On arguing *nicely*

[TuggyNE]

So, I've been thinking lately* that my postings are not really quite up to par.

Came up with an (attempt at an) acrostic: Considerate, Helpful, Irenic, Logical, Learning. Kinda cheesy, but whatcha gonna do?

Well, OK, you could suggest a better one, or more things that I forgot, or something. Why don't you do that then? :smallwink:

*This post has been sitting in Firefox's session store through at least a month of restarts, and only got cleared out because I was sick of having 200+ tabs in the list, even if most of them were unloaded. So Yeah.

[lsfreak]

*This post has been sitting in Firefox's session store through at least a month of restarts, and only got cleared out because I was sick of having 200+ tabs in the list, even if most of them were unloaded. So Yeah.

I have nothing to add, but it's nice to know I'm not alone. When I hit 200, I go through them and close the accidental/repeat/no-longer-important tabs.

[pendell]

Here are 25 ways to argue fairly in a marriage (http://www.foryourmarriage.org/25-ways-to-fight-fair/). It works fairly well with other people as well.

Some rules I personally observe:

1) Be fair, courteous, and respectful to your opponents. Acting childishly means they get childish right back.

2) Attack the *idea* , not the person *holding* the idea.

Good: " I don't think it's quite true that the MITD is a tarrasque. It's been discussed repeatedly [link] and the conclusion is pretty much that it's not."

Less good: "The MITD isn't a tarrasque, here's the link. Can't you read?"

Even worse : "GOSH you're stupid. How can you even believe such a thing?"

You see the progression. We start from quiet, reasonable discussion backed up with evidence down to angry discussion with personal invective down to just straight out flaming. And that last, ladies and gentleman, is something the mods will take notice of.

---
3) Give your opponents a chance to save face.

Most people have a hard time saying "I was wrong." Especially so if it means being humiliated. So if you want even the ghost of a chance of getting your point across, contrive it in such a way that the person can acknowledge your point without looking stupid. People threatened with humiliation will dig in their heels on a point regardless of how untenable it is.

---
4) Seek to find truth in discussion, not to *win*.

If you talk about things with the interest in testing ideas and determining their validity -- your own ideas as well as the other people in the conversation -- then you can actually make progress on finding out whether something is true or not. But if all your interested in is "winning" -- i.e., making yourself look good and humiliating the people you're arguing with -- then the conversation will get more and more heated and irrational because you can't FORCE someone to accept humiliation in an internet argument.

5) If you are insulted, don't hit back.
If someone says your idea is stupid, show politely and calmly and with evidence why you believe what you do. Acting in a reasonable manner can make even the most determined troll remember his better nature, if only for a moment.

Most human interactions are a form of role play. The more convincingly you play the role of "intelligent adult", the more other people find themselves playing along with you. But if you start roleplaying a child, then other people will either roleplay children right back or they'll roleplay parental authority figures. And then the mods step in and infract the first for being stupid and the second for vigilante modding.

6) If your boundaries are severely pushed, withdraw from the conversation .
You don't have to take abuse. If your opponent continues to throw metaphorical poo you can warn them: I don't have to take this from you. Stop it or I'm putting you on ignore. If they persist then go ahead and put them on ignore and never speak to them again but never, never, NEVER allow yourself to be dragged down to their level.

7) When you find yourself going around in circles, stop.
I contribute to discussions only so long as there are new points worth examining. If I find the same discussion has looped around the same topic more than once I stop talking about it. If a person isn't persuaded, getting in their face and saying it LOUDER will not change their minds. Or if it does, it shouldn't. It's unfair and irrational.

8) Be funny!
If you must be sarcastic or ridiculous, try to aim it some target like your own foibles or a well-known web comic or something so that everyone can laugh with you. But if you make a fellow board member a subject of your verbal wit and sarcasm, you will make an enemy. Especially if you are absolutely right. It's better to let people realize they're ridiculous and laugh at themselves than it is to make explicit they're ridiculous to their face and have them hate you.

