On Cain's Rants, Rehashing Arguments, and Beating One's Head Against a Brick Wal

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

You know, I was considering doing a big write up on this fairly interesting book I am currently reading when I'm finished.  But I'm finding myself wondering what the point would be.  Given my last five rants barely garnered two pages worth of responses, where as tired old crap like this can get over seven pages in a single day, I'm finding myself increasingly disinclined to do anything that involves work.

Everyone else is taking the easy way out, why not me?

Your rants, while novel and highly interesting, tend to agree with the general worldview of PD.com members so the comments reflect that accord. I've tried to start discussions in some of your threads by asking questions that have occurred to me, but it seems everyone, including you on occasions, either just ignores them or assumes that you as the original poster are supposed to answer them. I ask questions in part because I'm curious but also for the sake of discussion. Since discussions haven't really took, I'm disinclined from asking people here and just search out the answers for myself. Maybe it's some sort of classical conditioning, having my posts apparently ignored repeatedly, or just some butthurt talking, but your rant threads have seemed to become echo-chambers of agreement and admiration rather than places for discussion and elaboration.

On the other hand, well established debate topics like drug policy tend to involve a clash of worldviews that are low on novelty but high in familiarity. They're also iconic in that they're proxies for larger ideological conflicts. They involve more opinion, rather than the complex declarations of facts that your rants tend to contain, so the game theory is clear and familiar enough that many people have something to say on the topic. The objective is to change someones' mind via reason or mockery, while helping their allies learn new new angles to engage with a different opponent with in the future.

Some of the most valuable threads on the forum don't go on very long, I've noticed that as well, but I still return to them to review what was said and reflect on it, or further research parts of them. One of the problems I've found with discussing the more important threads is that it doesn't seem like there's anything to do about it. Not many of us are in the position to do so. Dwelling on things outside of our control for too long is a recipe for depression and fatalism, so it seems only natural for people to spend a significant chunk of their time focusing on issues that they feel they can do something about and have the opportunity to do so, even if it is to change only one person's mind.

While I appreciate your rants a great deal, there's only so much I can absorb at one time and to be perfectly honest, there's only so much I'm willing to say in response to them, considering how heavily surveilled, catalogued, and archived public forums are these days. For example, the Yes Men were targeted by Dow Chemical during the first months of the Occupy protests, and paid Stratfor to collect information on them. It's not unreasonable to conclude that many other corporations have paid private companies for such information as well. It's a delicate problem of balancing online communication with protecting my ass from being too easily traced and monitored.

That said, I have a habit of searching out opposing viewpoints online to engage with the people who espouse them. I enjoy arguments and debates quite a bit, even with people who have drunk the Kool-Aid. Unfortunately, the arenas that allow for that are becoming more and more scarce as I've observed a zeitgeist in intolerance for dissenters within many political circles: left, right, activist, and even anti-authoritarians. I'm dismayed to see such discouragement coming from you and other PD.com members as well. I don't understand why I ought to just accept that otherwise intelligent people in my immediate vicinity are quite obviously fooling themselves, when that has always been something on this forum that has aroused debate and/or mockery.

Why does it follow that because I've had similar arguments with a person in the past that I should not revisit the ideas in the future, especially if they are still interested in talking about it? Rehashed arguments are usually interesting to me when the people involved in them are intelligent and are still driven towards the same loops, the same deflections of facts, and the same distortions of reality years down the line, regardless of what new information you offer them.

I'm extremely curious about how otherwise intelligent people pull the wool over their own eyes. I've studied it in psychology, anthropology, sociology, marketing and from many other theoretical frameworks, however, that's no substitute for applying ideas to an actual Pink. In my experience, places (both IRL and on the Internet) that allow for true freedom of expression, including insults, are getting rarer and rarer. PD.com is one of the few places you can really speak your mind and engage with an opponent without fear of being banned for either disagreeing or being insulting.

It's also the place that people freely can tell people that their belaboring of a point repeatedly is devoid of value. I like that. I wouldn't want to see you leave or quit writing merely because your threads don't turn into a toolbox of people trying to convince a true believer to worship satan. Postcount certainly is no measure of quality or worthwhileness. And I don't think a difference in opinion as to what is worthwhile or not needs to be an insurmountable sticking point.

TL;DR - I'm interested in reading the thread about the book you're reading, as well as reading the book in question. "Slow and Fast Thinking" by Daniel Kahneman, if I remember correctly. That I don't often feel I have much to contribute to your threads doesn't mean that I don't read them, reread them, and research them. It also seems like saying "Great thread" or "mittens" is insulting to the amount of work you've put into it. I prefer to wait until I have something of substance to say or ask.

[Phox]

Net, I know that you and I don't always see eye to eye, and I can respect that, but I gotta tell you, bro. Spot on. I believe that you've put better words to my thoughts than I could have, especially regarding your point on Cain's posts.

I too enjoy reading what he has to say, but to be honest, I rarely know what to say in response.

However, I'm not entirely sure that I agree with you about repeated arguments. I believe there's only so much that can be accompolished in an argument in which most (all) parties have their positions known and no one is willing to move an inch. The same old loops for the 900th time are not really all that entertaining, when they come with the price of everyone's goddamn feelings getting hurt, and a grinding halt of traffic as evryone slows down to watch the train wreck.

But hey, we gots our opinions, and since we live America, our opinions were pre-approved by the Department of Homeland Security. Or... something.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Pretty much what Net and Phox said. Agreement and the fact that I'm used to being one of the smart people, or at least one of the average people. I'm a derp in Cain's threads - which doesn't bother me, I get to learn something - but I do tend to keep my mouth shut.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

In my experience, thorough, well-articulated, and properly supported dissertations are unlikely to garner much discussion, because they're thorough, well-articulated, and properly supported. You may get agreement, but if you've covered all your bases it's not all that likely that people will have much to say.

If you really want to get a debate or conversation going, the key is to throw out only part of the information. Leave it incomplete, and maybe even half-baked, so that people have something to argue with or correct. If you've already thought of everything, nobody's going to have anything to add... so leave some big, gaping holes for them to want to fill in. Rather than a well-supported conclusion, post an opinion, preferably worded controversially, and don't back it up right away. Keep your initial post short, and withhold the rest of your argument for dispensing in bite-size pieces in later posts as the thread develops. Your initial post is bait for the discussion; you want to leave your reader wanting more. Make them DEMAND more.

If you can phrase your thesis in a way that's inflammatory or even somewhat misleading, you're off to a running start.

[Cain]

Sorry, what exactly does this have to do with politics?

[Cain]

In response to the OP:

I like how it's my fault my rants aren't answered.  You know full well I keep shitty hours, am frequently tired and can be called away at any moment.  Sometimes I need days to recover from the lack of sleep I'm suffering from.

I'm terribly sorry that by the time I have my head back in working order, my threads have already sunk to the bottom of the page.

Oh, and "spies" might be watching.  CLUEPHONE RINGING: SPIES ARE WATCHING GODDAMN EVERYONE.  YOU'RE ALREADY BEING SURVEILLED.

Not that they'd have to do a very hard job on keeping an eye on this place.

What I'm getting from this is that basically people would rather have a conversation with a fanatic than with myself.  So enjoy your little drugs talk circle jerks, because, quite frankly, you deserve them.

[Cain]

In my experience, thorough, well-articulated, and properly supported dissertations are unlikely to garner much discussion, because they're thorough, well-articulated, and properly supported. You may get agreement, but if you've covered all your bases it's not all that likely that people will have much to say.

If you really want to get a debate or conversation going, the key is to throw out only part of the information. Leave it incomplete, and maybe even half-baked, so that people have something to argue with or correct. If you've already thought of everything, nobody's going to have anything to add... so leave some big, gaping holes for them to want to fill in. Rather than a well-supported conclusion, post an opinion, preferably worded controversially, and don't back it up right away. Keep your initial post short, and withhold the rest of your argument for dispensing in bite-size pieces in later posts as the thread develops. Your initial post is bait for the discussion; you want to leave your reader wanting more. Make them DEMAND more.

If you can phrase your thesis in a way that's inflammatory or even somewhat misleading, you're off to a running start.

Opinion: contributing to PD in any way is a complete waste of time.

Discuss.

[BabylonHoruv]

I am kind of mirroring what Nigel said, but there's a little more to it.  Aside from what you (Cain) say generally being in line with the consensus opinion, if it is something we are aware of, you are also much more educated than the rest of us on most of the topics you talk about.  Add in that you are an extremely talented researcher and parser of information and anyone that does decide to disagree with you is most likely going to come off looking like a fool.

The giant long threads arise from disagreement, yes, often the same disagreement over and over about Anarchy and Drugs (or sometimes Magic, or data piracy or what have you)  In those arguements both sides are fairly certain that they have a valid point and the other side does not, neither side feels like they themselves are coming across as fools so the debate goes on.  In one of your threads the person who disagrees with you is going to not only look like a fool, but feel like one, and even if it does happen, it doesn't last very long because once someone feels like a fool they stop arguing.

I hope that you don't stop posting because your posts have been the most informative things I have seen on the forum.  I personally avoid posting in them not just because I don't usually see a way to improve what you have already said but also because i don't want to attract the sort of drama tat tends to accompany me posting in any thread.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Sorry, what exactly does this have to do with politics?

It's certainly a political discussion, taking place among members of this board instead of talking about members of some parliament or whatever.

[Cain]

Sorry, what exactly does this have to do with politics?

It's certainly a political discussion, taking place among members of this board instead of talking about members of some parliament or whatever.

Politics has to do with the distribution of power in a community, so, uh, fail etc.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

In response to the OP:

I like how it's my fault my rants aren't answered.  You know full well I keep shitty hours, am frequently tired and can be called away at any moment.  Sometimes I need days to recover from the lack of sleep I'm suffering from.

I'm terribly sorry that by the time I have my head back in working order, my threads have already sunk to the bottom of the page.

Oh, and "spies" might be watching.  CLUEPHONE RINGING: SPIES ARE WATCHING GODDAMN EVERYONE.  YOU'RE ALREADY BEING SURVEILLED.

Not that they'd have to do a very hard job on keeping an eye on this place.

What I'm getting from this is that basically people would rather have a conversation with a fanatic than with myself.  So enjoy your little drugs talk circle jerks, because, quite frankly, you deserve them.

Which threads works and which ones don't is an occurrence of chance, popularity contest, and general mood of the board. I don't think I've ever started a thread that lasted longer than maybe 4 pages, and if any of my topics get more than about 10 replies it's because they get threadjacked. I'm sure there are those who say that's because I post something uninteresting or in some other way bring about these results myself and they may be right. I don't expect everyone at PD to file into my thread and bring a discussion out of duty or obligation, and I'd probably hate it if they did because spontaneous conversations are better than forced ones.

You probably have a good point about the quality and recurrence of these tired threads, but if that's what the people want, that's what they want.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Sorry, what exactly does this have to do with politics?

It's certainly a political discussion, taking place among members of this board instead of talking about members of some parliament or whatever.

Politics has to do with the distribution of power in a community, so, uh, fail etc.

That's a narrow definition. There is also "office politics," which is what this is akin to.

[Cain]

In response to the OP:

I like how it's my fault my rants aren't answered.  You know full well I keep shitty hours, am frequently tired and can be called away at any moment.  Sometimes I need days to recover from the lack of sleep I'm suffering from.

I'm terribly sorry that by the time I have my head back in working order, my threads have already sunk to the bottom of the page.

Oh, and "spies" might be watching.  CLUEPHONE RINGING: SPIES ARE WATCHING GODDAMN EVERYONE.  YOU'RE ALREADY BEING SURVEILLED.

Not that they'd have to do a very hard job on keeping an eye on this place.

What I'm getting from this is that basically people would rather have a conversation with a fanatic than with myself.  So enjoy your little drugs talk circle jerks, because, quite frankly, you deserve them.

Which threads works and which ones don't is an occurrence of chance, popularity contest, and general mood of the board. I don't think I've ever started a thread that lasted longer than maybe 4 pages, and if any of my topics get more than about 10 replies it's because they get threadjacked. I'm sure there are those who say that's because I post something uninteresting or in some other way bring about these results myself and they may be right. I don't expect everyone at PD to file into my thread and bring a discussion out of duty or obligation, and I'd probably hate it if they did because spontaneous conversations are better than forced ones.

You probably have a good point about the quality and recurrence of these tired threads, but if that's what the people want, that's what they want.

I'm questioning the dichotomy that apparently my threads are terribly interesting and drug threads are terribly dull, but one of them gets 7 replies, and the other gets 1300.

That doesn't seem a little....odd, to you?

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Cain: No. I don't get anything out of a "conversation" with RWHN other than perpetual amazement at how somebody can close off and decide to be that stupid all their lives, and the satisfaction of dogpiling him. And I'm aware that your job fucks with your sleep patterns and having been through similar (though not being in charge of a bunch of little snots while doing it), I know what that does. If anything I've been even more quiet in your threads trying not to rub you the wrong way because of this. And as stated, what you post is meticulous and complete as far as I can see, so there's really wouldn't be much to add but mittens.

Nigel's idea sounds pretty workable, IMO.

[Cain]

Sorry, what exactly does this have to do with politics?

It's certainly a political discussion, taking place among members of this board instead of talking about members of some parliament or whatever.

Politics has to do with the distribution of power in a community, so, uh, fail etc.

That's a narrow definition. There is also "office politics," which is what this is akin to.

Yeah, no shit it's a narrow definition, I expect Kai has a narrow definition of what science is, too.  Oh, well, in that case, co-worker backstabbing must really be a form of violent assault.