BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list
1] But is an assertive approach the best way to function within a
scientific research community? That is, if it's the case that "
Another principle of assertiveness is that no one can make someone
else feel any particular way, or respond in any particular way"
doesn't this imply that people are almost in a state of
self-sufficient isolation?
2]And, if it's the case that " Instead, each of us should take full
responsibility for our own feelings and responses" - doesn't this
mean that whatever another person argues/says has no effect?
As an example, if someone says to me: "What you suggest is a
ridiculous brain-dead analysis" - should my feeling upset about this
[and I hope I WOULD feel upset; I'm not a psychopath who is
indifferent to others]….should I really take full i.e., singular
responsibility for my upset feeling? Shouldn't the person who said it
to me in the first place, share this responsibility? That is - is it
up to me alone to 'not take offense'?
I don't think that we, as a species, can function well without a
sensitivity to how we affect others, such that we even change our
tone, our words, our body language, when we interact with different
people - because we do want to 'make' them feel in a particular way.
I treat a two-year old quite differently from a graduate student and
differently from a colleague.
I think that John Sowa's recommendations are a constructive agenda -
and I'll try to follow them.
Edwina
On Thu 02/08/18 7:52 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
List:
Employing "I" messages, rather than "you" messages, is a staple of
assertiveness training. It is an effective rhetorical strategy
grounded in psychology. I think that it is especially important to be
careful about attributing views, sentiments, or states to someone else
that he or she did not actually express; John's example of "you are
confused" is in this category.
At the same time, whether a particular statement is insulting is--at
least to some extent--in the eye of the beholder. Another principle
of assertiveness is that no one can make someone else feel any
particular way, or respond in any particular way. Instead, each of
us should take full responsibility for our own feelings and
responses.
Consequently, we would all do well to heed both pieces of advice
that have been offered in this thread--avoid "you" when possible, and
choose not to take offense. I try to follow both of these practices
when posting here, but as the record shows, I am not always
successful.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:19 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
Gary,
I made a recommendation based on what another colleague suggested
on another list. And that recommendation really helped improve
the level of discourse. I have since suggested the idea on other
occasions, and it helped there as well.
ET
John - thank you - very good advice.
GF
It seems that little word is not so easy to avoid! 😊
Yes. I had thought of making an exception for sincere compliments.
But I wanted to keep my note short.
If I say “This is nonsense!”, is that /not/ an insult because I
didn’t
use the word “you”?
To say that a sentence is nonsensical may be a fact. To say so is
much less insulting than to say "You are confused", which makes two
claims (1) about some sentence, and (2) about the person who said
it.
Point #1 may be appropriate, but point #2 is a gratuitous insult.
And yes, I did take the examples out of context: I took 2 examples
from each of 3 participants. But those sentences would be insulting
in any context. I also mentioned Mike B. and Gary R., who made good
comments without insulting anybody.
I also received an offline note with the following comment:
Academics must have "thicker skins," in my experience; but your
point is worth considering,
I also subscribe to academic lists for linguists and computer
scientists. And none of the sentences I quoted would occur on
those lists. I believe that philosophers should raise their
civility to the level of academic discourse in other fields.
John
----------------
Subject: RE:[PEIRCE-L] Recommendation: In email notes, avoid the
word 'you'
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 16:32:23 -0400
From: [email protected] [4]
To: [email protected] [5]
John,
You have taken your example quotes out of context.
Now, is the above sentence a “gratuitous insult” because it has
the word “you” in it? And would it be less insulting if I had
written “The examples selected for this argument are taken out of
context”, pretending that I didn’t know who wrote it?
The phrase "you are confusing..." is always an insult.
If I say “This is nonsense!”, is that /not/ an insult because I
didn’t use the word “you”?
I think this argument (I will not say “your” argument) ignores
the basic semiotic principle that *there is no context-free meaning
of any word*. The argument also fails to show any correlation between
the presence or absence of “you” in a post and the presence or
absence of heatedness in the responses to those posts.
Case in point: If you don’t mind my saying so, you wrote: [[ EX 2
I’m glad to see that you now acknowledge the reality of truth.
This is a gratuitous insult. Various subscribers to Peirce-L may
quibble about the criteria in different circumstances, but I'm sure
that all of them distinguish T and F. ]]
Looking at the context of that statement, namely the post it
replied to (which was included in it), we see that the person who
wrote it, and to whom the reply was explicitly addressed, had in fact
explicitly acknowledged the reality of truth in the opening sentences
of that post. How is it an insult to express gladness with that
acknowledgement? If I had written “You *deny* the reality of
truth” — or some circumlocution devised to avoid using the word
“you” — *that* would be a gratuitous insult.
Was it a gratuitous insult when I wrote to Jon A.S. today that I
thought his recent post was an improvement over an something he’d
said earlier? And if so, was my message insulting simply because I
addressed him directly as “you”?
You may take offense at my criticism of your argument, and respond
heatedly to it, but I can’t honestly say that it’s my fault if
you do so, and certainly not if you take offense because I addressed
you directly in it. I am not in the least offended by your accusing
me (albeit surreptitiously) of a “gratuitous insult”; I am simply
arguing against the validity of a context-free rule of netiquette, and
trying to explain why I think “Do not take offense” is a more
practical rule.
Gary f.
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
