#3542 1:09:30- Discussing fundamental matters on Facebook or anywhere other than face to face in a quiet place.

[Ninja]

Why should one not use Facebook or other platforms other than in an essentially secret place?

 

In my opinion using these platforms allow people to review discussions between people and reflect on the content. Hash tags and other tools are helpful in finding relative topics.

 

Stefan posts links on Facebook that are discussions about fundamental matters encapsulated in time. The ability to review and reflect on discussions is an essential aspect of the effectiveness of FDR as a knowledge resource.

[Ninja]

Are you saying you believe having a discussion on Facebook inhibits the ability to effectively communicate an argument?

I'd like to understand what objective of communication is failed by communicating through written words or through social media platforms.

[Will Torbald]

Are you saying you believe having a discussion on Facebook inhibits the ability to effectively communicate an argument?

I'd like to understand what objective of communication is failed by communicating through written words or through social media platforms.

 

An important cause of bad discussions on mainstream social media is that people's positions are not taken for their truth content, but their social status value. A normal person will defend insanity if it gets them social points with the people they want to socialize with. Facebook is made to reinforce people's positions, not to change them, by tribalizing discourse. 

[DaVinci]

An important cause of bad discussions on mainstream social media is that people's positions are not taken for their truth content, but their social status value. A normal person will defend insanity if it gets them social points with the people they want to socialize with. Facebook is made to reinforce people's positions, not to change them, by tribalizing discourse. 

 

If people aren't open to considering what you are saying then why would that change in person?

[luxfelix]

An important cause of bad discussions on mainstream social media is that people's positions are not taken for their truth content, but their social status value. A normal person will defend insanity if it gets them social points with the people they want to socialize with. Facebook is made to reinforce people's positions, not to change them, by tribalizing discourse. 

 

That makes sense.

 

Would private messaging via Facebook be immune to tribalizing discourse? 

[dsayers]

Having important and emotionally challenging discussions via text on Facebook is a guaranteed failure.

Isn't FDRs position regarding race relations that the ways in which the black community is told they're going to fail takes away hope and sort of leads to a self-fulfilling prophesy?

 

The success of important and emotionally challenging discussions is predicated on the honesty, integrity, vulnerability, and investment of those involved, not the medium through which they exchange these things.

 

"Guaranteed failure" is such absolutist language that unless you're talking about a fact (2+2=4 absolutely), it's almost certainly a false claim.

[thecurrentyear]

Want to call in and discuss it with Stefan on the show? That would be much more enjoyable than typing text replies.

What you did there...I see it

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Facebook isn't just bad because of communicating via text, the way the platform is set up, you get a game of "whoever posts last wins". You see this on Youtube comments, too.

[Ninja]

Yes. I'd love to call in to the show!

 

I've spent a bit of time reflecting on the difference between oral and written methods of sharing knowledge. I've also spend a great deal of time having txt discussions through online platforms including Facebook that I feel have a greater positive impact on the understanding both parties have of any given subject opposed to what would result not having addressed the idea because it isn't possible to meet in person.

 

What inspired me to create this thread was that I was surprised at Stefans comment made at the time signature listed in the title of this thread. I listened to the comment a few times over and decided that his intended tone was more serious than sarcastic.

 

Want to call in and discuss it with Stefan on the show? That would be much more enjoyable than typing text replies.

[Wuzzums]

Stefan posts links on Facebook that are discussions about fundamental matters encapsulated in time. The ability to review and reflect on discussions is an essential aspect of the effectiveness of FDR as a knowledge resource.

 

You actually think people would spend the time to go over someone else's walls of text because they're so engaging and the arguments put fort are so enlightening?

When 2 strangers talk through text it's either to reinforce their preconvictions or to virtue signal.

You can no more communicate with someone effectively over text than you can listen to music by looking at sheet music. I'm not saying it can't be done, but humans haven't evolved to talk through text.

[Ninja]

Yes. That's the idea of the message board. You just reviewed the text on this thread because you desired to find something engaging. What you read was engaging enough that you joined the discussion.

If the discussion happened in real time it would have been over and obsolete by the time you were able to log on.

 

After some time has passed if you return and review the discussion you will continue to expand on your ideas simply from having something to contrast your immediate beliefs about the subject of discussion.

In fact, your own opinions can serve to contrast your present state of perception about any given subject. That is one of the great tools acquired with the practice of keeping a journal.

 

You actually think people would spend the time to go over someone else's walls of text because they're so engaging and the arguments put fort are so enlightening?

When 2 strangers talk through text it's either to reinforce their preconvictions or to virtue signal.

You can no more communicate with someone effectively over text than you can listen to music by looking at sheet music. I'm not saying it can't be done, but humans haven't evolved to talk through text.

[Wuzzums]

Yes. That's the idea of the message board. You just reviewed the text on this thread because you desired to find something engaging. What you read was engaging enough that you joined the discussion.

If the discussion happened in real time it would have been over and obsolete by the time you were able to log on.

 

After some time has passed if you return and review the discussion you will continue to expand on your ideas simply from having something to contrast your immediate beliefs about the subject of discussion.

