From [Marc Abrams (2004.08.26.0823)]
[From Rick Marken (2004.08.25.2000)]
I would prefer either a well moderated CSGNet, where smear posts from
_anyone_ are simply not allowed, or a completely unmoderated CSGNet. I
define a smear post as any post where there is criticism of the person
who posted an idea rather than criticism of the idea itself.Just getting rid of one person is not going to solve the problems of
CSGNet. Smear posts have been a staple of CSGNet from the beginning.
The incidence of smearing just becomes more intense at certain times;
times when people post ideas that other people don't like.
What a _asinine_ and totally worthless idea. This is turning out to be a
real dozy of a 'theory' of human behavior. When a theory cannot provide a
path for enlightenment on how to resolve basic human conflicts, I think
accounting for keeping a cursor over a dot becomes moot.
Unless of course you think; a) kicking people off the net, b) blocking
e-mails, so you don't have to read them, or c) either refer people elsewhere
or control what they say, represents the best in conflict resolution and
helps facilitate communication and understanding.
Does this qualify as a 'smear'?
I am not quite sure why Rick seems to think that you can separate ideas from
intent and actions.
You very well may not be able to tell what someone _else_ might be intent on
doing by their actions, but we also _always_ need to speculate on what those
actions may intend. If we did not _anticipate_ we would not last very long
in this world. When people act there _is_ intent, _always_, PCT says so. We
just don't know exactly what the action is supposed to accomplish. But the
person doing the action does. So, what we do is we _imagine_ what the
person's intent is, and act as if we really do know what the intent is.
For instance, do you know what my intent was in making that statement above?
Of course not, but that will not stop you from _imagining_ what it might be
and responding just the same as if you did.
Chris Argyris and Donald Schon worked on this issue a long time ago. It's
called the ladder of inference, and like SD economic models Rick, there are
others out there who have done some marvelous work. PCT can help inform
Argyris, but you have to care about, know about, and respect what these
others have done before you can hope to do that.
Why you might think my statement above does not 'smear' you, I have no idea.
Marc