Discussion Paper - Expressing Opinions in Public (long post)

Executive Summary What are the rules for expressing public opinion? The following document establishes that public debate is the discussion of opinions as expressed by individuals in public forums. That these opinions are predominantly arguments designed to sway people to accept a certain statement and as such the rules governing the expression on opinions follows those of formulating an argument. It also establishes some guidelines for the writing of responses to expressed opinions when such responses involve the putting of an opposing or dissenting view. Expressing Opinions in Public. According to the Tetroidian World View, our identities as individuals are formed and shaped by interacting with other people. Through their eyes, facial and body gestures, towards and in response to us, we come to know ourselves. It can be said that through our public interactions our personal reputations are formed and confirmed. There are many ways to interact with others socially and publicly. One primary way is via public discourse. Through this, our public or social identities are forged. The following document examines the rules of public discussion and puts forward some recommendations on how to provide criticism in a public forum. In The Virtual Republic 1997, Mackenzie Walk remarks that a republic is created when people actively engage in public discussion. He further comments that unlike the republics of old, where the village square or city market place was the gathering place for all and sundry which allowed for public discourse to occur, in modern times public discourse takes place via the media and to some extent via the internet. It is not surprising then that societies have sought to establish and develop rules for public debate and discourse even as the nature of public debate has become less embodied. These can be summarised broadly as follows: A: oratory B: forum C: meetings procedure D: debate E: letter writing F: bulletin boards G: online discussion groups.

This list is neither meant to be descriptive nor complete. Rather, it is a finger painted trail towards our current means of public discourse. Each of the above forms of public debate has their rules and recent times many have come to say that the Art of letter writing is being lost especially as we engage more and more in online discussion. To be more specific, the skill in writing a well informed argument and responding to it, in kind is being lost. A search of the World Wide Web generates many responses on this topic, but few online sources discuss or develop strategies for a response to this concern. Looking deeper into the issue what appears to be the issue, is not so much the loss of letter writing itself, this has largely been supplanted by email and electronic text exchanges, but the lack of skill in developing a well informed argument i.e. thinking clearly, and presenting that in a public forum. That is, the skills involved in debating and arguing are progressively being lost and it is this that is the principle cause of concern to many. These rules of public debate are an essential part of our social etiquette insofar as they provide a framework for engaging in discussion. Both for the presentation of a point of view, opinion or argument and for the presentation of counter opinions, arguments and rebuttal. Galvin, Prescott and Huseman, in Business Communication strategies and skills 1992, state that clear thinking is essential in the course of our daily lives and define it as the ability to see the difference between logical and illogical arguments. They also give a useful working definition for an argument stating, it is a piece of writing which not only makes statements we are expected to believe but uses these statements as reasons for other statements (which we are also expected to believe). From this we can see that expressing an opinion in public via some means of discourse transmission is in effect the presentation of an argument. As such there are specific rules that allow us to best present that opinion. With regard to public discourse and the expression of opinions there are two principle types of argument that we come across that being Inductive and Deductive argument. Typical forms of Inductive argument, or reasoning, involve arguing from a particular point to a more general conclusion. It is probably the most common for of Examples of this are: generalisation, e.g. in my experience this happened thus its the same everywhere else;

cause and effect, e.g. (where the cause is known) I fell over and broke my leg therefore I need medical treatment and time off work; (where the effect is known) I felt vomitus and had a lot of pain in my stomach half an hour after eating at street cart therefore street cart food is not safe to eat; analogy: e.g. (a personal experience statement) When I was in Changsha we had a very successful English Salon which met regularly in a bar and conducted many outside activities. It had a Chinese organisational group and a foreign host. (a general situation perceived as a problem) In looking at how English salons should be run so that they are successful this model should be followed. Deductive arguments, or reasoning, involve arguing from a general case to a specific conclusion. It involves a three step process of classifying things into groups. For example, (universal statement) Foreign teachers of English are native speakers (individual case) Debbie is a foreigner and speaks English (Conclusion) She must be an English Teacher This kind of argument is very popular particularly when it comes to pigeonholing individuals or giving advice, e.g. Every time I go to the market place the shop keepers try to rip me off, Why? Many foreigners have a lot of money. You are a foreigner; therefore you can afford to pay more than the local people. People love to classify others according some type or criteria. As a result this type of reasoning is easily abused. Because of this a number of guidelines have developed over time to assist with the development of an argument. While there are no hard and fast rules, the following could be considered as the rules for public debate in a general sense. 1. When making a generalisation, dont argue from a sample that is too small. This could result in stupid or dangerous statements, e.g. Chinese women are demure and respectful than their western counterparts therefore they make much better wives; An allergy to certain types of alcohol is no excuse to refuse to ganbei white spirits with the bride and groom at a wedding. 2. Make sure that the sample from which you draw your generalisation is reasonably representative. Popular opinion might hold that good foreign teachers of English have excellent oral fluency in their native tongue, but does it necessarily follow that all foreign speakers are good teachers? 3. Be careful about the use of words like, all, no, some, few, and most. It only takes one exception to pull apart arguments based on these. 4. When dealing with causal arguments three questions need to be addressed: a. What is the possibility or probability that the cause was solely responsible for the effect?

b. What is the likelihood of multiple causes operating at the same time in a synergistic manner? c. Is it possible, that a specific condition existed at the time, which may have produced this effect where in its absence; a different outcome would normally result? 5. When looking at causal arguments we need to also consider whether the cause is sufficient for bringing about an effect or necessary in order to produce the effect. 6. When making an analogy ask if the two situations are sufficiently similar to draw an valid conclusion based on the analogy. 7. A deduction is only as good as the premise it is based on and the validity of the link arguments. There are many common problems with putting forward an opinion in a public forum. Most have their source in common fallacies that plague arguments. Some of these are: Trying to discredit the person rather than the augment i.e. playing the man not the ball, to use a sporting analogy ;-) Misusing or misrepresenting authority regarding the topic, i.e. An elderly minister I know has been living and working in China for 20 years. He told me how it really is here, so I know what Im talking about. Appealing to commonsense i.e. the everybody knows this argument. A dishonest trick is to forestall criticism by words or phrases designed to make it difficult to offer fair criticism, e.g. Foreign teachers apartments should be located on the ground floor and provided with western style toilets Elderly white haired gent. Emotive language is one of the key triggers for explosive response to publicly aired opinions. Everyone has their own inbuilt prejudices which can be easily triggered by emotion laden words which are otherwise irrelevant to the argument, e.g. It is our moral obligation to not only teach English but to raise local standards. We would be failing in our duty of care if we did not ensure our belief systems, values and ethics were fully appreciated by the people of this region. Absolute terms like, always, never, hopeless, countless, infinite, etc. are often used to try and sway an argument in an illegitimate manner. False classification results frequently in black and white situations. This creates problems by failing to allow for the full gamut of possibilities .e.g. If you are not white and from Australia, New Zealand, America, Canada, or Britain, you just cant get work as a foreign teacher of English.

Misuse of statistics, in the case of public opinion, involve the quoting of statistics off the top of ones head in order to give greater credibility to the opinion, e.g. 1 in 7 foreign teachers in this country date their students or other persons of student age. 33% of these teachers are female. In this ESL community, the medium for the forums for public discussion, are the email lists to which we subscribe. This medium relies on the written word. Very few caveats on what can be opined exist which creates a relatively free discussion space. However, there are some accepted norms of behaviours that also shape how opinions may be presented. First and foremost is the issue of friendliness. This is the underlying principle and relate directly to the principle fallacy of presenting arguments, that of attacking the person. The second is the restriction on directly attacking the reputation of individuals and institutions by naming them and any associated complaints in public. Of the accepted norms these can be summarized by the statement, Be firm, friendly, fair and frank. This is where the art of letter writing is indeed an art. Email is electronic mail that is, writing an email is in fact the writing of an electronic letter. The trouble is that email communication is very ephemeral, and very fast. It is so easy to tap out a response and send it off that the usual process of re-reading what was written before posting is often circumvented. This results in ill-conceived responses that may impinge on the accepted norms or the established rules for interacting in such a forum. What follows are some guidelines for engaging in public debate and for writing letters of criticism. 1. After youve read an opinion, climb down off the soapbox, take a deep breath, grab a cup of your favourite beverage and examine exactly what is narking you off. 2. Ask the question, Does the opinion presented contain particular fallacies in order to support it? How do those fallacies contribute to your current state? 3. In writing your response, quote the offending material first be specific, then present your criticism, again be specific. If someone presents an argument peppered with fallacies it defeats the purpose to respond in kind. 4. Wit is always preferable to sarcasm. Sarcasm is in many ways is a mechanism to put down or attack an individual as such it may not be perceived by people of differing cultural backgrounds as being particularly friendly. Wit however, is the clever use of words often in a humorous manner and can often be found in the riposte or retort involved in verbal duelling. 5. Brevity and choice of words are hallmarks of Plain English and clear thinking. Be direct (firm), be honest (friendly), be specific (fair), be brief

(frank). Barnett and Morell wrote in a section dealing with hints on composition, English Grammar & Analysis with exercises 1893, Words are materials: be careful in the choice of them. A house, however well planned, cannot give satisfaction if the bricks and mortar and timber are bad. The same remark applies to composition. They go onto suggest never using a word unless you are sure of its usage and meaning; to use shorter words where possible; and if a word has more than one meaning make sure your usage leave no doubt as to the meaning you intend. The same applies for statements, make sure the your intended meaning is clear, ambiguous statements can lead to misunderstanding or misconstrued criticism. This is probably the principle cause of flame wars and heated debate laden with personally directed invective. 6. If you are wrong, or have misunderstood the argument, apologise. There is no shame in admitting an error. Having said that, there is also no margin in making a pantomime of ones humbled self. 7. Intellectual arrogance has no place in public debate, nor do strongly held religious or philosophical beliefs. Most people are not party to all the information you may think you know. Brandishing such knowledge like a truncheon serves no purpose but to stifle debate and stimulate animosity. However, careful and judicious use of such to support and expand ones argument is a legitimate use. Opinions are like ear holes, most people have a couple. As such the presenting of opinions in public forums is a common practice in society. It is essential for any society or social group from time to time analyse and evaluate its modes and conventions particularly with respect to public debate. In a culturally diverse group the means by which we formulate, present and debate opinions will from time to time change. Thus, our reputation within a particular social group is built around the opinions we hold and how well we communicate them.

References: Wark, McKenzie. The Virtual Republic, Australias culture wars of the 1990s. Allen and Unwin. 1997 Galvin, M. Prescott, D. Husemane, R. Business Communications, strategies and skills. 4th Ed. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.1992

Barnett, P.A. Morell, J.D. The New Morell being a Grammar of the English Language together with an exposition of The analysis of sentences. Aberdeen University Press. Allman & Son. 1893 __________________________ Tsc Tempest MCA __________________________ People's Republic of China Hohhot, Inner Mongolia

First published Sun Mar 27, 2005 6:31 pm on TEFLChinaLife http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEFLChinaLife/message/16698