Differences in Communication Styles

[Bootstrap]

So if we're discussing some topic, I may ask you to reframe a question along those lines before I answer it. Let's try that going forward, with an eye to keeping the focus on the topic.

I read this as implying that some of my posts (or questions maybe?) in the Sabbath thread could have benefited by having been reframed. Do you think that is the case? How about quoting here a couple of those posts that should have been reframed so I can better understand what you're talking about?

I think OJ has already been helpful, it's worth a shot.

Let me try this with your first post in that thread, and let's see how it goes.

Here it is:

Of course, if you gather to worship, teach, and break bread, you aren't at work during that time. And there is wisdom in finding time to rest. But the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

I find it intriguing how often this argument is used as a justification for ignoring the gift of a day of rest. This day of rest was made for man, and therefore men feel entitled to ignore it. Funny how when a man's employer makes a holiday for him, he very happily makes use of it - but when God gives man a day of rest, many people think of it as a day to work instead.

I didn’t see a clear question in that post, and I wasn’t sure how it connected directly to what I had just said. It felt to me like you disagreed strongly, but I wasn’t sure exactly where or how. Here's a simple, direct question that could have worked better:

I'm confused about that last sentence. If Sunday is not the Sabbath, why are you quoting Jesus about the Sabbath there?

That would be easy to answer.

There were a couple of things I set aside when I responded, but they still made it harder for me to engage.

1. A partial quote

The part you quoted left out some of the context. In the post you were quoting from, I was trying to explain my understanding of New Testament teaching about the Lord’s Day. Without the broader context, it felt like the meaning shifted, and your response implied that I was simply ignoring biblical teaching.

2. Stance markers

Phrases like “I find it intriguing…” or “Funny how…” are stance markers. They don’t really make a point, they suggest a certain way of looking at the other person or their position.

For example:

Straightforward: Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side.
With stance markers: I find it intriguing how the chicken crosses the road. Funny how he says he is just trying to get to the other side.

The stance markers invite the reader to think the chicken is being deceptive. That’s how your post landed with me, though I realize you may not have intended it that way.

There's another example in the first post in this thread:

Straightforward: Bootstrap felt I restated his comments inaccurately.
With stance markers: I was accused of restating Bootstrap’s comments inaccurately with my own spin.

I think it's important to focus on the topic we are discussing. Or if we are going to talk about each other, to do so in a conciliatory, brotherly way, building each other up, not putting each other down.

Does that make sense to you?

[ken_sylvania]

So if we're discussing some topic, I may ask you to reframe a question along those lines before I answer it. Let's try that going forward, with an eye to keeping the focus on the topic.

I read this as implying that some of my posts (or questions maybe?) in the Sabbath thread could have benefited by having been reframed. Do you think that is the case? How about quoting here a couple of those posts that should have been reframed so I can better understand what you're talking about?

I think OJ has already been helpful, it's worth a shot.

Let me try this with your first post in that thread, and let's see how it goes.

Here it is:

Of course, if you gather to worship, teach, and break bread, you aren't at work during that time. And there is wisdom in finding time to rest. But the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

I find it intriguing how often this argument is used as a justification for ignoring the gift of a day of rest. This day of rest was made for man, and therefore men feel entitled to ignore it. Funny how when a man's employer makes a holiday for him, he very happily makes use of it - but when God gives man a day of rest, many people think of it as a day to work instead.

I didn’t see a clear question in that post, and I wasn’t sure how it connected directly to what I had just said. It felt to me like you disagreed strongly, but I wasn’t sure exactly where or how. Here's a simple, direct question that could have worked better:

I'm confused about that last sentence. If Sunday is not the Sabbath, why are you quoting Jesus about the Sabbath there?

That would be easy to answer.

There were a couple of things I set aside when I responded, but they still made it harder for me to engage.

1. A partial quote

The part you quoted left out some of the context. In the post you were quoting from, I was trying to explain my understanding of New Testament teaching about the Lord’s Day. Without the broader context, it felt like the meaning shifted, and your response implied that I was simply ignoring biblical teaching.

