Political Threads and Forum Behavior

Thank you for expanding my vocabulary with such a frequently applicable word.

For those that wish to learn without the effort:

Eristic

However, in most cases, I would suggest the goal is the false belief one actually can convince the other. In my case I often look for evidence to support or refute what I believe. I want my beliefs to be evidence based and when challenged it's always good to double check.

 

I didn't read 123's post that way at all. He was refuting JJ by implying that people inspired by video games are fully as intelligent as those who are not.

[MENTION=44992]JJ_Maxx[/MENTION]: There's nothing about being a video gamer that makes one less intelligent or less thought-provoking than a non-video-gamer. I've never visited a video-game forum, though, so I can't comment on the level of discourse there.

 

I used to be a member of one a long time ago. It was pretty bad. Just my personal experience, though.

 

Just to clarify:

Neither Daniel nor anybody on the moderator team is calling for closing or deleting political threads. As far as I'm concerned, these threads should be allowed. I would ask, though, that posters in those threads a) be civil and respectful to others; b) back up their assertions with links others can check and verify; and c) be open to persuasion. I don't mean we should let ourselves be swayed by any argument that comes along; I mean we should treat arguments seriously, give them proper consideration, and be willing to change our minds if the arguments against our view are strong enough. This last item is probably not going to happen with most people, but if we're not open to persuasion, we're not learning anything.

We're not going to get anywhere if we take positions like, "I know the Absolute Truth and the rest of you poor wretches are all flopping around in the mud of ignorance. I am Right and you are wrong." That's the kind of statement that really needs strong support, otherwise it will cause offense to somebody and it will generate reports to moderators.

I said this before, but it bears repeating:

This is why some of our jokes don't work. This is why we misinterpret each other. This is why offense is taken where none is meant. We're all experienced enough with the internet that this should go without saying, but, as with many things that should go without saying, it needs saying. Over and over again.

 

I'm jumping in the middle of an argument, it seems, but I'd just like to point out that this forum, from my POV anyway, is actually really loosely modded in comparison to some other writing forums I've visited. Let's say two infractions, and you got banned, so I'm kind of surprised to read comments here that the mods favor people and whatnot. I mean, my behavior hasn't changed, but I got my virtual butt banned on one writing forum and was close to being thrown out from another because of one sidestep (a mod got cheeky with me and I replied in kind... oops.). But that was a bit dysfunctional place anyway, some really okay people got in trouble too, sometimes topped off with public humiliation by one of the mods.

By the way, there're guidelines to reporting posts. If you click the report button, it says "Note: This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts."

A separate room for political debates might be a good idea. The forum with the cheeky lady-mod had separate rooms for all kinds of issues, many not directly related to writing, which seemed to work. It's true that when you've made some friends, it's nicer to debate with them than go and make new ones on some other forum -- it's time-consuming after all, to write on internet boards. Banning political discussions altogether just doesn't sound right to me. I lurk these debates and have learned a lot while doing that. Sometimes I even dare participate, but not too often because many of the issues are a little fuzzy to me, considering I live in a rather remote corner of the world. At the risk of sounding cheesy... well, it's quite a joy to see how intelligent, polite people fence on the boards.

Besides, we can always choose not to go to the rooms with topics that don't interest us. Like Wreybies said, there could be wild orgies going on in the RPG room for all I know

ETA: this post was written before Minstrel's post above, so I had no idea he addressed the political threads issue again so feel free to ignore whatever I rambled above about that...

 

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” - Aristotle

 

Thank you

 

While I agree with your premise that there shouldn't be a difference between the intelligence of a video gamer and a writer, I disagree because the fact is that it's true.

Not to get too far off topic but I'm not sure what you're basing your assumption on? If you are basing your assumption on the idea that calling a generic group less intelligent is in someway demeaning, then I think your logic is flawed.

I am an avid gamer. From Call of Duty to World of Warcraft, from Zelda to Tony Hawk and what I have seen is that generally, the people who play these games are younger, immature males. This is not demeaning, rather just a fact.

I have two sisters who are mentally disabled. Even though one of them is almost 40, she has the mental capacity of a 10 year old. She is less intelligent than I am. That doesn't say anything about the type of person she is, only about her level of intellect.

No one would argue that a group of people who frequent a forum for discussion of Quantum Mechanics statistically will have a higher intelligence than the group of people hanging out at the Pokemon Forums.

Are people that afraid of offending people that they are willing to ignore simple truths?

 

Good point. This makes me think the best way to deal with a post is to ask questions first, shoot later.

 

Just you wait.

 

That's hilarious - Can I keep that for my signature quote?

 

Depends. Is it hilarious because it's a humorous example or because you completely disagree with the premise?

