Discussing opinions in an intelligent way... how?

Rui 'Trovatore' Pires · Sun 10/12/2006 11:44:55

Some of you may have noticed (and probably not really cared about, and good on you) a little argument I had going on with Thomas Voss in http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=29310.msg374498#msg374498. It was a small enough thing, but it got me thinking about how it could have been avoided, and then I got thinking about how I could have avoided it, and then I basically got thinking about what I'm ranting about now:

Opinions and tastes are one of those things that most times you can't really explain, and can't convince others to share. That's fine.

So, how do you talk about them, how do you dialog? Some of you may have noticed my tendency to disagree with someone's opinion, and ask for some justification, giving my own opinion. With this I think I am trying to dialog and in a sensible way understand why that person's opinion is so different from mine.

Or am I? Am I doing this at all? Perhaps what really comes across is a "You're wrong and I'm right because so-and-so, now tell me diffferently if you can" post. But how would I know that?

Or should we leave opinions and tastes aside? "I like apples, mathematics and Hitler's approach to the overpopulating problem." Should we accept opinions and tastes as they're stated and leave it at that, unquestioning, not trying to understand?

What's the fine line between talking about things and trying to impose yourself?

Life should come with an instruction manual.

Dialogs are so much easier in AGS.

EDIT - It's like the difference between being honest and direct VS being blunt and downright rude or inconsiderate. A social life is a precious thing to have, but damn hard to maintain.

boojiboy · Sun 10/12/2006 12:28:25

It's tough to even express an opinion let alone try and get others to share it. Whether you're a jerk about it or you try and do it rationally, in most cases people won't change there opininion and, in a few cases, someone will retort like a jerk.
I guess the only thing we can do is express our opinions and try not to judge others opinions, but that's almost impossible huh?

MashPotato · Sun 10/12/2006 15:15:09

I think it's fair to question others' opinions, it gives the opportunity to learn about different viewpoints, or--if the viewpoint seems rather bizarre--clear up misunderstandings where the speakers expressed themselves badly.

However, there are some things people should keep in mind (and there's more, but I can't think of them right now):
a) you're not going to change anyone's mind. In fact, if you're on opposite sides of an issue, psychology studies have shown arguing or trying to persuade someone usually leads to further polarization, not coming together.

b) picking apart the points of someone else seems aggressive, even if you don't do it in an aggressive manner. I don't mean when you are actually in a debate, in which case this is a necessity, but if someone states an opinion in passing and you jump on it, it looks like you're trying to pick a fight which may not be the case.

c) it being "the internet" doesn't give you a license to be a jerk--if you wouldn't say it in real life, don't say it on the internet. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive, but it annoys me when people say to someone who becomes upset, "relax d00d, it's the internets!"... it's still people communicating, the sentiment behind what is said/written is the same.

d) smilies do not make everything better. Using one does not give you leave to write whatever you want, then later say, "but I wasn't being serious!". If you're not serious, reword your post so you're not serious.

e) people will often take things personally. You might not insult X as a person, but if you insult their argument, guess who believes in that argument... X.

This post probably seems patronizing, and I apologize for that... I just started typing and it came out ^_^. However, I must say that the forums here are, for the vast majority of the time, civil and respectuful, so this is more of a rant aimed at the internet in general, not at AGS.

Rui 'Trovatore' Pires · Sun 10/12/2006 20:34:47

No, not patronizing at all, it's actually helpful. I had never realized, for instance, that "picking apart the points of someone else seems aggressive, even if you don't do it in an aggressive manner." I know it sounds odd, but I'd never really thought of that. I've always been one for extensive communication, I believe it solves most problems, and when people disagree I always try to find the *one* little thing that is the basis of our disagreament. I mean, when people disagree about, say, the quality of a piece of music, why is that? Do they have different standards? If so, which? Is it melody? They might both like melodic lines, so that isn't it. Is it the rythmic bit? No, actually the beat is quite pleasant. At the core of it all will be the one thing that those two people disagree on, and when you get THERE you know exactly what it is, and it should be self-evident that THAT's the one thing of which they'll never convince their partner.

I mean, it sounds logical to me. I never thought that people might think I was questioning their opinion in an offensive way...

