Zone1 Sociopolitical debate vs group think

[Foxfyre]

I could be wrong but in my opinion it seems that fewer and fewer serious and/or independent critical thinkers are posting at USMB these days, especially in the more popular sociopolitical forums. That renders the board unappealing to potential new members who are interesting in actually discussing topics as well as discouraging/disaffecting many of the old timers.

I blame group think which seems to be the political norm these days regardless of political party.

The simplest definition for group think is: "the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility."

group think definition - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

And, again in my opinion, an expanded use of group is using insulting or smart aleck memes, platitudes, quotations taken out of context, assigned phrases/terms/talking points in lieu of serious and accurate facts, logic, reason. The methodology of delivery is mostly ad hominem, personal insults, phrases taken out of context or assigning words/thoughts to people that they never said or thought.

That is NOT debate which constitutes the following:
--courtesy/respect for your opponent
--arguing/explaining with real facts and evidence rather than assigned platitudes that are actually meaningless or just insulting.
--allowing the other person the right to their own perspective/opinion without feeling they must be pronounced mental or ideological idiots for thinking as they do.

A Beginners Guide to Debate Ethics and Etiquette

Treat your opponent with respect. Aside from that, what basic rules (do’s and don’ts) apply? This post applies to TP and LD specific rounds – but also to any debate style or format. Here is …

www.ethosdebate.com

Some things can just be discussed for the purpose of learning or teaching or exploring options or just because they are interesting/entertaining to the participants. Some things can be argued as to why one point of view is more defensible than another.

But just preaching to the choir, while it can be affirming to the participants, should not be confused with actual debate that seeks to defend a particular point of view.

I bring this up as yet another long time member/friend on this board is no longer participating due to the lack of interesting or helpful discussion/debate as well as the difficulty of establishing such discussion/debate due to a few board policies and the predictable group think that seeks to derail or bury such discussion/debate.

Is anybody else interested in this topic or care?

 

[occupied]

I could be wrong but in my opinion it seems that fewer and fewer serious and/or independent critical thinkers are posting at USMB these days, especially in the more popular sociopolitical forums. That renders the board unappealing to potential new members who are interesting in actually discussing topics as well as discouraging/disaffecting many of the old timers.

I blame group think which seems to be the political norm these days regardless of political party.

The simplest definition for group think is: "the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility."

group think definition - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

And, again in my opinion, an expanded use of group is using insulting or smart aleck memes, platitudes, quotations taken out of context, assigned phrases/terms/talking points in lieu of serious and accurate facts, logic, reason. The methodology of delivery is mostly ad hominem, personal insults, phrases taken out of context or assigning words/thoughts to people that they never said or thought.

That is NOT debate which constitutes the following:
--courtesy/respect for your opponent
--arguing/explaining with real facts and evidence rather than assigned platitudes that are actually meaningless or just insulting.
--allowing the other person the right to their own perspective/opinion without feeling they must be pronounced mental or ideological idiots for thinking as they do.

A Beginners Guide to Debate Ethics and Etiquette

Treat your opponent with respect. Aside from that, what basic rules (do’s and don’ts) apply? This post applies to TP and LD specific rounds – but also to any debate style or format. Here is …

www.ethosdebate.com

Some things can just be discussed for the purpose of learning or teaching or exploring options or just because they are interesting/entertaining to the participants. Some things can be argued as to why one point of view is more defensible than another.

But just preaching to the choir, while it can be affirming to the participants, should not be confused with actual debate that seeks to defend a particular point of view.

I bring this up as another long time member/friend on this board is no longer participating due to the lack of interesting or helpful discussion/debate as well as the difficulty of establishing such discussion/debate due to a few board policies and the predictable group think that seeks to derail or bury such discussion/debate.

Is anybody else interested in this topic or care?

Trying to apply the rules of debate on a message board has certainly been tried. Never works. People like their shitposting and trolling. Don't try to fight it or take it personally if someone refuses to supply you with a logical argument.

