The Efficacious Forum Participant

[Infinitatis]

Many of us spend our free time here on this forum. This forum is a place where ideas are born, spread, and grown. In order for an idea to be born, one must wonder; in order for an idea to be spread, one must convince; and in order for an idea to be grown, one must consider.

The Birth of the Idea
As many us are insatiably curious, we have no trouble generating ideas. Ideas tend to come naturally us, for we scrutinize the preconceptions of society and the universe and are generally unsusceptible to uninformed suppositions. Mankind has gained knowledge throughout time by simply asking "Why?".

The Spreading of the Idea
In our minds, we believe ourselves to be brilliant theorists. In the present, we believe ourselves to be right. If one does not think oneself is right, one would not think what one thinks. Many of us would be content if no one agreed with our arguments, but it is probably reasonable to assume that most of us value others' opinions.

If we want to be heard, we must convince. Present your argument thoroughly and cogently, and be careful to not overgeneralize. Nobody shares the exact same perspective about every matter, so it is detrimental to your argument if you assume they do, regardless of whether or not your argument is correct.

Be respectful. There exists a fine line between criticism and insult. It is difficult to reason with someone who is concerned with trivial and petty matters, and there comes a time when it is made apparent to the other that there is no point in continuing the argument.

Realize that it is possible for someone to disagree with you, however coherent your argument may be. Furthermore, don't discourage debate—welcome it. What's the point in participating in a forum if everyone has the same opinion?

The Growing of the Idea
Debate is what propels an idea. What began as a mere notion can become an elaborate theory. Do you value your opinion more, less, or equally to others' opinions?

By valuing your opinion over another, you could be subject to bias and narrow-mindedness—neither of which are helpful in a debate. (This is not to say that you should acquiesce to another's idea, but rather that you should maintain an open mind to divergent perspectives.)

By valuing another's opinion over your's, you have subordinated your thinking to another's, which is equally as unproductive to a debate. (This is not to say that you should hold your ground for the sake of holding your ground, but rather that you should only agree with someone if you truly agree.) Agreement should not necessarily be equated with a fruitful discussion.

By viewing both opinions under the same light, that is when the most productive and insightful debates take place. Be glad that others are able to see things differently than you, for it is by that reason in which we learn.

Thanks for reading. I hope that this will help anyone who needs it.

 

[TheManBeyond]

not me. cya

 

[Pyropyro]

Eh debate is kinda boring here. It's like someone suddenly propped up a cardboard box and then begins to preach for no apparent reason while I'm hanging out with my friends. I'll probably be game if said OP's actually researched the things that come out of their mouths.

I have enough of that kind of "arguments" from the IRL liberal college students that I have to put up with.

 

[Tannhauser]

Eh debate is kinda boring here. It's like someone suddenly propped up a cardboard box and then begins to preach for no apparent reason while I'm hanging out with my friends. I'll probably be game if said OP's actually researched the things that come out of their mouths.

I have enough of that kind of "arguments" from the IRL liberal college students that I have to put up with.

When was the last time you started a well-researched thread?

 

[Absurdity]

When was the last time you started a well-researched thread?

No u

 

[Tannhauser]

No no, Pyropyro is correct. We should shut down any attempt at increasing the quality of discussion, and stick to telling eachother how uninteresting the threads are.

I don't know how many interesting threads I have made, but I know how many posts I have made where I wrote negative shit about the forum: zero.

 

[Brontosaurie]

No no, Pyropyro is correct. We should shut down any attempt at increasing the quality of discussion, and stick to telling eachother how uninteresting the threads are.

No u

 

[Tannhauser]

And btw: huge props to OP for a brilliant post.

 

[Pyropyro]

When was the last time you started a well-researched thread?

I don't start threads unless I need help. If you seek a well-researched thread then check Yellow's threads at the Science section. We have a good conversation there most of the time.

I'm still observing OP at the moment, so far they have the eloquence but I cannot still see if they have substance to offer. As said earlier, I've encountered this many many times.

 

[kora]

"In our minds, we believe ourselves to be brilliant theorists. In the present, we believe ourselves to be right. If one does not think oneself is right, one would not think what one thinks. Many of us would be content if no one agreed with our arguments, but it is probably reasonable to assume that most of us value others' opinions."

I basically think I'm an idiot and others will immediately agree, can I still join ?

I start threads to gather opinions. The more variety the better.

 

[Pyropyro]

"In our minds, we believe ourselves to be brilliant theorists. In the present, we believe ourselves to be right. If one does not think oneself is right, one would not think what one thinks. Many of us would be content if no one agreed with our arguments, but it is probably reasonable to assume that most of us value others' opinions."

I basically think I'm an idiot and others will immediately agree, can I still join ?

I start threads to gather opinions. The more variety the better.

<Bold mine> Indeed, pretentious BS at the first sentence trapped in eloquent language. If you already think you're brilliant then you won't even bother working with the forum in the first place.

 

[Pyropyro]

I don't know how many interesting threads I have made, but I know how many posts I have made where I wrote negative shit about the forum: zero.

Actually you just made an interesting thread recently: http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=23730

Why do I think this thread is interesting?

1. You have a concrete problem

2. You have a concrete perspective about the problem and the issues that bother you

3. You are willing to ask for help to get rid of said problem

4. You are honest and straightforward in asking for help. In a sense, you are speaking on behalf of others who are too shy or too much in the lurker mode to speak about the same problem. That I can respect.

Now let's go to this thread:

1. There's pre-judgment right in front on how you should act

2. Vague motherhood statements that you can't just help but agree but gets you nowhere.

3. It's a rehash about basic forum and debate decency. It's nothing new.

4. It has no point of where one can add new knowledge or any new insights.

5. Pretentious wordings. I'm not a native English speaker but who use "Efficacious" instead of "successful" or "effective" in daily conversations? A more naive person would simply agree since they're already intimidated by the big words being lobbed at them.

 

[Infinitatis]

1. There's pre-judgment right in front on how you should act

This thread was intended to guide those who seek help with their debate technique—not to ensure that they conform to what I believe constructs a worthwhile debate. Furthermore, part of what I believe constructs a worthwhile debate is when all participating individuals "only agree with someone if [they] truly agree," as I have stated. Therefore, if one does not agree with my advice, one should not agree, unless one is convinced.

2. Vague motherhood statements that you can't just help but agree but gets you nowhere.

3. It's a rehash about basic forum and debate decency. It's nothing new.

If what I have stated is so obvious and unobjectionable, why have many forum users continued to provide empty, groundless, and repetitive arguments?

4. It has no point of where one can add new knowledge or any new insights.

Again, these are guidelines—take 'em or leave 'em. Even so, one may agree or disagree with these, in which one can choose to provide their own insight detailing one's beliefs.

5. Pretentious wordings. I'm not a native English speaker but who use "Efficacious" instead of "successful" or "effective" in daily conversations? A more naive person would simply agree since they're already intimidated by the big words being lobbed at them.

If you take issue with my preference for brevity, there is nothing for me to say with regard to that. You may assign any cynical interpretation of such as you please, but I will speak and write as I please. Referring to what I have previously said, uninformed acquiescence to my or anyone's opinion is contradictory to what I have suggested.

I'm still observing OP at the moment, so far they have the eloquence but I cannot still see if they have substance to offer. As said earlier, I've encountered this many many times.

If you have been retaining any cogent criticism of my intellectual ability, I encourage you to inform me so I am able to improve accordingly. As you have not shown me any reasoning for why you believe my posts lack substance, I remain to believe that they do contain substance, for many have sparked interesting debates and have influenced how several people think about certain matters (according to responses that indicate a change in opinion or commendation of my own).

<Bold mine> Indeed, pretentious BS at the first sentence trapped in eloquent language. If you already think you're brilliant then you won't even bother working with the forum in the first place.

Perhaps you have misconstrued the meaning of what I had meant by "we believe ourselves to be brilliant theorists." I do not mean we believe we are indisputably right. By that, I mean we believe we our right at the present point in time. Believing that one is right does not necessitate that one will continue to believe one is right, for the open-minded individual is able to be convinced by a reasonable argument. Upon modifying one's opinion, one resumes the state of believing oneself to be right (yet knowing that they were not previously right).

And just to reinforce the take-it-or-leave-it nature of this thread:

Thanks for reading. I hope that this will help anyone who needs it.

 

[Pyropyro]

I was talking to Tannhauser. They seem to be unnecessary hard on themselves and their contributions because they're not eloquent. I'm convincing them eloquence, while important and beautiful to read, is only secondary to actual substance.

But oh well. I guess I need to talk to you too.

This thread was intended to guide those who seek help with their debate technique—not to ensure that they conform to what I believe constructs a worthwhile debate. Furthermore, part of what I believe constructs a worthwhile debate is when all participating individuals "only agree with someone if [they] truly agree," as I have stated. Therefore, if one does not agree with my advice, one should not agree, unless one is convinced.

What did I tell you about motherhood statements. Tell me. How can you attack or enforce A=A? Because you're giving me A=A.

If what I have stated is so obvious and unobjectionable, why have many forum users continued to provide empty, groundless, and repetitive arguments?

Yeah, like loaded questions. Tell you what. Get your proof about this big statement of yours then I'll see if you actually have substance. After all, you wish to have a good debate and improve our debating skills, yes?

I want actual posts and your interpretation about the flaws in their arguments. Big claims need big references. Call them out, they can take it (we even have a fun place called THE ARENA for that). Heck, I've been called out here and got better because of it. That's why I like this place. If you really want them to grow then prove it by correcting them letting them grow.

so empty = define why they lack the substance that you seek

groundless = define what fallacious statements they are using

repetitive = provide multiple posts of the same member and then find the common flaws that they say.

Give something concrete.

Again, these are guidelines—take 'em or leave 'em. Even so, one may agree or disagree with these, in which one can choose to provide their own insight detailing one's beliefs.

Again motherhood statement. I can say "You can freely write in the forum and the others are free to discuss it" and you'll agree since that's basically what you are saying here. It also what we've been doing in the past few years here. But your wording makes it sound smart though (hence eloquence which I think is a positive trait that you have).

If you take issue with my preference for brevity, there is nothing for me to say with regard to that. You may assign any cynical interpretation of such as you please, but I will speak and write as I please. Referring to what I have previously said, uninformed acquiescence to my or anyone's opinion is contradictory to what I have suggested.

And I'll call you out as I please. If you don't provide a good argument for me to work with I will ask you to do so until you do.

If you have been retaining any cogent criticism of my intellectual ability, I encourage you to inform me so I am able to improve accordingly. As you have not shown me any reasoning for why you believe my posts lack substance, I remain to believe that they do contain substance, for many have sparked interesting debates and have influenced how several people think about certain matters (according to responses that indicate a change in opinion or commendation of my own).

I'm not insulting your intelligence. I'm questioning your way of sharing it. Look, I use motherhood statements too, but I don't dedicate an entire article containing just that.

Look how MLK does it. He mixes motherhood statements (see 2nd paragraph) with references (Emancipation Proclamation, the Declaration of Independence heck even the prophet Amos if you're pushing it) and calls for action where he's vulnerable for retort (unfortunately he was killed because of his ability to confront but that's the risk one has to take).

Eloquence is awesome even in debates, heck we even have "Balagtasan" where the debate must be done in poetic verse. Here's a lighthearted and children's balagtasan about intelligence vs. industriousness.

And I disagree with you and don't you shift the burden of proof to me since you're the one providing the big claims then going on to circuitous answers when called out especially in your selfishness thread.

