13 votes

How do you know whether a back-and-forth conversation is productive and/or appreciated?

Sometimes I get into a back-and-forth... heated interaction with someone, and it goes on for a while, and then they stop responding. Afterwords, I might wonder if it was worthwhile. Maybe they got tired of arguing with me, or maybe they just thought the conversation reached its natural endpoint? Rarely, the conversation might end with us explicitly agreeing it was a good discussion, but that's kind of formal and not the usual case online.

Just stopping is my habit as well. If I don't want to talk anymore, I upvote the last comment (if I thought it was good) but don't reply.

In the case of repeated interactions like this with the same person, sometimes I wonder if I'm annoying them by replying to their comments too much, particularly if we disagree often. I've never been explicitly told to go away, but people are often reluctant to say things like that, for good reason since you never know how people will react.

It seems to me that upvotes don't tell me this. Upvotes tell you whether your comments make sense to the crowd. They don't tell you whether the person you're talking to liked your reply. Which seems like it would be good to know. It would be valuable feedback if the goal is to be a better conversationalist. That seems like a good goal to aim for?

I guess we could get in the habit of saying "good point" and all that, and sometimes things can be inferred from what people say if you're good at taking hints, but not all of us are. But we are all trained to upvote things we like already, and it seems like it would be nice to take advantage of that.

To the extent that people like to gather internet points, I wonder what sort of conversation would be encouraged if you got them by writing a good reply from the perspective of the person being replied to? But I guess it could be gamed pretty easily if two people cooperate, so we probably shouldn't keep a total.

Also, think about how this looks from the outside: if you are reading a conversation by two other people in a heated back-and-forth, how do you know whether they're having a good time or not? Maybe it seems obvious, but in some cases a heated discussion might look worse to outsiders than participants. If you could see that they liked each other's comments then it would seem friendlier.

Note that Facebook does tell you who upvoted a comment, but since it tells you everyone who upvoted it, it's even more information, maybe too much.

(This is a followup to @NaraVara's previous topic, focusing on a particular aspect of it.)

19 comments

  1. [4]
    ShroudedMouse
    Link
    I know this isn't the technical solution you'd prefer but one way to gauge whether the other party is interested is to ask (preferably thoughtful) questions. If they don't reply, it's a bit more...

    I know this isn't the technical solution you'd prefer but one way to gauge whether the other party is interested is to ask (preferably thoughtful) questions. If they don't reply, it's a bit more obvious they're done with the conversation. It also provides space for those little social lubricants like 'good point'.

    I'm wary of any technical approach that requires us to confirm we're getting along. That should be the default. If there was some checkbox to say I'm appreciative of the post, I'd surely forget to tick it.

    7 votes
    1. skybrian
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      I imagine it would be just like voting today, except that it would reveal your vote. This would happen when you vote on a reply to something you wrote.

      I imagine it would be just like voting today, except that it would reveal your vote. This would happen when you vote on a reply to something you wrote.

      1 vote
    2. [2]
      JXM
      Link Parent
      While I like the sentiment behind it, I can see people being "offended" by the fact that the other person didn't appreciate their post when, like you said, they simply forgot to check the box.

      While I like the sentiment behind it, I can see people being "offended" by the fact that the other person didn't appreciate their post when, like you said, they simply forgot to check the box.

      1 vote
      1. Qis
        Link Parent
        I'm not imagining a compulsory I'm Okay With This button so much as any feature giving any friction whatsoever to the impulse to engage when it would be better not to. Two people going deep into...

        I'm not imagining a compulsory I'm Okay With This button so much as any feature giving any friction whatsoever to the impulse to engage when it would be better not to. Two people going deep into quote replies on each other is usually a waste of their time and an aggravation and a good way to alienate people in the longer term. Maybe we could have a timer which prevents a user from replying to the same person more than four times in a day.

        4 votes
  2. [4]
    Icarus
    Link
    I think you might be looking at this from the wrong perspective. You won't ever really be able to tell if a conversation is productive/fruitful/appreciated with other people unless they explicitly...

    I think you might be looking at this from the wrong perspective. You won't ever really be able to tell if a conversation is productive/fruitful/appreciated with other people unless they explicitly state these things to you. Even then, you won't really know how it is those things for people, internally speaking.

    The attitude going into a conversation should be for your own appreciation and productivity. You know how you feel about things, the points you are trying to make, where those points come from, the questions you might want to ask, etc. The best you can do is engage with an open mind and expect nothing in return from the person you are interacting with. The key is to express yourself in a way that works for you, making the point you want to make and being satisfied with what you wrote.

