Making Assumptions about DU Posts...

[MineralMan]

One of the things I've noticed about some DUers, and I mean on both ends of the Democratic spectrum, is that they often appear to be making assumptions about other posters. Often, replies to posts in threads seem to indicate that they're not replying just to that post, but to a concept about the poster.

I've seen people misconstrue my posts, both OPs and replies to other posts, and post something that only makes sense if the poster has drawn some sort of incorrect conclusion about who I am, and extended their reply based on that, rather than what I have written. I see it all over the place, in posts and replies to all sorts of posters. This is not just about those who disagree with me, but about people from all sides of each issue.

I post what I think. I try to be clear about it. I don't post things that don't represent my thinking on a particular issue. I try to post in ways that are pretty plain-spoken, unless I'm writing some sort of fable or allegorical post or something like that, and I usually announce such a thing in the post title.

So, I'm confused when some people misconstrue what I have said and make assumptions that go beyond the actual content of what I have posted. It happens in threads I'm not a part of, too, with other posters and other replies. Misunderstandings seem to spring up like so many bean sprouts on DU, and I think it gets in the way of communication and causes arguments, when no argument really makes sense.

I'm guilty of doing this, myself, from time to time, but I'm trying to think longer before posting, to avoid such misunderstandings.

Putting people into categories, based on what is suspected, rather than what is said, seems counterproductive to me.

So, if I say I'm in favor of single-payer healthcare, that is a true statement. It has nothing to do with my support of any incremental progress in health care reform. I am in favor of single-payer healthcare. If that is not possible at the moment, I'll take a step in that direction. If I write a post saying that I support the HCR that has been passed, it does not mean that I am opposed to single-payer healthcare or that I don't want that to be adopted. It just means that I understand that single-payer isn't in the cards at the present time, but that reforms that help many people are better than no reforms at all. Politics are not binary, in my opinion. The U.S. isn't binary. It's an analog system, which can benefit from partial solutions as steps toward complete solutions. It is the direction that matters, in my opinion, especially when partial solutions are only won with extreme difficulty.

Each post stands on its own, and addresses what is being said at that time. If it is a reply, it applies only to the post being replied to.

Anyhow, that's the assumption I make, or try very hard to make, before I reply to a post. I'm replying to that post, not my imperfect memory of what the poster might have said in some other thread or about some other subject. Half the time, I don't even notice the name of the poster when I reply.

So, I'm betting that if we reply to the post, rather than to our preconceptions about the poster, we might get along a lot better. After all, we're all trying to put liberal policies in place. We may not agree all the time about how quickly that is possible or how far we can go, but that is the general goal here of almost all posters on DU, I think. Maybe there's the common ground we can meet on.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

1. Hear, here, MM.

I, on the other hand, you cannot trust
to say what I mean & mean what I must. :*

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Of course this was already unrec'd when I rec'd it.

There appears to be a group here that has joined for the sole purpose of unreccing every post they can

I think unreccing should not be anonymous. Those who unrec must put their ID where their negativity is.

and..BTW, Great post Mineral Man

[Liberal_in_LA]

6. of course. I'm never sure if they are unreccing the topic or the topic starter

[A-Schwarzenegger]

9. It's the Pro-Assumption Crowd.

[MineralMan]

10. Rec/Unrec is silly. I simply pay no attention to it.

That's not why I post.

[Fumesucker]

3. But the current health insurance reform is designed specifically to avoid single payer..

At least that is my take on it and I know I'm far from alone in that.

So if you supported mandated private insurance then you are a foe of single payer, not a supporter, you might *think* you're a supporter of single payer but in practice you are not.

In answer to your point about assumptions, we all make assumptions practically every minute of every day, without assumptions we would be paralyzed by having to analyze every single situation we run into from first principles. When the Smilodon leaps, the caveman dodges, assuming that Smilodon is looking for a crunchy snack, that assumption could well save his life. That people would make assumptions about a post made by a poster on a message board is totally human and quite understandable.

People develop a history and asking people to ignore another person's history is simply not a rational position. If GW Bush tells me it's sunny and dry outside, I'm putting on my raincoat and grabbing my umbrella, every word out of his mouth is a lie including "the" and "and"..

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

[steve2470]

4. I laughed out loud at this

"When the Smilodon leaps, the caveman dodges, assuming that Smilodon is looking for a crunchy snack, that assumption could well save his life."

Humor FTW !

[Fumesucker]

5. The best humor is true..

That has always been my assumption.

[steve2470]

7. I agree with you ! nt

[MineralMan]

8. The thing is that single-payer hadn't a prayer in 2010.

Yes, this bill has nothing to do with single-payer. It does, however, offer some help for a bunch of people. It's a weak, poor improvement, but it's an improvement. It's what could be rammed through this congress.

I still want single-payer. What I want even more is a Congress that's willing to pass it. That's my immediate goal.

Even so, that was just an example of what I'm talking about. It's not the subject of the OP.

[Fumesucker]

13. I know health care wasn't the subject..

But I couldn't avoid the bait..

It's my opinion that HIR will put off an actual outright reform of our unbelievably screwed up system for at least a generation more, which was the intent of the bill.

Interesting that you completely avoid commenting on my thoughts about the actual subject of your OP.

[MineralMan]

14. Not a problem. The history of a poster is not very often

known fully by anyone else on a discussion forum. It's inconceivable to me, for example, that anyone has read all of my posts. There are too many. If someone has, then that person needs to find another hobby, in my opinion.

That's why I try very hard to take each statement by each poster on DU for what that statement says, and comment on that, rather than on my imperfect memory about what that poster might have said at some other time.

I recognize your screen name, but I have no idea what threads you may have posted on, nor what you might have said on those threads. Should I? Are you an important enough DUer that I should know exactly where you stand on every issue? I know that I'm not that important. I post frequently, but I have no expectation that any particular DUer knows anything more about me than what I have just posted.

If someone knows, or thinks he/she knows a lot about me, I have to wonder why that would be. Seriously. I'm just not that interesting.

[Fumesucker]

24. There are some people who are far more predictable than others..

I probably recognize at least a couple of hundred screen names by now, yours is one that I do but I haven't "pigeonholed" you (yet) as to your ideology (and I think everyone has an ideology to a greater or lesser extent, some carry it to extremes though).

With some posters though it's gotten to the point when I read an OP on a particular subject from a particular POV I can just about tell you who wrote it 90% of the time.

There's probably a couple of score posters who I've come to associate with a definite single minded POV. Of course, we don't tend to do that so much with those we agree with as we do with those who post things which we really disagree on.

I'm not sure if you remember OPERATIONMINDCRIME but I think he was the single poster here who rubbed me the wrong way on every damn post he made. I was totally unsurprised when it turned out OMC was a freeper mole who went laughing back to FR to brag when he was finally TSed.. The funny thing to me was that OMC had more than just a few DUers who appreciated his style and POV.

My posting habits vary quite a bit with how busy I am IRL and what my mood is, I'll go days without posting sometimes and then other times I'll do a hundred or more in a single day.

[MineralMan]

32. I post a lot. I use DU as a time-filler in my day, especially when

I'm working on projects that have complex issues to resolve. I find that getting away from the project and reading and writing on DU, which has nothing whatever to do with my money work, can sometimes allow a resolution to work it's way through my tiny brain and emerge as a solution to whatever issue I'm trying to deal with in my work.

Plus, I type at about 120 wpm, so I'm pretty prolific.

[Fumesucker]

34. I'd type a lot faster if I didn't have two dogs sitting on my lap/chest when I'm at the computer..

:)

Yeah, DU is a pretty good distraction from the mundane world sometimes.

[MineralMan]

35. Cats are better. Mine just lies on the desk and sleeps.

The only time she's a problem is feeding time, when she wakes up and starts walking on my keyboard to get my attention.

[Fumesucker]

38. In Soviet Union cats own you..

Oh, wait.. That's true here too..

:)

[MineralMan]

39. Mine have me almost completely trained.

I do their bidding without fail.

[YankmeCrankme]

33. Thank you for that information!!

The circle is complete. lol

OMC was one of a handful of posters that drove me crazy reading their posts. There was no way that person was a Democrat or even a conservative Dem and you know you just weren't allowed to outright call him/her a reactionary or freeper. I agree it was surprising how many posters agreed with the drivel they posted.

Anyway, thanks again...I like a bit of closure. :)

[Odin2005]

21. The majority of Americans support universal heathcare.

"We don't have political support" = "it would piss off our corporate donors"

[jailthecrooks]

37. How about we piss on their corporate donors

Time to take Democracy back from the corporate jackwads.

