Assertions, challenges, and polite discourse

[r0g]

Ben Finney wrote:
> r0g <aioe.org at technicalbloke.com> writes:
> 
>> Ben Finney wrote:
>>> People sometimes get upset — on an immediate, irrational level —
>>> when their assertions are challenged. There's no denying that
>>> emotions entangle our discourse, and our interpretation of the
>>> discourse of others.
>> That's truer than most people appreciate, to the extent that it's a
>> good idea to tread very lightly when correcting strangers if you want
>> rational discourse to continue. Even small amounts of negativity
>> commonly provoke large threat responses in people which in turn
>> inhibit rational thinking...
> 
> I prefer the strategy of acknowledging and desensitising this irrational
> response, by making it obvious that every assertion expressed is
> inevitably an exposure of that assertion to challenge and criticism.


I see what you're saying but the "tough love" approach has been shown to
be ineffective in many of the situations it has been tried in, it's
something people instinctively think ought to work but rarely does in
the modern world. Anyway, it's only an irrational response in the sense
that it is likely to provoke irrationality in your counterpart which
isn't a good outcome for either of you.

To our brains it is a very natural and powerful response. That it's
emotional doesn't necessarily make it irrational. Bear in mind that
evolution is the distilled rationality of countless generations and to
fight it is to engage in a very one sided battle. Seriously, watch that
video I recommended, it's very interesting and delves into the neurology
of this exact subject.


> 
> Challenging assertions and criticising reasoning are both healthy and in
> insufficient supply, and I want them to be normal and routine. I try to
> act accordingly.
> 


OK that's fair enough as a general principle but I disagree we are
insufficiently supplied with either here on usenet. I reckon we have too
much if anything. I do understand that a balance must be struck and the
bar ought to err on the high side after, all this group isn't yahoo
answers but neither is it a peer reviewed journal or a legal proceeding.

And anyway, my main point was concerning the tone used when challenging
(perceived) falsehoods rather than the rationale behind challenging
(perceived) falsehoods. Naturally it's right to correct non-trivial
technical falsehoods in the context of this group.

Roger.