FW: Re: Emergence Seminar--British Emergence

[Nick Thompson]

Oh, gosh!

 

I hope it was clear to every reader that when I wrote:

 

I think our discussions on this list have tended to lack depth, in the sense that everybody has their opinion but has grave difficulty representing with any fidelity the opinion with which they disagree. 

 

that I was characterizing the discussion as a whole, not the contributions of any one of us.  In short, we all should be mad at me, not any one of us.  Clear as mud, right.  I apologize if anybody felt singled out.

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,

Clark University ([hidden email])

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Cc: [hidden email]

Sent: 9/14/2009 7:55:58 PM

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Emergence Seminar--British Emergence

Russ,

 

To me, the mark of an educated person is the ability to hold different views of the same subject in mind at the same time.  I think our discussions on this list have tended to lack depth, in the sense that everybody has their opinion but has grave difficulty representing with any fidelity the opinion with which they disagree. 
Thus, our discussions take on the character of so many fog horns on a night-shrouded bay.  Anybody who has read through and discussed the sources in this book has increased their ability to articulate their opinion, that is, to compare and contrast it with other opinions.   But hey, I am an academic and a humanist: what would you expect me to believe

 

Don't let that woman out of your sight!!

 

Nick

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,

Clark University ([hidden email])

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email];[hidden email]

Sent: 9/14/2009 5:39:16 PM

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Emergence Seminar--British Emergence

That's the problem I have with taking historical ideas seriously.  Why should we care whether whatever the British Emergentists thought makes sense now? What we should care about is what does make sense now?  Of course, as I mentioned to you (Nick) privately, my wife, who works in Early Modern English, thinks it's very important what people used to think.

It seems to me that if you are a historian of ideas, it may be important what people used to think, and if you want to understand how we got from there to here it may be important what people used to think, but if what you are interested in is how to understand emergence, then that should be the question. 

If the British Emergentists have something to say about emergence that would be worth listening to today, then it should be discussed. If the presentation of what the British Emergentists thought is not clear enough to determine whether it has something to offer today, then that's certainly a problem -- and one the author should clear up. But just because the British Emergentists used to think something, I don't see that as justification for spending much time talking about it.

-- Russ

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

All, 

 

I would like to appeal for some help from The List with the chapter we are reading this week in the Emergence Seminar.  One of the central assertions of the author is that quantum mechanics put the British Emergentists out of business by making "configurational" forces seem unlikely.  He goes on to say that "the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA ... make[s] the main doctrines of Britsh emergentism, so far as ...the biological [is] concerned, seem enormously implausible."  (McLaughlin, 2009, p. 23). 

 

Now here is my problem:  everything that I understand about contemporary Evo/devo seems to make the structure of biological molecules (DNA, RNA, and proteins) central to our understanding of biological development.  Thus, to me, these discoveries make emergentism (if not the British kind) seem dramatically MORE plausible.  If all the consequences of the folding and unfolding of proteins, etc., do not constitute effects of "configurational forces" then what the dickens are they? 

 

Can anybody help me with this paradox????

 

I have forwarded this comment to the Author and, if he doesn't object, will forward any remarks he may have back to you. 

 

Nick

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,

Clark University ([hidden email])

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[glen e. p. ropella-2]

The lack of depth you point out is the dominant feature of online
discussion, at least in every online forum I've experienced over the
past 28 years. (Some people have told me it's _my_ personal problem and
not a feature of online comm at all.  I ignore them, of course. [grin])
 I think the reason for the shallowness of the interaction is because
people can be (mis-)quoted, verbatim, and have their own words thrown
back at them.  Very few people listen to what the writer is _trying_ to
say.  They just listen to what they infer from the writing.

Listening to what the writer is trying to say involves things like 1)
paraphrasing what they wrote by writing it anew in one's own words, 2)
reading and responding to a post's gestalt, rather than some fractioned
piece of it, and 3) reading what's being written with a coherent _model_
of the writer.  And these things, dominant in face-2-face communication,
are difficult and expensive for online comm.

If any one person invests too much energy in exploring another person's
opinion, they a) can appear to hold that opinion themselves and b) can
dynamically be convinced of that opinion, perhaps without realizing it.
 In f2f, that happens smoothly and naturally ... then after a few days,
the different opinions either smush together or spread apart.  But
(without recording equipment) nobody can effectively add friction to the
process by quoting the other before or after any incremental evolution
or refinement of their opinion.  (And, of course, most people end up
with a fuzzy-headed "sameness" or "otherness" sense of the opinions of
the other people, without any real, crisp, distinctions at all.)

Hence, in online comm. (without a robust offline substrate) we find that
most people emphatically assert their individuality and focus on
contrast rather than comparison.  If, however, a group of people who
have robust offline relationships augment their conversations with
online comm, the dynamic is much more cohesive.... except when the
sporadic "foreigner" pokes his head in with contributions that lack the
more robust context. ;-)

That's just my opinion, of course.

Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09/14/2009 09:22 PM:
> I think our discussions on this list have tended to lack depth, in
> the sense that everybody has their opinion but has grave difficulty
> representing with any fidelity the opinion with which they disagree.
>
>
> that I was characterizing the discussion as a whole, not the
> contributions of any one of us.  In short, we all should be mad at
> me, not any one of us.  Clear as mud, right.  I apologize if anybody
> felt singled out.


--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Marcus G. Daniels]

glen e. p. ropella wrote:
>  I think the reason for the shallowness of the interaction is because
> people can be (mis-)quoted, verbatim, and have their own words thrown
> back at them.  Very few people listen to what the writer is _trying_ to
> say.  They just listen to what they infer from the writing.
>
>  
Yes.

"Don’t write merely to be understood. Write so that you cannot possibly
be misunderstood."
- - Robert Louis Stevenson


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Nick Thompson]

Yeah!   Like Glen said.  [see below].

Except that:  when I was a professor, I thought that email was a wonderful
way to committ people to writing.  Hard to get students to commit.  But it
never quite worked that way for the reasons that Glen lays out.  [sigh].

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

> [Original Message]
> From: glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Date: 9/15/2009 8:34:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Re:  Emergence Seminar--British Emergence
>
>
> The lack of depth you point out is the dominant feature of online
> discussion, at least in every online forum I've experienced over the
> past 28 years. (Some people have told me it's _my_ personal problem and
> not a feature of online comm at all.  I ignore them, of course. [grin])
>  I think the reason for the shallowness of the interaction is because
> people can be (mis-)quoted, verbatim, and have their own words thrown
> back at them.  Very few people listen to what the writer is _trying_ to
> say.  They just listen to what they infer from the writing.
>
> Listening to what the writer is trying to say involves things like 1)
> paraphrasing what they wrote by writing it anew in one's own words, 2)
> reading and responding to a post's gestalt, rather than some fractioned
> piece of it, and 3) reading what's being written with a coherent _model_
> of the writer.  And these things, dominant in face-2-face communication,
> are difficult and expensive for online comm.
>
> If any one person invests too much energy in exploring another person's
> opinion, they a) can appear to hold that opinion themselves and b) can
> dynamically be convinced of that opinion, perhaps without realizing it.
>  In f2f, that happens smoothly and naturally ... then after a few days,
> the different opinions either smush together or spread apart.  But
> (without recording equipment) nobody can effectively add friction to the
> process by quoting the other before or after any incremental evolution
> or refinement of their opinion.  (And, of course, most people end up
> with a fuzzy-headed "sameness" or "otherness" sense of the opinions of
> the other people, without any real, crisp, distinctions at all.)
>
> Hence, in online comm. (without a robust offline substrate) we find that
> most people emphatically assert their individuality and focus on
> contrast rather than comparison.  If, however, a group of people who
> have robust offline relationships augment their conversations with
> online comm, the dynamic is much more cohesive.... except when the
> sporadic "foreigner" pokes his head in with contributions that lack the
> more robust context. ;-)
>
> That's just my opinion, of course.
>
> Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09/14/2009 09:22 PM:
> > I think our discussions on this list have tended to lack depth, in
> > the sense that everybody has their opinion but has grave difficulty
> > representing with any fidelity the opinion with which they disagree.
> >
> >
> > that I was characterizing the discussion as a whole, not the
> > contributions of any one of us.  In short, we all should be mad at
> > me, not any one of us.  Clear as mud, right.  I apologize if anybody
> > felt singled out.
>
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Marcus G. Daniels]

glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> 2) reading and responding to a post's gestalt, rather than some fractioned
> piece of it,
If the parts of the message are wrong or unclear, then doubt should be
cast upon the gestalt as well.
> and 3) reading what's being written with a coherent _model_
> of the writer.  And these things, dominant in face-2-face communication,
> are difficult and expensive for online comm.
The writer is at fault, and it may well be with malicious intent, if in
general she expects readers to form a coherent model of her.  It is
necessary for a reader to form a model of what is written and its
relevant context.  (If the text is an autobiography, then she can expect
the reader to model the writer.)

Marcus



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[glen e. p. ropella-2]

Thus spake Marcus G. Daniels circa 09-09-15 10:36 AM:
> glen e. p. ropella wrote:
>> 2) reading and responding to a post's gestalt, rather than some
>> fractioned
>> piece of it,
>
> If the parts of the message are wrong or unclear, then doubt should be
> cast upon the gestalt as well.

True.  "And yet doubt is a good servant but a bad master; a perfect
mistress, but a nagging wife." -- Aleister Crowley,  "The Book of Lies"

>> and 3) reading what's being written with a coherent _model_
>> of the writer.  And these things, dominant in face-2-face communication,
>> are difficult and expensive for online comm.
>
> The writer is at fault, and it may well be with malicious intent, if in
> general she expects readers to form a coherent model of her.  It is
> necessary for a reader to form a model of what is written and its
> relevant context.  (If the text is an autobiography, then she can expect
> the reader to model the writer.)

I have to disagree with the false dichotomy between writer and reader
and the subsequent assignation of blame to either one or the other.  All
these symbols we push and pull are grounded, albeit loosely.  And you're
right to suggest the imperative is to limit the model to some practical
extent.  If you only extend your model to what is written and its
(subjectively defined) _relevant_ context, you are basically
decapitating the context and considering only the body.  And that's fine
if it's adequate for your current use.  But there are uses where the
head should remain attached and be part of the model.  And there are
other uses where, not only should you make the mind of the writer part
of the model, but you should also include the social extent of the
writer.  There are many texts you simply can't understand without some
historical understanding of the society in which the writer lived.  E.g.
British Emergence.

If little Joey, the 13-year-old, video-game-addicted, ritalin-chomping,
child fails to understand Shakespeare, is it Shakespeare's fault?
Similarly, is it Joey's fault if he can't understand the significance of
physical features (like gapped teeth or carbuncles) on a character in
Chaucer?

p.s. I use Shakespeare and Chaucer because I believe they had malicious
intent behind much of their writing.... the malice wasn't directed at
those who understood them, though.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Glen wrote:
>  If you only extend your model to what is written and its
> (subjectively defined) _relevant_ context, you are basically
> decapitating the context and considering only the body.
[..]

> And there are
> other uses where, not only should you make the mind of the writer part
> of the model, but you should also include the social extent of the
> writer.

What is the goal of a writer?  It could be to communicate, but it could
also be to entertain or to manipulate.   If a reader thinks they are
modeling a writer's *mind* (holy crap, the arrogance..), it's likely
they are just going down the road the writer so competently put out for
them.

