Why do you discuss on forums? Is it always good?

[Kean]

I discuss mainly to exchange views and uncover new ideas, but in a certain sense, I also discuss whenever I feel that I learned something new about life yet am not sure whether it is right and/or it would be "accepted by society" - a bit like an academic scientist submitting his research for peer review.

I wonder however, whether it is always good to discuss.

Let me explain my personal problem:
This is not my first forum in the field of personal develoment, and I have often tried to exchange my opinions with other "life experts" on similar forums. Sometimes, the ideas I expressed got so radically different from mainstream ideas that I was labeled as a troll and even thrown out of several forums, when all I was really looking for was feedback. I notice that whenever I address the same topics when talking to people in person, in "real life", it never comes to the point of becoming polemical and offensive, and is more constructive.

The reason why I preferred online forums to talking with fellow scientists (I am a psychology/social science student) was because I thought real/common people probably have better insights on real daily life. Yet I increasingly feel that I encounter resistance whenever my scientific insights are too far away from the experience that non-scientists develop through their daily lives or through mass culture.
(for example, see this topic I opened here: Using science to justify your lifestyle - empirics vs normative
It addresses a topic that is HIGHLY discussed on this forum [polyamory vs monogamy], yet only ONE person replied to it. I wonder why.)

I now wonder whether I try to rely too much on the feedback of others, and whether it might be better if instead of discussing I just live my insights and ideas, apply them directly in my daily life and... well, if I succeed, write books about them! (so people can try out for themselves whether my ideas work or not).

What do you think? What has discussing on forums brought to you?

And what would you suggest a young scientist with many radically different ideas who thinks they might work better in everyone's daily lives?

[CoolBee]

The post you link to was made on a Sunday - the level of activity on the forum on Sundays is distinctly lower (empirical observation only - not scientifically validated) than during the week.

Quite a lot of people make posts with zero response - so maybe you could review and see what proportion of threads only have 1 response?

Don't take it to heart.

I like giving people the benefit of my worldly advice or shooting the breeze or whatever.

I have different reasons for participating in different forums at different stages. I have found a lot of support on forums in the past where I have been going through situations in my personal life where I don't know anyone in the same or similar position in 'real' but can meet others on line.

When I decided I was going to move to Egypt, I started hanging around on relevant forums partly to get advice, suggestions etc on things I needed to do, but also to start building up a network of contacts in advance of arrival - making the effort to meet one or two new people every time I visited before I finally moved.

On some forums there is a 'party line'. For example, on one Egypt-related forum that I occasionally participate in, there is a 'party line' that all women get sexually harassed in Egypt. The fact is, that in 4 years of visiting and more than 18 months of living here I have experienced just 2 mild (pinched bottom both times) incidents - far far less than I experienced living in London.

If I - or a few others who have also the same non-harassment experience - post up that we have not been harassed, others shout us down saying "you must have been harasssed you are just too uneducated to recognize it" or "you don't call it harassment because you must like it" - well wrong wrong - I know very very well what true sexual harassment is, and it simply does NOT happen to me. I think the problem is that they are interpreting my stand to mean that I somehow don't believe them or think they are asking for it - which I'm not.

The other thing is if you raise the issue of Egyptian men who have been sexually harassed by Westerners (mainly but not exclusively female) then its laughed at because of course men are always supposed to be up for it.

So anyway, point of these anecdotes is that if you are posting on forums, then you need to maybe lurk for a while to get the ebb and flow of the nature of the posts, who are the gangs who will form from time to time - whatever.

Check out this humorous but with a very hefty grain of truth in it website on 'Flame Warriors' (Forum personalities)

Flame Warriors Home

[Remiel]

Originally Posted by Kean

The reason why I preferred online forums to talking with fellow scientists (I am a psychology/social science student) was because I thought real/common people probably have better insights on real daily life. Yet I increasingly feel that I encounter resistance whenever my scientific insights are too far away from the experience that non-scientists develop through their daily lives or through mass culture.

Do people like to be moved outside of their comfort zones?

Originally Posted by Kean

And what would you suggest a young scientist with many radically different ideas who thinks they might work better in everyone's daily lives?

I'm not sure if you really want the answer to this, do you? Even if it was quite painful?

[Tam9]

Originally Posted by Kean

And what would you suggest a young scientist with many radically different ideas who thinks they might work better in everyone's daily lives?

I think most people want practical, down-to-earth advice on problems that they currently have in their lives, rather than complex, theoretical possibilites or potential problems.

