Friam

Friam Norms of Thread Bending

Classic

List

Threaded

8 messages Options

thompnickson2

Friam Norms of Thread Bending

Three comments:

While I accept (and enact) the general rule that threads will be bent and we shouldn't get our knickers in a twist about it, I don't think that precludes a request from one of us not to bend a particular thread.
On what planet is "please" coercive?
You-guys aren't, by any chance, confusing Deconstruction, Reconstruction, and Destruction?

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:27 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS Friday Fodder IS NOW: dangly bits

Oh, I was thinking of people that just forward some other document, presumably one they agree with. Then they are startled when it gets deconstructed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 11:16 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS Friday Fodder IS NOW: dangly bits

Well, to be fair, construction is more difficult than destruction (though perhaps not more difficult than de-construction). So if an OP submits a construct, especially one that's easy to tear down in a disrespectful way, it's competent practice to be gentle and precise when making one's incisions.

But what I see, mostly, is people who simply want to talk and enjoy the sounds of their own voice, their own subject, their own universe of discourse [⛧], which always nudges a good faith critic back onto their heels. So, competent criticism in wild and woolly fora like this one often comes in the form of blunt rejection of OP premises.

[⛧] Tu quoque warning! Just because I'm a hypocrite doesn't mean I'm wrong.

On 3/23/21 10:45 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> I've had several experiences in the working world where people do seem to give special status to the original post. In the politically correct view, the original post is one where we can reflect on its wisdom (and sometimes apply thumbs-up or smiley-face emoticons) but it is awkward and frowned upon to question any premises in the referenced article! To me it all seems like a coercive way to control conversations.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:28 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS Friday Fodder IS NOW: dangly bits
>
> Oooooooh! A refusal to eat one's own dog food <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food>. That's a heinous crime!
>
> A complete conversation about spandrels must include thread bending.
>
> On 3/23/21 10:17 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> “Tangential” would seem to understate the case. Please reply here
>> if you want to talk about Arnold’s dangly bitsl Please please do not gum up a perfectly good conversation about spandrels.

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Friam Norms of Thread Bending

I think the note about Arnold self-contained. I can't think more to say about that. I was perfectly happy to bend the thread again, if only on principle.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:10 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Friam Norms of Thread Bending

Three comments:

While I accept (and enact) the general rule that threads will be bent and we shouldn't get our knickers in a twist about it, I don't think that precludes a request from one of us not to bend a particular thread.
On what planet is "please" coercive?
You-guys aren't, by any chance, confusing Deconstruction, Reconstruction, and Destruction?

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:27 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS Friday Fodder IS NOW: dangly bits

Oh, I was thinking of people that just forward some other document, presumably one they agree with. Then they are startled when it gets deconstructed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 11:16 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS Friday Fodder IS NOW: dangly bits

Well, to be fair, construction is more difficult than destruction (though perhaps not more difficult than de-construction). So if an OP submits a construct, especially one that's easy to tear down in a disrespectful way, it's competent practice to be gentle and precise when making one's incisions.

But what I see, mostly, is people who simply want to talk and enjoy the sounds of their own voice, their own subject, their own universe of discourse [⛧], which always nudges a good faith critic back onto their heels. So, competent criticism in wild and woolly fora like this one often comes in the form of blunt rejection of OP premises.

[⛧] Tu quoque warning! Just because I'm a hypocrite doesn't mean I'm wrong.

On 3/23/21 10:45 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: Friam Norms of Thread Bending

It seems relatively clear that there's some fuzz between persuasion and coercion. My favorite is "Bless your heart": https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/bless-your-heart.

As for [D|R]e[con|]struction and destruction, I explicitly separated them when I brought it up. ... Of course, whether I actually know what any of those words mean is another issue.

On 3/23/21 12:16 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> I think the note about Arnold self-contained. I can't think more to say about that. I was perfectly happy to bend the thread again, if only on principle.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of [hidden email]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:10 PM
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Friam Norms of Thread Bending
>
> Three comments:
>
> While I accept (and enact) the general rule that threads will be bent and we shouldn't get our knickers in a twist about it, I don't think that precludes a request from one of us not to bend a particular thread.
> On what planet is "please" coercive?
> You-guys aren't, by any chance, confusing Deconstruction, Reconstruction, and Destruction?