 

[Foxfyre]

Trying to apply the rules of debate on a message board has certainly been tried. Never works. People like their shitposting and trolling. Don't try to fight it or take it personally if someone refuses to supply you with a logical argument.

I just chalk it up to infantile or rigid mentality actually. I long ago was not bothered by the insults and hateful logic of the trolls or group think though it is difficult to respect that. Some years ago CK and I tried to establish a better means to facilitate more intelligent discussion with the Structured Debate forum, but the mods hated it so it never really got off the ground.

But I hate to see the few really interesting people here depart because it has simply become so vacuous, uninteresting, and sometimes unfair. Even some mods do not distinguish between different approaches to a topic and just lump them all in together. I'm sure this is usually unintentional--usually but probably not always.

I may have to go back to some of the previous message boards that actually have real discussions though I don't have the sense of community there that I have with some here. Just pondering.

 

[Foxfyre]

Trying to apply the rules of debate on a message board has certainly been tried. Never works. People like their shitposting and trolling. Don't try to fight it or take it personally if someone refuses to supply you with a logical argument.

By the way thank you for your response. It is appreciated.

 

[Concerned American]

I could be wrong but in my opinion it seems that fewer and fewer serious and/or independent critical thinkers are posting at USMB these days, especially in the more popular sociopolitical forums. That renders the board unappealing to potential new members who are interesting in actually discussing topics as well as discouraging/disaffecting many of the old timers.

I blame group think which seems to be the political norm these days regardless of political party.

The simplest definition for group think is: "the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility."

group think definition - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

And, again in my opinion, an expanded use of group is using insulting or smart aleck memes, platitudes, quotations taken out of context, assigned phrases/terms/talking points in lieu of serious and accurate facts, logic, reason. The methodology of delivery is mostly ad hominem, personal insults, phrases taken out of context or assigning words/thoughts to people that they never said or thought.

That is NOT debate which constitutes the following:
--courtesy/respect for your opponent
--arguing/explaining with real facts and evidence rather than assigned platitudes that are actually meaningless or just insulting.
--allowing the other person the right to their own perspective/opinion without feeling they must be pronounced mental or ideological idiots for thinking as they do.

A Beginners Guide to Debate Ethics and Etiquette

Treat your opponent with respect. Aside from that, what basic rules (do’s and don’ts) apply? This post applies to TP and LD specific rounds – but also to any debate style or format. Here is …

www.ethosdebate.com

Some things can just be discussed for the purpose of learning or teaching or exploring options or just because they are interesting/entertaining to the participants. Some things can be argued as to why one point of view is more defensible than another.

But just preaching to the choir, while it can be affirming to the participants, should not be confused with actual debate that seeks to defend a particular point of view.

I bring this up as another long time member/friend on this board is no longer participating due to the lack of interesting or helpful discussion/debate as well as the difficulty of establishing such discussion/debate due to a few board policies and the predictable group think that seeks to derail or bury such discussion/debate.

Is anybody else interested in this topic or care?

Group think is dangerous. I experienced it in my employment before retiring. Many fresh college grads were given positions of leadership that they were woefully unprepared for. The place began to be run by "consensus" instead logic and reality. Thankfully the owners saw what was happening and more business-friendly methods were returned.

 

[Foxfyre]

Group think is dangerous. I experienced it in my employment before retiring. Many fresh college grads were given positions of leadership that they were woefully unprepared for. The place began to be run by "consensus" instead logic and reality. Thankfully the owners saw what was happening and more business-friendly methods were returned.

Yes. I have experienced that phenomenon now and then in my working career too. But at least that was localized. When the government requires it and militarizes to punish any heretics, it becomes far more dangerous and in far too many countries turned deadly.

I think that's my motivation to speak out against it now and maybe educate a few people to it's bad points and dangers.

