Sharing Vs Discussing Vs Arguing Vs Attacking

From RiseOfBullshit?

How do you tell the difference between a person who likes to argue, and an articulate person who likes to share views with others ? Conversely, between a person who doesn't like to argue, and a person who has little to say ?

By argue, I mean 'discuss opposing views', not necessarily heated argument, although on usenet, the latter tends to follow the former. So 'likes to share his views' falls under 'likes to argue'. 'Has little to say' seems to me to be independent of like or dislike of argument. I might like to argue but have very little to say. My irony detector's meter is rising...

Would you consider asking questions to be a manner of discussing opposing views ? How about answering questions ?

Would you like to play the QuestionsGame? :-)

The difference between "share your views" and "likes to argue" is that in the first case, you present your views, clarify if necessary, and leave it at that. In the second case, you not only present your views, you insist that others share them, and belittle those who don't.

Although current usage of 'argument' has taken on a negative connotation, a logical argument does not involve insisting others believe nor belittling those who don't.

Repetition. If someone makes a point and moves on, it is a discussion. If someone keeps repeating the same point over and over (in one place or multiple places), that person is arguing.

I don't see how this distinction is useful. I've had casual discussions where people repeat the same point over and over, and logical arguments where they don't. Also, does 'clarification' count as 'repetition'? Yes and no, in my opinion.

A suggestion : classify conversations into the categories listed in the page title, not primarily according to structure or content, but primarily according to emotional color.

Sharing is obviously what occurs when the participants are well disposed to each other's views, even if these views are different. What is being shared need not have a proper logical structure nor even much actual content.

Discussing implies a mutually acknowledged disharmony or lack of knowledge. You know things I don't and vice-versa; or, we appear to see things differently but believe that these differences might be resolved if we go beyond the details of terminology or personal idiosyncracies.

Arguing arises in the presence of an actual dissonance. Not only are our views different, but they are different in ways that make it important for one participant to correct the dissonance and bring the other around to their point of view. An element of persuasion is present.

The "unproductive" and "hostile" modes of conversation proceed from entirely different goals - the object is not so much to reinforce or bring about a harmony of views; it is only to satisfy your own emotional needs.

In my opinion, bullshit as defined in RiseOfBullshit? is a consequence of the latter problem; people sharing, discussing or even arguing usually have actual substance to contribute.

Sounds like a good distinction to me. I happen to think that a good deal of bullshit arises from persuasive argument in this sense, not just hostile argument. Perhaps we are in agreement about 'argument', but not of 'bullshit'. Let me restate what I said using the definitions as I understand them: Usenet attracts people who like to partake of both persuasive and hostile argument. This drives away people who don't like this kind of discussion, which makes it even more attractive to the 'arguers'.

I think this gives rise to bullshit because I have a feeling that people who like to argue like to do so by talking a lot about things which they are not necessarily experts on. (Especially when there's a good deal of anonymity to protect them.) This is true to some extent on Wiki as well (though I think it's a lot tempered down). On DefinitionOfLife, for example, notice that none of the participants (myself included) are actively involved in the study of biology. Maybe a little dabbling in ArtificialLife or GeneticAlgorithms, but no real biologists or geneticists.

AndyPierce came in, and he's a molecular biologist. And while I'm certainly not an expert, I've studied biology itself enough to feel that most of it is accessible to me, even if I don't actually know it. I can't speak for anyone else... -- JoshuaGrosse

And I studied Biology in university, but that still doesn't make me an expert. And you'll notice that Andy signed one contribution at the very beginning and then stopped contributing, which supports the idea that 'arguers' tend to drive away 'non-arguers'. -- RH

I'd say if you made a reasonably thorough survey of the field in university, than you are as qualified as anyone else to talk about it. This is the sort of thing where we are only dealing with superficial traits and so an expert's knowledge, while handy, is unnecessary. It seems to me that you are implying that experts always say good and valuable things, and this quality is diluted when amateurs contribute. I strongly disagree with both parts. You don't need to be an "expert" to know what you're talking about. -- JG

I was just referring to the definition of BS on the RiseOfBullshit? page.

I know, and that's what I'm disagreeing with. :) No insult to experts intended, of course.