UKH

A Guardian long read on the subject of how to improve arguments online. I'm not entirely convinced but I have used tactics like those described to try to resolve some seemingly intractable disputes with some occasional success (albeit which needed significant face-to-face interaction to build trust).

I'd have liked to have seen more recognition that different social media platforms can have distinctive issues: Facebook does seem to build like-minded 'silos' with a community feel, so heated exchanges are only likely on matters not obviously connected to the group (say a climbing group arguing about brexit) but Twitter is much more open public dispute, often very angry.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/16/how-to-have-better-argument...

That's bollocks! *

* Not read it (your post of the article, just wanted to argue) 

Ha.  Have you.  Have you really.  Like when I asked a question a while ago pertaining to the IFSC, esp. with regards to it's operation, attitudes and commitment to democratic processes.  And in response you accused me, in a bizarre set of non sequiturs, of attempting to sabotage Shauna Coxsey's participation in the Olympics (?).  When I pointed out that the query was in regard to a small foreign federation, and offered to explain offline the reasoning behind my query (for what I would have thought obvious reasons, even to the meanest intelligence) then rather than take me up on it you simply doubled down on your absurd conspiracy theory, and (iirc) accused me of hiding behind a "fake" profile.  Presumably "Offwidth" is your real name.  At which point I gave up on you, and (you having hijacked it) what I still believe to be an entirely reasonble line of inquiry.  So don't try and come all "look how reasonable and conciliatory I am" pal, because it, like you, is all bullshit.

No offence.

Another tactic is to run off to the mods and try and get the other person banned...

Hahaha.... 

That's not arguing, it's not even contradicting.

I think the problem is when you are arguing with someone based in an alternative universe.. it's like trying to say Biden isn't stealing adrenochrome from kids, there's just so little common ground to find that agreement with in a post truth world. There's almost no place for compromising your views.

I had never thought of using professional negotiation techniques in a forum which I use mainly for recreation.

For the record I never refused to look at your concerns (despite pretty rude replies) or accuse you of sabotaging Shauna. People can check this on the thread. I also said if you just happen to have the same sense of humour as another poster asking suspicious leading questions around competition climbing I apologise.

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/rock_talk/ifsc_membership_-_a_few_questio...

I see what you did there....both posts made me smile.

That's my biggest concern...Qanon types don't care are beyond any argument and just want oxygen, my preference is to ignore such postings. Not many act like that on UKC though.

The site moderators are adult enough to make their own decisions.

Interesting read.

Ha ha.  How very you.  Some people posting this link and commenting on it might have pointed out the part they found particularly interesting or something they learned.  You're more irritated that they didn't consult you as a world renowned expert on the subject while they were writing the piece.  Which forum have you done this good work on btw?  Presumably not this one.

I can just see you as a hostage negotiator now, looking pleased with yourself loudhailer still in hand after successfully defusing another tense situation:  "Well, they killed all the hostages and blew the building up, but I definitely won the argument!"

Was the building worth keeping?

I negotiated many sensitive cases as higher education contract conditions slowly worsened over several decades, as a lead branch official of several unions (as they later changed through mergers). I was elected to various National Execs for nearly a decade in total over the same period so was very aware what happened elsewhere. I wasn't an expert but I was well trained.

Interesting read. Which bits did you find unconvincing? My sense was that it was mostly highlighting features of productive discussion that we probably all know already, but often forget in the heat of the moment.

The take-home message seemed to me to be that if you want to change someone's mind don't humiliate them, don't attack their self-image, and don't back them into a corner and try to force them into admitting something socially unacceptable (like being racist). I know when I'm angry I've been guilty of all those things. I also know full well that they are ineffective, but a reminder of that doesn't hurt. I didn't get the sense that they were suggesting anything that would be out of place in casual conversation.

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/better_arguments-731337?v=1#x94...

Why? 

🤣

Why? 

🤣

youtube.com/watch?v=DkQhK8O9Jik&

Ah, my mistake.  As one who often argues with you online I was thinking more in terms of "the subject of how to improve arguments online", but that's all undeniably very impressive.

That's bollocks an' all.

Yes, here's another piece that covers the same ground but isn't a long read. It's by Douglas Alexander an ex Labour politician, "you don't change someone's mind by insulting them". The podcast is worth listening to.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1f1knsWzSXRB0S27V37b4C6/eight-tip...

I disagree. 

Partly that social media can be very varied and on a long read I might have expected that as context as tactics need to vary site to site. Also a lot of it is impractical without a serious issue with real consequences that can force people to rethink. People, even highly educated very intelligent ones build narratives that are very hard to shift, especially so when angry.

I've dealt with quite a few cases based on online arguments as well. It's very different when you sit in a formal disciplinary meeting with it all printed out in front of you. I'm retired but a lot of people here will be as surprised as those in my cases, that their employer might take offence to what they say online (or in a couple of cases I was briefed on: what people's friends say when other friends complained about such associations). Disciplinary meetings and processes are very stressful and outcomes are not always good ones. I'd strongly advise people never have a private social media page linked to their work in any way and to maintain a degree of anonymity online.

On the other subject you are not the first person I've annoyed and won't be the last but your unusual in that I respect most of what you say. As such I never had any intent to annoy you. I'll happily apologize again for anything that gave you that impression.

Fair. I guess I was reading it less in terms of ‘tactics’ and more a reminder that poor interpersonal skills will often guarantee an argument rather than a discussion. 

I can see what you mean, even if everyone followed that advice, it isn’t going to “fix” social media. But I reckon it would raise the standard of debate somewhat.