9) Don't keep score.
I think I've already said this, but if your objective in conversation is to "win" or score points, play a werewolf game. If you're talking, it should be because someone else has asked for knowledge you have , or you have something to ask that others can answer. The only way an internet argument is ever won is if one person in the argument is willing to concede defeat. . You can encourage this by graciously conceding defeat when you lose (thereby making it easier for others to do so in their turn) and by making it as easy as possible for others to do the same when it is necessary.

10) My own personal rule of thumb: Act in all conversations as if the other person is perfectly willing to challenge you to a duel with swords or pistols if you offer unnecessary offense. I think that way because *I* am that way. I am frequently a boiling mass of seething rage, and because I do not want to be sent into a towering rage by someone else's discourtesy, I do all I can to treat others with maximum courtesy, in the hope they will do the same for me in return.

I hope that helps!

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[BWR]

At least half my posts never make it to the boards. Half of the rest are substantially rewritten before I hit submit. Sometimes I immediately go back and edit things I posted.

Thankfully, discussion on a forum allows you to step back, take your time and come with a measured response. Real life doesn't always allow this. Take advantage of this blessing and thoroughly reread your post before you hit Submit. Read it and think "am I trying to make a point or am I trying to score a point" If you're trying to score, don't hit submit. It's far too easy to get caught up in trying to be right and have everyone else acknowledge this and for the most part, getting worked up over what people you'll never have to game with do in their own games is rather silly.

Now if only I can take my own advice, I'd be a happier, calmer person.

[Moriwen]

My best "argue nicely" technique is, before I type something harsh, I close my eyes and picture saying that to the face of an actual, particular person. That's usually enough to turn back on the be-nice-to-people filters that keep real-life arguments from getting nasty as fast as internet arguments.

[valadil]

Long story short, I prefer a discussion to a debate.

I soften up my opinions by making them explicitly subjective. "That doesn't make sense to me," isn't an attack but if you omit the last two words it can become one. Same goes for opinions I share: "in my experiences..." This sort of phrasing doesn't assert that your view is the only one out there and reminds people that there are different backgrounds.

If someone does turn the thing into a debate I usually stop posting. Proving my point to someone on the Internet just isn't worth my time. I'm not above getting sucked in when I know better, but my general rule is to ignore threads that make me heated.

[Saturosian]

http://xkcd.com/438/

Mostly, what I want to say has been said. If something is meaner than what you would say in real life, that's a good sign you shouldn't say it. (Pro-tip: internet is real life, too) Also, rereading a post before it goes up, asking if you are going to open a can of worms is a good tip; if the person you are responding to really cares, they won't miss you just because you take a few minutes longer to post.

This comic (http://xkcd.com/1081/) actually has some pertinent advice, too. When I find myself getting a high heart rate because I'm angry with someone on the internet, I try to remember that it's a silly argument on the internet. IMO, stick figure guy *totally* won this argument because he realized that he was having a pointless argument anyway, and did something fun instead. Sometimes it's okay to let someone else have the last word. Sometimes, you don't have to reply to every response to your post, you know? Especially when you're dealing with a troll, and there is absolutely no point in doing anything else. 'if you wrestle a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it,' they say.

Of course, those are the things that I notice myself doing wrong. Maybe they don't apply so much to anyone else.

[TuggyNE]

Woo! Replies! I'm always slightly startled when I get replies on my thread.


Here are 25 ways to argue fairly in a marriage (http://www.foryourmarriage.org/25-ways-to-fight-fair/). It works fairly well with other people as well.

Nice list, yeah. I've seen a lot of those ideas before, but haven't necessarily applied them fully.


Some rules I personally observe:

1) Be fair, courteous, and respectful to your opponents. Acting childishly means they get childish right back.

Yep.


2) Attack the *idea* , not the person *holding* the idea.
[…]
You see the progression. We start from quiet, reasonable discussion backed up with evidence down to angry discussion with personal invective down to just straight out flaming. And that last, ladies and gentleman, is something the mods will take notice of.

