DaVinci Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 I find myself in online debates spending multiple hours writing careful responses to someone only to have someone respond with a massive wall of text quoting every sentence I said individually like 15 minutes later. Why am I not capable of writing well thought out responses that fast? I know no one can really answer that for me, but I'm curious to hear what others think. Does this happen to anyone else? Also, how can I ever convince anyone with a rational argument when it is so easy for people to just throw up a wall of text around everything I say so quickly? Even people who might be reading the thread might be swayed by me if not for the fact that I look like I can't answer what someone appears to be asking me. It doesn't help that I almost always find myself ganged up on in online debates. I should probably not engage in these debates at all, but then should I just avoid trying to correct others online?
D.D. Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 I find myself in online debates spending multiple hours writing careful responses... Why am I not capable of writing well thought out responses that fast? Does this happen to anyone else? I almost always, on average, spend about 2 hrs writing a response, which is why I don't post often. Especially when there are questions asked which has been answered in podcasts provided by FDR and are easy to consume. I try to be concise as possible because: people don't like to read long posts people tend stop reading a sentence if it contains multiple thoughts limitations in text like sarcasm can be misunderstood which eats up more resources drafting a response becomes like journaling where I may learn new things about myself spelling and grammar In the end, it's valuable to a point. I have other priorities and treat this forum with that in mind. It doesn't help that I almost always find myself ganged up on in online debates. I should probably not engage in these debates at all, but then should I just avoid trying to correct others online? This stands out to me. How do you know you're "ganged up on"? Why do you feel you are "correct[ing] others"? Do you feel obligated to do so?
DaVinci Posted November 4, 2016 Author Posted November 4, 2016 I almost always, on average, spend about 2 hrs writing a response, which is why I don't post often. Especially when there are questions asked which has been answered in podcasts provided by FDR and are easy to consume. I try to be concise as possible because: people don't like to read long posts people tend stop reading a sentence if it contains multiple thoughts limitations in text like sarcasm can be misunderstood which eats up more resources drafting a response becomes like journaling where I may learn new things about myself spelling and grammar In the end, it's valuable to a point. I have other priorities and treat this forum with that in mind. This stands out to me. How do you know you're "ganged up on"? Why do you feel you are "correct[ing] others"? Do you feel obligated to do so? Thanks for the response. I know I'm ganged up on because I'll respond to a topic or message and then come back later to find two or more people (sometimes three, sometimes four, or more) quoting my posts or responding to me. Then when I respond to those people, however many it may be, I often see that the number of people who are responding to only my posts starts to grow and all other people who might be responding to the topic or thread have their posts completely ignored for responses in favor of mine. It almost always gets to the point where a given thread or topic is me debating everyone left. In terms of FB I almost never see anyone like my posts, but the people who I am debating with are generally backing each other up with talking points, liking each others posts, and giving each other "high fives" for good points made. So I end up debating multiple people with no help from anyone, no one backing me up, no one who might share similar views, etc. Also there are many conversations that usually end with people calling me names, or accusing me of behavior that I'm not engaged in, or something like that when I've been nothing but respectful the entire time. Maybe this doesn't mean I'm being ganged up on, because I don't have to respond to people online if I don't want to, but then what do I call it? It's frustrating. I suppose I should just say that instead. For your second question I don't "feel" I'm correcting others. I'm not trying to stop people from liking strawberry ice cream because I feel they are wrong or something like that. It's more... fundamental than that? Maybe I'm completely misguided, but I try to do what Stef does, I suppose to not as good results as him, but still I try. I try and point out how a particular news source might be omitting info, or I will point out statistical data that refutes a point, or something like that. Yeah, some of what I talk about in a given topic is my opinion, or just my thoughts on a subject, but I'm not trying to force any of my opinions on anyone. Edit: Sorry, I forgot the last one: No, I don't feel obligated. I do it more for myself as I have a hard time absorbing stuff unless I have a problem to work through. In other words I can't just read a statistics book and know statistics. I have to have some problems and opposition in order to help me strengthen my understanding of a subject. I don't passively learn I guess? But I find myself frustrated that I don't seem to know some subjects well enough to be able to get out the responses I do faster, while some people I debate with seem to have these pre-prepared responses for exactly what I said ready to copy and paste in response. Does that answer your questions?
algernon Posted November 4, 2016 Posted November 4, 2016 I find myself in online debates spending multiple hours writing careful responses to someone only to have someone respond with a massive wall of text quoting every sentence I said individually like 15 minutes later. Why am I not capable of writing well thought out responses that fast? I know no one can really answer that for me, but I'm curious to hear what others think. Does this happen to anyone else? Also, how can I ever convince anyone with a rational argument when it is so easy for people to just throw up a wall of text around everything I say so quickly? Even people who might be reading the thread might be swayed by me if not for the fact that I look like I can't answer what someone appears to be asking me. It doesn't help that I almost always find myself ganged up on in online debates. I should probably not engage in these debates at all, but then should I just avoid trying to correct others online? I'm assuming you're referring to online debates elsewhere than the present? Regarding the time it takes you to make the original argument, and the quick response therein, is the response well thought out? Why aren't you able to answer the arguments that might help sway the observers? Being ganged up on in online debates is pretty normal, especially if you're rational - considering I would say the majority are irrational. Try having a real life debate on spanking with people from the South. I was at a party one time with about 15 'friends', I brought up the topic of spanking. It started out as a 1 on 1 debate and soon enough everyone had joined in like sharks after a bloody piece of meat. It is somewhat of an odd situation debating 15 different people at once, as I'm making reasoned arguments and the focus shifts from one to another, spouting out their preconceived ideas - "WHAT IF THEY RUN INTO THE ROAD!?". The biggest thing I'd say regarding debating ignorant people, once you spend enough time doing it you can debate 99% of them quite effectively and quickly, none of them have original ideas "But without government, who would build the roads?". It's almost comical because it's like they have a script, yet they aren't even aware of it. I've heard the same argument so many times it's hard to keep from laughing at this point. Do you read and type quickly? I've found that extremely beneficial in online arguments, if you can let the ideas flow and type it as you think of them it makes it significantly easier. How much time do you spend absorbing the information you're trying to debate? If it's something you know vaguely about, and have to go and look up the facts it might be best to let those arguments go, and focus on the ones you know off of the top of your head. In my opinion you should only try and correct others to help observers come to the truth, and do so as time permits. I deleted Facebook about four years ago because I was finding myself spending too much time debating ignorant people. I literally couldn't log in without feeling compelled to offer the truth, spending hours on these topics. Maybe something was lost out there by me discontinuing the discourse, but I have other more important things to do.
D.D. Posted November 4, 2016 Posted November 4, 2016 I know I'm ganged up on because I'll respond to a topic or message and then come back later to find two or more people (sometimes three, sometimes four, or more) quoting my posts or responding to me. Then when I respond to those people, however many it may be, I often see that the number of people who are responding to only my posts starts to grow and all other people who might be responding to the topic or thread have their posts completely ignored for responses in favor of mine. Without a specific post / thread to refer to, here are my general thoughts: I've noticed that some people don't go through a whole thread, read each post, and then respond. Usually, they read the latest, or two, and respond. Maybe your post was the last one? Some people will scan a thread and pick out a post they want to comment on. This doesn't necessarily mean they are targeting you specifically. It could be because they want to reply because they feel like they are accomplishing something with their day, genuinely want to help or correct, or yes, there is a chance they are targeting your words for whatever reason It almost always gets to the point where a given thread or topic is me debating everyone left. In terms of FB I almost never see anyone like my posts, but the people who I am debating with are generally backing each other up with talking points, liking each others posts, and giving each other "high fives" for good points made. So I end up debating multiple people with no help from anyone, no one backing me up, no one who might share similar views, etc. Also there are many conversations that usually end with people calling me names, or accusing me of behavior that I'm not engaged in, or something like that when I've been nothing but respectful the entire time. Maybe this doesn't mean I'm being ganged up on, because I don't have to respond to people online if I don't want to, but then what do I call it? It's frustrating. I suppose I should just say that instead. "...calling me names" - What specifically? Just a reminder, there are Guidelines which are enforced here at FDR. There is also a "Report" button on each post anyone can use to flag, I'm assuming (I haven't tested it), the system administrator. Otherwise, from the guidelines - "Please respect your feelings. If you find that a thread is becoming unpleasant, please disengage." "The truth can only result from a positive and challenging mutual exploration of facts and principles. Escalation