Do you play Devil's Advocate?

Actually, nightowl, the post had nothing to do with Wizzley. The comments happened on Google Plus. I was predominantly speaking about social networking. To me, however, all interaction on the web is the same in that it is with people one doesn't really know. So, I suppose, I didn't think of qualifying that because I didn't think that it would be taken to refer to Wizzley only. My apologies. In any event, the public can no longer comment on what I say on G+.

Humagaia, you say, "Playing D'sA is a good way to get to the crux of a belief. Any meaningful discussion of a philosophical nature requires both sides to be explored. No real discussion can be undertaken between two people with the same life view, so it is sensible for one party to take a view that is counter to their own."

Fortunately, not every conversation in the world is of a philosophical nature.

Do I take it that there is a difference between conversation and discussion? And what happens if someone doesn't want a discussion? 

Just.... Wow Chaz. Well said chap, well said. Astute, to the point, potent. 

humagaia: 01/07/2013 - 04:03 AM

---

Getting back to the original question regarding "devil's advocate"...[rest removed to avoid dupe content]-

...

And what happens if someone doesn't want a discussion? 

 

I've just opened this topic on G+. The overwhelming consensus is that people prefer to chat to those of like minds. So I think it's a case of different strokes for different blokes. 

To give the example I gave on G+, if two people decide to build a car but they can't decide on which car to build, then the car never gets build. However, if they are of the same mind, then the car gets built quite rapidly. It's not true to say that the issues won't be ironed out if they don't have different points of view. That depends on the character and brains of the people and if they are working together as a team or not.

I prefer to chat with like minds too but in reality when you read a controversial article (abortion?) chances are the minds that will comment won't be the like minds but those who completely disagree with the author. What people like to do and what they actually do are not always the same in comments/posts . Sure there will be like minded's too, but on controversial topics it's likely the former. 

The second example about the car build reminds me of why we're not already in space like Star Trek, BSG, or any other great space show... those shows actually show how communication across large networks is vital to maintain peace (treaties!). 

If the world just got along and could form a one world government and people stopped being abrasive with one another- we'd have built far into space over 200 years ago and wouldn't have destroyed the planets natural resources beyond repair ... but that's a fantasy no matter how much Gene Roddenberry made it look feasible- people just aren't that agreeable across all networks and types of people. You can't escape it with logic, you have to learn to tolerate and develop a thick skin if you want to deal with the public in any way- that's  just retail!

Although this example (your example of the car build scenario) is a bit off topic as we're talking about commenting or posting to people and how to do so cohesively not how to network people for a common good i.e. building a site say wizzley and getting a bunch of blokes to write articles on it so we all get paid in synergy later...

Not sure how that example fits, maybe it's just me. But I agree with what your saying in it's context. Fact is commenting is very personal and individual- there is not likely a group synergy happening unless a topic gets a lot of comments (I call a comment "forum" within an article) so you have to deal with it at a highly individual level but overall have an unemotional attachment to the comments, so you can see their analytical value not how what they said makes YOU feel. If your here to earn money there IS a right and wrong way to do things... but how that's interpreted is also highly individual but also a part of a network of networks.

Tess: 01/07/2013 - 12:45 PM

 

Do I take it that there is a difference between conversation and discussion? 

Of course there is, otherwise there would not be two different words.

Conversation is best described by Wikipedia: a form of interactive, spontaneous communication between two or more people who are following rules of etiquette.

Discussion (not Wiki): consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate; especially in order to solve a problem or resolve a question.

One would tend towards a conversation with friends; a discussion with peers.

"And what happens if someone doesn't want a discussion? "

- just don't open the conversation up to a general audience - keep it with friends. If you don't want to hear what people think, especially if it is counter to your own opinion or you do not want to explore the reasoning behind your conclusion on an issue, then use what is at your disposal (limit access to 'comments') and keep off forums (G+ is a forum, too).

In my case I conclude quickly and reason at leisure. I like to explore (sometimes with others) the premises upon which my initial conclusions are based. If they are founded on misconceptions or there are better arguments for alternative reasoning, then this oft will impact on my conclusions. I like to think that I am not a bigot (although I feel that all of us are bigoted in one aspect of our thoughts or another).

Discussion is the basis upon which a civilised society moves forward, as long as the conclusions are implemented and not overruled by the ruling classes.

Conversation is the transfer of experiences through speech, without having the need to conclude anything. It is speech fluff, with no real consequence other than to cement relationships.

Chaz +1 great explanation! You should write books....

humagaia, I'm curious as to why the assumption that the only way one can learn or find out what other people think is to be involved in discussion.

Actually, the far better way is to read, read, and read. One can find more information in a book than one can in any ten discussions.

