Attacking the messenger allows one to disregard the message

[justinelle 0]

 

I have often questioned why some people have to cling on to their fixed ideas, or opinions.  Defending fixed ideas is rarely questioned as knee-jerk  reactions  make defending ourselves an automatic response, as who publicly dares to afford to be wrong.  No one like to feel humiliation, so acting emotionally allows one to not to address the message, but insult the messenger, and turn the discussion into something safely familiar, making it PERSONAL.

 

Maybe some people feel that their ideas are part of  them as a person.  Their ideas or points of view have become a fixed part of their personal identity.  So when one questions these ideas, they often feel as if it them themselves, that is under scrutiny.  They are not just defending their ideas, they are actually defending their identity, a distressed psychological state.

 

Insulting the messenger sorts this out one immediately, as for such an individual  it allows them to find a solution that allows them to continue thinking they were actually right.  This attitude allows people to hang onto that personal idea, even it is wrong, wilfully disregarding evidence and demonstrating unreasonable, inflexible, stubbornness. Why they have to cling onto their own ideas is not questioned as they are defending themselves as such a person might feel they cannot afford  to be wrong. 

 

Instead of being defensive, one should go after the argument and not the person and always be suspicious of deceptive argumentative strategy,  whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

 

 

I am of the OPINION that with argument comes knowledge, and thinking objectively  allows a person to gain perspectives and insights helping them develop and grow.  Having the choice of  many OPINIONS allows a person  to decide for themselves what is most persuasive, on the basis they are open to other peoples perspectives. This might allow one opening up to new ideas, becoming more creative in ourselves.  We can therefore defend our own ideas but only though being open to new ideas, which might make us more willing to change our own minds.

 

Anyway this is why I contribute things to the forum as I do, its about bringing something to the party, to share and enrich,  so all can benefit,  letting the evidence speak for itself, and then people can decide on the merits of that evidence.  So next time  when you feel someone tells you that you are wrong, or insults you on this forum not through using evidence but through their OPINION it not their fault, its their way of defending their personal identity,  which allows them to feel they are equally contributing to the debate, so just forgive them as they cannot really help themselves, and try and induce them to seek facts and evidence so they can feel part of something bigger than themselves and not apart from it.

Edited February 21, 2019 by justinelle

[melthebell 862]

Or some people find it funny.....or get angry and it just comes out

[Happ 25]

I am unsure on the point trying to be made. Respond about about the topic without making it personal?  If so, that’s a lot of words to suggest something that is widely understood, especially if you are referring to online mediums.

[Waldo 96]

Great post, OP!

 

Sometimes people are only party wrong. Issues can be multifaceted and in some regards a person may be correct, and in others, they may be mistaken...

 

Not only is there an art to being wrong; we should pace more value on the evolution of our views, than on how others perceive us; but also, there is an art to being right...

 

We shouldn't feel we are superior or a better person because we have a more accurate understanding of an issue. Nor should we belittle others (we ultimately demean ourselves when we try to demean others) who do not share our views; the art is in skilfully probing other's views, asking the right questions, getting them to clarify their position such that they see for themselves where they are erroneous. You're doing something positive and helpful then, rather than just feeding your own ego, trying to feel superior etc (they're wrong, I'm right, I 'won' the argument, woohoo).

Edited February 21, 2019 by Waldo

[tinfoilhat 11]

I wonder how many times the OP has has his views changed by something hes read on here?

[lil-minx92 10]

I disregarded the OP's message on the basis it was too long. I only managed the first couple of sentences 🤩

[Halibut 12]

3 hours ago, Happ said:

I am unsure on the point trying to be made. Respond about about the topic without making it personal?  If so, that’s a lot of words to suggest something that is widely understood, especially if you are referring to online mediums.

I agree. Poor writing really.

[Guest makapaka]

10 hours ago, justinelle said:

 

I have often questioned why some people have to cling on to their fixed ideas, or opinions.  Defending fixed ideas is rarely questioned as knee-jerk  reactions  make defending ourselves an automatic response, as who publicly dares to afford to be wrong.  No one like to feel humiliation, so acting emotionally allows one to not to address the message, but insult the messenger, and turn the discussion into something safely familiar, making it PERSONAL.

 

Maybe some people feel that their ideas are part of  them as a person.  Their ideas or points of view have become a fixed part of their personal identity.  So when one questions these ideas, they often feel as if it them themselves, that is under scrutiny.  They are not just defending their ideas, they are actually defending their identity, a distressed psychological state.

 

Insulting the messenger sorts this out one immediately, as for such an individual  it allows them to find a solution that allows them to continue thinking they were actually right.  This attitude allows people to hang onto that personal idea, even it is wrong, wilfully disregarding evidence and demonstrating unreasonable, inflexible, stubbornness. Why they have to cling onto their own ideas is not questioned as they are defending themselves as such a person might feel they cannot afford  to be wrong. 

 

Instead of being defensive, one should go after the argument and not the person and always be suspicious of deceptive argumentative strategy,  whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

 

 

I am of the OPINION that with argument comes knowledge, and thinking objectively  allows a person to gain perspectives and insights helping them develop and grow.  Having the choice of  many OPINIONS allows a person  to decide for themselves what is most persuasive, on the basis they are open to other peoples perspectives. This might allow one opening up to new ideas, becoming more creative in ourselves.  We can therefore defend our own ideas but only though being open to new ideas, which might make us more willing to change our own minds.

 

Anyway this is why I contribute things to the forum as I do, its about bringing something to the party, to share and enrich,  so all can benefit,  letting the evidence speak for itself, and then people can decide on the merits of that evidence.  So next time  when you feel someone tells you that you are wrong, or insults you on this forum not through using evidence but through their OPINION it not their fault, its their way of defending their personal identity,  which allows them to feel they are equally contributing to the debate, so just forgive them as they cannot really help themselves, and try and induce them to seek facts and evidence so they can feel part of something bigger than themselves and not apart from it.

This just looks like a longwinded justification for previous offensive, prejudiced posts.

[RollingJ 1,981]

@makapaka I totally agree with your statement above, and to be honest I wonder just what the OP is trying to say. Having read both threads created by them - but not any others they have posted in - I just think 'a lot of hot air and no substance'. I could be wrong, but this individual comes across as a little inadequate to me.

[Waldo 96]

I think I tend to place more importance on what someone is trying to say, rather than the skill with which they say it. I'd rather someone try unskillfully to express something of value, than to beautifully express something banal. Too many turd polishers in the world already!

[RollingJ 1,981]

@Waldo

Edited February 21, 2019 by RollingJ

[Waldo 96]

Some observations, that I'm seeing in the OP...

 

We have a tendency to become indentified with the positions we hold. Such that an attack on a position we hold, we may see as an attack on ourselves, and so we respond emotively.

 

People don't like to be seen to be 'wrong', and so will continue to defend a position that they may secretly be moving away from.

Edited February 21, 2019 by Waldo