In fact, your own opinions can serve to contrast your present state of perception about any given subject. That is one of the great tools acquired with the practice of keeping a journal.

 

 

But this was a conversation about ideas. None of us are emotionally invested in it and none of us have ongoing relationships depending on it.

[DaVinci]

Facebook isn't just bad because of communicating via text, the way the platform is set up, you get a game of "whoever posts last wins". You see this on Youtube comments, too.

That's possible even when talking to people in person. If someone wants to "morally position" themselves I don't see how the medium changes anything. 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

That's possible even when talking to people in person. If someone wants to "morally position" themselves I don't see how the medium changes anything.

 

Sure, I'm just saying that it's so easy to do on FB that you can pretty nuch expect every "discussion" to end that way.

[shirgall]

Why should one not use Facebook or other platforms other than in an essentially secret place?

 

I admit to having conversations in the FDR forum on Facebook that I wouldn't have in front of strangers, my putative "friends" list on Facebook, or even some of my family members, but I wouldn't be embarrassed by them or disavow them if confronted. What I don't invite is flame wars and concern trolling.

 

Even so I post a bunch of stuff hear that's public, easily found, and it's trivial to figure out who I am in real life or if you know me in real life you could google what I post here. I guess this is the kind of anonymity one reasonably expects when having a conversation with someone in the Mall food court, not a secret bunker.

[Ninja]

But this was a conversation about ideas. None of us are emotionally invested in it and none of us have ongoing relationships depending on it.

I think I understand where you're coming from.

 

Discussions are usually about ideas.

 

The emotions associated are relative to the affect the idea has on ones life.

 

That's why feminism is generally more of a challenging subject to discuss for women v.s men's rights.

 

Important things are emotionally triggering.

 

If I see someone on fb post an article about the patriarchy degenerating women's health with a caption that reads something like 'when are we going to send men to mars and take back our right to mother earth'

 

I'm going to use the comment utility to express my thoughts.

 

I wouldn't silence myself because I am afraid of emotionally triggering the poster, in fact, if they become emotional it would give me hope that they have some intrinsic value in finding the truth.

 

I am more afraid of violence toward men based on gender than someone on fb calling me a troll for taking the time to present an argument.

 

I wouldn't only reach the poster, I'd reach everyone who read the thread.

 

I can't expect to know if they will appeal to reason or correct me if I'm wrong but sometimes just knowing that there is information out there that is opposed to ones current ideology is enough shit for a seed to grow in

[Gavitor]

Face to face is the best way to communicate because you get immediate feedback in the form of body language and tonality. With text you can't always tell whether someone is just bullshitting or is actually serious. This is also why things like "Poe's law" exist. Texting and Facebook messaging is a very impersonal way to communicate, it's also inefficient.

 

Most people also hate reading a giant wall of text and will usually skim it. In the time it took you to write and proof read it you could have actually gotten well into a meaningful conversation in person.

 

If the topic is really important to you then that is even more reason to have the conversation face to face. Kinda how its considered tacky to break up with someone via text or email.

 

If you can't have conversations about fundamental matters face to face with someone I would question your relationship with that person.

[shirgall]

Ironically, a certain local moderator recently joined the Facebook FDR group to check out a thread...

[shirgall]

This shows that you didn't understand Stefan's original comments. We'll address it on the show soon...

 

I understood it to mean that one should not have important personal discussions on an online medium but instead face-to-face. That doesn't mean the event I mentioned is not ironic.

[adamNJ]

Are you saying you believe having a discussion on Facebook inhibits the ability to effectively communicate an argument?

I'd like to understand what objective of communication is failed by communicating through written words or through social media platforms.

Emotion, its hard to gauge what a person is feeling via text.  A great deal of communication is non-verbal, that is lost in text. With recent advancement in emojis that's beginning to change.

[Ninja]

Emotion, its hard to gauge what a person is feeling via text. A great deal of communication is non-verbal, that is lost in text. With recent advancement in emojis that's beginning to change.

[Rventurelli]

Want to call in and discuss it with Stefan on the show? That would be much more enjoyable than typing text replies.

In my humble opinion that is a biased statement. I am much better in communicating over writing than over spoken words. I am a visual learner and my personality type (INTJ-A) is better in writing than speaking. Introvert people in general prefer written forms of communication over talking over the phone or over strangers in person.

 

While it is very interesting to listen to the call in shows and I entertain the idea of calling Mr. Molyneux one day, I have difficulty remembering lectures, speeches and other things over spoken word (I lose about 80 percent of the content, so I have to constantly be watching/listening the same video to remember its contents), while I can remember so well things I read (around 80 percent) that I can often remember the font used, page format, pictures and graphs of it.

 

When someone calls me, unless I am expecting the call and/or am doing some repetitive task like doing dishes, my first reaction if it is a saved number is to immediately hang up the call and if in good mood or getting repeated calls, text the person asking what is it about.

[shirgall]

This shows that you didn't understand Stefan's original comments. We'll address it on the show soon...

 

I'm caught up to January 7th call-in show at this point and I still haven't heard my comment being addressed. Can you give a hint?