Silence Does Not Equal A Vote for the Status Quo

CSGnet Archive CSG2004
1

[From Fred Nickols (2004.03.20.1057)] --

I'm weighing in because of something Kenny said; namely, that silence is a
vote for the status quo. Not on my part. Frankly, I don't care if the list
is moderated or not, although moderation is tempting because of its promise
to eliminate a great deal of what I consider "garbage" postings. It is more
than a month now since I quit reading the CSG posts. I get the digest.
According to my email program, there are 27 unopened CSGNet digests in my
CSGNet folder. There is probably an equal number of digests opened and
quickly closed. I read today's digest and it seems the flame wars are dying
down. So, perhaps I'll be able to open future digests and, instead of
saying, "Oh, crap; more of that crap" and closing the file, I'll be able to
read on. Ordinarily, I don't mind sorting through lots of chaff to find a
little wheat but when it seems to be all chaff and no wheat, I stop looking.
Here's hoping I can get back to looking.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT
Distance Consulting
"Assistance at a Distance"
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

2

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.20.1455 CST)]

Fred,

Your experience of the flame war is amazingly like mine. I appreciate that
you did chime in and contribute your idea about silent consent. I also
disagree with Kenny that silence is a vote for the status quo. That sounds
to me too much like "I think you have chosen..."

So, the fact that out of 102 (by Michelle's recent count) subscribers, there
are only about 2 dozen contributors, a few of whom seem to have decided to
wait this one out. Are there any others out there who have views on the many
flavors of "moderation" (to put that word in scare quotes)?

Would anyone like to describe for anyone else (the us/we listening here) in
terms of PCT theory just what may be happening when (not in any order and no
names, please):

1. A person fires out an obviously flaming message?
2. Two people are messaging the CSGnet as in an arms race?
3. A person leaves lurkdom temporarily to put out a view and then goes back?
4. A person leaves the CSGnet (actually unsubscribes)?
5. A person deletes from his/her own mailbox the source of disturbance?
6. A person who does not fire back a note to an obviously flaming message?
7. A person who has the capacity to "hurt others [and] be proud of it" but
doesn't/isn't any longer.
8. Any other related action recorded on the net?

No traps here, and certainly no attempt to lay blame on my part as a result
of any replies, but just a way to calmly de-brief and then examine in PCT
terms what happens here. :slight_smile:

Just wondering...

--Bryan

[Fred Nickols (2004.03.20.1057)] --

I'm weighing in because of something Kenny said; namely, that silence is a
vote for the status quo. Not on my part. Frankly, I don't care if the list
is moderated or not, although moderation is tempting because of its promise
to eliminate a great deal of what I consider "garbage" postings. It is more
than a month now since I quit reading the CSG posts. I get the digest.
According to my email program, there are 27 unopened CSGNet digests in my
CSGNet folder. There is probably an equal number of digests opened and
quickly closed. I read today's digest and it seems the flame wars are dying
down. So, perhaps I'll be able to open future digests and, instead of
saying, "Oh, crap; more of that crap" and closing the file, I'll be able to
read on. Ordinarily, I don't mind sorting through lots of chaff to find a
little wheat but when it seems to be all chaff and no wheat, I stop looking.
Here's hoping I can get back to looking.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT
Distance Consulting
"Assistance at a Distance"
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

3

From[Bill Williams 20 March 2004 6:00 PM CST]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.20.1455 CST)]

I think that your proposal could be developed into an interesting and
potentially valuable empirical study of communication.

Validity in scoring might be a difficult issue, but never-the-less if
someone was willing to take on such a project, it might be a community
applied control theory application.

Bill Williams

4

[From Richard Kennaway (2004.03.21.0629 GMT)]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.20.1455 CST)]

Would anyone like to describe for anyone else (the us/we listening here) in
terms of PCT theory just what may be happening when (not in any order and no

names, please):

In all of these cases, all one can say in general is that the person has
decided to do that. Or more precisely, that they have decided to perform
an action which another person has categorised in those ways.

FWIW, I don't think moderation is a solution, whether dressed up in PCT
jargon or not. I can't think of anything that would work better than the
status quo, objectionable as the SQ may have been recently (as it appears
to have been for pretty much everyone posting, on both sides of the
flamewar).

"Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I hit my head with a hammer!"
"Don't hit your head with a hammer."

-- Richard Kennaway

5

Michelle Ivers (2004.03.21 2200 EST)

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.20.1455 CST)]

Would anyone like to describe for anyone else (the us/we listening here) in
terms of PCT theory just what may be happening when (not in any order and

no

names, please):

1. A person fires out an obviously flaming message?
2. Two people are messaging the CSGnet as in an arms race?
3. A person leaves lurkdom temporarily to put out a view and then goes

back?

4. A person leaves the CSGnet (actually unsubscribes)?
5. A person deletes from his/her own mailbox the source of disturbance?
6. A person who does not fire back a note to an obviously flaming message?
7. A person who has the capacity to "hurt others [and] be proud of it" but
doesn't/isn't any longer.
8. Any other related action recorded on the net?

We are controlling perceptions??? :smiley:

Cheers
Michelle

6

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.21.1033)]

Michelle,

Yes, that is the chapter heading! :wink: Now, any intriguing detail as to how
(move down the hierarchy) that control is taking place, and why that control
is happening, (moving up) or what conflicts (internal to a single person)
and possible reorganization (scenarios rather than any single control
system) might be taking place?

I snagged this possible detail from your response to Bill P.:
Michelle Ivers (2004.03.21 2130 EST)

...It seems to me that as soon as we try to
control someone else's behaviour, we set up a perfect opportunity for
counter-control. Something that has really helped me with this in the
classroom setting is by asking myself a simple question - "Is this

behaviour

really disrupting others or dangerous, or is it just really ticking me off
at the moment".

Thank you.

--Bryan

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu]On Behalf Of Michelle Ivers
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 6:13 AM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: [CSGNET] Silence Does Not Equal A Vote for the Status Quo

Michelle Ivers (2004.03.21 2200 EST)

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.20.1455 CST)]

Would anyone like to describe for anyone else (the us/we listening here) in
terms of PCT theory just what may be happening when (not in any order and

no

names, please):

1. A person fires out an obviously flaming message?
2. Two people are messaging the CSGnet as in an arms race?
3. A person leaves lurkdom temporarily to put out a view and then goes

back?

4. A person leaves the CSGnet (actually unsubscribes)?
5. A person deletes from his/her own mailbox the source of disturbance?
6. A person who does not fire back a note to an obviously flaming message?
7. A person who has the capacity to "hurt others [and] be proud of it" but
doesn't/isn't any longer.
8. Any other related action recorded on the net?

We are controlling perceptions??? :smiley:

Cheers
Michelle

7

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.21.10.33)]

[From Richard Kennaway (2004.03.21.0629 GMT)]

In all of these cases, all one can say in general is that the person has
decided to do that. Or more precisely, that they have decided to perform
an action which another person has categorised in those ways.

Richard,

Not picking at words, just wanting a bit more elucidation. "Decided to do
that..." as well as "Chosen to act..." are expressions that may not clarify
the B:CP notion of error-reduction, as I understand it. Right, one doesn't
"decide," "choose," or "select" actions as in the ordinary sense. By acting
in the context of one of those 8 or so actions a person is reducing the
error signal experienced by viewing some words in the CSGnet mailbox. So,
what I am trying to get at is, by acting to perceive according to one or two
principles or programs, there is a lack of error in perceptions that are
roughly in the moderation, graciousness, or other person being a control
system.

So that is the direction in which I am asking!

FWIW, I don't think moderation is a solution, whether dressed up in PCT
jargon or not. I can't think of anything that would work better than the
status quo, objectionable as the SQ may have been recently (as it appears
to have been for pretty much everyone posting, on both sides of the
flamewar).
...
-- Richard Kennaway

And in terms of the moderation discussion, I agree that physical or virtual
moderation of another contributor is the least desirable route to take. In
my case, the virtual moderation I accomplish is by acting on items in the
list itself, rather than the person in question (I guess I should not tell
anyone, because that is tantamount to moderation but I am de-briefing here,
not addressing a person directly). Also, by posting my past request for
discussion, the list has changed its current appearance (more of my words,
more of your (pl) words, less of those other words) and so is less of a
disturbance than it had been recently. Of course, I don't know what the rest
of you are doing, but my e-mail program is serving me fine.

Thank you for replying,

--Bryan

8

Bryan, my answer to your questions is that what was happening is a
symptom of the sad state of our education backgrounds and education
systems.
David Wolsk

···

On Saturday, March 20, 2004, at 12:57 PM, Bryan Thalhammer wrote:

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.20.1455 CST)]

Fred,

Your experience of the flame war is amazingly like mine. I appreciate
that
you did chime in and contribute your idea about silent consent. I also
disagree with Kenny that silence is a vote for the status quo. That
sounds
to me too much like "I think you have chosen..."

So, the fact that out of 102 (by Michelle's recent count) subscribers,
there
are only about 2 dozen contributors, a few of whom seem to have
decided to
wait this one out. Are there any others out there who have views on
the many
flavors of "moderation" (to put that word in scare quotes)?

Would anyone like to describe for anyone else (the us/we listening
here) in
terms of PCT theory just what may be happening when (not in any order
and no
names, please):

1. A person fires out an obviously flaming message?
2. Two people are messaging the CSGnet as in an arms race?
3. A person leaves lurkdom temporarily to put out a view and then goes
back?
4. A person leaves the CSGnet (actually unsubscribes)?
5. A person deletes from his/her own mailbox the source of disturbance?
6. A person who does not fire back a note to an obviously flaming
message?
7. A person who has the capacity to "hurt others [and] be proud of it"
but
doesn't/isn't any longer.
8. Any other related action recorded on the net?

No traps here, and certainly no attempt to lay blame on my part as a
result
of any replies, but just a way to calmly de-brief and then examine in
PCT
terms what happens here. :slight_smile:

Just wondering...

--Bryan

Dr. David Wolsk
Associate, Centre for Global Studies
Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Education
University of Victoria, Canada

9

[From Richard Kennaway (2004.03.22.0808 GMT)]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.21.10.33)]
Not picking at words, just wanting a bit more elucidation. "Decided to do
that..." as well as "Chosen to act..." are expressions that may not clarify
the B:CP notion of error-reduction, as I understand it. Right, one doesn't
"decide," "choose," or "select" actions as in the ordinary sense. By acting
in the context of one of those 8 or so actions a person is reducing the
error signal experienced by viewing some words in the CSGnet mailbox.

Attempting to, not necessarily succeeding.

So,
what I am trying to get at is, by acting to perceive according to one or two
principles or programs, there is a lack of error in perceptions that are
roughly in the moderation, graciousness, or other person being a control
system.

Well, yes, but in a situation like this I don't find it particularly
useful to make analyses of other people's behaviour in terms of PCT.
When I see it done on CSGNET, it is almost always contaminated by an
agenda of undermining the validity of the position of the person whose
behaviour is being analysed. People on the same side of one of these
disputes rarely analyse each others' behaviour, only that of their
opponents; even while they say they are trying to facilitate the
discussion, they speak only of the motes in the other side's eyes.

I have, BTW, seen the same thing happen in every forum I've ever been
on, that deals with any type of psychology, personal development, or
religion. Insight, whether genuine or false, into other people's
thinking, is used just as another tool in the rhetorical armoury, to
take the linguistic high ground by talking about the enemy's discourse
instead of meeting it.

Douglas Adams wasn't joking about the Babel Fish.

-- Richard Kennaway

10

FRom[Bill Williams 22 March 2004 11:30 AM CST]

[From Richard Kennaway (2004.03.22.0808 GMT)]

I won't ask you to explain about "Babel Fish" but if I wanted to read Adams
on "Babel Fish" where should I look?

Bill Williams

11

[From Bill Powers (2004.03.22.1029 MST)]

Richard Kennaway (2004.03.22.0808 GMT) --

Very penetrating insights, for which thanks.

I have, BTW, seen the same thing happen in every forum I've ever been
on, that deals with any type of psychology, personal development, or
religion. Insight, whether genuine or false, into other people's
thinking, is used just as another tool in the rhetorical armoury, to
take the linguistic high ground by talking about the enemy's discourse
instead of meeting it.

I can add that when people talk about the enemy's discourse, it is often
painfully obvious to onlookers that every flaw being described is apparent
in the accuser's own discourse. When our attention is on someone else's
character we seem to become blind to our own.

Best,

Bill P.

12

From Richard Kennaway (2004.03.22.1754 GMT):

FRom[Bill Williams 22 March 2004 11:30 AM CST]

[From Richard Kennaway (2004.03.22.0808 GMT)]

I won't ask you to explain about "Babel Fish" but if I wanted to read Adams
on "Babel Fish" where should I look?

http://www.cwd.co.uk/babel/adams.htm quotes the precise part of "The
Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy". I had in mind the last paragraph:

"Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers
to communication between different races and cultures, has caused
more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."

-- Richard Kennaway