When sharing your opinions, do you like to be challenged?

Or - do you prefer an echo chamber of agreement?

Whichever you prefer, share why. Of course, there are no right or wrong answers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I prefer people to validate my existing opinions rather than be confronted with new or contrary info that could require me to think about or justify my stance. That's the whole reason why I'm a conservative posting on a science forum. If I wanted to be challenged, I'd post on social media, where I can curate who can see and reply to my opinions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lol That post just drips of sarcasm.

Sometimes I like being challenged, but not bullied, as if it’s a contest to be won.

Thanks for answering. I should’ve created a poll.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Being challenged is bullying, especially if people don't just take my opinions (lived experience) as fact without any substantial reasoning or argument. When I say I've had enough, they should quit posting immediately. Otherwise they're trying to invalidate me as a person. It's so traumatic.

 

Oh, it can be. That’s why we need safe spaces. <_<

So, do you think we need to accept that being challenged may mean (at times) being offended? I don’t know. Maybe some people are just better wordsmiths, yet can still convince others to change their minds.

Do you think you’re good at persuading others to your point of view, while still showing empathy for their position?

 

Having your lived experience challenged is always offensive. No one can change my live experience, so even trying to convince me otherwise is an outright attack on me as a person. You cannot possibly attack a person's identity while being empathetic, and only that person can determined if you're attacking them.

 

When sharing my opinions I neither like nor dislike being challenged. It's just out there for discussion. It doesn't need to be "challenged" in a rude, combative sense. It doesn't have to be an echo chamber either.

Those are my thoughts on that subject at that particular time. Someone else can agree, disagree or just discuss there viewpoint. I don't need a "safe space"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course some people are much more pleasant than others but it is what it is. Be yourself is the way I look at it. If someone is rude, that says more about them than about me. When it gets too predictable I may engage with them less but there is no point in either being offended or in trying to change anyone IMO.

I think I would address your question in another way. Rather than making it about bullying vs an echo chamber I would say that I find it more useful for me, or anyone else, to read a question in the best possible light rather than the opposite (the latter being the lazy way to respond IMO).

 

I welcome well informed thoughtful challenges.
Unfortunately, they are few and far between.
However: when challenged with crap, crap is crap, and a waste of time.

long ago, we used to have a saying---"I'd walk 10 miles barefoot through a blizzard just to stand in her shit"
(feel the warmth oozing through your frozen toes)
-------------
and, so it seems, crap is worth standing in
washing it off, however, is another matter

 

I'm assuming you are from Alabama or somewhere close by?

 

800 odd miles------iowa

blizzards in Alabama?

 

Well, being challenged is inevitable, but do you like being challenged...meaning, do you enjoy a good, spirited debate, or do you prefer hanging around people who tend to agree with you? I guess I could have spun the question a few different ways.

Interestingly, I used to think of you as a 'lecturer' on here, remember? haha But, either you've changed, or I've grown more accepting of different styles of ''arguments'' ...either way, I don't see you as that, anymore. (for what it's worth)

If we're honest, we run the risk of becoming too extremist in our thinking, if we wallow away in echo chambers. Constant agreement can become stifling, boring...we need the tension to stay innovative, as a society really. I'm sure Einstein suffered a lot of tension.

Tension for tension's sake though can also be boring, imo. We have seen the endless circular arguments even on here, that plummet into little more than ad homs and so on, you forget what the original topic was about.

lol
You seem very easy going, actually. I don't know if I've ever seen you rattled when...challenged.

 

I'll give you a good example of what I prefer...if I could just remember the name of the show...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It was years ago but it was a current events type of news discussion where there were about 3 people discussing the news. Two were on the liberal side (but professional as they all were in the day) and one was a little more conservative.

They actually discussed things rather than shouted at each other or just stuck to the party line. Any one person on that show on a particular topic might end it with "I see your point and I think you might be right about that".

It was like the kind of discussion you might have at a dinner with friends even where everyone wasn't always in agreement with the other person. If the other person made a good point, you would agree with them.

It wasn't about changing someone's perspective from liberal/Democrat to conservative/Republican it was about more nuanced points as is real life.

If all you can say is "that's just Fox talking points" you aren't really having any sort of intelligent discussion. If you are a reasonable Democrat (for instance) you can still admit when "taxes are a little high" or "that's not a very good proposal" instead of "you're a racist and you just don't like black people"...or something similar. I think you get my point.

The show I was thinking of had Al Hunt, Mark Shields and maybe Robert Novak?

 

I prefer intelligent dissent over either mindless challenges or "dittos."

 

I'm not familiar with this show, but did a quick Google search - was it ''Capital Gang?"

Per your points, it seems like the internet is where we see more of this as opposed to having these discussions face-to-face. Anonymity creates a psuedo type of bravery that doesn't exist in equal amounts...offline. Maybe that's part of it. When we're speaking face-to-face with others, we aren't seeking ''victory,'' it's about civil discussion in an attempt to understand and be understood (on average, people have screaming matches offline too) - but online, some obsess a little over victory/loss ratios, if there are any winners and losers in online debates.

That said, internet forums in general can be amazing for deeper discussion where you can reach a larger number of people, than you would offline, in your typical day. You have time to reflect and process your thoughts before replying to posts. So, it's not a waste of time to debate online, maybe just a matter of perspective.

 

Yes, it was Capital Gang. Thanks.

I've seen others describe online discussion as someone being "braver" or a "coward" but I think that's kind of a derogatory or stifling view whereas I think it's just the nature of the beast. People are more direct online in some cases than they would be in person, not because they are being "braver" but because that same behavior in person would be ruder.

It is more personal if you know someone well and are that direct standing in front of them. Here no one knows anyone and anything said isn't as personal as if it were in person by someone who knows you well.

Regarding shows like "The Capital Gang" the unfortunate part is that TV ratings seems to follow the lowest common denominator. Chris Mathews old show "Hardball" started out where he was more thoughtful and less abrasive. Apparently Bill O'Reilly was getting higher ratings with his abrasive behavior so after a couple of years "Hardball" became just as abrasive and loud and I'm sure the ratings went up.

I don't even have cable now but for a long time there has been little intelligent discussion on TV. Fox is the worse of course but MSNBC and NBC, while more factual, are pretty one-sided and uniform in toeing whatever the current "woke" perspective is. Talk about an echo chamber, everyone has exactly the same comments and viewpoints.

There is no real discussion of anything. It's just day 200 of the Capital riot or day 200 of Trump's legal problems etc. Whatever Rachel Maddow is talking about, so is Lawrence O'Donnell, Nicole Wallace and Ari Melber. There is no one who disagrees with anyone else to even a small degree.

 

Challenge me?

I want it so I can intellectually crush them.

Of course this is fantasy more than reality.

 

I like a good fight if it's strictly a matter of opinion.

If I'm factually wrong about something, I'd rather be corrected than stay wrong.

 

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

Facts are a different story.

 

I used to post on a philosophy forum a few years ago, and anything went. Any idea, any concept, any ideology ...it was fair game to discuss and no one was ever labeled as “wrong.” In fact, everyone was right because philosophy is often open to interpretation. But, a science site is way different and facts matter. So, it seems that some conflate opinion for fact.

Can the scientific method be open to interpretation?

 

Ditto.