I am disagreeable

[Jon]

When I did the Hexaco personality inventory test, one of the traits it identifies is how agreeable/disagreeable you are. Here is my score. Off the chart!

I am starting to believe this is the case too. When seeking advice in many different online discussion forums, I seem to get embroiled in arguments over all sorts of things. All I am trying to do is get answers, but perhaps my politics is a little lacking.

If the telly says x, the crowd says x, Hillary says x, Theresa May says x, I think to myself, "What do I think?", not what do they think. I am not that influenced by what everybody else says, but rather the logic behind the matter. For example, those of you here know my views on voting. I am in near complete isolation on this viewpoint. [Edit: In fairness, most people misinterpret and distort my views on voting, claiming I don't think voting is a good thing. That is not my position, at all. I believe voting is a paradox of sorts.]

I was seeking advice on how best to minimise the care bills costs for my mother. My post on a discussion forum about this seemed to lead to attacks on my character (as I perceived it), mistating my arguments and consequently I was not really getting the information I was seeking. The moderator ended up closing the thread.

Perhaps I have grown less diplomatic over the years. I can imagine Uncle Gizmo here being very tactful. His posts come across with a latent kindless associated with them. I could learn a lot from them!

Do any members here find themselves in conflict very much, or are you living an online (or offline) life of peace, harmony and friendliness?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I want to divide the question here.

If the telly says x, the crowd says x, Hillary says x, Theresa May says x, I think to myself, "What do I think?", not what do they think.

Well OF COURSE you do. The only way you can internally analyze something is to compare it to your own sounding board as the first part of that very important question: "Here is this thing. What do I need to do about it?" If you are aligned to the Eastern Buddhist and Zen philosophies, you don't ask "WHY" first. You determine the need for action first. THEN maybe you can get around to "WHY."

What happens after that? You are on your own nickel from there.

When I worked for the U.S. Navy (as contractor), I made it a point when people asked me what I thought about something to tell them, "Per contract, my job title is neither liar nor lawyer nor politician. You will get my honest answer, and remember - YOU asked!" I tried to be gentle in my answer and make it devoid of personality, particularly if it was in opposition to the viewpoints of others who were present. But that was simply "not making it personal." It was business. But if it came to political correctness, I did my best to slice through that and get to the techie answer.

Jon, you might know from the Access forum that there are times when I have flat-out pissed off someone looking for help. Usually when they ask for unreasonable things. Thinks like help with their homework that was due tomorrow and they had skipped too many lectures. Got no patience with that kind of irresponsibility.

"Growing less diplomatic over the years" to me is actually a warning of a different sort. I absolutely have never been a diplomat. On the brain, on the lips. But I am NOT growling less diplomatic. On the other hand, I am growing less patient with people who use "political correctness" as a battering ram to espouse attitudes that 20 years ago I would have diagnosed as "crap for brains."

 

[Bee]

I generally have an online and offline life of harmony. I dislike thinking I may have upset others and if/when I do, it's not intentional. I'm very forgiving and resilient. I'm also tactful and diplomatic because I need to be able to get the best out of people in my job. I'm also very forgiving if someone behaves badly towards me, but that doesn't mean I am a doormat. To illustrate my point, I received a copy of my psychometric test report yesterday for the job I recently accepted. Here's a snippet:

"DESCRIPTIVE WORDS
Careful, diplomatic, accurate, amiable, non-aggressive, detailed, logical, friendly, accommodating, persistent, worrier, unconventional, self-controlled, thorough, dependable, loyal, asks "how", "why" and "who"."

Jon, the whole subject of care is a minefield because many people can't separate logic from emotion - and many of those emotions are negative ones such as grief, shame, fear, anxiety. Unwittingly, you may have prodded a nerve with some who can only relate your questions to their own experiences.

 

[fatmt]

Do any members here find themselves in conflict very much, or are you living an online (or offline) life of peace, harmony and friendliness?

This is a really fascinating topic - I will share some thoughts (which mostly apply to a pre-Covid19 era):

I usually see some significant differences between offline and online interaction. Internet forums and other related social platforms are for the most part made of exchanges of written text only, as a component said to be quite fundamental in communication, i.e. body language, is missing.
Sure, you can add some media such as pics or videos, to your text; emoticons may help by adding meaning to certain sentences that otherwise risk misinterpretation, but I don't believe these online exchanges will ever be able to compete with being able to express yourself face to face.

In many situations, the face to face aspect is still regarded as the most personable way to interact with others, which is why many critical tasks are carried out this way: just look at the EU summit concluded earlier today to agree how to boost the economy post-Covid19. Even in a social distancing climate the face to face interaction is deemed pivotal.
When there is the need to negotiate something, or communicate important news, most people tend to adopt a more accomodating stance when meeting in person than with other means of communication. I think many of us tend to be a bit more 'diplomatic'. For example, I may have just called my next door neighbour an idiot in my head for parking his car too close to mine, but I'd never say that to his face. I would just approach him and ask kindly if he can move it.

On the other hand, being online gives me a certain sense of being 'a few levels removed' from conflict. In many cases my true identity is relatively hidden, my exchange to and fro is asynchronous, I can't be seen or heard... in other words, the online medium tends to 'embolden' me to say, sometimes more openly, what I think.

The online/offline aspect of communication deserves more consideration, I think: I have the scars to prove that many online posts can be easily misinterpreted. Maybe I wanted to be witty or convey a certain message to lighten the mood, and the message was read as hostile.
In other cases I may have asked a genuine (in my mind) question such as "is there another way to see it?", only to realize, days later, that it might have been construed as rhetorical.

