A communication thread

Discussion in 'About the Members' started by pjdude1219, Jul 16, 2010.

  1. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    It seems to me that a lot of problems on this forum because of it diverse membership stem from a lack of awareness of how people feel about topics and their reasons for their views and opinions. So what the hell I say and so I create this thread so people can explain their reasons for the beliefs. the ones that of rational but of the irrational. To many times people have stepped one someones toes with out realizing it. this thread is not about arguing if your going to respond ask why questions, find the reasons, don't accuse and go your wrong. So to start this off I am going to go into depth about some of my reasons behind my beliefs on a controversial topic: Israel/Palestine.

    Israel/Palestine

    Well one of the defining things was that everyone must play by the same rules. The same standards should apply to all. I must of heard this hundreds of times during my childhood after fights with my brother. Because of this I have an intense dislike different rules and such things to either benefit or discriminate against people. So how does this factor into the debate and my beliefs on it? Well lets be honest a completely separate standard and procedure was put into place to get the jewish people a country than from the standards that other countries. Because of that I find it hard to swallow the claims that its creation were just. For my mind if it was truly that just you would get it if you followed all the normal rules and such. The fact that special rules were made to me shouts that it was inherently unjust. I mean no likes it when people get ahead of them because of something outside of merit and the rules.

    second part on my beliefs is well the holocaust and the general abuses the Nazis inflicted on people. My german grandfather was in a work camp. If it weren't for his priest meeting him on the road and convincing him to go back I might not be hear because they would have shot him. His crime would have been to leave the camp on an unschedculed day to go see his sister. He has numbers tattoed on him from those days. He bears scar on his psyche to this day that show in his actions and choices. I also happen to be polish. my family came to be here around 1900. they left family behind in poland. they were still there when the Nazis and soviets invaded. what little contact there was with them was lost during the war. I do not believe anyone is completely sure what happened to them. they are probably either dead or resettled in another country with no way of finding them. I see Israel's action not than those of people wanting to be safe from an overwhemling power but those of powerful abusers. I see what happened to my family in Europe being repeated in palestine and it horrfies me.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Slysoon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    155
    People’s personal stories and sensitivities have no place in influencing healthy discussion or debate. It is not anybody’s responsibility to alter the way they would communicate on an Internet message forum based on knowledge they could not possibly be expected to have before hand. If you want my advice, it is best to leave emotions and personal tales at the door. We all have upbringings and experiences which shape our diverse views, but the trick is to validate these views through information rather than winning over sympathies.

    If your method to approaching all topics remains consistent, you will project an image of objectivity. Objectivity can also be reflected in your posts through style and structure: avoid excessive use of “I”, “me”, and “my”; use an authoritative tone, and refuse to react emotionally to anything anybody has to say. Instead, make them react to you; you will have won half the battle. The differences may be subtle, but the reactions will be easy to spot. Remaining emotionally detached from whatever it is you are arguing will instill respect in others and increase the likelihood of them believing in what you have to say.

    Bottom line, you should not expect people to know, acknowledge or sympathize with your emotive rationale behind any topic. You should instead expect people to require information, and do your part to provide it. Otherwise, you have no business arguing through a medium which enables anonymity. To answer your question, the reasons behind my beliefs are twofold: either I have come to believe them through knowledge and information, or I have personally accepted them on account of they work for me and feel instinctually right in the process. The former are beliefs I tend to argue on scientific forums such as this; the latter I keep to myself, until such time that they can be validated through a means that speaks to everybody.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    emotion sways far more people than logic has. understanding the emotional reasons people have for beliefs allows one to make a better argument.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Slysoon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    155
    If swaying people is your goal, then emotion is a far more adept tool than knowledge. But you are forgetting that science is not concerned with “swaying” people in any direction, and this is a scientific forum. The best you can do is objectively present your argument and leave it to be interpreted as it may.

    And remember, the emotions behind your rationale do not only serve to make arguments - they serve to interpret them, as well. You must acknowledge that regardless of what you believe, and your reasons for believing so, some people will not accept it for their own reasons.
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    A basic distinction

    People are not robots. Personal experience shapes how people perceive and respond to stimuli. What might seem otherwise inexplicable to some can possibly be resolved according to their context if the explanation is both given and received in good faith. For instance—

    —why should one, then, not expect that other people will understand the point and respond appropriately, e.g., consistently with the presenter?

    In our pursuit of objectivity, humans can easily make the mistake of confusing different kinds of stimuli. If one explains the reasons he believes something, and the other cites emotion as a demerit of the argument, it is the other who is at fault. If one simply appeals to emotion in lieu of facts, the other is right to call out the fallacy. But the two conditions are not equal in their intent or value. Seeking to make them so is an effort to simplify the response by conveniently misrepresenting the argument.
     
  9. Slysoon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    155
    People's personal experiences do not contribute to scientific thought. Even subjects such as religion, politics and history can be approached in some semblance of scientific manner.

    If you do your part to provide information through a means which anybody can relate to, and the other person does not "understand the point and respond appropriately", then you simply move on. Nobody involved in any science should make it a priority of theirs to change the minds of others. Our non-robotic nature and vested interests are what sometimes disallow us from accepting otherwise sound explanations. Ignorance will show; let that be that.

    Arguments which involve or appeal to emotion are not inherently wrong, but they are interpreted as subjective, and treated thusly. It is best to avoid being selfish and provide the person you are in discussion with a real reason to believe in what you are saying, and make this process easier for them by eschewing anything that would make your post appear less objective and less succinct.

    You will encounter some who do not believe in your experiences, some who cannot relate to your experiences, and others still who simply will not care about your experiences. Especially on the Internet, where there is no eye contact.
     
  10. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061

    There's no horror in communications. In communications it is regularly and often shown that we're all much more the same than most of us are comfortable admitting.
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Cut away the dead flesh?

    I agree with the latter, but the former misses the point. Personal experiences shape people's perception and understanding of information.

    Though Sciforums is asserted to appeal to rational and scientific discussion, one thing it has never been, nor intended to be, is a scientific journal. The mythical "Intelligent Community" would incorporate certain characteristics of science—e.g., objectivity, rational consideration, and even peer review—into its social fabric. But we cannot, will not, and do not expect people to emotionally flatline in order to participate here.

    I think the bigger challenge at Sciforums is that many people will presume your perspective and its motivation. If—

    "People's personal stories and sensitivities have no place in influencing healthy discussion or debate."​

    —then we must reconsider what passes for healthy debate around here. And then what shall we do? Surgery? Excise the tumor?

    Because, functionally speaking, one effect of what you suggest is that it would be both pointless and inappropriate to disabuse another member of their erroneous, presumptuous notions about what one is saying or why one says it.
     
  12. Gypsi Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    98
    I was recently reading Einstein's Science and Religion lecture, in which he says this:

    and this:

    In other words, science is driven by experiences and emotions.
     

Share This Page