I prefer to read and I still read betwen two and four books a week. In my school days, I used to read between 200 and 5000 pages in a day. 

I don't think one can say that people are bigots or only want to keep their own opinions just because they don't want to discuss things with other people. Being willing to read books with knowledge and opinions contrary to one's own are very much part of gaining a balanced view.

Introverts prefer to gain information from books, not other people.

INTJs prefer to gain information through research, experiment, and books. 

I wrote two articles this morning, explaining both concepts.

I enjoy conversation; I do not enjoy discussion. Most INTJs don't as evidence by the INTJs I interviewed for the article.

2uesday. :)

I think it happens to everybody. 

However, extroverts interact for the sake of connection, not for the sake of information. I'm an INTJ, I interact publicly only for the sake of information, and once that information is received, I move on.

Until the last few months and weeks, though, I never realized something. I honestly thought that other people also interacted simply to convey information.

So here's the kind of things that would happen.

ME: Does anyone have any information about the cheapest flights to London from LA that is not in the public domain?

Answer 1: Google Expedia

Answer 2. Yes, if you fly on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, it's cheaper.

Answer 3. Put the words 'Cheapest Flights to London" in the browser. It will bring up good options.

Answer 4.Try Hotwire

Answer 5. Virgin America is pretty good.

Answer 6. I don't know. But my brother got a really good deal when he flew low season.

Answer 7. I'll ask around and see what I can find.

And so it goes.

Did you notice that not a single person answered the question? The question was for information that was unknown by others and was not available to the general public, i.e. not in the public domain. Most people simply wanted to be part of the conversation and they expected me to give them a pat on the back for being part of the conversation.

It drives me nuts!

I also think that other people ask questions, the answers to which can be found in the public domain. So when they are given information that is freely available, they probably could have found it if they had looked. Generally when I'm asking a question, I've already spent a substantial amount of time looking for it! So I'm mostly given information I already know.

That said, there are exceptions when I'm new to a site and don't know. :)

2uesday: 01/08/2013 - 04:54 PM

---

If I had asked that same question, instead of feeling frustrated at the lack of accuracy in the resulting answers, I would have felt grateful that people took the time to try to help me. I would have most likely said to myself 'Well they did their best to help me'.

...

I would offer that if the question and answers above were real, the people giving you answers would be trying to be kind and helpful in responding to a query.  Even if the answer they gave were not perfect or the one you wanted.  People unlike machines are individual and sometimes act rather randomly and the answers and comments they leave and give will depend on their own experience, personality, knowledge and sometimes mood.

 

Extremely well put! I feel the same! SY

2uesday: 01/08/2013 - 04:54 PM

---

That is the best I can do and after writing all of that, I now know that I will not follow this further

 

 

 

More good advice - can't put out a fire with gasoline.

As my old pal Smokey the Bear has said for decades (and he is quite aggravated and disappointed in me that I didn't listen to him a few nights ago) only YOU can prevent forest fires.

2uesday, and that is exactly what I started realizing somewhere between two weeks and a month ago - most people respond because they want the human interaction. Being kind and helpful is part of the human equation.

It's not that I don't recognize that; it's that when I ask for information, I'm expecting the information I'm asking for.I explained that in my INTJ article. 

Understanding why people are answering the way they do is helpful to me because I can then determine whether to ask a question or just to let it go. I have found these responses very helpful, especially Humagaia's in the difference between discussion and conversation. I also appreciate your answer because you confirm what I have begun to realize is the difference between the way most people interact and I do. 

Thank you. :)

Tess: 01/08/2013 - 04:06 PM

---

humagaia, I'm curious as to why the assumption that the only way one can learn or find out what other people think is to be involved in discussion.

Clarification: discussion is one way to learn what 'a particular person' thinks. One can certainly find information from books but what 'a person' thinks may not be written down.

You asked whether any of us played devil's advocate, and why. I do, for the reason's given. I am not INTJ. I do respect that you are, and that you are different to me, and I like to understand those differences. That involves exploring what you think. It does not necessarily mean playing D'sA, but in other cases it may.

It seems incongruous to me that on one hand you ask a question that inevitably leads to discussion whilst advocating that you prefer not to enter into discussion. Am I missing something? Are you playing D'sA?

Humagaia, yes, you are missing something. I simply wanted an answer to the question. I didn't need a discussion. A question needs an answer - not a discussion. :) Why didn't I know the answer to the question? Because it has taken me a lifetime to learn some very basic information...

You are quite right in that one cannot find out what an individual thinks if one doesn't ask them questions, and sometimes playing devil's advocate will rile someone to reveal something that they didn't want revealed.