    When we go into a conversation expecting "productivity", you are expecting the other person to rise to an expectation that you created for yourself. When that happens, it's no wonder how you can feel a conversation wasn't worth your time and wasn't productive.

    5 votes
    1. skybrian
      Link Parent
      Yes, there is only so much you can know, unless the other person decides to reveal it. I also agree that it's not about expecting something in return. But I think it would be interesting to make...

      Yes, there is only so much you can know, unless the other person decides to reveal it. I also agree that it's not about expecting something in return. But I think it would be interesting to make the opinions of the people participating in the conversation count a bit more in the UI, compared to the opinions of the audience.

      2 votes
    2. [2]
      NaraVara
      Link Parent
      Conversations don't happen in a vacuum though. Can you really be satisfied with what you wrote if you can't tell whether or not the other person has actually understood it or, worse yet, if it...

      The attitude going into a conversation should be for your own appreciation and productivity. You know how you feel about things, the points you are trying to make, where those points come from, the questions you might want to ask, etc. The best you can do is engage with an open mind and expect nothing in return from the person you are interacting with. The key is to express yourself in a way that works for you, making the point you want to make and being satisfied with what you wrote.

      Conversations don't happen in a vacuum though. Can you really be satisfied with what you wrote if you can't tell whether or not the other person has actually understood it or, worse yet, if it turns out you have unintentionally caused harm or distress by saying it?

      2 votes
      1. Icarus
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        Yes. If you go into a discussion and you put your best effort into it and communicate as effectively as you can, you should be satisfied when you press "Post Comment". After the button is pressed,...

        Can you really be satisfied with what you wrote if you can't tell whether or not the other person has actually understood it or, worse yet, if it turns out you have unintentionally caused harm or distress by saying it?

        Yes. If you go into a discussion and you put your best effort into it and communicate as effectively as you can, you should be satisfied when you press "Post Comment". After the button is pressed, interpretation and meaning are up to the reader and you can't control that side of the conversation.

        You should be open-hearted and open-minded enough to take feedback if the reader provides it. But again, once they provide it, you don't have to abide by their expectations of you, just as you don't push your personal expectations onto them.

        Edit: Fixed some typos from when I originally posted on mobile.

        4 votes
  3. [2]
    knocklessmonster
    Link
    You can't, so you're required to operate something like a poorly socialized human trying to find the right meaning in people's online behavior. I've found I'll drop out of a conversation when one...

    You can't, so you're required to operate something like a poorly socialized human trying to find the right meaning in people's online behavior.

    I've found I'll drop out of a conversation when one of three things happens, usually.

    1. I see they're trying to score easy logical points rather than make a point themselves
    2. everything that needed to be said seems to have
    3. I or they "win," meaning, one person successfully makes their point of view clear, which is typically the point of these sorts of discussion. A mind doesn't have to change, but an understanding needs to be reached.

    It hasn't happened here as much, but I'll also walk away from a conversation if it's simply too frustrating, but that's pretty rare, and typically follows 1) or 2).

    In all cases, I'm sure there's still the standard social problem of lingering questions after the interaction, but that's just how it goes with other people. We can't know the entirety of the conversation when we're talking to somebody in person, much less online.

    5 votes
    1. NaraVara
      Link Parent
      Good point! To my mind this should be the goal. I think the big challenge in 1-to-1 discussions is that this almost never happens. Generally, in an argument at a bar or something, a third person...

      I or they "win," meaning, one person successfully makes their point of view clear, which is typically the point of these sorts of discussion. A mind doesn't have to change, but an understanding needs to be reached.

      Good point! To my mind this should be the goal. I think the big challenge in 1-to-1 discussions is that this almost never happens. Generally, in an argument at a bar or something, a third person will step in to get clarifications and point out where the people are talking past each other. But the threading UI almost discourages that from happening.

      3 votes
  4. nsz
    Link
    Personally, I like the low cost of engaging online, it helps take the pressure off making replies. Adding in a system that makes it more personal, will (and kind of by design), make it more costly...

    Personally, I like the low cost of engaging online, it helps take the pressure off making replies. Adding in a system that makes it more personal, will (and kind of by design), make it more costly to engage; you're signing up for a proper conversation with higher expectations.

    I don't ever get offended if an interlocutor walks away from the conversation, after all I've done it many times. Either you're busy, a reply is felt unnecessary or maybe you're just done with the topic; in all cases I'd much rather they leave, then feel obliged to reply.

    5 votes
  5. [7]
    Qis
    Link
    It's not. Back and forths in this kind of setting are usually conflict and our platform should have some supplementary tools to increase empathy. How about if you post reply more than twice to...

    It's not. Back and forths in this kind of setting are usually conflict and our platform should have some supplementary tools to increase empathy. How about if you post reply more than twice to another commenter in a thread you have to start rating your frustration level in order to respond? The corollary to "U Mad Bro?" is "Have I angered my brother?"

    3 votes
    1. [5]
      Adys
      Link Parent
      I've seen a lot of high quality, civil back and forth here. Of course it's unfortunate that people choose to be super toxic about some of them off-platform but at least keeping that off tildes...

      I've seen a lot of high quality, civil back and forth here. Of course it's unfortunate that people choose to be super toxic about some of them off-platform but at least keeping that off tildes itself at least keeps signal high and noise low.

      It helps if you just choose to interpret them as a discussion rather than people attacking each other. The site can quite strikingly be a different experience depending on the tone you assign to people when reading their comments in your head.

      6 votes
      1. [4]
        TheRtRevKaiser
        Link Parent
        There's a certain amount of tone in the comments themselves that can be really helpful with this. It helps if the commenters do more than pull quotes and tear down the arguments of the other...

        It helps if you just choose to interpret them as a discussion rather than people attacking each other.

        There's a certain amount of tone in the comments themselves that can be really helpful with this. It helps if the commenters do more than pull quotes and tear down the arguments of the other poster, but instead engage one another in an actual conversation by doing more than just finding the parts of the other's argument that they think they can dismantle. It helps if I see two posters talking to one another rather than past each other, admitting when the other poster makes a good point and keeping the tone respectful even if the argument gets a little hot, it makes a world of difference in how I read it.

        I also think that we could sometimes work on being generous to the people we're replying to. Often posters make mistakes or misunderstand facts, and we're in such a hurry to get that quick dunk on them that we forget that we're replying to a person. There's a principle in debate (I can't remember what it's called) that you should argue against the best interpretation of your opponent's argument. I think it would be good to apply that to people in general, by assuming that they are posting in good faith until it's been demonstrated otherwise.
        On the other hand, I know that there are some arguments and situations where it's it's not really reasonable to right to expect users to do this, and that it's a lot easier for me as a Cis/Het white guy to have this attitude. If I were a person of color seeing the same shitty statistics being misused, I'm not sure it would be reasonable to expect me to respond with the assumption that the poster is just mistaken or ignorant rather than malicious. Same with Trans folks and the TERF and TERF-adjacent arguments that have been cropping up semi-regularly here.

        I think what I'm rambling toward is just the idea that it's hard to have a civil conversation on the internet. It requires a lot of work, because everybody has to be making conscious choices and be generous to the folks we're talking to, because all we can see are the words that are being written, and not all of the other little bits of non-verbal communication and context that we have evolved to respond to.

        4 votes
        1. [2]
          Adys
          Link Parent
          The assumption of good faith I think is what you're referring to :) One of the benefits of being a fairly small, well-moderated community is that the assumption of good faith is much easier,...

          There's a principle in debate (I can't remember what it's called) that you should argue against the best interpretation of your opponent's argument

          The assumption of good faith I think is what you're referring to :)

          One of the benefits of being a fairly small, well-moderated community is that the assumption of good faith is much easier, because the trolls and outliers get banned much quicker. So if you see someone making comments you perceive as inciteful, then it's much easier to chuck it up to ignorance, a mistake, or a bad day and match your answer to that (inform, correct, and be nice).

          And that is why I find it so disheartening when I see people talking about how Tildes is a "cesspool" (yes, quoting). It's shocking how, the minute there is disagreement, some choose to immediately interpret it as toxic and mean-spirited; and by having such a high bar for what isn't a cesspool, you just will never have the opportunity to get out of your shell.

          Reminds me a lot of when I was ~18 or so. I would react pretty violently to anything I perceived as wrong, interpret it as an attack, and just ended up being a huge dick to people because of it. Very easy to get lost in the weeds thinking you're "fighting the good fight" simply because you're part of the "good side".

          I still have a lot of those same beliefs I had over 10 years ago, but I've since learned a lot about tuning my tone, assuming good faith, etc. It's always a work in progress of course, though I like to think I'm meeting some better standards now. Whereas before, wellโ€ฆ just because my heart was in the right place doesn't mean the rest was too.

