Originally titled, "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 it’s 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, don’t 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 I’m 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 can’t 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 one’s 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 you’ve 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, apologize. There is no shame in admitting an error. Having said that, there is also no margin in making a pantomime of one’s 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 one’s 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 analyze 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, Australia’s culture wars of the 1990’s.’
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

__________________________
People's Republic of China
Hohhot, Inner Mongolia

First published Sun Mar 27, 2005 on TEFLChinaLife