...you know, all of a sudden so many situations in my life have just become a lot less baffling.

But is it so wrong to believe that communication CAN solve most problems? It seems to me that nowadays (going off on another tangent now) people keep so damn quiet. They feel something is wrong, but they say nothing. Like, someone's best friend can say something they don't like (and I mean REALLY not like, not just dislike a bit), but often people seem to prefer to keep quiet, so it doesn't spoil the friendship, or something. But it's THERE, it's been said, the guy won't really forget it and the friend has no idea of what just happened. Just to give a quick example, of course. Point is, people don't *talk*. They either seem to want the world to read their minds and make it allright for them (this image came straight from Pratchett's "Feet of Clay", actually), or just sit still and let whatever is wrong go away.

And then when someone does say something, other people pounce on him because he's "rude", or "not nice", or "who the hell asked you anyway", or "mind your own beeswax", or - worse - they get all offended and say whatever's wrong is a problem with THE OTHER GUY and not with THEM...

I just wish people would friggin' TALK, we're all in this shit together.

<sigh> Now I'm starting to sound like a child. Swearing excluded. And even then...

Blackthorne · Sun 10/12/2006 21:34:42

My father once said to me "Pick your battles."

As strong as my passions and convictions are, I try to refrain from getting too emotionally invested in internet argument. It just doesn't do anyone a bit of good, let alone yourself. Many times, you leave the keyboard feeling frustrated. Most times, you have to shake your head and wash your hands of things, and remember that when it all comes down to it - you only live one life, your own.

Bt

Rui 'Trovatore' Pires · Sun 10/12/2006 21:37:46

Not really talking about internet arguments anymore, not sure I ever was, not in this thread...

EDIT - Mind you, very nicely put, Blackthorne.

skyfire2 · Sun 10/12/2006 21:56:24

Quote from: Rui "Trovatore" Pires on Sun 10/12/2006 21:37:46
Not really talking about internet arguments anymore, not sure I ever was, not in this thread...

Just don't cry if someone doesn't agree with you. It makes you the weaker person if you post a new thread asking everyone if they think you're right or wrong.

MashPotato · Sun 10/12/2006 21:57:04

I believe communication is important in solving problems and misunderstanding as well, so I'm sorry I gave the impression I thought otherwise ^_^. What I meant with the "picking at points" is more when someone picks at things that aren't the main point of the conversation (in which case it might seem as though it's out of the blue, and for no reason)... in your example, having a thorough discussion of musical qualities makes sense and is a positive thing if the discussion is about music.

Upon reading my list again, I can certainly see why it could be interpreted as if I'm saying "shut up and don't argue!", but that's not what I meant at all ^_^. I guess what I mean more is that even if one's intention is good and harmless, others may not interpret it that way. Be prepared for the consequences, even if the query might seem inconsequential. I believe it's similar to your point that when people speak up against something they are often unfairly put down by others.

Both sides need to give the benefit of the doubt sometimes ^_^

Blackthorne · Sun 10/12/2006 21:59:49

Quote from: Rui "Trovatore" Pires on Sun 10/12/2006 21:37:46
Not really talking about internet arguments anymore, not sure I ever was, not in this thread...

Argument being analogus to conversation, at least in my usage - not necessarily meaning a fight.

Bt

Rui 'Trovatore' Pires · Sun 10/12/2006 22:03:03

Naturally, arguments being synonum with conversation or discussion.

Skyfire, I'll choose to ignore that comment. You need only read this thread to understand I'm well past the event that caused me to think about these things.

Potato, I understood that you weren't "against communication", as it were. It was mostly a small internal rant I've been having for quite a while, and I found a place to vent it.

Renal Shutdown · Sun 10/12/2006 22:13:25

Quote from: Rui "Trovatore" Pires on Sun 10/12/2006 22:03:03
Skyfire, I'll choose to ignore that comment.

I won't..

Skyfire, try actually reading stuff before jumping at the opportunity to post a derogatory reply. It doesn't make you look strong or wise.

voh · Mon 11/12/2006 00:06:03

Trying to seem cool by posting stupid and offensively-meant comments in every thread that you can click on makes you seem like a weak person, Skyfire

Regardless of that, I'm of the opinion that the best way to discuss something between two people who have different opinions is to stay with the facts. This is why discussions are pretty useless, because most opinions a person has are a combination of emotion and factual logic. I've yet to meet anyone who's purely factual, and I've yet to meet anyone who's purely emotional.

