Intelligent Discourse and Its Impediments

[Uralya]

Hey guys. This is a topic that has had my interest for awhile now.

Intelligent discourse is a rare thing in the digital world. Forums are one of the few places where it can be had, and even then it isn't guaranteed. I agree that it's a controversial topic, as it puts into question various things concerning how people communicate online. However, I also feel that intelligent discourse is vital to gaining knowledge and sharing it. The problem that I wish to discuss is the lack of it.

I'm a firm believer in discourse for the reasons above. Back-and-forth debate and the refinement of perspectives that constructively help to establish objectives and stances is what I strive for. The lack of it is something that truly irks me, and I ultimately don't feel frustration at many things. This holds a special place however.

Mob mentality, as shown in media and other outlets to be negative, is the foremost impediment to discourse. Letting each side speak in order to begin the exchange needs to be respected, but far too often do I see people fail to do so. I appreciate the majority of this forum for respecting such and creating entertaining discussion on a constant basis, but this state is sadly prevalent.

An example I can give lies in my cross country team. There are, give or take, four people on the team that are never given a chance by the majority. While I encourage the judging of other people based on their actions instead of their wiring, the fun is poked by the latter. Inclined to assumptions, the team has labeled two as "dumb" and the other two as being of a mental disorder, both of which are pretty hasty and biased conclusions. While I logically agree that the two of the latter may be diagnosed with such based on how I have conversed with them, I can't confirm that, and I disapprove of the mob mentality that is portrayed by these judgments. There is no second chance coming from the team. Each time any of the four says something, there is a high probability that "Shut up, *name here*, you're dumb!" will be tossed up, followed by immediate agreement by everyone in the vicinity. Unlike them, I bother to talk with these four and don't brush them off because of perceived incompetence. Instead, I allow them to bounce ideas off me, get my feedback, and whatnot, and sometimes I even ask their opinions of things or give them running advice when they don't ask. I have discourse with them. On a bigger spectrum, this is also a key component of the team being what it is; I try to involve these four when everyone else rushes to do the opposite.

Why do people fail to have intelligent discourse so often? Why do these mob mentalities form to begin with? Is it to make up for something? Is it to fit in? Is it something fun? I fail to understand the motives behind vulturous attacks on people because they carry a different opinion or state of being. This happens on a daily basis, especially online. Certain other forums I am a member on are far more lenient on topic quality, and the generic one-liner that can be interpreted as "No. Shut up. You're wrong," is more common a response than a rational paragraph.

What do you guys think?

 

[BigfootAUS]

RE: Intelligent Discourse

I like to attribute the decline in intelligent discourse to the rise of new/social media. I studied a bit of how people use the internet, and it's pretty crazy how much of an impact things like Facebook and Twitter have had on us.

Social media encourages fast-paced consumption of content - things like macros/memes, Vines, and slacktivism are quick and easy to be a part of (whether it's viewing the content or creating the content), while long posts detailing discussions/debates/discourses/arguments are tossed aside because the average user doesn't want to spend more than 15 seconds on a web page.

Fast-paced content consumption is one reason why intelligent discourse is declining. Here's some other reasons why I think intelligent discourse is declining on the internet:
- Anonymity. You can say whatever you want with rarely a consequence at all. This is often used to either (A) falsify the existence of supporters of your argument to intimidate your 'opponent' (B) insult the 'opponent until they backdown or (C) express yourself without real-world people calling you out on it
- Lack of commitment. This sort-of ties to Anonymity. I could delete my account here on PokeBeach and carry on with my life like nothing happened. Fan Fakes and Forum Games would probably be sad about it (and probably nag me on DeviantART), but all it takes is a mouse-click and I can quit any discourses here forever. In the real-world, that's harder to pull off - once you start talking to someone, you kinda need to properly finish that discussion or else you'll be embarrassed/shamed/etc.
- Available information. You can find information to support any idea. Doesn't matter if it's dumb or not, but if you're feeling particularly stubborn you can cling to that one obscure blog post that vaguely supports your stance and ignore everyone else's input. Why would you listen to anyone else when your own opinions are validated?

