*Edit: This post is mainly in reference to the atheists debating one another rather than atheists debating believers and theists, although it could apply to that, too. Quetz's post on the matter is regarding debates between believers and non-believers.
Recently, I've been formulating some opinions. Imagine that! But seriously, recently as I've been hanging out on the sidelines on RD.net rather than really engaging in much debate, I've been noticing some trends. Quetzalcoatl (Jonathan) already wrote a blog related to this, but I think it deserves to be expanded upon. If you would like to read Quetz's blog first, here is the one to which I am referring: http://musingsofastrangemind.blogspot.com/2008/03/difficulties-in-debate.html.
Now, Quetz put forward the idea that people have what he calls "Attachment Factors" or AF to certain ideas. This is what I want to expand on and Quetz, I hope you don't mind that I am borrowing your term for this post. I agree that there are AFs that people hold to certain ideas, but as of late when watching people debate on RD.net, I've noticed that when someone has a point of contention with an idea one puts forward, it is very likely that the person whose idea has been questioned automatically develops an AF for the idea and feels the need to defend it, even if it were an idea he or she only recently came up with (maybe even as recently as during composing the post). Being that most of the posters on RD.net are very intelligent and in some cases (certainly not my own) are skilled debaters, it usually is quite easy for one to defend his or her post in an intelligent manner (especially in matters of opinion) no matter how good or bad (for lack of better words) his or her idea is/was.
What I'm getting at is that as soon as someone's idea is contested, rather than reconsidering his or her position, many times, the person immediately develops an AF for this position and subsequently begins defending it without ever truly considering the other person's opinion on the matter. I think this greatly obscures the purpose of debating in the first place. Debating is about find the truth, not who's wrong or right, correct?
I think part of the reason that this occurs is because whoever it is doing the contesting oftentimes not only criticizes the idea itself, but also the person who is holding the idea simply for the fact that person does hold the idea and it is only natural to have an urge to defend oneself. I think if people were to be more careful not to choose words that are sure to elicit an emotional response, the debates would be more proficient and proceed in a much smoother manner. Understandably, though, everyone has different styles of writing and debating, so perhaps rather than trying to avoid offending someone, people should try to avoid allowing an emotional response to a contention rather than a logical and rational response. Anyway, those are my suggestions for improving the debates. You may take it or leave it.
About Me
- Anna Banana
- I'm an atheist with morals and sympathy, imagine that! Aside from that, I'm very concerned with fitness. More specifically, I've gotten very into running as of late. I ran my first half marathon in October 2008 and I was planning on running my first full marathon in April 2009, but I've now suffered a couple of minor injuries and will have to look for a different marathon to do. I've (barely) completed 3 sprint triathlons and would like to do some more. I love to read and I have a wonderful dog named Cantaloupe. :)
Frisbee!
Cantaloupe loves to play catch
My Puppy
Cantaloupe
Me Running
the end of my 1st half marathon
More Me
Me
16 comments:
I wonder how much of a role pride can play too?
For many believers though, it is often emotional. We are afterall attacking their best invisible friend (not to say that atheists dot get emotional too tough - perhaps also frustrated by stupidity or dishonesty on occasion)
Billy,
I'm sure that pride certainly is a factor. Actually, I was mostly referring to the atheists debating one another in the post. I think I'll edit and put a note in the post that I am referring to the atheists.
Also, it seems that once a person has taken the defensive stance, they continue on by being sometimes rude to people who are innocent bystanders, so to speak. Another factor that obscures the debate.
Anna-
Thief! You'll have to be punished.
Actually, I've just noticed that you've described my blog as "fabulous", so I'll let you off.
But seriously: good post, and you make an excellent point about people on RD.net holding onto their ideas when challenged. Good examples of this are the recent and ongoing peak oil/Chomsky/Israel/methods of dating discussions.
I agree that people should be careful about the words they choose, I know I should be! But I also think that it's difficult to judge how another person will take what you've said, even if you've made every effort to be polite and reasonable. There's also a balancing act between being polite and not perhaps "diluting" the point you're trying to make.
Quetzathan,
I think that I probably am polite to a fault...certainly others should not follow my lead. ;-)
It certainly is true that there is no way to judge how someone will receive comments that you make. For instance, when al-rawandi first started posting on RD.net, he was really offended by something I said because he thought I was being patronizing (if I remember correctly) and proceeded to blast me for it. I apologized and explained that I didn't intend for my comment to come across that way and all was well. Some other instances with other posters have not ended so happily ;-)
Very intersting and insightful posts, both by you, Anna, and by Jonathan. (Thank you for providing the link to his, btw).
