[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.09.1206)]
Bill Powers (2003.12.09.0804 MST)
Gee, that almost sounded like "Sorry for the cruel remarks."
I must be getting soft in my old age.
Bruce Gregory
Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
Andre Gide
[From Rick Marken (2003.12.09.0925)]
Bill Williams (8 December 2003 5:40 PM CST) --
I hope no one will suspect me of grinding any particular ax in asking the following question: Suppose a skeptic raises a question about a particular feature or set of features in a theory or system under consideration. Suppose that the adherants to the system exert a considerable effort to demonstrate that the doubts are unfounded. Suppose that the defenders of the system are succucessful (by some
standard) in demonstrating that the doubts raised can not be sustained. In such a situation is there some sort, or any sort at all, of obligation on the part of the doubter?
I think the only obligation of everyone who participates on this forum is to try to behave in as civil a manner as possible to each other. I don't expect perfection or bland humorlessness. I enjoy lively, intelligent discussion which I think can be achieved without personal attacks, baiting and just plain cruelty. And I think exactly this kind of discussion was taking place on CSG until a couple
weeks ago, when Bruce Gregory returned with his persistent baiting of me and you and Marc Abrams returned with your nasty comments about Bill.
I still think CSGNet is a great forum for learning PCT. There have been wonderful posts even during this current spate of ugliness (Erling's nice post comes to mind). The problem with the occasional nastiness is that it contaminates the atmosphere, making people reluctant to refer colleagues to CSGNet for fear that an ugly storm of pollution will arise just as they log on. The current approach to
dealing with the nastiness has been to ignore it and let each storm blow over. But I think it may be time to make CSGNet a moderated list so that people like Phil (and myself) will not be afraid to refer people to CSGNet for information about PCT.
So I propose that we make CSGNet a moderated list as soon as possible. I think Bill Powers should be or should appoint the moderator(s). I believe that as a list owner I can change the list to be moderated but I won't take that step unless there is some general level of agreement about it.
CSGNet was started by Gary Cziko so I think it would be nice if he weighed in on this. A moderated list would not be one where list membership is limited, by the way. In a moderated list, posts to the list go to the moderator(s) rather than directly to the list. The moderater(s) then forward the posts to the list, assuming that they are judged appropriate, in tone and content, by the moderator(s).
I think it's time to make CSGNet into a moderated list so that we won't be reluctant to refer people to it as a way to learn about PCT.
Best regards
Rick
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.09.1250)]
Rick Marken (2003.12.09.0925)
And I think exactly this kind of discussion was taking place on CSG
until a couple
weeks ago, when Bruce Gregory returned with his persistent baiting of
me and you
If you want to be taken seriously, I propose that you provide examples
of my "persistent baiting." Otherwise the moderator may not know what
to censor. I hope that Bill Williams will do the same if he feels that
I have been baiting him.
Bruce Gregory
"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
Andre Gide
[From Bill Powers (2003.12.09.1307 MST)]
Rick Marken (2003.12.09.0925)--
So I propose that we make CSGNet a moderated list as soon as possible. I
think Bill Powers should be or should appoint the moderator(s). I believe
that as a list owner I can change the list to be moderated but I won't
take that step unless there is some general level of agreement about it.
I'm trying to think of someone I would like to pass on my posts before they
are put on the list, and I can't think of anybody. I don't think I'd even
let Mary do that. I never joined the BBS list because it's moderated.
Perhaps another answer would be to have those who are offended by someone's
post to describe what was in the post that they didn't like and why they
didn't like it, and request that the author of the post either withdraw the
remark or find a less offensive way to say the same thing. Don't answer
back or get even: simply go up a level. For example, Rick's gloating post
to Bruce Gregory might have had some message in it that could be expressed
without gloating, and Bruce Gs criticisms of HPCT might have been put in a
way that doesn't make the whole thing seem simpleminded and worthless.
I think Bill Williams suggested that communications should be
straightforward and to the point, with no hidden agendas. One way to
achieve this grade of communication might be for everyone to resolve never
to write a message while feeling an emotion. If somebody says something
horrible, wait until your pulse is normal, your adrenaline level is
undetectable, and you have forgotten the first retort that came to mind.
Then, just before you send the post, delete the first paragraph entirely.
The first paragraph I wrote for this post nominated Bruce Gregory as
moderator and requested that my name be taken off the list. See how much
better it is without the first reaction?
Best,
Bill P.
