Listening

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.24.104)]

I have been reading "Listening: The Forgotten Skill," by Madelyn
Burley-Allen (1995)for an upcoming discussion in my Idea Watch book club, a
function of the Society for Technical Communicators (STC), Chicago Chapter.
A question is suggested that perhaps one's listening skills are not what
they should be? Even listening to "ourselves?"

After all that discussion on CSGnet about moderation, flaming, etc., etc., I
find *this* (much condensed and snipped by me) in my CSGnet mailbox:

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.23.0900)]

> Michelle Ivers (2004.03.19.8.35 EST)

> I believe that we are living
> control systems who are designed to control perceptions rather than BE
> controlled.

> From what I can see Bill Williams clearly states that his comments are
> only his perceptions.

Does this make his "comments" OK with you? If I said that it is my
perception that Michelle Ivers is an ***[nasty speech removed]*** (you're
probably too young to remember the great SNL skit from which that
phrase is taken) would I be immune from criticism for having said
it? I think not.

> In my position as chief lurker, it appears that you have a reference
> for how other people should behave and act, and what they should say
> on this list.

Of course I do. And you do as well or you would not have written this post
to me. I want (have a reference) to see substantive, intelligent posts on
topics related to PCT. You want (have a reference) to see me change my
references (so that I want people say to say nasty things about me) so as
not to set up a perfect opportunity for counter-control.
I would like CSGNEt to become a forum for dissemination of quality
discussion about PCT modeling, research and applications. Maintaining
quality is a control process; maintaining the quality of the
discussions on
CSGNet requires a willingness to control what gets onto CSGNet. I
think Bill
Powers' reluctance to control access to CSGNet has made CSGNet
approximately
useless as a venue for teaching and promoting PCT to a scientifically
competent audience. Only those who already understand PCT quite well are
willing to wade through the sewage on CSGNet in order to get to the
occasional nugget.
...
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

First I thought "we" were trying to avoid the arms race by holding back on
our flaming and being better CSGnet Citizens. I hoped that lurkers like me
would be encouraged to post and discuss. Second, we were just talking about
the issues of nasty speech and the need to moderate it:

1. By self-moderation (an original post/reply that could be inflamatory), by
not writing it or deleting it before sending it.
2. By group-moderation (advisors try to defuse the situation), to improve
message quality.
3. By censure-moderation (which NO ONE really wants), to prevent such
messages from arriving.
4. By self-moderation of the replying person (who deletes or simply does not
reply in kind) after the msg arrives.

In the messages arriving after this one, there is a typical positive
feedback loop (arms race) caused by one control system pushing against the
other. I thought we were talking about introducing ways to reduce error, not
to increase it. The bottom line is, I thought, that the CSGnet was a forum
where people take care in replying when they disagree (even metaphorically)
and in the way they present arguments. Nasty speech is one of the perceptual
battles "we" are always fighting about. Therefore it must be a controlled
variable in the hierarchy of each person who contributes toward that
discussion. I am not being coercive, trying to control your behavior. Rather
I am disturbing the net in suggesting a new controlled variable somewhere at
the level of program, principle, or perhaps system-image. Is this a
reasonable change in the net that disturbs enough to cause some
reorganization out there? I offer these texts for reflective reading:

Carter, Jay (2003). Nasty people. Contemporary Books.
Elgin, Suzette Haden (1997). How to disagree without being disagreeable.
Wiley.
Madelyn Burley-Allen (1995). Listening: The Forgotten Skill. Wiley.
Powers, William (1998). Making sense of behavior. Benchmark.

I really fretted over sending this, wondering if I would increase or reduce
the problems we have been seeing. I see this as a strategy to reduce
problems, and thereby gain a better forum.

--Bryan

From[Bill Williams 24 March 2004 4:35 PM CST]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.24.104)]

I don't agree with alll of what you have to say, but rather than nit-pick
I'll say that if everyone followed many, or most of the points you make we
could have a better climate on CSGnet. I thought the other day your post
about bumper cars with spikes, and so forth was a good description of what
has in large part dominated CSGnet traffic.

However, as I suppose you may have noticed Bill Powers and I are now engaged
in what seems to be a productive collaboration. At leaset this is the way I
percieve Bill Powers' remarks concerning expect Econ5 soon.

I plan on consulting some of the references for how to communicate without
hostility. However, have you considered that, any such references, like how
not to start fires, is at the same time, a valuable reference work for
planning to set fires?

By-the-Way what do you think of Rick's use of the "example" about the
"ignorant slut" in his "communication to Michellle Ivers? Rick says that
such communication is perfectly OK. Is that your assessment?

Bill Williams

I have been reading "Listening: The Forgotten Skill," by Madelyn
Burley-Allen (1995)for an upcoming discussion in my Idea Watch book club,

a

function of the Society for Technical Communicators (STC), Chicago

Chapter.

A question is suggested that perhaps one's listening skills are not what
they should be? Even listening to "ourselves?"

After all that discussion on CSGnet about moderation, flaming, etc., etc.,

I

find *this* (much condensed and snipped by me) in my CSGnet mailbox:

> [From Rick Marken (2004.03.23.0900)]
>
> > Michelle Ivers (2004.03.19.8.35 EST)
>
> > I believe that we are living
> > control systems who are designed to control perceptions rather than BE
> > controlled.

