A Curious Observation: Different sites, Different Attitudes

[Janice]

I really, really want to ask this question without coming across as judgmental or holier-then-thou, but I fear ahead of time that I won't be able to pull it off. If (when?) I offend anyone with this post, please please forgive me.

I spent a lot of time at Mormon Matters and Feminist Mormon Housewives. They are blog sites and the most us lay people can do is comment... you can't start a thread unless you are one of the official bloggers. For that reason, I prefer this site... I can start conversations.

But that being said, there is another reason why I prefer those sites over this. At both, they tackle some pretty heavy issues that could be spectacularly controversial, and yet it is rare to non existent to see people become upset and contentious with each other, and I don't recall anyone ever casting fingers of blame for being judgmental, which seems to happen often here. We can't even discuss *pants* without people getting upset. (I am not excluding myself, by the way.)

I am an untrained people watcher, meaning I have no formal education in "human behavior" (if such a study exists... would it be called sociology?), but I am fascinated by it none the less. I am currently pondering, why, on this site, we can't discuss pants vs skirts without becoming contentious, but on other sites *real* issues are discussed in depth w/o a moderator ever shutting down the conversation because it's causing hurt feelings.

Any ideas?

Again... I do NOT want to blame anyone, be judgmental, be critical, or anything like unto it. I've just made an observation and would like some input.

Janice

[pam]

For one thing a blog is someone posting their thoughts and feelings on a certain subject. A blog is much different than a public forum. Some use it as a journal of sorts. A blog doesn't necessarily ask for points of view nor do they usually request comments in response.

I've written a couple of blogs about feelings that I was having on a couple of subjects. But I was writing it more for myself than for anyone else.

For that reason I would never go to someone's blog to disagree or to discuss why I think they are wrong. Just my thing. Why do that when someone is just posting their feelings and thoughts at the time?

Posting on a public forum..opens it up to all kinds of discussion.

[prospectmom]

I too wonder this...... Mabey it is human nature to want to be right . Mabey some cannot accept anothers opinions when it differs from theres so starts the attack. MAbey we all need to learn this simple phrase....

I do not agree with your point but I respect your right to have one and here is my point.

or

This is a case we need to agree to disagree.

[ryanh]

A few possible factors come to mind.

1) - Just what Pam said. It's a blog, not a forum system.

2) - The level of control may be much different at those sites. Any offensive or rude comments could be deleted, or comments may require pre-approval to appear. I would expect that troll posts are much more likely to be removed.

3) - A forum such as Feminist Mormon Housewives is far more likely to attract like minded individuals than a general topic site.

4) - Sites that would relate to deeper or more controversial topics would likely not be visited by the less mature or seasoned person. There are a whole lot of immature or unseasoned people on open sites like this. Registration is free and easy.

[pam]

3) - A forum such as Feminist Mormon Housewives is far more likely to attract like minded individuals than a general topic site.

That thought had also come to my mind when I was writing my response. Thanks for bringing that up ryanh.

[beefche]

A forum's pulse is determined by the people who frequent and participate. I belong to another lds forum (yes, I know...I'm stepping out on lds.net) and that forum is very different than this one.

What people need to remember is that posters are real people. They hurt, laugh, think, and feel like anyone else. What makes a forum so fun (to me) is that you get such different personalities. People's opinions are made from life experiences, belief systems, study, etc. Writing thoughts is different than expressing yourself verbally--one is more free with opinions. And often, it's more difficult to express oneself adequately in writing vs. verbally.

I think it helps me when I meet the people behind the avatar. I see the person and now have a real face instead of a slobbery tongue.

[pam]

I see the person and now have a real face instead of a slobbery tongue.

May I debate or discuss this? Remember, I've met you in person.

[prospectmom]

see and good humor is a must on these sites

[Janice]

For one thing a blog is someone posting their thoughts and feelings on a certain subject. A blog is much different than a public forum. Some use it as a journal of sorts. A blog doesn't necessarily ask for points of view nor do they usually request comments in response.

For the most part you are right on, but not in the case of these two sites. They are "blogs" only in the sense that a limited number of people can start conversations, but they absolutely invite and encourage feedback. Most of the initial posts end in "What do you think?" Both of these sites are geared towards public and open discussion.

Some of the topics they bring up I don't care about, others I love. (I'm not going to mention any actual topics for fear of this thread focusing on that topic). But suffice it to say that these sites exist to spark conversation, and they do a very, very good job.

[Janice]

Maybe it is human nature to want to be right . Maybe some cannot accept anothers opinions when it differs from theres so starts the attack.

And yet humans exist on this site and the others.

[pam]

For the most part you are right on, but not in the case of these two sites. They are "blogs" only in the sense that a limited number of people can start conversations, but they absolutely invite and encourage feedback. Most of the initial posts end in "What do you think?" Both of these sites are geared towards public and open discussion.

Some of the topics they bring up I don't care about, others I love. (I'm not going to mention any actual topics for fear of this thread focusing on that topic). But suffice it to say that these sites exist to spark conversation, and they do a very, very good job.

Perhaps just a different mindset knowing it's a blog. I can't answer that. I know I react and think differently when I know it's a blog verses an open discussion on a forum.

[prospectmom]

A blog is more controlled like janice said .. you can not start a topic the bloggers control it.

Edited July 30, 2009 by prospectmom

[Janice]

A few possible factors come to mind.

1) - Just what Pam said. It's a blog, not a forum system.

True. And that may very well play a part. Yet the discussions I see on those sites are no less limited then here. But here, at least, there is a bit more sense of community... we have avatars, profiles, etc. There, when you comment, you can post your name but there are no "accounts", so maybe here the sense of ownership is greater, and thus we all invest more emotion? (I'm thinking out loud.)

2) - The level of control may be much different at those sites. Any offensive or rude comments could be deleted, or comments may require pre-approval to appear.

This is actually not the case. MormonMatters makes a point of NOT filtering or editing posts. What is said stands, and what is said appears instantly (no approval process). And yet rudeness, sarcasm, and troll-like comments are virtually non-existent.

3) - A forum such as Feminist Mormon Housewives is far more likely to attract like minded individuals than a general topic site.

Good point. I'd have to say that I don't always agree with the bloggers on that site, nor with some of the comments, but by and large, yes, the general audience is more on the... well... "liberal" side of Mormonism.

4) - Sites that would relate to deeper or more controversial topics would likely not be visited by the less mature or seasoned person. There are a whole lot of immature or unseasoned people on open sites like this. Registration is free and easy.

Hmmm. Choosing my words VERY carefully here...

"Immature" is a term that has come to mind during a couple of discussions on this forum. But please, let me explain before I cause hurt feelings. It strikes me that by and large, the people on this forum are very mature people, but that sometimes maybe that maturity is set aside when discussing topics that are very close, personal, and maybe emotional. (Religion is a VERY emotional subject.)

We recently had a conversation here about the terms "debate" and "discussion" and "argument" (can't recall the thread, and don't feel like finding it.) It seems to me that maybe some members on this forum may have a hard time having a ______ (pick your favorite word: debate, discussion, etc) on topics about which they have strong feelings without letting it become personal. I don't see that as much on the other sites, and I'm curious if it's the people, or the format. So far the comments here seem to lean towards it being the format?

I'm on the fence.

Janice

Edited July 30, 2009 by Janice

[pam]

Take a look at the blogs on this site. I find few, if any, that have become contentious. Again I think it's all about being a "blog" verses on the public forum.

[ryanh]

I don't see that as much on the other sites, and I'm curious if it's the people, or the format. So far the comments here seem to lean towards it being the format?

I'm of the opinion it is the people. Some other forums I participate in with similar formats don't always have the same level of contention show through. Yet others do. The primary difference is the people attracted to those forums.

For example, there was an ADHD forum that I participated in with a very similar format to this one. You want to talk about contention and fights!!! Then, another large forum I visit that is based on a wildlife watching, also with similar format, is much more calm. There are a few that like to make waves there, but otherwise threads rarely if ever close.

See the reprinted talk of David O. McKay in the August Ensign. He shares a story there relating the quality of the wheat field to the individual wheat berries. It's a nice analogy the way it is described there.

Ryan

[Janice]

Ha ha! I'm a Mormon with ADHD. Look out!

[ryanh]

LOL. I'm scared now!

I love the ADDers in my life. But the condition can bring with it a special set of circumstances. No offense was intended by my remark, and I'm glad you didn't shoot me for that comment. :) I just find that the impulsivity of the comments made at the ADD site can be pretty wild. It can get pretty entertaining really quick!

[Janice]

Oh come now, it takes a heckuvalot more then that to get me riled up. As an adult with ADHD I've learned to manage it and compensate for it, but yes, I do tend to talk first and think second. When in a group setting, I often compensate by not saying anything at all.

And back to the subject at hand...

Maybe the amount of "spirit" we see here is a combination of both the people and the format.

[Dravin]

It's about the people and the 'culture' on the board/blog.

One of my earlier forays into community consisted of the internet version of a brawl (with, thinking back on it, an amazing amount of logic thrown in), but the tone of the board was sarcastic and witty, you argued the point and you tried to make people look like an idiot while doing so in as condescending tone as you could while trying to garner style points (not an actual board mechanism but something more ethereal). It was a contentious little corner of the internet (as far as the debating style threads) but people didn't get their feelings hurt, but I attribute that to two factors, the attitude was known and it was dished out to pretty much anyone you disagreed with, so it wasn't particularly personal, and if you didn't have the stomach for it a few quick thread reads would disabuse you of the notion of participating, if not you'd not hang around long.

For the record I've mellowed some and don't think I'd enjoy hanging out with that board anymore. I did enjoy it at the time though, of course I have ADHD, so who knows what that could mean.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Dravin

[Danite]

I tend to agree with Janice about the tone of some of the comments here. As someone who has only been here for maybe a week. I found my self not commenting on folks concerns because it seemed like some are more intrested in proving a point than an honest empted to know what the truth is. I suppose it's only natural but you know what the say about the natural man.

[Guest TheLutheran]

I've noticed that often there is very little regard to the original poster of a thread. For example, on the recent "slacks" thread, the OP resolved her issue and thanked posters on page 6, yet the tyraids raged on for another 9 pages!

Visualizing what some of these threads would "look like" if the exchange happened in real life is mind-boggling. I doubt most would play out the way they do here. As a non-LDS, I appreciate the opportunity to learn about the LDS faith and its practitioners in a way I couldn't duplicate in real life.

Maybe its because I am non-LDS that I come here with my respect in check and am extremely careful to choose my words wisely. Wow . . . in a sense its probably similar to the black man in a white neighborhood. Hey . . . can I go to the beer bash at the White House tonight?

[Janice]

...it seemed like some are more interested in proving a point than an honest attempt to know what the truth is.

I think this sums up my feelings nicely.

Prevailing theme in many of the comments on this forum: "Your spiritual progression is in jeopardy if you don't see the Church and the Gospel exactly as I do. "

Prevailing theme in many of the comments on other LDS web sites: "Interesting perspective. I don't agree with you, but thank you for helping me see the issue from a new angle."

I'm, speaking in generalities, of course. Many exceptions exist on both sides.

[prisonchaplain]

I'll just throw this out...here I am. An evangelical pastor. I come from a faith tradition that has produced some "Anti" material--probably more than any other group. Yet, I've discussed premortal existence, the Trinity, open canon, continuing revelation, the Great Apostasy, even priestcraft. Strong opinions were expressed, and there was probably some strong emotions in some of those conversations. Yet, I seldom felt attacked or ridiculed, and on those rare occasions when I was, several LDS stepped in to take my defense. On the other hand, I frequently faced posters who disagreed with me. Imagine that!

IMHO contention just doesn't have to escalate if we choose not to react, and not to take personal, these forums. Yes, sometimes it's meant to be personal. So what? They dont really know me, nor do I know them. So, it really isn't personal after all.

Bottom-line: Jesus actually did have a heart-felt, calm, respectful conversation with a leading Pharisee once. Perhaps it should be our model (John 3)?

[hordak]

If you notice the more heated/juicy the discussion is the least significant the topic is.Generally speaking. I think is is due to it not being doctrine. Discuss the atonement, temples etc. out comes the scriptures. Discuss green tea, caffeine, pants etc, and you have nothing but opinions.

My 2 cents.

Personally i think these discussions are good (provided they don't involve personal attracts) After all how boring would it be if just nodded in agreement all the time.

[prospectmom]

IMHO contention just doesn't have to escalate if we choose not to react, and not to take personal, these forums. Yes, sometimes it's meant to be personal. So what? They dont really know me, nor do I know them. So, it really isn't personal after all.

wise words PC