[Garland Bayley]

From Ran's home page:

"GolfClubAtlas.com is presented to promote frank commentary on golf course architecture."

In the discussion group, I see complaints of "one-upmanship".

My questions are

How do you distinguish frank commentary from one-upmanship?

How do you prevent your commentary from being regarded as one-upmanship?

What causes someone to perceive frank commentary to be one-upmanship?

[Anthony Gray]

           

 

[Mike Nuzzo]

Trust
Authenticity
Neurosis

[Jim_Kennedy]

From Ran's home page:
"GolfClubAtlas.com is presented to promote frank commentary on golf course architecture."
In the discussion group, I see complaints of "one-upmanship".
My questions are

How do you distinguish frank commentary from one-upmanship?

Frank commentary doesn't leave the impression that you are trying to gain some advantage on the person who posted the comment in the first place.

How do you prevent your commentary from being regarded as one-upmanship?

Review your comments so that they don't do the above

What causes someone to perceive frank commentary to be one-upmanship?

Sometimes it IS, like when multiple replies are made that say something to the effect that "Thanks, but I already knew that". That's little more than a tactic to intimidate the poster and an attempt to establish the superiority of the person making the remark. Thanking someone for information, whether or not you already knew already it, would go along way to resolving any problems.  Frank commentary doesn't leave the impression that you are trying to gain some advantage on the person who posted the comment in the first place.


Anthony,
You should see if you can't get someone to do that with you, it's less lonely and will kill more time.

[Jay Flemma]

Bravo, Jim.  Well said.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Frank commentary doesn't leave the impression that you are trying to gain some advantage on the person who posted the comment in the first place.

How do you prevent your commentary from being regarded as one-upmanship?

Review your comments so that they don't do the above
...

Frankly, it seems to me that you are suggesting an impossible task. If someone makes a frank comment without any thought of it being one-upmanship, how can that person then read it and see one-upmanship in it?

[Jim_Kennedy]

That's just the ad hominem abusive attack Jay, some people still rate the ad hominem circumstantial attack and the ad hominem 'you too' attack.

Otherwise, thanks, and I won't touch the vacuum line, too easy.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Garland,
If you are so naive that you cannot recognize when you just one upped someone all you need to do is apologize when they accuse you of doing so.

[Mike Nuzzo]

acknowledge when they accuse you of doing so.

I like the second part of that sentence.... with a word change.

[Kalen Braley]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-upmanship

As Jim says, I don't think Frank Discussion involves be-littling, putting down others, or proping-up oneself.  It involves critical and rational discussion of the facts at hand without, (as best as possible), inserting biases, uninformed opinions, logical fallacies, non-relevant info, etc.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Nice Kalen.
That is the point of my essay - each taste is equal and different.

Just because you like a hoppy beer doesn't make you superior.... 
Some one can like a flat crummy beer made for pansies and be considered an equal...
*tongue in cheek example of 1-upsmanship.

[Kalen Braley]

Nice Kalen.
That is the point of my essay - each taste is equal and different.

Just because you like a hoppy beer doesn't make you superior.... 
Some one can like a flat crummy beer made for pansies and be considered an equal...
*tongue in cheek example of 1-upsmanship.

Ha ha, Ok you got me!!!

But at least it was non GCA related! 

P.S.  My beer is still waaay better than yours!

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
If you are so naive that you cannot recognize when you just one upped someone all you need to do is apologize when they accuse you of doing so.

Let me apologize in advance if I am one-upping you. However, if I take Mike's answer

Trust
Authenticity
Neurosis

Then wouldn't I be apologizing for their neuroses that not having myself would have been impossible for me to anticipate?

[George Pazin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-upmanship

As Jim says, I don't think Frank Discussion involves be-littling, putting down others, or proping-up oneself.  It involves critical and rational discussion of the facts at hand without, (as best as possible), inserting biases, uninformed opinions, logical fallacies, non-relevant info, etc.

The problem is that so much of the discussion on this site (and elsewhere) relies on the interpretation of the reader. And so many people have been continually exposed to the emoting type of thinking that permeates all levels of our society, particularly in the education system, that it almost doesn't matter what one actually says, someone is guaranteed to take offense or read it as one-upmanship.

I have no idea what the answer is, other than to try your best and hope that the majority of the audience realizes it when someone overreacts.

[Michael Dugger]

A large part of the issue here is legitimate experience.

In other words, because I have ACTUALLY PLAYED golf course X, I am therefore more of an authority than you.

And I think it's that sort of thing that is often considered "one upmanship."

[Kalen Braley]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-upmanship

As Jim says, I don't think Frank Discussion involves be-littling, putting down others, or proping-up oneself.  It involves critical and rational discussion of the facts at hand without, (as best as possible), inserting biases, uninformed opinions, logical fallacies, non-relevant info, etc.

