Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:00:54 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Matthew Simpson <054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Flaming

On Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:01:00 CST Betty Harris said:
>>On Mon, 16 Nov 1992 01:33:00 CST Betty Harris said:
>>>I hafta agree with Larry and disagree with Matthew on this one. I don't
>>>feel that either calling the person or the idea stupid is acceptible
>>>behavior.  It is ok to disagree with an idea, but it is not ok to call
>>>it stupid just because you don't agree with it (them).  After all,

Wait a minute.  Before anyone starts saying that I think it is okay
to call an idea (or anything) stupid (too late), think for a minute
about what we were trying to distinguish.  I was only using the
action of calling a behavior stupid as part of an example which would
highlight the difference between focussing on the idea versus focussing
on the person.  The action of calling x stupid (person or idea) was
used as an example because it is the most base form of a disagreement.
When people respond on PSYCGRAD, they *usually* are intelligent to use
messages which are anywhere from slightly to incredibly more complicated
than merely calling something stupid.  In light of the possible complexity
of the responses, I wanted to use a very base form of reply to highlight
the distinction between focussing on the person versus focusing on the
idea.  If I combined this distinction with a complicated example, based
on my experience, many readers would have missed the point entirely and
focussed their attention on the complicated form of the example.

>>>didn't most ppl of his time period think that Galileo's (sp) ideas were
>>>"stupid"???  Couldn't we simply respond by saying that we disagree and
>>>give the rationnale for our disagreement???
>
>>On Mon, 16 Nov 1992 10:05:38 EST Matthew Simpson writes:
>>How would you define a flame?  How do you know it when you see it? We
>>need a short, clear, and easy-to-communicate-and-understand definition
>>that has high anticipated inter-rater reliability.
>
>>So far, we are defining it as a public attack on individuals through the
>>content of e-mail postings.
>
>Hmmmm...  How about defining it as:
>Flaming is verbally attacking/insulting either a person or
>their ideas using evaluative, emotionally charged labels rather
>than disagreeing with specific ideas and providing rationalle for
>disagreeing.
>
>Effective comunication involves:
>1)  listen to what the other person is attempting to say
>2)  summarize the content of the message to make sure you
>    understood what they were saying
>3)  ask for clarification of global or ambiguous terms
>4)  disagree with specific points (avoid generalities and labeling)
>5)  give the rationnale for your disagreement
>6)  use "I feel" or "I believe" rather than "You"
>
>If you are being flamed it's best to recognize that the flamer
>is angry or frustrated about something.  It seems more effective
>in this case to not react to their anger, but rather try and
>awknowledge the affective state of the person. eg "You seem
>angry."  and try to get them to talk about *why* they are angry.
>Tell them that their behavior is not acceptible, then tell them
>what is acceptible and why.
>
>What I tell my Relay users is:
>"It's ok to disagree, but it's not ok to insult people."
>
>Jeez... I can't make up my mind whether I'm sounding clinical
>or developmental! *laugh*
>Oh well.. that's the best I can muster up right now! :-P
>Betty
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>      TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
>      TTT     TTT     TTT        Betty A. Harris
>              TTT                Department of Psychology
>    AAA       TTT    MM     MM   Texas A&M University
>   A   A      TTT    M M   M M   College Station, TX 77843-4235
>  A A A A     TTT    M  M M  M   1-409-845-2566
> A       A    TTT    M   M   M   Bitnet: B1H6017@TAMVENUS
>AAA     AAA TTTTTTT MMM  M  MMM  Internet: B1H6017@VENUS.TAMU.EDU
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Can one get a Ph.D. in Psycgrad?????  ;)
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

O======================================================================O
 | _  l  _  * Matthew Simpson          * BITNET:                      |
 |  \_l_/   * School of Psychology     * 054340@uottawa.bitnet        |
 |    l     * 145 Jean Jacques Lussier * INTERNET:                    |
 |    l     * Ottawa, Ontario K1N 8P5  * 054340@acadvm1.uottawa.ca    |
O======================================================================O
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU