Something that I’ve noticed that I sometimes do in online discussions: I look at what my interlocutor said, which is less explicit than I’d like. I imagine a “most likely” interlocutor based on that utterance, and when that turns out to be a person I don’t like, I try to be “charitable” by imagining the most sympathetic interlocutor who might have said the same thing.
I don’t want to offend the hypothetical sympathetic person, but I’m also upset about what the other hypothetical person is saying. I end up trying to craft a reply to both of them at once; e.g. something that will sound to the sympathetic interlocutor like a polite request for clarification, while simultaneously acting as a refutation of the stupid position of the fool I think I’m probably talking to.
I’ve noticed that this strategy has a poor success rate. Mostly my interlocutor becomes confused.
What I’d like to do more of—but which I seem to have trouble remembering in the moment—is just honestly asking clarifying questions.
I think the “just ask questions” strategy is less salient to me because it doesn’t address anything immediately. I’m leaving the conversation in a state where, if I failed to check back, or if the other person never replied, I would never have expressed my own position. It feels like failing to defend against an attack.
Despite this, I think asking questions is often a good strategy and I am currently under-utilizing it. I think most people want to be understood and are happy to answer questions from someone honestly trying to understand them.
Something that I’ve noticed that I sometimes do in online discussions: I look at what my interlocutor said, which is less explicit than I’d like. I imagine a “most likely” interlocutor based on that utterance, and when that turns out to be a person I don’t like, I try to be “charitable” by imagining the most sympathetic interlocutor who might have said the same thing.
I don’t want to offend the hypothetical sympathetic person, but I’m also upset about what the other hypothetical person is saying. I end up trying to craft a reply to both of them at once; e.g. something that will sound to the sympathetic interlocutor like a polite request for clarification, while simultaneously acting as a refutation of the stupid position of the fool I think I’m probably talking to.
I’ve noticed that this strategy has a poor success rate. Mostly my interlocutor becomes confused.
What I’d like to do more of—but which I seem to have trouble remembering in the moment—is just honestly asking clarifying questions.
I think the “just ask questions” strategy is less salient to me because it doesn’t address anything immediately. I’m leaving the conversation in a state where, if I failed to check back, or if the other person never replied, I would never have expressed my own position. It feels like failing to defend against an attack.
Despite this, I think asking questions is often a good strategy and I am currently under-utilizing it. I think most people want to be understood and are happy to answer questions from someone honestly trying to understand them.