How to reduce the friction here at DU

[NJmaverick]

NanceGreggs' excellent post, titled Bulk Reply, got me thinking about this very useful set of guidelines. I have seen that a great deal of the friction created on message boards, is a result of posters failing to appreciate and differentiate their statements. I have personally found the distinctions below, to be quite helpful.


Distinguishing Between Fact, Opinion, Belief, and Prejudice

When forming personal convictions, we often interpret factual evidence through the filter of our values, feelings, tastes, and past experiences. Hence, most statements we make in speaking and writing are assertions of fact, opinion, belief, or prejudice. The usefulness and acceptability of an assertion can be improved or diminished by the nature of the assertion, depending on which of the following categories it falls into:

A fact is verifiable. We can determine whether it is true by researching the evidence. This may involve numbers, dates, testimony, etc. (Ex.: "World War II ended in 1945.") The truth of the fact is beyond argument if one can assume that measuring devices or records or memories are correct. Facts provide crucial support for the assertion of an argument. However, facts by themselves are worthless unless we put them in context, draw conclusions, and, thus, give them meaning.

An opinion is a judgment based on facts, an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion from factual evidence. (For example, we know that millions of people go without proper medical care, and so you form the opinion that the country should institute national health insurance even though it would cost billions of dollars.) An opinion is potentially changeable--depending on how the evidence is interpreted. By themselves, opinions have little power to convince. You must always let your reader know what your evidence is and how it led you to arrive at your opinion.

Unlike an opinion, a belief is a conviction based on cultural or personal faith, morality, or values. Statements such as "Capital punishment is legalized murder" are often called "opinions" because they express viewpoints, but they are not based on facts or other evidence. They cannot be disproved or even contested in a rational or logical manner. Since beliefs are inarguable, they cannot serve as the thesis of a formal argument. (Emotional appeals can, of course, be useful if you happen to know that your audience shares those beliefs.)

Another kind of assertion that has no place in serious argumentation is prejudice, a half-baked opinion based on insufficient or unexamined evidence. (Ex.: "Women are bad drivers.") Unlike a belief, a prejudice is testable: it can be contested and disproved on the basis of facts. We often form prejudices or accept them from others--family, friends, the media, etc.--without questioning their meaning or testing their truth. At best, prejudices are careless oversimplifications. At worst, they reflect a narrow-minded view of the world. Most of all, they are not likely to win the confidence or agreement of your readers.

(Adapted from: Fowler, H. Ramsey. The Little, Brown Handbook. Boston: Little, Brown, 1986.)

[bryant69]

1. Bad exaple of a fact

The only thing we can verify is that a lot of people remember the war ending in that year and a bunch of books agree it ended in that year. In a few years we'll just have the books.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[NJmaverick]

2. There are also formal surrender documents, I would assume they are archived some where

I checked out your link, which article is related to this issue.

[bryant69]

9. Nothing - i'm what they call a blogwhore - first response to a thread always has link to my blog. nt

[KSinTX]

3. A prejudice can actually be a fact

if contested and proven to be so. If it were determined that the majority of vehicular accidents were caused by women and had a higher incidence of near misses, then that particular prejudice would become fact. Not all narrow-minded views are entirely without basis in fact, it is when they are taken beyond the realm of fact and used to paint a picture beyond those factually substantiated that they become untenable.

As a general set of guidelines, however, you make some great points. I agree in part with your thesis but would add that in addition to fine tuning our filters, the more likely problem on the message boards is the formulation of a logical argument. It is the nature of the board to zing rapidly and be first. This tends to be a one-line retort seeking impact not to impart information. Your guide applies to the latter and has little bearing on the former.

[NJmaverick]

4. I think it's how it's worded. If you say on average, rather than just say women

you really change the statement, in a subtle yet important way.

I agree about the one liners. I think it's not just a time sensative thing, it's also part of the mistaken belief that the "winner" of a debate/discussion is the one that has more people agreeing with him/her.

[KSinTX]

5. Not terribly unlike a popularity contest, no?

But it is a bit time sensitive. If you join too late, the TV minute crowd has moved on to the next fun thing and you're lucky if the OP responsds.

[NJmaverick]

7. Very true

Especially if it's a heavily discussed OP. The late comers are really not heard.

[madinmaryland]

6. Another excellent idea, would be for people to admit when they were

wrong about something.

:shrug:

[NJmaverick]

8. I agree, that is another major problem

so many people refuse to concede even the smallest point.

[Midlodemocrat]

10. Some people are incapable of that.

:shrug:

[NJmaverick]

11. So people make it easier to be incapable of that

they engage in group think, where they think the more people on their side, the righter they are. If that flawed way of thinking was broken, maybe there would be more pressue of them to admit when they are wrong.

[KSinTX]

14. Peer pressure 'victim 'or obstinate non-conformist

I think we get both sides here - one side won't back down because they feel others will back them up; the other does so to simply ride against the tide for the sake of doing so.

[Midlodemocrat]

15. Some people just like to argue for the sake of arguing.

No substance, just one personal attack after another. It gets very boring.

[KSinTX]

19. I know I haven't been here all that long but I've always wondered

when someone posts something so patently trivial or offensive, why people don't just let it drop like a rock. Instead, they will pile onto a one-line, insipid statement and while feigning distaste and/or outrage keep feeding the beast. It is, despite majority disagreement, reverse troll-baiting in perfected form, is it not?

[Midlodemocrat]

20. What I've seen is that the pile one comes

from a pattern of behavior that people find intolerable. Some of the worst flame wars in the lounge featured folks from all different viewpoints who had just gotten 'fed up'.

YMMV.

[NJmaverick]

29. The lounge has a very interesting set of dynamics. There is a group of people that have

banded together to form a sort of cyber bully gang. Individually they are not particularly skilled or impressive, but they love to team up (as they feel there is strength in numbers). It's not uncommon for them to even use the lounge as a bulletin board to get their gang to show up on threads on other boards. They like to think that their numbers someone proves their points are right or some how better. It's the bad underside of an otherwise nice place to hang out.

[NJmaverick]

28. Feigning outrage and distates, is hobby many internet citizens love to partake in

it gives them a false sense of moral superiority.

[KSinTX]

35. I admit I have engaged in a couple of free-for-alls

but not from superiority, for the sport. I find that once a thread has gone over a couple hundred replies, everyone's pretty much stopped listening and it's branched among so many people, you're not picking on any one individual. I've also seen threads in which every response is to a single individual and normally stand down; unless, of course, that person is making a point of firing back at each responder. That is their sport - an endurance test of sorts - and shouldn't be confused with someone trying to make a legitimate point and is attacked for it.

That's why I like coming over here to have these sorts of broader discussions. The one-liners are so GDP!

[NJmaverick]

36. In some ways the architecture of the board

creates the situation you are talking about. There really is no easy way to see the most recent replies. So you can look at direct responses to your own posts, or you can reread and keep rereading a thread. After so many posts, that just becomes impractical.

[NJmaverick]

27. I have seen more group think here, then people that love to argue

although many of the group thinkers love to argue and attack, they just lack the ability to do so on their own. Many of them love to operate in secret (through PMs and the like), just like cock roaches like to operate in the dark.

[lame54]

12. It wasn't an excellent post - it was a bunch of straw-men arguments...

and if Obama loses to McCain she will probably be the first one to write a thread demanding to know where the Hillary supporters were.
NanceGreggs post a lot of great threads but, to say that Obama doesn't need Hillary supporters is reckless.
Obama needs every single vote he can get

[madinmaryland]

16. I agree. It was not one of her better posts.

[KSinTX]

17. But NancyGreggs needs not one vote from anyone

Obama, you correctly note, needs every single vote he can get. That NancyGreggs, a private citizen, voiced her opinion is meaningless to the discourse of who can best govern our country. If it were, we would base our votes on the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Chris Matthews who, IMHO, are irrelevant to my assessment of eligibility for the presidency. They may entertain me (and in a rare case inform me) but they nor Nancy (love her soul) do not mold me.

[madinmaryland]

18. She does seem to be trying to mold the opinions in GDP in the name of

unity (though in a very divisive way). As I indicated, had she approached her thread in a candidate neutral way, it would have been a very powerful statement.



:shrug:

[KSinTX]

21. I think you're missing my point

I listen to Sean Hannity from time to time. I recognize that he is editorializing information and seeking to influence the thoughts of those around him. I choose to listen, sift through the chaff (which most of it is), try to understand the crux of his issues and reject the leftovers.

The saddest part of what I hear you saying, is that you believe that by posting a highly opinionated thread could have swayed the thinking of GDP posters. I would LIKE to think that that sort of higher-order thinking happens outside the confines of a message board, but on some level you could be right only in that many bounce between their computer and the TV commentary and back. Where I think you are wrong, however, is that somehow this sort of rhetoric will persuade. Perhaps earlier in the cycle that might have been true. At this point, I suspect it will not. But for you, I only hope your sense of political savvy is developed beyond the Mbps that is DU.

[madinmaryland]

22. Maybe I did not phrase my statement that well.

If by posting a highly opinionated thread, then what in god's name is she trying to do besides persuade? Isn't that kind of the point of posting in GD:PP????

Unfortunately GD:Pffth has degenerated into a cess-pool of personal attacks of all candidates from all sides.

I am glad you are able to stomach Sean Hannity. I don't know why you would want to listen to someone that you have to filter through the garbage to actually find any facts?

:shrug:

[KSinTX]

24. Military training - in order to fight the enemy

you have to know what they're thinking! You position your strategy based on what you know of theirs.

I've seen you a bit around the sand box (and now you're on my buddy list, poor you :)) and figure you've been around long enough to know that posting sometimes is about the percs: will I be rec'd, will I get lots of feedback, will they like me. Not a shot at NancyG or anyone in particular, but here it's about "Greatest Hits" other places it's the "Rec List."

GDP has taken on a life of its own (although in existence before I came along) and I suspect the Admins saw it coming and decided to quarantine it. Very foresightful on their part!

[madinmaryland]

25. I posted this a couple months back in GD:P...

so it might explain why I didn't get it out right the first time!!1!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4612415

[KSinTX]

26. So sorry to hear that

hope you are better. I enjoy more than the drive-by snark and even if you didn't get it right the first time, I swear we've come quite far through a process. It seems to work quite well considering the good folks I've met along the way! Feel better, I PM'd you and will be looking to see you around.

Peace

[NJmaverick]

34. I think most of the things she complained about or pointed out

wouldn't have happened if people were more careful with the concepts of fact, opinion and belief.

[Indenturedebtor]

13. You have to watch this video. It's very instructive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOR4qekHWlA

Most important series of instructions since the whole manual on building an altar thing in the Torah.

Mmm Hmmmm.

[NJmaverick]

30. This has what to do with the topic at hand?????

this seems more like spam, then a post that contributes anything.

[Indenturedebtor]

32. Nothing... it was a half assed attempt at humor and gave you a kick.

Spam would have been completely random! And personally I think that you should appreciate the capacity of humor to "reduce friction" :P

Good OP btw ;) here's another kick

[NJmaverick]

33. You are right, humor is a great tool

:hi:

[KSinTX]

37. Sure, sure ... trying to pay off them bills no doubt!

:hi: You may have a point. Things like that do bring down the temp.

[Bluebear]

23. I had to do a double take on this one.

[Reader Rabbit]

31. Stop rubbing up against each other?

:shrug: