The Vomit Approach
 |
| A.I. Generated Artwork |
As I sometimes do, I woke up in the early morning thinking about a particular subject, mulling it over in my brain, perhaps as a way of subconsciously process things. On this particular morning, I was trying to come up with a term for something that I have found is happening more frequently.
The subject I woke up to pondering, was why is there a tendency for others, when a single criticism to something they said/posted/shared, to "vomit" up a litany of other grievances that really don't pertain to the single criticism that was mentioned? Most often this is centered around politically oriented posts and it happens on both sides of the political spectrum. It hit me that this need to defend "their team" with a laundry list of grievances is perhaps one of the reasons why anything political is so divisive these days.
As a strategy, it can be quite effective as it tends to overwhelm any responses because, really, where does one start when cleaning up a vomit pile. Not to be too graphic but it tends to get smeared around a bit and make more of a mess before things start getting cleaned up. But the fact remains, it is still vomit and really not something desirable to have to deal with.
I'm not sold on this analogy which I have dubbed the "vomit approach" and I'm open for other suggestions.
Perhaps all this comes to my mind because when I was in school, one of the many things that they taught back then that doesn't get taught today was "Robert's Rules of Order." If you are unfamiliar with Robert, he was a Army officer who found attending meetings to discuss things a bit chaotic due to all the various natures and personalities of those in attendance. His book was a list of rules to obey when discussing complex topics to reach the general consensus of the room. Perhaps because it no longer is taught, this is why we have regressed back to unproductive discussions, especially when it comes to politics.
Ed - It is an apt a term as any and honestly, has contributed greatly to my falling away from Social Media and really any conversations about most modern events at all. I even catch myself getting to the point of doing it at times.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it comes from wanting to "defend one's team", but all it does is shut down all communication. There is no point discussing an issue with someone that has 52 things that are wrong - in fact, I would argue the point of it is to ensure that there simply can be no argument because this list (or pool, in your example) clearly demonstrates that the person/movement/organization is so clearly flawed and "evil" that there can only be the answer as proposed by the person with the 52 item list.
Honestly, just writing about it exhausts me.
I would be willing to bet, very few people change their minds after such an exchange. There just doesn't seem there are many people willing to think or question why they believe what they believe. I am forever questioning things which usually is taken as an insult if it doesn't line up with the views of those I'm asking the question too.
DeleteThis made me think of that oatmeal-esque powder the elementary school teacher would sprinkle on vomit whenever some kid threw up in class.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a ton of unwillingness to admit one could have ever possibly held a wrong opinion about anything at all.
Good lord Bone! I had completely forgot the smell of that powder which to me, was worse than the mess it attempted to cover up. Whenever we smelled it in elementary school, we knew someone had thrown up in the halls.
DeleteI have changed my opinions a lot over the years on many things, even major things like the death penalty and abortion. Some of it was due to just growing wise with age but some of it was because I listened to someone else make a more convincing argument than I had.
Oh, yeah, that awful sawdust stuff! Ugh!
DeleteIt must have been widespread if Alabama, Florida and Iowa all used the same stuff.
DeleteIt’s a logical fallacy of some name that I can’t recall, to address one grievance by mentioning others because the original grievance still exists and hasn’t been addressed. I call it whataboutism, but there is a proper name, I think.
ReplyDeleteI like that term AC. It is definitely a milder term than my "vomit approach" phrase and thus better for mixed company.
DeleteI've seen that too and it makes it difficult to respond. However, there are also complex situations which require more background of events and that's not the same as what you're talking about, right?
ReplyDeleteFor sure. As you know from our discussions, I often see a lot of gray area where many see black and white when it comes to politics. So I often feel as if I have to precede opinions by laying out the path that arrived to that opinion. But honestly in this divided times, even that rarely does any good. Tariffs would be a great example. Most only have an opinion that they are good or bad but the more I read into them, there is a lot of mixed results depending on what items and/or industry one is referring too.
DeleteI think "vomit approach" is an appropriate term, because the barrage of anger behind it is just as gross and disgusting. It seems to have an in-person application as well - just talk loud and fast and don't let the other person get a word in edgewise.
ReplyDeleteGood point about Robert's Rules of Order, As a society, we seem to have completely lost common courtesy and civility. And you're right, it needs to be taught, as it doesn't seem to be inherent in human nature.
It definitely isn't something we are born with. Really, the only time I see it used anymore is on C-Span when Congress is debating something.
DeleteInteresting...and here I figured you all had the stomach flu:( We are supposed to be a UNITED States of America...not the divided ...I find all the Political Vomit from both sides to be childish...lets get back to what really matters and if a represenative is not representing his/her people then they should step down.
ReplyDeleteImagine what we could accomplish if we could get our representatives to listen to the other side and find compromises that unites us!
DeleteI understand exactly what you're saying here, Ed. I've notice that people have seemed to become less civil in general, on any given topic. I even see it in innocuous Instagram posts. The comments are filled with nasty, mean-spirited responses that often don't even address the point of the post. (which might be a recipe, a beautiful photo, or whatever)
ReplyDeleteOn a different note, I can't seem to look away from your AI art for this post. It's grossly fascinating.
I haven’t found much use for AI yet besides coming up for artwork to grace the top of my posts.
DeleteYuck. I was eating lunch when I opened your post.
ReplyDeleteFunny you mentioned Robert's Rules of Order. I belong to a ceramic guild here, made up of volunteers and officers are elected for 2 year terms. Meetings have been on Zoom - and one must ask to join and then are sent the link. I have been attending for the last 2 years and just listening/watching without inputting anything since I didn't know if I could say anything. A few months ago, I decided that it was time to get involved and I brought up a concern that I had about the recent Board election. The current president (8 years in and NO term limits) ran the election using Google Forum, of which she controlled, had daily access to, and reported the tally for approval by the Board.. I voted on the first day and thought it was "off", so I sent it to my ex-google son who was able to vote if he wanted to even though he was not a member and he could vote multiple times. Immediately I notified the secretary about the discrepancy, and soon got an email thinking me for my research. Regardless, the election continued, all incumbents were re-elected (no term limits) even though an informal polling showed that most people voted for the newcomers to the Board.
At the next Board meeting, I brought up my concerns and a few Board members suggested that a new election with a more secure and valid program be used for the sake of integrity, but it failed in a 5 to 7 majority.
Soon after, the Board president decided that the Robert's Rules of Order apply to all future meetings, that members are not allowed to speak or present any issue unless it is brought up by a Board member that deems the issue worthy of being heard.
Sheesh. So much for being open to new ideas. I do believe in Robert's Rules of Order and see it work in other organizations, but not this group. I am about to give up, but the iron fist ruling is not right. I may decide to run against an incumbent this year, but if Google Forums without filters are used as it always has been, I may be digging my own hole.
That would rub me the wrong way too. At all of my meetings, if you want to discuss a topic at a meeting, you just give advance notice and it is put on the agenda. The proposed agenda is set out ahead of time before the meeting. At the beginning of the meeting, we review the agenda and vote to approve it before the meeting starts, with the option to remove or add things. That way, if there is a topic that was brought up but was decided to be removed from the agenda, it is in front of everyone present and although we don't follow Robert's Rules of Order to the letter, the member who added it to the agenda can discuss why they want to talk about it. It keeps things more transparent.
DeleteAnd I am a fan of Claude.ai for AI answers. I use him a lot and asked about running a fair election. He gave so many options, some free, some for a small charge. And he is very nice.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I haven't played with Claude.ai much, I am leery of taking advice from A.I. as factual for now. I have found too many discrepancies to believe it without doing my own research to verify authenticity. But I find it a good first step as the A.I. I use, provides links to where the information the A.I. presented was sourced so it is fairly easy to verify or discredit at that point.
Delete