Re: comm. (was Re: FW: Re: EmergenceSeminar--British Emergence)

[Nick Thompson]

Yeah.  Again.  Like glen said.  [see below if you haven't already].

N.

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 2:34:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] comm. (was Re: FW: Re:
EmergenceSeminar--British Emergence)

>
> 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

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