Research, credibility, honesty, presentation and defense of position

I’ve been a little hesitant to post this. I thought it might be taken as a lecture or a Mr. know it all thing . Especially because of my grammar .

It’s not these are just things I try to do. I’m sure many won’t agree.

So teach me i’d love to hear what you have to say .


I like this place because I don’t run into departure from these 5 what I consider my standards very much.

I’ll give my feelings and actions on them. I know I’ve left stuff out and they have flaws. But I’m good with that.

I hope you guys can present more, clarify, share different tactics and personal preferences.


#1 Research

Everybody posts ideas or articles that they like that turn out to be false or wrong. Usually it’s a rush to judgment or print. I try to double or triple check the source to back my Positions/opinion. So that I present solid evidence.But nobody’s perfect mistakes happen to everyone.

#2 Credibility goes hand-in-hand with research. Which leads to influencing, enlightening and informing people.

People should think so and so’s got a thread cool. Not what is this idiot up to.

#3 Honesty helps with credibility which is enhanced by research. If people know you can admit when you’re wrong. They believe more of what you say. Honesty also has the bonus of preventing long battles that can piss you and others off .

Ego gets in the way sometimes. But again that happens to almost everybody. Especially when you’re debating a person that you have history with. If you realize that person is right. You’ve got two choices. Arguing or conceding, for me I prefer to concede if I can that ends it.
But sometimes your ego gets in the way.

If someone gloat’s ignore them they have the problem not you. Honesty should help your self-esteem not hurt your ego.

There’s no drawbacks to honesty.

#4 Presentation

Rants are easy to identify here because we have a forum. But outside of that category and at other places on the Internet. Angry, flippant, antagonizing or belittling OP’s . ( I use to have a real problem with this) Will draw trolls, anger and abusive post because they offend people. I try to stay away from them unless I’m looking for a fight. (not here) Again it’s not etched stone because sometimes you’re looking for a fight. Lol

#5 defense of position.

Whataboutism , off-topic post are some versions of forum sliding

This one is tough to deal with because even if you don’t take the bait someone else will. If you point it out both parties can get mad and that doesn’t help keeping the thread on topic one bit. Lol

Sometimes you can take their post and bring things back on topic if you’re tricky enough.

If you report it it’s a crapshoot and the poster might carry on in their next reply.

For me the best thing to do is don’t take the bait and carry-on with the people interested in the topic.

But if you’re right defend it tenaciously. Don’t quit prove your point. You will run into people that don’t concede. That’s because they can’t be honest. If you think a debate with a particular poster or posters has gone on to long and you know you’ve proven your point. Drop it. The people that matter will know it. The other poster or posters are people you’ll never be able to convince anyway.


I practice what I preach.

I know I’ve made at least two threads with poor research. #3

I admitted I was wrong in both of them along with other discussions#2 and #3

I’ve defended positions too long with one particular poster that I remember. That was because of ego. #5 and throw in a dash of ego. #3

I’m sure I’ve strayed from these more than that. But those are what I remember.

My other fear was that this would go over like a turd in a punch bowl .

I should’ve listened to that. 🙁

I remember when I was back in college and some lightning rod political left dude asked me what party I belonged to. I told him that the government should represent the people, and that falling in line with a specific party seemed counter intuitive. The dude's mouth dropped. That had never occurred to him before.

So I guess my question is do these questions and points serve you or something else? Sounds unnecessarily defensive...

a reply to: sine.nomine

Yeah they’re called morals and manners .

Intelligence, character, honesty, being fair not a bully and defending what you believe in .



That reminds me add another position on to that list .

#6 Respect

a reply to: Fallingdown

I'm sorry if I came off the wrong way. I wasn't trying to be combatative.

You come off to me as an honest person. Hopefully I do the same, but frankly I don't really care that much.

Starting a thread in the manner you started it was where I was coming from. Seems to come from a place of anger. Maybe I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

Hope all is well with you.

a reply to: sine.nomine

I understand now.

I wasn’t trying to be over the top but I apologize for the misunderstanding .

You really did remind me of I should have added manners in the OP .

Believe it or not I wasn’t calling you a troll. I’ve been thinking about that thread since step 5. It does go over well but not here . I’m gonna go ahead and delete it my bad .

My grammar sucks and I can present my positions in a haphazard way . ( dyslexic )

So when I make a post that long trying to get a point across.

I’m a little leery and not sure if the point is made until discussion starts .

I’ve use the turd in the punch bowl more than once . Lol

a reply to: Fallingdown

Although we have had some contention, I appreciate your honesty.

#1) I think that the issue with research is that you have to be cynical about sources. There is such a thing as 'opinion echo chamber' where there is so much volume based upon "he said, she said..." that it looks genuine, but isn't necessarily. The language for this type of thing tends to be emotionally charged and although any deeply held belief is emotive, it is a red flag if there is an emotional appeal involved. I mean, think of the children...



