With how much the use of the internet is required in our daily lives now, I see this issue everywhere: people investing in opinions and arguments online that are pointless in real life. Investing in them so much, in fact, that it takes an enormous toll on their wellbeing. People's lack of purpose nowadays plays a big part in this, I'm sure. People want to feel like heroes and deliverers of justice, and so they staunchly defend their position with vitriol and rage, to everybody's detriment. It often seems that the only way to exist online without facing this is to participate in the irritating echo chamber where the only thing that matters is telling people they are right, and challenging somebody's thought is the equivalent of committing homicide.
"Choose your battles" is a saying that I enjoy. I try to participate only in discussions or problems that will be important and fruitful. As you mentioned, it is easy to allow that instinctive emotional reaction - that sudden spike of anger or need to respond - to guide your actions, but this will only lead to endless headaches and wasted time. Thank you for the post.
Indeed, trying to reason with the unreasonable is never reasonable as it may sound.
Up until this point, I never blocked or muted people because I am vested in scrutinizing antagonistic views, aiming to either learn something from them that refines my understanding of a given topic - or otherwise become more apt at tearing nonsense apart.
But yeah, my general wet-behind-the-ear type observations are very much in line with what you write about here, and I'm beginning to reconsider my approach. Should I not decide to be more active in pruning comments and contacts... I ought to at least train myself not to engage in futile, energy wasting arguments. It boils down to judiciously picking one's battles, I suppose.
I'd just add that bad faith arguments reek of projection and are ultimately revealing of the person offering them and their own struggles.
"When Paul speaks of Peter, we learn more about Paul". To think this is an actual biblical quote. Wow.
PS - my curiosity is stoked regarding that article you're planning to do. Kindly bring it on!
"The 5 Basic Laws of Human Stupidity" by Carlo M. Cipolla:
1. Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
2.The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
3. Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
5. A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
Corollary: a stupid person is more dangerous than a pillager.
Fascinating stuff!! I could feel my hackles rising reading all the provocative and demeaning language! It’s so hard to ignore sometimes and even worse when the other is so willfully ignorant there’s no way to argue or reason with them. I think learning to step back can only come with age and experience.
It’s amusing to me that people kept projecting their emotions onto your responses, which all read very factual and emotionally flat to me compared to their own responses that were filled with emotional agenda, trying to illicit specific responses or position themselves in a superior light. Alas, the internet… it is what it is…
some people like to argue, to boost their own egos with the intention of being an annoyance and nothing more. they could care less if their ignorance is on full display for all to read. their questions are passive aggressive, with foredrawn conclusions and not sincerely interested in learning anything new.
And then there are those that are closed minded and dogmatic, who cannot think outside the box. these are the people who believe the dsm is science and refuse to open their minds to other possibilities. the future will be neuroscience, neurobiology and not the opinion dominated dsm that these people rely on and point to as the last word.
I would love to read the debate on Quora. It sounds fascinating.
As for arguing with strangers, I learned my lesson on Quora when some guy insisted psychopathy was caused by lead poisoning! I politely asked for a link to where he acquired this information, and he was so rude that a nasty back and forth ensued. I finally deleted my comments and blocked him. Never again will I bother with people like this.
I can tell you why I will engage rather than ignore, or used to until I learned better and now do exactly as you suggest here.
I respond / defend myself because I hate to be misinterpreted. So if people twist my comment, suggest that I meant something contrary to what I actually meant, then this offends my sense of justice. I’ll engage to clarify and defend the meaning behind my comment. I don’t like people putting words in my mouth.
If attacked and labelled as something I’m not, then again, this offends my sense of justice as well. I’ll engage to reject the comment and highlight the smearing of the commenter. This happens a lot on social media. Terms such as racist, misogynist etc are thrown around like confetti. I put it down to narcissism, the black and white thinking of the ‘true believers’. The ‘All who agree with me are good, all who disagree are bad’ mentality. Then we see the social media pile ons. To disagree with these people is a threat to their control. Control must be asserted and continue to be asserted until you capitulate and control is achieved. Your last example looked very like that to me. A need for control on the part of the commenter. Not interested in the information, just interested in the win.
I’ll engage sometimes to get to the truth of what the commenter is trying to achieve by continuing. Truthseeking, I want to understand the driver behind the behaviour.
I agree with you though. I’ve learned that engaging with these types of people is really a fool’s errand. If the person you’re dealing with is a narcissist or even an NT with reduced empathy because they don’t actually know me, then I can only actually win by picking up my ball and going home!
Yes, curious to see the thread you mention. Hot button topic. Covid jabs? That’s guaranteed to be a lively debate past or present!
Intellectual & emotional juvenilism is so prominent in society and no where is it more concentrated than on the internet. But my friend said so guy might have well been squirming in his seat with his hand up saying “ooooh ooooh pick me” only to deliver a wrong answer. I find it fascinating how people don’t recognize the extraordinary amount of patience and staying power that a psychopath has until they don’t in which case you’ve got nothing.
i have such a difficult time gauging the difference between a genuine question and an inflammatory one, d/t taking everything extremely literally and intuitively thinking everyone means well (though i've done better this past year putting up some personal safeguards against that instinctual mindset). it's one of the many reasons i'm not on mainstream social media anymore, as everything blew up for me there thanks to some not-nice people. but while it's hard enough for me in person, i find it quite a bit harder to read intent over the internet.
i have asked people i'm close with their tips for evaluating if someone is truly asking a question or if they're trying to stir up something, but the answers i get range from "well i sort of just evaluate their body language" (i don't SPEAK that language), or "i guess i try to look at their facial expression" (and i don't typically look at people's face). i have since resorted to running questionable conversations by the people i'm closest to and now i'm catching on to some patterns a bit, but i still can't understand when people on the internet behind their screens are being a) genuine and when they deserve my time or b) when they're being actual rats.
i find this extremely confusing. does anyone have any thoughts on this?
i liked this one, except the annoying DMers made me want to throw my phone.
The interesting thing is the fact this person believed they were the tier 12 and you were in tier 01. I get surprised at the fact a lot of people think you are narcissistic. Do you know why this happens?
Anyway I would be very interested in reading the discussion you had about that "hot topic". I think neurotypical people like me tend to get stuck in their beliefs and having a read about recognizing signs of a good argument can be healthy.
When I was young, I would often have these time wasting discussions. Lol
As I matured I figured out it was a waste of time. I have friends who are always right. They have other qualities that I do like though, so when they start a conversation and it goes to the" I know I'm right" point, I just either agree to disagree or I let them be right, depending on who it is. I no longer involve myself in eating much, if any of my time.
The block feature is the greatest feature on any social media platform
With how much the use of the internet is required in our daily lives now, I see this issue everywhere: people investing in opinions and arguments online that are pointless in real life. Investing in them so much, in fact, that it takes an enormous toll on their wellbeing. People's lack of purpose nowadays plays a big part in this, I'm sure. People want to feel like heroes and deliverers of justice, and so they staunchly defend their position with vitriol and rage, to everybody's detriment. It often seems that the only way to exist online without facing this is to participate in the irritating echo chamber where the only thing that matters is telling people they are right, and challenging somebody's thought is the equivalent of committing homicide.
"Choose your battles" is a saying that I enjoy. I try to participate only in discussions or problems that will be important and fruitful. As you mentioned, it is easy to allow that instinctive emotional reaction - that sudden spike of anger or need to respond - to guide your actions, but this will only lead to endless headaches and wasted time. Thank you for the post.
Athena, you demonstrate the patience of a saint here! I so admire the "matter-of-fact" way you are able to deal with and disengage from this joker!
Indeed, trying to reason with the unreasonable is never reasonable as it may sound.
Up until this point, I never blocked or muted people because I am vested in scrutinizing antagonistic views, aiming to either learn something from them that refines my understanding of a given topic - or otherwise become more apt at tearing nonsense apart.
But yeah, my general wet-behind-the-ear type observations are very much in line with what you write about here, and I'm beginning to reconsider my approach. Should I not decide to be more active in pruning comments and contacts... I ought to at least train myself not to engage in futile, energy wasting arguments. It boils down to judiciously picking one's battles, I suppose.
I'd just add that bad faith arguments reek of projection and are ultimately revealing of the person offering them and their own struggles.
"When Paul speaks of Peter, we learn more about Paul". To think this is an actual biblical quote. Wow.
PS - my curiosity is stoked regarding that article you're planning to do. Kindly bring it on!
"The 5 Basic Laws of Human Stupidity" by Carlo M. Cipolla:
1. Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
2.The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
3. Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
5. A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
Corollary: a stupid person is more dangerous than a pillager.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla#%22The_Basic_Laws_of_Human_Stupidity%22_(1976)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla#/media/File:Cipolla-matrix.svg
Cipolla's book in pdf format:
http://gandalf.fee.urv.cat/professors/AntonioQuesada/Curs1920/Cip.pdf
They do, I wouldn't waste my tone on someone that wouldn't
Fascinating stuff!! I could feel my hackles rising reading all the provocative and demeaning language! It’s so hard to ignore sometimes and even worse when the other is so willfully ignorant there’s no way to argue or reason with them. I think learning to step back can only come with age and experience.