To play the devil's advocate:
Is intelligent discourse required in all aspects of life?
What areas of life are/are not suited for a lengthy discussion/debate/discourse/argument?
For example, a workplace might refuse to hire someone and give no explanation. There's no discourse there. Discourse isn't necessary. It'd help the person attempting to get a job, sure, but that requires time and effort on that workplace's behalf and diverting resources from other (more important) tasks.
To go with your example, Uralya, why might the majority of that cross country team be shunning those 4 people? Is the majority aiming to be more successful/skilled/professional? Are the 4 people holding everyone else back in that regard?
Intelligent discourse requires time and effort - pretty valuable resources to most people. Why waste time and effort when snappy remarks are just as effective? "Shut up!" "You're wrong!" "You're dumb!" etc etc.


(And sorry for not focusing too much on real-world discourse. I focus on what I know, and I know internet stuff better than real-world stuff.)

 

[professorlight]

RE: Intelligent Discourse

Mob mentality is natural human behaviour; humans are social creatures, establishing tribes and communities since their very origins. Considering that, it stands to reason they developed an innate us V them mentality; and you can see it everywhere; as in your cross country team. Say, why are you guys "a team"? what makes you different from other teams? why do you compete against them? to see who's best? isn't, then, belonging to a group being a part of (or requires) a "mob mentality"?

Mob mentality in itself is not so much of a problem, I think. The problem lies in individual accountability (as bigfootaus said); In a group, there is always one figure of authority, even if that figure is the abstract concept of "group" itself, and people are lazy. People will, at an individual level, figure out that they better follow the group, be it for a perceived danger in non-compliance, or because they assume the group/leader would know better than themselves. Of course, when the group is wrong, who is the one who will stop it? it is, after all, a group.

In internet discussions, the problem of accountability is exacerbated by the medium; in it you will have a lot of people who routinely provoke arguments because they are sadistic and/or have machiavellian traits; others will join, and soon you'll have some schmucks joining as well, just because they perceive the group as a representative voice of the forums; this wouldn't happen if whoever is being provoked or belittled by the mob is someone well, known as part of the group, since the field would be clearly marked for whoever joins the discussion.

For example: let's say you are arguing with someone who joined today and has a grand total of three posts, all in that thread, the topic is unimportant, who started it is unimportant as well; the discussion gets heated. On who's "side" do you think most people from the forums who join the discussion will get on? the known supermod, a figure of authority on the forums, or the unknown newbie? Sure, depending on the topic, some people might join the side of the new guy, but I guarantee they will be extremely cautious when addressing you directly; you won't get into a heated discussion with them, they will relent and leave before it gets to that.

And that proves the worst enemy of intelligent discourse. Forgetting what your damn point was.
Seriously, I was getting to some conclusion, I swear.

 

[Chaos Jackal]

RE: Intelligent Discourse

In one way or another, mob mentality is human nature itself. When you see someone reach a conclusion, you either agree or disagree with it. In face-to-face situations, when there's only the two of you, what usually prevails is the other dominant aspect of humans, competitiveness. You think that you're better, hence if you have a different view you will state it and try hard to prove you're the one who's right. When, however, you're in a group, survival kicks in. You maybe want to argue. You maybe don't want to. However, you're afraid. What if the rest of the group also shares this view? What if you end up alone, facing a collective effort to prove you wrong? It is better to stick with the group and follow it, because whether you're right or wrong there's always strength in numbers. An outsider or an outcast won't be able to harm you because his opinion won't be heard, but will instead disappear under the massive disapproval and pressure of your group.
To say it simply, humans view different things they can't or don't want to understand as threats. And while not all humans share the exact same beliefs and thoughts, there are some things they all agree that are abnormal. And these things they gather together to extinguish. And what best way there is to hammer down the one nail that stands out than to stop it before it even has a chance to show it's standing out?

 

[professorlight]

RE: Intelligent Discourse

I'd like to add something else, hopefully this will expand the discussion.

As an example of discourse (note that "intelligent" is purposefully left out) look no further than mafia/werewolf games; once you strip away the lingo and mafiaspeak mafia technical slang) of the more traditional games, you'll find the very core of your argument; mob mentality, people opposing the majority, and above all, the relativity of truth. I could go on and on deconstructing the game, but I think it's best to present it as a case study and letting people come up to their own conclusions.

