Why Many Online Discussions Fail
One of the few outposts of actual debate on the Internet is the aptly named ‘dialogues’ section of Slate. This section, appearing periodically in the online magazine, captures the essence of debate: flushing out arguments and discussing their merits and faults. It is a pleasure to read because the back and forth arguments give insight in varying perspectives surrounding a particular issue. In my experience, such engagement fails to arise out of most online discussion. At the risk of sounding like an intellectual curmudgeon, I examine the traps that ‘dialogues’ successfully avoids and that also keep most online discourse at a level of mere prattle.More often than not, a writer skirts answering questions and does so in far less graceful fashion than a seasoned Washington politico. Counterclaims are ignored outright or adamantly defended like the screeching talking-heads on CNN’s Crossfire. (You could call them “seasoned Washington politicos” but due to the show’s format, arguments usually are won by being the loudest or getting the last word in before a segment ends. If you check out John Stewart’s appearance on the show, you’ll see my point.)
Another troublesome failing occurs in the writer’s choice of support for an argument. Liberties are too-often taken with the evidence. Cherry-picking– taking a statement out of context– can frustratingly give the appearance of thorough reasoning if the reader is not familiar with the source from which the statement was lifted. This case and other instances of writers utilizing flimsy evidence are symptomatic of “conventional wisdom” usage. I use “conventional wisdom” along the lines of how the originator of the phrase, John Kenneth Galbraith, used it. Consider this statement (which I’m borrowing from the recent book Freakonomics) from Galbraith:
We associate truth with convenience with what mostly closely accords with self-interest and personal well-being or promises best to avoid awkward effort or unwelcome dislocation of life. We also find highly acceptable what contributes most to self-esteem.
Thus, a writer may seek validation through the act of posting his views on webpage for the world to see, not in the strength of his argument.
Moreover, readers supporting the writer’s point of view may provide weight for the writer regardless of whether or not an argument holds. The volume– be it in terms of number of people or degree of loudness– behind a claim does not strengthen or validate the claim. The purpose of online discussion should be to tease out why we believe something (to actually debate). It is not meant to be a megaphone for our individual beliefs like the one the jerk on the street corner yelling at us all to “REPENT!” uses. No one wants to listen to that. What, if anything, do we gain if we’re all screaming and failing to engage those of differing opinions? Whose mind are we going to change that way?
I praise Slate‘s ‘dialogues’ because they’ve forgone the megaphones. Debate actually occurs, allowing both the writers and the readers to gain something more from the exercise than a headache.