[George Pazin]

I think we need to have a good, thoughtful discussion on this site. The topic I think we need to discuss is questioning others' motives:

Should we do it? When? Always? Never? Why? Why not? Should motives matter? How would you accurately evaluate what another's motive is? How would you relate why to what?

I had wanted to share my thoughts on this today, but I don't have time. And in thinking about this further, I think it would be better if everyone thought about it overnight and we discussed it in depth tomorrow and indeed the rest of the week.

Then Ran or Ben or whoever can delete this thread.

(You're probably asking yourself at this point, what's his motivation? Why's he doing this? It's rather simple: I want this discussion site to be one of thoughtful, interesting discussion, not simple bickering or arguing, the kind of stuff that drives thoughtful posters away. Last week, I posited on a thread that questioning someone's motive is insulting him. A very good friend from the site sent me an email and asked me why I felt this way. I gave him a quick answer and thought about it more over the weekend. I decided that it was a topic worth exploring, if only so that we all improve our board interactions, improve our experiences and everyone can get along - even me and Matt! )

Think about it, sleep on it, and I'll see you tomorrow.

[Steve Lang]

  George,

It looks like its been quite a real winter up in your area (Steelers WIN being icing you can take any year).. but this is a real grey (the new noir) topic, fit for drama, suspense, exposing the underbelly and worse of the human condition.. as well as the best.. are you really sure you want to go there?

did the old bias discussion help or hurt?

[Bill_McBride]

George, this might be easier to discuss if you could provide an example (using pseudonyms and a hypothetical perhaps!  ) so we can all see where you are going with this!

[Ronald Montesano]

Grey area?  It's as large as the universe!  Motives...eat, sleep, stay warm and s*$t.  Those are my motives.  Narrow it down and I'll continue.

[Jim Nugent]

Ronald, missing the most primeval of all? 

[RJ_Daley]

I didn't sleep on it, so maybe I'll get the wrong answer for your motivation to ask, George. 

I'd say, contact.  My motivation is contact.  Not contact like in physical contact sport (though our debates can leave slight bruises at times).  Not contact as in making a contact to schmooze a round of golf at some fancy club by prospecting on here. 

Just contacting other people whom I have come to be familiar with via long time participation on an ongoing discussion board that has a central focus and has interesting people that can and will go O.T. to share their broader  thoughts and me not being too shy to let them also have mine.  Whether it is golf or politics, I'm curious what others think about things I know in golf, course design and life, and what I don't know even more so. 

If one isn't curious what another thinks and can't stand hearing it, then don''t read their posts, is the way I feel.  And obviously vise versa.

I go on some of the political free for all sites like Huffington Post, and the blogs on two Wisconsin newspapers to comment.  But, they are too big of a readership, too annonymous, and you don't have that touchstone of a common interest in one important topic such as golf, to glue the managed 1500 that is what GCA.com maintains.  I love that we have international participants, and their views on all these matters are highly interesting to me, and I hope they find mine tolerable as well.  But, I'm not looking to please everyone.  Just trying to get some common understanding on the main subject, and the O.T.s.

If it weren't for the O.T.s, I don't think I'd be around here as much anymore because so much has been stated on GCA that much of it is recylcled over and over. 

Of course the interviews and new courses added with often very good writing is something else to look forward to.  But contact is the thing, for me.

[George Pazin]

First of all, there are no hidden nefarious motives behind this thread. I am not seeking anyone's motivation, we're all here for different reasons, pretty much all of which are solid by me.

The reason for the thread is simply this: imho, too often posters attack others' motives, rather than addressing the substance of the post. (I could drone on and on about how I believe this is a vestige of our educational system, but I'll leave that for another (boring) day.)

I personally believe what somebody posts is FAR more important than why. And more significantly, you can read what people post; unless you're one of the board's mind readers (and judging by people's posts, there are more than a few on here, at least they believe that), it is virtually impossible to know what another's motivation is. And assailing another's motives has to be one of, if not THE primary thing that drives people away from this site.

To use two personal examples:

1) My Oakmont threads - Every time I meet someone, in person or on-line, the first thing they mention is my series of threads on my favorite course, Oakmont. That's nice, I appreciate people noticing and thank them for the kind words. So why did I do it? Simple, I wanted to share my thoughts on the course in hopes of more people understanding and appreciating it's greatness. I didn't do it for accolades, I didn't do it to curry favor with an Oakmont member (I'm not one, everyone now and then someone asks if I am), I didn't do it to try to move Oakmont up in the rankings, I didn't do it because Huck is foolish enough to think Pebble's its equal .