Most of this stuff either does not happen or happens much less in person. I am able to convey with my face that I am genuinely interested in an answer to a question, or perhaps the deadpan delivery of a joke can help break the tension. Any difficult conversation I may have had at work was always steered in a better direction thanks to face to face interaction.

There are other aspects to consider, e.g. the average internet user's debating skill level and experience, or whether a part of social media is being weaponized to destabilize society (so some online personas create chaos on purpose), but for me the online Vs. face to face aspect is quite significant.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

In another forum we had a very disruptive individual who eventually got banned for being a really sophisticated troll. He attempted to tell us that his online persona and offline persona were different. He tried to tell us "You would like me if you got to know me." But he couldn't understand why I didn't ever really like him. I'll avoid details, but whenever you see someone who makes that kind of claim, you have to wonder why they weren't being themselves in the first place if they thought they were that likeable.

Personally, on some of the "public" forums like Yahoo!Answers and a few others, where it is possible to post anonymously, I think there are some "agitators" such as you mention, fatmt. Personally, I would revoke ALL anonymous posting - though the truth is that the ability to post under a nom de plume already makes it possible to hide. Which is why I try to arrange to use the same screen name everywhere I post.

- Richard

 

[fatmt]

Which is why I try to arrange to use the same screen name everywhere I post.

In an increasingly digital and "big data-driven" world there are those among us, though, who are privacy conscious. I, for example, happen to be one of them. I don't like nor do I subscribe to the ever-encroaching role that some social media have on our lives.

Sites like Facebook, for example, say that you must register with your real name. Of course they would say that. They make more money if your real name is commoditised. Take insurers, for example. If you need a life insurance, some insurers go check if you are on FB to see if you are into risky sports, and if you are, the premium goes up.

But aside from our privacy preferences, I think there is a significant gap between online discourse and face-to-face interaction, because of the reasons I mentioned above.

To answer Jon's original question, I have no problem in voicing my opinion and if I happen to disagree with my counterpart, so be it. But I'm a big believer in communication as means to narrow gaps in misunderstanding. I'd say that if communication (online or otherwise) improved, many disagreements would probably dissolve.

 

[Jon]

If you need a life insurance, some insurers go check if you are on FB to see if you are into risky sports, and if you are, the premium goes up.

Perhaps also remember that if you don't do extreme sports, and the insurance company knows that information about you from your Facebook page, you might get a lower premium than if they don't have access to your Facebook page. Without them having that access, then you "might" do extreme sports and so they will have to factor that in.

Let me hit you with another angle. Is it fair for other people to subsidise your own risk, by denying the insurance company access to your real risk? Is that ethical? Something to consider!

 

[fatmt]

Perhaps also remember that if you don't do extreme sports, and the insurance company knows that information about you from your Facebook page, you might get a lower premium than if they don't have access to your Facebook page. Without them having that access, then you "might" do extreme sports and so they will have to factor that in.

Let me hit you with another angle. Is it fair for other people to subsidise your own risk, by denying the insurance company access to your real risk? Is that ethical? Something to consider!

The extreme sports and insurance was just an example. Sure, ethically speaking you give your insurer all the relevant details, otherwise you may be liable of insurance fraud.

But that is a different conversation. What I'm referring to here is that, right now, in the majority of cases you as the owner of your own data, are not aware nor informed about who looks at it and what they do with it. Have you seen any documentaries about Cambridge Analytica, for example?

I don't want to go off-topic here, but that's an interesting discussion to be had. I think I saw a Brexit thread in here, so this would certainly be relevant for that.

 

[Jon]

For me, I have little concern for my data. I envisage I am just one bit of data in a sea of millions. I would rather have ads shown that interest me than irrelevant ones. Also, advertising is the currency of the internet. All these websites are funded by money, which adverts help generate. If there were no ads, there wouldn't be all these companies providing platforms for free. So, if we curtail their ability to make revenue from the advertising, then we also cut our noses off to split our face. We get less of these great services, because they cannot be funded as effectively.

Regarding insurance ethics, they may not ask for that data. Instead, their policy maybe to just go Facebook you.

Are we the owner of our data? If you walk into a shop, do you own the data that you entered the store?

 

[fatmt]

@Jon don't get me wrong. I am all for the free model supported by advertising. I am making a different point here: informed consent.

Today most companies bury the informed consent so deep that people don't have a clue about what they are signing up to. People should be free to provide their own data to whomever they like, as long as they are aware that they are actually providing it, which is clearly not the case many times.

Are we the owner of our data? If you walk into a shop, do you own the data that you entered the store?

You bet we own our data!

If you walk into a shop there's no data. Data means a digital record of information that can identify you as unique individual.

 

[Jon]

If you do not give informed consent, do you think the website owner has the right to prevent you from using their service? GDPR rules don't allow them to.

For me, the popups everywhere I go is just friction on me using the internet. I am constantly having to click the damn things! I must have clicked about 20 today so far. I know that 99% of websites take my data. Why constantly inform me every time I go there? It just seems completely silly to me. Have a popup instead if on the very rare occasion a website doesn't take your data.

When you walk into the shop, you are walking data: approximate age, exact location height, clothing, hair details, weight, area of interest, time spent in store and so on. There is CCTV footage everywhere in shops. That is digital. To me, there is no difference. You reveal more about yourself from going into shops than visiting a website. When you are visiting a website, how do they even know it is you, rather than a family member or a friend?

 

[fatmt]

There's a very entertaining TED video that centres on this concept:

The internet gave us access to everything; but it also gave everything access to us.