 

[Uralya]

RE: Intelligent Discourse

Is intelligent discourse required in all aspects of life? Not at all. There's situations where it isn't exactly needed. I'm just concerned with the situations where it is recommended or helpful.
What areas of life are/are not suited for a lengthy discussion/debate/discourse/argument? Emotional situations. These can get out of hand far too easily.
For example, a workplace might refuse to hire someone and give no explanation. There's no discourse there. Discourse isn't necessary. It'd help the person attempting to get a job, sure, but that requires time and effort on that workplace's behalf and diverting resources from other (more important) tasks. Agreed unless it wouldn't hurt the company to give the person some feedback.
To go with your example, Uralya, why might the majority of that cross country team be shunning those 4 people? Stupid things they say and do, simply put.
Is the majority aiming to be more successful/skilled/professional? Yes, but the ironic thing here is that three of the four are among the top 12 on the team - one of them is competing for the top spot with another person and myself.
Are the 4 people holding everyone else back in that regard? Not really. If anything, they're distractions from what a lot of the team should focus on.
Intelligent discourse requires time and effort - pretty valuable resources to most people. Why waste time and effort when snappy remarks are just as effective? "Shut up!" "You're wrong!" "You're dumb!" etc etc. These are effective, yes, but the fact that they are so effective pisses me off. We shouldn't have to come to such a low state of mind to get points across or exchange ideas.

(And sorry for not focusing too much on real-world discourse. I focus on what I know, and I know internet stuff better than real-world stuff.) Not a problem. Internet discourse is often more productive anyways, and you gave a nice post.

Responses in bold.

*snip*

Very true. It's funny that the media portrays it as negative when mob mentalities exist on so many deep levels. It's sad too. As for individual accountability, that is the underlying problem. People are lazy, and the resultant mob mentality forming from that is what further impedes discourse. People are also a collection of terms that we'd rather not approach, but summing it all up comes to sad truths.

I am a mostly logically operating person, and so many things that stem from or cause the topics we're on about fail to make sense to me. I can see that the everyday person acts like this, but I can't fathom having the wiring that moves one to do such.

*snip*

I agree with you so much I'm annoyed that I don't have much input on this. All I can say from my perspective is that the majority if it is sad truth. While competitiveness is great, there are so many things that shouldn't be in other aspects.

To say it simply, humans view different things they can't or don't want to understand as threats. And while not all humans share the exact same beliefs and thoughts, there are some things they all agree that are abnormal. And these things they gather together to extinguish. And what best way there is to hammer down the one nail that stands out than to stop it before it even has a chance to show it's standing out?

Why do typical people refuse to see things for what they are? Why do they take such hypocritical measures to eliminate potential dissidence without seeing past the surface? This part of your post is very poignant to me, and I hope some more discussion can spawn from this.

Great posts everyone. Keep it going.

 

[professorlight]

RE: Intelligent Discourse

Why do typical people refuse to see things for what they are? Why do they take such hypocritical measures to eliminate potential dissidence without seeing past the surface?

Well, "what they are" is so much more subjective than most people think. As I mentioned in the mafia games as a case study, truth is enormously subjective, and subjected to constant change, since you're always working with limited information.

As for the hypocrisy, well, humans are also fickle creatures; existing in a social environment means we develop a unique awareness of ourselves, but, being lazy, we don't like to change it, even when we make mistakes, and can't see things for "what they are", so we resist. And that's without even taking into account other, more complex mechanisms, like overcompensation or rationalization.

 

[Chaos Jackal]

RE: Intelligent Discourse

Why do typical people refuse to see things for what they are? Why do they take such hypocritical measures to eliminate potential dissidence without seeing past the surface? This part of your post is very poignant to me, and I hope some more discussion can spawn from this.

Thing is, are they really hypocritical? In some way, you could even call it instinct. Just like an wild animal who sees you is wary of you because it has no idea what you are. In the same manner, another person can view you the same way. They don't feel the need to see past the surface. Since the surface itself is so dark and swirling, diving seems like a crazy thing to do.
Add some self-righteousness to the whole thing, and you've got the idea.

 

[Uralya]

RE: Intelligent Discourse

*snip*

Yes, truths are pretty subjective. More exist than humans can comprehend, and they are ever-shifting. However, that doesn't answer the why of that question.

The hypocrisy I'm talking about is in how people encourage others to be open-minded when they can't even live up to that (should have elaborated, sorry). It is human instinct to judge upon first glance, as Jackal said. Do you have any theories on why people remain so resistant to change and foreign things? I believe it is a need for order and control.