I do discuss, of course. But I try to keep it as far away from the emotional reasoning as possible. When I'm discussing something with someone and I'm feeling that they're too emotionally linked to their own opinion, or that I'm too emotionally linked to mine, I usually just offer to agree to disagree, because it won't end up anywhere but there, or a (verbal) fight. Opinions are fickle things, and people will do a lot to defend them. Sometimes it's just not worth opening the can of maggots that we call debate.

Funny thing is, I get all philosophical when I get drunk, and last night I had one of those discussions with a friend I don't get to talk to all that much. I talked about a theory I had about people, and while he didn't agree, we had a good talk about it, because he wanted to know how it could be applied, and how I came up with it. He gave me examples and I had to apply my theory to them. While in the end, he didn't agree with it still, he did say it had validity, and that it made abstract sense (whatever the hell that meant

).

So, as you can see, even agreeing to disagree can end up meaning something to someone, since when I spoke to him today he said he'd been thinking about it and that perhaps I may be on to something here. By sticking to the facts, using logical arguments and giving examples, I have shared my opinion on something (about quite an emotionally-based subject) with someone who wasn't about to agree to what I was saying, and in the end may have turned into a believer.

This has happened the other way around too, when someone talked to me about something I had a strong opinion about. I wasn't about to agree, but the talk was good. Weeks later I was still thinking about it and in the end agreed that he was right.

What we need to do is accept that everyone's opinion is as valid as any others. Whether they're good or bad is a decision we all make based on our own virtues, principles and what we look for in life. But when they're not bad, and you don't agree, that's a good situation, because you don't have to pull emotion into it, and then you can have a good discussion.

I'll shut up now.

ManicMatt · Mon 11/12/2006 00:32:01

*Hi-jacks the thread*

Hey skyfire1, why aren't you hitting my music video with badly constructive comments anymore? (ie "emo gay") I could easily delete the comments and you were raising the total views stats! So, thanks for that anyway!

evenwolf · Mon 11/12/2006 01:26:44

Rui: I skimmed over that thread for skirmishes and nothing extraordinary caught my eye. People aren't supposed to agree with each other. So the main thing is to just get your point out there and don't worry if everyone agrees with you or not.

You can spend time defending and building up points for your argument, but never get so carried away that you're frazzled. I mean, opinions are such small things. Yours will come and go. Now for the sake of comedy and overall interestingness- arguments are good! Hasn't WWF or Soap Operas taught you anything? We wouldn't be anywhere without difference of opinion or misunderstanding.

Oh, well if not wrestling or soaps, how about anything else good on TV. There's always an argument present.

Nostradamus · Mon 11/12/2006 09:12:14

90% of the people will not accept others' opinions, not even try to, but be locked in their opinions.
Should that discourage you from expressions and arguing about opinions? no.
As evenwolf said, discussions are based on disagreements. If people agreed on everything and didn't argue about their difference of opinion this would be a very boring place.
As long as it stays civilized and is based on valid points and not just flame wars, it hsould happen.
Yes it is about defending your position and trying to prove the other's wrong, but you must keep an openness to hear the other's opinion, thiunk about it seriously, accept it if it makes sense or prove it wrong if you can. As long as both sides behave like that it would be a meanigful conversation. Granted, 90% of the times both sides won't behave like that, but all you can do is try. If you see the other side chooses to completely ignore everything and stay in his side of the story you can give up quitely and hope you at lesat made your point to others. This is however a smarter community then most internet communities so there's better chances of valid discussions.
Remember if you think something is wrong and you don't express it then it will stay the way it is.

skyfire2 · Mon 11/12/2006 17:51:57

Quote from: Rui "Trovatore" Pires on Sun 10/12/2006 22:03:03
Skyfire, I'll choose to ignore that comment. You need only read this thread to understand I'm well past the event that caused me to think about these things.

Mmmm, mmmm. Every day I love waking up to a nice steaming cup of bullshit. Today it will be extra bitter so I better add another 3 packets of sugar. Good thing its tan colored because I'm fresh out of cream.