They also give advice based on their own similar experiences and how it worked or didn't, for them.

Perhaps you should look for an academic type forum for those who dicuss concepts rather than practical application.

[CoolBee]

Also, depending what area of science you are operating in, do the general public have sufficient background to understand what you might be driving at - so they may simply be at a loss.

How about you give us an example of one of your ideas? I know there are a few scientists mooching around here

[this is fun]

Originally Posted by Kean

I notice that whenever I address the same topics when talking to people in person, in "real life", it never comes to the point of becoming polemical and offensive, and is more constructive.

Here you see only written words,and it is maybe easier to misinterpret someone's intentions. Talking to people face to face, your tone of voice, face expression etc. convey information as well and it's a ''faster'' type of communication, you're able to clarify right away your point if you see someone doesn't quite understand what you mean. So that might be part of it.
The manner in which you say something is also important.

Originally Posted by Kean

And what would you suggest a young scientist with many radically different ideas who thinks they might work better in everyone's daily lives?

The only thing you can do is offer your opinion and suggest something, it's up to other people to see whether or not it would benefit them.

[Remiel]

Originally Posted by this is fun

The only thing you can do is offer your opinion and suggest something, it's up to other people to see whether or not it would benefit them.

Is that really the only way to help people learn something new?

[Brutha]

(for example, see this topic I opened here: Using science to justify your lifestyle - empirics vs normative
It addresses a topic that is HIGHLY discussed on this forum [polyamory vs monogamy], yet only ONE person replied to it. I wonder why.)

If you argue that you just have found out that the earth revolves around the sun, you probably don't get many replies as well.
Even when you might think that your idea in that thread is radical it isn't for most people in this forum just as the idea that the earth revolves around the sun as well isn't radical.

Basically your problem is that you either don't understand your audience or simply ignore it.
That can lead to one of your threads getting ignored or to violations expectations and being seen as a troll.

And what would you suggest a young scientist with many radically different ideas who thinks they might work better in everyone's daily lives?

Start a blog.

Apart from that you can start threads in this forum.

[Kean]

Thanks for all your answers. I think many of you hit the nail on the head.

Indeed, I may have misunderstood the nature of my "audience". Also I first wrote on forums for more specialized things e.g. travel and computer technology, especially to ask for specific factual information (How to create a hard disk partition? What are the cheapest restaurants in Tokyo? etc.), so I probably got used to seeing everyone on forums as "experts" of the subject discussed - and thus even take things to heart whenever I was called a troll or nobody replies, etc.

What I wonder though, is whether my behavior might have been a bit... "approval-seeking"? Must I wait for "society" to approve my newly proposed lifestyle or method before applying it for myself?

I grew up in an environment where although diversity is appreciated it is important to know "what everyone thinks" and use the mainstream as a reference point to our own behavior.

I am asking whether this is a good/useful approach, if our aim is not only to improve society, but our own life first.

[CoolBee]

To answer those specific points of yours:

I think it is important to know what everyone thinks and take this as a reference point for your own behaviour NOT because you too have to behave like that, but to understand some of the consequences of choosing your particular life style.

If you go against conventional lifestyle then some people will shun you, others will be intrigued, others may physically try to stop you. Depending exactly what you are doing and where you live, you may be severely endangering your own life with what you choose to do (eg a Saudi female risking adultery).

Be aware of what you may have to deal with and have a plan for dealing with it! Be aware that the consequences of your choices may preclude you from other choices further down the line.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by Kean

(for example, see this topic I opened here: Using science to justify your lifestyle - empirics vs normative
It addresses a topic that is HIGHLY discussed on this forum [polyamory vs monogamy], yet only ONE person replied to it. I wonder why.)

No one could guess from the title that the subject is dealing with polyamory vs monogamy. Something like "polyamory vs monogamy - a scientific perspective" would have been more clear, leading to more people interested in such a subject checking it out.

Also, your opening post in the polyamory thread is too long for many people to bother reading, regardless of its merit. To maximize readership on a forum, aim for a third that length or less (the current length/format would fit better on a blog of your own)

Oh, and to answer the question posted in this thread, I go on forums largely in hopes of coming across new, worthwhile ideas and to share what I've come across. Most of my discussions take place offline, but forums are good for downtime.

[Brutha]

What I wonder though, is whether my behavior might have been a bit... "approval seeking"? Must I wait for "society" to approve my newly proposed lifestyle or method before applying it for myself?

I personally think that group are very important for changing yourself (Sartre's being for others).

[this is fun]

Originally Posted by Remiel

Is that really the only way to help people learn something new?

I was talking in general. He didn't give specific examples of what and how he would help people improve their lives so I gave a broader answer that I think applies in most cases.
He could implement his ideas in his life and set an example, or as someone else suggested start a blog.
Depends on what we're talking about, better way of exercising or a better life-saving treatment.

How would you help people learn new things without imposing these ideas on them?

[Remiel]

Originally Posted by this is fun

I was talking in general. He didn't give specific examples of what and how he would help people improve their lives so I gave a broader answer that I think applies in most cases.
He could implement his ideas in his life and set an example, or as someone else suggested start a blog.
Depends on what we're talking about, better way of exercising or a better life-saving treatment.

How would you help people learn new things without imposing these ideas on them?

Couldn't you ask them questions?

[this is fun]

You mean like you're doing in this topic?

Of course, but even then it depends.

[Remiel]

Originally Posted by this is fun

You mean like you're doing in this topic?

Of course, but even then it depends.

on what?

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by Kean

I grew up in an environment where although diversity is appreciated it is important to know "what everyone thinks" and use the mainstream as a reference point to our own behavior.

Wow. Reading this point actually surprised me. I don't know whether to consider it good or bad, actually. It just hit me that I've never done that. I don't even consider the mainstream; half the time I don't even know where the mainstream stands on a topic. I guess it seems obvious that people do that .. but somehow I never registered that people actually, consciously seek out the mainstream, to deliberately consider themselves or their ideas in reference to the mainstream stance. My perspective: it just seems odd. I take no stance on good/bad, useful or not. But if I needed to know what other people think about something before I could decide (what? How to feel about it? What to do about it? Whether to consider it true or not?), I'd be scrambling to change that, personally.

I wonder what definition you give to mainstream. ie, WHO do you include in that set exactly? Do you reference against some people's behaviour, but not other's? Maybe you could reference against the behaviour of every person on the planet, collectively. If you really need to reference against something.

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by Kean

And what would you suggest a young scientist with many radically different ideas who thinks they might work better in everyone's daily lives?

I would suggest the Bach flower remedy Vervain:

"You have very fixed principles and ideas. With great enthusiasm you try to convert those around you to your way of thinking."

"Those with fixed principles and ideas, which they are confident are right, and which they very rarely change. They have a great wish to convert all around them to their own views of life. They are strong of will and have much courage when they are convinced of those things that they wish to teach."

Not so much for the fixed principle part, but for the trying-to-convert people part.

[Kean]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Even when you might think that your idea in that thread is radical it isn't for most people in this forum just as the idea that the earth revolves around the sun as well isn't radical.

Originally Posted by openeyes

No one could guess from the title that the subject is dealing with polyamory vs monogamy. Something like "polyamory vs monogamy - a scientific perspective" would have been more clear, leading to more people interested in such a subject checking it out.

Also, your opening post in the polyamory thread is too long for many people to bother reading, regardless of its merit. To maximize readership on a forum, aim for a third that length or less (the current length/format would fit better on a blog of your own)

Sorry, the thread deals with an overall behavior ("using science to justify lifestyles"), of which the debate on polyamory vs monogamy is one of numerous examples, but probably one of the most relevant ones' on this forum.

Yeah, in the end I guess that also the length of a post matters, though it might be difficult to summarize too many new concepts in so little space.

[Kean]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

Not so much for the fixed principle part, but for the trying-to-convert people part.

I think this deserves a separate discussion. (opened it here: Wouldn't you feel the same as I do? - Empathy, beliefs, behavior)

In few words, it is related to the fact that I always look at mainstream. When I speak about mainstream I mean the specific "in-group" or "dominant group" of the location - so it depends on each context and situation.

e.g. on a specialized forum, there are a specific mainstream ideas, whereas on a more general forum, mainstream may encompass more things.
As I said, I traveled very much throughout my life, not just for tourism but also lived in different countries. And each city I lived in had different mainstreams.

I always oriented myself around the mainstream to have an idea how to behave myself within it (more or less in the way CoolBee suggests to do).

The instict happens more or less as follows:
if I identify with certain elements of mainstream (perhaps, for simplicity's sake, let's call it "humanity" - so, "If I identify with humanity"), and I am also part of it ("humanity"), we should behave in a similar way.
However, if each of us has different information, we may forge entirely different beliefs and - as a consequence - different behaviors.
If a human is happy to kill someone else, yet I think it is wrong, there must be some information asymmetry between the two of us.
Firstly, I wonder what may be the source of the difference, despite us being similar ("humans", in this case).
Secondly, I think that if they had the same information, they would come to the same conclusion and behave the same way as me (NOT be happy about killing someone), i.e. I expect that if we're both humans and had the same information, we would be empathic, we would agree and have the same needs and interests.

So, what I try to do is exchange our information so we both understand the reasons of our differences.

And if I make an educated guess of what might be the information difference, I try to compensate this discrepancy by "trying to convert" or at least "trying to find a conclusion we both agree on".

Let me be clear that what I described is not reasoning, but an attempt to describe what happens at a "need/psychological/subconscious" level. A need for conformity, I guess... which may arise from the need for coherence in the world. (i.e. the feeling of alienation you have when everyone says that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.", yet everyone falls in love with supermodels :P - or when the law states certain things to supposedly protect people, yet it is used to manipulate them.)

[Kean]

Originally Posted by Remiel

Couldn't you ask them questions?

This is actually also very wise, indeed.

I'm not sure whether this is what you meant:
Socratic method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I think that it is perhaps the most effective and un-aggressive way to reach a common conclusion at the end of a discussion. Asking questions.

The only difficulty, I think, arises when the discussion partner already has too many different "background values" or "background ideas", that it might become a kind of rhethorical game of persuasion rather than a mere exchange of ideas - at least in the short term.

And quite often, when we discuss things in our daily lives, we have little time to delve so deep.

Check out an example on this thread: "So you think you're God?" What if I truly am?
Towards the end, the discussion between ssandra and Time could not go on because of their different background beliefs. They could have started asking questions about those as well, but apparently they didn't, and perhaps it would have led the discussion off-topic, or led to offense, etc.

What could they have done?

[Remiel]

The Socratic method does seem pretty close, but what I have learned is actually the Jewish methodology of teaching.

As far as the other thread goes, that I don't know. Could question's have uncovered the underlying beliefs about each other and allowed both of them to see through the eye's of the other?

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by Kean

I always oriented myself around the mainstream to have an idea how to behave myself within it (more or less in the way CoolBee suggests to do).

You might do better than I at, say, a career in politics!

Originally Posted by Kean

if I identify with certain elements of mainstream (perhaps, for simplicity's sake, let's call it "humanity" - so, "If I identify with humanity"), and I am also part of it ("humanity"), we should behave in a similar way.

Do you mean should behave or will behave, here? Just so I understand clearly.

I rather think that people have inborn, fundamental differences in their drives. ie, polyamory and monogamy. The drive to form relationships in one model over the other doesn't happen as a result of information or experiences, but exists at birth. Or some people might not have a drive to do it any particular way, or no drive for romantic relationships at all.

[Talkofthatown919]

its has helped me learn peoples different point's of views and helping me grow as well

[Kean]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

Do you mean should behave or will behave, here? Just so I understand clearly.

Think of the information to make a decision upon ("subject") as ingredients. And think of what makes people different (their "identity") as ingredients as well.
If they mix only the "subject"-ingredients (e.g. believe in God or not) they will behave differently, but if they mix all their "identity"-ingredients (e.g. what experiences, cultural history, feelings, a, b, c, d, etc. and all other variables makes them want to believe in God), they would behave as if they had one identity and will behave the same, as a direct consequence.

I rather think that people have inborn, fundamental differences in their drives. ie, polyamory and monogamy. The drive to form relationships in one model over the other doesn't happen as a result of information or experiences, but exists at birth. Or some people might not have a drive to do it any particular way, or no drive for romantic relationships at all.

As far as I have studied, there are no inborn differences that directly affect behavior. From what I have studied and experienced, even if there were inborn differences that can alter behavior, they would become insignificant through the socialization process (which begins the very moment we start speaking our first language).
In few words, nature acts superior to nurture only where nurture allows it, and vice-versa. However, it is in our nature to be constantly driven by nurture
i.e. as long as we believe something, the belief itself has the upper hand in guiding our decisions (Perhaps you will find this thread interesting: Using science to justify your lifestyle - empirics vs normative ), i.e. if we believe that nature prevails over nurture, our behavior will be shaped around our ideas of what nature is.

And what, in turn, shaped our beliefs? Information.