Anonymous Conversations and Confessions and Polls
Talking.
I wonder if there would be a positive difference in how we communicate if constructive criticism was taught in the place of argumentation.

I wonder if there would be a positive difference in how we communicate if constructive criticism was taught in the place of argumentation.
It is taught in the schools I attended as a kid, and in the school my kids attend now. But what I think you are asking for, is not just a matter of higher-order reasoning. It's also a kind of cultural atmosphere that you deliberately cultivate, in which collegiality is encouraged, and people do not overly invest their egos into ideas, lest they feel threatened when their ideas are examined or improved by discussion.
It is absolutly about cultural atmosphere. That's exactly where I was going with this.
But it's not solely a matter of having ones own ideas examined. It is also how they are examined. Like I mentioned to DebitEmer, it very much is a two or more sided interaction. If you're pushing someone to fight you once you have already disagreed with their idea, I think something is wrong.
I think you're right. I wish we could redefine our understanding of "criticism," which needs be neither constructive nor destructive, but a considered review of both merit and fault.
@AnonBathSue made a great point about ego. Part of the issue is our defensive reaction to criticism as personal attack, and the assumption that any questioning is a threat. As you suggest, the focus on argumentation creates an atmosphere where winning is everything and changing our opinions based on better information is seen as weakness of character.
Not only that. It also creates an environment and overall behavioral tendency to bully.
In this context, I use the word "bully" to say "coax into a fight". One cannot merely accept that an idea is being rejected or disagreed with. One cannot simply listen. One must "fight back". And when fighting back doesn't happen, personal attacks begin to emerge. They don't further an idea in constructive way.
You just have one person insulting another in order to get them to "defend" their idea. If they don't specifically hear the words "you're right", if the person whose idea they are attacking does not deal in right or wrong, there is anger and bullying.
Why? I think it's because people aren't taught to be contructive. They must tear things a part with argument and this act should make them feel accomplished. This is poison.
Yup, all those things. The examination of ideas devolves into a desperate exercise in finding flaws. We've all been part of those "discussions," where one party is trying to communicate an idea and the other, instead of considering what's being said, is already busy forming a rebuttal. Life shouldn't feel like a courtroom procedural.
And yet.....here we are.
I often wonder how much anonymity plays into it.
For imzy specifically, the most hurtful comments come from anonymous users.
It's an interesting dilemma. On one hand, there is no doubt that, for some, anonymity is a free pass to indulge in their worst impulses.
But I, too, value my ability to be anonymous, not for the freedom to be hurtful, but because my presence online feels precarious. Though I take care to edit my replies for tone and to give thoughtful responses, I don't trust everyone to be the same way. Anonymity on Imzy gives me the confidence to participate in discussion with the confidence an aggressive user cannot follow me from place to place.
Oh no, I completely love my anonymity for similar reasons. In fact, I plan on making most of my interactions anonymous from this point forward. I've been on imzy for a while. And I mostly lurk, but I saw a user get bullied recently. I didn't comment on the post, but I did read it. She maintained very cordial, polite, short responses and anon users were just hacking at her. I felt bad. And that's what inspired this post. It's also what makes me unwilling to commit to a regular username. If anon is allowed, I will definitely use it.
Admittedly I've not been on Imzy terribly long. (Came in with the Reddit exodus crowd.) But I've yet to come across hurtful/rude/etc. yet from anyone using Anon.
But the anonymous user is everyone, isn't it? Whether or not I identify myself with a moniker or not, are we not all anonymous? That's another flip side to this coin, I think, the anonymity of the internet and the ability to say "I don't know them so who cares if I'm mean".
I think you're right, we are all anonymous. But I think that the more that is known about a user even if it is connecting their thoughts with a consistently used moniker, the more they are willing to take responsibility for their thoughts and words.
When I said that I would use the anonymous function on imzy, I meant using it the way we are now. These randomly generated names will never be used again. I hate it because I like my conversation with you guys now. And I love it because if I encounter someone with poor intentions, I will never have to encounter them again. And now that I've seen a few things, my thinking is that this structure is way better for me.
I don't know if I want to get to know imzy users better unfortunately.
As a complete aside to this entire conversation, sort of, I find I'm having a hard time following threads with this new comment layout - so if it seems I'm not answering you - it's likely because I really am not and just got lost somewhere along the way. It's even more difficult on mobile.
I am struggling as well. No problem. 😅
Is constructive criticism no longer taught in schools? It was when I went. I ask because my kids aren't old enough yet and are still learning to read. I remember in English class (granted back in the mid-90's) that we had to do constructive criticism exercises on other people's papers.
I'm not sure what is being taught anymore. I don't have children at all and I'm not a teacher. So as far as answering that specific question, maybe another imzy user can help us out.
But I certainly hope that the lessons we're taught are also taught outside of school. Especially when something like constructive criticism can and is often way more than examining another person's paper for school. I think it's also connected to how we treat other people. And these days that means both on and offline.
I didn't mention school in my original thought for that very reason, I didn't want this to be about adhering to/straying from rules of structured debate or term paper format.
I wanted it to be a kind of examination of self. What do you do when someone disagrees with something? And what do they do back? How often does it take the form of badgering? Why do you think that is?
Ah, I understand better what you're asking (I think). I took your initial word "taught" and my brain went straight to school.
Currently, with my kids' ages, I'm not doing a ton of constructive criticism with them - more critical thinking. How actions and words effect the world around us.
I know from my own personal experiences and the way I interact online and with other people tone sometimes plays a larger role in what is considered badgering vs. constructive than the actual words.
Tone definitely plays a role. But that's another element that leads us down a rabbit hole. Many people online do not believe that one can derive tone from the words they are coming across and are convinced that tone is a tool used in literature and is not found in online text discourse because we can't see each other expressing ourselves. So how do you address the way you're being spoken to when someone insists it's all in your head? Again: rabbit hole.
That said, I agree. Tone plays a pretty big role. And I think that the tone that is employed--if it's being properly understood--stems from how one views the conversation. If it's a fight, "winning" comes into play and it's under-the-belt and gloves off if need be.
If not, you can tell right away. There are way more questions, way more concessions and one may say "Oh, ok. Thank you for letting me know" and not be bullied.
I have spent years attempting to perfect my online tone. Since I was 14 and the internet was shiny and new.
This is interesting to me because - how can tone be in one and not in the other when they are both written word? And I've seen that as well, where someone can understand how a character in a novel feels with nothing but context clues, but can't suss out how someone is not trying to be mean online using the same method.
I think another thing to avoid seeing something as a fight (because, lets be honest, it's happened to us all) is to take a moment, heck take a day if need be, before responding. That's something I feel is not done often enough in this day of "instant gratification/communication".
The internet has made it where our thoughts can just be open and exposed and people are getting more careless about sharing them. Which leads to bullying even if it's not done consciously - those people aren't taking the time to think how their words effect others.
What if it's not necessarily constructive criticism that's the problem, but a complete lack of empathy? People are less able to think from anyone else's point of view and so they are no longer able to not internalize things and not take them personally?
Excellent thoughts. I think we are completely on the same page.
I don't know how tone can be absent from online dialogue. Or how one maintains that view. It might be a way of absolving oneself from responsibility. "If it's all in your head, I don't have to take responsibility for being a dick." This could simply be my cynicism creeping in which is an awful trait in and of itself. All I know is that tone can be misinterpreted and some of it really is in our heads. But I personally cannot understand the idea that there is no tone at all! Alas, this is an idea that affects our communication and it must be considered.
As far as taking time to respond. I agree it can be very helpful. Many times people lose interest in a fight they are trying to start if too much time passes. Their torches burn out, their battering rams become too heavy and crisis is avoided. Unfortunately that also may mean that a good idea may not be explored to the extent that it deserves. Not to say that bullying would have provided that, but when interest wanes, the idea fades, which is a bit tragic.
Lack of empathy is something that scares me. And while I think you are 100% right in bringing it up, I just don't like to talk about it. I think that not having the ability or not choosing to use constructive criticism is a symptom of the larger subject of empathy. The symptoms are easier to treat.
I hate talking about it because I don't like what a lack of empathy on such a massive scale could mean for...well...everything. I mean, can empathy be taught? If not, the fact that so many seem to lack it paints a very, very dark world out there.
This is a great discussion. I find myself nodding at a lot of what I'm reading.
I think there's a connection between the problem of tone and technology's facilitation (and the resulting cultural glorification) of instant response. Sadly, instant response doesn't often allow for nuance. I completely agree with your advice to take a moment. Often I have found I my interpretation of tone corresponds with my own sensitivity to a subject. But if I give myself some distance, my perspective changes. I can come back and read the same text very differently.
And I think our practise of empathy hangs in the balance. Empathy isn't instantaneous. It's a thought experiment, imagining what it would be like if our personal situation was different. It takes consideration and time.
Our approach to technology often undermines us; instead of adapting it to our needs, we are passively receptive and adapt ourselves to it. My fear is we're slowly rewiring ourselves.
I am truly having a love/hate relationship with this conversation right now. On one hand I love that it's being discussed and it's allowing me to explore my own thoughts and feelings on the matter. It is also allowing me to really think about what sort of lessons I want to teach my children since the internet and online communication will be an even bigger part of their lives in the years to come.
On the other hand - it's a little depressing to think about - because I too have seen the trend of people not giving a crap about what they say or how it effects the person on the other side of the screen and it's sad.
And just another bigger question, how do we actually manage? My personal philosophy is to live by example. In other words, I try to be as understanding as possible to show people how I want to be treated, but then I wind up becoming a rug for others to walk on.
To be honest, I think I'm actually a bit mean and guarded in real life. I avoid people, I don't talk unless spoken to, I don't make eye contact, I'm very private and very much a loner. I am not a "people person" by nature. And I think I've been molded into that for some of the reasons that we have discussed (argumentative attitudes, encountering a lack of empathy, etc.) and it would be nice if I could at least maintain the kindess/understanding I try to practice and genuinely feel online without turning in to offline me.
Any thoughts on that?
I used to be a big pushover both online and in real life. Hell, I was so warped I truly believed my opinion didn't matter. I remember thinking that as a kid. My mom and I discussed that recently and neither of us understood where that came from.
However it's only in the last 3 years or so that I've truly found my voice, so to speak. The online "voice" came much faster than my real life "voice" but they are truly no different. I am online as I am in person for the most part. I find I have a harder time putting thoughts into words in person than I do through written text, but that's really the only difference. Well, and puns. I can't pass up a good pun in real life. :)
It is so much easier to slip into old habits though.
This conversation reminded me of something and it was a perfect parallel and now the idea has flown the coop.
Yikes! Sorry to pull things all over the place! I hate escaped ideas! If it comes back, let us know immediately!
No, it was my kid. She needed my help with something and totally derailed my train of thought. She's good at that. (As most kids are.)
If I do think of it, I will most certainly come back to it.
That is the biggest question, isn't it? I wish I knew.
I've had some long discussions, lately, about whether or not people are "good," which I would define as having the will to act against our essential selfishness. I have also questioned where I see myself on that continuum.
Right now, I want (and make an effort ) to behave in way that's not rooted in selfishness. I also believe challenging myself to be "good" is more meaningful if it's not easy or convenient. But I also choose to remove myself from a lot of situations that bring out the worst in me. I fear my retreat is selfishness. That's a problem.
I absolutely do not believe in total and complete selflessness. I think as people (or maybe it's just me) we need to be selfish at certain times. I think the trick is knowing when it is good and healthy to do so and when it is at a detriment to yourself or others.
Do you not believe people can be inherently good? Or is it something you think people need to actively do and think about? (I'm somewhat on the fence about this and I don't really think it's not* quite as straight forward as my questions are portraying it.)
*edited to add words for the making of sense
Haha, this topic is a big deep pit full of questions. It's never straightforward. Also, for the record, I think complete selflessness is either pathology or sainthood, neither of which I am qualified to diagnose.
I'm never sure of anything, but I lean to the idea we are not inherently anything other than wired to survive. Everything over and above that represents beliefs and choices, some of which are conditioned into us, and some we create. It's what informs our selfhood, and it's what gives our actions weight. But underneath is still that lizard brain; every one of us is capable of turning away from those things if we feel threatened--with the severity of our pivot determined by the danger we perceive.
My partner says this is pessimism, but I reject that. Rather, I think allowing for the possibility for real goodness is enormously optimistic. But it's also pretty fragile. For the conscious self to prevail (because it is not instinct) we have to practise it to keep it our default.
Going back to the original discussion, when I talk about technology encouraging us to react without thinking, I have to wonder if we're giving over dominance to our amoral, instinctive selves. MAYBE.
Because I get to this point and I think I should probably just get more fresh air.