ForumGarden

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.

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?

“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 another¦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.

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.

Is it any wonder that the adrenalin starts pumping as soon as we start reading the responses to our post?

Do you feel like you are in a battle with me after reading my claims?

Is this why most replies are negative?

No! I do not feel like I am in a battle with you.

I was really hoping you were going to talk about the real philosphy of war. That has given me trouble in the past.

WRONG!!





....





:D





I think a stronger variable you didn't mention is the motivation for posting. If everyone were required to respond to every post, I think you'd find a far more passive bent to the correspondence.



I seldom respond on threads where there is a strong argument that expresses my thoughts. I mean, that would be redundant, right?

I find the same people seem to go in with the same agenda every time. That pretty much kills any hope for discussion.

You are correct. There are many attitudes toward argumentation. I do however think that the common view is that if we are having an argument we are engaged in a verbal altercation. If I tell some one that I had an argument with Dave most people will think hat we ‘had words’.

That may be true, Coberst. I know that's what I would think; that you had words with him.

no:D

What is your theory on the creation of threads? I believe the same percentage of motivation applies as the motives for replying.

I'd also note that there is a view held towards people who only reply to their own threads.

What do you think that view is, coberst?

Koan

I do not have a ready answer for either question. I suspect you might. Will you share it with us? I have been posting on these Internet forums for almost 4 years and have developed ideas but it is impossible to do anything but speculate.

The range of reasons is as broad as the imagination.

It's rather like asking why someone got married or turned down a job... the reason has a surface and many undercurrents.

The only thing we can know is what we think and even the person who says or does the thing rarely knows the full answer.



As to what folks think about the latter... generally they consider it antisocial.

coberst;722509 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.

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?

“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 another¦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.

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.

Is it any wonder that the adrenalin starts pumping as soon as we start reading the responses to our post?

Do you feel like you are in a battle with me after reading my claims?

Is this why most replies are negative?


On one level people join a forum for general chit chat and don't want anything beyond that. Some join because they like to discuss things with people who see things differently from them and seek out forums where they can do that. Most do a bit of both or find they like that aspect and get involved.

From where I post it's probably clear to anyone that's read them that I am very much of the latter disposition I like the ones where people have a different world view from my own- especially on religion and politics -you learn nothing unless you talk to people who see things differently from you and are capable of putting their point of view without getting personal. Most people on this forum are and I thoroughly enjoy disagreeing with them. many have given me food for thought and a few have had me looking up dictionaries to see what he funny words mean. The level is higher than most of the forums I have looked at.

Some view impassioned debate as being combative and mistake disagreement with a point of view for personal dislike. Some when disagreed with realise they haven't thought about what they think and either learn to express themselves better and reinforce their point of view, get angry because they take it personally and end up name calling because that's all they're capable of, maybe change their attitude slightly or just agree to differ amicably and leave it at that.

Some observers can't stand to see people arguing and make the assumption that things are getting heated and personal when in reality it's just impassioned debate that the participants are having fun engaging in. I can't understand people taking things personally but I'm probably a bit funny.

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.


No it's not-it's a form of entertainment in the same way going down the pub or joining a debating society is a form of entertainment. Or at least I see it as being that. If there's no interesting things going on I will do something else or start a thread either in fun or to provoke a debate.

Do you feel like you are in a battle with me after reading my claims?


No. But i disagree with your claims.

Is this why most replies are negative?


Whose replies to what?

jimbo;722882 wrote: but what can be said of people that refuse to argue on the forum does this mean they are cowards or does it mean that they dont have opinions worth defending ???



or does it mean that they are morons that would rather have a happy time somewhere else and let the thinkers and fighters get on with it


I think sometimes both depending on the situation. You see how I get into these spats and I often feel like the underdog when that happens but I won't give up my stance unless I feel I'm wrong. That's something that annoys a lot of people. Yet when that happens I get a load of PMs from quiet people telling me they agree but they don't like confrontation. (Believe it or not, I don't like it either.) Sometimes I've thought, "If you agree, why am I the only one sticking my neck out? Why write to me when you could speak your piece in the thread?" (I don't mean that rudely either; I appreciate the PMs.) But sometimes that isn't the case and people have enough guff in their lives to deal with and they just want a good peaceful time. I think it takes both kinds.

There is no right or wrong in any clean cut sort of way.

There are the outspoken people and the ones who cheer (both sides) in the background. The whole point for me is, as gmc said quite well, to hone my written skills. I prefer arguing with people who challenge me to write better, more efficiently and more passionately. As a result I'm seen as all kinds of unpleasant things.

I even angered someone into joining the forum recently just to fight me and I'm incredibly happy that I was able to add that to the garden.

RedGlitter;722896 wrote: I think sometimes both depending on the situation. You see how I get into these spats and I often feel like the underdog when that happens but I won't give up my stance unless I feel I'm wrong. That's something that annoys a lot of people. Yet when that happens I get a load of PMs from quiet people telling me they agree but they don't like confrontation. (Believe it or not, I don't like it either.) Sometimes I've thought, "If you agree, why am I the only one sticking my neck out? Why write to me when you could speak your piece in the thread?" (I don't mean that rudely either; I appreciate the PMs.) But sometimes that isn't the case and people have enough guff in their lives to deal with and they just want a good peaceful time. I think it takes both kinds.


Are ya saying ya wanna me to stop pm'ing ya Terri :wah::wah:

ThePheasant;722950 wrote: Are ya saying ya wanna me to stop pm'ing ya Terri :wah::wah:


Hehe hehe!! Ummm......:rolleyes:

No, I'm only funning!! I enjoy your PMs!

