The Case for a Literary Education (re 10 Best...)

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Joseph Epstein makes the case for a Literary Education in this 2008 lecture (approx 40 min):

http://www.isi.org/lectures/lectures.aspx?SBy=search&SSub=title&SFor=A%20Literary%20Education

He believes a Literary Education teaches a number of things including 'how astonishing reality' is and also 'the limits of the intellect'.  Given the number of literary refererences in his argument you may get the best out of this if you already have a Literary Education which makes it a little self-serving IMHO.  I guess it works for novelists.

Bio from the website:

Joseph Epstein was born in 1937 in Chicago, and attended the public schools there and, later, the University of Chicago. He is the author of, among other books, Fabulous Small Jews, Snobbery, Friendship, Narcissus Leaves the Pool, and In a Cardboard Belt! His most recent book, Fred Astaire, will be published in September by Yale University Press as part of its American Icons series. Mr. Epstein taught in the Department of English at Northwestern University for thirty years. He was the editor of The American Scholar, the intellectual quarterly of Phi Beta Kappa, between 1974 and 1997. His essays and short stories have appeared in The New Yorker, Commentary, The Atlantic, The Weekly Standard, The Hudson Review, and other magazines. His work has been translated into French, Spanish, Italian, Hebrew, Chinese, and Japanese. He is currently working on a book Houghton Mifflin on the subject of Gossip.

It doesn't seem that a Ph.D was required, btw, and none of his works were recommended for our 10 Best...  However, that the intellect may be limited is a good reason to want to make a selection in life, be it one's Bucket List or one's reading list.

What's curious is that he believes we get a better feel for reality and human nature by reading novels ( = made up stuff).  I definitely wouldn't want to draw conclusions too strongly about life, the intellect or the mind that is based on the fictional behavior of fictional characters.

Thanks
Robert C


============================================================
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]

Robert J. Cordingley wrote  circa 10/14/2010 07:21 AM:
> What's curious is that he believes we get a better feel for reality and
> human nature by reading novels ( = made up stuff).  I definitely
> wouldn't want to draw conclusions too strongly about life, the intellect
> or the mind that is based on the fictional behavior of fictional characters.

I absolutely agree.  In fact, what irritates me about humans is how
trapped we are by our own conceited view of the world.  While I enjoy
navel-gazing as much as the next person, what I really enjoy is that
feeling of "snapping out of it" ... when for whatever reason I break out
of some mode of thought and into another.  "Mode of thought" isn't the
best way to put it, though ... perhaps "pattern of being" is better, but
that's so vague and mystical.

The best example I can come up with now is that feeling of competence I
get when I sweat over something for a long period, finally rest, then
come back to it and progress comes in leaps and bounds.  That happens
when I take a long ride on the motorcycle, say a 12 hour ride on
Saturday, then when I hop on it Sunday to to go the grocery store, I
_feel_ like I'm operating it at a whole new level of competence.  But
I've repeated that feeling enough for it to be predictable, now.  The
first time it happens in some particular context is the most enjoyable.

These things seem way beyond the fictional exploits of fictional
characters.  But stories about enlightenment (e.g. Smullyan's "The Tao
is Silent") come close.  There are enough hooks to [emp|symp]athize with
the author so that these feelings can be shared.  The fundamentals of
math have never brought these feelings to me; but it seems that I can
relate to how their study might have brought them to Smullyan.  I feel
that if I _had_ (or were capable of having [grin]) worked as hard on the
FOM as Smullyan has, then I would have those same feelings.

And, I think this is probably what Epstein means.

--
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

[lrudolph]

Re: Joseph Epstein:

>He was the editor of The American
>Scholar, the intellectual quarterly of
>Phi Beta Kappa, between 1974 and 1997.

I read it during the earlier part of that
span (also before he became editor).  It was
a piece of shit, as "intellectual quarterlies"
(or more-frequentlies) go, and I gave up on it
long before the end of his term.  This need not mean
that he was a bad editor (maybe it got a lot better
in the 1990s), but it doesn't speak at all well for
him (in my opinion).

============================================================
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]

Robert C. wrote:

What's curious is that he believes we get a better feel for reality and
human nature by reading novels ( = made up stuff).  I definitely wouldn't
want to draw conclusions too strongly about life, the intellect or the mind
that is based on the fictional behavior of fictional characters.

Oh, Lordy, Lordy, do I ever agree!!!!!

However, as rights of privacy and control by research "participants" over
their own data have become more and more stringent in NSF and NIMH
guidelines, it has been increasingly difficult for psychologists to do
naturalistic research that anybody would respect on human beings.  The plain
fact is that people behave differently when they know you are watching them,
and give different results when they know what your research hypothesis is.
They try to make you happy.  

The American Psychological Association has become so infused with political
correctness that it would not surprise me to learn that the Gombe Stream
Chimpanzees had been asked to sign wavers of their "participant" rights.  

In this context, I have proposed (for argument purposes, perhaps; with me, I
can never tell the difference) that my psychology department consider novels
as possible phd dissertations.   The reasoning is that if we are forbidden
from telling the truth about real live human beings, we could at least tell
the truth about fictional ones.  The problem is, of course, what it means to
tell the truth about a fictional character.  

Now, I don't want to hear from the non realists on this one.  If the idea of
truth doesn't have any grip on your imagination, then you aren't part of my
target audience here.  I don't want to hear that truth belongs to the guy
with the biggest gun.  It may be true, but I don't want to hear it.  You
Deconstructionists just .... Just ..... bugger off.

