Why does the internet only deal in absolutes?*

semi-pro waster

semi-pro waster

semi-pro waster

Man of Honour
Joined
27 Sep 2004
Posts
25,821
Location
Glasgow
It's a question I've been pondering for a while now - why does it seem to be that so many people on the internet will make everything into a (false) dichotomy?

Perhaps it's just me but life and many questions (may even be true for most questions) involve much more subtlety than a simple yes/no, right/wrong kind of answer. Yet in debates on the internet people tend to divide themselves into camps and often refuse to accept that the arguments that the other side puts forward have any kind of merit.

Is this something that stems from the adversarial nature of our political system and flows down from there? Is it an inherent function of the internet whereby largely removing interpersonal contact means that one can hold determinedly to a position even when evidence is presented that suggests there may just be another possible option? Is it just that I know very indecisive people who don't hold unswervingly to one possible opinion? Is it a combination of all of the above or alternatively none of the above?

Whenever I'm inclined to stick rigidly to a position I try to remember the comment from Bertrand Russell "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.". I'm not implying that I'm wise but I don't think it does someone any harm to doubt themselves from time to time.


*For anyone wishing to point out the title is an absolute - you're right but that's partly the point.
 
I wonder if it has something to do with prolific posters. If these people only deal in absolutes then it's very difficult to debate in anything but absolutes, you point out that you do agree with some of the things they say/point out issues with your own argument and they jump on those rather than the actual point you're trying to make.

I'm far more "devils advocate" in real life but it's very hard to do that on a message board.
 
Well, for one, I once read that it's human nature to divide ourselves into groups, even if its subconscious. We then naturally view others as being part of our group, or outside it.

Second thing at work here is the lack of an authority figure. At school we learn what our teachers tells us best if we view them as a person of authority. In the military, you have effect of rank, which is structured for the most part to give senior ranks authority over junior ranks. It must be said I know nothing of the military :p

So combine the two, with no clear authority figure, and out natural tendency to group ourselves, plus the anonymity of the net, I guess that would start to answer the question.
 
Not to side track your original post/discussion but I think part of it comes from the abhorrently large number of people who "I have to be right!" "Must correct everything!" or be rudely inquisitive to other peoples statements.

If I'm understanding this correctly, I had to deal with this only two posts ago with someone who oddly wasn't able to come to some sort of reasonable understanding on his/her own without poking at me further, to the point that I'd rather not spew all the personal reasons why.

It does make me question if said person is just out for conflict, refuses to believe anything past their own belief because it conflicts with theirs, or they simply don't possess the mental capacity to think of alternative reasoning, aka; stubborn.
 
Because we're all secretly Sith?

In reality, if the vast majority of people ceased to post in absolutes (and I know I am guilty of this) then they wouldn't be debates, they'd be 20 page threads quoting each other saying "I agree," in which case, what's the point?

I don't think everybody even agrees with their own absolute arguments all the time either, the beauty of dialectic argument is that by taking polar opposition to one another the debate progresses naturally, rather than stagnating at a point at which everybody agrees and thus nothing of any further value to the debate is contributed.
 
Greenlizard0 said:
Indeed, I've lost count, even in real life, of the number of times I've been accused of sitting on the fence.

Why the hell can't I?
Click to expand...

There are times and places to sit on fences, at other times it's frustrating.

Personally, I cannot stand essays that summarise and / or sit on the fence. I much prefer to read a piece which argues a novel point or tries to win over using a new a approach. Fence sitting is so pedestrian and dull in an essay - all those guilty should be burned at the steak :p

I can actually find a refusal to take sides a weakness in some instances, whilst other times it seems like the logical thing to do. All in all it totally depends on the circumstances.

EDIT - LOL that was completely unintentional. Fence sitting about fence sitting :eek: :D
 
In the debates I really take interest in I can't help feel I am constantly arguing against a world presented as absolutes.

It's easier, and ultimately people like to break arguments down to its base or lowest common denominator. I do it myself depending on the subject.

Absolutes and generalisations win the day for ease of presentation.
 
Nitefly said:
Personally, I cannot stand essays that summarise and / or sit on the fence. I much prefer to read a piece which argues a novel point or tries to win over using a new a approach. Fence sitting is so pedestrian and dull in an essay - all those guilty should be burned at the steak :p
Click to expand...

Nooo! You can't burn steak! It has to be blue or rare!:mad:
 
Interesting post, there's a clear trend towards polarised opinions, even on this forum. There's a couple of reasons for this I think. The first is that normal rhetorical techniques of debate fall flat when you can only communicate in text. A way to get heard instead is to hold an extremely polarised opinion, even if in real life there are many more shades of grey. Secondly, this problem is compounded when other people interpret these opinions as being true in real life, and in order to get their differing argument heard, they must disagree vehemently with the previously expressed opinion. It's easier to debate black and white than it is grey and grey. You could also say a lot of people don't read and understand posts properly, and often gloss over the finer details as well.
 
semi-pro waster said:
It's a question I've been pondering for a while now - why does it seem to be that so many people on the internet will make everything into a (false) dichotomy?

Perhaps it's just me but life and many questions (may even be true for most questions) involve much more subtlety than a simple yes/no, right/wrong kind of answer. Yet in debates on the internet people tend to divide themselves into camps and often refuse to accept that the arguments that the other side puts forward have any kind of merit.

Is this something that stems from the adversarial nature of our political system and flows down from there? Is it an inherent function of the internet whereby largely removing interpersonal contact means that one can hold determinedly to a position even when evidence is presented that suggests there may just be another possible option? Is it just that I know very indecisive people who don't hold unswervingly to one possible opinion? Is it a combination of all of the above or alternatively none of the above?

Whenever I'm inclined to stick rigidly to a position I try to remember the comment from Bertrand Russell "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.". I'm not implying that I'm wise but I don't think it does someone any harm to doubt themselves from time to time.


*For anyone wishing to point out the title is an absolute - you're right but that's partly the point.
Click to expand...



People like to be right, and have difficulty in admitting they are not. I think we are all guilty of this to some extent, even those who are willing to concede a point or admit they are wrong are often reluctant to do so.

I try to be objective, but I am the first to admit that on occasion I am as stubborn in my inaccuracy as the next man.
 
FoxEye said:
Well, for one, I once read that it's human nature to divide ourselves into groups, even if its subconscious. We then naturally view others as being part of our group, or outside it.

Second thing at work here is the lack of an authority figure. At school we learn what our teachers tells us best if we view them as a person of authority. In the military, you have effect of rank, which is structured for the most part to give senior ranks authority over junior ranks. It must be said I know nothing of the military :p

So combine the two, with no clear authority figure, and out natural tendency to group ourselves, plus the anonymity of the net, I guess that would start to answer the question.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, the moderators are arguably a form of authority figure but I accept the point that they're not necessarily leading the debate and instructing people beyond keeping the worst excesses of behaviour out.

I wonder about the concept of viewing people as inside the group or outside it, I can agree or disagree with the same posters on a variety of topics depending on whether I judge their viewpoint as sound or not - it's rare that I'd agree just because I liked them or otherwise. Although with that said there are a very few people who I will almost always find myself in opposition with and perhaps perversely it goes some way to reassuring me that my position is, if nothing else, logically consistent for me.

Theophany said:
Because we're all secretly Sith?

In reality, if the vast majority of people ceased to post in absolutes (and I know I am guilty of this) then they wouldn't be debates, they'd be 20 page threads quoting each other saying "I agree," in which case, what's the point?

I don't think everybody even agrees with their own absolute arguments all the time either, the beauty of dialectic argument is that by taking polar opposition to one another the debate progresses naturally, rather than stagnating at a point at which everybody agrees and thus nothing of any further value to the debate is contributed.
Click to expand...

I'm not so convinced we'd get to 20 pages of agreement or even 10, if everyone could agree then it seems more likely we'd have a very short debate but at least it wouldn't keep going round in circles with people who keep coming back with the same points vehemently and ignoring when their criticisms are answered - at least that's what I'd hope for, reality is probably different. Playing Devil's Advocate is a fine debating technique and it helps to refine the position you yourself may hold and proof it against a variety of common arguments but if you're being intellectually honest with yourself you also need to acknowledge sometimes that the point is wrong or at least not well supported.

In point of fact though I'd probably be less bothered about the absolutes that many people trade in if I got the feeling that they'd read what went before.

alexhull24 said:
Interesting post, there's a clear trend towards polarised opinions, even on this forum. There's a couple of reasons for this I think. The first is that normal rhetorical techniques of debate fall flat when you can only communicate in text. A way to get heard instead is to hold an extremely polarised opinion, even if in real life there are many more shades of grey. Secondly, this problem is compounded when other people interpret these opinions as being true in real life, and in order to get their differing argument heard, they must disagree vehemently with the previously expressed opinion. It's easier to debate black and white than it is grey and grey. You could also say a lot of people don't read and understand posts properly, and often gloss over the finer details as well.
Click to expand...

You may be right, holding a very distinct (if not controversial) opinion certainly seems a rather simple way to get noticed. You've touched on the point about people not reading and understanding posts properly and that can be somewhat irritating, to see a post that cogently for or against something ignored by someone only for them to repeat a point that was made and answered before.

This may be my problem rather than a failing on the part of anyone else but it seems to me to be almost a disrespect of the topic to always and only reduce it down to completely polarised opinions - much of what goes on in life is somewhere between the extremes so I prefer to see that debate reflects that.
 
The only poster who i repeatedly see making good, impartial and well reasoned comments is Castiel.

I believe that there is truth, and benefit in both sides of an opposing argument. If we spent more time looking at what was good for all, and less at what is different and alien, we would all be in a much better place. At the end of the day it all boils down to a matter of Tolerance, or as it exists on this forum, intolerance. Many posters feel an oppressive need to insist that what they believe is the absolute truth, and that anybody who disagrees is wrong and must be shot down.

For instance, how much better would the OcUK forum be if the religious could appreciate that some elements of faith are susceptible to alterior motive abuses, while the anti-religion brigade could accept that religions are very good at some things, such as, soul searching, working out 'who you are' and forming cohesive societies.
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
There are times and places to sit on fences, at other times it's frustrating.

Personally, I cannot stand essays that summarise and / or sit on the fence. I much prefer to read a piece which argues a novel point or tries to win over using a new a approach. Fence sitting is so pedestrian and dull in an essay - all those guilty should be burned at the steak :p

I can actually find a refusal to take sides a weakness in some instances, whilst other times it seems like the logical thing to do. All in all it totally depends on the circumstances.

EDIT - LOL that was completely unintentional. Fence sitting about fence sitting :eek: :D
Click to expand...

But that's the thing - what if my own beliefs, opinionated as you wish, are such that I deem it smarter to sit on the fence? ;)
 
Greenlizard0 said:
But that's the thing - what if my own beliefs, opinionated as you wish, are such that I deem it smarter to sit on the fence? ;)
Click to expand...

You can have two scenarios:

1) You believe viewpoint A and B have their merits and ultimately balance out.

2) You believe deciding A or B is futile because niether accurately solve / describe / answer the dilemma.

It is type 1) that peeves me off in an essay scenario. Fence sitting along the lines of 2) is acceptable.

I hope that distinction makes sense :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom