Re: comm. (was Re: FW: Re: Emergence Seminar--BritishEmergence)

[Nick Thompson]

Marcus,

I was puzzled, when you wrote ...

"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."

What sort of a "mind" did you have in mind?  There are those of us out here
that think that mind is just an individuals longstanding pattern of
response and sensitiivity. So when you read what I write, you have to try
and gather, from the short sample that I give you, what the over all
pattern is.  So it may be arrogance, but isnt it also a necessity?   Arent
you constantly building models of the minds of the people around you?    

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




> [Original Message]
> From: Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Date: 9/15/2009 12:56:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] comm. (was Re: FW: Re: Emergence
Seminar--BritishEmergence)

>
> 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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Nicholas Thompson wrote:

> I was puzzled, when you wrote ...
>
> "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."
>
> What sort of a "mind" did you have in mind?  There are those of us out here
> that think that mind is just an individuals longstanding pattern of
> response and sensitiivity. So when you read what I write, you have to try
> and gather, from the short sample that I give you, what the over all
> pattern is.  So it may be arrogance, but isnt it also a necessity?   Arent
> you constantly building models of the minds of the people around you?    
>  

I may or may not be.   Why would you assume that it is effective for me,
in order to better understand your arguments, to model YOU?  Just the
opposite could be true.  It could be better for me to filter out the
noise (a highly parameterized model of someone's personality) to get to
the signal (the point or its absence).

Down with straw men,

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