For what it's worth, I'm not really starting this topic to avoid modly attentions of the negative sort; I haven't received any infractions, but that doesn't mean I've been as awesome as I'd like to be, or been as constructive as I could have.


3) Give your opponents a chance to save face.

Most people have a hard time saying "I was wrong." Especially so if it means being humiliated. So if you want even the ghost of a chance of getting your point across, contrive it in such a way that the person can acknowledge your point without looking stupid. People threatened with humiliation will dig in their heels on a point regardless of how untenable it is.

This is a tough one, because, even though I know it well, instinct and logic still scream to point out just how they're wrong — in detail, if necessary.


4) Seek to find truth in discussion, not to *win*.

If you talk about things with the interest in testing ideas and determining their validity -- your own ideas as well as the other people in the conversation -- then you can actually make progress on finding out whether something is true or not. But if all your interested in is "winning" -- i.e., making yourself look good and humiliating the people you're arguing with -- then the conversation will get more and more heated and irrational because you can't FORCE someone to accept humiliation in an internet argument.

I think I mostly manage this, but it's still good to be reminded pointedly of it.


5) If you are insulted, don't hit back.
If someone says your idea is stupid, show politely and calmly and with evidence why you believe what you do. Acting in a reasonable manner can make even the most determined troll remember his better nature, if only for a moment.

That last, while maybe true, doesn't generally result in any specific posts to that effect, you know. :smalltongue: Still, "do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him".


6) If your boundaries are severely pushed, withdraw from the conversation .
You don't have to take abuse. If your opponent continues to throw metaphorical poo you can warn them: I don't have to take this from you. Stop it or I'm putting you on ignore. If they persist then go ahead and put them on ignore and never speak to them again but never, never, NEVER allow yourself to be dragged down to their level.

Fortunately, I haven't had to deal with this much at all; I've put two or three posters on ignore, but they are either banned, no longer post, or I took them off again.


7) When you find yourself going around in circles, stop.
I contribute to discussions only so long as there are new points worth examining. If I find the same discussion has looped around the same topic more than once I stop talking about it. If a person isn't persuaded, getting in their face and saying it LOUDER will not change their minds. Or if it does, it shouldn't. It's unfair and irrational.

Yeah, sometimes you can dredge up useful stuff, but usually only by stopping for a while (hours, days, months) and really thinking about it from a new angle.


8) Be funny!
If you must be sarcastic or ridiculous, try to aim it some target like your own foibles or a well-known web comic or something so that everyone can laugh with you. But if you make a fellow board member a subject of your verbal wit and sarcasm, you will make an enemy. Especially if you are absolutely right. It's better to let people realize they're ridiculous and laugh at themselves than it is to make explicit they're ridiculous to their face and have them hate you.

Hmm, yeah, I should probably work on this more.


9) Don't keep score.
I think I've already said this, but if your objective in conversation is to "win" or score points, play a werewolf game. If you're talking, it should be because someone else has asked for knowledge you have , or you have something to ask that others can answer. The only way an internet argument is ever won is if one person in the argument is willing to concede defeat. . You can encourage this by graciously conceding defeat when you lose (thereby making it easier for others to do so in their turn) and by making it as easy as possible for others to do the same when it is necessary.

This… I have to confess that I do notably fail on this in one regard. Other than that, I do pretty well, but there's one person I still kind of keep score on. :smallredface:


10) My own personal rule of thumb: Act in all conversations as if the other person is perfectly willing to challenge you to a duel with swords or pistols if you offer unnecessary offense. I think that way because *I* am that way. I am frequently a boiling mass of seething rage, and because I do not want to be sent into a towering rage by someone else's discourtesy, I do all I can to treat others with maximum courtesy, in the hope they will do the same for me in return.

Heh. I used to have serious anger problems; I seldom do nowadays, but I don't remember those days with fondness. And I've hardly ever really wanted to give offense as such.

I will say, though, that your posts never seem to reflect that, so good job.


At least half my posts never make it to the boards. Half of the rest are substantially rewritten before I hit submit. Sometimes I immediately go back and edit things I posted.

I think I post about two thirds, although the rate has changed somewhat lately as I grow less diffident. Most of the result has been positive, but there have been some stupid factual errors, and probably at least a few unnecessarily provocative posts too.

I edit most of my posts once or twice before submitting, and rewrite a few, and edit-after-posting a few more.


Thankfully, discussion on a forum allows you to step back, take your time and come with a measured response. Real life doesn't always allow this. Take advantage of this blessing and thoroughly reread your post before you hit Submit. Read it and think "am I trying to make a point or am I trying to score a point" If you're trying to score, don't hit submit. It's far too easy to get caught up in trying to be right and have everyone else acknowledge this and for the most part, getting worked up over what people you'll never have to game with do in their own games is rather silly.

Hmm, yeah. Preview also works wonders. In really dubious cases, I ask a friend (most of whom seldom or never post here) for advice on rewording it.


Now if only I can take my own advice, I'd be a happier, calmer person.

Heh. The curse of most who have attained some measure of wisdom.


My best "argue nicely" technique is, before I type something harsh, I close my eyes and picture saying that to the face of an actual, particular person. That's usually enough to turn back on the be-nice-to-people filters that keep real-life arguments from getting nasty as fast as internet arguments.

For what it's worth, most of my conversations with friends are online as well, so there's less of a distinction there.


I soften up my opinions by making them explicitly subjective. "That doesn't make sense to me," isn't an attack but if you omit the last two words it can become one. Same goes for opinions I share: "in my experiences..." This sort of phrasing doesn't assert that your view is the only one out there and reminds people that there are different backgrounds.

This is a good idea, but it doesn't always work; it's helpful to stave off heated words to begin with, but can't necessarily salvage a discussion that's reached a certain point.

That said, the most interesting thing about the Web is how absurdly different people are, and yet how much the same.


If someone does turn the thing into a debate I usually stop posting. Proving my point to someone on the Internet just isn't worth my time. I'm not above getting sucked in when I know better, but my general rule is to ignore threads that make me heated.

I'll often either retreat to a skimming sort of post, only touching on some peripheral issue, or just not post at all, depending. The first is… maybe not very helpful, in that it doesn't really fix the discussion, only dilutes it.


I have nothing to add, but it's nice to know I'm not alone. When I hit 200, I go through them and close the accidental/repeat/no-longer-important tabs.

Sad thing here is most of them were still interesting, and only one was a repeat, so I had to work on whittling them down the harder way, by adding to various lists. Still got about 30 tabs of "comics I'm considering reading" to run through, and one of them in particular (Drowtales) takes FOREVER to get through the archive. And I'm saying this as the guy who can power through Schlock Mercenary in a few days, or Worm in a week. FOREVER, I tell you.


Mostly, what I want to say has been said. If something is meaner than what you would say in real life, that's a good sign you shouldn't say it. (Pro-tip: internet is real life, too) Also, rereading a post before it goes up, asking if you are going to open a can of worms is a good tip; if the person you are responding to really cares, they won't miss you just because you take a few minutes longer to post.

Yah. I suppose you can tell a lot of posts I've seriously pondered whether to actually submit or not by how far separated they are from their quotes; if it's more than 12 hours, chances are excellent I let it sit through another round of drafting.


This comic (http://xkcd.com/1081/) actually has some pertinent advice, too. When I find myself getting a high heart rate because I'm angry with someone on the internet, I try to remember that it's a silly argument on the internet. IMO, stick figure guy *totally* won this argument because he realized that he was having a pointless argument anyway, and did something fun instead. Sometimes it's okay to let someone else have the last word. Sometimes, you don't have to reply to every response to your post, you know? Especially when you're dealing with a troll, and there is absolutely no point in doing anything else. 'if you wrestle a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it,' they say.