In e-mail, compared to face-to-face communication, there are fewer
signals as to an individual's behaviors and constraints.  With these
limited signals, it is more difficult for a reader to model the writer's
mind and the writer's social extent.   To say that the reader has a
responsibility to form a model of the writer from an impoverished set of
signals (and others which may be in large part synthesis and
manipulation) means to invest in a bad model rather than getting better
information about the writer out-of-band.   The writer that tries to
encourage such modeling from their writing alone is probably up to no
good.  The models would be mostly cultural norms and the reader's
projections and, of course, the imaginary person the writer is trying to
put forth.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[glen e. p. ropella-2]

Thus spake Marcus G. Daniels circa 09-09-15 11:54 AM:
> What is the goal of a writer?  It could be to communicate, but it could
> also be to entertain or to manipulate.

Can you really distinguish between communication, entertainment, and
manipulation?  I sometimes _think_ I can; but when I catch myself
thinking that, I'm usually wrong.  Perhaps you're better at it than I
am; but I've often found that good entertainment is the best form of
communication and the best form of manipulation.  Likewise, the best
manipulation is entertaining (e.g. magic tricks) and I think a good case
can be made that the best form of communication is entertaining.

So, again, I have to object to the false and idealistic distinction
you're making.

> If a reader thinks they are
> modeling a writer's *mind* (holy crap, the arrogance..), it's likely
> they are just going down the road the writer so competently put out for
> them.

Yes!  A good writer does exactly that, competently lays down a path for
the reader to follow.  And the arrogance (which I define as: "an
unjustified belief in one's own abilities") on the part of the reader is
not only inherent in the way humans navigate the world, but an integral
part of the plan of a good writer.  Arrogance is often criticized as
somehow bad; but it's not.  If we weren't arrogant enough to think we
can do things like... survive car crashes when so many others don't,
start a business when most others fail, effectively capture sociological
processes in a computational model when so many others try and fail,
etc, then we would never do anything.  That arrogance is a fundamental
driver for innovation.

So, I say BE arrogant.  Believe in yourself.  Take unjustified pride in
your (imagined and real) abilities.  Go ahead and try to model the
writer in her entirety if you dare.  And hunt down the new data that
will ultimately, inevitably show that your model is wrong.

> In e-mail, compared to face-to-face communication, there are fewer
> signals as to an individual's behaviors and constraints.  With these
> limited signals, it is more difficult for a reader to model the writer's
> mind and the writer's social extent.   To say that the reader has a
> responsibility to form a model of the writer from an impoverished set of
> signals (and others which may be in large part synthesis and
> manipulation) means to invest in a bad model rather than getting better
> information about the writer out-of-band.

Naaa.  I don't think it means that.  I think it means to invest in the
best model you have until you can construct a better one.  Granted, if
you ever catch yourself believing you've captured all there is in your
silly little model, then you have to kick yourself and snap out of it.
But don't be afraid to _start_ a model just because you don't have as
much data as you want.

> The writer that tries to
> encourage such modeling from their writing alone is probably up to no
> good.  The models would be mostly cultural norms and the reader's
> projections and, of course, the imaginary person the writer is trying to
> put forth.

All comm. is mostly cultural norms and the participants' projections.
(This is why good science is based on scripted behavior, not words and
concepts.)  The symbols being pushed around are grounded, but only
loosely.  So, while I agree with you on that point, I disagree that a
writer trying to encourage such modeling is probably up to no good.
Good intentions may abound with no impact on the goodness of the actual
outcome.  Besides, if our impoverished models of writers are so bad, how
could we come to the conclusion that a writer encouraging the reader to
model her is probably up to no good? ;-)

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Miles Parker]

Holy crap, I think you guys have rediscovered New Criticism. <ducking/
 > :D Speaking quite seriously now, I think that we really are at a  
time when literary theory should become a core part of the hard  
sciences curriculum. Now that would be an interesting turn around...

BTW, Glen, I don't know how I missed it before but I'm just taking a  
look at your page and recent work. Right on! I think you have  
identified the core issue as lying in the explicit -- and more  
damagingly, the methodological implicit -- bias toward the continuum  
and it sounds like you're poking the established view at exactly the  
weak point.


On Sep 15, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:

> Glen wrote:
>> If you only extend your model to what is written and its
>> (subjectively defined) _relevant_ context, you are basically
>> decapitating the context and considering only the body.
> [..]
>
>> And there are
>> other uses where, not only should you make the mind of the writer  
>> part
>> of the model, but you should also include the social extent of the
>> writer.
>
> What is the goal of a writer?  It could be to communicate, but it  
> could also be to entertain or to manipulate.   If a reader thinks  
> they are modeling a writer's *mind* (holy crap, the arrogance..),  
> it's likely they are just going down the road the writer so  
> competently put out for them.
>
> In e-mail, compared to face-to-face communication, there are fewer  
> signals as to an individual's behaviors and constraints.  With these  
> limited signals, it is more difficult for a reader to model the  
> writer's mind and the writer's social extent.   To say that the  
> reader has a responsibility to form a model of the writer from an  
> impoverished set of signals (and others which may be in large part  
> synthesis and manipulation) means to invest in a bad model rather  
> than getting better information about the writer out-of-band.   The  
> writer that tries to encourage such modeling from their writing  
> alone is probably up to no good.  The models would be mostly  
> cultural norms and the reader's projections and, of course, the  
> imaginary person the writer is trying to put forth.
>
> Marcus
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[glen e. p. ropella-2]

Thus spake Miles Parker circa 09-09-15 02:00 PM:
>
> Holy crap, I think you guys have rediscovered New Criticism. <ducking/>
> :D Speaking quite seriously now, I think that we really are at a time
> when literary theory should become a core part of the hard sciences
> curriculum. Now that would be an interesting turn around...

Yeah, it would be funny if people began to take seriously the concept of
a "well-rounded education" again.  Of course, it would be no skin off my
nose since I wouldn't be amongst those forced to conjugate Latin verbs.

> BTW, Glen, I don't know how I missed it before but I'm just taking a
> look at your page and recent work. Right on! I think you have identified
> the core issue as lying in the explicit -- and more damagingly, the
> methodological implicit -- bias toward the continuum and it sounds like
> you're poking the established view at exactly the weak point.

Hm.  Thanks!  We were hoping the attack was a little less visible.
Thanks for making a bunch of noise and alerting the enemy to our
approach.  Whose side are you on, anyway?!?! [grin]

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Marcus G. Daniels]

glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> Can you really distinguish between communication, entertainment, and
> manipulation?
I can recognize that Penn Jillette excels at all three, but I also
recognize he won't get Nobel prize for it.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[glen e. p. ropella-2]

Thus spake Marcus G. Daniels circa 09-09-15 03:20 PM:
> glen e. p. ropella wrote:
>> Can you really distinguish between communication, entertainment, and
>> manipulation?
>
> I can recognize that Penn Jillette excels at all three, but I also
> recognize he won't get Nobel prize for it.

Pick a more difficult example... say Paul Krugman?  Is he an
entertainer?  A manipulator?  A communicator?  All three?

Or perhaps we should try your distinguishing measure on Al Gore?

I really don't think it's very easy to distinguish these 3 processes.
And even if you can distinguish to some degree, the distinction is very
fuzzy and open to debate in every case.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Marcus G. Daniels]

glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> Pick a more difficult example... say Paul Krugman?  Is he an
> entertainer?  A manipulator?  A communicator?  All three?
>
> Or perhaps we should try your distinguishing measure on Al Gore?
>  
Obviously, a person doesn't have to be just one -- you don't have to
invoke Gore to show that.
If Krugman makes anyone uncomfortable, Einstein or Feynman would work
just as well.  

One can interpret a discussion based on the content of it, or based on
guesswork from perceptions of personality or reputation.   At some
point, I'd say the latter is going to annoy someone.   And here you are
saying the reader is obligated to do this.   I think that's nuts.

Watching No Country For Old Men, should I infer that Cormac McCarthy is
a bovine rights activist?

Marcus




============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Douglas Roberts-2]

Great move, that.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Watching No Country For Old Men, should I infer that Cormac McCarthy is a bovine rights activist?

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Douglas Roberts-2]

Movie.  Stupid new soft keyboard.  I miss the old clicky-clicky IBM ones.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

Great move, that.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Watching No Country For Old Men, should I infer that Cormac McCarthy is a bovine rights activist?

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[glen e. p. ropella-2]

Thus spake Marcus G. Daniels circa 09/15/2009 06:12 PM:
> point, I'd say the latter is going to annoy someone.   And here you are
> saying the reader is obligated to do this.   I think that's nuts.

No.  I did not say the reader is obligated to do anything....  In fact,
the reader need not even read the text in the first place.  I merely
object to your assertion that blame for misunderstanding can be placed
solely on either the writer or the reader, regardless of any
expectations on the part of either party.

I'll repeat it for those with short memories:  For some uses, an
understanding of the text, sans a model of the writer, are adequate.
But there are also some uses that require a model of the writer.  And,
further, there are some uses that require a model of the social context
in which that writer sits.  If you need a model for what you're doing,
then build one.  If you don't, then don't.

That's it.  There's no more to it.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Douglas Roberts wrote:
> Stupid new soft keyboard.  I miss the old clicky-clicky IBM ones.
ooh I've got a `daskeyboard' for my birthday with IBM clicky-clicky keys
and no labels on any of them.   Nice.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Douglas Roberts-2]

I am very envious.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Douglas Roberts wrote:

Stupid new soft keyboard.  I miss the old clicky-clicky IBM ones.

ooh I've got a `daskeyboard' for my birthday with IBM clicky-clicky keys and no labels on any of them.   Nice.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Eric Charles]

It's funny, having read the rest of this conversation (about modeling the reader's mind), it went very differently than I thought it would. I thought it would quickly go to a personal example in which it is obvious that modeling the writer's mind helps things.

Lets say, to pick an example completely at random, that I'm in a conversation, and the other person says something like "Yeah, but don't forget, I can see your mind."

Well, usually that means they are being sarcastic, or making a joking new-age psychic reference. When Nick says it, he is being dead serious.

I'm not sure there is anything fancier about "making a model of the writers mind" then that. Whenever we read anything we are constantly evaluating what things the writer meant seriously, which things they meant in jest; what things are crucial to the argument, which are distractions, etc. etc. etc.

Eric

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 02:54 PM, "Marcus G. Daniels" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Glen wrote:
>  If you only extend your model to what is written and
its
> (subjectively defined) _relevant_ context, you are
basically
> decapitating the context and considering only the
body.
[..]

> And there are
> other uses where, not only
should you make the mind of the writer part
> of the model, but you
should also include the social extent of the
> writer.

What is the
goal of a writer?  It could be to communicate, but it could 
also be to
entertain or to manipulate.   If a reader thinks they are 
modeling a
writer's *mind* (holy crap, the arrogance..), it's likely 
they are just
going down the road the writer so competently put out for 
them.

In
e-mail, compared to face-to-face communication, there are fewer 
signals as
to an individual's behaviors and constraints.  With these 
limited signals,
it is more difficult for a reader to model the writer's 
mind and the
writer's social extent.   To say that the reader has a 
responsibility to
form a model of the writer from an impoverished set of 
signals (and others
which may be in large part synthesis and 
manipulation) means to invest in a
bad model rather than getting better 
information about the writer
out-of-band.   The writer that tries to 
encourage such modeling from their
writing alone is probably up to no 
good.  The models would be mostly
cultural norms and the reader's 
projections and, of course, the imaginary
person the writer is trying to 
put
forth.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Robert Holmes]

Old-style IBM keyboards now manufactured by Unicom, as featured on NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100076874

-- Robert

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

Movie.  Stupid new soft keyboard.  I miss the old clicky-clicky IBM ones.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

Great move, that.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Watching No Country For Old Men, should I infer that Cormac McCarthy is a bovine rights activist?

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org