4 ms·

I'm curious as to the rhetorical implications of all this research, particularly regarding modern media. A TON of dialog takes place on message boards and comm

I'm curious as to the rhetorical implications of all this research, particularly regarding modern media. A TON of dialog takes place on message boards and comment sections like this one, certainly more than on any traditional media. It would be interesting to see whether such discussions significantly affect popular opinion of if they're largely just outlets for what people already believe. Even a simple poll of "have you ever changed your mind based on information gathered from discussions on message board X?" would be enlightening. You'd need to conduct such surveys on specific boards/sites to get a clear picture though, as each has a unique community with different priorities. At the very least it would be nice to get a database of which forums have intelligent discussion and which are just full of windbags lol. Obviously on a lot of boards the posters are just running their mouths, but it would be interesting to poll the impacts on the lurkers as well.

ilaksh 11y ago
Which part of the article addressed that? It does talk about beliefs, but not about discussions. On one study they mentioned persuasive arguments on some topics affected reportes beliefs the way they measured it as part of that study, but that's not the same situation as a discussion response. What I realized years ago is that everyone has beliefs, regardless of how religious they are, and most discussions DO involve people trying to 'help the other person to understand' their existing beliefs. Its not just 'windbags'. Its almost everyone in most discussions. And it absolutely is not something that is limited to online or any particular media versus a face-to-face discussion. People may be more free in expressing their beliefs online, but that doesn't mean they don't hold them in spoken conversation -- they might keep things to themselves. There are no forums 'full of intelligent conversation'. People _are_ able to discuss things and sometimes gain new information or even change their minds, but the ratio of new information going in versus explaining why your belief is more correct than the other guy's is very small. People _think_ that they are rational or 'scientific'. Generally though, people are good at rationalizing what they already believed, and only change their minds when all else fails. Including you and I.
- scottLobster 11y ago
  None of it. I was commenting on the implications of the information that the article presented. However, particularly with that line about twitter, it seems to imply that modern methods of communication are more about confirmation than discussion. In particular the article's point about how much is lost in text-based communication. If I state an unpopular opinion, someone reading it might very well fill in the "blanks" with the picture and voice of a pimply 14 year old, which would allow them to more easily dismiss said opinion. I think it would be interesting to more closely examine how prevalent such projective behavior is on message boards. My personal experience has (unfortunately) been people will almost always stick to their guns online, even after their perspectives have been thoroughly and undeniably refuted, even after their own allies tell them they've lost. Best case scenario they'll lose composure completely and look like a fool rather than admit defeat. In person, however, people will often admit that an opponent may have a point and other such courtesies. While there is an argument to be made that this is all superficial courtesy, it would also stand to reason that in person an opponent has less room to rationalize, and can detect things like passion, enthusiasm, or level-headedness that are impossible to deny. These traits could lend subconscious credence to an opponent's argument. Basically I just want to take the researchers' findings on text-based communication and examine the issue in greater detail.

ilaksh 11y ago

Which part of the article addressed that? It does talk about beliefs, but not about discussions. On one study they mentioned persuasive arguments on some topics affected reportes beliefs the way they measured it as part of that study, but that's not the same situation as a discussion response. What I realized years ago is that everyone has beliefs, regardless of how religious they are, and most discussions DO involve people trying to 'help the other person to understand' their existing beliefs. Its not just 'windbags'. Its almost everyone in most discussions. And it absolutely is not something that is limited to online or any particular media versus a face-to-face discussion. People may be more free in expressing their beliefs online, but that doesn't mean they don't hold them in spoken conversation -- they might keep things to themselves. There are no forums 'full of intelligent conversation'. People _are_ able to discuss things and sometimes gain new information or even change their minds, but the ratio of new information going in versus explaining why your belief is more correct than the other guy's is very small. People _think_ that they are rational or 'scientific'. Generally though, people are good at rationalizing what they already believed, and only change their minds when all else fails. Including you and I.

scottLobster 11y ago
None of it. I was commenting on the implications of the information that the article presented. However, particularly with that line about twitter, it seems to imply that modern methods of communication are more about confirmation than discussion. In particular the article's point about how much is lost in text-based communication. If I state an unpopular opinion, someone reading it might very well fill in the "blanks" with the picture and voice of a pimply 14 year old, which would allow them to more easily dismiss said opinion. I think it would be interesting to more closely examine how prevalent such projective behavior is on message boards. My personal experience has (unfortunately) been people will almost always stick to their guns online, even after their perspectives have been thoroughly and undeniably refuted, even after their own allies tell them they've lost. Best case scenario they'll lose composure completely and look like a fool rather than admit defeat. In person, however, people will often admit that an opponent may have a point and other such courtesies. While there is an argument to be made that this is all superficial courtesy, it would also stand to reason that in person an opponent has less room to rationalize, and can detect things like passion, enthusiasm, or level-headedness that are impossible to deny. These traits could lend subconscious credence to an opponent's argument. Basically I just want to take the researchers' findings on text-based communication and examine the issue in greater detail.