Antiprocess (Spam-lite)

[Hill-Shatar]

A couple of weeks ago I was surfing the net when I stumbled across this, something that I thought was well written out, well thought out, and an impressive description of what seems to be happening across the net in newsgroups and forums everywhere.

It is something called [url="http://members.aol.com/intwg/antiprocess.htm"]antiprocess[/url].

To put forth a synopsis, the author has described a problem that seems to follow and hitch onto boards everywhere. Basically, it describes situations when two people just can't get into a common agreement on topics of mutual interest. (I rather like his Formal, Informal and Very Informal descriptions)

I am sure that at the very least some people here know about it, and for those that don't, I am providing a link again, [url="http://members.aol.com/intwg/antiprocess.htm"]here[/url].

I made this thread so people can share thoughts on what they thought of it... as you can see, I find it very interesting, and very informative. This is not a theory, as the author himself mentions on his web page, nor is it a widely noticed phenomenon. It is basically a name that the author gave something that he noticed from experience.

[Dottie]

I found it both sensible and clearly stated, especially for being an amateur opinion on a web site. However, it is, as the author says himself, nothing new.

Unfortunately I don't think that introspection, compassion and awareness about certain psychological mechanisms will help you much in accurately evaluating information. It might feel that way, but the biases created by those mechanisms doesn't disappear because you know about them.

What is more critical to gaining authentic knowledge is a rational and systematic approach.

[C Elegans]

Nice description of some social psychology mechanisms that influence human interaction. It is well made and quite pedagogic, although it lacks several influencial mechanisms, especially regarding "filters" at action in what he calles "marginalisation of undesired information". It is however not something that happens on message boards or on the internet, it is general human social psychology. That said, it's still a nice schematisation.

However, rising your awareness of this phenomena as the "antiprocess" describes, will only work if all involved are focused on the goal of reaching consensus and think that consensus is the most important. For example, if I discuss religion and evolution with a Young Earth Creationist, neither of us are looking for compromise or reach of consensus since that would be a middle road fallacy. It is simply impossible to agree, and agreement is not the goal of the discussion.

Also, like Dottie mentions, cognitive biases do not disappear because you are aware of them. You must both address the underlying factors that drive the mechanisms, and further, develop new cognitive skills to replace and modify your biases with.

[myrophine]

I think that people are not 'illogical' rather they are supralogical...

It is great that we have minds that can think things out rationally and predictably and so forth. But that is insufficient in that the cosmos is fluxional and inseparably compound (not discrete entities with obvious boundaries).

Because logical mind cannot freeze or trap reality it is insufficient.

So 2 people can have an argument because they both retreat to their 'safety zone' where there is no confusion. Another strategy is to get angry at the other person. If I am hung up on being mad at them it distracts from my own conflict/discovery.

myrophine

[Chimaera182]

Nothing really new, but then I don't think I've ever actually seen someone put it in words. Probably the best example one can come up with would be religious debates. Think of the conflict in Ireland, for example. Or when a Christian tries to convince an atheist there is a God, and the atheist tries to convince the Christian that there isn't. It all comes down to each person's stubborn pigheadedness, and they pretty much retreat into the childlike bantering of "Nuh uh" and "Yuh huh" (although it's usually not quite so succinct). Each retreats to their comfort zones, and are convinced that the other person is just wrong (and stupid, because you are of course always right). It was a nice skim, though.

[ch85us2001]

I think my father has a strong "rote antiprocess" then.
I like "Spam-lite" to, it just has a ring to it.

Thanks for the info.

[Hill-Shatar]

Overall, I thought it was quite well written, mostly because this person does not have degrees in any of the sciences in which he would have extensive knowledge of this, or any other profession that he would.

Science aside, this is something that a lot of us lurkers seem to notice happen quite often in the past few years. It seems to talk a little about what, from a person's view who isn't in neuroscience, or at least fairly knowledgable on the subject, this appears to be from a lay person's point of view.

I found it both sensible and clearly stated, especially for being an amateur opinion on a web site. However, it is, as the author says himself, nothing new.

I remember reading some other links... and I think I read something about him being a lurker for many years, since some of the first boards of this style came out, himself being the admin of one.

It is nothing new. We have noticed it, I am sure, but he put it into something comprehensible, in my views, instead of having the rest of us laying out this map from our own experiences.

@ CE, Dottie: Gah, neuroscience! *runs away screaming*

[Dottie]

@Chimaera182: Regardless of what opinion people hold they might be stubborn, I agree so far. That does not mean that all opinions are equally correct, or that all arguments are equally valid, or that someone debating a topic always does the right thing if he tries to compromise and reach consensus decisions.

@myrophine: That we can not rely exclusively on logic in everyday life does not mean that logic and evidence are inaccurate tools for arriving at a conclusion. The advantage of other cognitive strategies than looking at evidence and using logic is that they are faster, not that they lead to a more accurate assessment of the world.

It is nothing new. We have noticed it, I am sure, but he put it into something comprehensible, in my views, instead of having the rest of us laying out this map from our own experiences.

Tsss, who do you take me for? Naturally I meant that it wasn't new to the field of social psychology.

[myrophine]

Dottie: Like I say I think that logic is great. But I think there are some areas where it is the wrong tool. In a nutshell: logic is blind; the heart has eyes.

myrophine

[Dottie]

By heart I presume you mean feelings? May I ask what areas you think logic is the wrong tool?

[myrophine]

If you want that you act only when you have an absolute decision about what is right, you will be paralysed. You will not be able to act in life. One has to act and to act in a relative world. There is no absolute decision, so don't wait for it. Just watch, see, and whatsoever you feel is right, do.

The heart is that which does this.

myrophine

[Hill-Shatar]

[QUOTE=Dottie]Tsss, who do you take me for? Naturally I meant that it wasn't new to the field of social psychology. [/QUOTE]

Take you for? Er... a scandanavian friend of CE's? Your totally diluged by this sort of thing daily. Your becoming a mini-CE!

All this talk of logic when human's aren't all that logical...