how to tell the difference

CSGnet Archive CSG2004
1

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.08.27 10:15 EDT)]

Criteria for moderation?

Discourse appropriate for CSGnet is not about specific reference values,
though it could be about systems controlling according to different
reference values.

If we talk about Bush, or Kerry, or Palestine, or Israel, or Iraq, or the
Vatican, or Kentucky Fried Chicken, appropriate discourse on CSGnet is
about the systems that may (or may not) be controlling these perceptions in
conflict, not about the merits of one or another set of reference values
for controlling them.

"Scientific detachment" is an instance of "going up a level".

        /Bruce Nevin

2

From [Marc Abrams (2004.08.27.1112)]

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.08.27 10:15 EDT)]

Criteria for moderation?

Discourse appropriate for CSGnet is not about specific reference values,
though it could be about systems controlling according to different
reference values.

If we talk about Bush, or Kerry, or Palestine, or Israel, or Iraq, or the
Vatican, or Kentucky Fried Chicken, appropriate discourse on CSGnet is
about the systems that may (or may not) be controlling these perceptions
in
conflict, not about the merits of one or another set of reference values
for controlling them.

'Categorizing' perceptions is quite a bit different then assigning influence
and dependence.

I am not suggesting it cannot be done nor am I suggesting it shouldn't be
done. I think it's one of the more important things that actually could be
and should be addressed. The question is how?

For instance, exactly what is being 'measured' when you talk about a
'perception'? Aren't we really talking about the _effect_ of a perception?
Like a thermometer, we see the effect of molecular movement causing the
heat, we don't judge the heat by seeing the speed of the actual molecular
movement.

Second, how do you test for pre-cognitive 'perceptions'? That is, something
happens that we are not cognitively aware of, but only 'feel' after a period
of time has passed? In fact the reason you are feeling anything is because
of a control process you are not aware of. How do these affect what we _are_
aware of and how important is it?

Just a few of my many questions. But I think a discussion of this type is
something CSGnet has needed for a _very_ long time. I hope folks jump on in.
Good call Bruce.

Marc

3

[From Bill Powers (2004.08.28.0910 MDT)

Bruce Nevin (2004.08.27 10:15 EDT)--

Criteria for moderation?

Discourse appropriate for CSGnet is not about specific reference values,
though it could be about systems controlling according to different
reference values.

If we talk about Bush, or Kerry, or Palestine, or Israel, or Iraq, or the
Vatican, or Kentucky Fried Chicken, appropriate discourse on CSGnet is
about the systems that may (or may not) be controlling these perceptions in
conflict, not about the merits of one or another set of reference values
for controlling them.

That is a good point. It's not the subject matter that is the problem, but
advocacy of a point of view based primarily on one's own biases, not
evidence and formal reasoning.

Bruce Abbott has proposed having the officers of the CSG serve as a judging
panel to decide whether any person deserves first to be warned and then to
be banned from CSGnet. One difficulty with this is that one officer has
been the victim of personal attacks ( in addition to having launched some
in the past), and is too personally involved to serve as a judge (I would
be ruled out for the same reasons). Another problem is that monitoring
CSGnet would take a lot of time on the part of a few people, and probably
would concentrate too much power in too few hands.

An alternative is simply to give the officers the OK to obey the will of
CSGnet members. Let the members do the monitoring, and if they complain,
let the officers who are (reasonably) uninvolved then evaluate the specific
complaints and take appropriate action. A formal set of principles of
decorum adopted by vote will serve as the guidelines, so we don't have to
have a vote every time there is a complaint (many people are reluctant to
call attention to themselves by complaining). I don't suggest the whole
rigamarole of arrest, arraignment, trial, and penalty -- if we ever got
close to that we might as well just shut down CSGnet. But we need a
workable procedure that doesn't require one or two people to be filtering
every post before it gets distributed.

I have a sure-fire way of getting every subscriber to CSGnet to vote on a
set of rules of decorum (after a suitable interval for discussion). With
plenty of warning, we unsubscribe everyone who does not sent a message to
Bruce Abbott saying "yes" or "no" to the proposed rules. They can always
resubscribe if they happen to have been away for a while. I've wanted to
see some sort of weeding done for a long time, just to find out which names
on the list are real and which are simply left-overs from a previous existence.

Well, that probably won't work. Any other ideas?

Best,

Bill P.

4

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.0428.1432)]

Bill Powers (2004.08.28.0910 MDT)

Well, that probably won't work. Any other ideas?

I say hanging is too good for them. How about making small
contributions in their names to Bush-Cheney 2004?

Bruce Gregory

"Great Doubt: great awakening. Little Doubt: little awakening. No
Doubt: no awakening."

5

From [Right Wing Christian Fascist (2004.08.28.1455)]

[From Bill Powers (2004.08.28.0910 MDT)

That is a good point. It's not the subject matter that is the problem, but
advocacy of a point of view based primarily on one's own biases, not
evidence and formal reasoning.

'Evidence' and 'formal reasoning' according to who's biases? A committees?

Do you mean like the same impartial committee's who found your work
unpalatable and not worth publishing?