But most germane to this thread, does WHY I did it matter as much as WHAT the threads showed, what people learned from them? Imho, no, it's not even close.

2) My ongoing "obsession" with playability. Sure, I'm a high handicapper, but does anyone out there truly believe I'm dumb enough to think my words are going to change anything out there? I have these discussions because I find the topic interesting, and it is one that I can comment somewhat knowledgeably on, unlike the many wonderful threads about amazing golf courses that I've never played, or the amazing research threads, which I can't even keep up with.

Disagreement is crucial to a discussion site, but I believe it must be informed, reasoned disagreement, not simply attacking another poster's motives. That's not discussion, that's bickering, it's using deflection as a lesser attempt of furthering one's own argument (there's that educational system cropping up again).

There are times when each of us should determine whether someone's motives are influencing the quality and content of his posts. But I don't believe it should every be an overriding, all-encompassing concern of the posters on this site.

But those are just a few of my thoughts. Please share yours, I am genuinely interested in learning more about this topic, and I think it's something that could improve the quality of an already terrific discussion site.

Thanks in advance.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

Are you next going to cure cancer and fix our economy?

Those seem more likely than getting one and all to cease from questioning motives.

And to that end.. this is obviously once again a plea to convince people Oakmont is better than Pebble Beach.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

George,

I believe you're absolutely correct here.

The times I've questioned other's motives (including David Moriarty) I ended up really regretting it because it ultimately diverted where the true discussion should have taken place, as well as diluted my own message.

I've since learned better and deal with things much more directly.    

For instance, I now simply have Kyle Harris locked securely in my basement, although I have to admit that I did treat him to Pho Tai and Spring Rolls this past Saturday so he's not exactly getting Guantanamo type treatment!  

Seriously, I agree with you wholeheartedly, and have also felt VERY offended and hurt when other's have questioned my motives on a variety of topics over the years, and I can't say that those situations ended with particularly helpful or worthwhile dialogue either.

Thanks for synthesizing this issue for us, and I think we should all be more aware of when we do it, when it's done to us, or when we see it done to others.

[Garland Bayley]

But George,

Sometimes aren't someones motives for what they post the true issue?

E.g., Barney

[Lou_Duran]

George Pazin,

This is a topic I've long thought about but never considered posting.  Good for you.

I've been critical on this site about our propensity to attribute dark motives to other people's beliefs and opinions.  Too often we mischaracterize, reframe, extend, or even make up what other people say then proceed to bash them, you know, the old straw man tactic.  Even substituting one simple word in what someone else says can change the whole thrust of the message.  In a day when our language has become so flexible that a president can reply straight faced to a fairly direct question with "it all depends on what the meaning of the word is is" and the simplest issue is infinitely "nuanced", it is very hard to give a fair reading without having to infer what the agenda is behind it.

Having said all that, the need to put things into context is important.  Let me ask you or anyone else who wants to field the question, what would come into your mind if someone said "I have picked up from your writing that you are an inherently intelligent person".  Is this a compliment or a possible dig?  If you had other information on the sender, say a recent contentious exchange, would you infer a different meaning or motive than if you were drinking buddies?

A former boss once told me to always try to maintain a warm personal regard for other people in the business place no matter how strained or difficult the relastionship had become.  I think this is one of the best pieces of advice anyone has given me, and one that has been very difficult for me to practice in real life.

It is human nature to ascribe motives to other people.  Our psychological defense mechanisms are strong and difficult times sometimes challenge our most closely held beliefs.  Projection of one's shortcomings, fears, and prejudices is among the more common and also unattractive.  You know, for every finger you point at someone, three are pointed back at you.  I, we, need to remember to be as generous and kind in this area as we would like others to be if the shoe were on the other foot.

Is this what you had in mind, or am I missing the boat again?

[Dan Kelly]

Whoever wants this site to emulate American politics (and its many and various "discussion groups," in print and electronic) should make a habit of questioning others' agendas, motives, and ulterior motives, instead of addressing the substance of their ideas.

Everyone else should ignore those agendas, motives and ulterior motives -- even when they are transparently relevant.

If there is to be any questioning of others' agendas, motives and ulterior motives, let it at least be private -- and direct; man-to-man.

Further, affiant sayeth not.

[Jeff_Brauer]

George Pazin,

This is a topic I've long thought about but never considered posting.  Good for you.

