4 ms·
And yet a major part of his point was that "discussion" is not enough. If someone presents facts in a way that causes the person they are responding to, to almo
by hetman 14y ago
And yet a major part of his point was that "discussion" is not enough. If someone presents facts in a way that causes the person they are responding to, to almost inevitably ignore everything they've said, then they've wasted their time (aside from generating fleeting feelings of smug superiority).
It's funny how easy it is to lose sight of that (I've certainly done it before). A discussion is only a discussion when information flows between two parties, not when it is is broadcast into the void.
- debacle 14y agoIf you say something, and you're wrong, and I correct you, and you disregard what I've said because I was abrasive, you're still ignorant. I've lost nothing but hot air (or a few keystrokes).
- Bootvis 14y agoBut you also gained very little.
- debacle 14y agoI gain nothing in either instance.
- Bootvis 14y agoI can't speak for everyone but it seems to me one does gain something. If you didn't, why bother at all? Whatever you gain may be small and it probably doesn't have any monetary value but there should be some extrinsic motivation to answer. There are plenty of alternative uses of your time. Thus, my greater point is: when you have decided to answer, you should give the best answer you can reasonably give in the time you want to use. It wont hurt you and will improve the world a little bit.
- hetman 14y agoYou've lost your time achieving exactly nothing. You may also lose the respect of those who have outgrown feeding their own ego. The worst part is that since the other person didn't actually listen to you, they have no reason to believe they are ignorant.