Making Assumptions

[JonC]

I was watching a lecture (as I’m stuck working from home) concerning the Jewish principle of limud zechut. It occurred to me that this principle would solve many issues that arise on this board.

I mentioned before that I have been subject to false accusations. I post something, or I do something, and the other person draws false assumptions about my motivations and then goes forward making false accusations about me. Others (probably everyone here) has no doubt been in similar situations.

The principle of limud zechut (literally, the “study of another’s merit”) is a deliberate effort to discover the merits in others and bring them to the forefront.

In a discussion I believe includes thinking the best about the other person. If an assumption is made the assumption is to the benefit rather than the demonization of the other person.

I believe this to be the best process. Make the assumption with merit and then clarify if needed.

This is where I ask “I understand you to be saying….”, or “it seems to me”…or the like. Give the member a chance to clarify his or her meaning before making any accusations about their intent or meaning. But do so in a way as to put their statement in the best light.

 

[Revmitchell]

There are some who are not going to do that. If they did then they do not have the ability to discuss based on ones real intentions. Further its how they treat scripture as well.

 

[AustinC]

I was watching a lecture (as I’m stuck working from home) concerning the Jewish principle of limud zechut. It occurred to me that this principle would solve many issues that arise on this board.

I mentioned before that I have been subject to false accusations. I post something, or I do something, and the other person draws false assumptions about my motivations and then goes forward making false accusations about me. Others (probably everyone here) has no doubt been in similar situations.

The principle of limud zechut (literally, the “study of another’s merit”) is a deliberate effort to discover the merits in others and bring them to the forefront.

In a discussion I believe includes thinking the best about the other person. If an assumption is made the assumption is to the benefit rather than the demonization of the other person.

I believe this to be the best process. Make the assumption with merit and then clarify if needed.

This is where I ask “I understand you to be saying….”, or “it seems to me”…or the like. Give the member a chance to clarify his or her meaning before making any accusations about their intent or meaning. But do so in a way as to put their statement in the best light.

Jon, to be fair to your critics, you are often "as clear as mud" when you post so misunderstandings often happen due to your obfuscation. Perhaps focus on clearly saying what you mean and meaning what you say. It would greatly benefit the entire board.

 

[Revmitchell]

Jon, to be fair to your critics, you are often "as clear as mud" when you post so misunderstandings often happen due to your obfuscation. Perhaps focus on clearly saying what you mean and meaning what you say. It would greatly benefit the entire board.

Yea I dont understand half his posts however, as he said ask for clarification. No excuse for insisting domeone is saying something they deny just because one finds it convenient to twist their words.

 

[JonC]

Jon, to be fair to your critics, you are often "as clear as mud" when you post so misunderstandings often happen due to your obfuscation. Perhaps focus on clearly saying what you mean and meaning what you say. It would greatly benefit the entire board.

True. People think, and express, themselves differently. For my part, I try to be very exact in my choice of words and I am rarely dogmatic about a specific position. I enjoy examining the arguments rather than making claims.

And I have to admit that on more than one occasion I've responded with intentional obfuscation.

That said, there are some who I know have intentionally twisted my words to mean something other than I've said (because they were lifted from one thread and its context to be placed in another thread and into an entirely different context). I am not the only one who has been the target of that type of dishonesty. When you see posts comparing the words of a member against other words of the same member you are most likely reading a dishonest post.

But that is not what I mean with the OP. We can do nothing about intentional dishonesty.

I am saying that we should approach one another with grace and assume merit into unclear statements as a base or starting point. From there ask for clarification and deal with the response (maybe it is unmerited merit...maybe it is not). But too many times assumptions are made, taken as fact, leading to false accusations. I believe that 90% of the time this can be avoided and that we have a responsibility not only as Christians but as adults to do our best to avoid false accusations and false assumptions.

 

[JonC]

Yea I dont understand half his posts

But if the preposition is not a full sentence, and the clause is grammatically equestrian, then would you at least concede there is merit to my point even if the conclusion is bovine?

Like that?

 

[MartyF]

It takes two people to get into an angry fight. It is the responsibility of both people to de-escalate the argument. If one believes someone mischaracterized what he has said and responds in anger by escalating the argument, he is just as at-fault as the other person.

If one disrespects people so much that he won't take the time to try to accurately describe what he means, he will reap what he has sown. I have, at times, messed up in my writing and later figured out that I messed up and the writing could clearly be taken wrongly. However, purposely obfuscating what you mean will result in people misinterpreting what you have said. Acting surprised and angry afterwards is not an appropriate behavior. In addition, obfuscating what one says in order to upset the other person is also not appropriate.

If someone mischaracterizes what you have said, the appropriate response is to assume good faith and either better explain what you meant or ask the poster to reread what you have said. If they insist on the mischaracterization, move on.

This, of course, means that one has to respect the other person enough to de-escalate the argument to a point where conversation can occur. If someone does not respect the other person, he can use any number of underhanded ways to attack him. The reason why this occurs so often online is that one can easily have no respect for an semi-anonymous person online. This is similar to "road-rage".

 

[JonC]

It takes two people to get into an angry fight. It is the responsibility of both people to de-escalate the argument. If one believes someone mischaracterized what he has said and responds in anger by escalating the argument, he is just as at-fault as the other person.

If one disrespects people so much that he won't take the time to try to accurately describe what he means, he will reap what he has sown. I have, at times, messed up in my writing and later figured out that I messed up and the writing could clearly be taken wrongly. However, purposely obfuscating what you mean will result in people misinterpreting what you have said. Acting surprised and angry afterwards is not an appropriate behavior. In addition, obfuscating what one says in order to upset the other person is also not appropriate.

If someone mischaracterizes what you have said, the appropriate response is to assume good faith and either better explain what you meant or ask the poster to reread what you have said. If they insist on the mischaracterization, move on.

This, of course, means that one has to respect the other person enough to de-escalate the argument to a point where conversation can occur. If someone does not respect the other person, he can use any number of underhanded ways to attack him. The reason why this occurs so often online is that one can easily have no respect for an semi-anonymous person online. This is similar to "road-rage".

Very true. When I intentionally obfuscate it is in a different context (while wrong of me, it is typically in an insult I know will escape their understanding). When I post regarding my view I try to be very clear - although I rate my success at 50/50. I try to address too many objections at the start rather than making a simple statement. But that is how I am (not just with theology, but with politics, designs, discussions, etc.). I am what would be an "over-thinker".

I had a member make a false assumption which led him to a false accusation based on a false conclusion. But I did not de-escalate the argument (I told him he misunderstood, he insisted he did not - but I stayed in the argument too long). You have a very good point - and one I have learned from experience. My responsibility was only to say "you misunderstood" and move on.

That said, we are responsible for OUR behavior and not the behavior of other members. I think that assuming the best context is the best action. And then ask for clarification and provide follow up questions.

Our role here is not to correct people (I doubt anyone will be "corrected" on online forums) but to look at one another's views to hopefully come to a mutual understanding of one another. I always hope discussion will cause all members involved to re-examine their own views (myself included). But in the end we are not accountable to one another. We are accountable to our congregation and to God.

This has been a learning experience for me. I learned not to shout "your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!....Now go away or I will taunt you a second time." I keep that stuff to myself.

 

[JonC]

I need to add this:

As Christians we are to pray for those who insult us and make false accusations. I believe most of the time those who make such accusations do so out of ignorance (they do not realize that they have misunderstood something).

Too many times I see situations getting worse because people respond to insults or false accusations "in kind". I have been guilty of this as well. But we need to try our best not to encourage bad behavior. There will always be misunderstandings, and there will always be trouble-makers.

 

[JonC]

There are some who are not going to do that. If they did then they do not have the ability to discuss based on ones real intentions. Further its how they treat scripture as well.

I agree. But I also suspect that there are some here whose life is marked by the repeated experience of having graduated kindergarten because the teacher did not want them left behind.

 

[evenifigoalone]

That's what I try to do

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

Jon, to be fair to your critics, you are often "as clear as mud" when you post so misunderstandings often happen due to your obfuscation. Perhaps focus on clearly saying what you mean and meaning what you say. It would greatly benefit the entire board.

He does at times seem to be saying that his way to view scriptures are legit, while others are not.... case in point is whenever the Atonement view of substitution gets debated here!
I do appreciate his willingness to dialog with all of us here though!