[hfojvt]

18. that is a point I would make too

Sometimes people are simply not posting "what they believe" but are playing some sort of game, which may even be co-ordinated. I can post "Nader" and get some sort of reaction and my team-mate can post "Schiavo".

The other question is though, the people who think they see patterns which are not really there. People can "devlop" a history fairly quickly. My history should tell you that I am an argumentive pi$$ant, but some have concluded that Rahm must be paying me. (Note to Rahm. Next time you might consider hiring a better salesman, because the argumentive pi$$ant is not very effective except at accumulating detractors. As the saying goes "friends come and go, but enemies accumulate")

[MineralMan]

23. I'm sure you're right, but I think it's always better to assume

that people are posting what they really think, at that time. If they're playing a game, then that's on them. If you reply based on your actual opinion, then you've done all you can do. Let those who play games enjoy their games.

In most cases, a poster's history is seen differently by each other person, and through whatever lenses that other person is wearing. It's seldom an accurate history. Again, posting replied to the current post seems to me to make the most sense.

Then, too, there are a lot of people who assume that you have some idea who they are, even if it's not true. It's certainly not true with me, since I routinely don't pay attention to a poster's name, but focus on what's being said in the post.

[blondeatlast]

11. So true--I've been assumed to be an AZ SB 1070 supporter.

Nothing could be further, nor more laughable, from the truth. I vehemently oppose it.

:shrug:

Oddly enough, one who is most guilty of the assumption about me was very quick to jump into this thread.

[MineralMan]

12. I imagine that supporters of that bill are few and far between

on DU. I have no idea what caused such an assumption to be made about you. Very strange.

[DailyGrind51]

15. "Assumptions" are why economics will never be a "hard" science.

"Assumptions" can be wrong.

[pampango]

16. I think that sometimes it's a bit of "blast the messenger" if you have no response to the message.

I'm not sure how people have misconstrued your posts into preconceptions about you.

It would be nicer if people responded to the ideas in a post rather than their perception of the poster which may or not be accurate anyway. Most of us come to DU to read the ideas of others, post our own, convince or be convinced or just learn something new.

I have had many discussions here with people who obviously don't agree with me, but they stick to discussions of ideas, opinions, examples, etc. They don't go to "If you don't agree with me you must be __________." We don't come here to see ideas ignored while the messengers are bashed; apparently under the assumption that a poster's ideas and comments will be discredited if he or she can be labeled or categorized based on someone else's (mis)perception.

Perhaps it's true that the name-calling (koolaid drinker, xenophobe, free-trader, Obama hater, etc.) starts when someone has difficulty responding the ideas/facts in a post. The next time someone responds with a preconception about you rather than to the content of your post, maybe you can just assume that they had no substantial response to your post so they went to the "messenger blast".

[MineralMan]

28. You may be right. It does seem like a lot of posters who

attack another poster don't really have much to say about the subject of the post they're replying to. Thanks for that insight. I'll keep that in mind when someone just rants without addressing the subject.

[KurtNYC]

48. You make many good points -- I would add that sarcasm

is very common here and it is 1) a form of bullying, and 2) does not advance facts or an argument that counter what is disagreed with.

[hlthe2b]

17. Not just a problem with DU posts, but electronic communications

in general... I can't tell you how often an email I thought to be totally bland and non-controversial was misread or misinterpreted. At least on DU, you can add emoticons to try to make your intent clear. But, I agree with MM-- we need to give more benefit of the doubt.

Which brings me to the point of those who angrily (and abusively) castigate DUers for not KNOWING that their post was sarcastic-- Most DUers simply clarify that their post was sarcastic, but some DUers really do make a stink about it in an attempt to make all who questioned their post feel stupid, I suppose. Sorry, but if you are going to be sarcastic or expect your "dripping cynicism" to be understood, use the emoicon.

[DailyGrind51]

22. I try to avoid internal e-mails at work for the same reason.

ANYTHING can be misinterpreted, if either the author or reader has had a bad day.

[WinkyDink]

19. 100% agree, esp. as to my "replying (only) to that post."

