Unaware of my own logical fallacies?

[tjt]

I wanted to follow up with @PatrickC on this which came up on an unrelated thread. So I'm creating a new (and probably lengthy) thread.

 

Here are the quotes from that thread to catch anyone who's interested up to speed. I've cut out a lot of the bulkiness... hopefully it still makes sense what is going on:

 

I said:

 

 

To me, it doesn't make any sense when someone engages in a drive-by downvote... it seems to defeat the purpose of this forum. I don't mean to speak for everyone, but I thought people take part in the FDR forum to improve their philosophical skills and also grow their self knowledge. Yet, it displays a total lack of empathy when someone down votes without explanation. If I am, like the down voter, here to improve my philosophy skills and grow my self knowledge, but according to the down voter I'm doing it wrong, yet he refuses to explain why and just gives me a down vote, how am I suppose to learn and improve?

 

It reminds me of my dad mercilessly conditioning me to self attack. The whole, "oh, you know what you did wrong, now go in your room and think about it." Or when a cop pulls you over... "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Just freaking tell me! It makes me a little upset that people feel strong enough to use one of their five votes for the day for down voting and don't take the time to explain why.

 

Patrick replied:

 

This is an interesting strawman you are constructing tjt. Comparing the likes of downvoting to actual abuse. That is a pretty bold claim if you will reconsider. And probably deserves some further reflection.

 

 

First, know that it's been a while since I've studied logical fallacies, and when I did, my mind wasn't in the right place to absorb what was being taught. Must have been because I was used to engaging in conversations riddled with fallacies and thought that was normal. So I had a hard time stepping away from that to analyze it critically.

 

Alright, so I think I see where you identified a straw man... but it took me quite a while to figure out if it truly is a straw man. The straw man would be that "someone who is downvoting has the same malicious intent as an abusive father." However, I didn't intend it that way, so I should have been clearer. 

 

What I was trying to convey is that I feel similarly when I get a downvote sans explanation to when someone makes me guess why they are upset or disapprove of something I've done. What results from this kind of interaction (or lack thereof) is only two possibilities--right or wrong. There's no discussion or negotiation... no opportunity to learn. So that is why I related the two scenarios. They are not related through abuse, because giving someone a downvote, even without an explanation, is not abusive I don't think.

 

Key words here would be that "I feel"... this leaves it open enough for me to consider if it is a personal problem/baggage (which it probably is) or if my feelings are justified (which is also possible, I'm not sure yet). So I'm allowing myself to assess this further by talking about my feelings rather than making claims. I see that my original post may have been seen as a claim, but it wasn't my intent... just bad writing.

 

So in order for it to be a straw man, I must have an opponent whose argument I've deconstructed and reassembled into something that is no longer the same, then I start attacking that invention. Now that I've clarified my intent, do you still consider my original post to be a straw man?

 

Feedback is greatly appreciated. And patience is also greatly appreciated. Thank you!

[MagnumPI]

For what it's worth I've seen only a couple of your posts, and they are some of the most thorough and well-reasoned on the board. The one on polygamy vs monogamy stands out.Regarding this, you said plainly "it reminds me of". Not "downvotes are comparable to abuse". To me that's like saying midgets remind me of Willow and getting back "Well, that's a strawman to compare midgets to fantasy movies." Like... What? As a kid I just watched Willow a lot and the sight of midgets brings the memory up. I don't think the term strawman was used correctly. And then in the post referenced, PatrickC went on to say something along the lines of I don't explain why I vote the way I do. So, sounds like vindication of exactly what you're accusing: Voting does little to explain the(in this case, negative) response.And an abusive father is being dismissive and condescending in just telling you "you know what you did". As it could be(and seems you have) argued that a downvote is similar.

[jpahmad]

I don't think you were making a straw man intentionally or unintentionally.  It was clear to me what you were trying to get across.  You were just describing an emotion and using other life experiences to try to explain it. 

[MMX2010]

I can't comment on whether you erected a strawman, but I will say that the people most critical of the reputation system have trouble trusting the community aspect of FDR.  The downvotes you mentioned do exist (and I've had my reputation fall 15 points based on one thread alone), but the community aspect of FDR ensures that such negative votes are, at minimum, cancelled out by the community. 

 

Now that I've gotten that out of my system, I agree with jpahmad's post above. 

[Kevin Beal]

You seem to want feedback, but nobody can really offer much feedback without looking at arguments and claims. I can't argue that it doesn't feel a certain way to you. That would be crazy.

 

I can't speak for Pat, but I had my own criticisms that I wanted to put out there. I can glean an argument that was implied that roughly takes the following form:

 

p1. offering negative feedback that does not explain the error in reasoning is badp2. the forums are supposed to be a place where people growp3. people on the forums are engaging in p1c1. people are acting against the values the board is supposed to representp4. if you are on the boards, we can assume that you accept and sympathize with the values the board representsc2. people are being hypocritical and destructive toward their own values / goals

c3. this behavior is unjust

 

The problem with this argument is that the reputation system is not supposed to help people grow. The reputation is meant to help the moderators and discourage trolly / dishonest behavior. Hopefully they don't have to ban anyone, and people who get downvoted enough for shitty behavior choose to leave before that's necessary. And if a ban happens, there is a precedent the mods can refer to since people generally don't get downvoted to the point of being hidden without doing something to warrant it.

