There is nothing “touchy”—oversensitive, easily offended—about rebutting a claim per se. In calling me “touchy” for rebutting a claim, you seem to be implying that anyone who rebuts that claim is easily offended.
There’s an alternate reading of SarahC’s reaction.
Your comment addressed 2 percent of her article that was not essential to the main thrust of article and interpreted this portion of the article in a way that made it look as though you suspected her of partisanship. Your choice of focus suggested to me that her comparison of Democrats and Republicans put you on the defensive.
Miscommunication is common on the internet as the communication aids of body language / facial expression / tone of voice that humans evolved are absent. I recognize that my initial reading of your comment may have been inaccurate.
Since statements made on the internet are easily misinterpreted, I think it’s a good idea to probe as to whether one’s initial interpretation is correct when responding to somebody’s statement.
In particular, I think that you would have been more likely to provoke a positive reaction from the poster if your initial comment had been something like
“Do you have a strong belief about Democrats being more diverse than Republicans or was your reference just an offhand comment? If so, can you give supporting references?”
On the flip side, I think that she could have better communicated with you in her response to your comment. Concretely, I would guess that she would have been more likely to receive a favorable response from you had she responded with:
“I was not claiming that Democrats are more tolerant than Republicans. My remark that Democrats are more diverse than Republicans is based on a vague memory of a study which I can no longer find. I will cut out the reference accordingly as my evidence on this point is very weak and is not crucial to the main thrust of the article.”
Your comment addressed 2 percent of her article that was not essential to the main thrust of article
It hardly seems unusual or wrong for tangential discussions to form.
and interpreted this portion of the article in a way that made it look as though you suspected her of partisanship.
I stated almost straight out that I believed her source was probably academic and therefore probably biased in a way that flattered Democrats. Academics contribute to Democrats over Republicans by something close to 90% to 10%. They are an amazingly heavily Democratic bunch of people. I said nothing about her.
The bias is not a matter of dishonesty. Look at the Juan Williams example. If you think that NPR is more reputable than Fox, are you being dishonest? If you think that NPR is more intolerant than Fox, are you being dishonest? I don’t see any obvious dishonesty either way. But it’s a hugely different perspective, which interprets the same event—the firing of Juan Williams—in two very different ways.
She objected that tolerance is not variety, that networks are not the population at large. But the point is a very general point. Bias greatly affects what we measure. Suppose you are trying to measure relative tolerance at NPR and Fox. If you think that NPR is reputable and Fox is disreputable, then you have no reason to interpret Juan Williams’s firing as an indication that NPR is more intolerant than Fox. It makes sense that disreputable Fox should seek out reputable people, and that reputable NPR should disassociate itself from disreputable people.
So your perspective is going to greatly affect your result when you attempt to measure degree of tolerance. Yes, tolerance is not variety, but it’s a general point. (And anyway, tolerance is closely related to variety.)
Your choice of focus suggested to me that her comparison of Democrats and Republicans put you on the defensive.
I don’t even know what to make of this. “On the defensive” means, what? Any action in either a military conflict or a intellectual disagreement could be called a “defense” (e.g. of one’s own position). Do you mean that my choice of focus suggested to you that I am touchy about the topic? That I am overly sensitive (the meaning of touchy)? Is that what you mean by “defensive”?
Well, I don’t really see why the choice of topic would suggest to you that I am overly sensitive to the topic. That I am sensitive enough to respond—sure. But is that over sensitive? Maybe it is being more sensitive than she is. She does, after all, say she doesn’t care. If she’s the model of the correct degree of sensitivity, then I am over-sensitive. But what if she is under-sensitive and I am just right?
In particular, I think that you would have been more likely to provoke a positive reaction from the poster if …
I would guess that she would have been more likely to receive a favorable response from you had she...
I’m not sure what to make of this. If I take issue with something, then I will take issue with it. Is this what you call an “unfavorable response”? Are you saying that, had she refrained from saying something that I took issue with, then I would not have taken issue with it? I suppose so. But where’s the fun in that? And anyway, how can she possibly know what I will take issue with and what I won’t? Isn’t the point of discussion to discover what other people take issue with?
Are we supposed to avoid argument? Avoid disagreement?
As it happens, she said something I took issue with. In your revision of her comments, you eliminated stuff I took issue with. But you’re doing this with hindsight. That’s cheating. You already know that I don’t take issue with it, because I didn’t take issue with it.
There’s an alternate reading of SarahC’s reaction.
Your comment addressed 2 percent of her article that was not essential to the main thrust of article and interpreted this portion of the article in a way that made it look as though you suspected her of partisanship. Your choice of focus suggested to me that her comparison of Democrats and Republicans put you on the defensive.
Miscommunication is common on the internet as the communication aids of body language / facial expression / tone of voice that humans evolved are absent. I recognize that my initial reading of your comment may have been inaccurate.
Since statements made on the internet are easily misinterpreted, I think it’s a good idea to probe as to whether one’s initial interpretation is correct when responding to somebody’s statement.
In particular, I think that you would have been more likely to provoke a positive reaction from the poster if your initial comment had been something like
“Do you have a strong belief about Democrats being more diverse than Republicans or was your reference just an offhand comment? If so, can you give supporting references?”
On the flip side, I think that she could have better communicated with you in her response to your comment. Concretely, I would guess that she would have been more likely to receive a favorable response from you had she responded with:
“I was not claiming that Democrats are more tolerant than Republicans. My remark that Democrats are more diverse than Republicans is based on a vague memory of a study which I can no longer find. I will cut out the reference accordingly as my evidence on this point is very weak and is not crucial to the main thrust of the article.”
Is this right?
It hardly seems unusual or wrong for tangential discussions to form.
I stated almost straight out that I believed her source was probably academic and therefore probably biased in a way that flattered Democrats. Academics contribute to Democrats over Republicans by something close to 90% to 10%. They are an amazingly heavily Democratic bunch of people. I said nothing about her.
The bias is not a matter of dishonesty. Look at the Juan Williams example. If you think that NPR is more reputable than Fox, are you being dishonest? If you think that NPR is more intolerant than Fox, are you being dishonest? I don’t see any obvious dishonesty either way. But it’s a hugely different perspective, which interprets the same event—the firing of Juan Williams—in two very different ways.
She objected that tolerance is not variety, that networks are not the population at large. But the point is a very general point. Bias greatly affects what we measure. Suppose you are trying to measure relative tolerance at NPR and Fox. If you think that NPR is reputable and Fox is disreputable, then you have no reason to interpret Juan Williams’s firing as an indication that NPR is more intolerant than Fox. It makes sense that disreputable Fox should seek out reputable people, and that reputable NPR should disassociate itself from disreputable people.
So your perspective is going to greatly affect your result when you attempt to measure degree of tolerance. Yes, tolerance is not variety, but it’s a general point. (And anyway, tolerance is closely related to variety.)
I don’t even know what to make of this. “On the defensive” means, what? Any action in either a military conflict or a intellectual disagreement could be called a “defense” (e.g. of one’s own position). Do you mean that my choice of focus suggested to you that I am touchy about the topic? That I am overly sensitive (the meaning of touchy)? Is that what you mean by “defensive”?
Well, I don’t really see why the choice of topic would suggest to you that I am overly sensitive to the topic. That I am sensitive enough to respond—sure. But is that over sensitive? Maybe it is being more sensitive than she is. She does, after all, say she doesn’t care. If she’s the model of the correct degree of sensitivity, then I am over-sensitive. But what if she is under-sensitive and I am just right?
I’m not sure what to make of this. If I take issue with something, then I will take issue with it. Is this what you call an “unfavorable response”? Are you saying that, had she refrained from saying something that I took issue with, then I would not have taken issue with it? I suppose so. But where’s the fun in that? And anyway, how can she possibly know what I will take issue with and what I won’t? Isn’t the point of discussion to discover what other people take issue with?
Are we supposed to avoid argument? Avoid disagreement?
As it happens, she said something I took issue with. In your revision of her comments, you eliminated stuff I took issue with. But you’re doing this with hindsight. That’s cheating. You already know that I don’t take issue with it, because I didn’t take issue with it.