I think I shall have to come back and read these posts once in awhile, just to remind myself not to get too attached to my own blatherings. :)
I do think I've learned a lot from other poster's methods, on RDnet especially. I think detaching myself emotionally from my ideas when posting comments is a lofty and worthwhile goal for me.
'Tis difficult though, being a passionate and fiery person combined with a distinct lack of writing skill. I am often misunderstood, but I get that in real life as well, so I can't blame anyone but me. ;)
Great blog, BTW. I'm enjoying it very much, especially as I should be working.
Thanks, Sharon! Welcome to my blog! Please leave me comments and criticism whenever you like.
Also, I never seem to have trouble understanding you! Don't be so modest!
Hi Anna. I think your post is pretty insightful. We esteem our ideas greatly. I think it's a mark of a good thinker if she or he can separate themselves from their ideas. In practice it's not easy, we define ourselves in some sense by our beliefs. Even new ideas have connections to beliefs we hold about ourselves. So an attack on our ideas can feel like an attack on ourselves....
Anyway, that probably made no sense. But I pride myself in holding nonsensical ideas, and I'll attack anybody who dares insinuate I make sense. ;)
See you on the Dawkins site. Quetz rules!
Hi Anna,
Just one point if I may (I am assuming your AF is low on the idea you proposed :)
If/when in a debate I suggest an idea or position that is attacked, I will natural question the 'attacker' and re-state my position using different wording. (In case I have been misunderstood.)
Does this mean my AF is not zero on the matter - probably, but I am only doing it to test the idea further. Since I been wrong so many times I cannot count that that high my attachment isn’t great to any new idea.
It is the point of the debate after all to be challenge and for you to defend your position.
So, my point is this, just because someone defends their position doesn't necessary mean they have a high AF for it, it could be they are ensuring an idea is tested fully before being rejected.
Of course, if someone starts to get personal on their attacks, then you can question their AF.
Not having read the debate on RD.net I have no idea what examples you are talking about.
See ya
Lee
Lee,
It is the point of the debate after all to be challenge and for you to defend your position.
This is what I'm talking about. The point of debate is to find the truth, no? If your position happens to be the correct one, then yes, by all means, defend it. What I'm talking about though, is when someone's position is challenged and the person automatically defends it vigorously without ever really considering what the other person has to say.
Also, some of the debates that take place are about very complicated matters that may not necessarily have a right or a wrong position, so all of the participants of the debate my have good points, but none of them can see past the need to "win" and realize that the others have good and valid points as well.
It isn't about victory, it's about the truth.
Hi Anna,
It isn't about victory, it's about the truth.
Or getting closer to it - I agree.
I think a lot of a time, what these ‘debates’ don’t have is a moderator – someone just say – “OK, point made, now move along”
But, just want to check - I am still allowed to kick creationists when they are down? That is something I do have an AF for... or is it wrong?
Lee
Lee-
"But, just want to check - I am still allowed to kick creationists when they are down? That is something I do have an AF for... or is it wrong?"
All depends on where you kick them.
All depends on where you kick them.
In the nuts of course :)
Lee,
Feel free to kick the people who are currently trying to ruin our public education system (as if we needed it to be any worse) at any time you deem necessary. Hell, they don't even have to be talking about it...just kick 'em!
Hi Anna,
Hell, they don't even have to be talking about it...just kick 'em!
It will be an honour and a pleasure. I just need a plane ticket…
Lee
It seems we all can get very wrapped up in being attached to and identifying with ideas such that an attack on them seems like an attack on the person. Many scientists have got stuck with and defended theories and ideas long passed their sell-by date. Not sure what the answer is......
clod
Hi Anna
Sorry to be coming so late to this.
There's also a body of work that suggests that people become more attached to a particular view if they write it down. This was used, for example, by the Chinese during the Korean War, where amongst other things they got POWs involved in "essay writing competitions". To have any chance of winning, you had to concede at least some positive attributes of Maoism. It was later found that the people who wrote this defended the views vigorously, even after they returned home.
Cialdini goes into this in some detail in Influence. It's well worth a read.
This would suggest that it's harder to shift someone from a view they take in an internet post than one they have in the pub. That's certainly my experience too. We might wonder whether it's worth debating at all ... except for the gallery, of course.
Post a Comment