I think it's a valid type of post (and hell, the kind I do all the time, if I'm reading you right!), but it's still fundamentally, I think, an uncertainty post. There's an opening for correction, which (to me) says the person is willing to reconsider if responses are convincing and/or explicative of additional data unconsidered.
There's no proof for the pudding until the discussion (of the post/contents) actually begins; at that point, let's say the person argues vigorously and demonstrates no willingness to reconsider. The lack of listening indicates a rhetorical post; the problem is that you can't tell if someone won't listen until you actually reply. That's what makes your example one of those really muddy ones that's a certainty post pretending to be uncertainty for the purposes of persuasion, which is a type of valid rhetoric -- it's just one that can confuse, and frustrate, someone who doesn't intuit what's going on.
Unfortunately, the problem is (obviously) that we're not always aware of just how ingrained our perspectives are, and we may intend to be open and willing to listen/reconsider, but when presented with oppositional/refutation replies, suddenly we're not quite so willing to be so flexible about it. So we tell ourselves we'll take the uncertainty path, and then wonder how we ended up feeling like we're on the defensive.
For readers, unless we want to go crazy second-guessing everyone and applying ulterior motives off-the-bat, we do kinda have to take a post at face-value, at least in the first go-round of replies. If, after our attempts to explain what we think, we get back, "that's pretty stupid" or some other shut-down, or a more thorough argument in defense of the poster's points, that's our clue that we're dealing with an entrenched position, whether the OP admits it or not. The poster is using an eisegetical pattern, seeking information solely to support that opinion.
It's a version of the mind-made-up, and the reason it's duplicitous (and likely to end up with the person being shut out of later discussions) is because it results in respondents feeling like their time's been wasted on behalf of someone who never really intended to listen unless they happened to say something that supported her thesis. When a person uses this pattern repeatedly, I've found that often they end up shut out of discussions, or dismissed off-hand in later discussions, because others are tired of interacting with that style. Not because questions aren't valid, but because the question prompts answer-replies, yet suddenly the respondents find themselves in the midst of a difference of opinion that they'd never expected, and possibly didn't even sign up for. The two dynamics -- question and answer, and opinion versus opinion -- are different, and don't overlap well; the former is a shared journey from question to answer, while the latter is much more antagonistic.
Not to mention that overuse of this style is like crying wolf, in that people learn to ignore all such posts in this style, seeing it as yet another trap that's just going to get them jumped on a la difference-of-opinion. That's why, I think, we've got folks who point-blank refuse to reply to, or even read, posts that posit questions about racism, sexism, homophobia, and other difficult issues: because all too often, what appears to be a sincere uncertainty post is revealed in comments to be a very different, and often antagonistic, creature.
no subject
Date: 11 Feb 2010 07:44 pm (UTC)There's no proof for the pudding until the discussion (of the post/contents) actually begins; at that point, let's say the person argues vigorously and demonstrates no willingness to reconsider. The lack of listening indicates a rhetorical post; the problem is that you can't tell if someone won't listen until you actually reply. That's what makes your example one of those really muddy ones that's a certainty post pretending to be uncertainty for the purposes of persuasion, which is a type of valid rhetoric -- it's just one that can confuse, and frustrate, someone who doesn't intuit what's going on.
Unfortunately, the problem is (obviously) that we're not always aware of just how ingrained our perspectives are, and we may intend to be open and willing to listen/reconsider, but when presented with oppositional/refutation replies, suddenly we're not quite so willing to be so flexible about it. So we tell ourselves we'll take the uncertainty path, and then wonder how we ended up feeling like we're on the defensive.
For readers, unless we want to go crazy second-guessing everyone and applying ulterior motives off-the-bat, we do kinda have to take a post at face-value, at least in the first go-round of replies. If, after our attempts to explain what we think, we get back, "that's pretty stupid" or some other shut-down, or a more thorough argument in defense of the poster's points, that's our clue that we're dealing with an entrenched position, whether the OP admits it or not. The poster is using an eisegetical pattern, seeking information solely to support that opinion.
It's a version of the mind-made-up, and the reason it's duplicitous (and likely to end up with the person being shut out of later discussions) is because it results in respondents feeling like their time's been wasted on behalf of someone who never really intended to listen unless they happened to say something that supported her thesis. When a person uses this pattern repeatedly, I've found that often they end up shut out of discussions, or dismissed off-hand in later discussions, because others are tired of interacting with that style. Not because questions aren't valid, but because the question prompts answer-replies, yet suddenly the respondents find themselves in the midst of a difference of opinion that they'd never expected, and possibly didn't even sign up for. The two dynamics -- question and answer, and opinion versus opinion -- are different, and don't overlap well; the former is a shared journey from question to answer, while the latter is much more antagonistic.
Not to mention that overuse of this style is like crying wolf, in that people learn to ignore all such posts in this style, seeing it as yet another trap that's just going to get them jumped on a la difference-of-opinion. That's why, I think, we've got folks who point-blank refuse to reply to, or even read, posts that posit questions about racism, sexism, homophobia, and other difficult issues: because all too often, what appears to be a sincere uncertainty post is revealed in comments to be a very different, and often antagonistic, creature.