Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.

[coberst]

Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.

It seems to me that the forum members who participate in a thread approach the experience invigorated with much the same attitude as does a boxer entering the ring or a soldier going into battle.

Metaphor entailments (to transmit or to accompany) we live by:
He attacked my argument.
I have never beaten this guy in an argument.
If you do not agree with my statement then take your best shot.
I shot down each of his arguments.

We approach a forum response much like we approach a physical contest. We have a gut feeling about some things because our sense of correctness comes from our bodies. Our “gut feeling” often informs us as to the ‘correctness’ of some phenomenon. This gut feeling is an attitude; it is one of many types of attitudes. What can we say about this attitude, this gut feeling?

“Metaphors we live by”, a book about cognitive science coauthored by Lakoff and Johnson, says a great deal about this attitude. Conceptual metaphor theory, the underlying theory of cognitive science contained in this book, explains how our knowledge is ‘grounded’ in the precise manner in which we optimally interact with the world.

“The essence of metaphor is understanding one kind of thing in terms of another…The metaphor is not merely in the words we use—it is in the very concept of an argument. The language of argument is not poetic, fanciful, or rhetorical: it is literal. We talk about arguments that way because we conceive of them in that way—and we act according to the way we conceive of things.”—Lakoff and Johnson

Let us say that in early childhood I had my first fight with my brother. There was hitting, shoving, crying, screaming, and anger. Neural structure was placed in a mental space that contained the characteristics of this first combat, this was combat #1. Six months later I have a fight with the neighbor kid and we do all the routine thing kids do when fighting.

This is where metaphor theory does its thing. This theory proposes that the characteristics contained in the mental space, combat #1, are automatically mapped into the mental space that is becoming combat #2. The contents of combat #1 become a primary metaphor and the characteristics form the fundamental structure of mental space combat #2.

This example applies to all the experiences a person has. The primary experience is structured into a mental space and thereafter when a similar experience is happening the primary experience becomes the primary metaphor for the next like experience. This primary metaphor becomes the foundation for a concept whether the concept is concrete experience or abstract experience.

What I am saying is that for some reason the Internet discussion forum member considers engaging in a forum thread is a competition, it is a combat, and the primary combat metaphor is mapped into the mental space of this forum experience and thus the forum experience takes on the combat type experience. It seems to that is why lots of forum activity gets very combative.

Is it any wonder that the adrenalin starts pumping as soon as we start reading the responses to our post?

Do you feel like you are in a battle with me after reading my claims?

Is this why most replies are negative?

[mbillie1]

You suck, I so trashed all of your arguments like weeks ago.

[ QUOTE ]
You suck, I so trashed all of your arguments like weeks ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[tame_deuces]

I actually think that attitude dissipates. I have written on a wide variety of forums. As you are new you are kind of eager to prove yourself, you don't want to get misinterpreted and old 'relationships' might end up in some posters posting in a style towards eachother you find insulting. When you get into it you get a more relaxed 'seen it all' attitude.

I also think it has somewhat to do with tone and flow. We need to know a poster somewhat before we get to catch on to HOW he expresses himself, just the words isn't enough. To use an example on this forum it took a while before I figured out that Nielso's posts are far more aggressive than I read them to be at the start - since I misread them for your typical 'intellectual provocation' posts. Whereas for example Lestat's post struck me as far _less_ aggressive then I initially thought since I now read his questions as more of 'another interesting point to ponder'.

Note that I have meant no harm by the above descriptions, just trying to illustrate my point. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.

It seems to me that the forum members who participate in a thread approach the experience invigorated with much the same attitude as does a boxer entering the ring or a soldier going into battle.

Metaphor entailments (to transmit or to accompany) we live by:
He attacked my argument.
I have never beaten this guy in an argument.
If you do not agree with my statement then take your best shot.
I shot down each of his arguments.

We approach a forum response much like we approach a physical contest. We have a gut feeling about some things because our sense of correctness comes from our bodies. Our “gut feeling” often informs us as to the ‘correctness’ of some phenomenon. This gut feeling is an attitude; it is one of many types of attitudes. What can we say about this attitude, this gut feeling?

“Metaphors we live by”, a book about cognitive science coauthored by Lakoff and Johnson, says a great deal about this attitude. Conceptual metaphor theory, the underlying theory of cognitive science contained in this book, explains how our knowledge is ‘grounded’ in the precise manner in which we optimally interact with the world.

“The essence of metaphor is understanding one kind of thing in terms of another…The metaphor is not merely in the words we use—it is in the very concept of an argument. The language of argument is not poetic, fanciful, or rhetorical: it is literal. We talk about arguments that way because we conceive of them in that way—and we act according to the way we conceive of things.”—Lakoff and Johnson

Let us say that in early childhood I had my first fight with my brother. There was hitting, shoving, crying, screaming, and anger. Neural structure was placed in a mental space that contained the characteristics of this first combat, this was combat #1. Six months later I have a fight with the neighbor kid and we do all the routine thing kids do when fighting.

This is where metaphor theory does its thing. This theory proposes that the characteristics contained in the mental space, combat #1, are automatically mapped into the mental space that is becoming combat #2. The contents of combat #1 become a primary metaphor and the characteristics form the fundamental structure of mental space combat #2.

This example applies to all the experiences a person has. The primary experience is structured into a mental space and thereafter when a similar experience is happening the primary experience becomes the primary metaphor for the next like experience. This primary metaphor becomes the foundation for a concept whether the concept is concrete experience or abstract experience.

What I am saying is that for some reason the Internet discussion forum member considers engaging in a forum thread is a competition, it is a combat, and the primary combat metaphor is mapped into the mental space of this forum experience and thus the forum experience takes on the combat type experience. It seems to that is why lots of forum activity gets very combative.

Is it any wonder that the adrenalin starts pumping as soon as we start reading the responses to our post?

Do you feel like you are in a battle with me after reading my claims?

Is this why most replies are negative?

[/ QUOTE ]

My first fight, I was about 10. I was big for my age and my friends were rough types, so every now and then I'd kick someone's arse to maintain my dominance. First time I did it was this weird looking kid called Tony - an ok bloke but weird looking, so he deserved an arse kicking. I conned him into accepting a fight with me, and when we started I laid right into him. Couple of punches to the face, which popped out one of his glasses, followed by a kick to the chest and a couple of kicks when he fell down. He cried but otherwise took it really well. I felt both slightly regretful and superior at the same time - like in some primal way, I was better than this dude.

There was no crying or distress or screaming or anger. Nothing but the pure joy of dominance. I guess this is my metaphor for arguing on the internet, the primal memory through which everything is framed.

[madnak]

War isn't boxing.

Boxing is a sport people engage in because they enjoy it. War is an activity people engage in because it's necessary. I'm sure some soldiers enjoy war, but I think the majority prefer peace time. War is violent and destructive. We can talk about war in theory as a matter of disarming the enemy, but in practice it's more about hurting them. There is sometimes compassion, or at least mutual respect, in war - but this never seems to diminish the horror.

Debate is like boxing - it's not like war. When argument devolves into bullying or personal attacks, everything changes.

[coberst]

You are correct. There are many attitudes toward argumentation. I do however think that the common view is that if we are having an argument we are engaged in a verbal altercation. If I tell some one that I had an argument with Dave most people will think that we ‘had words’. Flame wars are not the exception

[madnak]

Well, that may be true in general, but I think this forum is a different story. We come here because we like arguing. I'm sure I'm not the only one who avoids arguments in the real world for the very reason that they're perceived as fights.

[Pokerdemic]

[ QUOTE ]

You are correct. There are many attitudes toward argumentation. I do however think that the common view is that if we are having an argument we are engaged in a verbal altercation. If I tell some one that I had an argument with Dave most people will think that we ‘had words’. Flame wars are not the exception

[/ QUOTE ]

While argument and rhetoric are shot through with metaphors of war and aggression, conceiving argument as war is counterproductive. Presumably one reason people participate in forums such as these is to contribute to the discussion, and to influence the ideas of those they are responding too. This simply doesn't work if you are conceiving of what goes on here as a battle ground.

Why? Because you are trying to persuade others. And in order to persuade others, according to Kenneth Burke, you need to share some common ground first. You need to endear yourself to an audience, not piss them off.

This is why the Fox News channel is so counterproductive: the guests that appear on the shows come to do battle, and at the end of the day they leave with only the reinforced sense that their original position was correct.

While 2p2 has no shortage of aggression, partly because it is a male dominated environment, the forum works because people are engaged in a discussion, not a verbal altercation. There is a world of difference between the two.

[willie24]

interesting post. appreciated.