Philosophy by PM
I've noticed a change in how I interact with the forums. Increasingly, I am discussing philosophical ideas in Private Messages - through the inbox - in stead of in a forum.
It's now to the point where I post as much on PMs as on forums.
I find that the PMs enable deeper focus on a particular issue or argument, to deeply dive into a topic with one or two folk who know what they are talking about.
It's much easier to follow a deep discussion without interjection.
It's also easier for practical reasons. I don't have to flick back and forth between pages, and scroll up or down through irrelevant or even counterproductive material.
It cuts down quite dramatically on the bullshit. Quite a relief, actually.
So, a couple of questions.
How wide spread is this practice? Do you find yourself using PMs for more intricate discussions?
What do @Jamal and the mods think? Is this something to be encouraged? After all, PMs are not adding to the public face of the forums.
What are the other pros and cons? There's a small danger of creating echo chambers, of course, if there were no public interaction. And it doesn't add to my mentions or comments count...
It's now to the point where I post as much on PMs as on forums.
I find that the PMs enable deeper focus on a particular issue or argument, to deeply dive into a topic with one or two folk who know what they are talking about.
It's much easier to follow a deep discussion without interjection.
It's also easier for practical reasons. I don't have to flick back and forth between pages, and scroll up or down through irrelevant or even counterproductive material.
It cuts down quite dramatically on the bullshit. Quite a relief, actually.
So, a couple of questions.
How wide spread is this practice? Do you find yourself using PMs for more intricate discussions?
What do @Jamal and the mods think? Is this something to be encouraged? After all, PMs are not adding to the public face of the forums.
What are the other pros and cons? There's a small danger of creating echo chambers, of course, if there were no public interaction. And it doesn't add to my mentions or comments count...
Comments (55)
I think if I trusted more members to have reasonable discussions, i'd be more likely to PM. But I get a lot of in-person (or private P2P) philosophical discussoin through work and school anyway.
It is not only for doing philosophy, but I use private messages to show myself with more freedom. Before @Arcane Sandwich was banned, we had deep conversations in Spanish using private messages. This is the way we became friends, and we still have contact through email. Since he is the philosopher and not me, I am like his student, and we talk of different topics, but I was learning about 'Divine Simplicity' lately thanks to him.
Overall, I believe private messages are used with members you have a certain level of confidence in.
Insert caveats about shared perspectives, bias and reasoning here.
True. I rarely post anything anymore because I find it too much bother wading through trivial responses. If this sounds arrogant I don't mind. It is just a question of efficiency. I no longer have time to spare.
Quoting javi2541997
Nice. I had quite an extensive PM chat with him myself, but it became a bit odd and I ended it. I wish him well.
Quoting fdrake
Oh, yeah. He was very helpful.
Quoting I like sushi
I think that entirely understandable. It's not arrogant to respect your own time.
In other words, by using PM it's easier to avoid the masses who disagree with you, allowing you to escape into a fabricated world of illusion, with a close buddy. Avoid the distractions which reality forces upon you, and really build your own little dream scene.
When I want to escape into my own little world of creativity, I just pm myself. It's all done in the privacy and secrecy of my own mind, commonly known as thinking.
What's with the need for a buddy in your private and secret world of creativity? Do I detect a little insecurity?
I.e. echo chambers, for people who refuse to engage those on the open forum who question their positions and suggest that they might be wrong. I think this is a very large caveat in the OP's case.
PMs can be great, but when they are being used to limit counterarguments one would prefer to avoid I think they are a poor choice, and a poor use of storage space. Gossip is also a very relevant issue, here, related to echo chambers.
I think you've hit it. Especially in the context of @Banno's recent attacks on religion, his accusations of authoritarianism, the growing acknowledgement that his favored mode of Analytic philosophy is deficient, etc. He makes accusations, the accusations backfire, and then he takes to PM. His problems are self-generated.
:up:
Posting on the forums creates more opportunity to receive input from varying points of view and potential valid criticisms.
Is having to wade through all the drivel to get the few good responses that allow one's ideas to evolve worth it? For me it is.
In what ways has Banno evolved other than him steering more towards using PMs to preach to his choir?
The hell do you think is gonna happen in a FORUM when you set out an idea for ALL its "philosophers," and wide opinions?
A whirlwind.
Of course this shows you admitting you're good at wheeling and dealing one on one to try and dominate the conversation by just saying the same thing over and over without adding any depth. Like you did with Moliere and I. To the point I decided to poison you against me because you're easy like that.
Hence my post so long ago in the shout box "I got the poison..."
