Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumResources: Researches, Studies, TheoriesLearningFeedbacks & clarifications

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Feedbacks & clarifications

#211 · April 4, 2021, 4:35 am

Quote from selffriend on April 4, 2021, 4:35 am
Quote from John Freeman on April 3, 2021, 11:27 am
Quote from Stef on April 3, 2021, 11:15 am
For me, I was having a honest interaction and not using power moves.
You are welcome John.
Then you (in defense mode) seems to have a lot of natural/unconscious talent for dominance while debating, lets say as if someone is very strong and his handshakes are so powerful he is crushing people hands without knowing it (in fact he is trying to give a nice and proper handshake), in that case, now that you are becoming aware, I supposed is just a matter of being a little extra diplomatic/careful until you get the optimum calibration in most situations, context, circumstances and scenarios and know exactly how much strength to apply even in cases of legitimate self defense (as too soft of a handshake also feels off: dead fish grip).
Thanks a lot for this advice. Yes this is a new awareness for me and it's a bit scary at the same time. I definitely have to upgrade my social intelligence in this regard. I might have pushed people away in real life by having reacted too strongly when defending myself. For instance, I now know I have been accusatory with one of my supervisor when I intended to be assertive (I was not aware at the time). And I know I projected some aggression towards her despite my best intentions and efforts. So my anger got the best of me and I know I damaged our relationship. I'm sure I did it in other instances, with colleagues for instance. I think it's about walking the middle way.
I would add that from my part I am ok if someone here occasionally use "heavy" or "not-totally fair" tactics against me, as I would take it as a much needed opportunity to practice self defense and calibrated counter attack in a relatively safe virtual space.
Definitely!
Hi John. You firmly hold your frame during many conversations, which I respect a lot. I can never do this with friends, female, or colleagues. I am sure that, with this alphaness style, you have been gaining respect from others in real life, unlike me.

Quote from John Freeman on April 3, 2021, 11:27 am
Quote from Stef on April 3, 2021, 11:15 am
For me, I was having a honest interaction and not using power moves.
You are welcome John.
Then you (in defense mode) seems to have a lot of natural/unconscious talent for dominance while debating, lets say as if someone is very strong and his handshakes are so powerful he is crushing people hands without knowing it (in fact he is trying to give a nice and proper handshake), in that case, now that you are becoming aware, I supposed is just a matter of being a little extra diplomatic/careful until you get the optimum calibration in most situations, context, circumstances and scenarios and know exactly how much strength to apply even in cases of legitimate self defense (as too soft of a handshake also feels off: dead fish grip).
Thanks a lot for this advice. Yes this is a new awareness for me and it's a bit scary at the same time. I definitely have to upgrade my social intelligence in this regard. I might have pushed people away in real life by having reacted too strongly when defending myself. For instance, I now know I have been accusatory with one of my supervisor when I intended to be assertive (I was not aware at the time). And I know I projected some aggression towards her despite my best intentions and efforts. So my anger got the best of me and I know I damaged our relationship. I'm sure I did it in other instances, with colleagues for instance. I think it's about walking the middle way.
I would add that from my part I am ok if someone here occasionally use "heavy" or "not-totally fair" tactics against me, as I would take it as a much needed opportunity to practice self defense and calibrated counter attack in a relatively safe virtual space.
Definitely!

Hi John. You firmly hold your frame during many conversations, which I respect a lot. I can never do this with friends, female, or colleagues. I am sure that, with this alphaness style, you have been gaining respect from others in real life, unlike me.

John Freeman and Stef have reacted to this post.

#212 · April 4, 2021, 8:46 am

Hello selfriend,

thank you for your compliment.

I really wanna read lots of more from you and for decades to come, and also want to have the best possible relationship with you.

I'm glad this is your intention. So as I told you in my messages: I'm flexible. Let me know when you have some time for a conversation to clear communication, so we can have the best possible relationship.

Stef and selffriend have reacted to this post.

#213 · April 4, 2021, 9:24 am

Quote from John Freeman on April 4, 2021, 8:46 am
Hello selfriend,
thank you for your compliment.
I really wanna read lots of more from you and for decades to come, and also want to have the best possible relationship with you.
I'm glad this is your intention. So as I told you in my messages: I'm flexible. Let me know when you have some time for a conversation to clear communication, so we can have the best possible relationship.

Sure why not. How can I reach you?

#214 · April 4, 2021, 9:38 am

That was a quote from Lucio to me, sorry for the confusion.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on April 3, 2021, 1:11 am
I really wanna read lots of more from you and for decades to come, and also want to have the best possible relationship with you.

You can reach me by email: amerokk at gmail. Sure, let's chat!

selffriend has reacted to this post.

#215 · April 4, 2021, 7:05 pm

Quote from JM on April 4, 2021, 3:55 am
John said I was lacking warmth...

Hello JM,

it seems there is a slight misunderstanding. I did not say you were lacking warmth. I said that it seemed to me that generally there was not enough love around you. I meant: in your environment, generally speaking. To improve this situation, I think the only way is to focus on what you can control: yourself that is. Therefore: by focusing on giving more love, you will also receive more love. You will generally increase the quantity and quality of love in your life. This is what I meant, sorry if this was not clear.

Cheers!

Stef has reacted to this post.

#216 · April 9, 2021, 6:18 am

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 9, 2021, 6:18 am
@ratdodo
Clarifying on this thread: Exploring the Idea of a Thread for Arguing
Quote from selffriend on April 9, 2021, 5:08 am
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 9, 2021, 1:53 am
Quote from selffriend on April 8, 2021, 9:29 pm
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 8, 2021, 10:24 am
Something came to mind.
I think the more competitive, debating style of evaluating ideas and positions may not be the most optimal way to getting the best ideas through.
Sometimes, a collaborative approach may work better if it helps people to be more flexible with their positions.
Though I think if everyone is open-minded, the debating style may help to develop the edge cases.
Then having a moderator step in with a collaborative approach may help to bring the 2 extremes together.
The problem of debates, including the political debates as well as those soft debates on this site, is that people are finally getting personal. When the discussion of a topic shifts to (either directly or covert, subtly) attacking personalities, the point of argument is lost.
Of course, there is always grey area. For example, the nasty debaters can frame their personal attacks as calm statements of objective facts.
Hi selffriend,
I may be interpreting this wrongly.
But it seems you may have viewed that certain discussions may have shifted into more personal territory.
I think we should clarify those in this thread:
Feedbacks & Clarifications
On this site, we do our best to stay away from any nasty tactics of debating like attacking personalities as Lucio has mentioned.
If you feel certain lines have been crossed, we should bring this up and clarify.
And this also extends to interactions between me and you.
Maybe we didn't finish our clarification previously.
To be clear, nothing I said was personal as well.
It is focused on the message of the post rather than the person.
Hi Matthew. I was not clear enough. I never say that you or anyone have done personal attacks. In my subjective opinion, accusing others for personal attack is itself a mild form of personal attack that I try to avoid. I always believe that people have good intentions.
I prefaced this with "I may be interpreting this wrongly" because I wanted to clarify with you.
When I bring something up, it does not mean that I want to accuse you or make personal attacks.
Unless it crosses certain lines.
Also, I was mentioning whether you felt that we crossed certain lines with you.
So what I wanted to communicate was the opposite.
I'm not saying that you made personal attacks.
I'm asking if you think we made any personal remarks.
It's a way to understand what our boundaries are better.
I had to bring this up because it was difficult for me to understand what the following meant:
Selffriend: The problem of debates, including the political debates as well as those soft debates on this site, is that people are finally getting personal.
In my interpretation, this meant that some soft debates on this site are finally getting personal. (I may be interpreting this wrong)
And it suggested personal in a negative sense. (again maybe wrong)
The personal side is the most important for me.
I believe many other things automatically fall in place when people have good relations with one another.
I also think that it will be challenging for 2 people not on good terms with each other to debate productively.
What I'm asking is
Do you feel that any of the discussions on this forum are getting too personal?
It could not be between us as well.
It could be your observation of how others interact too.
I'm asking your thoughts on how we discuss on this forum.

@ratdodo

Clarifying on this thread: Exploring the Idea of a Thread for Arguing

Quote from selffriend on April 9, 2021, 5:08 am
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 9, 2021, 1:53 am
Quote from selffriend on April 8, 2021, 9:29 pm
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 8, 2021, 10:24 am
Something came to mind.
I think the more competitive, debating style of evaluating ideas and positions may not be the most optimal way to getting the best ideas through.
Sometimes, a collaborative approach may work better if it helps people to be more flexible with their positions.
Though I think if everyone is open-minded, the debating style may help to develop the edge cases.
Then having a moderator step in with a collaborative approach may help to bring the 2 extremes together.
The problem of debates, including the political debates as well as those soft debates on this site, is that people are finally getting personal. When the discussion of a topic shifts to (either directly or covert, subtly) attacking personalities, the point of argument is lost.
Of course, there is always grey area. For example, the nasty debaters can frame their personal attacks as calm statements of objective facts.
Hi selffriend,
I may be interpreting this wrongly.
But it seems you may have viewed that certain discussions may have shifted into more personal territory.
I think we should clarify those in this thread:
Feedbacks & Clarifications
On this site, we do our best to stay away from any nasty tactics of debating like attacking personalities as Lucio has mentioned.
If you feel certain lines have been crossed, we should bring this up and clarify.
And this also extends to interactions between me and you.
Maybe we didn't finish our clarification previously.
To be clear, nothing I said was personal as well.
It is focused on the message of the post rather than the person.
Hi Matthew. I was not clear enough. I never say that you or anyone have done personal attacks. In my subjective opinion, accusing others for personal attack is itself a mild form of personal attack that I try to avoid. I always believe that people have good intentions.

I prefaced this with "I may be interpreting this wrongly" because I wanted to clarify with you.
When I bring something up, it does not mean that I want to accuse you or make personal attacks.
Unless it crosses certain lines.

Also, I was mentioning whether you felt that we crossed certain lines with you.
So what I wanted to communicate was the opposite.
I'm not saying that you made personal attacks.
I'm asking if you think we made any personal remarks.
It's a way to understand what our boundaries are better.

I had to bring this up because it was difficult for me to understand what the following meant:

Selffriend: The problem of debates, including the political debates as well as those soft debates on this site, is that people are finally getting personal.

In my interpretation, this meant that some soft debates on this site are finally getting personal. (I may be interpreting this wrong)
And it suggested personal in a negative sense. (again maybe wrong)

The personal side is the most important for me.
I believe many other things automatically fall in place when people have good relations with one another.
I also think that it will be challenging for 2 people not on good terms with each other to debate productively.

What I'm asking is

Do you feel that any of the discussions on this forum are getting too personal?

It could not be between us as well.
It could be your observation of how others interact too.
I'm asking your thoughts on how we discuss on this forum.

