14 ms·

I think the world would be better if, before you're allowed to respond to someone being wrong, you have to first be able to express their position in a way that

by sago 11y ago

I think the world would be better if, before you're allowed to respond to someone being wrong, you have to first be able to express their position in a way that they agree represents their view. Because 'political correctness' isn't the cancer at the heart of social politics, it is straw-manning. On both sides of every issue. I'd be surprised, perhaps even amazed, if Dr Piper had represented the complaint in any way recognisable to the person who'd made it. This just smells of tendentious reporting.

ALee 11y ago
In fact, there's really great data on this same effect. Shankar Vedantam from the Hidden Brain podcast recently talked about this in relation to political arguments and experimentation related to it: http://n.pr/1uL0RAe http://n.pr/1uL0RAe
caio1982 11y ago
...or perhaps he just got fed up of dealing with these kind of people (of a different generation) and had to vent it out.
- SolaceQuantum 11y ago
  Then it's just using straw men to vent an anger that could be cured with acceptance (love?) and understanding.
mseebach 11y ago
The counter-point to that approach is the "motte and bailey doctrine". http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bric...
rubidium 11y ago
Having spent far more than my fair share of time around University students (11 years), I can assure you that the complaint is likely what the student said. It smells very much like what students today are saying. Remember the other professor who had students call the police because there were mice in their apartment?
- jccalhoun 11y ago
  "Having spent far more than my fair share of time around University students (11 years), I can assure you that the complaint is likely what the student said. It smells very much like what students today are saying." I guess I have different students because I've been teaching college since 2000 and have never had any complaints like this and neither have any of my friends.
  - Overtonwindow 11y ago
    What subject do you teach? I was talking to an old physics professor of mine and he said the same thing, but my former psych professor was completely the opposite. Maybe it's a subject-related issue?
    - JulianMorrison 11y ago
      Could also be related to the person. A prof who's being racist will receive more criticism for being racist, and will have more cause to complain of "political correctness".
      - CodeCube 11y ago
        I gotta say, anecdotally, this is what I often find ... the people complaining about political correctness, are those that have in the past been openly racist, or at a minimum, fond of racially charged jokes (ie. "black people are great, everyone should own one"). They are chafing against a cultural change that no longer appreciates and/or tolerates behavior like that.
        talmand 11y ago
        Well, anecdotally, I often find that being used as an easy excuse to dismiss someone's concerns without having to address the concerns.
        11y ago
ohitsdom 11y ago
I like it, similar to what they do in some pre-marital or marriage counseling sessions. One side lists a grievance, then before the other side responds they have to repeat what they heard and get confirmation before responding. "So if I'm hearing you right, you don't like it when I... Did I understand correctly?" It feels ridiculous when you do it at first but it becomes an incredibly helpful tool.
- kabdib 11y ago
  I use this all the time. "You want to add feature X because ..." ... and then, once we've clarified what the request is all about, and I'm sure about what's going on, only then can you move in to help, offer advice, or crush their souls with a series of devastating blows. No, don't do the latter. Show your side of the story and get them to say it out loud. "Okay, you're right, putting a Perl 6 interpreter in the interrupt handlers of the network stack does sound kind of crazy now." Doing this makes you a lot easier to work with, or at least that is the perception. :-)
  - fluxquanta 11y ago
    While I definitely agree this doesn't always work because ego gets involved, at least in my experience. Stating what you understand the situation or question to be back to the other party can often be interpreted as a challenge of their personal judgement on something that should be considered objectively.
    - kabdib 11y ago
      Presentation is everything here. Be humble. It's not Machiavellian if you're really trying to understand. Letting someone fail is often good, too...
frobozz 11y ago
Indeed. Either the complainant is a troll, or doesn't exist. No normal person would attend a sermon at the chapel of a given faith, and complain that the sermon victimises them for being a poor practitioner of that faith. This is doubly true when its about something universal like love, rather than how well you practice some specific ritual.
- victorhooi 11y ago
  Do you have any evidence of this claim (that it's a troll or "doesn't exist"), other than just your assertion that no normal person would do this? I can assure you that I know plenty of young people who would do something like this - heck, I'm a young person (and also a Christian), and whilst I probably wouldn't be brave enough to actually approach a lecturer and voice such thoughts, I am sure that in a moment of weakness I could certainly think such things internally (which in some sense, is nearly or just as bad). So my assertion is based both on knowing my own peers and being honest about myself. When somebody calls us out for something, it's only natural to want to blame somebody else - it takes an incredible amount of self-awareness and discipline to immediately jump to self-reflection, without trying to pass the buck. Sure, we may get there in the end, but it's often a journey of various emotions to get to that epiphany. Are you saying you are one of those people? Or that you believe most people are like that?
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > When somebody calls us out for something, it's only natural to want to blame somebody else - it takes an incredible amount of self-awareness and discipline to immediately jump to self-reflection, without trying to pass the buck. Well, this goes both ways. Like most HN threads on this topic, this discussion is largely full of reactions against perceived "victimization", devoid of any self-reflection about what merit the complaints might actually have.
    - skj 11y ago
      I like to replace the phrase "politically correct" with "respectful treatment of individuals" or "empathy".
chillingeffect 11y ago
> you have to first be able to express their position in a way that they agree represents their view. This habit is extremely powerful. There's no way to require people to do it, but people who do it, at least know the arguments of their opponents, are in such a better position to get what they want that people who don't are left standing, mouths open wondering what happened. And it's extremely timely as just two weeks ago, President Obama gave this quote: "I don't want you to think that a display of your strength is simply shutting other people up. And that part of your ability to bring about change is going to be by engagement and understanding the viewpoints and the arguments of the other side." People don't realize that college already is the safe place where they can develop the habits of empathy and conflict-management. Getting called "bitch" and seeing mice are the least of their problems. Those are going to happen in the real-world no matter what. College isn't a place to preserve themselves from these inevitable, superficial insults, it's a place to develop leadership, contribution and cooperation abilities to get big things done like feeding, improving, healing, leading the world, etc.
- mgr86 11y ago
  I agree it is powerful but it is also just effective communication. I try to do it a lot with my girlfriend on things we don't necessarily agree. I'll paraphrase her position to ensure that my response is correct. ...Sadly, that is sometimes met with "No, are you even listening". But hey, at least at that point she rewords it to get her point across.
  - JackFr 11y ago
    I have an Aunt who thrives on disagreement -- and in particular, she will not let me agree with her. Some time ago I believe she irrevocably decided that our views are too different and we can never agree. I literally have had the exchange with her: "I completely agree with everything you just said." "Then you must have misunderstood me."
  - chillingeffect 11y ago
    heya if you are talking about communicating with a woman - or rather feminine energy - sometimes it can be even easier than that! 95% - 99% of the time, feminine energy works out its problems through saying them out loud and being heard. (Masculine energy works out its problems by pondering in a man cave). So often, all you have to do is keep your lips closed and listen. It can be hard, but that's the way it works, by sometimes introducing an uncomfortable air. Your calm, attentive, silent response to the discomfort is how the energy is resolved. Shortly after the discomfort, you'll feel a mood change and when she says, "Thank you for listening!!" you'll often get a big hug. I sincerely hope this helps you and everyone else big time.
aswanson 11y ago
Along those lines, I think formal debate should be required in secondary education, and students should be required to defend the position they disagree with.
- bsenftner 11y ago
  That would be nice, but is "formal debate" taught anymore? What I've seen lately (finished grad school 5 years ago) that is called "debate" at a university is far from what I remember when I did undergrad in the '80's.
  - aswanson 11y ago
    Not sure...never had any debate as a part of my education (through grad school). I think they should start in high school though because if you're going to be a participant in an informed electorate you need to be able to process and articulate both sides of an argument. A casual glance at a few facebook timelines and twitter feeds suggest this is a horribly rare skill these days.
- wfo 11y ago
  In my experience "formal debate" (in the vein of forensics competitions, etc) is essentially heavy "research" in which you cherry pick any study or paper or blog you can find that supports your position and then spit out all those citiations as quickly as possible in an 8 minute 'speech' -- there's very little debating or discussion going on, just a war of citations which quickly shows all the participants that citations mean nothing -- no matter your view you can find plenty of "evidence" for it, it's an even playing field whether you're affirmative or negative after all. So all in all like the real debate we see on television I suppose.
- potatolicious 11y ago
  I did formal debate in high school and university, and agree with wfo - formal debate is possibly one of the worst things to teach if your goal is understanding and critical thinking about topics. Keep in mind that in a typical formal debate you don't get to pick your sides - you are assigned a position on an issue and must successfully argue in favor of that position. Formal debate is about the art of rhetoric, and explicitly part of the expectation - and the skill taught - is the deliberate distortion/reframing of fact in order to support your case. Anyone who's done formal debates will have learned this, since you're frequently asked to argue positions you personally disagree with. Formal debate is a craft of being convincing, not of being right. Not to mention the structure of formal debates means there is a winner and a loser, and so compromise is impossible. The goal isn't to reach an understanding or middle ground, but to completely obliterate your opponent rhetorically. This fits poorly with real life.
SeanDav 11y ago
A little research will produce a vast number of examples of political correctness with real consequences and not just "straw-manning". Here is a recent example: A Canadian university cancels a yoga class because yoga comes "from a culture that “experienced oppression, cultural genocide and diasporas due to colonialism and western supremacy,” In a world that can do that, I don't find it surprising that a student could express the view in the original article and actually mean it.
- jbob2000 11y ago
  Just to add some more info; it was the student union that was running the yoga class and cancelled it, the university administration had no part in its cancellation. This was wholly done by students.
  - zwily 11y ago
    That doesn't seem to change how ridiculous it sounds, does it?
    - 300zxkyle 11y ago
      Not in the least.
    - jbob2000 11y ago
      Nope, it's more ridiculous, I think. I'm used to misguided administrations; that's par for the course. But students policing themselves, and it's worse than any misguided administration could do? Unbelievable.
      - hobs 11y ago
        For some reason I am strongly reminded of the book "Interesting Times" “The Empire's got something worse than whips all right. It's got obedience. Whips in the soul. They obey anyone who tells them what to do. Freedom just means being told what to do by someone different.” ― Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times
jellicle 11y ago