I've been critical on this site about our propensity to attribute dark motives to other people's beliefs and opinions.  Too often we mischaracterize, reframe, extend, or even make up what other people say then proceed to bash them, you know, the old straw man tactic.  Even substituting one simple word in what someone else says can change the whole thrust of the message.  In a day when our language has become so flexible that a president can reply straight faced to a fairly direct question with "it all depends on what the meaning of the word is is" and the simplest issue is infinitely "nuanced", it is very hard to give a fair reading without having to infer what the agenda is behind it.

Having said all that, the need to put things into context is important.  Let me ask you or anyone else who wants to field the question, what would come into your mind if someone said "I have picked up from your writing that you are an inherently intelligent person".  Is this a compliment or a possible dig?  If you had other information on the sender, say a recent contentious exchange, would you infer a different meaning or motive than if you were drinking buddies?

A former boss once told me to always try to maintain a warm personal regard for other people in the business place no matter how strained or difficult the relastionship had become.  I think this is one of the best pieces of advice anyone has given me, and one that has been very difficult for me to practice in real life.

It is human nature to ascribe motives to other people.  Our psychological defense mechanisms are strong and difficult times sometimes challenge our most closely held beliefs.  Projection of one's shortcomings, fears, and prejudices is among the more common and also unattractive.  You know, for every finger you point at someone, three are pointed back at you.  I, we, need to remember to be as generous and kind in this area as we would like others to be if the shoe were on the other foot.

Is this what you had in mind, or am I missing the boat again?

Lou,

So, let me ask you, did you stop beating your wife?

[Garland Bayley]

So Lou, is it true you haven't beaten you wife in the last year?

[Peter Pallotta]

George -

I've done that a couple of times on here, questioned people's motives, and immediately regretted it both times.

I'm here to knock around ideas, hopefully good and interesting ones. In other words, I'm here for the discussions.

And questioning people's motives not only makes the discussions less fruitful, it actually erodes the very foundations of genuine discussion.

Implicitly and explicitly, it suggest that the ideas themselves are not as important as who/where the ideas are coming from. (Unfortunately, I think the "Who are you guys" thread actually encourages this.)

And the moment we start asking ourselves about why someone posts instead of about the merits of what he's posting, we're done for.

I know, that approach can seem smart and sophisticated and worldly, but it's actually nothing more than a subtle form of gossip and innuendo and pop psychologising -- and it's meant not to raise up the level of ideas but instead to diminish and dismiss another.

It also, whether we realize it or not, suggests that we're not actually concerned whether opinions are right or wrong, or whether an arguement is true or false; in fact, I think it suggests that those kind of questions are meaningless.    

And besides all that, questioning another's motives is a mug's game -- what the hell can we really know about another's motives? Heck, how often do we even fully understand our own?

Peter

[PCCraig]

George-

Maybe I'm a newbie on here, but what exactly do you mean by questioning "motives?" I believe you mentioned a thread from last week where people thought someone was posting something for a personal gain. I would understand those types of motives, but the replies seem to be pointing at threads that the author has some sort of deeper personal motive.

And what "motive" would there even be in posting a Oakmont vs. Pebble thread? Is that not just discussion?

Sorry...I'm semi confused.

[JMEvensky]

And the moment we start asking ourselves about why someone posts instead of about the merits of what he's posting, we're done for.

That's a perfectly turned phrase,IMO.

For me,someone who lurks more than posts,this board is a great way to learn more about my passion for golf.Architecture,maintenance,course Baedekers--it's all great.

This place is like a college fraternity.There are the older,wiser guys.There are the newer guys with millions of questions.There are guys trying to be friends with the "cool" guys.There are guys you wonder how they were allowed to "pledge".But,we're all GCA brothers.

So,I never ascribe a malicious motive to anyone on this board.I always assume that any tension I perceive has either got some kind of personal backstory or that the posters are victims of the internet's inherent lack of nuance.

People land here because they want to talk/read about golf.Frequently,the tangents get heated but it doesn't really seem any different than a million other Men's Grill discussions we've all had.

Questioning motives just seems like a  dangerous waste of time.

[Kyle Harris]

Mike is being modest. He also helped me out with some car issues for which I am eternally grateful. Mike and I have shared too many adventures together to let misunderstandings rule our relationship.

It's amazing to watch the generational gap here on GCA. People my own age, I believe, are more readily adapted to the problems of internet communication and a whole sub-culture has developed around preventing the ITG (Internet Tough Guy) Syndrome.

