If they are telling other people what to do or believe, I think it is perfectly fair to go for the jugular if you disagree. Well, if it’s important - like when and how to prune roses.
If they want a fight (some OPs just read that way), you can go ahead and give them one.
Of course, we all have our personal triggers. I can really lose it when I think someone is misusing science in an argument (when they have the science wrong, or conflate science with disbelief [pardon me, but have you ever seen a quark?], or use sociobiology - but I digress).
But people have to learn to give their hobbyhorses a break occasionally. I don’t jumped into every thread where someone claims men are “naturally” not monogamous and explain why, exactly, it is the female that is perfectly designed physiologically for multiple partners.
So, when to be a jerk? When they really ask for it, or when your resistance is really low.
I can’t tell where you’re coming from at all there. Do I not fully understand the Socratic method as answering a question with another question, offering up hypotheticals, etc.? Is a note of hazing intrinsic to it?
In that context, the student is (normally) being presented with that that s/he is going to receive more/better/new information that will be necessary and/or useful and, very importantly, that s/he is not at fault for not having it at all before, or having an older/different/wrong version. I suppose this goes into the realm of perceived meanings of the term “ignorance”; if the person perceives that he is being simply told “here is some information that you may not know about this, that seems to contradict your assumptions” s/he will react better than if s/he feels the message is “you’ve got to be stupid to believe that about this”.
Not to be confrontational, but I’d really like to hear how you figure that. Maybe if you feel like discussing it you could start a GD thread on it (I doubt it would last long in GQ).
You are making the mistake that all ideas are equally valid, or should be treated as if they were. Many ideas are without basis in reality and to tolerate some of them is actually harmful to public discourse. I see no point in humoring Creationists or Holocaust Deniers in the name of some artificial assumption that everything is true.
No, I didn’t make that mistake, I don’t think all ideas are equally valid or that they should all be treated equally.
Here are the questions I would ask you: What is the goal of interacting with the person in question? How does a confrontational style help achieve the goal?
No, assuming that ghosts are not real and a person’s story about her personal relationship with one is probably either a lie or a symptom is, if anything, what should be the SDMB’s party line. I refer back to the “fighting ignorance” thing. Asking that she put up by submitting to tests, either of her pal’s existence or her on mental or physical health, should be our default stance. Allowing her claims to be made unchallenged violates the spirit of this board and its community by its tacit acceptance of an event that science views as extraordinarily unlikely, blocks the very tests that could turn Big-S-Science upside down (which would be really cool), and prevents the claimant from seeking help she may need.
Let’s move away from that particular debate because its religious undertone makes it hard for some people to look at it impartially (and there are already two threads on it). Let’s instead imagine a poster claiming to have ET living in his closet. There are three possibilities, that the poster is lying, that he has imagined it and convinced himself that it is true, or that ET really is chomping on Reese’s Pieces in his closet.
The third choice is the most appealing. It was it all: cuddly alien, life on other planets, flying saucers, and commercial tie-ins. Wouldn’t it be great if it were true? But how likely is it? Not very, right?
On the other hand, the first explanation is boringly common and the second is sadly common. People lie or have delusions all the time, and that makes those the default explanations. Humoring a sick person so he doesn’t get help is just plain wrong. Going along with a manufactured story makes the writer think he has talent. Going along with it without demanding tests of its truth because of some distant possibility that it is true is for people on the Woo Woo boards.
Since I don’t like confrontation I don’t usually partake and am one of the namby-pambies pointing out that the two sides are talking past each other and concentration on their differences rather than their similarities. When they differences are clearcut and I’m pissed off I’ll be more confrontational. It rarely turns out well but those people are too stupid for words and don’t have the sense God gave turds so it really doesn’t matter, right?
There’s challenging an idea, and there’s being a dick about it. Knowing the difference should be part of the culture here too, but apparently it’s not.
Here, lets put it this way. Lets take the mental illness track. Let’s assume it is a mental illness. Why is it ok to harangue a person who is schizophrenic, and yet the same people will turn around and talk to us about being nice to transgendered people. Why does one group deserve our sympathy but not the other? In both cases it’s faulty wiring right?
The Socratic method is very traditional, but not authoritative: quite the opposite. The idea is to encourage the student to use his head. I’m taking issue with your characterization of traditional quality instruction.
If you want a cite, look at Drucker’s description of his elementary school education in Vienna in the early 20th century. Not at all authoritarian.
Traditional bad instruction might be another matter. Rote methods are a useful crutch for poor instructors.
Now in law school I understand that technique can get pretty aggressive: I take your point there. But the Socratic method is a poor method of reinforcing a fixed curriculum: rather it’s a way of training and sharpening the student’s mind.
In other contexts, the element of hazing is mostly absent, I’d say.
I suppose certain BoD’s comment might apply to certain traditional English boarding schools.
Check out post #36. It was diplomatic, flaccid, and as boring as hell. Such missives generate few responses.
Here’s another method:
Start out confrontationally.
You’re wrong: you have not considered [insert fact, and call it obvious].
Then thrown in some empathy: frame their argument.
Now it’s true that a purely confrontational approach is likely to end in a shouting match. Then pre-empt it and tie it up with a synthesis:
But it also can usefully shock the sensibilities, permitting a more constructive exchange later on… ying-yang, yada-yada…
I don’t know who you think you are, but post #36 was one of the best posts of this thread, and probably of any thread within the last 2 weeks, and anyone who didn’t like it simply has NO FREAKIN’ CLUE what they are talking about!
Those old skool folk sure knew how to teach, but school bullying was definitely not confined to the pupils in my experience, either. Although I noted the tough, ie. bullying teachers, never took on the rougher lads!
In an internet chat board, and particularly on this one, the problem tends to be that everyone thinks they are fighting the other person’s ignorance and few if any really believe that others are fighting their own. A confrontational approach may quickly shift into a mutual shit-flinging contest.
To my mind, the best way to proceed is to attempt to persuade with opinions well-backed with facts and with at least a small willingness to shift roles from teacher to student if confronted with compelling contrary facts.
There’s a saying in my business: “The data will set you free.”
I think you know the difference between a simple “You’re wrong and I’m right!” and “Here’s the facts, and you can see they don’t lead to the conclusion you may think they do”. Presenting facts and reasoning using them is fighting ignorance. It’s up to the recipient to receive them that way.
But if instead you say nothing that you fear might appear confrontational, what the hell good are you doing?
Confrontation is not a very practical method to educate people. It only serves to feed the ego of the aggressor, but has the negative byproduct of triggering the defense mechanism, often in the form of spite, of the recipient.
In other words, the sky never looks more red than when someone says, “The sky is blue, dumbass!”
