What I Said/What You Heard

[SalixIncendium]

I said: You are being willfully ignorant.

You heard: You're stupid.

I get that it's a knee-jerk reaction for people to make assumptions about another's intent based on their perspective and a possibly bruised ego, and this will happen from time to time. But why do people turn those assumptions into accusations without getting clarification on what the other person is saying? Wouldn't it be better to ask questions before responding or before accusing another of saying something they never actually said?

 

[Augustus]

I said: You are being willfully ignorant.

You heard: You're stupid.

Or the classic:

"You are being wilfully ignorant by ignoring the vast quantities of evidence presented that show you are wrong"

"Now you are just resorting to ad hominem!"

 

[Rival]

Or the classic:

"You are being wilfully ignorant by ignoring the vast quantities of evidence presented that show you are wrong"

"Now you are just resorting to ad hominem!"

'I didn't read the article/watch the video/download the PDF you posted because you're just copy-pasting from a source that knows about this subject better than we do, I'd rather have it from some randomer I just met online in his own words, but then when you do that I brush you off saying you're clearly uneducated about this and you need to bring sources that I won't read because that's cheating.'

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I said: You are being willfully ignorant.

You heard: You're stupid.

I get that it's a knee-jerk reaction for people to make assumptions about another's intent based on their perspective and a possibly bruised ego, and this will happen from time to time. But why do people turn those assumptions into accusations without getting clarification on what the other person is saying? Wouldn't it be better to ask questions before responding or before accusing another of saying something they never actually said?

Both parties are guilty.

1. If a person says "you are ignorant" and 'knows' or have a clue to the other person's reactions, that's one reason not to say it.

It's being aware it's not about ourselves and we should use whatever words we feel is right (ego) but if we know the other, we have some sort of assertive ways to show how we see about another's argument without insulting their intelligence.

2. Ignorant caries negative connotation. Instead, focus on the statement not what you perceive as a person's "ignorance."

i.e.
What you said sounds misread.
That statement doesn't make sense.
I can't comprehend any meaning behind what you said
Your point is disorganized

Another thing I hear is "you ignored my comment" when the other person did not answer. Or. "you are X because you 'decided' to ignore my comment."

Instead: "maybe you missed what I said..." or "I said X did you get it?" or "I think I said that, let me double check... or.... I did say that, here is the reference X."

The person who takes offense is not the victim. Instead, each person needs to be assertive in what he or she asks, says, and how he responds.

3. People make assumptions into accusations because the person who makes the assumption is vague or has emotional baggage behind it.

The person who takes the offense is usually doing it unconsciousness (natural physiological reaction) and depending on his level of assertiveness, he may catch it or he may not.

4. Ego on both parties.... just I think the person who says the assumption should be assertive (think of the other person too) and the person who takes the offense should stop and take a breather and respond assertively as well.

 

[Kooky]

Wouldn't it be better to ask questions before responding or before accusing another of saying something they never actually said?

In my short time on these forums, I've noticed that people can get really, really annoyed once you start asking questions about the intent and purpose of their argument, to the point where some will get so irate that they will refuse to talk to you eventually.

 

[Augustus]

'I didn't read the article/video/PDF you posted because you're just copy-pasting from a source that knows about this subject better than we do, I'd rather have it from some randomer I just met online in his own words, but then when you do that I brush you off saying you're clearly uneducated about this and you need to bring sources that I won't read because that's cheating.'

The funny thing is it's always been "Rationalists" who resorted to the unmitigated 'expert scholarly evidence is bad' line of argumentation.

Even fundies usually make some half-arsed attempt to discredit the evidence in some way

 

[Kooky]

The funny thing is it's always been "Rationalists" who resorted to the unmitigated 'expert scholarly evidence is bad' line of argumentation.

Even fundies usually make some half-arsed attempt to discredit the evidence in some way

In my experience of debating rationalists and "skeptics" on the Internet, there exists a not insignificant amount of self proclaimed "rationalists" who derive the value of logic and rational thinking directly from how closely it arrives at the exact intellectual positions they already hold.

 

[HonestJoe]

I said: You are being willfully ignorant.

You heard: You're stupid.

To be fair, if someone thinks an accusation of wilful ignorance is calling them stupid, it could mean that the ignorance wasn't as wilful as you first thoughts and they are stupid.

 

[SalixIncendium]

In my short time on these forums, I've noticed that people can get really, really annoyed once you start asking questions about the intent and purpose of their argument, to the point where some will get so irate that they will refuse to talk to you eventually.

So is it better to accuse them rather than question their intent?

 

[Revoltingest]

Telling someone they're willfully ignorant is personal criticism.
The informer perhaps believes that because it's true (in their
opinion), it's worth saying. But to what effect? Good or bad?
Does the one criticized, think...
"Oh, I didn't know. I'll fix that."
Nah.
Even I know that social interaction doesn't work that way.

It reminds me....
Recently, a diverse panel convened seeking to turn around
a group of deniers & anti-vaxers. The science experts failed.
All they had were expertise & facts.
But Chris Christie succeeded.
How....he's no scientist?
He related personal experience in the White House in a manner
that drove home the danger & randomness of the disease.

The point....
Don't say things merely because they're true.
Say things designed to illuminate your views.
Adapt this to your particular audience.

 

[Stevicus]

I said: You are being willfully ignorant.

You heard: You're stupid.

I get that it's a knee-jerk reaction for people to make assumptions about another's intent based on their perspective and a possibly bruised ego, and this will happen from time to time. But why do people turn those assumptions into accusations without getting clarification on what the other person is saying? Wouldn't it be better to ask questions before responding or before accusing another of saying something they never actually said?

I guess it would depend on the circumstances, although I sometimes wonder why one person's assessment of another person's intelligence would even be relevant in a discussion.

It might be preferable to say "Your argument is _____" as opposed to "You are _____."

 

[Revoltingest]

In my short time on these forums, I've noticed that people can get really, really annoyed once you start asking questions about the intent and purpose of their argument, to the point where some will get so irate that they will refuse to talk to you eventually.

Sometimes posters sense unproductive bickering,
rather than questions of genuine interest.
This inspires avoidance.

 

[Kooky]

Sometimes posters sense unproductive bickering,
rather than questions of genuine interest.
This inspires avoidance.

Fortunately, when talking to me, there is no danger of unproductive* bickering, so there is no need to avoid me.

*) Productive bickering is fair game, though!