#217 · April 9, 2021, 7:18 am

Quote from selffriend on April 9, 2021, 7:18 am
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 9, 2021, 6:18 am
@ratdodo
Clarifying on this thread: Exploring the Idea of a Thread for Arguing
Quote from selffriend on April 9, 2021, 5:08 am
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 9, 2021, 1:53 am
Quote from selffriend on April 8, 2021, 9:29 pm
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 8, 2021, 10:24 am
Something came to mind.
I think the more competitive, debating style of evaluating ideas and positions may not be the most optimal way to getting the best ideas through.
Sometimes, a collaborative approach may work better if it helps people to be more flexible with their positions.
Though I think if everyone is open-minded, the debating style may help to develop the edge cases.
Then having a moderator step in with a collaborative approach may help to bring the 2 extremes together.
The problem of debates, including the political debates as well as those soft debates on this site, is that people are finally getting personal. When the discussion of a topic shifts to (either directly or covert, subtly) attacking personalities, the point of argument is lost.
Of course, there is always grey area. For example, the nasty debaters can frame their personal attacks as calm statements of objective facts.
Hi selffriend,
I may be interpreting this wrongly.
But it seems you may have viewed that certain discussions may have shifted into more personal territory.
I think we should clarify those in this thread:
Feedbacks & Clarifications
On this site, we do our best to stay away from any nasty tactics of debating like attacking personalities as Lucio has mentioned.
If you feel certain lines have been crossed, we should bring this up and clarify.
And this also extends to interactions between me and you.
Maybe we didn't finish our clarification previously.
To be clear, nothing I said was personal as well.
It is focused on the message of the post rather than the person.
Hi Matthew. I was not clear enough. I never say that you or anyone have done personal attacks. In my subjective opinion, accusing others for personal attack is itself a mild form of personal attack that I try to avoid. I always believe that people have good intentions.
I prefaced this with "I may be interpreting this wrongly" because I wanted to clarify with you.
When I bring something up, it does not mean that I want to accuse you or make personal attacks.
Unless it crosses certain lines.
Also, I was mentioning whether you felt that we crossed certain lines with you.
So what I wanted to communicate was the opposite.
I'm not saying that you made personal attacks.
I'm asking if you think we made any personal remarks.
It's a way to understand what our boundaries are better.
I had to bring this up because it was difficult for me to understand what the following meant:
Selffriend: The problem of debates, including the political debates as well as those soft debates on this site, is that people are finally getting personal.
In my interpretation, this meant that some soft debates on this site are finally getting personal. (I may be interpreting this wrong)
And it suggested personal in a negative sense. (again maybe wrong)
The personal side is the most important for me.
I believe many other things automatically fall in place when people have good relations with one another.
I also think that it will be challenging for 2 people not on good terms with each other to debate productively.
What I'm asking is
Do you feel that any of the discussions on this forum are getting too personal?
It could not be between us as well.
It could be your observation of how others interact too.
I'm asking your thoughts on how we discuss on this forum.
Hi Matthew. Thanks for bringing this up. I respect you as a person and I respect your questions. In my subjective opinion, the point of having a debating thread is having an environment for harsh or even nasty arguing. If everyone comes here for things in that thread, I guess no one dare to use nasty techniques there in future.
Of course I am not saying that anyone is using nasty techniques at this moment. I just feel that moving to here does not align with the original purpose of the arguing thread. Of course you could debate on this point in that argument thread. This is my preference
Regarding your question, "I'm asking if you think we made any personal remarks," I must reemphasize that: you or anyone have not done personal attacks or getting personal, in my opinion; I always believe that people here have good intentions. OTOH, even though you and me do not believe that a sentence is getting personal, it doesn't really block someone else to think in this way.
In general, if a person makes a comments on another person's words, that is not getting person; however, if he directly or indirectly attaches an unwanted negative noun or adjective with that specific person, then this could be interpreted as getting personal by someone else. I must repeat that I don't think you made any personal attacks.
For one example, if I am keeping calling Lucio "the boss" and he feels the word is negative, then I am kind of getting personal.
This is a second example.
Since you were kind of the only one who gave me some harsh-ish comments, so I am guessing that you want me to address that if I think you were getting personal. Well, no, for now. I must be honest that the first moment I skim through your first comment on me (a few weeks ago) I was initially insulted for a minute. This is because smart-aleck is a well known negative word meaning someone whose sarcastic manner is delivered in an offensive, obnoxious, or cocky way. I did not read about Lucio's article on smart-alecky before. However, after more carefully read your comment, I found that you were using the adjective "smart-alecky" on my words rather than me. Moreover, I then read Lucio's articles on anti-fragile ego and "smart-alecky". I realized that you meant Lucio's "smart-alecky" rather than the popular term "smart-aleck", so I must not take this personal. So, I decided to switch my tone, to reflect more on myself, to review what I did wrong in my personal life, rather than accusing you for anything.
Getting personal or not, is a subjective judgement, that I cannot speak for others. I think that "getting personal" can be convert, indirect, and smartly framed in a positive way, such that not everyone will agree that this specific sentence is getting personal or not. I have to be honest that I cannot be sure about it with my limited EI and PI. Probably the experts in this forum have more to say.
I truly appreciate your value-adding questions and previous comments. Feedbacks are important to me.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 9, 2021, 6:18 am
@ratdodo
Clarifying on this thread: Exploring the Idea of a Thread for Arguing
Quote from selffriend on April 9, 2021, 5:08 am
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 9, 2021, 1:53 am
Quote from selffriend on April 8, 2021, 9:29 pm
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 8, 2021, 10:24 am
Something came to mind.
I think the more competitive, debating style of evaluating ideas and positions may not be the most optimal way to getting the best ideas through.
Sometimes, a collaborative approach may work better if it helps people to be more flexible with their positions.
Though I think if everyone is open-minded, the debating style may help to develop the edge cases.
Then having a moderator step in with a collaborative approach may help to bring the 2 extremes together.
The problem of debates, including the political debates as well as those soft debates on this site, is that people are finally getting personal. When the discussion of a topic shifts to (either directly or covert, subtly) attacking personalities, the point of argument is lost.
Of course, there is always grey area. For example, the nasty debaters can frame their personal attacks as calm statements of objective facts.
Hi selffriend,
I may be interpreting this wrongly.
But it seems you may have viewed that certain discussions may have shifted into more personal territory.
I think we should clarify those in this thread:
Feedbacks & Clarifications
On this site, we do our best to stay away from any nasty tactics of debating like attacking personalities as Lucio has mentioned.
If you feel certain lines have been crossed, we should bring this up and clarify.
And this also extends to interactions between me and you.
Maybe we didn't finish our clarification previously.
To be clear, nothing I said was personal as well.
It is focused on the message of the post rather than the person.
Hi Matthew. I was not clear enough. I never say that you or anyone have done personal attacks. In my subjective opinion, accusing others for personal attack is itself a mild form of personal attack that I try to avoid. I always believe that people have good intentions.
I prefaced this with "I may be interpreting this wrongly" because I wanted to clarify with you.
When I bring something up, it does not mean that I want to accuse you or make personal attacks.
Unless it crosses certain lines.
Also, I was mentioning whether you felt that we crossed certain lines with you.
So what I wanted to communicate was the opposite.
I'm not saying that you made personal attacks.
I'm asking if you think we made any personal remarks.
It's a way to understand what our boundaries are better.
I had to bring this up because it was difficult for me to understand what the following meant:
Selffriend: The problem of debates, including the political debates as well as those soft debates on this site, is that people are finally getting personal.
In my interpretation, this meant that some soft debates on this site are finally getting personal. (I may be interpreting this wrong)
And it suggested personal in a negative sense. (again maybe wrong)
The personal side is the most important for me.
I believe many other things automatically fall in place when people have good relations with one another.
I also think that it will be challenging for 2 people not on good terms with each other to debate productively.
What I'm asking is
Do you feel that any of the discussions on this forum are getting too personal?
It could not be between us as well.
It could be your observation of how others interact too.
I'm asking your thoughts on how we discuss on this forum.

Hi Matthew. Thanks for bringing this up. I respect you as a person and I respect your questions. In my subjective opinion, the point of having a debating thread is having an environment for harsh or even nasty arguing. If everyone comes here for things in that thread, I guess no one dare to use nasty techniques there in future.

Of course I am not saying that anyone is using nasty techniques at this moment. I just feel that moving to here does not align with the original purpose of the arguing thread. Of course you could debate on this point in that argument thread. This is my preference

Regarding your question, "I'm asking if you think we made any personal remarks," I must reemphasize that: you or anyone have not done personal attacks or getting personal, in my opinion; I always believe that people here have good intentions. OTOH, even though you and me do not believe that a sentence is getting personal, it doesn't really block someone else to think in this way.

In general, if a person makes a comments on another person's words, that is not getting person; however, if he directly or indirectly attaches an unwanted negative noun or adjective with that specific person, then this could be interpreted as getting personal by someone else. I must repeat that I don't think you made any personal attacks.

For one example, if I am keeping calling Lucio "the boss" and he feels the word is negative, then I am kind of getting personal.

This is a second example.

Since you were kind of the only one who gave me some harsh-ish comments, so I am guessing that you want me to address that if I think you were getting personal. Well, no, for now. I must be honest that the first moment I skim through your first comment on me (a few weeks ago) I was initially insulted for a minute. This is because smart-aleck is a well known negative word meaning someone whose sarcastic manner is delivered in an offensive, obnoxious, or cocky way. I did not read about Lucio's article on smart-alecky before. However, after more carefully read your comment, I found that you were using the adjective "smart-alecky" on my words rather than me. Moreover, I then read Lucio's articles on anti-fragile ego and "smart-alecky". I realized that you meant Lucio's "smart-alecky" rather than the popular term "smart-aleck", so I must not take this personal. So, I decided to switch my tone, to reflect more on myself, to review what I did wrong in my personal life, rather than accusing you for anything.

Getting personal or not, is a subjective judgement, that I cannot speak for others. I think that "getting personal" can be convert, indirect, and smartly framed in a positive way, such that not everyone will agree that this specific sentence is getting personal or not. I have to be honest that I cannot be sure about it with my limited EI and PI. Probably the experts in this forum have more to say.

I truly appreciate your value-adding questions and previous comments. Feedbacks are important to me.

Matthew Whitewood has reacted to this post.

#218 · April 9, 2021, 9:40 am

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 9, 2021, 9:40 am
Quote from selffriend on April 9, 2021, 7:18 am
Regarding your question, "I'm asking if you think we made any personal remarks," I must reemphasize that: you or anyone have not done personal attacks or getting personal, in my opinion; I always believe that people here have good intentions. OTOH, even though you and me do not believe that a sentence is getting personal, it doesn't really block someone else to think in this way.
This is what I wanted to clarify.
Thanks a lot for letting me know.
Good to know that we are good :).
I wanted to make sure we are good on the personal side so that we can argue in a nasty fashion.
Then we both know that we are sparring rather than having any sort of spite.
We can clarify the other points:
the harsh-ish comments
the purpose of the thread
what it means to get personal (maybe we could talk on the other thread)
Harsh-ish Comments
Since you were kind of the only one who gave me some harsh-ish comments, so I am guessing that you want me to address that if I think you were getting personal. Well, no, for now. I must be honest that the first moment I skim through your first comment on me (a few weeks ago) I was initially insulted for a minute. This is because smart-aleck is a well known negative word meaning someone whose sarcastic manner is delivered in an offensive, obnoxious, or cocky way.
Thank you and I appreciate that you brought this up.
I have to apologise for the delivery if it did indeed offend.
I should have clarified what smart-aleck means in a better context.
Concerning the links, it depends on how things are referenced.
Putting a link to an academic citation without summarising or explaining how the citation is relevant conveys a vibe of
This point has substantive evidence.
Here is the relevant link that explains what you are unaware of.
It may be pretty long but, if you want to understand my point, please read it.
Maybe this is not what you intended.
I wanted to express that this is potentially how some would consciously or subconsciously feel about the citations.
I believe your intention, now that we are clarifying, is
I am drafting this out quickly with some main points.
Here is more information for those who are interested in reading further.
I would also like to give an alternative perspective.
In that case, thanks for sharing your insights.
To illustrate the difference in vibes, contrast these 2 points:
Running is good for health (link 1)
Running can be good for your health because it strengthens the cardiovascular system (link 1).
Although, if you have knee problems, maybe an alternative exercise would work better (link 2).
The Purpose of the Thread
I think our difference in opinion stems from how we perceive the intention of the thread:
Me - the thread is for discussing how we should conduct the debate
Spinout other threads for debating on certain topics
You - the thread is for debating
Then I sensed that we had some areas to clarify so wanted to smooth over that area first.
First priority.
I am on the same page.
We can use more nasty tactics for arguing in that thread.
I was thinking about whether there are boundaries (like no personal attacks but power moves are okay) or no boundaries (free for all).
Maybe, we can also have a thread for continuous debate. (you gave me this idea)
That will not be based around a topic but a long-standing thread like this one.
What It Means to Get Personal
I generally agree that one person can view a remark to be personal while another person does not.
From what Lucio reasoned about the line of subjectivity when it comes to power moves, I think there are certain remarks which can be viewed by 90% of the people to be a personal attack.
For most other remarks, it is much more subjective as you mentioned.
Maybe only 50% of the people view it as a power move.

Quote from selffriend on April 9, 2021, 7:18 am
Regarding your question, "I'm asking if you think we made any personal remarks," I must reemphasize that: you or anyone have not done personal attacks or getting personal, in my opinion; I always believe that people here have good intentions. OTOH, even though you and me do not believe that a sentence is getting personal, it doesn't really block someone else to think in this way.

This is what I wanted to clarify.
Thanks a lot for letting me know.
Good to know that we are good :).

I wanted to make sure we are good on the personal side so that we can argue in a nasty fashion.
Then we both know that we are sparring rather than having any sort of spite.

We can clarify the other points:

the harsh-ish comments
the purpose of the thread
what it means to get personal (maybe we could talk on the other thread)

Harsh-ish Comments

Since you were kind of the only one who gave me some harsh-ish comments, so I am guessing that you want me to address that if I think you were getting personal. Well, no, for now. I must be honest that the first moment I skim through your first comment on me (a few weeks ago) I was initially insulted for a minute. This is because smart-aleck is a well known negative word meaning someone whose sarcastic manner is delivered in an offensive, obnoxious, or cocky way.

Thank you and I appreciate that you brought this up.
I have to apologise for the delivery if it did indeed offend.
I should have clarified what smart-aleck means in a better context.

Concerning the links, it depends on how things are referenced.
Putting a link to an academic citation without summarising or explaining how the citation is relevant conveys a vibe of

This point has substantive evidence.
Here is the relevant link that explains what you are unaware of.
It may be pretty long but, if you want to understand my point, please read it.

Maybe this is not what you intended.
I wanted to express that this is potentially how some would consciously or subconsciously feel about the citations.

I believe your intention, now that we are clarifying, is

I am drafting this out quickly with some main points.
Here is more information for those who are interested in reading further.
I would also like to give an alternative perspective.

In that case, thanks for sharing your insights.

To illustrate the difference in vibes, contrast these 2 points:

Running is good for health (link 1)
Running can be good for your health because it strengthens the cardiovascular system (link 1).
Although, if you have knee problems, maybe an alternative exercise would work better (link 2).

The Purpose of the Thread

I think our difference in opinion stems from how we perceive the intention of the thread:

Me - the thread is for discussing how we should conduct the debate
Spinout other threads for debating on certain topics
You - the thread is for debating

Then I sensed that we had some areas to clarify so wanted to smooth over that area first.
First priority.

I am on the same page.
We can use more nasty tactics for arguing in that thread.
I was thinking about whether there are boundaries (like no personal attacks but power moves are okay) or no boundaries (free for all).

Maybe, we can also have a thread for continuous debate. (you gave me this idea)
That will not be based around a topic but a long-standing thread like this one.

What It Means to Get Personal

I generally agree that one person can view a remark to be personal while another person does not.
From what Lucio reasoned about the line of subjectivity when it comes to power moves, I think there are certain remarks which can be viewed by 90% of the people to be a personal attack.
For most other remarks, it is much more subjective as you mentioned.
Maybe only 50% of the people view it as a power move.

selffriend has reacted to this post.

#219 · April 9, 2021, 11:18 am

Quote from selffriend on April 9, 2021, 11:18 am
I am total ok with your previous comments. No need to worry as always.
Since you were kind of the only one who gave me some harsh-ish comments, so I am guessing that you want me to address that if I think you were getting personal. Well, no, for now. I must be honest that the first moment I skim through your first comment on me (a few weeks ago) I was initially insulted for a minute. This is because smart-aleck is a well known negative word meaning someone whose sarcastic manner is delivered in an offensive, obnoxious, or cocky way. I did not read about Lucio's article on smart-alecky before. However, after more carefully read your comment, I found that you were using the adjective "smart-alecky" on my words rather than me. Moreover, I then read Lucio's articles on anti-fragile ego and "smart-alecky". I realized that you meant Lucio's "smart-alecky" rather than the popular term "smart-aleck", so I must not take this personal. So, I decided to switch my tone, to reflect more on myself, to review what I did wrong in my personal life, rather than accusing you for anything.
I sincerely ask you to not emphasize only the first half of this paragraph, especially when the half you cited does not convey the purpose and the main point of my paragraph: important conclusions are missing. My main point was that, I learned a lot from you and I don't blame you or complain you for anything. The way you cited my half paragraph, ending with negative adjectives, kind of frame the speaker (me) as the one complaining.
I generally agree with your comments on providing citation. Lucio also have similar thoughts, I think. You are giving examples on giving good citation and giving bad citations. I think they are good examples for me to learn. Of course there is a lot that I can improve with citation.
However, from another perspective, I would also like to point out my opinion that, claiming something with citation is generally more value-adding and nurturing than claiming something without citation. In that specific case, I was not trying to prove anyone wrong or trying to win any argument. I was merely sharing thoughts, which, I think, is kind of value-adding rather than value-taking. Finding citation is not an easy job by itself. Of course this is just the requirement for myself. I am not asking everyone to look for citations, and I do believe that I can improve a lot in future.
What made me confused the most is not the comment on citations, but the comment on "IMHO". I still don't really understand why "humble" is smart-alecky, though I still appreciate you for brought this up. I avoid using IMHO recently.
Well, by no mean I am arguing against you. I mean, if you are a native English speaker (or sth similar) and you feel that IMHO is smart-alecky, then, you don't really have to provide me any explanation as feelings are not always rationalizable or explainable. I trust your sense. It will still help me on my future communication style: use less IMHO.

PS: I only partially agree with the 90% percent rule brought up by Lucio. If 90% of people believe that a move is nasty, then it means that this move is too obvious: it is not well-covered or smartly presented. A well-crafted nasty manipulative move, by definition, should bypass the defense of the majority -- doing its job without letting most people feel manipulative. Well, of course we could run a survey among TPM members rather than the general public. But the same logic is still there: the manipulative line made by the topmost guy shall bypass the defense of most common TPM members.
I hypothesize the following cycle which is not necessarily true:
The low level techniques work best against innocent people. This is why Riley has some successes with Musk. However, when using low level techniques against people with average awareness, then those techniques might be identified and therefore backfire.
High level manipulative techniques work best against people with average awareness, but not so effective against totally innocent people. This is my thought. Probably we can debate on this hypothesis as I find it very very interesting.

I am total ok with your previous comments. No need to worry as always.

Since you were kind of the only one who gave me some harsh-ish comments, so I am guessing that you want me to address that if I think you were getting personal. Well, no, for now. I must be honest that the first moment I skim through your first comment on me (a few weeks ago) I was initially insulted for a minute. This is because smart-aleck is a well known negative word meaning someone whose sarcastic manner is delivered in an offensive, obnoxious, or cocky way. I did not read about Lucio's article on smart-alecky before. However, after more carefully read your comment, I found that you were using the adjective "smart-alecky" on my words rather than me. Moreover, I then read Lucio's articles on anti-fragile ego and "smart-alecky". I realized that you meant Lucio's "smart-alecky" rather than the popular term "smart-aleck", so I must not take this personal. So, I decided to switch my tone, to reflect more on myself, to review what I did wrong in my personal life, rather than accusing you for anything.

I sincerely ask you to not emphasize only the first half of this paragraph, especially when the half you cited does not convey the purpose and the main point of my paragraph: important conclusions are missing. My main point was that, I learned a lot from you and I don't blame you or complain you for anything. The way you cited my half paragraph, ending with negative adjectives, kind of frame the speaker (me) as the one complaining.

I generally agree with your comments on providing citation. Lucio also have similar thoughts, I think. You are giving examples on giving good citation and giving bad citations. I think they are good examples for me to learn. Of course there is a lot that I can improve with citation.

However, from another perspective, I would also like to point out my opinion that, claiming something with citation is generally more value-adding and nurturing than claiming something without citation. In that specific case, I was not trying to prove anyone wrong or trying to win any argument. I was merely sharing thoughts, which, I think, is kind of value-adding rather than value-taking. Finding citation is not an easy job by itself. Of course this is just the requirement for myself. I am not asking everyone to look for citations, and I do believe that I can improve a lot in future.

What made me confused the most is not the comment on citations, but the comment on "IMHO". I still don't really understand why "humble" is smart-alecky, though I still appreciate you for brought this up. I avoid using IMHO recently.

Well, by no mean I am arguing against you. I mean, if you are a native English speaker (or sth similar) and you feel that IMHO is smart-alecky, then, you don't really have to provide me any explanation as feelings are not always rationalizable or explainable. I trust your sense. It will still help me on my future communication style: use less IMHO.

PS: I only partially agree with the 90% percent rule brought up by Lucio. If 90% of people believe that a move is nasty, then it means that this move is too obvious: it is not well-covered or smartly presented. A well-crafted nasty manipulative move, by definition, should bypass the defense of the majority -- doing its job without letting most people feel manipulative. Well, of course we could run a survey among TPM members rather than the general public. But the same logic is still there: the manipulative line made by the topmost guy shall bypass the defense of most common TPM members.

I hypothesize the following cycle which is not necessarily true:

The low level techniques work best against innocent people. This is why Riley has some successes with Musk. However, when using low level techniques against people with average awareness, then those techniques might be identified and therefore backfire.

High level manipulative techniques work best against people with average awareness, but not so effective against totally innocent people. This is my thought. Probably we can debate on this hypothesis as I find it very very interesting.

Stef has reacted to this post.

#220 · April 9, 2021, 12:46 pm

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 9, 2021, 12:46 pm
Quote from selffriend on April 9, 2021, 11:18 am
Since you were kind of the only one who gave me some harsh-ish comments, so I am guessing that you want me to address that if I think you were getting personal. Well, no, for now. I must be honest that the first moment I skim through your first comment on me (a few weeks ago) I was initially insulted for a minute. This is because smart-aleck is a well known negative word meaning someone whose sarcastic manner is delivered in an offensive, obnoxious, or cocky way. I did not read about Lucio's article on smart-alecky before. However, after more carefully read your comment, I found that you were using the adjective "smart-alecky" on my words rather than me. Moreover, I then read Lucio's articles on anti-fragile ego and "smart-alecky". I realized that you meant Lucio's "smart-alecky" rather than the popular term "smart-aleck", so I must not take this personal. So, I decided to switch my tone, to reflect more on myself, to review what I did wrong in my personal life, rather than accusing you for anything.
I sincerely ask you to not emphasize only the first half of this paragraph, especially when the half you cited does not convey the purpose and the main point of my paragraph: important conclusions are missing. My main point was that, I learned a lot from you and I don't blame you or complain you for anything. The way you cited my half paragraph, ending with negative adjectives, kind of frame the speaker (me) as the one complaining.
I cited only the first half because that was the portion I needed to clarify about.
I tend to cite only the portion which I am addressing to make things clearer.
In this case, I only wanted to clarify further about the portions which I thought needed clarifying.
I was clear about the main intention which you wanted to get across.
I should have communicated that.
And thank you for communicating to me your main message again.
Now I see how it could have framed you in not the best manner.
I apologise if that seemed like the case.
I generally agree with your comments on providing citation. Lucio also have similar thoughts, I think. You are giving examples on giving good citation and giving bad citations. I think they are good examples for me to learn. Of course there is a lot that I can improve with citation.
However, from another perspective, I would also like to point out my opinion that, claiming something with citation is generally more value-adding and nurturing than claiming something without citation. In that specific case, I was not trying to prove anyone wrong or trying to win any argument. I was merely sharing thoughts, which, I think, is kind of value-adding rather than value-taking. Finding citation is not an easy job by itself. Of course this is just the requirement for myself. I am not asking everyone to look for citations, and I do believe that I can improve a lot in future.
Thank you for sharing more again.
From my perspective, let me share why people may not understand your value-adding intention.
I could be wrong.
I think, for very meticulous and people interested in the subject itself, they will click on the citations and read through the content of the citation.
They would likely find this value-adding and rewarding.
It may be different for people who would like to get the gist fast and don't have time to read the citations.
They may think that adding a citation is a quick way to convince them of why a certain point is true.
Or even the point is not really correct but one adds the citation to make it seem more credible.
Without reading the reference in-depth, it would be challenging to discern whether the statement is true alone.
Again, I want to emphasise that this is how I view this.
I certainly see this as not a black and white matter.
It can be value-adding.
People can also see this as a way of imposing credibility.
What made me confused the most is not the comment on citations, but the comment on "IMHO". I still don't really understand why "humble" is smart-alecky, though I still appreciate you for brought this up. I avoid using IMHO recently.
Well, by no mean I am arguing against you. I mean, if you are a native English speaker (or sth similar) and you feel that IMHO is smart-alecky, then, you don't really have to provide me any explanation as feelings are not always rationalizable or explainable. I trust your sense. It will still help me on my future communication style: use less IMHO.
"Humble" here is often used sarcastically in the phrase "in my humble opinion".
If one says "In my humble opinion...", it often means that one's opinion is not really humbly expressed.
It usually is a cover for saying that I have a good opinion, and I'm unafraid of expressing it.
I do think some people use it in a good way like yourself.
However, because of mixed usage and intentions, people tend to view it as negative with a sarcastic vibe.
What I usually say is (different people may convey this differently)
I may be wrong. This is what I think.
One-Way Implication: 90% Viewing A Statement As A Power Move Implies It Is A Power Moves But Not Vice Versa
We may actually be quite on the same page.
I think I should re-phrase this and ask if I interpret Lucio's concept correctly. @lucio
If 90% of the people view a statement as a value-taking power move, then it is a value-taking power move. (I think this is what Lucio means; I think so too)
If someone makes a value-taking power move, it does not imply that 90% of the people will view the statement as a value-taking power move.
I also think that this is true.
We are learning how to combat microaggression, covert aggression and manipulation.
High level manipulative techniques work best against people with average awareness, but not so effective against totally innocent people. This is my thought. Probably we can debate on this hypothesis as I find it very very interesting.
I see where you are coming from.
For example, totally innocent people would probably not even detect covert aggression.
People with average awareness may feel slighted but be unable to pinpoint the aggression and over-react, which gives the aggressor a chance to retreat and paint them as the aggressor.
Though I would say that totally innocent people will be harmed socially as well because not standing up to aggression will make you look submissive at times.

Quote from selffriend on April 9, 2021, 11:18 am
Since you were kind of the only one who gave me some harsh-ish comments, so I am guessing that you want me to address that if I think you were getting personal. Well, no, for now. I must be honest that the first moment I skim through your first comment on me (a few weeks ago) I was initially insulted for a minute. This is because smart-aleck is a well known negative word meaning someone whose sarcastic manner is delivered in an offensive, obnoxious, or cocky way. I did not read about Lucio's article on smart-alecky before. However, after more carefully read your comment, I found that you were using the adjective "smart-alecky" on my words rather than me. Moreover, I then read Lucio's articles on anti-fragile ego and "smart-alecky". I realized that you meant Lucio's "smart-alecky" rather than the popular term "smart-aleck", so I must not take this personal. So, I decided to switch my tone, to reflect more on myself, to review what I did wrong in my personal life, rather than accusing you for anything.
I sincerely ask you to not emphasize only the first half of this paragraph, especially when the half you cited does not convey the purpose and the main point of my paragraph: important conclusions are missing. My main point was that, I learned a lot from you and I don't blame you or complain you for anything. The way you cited my half paragraph, ending with negative adjectives, kind of frame the speaker (me) as the one complaining.

I cited only the first half because that was the portion I needed to clarify about.
I tend to cite only the portion which I am addressing to make things clearer.
In this case, I only wanted to clarify further about the portions which I thought needed clarifying.

I was clear about the main intention which you wanted to get across.
I should have communicated that.
And thank you for communicating to me your main message again.
Now I see how it could have framed you in not the best manner.
I apologise if that seemed like the case.

I generally agree with your comments on providing citation. Lucio also have similar thoughts, I think. You are giving examples on giving good citation and giving bad citations. I think they are good examples for me to learn. Of course there is a lot that I can improve with citation.
However, from another perspective, I would also like to point out my opinion that, claiming something with citation is generally more value-adding and nurturing than claiming something without citation. In that specific case, I was not trying to prove anyone wrong or trying to win any argument. I was merely sharing thoughts, which, I think, is kind of value-adding rather than value-taking. Finding citation is not an easy job by itself. Of course this is just the requirement for myself. I am not asking everyone to look for citations, and I do believe that I can improve a lot in future.

Thank you for sharing more again.
From my perspective, let me share why people may not understand your value-adding intention.
I could be wrong.

I think, for very meticulous and people interested in the subject itself, they will click on the citations and read through the content of the citation.
They would likely find this value-adding and rewarding.

It may be different for people who would like to get the gist fast and don't have time to read the citations.
They may think that adding a citation is a quick way to convince them of why a certain point is true.
Or even the point is not really correct but one adds the citation to make it seem more credible.
Without reading the reference in-depth, it would be challenging to discern whether the statement is true alone.

Again, I want to emphasise that this is how I view this.
I certainly see this as not a black and white matter.
It can be value-adding.
People can also see this as a way of imposing credibility.

What made me confused the most is not the comment on citations, but the comment on "IMHO". I still don't really understand why "humble" is smart-alecky, though I still appreciate you for brought this up. I avoid using IMHO recently.
Well, by no mean I am arguing against you. I mean, if you are a native English speaker (or sth similar) and you feel that IMHO is smart-alecky, then, you don't really have to provide me any explanation as feelings are not always rationalizable or explainable. I trust your sense. It will still help me on my future communication style: use less IMHO.

"Humble" here is often used sarcastically in the phrase "in my humble opinion".
If one says "In my humble opinion...", it often means that one's opinion is not really humbly expressed.
It usually is a cover for saying that I have a good opinion, and I'm unafraid of expressing it.

I do think some people use it in a good way like yourself.
However, because of mixed usage and intentions, people tend to view it as negative with a sarcastic vibe.

What I usually say is (different people may convey this differently)

I may be wrong. This is what I think.

One-Way Implication: 90% Viewing A Statement As A Power Move Implies It Is A Power Moves But Not Vice Versa

We may actually be quite on the same page.
I think I should re-phrase this and ask if I interpret Lucio's concept correctly. @lucio

If 90% of the people view a statement as a value-taking power move, then it is a value-taking power move. (I think this is what Lucio means; I think so too)
If someone makes a value-taking power move, it does not imply that 90% of the people will view the statement as a value-taking power move.
I also think that this is true.
We are learning how to combat microaggression, covert aggression and manipulation.

High level manipulative techniques work best against people with average awareness, but not so effective against totally innocent people. This is my thought. Probably we can debate on this hypothesis as I find it very very interesting.

I see where you are coming from.
For example, totally innocent people would probably not even detect covert aggression.
People with average awareness may feel slighted but be unable to pinpoint the aggression and over-react, which gives the aggressor a chance to retreat and paint them as the aggressor.
Though I would say that totally innocent people will be harmed socially as well because not standing up to aggression will make you look submissive at times.

selffriend has reacted to this post.