You're being generous to the author. I'd be amazed if anyone at all had complained to the university president about their sermon. "The complaining student" is now a trope along the lines of the cab driver who always speaks to New York Times columnists in a way that is convenient for their column.
- strickjb9 11y ago
  Except, in this scenario, the cab driver is OKWU and the new york times is also OWKU. It's reasonable for OWKU to make this announcement. They are laying out their expectations for their student body. It is inconvenient but students who dislike their position are free to transfer. OWKU is a private institution and also a religious one (even greater protection). They are well within their means and rights. I'm starting to think that feelings are being hurt on HN; hence all the controversy.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > It's reasonable for OWKU to make this announcement. They are laying out their expectations for their student body. It may be reasonable for OWKU to make an announcement of their expectations of student receptiveness to uncomfortable sermons, the particular details and manner in which Dr. Piper did so in this case, however, taken as presented, shows a lack of both the general adult ability to maturely deal with uncomfortable situations and the specific Christian virtues it pretends to be concerned with. > OWKU is a private institution and also a religious one (even greater protection). They are well within their means and rights. I don't think anyone has argued that OKWU's actions here were either unaffordable (outside of the University's means -- not sure why that would even be relevant) or illegal (outside of the University's rights). The negative responses I've seen have all be skepticism about the accuracy of the presentation of the situation and arguments that, even if the situation was presented accurately, the piece is a poor response to the situation it describes. (The comment you responded to was explicitly the former -- raising the idea that the "complaining student" has become a common fictional foil to set up rhetorically, whether or not a real complaint exists.) Not that it is outside of the University's "means and rights".
jrlocke 11y ago
Daniel Dennett refers to this as Rapoports rule. How to compose a successful critical commentary: You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). You should mention anything you have learned from your target. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism. https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...
- qznc 11y ago
  Dennett definitely has some experience with criticism and his opinion is worthwhile to listen to, so I agree with your addendum. Thanks for the link, I did not know this. However, Dennett and Rapoport list three further steps after re-expression. 2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). 3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target. 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism. (I tried to follow the rules with my comment)
- Kalium 11y ago
  From experience, this often works with essentially reasonable people but occasionally is prone to spectacular failures. Some people have difficulty accepting the possibility that a human being can both understand their position and not be in perfect agreement with it.
rowboat 11y ago
Or, https://youtu.be/yRujuE-GIY4 https://youtu.be/yRujuE-GIY4
VLM 11y ago
"respond to someone being wrong" I believe this might be your bone of contention. The speech was a mission statement, more or less, with an introduction that is very catchy and exciting and clickbaity, but overall irrelevant to the main argument. This is not a response of right or wrong. Obviously the leader thinks people who oppose him are wrong, but the main thrust of the argument past that intro is "where is what we are going to do here". For example, obviously a long cultural time ago, although it was only a bit more than a decade, all the seniors at the school I finally graduated from (I was a part timer) took the same giant Holocaust class. It was a required interdisciplinary liberal arts survey class, of a topic that changed every year. I believe they had "death" as the topic another year. They were obviously kind of a downer phase. For cultural change reasons they don't do this anymore, which is a shame. Anyway the point of an interdisciplinary liberal arts class isn't to debate philosophically if the topic is right or wrong, but to teach the students how to actually apply the full spectrum of liberal arts, all of them, because you're all well rounded individuals now, to a topic. Someone who disliked the idea of confronting a rather foreign culture and world view could fight against the class by demanding that you're not allowed to respond to the Holocaust intellectually unless you can first express Hitler's position in a way that modern Nazis would agree accurately represents their view. Why yes I did just "Godwin" you. But of course that logic is total bunk. The real purpose of the class is to teach the students how to observe then analyze the inter-related whole of the topic, across multiple disciplines. That requires application of intellectual skills, not right or wrong judgments. You don't need to express agreement with the text of mein kampf to see how the economic situation dovetailed with the political situation dovetailed with the cultural situation etc. My term paper was how architecture related to the other liberal arts in the reich WRT to propaganda and scale and form etc. Really the only reason why they gave us the Holocaust as a study topic was to scare the hell out of us, if we fail to learn the skills of cross disciplinary observation, analysis, and synthesis skills taught in the class, maybe something that bad will happen again. Now for over sensitivity reasons, or more likely profound lack of courage, we can't get that reward, can't learn to avoid evil by intellectual analysis. That opens a whole nother can of worms where the campus is now a safe space free of gas chamber triggering, but the whole country overall is far less of a safe space, because the current grads are emotionally coddled, less intellectually skilled, and far more cowardly unless acting in mob actions. Luckily mob action historically has always been effective and rational, correct? And we can make up for personal cowardice with more drone strikes, correct? And the politician that proposes the simplest sounding solution is probably the best because we no longer have the intellectual rigor to analyze, correct? I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
sukulaku 11y ago
> before you're allowed to respond to someone being wrong, you have to first be able to express their position in a way that they agree represents their view While we're at it, let's stipulate that everyone is only allowed to be honest and logical and to base their reasoning on valid premises! :) It's a nice thought, at least at first glance, but it's just not going to happen. Besides, the real problem with debates is actually willful dishonesty. There are vast hordes of sociopaths playing games and overcomplicating things to no end, arguing for positions they don't actually hold, and basically just preventing discussions from ever getting anywhere. The smart ones are like firehoses of sophistry and misdirection, the dumb ones just (fake-)rage and call people names, and I guess somewhere in between you'll find militant feminists and race baiters and people calling for "safe spaces" and whatever nonsense they come up with. Some sociopaths have come up with a fun new game: trying to convince people that the earth is actually flat. Yes, sadly that's actually a thing. Look them up on YouTube or something. But these "people" are the real reason why we can't seem to have a reasonable discussion on anything. Apparently it's enjoyable for them to fuck everything up, and to prevent mankind's progress towards enlightenment as best they can. That seems like self-destructive behaviour, but they do it anyway. A bunch of them will see this post, but not one will sincerely help us understand.
- ericjang 11y ago
  It's not obvious to me that the militant feminists/race baiters/safe space people are sociopaths bent on willful dishonesty. I think it's reductive to assume they all have bad intentions. I disagree with many of their points of view, but it doesn't mean that they are being dishonest. For all you know, I could be the willfully dishonest one here. But you bring up an interesting point I've been wondering about lately - is the world complicated and full of nuance to be debated ad infinitum? Or is truth actually quite simple, with the source of complexity being only those who would cloud the truth with bias and/or willful dishonesty?
  - sukulaku 11y ago
    Your comment made my Spidey-sense tingle, so I looked at your history and found out you "like crime movies/drama for the allure of ruthless power" and work in the financial industry.. You're an interesting case though. Your HN comments are clean - no sophistry or trolling - so I guess you have your fun elsewhere. I've been wondering if there's such a thing as a "benign sociopath", but it's not like I could trust you even if you claimed to be one. I hope so, but so far I'm leaning towards "No".
asift 11y ago
Because mobs like these are totally open to intellectual discourse and reason. If only the professor had done more to be courteous and empathize with the students' desired ends /s http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-... But to your point, passing the Ideological Turing Test is something that I think is worth aspiring to. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test
- mavhc 11y ago
  Not really helping your case by using the pro Hitler, pro killing gay babies, Daily Mail though.
  - asift 11y ago
    I just copied and pasted the first thing that came up on Google. I replaced it with The Atlantic for you :-)
  - pc86 11y ago
    Please post a source for the pro Hitler comment, at least.
    - Robin_Message 11y ago
      It sounded like hyperbole to me too, but then I remembered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Rise_of_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Rise_of_fascism The owner in 1933 at least was a strong supporter of fascism in general, and Hitler in particular.
      - pc86 11y ago
        OK not that I'm excusing it, but there's quite a difference between someone in 1933 (who died in 1940) supporting Hitler (who, at that time, had quite a bit of popular support), and an institution in 2015 being "pro-Hitler." This may be the very definition of hyperbole. Taking something that is barely technically accurate and distorting it to the point where it doesn't mean even close to the same thing anymore. EDIT: From the link: > The Daily Mail, devised by Alfred Harmsworth (later Lord Northcliffe) and his brother Harold (later Lord Rothermere), was first published on 4 May 1896. > Lord Rothermere was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Mail's editorial stance towards them in the early 1930s. > Born 1868; Died 1940[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Harmsworth,_1st_Viscount_Rothermere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Harmsworth,_1st_Viscoun...
wfo 11y ago
I suspect this was completely honest. You will not believe what comes out of the mouths of some of these students. Straw-manning is necessary; do you think either participant or the audience has the patience to sit and thoughtfully and carefully consider all sides of any issue in any debate? If that debate were publicized nobody would watch it. And it's a prisoner's dilemma. If you try to be respectful and thoughtful and the other person screams and yells and abuses and strawmans then you will lose the 'debate' by any metric not implemented by a philosophy professor. Look at the presedential debates. Nasty quips and attacks win, thoughtful consideration and long policy dialogue loses. It's not a coincidence. This is a classic trap. Some positions are simply not worth discussing thoughtfully. Not all positions are equal. When you say "both sides" you have already lost; plenty of people use this tendancy to give both sides to every issue equal credence and carefully consider both, so they inject some absurd ridiculous view as the other side and abuse your tendancy to respect them to gain credence for it. Then the overton window is shifted and they have already won before the debate begins. If you even accept the premise that a student should be able to tell a professor what they are and are not allowed to discuss in their class you have already lost the debate, there's no use respecting that view, it's far too extreme.
- giltleaf 11y ago
  >plenty of people use this tendency to give both sides to every issue equal credence and carefully consider both, so they inject some absurd ridiculous view as the other side and abuse your tendency to respect them to gain credence for it. >And it's a prisoner's dilemma. If you try to be respectful and thoughtful and the other person screams and yells and abuses and strawmans then you will lose the 'debate' by any metric not implemented by a philosophy professor. Absolutely, and it's one of the most frustrating things I think a lot of reasonable, polite people come up against.
- silentplummet 11y ago
  >Some positions are simply not worth discussing thoughtfully. Who decides which is which? I guess you?
  - nightspirit 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by sago 11y ago

ALee 11y ago

In fact, there's really great data on this same effect. Shankar Vedantam from the Hidden Brain podcast recently talked about this in relation to political arguments and experimentation related to it: http://n.pr/1uL0RAe http://n.pr/1uL0RAe

caio1982 11y ago

...or perhaps he just got fed up of dealing with these kind of people (of a different generation) and had to vent it out.

SolaceQuantum 11y ago
Then it's just using straw men to vent an anger that could be cured with acceptance (love?) and understanding.

mseebach 11y ago

The counter-point to that approach is the "motte and bailey doctrine". http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bric...

rubidium 11y ago

Having spent far more than my fair share of time around University students (11 years), I can assure you that the complaint is likely what the student said. It smells very much like what students today are saying. Remember the other professor who had students call the police because there were mice in their apartment?

jccalhoun 11y ago
"Having spent far more than my fair share of time around University students (11 years), I can assure you that the complaint is likely what the student said. It smells very much like what students today are saying." I guess I have different students because I've been teaching college since 2000 and have never had any complaints like this and neither have any of my friends.
- Overtonwindow 11y ago
  What subject do you teach? I was talking to an old physics professor of mine and he said the same thing, but my former psych professor was completely the opposite. Maybe it's a subject-related issue?
  - JulianMorrison 11y ago
    Could also be related to the person. A prof who's being racist will receive more criticism for being racist, and will have more cause to complain of "political correctness".
    - CodeCube 11y ago
      I gotta say, anecdotally, this is what I often find ... the people complaining about political correctness, are those that have in the past been openly racist, or at a minimum, fond of racially charged jokes (ie. "black people are great, everyone should own one"). They are chafing against a cultural change that no longer appreciates and/or tolerates behavior like that.
      - talmand 11y ago
        Well, anecdotally, I often find that being used as an easy excuse to dismiss someone's concerns without having to address the concerns.
        11y ago

ohitsdom 11y ago

I like it, similar to what they do in some pre-marital or marriage counseling sessions. One side lists a grievance, then before the other side responds they have to repeat what they heard and get confirmation before responding. "So if I'm hearing you right, you don't like it when I... Did I understand correctly?" It feels ridiculous when you do it at first but it becomes an incredibly helpful tool.

kabdib 11y ago
I use this all the time. "You want to add feature X because ..." ... and then, once we've clarified what the request is all about, and I'm sure about what's going on, only then can you move in to help, offer advice, or crush their souls with a series of devastating blows. No, don't do the latter. Show your side of the story and get them to say it out loud. "Okay, you're right, putting a Perl 6 interpreter in the interrupt handlers of the network stack does sound kind of crazy now." Doing this makes you a lot easier to work with, or at least that is the perception. :-)
- fluxquanta 11y ago
  While I definitely agree this doesn't always work because ego gets involved, at least in my experience. Stating what you understand the situation or question to be back to the other party can often be interpreted as a challenge of their personal judgement on something that should be considered objectively.
  - kabdib 11y ago
    Presentation is everything here. Be humble. It's not Machiavellian if you're really trying to understand. Letting someone fail is often good, too...

frobozz 11y ago

Indeed. Either the complainant is a troll, or doesn't exist. No normal person would attend a sermon at the chapel of a given faith, and complain that the sermon victimises them for being a poor practitioner of that faith. This is doubly true when its about something universal like love, rather than how well you practice some specific ritual.

victorhooi 11y ago
Do you have any evidence of this claim (that it's a troll or "doesn't exist"), other than just your assertion that no normal person would do this? I can assure you that I know plenty of young people who would do something like this - heck, I'm a young person (and also a Christian), and whilst I probably wouldn't be brave enough to actually approach a lecturer and voice such thoughts, I am sure that in a moment of weakness I could certainly think such things internally (which in some sense, is nearly or just as bad). So my assertion is based both on knowing my own peers and being honest about myself. When somebody calls us out for something, it's only natural to want to blame somebody else - it takes an incredible amount of self-awareness and discipline to immediately jump to self-reflection, without trying to pass the buck. Sure, we may get there in the end, but it's often a journey of various emotions to get to that epiphany. Are you saying you are one of those people? Or that you believe most people are like that?
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > When somebody calls us out for something, it's only natural to want to blame somebody else - it takes an incredible amount of self-awareness and discipline to immediately jump to self-reflection, without trying to pass the buck. Well, this goes both ways. Like most HN threads on this topic, this discussion is largely full of reactions against perceived "victimization", devoid of any self-reflection about what merit the complaints might actually have.
  - skj 11y ago
    I like to replace the phrase "politically correct" with "respectful treatment of individuals" or "empathy".

chillingeffect 11y ago

> you have to first be able to express their position in a way that they agree represents their view. This habit is extremely powerful. There's no way to require people to do it, but people who do it, at least know the arguments of their opponents, are in such a better position to get what they want that people who don't are left standing, mouths open wondering what happened. And it's extremely timely as just two weeks ago, President Obama gave this quote: "I don't want you to think that a display of your strength is simply shutting other people up. And that part of your ability to bring about change is going to be by engagement and understanding the viewpoints and the arguments of the other side." People don't realize that college already is the safe place where they can develop the habits of empathy and conflict-management. Getting called "bitch" and seeing mice are the least of their problems. Those are going to happen in the real-world no matter what. College isn't a place to preserve themselves from these inevitable, superficial insults, it's a place to develop leadership, contribution and cooperation abilities to get big things done like feeding, improving, healing, leading the world, etc.

mgr86 11y ago
I agree it is powerful but it is also just effective communication. I try to do it a lot with my girlfriend on things we don't necessarily agree. I'll paraphrase her position to ensure that my response is correct. ...Sadly, that is sometimes met with "No, are you even listening". But hey, at least at that point she rewords it to get her point across.
- JackFr 11y ago
  I have an Aunt who thrives on disagreement -- and in particular, she will not let me agree with her. Some time ago I believe she irrevocably decided that our views are too different and we can never agree. I literally have had the exchange with her: "I completely agree with everything you just said." "Then you must have misunderstood me."
- chillingeffect 11y ago
  heya if you are talking about communicating with a woman - or rather feminine energy - sometimes it can be even easier than that! 95% - 99% of the time, feminine energy works out its problems through saying them out loud and being heard. (Masculine energy works out its problems by pondering in a man cave). So often, all you have to do is keep your lips closed and listen. It can be hard, but that's the way it works, by sometimes introducing an uncomfortable air. Your calm, attentive, silent response to the discomfort is how the energy is resolved. Shortly after the discomfort, you'll feel a mood change and when she says, "Thank you for listening!!" you'll often get a big hug. I sincerely hope this helps you and everyone else big time.

aswanson 11y ago

Along those lines, I think formal debate should be required in secondary education, and students should be required to defend the position they disagree with.

bsenftner 11y ago
That would be nice, but is "formal debate" taught anymore? What I've seen lately (finished grad school 5 years ago) that is called "debate" at a university is far from what I remember when I did undergrad in the '80's.
- aswanson 11y ago
  Not sure...never had any debate as a part of my education (through grad school). I think they should start in high school though because if you're going to be a participant in an informed electorate you need to be able to process and articulate both sides of an argument. A casual glance at a few facebook timelines and twitter feeds suggest this is a horribly rare skill these days.
wfo 11y ago
In my experience "formal debate" (in the vein of forensics competitions, etc) is essentially heavy "research" in which you cherry pick any study or paper or blog you can find that supports your position and then spit out all those citiations as quickly as possible in an 8 minute 'speech' -- there's very little debating or discussion going on, just a war of citations which quickly shows all the participants that citations mean nothing -- no matter your view you can find plenty of "evidence" for it, it's an even playing field whether you're affirmative or negative after all. So all in all like the real debate we see on television I suppose.
potatolicious 11y ago
I did formal debate in high school and university, and agree with wfo - formal debate is possibly one of the worst things to teach if your goal is understanding and critical thinking about topics. Keep in mind that in a typical formal debate you don't get to pick your sides - you are assigned a position on an issue and must successfully argue in favor of that position. Formal debate is about the art of rhetoric, and explicitly part of the expectation - and the skill taught - is the deliberate distortion/reframing of fact in order to support your case. Anyone who's done formal debates will have learned this, since you're frequently asked to argue positions you personally disagree with. Formal debate is a craft of being convincing, not of being right. Not to mention the structure of formal debates means there is a winner and a loser, and so compromise is impossible. The goal isn't to reach an understanding or middle ground, but to completely obliterate your opponent rhetorically. This fits poorly with real life.

SeanDav 11y ago

A little research will produce a vast number of examples of political correctness with real consequences and not just "straw-manning". Here is a recent example: A Canadian university cancels a yoga class because yoga comes "from a culture that “experienced oppression, cultural genocide and diasporas due to colonialism and western supremacy,” In a world that can do that, I don't find it surprising that a student could express the view in the original article and actually mean it.

jbob2000 11y ago
Just to add some more info; it was the student union that was running the yoga class and cancelled it, the university administration had no part in its cancellation. This was wholly done by students.
- zwily 11y ago
  That doesn't seem to change how ridiculous it sounds, does it?
  - 300zxkyle 11y ago
    Not in the least.
  - jbob2000 11y ago
    Nope, it's more ridiculous, I think. I'm used to misguided administrations; that's par for the course. But students policing themselves, and it's worse than any misguided administration could do? Unbelievable.
    - hobs 11y ago
      For some reason I am strongly reminded of the book "Interesting Times" “The Empire's got something worse than whips all right. It's got obedience. Whips in the soul. They obey anyone who tells them what to do. Freedom just means being told what to do by someone different.” ― Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times

jellicle 11y ago

You're being generous to the author. I'd be amazed if anyone at all had complained to the university president about their sermon. "The complaining student" is now a trope along the lines of the cab driver who always speaks to New York Times columnists in a way that is convenient for their column.

strickjb9 11y ago
Except, in this scenario, the cab driver is OKWU and the new york times is also OWKU. It's reasonable for OWKU to make this announcement. They are laying out their expectations for their student body. It is inconvenient but students who dislike their position are free to transfer. OWKU is a private institution and also a religious one (even greater protection). They are well within their means and rights. I'm starting to think that feelings are being hurt on HN; hence all the controversy.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > It's reasonable for OWKU to make this announcement. They are laying out their expectations for their student body. It may be reasonable for OWKU to make an announcement of their expectations of student receptiveness to uncomfortable sermons, the particular details and manner in which Dr. Piper did so in this case, however, taken as presented, shows a lack of both the general adult ability to maturely deal with uncomfortable situations and the specific Christian virtues it pretends to be concerned with. > OWKU is a private institution and also a religious one (even greater protection). They are well within their means and rights. I don't think anyone has argued that OKWU's actions here were either unaffordable (outside of the University's means -- not sure why that would even be relevant) or illegal (outside of the University's rights). The negative responses I've seen have all be skepticism about the accuracy of the presentation of the situation and arguments that, even if the situation was presented accurately, the piece is a poor response to the situation it describes. (The comment you responded to was explicitly the former -- raising the idea that the "complaining student" has become a common fictional foil to set up rhetorically, whether or not a real complaint exists.) Not that it is outside of the University's "means and rights".

jrlocke 11y ago

Daniel Dennett refers to this as Rapoports rule. How to compose a successful critical commentary: You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). You should mention anything you have learned from your target. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism. https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...

qznc 11y ago
Dennett definitely has some experience with criticism and his opinion is worthwhile to listen to, so I agree with your addendum. Thanks for the link, I did not know this. However, Dennett and Rapoport list three further steps after re-expression. 2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). 3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target. 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism. (I tried to follow the rules with my comment)
Kalium 11y ago
From experience, this often works with essentially reasonable people but occasionally is prone to spectacular failures. Some people have difficulty accepting the possibility that a human being can both understand their position and not be in perfect agreement with it.

rowboat 11y ago

Or, https://youtu.be/yRujuE-GIY4 https://youtu.be/yRujuE-GIY4

VLM 11y ago

"respond to someone being wrong" I believe this might be your bone of contention. The speech was a mission statement, more or less, with an introduction that is very catchy and exciting and clickbaity, but overall irrelevant to the main argument. This is not a response of right or wrong. Obviously the leader thinks people who oppose him are wrong, but the main thrust of the argument past that intro is "where is what we are going to do here". For example, obviously a long cultural time ago, although it was only a bit more than a decade, all the seniors at the school I finally graduated from (I was a part timer) took the same giant Holocaust class. It was a required interdisciplinary liberal arts survey class, of a topic that changed every year. I believe they had "death" as the topic another year. They were obviously kind of a downer phase. For cultural change reasons they don't do this anymore, which is a shame. Anyway the point of an interdisciplinary liberal arts class isn't to debate philosophically if the topic is right or wrong, but to teach the students how to actually apply the full spectrum of liberal arts, all of them, because you're all well rounded individuals now, to a topic. Someone who disliked the idea of confronting a rather foreign culture and world view could fight against the class by demanding that you're not allowed to respond to the Holocaust intellectually unless you can first express Hitler's position in a way that modern Nazis would agree accurately represents their view. Why yes I did just "Godwin" you. But of course that logic is total bunk. The real purpose of the class is to teach the students how to observe then analyze the inter-related whole of the topic, across multiple disciplines. That requires application of intellectual skills, not right or wrong judgments. You don't need to express agreement with the text of mein kampf to see how the economic situation dovetailed with the political situation dovetailed with the cultural situation etc. My term paper was how architecture related to the other liberal arts in the reich WRT to propaganda and scale and form etc. Really the only reason why they gave us the Holocaust as a study topic was to scare the hell out of us, if we fail to learn the skills of cross disciplinary observation, analysis, and synthesis skills taught in the class, maybe something that bad will happen again. Now for over sensitivity reasons, or more likely profound lack of courage, we can't get that reward, can't learn to avoid evil by intellectual analysis. That opens a whole nother can of worms where the campus is now a safe space free of gas chamber triggering, but the whole country overall is far less of a safe space, because the current grads are emotionally coddled, less intellectually skilled, and far more cowardly unless acting in mob actions. Luckily mob action historically has always been effective and rational, correct? And we can make up for personal cowardice with more drone strikes, correct? And the politician that proposes the simplest sounding solution is probably the best because we no longer have the intellectual rigor to analyze, correct? I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

sukulaku 11y ago

> before you're allowed to respond to someone being wrong, you have to first be able to express their position in a way that they agree represents their view While we're at it, let's stipulate that everyone is only allowed to be honest and logical and to base their reasoning on valid premises! :) It's a nice thought, at least at first glance, but it's just not going to happen. Besides, the real problem with debates is actually willful dishonesty. There are vast hordes of sociopaths playing games and overcomplicating things to no end, arguing for positions they don't actually hold, and basically just preventing discussions from ever getting anywhere. The smart ones are like firehoses of sophistry and misdirection, the dumb ones just (fake-)rage and call people names, and I guess somewhere in between you'll find militant feminists and race baiters and people calling for "safe spaces" and whatever nonsense they come up with. Some sociopaths have come up with a fun new game: trying to convince people that the earth is actually flat. Yes, sadly that's actually a thing. Look them up on YouTube or something. But these "people" are the real reason why we can't seem to have a reasonable discussion on anything. Apparently it's enjoyable for them to fuck everything up, and to prevent mankind's progress towards enlightenment as best they can. That seems like self-destructive behaviour, but they do it anyway. A bunch of them will see this post, but not one will sincerely help us understand.

ericjang 11y ago
It's not obvious to me that the militant feminists/race baiters/safe space people are sociopaths bent on willful dishonesty. I think it's reductive to assume they all have bad intentions. I disagree with many of their points of view, but it doesn't mean that they are being dishonest. For all you know, I could be the willfully dishonest one here. But you bring up an interesting point I've been wondering about lately - is the world complicated and full of nuance to be debated ad infinitum? Or is truth actually quite simple, with the source of complexity being only those who would cloud the truth with bias and/or willful dishonesty?
- sukulaku 11y ago
  Your comment made my Spidey-sense tingle, so I looked at your history and found out you "like crime movies/drama for the allure of ruthless power" and work in the financial industry.. You're an interesting case though. Your HN comments are clean - no sophistry or trolling - so I guess you have your fun elsewhere. I've been wondering if there's such a thing as a "benign sociopath", but it's not like I could trust you even if you claimed to be one. I hope so, but so far I'm leaning towards "No".

asift 11y ago

Because mobs like these are totally open to intellectual discourse and reason. If only the professor had done more to be courteous and empathize with the students' desired ends /s http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-... But to your point, passing the Ideological Turing Test is something that I think is worth aspiring to. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test

mavhc 11y ago
Not really helping your case by using the pro Hitler, pro killing gay babies, Daily Mail though.
- asift 11y ago
  I just copied and pasted the first thing that came up on Google. I replaced it with The Atlantic for you :-)
- pc86 11y ago
  Please post a source for the pro Hitler comment, at least.
  - Robin_Message 11y ago
    It sounded like hyperbole to me too, but then I remembered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Rise_of_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Rise_of_fascism The owner in 1933 at least was a strong supporter of fascism in general, and Hitler in particular.
    - pc86 11y ago
      OK not that I'm excusing it, but there's quite a difference between someone in 1933 (who died in 1940) supporting Hitler (who, at that time, had quite a bit of popular support), and an institution in 2015 being "pro-Hitler." This may be the very definition of hyperbole. Taking something that is barely technically accurate and distorting it to the point where it doesn't mean even close to the same thing anymore. EDIT: From the link: > The Daily Mail, devised by Alfred Harmsworth (later Lord Northcliffe) and his brother Harold (later Lord Rothermere), was first published on 4 May 1896. > Lord Rothermere was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Mail's editorial stance towards them in the early 1930s. > Born 1868; Died 1940[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Harmsworth,_1st_Viscount_Rothermere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Harmsworth,_1st_Viscoun...

wfo 11y ago

I suspect this was completely honest. You will not believe what comes out of the mouths of some of these students. Straw-manning is necessary; do you think either participant or the audience has the patience to sit and thoughtfully and carefully consider all sides of any issue in any debate? If that debate were publicized nobody would watch it. And it's a prisoner's dilemma. If you try to be respectful and thoughtful and the other person screams and yells and abuses and strawmans then you will lose the 'debate' by any metric not implemented by a philosophy professor. Look at the presedential debates. Nasty quips and attacks win, thoughtful consideration and long policy dialogue loses. It's not a coincidence. This is a classic trap. Some positions are simply not worth discussing thoughtfully. Not all positions are equal. When you say "both sides" you have already lost; plenty of people use this tendancy to give both sides to every issue equal credence and carefully consider both, so they inject some absurd ridiculous view as the other side and abuse your tendancy to respect them to gain credence for it. Then the overton window is shifted and they have already won before the debate begins. If you even accept the premise that a student should be able to tell a professor what they are and are not allowed to discuss in their class you have already lost the debate, there's no use respecting that view, it's far too extreme.

giltleaf 11y ago
>plenty of people use this tendency to give both sides to every issue equal credence and carefully consider both, so they inject some absurd ridiculous view as the other side and abuse your tendency to respect them to gain credence for it. >And it's a prisoner's dilemma. If you try to be respectful and thoughtful and the other person screams and yells and abuses and strawmans then you will lose the 'debate' by any metric not implemented by a philosophy professor. Absolutely, and it's one of the most frustrating things I think a lot of reasonable, polite people come up against.
silentplummet 11y ago
>Some positions are simply not worth discussing thoughtfully. Who decides which is which? I guess you?
- nightspirit 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]