is the responsibility of both parties." This forum is open to people who don't share the same values of yourself or I. There's no membership filtering system here. This means there can be enemies within. You may have run into them or they share some of your values but are just dicks for whatever sad reason. Here's a podcast you may find helpful or not: Podcast 665: Be Nice! Part 1 - Self Protection A positive is that when you find someone who matches your values / etc., it will feel like you found a diamond because a diamond's value is mostly in it's rarity. For your second question I don't "feel" I'm correcting others. I'm not trying to stop people from liking strawberry ice cream because I feel they are wrong or something like that. It's more... fundamental than that? Maybe I'm completely misguided, but I try to do what Stef does, I suppose to not as good results as him, but still I try. I try and point out how a particular news source might be omitting info, or I will point out statistical data that refutes a point, or something like that. Yeah, some of what I talk about in a given topic is my opinion, or just my thoughts on a subject, but I'm not trying to force any of my opinions on anyone. Perhaps you don't feel like you're heard? Maybe it's their speed or they don't address your facts? I don't mean to put feelings or thoughts into your head. Edit: Sorry, I forgot the last one: You mean you didn't read my post carefully, that I spent an hour writing! I'm joking. No, I don't feel obligated. I do it more for myself as I have a hard time absorbing stuff unless I have a problem to work through. In other words I can't just read a statistics book and know statistics. I have to have some problems and opposition in order to help me strengthen my understanding of a subject. I don't passively learn I guess? But I find myself frustrated that I don't seem to know some subjects well enough to be able to get out the responses I do faster, while some people I debate with seem to have these pre-prepared responses for exactly what I said ready to copy and paste in response. Great, so you do it for your benefit because you want to learn and you recognize that it takes practice. Then why be frustrated with yourself if you "...don't seem to know some subjects well enough to be able to get out the responses I do faster"? Your comparing yourself to others. You don't know how long they've been doing this or what they do for a living. These are just my thoughts. Thanks for answering my questions.
Izzy Posted November 4, 2016 Posted November 4, 2016 I feel the same way. The way I look at it is I'm not necessarily trying to convince others that my position is correct. My main goals are to improve the way I explain myself and to understand the view point of others as best I can. Most of the time, people want to tell you their opinion, not hear yours. So it's useful to keep asking them questions and find faults in their logic.
dsayers Posted November 4, 2016 Posted November 4, 2016 Also, how can I ever convince anyone with a rational argument when it is so easy for people to just throw up a wall of text around everything I say so quickly? How can other people convince you if you're going to marginalize their response as just "wall of text," which addresses its length, not its truth value? Have you checked out the Bomb in the Brain series before? In order to influence somebody, you have to first understand WHY they believe what they believe.
A4E Posted November 4, 2016 Posted November 4, 2016 When I seriously started out talking in forums 10ish years ago, I quickly found myself deteriorating into "fighting mode" and focused my energy into battling with opponents. I am not afraid of sharing my opinions/gained information, and so that naturally draws out opponents from a wide spectrum. I also saw it as my duty to correct others. In another forum I frequented, many years ago now, I had become obsessed with battling my views onto other people, and it was becoming such an enormous waste of time. And it was eating away at my mental health. Now I approach it differently. I view forums (really just this one), as a great place to get the perspective of other people, and let it help me grow as a person. Instead of thinking that I am going to set the record straight and slash down anyone who oppose me. Some of my most memorable moments here is when I have been corrected. It is a good feeling to accept that I am wrong about something and am ready to take the new perspective with me into the future. Assuming battle stations when someone is criticizing you is not good in the long run for a number of reasons. Stress, time (wasted), declining potential to grow. Yes you will be better at slashing down people online if you keep thinking everyone is out to get you and you are constantly manning your cannons, but is that what you really want to do in this life? Try to win in forum threads? Besides, people in battle stations are never going to back down anyway, and it will always be an exercise in tearing down fallacies on both sides. Good entertainment for observers and unproductive for the participants. If you see someone in battle stations against you, remember you should be here to grow, not to fight, (for your own mental health sake if nothing else). There are some good options to show that you are not here to fire your cannons. One is to ask them genuine curious non insulting questions about their statements. Another one would be to just state that you are not here to fight and would like a good decent conversation (please). But maybe I am wrong about all this? If so please tell me. This was not specifically pointed at you OP, I don't remember your history here so much.
Weasel Posted November 4, 2016 Posted November 4, 2016 People tend to pick one point in an argument and focus that down, its quick, its easy and it scores points for them. When you have 5 or 6 people doing that, your entire argument cant get mis- represented in minutes because its all there to be torn down. I find that the best way to talk in a fast moving enviroment, like youtube, is to question once.. let them think about that point before moving on to the next. Wait until people start answering, this gives you time to put your next opinion down. Always read what they write, there will be ammunition for your end game, be curt with responces, be short with questions. Eventually you will have saved your best point till last, if your lucky you have got them already agreeing with you when you make it. Just take your time, never rush
DaVinci Posted November 5, 2016 Author Posted November 5, 2016 I'm assuming you're referring to online debates elsewhere than the present? yup. I'm not talking about here. Regarding the time it takes you to make the original argument, and the quick response therein, is the response well thought out? You mean their response to my post? Sometimes it is well thought out, and sometimes it isn't. Why aren't you able to answer the arguments that might help sway the observers? In some cases it is because I'm not sure how to answer a question. For example, the "without taxation how will things get done" type questions. Most people won't accept the Stef type answer of "whatever system is the moral one". They will claim "well, that doesn't solve" ...and then list off a dozen social programs they know all the intricacies of and now I have a half dozen paragraphs of stuff to respond to. Sometimes people will use some branch of logic I don't entirely understand and I don't know exactly what I'm looking at, so I don't know quite how to respond. Being ganged up on in online debates is pretty normal, especially if you're rational - considering I would say the majority are irrational. Try having a real life debate on spanking with people from the South. I was at a party one time with about 15 'friends', I brought up the topic of spanking. It started out as a 1 on 1 debate and soon enough everyone had joined in like sharks after a bloody piece of meat. It is somewhat of an odd situation debating 15 different people at once, as I'm making reasoned arguments and the focus shifts from one to another, spouting out their preconceived ideas - "WHAT IF THEY RUN INTO THE ROAD!?". The biggest thing I'd say regarding debating ignorant people, once you spend enough time doing it you can debate 99% of them quite effectively and quickly, none of them have original ideas "But without government, who would build the roads?". It's almost comical because it's like they have a script, yet they aren't even aware of it. I've heard the same argument so many times it's hard to keep from laughing at this point. That is a very similar experience to mine. I'm one person usually talking to five. If it were a physical fight I don't think anyone would consider it to be great odds. Do you read and type quickly? I've found that extremely beneficial in online arguments, if you can let the ideas flow and type it as you think of them it makes it significantly easier. How much time do you spend absorbing the information you're trying to debate? If it's something you know vaguely about, and have to go and look up the facts it might be best to let those arguments go, and focus on the ones you know off of the top of your head. I try and be as thoughtful as possible and consider my responses carefully, but i don't know everything. I think that is a good suggestion to let go the stuff I don't know, and focus on what I do. I also don't want to purposely ignore people though. Maybe I should just confess my ignorance more during debate. In my opinion you should only try and correct others to help observers come to the truth, and do so as time permits. I deleted Facebook about four years ago because I was finding myself spending too much time debating ignorant people. I literally couldn't log in without feeling compelled to offer the truth, spending hours on these topics. Maybe something was lost out there by me discontinuing the discourse, but I have other more important things to do. I've certainly cut back the amount of time I spend debating online for similar reasons. Though I still find myself frustrated when I read some of the comments I hear people make. I have to live in society with people who I know don't want me to be free and I'm not sure what to do about it. Without a specific post / thread to refer to, here are my general thoughts: I've noticed that some people don't go through a whole thread, read each post, and then respond. Usually, they read the latest, or two, and respond. Maybe your post was the last one? Some people will scan a thread and pick out a post they want to comment on. This doesn't necessarily mean they are targeting you specifically. It could be because they want to reply because they feel like they are accomplishing something with their day, genuinely want to help or correct, or yes, there is a chance they are targeting your words for whatever reason "...calling me names" - What specifically? I get lot's of "lol's" and "jerk", and, "troll" and, "moron". Stuff like that. Just a reminder, there are Guidelines which are enforced here at FDR. There is also a "Report" button on each post anyone can use to flag, I'm assuming (I haven't tested it), the system administrator. It's not FDR. Otherwise, from the guidelines - "Please respect your feelings. If you find that a thread is becoming unpleasant, please disengage." "The truth can only result from a positive and challenging mutual exploration of facts and principles. Escalation is the responsibility of both parties." This forum is open to people who don't share the same values of yourself or I. There's no membership filtering