Comments on Comments

Comments on Comments

Not all comments are the same. Some comments have negative impact on the author and readers with very little value added, if any. Personal attacks and the contributor of a comment might have the intention to show he/she is knowledgeable are examples of such comments. There are comments with high value added, but with little impact. Comments that are expressed in poor language and are vague to some extent may lose their impact despite their high informative values. There are comments with high impact, but with little value added. Comments offered by influential people may fall under this category. Ideally we wish to have comments with both high value and high impact and these comments lead to the emerging of new ideas, approaches, perspectives and thinking. These comments inform, educate, expand our knowledge and challenge our established thinking forms.

The problem with the degrading comments is that they dissipate the thinking of readers and tend sometimes to prove the author or commenter is wrong. Worse, when they have the aggressive tone. Previously, I couldn’t resist the temptation to respond. This is wrong. Why? Nature provides the best answer. If you were about to be attacked by a wasp don’t move for the wasp will not only attack you but will send a message to the wasp colony to attack you. Stay still and just ignore such comments. The wasp shall then leave you alone.


I find exaggerated comments are sort of phony comments. The praising comments of a buzz that the commenters didn’t read is one example. There is a hidden intension in such comments. For example, the commenter expects the author to comment and share his/her buzz. It is a form of an unannounced barter deals.

Worse, if the intention of writing a praising comment to an undeserving buzz is that under the sweetness of the comment there is a poison. These comments are like bitter almonds though they have a strong scent the seeds contain the toxic cyanide. The sweet comments with the bitter results are phony.

Too much praise can be intoxicating. Too much of sweet praise may lead to diabetes. Learn to moderate your praise with some purposeful criticism. The sweet zone is where praise and criticism overlap. Too much praise has a paradoxical effect. It is like somebody adding too much sugar to your coffee when you prefer it sugarless. Similarly, we eat away the desired impact of a comment by excessive criticism without mentioning any good point. This may cause the author to lose self-confidence and can be disruptive.

Research has shown that for teams to reach their best, five or six positive interactions were needed for one criticism or negative interaction. A point that is often ignored is the order of praise: criticism. If you brush your teeth with toothpaste and you then take a glass of sweet juice the juice shall taste bitter. The bitterness of some comments may turn the impact of a praise into a bitter one. Personal attacks leave bitter taste in the mouths. Even we try later to add some sweetness it shall still taste bitter. Whenever we lose balance we create an opposite effect in the wrong direction.


@Harvey Lloyd wrote in a comment "A writer is writing for their benefit and the reader has the choice to engage or not. I am a fan of expansion comments". This is right. Expansion comments create a chain of added values to the author and reader alike. They are the truly impacting comments with expanded value. The challenge is to offer such comments.

I am immune to comments that are of low value and desirable impact. I hope I shall find no need for this immunity.



#118 I have just finished drafting my buzz. Your comment encourages me to publish it sooner than I planned for.

+1 +1
Harvey Lloyd Aug 26, 2018 · #118

#115 Our shadow selves is where our culture I emanates from. In our first ten years of living we assemble some pretty foundation shadow concepts. What is right and what is wrong is determined by a very few axioms we build into our shadow selves in these years.

A greater question is can we change or have free will to excersise some of these axioms as we age?
I subscribe to the camp that says yes.

Keeping on topic here, when we communicate we are exposing these axioms from our shadow. But so is the other person. With this awareness on both sides we can be respectful. But if only one understanding the concept of axioms and there weight within conversation, then it can disrespectful very quickly.

We become disrespectful and worse when we are fighting for an axiom that has created a way of life, and it is under attack. Amazingly when asked they cant repeat the axiom or shadow concept that is under attack. They have not made the connection.

As a writer we have to be aware of this concept. It helps us retain our prose within responses. If an axiom is seen as under attack we can only step away within our reponses. We cant fix something like that, nor are there enough words to even introduce the topic.

One way to understand if we have stepped into the domain of axioms is to see the responses turning personal. Once we leave the goal of the discussion and into the character of the writer responder we have taken on a known or unknown axiom violation.

+2 +2
David Navarro López Aug 26, 2018 · #117

#113 for your questions I would answer...This is the beauty of combining different points of view.
Each one is biassed by a self-point of view, which itself is as well biassed by previous experience or third party opinions which we have added to our own mindset. In the end, everyone is free to allow others' point of view percolate us or not.
In other, I agree there are hundreds of different approaches, due to the above mentioned.
Going through all of them, searching for an ultimate truth, is in my point of view, impossible, as we can never get rid completely of our own subjective point of view. So to your question, how do we choose one of them? my answer is the one which better matches the highest human values because we can not trust our own biased mind.
Therefore, I am not convinced that denying our emotional response would narrow our choices. It would help us to choose the right one.
Emotions have the inception in our beliefs. And they are forged with the interactions between what we know, what we do, the reactions of what we do, and the perception of it we get back.
It is us to choose from these interactions to forge our own mindset.
See the Example of the lecturer of Ali
Ali, in good faith, asked a question. The lecturer ended the lecture. From this point, Ali felt he was embarrassing the lecturer, which knowing how I know him, was not the intention, but to look for the truth.
For both of them, this interaction can have different results, but always the chosen action will be biased by their own beliefs.
And these beliefs can lead them choosing to see it from another point of view, and learn accordingly.
If the lecturer believes he is the mastermind of the universe, he might not give a lecture again, or allow any comments again. And even if it is the case, he might understand he is not so great, and make a change.

+1 +1

#114 If only if we realize that differences are the way to better understandings. I agree that respect is essential and it has many definitions. So, I suggest that it is respect + understanding. When we understand that we have different cultures and the opportunities these differences and the threats these differences offer than our respect to them will be proportional to our degree of understanding differences.

+1 +1

#113 @Harvey Lloyd- interestingly, I am drafting my buzz, which is an expanded version of some of our recent private messages, on shadow self. Yes, is very true and you have been a genuine example of "Sticking to the context of the post would tend to open this up to broader outcomes". Going to the extreme has its effects as you are well aware of. Even when we stick to the core of the subject we branch out into relevant, but interesting topics. I hope you are doing great my friend.

+1 +1
Harvey Lloyd Aug 26, 2018 · #114

#113 In reviewing the words used in your discussion many words i i will point out one, respect. Respect is something that is translated into many meanings at the subtle level. Even here in America the southern definition is entirely different than the northern.

BeBee is a platform that crosses many domains and this word respect is difficult to define as we look at the various cultures.

As mostly a commenter i have to reconcile these differences with who’s post i am writing within. I dont always get it right. I enjoy these nuances in cultures and benefits greatly from understanding how words like respect get defined within a post.

One of the keys for me when someone posts a comment expressing an opinion that may be contrary to my intent or beliefs, is to get them to expand their support for their opinion. Within the expansion i may find out we have a definition problem or i have missed a fact or misinterpreted the point they were making.

My assumption is that if one expresses a contray point that they can support it intellectually and not just from the talking heads of media. I appreciate how people “feel” as we all have narratives we have attached feelings to. But if we are to be contrary then we should be able to support the thoughts intellectually.

If we can support the contray position i would further assume that we are articulate enough to express it in such a way that engages and not slams the writer.

+1 +1
Harvey Lloyd Aug 26, 2018 · #113

@Ali Anani it has been interesting to read the exchanges of @David Navarro López and yourself. If we can scrape off the extremes of the bell curve, praise at one end and extreme negativity at the other, we can examine the author/commenter engagement.

Within the conversation you are having, as a third party, i can sense that each are describing an extreme while observing another third party. This brings up the point of evaluating two narritives when they meet within a post.

We have the writer who has written from a narritive to accomplish something of value while a commenter is writing for the same reason. What happens when these values dont match? More importantly what do we do with these mismatched values in response?

I would suggest there are at least a hundred different ways that we can approach the last question. How do we choose one of them?
It appears to be one of two perspectives i see mostly. We answer from a emotional position or we answer from the original context of the post. I would suggest that the emotional response narrows our ability to see the most of the hundred different ways of responding. Sticking to the context of the post would tend to open this up to broader outcomes.

+2 +2