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Friam Norms of Thread Bending

Here's an example of a "please" story from long ago. I say "Maybe we should look for funding from XYZ." Person A says "No way XYZ are bastards" (explains things they hate about them). I say "But it might work, and our other options look grim..." Person A, who is not the decider of these things, proceeds to intimidate me in public in various ways and follows-up with "Please stop talking about it." As if I had any reason to care what Person A's personal feelings on the matter were, and if their "polite" plea had any relevance at all.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:33 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Norms of Thread Bending

It seems relatively clear that there's some fuzz between persuasion and coercion. My favorite is "Bless your heart": https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/bless-your-heart.

As for [D|R]e[con|]struction and destruction, I explicitly separated them when I brought it up. ... Of course, whether I actually know what any of those words mean is another issue.

On 3/23/21 12:16 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> I think the note about Arnold self-contained. I can't think more to say about that. I was perfectly happy to bend the thread again, if only on principle.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of
> [hidden email]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:10 PM
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Friam Norms of Thread Bending
>
> Three comments:
>
> While I accept (and enact) the general rule that threads will be bent and we shouldn't get our knickers in a twist about it, I don't think that precludes a request from one of us not to bend a particular thread.
> On what planet is "please" coercive?
> You-guys aren't, by any chance, confusing Deconstruction, Reconstruction, and Destruction?

thompnickson2

Re: Friam Norms of Thread Bending

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Marcus,

If your are correct that the comment "self-comstrained" then I was fool to pay any attention to it whatsoever. Fools rush in... etc.

n

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 1:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Norms of Thread Bending

I think the note about Arnold self-contained. I can't think more to say about that. I was perfectly happy to bend the thread again, if only on principle.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:10 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Friam Norms of Thread Bending

Three comments:

While I accept (and enact) the general rule that threads will be bent and we shouldn't get our knickers in a twist about it, I don't think that precludes a request from one of us not to bend a particular thread.
On what planet is "please" coercive?
You-guys aren't, by any chance, confusing Deconstruction, Reconstruction, and Destruction?

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:27 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS Friday Fodder IS NOW: dangly bits

Oh, I was thinking of people that just forward some other document, presumably one they agree with. Then they are startled when it gets deconstructed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 11:16 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS Friday Fodder IS NOW: dangly bits

Well, to be fair, construction is more difficult than destruction (though perhaps not more difficult than de-construction). So if an OP submits a construct, especially one that's easy to tear down in a disrespectful way, it's competent practice to be gentle and precise when making one's incisions.

But what I see, mostly, is people who simply want to talk and enjoy the sounds of their own voice, their own subject, their own universe of discourse [⛧], which always nudges a good faith critic back onto their heels. So, competent criticism in wild and woolly fora like this one often comes in the form of blunt rejection of OP premises.

[⛧] Tu quoque warning! Just because I'm a hypocrite doesn't mean I'm wrong.

On 3/23/21 10:45 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Steve Smith

Re: Friam Norms of Thread Bending

Nick -

I took your "don't bend my thread!" admonition as mostly good natured
ribbing of yourself and all of us for our feral thread hygiene here.

And I (as is common) took it as an invitation to try to tie the whole
(set of) thread(s) into a Gordian Knot (the last image in my reply was
supposed to be captioned "Gordian Knot")...

Like all healthy communities, I'm glad to see continued "good natured
heckling" amongst the most vocal here.

Carry On!

