The Process of a Good Discussion
I came across a very interesting reference on the subject and, since Discussions are the heart of this place, I believe this is a good place for submitting it.
I have made a summary of the elements that are considered important in a discussion and distinguish a good discussion from a poor one, according to that reference. I have selected points --some of which I have adjusted-- that apply to the kind of discussions that are taking place in here.
The Process of a Good Discussion
https://teach.its.uiowa.edu/sites/teach.its.uiowa.edu/files/docs/docs/The_Process_of_a_Good_Discussion_ed.pdf
Focus: A discussion needs to stay on track rather than go wandering off on various tangents incidental to the main issues at hand.
Clarity: Statements made during the course of a discussion should be readily understood by all participants. Examples should be provided when necessary to clarify concepts and ideas.
Validity: Statements should be well-supported and explained so that the basis of the statement becomes clear. Simply declaring something to be so does not help the course of discussion.
Scope: Good discussions bring forth a diversity of ideas and opinions and stimulate new ways of looking at issues among the participants. Discussions should be comprehensive rather than narrowly focused.
Interest: Discussions need to be stimulating enough to maintain the interest of all members of the group.
Participation: It is desirable that the discussion has as many participants as possible. For that reason, they should not be dominated by just a few participants. Side conversations tend to be distracting and should be avoided.
I have made a summary of the elements that are considered important in a discussion and distinguish a good discussion from a poor one, according to that reference. I have selected points --some of which I have adjusted-- that apply to the kind of discussions that are taking place in here.
The Process of a Good Discussion
https://teach.its.uiowa.edu/sites/teach.its.uiowa.edu/files/docs/docs/The_Process_of_a_Good_Discussion_ed.pdf
Focus: A discussion needs to stay on track rather than go wandering off on various tangents incidental to the main issues at hand.
Clarity: Statements made during the course of a discussion should be readily understood by all participants. Examples should be provided when necessary to clarify concepts and ideas.
Validity: Statements should be well-supported and explained so that the basis of the statement becomes clear. Simply declaring something to be so does not help the course of discussion.
Scope: Good discussions bring forth a diversity of ideas and opinions and stimulate new ways of looking at issues among the participants. Discussions should be comprehensive rather than narrowly focused.
Interest: Discussions need to be stimulating enough to maintain the interest of all members of the group.
Participation: It is desirable that the discussion has as many participants as possible. For that reason, they should not be dominated by just a few participants. Side conversations tend to be distracting and should be avoided.
Comments (43)
What a good thread, Alkis! I do not understand why you didn't have any reply at all. You explained pretty well what each thread should have. I wish each one could stick to these standards. I think it is not only good for keeping this site with quality threads but also for the moderators in general, because - sometimes - they lack of having arguments on discern which thread deserves to be on the main page, in The Lounge or even removed.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Well, this point never gets taken seriously. I think each thread would have more or less participation depending on the author, not the content itself. I bet that even some members do not read the content of the threads just because of who is the user that wrote it. I think it is unfair, but we have both debated this issue a lot...
@javi2541997 is right. This is a good idea for a thread. I never saw it when it was first posted.
All of the points you've highlighted are important, but the one I think is the biggest issue here on the forum is "Focus: A discussion needs to stay on track rather than go wandering off on various tangents incidental to the main issues at hand." The way that happens is that someone writes a good OP, which, by the way, you have. In my mind, the OP is where you set out the rules for the discussion. One thing I think is important is that all the important terms are defined. In other discussions on that issue, others have disagreed with me. They think the meanings of the words should be defined as part of the discussion. In my experience, that leads to "wandering off on various tangents."
Hey, Javi... Thanks for bringing this back up.
You are welcome, friend. :up:
Hi! Javi! Well come back!
Thanks for your (single) response to my article.
Quoting javi2541997
Thanks a lot, Javi!
I believe too it is good, but I see it more as a useful guide and something that would increase the quality of this place.
But it's not a thread. It's an article and that's why I have posted it in the 'Article Submissions' section.
Yet one would expect at least a simple acknowledgent ...
However, as I undestand, people in here don't really care either about decent, disciplined, well-constructed and constructive discussions. They rather prefer anarchy. And be free as they want.
In a way, I can undestand this. This is a social place and some chat is always desirable. But within limits, of course. This is why I prefer to use the INBOX for personal exchanges. From the amount of chit-chats I see in here, I believe most people here never use it.
Quoting javi2541997
You are right.
Quoting javi2541997
I believe that too. People like more to discuss with "friends", independently of how interesting and useful a topic and its description by the PO is.
Thank you for your acknowledgment of my article, T Clark.
Yes, I am aware that it is not a "thread" at all, because it is posted in "article submissions" with the aim of having some exchanges and maybe not a deep philosophical debate.
Yet, I don't understand why this didn't have replies or feedback. I share the same feeling as Clarky. I don't remember seeing your post on the main page. Otherwise, I promise I would have posted something.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I agree. Well said.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Exactly. :up:
First, it should be noted that the guidelines were written for teachers leading classroom discussion. I think the following claim is questionable for both classroom discussion and forum discussion:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Why is this desirable? There are several questionable assumptions underlying this, including:
1) Everyone has something of value to contribute.
2) Those who say nothing are not participating.
3) What is important is the process not the substantive content.
4) A discussion needs to stay on track rather than go wandering off.
The first is based on a pervasive egalitarian prejudice that underlies popular educational philosophy. One problem with this becomes apparent when we consider the third assumption. In my opinion it is better to have enough self-knowledge to know when to stop talking and listen.
I am reminded of the following advice:
To remain silent may be an important form of participation. One in which one thinks about what has been said rather than thinking about what to say.
With regard to 4), when it comes to philosophical discussion the first rule to follow is this:
This does not mean endless discussion of claims that go nowhere, but it is not always clear ahead of time where it will go. This is not to say that going off topic is never a problem, but that preemptive attempts to prevent that from happening may result in bigger problems. It may be that a tangent is self-limiting, not pursued beyond a few posts, but in other cases it can circle back or expand the initial inquiry in a useful way. One thing leading to another, something new may arise that would not have otherwise. In my opinion, it is best to allow a bit of messiness. If we knew ahead of time where an inquiry will lead the inquiry itself would not be necessary, and strict control of where it goes will surely prevent it from going to places that may be fruitful and interesting.
Interesting thought. You are right in this point.
But I think it is complex to apply it on this site where the activity depends on the number of replies that each thread can get. If a thread doesn't have enough answers, it can end up in absolute forgetfulness, passing one page and another, and then disappearing in the endless information stock of this forum.
This is where I guess the issue starts. The number of replies in each thread doesn't depend on how hard you worked on your thread. There are other facts that can condition your OP: if you are not "friends" with others; if you are not likable; if you don't talk about religion and AI, etc. The example of Alkis is excellent. I personally believe that this thread is interesting but it remained without participation for two months. Why did this happen?
I bet that if one of the famous and common "philosophers" of this site put the same OP, they would have had multiple answers!
What I noticed is that some remain silent because they just ignore the users, not because they are thinking about what I posted.
Right, but what is the connection between activity and importance? It is easy to post something that will generate a lot of response, but this can be a poor measure of the significance of the thread.
Quoting javi2541997
Perhaps, but it is possible, and I would like to believe common for some posts to reemerge at some later date when someone researches a philosopher or idea or question or problem. At least this is what I tell myself.
Quoting javi2541997
I was not aware that there are any. But famous or not, I agree that some members grab attention and others go unnoticed or are deliberately ignored. Those who are ignored certainly play some role in this. In some cases, especially with members who have been here for a long time, it is not worth the time and energy to rehash the some things once again. In addition, some members do not handle disagreement well. Speaking personally, when this becomes evident I tend not to respond to them.