Perhaps you have misconstrued the meaning of what I had meant by "we believe ourselves to be brilliant theorists." I do not mean we believe we are indisputably right. By that, I mean we believe we our right at the present point in time. Believing that one is right does not necessitate that one will continue to believe one is right, for the open-minded individual is able to be convinced by a reasonable argument. Upon modifying one's opinion, one resumes the state of believing oneself to be right (yet knowing that they were not previously right).

Again motherhood statement. Readers will feel smart and all though.

 

[redbaron]

Eh debate is kinda boring here. It's like someone suddenly propped up a cardboard box and then begins to preach for no apparent reason while I'm hanging out with my friends.

Excuse me but my box is made of teak. I'd never stoop so low as to use cardboard for my soapbox!

Also OP reminds me of Duxwing. I think I'll refer to him as Dux Lite.

 

[Pyropyro]

Excuse me but my box is made of teak. I'd never stoop so low as to use cardboard for my soapbox!

*Throws bunch of termites at redbaron's teak box*

 

[Tannhauser]

I don't start threads unless I need help. If you seek a well-researched thread then check Yellow's threads at the Science section. We have a good conversation there most of the time.

I'm still observing OP at the moment, so far they have the eloquence but I cannot still see if they have substance to offer. As said earlier, I've encountered this many many times.

I don't really care about whether people start well-researched threads or not. What I found slightly tasteless was the reply in that negative tone to someone who wrote a good post about how to discuss ideas. What is the point of criticizing that? Or even more paradoxically: what is the point of criticizing that while simultaneously stating that the discussion on the forum is bad?

And if you think his post didn't state the problem/solution clearly enough, or that the point was bogged down in eloquence, why don't you contribute with good points yourself?

Actually, I think you misunderstood the point in the OP. If you think that people mostly get up on a soapbox and just preach and all that, then the OP is meant to address exactly that: how to present theories and complex ideas without coming off as a preacher. And it is not, as you seem to assume, about the form of forum posts in general.

 

[Pyropyro]

I don't really care about whether people start well-researched threads or not.

That's disappointing.

What I found slightly tasteless was the reply in that negative tone to someone who wrote a good post about how to discuss ideas. What is the point of criticizing that? Or even more paradoxically: what is the point of criticizing that while simultaneously stating that the discussion on the forum is bad?

Per the OP, I'm free to agree and disagree and to take their advice or not. Am I wrong in exercising the very statement that they provided? What's the difference then whether I use a negative or positive tone? It is within the spirit of OP's claim regardless of the tone. By the way, why don't you answer on how my criticism is wrong given that I'm affirming what OP said. You obviously not seeing how the OP is seeing it. You have to have an open-mind and take my opinion in a proper manner.
(see how stupid an answer this looks)

I don't agree that it was a good post as stated in my other posts. If you say that was a "feel-good" post then I'll agree with you. I already said my piece on what is wrong with it. By the way I said I don't like debates here, I didn't say I don't like the discussions here.

And if you think his post didn't state the problem/solution clearly enough, or that the point was bogged down in eloquence, why don't you contribute with good points yourself?

I did, I even offered him how an eloquent yet effective speaker did it properly.

Actually, I think you misunderstood the point in the OP. If you think that people mostly get up on a soapbox and just preach and all that, then the OP is meant to address exactly that: how to present theories and complex ideas without coming off as a preacher.

You should see more preachers, specifically prosperity gospel ones. See if you can spot the similarities and see why they have a lot of followers as well.

And it is not, as you seem to assume, about the form of forum posts in general.

I just told you earlier what they are saying are merely restating the obvious in a feel good tone right?

 

[Hadoblado]

I think the structure of the OP appeals to a specific demographic, and was well intention. I do however think that the demographic it's aimed as is likely the least in need of the helpful reminder (the hall monitors).

People that represent difficulty in a discussion already have a different idea of what the problem is. It's that people are too edgy or PC, too green or too old, too feeler, too hairy 'round the neck, too feminist, too statist, too dull, too narcissistic, too short-sighted, too anahalphmen, too unthinking, too mystical, or too wordy. They're not wrong.