RedGlitter;722953 wrote: Hehe hehe!! Ummm......:rolleyes:

No, I'm only funning!! I enjoy your PMs!


:wah::wah:

There have been occasions when we have not agreed on a subject, or debated different views. Its good that thats has never affected our friendship. That I admire in a person.

So lets say 50/60 pm's a day good for you :wah:

ThePheasant;722955 wrote: :wah::wah:

There have been occasions when we have not agreed on a subject, or debated different views. Its good that thats has never affected our friendship. That I admire in a person.

So lets say 50/60 pm's a day good for you :wah:


Absolutely! I get happy when I have PMs in my mailbox!

Jester;722988 wrote: LMHO!:wah:

I feel so much better now that I know you really didn’t mean what you wrote and that you were just practicing your debate writing skills. You had me going for sure! I really thought you meant that stuff! I am so relieved!


another great example of how you read what you want to see.

What part of that implied that I argue things I don't believe in? I'm merely saying that whether I "win" or "lose" the debate is irrelevant. No one really wins an internet debate. Even if the thread dies someone is likely to pick it up again a year later.

gmc

I have been posting on these Internet forums for 4 years and I guess during that period I have posted in 50 different forums.

The larger the membership the younger the members. Young members tend to swarm out like bees from a hive when I post on their forums. They do not like my kind of posts and they attack like ants when their den is kicked in. I also think that many young people think of these forums as being verbal vdeo games. They also use war like avatars taken from video games.

coberst;723095 wrote: gmc

I have been posting on these Internet forums for 4 years and I guess during that period I have posted in 50 different forums.

The larger the membership the younger the members. Young members tend to swarm out like bees from a hive when I post on their forums. They do not like my kind of posts and they attack like ants when their den is kicked in. I also think that many young people think of these forums as being verbal vdeo games. They also use war like avatars taken from video games.


Should be fun then. the idiots will make smartalec comments and get bored quickly the more intelligent should be able to give you a run for your money. If you can't win them over by your argument then so be it. If by negative replies you mean people disagree with you then I suggest you don't bother posting. If it's not to provoke debate-or to muse theirs-why bother posting at all? The young are by nature aguementative, opinionated, quite often ignorant and not in the last impressed by the aged. I wasn't when I was younger now I amuse myself as younger relatives assuming I don't know what I am talking and ignore advice learn the same lessons I did having also ignored advice from elders.

I get the impression you feel you are entering a battleground and feel inadequate in the face of opposition.

I dont mind a debate, but i dont like arguing What i mean is i dont like it when it seems to develop in to a personal fight, or one person stops debating and gets annoyed, you can sometimes see that happening. Anyway fighting or rowing makes me unhappy and i dont like being unhappy:p

gmc;723109 wrote: Should be fun then. the idiots will make smartalec comments and get bored quickly the more intelligent should be able to give you a run for your money. If you can't win them over by your argument then so be it. If by negative replies you mean people disagree with you then I suggest you don't bother posting. If it's not to provoke debate-or to muse theirs-why bother posting at all? The young are by nature aguementative, opinionated, quite often ignorant and not in the last impressed by the aged. I wasn't when I was younger now I amuse myself as younger relatives assuming I don't know what I am talking and ignore advice learn the same lessons I did having also ignored advice from elders.

I get the impression you feel you are entering a battleground and feel inadequate in the face of opposition.


Comprehension is a hierarchy and can usefully be thought of as like a pyramide. Awareness at the base followed by consciousness (awareness plus attention). Then comes knowing with understanding at the pinnacle.

I post ideas that most readers are not conscious of. I am not trying to teach but I am trying to help the reader make that first and second step toward acquiring knowledge and perhaps understanding. Hopefully this will arouse the reader's curiosity such that they will go to the books or to Google to get their answers. Perhaps they may even become self-actualizing self-learners with this start.

I think that part of the problem is that too many of us have only an accept button and a reject button.

Accept or reject are not the only options one has. The most important and generally overlooked, especially by the young, is the option to ‘hold’.

It appears to me that many young people consider that ‘to be negative is to be cool’. This leads them into responding that ‘X’ is false when responding to an OP that states that ‘X’ is true.

When a person takes a public position affirming or denying the truth of ‘Y’ they are often locking themselves into a difficult position. If their original position was based on opinion rather than judgment their ego will not easily allow them to change position once they have studied and analyzed ‘Y’.

The moral of this story is that holding a default position of ‘reject or accept’, when we are ignorant, is not smart because our ego will fight any attempt to modify the opinion with a later judgment. Silence, or questions directed at comprehending the matter under consideration, is the smart decision for everyone’s default position.

Our options are reject, accept, and hold. I think that ‘hold’ is the most important and should be the most often used because everyone is ignorant of almost everything.

coberst;723296 wrote: I think that part of the problem is that too many of us have only an accept button and a reject button.



Accept or reject are not the only options one has. The most important and generally overlooked, especially by the young, is the option to ‘hold’.



It appears to me that many young people consider that ‘to be negative is to be cool’. This leads them into responding that ‘X’ is false when responding to an OP that states that ‘X’ is true.



When a person takes a public position affirming or denying the truth of ‘Y’ they are often locking themselves into a difficult position. If their original position was based on opinion rather than judgment their ego will not easily allow them to change position once they have studied and analyzed ‘Y’.



The moral of this story is that holding a default position of ‘reject or accept’, when we are ignorant, is not smart because our ego will fight any attempt to modify the opinion with a later judgment. Silence, or questions directed at comprehending the matter under consideration, is the smart decision for everyone’s default position.



Our options are reject, accept, and hold. I think that ‘hold’ is the most important and should be the most often used because everyone is ignorant of almost everything.



I believe I will hold on to this thought.