> > From what I can see Bill Williams clearly states that his comments are
> > only his perceptions.
>
> Does this make his "comments" OK with you? If I said that it is my
> perception that Michelle Ivers is an ***[nasty speech removed]***

(you're

> probably too young to remember the great SNL skit from which that
> phrase is taken) would I be immune from criticism for having said
> it? I think not.
>
> > In my position as chief lurker, it appears that you have a reference
> > for how other people should behave and act, and what they should say
> > on this list.
>
> Of course I do. And you do as well or you would not have written this

post

> to me. I want (have a reference) to see substantive, intelligent posts

on

> topics related to PCT. You want (have a reference) to see me change my
> references (so that I want people say to say nasty things about me) so

as

> not to set up a perfect opportunity for counter-control.
> I would like CSGNEt to become a forum for dissemination of quality
> discussion about PCT modeling, research and applications. Maintaining
> quality is a control process; maintaining the quality of the
> discussions on
> CSGNet requires a willingness to control what gets onto CSGNet. I
> think Bill
> Powers' reluctance to control access to CSGNet has made CSGNet
> approximately
> useless as a venue for teaching and promoting PCT to a scientifically
> competent audience. Only those who already understand PCT quite well are
> willing to wade through the sewage on CSGNet in order to get to the
> occasional nugget.
>...
> Rick
> --
> Richard S. Marken
> MindReadings.com
> Home: 310 474 0313
> Cell: 310 729 1400

First I thought "we" were trying to avoid the arms race by holding back on
our flaming and being better CSGnet Citizens. I hoped that lurkers like me
would be encouraged to post and discuss. Second, we were just talking

about

the issues of nasty speech and the need to moderate it:

1. By self-moderation (an original post/reply that could be inflamatory),

by

not writing it or deleting it before sending it.
2. By group-moderation (advisors try to defuse the situation), to improve
message quality.
3. By censure-moderation (which NO ONE really wants), to prevent such
messages from arriving.
4. By self-moderation of the replying person (who deletes or simply does

not

reply in kind) after the msg arrives.

In the messages arriving after this one, there is a typical positive
feedback loop (arms race) caused by one control system pushing against the
other. I thought we were talking about introducing ways to reduce error,

not

to increase it. The bottom line is, I thought, that the CSGnet was a forum
where people take care in replying when they disagree (even

metaphorically)

and in the way they present arguments. Nasty speech is one of the

perceptual

battles "we" are always fighting about. Therefore it must be a controlled
variable in the hierarchy of each person who contributes toward that
discussion. I am not being coercive, trying to control your behavior.

Rather

I am disturbing the net in suggesting a new controlled variable somewhere

at

the level of program, principle, or perhaps system-image. Is this a
reasonable change in the net that disturbs enough to cause some
reorganization out there? I offer these texts for reflective reading:

Carter, Jay (2003). Nasty people. Contemporary Books.
Elgin, Suzette Haden (1997). How to disagree without being disagreeable.
Wiley.
Madelyn Burley-Allen (1995). Listening: The Forgotten Skill. Wiley.
Powers, William (1998). Making sense of behavior. Benchmark.

I really fretted over sending this, wondering if I would increase or

reduce

···

the problems we have been seeing. I see this as a strategy to reduce
problems, and thereby gain a better forum.

--Bryan

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.24.1510)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.24.104)--

After all that discussion on CSGnet about moderation, flaming, etc., etc., I
find *this* (much condensed and snipped by me) in my CSGnet mailbox:

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.23.0900)]

Michelle Ivers (2004.03.19.8.35 EST)

From what I can see Bill Williams clearly states that his comments are
only his perceptions.

Does this make his "comments" OK with you? If I said that it is my
perception that Michelle Ivers is an ***[nasty speech removed]*** (you're
probably too young to remember the great SNL skit from which that
phrase is taken) would I be immune from criticism for having said
it? I think not.

First I thought "we" were trying to avoid the arms race by holding back on
our flaming and being better CSGnet Citizens.

I don't see it as a flame. Where's the flame? It sounds to me like I'm
saying that it would _not_ be OK for me to say that this was my perception.
If anything, I'm flaming myself.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

From[Bill Williams 24 March 2004 8:30 PM CST]

In the sequence of postings Rick concludes the sequence by saying something
which "in my perception" is extremely profound.

[From Rick Marken (2004.03.24.1510)]

> Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.24.104)--

> After all that discussion on CSGnet about moderation, flaming, etc.,

etc., I

> find *this* (much condensed and snipped by me) in my CSGnet mailbox:
>
>> [From Rick Marken (2004.03.23.0900)]
>>
>>> Michelle Ivers (2004.03.19.8.35 EST)
>>>
>>> From what I can see Bill Williams clearly states that his comments are
>>> only his perceptions.
>>
>> Does this make his "comments" OK with you? If I said that it is my
>> perception that Michelle Ivers is an ***[nasty speech removed]***

(you're

>> probably too young to remember the great SNL skit from which that
>> phrase is taken) would I be immune from criticism for having said
>> it? I think not.

> First I thought "we" were trying to avoid the arms race by holding back

on

> our flaming and being better CSGnet Citizens.

I don't see it as a flame. Where's the flame?

I think it is a PCT principle that if you can not perceive an error you can
not correct the error. Rick is saying plainly enough that he does not
perceive having made an error.

What more is there to say?

Bill Williams