*gulp*

Let me ask you an important question, if you were really over Thomas's disagreement with you, what would be the point in making a new thread about it? Well apparently because it upsets you and you're not over it. The topic title says it all my friend. You're clearly calling his opinion unintelligent but have to put a topic about it because either (A). you're too afraid to talk to him about it or (B). he put you on ignore because he doesn't want to talk to you. That's it. There's no philosophy behind it. He just doesn't want to agree with you and you need to accept it.

MashPotato · Mon 11/12/2006 18:09:20

This thread is not specific to that situation; Rui simply posed a general question that was brought to mind due to his involvement in the other thread. I, or anyone else who has ever had a disagreement with others, could have started it. My reply was not in response to the other thread (I didn't even read it), and except for your replies, I don't think anyone else's was either.

Nikolas · Mon 11/12/2006 18:17:51

skyfire, I really can't understand the way you think... :-/

Anyways...

I do think that apart from opinion there is the selfish part that needs to be winning. There are people who know how to say sorry, and people who will never do that. I do think that in most case I can say that I am sorry. This makes things easier in lots of arguments, as I do think that it "kinda" proves that I can accept other opinions, and admit that I have errered (even in spelling... :p)

I do think that most arguments go the "wrong" way, when there is some kind of past.

For some reason Thomas and Rui may have argued in the past, or at least get annoyed with each other at some point. I won't be checking previous posts to find out, but I do certainly know that I can take anything from certain members, and very little from others. It does make sense, doesn't it?

A more personal example is that most couples (including me and my wife), sometimes tend to argue over the most stupid things. Just that irritation keeps adding up (especially when you live with the other).

After all that, there is a bolt of energy and everything resolves, with a little biter taste maybe (as I know I have with some people).

I can bet that every post skyfire2!!!1!!!!0 makes will seem stupid to Matt, even if it actually isn't.

Ghost · Mon 11/12/2006 18:46:14

@Rui: This is a very large and very populated forum, and the frequent users cover quite a wide span of ages. Each time something is posted that isn't exactly to be measured in a clear, calculating, mathematical way, you're bound to find people who agree or disagree. We can't argue that gravity works or that KQ VGA is a remake of King's Quest. But as soon as personal experience, taste or preferences come in, well, there's room for argument.

I must say that I feel more unhappy with harsh tones in a forum than I do with harsh words from the person in front of me. While the internet and forums are a great way to discuss things with a wide(r) range of people, it's also a bit faceless. I mean- what do we know about each other? Only what we can learn about each other by checking the profiles and reading a lot. I know your age, I know you maintain a resource page for AGS, you seem to like Cats, and apart from that, we've sometimes exchanged a few words in the odd thread. You're very much a stranger, though we seem to share the fun for adventure and adventure creation, we speak a lingua franca, and following some threads makes me think "I wonder what Rui would say to that" because I've come to know your way of thinking/posting a bit. Apart from that, we're strangers, and everything you say should be no skin off my nose.

I wouldn't say your posts are harsh or harming, but you have a tendency to speak your mind and speak it clear. That's fine by me and a lot of other people. But you'll always have others thinking it's offensive. And people react very different to being offended. Some have thick skin and just keep on arguing, some whine, some try to reason. That's what happens all the time in real live, but usually only within a certain age group. Each post here is commented by people who are quite a distance away from you, and who will have dramatically different views.

I read the thread in question and are a bit surprised. I know Thomas a bit, and he's always been a friendly poster. Seeing him actually becoming vexed means that something you said must've hit a nerve, as he admitted, and thus he overreacted. You reacted in your normal way, still speaking your mind. This can be seen in different ways, but it has happened. A discussion is allowed to go on for a while, it can even catch some fire, but it's nothing more than words, and what's in a name?

Discussing opinions means a) to have an opinion, b) be prepared to see it questioned, c) being able to see the other side of the coin. This can only be done if both people are up to it. And well, I thin there's no-one here how hasn't found his views being questioned once or twice. I wouldn't lose to much sleep over it. Apparently you're questioning yourself a good deal now, but just as I said, you're you. Others are themselves, and it would be a pretty strange world if any two people could agree on everything.

Bit trivial, but true in my eyes.