Which is generally the time the image macros or cute sayings come out. :smallwink:

Put another way, continuing an argument after a certain point is just an implicit sunk cost fallacy: "surely I can manage to make all my previous wasted time investment in this thread return a profit, right?" But fallacies are only fallacies because they're so attractive.


Of course, those are the things that I notice myself doing wrong. Maybe they don't apply so much to anyone else.

Oh, I think they do; most of us suffer at least one or two, and probably a fair number suffer more than that. If nothing else, few get any kind of decent training in these sorts of life skills, but just have to blunder their way along.

And if you only have those two problems, you're doing rather well.

[Brother Oni]

10) My own personal rule of thumb: Act in all conversations as if the other person is perfectly willing to challenge you to a duel with swords or pistols if you offer unnecessary offense.

My own personal rule is related to this one - I don't say things over the internet that I wouldn't say in person, although I'm not quite as high class as pendell (non-Queensbury's rules fisticuffs or broken bottles rather than pistols at dawn). :smalltongue:

[pendell]

My own personal rule is related to this one - I don't say things over the internet that I wouldn't say in person, although I'm not quite as high class as pendell (non-Queensbury's rules fisticuffs or broken bottles rather than pistols at dawn). :smalltongue:

Quite. Although I'm partial to hand grenades at 10 feet myself. *Evil grin*.

Which brings up what may be some points from the old Code Duello (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/sfeature/rulesofdueling.html)

Italics mine.



Rule 5. As a blow is strictly prohibited under any circumstances among gentlemen, no verbal apology can be received for such an insult. The alternatives, therefore -- the offender handing a cane to the injured party, to be used on his own back, at the same time begging pardon; firing on until one or both are disabled; or exchanging three shots, and then asking pardon without proffer of the cane.

Rule 6. If A gives B the lie, and B retorts by a blow (being the two greatest offenses), no reconciliation can take place till after two discharges each, or a severe hit; after which B may beg A's pardon humbly for the blow and then A may explain simply for the lie; because a blow is never allowable, and the offense of the lie, therefore, merges in it. (See preceding rules.)

...

Rule 9. All imputations of cheating at play, races, etc., to be considered equivalent to a blow; but may be reconciled after one shot, on admitting their falsehood and begging pardon publicly.

Rule 10. Any insult to a lady under a gentleman's care or protection to be considered as, by one degree, a greater offense than if given to the gentleman personally, and to be regulated accordingly.

Rule 13. No dumb shooting or firing in the air is admissible in any case. The challenger ought not to have challenged without receiving offense; and the challenged ought, if he gave offense, to have made an apology before he came on the ground; therefore, children's play must be dishonorable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited.



The bits in italics, when applied to normal conversation, work just as well on the internet. The fundamental assumption is that the person you are addressing, as a human being, is worthy of consideration and honor as such.

So it's a good idea not to indulge in personal attacks on another but confine ourselves to discussing the matter at hand. Above all, it's a good idea to avoid accusing another person of bad faith or questioning their motives or dragging irrelevancies into the conversation for the purpose of bashing the other. If there is any benefit of the doubt I will extend it, and if there IS no possible doubt I'll either report them to the mods or put them on ignore. There is no value in continuing a conversation with a troll or a liar or a fool.

After all, on the internet we don't have the ability to actually call out a person for being rude and insufferable. But we do have something almost as good: Ignore. Or blocking on facebook. Or any of a number of other utilities. I can make any person on the internet go out of MY personal universe as surely as if I'd pulled the trigger. So there's no need to tolerate foolishness. Instead, I try to conduct myself as a person of worth and expect the same of those I talk to. And if these conditions will not apply, I will simply withdraw rather than waste my time . Like my family used to say about wrestling pigs: It gets you all muddy and the pig likes it!

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Brother Oni]

Like my family used to say about wrestling pigs: It gets you all muddy and the pig likes it!

The one I'm more familiar with is "Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." but they essentially say the same thing. :smallbiggrin:

[Karoht]

Remain objective whenever possible, try to use objective means of describing or compairing something. Differences of a subjective nature are hard to resolve, typically these differences are where one simply 'agrees to disagree'

IE-I like vanilla more than chocolate. While we can argue the objective nature of the discussion until we are blue in the face, we can't change the fact that I like one more than I like the other. As such, any sort of discussion on the matter is likely to go no where.

It sounds a bit silly to compartmentalize every discussion/arguement you have into such a dichotomy, but when you recognize that the thing you are discussing is subjective, it is easier to accept that it isn't likely to change or adjust, and then adjust yourself accordingly.

Then there is my personal favorite. Certain people are really good at this. And it drives me up the wall. Constantly.
The objective/subjective deflection.

IE-Couple at a grocery store
A: Do have jam in the house?
B: You don't even like jam.

B could just answer with yes or no. But instead, B replies with an unrelated subjective statement (which is also somewhat objective, but not entirely). I've seen this in the supermarket, spiral into complete arguements all the way up to a shouting match. Why B doesn't answer the yes/no question? No idea. Maybe B just feels like being obtuse. Maybe B's mind is skipping to the conclussion that the question is irrelevant. The ball is in A's court now. A can either bring the question back around to trying to remain objective, or counter with a subjective that explains why the question is irrelivant.

A: My mom is coming over next week. She likes toast and jam for breakfast. Eats it religously every morning. So, do we have jam in the house, or should we pick some up?
Much better response than the all too often curt response of "just answer the question."

[tomandtish]

Remain objective whenever possible, try to use objective means of describing or compairing something. Differences of a subjective nature are hard to resolve, typically these differences are where one simply 'agrees to disagree'


Exactly. Most arguments on the internet are subjective anyway. It's your opinion vs. my opinion. One isn't right or wrong. We can try and change the other's opinion, but there's no objective right or wrong on whether Star Wars is better than Star Trek. So there's no point in getting upset about it.


IE-I like vanilla more than chocolate. While we can argue the objective nature of the discussion until we are blue in the face, we can't change the fact that I like one more than I like the other. As such, any sort of discussion on the matter is likely to go no where.

Yay! Another kindred soul!

Psst. You know, we are actually objectively right on this one. Now if those chocolate people would just realize the universal truth.... :smallbiggrin:

[PlusSixPelican]

I tend to argue nicely up front, although if I get flustered I end up trying to point out my view on the other side's position in around the most honest (read as brutal and borderline unfair) ways I can.

And on the sword-duels, I would like to think every now and then (ie if I was fighting someone who would fall for this) I would moon the enemy for the shock value, and then sucker punch them when they're distracted by bum. Or, honestly, just pull my pistol (assuming this is some kind of academic fencing situation, and as such, having access to reliable personal munitions) and get some projectile metal in their chest. One could accuse me of bringing a gun to a sword fight, but my opponent clearly brought a sword to a gun fight.

I overthink things. :3

[Jubal_Barca]

The best way to win an argument is, I find, not so much to convince someone that they were wrong as to essentially take part of their argument, spin it against another part - so in other words they have to modify their opinion on #A precisely BECAUSE they were right about #B. That way everyone wins.

(I am aware this sounds convoluted, but you wouldn't believe how useful it's been for me discussing politics in an area where I'm... in a minority, put it that way).

On sword-duels... I have heard that Bonetti's defence is fitting in rocky terrain. :smallbiggrin:

[Aedilred]

And on the sword-duels, I would like to think every now and then (ie if I was fighting someone who would fall for this) I would moon the enemy for the shock value, and then sucker punch them when they're distracted by bum. Or, honestly, just pull my pistol (assuming this is some kind of academic fencing situation, and as such, having access to reliable personal munitions) and get some projectile metal in their chest. One could accuse me of bringing a gun to a sword fight, but my opponent clearly brought a sword to a gun fight.

I think you've missed the point of the duel, there...

In any case, weapons would be agreed in advance on such an occasion.