As much as Dan Kelly hates emoticons, they grew out of the need (in the 1870s!) to convey context through print media.

I feel like there is a rather intuitive approach being developed by younger people in terms of providing and showing context through electronic media.

[PCCraig]

It's amazing to watch the generational gap here on GCA. People my own age, I believe, are more readily adapted to the problems of internet communication and a whole sub-culture has developed around preventing the ITG (Internet Tough Guy) Syndrome.

Such as?

[George Pazin]

Whoever wants this site to emulate American politics (and its many and various "discussion groups," in print and electronic) should make a habit of questioning others' agendas, motives, and ulterior motives, instead of addressing the substance of their ideas.

Everyone else should ignore those agendas, motives and ulterior motives -- even when they are transparently relevant.

If there is to be any questioning of others' agendas, motives and ulterior motives, let it at least be private -- and direct; man-to-man.

Further, affiant sayeth not.

An excellent post, I agree completely.

It also, whether we realize it or not, suggests that we're not actually concerned whether opinions are right or wrong, or whether an arguement is true or false; in fact, I think it suggests that those kind of questions are meaningless.     

And besides all that, questioning another's motives is a mug's game -- what the hell can we really know about another's motives? Heck, how often do we even fully understand our own?

Peter

More excellent points. I am again in agreement.

George-

Maybe I'm a newbie on here, but what exactly do you mean by questioning "motives?" I believe you mentioned a thread from last week where people thought someone was posting something for a personal gain. I would understand those types of motives, but the replies seem to be pointing at threads that the author has some sort of deeper personal motive.

And what "motive" would there even be in posting a Oakmont vs. Pebble thread? Is that not just discussion?

Sorry...I'm semi confused.

Pat, I don't know that I can really explain it further than my earlier posts, other than to cite the 2 above posts.

To answer your questions about 1) poster's personal gain and 2) the Oakmont discussion, I'll say:

1) what difference can it possibly make to a single poster on here if someone profits - and I mean monetarily - from listing something on here. Is the poster in question inundating everyone with sales solicitations? Constant threadjacks? If not, who effin' cares? That goes directly to the heart of my point - the overwhelming majority of the time - and there are indeed exceptions - the poster's motivation just doesn't matter. In business, if you wish to be successful, you quickly realize that most things have to be win-win. The constant questioning of motives is most definitely not.

2) There is undoubtedly someone out there who thinks any discussion such as my Oakmont thread is simple butt-kissing. I know the truth and such naysayers would not bother me at all. I'll simply say, what difference does someone's motivation is creating a discussion make? All too often, none, and when that motivation becomes the focus, it detracts immeasurably from the discussion at hand.

[George Pazin]

Sorry to repeatedly bump my own thread - feel free to draw your own inferences about my motives - but I just thought of an excellent example of the sort of thing we're missing out on, because people feel the need to constantly question others' motives:

There are many examples of architects and others on here who have projects in the works, but they are afraid to discuss them, for fear of the onslaught of jeers. To use one specific example, I for one would LOVE to know what is going on with Cabot, but I can certainly understand why Ran, Ben and others refrain from sharing. That is everyone's loss on here, however. There is nothing I enjoy more on here than people sharing their passion, and we are all worse off for the cynical beatings that discourage others from doing so.

[Charlie Goerges]

Okay, before we go completely down this road I'd like to put the brakes on for a moment. (though let me say that in general I agree with what George et.al. have said)

First, there are legitimate discussion reasons for questioning motives on occasion.

Second, there is a difference between questioning motives and impugning motives/credibility, personal attacks, and general meanspirited rabblerousing.

Hell, in my job, questioning motives is the single best way I have to make sure I don't waste a ton of time on useless or redundant work. E.g. when someone comes up to me and asks if I can make a 5-page word document into a jpeg, I stop and question their motives. If what they really want is to put the text into a powerpoint slide but they don't want to "retype the whole damned thing", I say "have you ever heard of copy/paste"?

[PCCraig]

Whoever wants this site to emulate American politics (and its many and various "discussion groups," in print and electronic) should make a habit of questioning others' agendas, motives, and ulterior motives, instead of addressing the substance of their ideas.

Everyone else should ignore those agendas, motives and ulterior motives -- even when they are transparently relevant.

If there is to be any questioning of others' agendas, motives and ulterior motives, let it at least be private -- and direct; man-to-man.

