Subject:
|
Re: Are we all too nice?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:26:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
230 times
|
| |
|
|
OK I think its time to give Todd some real feedback on this so I will get it
started...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> This is ultimately a CFD (call for discussion) for a new newsgroup, but also
> asking what I think may be an important question. It's a taboo question, so
> do try to keep an open mind.
>
> The question is: Are we trying to be too nice to one another?
Simple answer... Yes!
A simple answer doesn't tell Todd what he is looking for so read on.
>
> The question itself isn't too important, but how we approach the answer is.
>
> A related question: What are the larger psychological and sociological trends
> that emerge in an environment where everyone is expected always to play well
> with others -- expected in the ultra-polite sense? How natural is it to be
> polite all the time and what are the psychological side-effects of being
> expected to do so?
Well I am not a psycologist or a sociologist but my experiance is that when
everyone trys to be ultra-polite and ultra-nice to each other not much progress
is made.
For example:
I post about a new creation I have been working on and I get 20 "Hey that's
really cool" posts. I am not motivated to improve on what I have done because
every thinks its great the way it is. On the otherhand if I make the same post
and I get 5 posts of "Nice start but why not do this" or "Why did you do this
and not this". That motivates me and gets me thinking. Not that I will just
make all the modifications that people suggest to make them happy but it gets
me thinking on how I can improve on my model, then I can post again with the
changes and eventually come up with something really great.
Of course this can apply to things other than MOC's, like Web Site design or
programming structure.
This sort of feedback does happen on LUGNET but not to the extent I wish it
would. I actually think some groups do a better job of it then others. Now
this is probably going to get some people upset but I think the Train group
does a good job at constructive critisizm but I think the Castle group has way
to much praise in their posts. To me praise is noise and noise is bad. Take
that as you will, hate me if you want to, but I am not here to be extra nice.
Its not in the spirit of the discussion.
>
> One trend I've noticed is that here (at the LUGNET discussion groups) people
> seem to get much more upset when someone acts "incorrectly" as judged by group
> norms than people did in RTL or than people do in other small communities.
> Oh, people screamed back louder in RTL than they do here, but I what I see is
> that people are actually more upset here when it happens.
This may or may not be true I don't know. Screaming, as you put it, though is
not the answer IMHO. It's not constructive no matter how much passion is
behind it.
>
> Assuming it is true, I doubt it is entirely because expectations or standards
> are higher. I think that's a large part of it, but I think it's also due to
> the fact that higher standards make it more pleasant for a larger and wider
> variety of people. For example, only stinky people show up or stick around
> in a stinky environment. But if someone makes a stink in a non-stinky
> environment, it really gets noticed -- not just because of higher standards
> but because the non-stinky place appealed to more people in the first place,
> so they stuck around -- and that makes for a greater percentage of people who
> can't or don't want to deal an occasional stink.
>
> Now, don't get me wrong -- I think having higher standards and higher
> expectations is a Good Thing and the more people that show up to enjoy the
> site and share ideas, etc., the better.
In general I agree with you. High standards are a good thing but being
utlra-polite is something else. I think you can have higher standards without
everyone feeling they have to praise someone or not respond at all.
>
> But in our lofty goals of trying to set higher and higher standards, we
> mustn't lose sight of the fact that we're still only human -- we have
> emotions and we get angry and we need to vent and argue until we're red in
> the face sometimes before we can come back and look at something more
> objectively. It's not a pretty picture, but, for better or for worse, it's
> part of what we are.
All true but I think the question you asked initially is a differant one. You
asked if we were to nice to each other and I said yes. Do I think we need to
vent and argue till we are red if the face? No, not here. This is LEGO, LEGO
is fun for us otherwise we wouldn't be here. A healthy debate every now and
again is a good thing, yelling and agruing and getting upset is not a good
thing in general. Although some people obviously feed off that sort of thing.
>
> Now let me switch gears.
Hmmm. I wonder if we are shifting into 2nd or into Reverse?
>
> Why is there an .off-topic tree of ng's here? Is it to encourage non-LEGO
> discussions? No, that's not what LUGNET is about. It's actually to give
> them a place to fall when they do come up, because they will _always_ come
> up. It's human nature to drift off-topic, and to want to talk about non-XYZ
> things from time to time even with XYZ-fan folks online. LEGO is just one
> common thing that unites pretty much everyone here, but there are an infinity
> of differences. So, more fundamentally, the .off-topic tree exists so that
> people don't have to feel bad when they want to talk about something non-LEGO.
> It's a place to go do that.
>
> Along those same lines, why is there a .off-topic.debate group here? It's
> not to encourage debates or arguments, but to give debates a home when they
> pop up -- because they will always pop up. People can argue all they want in
> .off-topic.debate and they don't have to put pressure on themselves to avoid
> doing something that comes natural to them.
>
> Now... Even with the .debate group, which serves fairly well to get issues
> out into the open and worked through and -- most importantly -- for people to
> have a better opportunity to understand each others' viewpoints, even if they
> agree to disagree -- it still seems to me that .debate isn't quite enough.
>
> I am wondering what people would think if there were a group
>
> lugnet.off-topic.debate.flame
>
> where, basically, anything goes: rudeness, complete gruffness, even
> profanity. (When I say anything, BTW, I mean anything but copyright
> violations or other illegalities, etc.)
Wouldn't like it, I would filter it out, and I don't see a need for it.
I think it would be a fairly large error in judgement to allow profanity in any
way on LUGNET we don't need it and I think we can avoid it. To me
off-topic.debate is constructive in a non-LEGO sense. To set up a total
non-constructive place for people to scream and yell is not necessary and in
many ways a step backwards.
>
> It would have to come with certain technical restrictions on it whereby you
> couldn't crosspost to it or post replies to or from it -- something relatively
> isolated from the other groups but where people could completely let loose and
> speak their minds. Because it's natural to do so, and unnatural not to.
That is a must if you go through with this.
>
> So the purpose of this group would not be to encourage or foster flamewars,
> but to give them a relatively isolated place to occur -- and as we all know,
> they do come up from time to time, even here in our friendly little corner of
> the online universe.
Again, not needed IMHO, let them go somewhere else if they have to vent.
>
> My ultimate concern here, thus, is that by all of us always trying to be so
> nice to each other and always feeling like we have to watch what we say, that
> creates stress on us which builds and builds (pun unintended :-). Finally
> when it reaches critical mass, things get messier than (I think) they would
> have been if we didn't feel we always had to be so godforsaken polite.
Again I think being too polite and what you are proposing are two extremes and
I think we can talk about them seperately and find a middle ground. I say
leave things like they are but let people know that it is OK to be critical, in
a constructive sense, without being worried about some sort of retaliation. In
the same sense when people post they shouldn't be offended when someone is
critical of their idea as long as the respose they get is constructive. I
would say if someone is critical without being constructive (I.E. just saying
"that sucks") then just ignore them and don't worry about it.
Eric Kingsley
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