Yes. I think it is a kind of preaching, which is why it is so resistant to argument, exchange, objections, questions, accurate representation, etc. Preachers who cannot find a receptive audience might end up preaching to themselves in PMs. Privately talking about how the people who object to their preaching are benighted.
It seems that much of what people talk about on this forum is what other philosophers have said, and what some philosophers said is always dependent upon what they knew about the world at their time, and their language reflects that. To someone that hasn't studied what some philosopher has said it may appear that some don't know what they are talking about.
I don't have much experience in what other philosophers have said. I have a lot of experience in what scientists have said and it is our current scientific knowledge that shapes what present-day philosophers say. Dead philosophers probably wouldn't say what they said if they lived today.
I form my philosophy about the nature of the world by integrating what all scientists have said, not what some few dead philosopher have said, about the world. So from a scientific perspective it can appear that you don't know what you're talking about when what you're talking about doesn't take into account the current scientific understanding of how we develop and learn in the world.
I wonder if your style attracts argumentative nonsense more than the content deserves? I also wonder if the moderation is too lax? I have been very impressed with the latest essays, so if there is too much nonsense and unpleasantness in the threads, then stricter moderation is the answer, because there are quality posters enough.
If one wants to improve the quality of thought on the forum, I think the easiest way is to impose posting limits (see for example, 6). This is arguably what generated the quality submissions (i.e. the time allotted to composition). Quality diminishes when TPF is treated like Twitter and people post without first giving thought to the topic. But of course this would not satisfy @Banno, who is one of the worst culprits with over 27,000 posts and a tendency towards quippy, dismissive posts. So I'm not sure it's just a matter of his "style."
What a mean post. I like it.
Yes I remember reading your suggestions back then. I doubt the software allows such limits though. But if one finds one's poor posts being deleted, and then one receives a warning pm about them, that also has the effect of giving one pause - or else the effect of one going ballistic and getting banned. But I won't bang on here about it more than I already have...
But I rate @Banno highly as a philosopher, and he does engage; some people find that unpleasant.
As an ideal, I try to consider ourselves not just as learners, but as teachers, which might mean sometimes patience with those who are missing the point. This is to say I'd prefer an open chess tournament, with grandmasters and novices alike.
Pretty much. The usual suspects are here, together with the personal attacks. Of course, I created this thread specifically to run away from criticism, as always. :roll:
Quoting unenlightened
Not a bad point. The PM conversations have usually resulted in a few corresponding posts in public, or a whole thread, so are not entirely lost to posterity.
Quoting unenlightened
Cheers.
Quoting SophistiCat
There are a few who have shown bad faith, and so with whom I usually do not engage - indeed, I don't often read their posts. They are aware of this, but curiously they insist on participating mainly in my threads.
Quoting Hanover
Patience is not infinite.
I think you're probably right. But some forum software does, so it is possible.
The op lacks any real philosophy. It states a personal opinion. The replies are bound to be opinions about the person, because the person stated something personal. I simply met the op's invitation.
This thread ought to be in The Lounge.
I think it is interesting to read the replies from the other mates. Some use private messages to talk with people they consider closer to interact with; others use it to gossip, as Benkei stated. It is comprehensible that the main point of a forum is to interact with the rest widely. But this should not create boundaries for the interactions. Talking with someone privately through PM is another way of using TPF.
I mainly used private messages to talk with @Arcane Sandwich in our native language. Also, I interact with @T Clark a lot through PM when he feels I am angry. Because there are personal or emotional stuff that need to be treated more privately. I don't know if this thread ought to be in the lounge, but it is quite interesting to see that folks built personal relationships with some members that they trust in.
Good morning javi. I don't mean to be overly pedantic, but I think it's important to note that the op is clearly and specifically concerned with "discussing philosophical ideas in Private Messages".
Quoting javi2541997
Exactly. So the response to such a question is abuse? I don't get it. If the thread were in the Lounge, would that make it OK to be sarcastic and disrespectful? (Perhaps so; I never visit the Lounge.)
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
So let me see how this works. I say, "In my opinion, that's a beautiful painting." And you are "bound to reply", "You aren't very smart"? No other options? Man, I hope your real-life conversations don't go that way! :grin:
Im not a fan of PM discussions simply because I think ideas should be discussed in public, because thats how knowledge moves society forward. While private discussions are more comfortable, I dont think that comfort is supposed to be part of the practice of philosophy, simply through the idea that philosophy rely on conflicting ideas to be tested.
It could be nice to test an idea that isnt well fleshed out first before going into a public discussion, but I feel like private discussions kind of defeats the purpose of this place, which is to be a public forum. Private discussions then becomes more of a fulfillment of the self and the ego, rather than what philosophical discourse is supposed to be.
I think the problem primarily boils down to that there are only a few on this forum that seem to have the capacity and ability to actually discuss ideas, especially when conflicting with their own point of view. And so many discussions become filled with low quality, biased reasoning, with barrages of fallacies that just bloat everything.
In my opinion, the standards should be higher. It doesnt have to be about making an argument based on academic practices, formats, or such, but rather a standard of examined thought that excludes emotional outbursts, heavy bias and obvious fallacies. That constant repetition of flooding philosophical discussions with thoughtless ramblings warrants a warning or even ban if ignored. More than the current standard.
I think the tolerance bar is too high and it serves only the people acting on that level, often dragging things down to their level rather than them being forced to get their act together.
But it comes down to where the mods want things to be and I wont argue that they do a bad job because how to set the bar is extremely hard. Compared to other places online, this place is pure heaven in terms of behavior. I just think that the tolerance bar needs to be lowered a little.
@Jamal Maybe threads could be marked by the writer? As an intent by the poster for what type of discussion they want? Like, if someone wants a more open discussion where people are free to express however they want, that could be Open. And if they want something focused heavily on logic/math or something, maybe logic/analytical, and if someone wants the discussion to be more focused and with heavier scrutiny, maybe Focused or High level. Or maybe just three levels; Open, Medium, High, for free discussions, to more casual but focused, to those with longer written arguments featuring links to actual papers and high level discussions, warranting the highest level of discussion.
Maybe? At least that would warrant an easier way to mod the threads so that people who want a higher level discussion can get rid of those who are mostly here for a lower level of open discussion, while not erasing that option for those people who want to discuss more casually? :chin:
I don't see why you call my response "abuse". I merely pointed out a common personality trait which was indicated to me by the op's claimed use of PM. That trait was identified as "insecurity". Do you generally interpret constructive criticism as abuse?
Quoting J
I don't see the analogy. You provide no indication as to how you draw this conclusion. I very clearly explained how I came to the conclusion of "insecurity". Further, I did not state that I believe the conclusion to be necessary. I asked, (with a question mark in case you missed it) if it was a sound conclusion.
Therefore, I was suggesting it as a topic for discussion. And, judging by the replies, it appears like more people agree with me than disagree.
Some people appear to be missing the bigger picture. What would be the point in having TPF if we all decided that it is better to discuss our philosophical ideas through private messages? I mean, this suggestion that we use PM to discuss philosophy instead of the public forum is absolutely contrary to the very reason for being of TPF. Why does it upset you when the suggestion is scoffed at?
Quoting Hanover
Patience is a virtue which I do not have. If someone joined the chess tournament, and recommended that we play by special rules crafted by that individual, I'd literally lose it. Then @J would see what constitutes "abuse".
No, but it is nevertheless a virtue. I fear your OP could be read not just as a suggestion that sometimes direct communication with a poster is helpful for clearing up issues, particularly if the matter is so esoteric that it might not be of interest or ability to others, but as a suggestion that one is better served if they remove themselves from the common man so they can discuss their thoughts among their elite equals. I can understand the impulse, particularly if you've grown impatient with challenges you feel not valid, but I also believe it is through challenging ideas (even those they may not fully grasp) that many learn, and if you remove yourself from the fray you deprive others that opportunity.
I say this to you in particular because it is obvious to those observing that you have engaged in rigorous study of contemporary analytic philosophy and your contributions have elevated those discussions. Personally, I can say I'd know far less of those areas without your posts because those topics would not have appeared on my radar given my leanings.
My point here isn't, of course, directed only at you, because there are a good many who have their own areas of expertise and many who might have none but might have occassional moments of accidental brilliance. It's really directed at anyone who is considering your OP and thinking of moving their thoughts to a PM consisting only of their hand selected peers. My preference would be to keep most discussions within the general assembly hall and not in private drawing room. But, as I've said, everyone has the right to post publicly, privately, or not at all.
Good afternoon MU. Yes, I understand what this thread is about, and I still believe that the replies this OP received from the rest of the members are very insightful. Yes, it is true that we are not debating about the concept of metaphysics or epistemology. These are 'real' topics of philosophy. But, sometimes, it is nice to get to know each other a little better. These kinds of threads can help us to do so. I think discussing philosophical ideas in private messages is great because I think you share ideas with a member you have in high esteem or you trust in him.
Quoting J
I will be honest: when I joined the forum, I believed that whenever a thread was put in the lounge, it was like a punishment. Nonetheless, later I learnt that the lounge can also hold interesting discussions, but the topic doesn't especially address philosophy, and that's why it ends there. I recommend you visit it. You will not get disappointed. :wink:
I think you know quite well that this is not "constructive criticism," or a disinterested diagnosis of "insecurity":
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It's meant to be hurtful and disparaging.
But I've said enough.
Thanks for the tip. Perhaps I'll have a look!
In analog philosophy, you'd find notes (not shared), papers published or presented (definitely shared but feedback may be delayed), if presented there may be a question period (immediate feedback, TPF most resembles this, but with less up front), but then there's the whole area of conversations with colleagues, letters exchanged, that sort of thing, where ideas are shared less formally but where bringing in another party for feedback is the whole point.
I don't see why we wouldn't just think of the PM like letters exchanged by friends and colleagues. It's been an important part of the practice of philosophy forever, this informal exchange of ideas. Over the years I've shared lots of half-baked ideas in PMs I didn't think were ready for primetime (if any of my ideas are). Of course in that situation you're going to talk to someone who's outlook you're familiar with, someone you expect to understand what you're trying to do and may even be sympathetic. It's a good test bed. It makes sense not to take on people first who don't understand what you're after or understand but oppose you.
Of course some people, probably most, are here for the combat, so none of this would apply to them.
(As someone who values a more collaborative approach, I should probably have spent more time in PMs.)
Haven't you said something like "it's not a personal attack if it's true"? Would it be a personal attack or an observation to say that you are a contradicting hypocrite?
Quoting Hanover
Me too but Banno ends up taking the whole chess board, pieces and all, to play with someone else after we've only made two moves each.
Quoting Banno
No one was asking for infinite patience. Not responding to posts after we've only exchanged two means you have already reached your limit of patience? :roll:
We're just asking you questions to clarify what you said, or why what you said does not integrate well with the rest of what we know.
Quoting Banno
I'm sure the people you are referencing have come to the same conclusions and no longer participate in your thread in an effort to change your mind, but to inform other, more open-minded individuals the deficiencies of your ideas. I've had some others respond to my response to your post or thread trying to make your argument for you.
This has been a frustration for me in my own threads. I try to write detailed OPs and be very specific about the issues I want to discuss. This is important to me, when I start a thread, I have something very specific in mind and I need help figuring it out or testing my ideas. When I try to enforce the terms of the OP on other posters, they are often incensed.
I think you're missing what is plain to see:
Quoting Hanover
Banno comments (brags), quite often, about how he has to take things to PM since the forum is too dumb. What others are pointing out is much more in line with the reality of the situation. You are again missing the contextual situation of the thing you read.
Yes. I wrote an OP where I wanted to work through a paper, chapter by chapter. I made it abundantly clear. This is what happened:
Quoting Leontiskos
@Banno, who did his darndest to undermine the thread from the first page, literally flouted the terms of the OP and moved to unread sections, all in order to try to make those sections look stupid.
I think it would be great if the mods enforced intuitive OP-terms, but that thread showed me that they are not willing, or else are not able due to time constraints. I was even PMing one, asking for help.
's thread on Adorno is presumably one place where such terms would be enforced, and that is great. I think it would be enormously helpful if users could create reading groups where such simple and commonsensical terms were enforced, and trolls like @Banno were not allowed to sabotage the threads and contravene the terms of the OP. Again, Banno is himself the biggest culprit of the things he complains about.
Ive had better luck with moderators than you. Baden in particular takes these things seriously. Hes not around all that much these days. Other moderators have told me its not their job, which certainly perplexes me.
INGREDIENTS
2 lbs beef tripe
1 cup flour
salt
black pepper
cayenne pepper, to taste
oil (for frying)
DIRECTIONS
Heat oil to 350 degrees F. Boil tripe until tender. Allow to cool enough to handle. Cut tripe into strips or cubes. Mix flour, salt, and both peppers. Dredge tripe in flour mixture. Fry until golden brown. Drain on paper towels.
This sub-topic is also related to Mikie's thread/request, and also my <post> which is admittedly wacky and entirely unrealistic given the forum features of all currently extant forum software. I think the principle is interesting, even though many of the objections given were also quite reasonable.
I think it's a lot more complicated than that. Consider this from Banno's most recent thread, which I also responded to there:
Quoting Banno
Banno is inviting private contributions to a public thread. How would that work? In fact what I would say is happening is that Banno is conflating himself with the public thread, and slipping into a form of solipsism. He mistakenly believes that any contribution to himselfeven privatelyis a contribution to the thread.
This is why we have seen Banno confusedly reprimand posters within a thread for failing to understand what is being discussed privately, by Banno's cohort, about the thread. Banno's PMs are a very strange attempt to proxy-lecture the people in public threads who are not invited to the PM. It is a cathartic way for him to "conquer" privately those who he cannot "conquer" publicly, much like someone who fantasizes about conquering an enemy and is then confused to find that their fantasy had no effect on the real state of their enemy.
This is also why this thread is filled with eye-rolling towards Banno. Posters are used to Banno gesturing towards the way he has conquered them behind closed doors, and they are sick of it. "You're ignorant. The Brights have already discussed and settled this in a private court."
Thus it is not a retreat; it is inevitably a means that is leveraged within the public forum, precisely because the public forum is the place from whence the dispute emerged, and to which it must therefore return if any resolution is to be had. In this case it is a very strange form of resolution.
(Note too how quickly these sorts of private cliques will lead to factionalism within the forum, or else exacerbate that problem.)
How does one find the replies he/she made in these PM conversations? All I can find are the incoming messages.
I think the invitation is for people to PM if they want to, not that the PM is a contribution to a public thread. So it would work by someone PMing him.
I see no problem with doing philosophy by PM, though it would defeat the point of the website to exclusively do philosophy by PM, perhaps. Still -- people are allowed to erect boundaries around themselves in any social situation, and it's the same here.
I don't mind putting my ideas out there for all the reasons thus far stated. But I can see an occasional use for philosophy by PM. One of them being asking someone you know who you share some perspective with to ask them to review their argument and make sure they aren't missing something that they are.
And sometimes I really only want to hear one person's take on a particular subject because of some past interaction. It could eventually be formulated into a whole thread, but I know that my interest is so specific at that time that the thread would be a non-starter.
I don't think it's so nefarious as you're imputing. Obviously if one wants to have something challenged then the public posting does that -- but sometimes you just want to leave as assumption alone to work out something else, and it's easier to do that with someone you have a good history of communication with.
Okay, but what is the person who sends the PM contributing to? What does it mean to "Invite PM contributions"?
Quoting Moliere
Not 'perhaps', but 'certainly'. No?
Quoting Moliere
Although I am having trouble following your pronouns here, I would say that that sort of clarification is much more helpful within the public forum (assuming you are speaking about a point of clarification on something that was said publicly). That is precisely what is needed on the public forum: earnest requests for clarification, and earnest answers.
Quoting Moliere
I agree.
Quoting Moliere
Catharsis is not nefarious, no. That would be a very poor word to describe what I illustrated.
The relationship between the persons. Relationships are both communal and sometimes selective -- and really these work in tandem, I think. You don't vent to your wife about your wife, but that venting to your friend can contribute to the marriage by releasing frustration. Further, sometimes your friend will see something you did not, and given the current relationship with your wife you'll listen to your friend.
Quoting Leontiskos
Just depends on how it's done I think. The fora is what I focus my attention on. But suppose there were a person who only PM'ed for philosophy -- perhaps they are very shy or only want 1-on-1 interactions instead of the wild ride which is the public fora. I have no qualms with that.
So an OP which says, "I might also invite PM contributions," is saying, "I might invite some of you to contribute to our personal relationship"? That is a very curious reading. Usually when an OP talks about "contributions" it is talking about contributions to the thread. Surely you see this?
Quoting Moliere
You've switched the topic. You said, "it would defeat the point of the website to exclusively do philosophy by PM, perhaps." I can see that you would have no qualms with someone who only PM'ed, but it does seem to me that the purpose of the website has to do with a forum.
It's not a change of topic to note what the "perhaps" I had in mind as an exception was. Also, on the other side, "perhaps" means that there's something I could have overlooked while still saying there's nothing wrong with philosophy by PM, even by the standards of a fora. It is and has been a feature since the forums inception.
Echo chambers, so I believe, we all believe are bad. Or at least understand that to be a danger. Wanting scrutiny in the public eye, so I believe, we all believe to be good.
PM's are a means to facilitate avoiding the bad and pursuing the good.
Quoting Leontiskos
I'd say it's contributing to the question, sure. Not just any PM -- but ones about the question. Necessarily that doesn't contribute to the thread, but it could still contribute to the forum in the same manner that my analogy meant.
So, yes, it is a forum, and the forum is a community, which comprises many sorts of relationships -- even when it's a specialty topic. Sometimes a person wants to contribute to a topic without contributing to a thread, and that would most likely be due to some relationship involved such as "I tend to see you as a trustworthy person on this topic, so..."