Conversations vs Disagreements

Post Reply New Topic

I think that people should be kind to each other.

No , that's silly. Just argue and insult each other instead.

WisteriaRose, I love how you keep it simple and sweet.

Well said.


Can respect be taught?

I was involved in a program for teaching empathy and respect to children.
I took my daughter to the local elementary school when she was a baby.
The students were about 6-7 years old.
They got to watch me take care of her and play with her.
They saw her growing older and developing new skills over time.
They asked a lot of questions and grew to really care about her.

The idea was all of us are just as special as a new baby.
Just because we grew bigger we were still worthy of care and respect.

It was a really enriching experience.

A wise friend and former WP member once said to me, when we're chatting online we should imagine that we're allowing that person to enter our living room.

In essence, we do that. Wherever we're sat writing these posts, the other person has come into our consciousness like an invited guest. Their energy enters our homes and our personal space, not just our minds. They're sharing that moment of time with us no differently than if we were reading a book, or talking to the neighbour outside.

As you said, we view the person through their written words because that's all they can be - thoughts, musings, and keystrokes on a screen. It gives those thoughts more power than they might have if we were to engage in real life, because we lack the context in which to frame or evaluate them holistically.

With great authors or philosophers we can research biographical information and view their works on a continuum. We can read critiques of their ideology or intent. Here it's so different. Our words are suspended in real time by anonymity, often without sufficient background info for us to draw conclusions or witness developmental changes in a poster's mind during the course of their membership. It would be fascinating if our posts could be printed and bound in chronological order as a magnum opus for each of us. There are a few posters I'd love to read, including yourself.

I try to be wary of negative interactions because I tend to ruminate, and I don't want the energy to become part of me. Debate and critique can so easily go off course, and we all have different triggers or inspirations for each word we say.

I think it's compelling and metaphysical, because there's so much mystery involved. We could all be the same person. We could all be a different gender, age, or race than we claim to be. We could be bots, optical illusions, projections of what we want to see, or reproduced material from another source. Maybe this is a sociological experiment and our interactions will be deconstructed for marketing purposes, or studied thousands of years from now like ancient hieroglyphs. I might live right next door to you, and you might have my novel on your nightstand. We tap into a collective consciousness which helps us define our own perception of reality, and it evolves organically every day.

No wonder I can't stop reading.

I'm glad "intimidated" wasn't the right word.
You did say something about being "paranoid" and thinking I was hard to interpret.
That makes it seem like there's a bit of anxiety about misinterpreting me, or talking to me.

What you see is what you get, in terms of my posts.
I don't mince words and there's no hidden meaning.
Maybe that's why I write so much, to get my point across as clearly as possible.
Sometimes it may seem blunt, but that's because I don't fluff up my answers.

I have a hard time writing about emotions so I stick to facts as much as possible.
I soak up people's energy like a sponge, and don't know what to do with it.
Maybe that's why my own energy seems to change.
My mood itself doesn't change very often, just my stream of consciousness.

In real life who am I?
If I had to pick one "persona" or vibe, I'd say I'm a pacifist / thinker.
I don't do partisan politics, sociology, or trends.
I try to fight for the underdog whenever possible.

You'd be shocked to meet me in real life.
I'm extremely chill, and don't say much at all.
You'd think I was extremely boring.

I agree we should agree to both agree and disagree.

The only time this doesn't work in conversations, is when a person invalidates the other person by not listening to their reasons for disagreement. For example, a couple could be discussing something important, even if it's related to opinions. Partner A's opinion is that children should be raised in the city for cultural reasons. Partner B's opinion is that children should be raised in the country, away from crime. It's fine to agree to disagree, but if they had children and needed to relocate, one of them will need to agree with the other.

Sometimes people say "let's agree to disagree" just to shut down a conversation without even listening to the other person, and they use this phrase for moral levity when the other person wants to keep talking.

*I'm not saying you do this, Pepe. Just describing some of the complexities in communication.

I think that is wise. Although I can sometimes over-imagine people, almost creating a character of them based on very little information and a lot of my own assumptions. It can cause problems. But the principle, act as if they were in front of you, is very sound. It just requires more effort.


Yes, I was thinking about it the other way around. That because we are just text online, it encourages us to get involved in debates we might not in real life, or stay in debates longer that we might otherwise bow out of sooner because of the way we disappear when we stop posting, even if we don't stop reading. But I think you're right that the reverse is true too - the opinion might be loosely held by the poster but because that's all we have to go on, it becomes their entire personality.

yeah it was difficult to reconcile you being mute in real life with your posts although I am fairly mute myself.

I do end up editing my posts to you to make sure you dont misinterpret them actually

Really. Isn't that strange. I never get that vibe from IsabellaLinton. She's cool.

Your first paragraph is me to a tee.
I'm horrible with verbal communication especially as it pertains to conflict resolution.
I shut down because it takes me a long time to process.
I can usually only identify my response by writing about it to someone else.
I do keep a written journal but if there's no audience to give me feedback I don't articulate as well.

I have Alexithymia so it's hard for me to put feelings into words especially in real time.
I'm horrible at reading eyes or body language, and making inferences or predictions in human behaviour.
I also have auditory and visual learning disabilities.
I only learn and think by words, ideally written ones and not spoken.
I can't even picture things.

You could say I'm gullible but I'm also quite suspicious.
I have no choice but to assume the worst just in case the person is trying to play me.
I don't tell them these thoughts, but they're on autopilot in the background as a defence mechanism.
Verbal communication is like a slow process of me letting go of those anxieties, or confirmation bias.

I wish all my communication could be sent / received in written form.
I like being able to edit and reread at my leisure.
I'm far from perfect in written form but it's always much better than verbal.

Paragraph 2:
Yes, exactly. Conversations are very difficult when people don't play by the same rules, or have the same expectations.
My family never had "conversations". We barely spoke. My mother did rambling monologues about how stressed out she was, and everyone else was mute. We didn't even eat meals together. There was no "How was your day?", or "Where would you like to go to University?" Nothing. They didn't even tell me about sex or periods.

It's been really hard for me to speak about anything verbally, other than the topics from my career. Opinions, thoughts, conflict resolution? Ouch. It's been a very steep learning curve for me, especially as a single mum.

I'll give my opinions about general subjects quite openly, but when empathising with an individual about their personal problems I can be tactful and tell them what I know they want to hear, even if I'm thinking differently. I may throw in my opinion if I know it isn't harmful but I don't use it to criticise.

Like when a boy at work was moping because he'd reported another colleague for littering, and the colleague didn't take too kindly to it and now hates him for reporting him. As the boy was confiding in me telling me that he had the right to report him, in my head I was thinking "not really necessary to report a colleague for littering", but instead I said "oh dear". I didn't want to take sides and start preaching him. I hate when people take sides.

Also last week a colleague had lost his driver's license (as in it being taken away from him) because of drink-driving. He was sobbing and was devastated. I gave him a hug. I didn't want to start yelling "well it's your own fault, how stupid of you, you could have killed someone, I'm glad they took away your license!" and all that, as that wasn't what he wanted to hear at that moment, whether it's the truth or not. He'd just hate me for it. The easiest thing to do is to just take their side.
Unless they have already killed someone, and on purpose. Or have raped, severely bullied, etc etc. Well, even then I probably wouldn't say anything to their face, although if they weren't feeling guilty or ashamed then I might struggle to show any sympathy at all.

But where is the fun in that?

Nice idea, but that isn't how the real world works, however.

Firstly, you were not in sympathy with my context in your example.
Secondly, where I use "Let us agree to disagree" is when there is no hope for agreement.
I.E. The existence or non-existence of a "god".

I don't have theological discussions any longer now that I am firm in my RATIONAL belief.
And I am not interested in converting anyone.

Gosh darn. I was hoping you understood that I agree we should agree on the things we agree about and I agree that we should agree to disagree on things we disagree about, especially if those things don't need to be agreed upon or there is no hope we'll agree, although sometimes we shouldn't agree to disagree if an agreement must be made.

Agree?

Wanna talk about God?