[zipplewrath]

20. Different forms of debate

There are various styles of debate, I tend towards the Socratic style, which means I may ask questions in a sort of challenging tone. And that can include restating your position, or a potential consequence of your positions in a less favoring frame. That can come across as "putting words in your mouth" or similar concerns. It will give the presumption that I "know" other beliefs you hold. That isn't really what is going on, I'm merely attempting to put your argument in a different context. To be honest, I rarely pay attention to whom the author is, merely what was written.

[MineralMan]

26. Right. I never mind if someone asks me a question to get

clarification. And I don't care how they put their question. I'll just answer as best I can. And you're like me in not paying attention to who's writing a post. Frankly, I don't much care. The post's the thing I'm interested in, not the personality.

[Beetwasher]

25. That's Part Of It, But Another Big Part Is The Misconception That A Lot Of Posters Have That Their

Opinion=Fact.

For example, with health care, how do you argue with someone who is not willing to admit that HCR is NOT indisputably nothing more than a corporate giveaway? There are many here who are not willing to admit that that is in fact their opinion. It may be true and may turn out to be that way, but I don't think so, and right now we don't have all the facts to be able to indisputably make that determination because the legislation is not even in full effect.

[MineralMan]

29. Good point. HCR is a good example. I doubt that many here

have read the entire measure. I know I haven't. And it doesn't actually come into full force until 2014. I don't know what the end results of it will be, in terms of how much help it will give people who need help. But, we'll find out.

Yes, I think we sometimes jump the gun in misinterpreting what the results will be from measures. I still want single-payer health care for everyone. I have it, more or less, now that I'm on Medicare, but I also have a supplement policy that is from an insurance company. I imagine that a hybrid system like that is going to be part of our health care, however it ends up being designed.

[Fumesucker]

36. Interesting how you ignore those who are convinced that HIR is not in any way, shape or form..

A corporate giveaway..

You reinforce the point I made above, we pay more attention to and recognize better those individuals who we strongly disagree with than those who are "on our side".

[Beetwasher]

40. Where Did I Do That?

I used an example, doesn't mean I ignored anything. Personally, I see more people convinced that it IS in fact a corporate giveaway than the other way around. But that's MY opinion.

[Fumesucker]

42. Your "example" was totally unsurprising as is your opinion..

You are one of the posters I mentioned above whose ideology is fairly obvious.

But that's also because I largely disagree with you hence I notice you more than someone I agree with.

Just human nature really.

[Beetwasher]

45. As Opposed To Your Obvious Agenda?

The reason you take humbrage with my post is because you are one of those people who thinks their opinions are indisputable facts.

And what, exactly is my fairly obvious ideology? Praytell. :eyes:

[OnyxCollie]

41. Information that is supportive of one's position

is often viewed less critically than that which opposes.

Tabor, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769.

A Theory of Motivated Political Reasoning

Our starting premise (following Kunda 1987, 1990) is that
all reasoning is motivated. While citizens are always constrained
in some degree to be accurate, they are typically
unable to control their preconceptions, even when encouraged
to be objective. This tension between the drives
for accuracy and belief perseverance underlies all human
reasoning. Keeping it simple and focusing on reasoning
about things political, citizens are goal oriented
(Chaiken and Trope 1999). Their motives fall into two
broad categories: accuracy goals, which motivate them to
seek out and carefully consider relevant evidence so as to
reach a correct or otherwise best conclusion (Baumeister
and Newman 1994; Fiske and Taylor 1991), and partisan
goals, which motivate them to apply their reasoning powers
in defense of a prior, specific conclusion (Kruglanski
and Webster 1996). In our theory, partisan goals and subsequent
selective information processing are driven by automatic
affective processes that establish the direction and
strength of biases (Lodge and Taber 2005; Taber, Lodge,
and Glathar 2001). Sociopolitical concepts are “hot” for
most people, so that associated attitudes come to mind
automatically along with, indeed prior to, semantic information.
One’s likes or dislikes for Hillary Clinton,
for example, are aroused even before conscious awareness
of her identity and other semantic associations—
that she is a Democratic senator, a woman, and a former
first lady (Morris et al. 2003). These “hot cognitions,”
in our view, motivate the partisan goals that drive normatively
suspect selectivity in subsequent information
processing.