The closest I  have ever come to shading the truth in my writing is in a
series of essays under a pseudonym in which I included examples of events
that - blush - never quite actually happened.  I rearranged "extraneous"
details to make a sharper, shorter, clearer examples.   As a writer, I felt
fine about it; as a scientist, it gnaws at me to this day.   Who am I to say
what is "extraneous"?  As Robert says, so persuasively, "I definitely
wouldn't want to draw conclusions too strongly about life, the intellect or
the mind that is based on the fictional behavior of fictional characters."

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/nthompson
http://www.cusf.org





From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:22 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The Case for a Literary Education (re 10 Best...)

Joseph Epstein makes the case for a Literary Education in this 2008 lecture
(approx 40 min):
http://www.isi.org/lectures/lectures.aspx?SBy=search&SSub=title&SFor=A%20Lit
erary%20Education
He believes a Literary Education teaches a number of things including 'how
astonishing reality' is and also 'the limits of the intellect'.  Given the
number of literary refererences in his argument you may get the best out of
this if you already have a Literary Education which makes it a little
self-serving IMHO.  I guess it works for novelists.

Bio from the website:
Joseph Epstein was born in 1937 in Chicago, and attended the public schools
there and, later, the University of Chicago. He is the author of, among
other books, Fabulous Small Jews, Snobbery, Friendship, Narcissus Leaves the
Pool, and In a Cardboard Belt! His most recent book, Fred Astaire, will be
published in September by Yale University Press as part of its American
Icons series. Mr. Epstein taught in the Department of English at
Northwestern University for thirty years. He was the editor of The American
Scholar, the intellectual quarterly of Phi Beta Kappa, between 1974 and
1997. His essays and short stories have appeared in The New Yorker,
Commentary, The Atlantic, The Weekly Standard, The Hudson Review, and other
magazines. His work has been translated into French, Spanish, Italian,
Hebrew, Chinese, and Japanese. He is currently working on a book Houghton
Mifflin on the subject of Gossip.
It doesn't seem that a Ph.D was required, btw, and none of his works were
recommended for our 10 Best...  However, that the intellect may be limited
is a good reason to want to make a selection in life, be it one's Bucket
List or one's reading list.

What's curious is that he believes we get a better feel for reality and
human nature by reading novels ( = made up stuff).  I definitely wouldn't
want to draw conclusions too strongly about life, the intellect or the mind
that is based on the fictional behavior of fictional characters.

Thanks
Robert C

============================================================
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]

Lee,

Could you consider your rhetoric and your audience a bit before you hit
send?  Are you trying to convince anybody of anything, or are you just
mooning the list?  

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of [hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:11 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Case for a Literary Education (re 10 Best...)

Re: Joseph Epstein:

>He was the editor of The American
>Scholar, the intellectual quarterly of Phi Beta Kappa, between 1974 and
>1997.

I read it during the earlier part of that span (also before he became
editor).  It was a piece of shit, as "intellectual quarterlies"
(or more-frequentlies) go, and I gave up on it long before the end of his
term.  This need not mean that he was a bad editor (maybe it got a lot
better in the 1990s), but it doesn't speak at all well for him (in my
opinion).

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

[Grant Holland]

Nothing is more "made up" than pure math. That's why we love it so much. ;-)

Grant

On 10/14/2010 10:23 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

Robert C. wrote:

What's curious is that he believes we get a better feel for reality and
human nature by reading novels ( = made up stuff).  I definitely wouldn't
want to draw conclusions too strongly about life, the intellect or the mind
that is based on the fictional behavior of fictional characters.

Oh, Lordy, Lordy, do I ever agree!!!!!

However, as rights of privacy and control by research "participants" over
their own data have become more and more stringent in NSF and NIMH
guidelines, it has been increasingly difficult for psychologists to do
naturalistic research that anybody would respect on human beings.  The plain
fact is that people behave differently when they know you are watching them,
and give different results when they know what your research hypothesis is.
They try to make you happy.  

The American Psychological Association has become so infused with political
correctness that it would not surprise me to learn that the Gombe Stream
Chimpanzees had been asked to sign wavers of their "participant" rights.  

In this context, I have proposed (for argument purposes, perhaps; with me, I
can never tell the difference) that my psychology department consider novels
as possible phd dissertations.   The reasoning is that if we are forbidden
from telling the truth about real live human beings, we could at least tell
the truth about fictional ones.  The problem is, of course, what it means to
tell the truth about a fictional character.  

Now, I don't want to hear from the non realists on this one.  If the idea of
truth doesn't have any grip on your imagination, then you aren't part of my
target audience here.  I don't want to hear that truth belongs to the guy
with the biggest gun.  It may be true, but I don't want to hear it.  You
Deconstructionists just .... Just ..... bugger off. 

The closest I  have ever come to shading the truth in my writing is in a
series of essays under a pseudonym in which I included examples of events
that - blush - never quite actually happened.  I rearranged "extraneous"
details to make a sharper, shorter, clearer examples.   As a writer, I felt
fine about it; as a scientist, it gnaws at me to this day.   Who am I to say
what is "extraneous"?  As Robert says, so persuasively, "I definitely
wouldn't want to draw conclusions too strongly about life, the intellect or
the mind that is based on the fictional behavior of fictional characters."

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/nthompson
http://www.cusf.org





From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:22 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The Case for a Literary Education (re 10 Best...)

Joseph Epstein makes the case for a Literary Education in this 2008 lecture
(approx 40 min):
http://www.isi.org/lectures/lectures.aspx?SBy=search&SSub=title&SFor=A%20Lit
erary%20Education
He believes a Literary Education teaches a number of things including 'how
astonishing reality' is and also 'the limits of the intellect'.  Given the
number of literary refererences in his argument you may get the best out of
this if you already have a Literary Education which makes it a little
self-serving IMHO.  I guess it works for novelists.

