Talking past each other!

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

We spend a lot of time (especially on the Politics threads) trying to explain our views to others who don't seem to get the point and try to explain their views in way we don't get. This leads to a lot of "name calling" and lack of respect for another's viewpoint.

Is there a way in which we can resolve this?

Is there such a polarisation in political/societal/moral/religious perspectives that we can't stand in each other's shoes for a moment and see the world from there?

What can't you understand in others' arguments?

What can't others understand in yours?

This is intended to be a thread for understanding, not attacking each other. Please use it in that manner.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,246 • Replies: 34

No top replies

I'll give you a real life example, rather than start this on bi-partisan political lines.

Last December, I was discussing marriage proposals with two colleagues: one female and unmarried, one male and married.

I was wanting to discover their views on "asking permission" from a woman's father before formally proposing to her. I have a deep-rooted sense that it should be the woman's choice and that asking her father is one step on the way to considering a woman as a man's property, to be transferred from father to husband.

They argued that it was all about respect for the family (which I understood) and that the "property" point was irrelevant. The long and the short of it was that they couldn't understand how I could have a problem with it and I couldn't understand how they couldn't see my point.

Sure, they could have said "I see your point and I disagree". I would have been happier if they had...because I'm sure I have some kind of point, however much it is a minority view.

This is an example of the "talking past each other" point, not a point for its own discussion.

Any more for any more?

0 Replies

kitchenpete wrote:

We spend a lot of time (especially on the Politics threads) trying to explain our views to others who don't seem to get the point and try to explain their views in way we don't get.

I have encountered this problem quite often, but I don't think there is a good way to solve it. Most of the talking-past-each-other doesn't occur in the "howto"- or reference threads, where disagreements can easily be settled with evidence. They tend to turn up in threads involving ethics, most prominently in the politics and the religion forums. Some measure of talking past each other is inevitable there because nobody has a moral philosophy compelling enough that every nice and smart person must agree with it.

A second problem is when to stop arguing. For those of us who usually discuss answerable questions, the natural point seems to be when the other agrees with, or at least "gets", our position. This never happens, so we go round and round forever. One short-cutting rule I've been trying to follow for some time is that I stop arguing when I feel that I can't improve the way I present my position any further. But this rule creates its own problems. For one, people think I chicken out or are pissed with them when I leave the thread. Also, getting out when you can't improve on your presentation anymore leaves the thread to the ideologues and flame-throwers, which feels like a bad thing.

Your thread addresses an interesting problem, kitchenpete, but I am not holding my breath for these problems being solved.

0 Replies

the best way for me to zone out on a thread is the time that begins when everyone spends half their space by quoting an earlier post. Once this begins , it becomes a "he said ,- she said" post, in which everyone takes offense. then the thread spends half its time between 2 or more people who are there just to insult the other party. the entire title of the thread gets lost and gradually, what could have been an interesting thread, just dies.

The only threads that retain collegial civility are the art threads. On abuzz, a few years back, I saw a really heated nasty argument on a gardening thread. It was rather funny

0 Replies

Oh KP, talking past each other, my specialty. And a trait that was most prominant at the one and only A2k gathering I have been able to attend. We all talked all the time.

Finally I decided we talked over each other because we were used to posting at each other and not talking to each other.

However by the end of the week end I must say we were all getting much better meeting and dealing in person.

FM I remember the garden wars at Abuzz - what a hoot.

0 Replies

Something I try to do on occasion is to rephrase what the original poster has said to better understand what it is they are trying to say. Often times I see the poster and naturally assume the post will have a certain nature about it and will be pre-conditioned by previous posts to go into either attack mode or defense mode.

That gets in the way sometimes.

0 Replies

I've listened to younger people, in particular, have 'conversations' where one will say something like "I wore my red dress to the movies and John said he liked it." The other person will comment, "I'm wearing my new blue jeans tomorrow." It's not a conversation really. They're not talking to one another but AT one another, too involved with self to listen or focus on anyone else. Has anyone else witnessed this?

0 Replies

You talking ta me?

What'd you say again?

<grumble>

0 Replies

Thanks, all. Glad to see debate has opened up. Smile

One of my friends pointed out that arguments with his girlfriends were never "about anything"...the arguments came from the way in which things were said and spiralled out of control from there.

Maybe we're a little like that, here.

KP

0 Replies

Quote:

I've listened to younger people, in particular, have 'conversations' where one will say something like "I wore my red dress to the movies and John said he liked it." The other person will comment, "I'm wearing my new blue jeans tomorrow." It's not a conversation really.

eoe- When I read your post, something struck me. What you describe reminds me of the "parallel play" of two year olds. They may be together in a contained space, but they are not playing "with" each other. They are going around in their own circle!

0 Replies

Thomas writes:

Quote:

One short-cutting rule I've been trying to follow for some time is that I stop arguing when I feel that I can't improve the way I present my position any further. But this rule creates its own problems. For one, people think I chicken out or are pissed with them when I leave the thread. Also, getting out when you can't improve on your presentation anymore leaves the thread to the ideologues and flame-throwers, which feels like a bad thing.

\

I'm with you Thomas and I don't think you're 'chickening out' at all. There is something to the old saws: "Don't throw your pearls before swine where they will be trampled underfoot' (i.e. when all that is being said are the insults) or something about 'Don't argue with an idiot' (i.e. when some don't want to see any other point of view but their own) to "I can't improve on what I've already said.....' which is what you said.