#2) Credibility is relative to the side you are arguing for/with. There is no real metric of absolute credibility. I think this falls in line with point #1.

#3) Honesty is very useful. The thing is that we all fall for our confirmation biases and so we honestly believe what we honestly believe.



#4) I'd also say that presentation, or at least the 'tone of the prose', is important. As I said, appeals to emotion are a red flag on top of the things you mentioned.

The other side of that is that if you say something mundane or normal, you won't get the online reaction. If you say something stupid, outrageous, untrue or inflammatory, every man & dog will 'have at you'. If you combine all of them in one post, you've hit the online PR jackpot.



To a large extent, this appeal to the lowest is heavily used already by some, and is particularly prevalent on Twitter. Generally, when I detect it I assume that the poster is lacking in points #1 to #3.

#5) We all do it. It's hardly our dirty little secret. If we were #3 we could stop from defending our opinions and reinforcing our less #2 positions. But that's hard to do and you'll disappear off the online radar amidst the integration of noise.

I think that the best idea is to be prepared to debate with an attitude that you will allow someone else to win and it's no big deal (I know, 'cause I been wrong a few times). If you can't take the part of devils advocate, there is no debate and all there actually is, is an echo chamber.

a reply to: chr0naut

#1 I agree about being skeptical research both sides of the issue .

#2 To me the standard is accuracy, consistency and accuracy , honesty and integrity . Which give’s you a good reputation

#3 I don’t think honesty is “ very useful “ . For me honesty is absolute if you want credibility . The ability to admit when you’re wrong shows humility. That helps with trustworthiness and helps take ego out of the equation. But like I said no one can practice all of these points all of the time .

#4

The other side of that is that if you say something mundane or normal, you won't get the online reaction.

I completely agree and this thread is proof . But if you’re looking for online reaction you’re looking for an emotional reaction.

If you say something stupid, outrageous, untrue or inflammatory, every man & dog will 'have at you'

If you say something stupid, outrageous or untrue you’ve failed in #1 and are in the process of failing #2 . The only way to salvage # 2 is to apply #3. Honesty brings everything together .

It depends on your motive if you say something inflammatory. It could be a hot button issue that naturally triggers peoples emotion. I think it helps to point that out in the OP. But in the end you’re right and the hounds can be unleashed .

I think we have different definitions of the word inflammatory. For me it means purposefully insight. That means the author is looking for a fight . If you’re looking for a fight online you will find one . That’s the times we live in . Lol

Twitter is useless for the most part except for entertainment . It reminds me of a biker bar at closing time . A few people are happy. But everybody else is angry, talking # and looking for a fight .

#5

I see what you’re saying. But if I’m going to disappear from the radar of people for being accurate and honest. I probably don’t want to be in a discussion with them in the first place. I’ll take character and honesty over popularity any day .

The term “brutally honest” comes to mind. Some people consider it endearing others don’t . I’m in love with it . Lol


Be true to yourself .

a reply to: Fallingdown

Great OP -- S & F -- very thoughtful, conscientious and well presented.

I would only add a couple things, really more to expand on your points than anything else.

1 -- Regarding research, I always try to trace any story or claim back to its original source. Too often these days (and it does seem to be a fairly new thing), one source reports something using anonymous sources, and it is picked up by others as "So-and-so reported" without noting that it came from an anonymous source. Saying, "as reported by the NYT" gives it unwarranted credibility when the "NYT's" anonymous source is not noted as well.

2 -- Regarding honesty and credibility, too many people are unable to differentiate between their opinion and fact. It's a big problem. And, likewise, they cannot differentiate between Op-Eds and factual news articles. This greatly concerns me.

Thanks for posting your thoughts on this. It gives all of us more to think about as we carry on

a reply to: Boadicea

I want to make something clear before I reply to you .

I go to a couple other sites where most of #5 doesn’t apply . Lots of trolls lots of personal insults and fighting but many of them are people I’ve known for years . I refer to them as a gladiator camps. So when in Rome .


OK thanks for the reply and the compliments .

#1 I agree. Unless I miss it I always try to point out the “sources say” stuff. If I see “reported by the New York Times”. I go to the New York Times. I don’t see blatant lies often with the exception of raw story . But I do see tidbits from the original source that get left out . ( Especially at Raw Story) 😡

One thing I like to do if I’m in a debate with the opposition . I’ll try to back my position with one of their sources.

#2

Yup and when you point it out they ignore what you say and continue with their narrative .

Anymore most of those people are doing it intentionally .

Practicing #3 they would be called liars .

But depending on environmental #6 would dictate a softer term .