coberst

Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.

It seems to me that the forum members who participate in a thread approach the experience invigorated with much the same attitude as does a boxer entering the ring or a soldier going into battle.

Metaphor entailments (to transmit or to accompany) we live by:
He attacked my argument.
I have never beaten this guy in an argument.
If you do not agree with my statement then take your best shot.
I shot down each of his arguments.

We approach a forum response much like we approach a physical contest. We have a gut feeling about some things because our sense of correctness comes from our bodies. Our “gut feeling” often informs us as to the ‘correctness’ of some phenomenon. This gut feeling is an attitude; it is one of many types of attitudes. What can we say about this attitude, this gut feeling?

“Metaphors we live by”, a book about cognitive science coauthored by Lakoff and Johnson, says a great deal about this attitude. Conceptual metaphor theory, the underlying theory of cognitive science contained in this book, explains how our knowledge is ‘grounded’ in the precise manner in which we optimally interact with the world.

“The essence of metaphor is understanding one kind of thing in terms of another…The metaphor is not merely in the words we use—it is in the very concept of an argument. The language of argument is not poetic, fanciful, or rhetorical: it is literal. We talk about arguments that way because we conceive of them in that way—and we act according to the way we conceive of things.”—Lakoff and Johnson

Let us say that in early childhood I had my first fight with my brother. There was hitting, shoving, crying, screaming, and anger. Neural structure was placed in a mental space that contained the characteristics of this first combat, this was combat #1. Six months later I have a fight with the neighbor kid and we do all the routine thing kids do when fighting.

This is where metaphor theory does its thing. This theory proposes that the characteristics contained in the mental space, combat #1, are automatically mapped into the mental space that is becoming combat #2. The contents of combat #1 become a primary metaphor and the characteristics form the fundamental structure of mental space combat #2.

This example applies to all the experiences a person has. The primary experience is structured into a mental space and thereafter when a similar experience is happening the primary experience becomes the primary metaphor for the next like experience. This primary metaphor becomes the foundation for a concept whether the concept is concrete experience or abstract experience.

What I am saying is that for some reason the Internet discussion forum member considers engaging in a forum thread is a competition, it is a combat, and the primary combat metaphor is mapped into the mental space of this forum experience and thus the forum experience takes on the combat type experience. It seems to that is why lots of forum activity gets very combative.

Is it any wonder that the adrenalin starts pumping as soon as we start reading the responses to our post?

Do you feel like you are in a battle with me after reading my claims?

Is this why most replies are negative?

OhDear

Wow, this is funny Coberst, cos if I happen to out and out disagree with you, then it may seem I have picked up arms against ya...

So, not the case. Though I do disagree with you.

I believe that argument can be, and often is a precursor to war. And warring is as much an individual's prerogative, mindset, and action as a more corporate force such as nations and their military.

But I actually believe that argument can disarm people. Getting to hear another side to an issue than your own, even in an argument, can bring peace. Not necessarily agreement, but a meeting of the heart that is even more peaceful to know than a meeting of the mind. When someone, your equal, shares their viewpoint, even in a "verbal combat"...you are entering a profound relationship. That of getting to know someone. And if one posts to share what they believe, I think they come more truly disarmed and naked. No armour...

And the fact is, that if you listen, really listen to another, your own viewpoint may well change! It has happened to me countless times. Heck! I use to be a Republican and conservative!!! LOL

So I believe that forums offer a place for folk to be vulnerable and teachable. To avoid "war" ...sure there can be a spirit of war and anger, and an inordinate competition that only looks at besting someone with tactics of intimidation...a battle. But without a forum to discuss as individuals, there can be no real peace, no real friendships.

So whereas war can result from forum discussion, so can peace.

Maybe you can kinda look at it like a neutral thing, this playground of thought, this school of ideas, these mates who play rough and yet, when all is said and done, perhaps you can find a true concern for one another when situations call for sharing more than simply political debate.

OhDear

OhDear

__________________

coberst

Oh Dear

You are correct. There are many attitudes toward argumentation. I do however think that the common view is that if we are having an argument we are engaged in a verbal altercation. If I tell some one that I had an argument with Dave most people will think hat we ‘had words’.

fxashun

That was a great post Coberst.

__________________

OhDear

Yes, Coberst, and I do like your post and your thoughts, and the clarity with which you write.

And cos your name is Coberst, I keep picturing Stephen Colbert when I read your posts. And admittedly have a crush on him.

Well all the same, I think it is true that argument carries the negative connatation far more than the neutral ground I wrote about as a means to discussion.

But for me, forums have been healthy. I have learned to stand my ground, learned to listen to others better, and have found arguments have served to make me a stronger person, and able to listen to and weigh the reasons of others more.

Again, great thoughts of yours, Coberst.

OhDear

__________________

pensacola_niceman

How so? He made no mention of butts and dildos.

coberst

I think that part of the problem is that too many of us have only an accept button and a reject button.

Accept or reject are not the only options one has. The most important and generally overlooked, especially by the young, is the option to ‘hold’.

It appears to me that many young people consider that ‘to be negative is to be cool’. This leads them into responding that ‘X’ is false when responding to an OP that states that ‘X’ is true.

When a person takes a public position affirming or denying the truth of ‘Y’ they are often locking themselves into a difficult position. If their original position was based on opinion rather than judgment their ego will not easily allow them to change position once they have studied and analyzed ‘Y’.

The moral of this story is that holding a default position of ‘reject or accept’, when we are ignorant, is not smart because our ego will fight any attempt to modify the opinion with a later judgment. Silence, or questions directed at comprehending the matter under consideration, is the smart decision for everyone’s default position.

Our options are reject, accept, and hold. I think that ‘hold’ is the most important and should be the most often used because everyone is ignorant of almost everything.

fxashun

I rationalized a few mentions in there anyway. Made the post much funnier.

__________________

fxashun

I don't know about that, there are some topics that have no solid "right" like religion. So those arguments can go on forever with both sides thinking they are correct.

But every generalization has an exception. Except this one. LOL.

__________________