I take this as a sign that some here are more intent on "winning" than on having a discussion.
Specifically, I've found it important to set expectations before setting out a point or comment. People read things with their prejudices and viewpoints at the fore. If you are to get a neutral reading, you must work to create a neutral setting first. This then makes your comment long-winded and apparently initially rambling, off-topic or irrelevant.
To counter that problem one must write very, very succinctly, but clearly.
This is all hard work. However, if you think it's worth making your point, it's the best way to give it a chance.
I prefer reading and writing the Tolkein end, verbose colorful, almost baroque, writing that exercises the language without feeling archaic vs the Hemmingway method which I always felt was overly restricted and terse.
I find this is very much a function of the reader/listener. People who have a high degree of curiosity, and what I call "intellectual integrity" are always working out implications from multiple viewpoints. My archetype for this sort of person is my old Automata professor. I find that it was zero effort to present something as neutral to him.
I also find: the less effort required to get a neutral reading, the more productive the discussion.
I would claim that even in the 400 days I've been here on HN I've seen this happening. When I first arrived it was possible to have a short, to-the-point, informative comment that required the reader to think hard before they got the most out of it. Most of them did.
Now it's necessary to create longer, more detailed, more direct comments that set the scene, make their point, put the point in context, and draw conclusions. This is an inevitable consequence of a larger audience. It also means that the subsequent discussion will be "diluted" because of the wider range of experience and ability of the participants. As far as I can seem it cannot be avoided.
Nor is it necessarily to be regarded as a criticism. If you want a broad range of opinions so you can learn from all points of view then you need a large population from which to draw them. You then must realise that it's not the same as it used to be, and one's style must change to match the new audience.
Finally, I do not think this is a question of "intellectual integrity," and labelling it as such is unhelpful. People will always tend to have an opinion, and setting it aside during a discussion in order to listen/read dispassionately is highly unnatural. It is better to work with human nature rather than demand that your audience set aside their natural tendencies, perhaps especially in the West, where schools are starting to require that their students have an opinion, even when they don't actually know anything.
I think it's quite helpful. Having to hedge myself against prejudice and sloppy thinking isn't helping me as much as spending time actually having substantive discussion.
especially in the West, where schools are starting to require that their students have an opinion, even when they don't actually know anything.
It seems we agree on some fundamental level. I think the ability and diligence to direct skepticism at oneself is basic and essential. If one does not know how to do that, one doesn't really know how to think.
RoG> ... I do not think this is a question of
RoG> "intellectual integrity," and labelling it
RoG> as such is unhelpful.
StC0> I think it's quite helpful. Having to hedge
StC0> myself against prejudice and sloppy thinking
StC0> isn't helping me as much as spending time
StC0> actually having substantive discussion.
You could consider a better label for the near inhuman, almost Vulcan, ability to put asides one's own opinions and beliefs in order to listen to the points being made by someone else. Calling it ""intellectual integrity" is, I think, conveying the wrong message, and caries too much baggage.
And yes, I suspect we are more in agreement than not. I, perhaps, am giving more leeway to those who are not trained to set aside their natural tendencies. It's something I've had to learn, at times painfully, upon entering a business environment after doing research in pure math. It seems to be a requirement, and simply one of those things one has to do in order to communicate effectively with people from the "Real World."
Sad, but true. I've had to learn to live with it.
Either that or something you thought was neutral didn't come across as such. Tone is an absolute pain to get right online. A few times I've done the same thing; made an off hand comment and gone away. Only to come back a little later and found it spawned pages of argument :-(
On an internet forum such as this, that's unnecessary, but it's a habit that a lot of people have.