Bio from the website:
Joseph Epstein was born in 1937 in Chicago, and attended the public schools
there and, later, the University of Chicago. He is the author of, among
other books, Fabulous Small Jews, Snobbery, Friendship, Narcissus Leaves the
Pool, and In a Cardboard Belt! His most recent book, Fred Astaire, will be
published in September by Yale University Press as part of its American
Icons series. Mr. Epstein taught in the Department of English at
Northwestern University for thirty years. He was the editor of The American
Scholar, the intellectual quarterly of Phi Beta Kappa, between 1974 and
1997. His essays and short stories have appeared in The New Yorker,
Commentary, The Atlantic, The Weekly Standard, The Hudson Review, and other
magazines. His work has been translated into French, Spanish, Italian,
Hebrew, Chinese, and Japanese. He is currently working on a book Houghton
Mifflin on the subject of Gossip.
It doesn't seem that a Ph.D was required, btw, and none of his works were
recommended for our 10 Best...  However, that the intellect may be limited
is a good reason to want to make a selection in life, be it one's Bucket
List or one's reading list.

What's curious is that he believes we get a better feel for reality and
human nature by reading novels ( = made up stuff).  I definitely wouldn't
want to draw conclusions too strongly about life, the intellect or the mind
that is based on the fictional behavior of fictional characters.

Thanks
Robert C

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

[lrudolph]

Nick,

That's my truth.  Deal with it.  

When one is considering how seriously to take
what someone has to say (whether that someone
be me or Joseph Epstein) on a given subject
(whether that subject be the value of Joseph
Epstein's writings or the value of a "literary
education"), it is reasonable to consider other
things that person has said, other things one
knows about that person, and so on.  Having
myself come to the conclusion that _The American
Scholar_ was a piece of shit (during at least
part of Epstein's tenure as editor), I have
good reason to conclude that he's not a very
good editor, pretty good reason (I think)
to discount what he has to say about the value
of a "literary education", and very good reason
(independent of such discounting) to conclude
that his taste and mine differ a great deal.

Now, it's fair to ask on what evidence I did
come to the conclusion that the _American Scholar_
is a piece of shit.  Actually, I am fairly sure
that anyone on this list--from what I can tell of
them by their writing alone in most cases--who
would go to the trouble of looking up some copies
of _The American Scholar_ from (at least the early
years of) Epstein's editorship would agree with
the opinion I formed of it then.  Its content was
variously pretentious, middlebrow maunderings
masquerading as High Intellectuality; *really* bad
poetry; and endless self-adoration and self-promotion
of the Society of Phi Beta Kappa.  (_Technology Review_,
the MIT alumni magazine, beat it hands down on every
count; but then it wasn't putting itself forward as
an "intellectual quarterly".)  

...It turns out that an example I keep around, of
all that was worst in _The American Scholar_, was
in fact from 1970; so I can't blame Epstein for
its appearance there.  Still, it sets the tone of
the magazine.

   When, as in our school-taught geometry, the square and the cube
   are assumed to be almost exclusively rational, other geometrical
   forms are ``interesting'' but awkward because volumetrically
   irrational.  For when the cube is taken as unity and its volume
   is one, the volume of the tetrahedron is .1179~; the octahedron
   is .4714~; the rhombic dodecahedron is .7042~; and the vector
   equilibrium is 2.3574~.  For this reason--despite Plato's
   ``solids,'' Archimedes' polyhedra, Euler's topology and Coxeter's
   comprehensive geometrical inventory--the rationally valued
   hierarchy of logically interrelated symmetrical polyhedra based
   on the tetrahedron as unity and their intimate role in the
   physical world was utterly overlooked until 1917 when I started
   exploring in the terms of the vector-edged tetrahedron as being
   the simplest structural system.  In the same year I concluded
   that nature had no separate departments of physics, chemistry,
   geology, biology, and mathematics.  I decided that she had only
   one department and one coordinate system.  Then my search for
   nature's own most economically integrated, comprehensive,
   coordinate system began thirty years ago to disclose the
   omnirational relationships I have presented here.  I concluded
   that I was not important enough to have caused nature to secrete
   these elegant omnirational, omniinterrelationships within her
   cosmic scheme just to trap me into foolishly thinking them to be
   significant and worthy of general adoption by humanity as its
   prime mensuration system.  In this system, society will have to
   learn that n^2 stands for n``triangled'' and not ``squared''; and
   that n^3 is n``tetrahedroned'' and not ``cubed''.  I call this
   comprehensively rational coordinate system ENERGETIC-SYNERGETIC
   GEOMETRY.
             --R. Buckminster Fuller, "Planetary Planning",
               _The American Scholar_, 1970

Especially notable in this passage is the truly mad jump from
"I was not important enough to have caused nature to secrete
these elegant omnirational, omniinterrelationships within her
cosmic scheme just to trap me into foolishly thinking them to be
significant and worthy of general adoption by humanity as its
prime mensuration system" to (implicitly) "therefore, they
are important and TRUE!!!1!!"

Lee

> Lee,
>
> Could you consider your rhetoric and your audience a bit before you hit
> send?  Are you trying to convince anybody of anything, or are you just
> mooning the list?  
>
> Nick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
> Of [hidden email]
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:11 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Case for a Literary Education (re 10 Best...)
>
> Re: Joseph Epstein:
>
> >He was the editor of The American
> >Scholar, the intellectual quarterly of Phi Beta Kappa, between 1974 and
> >1997.
>
> I read it during the earlier part of that span (also before he became
> editor).  It was a piece of shit, as "intellectual quarterlies"
> (or more-frequentlies) go, and I gave up on it long before the end of his
> term.  This need not mean that he was a bad editor (maybe it got a lot
> better in the 1990s), but it doesn't speak at all well for him (in my
> opinion).
>
> ============================================================
> 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

============================================================
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]

Lee,

I have no quibble with your truth, only with your rhetoric.  

' That's my truth.  Deal with it.  ' is what freshman writers want to say
when you tell them that their bared soul is incomprehensible.  To which the
only answer is, "That's fine, if you don't care to be read or understood."

If you don't care about your audience, then keep it in your diary.

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of [hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:31 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Case for a Literary Education (re 10 Best...)

Nick,

That's my truth.  Deal with it.  

When one is considering how seriously to take what someone has to say
(whether that someone be me or Joseph Epstein) on a given subject (whether
that subject be the value of Joseph Epstein's writings or the value of a
"literary education"), it is reasonable to consider other things that person
has said, other things one knows about that person, and so on.  Having
myself come to the conclusion that _The American Scholar_ was a piece of
shit (during at least part of Epstein's tenure as editor), I have good
reason to conclude that he's not a very good editor, pretty good reason (I
think) to discount what he has to say about the value of a "literary
education", and very good reason (independent of such discounting) to
conclude that his taste and mine differ a great deal.

Now, it's fair to ask on what evidence I did come to the conclusion that the
_American Scholar_ is a piece of shit.  Actually, I am fairly sure that
anyone on this list--from what I can tell of them by their writing alone in
most cases--who would go to the trouble of looking up some copies of _The
American Scholar_ from (at least the early years of) Epstein's editorship
would agree with the opinion I formed of it then.  Its content was variously
pretentious, middlebrow maunderings masquerading as High Intellectuality;
*really* bad poetry; and endless self-adoration and self-promotion of the
Society of Phi Beta Kappa.  (_Technology Review_, the MIT alumni magazine,
beat it hands down on every count; but then it wasn't putting itself forward
as an "intellectual quarterly".)  

...It turns out that an example I keep around, of all that was worst in _The
American Scholar_, was in fact from 1970; so I can't blame Epstein for its
appearance there.  Still, it sets the tone of the magazine.

   When, as in our school-taught geometry, the square and the cube
   are assumed to be almost exclusively rational, other geometrical
   forms are ``interesting'' but awkward because volumetrically
   irrational.  For when the cube is taken as unity and its volume
   is one, the volume of the tetrahedron is .1179~; the octahedron
   is .4714~; the rhombic dodecahedron is .7042~; and the vector
   equilibrium is 2.3574~.  For this reason--despite Plato's
   ``solids,'' Archimedes' polyhedra, Euler's topology and Coxeter's
   comprehensive geometrical inventory--the rationally valued
   hierarchy of logically interrelated symmetrical polyhedra based
   on the tetrahedron as unity and their intimate role in the
   physical world was utterly overlooked until 1917 when I started
   exploring in the terms of the vector-edged tetrahedron as being
   the simplest structural system.  In the same year I concluded
   that nature had no separate departments of physics, chemistry,
   geology, biology, and mathematics.  I decided that she had only
   one department and one coordinate system.  Then my search for
   nature's own most economically integrated, comprehensive,
   coordinate system began thirty years ago to disclose the
   omnirational relationships I have presented here.  I concluded
   that I was not important enough to have caused nature to secrete
   these elegant omnirational, omniinterrelationships within her
   cosmic scheme just to trap me into foolishly thinking them to be
   significant and worthy of general adoption by humanity as its
   prime mensuration system.  In this system, society will have to
   learn that n^2 stands for n``triangled'' and not ``squared''; and
   that n^3 is n``tetrahedroned'' and not ``cubed''.  I call this
   comprehensively rational coordinate system ENERGETIC-SYNERGETIC
   GEOMETRY.
             --R. Buckminster Fuller, "Planetary Planning",
               _The American Scholar_, 1970

Especially notable in this passage is the truly mad jump from "I was not
important enough to have caused nature to secrete these elegant
omnirational, omniinterrelationships within her cosmic scheme just to trap
me into foolishly thinking them to be significant and worthy of general
adoption by humanity as its prime mensuration system" to (implicitly)
"therefore, they are important and TRUE!!!1!!"

Lee

> Lee,
>
> Could you consider your rhetoric and your audience a bit before you hit
> send?  Are you trying to convince anybody of anything, or are you just
> mooning the list?  
>
> Nick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On

Behalf

> Of [hidden email]
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:11 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Case for a Literary Education (re 10 Best...)
>
> Re: Joseph Epstein:
>
> >He was the editor of The American
> >Scholar, the intellectual quarterly of Phi Beta Kappa, between 1974 and
> >1997.
>
> I read it during the earlier part of that span (also before he became
> editor).  It was a piece of shit, as "intellectual quarterlies"
> (or more-frequentlies) go, and I gave up on it long before the end of his
> term.  This need not mean that he was a bad editor (maybe it got a lot
> better in the 1990s), but it doesn't speak at all well for him (in my
> opinion).
>
> ============================================================
> 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

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

[Ted Carmichael]

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

The closest I  have ever come to shading the truth in my writing is in a
series of essays under a pseudonym in which I included examples of events
that - blush - never quite actually happened.  I rearranged "extraneous"
details to make a sharper, shorter, clearer examples.   As a writer, I felt
fine about it; as a scientist, it gnaws at me to this day.   Who am I to say
what is "extraneous"?  

I don't have an issue with this.  When we want to explain simple arithmetic to a young student, we may "make up" an example of shopping that never actually happened.  Then you show that, adding the cost of the bread, milk, and butter, you get the final total.

Now, I agree that you have to be careful as to what you leave out.  The kid may be confused if his answer never agrees with the store clerk, because you "left out" sales tax.  But that doesn't detract from the method itself - only the implementation.

You're job as a scientist is to decide what is extraneous, to help simplify the domain for non-experts. Now, making up an example and presenting it as a true anecdote may be counter-productive.  So I wouldn't suggest that.  But *any* example - even a true one - will have stuff left out.  Just like that quotation: "All models are wrong, but some are useful."  A "model" is just a general example that simplifies, by leaving stuff out.  If this extraneous stuff actually is extraneous, then the model is probably useful.

-Ted

============================================================
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]

[hidden email] wrote  circa 10/14/2010 10:31 AM:

> Having
> myself come to the conclusion that _The American
> Scholar_ was a piece of shit (during at least
> part of Epstein's tenure as editor), I have
> good reason to conclude that he's not a very
> good editor, pretty good reason (I think)
> to discount what he has to say about the value
> of a "literary education", and very good reason
> (independent of such discounting) to conclude
> that his taste and mine differ a great deal.

Saying someone's work is a piece of shit is entirely different from
saying someone's taste is different from yours or accusing the subject
of a non sequitur.  The former isn't the slightest bit constructive and,
indeed, is destructive and petulant.  The latter is, at least, somewhat
respectful in the sense that it helps the reader know that, if they like
Lee's work, then they may not like Joseph's work, indeed Joseph's work
might be a waste of time for that person.  And it's always helpful to
know where your time might be wasted.  I suppose the former is _useful_
in the sense that it decreases Lee's credibility (because he calls
things he dislikes "shit") and may, in fact, make Joseph's work more
attractive.

I'm fascinated with our tendency to fling insults back and forth at each
other, especially in these times of extreme political partisanship.
Because this discussion is about credibility, I'll say that it would be
interesting to study the extent to which "attack" or "negative"
political ads lower the credibility of their target versus when (beyond
what threshold) they actually lower the credibility of the supposed
beneficiary.  Does anyone know of any studies that target that sort of
"blowback"?

Here in Oregon, we're seeing lots of political attack ads.  For the most
part, to me, they increase the credibility of the attacked and decrease
the credibility of the attacker, just as Lee's empty comment piques my
curiosity in Joseph's work.  The more others insult the target and make
empty comments or call them names, the more I tend to think they had
something valuable to say and their opponents are just "lashing out"
with no real justification for their own position.  Those expositions
that avoid empty rhetoric and try to pinpoint, specifically, a
distinction between the attacker and the attacked, increase the
credibility of the attacker and decrease the credibility of the attacked.

In any case, it's an interesting dynamic.

--
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

[Prof David West]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:56 -0700, "glen e. p. ropella"
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'll say that it would be
> interesting to study the extent to which "attack" or "negative"
> political ads lower the credibility of their target versus when (beyond
> what threshold) they actually lower the credibility of the supposed
> beneficiary.  Does anyone know of any studies that target that sort of
> "blowback"?

Another dimension -- various watchdog groups report on the veracity of
the attack ads, and these get reported on the news occasionally.  It
would also be interesting to see if this kind of "objective reporting"
influences the degree to which people believe the attacks and/or how it
affects the relative credibility mudslinger and muddied.

davew


> ============================================================
> 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

[lrudolph]

On 14 Oct 2010 at 14:56, glen e. p. ropella wrote:

> [hidden email] wrote  circa 10/14/2010 10:31 AM:
> > Having
> > myself come to the conclusion that _The American
> > Scholar_ was a piece of shit (during at least
> > part of Epstein's tenure as editor), I have
> > good reason to conclude that he's not a very
> > good editor, pretty good reason (I think)
> > to discount what he has to say about the value
> > of a "literary education", and very good reason
> > (independent of such discounting) to conclude
> > that his taste and mine differ a great deal.
>
> Saying someone's work is a piece of shit is entirely different from
> saying someone's taste is different from yours or accusing the subject
> of a non sequitur.  The former isn't the slightest bit constructive and,
> indeed, is destructive and petulant.  

As you might suspect, I disagree with this last sentence.
(I also question the modifier "entirely" in the previous
sentence, but agree with it in general.)  Calling something
"a piece of shit" may or may not be constructive, may or may
not be destructive, and may or may not be petulant.  Certainly
calling "someone's work" "a piece of shit" is ill-mannered if
it is addressed to the person whose work it is, or to any person
the speaker has any reason to believe (as I have not) that the
person or persons addressed is emotionally bonded to in a positive
way; but even in circumstances when a given act is ill-mannered,
its position on a notional scale from "constructive" to "destructive"
is not determined (and as far as I'm concerned--though your notions
of "constructive" and "destructive" may be very different from mine--
it may not even make sense to place it anywhere on such a scale).
Further, without conditions on the subject ("someone") and the
addressee(s) (the subject or people who are positively bonded to
the subject) like those above, I don't even think that calling
"someone's work" "a pice of shit" is necessarily ill-mannered.
(If I am a Communist addressing a convention of Communist,
presumably I will not be taken to be ill-mannered--much less
"destructive" or "petulant"--if I call _Mein Kampf_ a "piece
of shit".)  Of course calling something "a piece of shit"
is a (somewhat strong) way of expressing an emotional attitude
towards it; so?  Expressing such attitudes isn't _per se_
"petulant" (nor praiseworthy, nor this that or the other);
but it's part and parcel of everyday communication in every
medium, first and foremost face-to-face speech.

> The latter is, at least, somewhat
> respectful in the sense that it helps the reader know that, if they like
> Lee's work, then they may not like Joseph's work, indeed Joseph's work
> might be a waste of time for that person.  And it's always helpful to
> know where your time might be wasted.  

"Respectful" to whom?  I will assent to these last two sentences
with the words "is, at least, somewhat respectful in the sense that"
stricken: "The latter" (A. calling X. "a piece of shit" in a
communication with "the reader") does indeed "help the reader know"
what A. thinks and feels about X., and thereby (depending on "the
reader"'s previous knowledge about A., and *possibly* about X.)
can "help the reader" assess and possibly modify his or her
thoughts and feelings about X. (and A.).  Again, this is a very
usual part of everyday communication.  

> I suppose the former is _useful_
> in the sense that it decreases Lee's credibility (because he calls
> things he dislikes "shit") and may, in fact, make Joseph's work more
> attractive.

Why in the world should my calling things I dislike "shit"
decrease my credibility?  I don't see this at all (obviously).
I use language to express emotion (sometimes), to present
detailed reasoned arguments (sometimes), and to do both at
once (most of the time); so do we all (unless we are a certain
kind of fictional character with pointed ears, or the like).
Again, so?

> I'm fascinated with our tendency to fling insults back and forth at each
> other,

I flang (flung? flinged?) no insult at anyone here (unless
perhaps Epstein is lurking), nor for that matter am I aware
of any insult having been flung back at me (if you've intended
to insult me, please excuse my failure to be insulted; I will
try to do better in the future).  Maybe Nick's mistakenly
list-posted phrase "mooning the group" was a bit petulant...

Certainly I insulted Epstein.  I meant to.  I don't see
why I *shouldn't* have meant to; or why, meaning to, I
should have refrained from doing so.  The quoted material
on him was (not by the listmember quoting it, presumably,
but by its author the blurb-writer) intended to exalt
Epstein.  Exaltation, insult...all part of the day's work.

> especially in these times of extreme political partisanship.
> Because this discussion is about credibility,

It is?  Okay, I guess it became about credibility when I
claimed (without any expansion or documentation--the horror!
--until my later post) that Epstein's credibility on the
question "is a 'literary education' a Good Thing?" is
diminished by his having presided over a sterling example
of Bad Literary Publishing.  But it's really you who have
(now) made "this discussion about credibility".  So, if
you are willing, I invite to describe or define your
notion of "credibility", how it functions in communication,
and so on.  I do think it's potentially interesting (and
it seems clear that what you mean by it is not what I
think I'd mean by it, if I were pressed to accept the
invitation I just gave you.  

> I'll say that it would be
> interesting to study the extent to which "attack" or "negative"
> political ads lower the credibility of their target versus when (beyond
> what threshold) they actually lower the credibility of the supposed
> beneficiary.  Does anyone know of any studies that target that sort of
> "blowback"?
>
> Here in Oregon, we're seeing lots of political attack ads.  For the most
> part, to me, they increase the credibility of the attacked and decrease
> the credibility of the attacker, just as Lee's empty comment piques my
> curiosity in Joseph's work.  The more others insult the target and make
> empty comments or call them names, the more I tend to think they had
> something valuable to say and their opponents are just "lashing out"
> with no real justification for their own position.  Those expositions
> that avoid empty rhetoric and try to pinpoint, specifically, a
> distinction between the attacker and the attacked, increase the
> credibility of the attacker and decrease the credibility of the attacked.
>
> In any case, it's an interesting dynamic.

A distinct and (I think) very important difference between
advertisements (political or not) and conversations (including
asynchronous ones on mailing lists) is that advertisements are
all push, no pull.  This suggests (I think correctly) that any
such dynamic as you identify in advertisements is very unlikely
to exist in the same (or even a highly similar) way in conversations.
I'm more interested in the case of conversations but I understand
that many people are interested in advertisements too.

============================================================
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]

If you look at poling figures in realclearpolitics.com you can see the
effect of extensive advertising on the public.  Assume that everybody is
using negative adds in the last two weeks.  Watch the curves move.

The conventional wisdom is that negative advertising drags the shooter down
with the target, but that it drags the target down more.  

Don't know if its true.

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 3:56 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Case for a Literary Education (re 10 Best...)

[hidden email] wrote  circa 10/14/2010 10:31 AM:
> Having
> myself come to the conclusion that _The American Scholar_ was a piece
> of shit (during at least part of Epstein's tenure as editor), I have
> good reason to conclude that he's not a very good editor, pretty good
> reason (I think) to discount what he has to say about the value of a
> "literary education", and very good reason (independent of such
> discounting) to conclude that his taste and mine differ a great deal.

Saying someone's work is a piece of shit is entirely different from saying
someone's taste is different from yours or accusing the subject of a non
sequitur.  The former isn't the slightest bit constructive and, indeed, is
destructive and petulant.  The latter is, at least, somewhat respectful in
the sense that it helps the reader know that, if they like Lee's work, then
they may not like Joseph's work, indeed Joseph's work might be a waste of
time for that person.  And it's always helpful to know where your time might
be wasted.  I suppose the former is _useful_ in the sense that it decreases
Lee's credibility (because he calls things he dislikes "shit") and may, in
fact, make Joseph's work more attractive.

I'm fascinated with our tendency to fling insults back and forth at each
other, especially in these times of extreme political partisanship.
Because this discussion is about credibility, I'll say that it would be
interesting to study the extent to which "attack" or "negative"
political ads lower the credibility of their target versus when (beyond what
threshold) they actually lower the credibility of the supposed beneficiary.
Does anyone know of any studies that target that sort of "blowback"?

Here in Oregon, we're seeing lots of political attack ads.  For the most
part, to me, they increase the credibility of the attacked and decrease the
credibility of the attacker, just as Lee's empty comment piques my curiosity
in Joseph's work.  The more others insult the target and make empty comments
or call them names, the more I tend to think they had something valuable to
say and their opponents are just "lashing out"
with no real justification for their own position.  Those expositions that
avoid empty rhetoric and try to pinpoint, specifically, a distinction
between the attacker and the attacked, increase the credibility of the
attacker and decrease the credibility of the attacked.