[From Mike Acree (2003.12.09.1313 PST)]
(Parenthetically, the issue of whether to have a list moderator is, of course, the government/anarchy question in microcosm. We can see already (some of) the reasons why (some) people call for setting up an institution of social control--the "maverick" problem, as Bill P. has called it--as well as the fact that advocates are envisioning a particular kind of person being in control, and not others who might end up in that position, once it is established; and reasons why such efforts at control will be resisted. (Whom do we trust to be Moderator of our lives?))
Affectlessly,
Mike
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.09.1620)]
Bill Powers (2003.12.09.1307 MST)
The first paragraph I wrote for this post nominated Bruce Gregory as
moderator and requested that my name be taken off the list. See how
much
better it is without the first reaction?
Needless to say, I'm deeply honored, but I like my nominee better. By
the way could you point out what I said about HPCT that led you to
conclude that I think it is simple-minded and worthless? I honestly
haven't a clue, since that is not the way I feel about HPCT and I would
like to make that clear.
Bruce Gregory
"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
Andre Gide
[From Rick Marken (2003.12.09.1450)]
Bill Powers (2003.12.09.1307 MST)--
Rick Marken (2003.12.09.0925)--
>So I propose that we make CSGNet a moderated list as soon as possible. I
>think Bill Powers should be or should appoint the moderator(s). I believe
>that as a list owner I can change the list to be moderated but I won't
>take that step unless there is some general level of agreement about it.I'm trying to think of someone I would like to pass on my posts before they
are put on the list, and I can't think of anybody. I don't think I'd even
let Mary do that. I never joined the BBS list because it's moderated.
I proposed list moderation only for the sake of making CSGNet a place where
more people would be willing to point colleagues who wanted information about
PCT. People have complained (Phil most recently) that the ugliness of some of
the discussions on CSGNet keeps them from doing this. I must admit that I,
too, have been reluctant to point colleagues to CSGNet. I think it would be
nice if this were not the case. I think it might not be the case if the list
were moderated. I doubt that a moderator would really do much moderating, in
the sense of preventing posts form being posted. I think the fact that a
moderator is _there_ might be enough to get people to post a bit more
carefully.
Perhaps another answer would be to have those who are offended by someone's
post to describe what was in the post that they didn't like and why they
didn't like it, and request that the author of the post either withdraw the
remark or find a less offensive way to say the same thing. Don't answer
back or get even: simply go up a level.
I think this might work. But it seems like it might lead to a lot of
non-substantive posting about why we said what we said in the way we said it. I
could go on for pages bemoaning my "gloating" reply and carrying on about how
well I thought I was doing up to that point. But if we all did this every time
we felt offended (or offensive) I think the list could end up looking like
Proust's diaries. I'm certainly willing to try this approach. I consider this
your list -- because it is about your theory -- and if you don't want
moderation then that's fine with me.
But I would like to suggest _trying_ moderation, with the moderator being
someone who is recognized as an expert on -- or at least as a major contributor
to -- PCT, to see if we can make this list what I think it should be: one of
several resources to which we can confidently point people who want to learn
PCT. If the moderation doesn't work out we can always go back to the free for
all, which I can handle personally but may not be best for what is probably
PCT's most visible venue.
Best
Rick
[From Bill Powers (2003.12.09.1630 MST)]
Rick Marken (2003.12.09.1450)--
I think [self-moderation] might work. But it seems like it might lead to a
lot of non-substantive posting about why we said what we said in the way
we said it. I could go on for pages bemoaning my "gloating" reply and
carrying on about how
well I thought I was doing up to that point.
This is a very good point. The natural thing to do with criticisms is to
(a) defend against the criticism by justifying what was criticised, or (b)
explain why the message was misunderstood. Either way, the person
responding to the criticism goes on and on about things that nobody is
interested in, because all most participants care about is that the
acrimony stop. We all understand that nobody deliberately says things that
are wrong, and that every statement is fully justified by antecedent or
surrounding conditions. But nobody is really interested in what someone
thinks was right in what he said, or what the justifications are. Yadada
yadada, where's the end of this post?
So I suggest that the only appropriate response to a criticism is to say OK
and stop doing it or else to ignore it and change nothing. Either way,
actions will speak clearly enough. If criticisms are ignored when everybody
thinks they should be heeded, the obvious course is to stop replying to the
criticised person. Silence, in this case, speaks louder than words.
If we see parties to an argument forgetting these recommendations, whoever
wants to can point out that arguments are not to be continued on the net,
and request the parties to quit it. But not critically, so as to arouse
justifications like "But what he said was ....". Just -- quit it.