It’s amusing to me that people kept projecting their emotions onto your responses, which all read very factual and emotionally flat to me compared to their own responses that were filled with emotional agenda, trying to illicit specific responses or position themselves in a superior light. Alas, the internet… it is what it is…
some people like to argue, to boost their own egos with the intention of being an annoyance and nothing more. they could care less if their ignorance is on full display for all to read. their questions are passive aggressive, with foredrawn conclusions and not sincerely interested in learning anything new.
And then there are those that are closed minded and dogmatic, who cannot think outside the box. these are the people who believe the dsm is science and refuse to open their minds to other possibilities. the future will be neuroscience, neurobiology and not the opinion dominated dsm that these people rely on and point to as the last word.
I would love to read the debate on Quora. It sounds fascinating.
As for arguing with strangers, I learned my lesson on Quora when some guy insisted psychopathy was caused by lead poisoning! I politely asked for a link to where he acquired this information, and he was so rude that a nasty back and forth ensued. I finally deleted my comments and blocked him. Never again will I bother with people like this.
I can tell you why I will engage rather than ignore, or used to until I learned better and now do exactly as you suggest here.
I respond / defend myself because I hate to be misinterpreted. So if people twist my comment, suggest that I meant something contrary to what I actually meant, then this offends my sense of justice. I’ll engage to clarify and defend the meaning behind my comment. I don’t like people putting words in my mouth.
If attacked and labelled as something I’m not, then again, this offends my sense of justice as well. I’ll engage to reject the comment and highlight the smearing of the commenter. This happens a lot on social media. Terms such as racist, misogynist etc are thrown around like confetti. I put it down to narcissism, the black and white thinking of the ‘true believers’. The ‘All who agree with me are good, all who disagree are bad’ mentality. Then we see the social media pile ons. To disagree with these people is a threat to their control. Control must be asserted and continue to be asserted until you capitulate and control is achieved. Your last example looked very like that to me. A need for control on the part of the commenter. Not interested in the information, just interested in the win.
I’ll engage sometimes to get to the truth of what the commenter is trying to achieve by continuing. Truthseeking, I want to understand the driver behind the behaviour.
I agree with you though. I’ve learned that engaging with these types of people is really a fool’s errand. If the person you’re dealing with is a narcissist or even an NT with reduced empathy because they don’t actually know me, then I can only actually win by picking up my ball and going home!
Yes, curious to see the thread you mention. Hot button topic. Covid jabs? That’s guaranteed to be a lively debate past or present!
Intellectual & emotional juvenilism is so prominent in society and no where is it more concentrated than on the internet. But my friend said so guy might have well been squirming in his seat with his hand up saying “ooooh ooooh pick me” only to deliver a wrong answer. I find it fascinating how people don’t recognize the extraordinary amount of patience and staying power that a psychopath has until they don’t in which case you’ve got nothing.
Please do the post.
i have such a difficult time gauging the difference between a genuine question and an inflammatory one, d/t taking everything extremely literally and intuitively thinking everyone means well (though i've done better this past year putting up some personal safeguards against that instinctual mindset). it's one of the many reasons i'm not on mainstream social media anymore, as everything blew up for me there thanks to some not-nice people. but while it's hard enough for me in person, i find it quite a bit harder to read intent over the internet.
i have asked people i'm close with their tips for evaluating if someone is truly asking a question or if they're trying to stir up something, but the answers i get range from "well i sort of just evaluate their body language" (i don't SPEAK that language), or "i guess i try to look at their facial expression" (and i don't typically look at people's face). i have since resorted to running questionable conversations by the people i'm closest to and now i'm catching on to some patterns a bit, but i still can't understand when people on the internet behind their screens are being a) genuine and when they deserve my time or b) when they're being actual rats.
i find this extremely confusing. does anyone have any thoughts on this?
i liked this one, except the annoying DMers made me want to throw my phone.
The interesting thing is the fact this person believed they were the tier 12 and you were in tier 01. I get surprised at the fact a lot of people think you are narcissistic. Do you know why this happens?
Anyway I would be very interested in reading the discussion you had about that "hot topic". I think neurotypical people like me tend to get stuck in their beliefs and having a read about recognizing signs of a good argument can be healthy.
Informative and entertaining as always! Thanks Athena for one more week's article.
That was great!
When I was young, I would often have these time wasting discussions. Lol
As I matured I figured out it was a waste of time. I have friends who are always right. They have other qualities that I do like though, so when they start a conversation and it goes to the" I know I'm right" point, I just either agree to disagree or I let them be right, depending on who it is. I no longer involve myself in eating much, if any of my time.