-
Anatomy of a discussion
I try to ensure that TgR is a place where we can have robust discussions about important topics without them degenerating into flame wars as we see on other forums. So when a robust discussion starts I do watch it closely to try and keep it in productive territory, and look to see if I need to make any adjustments to the forum to nurture it.
Those reading the forums in early 2013 will be aware that we have/had such a robust discussion in multiple threads talking about the concept of a Transgender Community, its voice and the message it might project.
The threads can be found in the
“Politics” forum viewforum.php?f=347
and the “Community” forum viewforum.php?f=408Between 31st December 2012 and 25th January 2013 there were 129 posts on “Community” and closely related topics.
When we look at the posts per day we see that posting occurred in 3 bursts or phases with an idle day or two between each burst. To analyse the way this discussion developed I have labelled the three phases as
1) Proposal
2) Engagement
3) FrustrationI want to look at who posted in these threads, how much was posted, and what the general nature of the posts was.
Have a look at the discussion graphically:
Proposal
During the first week a small group of about 6 members started a discussion on community. During the Proposal phase about 35 posts were made and another 3 people were attracted into the discussion. The tone of the postings was exploratory – with people trying to establish more precisely what they were going to talk about.Engagement
After a pause the second week of discussion started with a bang with the highest daily posting count (8 posts) on the first day. This seemed to trigger a more sustained pattern of followup posting which petered out towards the end of the week. In the Engagement phase 48 posts were made, and another 9 members were attracted to post. In this phase 14 memberswere engaged and the tone of the postings was largely positive and constructive.Frustration
After another pause the discussion entered a third phase. This was characterised by a less positive tone in the postings. A core of about 6 members continued the discussion for 9 days (up till the point where this analysis was performed). This small group made a further 46 posts many of which contain expressions of frustration, anger or despondency with the way the discussion had progressed. Not unsurprisingly, this pattern of discussion didn’t attract others into participating – with only one new poster (and post) being made in this time. I’m not sure if the frustrations in this phase may degenerate into flaming but there is clear potential for this to occur.I may update this post when the discussion finally dies down. But for the moment I find it interesting to speculate why the productive phase of this discussion Engagement fizzled out and didn’t continue its early pattern of engagement and posting.
If we could manage to keep discussion in the Engagement phase for longer I’m sure we could achieve more.. but I wonder how!
Finally can I point out – this thread is about the anatomy of a discussion – it is not about the content of the discussion that was analysed.
-
7 Replies
-
This is extremely interesting & worthwhile information!
If only we had some way of (truly) determining the value of our input.
Unfortunately, it seems we currently have a zero-sum result.
-
Its amazing what you can do with statistics, I’m impressed.
It certainly shows that there was a lot of discussion going on.
-
Well a very note worthy analysis . It would seem we develop a fire in the belly if you like and the fire catches others and we all go up in smoke . I think maybe a damp towel is necessary to quell the flames sometimes and keep the embers hot .I wonder if going at it hard as sometimes happens scares people from joining the conversation.
-
AA: an excellent observation.A situation not without precedent?
We have to look no further than parliament to see how robust debate rapidly degenerates in a manner similar to your model.The proposer is unable to counter any further counter proposals and arguments start to take on the character of verbal pub fight.Tony Abbot is a master of that Tactic.If you can’t win fairly,take the fight to the (verbal)gutter.I composed this some time ago and read it at the Melbourne Poets Union just after the Gillard/Rudd spill.POLITICS
Walking within the impregnable walls
That contain the halls of power
There will always be some regrettable falls
And certain careers that flower
-
I firmly believe that the greater majority of discussions start off as being quite objective, however because of our nature and the differing ideals and values of wemembers, then the majority of comments relating to those disussions quickly become somewhat subjective. This leads to them becoming quite spirited and at times the passion of the writer becomes very evident. I do not mind this passion as the site is run by TGs/CDs for TGs/CDs and all are passionate about their site and their ideas.
I would be more concerned if the discussions in the forums were just matter of fact rather than those which attract and receive people’s true ideas, feelings and thoughts.
-
1) Propose an ideal. (the innovators or creators)
2) Support is garnered for the ideal and possibilities are explored. (the developers or optimists)
3) Disputations arise from the explorations of the possibilities. (the antagonists or pessimists)
It doesn’t matter how simple the idea. The more it is explored, the more some will be able to find objections to it and the more others will be dissappointed in there it is carried.
This is the life cycle of any ideal.
And someone famous once said “There are only 3 types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics”.
-
Portia, I always thoroughly enjoy reading your posts because they are so well thought out.
Reading your post above had me identifying with each of the 3 positions. They are clearly evident in this situation along with others in my business life.
I think it is important for people to recognise that each of us has the potential to identify with one position or another at different times throughout a process. We need not be ‘stuck’ in one position or mindset. It is when each of us can consider alternate points of view that we can move beyond the impasses that prevent implementation of actions.
