Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Forum Self Reflection

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jfoxcpacfp
    replied
    Alrighty, agree and closing down.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kamban
    replied


    Can’t we all just get back to work saving lives and taxes? This introspection and navel gazing seems to have gone a bit far??.
    Click to expand...


    I think this thread is starting to meander aimlessly and probably has run its course. I am concerned that someone might make some comments that might hurt someone or scare off newcomers from posting. If the latter occurs that might make it a closed club of regulars, which is what WCI doesn't want.

    I agree with @wideopenspaces that it is might be time to close this mainly because new ideas are unlikely to occur, and the risk is more than the benefits with keeping it open.

    Leave a comment:


  • jfoxcpacfp
    replied




    Can’t we all just get along?
    Click to expand...


    Can't we all just get back to work saving lives and taxes? This introspection and navel gazing seems to have gone a bit far??.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brains428
    replied
    In defense of my child asking different parents for different answers. I thought it was funny and relatively benign. Also, that comment was on page 4 without a comment from the OP so I figured it was off the rails anyway.

    Can’t we all just get along?


    Leave a comment:


  • Hatton
    replied
    Should we ban the term troll?

    Leave a comment:


  • Zaphod
    replied




     

    The second thing is that it’s never a bad idea to do some self reflection when we hurt someone’s feelings, whether it was intentional or not. That’s how we grow as humans. I engage in this process all the time, with my patients, my husband, my kids, my friends and even random people on the internet. I lose nothing by doing so. I gain nothing from assuming it’s the other person’s problem.
    Click to expand...


    Yes, this is the short version of what I am trying to say. thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • Zaphod
    replied









     
    Click to expand…


    Eh…how on earth is that any different? The interwebs is not a place of formal logical argument, and when we say ad hominem we mean personal attack. Which, by no stretch of the imagination it is. You (figurative for explanation sake) are calling that persons character into question and saying they are lying essentially only for a rise. This effectively kills any substantive discussion about their topic, so its the same. There is no difference in this example and the butt face one.

    As an aside, I think you can place your base rate for trolling a finance forum with physician related questions to near zero, and the times you get caught up in a type 2 error will be worth not committing a ton of type 1 errors. Who cares if you’re taken by a troll or two? Thats not a big deal, so what, cost of playing. Its much worse IMO to slap that title and effectively shut down a line of questioning or inquiry before it starts. Its a decision about what is more costly, our egos or not helping someone learn something.

     
    Click to expand…


    Well when people started thinking about the concept of a logical fallacy obviously there was no anonymity and trolling wasn’t really possible in the same way.

    I don’t really think considering if someone is trolling is questioning their character. You are either wrong or you are right. If you are wrong you are wrong. This happens all the time with WLI salespeople esp on the comments section of blog posts. Things go around and around for a bit and then it comes out that they sell cash value life insurance. That’s far from ad hominen it’s them failing to disclose motives.

    The whole concept of trolling is that it isn’t even a serious attempt at an argument so, contra a troll do logical fallacies even apply? Philosophers will debate this.
    Click to expand...


    Sure, but this is your personal take on it. As we know, what we think about anything, is not the way others may think it. It depends on the context. In the context of some of the above, I would take it personally. All of this is in regards to say a brand new poster, I feel pretty comfy with the regulars and dont worry about that.

    The concept of trolling is that its bait, a purposefully crafted response to elicit a big reaction from people. I really really doubt people come on here and get their kicks out of firing up some finance nerds with certain questions.

    The couple times I've seen the trolling accusation its not been appropriate in my view (which is again just my opinion, could be wrong). Again, with the point being to help people on this site, the bar to offense or even trolling is higher to me. Id rather be made a fool than shut down a real question.

    I mean people do have terrible situations and from an experienced persons point of view the dumbest of questions, I've certainly been there on various topics. You still want to encourage them however.

    I like the idea we've recently thrown around, try not to get six pages in of guessing before you get an update, then theres not so much speculation, etc...

    Leave a comment:


  • MPMD
    replied






     
    Click to expand…


    Eh…how on earth is that any different? The interwebs is not a place of formal logical argument, and when we say ad hominem we mean personal attack. Which, by no stretch of the imagination it is. You (figurative for explanation sake) are calling that persons character into question and saying they are lying essentially only for a rise. This effectively kills any substantive discussion about their topic, so its the same. There is no difference in this example and the butt face one.

    As an aside, I think you can place your base rate for trolling a finance forum with physician related questions to near zero, and the times you get caught up in a type 2 error will be worth not committing a ton of type 1 errors. Who cares if you’re taken by a troll or two? Thats not a big deal, so what, cost of playing. Its much worse IMO to slap that title and effectively shut down a line of questioning or inquiry before it starts. Its a decision about what is more costly, our egos or not helping someone learn something.

     
    Click to expand...


    Well when people started thinking about the concept of a logical fallacy obviously there was no anonymity and trolling wasn't really possible in the same way.

    I don't really think considering if someone is trolling is questioning their character. You are either wrong or you are right. If you are wrong you are wrong. This happens all the time with WLI salespeople esp on the comments section of blog posts. Things go around and around for a bit and then it comes out that they sell cash value life insurance. That's far from ad hominen it's them failing to disclose motives.

    The whole concept of trolling is that it isn't even a serious attempt at an argument so, contra a troll do logical fallacies even apply? Philosophers will debate this.

    Leave a comment:


  • wideopenspaces
    replied
    A couple thoughts . . .

    This forum is generally drama free. Which I like. However that means it's not super well equipped to deal with drama. I hang out on a mom forum and we have very specific rules to deal with drama. The best one is that you can't take drama from one thread and take it to another. I think this thread was a good idea with good intentions but it became about the previous thread. If OP wasn't "justified" or whatever, in her feelings before this thread, she certainly would be now. There have been some very unkind comments on this thread and quite frankly I think it should be shut down. Clearly just my opinion though.

    The second thing is that it's never a bad idea to do some self reflection when we hurt someone's feelings, wether it was intentional or not. That's how we grow as humans. I engage in this process all the time, with my patients, my husband, my kids, my friends and even random people on the internet. I lose nothing by doing so. I gain nothing from assuming it's the other person's problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • CordMcNally
    replied


    if ENT Doc and I disagree about politics (let’s face it, this is possible) and I say that he is a buttface that is a classic ad hominen attack.
    Click to expand...


    I believe there was a South Park episode that had a couple that was afflicted with "torsonic polarity syndrome" so in some instances that may not be a personal attack. ;-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Zaphod
    replied




    I believe we’re truthful on comments to new posters.  Can some responses be a little snarky if the question at hand is really 2 standard deviations off the norm? probably.  The pile-on isn’t intentional either if it’s that far off center — it’s just quite a consensus at that point and numbers don’t lie.

    Being a more lurker other forums like Boglehead, Reddit, Facebook, and Doximity, we’re quite docile in comparison IMHO.

    The conversation tends to be a lot more heated among ourselves to tell you the truth.  ?
    Click to expand...


    I can only think of a couple specific times myself.


    technically an ad hominen attack is one where the appeal is to questioning the “character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument” rather than engaging the argument itself. i see precious little of that here. people tend to respond with any perceived slight by crying ad hominem as if it’s some how a game changer. on an anonymous internet forum i don’t think it’s an ad hominem to question if a poster is really representing themselves as a White Coat investor aficionado posing a genuine question especially when posts seem trollish.
    Click to expand...


    Eh...how on earth is that any different? The interwebs is not a place of formal logical argument, and when we say ad hominem we mean personal attack. Which, by no stretch of the imagination it is. You (figurative for explanation sake) are calling that persons character into question and saying they are lying essentially only for a rise. This effectively kills any substantive discussion about their topic, so its the same. There is no difference in this example and the butt face one.

    As an aside, I think you can place your base rate for trolling a finance forum with physician related questions to near zero, and the times you get caught up in a type 2 error will be worth not committing a ton of type 1 errors. Who cares if you're taken by a troll or two? Thats not a big deal, so what, cost of playing. Its much worse IMO to slap that title and effectively shut down a line of questioning or inquiry before it starts. Its a decision about what is more costly, our egos or not helping someone learn something.

     

    Leave a comment:


  • CM
    replied


    if ENT Doc and I disagree about politics (let’s face it, this is possible)
    Click to expand...


    That's hard to imagine. :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • StarTrekDoc
    replied
    I believe we're truthful on comments to new posters.  Can some responses be a little snarky if the question at hand is really 2 standard deviations off the norm? probably.  The pile-on isn't intentional either if it's that far off center -- it's just quite a consensus at that point and numbers don't lie.

    Being a more lurker other forums like Boglehead, Reddit, Facebook, and Doximity, we're quite docile in comparison IMHO.

    The conversation tends to be a lot more heated among ourselves to tell you the truth. 

    Leave a comment:


  • VagabondMD
    replied








    I tried to find what posts from that thread may have been misconstrued as a personal attack and posted them here. I want to know if other people find any of these offensive. Most posts here seem to comment on the overall assertions of that OP getting upset over the disagreement of opinion, and that’s not what happened. I’m trying to steer the conversation back towards what happened and the initial premise of this thread. 
    Click to expand…


    I just have a hard time seeing where those posts you mentioned are offensive, let alone considered personal attacks.
    Click to expand…


    I guess I’ll give my viewpoint.

    “From the title alone, this felt like a troll post. And with no further comments from OP, makes you wonder. Maybe 4chan got tired of trolling the usual suspects?” This is probably the only one that, yes, implying OP is a troll from 4chan when they’re just a new attending actually looking for advice is an ad hominem attack. The others, not really. The one about insinuating the OP was a child asking another parent without them ever responding was meh, but OP should just let that go.
    Click to expand...


    I am probably internet stupid or something, but I missed the point of that gibberish (referring to the sentence in quotations). I read through it and ignored it, and there’s a good chance that the OP and other forum members did the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • jhwkr542
    replied
    Ok, not technically ad hominem. Bud probably shouldn't be calling people trolls on their first post after they haven't responded for 24 hours.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X