Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Explain To Me ....

Recs

26

January 20, 2010 – Comments (14)

Explain to me why someone who, based on the title of their post, is looking for a justification to an argument would be so belligerent in asking the question?

Is it because:

a) They actually want to know and understand an issue and get many viewpoints?

or

b) They already have a set opinion and they want to rant and ask other people to join their rant who are of the same opinion and just piss off people of the opposite opinion, under the guise of asking for input.

If they were of mindset a) they would have titled their post "I would like to get both pro and con opinions on ....". Those are useful posts that I like to engage in and contribute to.

Type b) posts and posters do not interest me and I would encourage you to steer clear of them as well. They undermine civility on Caps. We already have a lot of polarized issues on Caps: bulls vs. bears, healthcare reform, global warming, gold, and I don't know, is Santa Claus real?

DO NOT engage in posts that are actively trying to exploit this rift.
DO engage in posts that are tying to honestly discuss these topics from several viewpoints.

14 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 20, 2010 at 11:53 AM, kdakota630 (29.81) wrote:

Agreed.

Report this comment
#2) On January 20, 2010 at 12:01 PM, outoffocus (23.59) wrote:

I already do that naturally.  I didnt rec or comment on the post.

Report this comment
#3) On January 20, 2010 at 12:03 PM, anticitrade (99.66) wrote:

A certain amount of irony in this blog.  You, just like those criticized, have an idea of what is right and what is wrong.  You, just those criticized, propose the argument in a falacious way.  You, just like those criticized: "want to rant and ask other people to join their rant who are of the same opinion and just piss off people of the opposite opinion".  You, just like those criticized, used this style of a post because it is the most effective way of getting a real discussion going.

 

 

 

Report this comment
#4) On January 20, 2010 at 12:16 PM, binve (< 20) wrote:

kdakota630, thanks man.

outoffocus, Yep. I know your style and I definitely appreciate it.

anticitrade,

Fair argument, but is mostly unsubstantiated.

In order to point out the behavior I have to identify it. When I say "They already have a set opinion and they want to rant and ask other people to join their rant who are of the same opinion and just piss off people of the opposite opinion, under the guise of asking for input."  I am indentifying the behavior as I observe it to be. Others may not see it that way. I concede there is perhaps a difference in perception..

Report this comment
#5) On January 20, 2010 at 12:16 PM, leohaas (35.73) wrote:

This is an ongoing struggle here on CAPS. Way too many just want to rant. Don't count on it to change. Sigh...

Minds are like parachutes: they work best when open. Unfortunately, there aren't too many open-minded folks in the world. I guess CAPS is just a reflection of that.

Report this comment
#6) On January 20, 2010 at 12:16 PM, SolarisKing (< 20) wrote:

In psychology it is known that the id needs to value the self. When the ego (of the weak willed) is challenged the id is forced to prove to the id that it self is not powerless. One of the more common ways for the weak ego to prove power is to destroy material objects.

Hence, when an individual is afraid of work or competition, and strong egos ignore the weak ego (usually for being in the way) the offended weak ego often feels better (powerful, and therefore valuable) if he/she breaks something.

That's why spoiled children break their own stuff when they don't get their way. 

Did that help in explaining it to you? I can cite if you'd like more info.

 

So don't let it bother you (which is the goal of a tantrum) but have a little mercy and compasion. You can occaisionally ease the pain of the smaller spirit by giving a little attention, and/or pointing out the value of the weaker spirits position (ie, 'yes that's true, i hadn't thought about that recently. Thanks')

Man defines himself by his choice of enemies. If you argue with dogs, you define yourself as a dog. Argueing with children makes you childish. Argueing with retards makes you retarded.
    Grace is the perogative of the powerful, and the powerful alone And the act of grace elevates the user in direct proportion to the grace shown.

Count your blessings and have a nice day.  ;-)

 -solaris

Report this comment
#7) On January 20, 2010 at 12:26 PM, binve (< 20) wrote:

leohaas, I agree. Several years ago, when Caps was more or less in its infancy, the atmosphere was a more sharing one, much less partisan on any particular issue. I try to stay open-minded on issues. I am not always sucessful at it, and I fully admit that I am not. I have engaged in arguments previously and have been less than objective and I regret those engagements. But I hope I, and others, can approach debates from a more balanced viewpoint.

Here is a very good balanced discussion between myself, biotechmgr, russiangambit and outoffocus regarding inflation/deflation (which is another very polarized subject). Thoughts on the US Dollar, Analysis of the USDX Long Term, Follow up on the Gold Blog - http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=261443, comments 4-8. Conversations like this are the reasons why I keep coming to Caps. This is the reason why I comment on Tastylunch's and anchak's blogs first and foremost, they very very blananced posters and address / entertain all viewpoints.

SolarisKing, Very good advice. Thanks!..

Report this comment
#8) On January 20, 2010 at 12:33 PM, FreeMortal (29.62) wrote:

The ranters quickly disappear from my favs list, regardless of their persuasion.  The worst thing you can do is reward them with attention.  I have better things to do with my time.

Report this comment
#9) On January 20, 2010 at 1:07 PM, binve (< 20) wrote:

FreeMortal,

I agree. Unfortunately, I fall into that category. I have ranted quite loudly on occasion in the past. And I have no doubt that people have "un-favorited" me for that very reason.

Even if I believe in what I am ranting about, there are better ways to go about making that point.

Report this comment
#10) On January 20, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Tastylunch (29.54) wrote:

Explain to me why someone who, based on the title of their post, is looking for a justification to an argument would be so belligerent in asking the question?

