Noting patterns in behavior is one way in which we can predict future behaviors. To be able to predict future behaviors allows us to plan our reaction thereby giving us a sense of security.
I've noticed some behavioral patterns here on this website, and one of the most recent ones is congregation. Where once the most heavily trafficked forum was General Nursing, one of the most heavily trafficked areas is now Politics.
I get this data through empirical endeavors. For example, a recent thread in General Nursing where I had submitted a post sat at the most recent post position for 5 1/2 hours. Politics rarely sit without a new post being submitted for more than an hour. As example, this morning, Politics had been posted on less than 30 minutes earlier.
Why the shift in interest from Nursing to Politics on a nursing website?
This where debates and discussions become off the topic and confusing.
If a remark is not supported by evidence, then state it instead of asking a rhetorical question which is designed to stand on its own accord!
The polite rules of discussion and debate ate often lost in this community. We need to first restate the premise- or quote it- and then give evidence to the contrary. Too often, the topic is lost due to members not following the rules, such as attacking the person and not the premise.
I agree with you that some remarks without a source send me to Google all the time on these boards. But that could be because the poster thinks it basic knowledge, especially if the get their news from different sources. For example Fox New's headlines are five stories about the transfer of migrants to Martha's Vineyard and someone might know more about that subject more than someone else and make a comment that would send me to Google with them thinking it's common knowledge. Meanwhile CNN is dominated by the Queen of England's funeral and seems to have moved on from the subject.
It is pointed about that the TOS dictates that we don't attack the person but stick to the topic. Other than that I'm not following someone else's definition of "the polite rules of discussion and debate".
Specializes in Psych (25 years), Medical (15 years).
2 minutes ago, Tweety said:
It is pointed about that the TOS dictates that we don't attack the person but stick to the topic.
Some attacks are so subtle, they go by unnoticed.
I've used an example before of one member who logically argued another's premise, yet beforehand, would insult them by challenging their perception of reality. The challenge, insulting as it was, was unnecessary.
The opening of a premise often sets the tone for what follows. If we give another attention and acknowledge them positively, then the likelihood of accepting, or at least considering, the premise increases.
By giving no attention to a member's comments takes power away from them. Giving attention gives them ammunition for further rebuttal. I have found that if no attention is given, the unacknowledged member eventually goes away.
By giving no attention to a member's comments takes power away from them. Giving attention gives them ammunition for further rebuttal. I have found that if no attention is given, the unacknowledged member eventually goes away.
I allow you that approach. That's just not me. I will counter someone that I feel is attacking me or my idea.
I will add a caveat that there is someone that jumps on here now and again whom I have chosen to ignore because they are really extremists in their views. Can't waste my time. But otherwise I have to get my say so in. That might be a flaw because I don't always know when to walk away without getting the last word in. But I'd like to say for the most part I know when to throw in the towel and walk away, or "agree to disagree".
Specializes in Psych (25 years), Medical (15 years).
26 minutes ago, Tweety said:
I will counter someone that I feel is attacking me or my idea.
Once the attack becomes personal, it is no longer a discussion or debate. It is a pissing contest which is not allowed in a polite intercourse.
One method not allowed is using a red herring to prove a point which is not the topic. An example is when another member and I were debating a point. The member cited their education and experience without addressing the topic at hand- a red herring.
This member had more education, but not more experience than I connected with the topic at hand. Had I argued and proved that I had more experience, I would have been giving credence to their red herring tact.
Since the other member used an unacceptable means to debate a subject, there the exchange ended. For this and other similar behaviors, I do not engage in a discussion with such a member, no matter how much they prod me.
They become a non-person and are no longer given any of my attention.
Once the attack becomes personal, it is no longer a discussion or debate. It is a pissing contest which is not allowed in a polite intercourse.
One method not allowed is using a red herring to prove a point which is not the topic. An example is when another member and I were debating a point. The member cited their education and experience without addressing the topic at hand- a red herring.
This member had more education, but not more experience than I connected with the topic at hand. Had I argued and proved that I had more experience, I would have been giving credence to their red herring tact.
Since the other member used an unacceptable means to debate a subject, there the exchange ended. For this and other similar behaviors, I do not engage in a discussion with such a member, no matter how much they prod me.
They become a non-person and are no longer given any of my attention.
Again, I do allow you how to handle discussion and debate.
If you follow these boards you know I'm very good at pointing out the "red herrings" or deflections or going off topic as a means of avoiding a topic. It's quite the sore spot with me and a battle I seem to have lost.
But I do acknowledge that "polite intercourse" isn't always the style here and maybe if it was it would attract more people.
But most of the time for us long timers, the discussion is real and not some forced politeness that would sound insincere. Most of us long time posters here have very thick skin and can handle the insults veiled or otherwise.
Specializes in Psych (25 years), Medical (15 years).
6 minutes ago, Tweety said:
Oh wait, am I "ruthlessly chastising you?"
Not in the least.
As a matter of fact, on one thread, you attacked my premise so well that I gave you recognition and a like. A good solid debate utilizing facts is one worth to be involved.
Another fact: I did not specify that members were the ruthless attackers.
I agree with you that some remarks without a source send me to Google all the time on these boards. But that could be because the poster thinks it basic knowledge, especially if the get their news from different sources.
I think you’ve touched on an important point here. Much of the media seems extremely polarized, at least cable news. My own goto news sources are more neutral middle-of-the-road but I try to follow at least some of the news in both rightwing and leftwing American media. In my opinion it’s like two completely different realities. If one only watches one of them, that will probably mean that you miss a lot of the current drama and hoopla (probably not the correct scientific term ?)
As a matter of fact, on one thread, you attacked my premise so well that I gave you recognition and a like. A good solid debate utilizing facts is one worth to be involved.
Another fact: I did not specify that members were the ruthless attackers.
Thank you for taking that well. I thought it a bit snarly and edited it but you saw it right away.
I can see you didn't say that members were the ruthless attackers, but you did imply that there were ruthless attacks, but I'll drop it.
I am not as clever as many posters here, so I don’t debate much. That being said, I do feel compelled to point out a clearly false statement such as the moon is made of green cheese. And yet if I do, I am accused of making a personal attack or being snarky, like I am supposed to know that the poster wasn’t being literal.
Specializes in Psych (25 years), Medical (15 years).
16 hours ago, Tweety said:
Thank you for taking that well. I thought it a bit snarly and edited it but you saw it right away.
Whether we are aware of it or not, whether we want to or not, our personalities come across on theses forums. Once a personality is recognized and solidified, it rarely changes.
Your personality is one of integrity, Tweety. You are devoted to that which you believe and have high standards. You are not trite, your feathers are not easily ruffled, and you do not react without reserve. This is accepted as fact after reading your posts for years upon years.
Besides, all we really are, to the vast majority, are words on a screen and it is our choice in which way we react to those words.
Tweety, BSN, RN
36,367 Posts
I agree with you that some remarks without a source send me to Google all the time on these boards. But that could be because the poster thinks it basic knowledge, especially if the get their news from different sources. For example Fox New's headlines are five stories about the transfer of migrants to Martha's Vineyard and someone might know more about that subject more than someone else and make a comment that would send me to Google with them thinking it's common knowledge. Meanwhile CNN is dominated by the Queen of England's funeral and seems to have moved on from the subject.
It is pointed about that the TOS dictates that we don't attack the person but stick to the topic. Other than that I'm not following someone else's definition of "the polite rules of discussion and debate".
You are entitled to your feedback.