On 4-5-2010 23:47, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> It's like you read only what you want to read. Then you accuse me of
>> "launching an attack" or whatever.
> 
> I don't know about anyone else, but part of the problem I have in these 
> conversations is when people say something[1], I make an important 
> correction or other form of disagreement[2], and my response does not 
> indicate that the reader has read and/or understood the point being 
> made.[3]
> 
> In this conversation, for example, Warp says "If 90% of illegal 
> immigrants look Mexican, wouldn't it be more efficient to focus on 
> people who look Mexican?"[1]   I answer "No, the math doesn't work that 
> way, because... for example..."[2]  And then Warp, instead of saying 
> "Oh, I see, that's a good point I hadn't considered" before continuing 
> the conversation, instead says "Stop nit-picking the math."  Or instead 
> doesn't respond at all, giving the impression they haven't even read the 
> answer.[3]  It would be far better to respond "Yes, I see what you're 
> saying. However, I disagree because..." Then it wouldn't turn into a 
> dead-horse-beating-fest.
> 
> The problem in this particular conversation here is that it appears to 
> me Warp was dismissing as a nit-pick something that's the fundamental 
> basic reason why his idea won't work regardless of which *correct* math 
> one uses. There is no way to correct the math to make his idea work 
> better than what we already have, but he never seems to acknowledge that 
> he has understood the assertion (even if he disagrees), and instead 
> reasserts he was saying something different than we seem to be arguing 
> against. Yet he has not shown he understands our position.
> 
> That said, I'm probably guilty of some of the same behavior in my own 
> way. But I can only speak from my point of view.

Oh, I definitely am. Sometimes the tone of a discussion makes it hard to 
respond calmly and well thought through. Luckily, there is often time 
later to correct it a bit. Except when the thread dies suddenly of course.

> This is a recurring theme in many of these conversations, where one 
> person says something important, and the other dismisses it in a way 
> that makes it sound like it's unimportant and trivial. So the first 
> person repeats the assertion, and the second gets POed that the first 
> person keeps repeating himself.
> 
> That's why when someone convinces me, I follow up with something like 
> "that's a fair point" rather than just letting the conversation stop. It 
> let's the sender know the reader has heard.

IME a thread with Warp dies when there is nothing left for him than to 
apologize or at least admit that things might be more subtle than he 
originally though. Although from his perspective it could also be the 
point where we thick heads have made clear that we are never going to 
understand his position.
We have made progress, however. It has been a long time since I have 
seen "grow up, this is the internet" when someone explained why a 
particular remark hurt his (or a groups) feeling.
Next goal: eradicate the use of "that is just political correctness" as 
an 'argument' to dismiss another's point of view.

Post a reply to this message