Rui 'Trovatore' Pires · Tue 12/12/2006 00:29:18

Well, Ghost, I suppose in a sense this all thing can be considered trivial, as it's one of those things that in a way everybody knows about but no one really talks about and should really be in the Troubleshooting section of "Life: A Comprehensive User's Manual". But nevertheless, lots of people had a lot to say about it.

It actually surprised me, I was expecting few and shorter replies.

Voh, it's a funny thing, the examples you cited reminded me of something my teacher used to quote: "I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'd give anything to go on disagreeing". This quote would supposedly go amidst a long discussion, and it means (I have to say this because out of context and badly translated to English it might not be as clear) that the speaker is having a stimulating conversation, that is making him ponder even about his own opinions et all, and wants to go on discussing even though they both know they'll never actually agree. Kinda like a recent discussion I had with Vel on IRC, except at one point I was being ridiculously pedantic and silly to the point of continuing the discussion just for sake of pointless fun.

I don't think Vel got offended - he noticed that at one point I was just arguing for the sake of arguing. Mind you, the discussion really left me thinking for a couple of days, making me re-shape my opinions on the matter.

I agree, Ghost, that if everyone agreed on everything the world would be a strange place - it's almost one of my mottos.

I guess it's the little selfish bit of us that Nikolas mentioned that is to blame - always a tendency to try and make our point the one valid point. Well, at least now I'm rather more alert to it, and can try and fight it.

Another thing you said, Ghost - I seem to have struck a nerve on that discussion with Thomas. How right you are. What I should have done, and I might as well apologise right here to Thomas for not having done that, was to be sensible enough to realize it, PM him and find out what nerve it was I struck, and once that got cleared out make a more sensible reply to the thread. Another thing I have to watch out for.

Thank you very much, people, I learned a lot from this - maybe too much, considering so much of it is common sense stuff that I shouldn't need to be told. Ah well, never too late to learn. I hope some other people found this of interest as well.

Now I'd just like to end with a reply to skyfire...

QuoteLet me ask you an important question, if you were really over Thomas's disagreement with you, what would be the point in making a new thread about it?

The thread is about the aftermath of that disagreement, sure, and the way we both dealt with it. The whole thing got me thinking, and I felt the need to explore it a bit more with the help of community, a help it now seems I really needed. If this is in any way related to the disagreement we had, it's in hopes of not repeating it - especially since it wasn't really the first time I had an argument around here, and not the first time that speaking my mind put me in trouble both here and in real life, and especially real life.

QuoteWell apparently because it upsets you and you're not over it.

Ah well, if you want to answer the question you adressed to me for yourself, go right ahead. Like I said, though, you're right, but not in the way you mean it. It did upset me that an argument like that could break out, and I wouldn't be over it until I found a better way of doing it.

QuoteThe topic title says it all my friend. You're clearly calling his opinion unintelligent

"Clearly" to whom? It takes two to tango. If you want to take the title of the thread in an offensive way, what is "clear" is that both parties were not behaving intelligently. Or you could try thinking that sometimes people do want to understand stuff, and avoid repeating mistakes, and maybe just simply talk about things. FYI, I didn't really know what I should name the thread, and was even unsure about posting because I thought someone might take it the wrong way, like you did. But you were the only one that did. That is somewhat telling.

Quotebut have to put a topic about it because either (A). you're too afraid to talk to him about it or (B). he put you on ignore because he doesn't want to talk to you.

I didn't try to talk to him because I figured he didn't really want to talk about the subject anymore, and I thought I should let sleeping dogs lie, so I buried that hatchet. What I brought up in this thread was, again, something else entirely, something born from that discussion but not about it.

QuoteThat's it. There's no philosophy behind it. He just doesn't want to agree with you and you need to accept it.

Which is pretty much what everyone else has been saying, as a matter of fact, except you're the only one to actually make it sound offensive.

That IS it, and indeed there IS no philosophy here (except the one that we live our lives by, and sometimes we have to be reminded of it), and indeed he doesn't agree with me and indeed I have accepted it. Which comprises a total of three sentences related to the argument that was by then over and zero sentences that relate to this new thread, in which I wanted to explore, not - as you seem to believe - put blame and "seek help from my forum palls to lynch Thomas", or something.