though you'll be seeing less of me as my new job heats up), i feel fully responsible for what i see as a downward spiral of dialogue. there's a sort of one-upsmanship that has taken over, to an extent, and i think we're all guilty of participating to the point where it becomes almost a competition, a place to do battle, a place to scream and possibly be heard by someone who might be receptive to a different opinion and perhaps we can change them and by doing so change everything.
i am totally guilty of taking things too seriously, of placing too much importance on the rebuttal of a line of thought, and i certainly know better. i can only say that some of it is due to the fact that i am angry, i am despondant at much of what's gong on in the world and in the US, and this sometimes feels like the only place where i can do battle with those who are against me since (as seems to be the case in an increasingly polarized America) everyone in my liberal urban environment and media/arts career agrees with me.
so, what i am going to try to do is calm down, step back, and try not to view it as so much of a competition at best, or a cosmic battle against evil at worst.
we might be giving ourselves too much credit -- no one here is going to solve the various global crisis that dominate our lives to a heretofore unprecedented extent (thanks to 24/7 media), and no one is necessarily going to change someone's vote or deeply held opinion. but, perhaps, we can all understand where we're coming from just a little bit better.
Exactly; you put the words in my mouth here, and these are indeed among the sorts of reflections I was hoping to elicit. (Although for perspective's sake, let me point out that your disappointments are neither unique to you nor to this last summer; this sort of collective weariness has cropped up repeatedly in FYM, from
post-election 2004 (which, having only been a regular here since mid-2005, I can't remember)
to early 2006. Alternating cycles of enthusiasm followed by burnout are probably inevitable to some extent (and, as you noted, typically correspond to prevailing social trends well beyond FYM); but the latter are always disspiriting and, worse, self-perpetuating, if they wind up getting pegged wholly on recalcitrance from the opposite side. As those of you who've interacted with me privately concerning your issues with particular posters know, my response is likely to include an appeal to you personally to help resolve the problem by (publically) expressing your disagreements with said posters constructively, unless perhaps your complaints pertain to something point-specific (e.g., one particular personal attack). Because these kinds of resentments are seldom truly one-sided, and very often they strike me as heightened by general anger about things which have nothing per se to do with FYM as a place to socialize and discuss. As you say, it's all too easy to succumb to the temptation to forget that this is neither an appropriate nor a logical place to pursue "a cosmic battle aginst evil" however we might individually define that. (I don't know that politics proper is really the place to pursue it either, for that matter, but that's a whole separate discussion.) At its worst, this can lead to too many dead-end, circular discussions characterized by aggressive one-upmanship, droning reiteration of talking points, and the pursuit of dominance at the expense of opportunities to learn, understand and more generally just enjoy the interaction. Why bother to browse, let alone post here, if one doesn't respect the potential of those of us who post regularly to offer contributions worth considering, and why not aim to participate in a way that conveys that?
Like you, I've a hefty file of "memorable FYM quotes" I don't want to forget stashed away on my hard drive, and they're just as likely to come from posters whose general POV I don't share as from those whose general POV I do; I've learned just as much over time from the former as the latter. Occasionally these quotes do come from threads which turned acrimonious and repetitive, but that's rare; usually they're from threads where the bulk of the contributors were making a concerted effort to seek clarifications, weigh opposing arguments into the balance in their replies, and engage other posters at something approaching a "+2" level. Collective commitment to aim for this standard is important, and not something I (or sula, or anyone else) can meaningfully effect as a mod, which more or less boils down simply to intervening when things turn grossly uncivil. Which is why I hoped this exercise might occasion some helpful self-reflection. FYM is only as productive and enjoyable as the sum total of contributions from those of us who read and post here, and ultimately the nature of that outcome begins and ends with our attitudes as individuals towards the process and each other.
Again, thanks to everyone for your insights and feedback.
Not to mention that we need some more females posting here
I consider myself to be a +2 - honestly.
I miss that. We've lost a few. (Or maybe it's not so much a shortage of women posters as women's posts)
