Thread Dynamics: a multi- variant approach
People enter into the threads for different purposes, with different backgrounds, and with no inducement to conform their behavior to a model of discourse. Thus, it is almost impossible to establish guideposts about acceptable behavior, and the attempt is often resented. Beyond the vague and loosely enforced terms of use, anything goes. The introduction of moderated threads allowed for the creation of more like- minded threads, but it has been hard to sustain threads that are intolerant of deviation, and the one's that flourish tend to retain most of the characteristics of open threads.
For those who wish to have productive discussion, the primary problem is that there are many who are using the threads as entertainment; or who use the threads as their own little Hyde Park, and set up their soapboxes; or whose idea of an argument is a verbal battle. The cross- purposes can make it difficult to progress beyond banter, or punctuated monologue, or flame wars.
Besides these problems, there is such a vast difference in background and temperament that the assumed common ground is often very thin, and one cannot draw upon a shared frame of reference except of the most general nature. Taking a small regional anomaly as an example, I visited Walden Pond and the Concord River a few years ago. Walden Pond is so large, it would ordinarily be called a lake outside of New England, and the Concord River was so narrow and shallow, it would ordinarily be called a stream or creek, although I understand the volume increases at other parts of the year. Thus, the associations evoked by the terms are very different, depending on where one comes from, although it is possible to discuss and reach an understanding, if identified as a problem. Compound that many times, and it is a wonder that conversation goes as well as it does.
One of the big divisions among interlocutors is between those who think that speech is pretty transparent, and that if one only "enunciates", the listener ought to see one's point; and those that understand that language, though referring to common elements of experience, nevertheless is conditioned by life history and point of view, and can therefore be very tricky. Some people tolerate a greater level of misunderstanding, and are more patient with trying to come to terms.
Even when in common use, terms often have an array of meanings and connotations. For example, we speak of erotic love, the love for a child, loving a particular painting of landscape, loving a food, the love of life, and so forth. Apart from the idea of enjoyment and desire, we include notions of vulnerability, responsibility, empathy, and sacrifice, but not equally in all references. Usually, the context is enough to get a fair idea of how the term is used, but not necessarily if one's experiences have limited one's understanding of the emotion, or one's worldview forces understanding into a particular mode. Thus, someone may emphasize the responsible and sacrificial elements of love, or one may emphasize the desiring, grasping aspect.
Added to the likelihood of chronic misunderstandings is the fact that people have emotional and even moral investments in their understanding of the world, and therefore readily have strong visceral attitudes to certain terms. If someone thinks that religion is necessarily obscurantist, and likely to hold back human progress, than his impulse is to be combative when the subject comes up. On the other hand, if one agrees with Dostoyesky that "Without God, anything is possible", one will treat skepticism as a cultural rot, rather than have a more low key discussion.
Amidst all this turbulence of cross- purposes, chronic misunderstanding, differences in patience and dedication to making oneself clear, and visceral responses, there are differences in personality that enable some to "play well with others", and some not so much. A thin- skin, vanity, and inconsiderateness do not play well, for example. If one wants a broad principle, it is to take into account the other readers and interlocutors, to strive to be pertinent, clear, and interesting, and to encourage participation rather than making a thread one's own little stage.
One of the big problems with the threads is that all of those social norms that depend upon having people there making faces, interrupting you, or in other ways signaling and sanctioning externally, go out the window, and one falls back on whatever social decorum is internalized. For someone who is prone to get away with what he can, at least to a point, the thread becomes an ideal way of being a slob in company. Too many take advantage of the relative anonymity and attenuation of social sanctions, and let it all hang out, especially when aroused to anger.
Well, I think I will end it there, and see what comments may be elicited........ |