          6 votes
          1. TheRtRevKaiser
            Link Parent
            I completely agree. I think a lot of people on the internet on both sides (dont @ me, it's true) have sort of a Crusader mentality. They are totally assured of the righteousness of their cause,...

            I completely agree. I think a lot of people on the internet on both sides (dont @ me, it's true) have sort of a Crusader mentality. They are totally assured of the righteousness of their cause, and the wickedness of the "enemy" and so they feel right in doing or saying pretty much anything. And I admit, it's easy to feel that way. I think most people think their beliefs are right, because otherwise why would they believe them? But that mentality is so counterproductive if you actually want to convince anybody of anything. If you just go into every conversation like it's a battle then everybody's shields go up right away, and their convictions just calcify. I don't know how many people have had their minds changed by getting in a fight on the internet, but I'd be willing to bet the number is pretty close to zero.

            At the same time, I do think that there is some truth to the idea that if you let ignorant people spew their misinformation without answering it, then people who are undecided or a little too credulous might be swayed, but there's got to be a way of doing that without wading into the muck as well.

            Edit: I also find it puzzling when people talk about Tildes being a "cesspool" or anything like that. I certainly get people feeling weary of the constant flamewars on much of the internet, but I don't see nearly as much of that sort of thing here, and I think the community is at least conscious of the need to make an effort to have high quality discussion even where there is disagreement.

            5 votes
        2. Qis
          Link Parent
          That kind of generosity sounds like a tall order for the fairly simple and often inscrutable conversation format we have got here.โ˜ฃ๏ธ๐Ÿ˜—๐Ÿ›€๐Ÿฝ๐Ÿฆ”๐Ÿช•๐Ÿบโ˜ฃ๏ธ. I'm not saying that more tools would make up for a...

          That kind of generosity sounds like a tall order for the fairly simple and often inscrutable conversation format we have got here.โ˜ฃ๏ธ๐Ÿ˜—๐Ÿ›€๐Ÿฝ๐Ÿฆ”๐Ÿช•๐Ÿบโ˜ฃ๏ธ. I'm not saying that more tools would make up for a need for thoughtful and attentive community members, but there's just a lot of discrete options for things we could be trying to augment and improve context and tone/discourage ungenerous dialog

          4 votes
    2. soks_n_sandals
      Link Parent
      This could be a good sort of option, since it's hard to tell whether after 24 hours of slow back and forth, the person you are replying to is merely disinterested, or actually annoyed/frustrated...

      This could be a good sort of option, since it's hard to tell whether after 24 hours of slow back and forth, the person you are replying to is merely disinterested, or actually annoyed/frustrated with the discussion.

      2 votes
  6. JXM
    Link
    To me, this is a pretty personal question. Everyone reacts differently to these types of back and forths. Some people just see it as an argument to be won, some just as conversation. I think the...

    To me, this is a pretty personal question. Everyone reacts differently to these types of back and forths. Some people just see it as an argument to be won, some just as conversation. I think the big problem occurs when one side feels one way and the other takes it personally.

    There have been plenty of times where I outright disagree with a comment but through back and forth I get to understand why they said what they said. Sometimes I'll even change my point of view or learn something entirely new.

    There's also been times where these back and forths gave me new insight into how I look at things. For example, last week I had a thread with someone and I mentioned that I thought their comment was sarcastic and dismissive. Turns out that they didn't mean it that way. It changed my attitude and tenor toward the conversation. Now, I'm a bit more wary to read malice or sarcasm into comments that are borderline and more likely to take them at face value.

    Of course there are times that people just want to argue or things get nasty.

    To answer the actual question you posed, my personal measurement for whether it is worth it to continue a conversation is asking myself if I can see their point of view or either of us coming to any sort of understanding. If so, I think the conversation is worth continuing. If not and we're just sniping back and forth, then I usually just walk away.

    As for how to encourage productive conversation without arguing, I don't know that I have a good answer. As of now, most posts don't generate so many comments that I can't easily read through all of them in a few moments. I can read a few deep into a thread, see how it's going and decide to read more or bail pretty quickly. If I think someone is making good points, I can upvote that comment before I leave.

    In the case of repeated interactions like this with the same person, sometimes I wonder if I'm annoying them by replying to their comments too much, particularly if we disagree often.

    I'm pretty sure we've gone back and forth a few times, but honestly...that's the point of the site! Tildes wouldn't be very useful if we didn't have a lot of (civil) back and forth.

    3 votes