Don't know where else this belongs, so I'll put it here. I am just curious about something I observe and wonder if others here have a similar experience. I read an article once - a cautionary tale to owners - about dogs meeting for the first time while walking on-leash with their owners. The dogs approach, curious but cautious - ready for a friendly game or for aggression. They move forward to start the sniff ritual. The owners, also cautious, rein in their dogs on the leash. This causes the dogs to inadvertently rear up as they strain at their leash. It is only for a moment, but a skittish dog may interpret this rearing up as aggression, and so goes into aggression mode itself. The dogs interpreted the other's actions differently than their own. It's not about what happens after, it's simply about the perception of the dog's self, versus the preception of another ("my rearing up meant nothing - it was all him.") So. When writing things on this forum (and others) I mentally provide a narrative for myself. My tone - the tone I give myself when reciting my own words - is invariably calm, collected and unemotional, and it is my desire that this is carried into my words. I hope that others read my tone as calm, cool and collected (even while strongly disagreeing). Generally, I go by the tenet that, if one knows one is right (i.e. in possession of compelling facts), that one has no reason to get emotional. When I read replies of others with whom I may be in disagreement with, it is not infrequent that I interpolate a lot of emotion. I see exclamation marks, large print, dismissive comments, shouting, sometimes name-calling and even trolling. My assumption is that I am doing well at rising above emotional arguments, even when I must dismiss someone who is clearly, IMO, wrong. but it occurs to me that I am necessarily biased. I can't know if others write their posts with a calm, cool collected tone in their heads. Maybe they do, and its my fault for over-interpreting - giving myself the benefit of the doubt that I do not give others. My questions are: Do you give yourself a calm, rational tone when you write? Do you regularly perceive yourself to be more collected than those you discuss with? If/when you do get heated, and find yourself having to dismiss an opponent (because you feel they're being foolish) do you still feel like you're talking calmly? Or do you recognize if you've slipped from a discussion into an argument?
On another forum folk thought I was stuff until I made a point of adding a happy face. I am calm and have yet to find someone I do not like. I don't look up to folk and I don't look down in people. I realise everyone has a different background and so why would they not be different. I like to be playful but I hate to upset folk. If someone lashes out I simply hope it makes them feel better. It helps not to take things personally..if someone
From the few posts you've made, I would say you are doing an admirable job of remaining calm and humble while still making your points.
cont... if someone attacks they attack what they think you represent not you as such. Do them a favour let them vent and they may feel better. Should we tolerate a fool I say why not because they don't think that of themselves why be unkind and attack them. Staying calm is good for them and better for you.
That's a good point. Maybe I'll bring that up in a separate thread. I try to have a very short memory - to respect the argument, regardless of the arguer. Cross-thread references (without warrant) are tantamount to ad hominem attacks.
I try to be precise; to use the correct words. I'm less concerned about tone than content, clarity and concision. Even so, quite often people ask "Are you trying to say ... [something quite different from what I did say] or "What do you mean by.... [a word that means exactly that], whereupon I usually do explain, but not without a certain impatience. And I become quite exasperated when someone misrepresents my position by substituting a different word for one that I chose with deliberate care. Sometimes. It depends partly on how strongly I feel about the topic. I tend to slide into sarcasm, rather than harsh language. I'm more in control of that now than twenty years ago, when I was suspended from the first forum I ever posted on. Yes - that does happen. If I think there is a chance of convergence, I keep trying. Otherwise, I disengage, back off and maybe leave the thread. Some people interpret that as cowardice, which still bothers me a bit - but not enough to influence my decision. Of course, dogs don't understand the external cause of the other dog's action. They know they didn't do anything themselves; that something just happened to them. They don't have enough information to project the same cause onto the other dog's apparent action. We have a better understanding of how animosity might have come about - but then, we are also more demanding of other people to control themselves.
Doesn't, like, everyone, think about themselves they are, like, the best discusser, like, ever? :blush:
