|
Table Talk has recently seen some deep and extended conversations about the nature of online community and discussion. As a service to those who haven't had the time to read and contribute to these conversations — and also as a tribute to those who have — we offer this collage of postings (excerpted but otherwise unedited).
This compilation in no way pretends to be definitive or exhaustive, and there are doubtless plenty of equally valuable or cogent postings that we've omitted. Add one caveat: Posts often depend on the surrounding conversation for meaning and context. Each of these posts is linked to its original place in the conversation-flow. Follow the links back to their sources if you're looking for a fuller understanding of the original poster's thinking.
TOPICS
Talking? Writing? Debating?
Changing your mind
What makes conversation work?
Flaming
Community
Table Talk and the world outside
From
A thought experiment: how do you get a sense of the Salon? (in Digital Culture)
Alan N. Reeder - 07:07am Oct 21, 1996 PST (#80)
One of the important things we are witnessing in Table Talk is the combination of both oral and literate styles of communication. Orality is, Jay, typically "additive," tends to friendly banter and unashamedly revisionist in its recollections. Literacy makes analysis of the record possible. With these two styles merging, I suspect we are moving to a heretofore unexperienced level of community.
From
A thought experiment: how do you get a sense of the Salon? (in Digital Culture)
Keith Chaffee - 03:56pm Oct 25, 1996 PST (#163)
...The more I write in this thread, the more my style changes to match the style of the thread.
From
A thought experiment: how do you get a sense of the Salon? (in Digital Culture)
Jay Rosen - 07:09am Oct 21, 1996 PST (#81)
What's a real debate like when a genuine public gathers itself and actually does it?
Some of the interesting answers we have developed are: a real debate has passion that will often overflow, and the overflows are themselves important; a real debate progresses through misunderstandings that are faithfully pursued; a real debate tries to represent positions and perspectives beyond those the participants own personally (in other words, it requires imagination).
From
A thought experiment: how do you get a sense of the Salon? (in Digital Culture)
Keith Chaffee - 10:51am Oct 25, 1996 PST (#157)
I'm not sure that "heated debate" is what we're after, for lots of reasons, its tendency to intimidate the novice among them. It also tends to be polarizing, and to more easily degenerate into name-calling and flaming. The word "debate" itself is somewhat problematic, implying (as I think it does) that there are two (and only two) opposing viewpoints, one of which must "win."
I tend to think of TTalk at its best as "lively discussion" more than "heated debate," which is not to deny the important role of strong feelings, passionately argued. This may just be a semantic distinction I'm making, but this is a new form of communication we're developing (or trying to). The terms we use in describing it, and thinking about it, may have a strong impact on the way its participants approach it.
mschmidt - 11:25am Oct 25, 1996 PST (#158)
I don't think people set out looking for debates. But sometimes debates do develop, and often the resolution of these debates does enhance the overall discussion. I think if we avoided debates, we would be avoiding, in some cases, careful examination of the premises from which people are putting forth arguments. This would make the discussions a whole lot less useful to the participants, in my opinion.
From
A thought experiment: how do you get a sense of the Salon? (in Digital Culture)
ed phillips - 12:27pm Oct 23, 1996 PST (#132)
I want to chime in with a praise and paraphrase of what Anthony said. "Post whatever you like, in the language you find most comfortable. But, be ready for criticism about the language and/or the ideas. Be open to it. Try to clarify if you can or want to."
Everyone is welcome to register their reaction. But we shouldn't ban anyone's "jargon." In fact we might encourage people to post in their favorite jargon and see what the results are from the cacophony.
There are so many jargons out there. Can we embrace many of them and bring them into the conversations? We all have different reasons for entering into ttalk. Some of us may be looking for a "public." Others may be just testing the waters to see if anyone else has a passion to discuss a few ideas they are inspired by. We live in such an "expert" culture, where people make a living off of the exclusivity of their "jargon." Or they are hired as translators.
Ttalk seems to be a meeting place, or clashing place for desires that go in both directions.
From
What has Table Talk Done For You? (in Salon Central)
Paige Lehman - 10:53pm Nov 11, 1996 PST (#6)
One thing about TT that has occurred to me recently, is what a regular practice it has become to find myself genuinely liking those who made an initial bad impression on me... in real life, this is rare. We give each other much more of a chance to explain, correct, find mutual ground here, than is common 'outside'. In life, you are rarely given the chance to correct your misapprehensions and hasty words. Here, we sometimes stick with it 'til we get it right. Not always, but often enough to change my outlook on people whose beliefs conflict fundamentally with mine — sometimes they're right, and I'm floundering. Putting forth your best shot and being made to eat your words, or modify them, is an experience we should all encounter at least once a week. Makes you much less likely to see the 'other side' as wrong-headed by definition!
This is a mutual forum for interpersonal skills none of us learned in school, and which few of us are allowed to put in practice in our daily lives. I would not put the same conversational tools I have learned here into play with my boss (or my mother); both expect a certain amount of deference I don't cede easily here. I don't need to use them among my friends; they understand me well enough already. But the best of what I learn here can be taken into all those relationships, and improve them. I do see a real change in the way I relate to the world since coming here, and it's a good one — I'm at once more ready to listen and more 'damn the torpedoes' about giving my opinion. There's an immediate recursiveness to TT that never plays out so clearly in the nuanced situations of daily life.
Certainly, this isn't 'pure' communication, but it's worth its weight. In feathers, dross, or gold.
From
A thought experiment: how do you get a sense of the Salon? (in Digital Culture)
Jay Rosen - 07:55am Oct 25, 1996 PST (#153)
Even more interesting, I think, is that mysterious moment when we change —or simply enlarge —our minds....
Think of how powerful a post is when it begins, "Okay, I've changed my mind." There's a little story there, a narrative of thought, that's intrinsically interesting to read, and community-enhancing to boot. Why? Because the mind that's been changed is also saying, "You folks have helped me."
In my career as a public speaker, I've noticed how people lean a little closer, pay renewed attention, if I start a sentence with, "I used to believe that..." By the time I get to, "But now, I"m convinced that..." they're engaged, whether they agree or not with the new resting place. Maybe we should do this more in Table Talk.
From
Why do threads not die out? (in Digital Culture)
John Leathers - 11:23pm Nov 5, 1996 PST (#53)
So, back to topic. . .why do threads not die out?
Well, firstly, it has to be narrow enough to have an objective, but wide enough for it to encompass enough discussion so it doesn't run out. It has to be timely enough to attract attention, but timeless enough not to be a flash in the pan. It has to be formal enough not to fall into chat, but chatty enough to attract personal interaction. It has to be interactive enough to engage people into the conversation, but not so engaging that people butt heads. It has to be controversial enough to bring out people's emotions, without becoming so emotional that people just flame each other.
From
Why do threads die out? (in Digital Culture)
ormond otvos - 04:17pm Oct 18, 1996 PST (#18)
Remember the little train story? The little train is being a good little train and staying on the track, but then one day he sees a flower and jumps off the track, surprising himself, because he thought trains needed tracks.
Then little red and green flags started popping up in front of him, always steering him back to the track. When he was on the track, there was a long line of green flags going down the track. So he did, and never was bad again.
Sound familiar?
Well, I ain't a train, and life ain't a track.
I try to post so as to stimulate discussion, preferable intelligent discussion. But I'll settle for just getting someone's attention, if that's their attitude.
The picture I get is this: I try to sidetrack the little trains of thought to a place where the transition to free wheeling is acceptable.
Some trains need a longer siding than others.
Yes, I admit that this is elitist or anarchistic or nihilistic or something. That's the whole point. I just don't like runaway trains.
A lot lof the posters here are just as much runaway trains as Bob Dole or Jesse Helms. I like a thinker who can respond to what's actually been asked, instead of jamming the subject into their little world-view.
From
A thought experiment: how do you get a sense of the Salon? (in Digital Culture)
Paige Lehman - 11:38pm Nov 3, 1996 PST (#218)
One trick that I've learned is the 'human red herring' ploy. Or 'crash test dummy'. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. If two people have commandeered a thread for what is obviously an airing of irreconcilable difference at great length, sometimes you can break up the ensuing logjam by offering an opinion with which both parties will take issue. (No, you needn't pat me on the back. I stumbled on this technique quite by accident. Ouch!)
While they are busy uniting in pursuit of you, others can resume the discussion on a more diverse level. Several such disputes have been resolved by the agreement of the combatants that I had no idea what the hell I was talking about! They end by sharing a quiet glow of superiority, and the realization that it's possible to work toward a common goal.
From
A thought experiment: how do you get a sense of the Salon? (in Digital Culture)
ormond otvos - 05:52pm Oct 25, 1996 PST (#165)
...But people from college, and people from Berkeley, a quintessential college town, talk funny. They never use a little word when a big one will fit, and they presume that regular folk have the time to be thinking about the big issues everyday, and that they are familiar with academic terms. Maybe they heard them once, but they're not FAMILIAR.
It's like when some guy comes in and asks how many times to pull the rope while choking the chain saw. I could explain the entire theory of carburetion, with the vapor and the 15:1 andsoforth, but I just say "pull once on choke, and then half choke", cause he wants to start his chainsaw, not learn chemistry.
But if he comes in later and asks just exactly why I said that, then I get to show off the chemistry and physics. It's a lot about who cares. People in Salon frequently ask for further background, and they usually get it, but I would caution the elaborative to wait for a request before singing the aria.
From
A thought experiment: how do you get a sense of the Salon? (in Digital Culture)
Anthony Cody - 01:23pm Oct 14, 1996 PST (#37)
I think the threads which are most successful have one or more people who really devote considerable attention to the discussion there. This sometimes is the initiator, sometimes not. These people, largely self-selected, monitor the discussion, pose new challenges when appropriate, and bring the discussion back on topic when it strays too far afield. To do this well takes skill, and passion about the subject being discussed. When threads are guided thusly, they have a better chance of being productive, in my opinion.
From
A thought experiment: how do you get a sense of the Salon? (in Digital Culture)
mschmidt - 03:48pm Oct 14, 1996 PST (#41)
Some threads have guides, true... Other threads that do not have guides are quite active and exciting. These threads keep on going because of the depth and complexity of the misunderstandings which occur. Two or four people of such completely different points of view keep the subject going simply by virtue of the fact that they keep stepping on each other's sacred ground. I think the much-discussed Sokal thread was like this. Erika would say something that would completely go against my view of science (like the comment about plate tectonics) or I would say something that would offend Erika (like "natural language sucks.") In my view, Erika and I weren't "guiding" the thread, we were trying to "contain" it (it's wildfire season in southern California).
From
Why do threads not die out? (in Digital Culture)
Anthony Cody - 06:44am Oct 24, 1996 PST (#2)
Threads last longer if the original title and head are well-crafted. Ideally, they continually express the question of the thread in a provocative way, so that new participants are continually lured in to add their responses.
[Salon's Community Standards explicitly ban personal attacks and "flaming." This has led to some of the most vociferous conversations in Table Talk. In one such topic, a member proposed the concept of "flaming fair," discussed in some of the following posts. The original poster did not respond to an e-mail request to quote the passage, but you can read it here.]
From
A thought experiment: how do you get a sense of the Salon? (in Digital Culture)
Prentice Hall - 05:24am Oct 12, 1996 PST (#9)
One line I take issue with, however. "FLAME FAIR." To me that's an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp, friendly fire, military intelligence etc. Unless of course we define "flame" differently. I consider it character assassination with the first weapon at hand — ignorance. You know, swear 'em down, label 'em, use common and uncommon vulgarisms.
The minute anything remotely borders on "flame," I stop listening and dismiss the poster as someone unable to defend his/her view the more difficult way — intelligently, with style and thought. To take cover behind democracy or the First Amendment, to use that as an excuse to abuse rather than just argue with someone, is rather cheap and typical of many of the "I have my rights-and you have what's left-types" that seem to rule the day at this moment in history.
From
A thought experiment: how do you get a sense of the Salon? (in Digital Culture)
Anthony Cody - 12:28pm Oct 31, 1996 PST (#195)
I love talking to other people here. I want to celebrate my fellow posters when they make a good point, or find a new insight. I am not here to wage battle. My ego does not depend on vanquishing opponents on threads I enter. "Flame Fair" says we are here to contend, and compete. We are here to fight. I say, we are here to talk. Take your fights elsewhere.
From
A thought experiment: how do you get a sense of the Salon? (in Digital Culture)
payton tremaine - 04:15pm Oct 28, 1996 PST (#176)
...So, while I don't always agree on mild and lengthy or protracted back and forth with people, I can see the wisdom of drawing out some people, if for no other reason to let them use their words to expose themselves. Good and bad.
And, they might just change to see something I post as valid too, but that might not happen if I level them right away (disclaimer to not give impression I won't at some future date... she says as she imagines future knuckleheads...).
From
A thought experiment: how do you get a sense of the Salon? (in Digital Culture)
Paige Lehman - 05:15pm Oct 12, 1996 PST (#11)
...Flaming is a real world phenomenon, too. Ideally 'the best possible discussion that might be had' should be above it — but would we really be doing... a service by not exploring the effect of ad hominem argument...?
From
A thought experiment: how do you get a sense of the Salon? (in Digital Culture)
Anthony Cody - 10:18am Nov 1, 1996 PST (#202)
When I email someone on the side, and our exchanges demonstrate that we have really come to know each other, as a result of reading each others' words, these are real relationships.
I explicitly reject the notion that this is a "virtual" community. The idea conjures up an image of cyborgs typing at keyboards in isolated cubicles, remotely accessing each others' brains. We are talking here to each other. There is a screen and some phone lines between us, but we are people, sharing ideas, getting to know one another.
This "community" is young. Most participants have only been here a few short months. We have yet to see whether our community can respond with any coherence to the challenges that face us.
From
Shock the World: A Challenge to Table Talkers to Start Building A Community (in Salon Central)
tim haggerty - 06:26am Nov 14, 1996 PST (#91)
I am not sure what we are trying to build, and I wonder if we understand the nature of a commmunity as a part of the whole. I made a comment in "thought experiment" about the old Navy "freedom wall" where each of us would vent our spleen and reduce the tension of the whole group. We would cover everything from life aboard ship to Reagan.
I see TT as doing that today, and one just needs to "lurk" and see the frustration. People trying to find a voice and standing up for thing they believe in, but does this make a community?
I am sadden by the fact that there are some many false names and e-mail address, and I am sure the fear is real and a sign of our times. You will find me just who I am, and that all that I am, and if you drop by bring some beer. If we are all shut up in our little cyber-houses, then link out and spray our ideas and thoughts in TT, is that a community?
...what are we going to do, who can we help, what potholes in the street need filling, how can we make the streets safe, do we live in a walled community safe for a few or open to all, how will we define our citizenship in this community. Oh and does anyone know of a good babysitter for this Saturday?
From
What has Table Talk Done For You? (in Salon Central)
Anthony Cody - 02:44pm Nov 11, 1996 PST (#1)
I found Table Talk in May of this year, and before long was spending an hour or two each day here. As Cyrus recently pointed out, my relationship to him, and many other posters, has changed over the months.Why? Because now we care what the other thinks. That is the basis for a community, I think. When I enter a bulletin board, I might post a political text because I wish to have an impact on others. Here, however, I really care what people think.
Why do I care? Because I have gotten to know the individuals here. I have seen them in various moods, heard them discuss their struggles with their children, parents, and communities. I also care what they think of me. Posting under my own name, I am very conscious of my on-screen personality. Having a presence here based on that personality and our collective experience gives me the basis, the relationship with others, which I need to go deeper when I wish. It allows me to challenge others when they reveal intolerance. It allows others, hopefully, to discover inconsistencies in me. It is a real pleasure to be challenged by someone who knows you, and can bring out what is best in you.
I have found the communications and relational skills I have sharpened here on Table Talk to be transferring to other spheres of my life. Friends in my collaborative teachers group actually commented on how sharp and clear I was as I led them through the brainstorming of a new book project we are going to work on. I have also been able to help fellow Master's students sharpen their thesis questions in a way I am not sure I could have done a year ago.
The discipline of cogently describing my thoughts, accurately and helpfully responding to the thoughts of another, is an incredibly valuable and transferable skill.
From
Why do threads not die out? (in Digital Culture)
Jay Rosen - 09:54am Nov 11, 1996 PST (#64)
Part of the reason hot-button conflict seems so popular is that the imagined alternative to conflict, which is "consensus," seems so boring. In fact, consensus is not a good way to describe the alternatives.
When people aren't beating each other up or trying to "win" they may be doing many things other than agreeing. The most important of these is building, growing, changing, adding on to an edifice of thought that no one poster could make alone.
The more attractive alternative to head-butting conflict is the image of construction: making something with many minds at work. Indeed, this is a good way to judge the worth of conflict: whether it makes anything that wasn't there before the head-butting began. So often, of course, it doesn't.
We know that hot-button issues get people going: that's why the buttons are hot. But we should also realize that often the going doesn't get anywhere. The dissatisfaction with the dead-level familiarity of so many political conflicts is something we need to build upon in making threads that draw more people in.
From
Signal To Noise Ratio: Elitism Or Good Sense? (in Digital Culture)
Jay Rosen - 07:19am Nov 7, 1996 PST (#196)
This may be a good place to reflect on another thought experiment I've conducted on myself in the "Alan Sokal's Hoax" thread in Books...
In the Sokal deal, I started out in one relationship: initiator of the thread, getting the discussion started, pointing people to where they could find the relevant documents on-line, tossing in my own views. A familiar role for a lot us. Then I retreated to another relationship: reader and watcher, as Michael and Erika and others started their heated but extraordinarily sastisfying debate on science and literary theory. As that one died down I resumed a "normal" relationship: posting as one voice in a multi-sided conversation.
Things started to change when I posted a notice that I would be moderating a panel on the Sokal affair at NYU, with all the major participants represented. My thought was simply to notify all who were in driving or subway distance that they could attend — FYI, in other words. But I was being rather obtuse. Their curiosity aroused, people in the thread naturally wanted to know what would happen at the NYU forum. They immediately posted requests to me to return after the event with a report.
I should have realized this when I announced the NYU forum and my own participation in it: In notifying members of the talk community that one of their own would be present at an event of significant interest to their discussion, they did what any intelligent community would do: they appointed me their reporter, made me a journalist, and said: come back with a report! In making this request, they were saying to me: now you have a different relationship to the thread. We're counting on you as our eyes and ears. The community thus gave me my press pass, different in kind from the stickers that said PRESS on the dozen or so seats in the auditorium that were reserved for "real" reporters.
My own press pass was bestowed on me by a talk community of which I was an active member — in fact, the initiator. Of course, I always intended to post something in the Sokal thread after the NYU event, but I suddenly realized that I was now obligated to do so. If my previous relationships to the thread meant anything —initiator, guide, lurker, normal poster —then my "new" relationship (reporter) meant something, too. I could hardly return to the Sokal thread and say, "Yeah, I was there but nothing really happened." Enquiring minds want to know!
A journalist's role was thus thrust upon me by my active membership in the community. The organic link between journalism and citizenship —between membership in the fraternity of the press and membership in the community the press "serves" —is, in fact, the starting point for the idea of public journalism. And so I was experimenting in a small way with the claims of my own philosophy. I had to be a "public" journalist toward the mini-public gathered in the Sokal thread.
[Jay Rosen's story continues in following posts]
From
A thought experiment: how do you get a sense of the Salon? (in Digital Culture)
payton tremaine - 05:08pm Oct 11, 1996 PST (#2)
This Salon, IMHO, need not read like a dull editorial page in the local dying newspaper rag. That is a dead art form. I can smell the decay already and so can others. We all want NOW, immediate. We want journalists who pay attention and are accountable directly for words. WE want feedback, we want answers without obligation to implement them. Make this like a living conversation. Warts and all.
From
A thought experiment: how do you get a sense of the Salon? (in Digital Culture)
Jay Rosen - 06:27pm Oct 12, 1996 PST (#15)
Paige: it was me who wrote "posters repeal the power of pollsters." The notion there is not that "we are the public." It's that we're a public that's really a public: alive, conversant with the issues and each other, peopled by characters with personalities as well as ideas, burdened by problems, struggling to converse well, articulate at times, lost at other times. Consider, then, that our failures, if interesting enough, could have as much value as our successes. Our "chat," if real enough, might focus attention. Our difficulties pay dividends if they're the "right" ones. Imperfections are valuable, like streaks of color in a slab of marble. Which ones should we strive for?
From
A thought experiment: how do you get a sense of the Salon? (in Digital Culture)
mschmidt - 08:31pm Oct 13, 1996 PST (#30)
The problem with "thinking of taking a risk that public discussion can work" is that there is really no such thing as public discussion. The only real discussion happens around kitchen tables, water coolers, and the sandwich truck —and on Table Talk. And what happens on Table Talk is completely different from what happens at kitchen tables and around water coolers. The real benefit of places like Table Talk is that you get together a bunch of intellegent and brave people who are willing to discuss things with people whom they don't know and with whom they may have little in common. That just doesn't happen anywhere else in American life, except maybe in colleges.
If Table Talk or its like is to have any effect on public life, it will be from the proliferation of such fora and the widespread participation by large segments of the public. The result would be a population that knew what discussion and debate was all about, and would be prepared to debate and discuss online or around the kitchen table.
Of course, the proliferation of TT-like net entities could result in a gradual sorting of people —so that like-minded people would just be patting each other on the back, rather than really debating issues.
From
A thought experiment: how do you get a sense of the Salon? (in Digital Culture)
Jay Rosen - 07:06am Oct 23, 1996 PST (#126)
Public discourse, if it's genuinely public, is simply harder than academic talk — more demanding on a mind that would communicate, as well as "know." Alan Wolfe, a fine social critic and Boston University professor, told me once that a review he wrote for the New Republic was far more demanding, intellectually, than any of dozens of articles he had done for "exclusive" scholarly quarterlies. It's harder to be inclusive. Of course, it's harder to make a point than to "chat," too.
Table Talk hot spots:
A partial list of some threads that really cooked
| 