system here. This means there can be enemies within. You may have run into them or they share some of your values but are just dicks for whatever sad reason. Here's a podcast you may find helpful or not: Podcast 665: Be Nice! Part 1 - Self Protection A positive is that when you find someone who matches your values / etc., it will feel like you found a diamond because a diamond's value is mostly in it's rarity. Perhaps you don't feel like you're heard? Maybe it's their speed or they don't address your facts? I don't mean to put feelings or thoughts into your head. I don't think it is that I don't feel like I'm heard. They are responding to me so they do in fact hear me. I think I get frustrated that I can repeat the same things I've heard from Stef or Peter Schiff, and the response is nothing like the response I had to the same info phrased in the same way. I don't know if I'm more receptive to new ideas, and they aren't, but it is frustrating that the same ideas that made me stop and think about them are dismissed by people when I say them. You mean you didn't read my post carefully, that I spent an hour writing! I'm joking. I am reading it carefully! Great, so you do it for your benefit because you want to learn and you recognize that it takes practice. Then why be frustrated with yourself if you "...don't seem to know some subjects well enough to be able to get out the responses I do faster"? Your comparing yourself to others. You don't know how long they've been doing this or what they do for a living. Yeah, I'm always trying to get better. I think I get frustrated because I pick up on stuff slowly. Not that I can't get really good at it, but I have to work way harder to achieve the same results as others. I have to study for five hours, when someone else is a beginner like me and gets the info down in 30 minutes. These are just my thoughts. Thanks for answering my questions. I feel the same way. The way I look at it is I'm not necessarily trying to convince others that my position is correct. My main goals are to improve the way I explain myself and to understand the view point of others as best I can. Most of the time, people want to tell you their opinion, not hear yours. So it's useful to keep asking them questions and find faults in their logic. I do try to ask more questions now than I used to. How can other people convince you if you're going to marginalize their response as just "wall of text," which addresses its length, not its truth value? Have you checked out the Bomb in the Brain series before? In order to influence somebody, you have to first understand WHY they believe what they believe. In some cases the "wall of text" is a link to a PDF file. I'm being responded to with a link to a 30 page article that according to them I must read in order to respond. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to have a conversation with someone if they say they won't listen to anything else I say until I read a book. Is it really minimizing to call that a wall of text? To me it seems like this is a defensive wall to prevent an actual conversation. Should I not call it that? I certainly don't mind reading new things, but at what point can i make an argument without knowing everything about everything? Do I have to read the tax code of Virginia to argue that taxation is the initiation of force? When I seriously started out talking in forums 10ish years ago, I quickly found myself deteriorating into "fighting mode" and focused my energy into battling with opponents. I am not afraid of sharing my opinions/gained information, and so that naturally draws out opponents from a wide spectrum. I also saw it as my duty to correct others. In another forum I frequented, many years ago now, I had become obsessed with battling my views onto other people, and it was becoming such an enormous waste of time. And it was eating away at my mental health. Now I approach it differently. I view forums (really just this one), as a great place to get the perspective of other people, and let it help me grow as a person. Instead of thinking that I am going to set the record straight and slash down anyone who oppose me. Some of my most memorable moments here is when I have been corrected. It is a good feeling to accept that I am wrong about something and am ready to take the new perspective with me into the future. Assuming battle stations when someone is criticizing you is not good in the long run for a number of reasons. Stress, time (wasted), declining potential to grow. Yes you will be better at slashing down people online if you keep thinking everyone is out to get you and you are constantly manning your cannons, but is that what you really want to do in this life? Try to win in forum threads? I used to do the same thing when I started engaging people online and try to win fights, but underneath that has always been a more basic desire to share the same knowledge and information I've learned that gave me a new understanding of a subject. I guess I just don't understand why I want to learn new stuff, but when I try to share what i know there is so much resistance. Besides, people in battle stations are never going to back down anyway, and it will always be an exercise in tearing down fallacies on both sides. Good entertainment for observers and unproductive for the participants. If you see someone in battle stations against you, remember you should be here to grow, not to fight, (for your own mental health sake if nothing else). There are some good options to show that you are not here to fire your cannons. One is to ask them genuine curious non insulting questions about their statements. Another one would be to just state that you are not here to fight and would like a good decent conversation (please). But maybe I am wrong about all this? If so please tell me. This was not specifically pointed at you OP, I don't remember your history here so much. Thanks for the replies everyone.
dsayers Posted November 5, 2016 Posted November 5, 2016 You don't see how "a link to a 30 page article that according to them I must read in order to respond" is different from "wall of text"? It sounded to me like time was a factor and part of your confusion and/or feelings of inefficacy came from a person's ability to PRODUCE a "30 page" item, not just linking to one. It's not nearly as impressive or intimidating if a person comes back 15 minutes later to drop a link. You can claim that 2+2=4 even if you don't have a calculator. Anybody that says they reject 2+2=4 until you have a calculator is telling you that rationality isn't of interest to them. Were you to satisfy their arbitrary price of admission, I'd wager you'd find them just moving the goalposts. They NEED for 2+2=5 and requiring a calculator is just one way of preventing you from challenging their need. 1
DaVinci Posted November 6, 2016 Author Posted November 6, 2016 You don't see how "a link to a 30 page article that according to them I must read in order to respond" is different from "wall of text"? It sounded to me like time was a factor and part of your confusion and/or feelings of inefficacy came from a person's ability to PRODUCE a "30 page" item, not just linking to one. It's not nearly as impressive or intimidating if a person comes back 15 minutes later to drop a link. You can claim that 2+2=4 even if you don't have a calculator. Anybody that says they reject 2+2=4 until you have a calculator is telling you that rationality isn't of interest to them. Were you to satisfy their arbitrary price of admission, I'd wager you'd find them just moving the goalposts. They NEED for 2+2=5 and requiring a calculator is just one way of preventing you from challenging their need. So what is the difference between someone who links to a lengthy article, and someone who writes a page long response? I think you agree that language can be used to be manipulative, right? Isn't a sophist someone who uses philosophy to try and convince people of the opposite of the truth? When I see a page long response to a few sentences of mine, and then another page long response to a few sentences of mine on top of that, I know I'm not going to be able to respond to every single thing they are saying without a massive effort on my part, because as I mentioned before, it takes me much longer to achieve the same results as other people. Depending on the subject a single paragraph post might take me an hour to type out as I try to be thoughtful about it. That can be frustrating to me if I think that the person who I'm talking to is much better at sophistry than I am at philosophy, if that makes sense. Which, I think, is why I call some of these responses a "wall of text". I'm not trying to intentionally be minimizing of them. Is it minimizing to call a response I think is lengthy for the sake of being sophistic a wall of text? If so then I won't do it anymore. I don't have a desire to minimize anyone.
D.D. Posted November 6, 2016 Posted November 6, 2016 So what is the difference between someone who links to a lengthy article, and someone who writes a page long response? As dsayers pointed out below: You don't see how "a link to a 30 page article that according to them I must read in order to respond" is different from "wall of text"? It's not nearly as impressive or intimidating if a person comes back 15 minutes later to drop a link. It's quicker and easier to provide a link to a page of text than it is to write a page of text. I agree with dsayers here: It sounded to me like time was a factor and part of your confusion and/or feelings of inefficacy came from a person's ability to PRODUCE a "30 page" item, not just linking to one. We're trying to help you because there seems to be a reoccurring theme in your statements. My intention isn't to judge or criticize you, but to help you see yourself, I'm not a therapist of any kind, mine you. Here's a recent example of your line of thought: When I see a page long response to a few sentences of mine, and then another page long response to a few sentences of mine on top of that, I know I'm not going to be able to respond to every single thing they are saying without a massive effort on my part, because as I mentioned before, it takes me much longer to achieve the same results as other people. Depending on the subject a single paragraph post might take me an hour to type out as I try to be thoughtful about it. You seem to have determined that the standard of communicating online is to match the amount of text of someone else's response and in a timely fashion. Is this where your frustration comes from? Do you feel bad, inadequate, weak or stupid if you fail to meet your standard? I don't want to tell you how to feel, you tell us what you feel when you see a "wall of text" to your posts. Take your time. Maybe write your thoughts down on paper with a pen / pencil (I prefer the feel of a pencil) before typing here to workout the thoughts. Can we hold off the sophistry stuff for now? I think that's an after-thought to your initial feelings.
DaVinci Posted November 6, 2016 Author Posted November 6, 2016 You seem to have determined that the standard of communicating online is to match the amount of text of someone else's response and in a timely fashion. Is this where your frustration comes from? Do you feel bad, inadequate, weak or stupid if you fail to meet your standard? I don't want to tell you how to feel, you tell us what you feel when you see a "wall of text" to your posts. Take your time. Maybe write your thoughts down on paper with a pen / pencil (I prefer the feel of a pencil) before typing here to workout the thoughts. Can we hold off the sophistry stuff for now? I think that's an after-thought to your initial feelings. I don't think I always have to match a word count. I'm not trying to one up people with word count. I think part of my frustration is how carefully I consider my posts, and how quickly much lengthier responses come. That's frustrating to me. As I mentioned before I don't pick up information as quickly as other people do. I have to spend more time on average getting to the same place as my peers. So if someone comes back with a response that is going to require that much more time to consider I feel frustration because I know that the way I learn is a long process. If the response to me is something like the " how will we build roads without the government", well, I've heard that so many times before I'm used to responding to it and that isn't very frustrating, but by contrast when someone has responded with a bunch of modus ponens equations or something like that I feel frustrated because I wonder if I now have to go be an expert on modus ponens before I respond. I don't even know what that is beyond an incredibly simple understanding. I'm frustrated because of my lack of knowledge, and also because my lack of knowledge is coupled with an inability to determine if what is being said to me is even a response to what I'm saying at all. As if someone is suddenly speaking to me in a foreign language that I only know a few words of. Does that answer your questions?
dsayers Posted November 6, 2016 Posted November 6, 2016 I think part of my frustration is how carefully I consider my posts, and how quickly much lengthier responses come. That's frustrating to me. As I mentioned before I don't pick up information as quickly as other people do. I have to spend more time on average getting to the same place as my peers. So if someone comes back with a response that is going to require that much more time to consider I feel frustration because I know that the way I learn is a long process. This seems to be sending a conflicting message. You've spent a lot of time here referencing length, as if that is a factor. Here though, it seems that length is NOT a factor (which was my point). If you feel it takes longer for you to participate in such things, and it can be a source of frustration for you, then it seems like it would be a good idea to "pick your battles." You didn't answer my suggestion before to check out the Bomb in the Brain series. It can be useful in helping you to pick your battles. No point in using flesh and bone to penetrate a brick wall, right?
DaVinci Posted November 6, 2016 Author Posted November 6, 2016 This seems to be sending a conflicting message. You've spent a lot of time here referencing length, as if that is a factor. Here though, it seems that length is NOT a factor (which was my point). If you feel it takes longer for you to participate in such things, and it can be a source of frustration for you, then it seems like it would be a good idea to "pick your battles." You didn't answer my suggestion before to check out the Bomb in the Brain series. It can be useful in helping you to pick your battles. No point in using flesh and bone to penetrate a brick wall, right? Sorry, I forgot to say I have watched those videos, it's just been a while since I've seen them. I'll go check them out again. I think I will be more selective about my battles, but then what do I do about the way I learn? As I mentioned before I don't learn in a passive way where I just read a statistics book and get it. I have to have something to work through in order to grasp the principles.
Recommended Posts