Added: I am speaking in general terms, not about the author of this thread, with whom I have had some interesting discussions.
.
I agree that activity is not necessarily connected with the importance of a thread, but when any of them doesn't get any reply at all, it seems that it lacks relevance. It has happened to me a few times. After posting my OP and seeing literally zero replies, my first impression is that my thread is bad or not important.
Whether it is a poor measure of significance or not, it affects you anyway. Because, as I explained, a thread depends on the number of replies and it is incomprehensible why some appear on the front of the page and others (more interesting) don't.
For example, the Donald Trump and Ukraine Crisis threads should be put in The Lounge, because these are not philosophical but political. Yet, they hold a lot of activity.
Quoting Fooloso4
Exactly. This is what I was trying to say. :up:
Quoting Fooloso4
@Alkis Piskas is an original thinker and a good person, indeed.
The problem is that points 1, 2 and 3 are in conflict with points 4, 5, and 6.
People differ in opinion largely because they disagree as to matters like topicality, clarity and validity. So keeping a discussion on track according to one set of views on those first matters tends to work against that latter. In other words, the conversation becomes limited to a group of people sufficiently close in view that they find little to challenge their views among the participants.
If you want...
Quoting Alkis Piskas
... you are going to struggle with...
Quoting Alkis Piskas
... since the quality of the support will almost inevitably be the very "diversity of ideas and opinions" you're looking for.
Despite oddly niche opinion to the contrary, logic isn't that hard. Looking at data and drawing a rational conclusion from it is simply not that difficult for most intelligent, educated people, so most disagreements at that level are about the validity of the data (methodological issues) or the frame (the qualities of the model other than it's fit to the data).
It's a phenomena unique to a certain stage of intelligentsia, the belief that the key battle ground of ideas is in some mental boxing ring of rational punches and logic counter-blocks out of which the truth comes victorious.
Well, I must not complain. Yesterday I received an acknowledgement from T Clark. (But only after you have rocked the boat! :smile:)
Quoting javi2541997
As I realized yesterday, when I was looking for that article, one has to open the "Artrcles Submitted" section to see it! And I don't think this is what people use to do ...
So, once again, it was unfair from my part to complain and also jufge people's attitudes regarding discussions! :zip:
This may be true, but it is about guidelines as you yourself say. The post though was an article and not guidlenes, for which BTW only the TPF administrators can post. It is an article about "elements that are considered important in a discussion and distinguish a good discussion from a poor one". as I said.
Participants in discussions can always consult such ideas. And those who really care can be inspired by or at least get reminded of them.
Quoting Fooloso4
Because one participant is better than none. And two participants are better than one! :smile:
Of course, the anount of participation normally has to do with the topic and its description, how many people are familiar with the subject, how much it attracts their interest, etc.
However, what is rally happening here is that the participation is more based on "friendship" or "enmity", and likes or dislikes among people rather than interest in the topic itself and its description. I have come to this realization in the 4 years since I joined TPF. And I'm not the only one who believes that. And this factor alone limits participation.
Quoting Fooloso4
OK, OK. Again, these are not guidelines or rules of conduct that one must abide to. One can get from that whatever inspires or gets remidended of him/her. In other words, it's not a subject to be discussed about. If that were the case, I would have posted it in the regular Discussions section.
Quoting Fooloso4
Right. But I belive the key element here is "conscience" rather than "self-knowledge".
Quoting Fooloso4
Sure, there may be. But you can;t do anything about it, can you? And even if you could, it wouldn't have changed anything, would it?
As an end word, anyone can create one's own rules or important elements in a discussion that make it good or bad. The question is how applicable/workable and effective these rules or elements are in practice.
They might be. I'm not willing to analyze this. As I just said to Fooloso4, these are suggestions, ideas, criteria regarding a good discussion. Each person may have their own. The question is if they work and are effective, at least for the majority of people. And I believe the ones I presented --which are not mine-- are applicable and quite effective and I believe acceptable by most people.
