--- In [email protected], Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > on 1/31/06 8:16 PM, wayback71 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I agree. I don't get this "hostility on the Internet" thing.
A basic question: can you objectively identify hostility in another, a "stranger" -- someone you have not met in person -- by text alone? This requires, amongst many skills, that you can detach your pure cognitive skills from emotion, past impressions, biases, stereotypes,etc. We all think we do that well, but many studies, and certainly the experiences on this list, I think indicate most people do this fair to poorly. IMO, posters get into a pit of sand, hard to dig out, when they try to diagnose motives and moods of other posters. If Dr. Pete can't do it via text, and he is a trained professional in deciphering such with live clients, then I think most on the list will fail as well. And I know directly Dr.Pete fails miserably when he attempts to do so. MG's recent post is another example. Diagnosing complex and generally perversre motives for people's replies to an ealier post of his: instead of taking the, what I read as, generaly mild criticism for a sloppily reported article and a weak analysis of it. And what is hostility --different folks may have different tolerances. My making the above statement (last sentence or prior paragraph), do you take that as hostile? I don't. Perhaps some do. Its not a direct attack on MG, its not implying he is eternally sloppy or weak thinking. It is a comment about a piece of work (a post) submitted to a larger audience. A benefit of this group is, amongst other things, is to get feedback on our ideas, and the clarity in which we present them. By posting something, we are implicitly asking for opinions andfeedback. Not everything we all post is clearly thought out, well researched or clearly written. I think it is within the bounds of the charter of the group to provide feedback. Not all feedback is hostile. In life I find litle is. Most people, including CEOs of large firms, get performance reviews. Its feedback. Sometimes it may be "well-focused", with no sugar coating, but never have I found it "hostile". Same with feedback from a professor. He may rip your paper apart if it sucks. Its feedback. I can never remember a professor giving hostile feedback. A problem is, some people when when they receive feedback, even the most reasonable and deserved feedback and take it personally, they internalize it, they see it as a personal attack. And often, as a defense mechansim, they strike back: "The 'reviewer' is angry", "The 'reviewer' is stupid", "The 'reviewer' has an agenda against me", "The 'reviewer' is hiding his own inadequacies". They stike back defensively, instead of looking at the criticism objectively, not taking it personally, evaluating it for valid points, learning from what is usefulck feedback, and disgarding the rest. A favorite defensive response when being threatened, it appears (I can't say for sure because I can't clearly say what is happening in anothers' head), is to say the poster is angry or hostile. I can speak personally that when this response has been given to me, it is rarely true. Often its a quite different feeling I am experiencing. But then how would the other know this? Exactly. They can't really. I have been posting quite regularly on this list for about 4 years. I remember being angry about three times in reading posts. Once in a deep discussion with LBS. I didn't respond in anger, I think I just changed tones, went on to compliment him on some point,and ended the exchange so I would not flair out. Other times, I just said to myself "holy fuck what an idiot" -- a way of venting, and gave up on the thread. Perhaps others can find past posts I have forgotten that display unmistakeable anger. I can find lots of posts where posters, particularly Peter, see wild anger emerging in my posts. Sometimes upon rereading them he recants. Regardless, despite HIS perception, I can recall no post I sent to/in discussion with him in which I was angry. Thus, again, from personal experience, I find even trained professions who deal with moods and motives with live people, fail miserably when they to do so via text only. And personal attacks, kind of an ineffective, rude way to communicate, but not very consequential, can often be made without anger. In Barry's slams on Judy and others, I rarely sense anger (a few I have, but only barry would really know.) I think he sees humor in his comments. They may be rude, they may be personal attacks, they may be inept, but they appear to be be humor driven- not anger driven. Though many may see Barry's comments as angry and hostile. I don't. But a humor motivation does not excuse rudeness. Or personal attracks. But both these things are quite subjective. Most standup comedians' material could be characterized as rude and personal attacking by some. Others laugh their heads off. IMO, if the humor gets everyone, particualry "offenders of some foible" to laugh at themselves, thats a good thing. Sometimes the "offender" gets sensitive and angry -- but most see the humor and the "lesson" aka point, of the humor and it perhaps serves to help them root out similar foibles in their lives. Sometimes the humor offends most everyone. Thats a sign of either really great humor or really bad humor. Sometimes it takes time to distinguish. Would the > people who behave this way here do so face to face? Maybe, if they had been > married 10 years and it wasn't working out, but otherwise, I'll bet they're > a lot more cordial in "real life" than they are on the Net, or at least I > hope so. Again, you interpert a post as hostile. Are you sure it is? Amongst good friends, a lot of deep sarcasm, slamming, ripping, ribbing, trashing and all can take place. It can be deep, piercing and relentless. But everyone laughs. I think sometimes the degree of familiarity and sense of friendship differs between posters. Someone might slam a "friend" but the receiver isn't attuned to the offered friendship. He sees it as anger. Amma always says that anger is like a knife without a handle that's > sharp on both ends - it injures the attacker as much as the person being > attacked. I know that when I spew negativity on someone, I feel polluted > afterwards. And upon reflection, I realize that I'm just lashing out against > my own flaws, mirrored back to me by the person I'm attacking. Can a sincere > spiritual aspirant habitually indulge in negative behavior? Wouldn't their > spiritual progress be facilitated by examining why they tend to do that and > rooting out that tendency? Wouldn't they and all they influence feel better > if they did so? People are always going to do things which potentially could > invoke our anger or negativity. Seems to me that we use take those > situations as an opportunity for our own growth by exercising restraint and > judgment and sublimating the tendency to respond in kind. In a word, > forgiveness. Maybe our doing so will facilitate their growth as well, by > setting an example or causing them to reflect on their own behavior rather > than reinforcing their destructive habit. > > Just some thoughts. Sorry if I'm sounding preachy. All thats good. But are you sure you are seeing anger? Not feedback? Not humor (even if it might be scathing --- or inept)? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