Surprisingly, given the widespread acceptance of
selective attention, exposure, and judgment processes
throughout the social sciences, the empirical evidence
from social psychology is far more mixed and qualified
than is often believed. The empirical status of selective
attention and, in particular, selective exposure can best
be characterized as uncertain (Abelson et al. 1968; Eagly
and Chaiken 1993, 1998; Freedman and Sears 1965; Frey
1986; Greenwald et al. 2002; Kunda 1990; Lord 1992;
Pomerantz, Chaiken, and Tordesillas 1995;Wicklund and
Brehm 1976).

Selective information processes are particularly important
because of their impact on subsequent attitudes
and behavior and because of their implications for the distribution
of aggregate public opinion (Zaller 1992). Theoretically,
we should expect attitude polarization: those
holding strong prior attitudes become attitudinally more
extreme on reading pro and con arguments because they
assimilate congruent evidence uncritically but vigorously
counterargue incongruent evidence (Ditto and Lopez
1992; Rucker and Petty 2004). Unfortunately, the empirical
pedigree of this classic expectation is even more dubious
than the various selectivity hypotheses. The most
cited support for attitude polarization comes from the
Lord, Ross, and Lepper (1979) study of attitudes toward
the death penalty, but even this evidence is unconvincing
because it is based on subjective rather than direct measures
of polarization. Rather than comparing t1 and t2
measures of attitudes, Lord and his colleagues asked subjects
to report subjectively whether their attitudes had become
more extreme after evaluating pro and con evidence
on the efficacy of capital punishment. Moreover, numerous
attempts to replicate polarization using direct t1 and
t2 measures of social and political attitudes have failed
(e.g., Kuhn and Lao 1996; Miller et al. 1993; Pomerantz,
Chaiken, and Tordesillas 1995).

~snip~

Our theory, at first glance, might suggest we are arguing
that people are closed-minded, consciously deceiving
themselves to preserve their prior beliefs. On the contrary,
a key argument we make (Lodge and Taber 2005; Taber
2003) is that people are largely unaware of the power of
their priors. It is not that they openly lie to themselves.
Rather, they try hard to be fair-minded or at least preserve
the “illusion of objectivity” (Pyszczynski and Greenberg
1987), but they are frequently unable to do so. On the
other hand, as the persuasion literature clearly shows
(Petty and Wegener 1998) and as attested to in the study
of voting behavior (Aldrich, Sullivan, and Borgida 1989;
Rabinowitz andMacDonald 1989), even those committed
to their positions can be persuaded by strong and credible
counterevidence (Festinger 1957). But the research we
report suggests that, once attitudes have become crystallized,
persuasion is difficult. Asymmetrical skepticism—
as would be reflected in the type of thoughts that come
to mind as we read pro and con arguments—deposits in
mind all the evidence needed to justify and bolster our
priors with a clear conscience (Ditto et al. 1998).

[Fumesucker]

43. True enough..

Some people take that tendency to the bleeding edge though. :)

[EFerrari]

27. When people are in the same room over 80% of their interaction is visual.

So, communicating on a message board starts off as a minefield from "go" because there are very few visual cues up against a lifetime of habit.

[MineralMan]

30. You're right, which is why we need to be extra careful not to

read things into forum posts that are not there. It's also a good reason to try as hard as we can to communicate as clearly as we can. Smilies are sort of useful, but not as much as they might be, and they get misinterpreted, too.

[OneGrassRoot]

31. Huge K&R n/t

[NNN0LHI]

44. Here is a real short answer to this fairly long but well thought out good question

People can't see each others facial expressions when communicating through a computer.

I catch myself actually making facial expressions as I type but the reader can't see them.

If they could see my face they would know what I am writing is harmless and not said with any mean intent. But they can't. I think we all do this.

So we have the confusion.

Over many years I think people pick up on this. I suspect that is why I wasn't banned a long time ago. Skinner can't see my face but has known me long enough to know I don't say things with malice. Because I know words can be as bad as cutting someone with a knife.

I think you and I almost got into a little tit-tat around here once after I posted something with a smile on my face and not realizing you probably hadn't known me long enough to know what I said was tongue in cheek.

It happens all the time and its no big deal either.

Don

Oops. I just noticed hlthe2b covered this above in post #17. He did it a lot more succinctly too.

[applegrove]

46. It is the nature of the text we use to communicate. That is why we have smilies...especially

the sarcasm smilie. We all have different writing styles. Me for example I can be vague.

[laughingliberal]

47. I think this is a first: K&R. nt