In any case, it's an interesting dynamic.

--
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

[Grant Holland]

We could do worse than revisit the essays of John Henry Newman on "a liberal education". Here, for example, is Discourse #5 from The Idea of a University.

Grant

On 10/14/2010 6:42 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

If you look at poling figures in realclearpolitics.com you can see the
effect of extensive advertising on the public.  Assume that everybody is
using negative adds in the last two weeks.  Watch the curves move. 

The conventional wisdom is that negative advertising drags the shooter down
with the target, but that it drags the target down more.   

Don't know if its true. 

Nick 

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 3:56 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Case for a Literary Education (re 10 Best...)

[hidden email] wrote  circa 10/14/2010 10:31 AM:

Having
myself come to the conclusion that _The American Scholar_ was a piece 
of shit (during at least part of Epstein's tenure as editor), I have 
good reason to conclude that he's not a very good editor, pretty good 
reason (I think) to discount what he has to say about the value of a 
"literary education", and very good reason (independent of such 
discounting) to conclude that his taste and mine differ a great deal.

Saying someone's work is a piece of shit is entirely different from saying
someone's taste is different from yours or accusing the subject of a non
sequitur.  The former isn't the slightest bit constructive and, indeed, is
destructive and petulant.  The latter is, at least, somewhat respectful in
the sense that it helps the reader know that, if they like Lee's work, then
they may not like Joseph's work, indeed Joseph's work might be a waste of
time for that person.  And it's always helpful to know where your time might
be wasted.  I suppose the former is _useful_ in the sense that it decreases
Lee's credibility (because he calls things he dislikes "shit") and may, in
fact, make Joseph's work more attractive.

I'm fascinated with our tendency to fling insults back and forth at each
other, especially in these times of extreme political partisanship.
Because this discussion is about credibility, I'll say that it would be
interesting to study the extent to which "attack" or "negative"
political ads lower the credibility of their target versus when (beyond what
threshold) they actually lower the credibility of the supposed beneficiary.
Does anyone know of any studies that target that sort of "blowback"?

Here in Oregon, we're seeing lots of political attack ads.  For the most
part, to me, they increase the credibility of the attacked and decrease the
credibility of the attacker, just as Lee's empty comment piques my curiosity
in Joseph's work.  The more others insult the target and make empty comments
or call them names, the more I tend to think they had something valuable to
say and their opponents are just "lashing out"
with no real justification for their own position.  Those expositions that
avoid empty rhetoric and try to pinpoint, specifically, a distinction
between the attacker and the attacked, increase the credibility of the
attacker and decrease the credibility of the attacked.

In any case, it's an interesting dynamic.

--
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

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

[Vladimyr Burachynsky]

To the Group and Glen,
"Saying someone's work is a piece of shit..."

Very profound I think, let me explain. Lately I have been watching a lot of
American News and one character seems to show up repeatedly for unknown
reasons. Anne Coulter.

I find her discussions and arguments illogical and without any point that
makes sense. She often fails to complete a sentence. I am however fascinated
with the character she portrays.
I muted my television one evening for whatever reason and focused on the
scrolling banner. Then I noticed Miss Coulter and her animated body
language. She would repeat certain gestures in highly structured manner.
Inevitably she would make a "Stinky Face" whenever the opposition stopped
talking.(For that matter she made them regularly while the opposition was
talking) The Camera moved quickly to capture the "Stinky Face" then a flip
of the hair and a down ward eye cast and a bit of a snear. I was fascinated.
She defeated her opponent in a debate simply by making "Stinky Faces" and
never making sense verbally. She would drown out her opponents at other
times when the camera was focused on the opposition, so they could not be
heard and then with a coup de grace she would make that "Stinky face" again
followed by the Haughty aristocratic look of contempt. She debates with body
gestures to control the camera angle.That is all that represents a
victory.Simply to have the camera aimed at her.

Anne Coulter wins debates before a camera by Body gestures. Indeed she is
repeatedly "Saying someone's work is a piece of shit" without uttering a
word. It works! You can defeat any statement by "Saying someone's work is a
piece of shit" It is not a last resort but the first tool and now that I
watch political debates without sound, I realize why Americans are acting
like idiots. Everyone one debates sub vocally by condemning eachother
"Saying someone's work is a piece of shit"

Television has ruined discourse, thank god for the mute button. I love
watching Anne Coulter I swear we could analyze her body gestures and come to
some fascinating conclusions about the superior communication style she is
hailed as representing. "Saying someone's work is a piece of shit" is the
new standard.

So in the realm of this chat group we are devoid of the "Stinky Face Weapon"
so we are left with actually writing it down for everyone to see what we
mean. If someone handed me a piece of meat on the veldt and another made
that face I might not actually enjoy the gift.
Debates are becoming increasingly unruly and that women's show the Veiw is
simply the lowest form of human discourse I have ever witnessed. I just mute
it and have a great chuckle at what is really becoming the defining
attribute of modern communication skills.

I have been fascinated by a similarity of body gestures of Muslim clerics
versus American fundamentalist preachers. I have not worked out those
details but will let you know what I learn.

So just what does it mean to be "Credible" when it can be dismantled as
easily as making a "Stinky Face" or "Saying someone's work is a piece of
shit"? Credibility is very fragile and delicate.




 
 
Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky
Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)
 
120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.
Winnipeg, Manitoba
CANADA R2J 3R2
(204) 2548321  Phone/Fax
[hidden email]
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: October 14, 2010 4:56 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Case for a Literary Education (re 10 Best...)