Ah, Democracy at work, that's one of the wonderful things about a Democracy.
The majority will always prevail. One of the reasons it took us over 200
years to stop slavery in this country. Power to the people.

I got a novel idea, but Bill, you're not even going to see it because you
don't get my posts, or read them so how open are you to ideas you find
distasteful.

Why not let anyone say what they want _unless_ it's libelous. The purpose of
the first amendment to the Constitution was not to stop offensive speech,
but to _protect_ it.

But this is not the real issue and neither is conflict. How popular is
Thalhammers PCT site? Has his political correctness gotten him a strong
following? How many people has he been able to get and retain? Is there
something there that we can learn from his experience?

What's the _evidence_ that shows that nice language and his moderated
approach works?

Where are the people Rick and Richard Kenneway wooed in GB? Do they have
access to the internet? Where is the surge of interest?

Where are the students of Gary Cziko? Or any number of other Academic's out
there?

How many people from Rand has Rick brought on board?

I know I had three people look at CSGnet and three left because of _content_
and the lack of interest in it.

Before you come up with some answers I would suggest you know what the
problems might be and what the right questions are.

Trying to figure out a way to kick one or two people off CSGnet (like me and
Bill Williams) is a waste of time and effort.

If you folks want me to leave I will. I certainly don't want to be where I'm
not wanted, and it seems that no one is responding to my posts anyway so why
bother.

If Bill Powers asks me to leave I will.

But my leaving will not solve this list problems. A theory that others find
interesting enough to devote some time too might.

If you folks want to shoot the messenger, go right ahead.

RWCF

(Formerly known as Marc)

6

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.0828.1731)]

[Right Wing Christian Fascist (2004.08.28.1455)]

If you folks want to shoot the messenger, go right ahead.

There's something to be said for shooting the messenger. When the team
loses consistently, you fire the coach. Why? Because it a lot easier
than firing the whole team.

Bruce Gregory

"Great Doubt: great awakening. Little Doubt: little awakening. No
Doubt: no awakening."

7

From [RWCF formerly known as Marc)] Move over Prince you have company.

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.0828.1731)]

There's something to be said for shooting the messenger. When the team
loses consistently, you fire the coach. Why? Because it a lot easier
than firing the whole team.

You have a point unfortunately it usually takes a couple of additional
ballplayers as well before things around.

I gotta tell ya BG, If I felt leaving CSGnet would help improve the chances
of others coming on and getting others to talk about control and behavior
I'd do it in a heartbeat.

All anyone has to do is let two people contact me privately who would join
CSGnet if were not posting, and I will leave. So you now have 3 options. The
administrator can simply delete me from the list. Bill Powers can ask me to
leave or someone can have two people send me a private e-mail asking me to
leave and I will. I will not stop the progress of PCT, and if you can
replace me with two who _are_ willing to talk about the issues facing CSGnet
and PCT more power to you.

What people don't understand is that Economics is to Psychology what
Chemistry is to Physics. You wouldn't get many economists that consider
themselves psychologists and you wouldn't get many psychologists who
consider themselves economists and _that_ is truly unfortunate for _both_.

In Bill Williams you folks have a _gem_ and you're going to toss that away
because of your narrow mindedness and shallow understanding of what is at
stake. Yeah, I could do without some of the side-show nonsense he
occasionally exhibits, like we all do at times, but if he was treated with a
bit more respect he might actually give some of it back.

Bill's economic 'Test Bed' is a farce because he knows _nothing_ of some
very basic economic principles, because if he did he would know that the
leakage concept _whether_ right or wrong is _insignificant_ to the economy
and Rick wants to model something that can't be modeled, but he refuses to
believe that.

What do you expect Bill Williams to do? Spend time on two projects that have
absolutely _no_ meaning or significance to anyone besides the two who are
interested in it.

Hey Rick, I want to build a model of our society. Wanna help? How about you
Bill? Anybody interested in a 'Test bed' Society Model? BTW Rick, it could
be any society.

Unfortunately Bill Williams does not have a phone or a computer in his home
and he has been sick for the past week. I hope he's ok, no one has seen or
heard from him at his school office where he spends a considerable amount of
time.

I'm sure when Bill gets to read his e-mail he will weigh in with his
opinion.

BG, it's the Red Sox getting rid of Babe Ruth all over again.

RWCF

8

From Phil Runkel on Saturday 28 Aug to Bill Powers:

It's lamentable to be inhospitable, but nevertheless, I agree that
obstreperous correspondents should be discouraged, and I'll vote for
your method -- or any method, actually.

9

[From Bill Powers (2004.08.29.0833 MDT)]

Phil Runkel on Saturday 28 Aug to Bill Powers:

It's lamentable to be inhospitable, but nevertheless, I agree that
obstreperous correspondents should be discouraged, and I'll vote for
your method -- or any method, actually.

Bruce Abbott take note. I vote the same way. Others who wish to vote can do
it via CSGnet, or in private by sending a post to

babbott@mfire.com

... unless this post is followed immediately by advice to the contrary from
Bruce.

Best,

Bill P.