 

The very types of people who would invite this ostracism are the kinds of people who in all likelihood are not going to take any kind of criticism seriously. And I think people get that, which is why they choose to downvote, rather than rebut them in a response post. And if they are required to post a response in order to downvote, they probably just won't do it at all, which completely defeats the purpose of the reputation system in the first place.

 

Also, all I could glean from what you wrote was that p1 was bad in some way that was unspecified. Bad as compared to what?

 

And p2, AFAIK is actually not true. Stef has stated that the boards are a place for people to connect. He never mentioned AFAIK anything about it being used to help others grow. And it's just about the worst format for that anyway. Helping people grow is infinitely easier and more productive live, preferably with voice and even better with video. There is just not enough communicated in text like this to do self growth justice.

 

Is that helpful in the way you want criticism to be on the boards? I would hate to think that this is expected of me rather than a privilege. It takes a lot of thought and time for me.

[tjt]

 

The problem with this argument is that the reputation system is not supposed to help people grow. The reputation is meant to help the moderators and discourage trolly / dishonest behavior. 

 

I did not know that was the purpose of the reputation system. It was my misunderstanding.

 

 

 

And if they are required to post a response in order to downvote, they probably just won't do it at all, which completely defeats the purpose of the reputation system in the first place.

 

I'm not arguing for this. So what I think we have here is a perfect example of a strawman. Thank you for demonstrating.

 

 

 

 I would hate to think that this is expected of me rather than a privilege. It takes a lot of thought and time for me.

 

I have no expectations of you, Kevin. I'm not trying to tell you how to spend your time. Everyone's time is precious and I respect that. You choose how to spend your time, I don't make you do anything. And I'm certainly not advocating for that type of rule. I don't know what you are trying to do here, but I'm feeling pretty distressed, as if I'm being attacked in some way. Is this some kind of joke, where in you are doing an amazing job of demonstrating how a true strawman argument looks like? If so, I'm not finding it very clever or funny, but rather I'm feeling very defensive.

 

 

 

Is that helpful in the way you want criticism to be on the boards? 

 

 

I asked if someone could help me identify if I made a logical fallacy in a post, and hopefully help me understand it. I chose to create a new thread in order to respect the admin's wishes that the other thread topic die a peaceful death. I did not come here to argue the credibility of the reputation system, that just happened to be the content of the example I was analyzing. Hopefully I'm completely misunderstanding you, Kevin. In which case, I hope we can work it out. Otherwise, I'm going to have to trust my emotional reaction and disengage with you. This is not the first time I've been caught off guard and felt defensive when communicating with you.

[PatrickC]

I think you raise a reasonable objection tjt to my use of the word 'strawman'. Upon reflection that was an inappropriate (incorrect) term to use. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

 

I'm still curious whether you still think comparing actual abuse with that of down voting too still be a reasonable comparison?

[jpahmad]

Well put Kevin, I would add that it is of course the option for someone who is down voted, and who takes it seriously, to do just what the OP did above, post a sincere question concerning why people perceived his/her argument and/or behavior to be worthy of a down vote.  This puts the burden on the person who was down voted to reach out for answers.  If he/she really can't figure it out, and really wants to know why, they can just ask and someone will reply to them. 

 

If understanding critique on the forum is important to them, then they will put forth the effort to type out an inquiry into why they received a negative vote.

[Kevin Beal]

This is not the first time I've been caught off guard and felt defensive when communicating with you.

Okay. Well, are you aware that this is exactly how you are affecting me with this post?

 

I feel very caught off guard and defensive.

[jpahmad]

 

 

 

 

I have no expectations of you, Kevin. I'm not trying to tell you how to spend your time. Everyone's time is precious and I respect that. You choose how to spend your time, I don't make you do anything. And I'm certainly not advocating for that type of rule. I don't know what you are trying to do here, but I'm feeling pretty distressed, as if I'm being attacked in some way. Is this some kind of joke, where in you are doing an amazing job of demonstrating how a true strawman argument looks like? If so, I'm not finding it very clever or funny, but rather I'm feeling very defensive.

 

 

 

tjt, I think there is a little bit of a misunderstanding here.  What I believe Kevin is saying is that if the forum administrators changed the system to require everyone to submit a written reply before down voting, it would just bog down everyone and make the interaction less efficient.  This would then be an incentive not to vote at all, thus defeating the purpose of the voting system.  However, if it is a privilege, then Kevin can take the time to articulate his thoughts to those who care rather than those who don't care.  It is obvious that you care, so he typed out a thorough response. 

[Kevin Beal]

nevermind

[MysterionMuffles]

hey tjt I appreciate the openness you have in wanting to tackle this issue! 

 

I don't think it was egregious for you to simply say the downvotes REMINDING you of abuse. It doesn't look like you made a strawman to me but I can see how it can be misconstrued as one. I don't think I have much to offer, but my pride in everyone's maturity about this.

 

What I would suggest, and this is much easier when posting in message board, is to put your arguments through the fallacy ringer by referring to this site http://www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com and before you click post when you're arguing a strong point, try to see if your argument consists of any of these traits.

As JP said too, I did used to think it was neccessary for people to give reasons for their downvotes but you know it's like an integrity thing too, right? If you downvote someone they will usually be curious as to why, and the person who made that downvote has to wrestle with their integrity to see if they can give a valid reason for it...or remain hidden in the shadows!

I used to ask some very horrible leading questions and sometimes I still have to try to filter my questions to be more open ended. I forget who it was who pointed it out to me, but I am eternally grateful for it.