I think your PSA won't achieve much unfortunately, but I appreciate the effort. Egos have too much room to maneuver on the internet, and for so long as an ego wants to keep itself safe, the same tactics will occur and reoccur ad infinitum.

I would like to experiment with pinning relevant stigmas on volunteers (e.g. racist, white privilege, knee-jerk-feminist, bully), and seeing them overcome them. That might not end well though.

 

[Pyropyro]

Oh someone changed the title from debate into participant. NOW the Opening post is properly structured and makes a different sense.

When this thread was titled "Debate" I thought OP was talking crap about the forum and how we're too simple minded to know the rules of debate and have to be "schooled" by rehashing thought processes and idea formation.

 

[Infinitatis]

Oh someone changed the title from debate into participant. NOW the Opening post is properly structured and makes a different sense.

When this thread was titled "Debate" I thought OP was talking crap about the forum and how we're too simple minded to know the rules of debate and have to be "schooled" by rehashing thought processes and idea formation.

When I made this thread it was entitled "The Efficacious Forum Participant." I have not changed it since, nor did I even know that titles could be changed.

 

[Pyropyro]

When I made this thread it was entitled "The Efficacious Forum Participant." I have not changed it since, nor did I even know that titles could be changed.

Re-reading the whole fiasco again. Yep, I was wrong about the title thing. But the issue about "debate" pesters me, especially that the things stated in your OP was about general discussion. You don't even follow the rules of debate.

 

[Infinitatis]

Re-reading the whole fiasco again. Yep, I was wrong about the title thing. But the issue about "debate" pesters me, especially that the things stated in your OP was about general discussion. You don't even follow the rules of debate.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. By "debate," I am not referring to formal debate, though the guidelines are generally transferrable. I am referring to debate in the same sense as discussion—where an idea is contemplated and argued. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Pyropyro]

Perhaps I should have been more clear. By "debate," I am not referring to formal debate, though the guidelines are generally transferrable. I am referring to debate in the same sense as discussion—where an idea is contemplated and argued. Sorry for the confusion.

Fair enough. If it's in this context then your OP is actually good.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Many of us spend our free time here on this forum. This forum is a place where ideas are born, spread, and grown. In order for an idea to be born, one must wonder; in order for an idea to be spread, one must convince; and in order for an idea to be grown, one must consider.

I'd posit that rather than debating and confronting, the most successful ideas seduce and nurture, they offer a motherly warmth for their 'victims' who further fall into the endless womb that they suggest and from then on hear everything as told not by their own, but by this 'mother's' voice, tone and accent she places on different details, their discoverers yearn for their touch, become fascinated, entertained and thoroughly enticed to find another dose.

In this sense no idea is our real mother, there's no finite solution, sometimes this knowledge comes too late and can't prevent the many potential entrapment or enraptures that are out there, predating on the minds.

Books are an effective medium for this, as are other arts. Discussion appeals to a very narrow caste of intellectuals, who besides of being creative and inquisitive are also eager to put themselves to practice or fall under questioning.

What better and already won debate in favour of classical mechanics than a person who uses the car, they never had to be convinced of its value, the utility of it was inherently convincing the moment they first tested its capabilities. Excuse me if this example was too down to earth, there are many analogies that aren't limited to the consummate or material realms.

You've laid out the three stages, I think stages 1 and 3 are valid, but require little interpersonal interaction to complete. Stage 2 can be achieved in a number of ways, many of which are much less testing on participant's patience, humility and need for exchange.

What you propose is great, the world requires the debate, to an extent and it gets one, maybe not here, maybe not now, but the exchange and testing of novelty occurs constantly in our heads, many people discuss, many try to do so, don't be discouraged by this, but don't be too eager to assume something will happen either. The very act of looking, breathing and thinking is the most basic and never ending debate that we have with the external world during our lives.