Best,
Bill P.
But if we all did this every time
we felt offended (or offensive) I think the list could end up looking like
Proust's diaries. I'm certainly willing to try this approach. I consider this
your list -- because it is about your theory -- and if you don't want
moderation then that's fine with me.But I would like to suggest _trying_ moderation, with the moderator being
someone who is recognized as an expert on -- or at least as a major
contributor
to -- PCT, to see if we can make this list what I think it should be: one of
several resources to which we can confidently point people who want to learn
PCT. If the moderation doesn't work out we can always go back to the free for
all, which I can handle personally but may not be best for what is probably
PCT's most visible venue.Best
Rick
[From Bill Williams 9 December 2003 10:00 PM CST]
Bruce,
You said,
[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.09.1250)]
Rick Marken (2003.12.09.0925)
And I think exactly this kind of discussion was taking place on CSG
until a couple
weeks ago, when Bruce Gregory returned with his persistent baiting of
me and you
If you want to be taken seriously, I propose that you provide examples
of my "persistent baiting." Otherwise the moderator may not know what
to censor. I hope that Bill Williams will do the same if he feels that
I have been baiting him.
But, Bruce, what in your view is the function of irony? May I suggest the following:
Despite presuming to supply an answer, I am not at all confident that I neccesarily understand all of what is involved with any accuracy or completeness, but I assume that irony has to do with the use of ambiguity in communication. And, that the use of ambiguity is intended to be provocative or using your term a kind of "baiting." As I understand it, the ambiguity creates what is perceived as a threat to a target by inviting the target to expose themselves. If the target doesn't get the irony and thinks that the surface or ostensive message is the real message then they may look foolish-- foolish both in their own eyes and in the eyes of onlookers. However, if the target is suspicious and looks for deeper meanings in the message, the target may also look foolish-- because they are exhibiting traits of insecurity and paranoia. The ironist can deny any mischievious intent and claim that the target needlessly doubted the ironists sincerity.
I remember very well your 911 observation, that "These guys have a lot to learn about control theory." Was it a put down of some people who think that control theory has the answers to all the world's problems. Perhaps. Was it a spoof of a person so focused upon and facinated with the intracacies of exploring the domain of control theory phenomena that they felt no sympathy with or for the victims of the attack. Perhaps. Was it a way of pointing out how disproportionate in scale was the magnitude of the event and the very tiny community that is attempting to create a world in which there would be no cause (perceptions/refence levels) which would generate such events. I have no idea what you actually had in mind by saying what you did. But what you said, as I perceived it was an invitation ( a baiting ) to think about the event. What anyone in particular thought about the event in the light of your obsevation-- who knows.
There seem to me to be two, maybe there are more, reactions to irony. One is reflective in that the ambiguity serves as the occasion for the target to think about something in a way that otherwise they would not have thought of, the other is anger. If the "baiting" provides a context in which the target become uncomfortable-- perhaps because some assumption comes into doubt then the result may be anger.
So, while I am of the opinion that I have been "baited" you have never generated for me any discomfort because the reflections I've had as a result of my thinking about what you've written has never disrupted a reference level in a way that I found unpleasant.
According to reports other people experience what you write quite differently.
My feelings about control theory stem from a long period of naive experimentation with an electronics bench and an osciloscope. And, following that, there has been an almost equally naive experimental approach to programing. And, like you I've experimented with control theory in the context of flying an airplane.
I view most of the discussions about control theory on the CSGnet as rather remote from my experience with control as a phenomena. I just don't really care that much about disputes about captions, claims, and the emotionally laden discussions that sometimes erupt. There are lots and lots of words, and if one gets really excited by words, well it often doesn't mean much to me.
The above seems extra-ordinarily tegious, and perhaps trite, but you asked, and given a committment to "Saying what you mean, and meaning what you say." this is the possibly tiresomely and literal reply.
If I were to make a suggestion, it might be to "Leave the dogs alone."
But, the issues involved obviously can't be dealt with by any simplistic formula. Instead we obviously need a sophisticated formula.
Bill Williams
Edgell, Steven and Townshend, Jules 1993 "Marx and Veblen on
Human Nature." Journal of Economic Issues vol 27 # 3 September
p, 721, No substantial agreement upon a point of knowledge
or conviction is possible between persons who proceed from
disparate preconceptions. p. 721.
Subject: Re: Love and Hate