People do this all the time, every where you go, Binve buddy. It's actually better here at CAPS than any other stocksite I've ever ben to (with the exception of the Fool boards where the discussion outstrips what we have here)

What they really want 9 times out of ten is to demonstrate how wrong you are to ease their own mind.

Often a person who does this, doesn't want to upset you per say as they want to UN-upset themselves. I.e. To dispell their own doubts and receive confirmation bias.

It's uncomfortable  for someone to realize they might be wrong, most want that feeling to go away. I've seen people  agree with and disagree with do this. I  do this, everyne does to varying degrees..

I know a couple critical comments here about ideas I've had have saved my bacon before as painful as that was to admit I was wrong.

Stinkyfeeters got me out the nightmare tha became KAZ and Force Protection e.g.

Confirmation bias is a powerful thing, I wrestel with it everyday. It is destroying the Cable news industry if you ask me.

e.g. Look at Bloomberg's ratings vs CNBC. It's pretty obvious which one is actually giving more useful less baised content, but guess which one is far more popular?

This is why I steer clear of discussing many issues on CAPS. Most only are many "unwinnable" in a venue of this type .

I do my best not to add to this, hopefully people feel that way about what I blog/comment.

Honestly if more Americans were trained in hard sciences I think we'd have more productive discussions in this country. It's not the knowledge that would be useful, but the thought process and debate style.

Civil rational disagreements and a sense of self fallibility are essential to getting at truths. Because what they allow is for the continuation of discussion beyond "heat of the moment" flareups.

If you are jerk and think you are 100% right all the time you aren't going to recognize contradictory evidence when it's presented to you.

Report this comment
#11) On January 20, 2010 at 11:42 PM, 100ozRound (29.70) wrote:

Man defines himself by his choice of enemies. If you argue with dogs, you define yourself as a dog. Argueing with children makes you childish. Argueing with retards makes you retarded.
    Grace is the perogative of the powerful, and the powerful alone And the act of grace elevates the user in direct proportion to the grace shown.

this is great solaris - thanks!

Report this comment
#12) On January 20, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Momentum21 (96.33) wrote:

Binve - I think he was just looking to engage a discussion by leaning out there Bill O'Reilly style...not pretty but it sells! 

Solaris: Should I attribute this quote to you or is that biblical?

Man defines himself by his choice of enemies. If you argue with dogs, you define yourself as a dog. Argueing with children makes you childish. Argueing with retards makes you retarded.

Grace is the perogative of the powerful, and the powerful alone And the act of grace elevates the user in direct proportion to the grace shown.

Sounds like something from Pulp Fiction and I love it... 

Report this comment
#13) On January 21, 2010 at 12:13 AM, binve (< 20) wrote:

Tastylunch,

People do this all the time, every where you go, Binve buddy. It's actually better here at CAPS than any other stocksite I've ever ben to

Hey man. I know this of course, I see it all the time myself. And I am very aware of the commentary on the Yahoo boards (which I used to read before I found Caps over 2 years ago). This post was inspired as the antithesis of one post in particular but also a plethora of similar ones.

And even though it is better here than at Yahoo, it is more partisan and antagonistic than it was 2 years ago. I am just pointing out behavior and post styles that I don't agree with because their sole purpose it seems is to antagonize, not discuss.

And I do fully acknowledge and admit the hypocriticality here, see comments 6-9 above. I have written ranting posts in the past that have bordered on antagonistic, and I have been swept up in some discussions on posts where I have lost my cool and said things I regret. But I usually try to write posts that are on topic and meant to encourage discussion, especially lately as I notice the atmosphere in Caps becoming more partisan. And I am using a play on a recent post title to ask people not to engage in antagonistic behavior.

I do my best not to add to this, hopefully people feel that way about what I blog/comment. 

Absolutely man. You can see my props to you and anchak in particular in my response to leohaas in comment 7. There are a few people that try to be neutral and entertain all sides of an argument, you are at the top of that list

Honestly if more Americans were trained in hard sciences I think we'd have more productive discussions in this country. It's not the knowledge that would be useful, but the thought process and debate style.

Civil rational disagreements and a sense of self fallibility are essential to getting at truths. Because what they allow is for the continuation of discussion beyond "heat of the moment" flareups.

I completely agree.

If you are jerk and think you are 100% right all the time you aren't going to recognize contradictory evidence when it's presented to you.

This is very much the point of my post.  I could write a post titled "AAPL is the best company in the world and anybody who doesn't invest in it is stupid. Can you explain to me why you would ever short it?" .... or .... "Technology Discussion: Why AAPL is well-positioned in the Marketplace for the coming decade and some dissenting views". 

The first is meant to confirm your own view and surround yourself with people who will rant with you (further confirming your view) and to antagonize people who are bearish. The second is the presentation of an analysis that encourages discussion. 

I try to be in the latter camp when it comes to discussing gold for example, and there are many more who are in the former (including the one whose post title I ripped off for this post).

Thanks for the comment!

Momentum21,

Maybe. But that author and many others are antagonistic about many things. And even if the point was to start a discussion, based on the inflammatory title it was never going to be a civil discussion.

Sounds like something from Pulp Fiction and I love it...

But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd. ... :)

Thanks for the comment!.

Report this comment
#14) On January 21, 2010 at 12:55 AM, SolarisKing (< 20) wrote:

Momentum21, that's old school philosophical fare. Nietzche, i think, among others. Though i guess i might have styled it up a bit.

 

I do have a few quotes i claim. Just wrote this one last week:

"Be prepared to do today what you said yesterday".

 

I wrote this one thirty years ago. It's one of my favorites;

"Change is the vehicle with which eternity is delivered unto us".

 

- - - -What the hell, . . . Yeah, it's mine. lol.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement