The art of argument

CSGnet Archive CSG2000
1

[Mark Lazare 2000.09.22.0200 PDT]

In a message dated 9/20/2000 9:12:40 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

<< "Convince a man against his will; he's of the same opinion still." >>

I was thinking about the art of argument, after reading this line.

Writing is only a good medium if you are a good writer. With regard to the
CSGnet we have no standard format, so writing styles vary greatly, due to
many reasons and styles, we sometime have trouble getting our point across.
So, I am proposing a standard format for posts that are empirical in nature.
Not limited to raw data, but including raw threads of logic regarding PCT
proposals and ideas.

The format is based on PCT. I came up with this idea while reading Bill's
post. In his style of writing he uses PCT in theory and in practice most of
the time, covering most of the following, most of the time.

What I noticed is when an idea is presented,

1) He identifies the goal, intention and/or the purpose of the idea.
2) He will focus on the idea in context to PCT and/or the Theory presented
for clarification.
3) He also compares the idea or proposal to a standard of PCT or related
Facts already in existence.
4) Then a summery or conclusion, supported by observations and/or facts, that
changes (reframes) the idea presented or reaffirms the idea presented.

These 4 steps comprise the major components of the PCT model.
1) the reference
2) the perception
3) the comparator
4) the output effecting the controlled variable

By using all four steps in response to an idea or proposal in a CSGnet post;

1) You will confirm we are talking about the same reference in the right
context, regarding the goal, intention and/or the purpose of the idea
presented.
2) the focus of the reply is in context to PCT and/or the Theory presented
for clarification. (personal sentiments aside)
3) Compare the idea or proposal to a standard of PCT or related Facts all
ready in existence. (Never dismiss the proposal simply as wrong, without
saying WHY).
4) Include a summery or conclusion, supported by observations and/or facts,
that changes the idea presented or reaffirms the idea presented.

This is the CSGnet. I believe we should practice putting PCT to work in our
post.
This way the "respect" will be built into the post presented and in the
response to the post.

Mark Lazare

2

[From Bill Powers (2000.09.23.0645 MDT)]

Mark Lazare 2000.09.22.0200 PDT --

Writing is only a good medium if you are a good writer. With regard to the
CSGnet we have no standard format, so writing styles vary greatly, due to
many reasons and styles, we sometime have trouble getting our point across.
So, I am proposing a standard format for posts that are empirical in nature.
Not limited to raw data, but including raw threads of logic regarding PCT
proposals and ideas.

A noble proposal, and probably helpful to anyone trying to organize a
report. Whether people can really take advantage of it is questionable, in
my opinion, because writing style is very hard both to acquire and to
change. Probably what will help the most in achieving "respect" is simply
to try to remember to respect the differences between people.

On the other hand, it also would help if readers would make an attempt to
develop a thicker skin. It is very constricting to write to an audience of
people who are always on a hair-trigger, ready to fly into a rage over
every mild or even imagined insult. This leads toward a formal atmosphere
in which writers have to try to guess what will and will not set off the
ranks of hypersensitive critics. Frankly, I am bothered by some of Rick's
hasty and thoughtless (and sometimes angry) comments mainly because of how
I know certain _other_ people will react to them -- they don't particularly
upset me. My admittedly blue-collar social upbringing was such that a few
angry words are seen more as expressions of feeling, not to be taken
personally or seriously, and not to be remembered beyond the boundaries of
the immediate situation. I think that often the most appropriate reply to
Rick would be a nice blue-collar response like "What, are you on the rag
again?" Apologies to any who are shocked by such a crude, but in ordinary
human affairs perfectly common male Chauvinist expression. But not very
sincere apologies. Loosen up.

Best,

Bill P.

3

[From Rick Marken (2000.09.23.1030)]

Bill Powers (2000.09.23.0645 MDT)--

Frankly, I am bothered by some of Rick's hasty and thoughtless
(and sometimes angry) comments mainly because of how I know
certain _other_ people will react to them -- they don't
particularly upset me.

I'm glad to hear that. But I wonder if, to some extent, people
(yourself included) may be basing their evaluation of the extent
to which my posts are hasty, thoughtless and angry on sins I
committed years ago. I think my net demeanor has improved over
the years. I'm sure I still slip with an occasional ill-
considered comment. But I believe that I am slipping a lot
less frequently than I was when CSGNet started. And I really
don't think I was all _that_ bad even then.

My admittedly blue-collar social upbringing was such that
a few angry words are seen more as expressions of feeling, not
to be taken personally or seriously, and not to be remembered
beyond the boundaries of the immediate situation.

The same was true in my effette white collar social upbringing
as well. I think this may be a matter of class, but not of
_social_ class;-)

Best

Rick

ยทยทยท

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

4

MARK LAZARE 2000.09.23.1200 PDT

THANK YOU

[Bill Powers (2000.09.23.0645 MDT)]