The problem is that so much of the discussion on this site (and elsewhere) relies on the interpretation of the reader. And so many people have been continually exposed to the emoting type of thinking that permeates all levels of our society, particularly in the education system, that it almost doesn't matter what one actually says, someone is guaranteed to take offense or read it as one-upmanship.

I have no idea what the answer is, other than to try your best and hope that the majority of the audience realizes it when someone overreacts.

George,

I would agree this is true to a large extent...when the facts are not on one's sides of the argument, it can be difficult to accept the other position.  One need look no further than the talking heads on TV who will do everything and anything to discredit the other side, even if it means avoiding the facts and/or replacing them with bogus ones.

I will also agree that we should try our best to give rational reasons to back up our thoughts/comments and check the emotions in at the door.

[Dan Herrmann]

Isn't it all about mutual respect?

My respect for folks that know a lot more than I do, and their respect for me even though I don't know as much as them?

And just because I respect somebody doesn't mean I need to love 'em

[George Pazin]

A large part of the issue here is legitimate experience.

In other words, because I have ACTUALLY PLAYED golf course X, I am therefore more of an authority than you.

And I think it's that sort of thing that is often considered "one upmanship."

And I personally would argue it is one upmanship.

Long ago, I asked this series of questions, which went unanswered:

If playing trumps photo analysis, does playing multiple times trump playing once? Playing multiple times in varying conditions trump multiple times in the same conditions? How about designing and playing versus playing? How about building? How about maintaining?

When you get right down to it, so much analysis relies on the experiences of the observer, and his own personal analytical skills as well.

Similarly, so much discussion on here relies on the ability of the reader to read and respond critically, not emotionally.

Good luck with that.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Garland,
If you are so naive that you cannot recognize when you just one upped someone all you need to do is apologize when they accuse you of doing so.

Let me apologize in advance if I am one-upping you. However, if I take Mike's answer

Trust
Authenticity
Neurosis

Then wouldn't I be apologizing for their neuroses that not having myself would have been impossible for me to anticipate?

  If you say so. 

[TEPaul]

"The problem is that so much of the discussion on this site (and elsewhere) relies on the interpretation of the reader. And so many people have been continually exposed to the emoting type of thinking that permeates all levels of our society, particularly in the education system, that it almost doesn't matter what one actually says, someone is guaranteed to take offense or read it as one-upmanship.

I have no idea what the answer is, other than to try your best and hope that the majority of the audience realizes it when someone overreacts."


GeorgeP:

I think you are very right in what you said there. Furthermore, I'm beginning to suspect the number is increasing on this website of overreactors who just sort of automatically ACCUSE others of one-upsmanship and overreacting and such simply because they either can't or can't admit that a frank and honest discussion is something they are not exactly willing to have in the first place. It's not the only ploy but it seems to be one of them that is steadly increasing.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,

There is a simple remedy.  One up-manship takes two people, no rebuttal and it eventually goes away.

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:

I'm fairly sure there isn't just one simple remedy; there are probably a number of good remedies and a bunch of them may even just be a matter of perspective.

[Philip Gawith]

People with grace know to "wear their knowledge lightly". And people with authority earn that authority, they don't command it by one-upmanship.

Most of us have very little difficulty working out which people on this site know more than others, which deserve respect, and whether people are contributing in good faith out of a genuine GCA interest, or have ulterior motives. There is no reason at all why frank dialogue should not be civilised dialogue, albeit this site produces too many contrary examples.

[Brent Hutto]

If I were into one-upmanship I might point out that having Philip contributing to a thread on communication and its instrumental purposes is akin to putting a Tour pro ringer on ones member/guest team.

But I'm too good for one-upmanship. 

[Sean_A]

People with grace know to "wear their knowledge lightly". And people with authority earn that authority, they don't command it by one-upmanship.

Most of us have very little difficulty working out which people on this site know more than others, which deserve respect, and whether people are contributing in good faith out of a genuine GCA interest, or have ulterior motives. There is no reason at all why frank dialogue should not be civilised dialogue, albeit this site produces too many contrary examples.

But Philip, its easy for you as you are one of the great gentlemen of this site.  I can say that because I have met you and to take it further, I know it isn't one-up-man-ship because I have met you on several occasions.  Though obviously not nearly enough as to allow any of your wisdom to rub off on me.  

Personally, I don't think there is such a huge problem on this site.  There is the tiff here and there and signs of pride infusing the dialogue, but I put a lot of the misunderstandings down to internet communication.  In person, I seriously doubt there would be anything like the spats that we see on here.  Maybe folks can confirm this from their personal experiences.  I can put up with most anything from folks here so long as they contribute in a positive way as well.  

Ciao    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()