Groupthink

Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of well-intentioned people makes irrational or non-optimal decisions spurred by the urge to conform or the belief that dissent is impossible. The problematic or premature consensus that is characteristic of groupthink may be fueled by a...

www.psychologytoday.com

". . .Under totalitarian rule, traditional social institutions and organizations are discouraged and suppressed. Thus, the social fabric is weakened and people become more amenable to absorption into a single, unified movement. Participation in approved public organizations is at first encouraged and then required. Old religious and social ties are supplanted by artificial ties to the state and its ideology. As pluralism and individualism diminish, most of the people embrace the totalitarian state’s ideology. The infinite diversity among individuals blurs, replaced by a mass conformity (or at least acquiescence) to the beliefs and behaviour sanctioned by the state. . ."

Totalitarianism | Definition, Characteristics, Examples, & Facts

Totalitarianism, form of government that permits no individual freedom and seeks to subordinate all aspects of individual life to the authority of the state. Coined by the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini in the early 1920s, the term has become synonymous with absolute and oppressive...

www.britannica.com

 

[lg325]

Maybe a defined list of rules like we have now but more detailed and the consequences of breaking them and making sure they are enforced. No need for censorship just a proper choice of words used to make a point.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

I just chalk it up to infantile or rigid mentality actually. I long ago was not bothered by the insults and hateful logic of the trolls or group think though it is difficult to respect that. Some years ago CK and I tried to establish a better means to facilitate more intelligent discussion with the Structured Debate forum, but the mods hated it so it never really got off the ground.

But I hate to see the few really interesting people here depart because it has simply become so vacuous, uninteresting, and sometimes unfair. Even some mods do not distinguish between different approaches to a topic and just lump them all in together. I'm sure this is usually unintentional--usually but probably not always.

I may have to go back to some of the previous message boards that actually have real discussions though I don't have the sense of community there that I have with some here. Just pondering.

"Some years ago CK and I tried to establish a better means to facilitate more intelligent discussion with the Structured Debate forum, but the mods hated it..."

so, ...

no comment.

DR

 

[occupied]

By the way thank you for your response. It is appreciated.

Not sure what you are trying to get out of this activity. Think about this. I have been doing this for over two decades. Everything I have written could fill volumes. With the exception of this board it's all gone. All that effort no longer exists in any form. As soon as the thread dies any effort you have made debating was all in vain. This place is a big circle jerk for people who like to hear themselves talk. That's it.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Group think is dangerous. I experienced it in my employment before retiring. Many fresh college grads were given positions of leadership that they were woefully unprepared for. The place began to be run by "consensus" instead logic and reality. Thankfully the owners saw what was happening and more business-friendly methods were returned.

Years ago Jared Lanier, wrote an article discussing why open source software groups never make the breakthroughs that places like APPLE would make.

Having a smaller set of goals, with resources targeted towards achieving those goals... Leadership that ruled and guided.

How Consensus works in many situations is misunderstood. The cure is often far more deadly than any dis-ease it is given responsibility to address.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Yes. I have experienced that phenomenon now and then in my working career too. But at least that was localized. When the government requires it and militarizes to punish any heretics, it becomes far more dangerous and in far too many countries turned deadly.

Are you suggesting our government is requiring consensus, and demanding the military use it?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Not sure what you are trying to get out of this activity. Think about this. I have been doing this for over two decades. Everything I have written could fill volumes. With the exception of this board it's all gone. All that effort no longer exists in any form. As soon as the thread dies any effort you have made debating was all in vain. This place is a big circle jerk for people who like to hear themselves talk. That's it.

I've actually used this board and others to keep my words and thoughts available for later.

I've copied whole pages of debates and have filed them away.

I like to hear myself talk. I'm my most avid fan. But I'm not into circle jerks. I've also used what are threads that become circle jerks, to harvest ides and thoughts of how others view themselves and the world.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not sure what you are trying to get out of this activity. Think about this. I have been doing this for over two decades. Everything I have written could fill volumes. With the exception of this board it's all gone. All that effort no longer exists in any form. As soon as the thread dies any effort you have made debating was all in vain. This place is a big circle jerk for people who like to hear themselves talk. That's it.

Yes it is. But does it have to be? There are message boards out there where intelligent life is easier to find. Can't that be the case at USMB? Or is it impossible here?

 

[Foxfyre]

Are you suggesting our government is requiring consensus, and demanding the military use it?

Yep. To a large degree I believe it is and, if the trend continues, it will get worse. Already they're trying to ferret out all the un-PC people that they label rightwing extremists, and forcing sensitivity training as to what pronouns etc. will be used. On Twitter (now X) I asked for opinions of those in the military and those retired from the military as to what they thought about it. I got a lot of responses. None liked it. None said it wasn't happening.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe a defined list of rules like we have now but more detailed and the consequences of breaking them and making sure they are enforced. No need for censorship just a proper choice of words used to make a point.

That's what the Structured Debate Forum was supposed to be, but it just never really got off the ground because the mods considered having to enforce different rules for each thread to be an unacceptable burden. I had to consider their point of view about that especially for volunteers who are already largely under appreciated.

And no amount of rules seems to have any affect on those who seem to take pride in being totally brain dead when it comes to critical though.

 

[occupied]

Yes it is. But does it have to be? There are message boards out there where intelligent life is easier to find. Can't that be the case at USMB? Or is it impossible here?

If this place changed much either way I would probably leave. I like it just the way it is.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Yep. To a large degree I believe it is and, if the trend continues, it will get worse. Already they're trying to ferret out all the un-PC people that they label rightwing extremists, and forcing sensitivity training as to what pronounces etc. will be used. On Twitter (now X) I asked for opinions of those in the military and those retired from the military as to what they thought about it. I got a lot of responses. None liked it. None said it wasn't happening.

I believe you are wrong and I see where -- things being conflated and correlations deemed to be more than just that.

People say things when they are disgruntled or angry or whatever. But anecdotal posts on anonymous message boards do not constitute any kind of -- dare I say, 'consensus' on how active, retired (actually collect pensions), or former military feel.

If there is a pc-standard within government it would be earth shattering news. Every news outlet would be on it -- read Pulitzer.

Now, rightwing extremists are a danger, as much as any leftwing extremists are. Sensitivity training? For people with ignorant views, views shared with others on race, sexuality ethnic origins, etc...? Seems that training is giving terrible people the benefit of the doubt, rather than doing what I'd do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Years ago Jared Lanier, wrote an article discussing why open source software groups never make the breakthroughs that places like APPLE would make.

Having a smaller set of goals, with resources targeted towards achieving those goals... Leadership that ruled and guided.

How Consensus works in many situations is misunderstood. The cure is often far more deadly than any dis-ease it is given responsibility to address.

Consensus is fine and to be sought but if it is to be valuable, ALL those consenting must have access to all pertinent information, all different ways of looking at the problem, all possible solutions to solve the problem before consensus is achieved.

When consensus is demanded or a person is excluded or disciplined or worse if he/she disagrees, consensus can be one of the most dangerous forms of group think.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

That's what the Structured Debate Forum was supposed to be, but it just never really got off the ground because the mods considered having to enforce different rules for each thread to be an unacceptable burden. I had to consider their point of view about that especially for volunteers who are already largely under appreciated.

And no amount of rules seems to have any affect on those who seem to take pride in being totally brain dead when it comes to critical though.

I liked the Bull Ring. But I remember people being terribly confused on how it worked, and confusing a 'Call out' for the thread meant to highlight a battle of opinions.

 

[Foxfyre]

If this place changed much either way I would probably leave. I like it just the way it is.

And that is certainly your right.

But most of the most interesting people to me have already left or rarely ever post anymore. And I hate that. I would like to reverse that trend.

I am not saying we need a lot of new rules or whatever. But I wish there was more encouragement for different points of view to be expressed and discussed and more people with the intellect to actually explore issues/events/etc. rather than just spew a lot of insults or nonsense.