Quoting Isaac
That's true. I have indicated a couple of times to my interlocutor that we have deviated from the topic, but they believed that what we were talking was "on track" as you say. But this doesn't mean that there mustn't be a kind of rule that reminds to stay on track, does it? :smile:
Quoting Isaac
I don't know where are you applying the element of logic to here, but it made me realize something that I wish to add to this topic: These "rules" --if you want-- are in fact so evident for most intelligent people, that they can be actually considered as just "reminders". :smile:
According to the article:
This is a common but questionable assumption in the philosophy of education, a vestige of a factory model. A way of measuring productivity.
How well does this translate to a philosophy forum? For one, there is no requirement for someone to pretend to be interested in a thread or to say something in order to count as participating. In addition, there is no expectation that members know enough about a topic to have something to say.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
They are presented as a measure of a good discussion:
For both classroom and forum discussion I don't agree.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
You can. You can change your assumptions and attitude, which might change what you say and how you say it.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Hence my questions.
The article says "It is desirable that the discussion has as many participants as possible", not everyone. That would be impossible, anyway. Then is an indicative element. It shows a direction, a desirability. Opposite to it is "as less as possible". Which of course is undesirable.
Quoting Fooloso4
It is applicable to any discussion forum according its structure,size, rules, etc.
And it is good that brought up the element of participation, because I find it most important, even vital. Why? Because participation depends on the way the discussion is taking place. A characteristic example is that about one in ten OPs do not even care to reply to someone who reacts to his/her topic. And not once, but twice. And some of these OPs ask explicitly for a participation! So, besides that showing lack of politeness and respect, it is detrimental to participation. Because It is natural that the person who has been ignored abstains from a further response to such an OP. Isn't that right?
Another thing that happens, equally important and detrimental, and which may partially explain the lack of response from the part of such OPs is -- I repeat it verbatim because it has maybe escaped your attention-- "the participation is more based on 'friendship' or 'enmity', and likes or dislikes among people rather than interest in the topic itself and its description".
This is natural in social contacts in everyday life, but it shouldn't happen in a discussion forum, except of course in cases when there's is a clash and adversion between two persons. But we are not talking about such cases. Yet, because it is a natural human reaction and a particular one, we cannot include it among the elements or rules of a good discussion.
Quoting Fooloso4
No one can require from anyone to change their ideas, beliefs, assumptions or any personal trait in order to participate construtively to a productive discussion. False assumptions, defective reasoning or lack of knowledge are in the game. One needs only to follow and apply the elements --or as many of them and as well as possible-- that make a discussion smooth, productive and constructive.
I am curious about this fact. I think there could be two groups of members: one group where the people don't take part in discussions because they don't have enough data in the discussion itself (5 % or 10 % of the overall) and those who don't answer because you are not friends with (90 % or 95 %)
The experience and two years and a half on this site make me end up in this conclusion. I guess my discussions are not that complex, sometimes I had a good number of replies, others not. But they are threads by which you can express yourself so easily. Most of the users around here can maintain arguments.
Absolutely right, nobody has the aim to participate in a thread, but what I feel is that there is not equity. The level of interaction of a thread doesn't depend on if it is clear or attractive but who is the author.
The statement was a direct quote from the section "participation".
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I don't agree, but will leave it there.
I don't think that the decision to respond or not divides in this way. Since the same topics come up over and over again, some members don't want to rehash it. And some topics are simply not of interest or too much work will be involved trying to disentangle things. In some cases it is not a matter of being friends but of having a good idea of where a member stands and how they will respond.
But I have said enough about why I think a post or poster might not get responses.
You make some good points, and I think you are right to note that what works for a classroom discussion will be somewhat different from what works for an online forum.
Quoting Fooloso4
I am considering the thought that in a classroom discussion one tends to know that their voice is being attended to. Silence in the classroom can very often signify the fact that listeners are processing and considering, and there are all sorts of other cues which can be used to help discern such a fact.
With an online forum, on the other hand, silence is highly ambiguous. If there is a 'like' button or some other way to evaluate posts then one can glean a better sense of the silent participation in a thread, but apart from that one only knows if their voice is being heard when someone replies. Even when there is a 'like' button the ambiguous silence is still quite strong. This inevitably means that threads and posts are written to garner replies rather than to garner attention.
The interesting thing about this forum is that when I came and read Baden's guide to writing an OP, I was prepared to write thorough and high-octane OPs. But then I noticed that almost no one is following those guidelines, and the OPs that do follow them receive much fewer replies. This doesn't mean that the "research" model for OPs is suboptimal, but that model probably produces more pondering and silent listening, which in turn produces ambiguous silence.
Yup.
Good point.
I agree. There are fascinating discussions I don't participate in because:
1) I feel I can add nothing further to what has been said already.
2) I don't have a particular view on the subject.
3) The subject is too specialized and/or unfamiliar to me.
Quoting Leontiskos
I think there's a rather informal, casual approach to the subject here and people probably don't want to get too fancy.
I know that some of you don't act in the way I refer to in my arguments. But you are just a few. What I tend to argue is some facts about why some discussions get more relevance or "activity". I still maintain that who the author is is very important rather than the content of the OP itself. To be honest, I have always tried to publish substantive threads with the aim of having exchanges. Nonetheless, other users, - more famous or original than me - posted similar threads but they got hundreds of replies. Why did this happen?
I think @Leontiskos explained pretty good. The threads which do not stick to the rules provided by the moderators are the ones that receive more attention paradoxically.
I think OP's sometimes grab attention because the timing is right and the wording used seems to grab people's imagination. It's not a science, so who knows? It can be fickle territory. Sometimes it seems as if it is not the OP that generates the interest so much, but the first 2 or 3 responses.
I agree. But here we end up in the same dilemma. If one thread doesn't get one or five replies at least, it will not be considered as "interesting" or "philosophical" and then, it will disappear from the pages of this site. For example, this thread of Alkis remained silent for two months. I was lucky to discover it, but who knows if I never wrote the first reply. We wouldn't be debating this morning when it is clear a good OP, even more clear and substantive than others that always remain in the main page.
Quoting I like sushi
OK. Why?
To go into a bit more depth if someone insists that something someone is saying has nothing to do with the topic it could just be that they are missing the chance to take an alternative approach. What can seem like far off the beaten track can be key to the fundamental question at hand.
With Participants too many lines of inquiry can cause confusion and what was once a dynamic discussion between 3-4 people turns into a muddled mess following several different themes/lines.
With 3-4 people involved less guarding of focus breathes life and exploration into the discussion. With more and more people the focus needs to be rigid to avoid confusion but imo this will result in a severe lack of exploration.
I understand. The participation of many users in a single thread can be chaotic but the line of importance/attraction is blurred in these cases. Maybe it is not your case, but whenever you login into TPF and you see some threads with a considerable number of replies, the users quickly think that those threads seem to be interesting while others with, lack of answers/participation are not. Well, I completely disagree in this point, but this is how this forum works. It is obvious that whenever you start a discussion you wish to have some acknowledgement or feedback at least.
So, you need to get some participants and replies. What is the clue of posting a thread and not receiving any replies at all?
OK. Thanks four your reaction to the article, anyway.
OK. Thanks for your response.
Thanks for your response to the article.
Well, you are referring to your own criteria. You can't really know what the mind of the rest is or what they are attracted by.
I simply do not understand why, depending on the person, one thread gets more relevance than the other. It is just strange to me. As you said, people chime in threads because of the topic, like if they were acting objectively. I disagree, using the arguments I mentioned previously. I have evidences that - not exactly but similar - threads about ethics or Philosophy of Language get more attention depending on who the author is, not the content itself.
The younger people are the more they want to be heard and the more attention they seek.
Yet I have to share another issue that is limiting me to having a good discussion, or from enjoying posting at least.
It is well known that there are members whose native language is not English. I am not the only one, and I acknowledge that inside the group of non-native speakers there are some whose level is high and others (myself) are not that precise or good.
This fact has never been a good deal, and I mostly enjoyed my presence here, posting mainly in The Shoutbox.
But when I try to discuss with another member of a serious topic, the interlocutor accuses me of not having a great level of English instead of focusing on the main topic of the OP. I personally don't know whether this is posted with mischief or my lack of 'fluency' is actually the cause of not performing a good discussion.
I wish I could know. I want to improve and maintain 'fruitful' discussions.
I think it's likely the chastiser believes you are not absorbing or fully understanding the deeper subtleties and "theme" or argument of certain complex, multi-faceted topics.
I consider myself highly proficient in English and there are many topics that I struggle to properly grasp in full on first read. Or in layman's terms, that fry my brain. I majorly use this site in betwixt other PC work and so have the main part of my brain "occupied" with whatever it is I am working on and as a result prefer simpler, shorter more general philosophy type topics like the ones @Shawn often posts. I look at my brain as something of a multi-range oven. Most life tasks and many threads here I can easily multi-task with "one burner" per se, however many require me to have to "clear the range" and intensely focus on specifically, word for word, concept by concept, to even begin to get a vague picture of. And even then I find myself having difficulty and the need to ask superfluous questions to make sure I'm even in the right ballpark mentally with what I conclude the poster is conveying or intending to convey. In short, don't feel bad. There are many high level discussions of concepts here that are difficult to understand, even by those who introduced them. Don't be afraid to ask questions. But also don't feel discouraged by the fact that some discussions will simply be at a higher level of understanding and proficiency than is currently possessed.
I do not feel scared to ask questions when I don't understand something, and even at The Shoutbox my posts are often proofread, something that I am grateful for because it helps me to keep improving. I also have had the same feeling as yours in some threads. When I read them I feel lost the first time, so I need to reread again or even use DeepL to translate some parts.
But this issue goes deeper than just that. I have the feeling that some users accused me of being non-native with bad manners, with the aim of derailing the main topic. Whenever I try to make arguments, I personally believe that I do my best.
Then, it is not possible to keep a 'good discussion' if the other interlocutor is already biased on my lack of fluency. I think this should not matter at all. If we are debating, let's say, about Kierkegaard's works, we should focus on this topic. Our level of English is accessory.
Let me say immediately, that I find your posts very often fruitful and improving; actually those are more roles the same thing, I think the fruit of a discussion is surely a change of mind for the better. And having to try and communicate with one who is struggling a little with the language forces one to be more simple and clear if possible, which is always a good thing, but also makes one rethink for oneself ideas that may have become stale.
But my first thought, reading the above, was that there is an unfortunate tendency to make a discussion into a competition. It's not exactly mischief, but it does tend to undermine what I see as the purpose of discussion. To the extent that one aims to win, one has lost sight of the proper function of communication, which is the development in the community of truth and understanding.
It is easy to score points against someone who is less fluent, and 'prove' them to be wrong. But such behaviour does not look good to anyone else. It looks cheap and egotistic, like beating a novice in chess. I once tried to write some philosophy in French, and it came out like a treatise for primary school, but not a very good one. So I have great admiration for anyone who tries to communicate seriously in a second language, because it is hard enough in one's native language.
In general, I don't think there are special rules that apply to discussion that don't apply to other interactions; respect, kindness, honesty, an intention to both teach and learn as much as possible. Sometimes. as has been pointed out, silence is the best expression of that, but universal silence would be unproductive, and that might suggest that popular threads need more silence and unpopular ones more posts, but other times silence can indicate that there is not much (more) of value to be said.
Although that is not the common behaviour among the users, yes, I usually felt some threads go on that way. It seems like a competition for who is right, or more specifically, who is the one who gives more 'strong answers'. This is very difficult to reach inside the nature of philosophy. Even the forum says: 'start a new discussion'. It is obvious we are here to discuss different opinions.
Quoting unenlightened
I agree with this. I understand that if I force others to be more considered of me for not being native, I am at the risk of reducing the quality of the conversation. Exactly in this context, I have to admit it is my fault if I can't seriously follow him with fluency. But, being honest, I hardly experienced this. When I read a thread and I feel it is too complex for me, I decide not to dive into it. I only tend to post wherever I feel comfortable and ready to have a fruitful discussion with others. Nonetheless, it is obvious that philosophy is very complex itself! Imagine it in another language when even translation can change the sense. Crazy and beautiful at the same time!
Quoting unenlightened
True. But, again, most of the people are quite nice here. Yet, I wanted to share my thoughts because I felt that maybe the language is a tougher barrier than I ever imagined.
I hope you don't take me wrong, but it is fascinating what occurred to me a half-hour ago. I wrote an email to Alkis in English, and in most cases, when the text is done, I like to check the grammar on web pages to make sure I don't make mistakes. When I pasted my original text to the grammar check corrector, the 'bot' or 'AI' answered: Congratulations! Your message is well written, no mistakes detected!
I couldn't believe so. I checked the text twice and yes, zero grammatical mistakes on my side.
What does happen then? Does artificial intelligence lie to me? Doesn't the bot or AI detect grammar mistakes from a non-native speaker? I have been drastically criticised for my poor English here. First, in the short story competition, and then in some threads. Very hard to follow, badly written and bla bla. It was clear (according to some) that those posts and short story were written by a non-native speaker, but that's a lie, and lying is bad. How did you know if they were corrected by a grammar checker?
I was debating with a malicious user about what a paradox is. I tried my best at debating, but the discussion was over because I was not comfortable typing in English, according to him. Here is when the malicious user gets trapped in his own ignorance. It is impossible to say to me that I am not comfortable debating in English if my texts are proofread by a grammar checker. But, I get it. I know I will keep reading similar comments if someone does not agree with me in the future. It is just some of you behave and post with malice.
So, it will not be possible to have a good discussion, because there are folks acting with twisted manners and malice. Be cautious!
Some people will take any opportunity to make themselves feel better by making others feel worse. And even the mods cannot protect us from that entirely. I lived in France for a few years and was always the stupid foreigner. My proudest moment was once to be mistaken for a Belgian - a stupid alcoholic French-speaking foreigner. I felt I had conquered the language. But it's not just grammar, there is a rhythm and music, and idiomatic references that one can get wrong.
For example there is a running joke in one comedy series where an Italian, whenever there is a pairing of things, gets them the "wrong" way round - raining dogs and cats, kidney and steak pie, at it tongs and hammer, ... there are thousands of these pairings in English that always go in a certain order Jack and Jill, never Jill and Jack. An AI is unlikely to correct such things because there is actually nothing wrong - but they sound foreign.
As to 'paradox' that is easy enough for anyone to misunderstand, almost to the point where to understand it would be paradoxical. :groan:
I agree. The AI is unlikely to correct or proofread 'argot' or slang words. It just proofread basic grammar sense with the aim of making my paragraphs sense. But I wasn't referring to this specifically. It is obvious that I always sound 'foreigner' because I have a lot of hiccups in English when I type. One of the main issues which burdened me the most is the difference between 'in', 'on' and 'at'. We just have one word in Spanish to include all those three: 'en...' etc. And other aspects related to gender, conditionals, the bloody 'going to' instead of will, etc.
(Estoy yendo al taller = I am going to the workshop.
Iré al taller luego... = I will go to the workshop later on...)
But I don't attempt to be a snowflake. Those tricks in English end up being controlled after years of practising and reading in English.
My point went deeper than just that. I personally felt that my posts were, let's say, senseless because of the criticism of my grammar. But never mind any more! Just malicious users typing twisted posts!