Respect, Mutual obligation, honesty and Trust

CSGnet Archive CSG2011
1

( Gavin
Ritz 2011.11.13.1044NZT)

I have been on many lists and still am. They
include

  •  NECSI now not in use anymore, New
    England Complexity Society
  •  CYBCOM cyberentics discussion
    group
  • CHAOPSYC Chaos Psychology list
  •  FIS Foundations of Information
    Science

And for many years on some.

However what is striking is that this list
is about the psychology and interaction of people, yet the mutual respect,
trust and obligation between list members is by far the lowest out of any list
I have been on.

What do list members think that this could
be?

Kind regards

Gavin

···
2

I think it too many snarky sitcoms and adult cartoons vulgarizing
the culture. It also it makes some people feel younger, since youth
cultures are often purposely toying with vulgarity, cynicism and
contempt. It might be futher enhanced by the dehumanizing anonymity
of being online. The differences in groups might be explained by
the examples set by those considered to be leaders of the group,
especially if tolerated and enhanced by being accompied by the views
and values shared by the majority, even if they wouldn’t express
that way themselves. Fascism and progressivism have always courted
the youth this way because the youth are more malleable and have
less of a stake in the status quo.

  -- Martin L
···

On 11/12/2011 2:55 PM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

(Gavin Ritz 2011.11.13.1044NZT)

          I

have been on many lists and still am. They
include

  •             NECSI now not in use anymore, New
    England Complexity Society
  • CYBCOM cyberentics discussion group
  • CHAOPSYC Chaos Psychology list
  •             FIS Foundations of Information
    Science
          And

for many years on some.

          However

what is striking is that this list
is about the psychology and interaction of people, yet the
mutual respect,
trust and obligation between list members is by far the
lowest out of any list
I have been on.

          What

do list members think that this could
be?

          Kind

regards

        Gavin
3

Message

···

I think it too many snarky sitcoms and adult cartoons vulgarizing the culture.

Gr: Sorry I do not understand this at all.

It also it makes some people feel younger, since youth cultures are often purposely toying with vulgarity, cynicism and contempt.

It might be futher enhanced by the dehumanizing anonymity of being online.

GR: that should not change the respect between adults conversing on the very subject of conflict. This list has more conflict than any other. And this list is about the nature of conflict. Do you think that this is a possible goal and intention of list members to attempt disturb other members and at any cost. It has been mentioned to me once off the list that “my goal is to disturb you” meaning to disturb me. What actually disturbed me, was this was potentially the goal of some list members.

The differences in groups might be explained by the examples set by those considered to be leaders of the group, especially if tolerated and enhanced by being accompied by the views and values shared by the majority, even if they wouldn’t express that way themselves.

GR: sorry Martin I don’t get this part either.

Fascism and progressivism have always courted the youth this way because the youth are more malleable and have less of a stake in the status quo.

GR: I don’t get this part either. I’m talking about mutual trust, ethics, mutual obligation, duty, respect and just simple good manners.

Is this asking too much?

As I asked before what exactly is the goal of PCT, that should come from its propositions.

Regards

Gavin

-- Martin L

On 11/12/2011 2:55 PM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

( Gavin Ritz
2011.11.13.1044NZT)

I have been on many lists and still am. They include

  •   NECSI now not in use anymore, New England Complexity Society

  •   CYBCOM cyberentics discussion group

  •   CHAOPSYC Chaos Psychology list

  •   FIS Foundations of Information Science

And for many years on some.

However what is striking is that this list is about the psychology and interaction of people, yet the mutual respect, trust and obligation between list members is by far the lowest out of any list I have been on.

What do list members think that this could be?

Kind regards

Gavin
4

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Nov 13 0243 MST]

Message

      I think it too many snarky sitcoms and adult cartoons

vulgarizing the culture.

          Gr: Sorry I do not understand this

at all.

In the United States we have television programs like "The Simpsons"

and “South Park” and sitcoms with a lot of putdown, cruelty
“humor”. The “protagonists” exhibiting this behavior are portrayed
as “cool”.

       It also it makes

some people feel younger, since youth cultures are often
purposely toying with vulgarity, cynicism and contempt.

       It might be futher

enhanced by the dehumanizing anonymity of being online.

          GR: that should not change the

respect between adults conversing on the very subject of
conflict. This list has more conflict than any other.
And this list is about the nature of conflict. Do you
think that this is a possible goal and intention of list
members to attempt disturb other members and at any cost. It has been mentioned to
me once off the list that “my goal is to disturb you” meaning to disturb me.
What actually disturbed me, was this was potentially
the goal of some list members.

He probably thought it was cool.

       The differences in

groups might be explained by the examples set by those
considered to be leaders of the group, especially if tolerated
and enhanced by being accompied by the views and values shared
by the majority, even if they wouldn’t express that way
themselves.

          GR: sorry Martin I don't get this

part either.

Do people speak up while this distraction from the substance is

going on? Do you have a viewpoint different from the “consensus”?