- Steve

> Marcus,
>
> If your are correct that the comment "self-comstrained" then I was fool to pay any attention to it whatsoever. Fools rush in... etc.
>
> n
>
> Nick Thompson
> [hidden email]
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 1:16 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Norms of Thread Bending
>
> I think the note about Arnold self-contained. I can't think more to say about that. I was perfectly happy to bend the thread again, if only on principle.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of [hidden email]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:10 PM
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Friam Norms of Thread Bending
>
> Three comments:
>
> While I accept (and enact) the general rule that threads will be bent and we shouldn't get our knickers in a twist about it, I don't think that precludes a request from one of us not to bend a particular thread.
> On what planet is "please" coercive?
> You-guys aren't, by any chance, confusing Deconstruction, Reconstruction, and Destruction?
>
>
> Nick Thompson
> [hidden email]
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:27 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS Friday Fodder IS NOW: dangly bits
>
> Oh, I was thinking of people that just forward some other document, presumably one they agree with. Then they are startled when it gets deconstructed.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 11:16 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS Friday Fodder IS NOW: dangly bits
>
> Well, to be fair, construction is more difficult than destruction (though perhaps not more difficult than de-construction). So if an OP submits a construct, especially one that's easy to tear down in a disrespectful way, it's competent practice to be gentle and precise when making one's incisions.
>
> But what I see, mostly, is people who simply want to talk and enjoy the sounds of their own voice, their own subject, their own universe of discourse [⛧], which always nudges a good faith critic back onto their heels. So, competent criticism in wild and woolly fora like this one often comes in the form of blunt rejection of OP premises.
>
>
> [⛧] Tu quoque warning! Just because I'm a hypocrite doesn't mean I'm wrong.
>
> On 3/23/21 10:45 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> I've had several experiences in the working world where people do seem to give special status to the original post. In the politically correct view, the original post is one where we can reflect on its wisdom (and sometimes apply thumbs-up or smiley-face emoticons) but it is awkward and frowned upon to question any premises in the referenced article! To me it all seems like a coercive way to control conversations.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:28 AM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS Friday Fodder IS NOW: dangly bits
>>
>> Oooooooh! A refusal to eat one's own dog food <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food>. That's a heinous crime!
>>
>> A complete conversation about spandrels must include thread bending.
>>
>> On 3/23/21 10:17 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>> “Tangential” would seem to understate the case. Please reply here
>>> if you want to talk about Arnold’s dangly bitsl Please please do not gum up a perfectly good conversation about spandrels.
>
> --
> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: Friam Norms of Thread Bending

On 3/23/21 2:23 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Like all healthy communities, I'm glad to see continued "good natured
> heckling" amongst the most vocal here.
>
>
> On 3/23/21 2:06 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> If your are correct that the comment "self-comstrained" then I was fool to pay any attention to it whatsoever. Fools rush in... etc.

I think Dave prophetically argued (in the OP) against Nick's later claim to foolishness (see below). It's not foolish to pay attention to EricC's spandrel-like thread bending. It is a hallmark of nonlinear thinking.

On 3/23/21 8:11 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> This also means, that individual feature-traits — ... — cannot, and should not be "explained" independently. To do so is to focus on the 'noise' and not the 'signal'. Such efforts are the product of 19th century thinking and unworthy of complexity scientists like yourselves.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Prof David West

Re: Friam Norms of Thread Bending

The original post included two "bending invitations:" the troll about Kipling and the levity about Ahnold. It would be surprising if, in this group, they had not been accepted.

There is no importance to be attached to that post - it was simply an attempt to expose and make concrete points of divergence in my understanding vis-a-vis others in the online conversation last week and to provide seeds — if and only if there is any interest — for conversation this coming Friday. Nothing profound here.

davew

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021, at 8:42 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

> On 3/23/21 2:23 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> > Like all healthy communities, I'm glad to see continued "good natured
> > heckling" amongst the most vocal here.
> >
> >
> > On 3/23/21 2:06 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> >> If your are correct that the comment "self-comstrained" then I was fool to pay any attention to it whatsoever. Fools rush in... etc.
>
> I think Dave prophetically argued (in the OP) against Nick's later
> claim to foolishness (see below). It's not foolish to pay attention to
> EricC's spandrel-like thread bending. It is a hallmark of nonlinear
> thinking.
>
> On 3/23/21 8:11 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > This also means, that individual feature-traits — ... — cannot, and should not be "explained" independently. To do so is to focus on the 'noise' and not the 'signal'. Such efforts are the product of 19th century thinking and unworthy of complexity scientists like yourselves.
>
>
>
>
> --
> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>