As I've mentioned elsewhere in this post, I am the poster child for digression (which some will take as derailment), not because I can't stay on topic but because my argumentation style is based on going from thesis to sub-thesis or even antithesis, and then back again. I mean, if you're used to purely linear argumentation styles (which, uhm, most people are, let's be honest), then I probably look like my posts are all over the freaking map. I mean, can you derail yourself? If you can, I HAVE DONE IT. I do it regularly! I practice in front of the mirror to make sure I've got it right, but with panache!
So... yeah, if it's not bad enough that I frequently see people mistaking digression (a natural evolution) for derailment (which is most often a reply based on a logical fallacy, actually), it's even worse when this gets a value judgment attached. Or maybe that's a sticking point for me because while I can pinpoint the derailing, that's not the same as digressing, and I like it when discussions can move back and forth across the map, especially when those outward movements then turn inward and reinform the original thesis. Hard to let that happen if you never let the outward movement happen in the first place.
At some point I'm going to do a post on how to identify derailment vs digression, but without the oppression language that can make it harder for some people to swallow the pill to fix their moment(s) of stupid. That is, just lay out the logical fallacies hiding behind the derailments -- it's a lot easier to see and diagnose those, without feeling like you're being personally measured and found wanting for having any bit of moment of stupid in you. At least, for me.
...besides, I can never remember but half the classical logical fallacies these days, and I could use a bit of reintroduction to them. Hate the sense that I'm leaking trivia... how will I ever win every parlour game, if I'm this out of practice on my bizarre otherwise-useless incrementally minute details of life knowledge?
no subject
Date: 10 Mar 2010 04:33 am (UTC)As I've mentioned elsewhere in this post, I am the poster child for digression (which some will take as derailment), not because I can't stay on topic but because my argumentation style is based on going from thesis to sub-thesis or even antithesis, and then back again. I mean, if you're used to purely linear argumentation styles (which, uhm, most people are, let's be honest), then I probably look like my posts are all over the freaking map. I mean, can you derail yourself? If you can, I HAVE DONE IT. I do it regularly! I practice in front of the mirror to make sure I've got it right, but with panache!
So... yeah, if it's not bad enough that I frequently see people mistaking digression (a natural evolution) for derailment (which is most often a reply based on a logical fallacy, actually), it's even worse when this gets a value judgment attached. Or maybe that's a sticking point for me because while I can pinpoint the derailing, that's not the same as digressing, and I like it when discussions can move back and forth across the map, especially when those outward movements then turn inward and reinform the original thesis. Hard to let that happen if you never let the outward movement happen in the first place.
At some point I'm going to do a post on how to identify derailment vs digression, but without the oppression language that can make it harder for some people to swallow the pill to fix their moment(s) of stupid. That is, just lay out the logical fallacies hiding behind the derailments -- it's a lot easier to see and diagnose those, without feeling like you're being personally measured and found wanting for having any bit of moment of stupid in you. At least, for me.
...besides, I can never remember but half the classical logical fallacies these days, and I could use a bit of reintroduction to them. Hate the sense that I'm leaking trivia... how will I ever win every parlour game, if I'm this out of practice on my bizarre otherwise-useless incrementally minute details of life knowledge?