       Fascism and

progressivism have always courted the youth this way because
the youth are more malleable and have less of a stake in the
status quo.

          GR: I don't get this part either.

I’m talking about mutual trust, ethics, mutual obligation,
duty, respect and just simple good manners.

Is this asking too much?

For some yes, haven't you noticed behavior at the Occupy Wall Street

demonstrations, at the WTO and climate meetings, or on progressive
blogs? Those on the left who disagree with someone, have a sense
of entitlement.

Martin L
···

On 11/13/2011 1:25 AM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

          As I asked before what exactly is

the goal of PCT, that should come from its propositions.

Regards

Gavin

        -- Martin L



      On 11/12/2011 2:55 PM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

(Gavin Ritz 2011.11.13.1044NZT)

              I have been on many lists and still

am. They include

  •                 NECSI
    now not in use anymore, New England Complexity
    Society
  •                 CYBCOM
    cyberentics discussion group
  •                 CHAOPSYC
    Chaos Psychology list
  •                 FIS
    Foundations of Information Science

And for many years on some.

              However what is striking is that

this list is about the psychology and interaction of
people, yet the mutual respect, trust and obligation
between list members is by far the lowest out of any
list I have been on.

              What do list members think that this

could be?

Kind regards

Gavin

5

Gavin Ritz is complaining because of the following exchange:

···

At 10:07 PM 11/12/2011 -0700, Martin Lewin wrote:

I think it too many snarky
sitcoms and adult cartoons vulgarizing the culture. It also it
makes some people feel younger, since youth cultures are often purposely
toying with vulgarity, cynicism and contempt. It might be futher
enhanced by the dehumanizing anonymity of being online. The
differences in groups might be explained by the examples set by those
considered to be leaders of the group, especially if tolerated and
enhanced by being accompied by the views and values shared by the
majority, even if they wouldn’t express that way themselves.
Fascism and progressivism have always courted the youth this way because
the youth are more malleable and have less of a stake in the status
quo.

– Martin L

=========================================================================

At 11:17 AM 11/12/2011 +1300, Gavin Ritz wrote:

GR:
Look I’m not
getting into a right wrong discussion with you here on the list I really
have no allocated time for that, I have no interest in the disrespectful
dancing that goes on, on this list.

You asked about language and I’m saying there’s no mystery to the
issue of language logic and mathematics. It may be a mystery to you but
not too me.

BP: I see. Then you will have no
further need of me.

GR: This I never
said, and it’s not in anyway how I see things, I need lots of people and
this comes from mutual duty and respect and honesty.

I have no time to dis-respect, I treat you with utmost respect, if
there’s no reciprocity, game over.

Gavin

============================================================================

Just consider this little gem:
GR: You asked
about language and I’m saying there’s no mystery to the issue of language
logic and mathematics. It may be a mystery to you but not too me.BP: Does any of that post, particularly the gem, sound like mutual
duty, “utmost respect,” and honesty?

The main rule I play by on CSGnet is fairly simple: No flat statements of
disputable facts without full explanation and demonstration. I don’t
always play by them in the heat of the moment, but most of the time I do.
There are those who occasionally do but most of the time don’t. These
different emphases are not compatible.

Of course there are discussion lists that don’t stick to these rules at
all: if you offer some far-out but intriguing idea, the only politically
correct response is “Hey, cool!” If you say something is true,
it is bad manners for anyone to doubt that it’s true. If someone offers a
baffling diagram or statement, it’s an admission of inferiority for
anyone to say “I don’t understand the diagram” or “I don’t
follow your reasoning” or to ask “How do you know that?”

The principles I try to play by sound austere and skeptical and
unfriendly at times. But they’re the only way I know to play the
particular game called science. It takes a certain amount of guts to play
this game and to submit to the same rules that one asks others to follow.
It takes some degree of faith that defensible explanations can be found,
and claims can be demonstrated – if they’re right. And it takes some
humility to allow that if the explanations can’t be found or the claims
can’t be demonstrated, the idea that seems so right is very likely to be
wrong.

When someone isn’t playing by those rules, it’s pretty obvious. Nobody is
obligated to play by them, but it causes less stress if one finds a forum
in which everyone agrees with principles one can accept.

Best,

Bill P.

6

[From Rick Marken (2011.11.12.1055)]

BP: The main rule I play by on CSGnet is fairly simple: No flat statements of
disputable facts without full explanation and demonstration.

RM: You played by those rules well before there was a CSGNet. That's
what I love about you, baby!

BP: The principles I try to play by sound austere and skeptical and unfriendly
at times.

They sound great to me! But then so does Bach. Boy do I love a good fugue;-)

BP: And it takes some humility to allow that
if the explanations can't be found or the claims can't be demonstrated, the
idea that seems so right is very likely to be wrong.

And oh, 'tis true, 'tis true.

BP: When someone isn't playing by those rules, it's pretty obvious. Nobody is
obligated to play by them, but it causes less stress if one finds a forum in
which everyone agrees with principles one can accept.

It seems to me that the people who get the most upset about our
discussions on CSGNet play by what seems like a pretty good rule: what
people say must be respected. This sounds like a perfectly good rule;
it's one I can certainly sign up to. I don't think it's the rule
itself but, rather, the lower level components of this rule that's the
cause the problem. To the people who get upset about the discussions
on CSGNet , "people" means "me and anyone else who agrees with me" and
"respect" means "agree with me". To me "people" means "everyone" and
"respect" means "awareness that the other person is controlling for
being right and that they are likely to react violently to evidence
that they are wrong but don't take it (the violent reaction)
personally".

Best

Rick

···

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Bill Powers <powers_w@frontier.net> wrote:

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

7

Message

(gavin Ritz
2011.11.14.9.09NZT)

[Martin Lewitt 2011 Nov 13 0243 MST]

Hi Martin

I think it too many
snarky sitcoms and adult cartoons vulgarizing the culture.

Gr:
Sorry I do not understand this at all.

In the United States we have television programs like “The
Simpsons” and “South Park” and sitcoms with a lot of putdown,
cruelty “humor”. The “protagonists” exhibiting this
behavior are portrayed as “cool”.

Yip I know these but have never watched
them.

It also it makes
some people feel younger, since youth cultures are often purposely toying with
vulgarity, cynicism and contempt.

It might be futher
enhanced by the dehumanizing anonymity of being online.

GR: that
should not change the respect between adults conversing on the very
subject of conflict. This list has more conflict than any other. And this
list is about the nature of conflict. Do you think that this is a
possible goal and intention of list members to attempt disturb other members and at any cost. It
has been mentioned to me once off the list that “my goal is to disturb
you” meaning to disturb me. What actually disturbed me, was
this was potentially the goal of some list members.

He probably thought it was cool.

Okay.

The differences in
groups might be explained by the examples set by those considered to be leaders
of the group, especially if tolerated and enhanced by being accompied by the
views and values shared by the majority, even if they wouldn’t express that way
themselves.

GR:
sorry Martin I don’t get this part either.

Do people speak up while this distraction from the substance is going
on?

I don’t think so.

Do you have a viewpoint
different from the “consensus”?

Probably yes.

Fascism and
progressivism have always courted the youth this way because the youth are more
malleable and have less of a stake in the status quo.

GR: I
don’t get this part either. I’m talking about mutual trust, ethics, mutual
obligation, duty, respect and just simple good manners.

Is this
asking too much?

For some yes, haven’t you noticed behavior at the Occupy Wall Street
demonstrations, at the WTO and climate meetings, or on progressive
blogs? Those on the left who disagree with someone, have a sense of
entitlement.

I’m not so sure I’m convinced
of this, this is labeling and may even add to the problem.

Kind regards

Gavin

Martin L

···

As I
asked before what exactly is the goal of PCT, that should come from its
propositions.

Regards

Gavin

– Martin L

On 11/12/2011 2:55 PM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

(Gavin
Ritz 2011.11.13.1044NZT)

I have
been on many lists and still am. They include

·
NECSI now not in use
anymore, New England Complexity Society

·
CYBCOM cyberentics
discussion group

·
CHAOPSYC Chaos Psychology
list

·
FIS Foundations of
Information Science

And for
many years on some.

However
what is striking is that this list is about the psychology and interaction of
people, yet the mutual respect, trust and obligation between list members is by
far the lowest out of any list I have been on.

What do
list members think that this could be?

Kind
regards

Gavin

8
···

============================================================================
Just consider this little gem:

GR: You
asked about language and I’m saying there’s no mystery to the issue
of language logic and mathematics. It may be a mystery to you but not too me.

BP: Does any of that
post, particularly the gem, sound like mutual duty, “utmost respect,”
and honesty?

The main rule I play by on CSGnet is fairly simple: No flat statements of
disputable facts without full explanation and demonstration. I don’t always
play by them in the heat of the moment, but most of the time I do. There are
those who occasionally do but most of the time don’t. These different emphases
are not compatible.

Of course there are discussion lists that don’t stick to these rules at all: if
you offer some far-out but intriguing idea, the only politically correct
response is “Hey, cool!” If you say something is true, it is bad
manners for anyone to doubt that it’s true. If someone offers a baffling
diagram or statement, it’s an admission of inferiority for anyone to say
“I don’t understand the diagram” or “I don’t follow your reasoning”
or to ask “How do you know that?”

The principles I try to play by sound austere and skeptical and unfriendly at
times. But they’re the only way I know to play the particular game called
science. It takes a certain amount of guts to play this game and to submit to the
same rules that one asks others to follow. It takes some degree of faith that
defensible explanations can be found, and claims can be demonstrated – if
they’re right. And it takes some humility to allow that if the explanations
can’t be found or the claims can’t be demonstrated, the idea that seems so
right is very likely to be wrong.

When someone isn’t playing by those rules, it’s pretty obvious. Nobody is
obligated to play by them, but it causes less stress if one finds a forum in
which everyone agrees with principles one can accept.

I guess this response puts it in a nutshell,
then.

Regards

Gavin