On the subject of a more elevated discussion
I am simply pasting my comment on a thread on FB:
If it interests people than so be it
The setting: A tarrifs discussion in a FB group on Austrian Economics
Back and forths were very helpful to me and yet seemed just slightly off, so I chimed in.
------------
As someone learning about the subject I appreciate that there is some back and forth on Differing opinions. Challenges and responses.
I do not feel like I would learn what the arguments against (Austrian Economics) would be if we all simply agreed... unless many took it upon themselves to denote the arguments and then the responses.
However I do not see the use in saying "you said" "she said" or statements like "I don't understand why you're in this group?" I think they pull our attention Away from learning principles and elevated discussion.
Perhaps these types of words and discussion methods are only good for keeping the person motivated in the discussion but only because they feel they have to defend themselves and not defend the principle. If they felt less attacked personally they might be willing to discuss for learning instead of discuss for the sake of argument only.
I like that we can persist in discussion in this group (even when differing) and it does help someone like me, who doesn't know the answers nor the arguments.
While some of the questioning of why some people believe a certain way are helpful, I believe it can be done in a tone that pushes and persuades us all to want to believe in the best principles and ideas available.
I think we can still attack false principles with zeal, it is not the disagreement I have problems with but the method of verbalizing it.
Just ever so slight changes can help so much. People seem to spend so much time caring about spelling things correctly people forget to care about the things they're actually saying.
The information being shared on these threads are of use to me (and others) it is time well spent, (gasp even on FB)
But I don't see it as sustainable unless slight changes are made to make it an even more inspiring arena.
As someone learning about the subject I appreciate that there is some back and forth on Differing opinions. Challenges and responses.
I do not feel like I would learn what the arguments against (Austrian Economics) would be if we all simply agreed... unless many took it upon themselves to denote the arguments and then the responses.
However I do not see the use in saying "you said" "she said" or statements like "I don't understand why you're in this group?" I think they pull our attention Away from learning principles and elevated discussion.
Perhaps these types of words and discussion methods are only good for keeping the person motivated in the discussion but only because they feel they have to defend themselves and not defend the principle. If they felt less attacked personally they might be willing to discuss for learning instead of discuss for the sake of argument only.
I like that we can persist in discussion in this group and it does help someone like me, who doesn't know the answers nor the arguments.
While some of the questioning of why some people believe a certain way are helpful, I believe it can be done in a tone that pushes and persuades us all to want to believe in the best principles and ideas available.
I think we can still attack false principles with zeal, it is not the disagreement I have problems with but the method of verbalizing it. Just ever so slight changes can help so much. People seem to spend so much time caring about spelling things correctly people forget to care about the things they're actually saying.
The information being shared on these threads are of use to me (and others) it is time well spent, (gasp even on FB)But I don't see it as sustainable unless slight changes are made to make it an even more inspiring arena.
