Re: Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.
coberst wrote:Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.
It seems to me that the forum members who participate in a thread approach the experience invigorated with much the same attitude as does a boxer entering the ring or a soldier going into battle.
Metaphor entailments (to transmit or to accompany) we live by:
He attacked my argument.
I have never beaten this guy in an argument.
If you do not agree with my statement then take your best shot.
I shot down each of his arguments.
I think some of these metaphors are somewhat strained. While I agree (up to a point) with the title, I think the comparison isn't always valid. For one, I can't succesfully apply it to myself. I try to understand everything said, and once I perceive the meaning and argumentation of a poster, if I feel I have something constructive to add, I'll try to supply my own opinion.
Your metaphor implies complete antagonism... In other words, simply disagreeing with a post and opposing it simply because it comes from a
poster perceived to be an opponent. In other words, I think constructive argumentation is possible (but not probable). You seem to preclude it from the getgo.
coberst wrote:
We approach a forum response much like we approach a physical contest. We have a gut feeling about some things because our sense of correctness comes from our bodies. Our "gut feeling" often informs us as to the ?'correctness' of some phenomenon. This gut feeling is an attitude; it is one of many types of attitudes. What can we say about this attitude, this gut feeling?
Where is the ratio here? Argumentation requires more then just 'gut feelings' As for 'correctness', a lot of that (in fora topics as well) comes from morals, which are also to a large extent formed by the examples set by parents, teachers and friends.
coberst wrote:
"Metaphors we live by", a book about cognitive science coauthored by Lakoff and Johnson, says a great deal about this attitude. Conceptual metaphor theory, the underlying theory of cognitive science contained in this book, explains how our knowledge is ?'grounded' in the precise manner in which we optimally interact with the world.
"The essence of metaphor is understanding one kind of thing in terms of anotherÂ…The metaphor is not merely in the words we use?-it is in the very concept of an argument. The language of argument is not poetic, fanciful, or rhetorical: it is literal. We talk about arguments that way because we conceive of them in that way?-and we act according to the way we conceive of things."?-Lakoff and Johnson
Let us say that in early childhood I had my first fight with my brother. There was hitting, shoving, crying, screaming, and anger. Neural structure was placed in a mental space that contained the characteristics of this first combat, this was combat #1. Six months later I have a fight with the neighbor kid and we do all the routine thing kids do when fighting.
This is where metaphor theory does its thing. This theory proposes that the characteristics contained in the mental space, combat #1, are automatically mapped into the mental space that is becoming combat #2. The contents of combat #1 become a primary metaphor and the characteristics form the fundamental structure of mental space combat #2.
This example applies to all the experiences a person has. The primary experience is structured into a mental space and thereafter when a similar experience is happening the primary experience becomes the primary metaphor for the next like experience. This primary metaphor becomes the foundation for a concept whether the concept is concrete experience or abstract experience.
The ultimate consequence of this theory would be that each of us winds up with a distinctively unique set of metaphors, based on our own primary experiences. I'd like to point out that first and foremost a metaphor is a tool in language. It is meant to convey a certain image (as aptly explained by you). In order to correctly convey the image, and the relation it has to the discussed/observed phenomenon, all participants in the discussion must understand the metaphor.
This cannot be guaranteed with this definition. The way I understand certain metaphors, as related to my own life experiences, can be different from the way you experience them, or, for that matter, from anybody else. With that in mind, how can a metaphor ever be used as a tool in conveying a certain message?
Another question, how does passively fed information fit into this? I have never participated in a war, does this mean I am incapable of applying/understanding war-related metaphors? I of course have an idea of what a war would be like, which is based on multiple information streams from different sources in the course of my life.
But, all of this is going off topic a bit, I 'll grant you that.
coberst wrote:
What I am saying is that for some reason the Internet discussion forum member considers engaging in a forum thread is a competition, it is a combat, and the primary combat metaphor is mapped into the mental space of this forum experience and thus the forum experience takes on the combat type experience. It seems to that is why lots of forum activity gets very combative.
Ehm. In your explanation, you state that the experiences from a certain perceived phenomenon B are stored in a mental state that has to a large extent been pre-formed by a similar phenomenon A, which was the first occurence of that phenomenon in my life.
Now, you state that the mental state formed by this phenomenon A (boxing, war), for some further unspecified reason also applies to a totally unrelated phenomenon C (forum posting)?
coberst wrote:
Is it any wonder that the adrenalin starts pumping as soon as we start reading the responses to our post?
Yes and no. It is exciting if someone who is intellectually equal or (as is far more probable, in my case) superior deigns to reason with you in a forum topic. I dont think my adrenalin starts pumping though (unless we are once again using metaphors
)
coberst wrote:
Do you feel like you are in a battle with me after reading my claims?
Not necessarily.
Shapeless wrote:
Does the problem lie primarily with "young people"? I can think of avowedly older A2Kers, for example, who spend almost all of their time on here berating contemporary society for their intellectual laziness, criticizing institutions of higher learning for their (unsubstantiated) flaws, and even preemptively chastizing people for not having library cards in their wallets. I'd be curious to hear what advice you would prescribe to such relentlessly negative older folks who apparently share the belief with young people that being negative is cool.
Being negative seems to be prevalent in all generations. There are so many possible reasons why people turn negative it is impossible to describe them in any single post. As for internet fora... Well, people are anonimous. The only way they are seen is in their posts.
By disagreeing with a poster you get more attention, and get more possibilities to formulate your own opinions, then by agreeing.
Since agreeing to a poster implies to a large extent confining yourself to the parameters set by that poster. At best, you could add(ress) some minor issues.
Last but not least, the seniors might also become more vocal in internet fora since their other options for sharing opinions become more limited.
