On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 05:46:09PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
> But being in-your-face on an e-mail list doesn't work well, either.
Sometimes it does. At least as well as...
> If I make 50 posts in a 6-month period that touch on X, and someone > is opposed to my position on X, there's a better chance that I'll at > least get that person to think about their own position, if not modify > it a bit, than if I write one post saying that their position on X is > wrong, offensive or intolerable.
...which very rarely happens. In fact, if you hadn't said it happened to you, I'd say it never happens. What were you talking about that had an email thread that went for 6 months?
Julia can speak for herself and correct me if I am wrong, but I would guess that it was not a thread that lasted continuously for six months but that it might have been a topic that came up repeatedly in the course of discussions over those six months, just as some topics come up repeatedly here or on other lists I am a member of.
> That sort of thing has worked on *me*, at least in getting me to > think about my position. And I've had my positioned changed at least > somewhat as a result.
But your contention appeared to be that your way is ALWAYS better. Saying that it worked once on you is hardly strong evidence. I've seen many examples on this email list and others where the subtle approach is just ignored or lost in the noise. Many of the threads that get the most responses are the "noisy" ones. In fact, one of the people arguing the same as you, Dan M., has been prone to get involved in obnoxious threads at least as often as the reserved threads over the past year.
Now, you might argue that getting responses isn't the same as changing minds. True. The loud approach doesn't have a high success rate. But getting little or no response to a reserved post probably does have a strong correlation with people not really thinking about it.
And keep in mind that just because someone does not agree with you on a topic does not mean that s/he has not thought about the topic, perhaps at least as much as you have. I believe it was Dan who mentioned that issues in politics are frequently so complex that reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the same issue.
And I've seen this happen a lot. So the success rate is likely to be even lower in with the reserved approach.
I think that if your primary goal is to convince other people that your position on a contentious issue is correct and theirs is wrong, you are already on the wrong track. If you want them to come around to agreeing with your way of thinking, the best -- and in many cases the only, unless frex you are in a position of authority where you can order them to do what you tell them regardless of what they themselves think -- way is to first show them that you are genuinely interested in having a conversation and a relationship with them. Then they are not going to killfile you immediately (or just ignore you) as they may do if you start off shouting that they are wrong.
In practice, it surely depends mostly on the person or people who are the intended audience. I think that both approaches may be successful depending on the person and circumstances. For example, even before I read your post I would have said the reserved approach would be more successful on you (Julia). Alas, not everyone is like Julia! ;-)
No. But a significant number of people will be more willing to listen to the reserved approach than the loud approach . . .
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