 

I could just picture a load of kids in pokemon onesies on a V-Tech plastic laptop and Sheldon from BBT debating quantum mechanics/physics possibly also in a pokemon onesie!

 

I would like to second this. There are a couple people here who make frequent unsupported assertions. They may be convinced they are right. But it's beyond me why they think merely telling me their opinion is the least bit convincing.

If I got to know a forum member and I found through my experience with them they were really knowledgeable about grammar or physics or computers, whatever, then I'd accept a lot more from that individual telling me something I know they have expertise in. I know a lot about infectious disease and some of it comes from experience and a lot of years in college, you can't always cite a single source for things you know from gained expertise.

But when someone I don't know, or don't know they have some special expertise just declares some fact they believe, who cares? How is that supposed to convince anyone? I saw a recent exchange that couldn't have sounded more silly, (paraphrasing) "Unhuh" "Nunuh" "Unhuh" "Nunuh" "Unhuh" "Nunuh", and neither of them thought to cite a source for the 'fact' they were in dispute about.

One can state all the facts one wants to, but if you want others to take you seriously, you needs a source for your claims.

 

Is that a fact or your opinion? You didn't cite any sources

 

The thing about the internet is you can find a source for absolutely anything.

And sometimes with some people it doesn't matter because they will have their heels so firmly dug they'll just belittle the source.

 

That would depend on the forum. I frequent a few science forums and there are plenty of people on them that don't have a clue what they are talking about. And I give flu shots to the employees at the Pokemon company here in town. There are some smart cookies in that business just as there are in the computer programing end of the gamer community.

It's not that there aren't some no-brainer conclusions out there, because of course there are. But you might want to think about some of those assumptions you make. What you believe to be common sense or common knowledge may not be the slam dunk you believe it to be.

 

The funny thing is that our forums, in some ways, are a microcosm of the real world. Group A will fund a study that finds Point 1 and then Group B will fund a study that refutes Point 1 and supports Point 2.

...and on and on.

 

You can also evaluate the reliability of sources. If you cite someone else's unsupported assertion, that's not a source. If your sources are mostly the echo-chambers of the blogosphere, that's not much of a source either.

That's if you don't know how to evaluate scientific research. The science is not unreliable if you understand how to evaluate it.


It takes some skill. I posted a related list a while back, I'll hunt it up and see if it applies here.

 

Just because something may be statistically true, doesn't mean it gets applied to all members of a certain group. If I meet someone who plays Pokemon, I'm not going to automatically assume they are unintelligent. It may true generally, but not individually.

 

I remember Channel 4 in the UK did two films on O J Simpson, simultaneously.

The first programme absolutely condemned O J - guilty as sin, all the experts, all the proof - he did it, end of story.
The second programme completely exonerated him, he was an angel, should have had wings.

Both programmes used credible witnesses, experts, scientists etc but both angles the 'evidence' to suit their predetermined verdict - fascinating!

 

This is true, especially in political discussions. You should be very wary of any source from a site like Alter.net or HuffPo just as you would FoxNews or Drudge.

 

I believe stereotypes are valid in arguments unless your goal is to scientifically disprove a specific hypothesis. If I say Chinese men are shorter than Sudanese people, I don't really need somebody to tell me about Yao Ming.

 

Maybe you and I are using different definitions of "intelligence."

It has nothing to do with that. Gamers are a huge group, statistically, and so are writers. I start from the assumption that the statistical distribution of intelligence in both groups will be approximately the same. That is, I start by assuming that there will be no significant difference in intelligence between gamers and writers (and, as has been pointed out, there's quite a bit of overlap between the groups).

Here's where you lose me. Are you saying that younger, immature males are less intelligent than writers? Are you saying that boys are dimwits?

I don't know much about Pokemon, but I assume it's a simple game for kids. It's not the only video game out there, nor the most challenging (I'm basing this on conversations I've had with my cousin, who is 51 years old and a very bright guy, and who plays World of Warcraft quite a bit).

That said, we're writers here, not quantum physicists (most of us, anyway). And not all gamers limit themselves to Pokemon. You've set up a false dichotomy. While I'd like to flatter myself that, because I'm a writer, I'm more intelligent than non-writers, I have no reason to believe that's so. Writers are a self-selecting group - we don't have to pass IQ tests to call ourselves writers or to become members of this forum. Gamers are self-selecting, too; I know of no reason why intelligent people wouldn't be interested in gaming.

I'm not sure that what you call a "simple truth" is, in fact, true. It's not a matter of offending people. In this case, it seems to me that you're making an unsupported assumption and calling it a "truth."

 

I bet that's it. JJ, maybe you should clarify your meaning.