Well, I think that helps to explain where we got off on the wrong foot. When I made that comment about using "Sabbath made for man, not man for the Sabbath" as an excuse for ignoring God's gift, there's a fairly simple reason you weren't sure how it connected directly to what you had just said - it wasn't really connected.
I wasn't specifically agreeing or disagreeing with you, nor was I trying to imply that you were ignoring God's gift of a day of rest. I only quoted a portion of your post because I wasn't intending my comment to be a response to your position and practice - I was only meaning to mention my observation that phrase is often used out of context to rationalize selfish behaviors.

You can perhaps imagine my surprise at being promptly informed that I seemed to be defending a specific point of view, and that I seemed to be saying that God commands a day of rest. (Maybe a few clarifying questions would have been in order? )

2. Stance markers

Phrases like “I find it intriguing…” or “Funny how…” are stance markers. They don’t really make a point, they suggest a certain way of looking at the other person or their position.

For example:

Straightforward: Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side.
With stance markers: I find it intriguing how the chicken crosses the road. Funny how he says he is just trying to get to the other side.

The stance markers invite the reader to think the chicken is being deceptive. That’s how your post landed with me, though I realize you may not have intended it that way.

OK, that I can sort of understand, although I think that if a particular position is hypocritical or not rational it's OK to say so sometimes. I certainly was not trying to invite anyone to think of you as being deceptive, because I wasn't intending it as a response to or criticism of your post.

There's another example in the first post in this thread:

Straightforward: Bootstrap felt I restated his comments inaccurately.
With stance markers: I was accused of restating Bootstrap’s comments inaccurately with my own spin.

I think it's important to focus on the topic we are discussing. Or if we are going to talk about each other, to do so in a conciliatory, brotherly way, building each other up, not putting each other down.

Does that make sense to you?

This one doesn't make sense to me. Firstly, what are you calling the "stance markers" in my comment there? The word "accused"? Or the phrase "with my own spin"? I wouldn't have thought either one would be correctly described as a stance marker, although both could certainly be called loaded terms.
Secondly, isn't a phrase such as "Bootstrap felt [such and such a way]" the sort of thing we are encouraged to avoid? In fact, I simply don't know what or how you felt - all I know is what you wrote.

[Bootstrap]

There were a couple of things I set aside when I responded, but they still made it harder for me to engage.

1. A partial quote

The part you quoted left out some of the context. In the post you were quoting from, I was trying to explain my understanding of New Testament teaching about the Lord’s Day. Without the broader context, it felt like the meaning shifted, and your response implied that I was simply ignoring biblical teaching.

Well, I think that helps to explain where we got off on the wrong foot. When I made that comment about using "Sabbath made for man, not man for the Sabbath" as an excuse for ignoring God's gift, there's a fairly simple reason you weren't sure how it connected directly to what you had just said - it wasn't really connected.
I wasn't specifically agreeing or disagreeing with you, nor was I trying to imply that you were ignoring God's gift of a day of rest. I only quoted a portion of your post because I wasn't intending my comment to be a response to your position and practice - I was only meaning to mention my observation that phrase is often used out of context to rationalize selfish behaviors.

You can perhaps imagine my surprise at being promptly informed that I seemed to be defending a specific point of view, and that I seemed to be saying that God commands a day of rest. (Maybe a few clarifying questions would have been in order? )

Well, that explains how this all started. I sometimes get a bit lost when passive sentences are used, because I’m not always sure who is being referred to. For instance, when you wrote:

I was accused of restating Bootstrap's comments inaccurately

I assumed you meant me, since I had raised that concern. When a quote of mine is followed by a statement without naming who it’s directed toward, I tend to assume it’s about me.

I’ll keep working at asking clarifying questions instead of assuming. In fact, in the very next post I tried to do that—I began by restating my own basic beliefs, and then asked a series of questions:

Jesus was talking about the Jewish Sabbath, which was on Saturday. I think God gave two things:

1. The Jewish Sabbath, which is for Jews.
2. The Lord's Day, which is for Christians.

I think we should embrace the good gifts God gave us. I don't think we should turn The Lord's Day into The Sabbath, nothing in the Bible supports that. If I got that wrong, please let me know where. I think the New Testament tells us how the disciples celebrated The Lord's Day, and so do the writings of the early church. If I got any of this wrong in what I wrote, please show me what I got wrong.

You seem to be saying that God commands a day of rest, and we need to treat it as a command. Which day? For whom? Where?

Our church has some nurses, and sometimes they work on Sundays. Do you believe they are violating God's command?

[Bootstrap]

There's another example in the first post in this thread:

Straightforward: Bootstrap felt I restated his comments inaccurately.
With stance markers: I was accused of restating Bootstrap’s comments inaccurately with my own spin.

I think it's important to focus on the topic we are discussing. Or if we are going to talk about each other, to do so in a conciliatory, brotherly way, building each other up, not putting each other down.

Does that make sense to you?

This one doesn't make sense to me. Firstly, what are you calling the "stance markers" in my comment there? The word "accused"? Or the phrase "with my own spin"? I wouldn't have thought either one would be correctly described as a stance marker, although both could certainly be called loaded terms.
Secondly, isn't a phrase such as "Bootstrap felt [such and such a way]" the sort of thing we are encouraged to avoid? In fact, I simply don't know what or how you felt - all I know is what you wrote.

In this case, I see “accused” as both a loaded word (since it carries a strong, confrontational tone) and also a stance marker (since it suggests you were treated unfairly). I see “with my own spin” as both too — loaded (because of its negative connotation) and also a stance marker (since it frames my statement as biased).

I want to be sure I’m hearing you correctly: did I actually say or imply that you were deliberately putting your own spin on it? If you think I did, could you point me to where?

When I feel misunderstood, and then see words like “accused” or “spin,” it leaves me wondering if there’s any hope for me to be heard accurately. That's how those words feel to me.

[ken_sylvania]

In this case, I see “accused” as both a loaded word (since it carries a strong, confrontational tone) and also a stance marker (since it suggests you were treated unfairly).

I don't think "accused" suggests unfair treatment, although I think my post indicated that in this case I thought the accusation was unfair.

I see “with my own spin” as both too — loaded (because of its negative connotation) and also a stance marker (since it frames my statement as biased).

I want to be sure I’m hearing you correctly: did I actually say or imply that you were deliberately putting your own spin on it? If you think I did, could you point me to where?

When I feel misunderstood, and then see words like “accused” or “spin,” it leaves me wondering if there’s any hope for me to be heard accurately. That's how those words feel to me.

Here's the post I was referring to, in which I think you accused me of being judgmental and of "spinning" your posts inaccurately.

Brother, I don’t mind you trying to restate what I’ve said—if it helps you understand me better, that’s fine. What would help even more is if you’d phrase it as a question: “Is this what you meant?” or “Do you think this?” Then I can answer plainly, instead of feeling like my words are being reinterpreted.

What wears me down is when I explain myself, but the discussion circles back to the same quote with your spin on it, as if I hadn’t answered. When the framing includes words like “absurd,” “funny how…,” or “for some reason it seems to make you upset,” it feels more like dismissal than understanding. I end up thinking, “That’s what I just answered, but it seems like my response wasn’t heard—why did I bother?”

I won't push you to share your convictions if you’re not ready to. But if you’d like to ask me simple, direct questions of understanding—or even try reframing what I’ve said in my latest responses and then asking, “Is this what you mean?”—I’d be glad to engage. Without the judgmental framing, I think our back-and-forth could be much clearer and more fruitful.

[Bootstrap]

Here's the post I was referring to, in which I think you accused me of being judgmental and of "spinning" your posts inaccurately.

Brother, I don’t mind you trying to restate what I’ve said—if it helps you understand me better, that’s fine. What would help even more is if you’d phrase it as a question: “Is this what you meant?” or “Do you think this?” Then I can answer plainly, instead of feeling like my words are being reinterpreted.

What wears me down is when I explain myself, but the discussion circles back to the same quote with your spin on it, as if I hadn’t answered. When the framing includes words like “absurd,” “funny how…,” or “for some reason it seems to make you upset,” it feels more like dismissal than understanding. I end up thinking, “That’s what I just answered, but it seems like my response wasn’t heard—why did I bother?”

I won't push you to share your convictions if you’re not ready to. But if you’d like to ask me simple, direct questions of understanding—or even try reframing what I’ve said in my latest responses and then asking, “Is this what you mean?”—I’d be glad to engage. Without the judgmental framing, I think our back-and-forth could be much clearer and more fruitful.

I apologize for saying "with your spin on it", that wasn't helpful. A good example of how stance markers can be a problem.

To me, "without the judgmental framing" is different. I am calling attention to your use of stance markers to frame the discussion in judgment, and I really do think that the stance markers have precisely that effect.

That might have been a better way for me to phrase the first quote, too: "… but the discussion circles back to the same quote, framed in a way that feels judgmental to me, as if I hadn’t answered."

[Bootstrap]

Well, that explains how this all started. I sometimes get a bit lost when passive sentences are used, because I’m not always sure who is being referred to. For instance, when you wrote:

I was accused of restating Bootstrap's comments inaccurately

I assumed you meant me, since I had raised that concern. When a quote of mine is followed by a statement without naming who it’s directed toward, I tend to assume it’s about me.

I’ll keep working at asking clarifying questions instead of assuming. In fact, in the very next post I tried to do that—I began by restating my own basic beliefs, and then asked a series of questions:

Jesus was talking about the Jewish Sabbath, which was on Saturday. I think God gave two things:

1. The Jewish Sabbath, which is for Jews.
2. The Lord's Day, which is for Christians.

I think we should embrace the good gifts God gave us. I don't think we should turn The Lord's Day into The Sabbath, nothing in the Bible supports that. If I got that wrong, please let me know where. I think the New Testament tells us how the disciples celebrated The Lord's Day, and so do the writings of the early church. If I got any of this wrong in what I wrote, please show me what I got wrong.

You seem to be saying that God commands a day of rest, and we need to treat it as a command. Which day? For whom? Where?

Our church has some nurses, and sometimes they work on Sundays. Do you believe they are violating God's command?

When I look at the posts that follow, I notice that the first paragraph of mine wasn’t addressed, and the second set of questions seemed to come back to me rather than being answered directly. That left me unsure whether you were responding to what I actually said, and I didn’t know how to move the conversation forward.

It felt like we were circling the same ground without gaining clearer understanding of the topic or of each other, and that was discouraging for me.

[ken_sylvania]

Here's the post I was referring to, in which I think you accused me of being judgmental and of "spinning" your posts inaccurately.

Brother, I don’t mind you trying to restate what I’ve said—if it helps you understand me better, that’s fine. What would help even more is if you’d phrase it as a question: “Is this what you meant?” or “Do you think this?” Then I can answer plainly, instead of feeling like my words are being reinterpreted.

What wears me down is when I explain myself, but the discussion circles back to the same quote with your spin on it, as if I hadn’t answered. When the framing includes words like “absurd,” “funny how…,” or “for some reason it seems to make you upset,” it feels more like dismissal than understanding. I end up thinking, “That’s what I just answered, but it seems like my response wasn’t heard—why did I bother?”

I won't push you to share your convictions if you’re not ready to. But if you’d like to ask me simple, direct questions of understanding—or even try reframing what I’ve said in my latest responses and then asking, “Is this what you mean?”—I’d be glad to engage. Without the judgmental framing, I think our back-and-forth could be much clearer and more fruitful.

I apologize for saying "with your spin on it", that wasn't helpful. A good example of how stance markers can be a problem.

To me this sounds like you are saying that you are sorry for what you said, not because it was inaccurate, but because it wasn't helpful. If I was actually putting an inaccurate spin on what you said, then there's no need to apologize. The terminology doesn't offend me.
On the other hand, if in fact I wasn't actually misrepresenting your comments, then I think an apology is in order for the mistaken accusation, rather than for the use of loaded terminology or stance markers or whatever you want to call them.

To me, "without the judgmental framing" is different. I am calling attention to your use of stance markers to frame the discussion in judgment, and I really do think that the stance markers have precisely that effect.

Are you suggesting that "calling attention to [my] use of stance markers to frame the discussion in judgment" is not the same thing as accusing me of being judgmental?

That might have been a better way for me to phrase the first quote, too: "… but the discussion circles back to the same quote, framed in a way that feels judgmental to me, as if I hadn’t answered."

I'm sorry for making you feel that I was being judgmental. I reviewed my posts again prior to your comment about me "spinning" yours and really don't think there are judgmental stance markers in any of the posts where I asked you to clarify your position. Unfortunately, I don't think there's anything I can do about the fact that you felt judged by my repeated attempts to understand what you were saying.

Do you still maintain that you didn't accuse me of "spinning" your posts?

[Bootstrap]

To me this sounds like you are saying that you are sorry for what you said, not because it was inaccurate, but because it wasn't helpful. If I was actually putting an inaccurate spin on what you said, then there's no need to apologize. The terminology doesn't offend me.
On the other hand, if in fact I wasn't actually misrepresenting your comments, then I think an apology is in order for the mistaken accusation, rather than for the use of loaded terminology or stance markers or whatever you want to call them.

Ken, I still think my comment about “spin” was accurate. At the same time, I don’t think it’s fruitful for us to keep circling around this point. Could we agree on a kind of signal so we can both step out of loops like this more easily? Something like, “we’re going in circles, let’s drop this.” And if I decide not to answer one of your posts, this may be the reason why. I hope you’ll simply take that as me stepping back from the loop.

For me, the bigger issue is that instead of staying with the topic itself, your posts often put more energy into implying things about the people involved. That's what I was trying to point out with the stance markers. When I ask what you believe about the topic, you don’t usually answer directly. That makes the discussion feel like a minefield, and I’d rather not keep walking into that.

I’d also like to avoid what Paul calls “useless controversies.” We end up pouring endless energy into side issues, and I don’t think that’s fun for us or for others on MennoNet. More importantly, I don’t think it bears good fruit.

[ken_sylvania]

To me this sounds like you are saying that you are sorry for what you said, not because it was inaccurate, but because it wasn't helpful. If I was actually putting an inaccurate spin on what you said, then there's no need to apologize. The terminology doesn't offend me.
On the other hand, if in fact I wasn't actually misrepresenting your comments, then I think an apology is in order for the mistaken accusation, rather than for the use of loaded terminology or stance markers or whatever you want to call them.

Ken, I still think my comment about “spin” was accurate. At the same time, I don’t think it’s fruitful for us to keep circling around this point. Could we agree on a kind of signal so we can both step out of loops like this more easily? Something like, “we’re going in circles, let’s drop this.” And if I decide not to answer one of your posts, this may be the reason why. I hope you’ll simply take that as me stepping back from the loop.

How do you expect me to change my behavior if refuse to point to where it is occurring? You say you don't want to keep circling around the point - then why the evasion? For instance, as it relates to me supposedly misconstruing your posts - so far the only example you've offered up is the one where I quoted a partial of one of your posts and commented on it. Admittedly, I would have done better to have clarified that I wasn't referring to you in what I said, but I did clarify since that my post was not directed at you. So if I was really spinning your quotes, why not point out where? Maybe it's another case where I'm not meaning what you think I mean?

I'd like to point out something very clearly here though. You, Bootstrap, said that I was circling "back to the same quote with [ken_sylvania's] spin on it". When I asked you to point out where I had done that, you told me that my use of "with my own spin" was an unhelpful stance marker because it framed your statement as biased - despite my wording being a direct quote of what you posted. In my opinion, that is the kind of thing that has us "going in circles." You take shots at people, then duck and run and pretend that you didn't do it, accusing them of doing the thing that you in fact did. When someone has the audacity to point it out, or to ask you to put some substance behind your accusations, you accuse them of derailing the thread or attacking you.

For me, the bigger issue is that instead of staying with the topic itself, your posts often put more energy into implying things about the people involved. That's what I was trying to point out with the stance markers. When I ask what you believe about the topic, you don’t usually answer directly. That makes the discussion feel like a minefield, and I’d rather not keep walking into that.

Stance markers are an important part of communication. I have been known to abuse them at times, but a phrase like "I was accused" to describe an instance where someone claims I did something wrong is not a stance marker, nor is a stance marker to quoting someone's words to explain what they said.

I’d also like to avoid what Paul calls “useless controversies.” We end up pouring endless energy into side issues, and I don’t think that’s fun for us or for others on MennoNet. More importantly, I don’t think it bears good fruit.

I think avoiding useless controversies is good, and I think the place to start is to not accuse people of misconduct unless we are willing to display the proofs. It wouldn't be right for me to accuse you of being a liar and a thief, and then to refuse to explain what you said that was a lie, or what you stole and when. Sure, maybe it sounds righteous to say that I won't go into the details because I want to avoid controversy, but it's not - it's cowardly.