Personal/ad hominem attacks: Why do people do them?

In my view Chip, whenever one’s subject competence, integrity or lack thereof is central to the discussion /debate, other discussion thread participants’ capacity to either support or question should be an option. IMO it wouldn’t be considered ad hominem if one’s expertise, writings, reasoning, and/or integrity are flawed. I believe within this category of discussion circumstance, it simply boils-down to a credibility issue and ought to be considered appropriate to question and/or reveal as such.

As regards identified and non-disclosed members of DegreeInfo, in actuality the site administrators do possess our true identities; upon initial registration, such disclosure was a condition to registration.

 

Good summary Major. I think everyone brings something good to the table. DETC in general usually brings up a firestorm of emotions. Times are changing, and the DETC NA issue will change along with the times. This reminds me of an issue ivolving the "Texas Gate" scandal. THECB decided they could place NA accreditors on a "illegal to use" list, and many senior members here said that was just fine, Texas was free to do what they wish. I argued the opposite. Well, a few years later, that ridiculous policy is done away with.

I think it is good to point out the restrictions of NA degrees in a constructive manner. However, often times denegrative comments like obtaining a "clown degree" from a NA school is quite childish. Now, let me set the record straight, this happens on both sides of the argument, and when tempers flair, very few are innocent.

Having said all that. Simon, if you are who I think you are, I welcome your comments here. You have a wealth of information, and I am glad you are sharing it here. If you are not the person, keep the comments coming just the same.

Abner

 

I don't give automatic credence to posters who identify themselves either, if what they say isn't consistent with my own belief and reasoning. I'll still need some persuasive reason why I should agree with what they say. I might be willing to buy their claims of personal experience or inside information, depending on who they are and what they are telling me, but often-times not. Some additional corroboration would be necessary.

People who express opinions shouldn't become the target of irrelevant, angry and provocative insults just because somebody else disagrees with what they said.

You think that Rich's not being a mental health professional makes his rather negative opinion on the viability of Cal Southern PsyDs less authoritative. Fine. I don't have any problem with that. I don't think that your rather positive opinion of the viability of those PsyDs is any more authoritative, for precisely the same reason. Your speculations about grand DETC lawsuits wasn't very persuasive either, since you obviously aren't an attorney. But you clearly had a right to express your opinions and shouldn't be flamed for doing it.

So I'm not going to automatically believe anything that you say or Rich says, on your personal authority, just because one of you said it. Critical thinking doesn't work that way. Both of you are going to have to give me convincing reasons why I might want to agree with you. And I hope that everyone treats my posts in exactly the same way.

The only time it would be relevant is when somebody is asking readers to accept what they write as especially authoritative, based on who they are. That might arise if somebody is claiming unique experience or special inside knowledge of something. Writing under a screen-name obviously detracts from that.

"Absolute statements of fact"? Don't people normally post their opinions and beliefs in the form of straight-forward declarative statements? Paris is the capital of France. Does 'X is Y' really have a different meaning than 'I think that X is Y'? The 'I think' is already implicit in every statement that we make. It's up to our readers and hearers to decide for themselves how much weight they are going to put on what we say. It can't be any other way and people are going to be making up their own minds whatever we do.

 

Dropping in two cents to the thread on the topic of anonymity. I'd also like to add a bit to the why ad hominem and anonymity correlation as I've run my share of large forum communities in my day, though all of them were hobby based and not at all involved in discussion about important material things (like an education for example).

I've found that for everything that people who take part in ad hominem attacks do improperly, in the long term they actually help a website by increasing traffic load. If you are able to leverage any online marketing agreements into any sort of cash, this actually helps.

I've also found that if the majority of your user base is "mature" (and that term is relative) then the arguments actually draw people together over time. It's hard to metric this as all anyone notices are the people who leave or the people who complain. Still, good does come of bad from time to time.

None of this makes flaming or personal attacks right, and if the mods don't jump on it sooner rather than later it can get out of hand and be completely destructive to the site. I'm pleased to have never been reprimanded by the staff and I try to go out of my way to avoid arguments, but what I have noticed has stopped in a short-term if not necessarily quick way, so I'm assuming that the staff here knows what they're doing.

In terms of posting anonymously: I have no issue identifying myself to individual posters via PM if I start a conversation with someone, but I refuse to post as myself on a public forum community due to the wonders of Google. Tenure protects the jobs of academics, but the rest of the world needs to practice careful control of their online presence/identity as HR likes the little text box that acts as a window to prospective hires. Subordinates also like it, and after having one bosses collegiate sexual experiences printed on the wall outside his office one morning (10 years after he graduated mind you and from an online article at least that old), I learned a lesson.

(There's also a number of us who need to discuss advanced educational goals here that would imply to their employers that they're not sticking about for very long.. bad mojo)

Point is, yes in general anonymity is a bad thing. However, I'd say that the site would be losing out on people if they chose to implement a non-anonymity clause in signatures or user names.

In closing, I hope this doesn't reek of paranoia to those with a differing paradigm. I'm really just speaking up with this opinion more due to where I've seen threads like this head in the past in other places; and I like this site quite a bit. It'd be a shame to have to leave it.

ITJD

 

Ahem.

1. This is a thread on why personal attacks happen. Don't start degenerating into making personal attacks. We're getting close.

2. This is NOT a thread about DETC, dissertations, or the relative value of different schools. If you wish to discuss those things, please start another thread... and please be respectful of each other.

3. Once again, I've had to waste my time removing personal attacks, in a discussion about personal attacks. This is really pathetic. And no, it is not any single person who is responsible. I don't want arguments there, both of the parties in question are guilty of either initiating or responding, and in my book, neither is OK.

If a poster feels a posting is a personal attack, REPORT IT. That's what the little triangle with the ! in it is for.

Thank you

 

Maybe for some, but this isn't the case with everyone. I have no problem speaking my mind on certain issues whether with a screen name or my own name. I am an open book to family and friends, but I don't want to be an open book and air my dirty laundry for everyone to see. I have dirty laundry happening all the time, I don't want to show my old stuff too! (My smiley face isn't coming up!). Thank you.

 

Thanks for sharing those thoughts, Everyone. I'm trying to digest it all.

Again, I've observed this phenomenon for years on many discussion boards... The online poster will resort to ad hominem attacks (i.e., flames) when they are psychologically not able to discuss the topic any further (for whatever reason) and will not return to discussing the topic (and cease flaming) until they can psychologically discuss the topic, perhaps in a different thread. The effect is moderated by many factors, such as: 1. Anonymous posters flame with greater frequency, intensity, and duration than identified posters; 2. Ignoring the flame actually intensifies it until extinction cues present; 3. Ignoring the flame decreases the duration of the flame; 4. Ignoring the flame increases the frequency of the flame.