*snip*

I agree with you on the conscious fear of uncertainties. It is instinct for most I believe. But in contrast to what people tell me and others, about being open-minded and unafraid, it does come across as hypocritical when it appears to be human nature to do the opposite of what they say. Could this be delusion talking? Feeble hopes of instilling in the young a sense of outward projection (here are my true intentions everyone, come get me!)? I don't know if either of those even exists in this context, but they come to mind.

Also, this is still on-topic I think; we're discussing the nature behind these individuals and the mob mentality they form out of it. Discourse is a strong ability, but the investigation of what seems to destroy it is more important to explore (at least to me).

 

[professorlight]

RE: Intelligent Discourse

*snip*

Yes, truths are pretty subjective. More exist than humans can comprehend, and they are ever-shifting. However, that doesn't answer the why of that question.

The hypocrisy I'm talking about is in how people encourage others to be open-minded when they can't even live up to that (should have elaborated, sorry). It is human instinct to judge upon first glance, as Jackal said. Do you have any theories on why people remain so resistant to change and foreign things? I believe it is a need for order and control.

What happens is that whenever someone is asking for open-mindedness in a discussion, what he really means is "please agree with me"; even when he genuinely believes what he's saying and is not asking for open-mindedness with that purpose, his ultimate goal is that if you're open minded, you'll end up agreeing with him because his side of the argument is the truth, and as I said, you have a lot of mechanisms through which we filter our own hypocrisies to justify them, so he is not wrong by using open mindedness because he's ultimately right.

The resistance to change stems, as I said, from our identities; as social animals, humans develop a unique awareness of themselves; however, this means that they see themselves as more important than the others; even when someone has the awareness to know this is not so, he only has his own experiences to draw conclusions from; it's not only more easy, but more "accurate", to disregard others, since you're living your life by the only thing you, as you said, can control and fully know.

I'll give you an example. Here I critiqued the recent megas revealed in corocoro, particularly gallade's, who everyone loves.
As I go in to find the link, I find this:

-

You're entitled to your opinion, but you don't need to be so snotty about it. I think one could make an argument for any of the aforementioned abilities for Gallade, but the one they went with isn't a deal killer, at least not for me. I'm not sure why you think all that green looks better than what they have, but to each their own.

1- I am snotty. Pretty much anyone I have ever talked to can attest to that. That's not news. It might possibly be another thing I have going against discourse.
2- Is my critique of the megas unfair? Perhaps. Heaven knows I'm sadly not one of the designers in gamefreak, so I don't have their knowledge on why gallade was made that way, however, I did analyze the design, and more important, came up with a solution; I didn't talk "out of my ass", figuratively speaking, but at least I supported what I was saying, which people rarely do. That doesn't mean I'm not ultimately ignorant, but it means I have a better standing on which to support my own conclusions, my own truth.

Most people, when they critique, or praise, things, don't bother pointing out what's good and what's bad. That's lazy, and it's another thing that gets in the way of proper discourse, not knowing yourself enough.
If I asked why do people like M gallade so much, how many informed responses would I get? most answers would be in the vein of "it's so elegant", "it's badass", "looks cool", etc. But I ask "why", not "how do you think it looks". Those answers amount to say the earth is flat because we see it flat, it's easy.

Now, as I wrap this up, I'm going to write my rebuttal; will it explain my viewpoint to him? can it make him change his mind about the green color? of course not. I'm not so naive as to think so. Then why bother?

Why, because I'm snotty, of course.

That's the answer to your second question; snottiness destroys discourse because it prevents the change of one's opinions, or on the other side, drives you to disregard the snotty person's opinions; and it's not the only thing that does that; ignorance, stubbornness, peer pressure, hidden agendas, customs, all those things and more can prevent people from changing opinions, and they are all an essential part of human nature.

 

[Juliacoolo]

I don't think Intelligent Discourse is on the decline at all. Like many things, perhaps it's just that our awareness of it has become stronger with a more prominent media presence. Intelligent Discourse is still as alive as ever among academia and among professional activity. While social media has given us more opportunity to play out this "mob mentality," I don't think societies are changing in terms of how common and significant these behaviors are. Such principles are innate to human nature; personal intellectual welfare, however it may be perceived, will always take priority over entertaining thoughts that are different than ones own. I see this as more of a human problem than a socio-cultural problem.

 

[Pikachu6319]

I think alot of it is a point of social acceptance.

Uralya, let's try this one out: Let's say I think every point you made is stupid, I don't but for this example we'll go with it. But as I go to state this, I see that your a super mod. This could say to me that you have the power to outright ban me from this site for disagreeing with you or at the very least you could figure out a way to get the other mods to reach the same opinion, making it a group consensus rather than an individual thing. So with that logic it's in my best interest to either keep my opinion to myself or to agree with you and avoid that complication rather than counter with my own viewpoint and start a disagreement or outright fight. Forget for the moment that I don't even really know anyone on this forum

Now apply this to a face to face situation. Are you my boss at work? Are you an older sibling or relative? Are you the brawny and popular football jock at my school? Unlike here in internet land where I can tune this out and never speak of it again we're talking situations that put me in a position I potentially see you in everyday and have the opportunity to ridicule me everyday if that was what you were inclined to do simply because I chose a stance that you and who knows whoever else in this situation see differently. This would be where the commitment that bigfootaus spoke of earlier comes in because there's no writing off and/or ignoring what was said in those situations.

It could be the same thing with your cross country team, though I don't know them at all to be sure on this. Just one of them, the possibly self appointed 'leader' decides to shun those who he considers lesser. Everyone is faced with the option of going with the flow or not and depending on several social cues that I don't know, it could cause all sorts of problems. One could reason it better to avoid that and just agree with him. This however comes to bigfootaus's next point of information, or in this case lack of. It's all a matter of opinion I suppose but how often do any of us have enough information to have a opinion, let alone an intelligent one.

As long as we are all concerned with our social standings in our group/family/class/workplace or whatever it makes it hard for some to do anything other than go with the flow, the mob mentality. As you say it goes back to making up for something or fitting in.

It is true however that discourse, intelligent or otherwise, is not always something that need be present. The work environment is a good example of that. Right, wrong or otherwise there are very few managers who want to be questioned, let alone spend minutes or possibly hours debating a course of action when that one task being debated is really only one of many tasks they have to worry about throughout the day.

Being hypocritical is unfortuantley one of the many traits of humanity. What we expect of others we don't necessarily expect of ourselves, What we expect of ourselves isn't always something we're prepared to expect from others. That kind of thing can indeed be instinctual. How many tense when a police card drives by even though you're pretty sure you've done nothing wrong? How many tense when their supervisor wants to talk to you even though again you're pretty sure you've done nothing wrong? How many times does someone look at another person or group of people, find something they don't physically like about them and do their best to avoid them? Whether any of this is right or not is a matter of opinion but it happens all the time, sometimes without conciously realizing that.

Some of this view could be about order and control. Really, think about this. How many decisions have you really made today? Did you decide when you wanted to get up? Did you really decide what to have for breakfast? Did you really decide what you're doing today? Did you really decide what you're having for dinner? Did you really make the decision not to have dessert? I'm already sure anyone who is working at a job or going to school today will have to answer no to at least two, possibly three, of these questions. And if you're not single and alone you probably have to say no to most if not all of these questions. Our thoughts, beliefs, opinions, those are something that we can say we really have control and order over and most people find that really hard to give up.

And honestly most people just hate not being right. That view alone kills discourse and any sort of discussion whatsoever when they're not getting their way. We as a people can be short sighted, self centered, and fickle.

Hpefully alot of this makes some kind of sense. Long winded rant over.

 

[Chaos Jackal]

I don't think Intelligent Discourse is on the decline at all. Like many things, perhaps it's just that our awareness of it has become stronger with a more prominent media presence. Intelligent Discourse is still as alive as ever among academia and among professional activity. While social media has given us more opportunity to play out this "mob mentality," I don't think societies are changing in terms of how common and significant these behaviors are. Such principles are innate to human nature; personal intellectual welfare, however it may be perceived, will always take priority over entertaining thoughts that are different than ones own. I see this as more of a human problem than a socio-cultural problem.

Maybe not, but that's exactly the problem. Intelligent discourse isn't on the decline because it never was too prominent. You'd expect that with humanity's progress, human nature could take a turn for the better. However, open minds don't seem to increase, and extreme attachment to one's ideas without hearing anything different is just as common as it always was.