Further, affiant sayeth not.

An excellent post, I agree completely.

It also, whether we realize it or not, suggests that we're not actually concerned whether opinions are right or wrong, or whether an arguement is true or false; in fact, I think it suggests that those kind of questions are meaningless.     

And besides all that, questioning another's motives is a mug's game -- what the hell can we really know about another's motives? Heck, how often do we even fully understand our own?

Peter

More excellent points. I am again in agreement.

George-

Maybe I'm a newbie on here, but what exactly do you mean by questioning "motives?" I believe you mentioned a thread from last week where people thought someone was posting something for a personal gain. I would understand those types of motives, but the replies seem to be pointing at threads that the author has some sort of deeper personal motive.

And what "motive" would there even be in posting a Oakmont vs. Pebble thread? Is that not just discussion?

Sorry...I'm semi confused.

Pat, I don't know that I can really explain it further than my earlier posts, other than to cite the 2 above posts.

To answer your questions about 1) poster's personal gain and 2) the Oakmont discussion, I'll say:

1) what difference can it possibly make to a single poster on here if someone profits - and I mean monetarily - from listing something on here. Is the poster in question inundating everyone with sales solicitations? Constant threadjacks? If not, who effin' cares? That goes directly to the heart of my point - the overwhelming majority of the time - and there are indeed exceptions - the poster's motivation just doesn't matter. In business, if you wish to be successful, you quickly realize that most things have to be win-win. The constant questioning of motives is most definitely not.

2) There is undoubtedly someone out there who thinks any discussion such as my Oakmont thread is simple butt-kissing. I know the truth and such naysayers would not bother me at all. I'll simply say, what difference does someone's motivation is creating a discussion make? All too often, none, and when that motivation becomes the focus, it detracts immeasurably from the discussion at hand.

George-

See I think there is a big difference between #1 and #2. Bringing up a discussion of Oakmont...on a discussion board, no matter if you are kissing butt or not, has no motive other than what this discussion board was designed for. As for #1, no I don't really care if someone is using the board to promote a golf related business transaction that they are in some way associated with, but if they do so that person should use full disclosure up front with everyone...there is no harm in that and that way no one needs to question their motives.

As I have said before, this is a wonderful place to discuss golf and GCA. I really don't have any problem with "OT" threads because really, if we were all in the same room, it would be impossible to talk about GCA at all times, something else is bound to come up!

The interesting thing about this site is that the more involved I have become (within the last year or so, even though I have been a member since, I think, 2004) is that you start to learn about the other member's through their posts as people.

[Carl Johnson]

Okay, before we go completely down this road I'd like to put the brakes on for a moment. (though let me say that in general I agree with what George et.al. have said)

First, there are legitimate discussion reasons for questioning motives on occasion.

Second, there is a difference between questioning motives and impugning motives/credibility, personal attacks, and general meanspirited rabblerousing.

Hell, in my job, questioning motives is the single best way I have to make sure I don't waste a ton of time on useless or redundant work. E.g. when someone comes up to me and asks if I can make a 5-page word document into a jpeg, I stop and question their motives. If what they really want is to put the text into a powerpoint slide but they don't want to "retype the whole damned thing", I say "have you ever heard of copy/paste"?

As a new guy, and remember that, here's my input.  Charlie says it about like I would.  There's questioning motives and there's asking questions about motives.  The former implies, not necessarily but usually, a negative judgment, while the latter, to my mind, seeks clarification.  Sometimes a question can be phrased as the latter, yet imply the former, intentionally or not.  I don't see any problem with seeking clarification.  Regarding the former, the negative "motive questioning," it all depends on how the question or comment is phrased.  I think you can express a negative take without being personal.  That's what I'd prefer.

From the perspective of a new participant, it's difficult for me to tell where some of you are coming from.  Is the Pebble Beach vs. Oakmont thing really serious, good natured ribbing, an inside joke, or something else?  For longtime participants, that's probably a silly question, but not for a new guy.  Sometimes it's easy to tell, but here I'm not sure.  (I don't need a real answer.)  I've read posts on GCA for a number or years, but only became a participant a month or so ago.  It's going to take a while, probably a long while, for me to pick up on all the subtexts, undercurrents, or whatever.

[Garland Bayley]

... Is the Pebble Beach vs. Oakmont thing really serious, good natured ribbing, an inside joke, or something else?...

Pebble Beach vs Oakmont is serious. It's the two combatants, Huck and Paze that are the joke.
 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()