I'm very private, though, and I don't share my information. I sometimes feel raped by people because they got information out of me by using that tecnique. I choose after that never to have anything to do with them because they didn't respect my privacy. Is that outragenous?

Tess, I am sure I have answered your specific question regarding my motivation for playing D'sA and how you could end a discussion without being rude. Since you have not utilized my suggestion for termination I would like to add a couple of motivating factors (for playing D'sA), that I have not yet touched on. And these relate to some statements from you regarding finding out about things (and peoples thoughts) through reading.

Unfortunately the written word is probably the worst method for obtaining both information and any particular persons thought processes. Human beings came to writing late in their evolution and had learned through other communication methods beforehand. We (as a species) rely heavily on visual and audio signals to interpret that which is being communicated. Words on a page do not offer us enough information to process the exact meaning of that which is being communicated. Because of this a message can be misinterpreted, misconstrued and manipulated to create an altogether different scenario. I think we have both seen this to be the case in this thread alone.

Communication through writing also (usually) only shows one side of an argument - the writers point of view. This may or may not be their real stance on that point - it may be a regurgitation of information gained from elsewhere, as in - "If I know anything for certain, it is that I know nothing for certain". I believe I know things but new evidence often shows that what I knew was based on a false premise.

I view things from a scientific standpoint. My whole academic life has been based around science and logic. I try to choose my words carefully and construct my sentences in a way that leaves little for conjecture. And this is where written language comes into its own: it is possible to rewrite, rethink, adjust, add, remove from it before giving birth to it by publishing

However, my efforts to limit misinterpretation base themselves on the capability of the reader to understand. The understanding of my vocabulary is peer based. The viewer must have, at least or closely related to, the same set of vocabulary as myself (or access to a dictionary). Here please take 'my' to be "one's", and do not interpret this as an instance where I place myself above others in a vocabulary contest - this is a fact of education and learning.

What we could all do with understanding is that the words we write are not understood in the way that they were meant, by everyone. As the father of a dyslexic daughter I learned this lesson. At the point of understanding that some people have alternative ways of learning it dawned on me that "I have need of a better means of communication" (- other than writing) to teach, or at least to motivate the learning process. I had a need to try to understand how my daughter processed information - how she thought. And discussion is how I progressed to the knowledge that her capability for memorizing far outweighed mine (she needs to hear a song just once or twice to have both the words and melody incised in her memory - she would have been hailed as a great troubadour in times past rather than being vilified for not being able to read or write).

What I am really trying to say is that communication requires us to use all our senses and brain power to understand. Visual signals are vital for understanding. Vocal nuances pass communicative information that the written word cannot. One cannot perfectly describe a smell. I do not have the vocabulary to get near to describing 'how I think'. And how would I do in conveying my emotional feelings with the use of words - the gut-wrenching feeling of pride when my children were born; the feelings of loss when parents die; why I cry when others show extreme emotion - discussion can explore those areas of life that a one-sided dissertation cannot.

Bottom line: I play D'sA for reasons that are specific to my life; requirement to understand how others process information; and, to readjust my life-view if counter-views prove more enlightened. I do not do it for the sake of doing it, but for the sake of trying to get to the nitty-gritty of how anyone (including myself) gets to a point-of-view. It is all a matter of trying to understand.

Hope this helps you understand some peoples motivation for playing D'sA..

Perhaps it is time for you to say "this discussion is over - thanks for all your input, I now have sufficient answers to my query".

Sorry, almost missed your last question: 
"I sometimes feel raped by people because they got information out of me by using that technique. I choose after that never to have anything to do with them because they didn't respect my privacy. Is that outrageous?"

Personally, I cannot understand why you would feel that way - because I am not you. From your point-of-view it is not outrageous. From my point-of-view it is over-reacting. I am afraid we would need to have a discussion to determine why we have differing views. But that would cause a dilemma for me in that, should I find out your reasoning, you may never wish to communicate with me again.

"this discussion is over - thanks for all your input, I now have sufficient answers to my query".

I didn't realize it was a discussion, but then, again, I've also realized in the last few days that Americans think that discussion is enjoyable and necessary. It has never been any part of any culture that I have been exposed to. It is considered unsociable, rude, and/or bad manners by most people I know in other countries, including my family. 

One was always within one's rights to say, "Mind your own business," or "If I wanted your opinion, I'd ask for it," or "When I want your advice, I'll ask for it," It was also an accepted value that one never discussed sex, religion, or politics because it caused disagreement in social situations. Having any sort of disagreement in a social situation was considered very rude.

For my entire life, I considered the saying 'to be a devil's advocate' to be an extremely negative thing. So when I asked the question, I was bewildered why anyone would admit to it. However, is the goal is to have a discussion (argument), it makes sense.

Anyway, thank you for the answers.