I love the threads where people can and do explain their rationale for a point of view while showing respect for the opinions/views of others. Admittedly they are rare but they do happen in this forum and they are delightful.

0 Replies

Re: Talking past each other!

kitchenpete wrote:

Is there a way in which we can resolve this?

I think there is, but I am quite sure that the method for curing the problem will fall prey to the problem itself. All that is needed is to establish an agreed-upon standard for the citation of facts and evidence to support claims made. For instance, I'd advocate agreeing on a set of rules such as the following:

1) Don't make claims you can't support with facts.

2) Don't complain when others ask you to support your claims with facts.

3) Try to limit your sources to well-known entities whenever possible, and consider whether the source will have even the appearance of bias to the other side.

4) Make your case and leave it at that. Let others decide to accept that case or not. Don't muddy the waters by insisting that others acknowledge what you've written. If they were wont to do so, they wouldn't need prodding from you.

5) No name calling. This includes leaving off defining others with terms like "liberal", "conservative", etc. Define your position. Let others define theirs. Noting the political party of a person in question ("Democrat", "Republican") is fair game.

6) Try to think of these discussions as exchanges of information rather than battles to be won or lost. The goal should be an increase of knowledge on all sides. Look for areas of agreement; exploring these is often far more rewarding than banging heads in the areas of stark opposition.

7) Don't rise to the bait when someone insults you. It usually means you've presented them with evidence that their position is wrong, and they are trying to deflect attention away from this uncomfortable realization. Don't point this out to them, just let it go and move forward with substantive discussion.

I think those rules could form a good basis for starting off.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
What you describe reminds me of the "parallel play" of two year olds. They may be together in a contained space, but they are not playing "with" each other. They are going around in their own circle![/color][/b]

Exactly. It IS the conversation style of a little child, too young to realize that the world is so much bigger and broader than them. But I'm talking about 22 year olds. I used to work with many educated and talented young people and was astounded by their total and complete lack of concern about anything that did not directly involve them. Their lunchtime 'conversations' were a study in self centeredness.

0 Replies

eoe wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:
Quote:
What you describe reminds me of the "parallel play" of two year olds. They may be together in a contained space, but they are not playing "with" each other. They are going around in their own circle![/color][/b]

Exactly. It IS the conversation style of a little child, too young to realize that the world is so much bigger and broader than them. But I'm talking about 22 year olds. I used to work with many educated and talented young people and was astounded by their total and complete lack of concern about anything that did not directly involve them. Their lunchtime 'conversations' were a study in self centeredness.

I wonder whether these were products of the "self-esteem" movement. That's what they sound like to me. People raised to believe that the overriding question in the universe is "How do I feel today?"

0 Replies

Not all.

Wasn't this supposed to have been a hallmark of the "Me" generation?

Not new, and not true of all younger people, at all.

Meanwhile, interesting topic, KP.

0 Replies

Soz, you forced me to check over my posts to make sure I didn't say "all." I sure didn't mean all. That would sound pretty hopeless.

0 Replies

Scrat:

Quote:

1) Don't make claims you can't support with facts.

2) Don't complain when others ask you to support your claims with facts.

3) Try to limit your sources to well-known entities whenever possible, and consider whether the source will have even the appearance of bias to the other side.

4) Make your case and leave it at that. Let others decide to accept that case or not. Don't muddy the waters by insisting that others acknowledge what you've written. If they were wont to do so, they wouldn't need prodding from you.

5) No name calling. This includes leaving off defining others with terms like "liberal", "conservative", etc. Define your position. Let others define theirs. Noting the political party of a person in question ("Democrat", "Republican") is fair game.

Where are posters in A2K going to get facts??
Everyone quotes journalists, politicians, the president, cabinet members or senators, speaking on TV or published in articles.

I, for one, have a lot of respect for journalists and their opinions. It is not all that difficult to determine when they are putting a liberal or conservative spin on the news they are reporting.

But I have seen MANY posters challenged here, for agreeing with the educated or personal knowledge of a reporter. Yet the challenger usually cannot UNPROVE what the poster has written, so they challenge the poster to PROVE IT. Hence, comes an argument that might become flaming.

I have just about come to the conclusion, Kitchen Pete, that I have NO MORE to contribute to Politics in A2K. What is being done- is being done- for all the world to see. And the killing of Iraqis does NOT seem necessary to me-- Saddam is gone, his sons are gone, the regime is gone, but now, it looks like most of the people will be gone... WHY?

Just because they do not AGREE with President Bush and his military.
No other reason, that I can see.

0 Replies

Oh, I know, eoe, sorry. A theme seemed to be emerging about them young uns, and I wanted to get in that maybe some of 'em, but...

0 Replies

Jackie,

Thanks for your input. I do not wish this thread to be derailed by a discussion of the points on Iraq which you raise, however.

Others,

Thanks for participating. Maybe together we can make this site a better place...some hope! Laughing

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Oh, I know, eoe, sorry. A theme seemed to be emerging about them young uns, and I wanted to get in that maybe some of 'em, but...

Yes, my notion was that such a point of view might be more common among people of a certain generation/group, not exclusive to one.

0 Replies

Talking past each other!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know