[hidden email] wrote  circa 10/14/2010 10:31 AM:

> Having
> myself come to the conclusion that _The American
> Scholar_ was a piece of shit (during at least
> part of Epstein's tenure as editor), I have
> good reason to conclude that he's not a very
> good editor, pretty good reason (I think)
> to discount what he has to say about the value
> of a "literary education", and very good reason
> (independent of such discounting) to conclude
> that his taste and mine differ a great deal.

Saying someone's work is a piece of shit is entirely different from
saying someone's taste is different from yours or accusing the subject
of a non sequitur.  The former isn't the slightest bit constructive and,
indeed, is destructive and petulant.  The latter is, at least, somewhat
respectful in the sense that it helps the reader know that, if they like
Lee's work, then they may not like Joseph's work, indeed Joseph's work
might be a waste of time for that person.  And it's always helpful to
know where your time might be wasted.  I suppose the former is _useful_
in the sense that it decreases Lee's credibility (because he calls
things he dislikes "shit") and may, in fact, make Joseph's work more
attractive.

I'm fascinated with our tendency to fling insults back and forth at each
other, especially in these times of extreme political partisanship.
Because this discussion is about credibility, I'll say that it would be
interesting to study the extent to which "attack" or "negative"
political ads lower the credibility of their target versus when (beyond
what threshold) they actually lower the credibility of the supposed
beneficiary.  Does anyone know of any studies that target that sort of
"blowback"?

Here in Oregon, we're seeing lots of political attack ads.  For the most
part, to me, they increase the credibility of the attacked and decrease
the credibility of the attacker, just as Lee's empty comment piques my
curiosity in Joseph's work.  The more others insult the target and make
empty comments or call them names, the more I tend to think they had
something valuable to say and their opponents are just "lashing out"
with no real justification for their own position.  Those expositions
that avoid empty rhetoric and try to pinpoint, specifically, a
distinction between the attacker and the attacked, increase the
credibility of the attacker and decrease the credibility of the attacked.

In any case, it's an interesting dynamic.

--
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

[glen e. p. ropella-2]

Prof David West wrote circa 10-10-14 03:06 PM:
> Another dimension -- various watchdog groups report on the veracity
> of the attack ads, and these get reported on the news occasionally.
> It would also be interesting to see if this kind of "objective
> reporting" influences the degree to which people believe the attacks
> and/or how it affects the relative credibility mudslinger and
> muddied.

Yes, definitely.  I often see (repeated) references to factcheck.org and
such in various political forums.  But it never seems to make much
difference.  And I wonder how one would test this sort of thing.  I have
seen the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Yale/Santa Clara experiments
on torture.  It seemed in those cases like the accredited people in the
white lab coats had a pretty big influence.  But those involve heavy
face-to-face influence.  It seems like there are two sides to the coin.
 One side is: "You can't believe anything you read."  And the other side
is: "You shouldn't believe everything you read."

"Facts" are abstract, noetic things and seem to have little influence
compared to the visceral presence of an authority figure.  Perhaps this
is also related to the blurring between personal and national finances
and the ascription of the former to the latter.

I heard a radio program this morning talking about how some politician
somewhere believes homosexuality is a choice.  The program subsequently
played some "man-in-the-street" interviews of people asking them if they
thought homosexuality was a choice.  Of those that said they thought it
was a choice, a follow-up question was: "When did you choose to be a
heterosexual?"  You could _hear_ the wood burning as they worked out
their intellectual conflict.  But many of them actually talked out their
answer... it was as if them hearing their own progression of
proto-answers lead them in a direction.  My inference is that the
feedback loop of speaking and listening to yourself is a (at least one)
way to knead contradiction out of your ideological position.

It's less clear how abstract "facts" would help and more clear how being
forced to _act_ and _sense_ hammers it out.



[hidden email] wrote circa 10-10-14 04:28 PM:
> On 14 Oct 2010 at 14:56, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
>
>> I suppose the former is _useful_ in the sense that it decreases
>> Lee's credibility (because he calls things he dislikes "shit") and
>> may, in fact, make Joseph's work more attractive.
>
> Why in the world should my calling things I dislike "shit"
> decrease my credibility?

Excellent question!  I can't really answer for others, short of doing
the research Nick suggests (attempting to explain why negative ads drag
the shooter down, albeit less down than the shot).  But for myself, I
see explanatory statements as the minimum of respect.  For example, in
your first response, you merely called that periodical a piece of shit
during some overlap of Epstein's tenure editing it.  But in your second
response, you gave a partial explanation by pointing out an apparent non
sequitur.  Even though merely pointing out that non sequitur is not very
explanatory, it's at least _some_ finer detail.

That finer detail is what I typically think of as "constructive"
criticism.  It's something the author might be able to use to make
future product better.

Those of us who continually offer opaque comments like "it's a piece of
shit" without significant hints as to how to improve the work
(regardless of whether the producer is in the audience or not) are less
credible than those who offer such hints.

However, it's important to separate out a simple "X is useful as a
collaborator or sounding board" versus "X is credible".  There are lots
of examples of people being constructive without increasing their
credibility.  So, what I say above is necessary (for me) but not sufficient.

The _character_ of the finer grained explanations also have to carry
some density or depth.  For me, this tends to show up when a critic
shows that they've read what I've written "with empathy", i.e. they
spent enough time reading and thinking for their criticism to target
what I'm actually talking about rather than whatever convenient basin of
attraction their mind might have been in at the time they read it.

Such deeper/denser criticism increases the credibility of the critic.
And empty, useless criticism decreases the credibility of the critic.

Your first response was empty; hence it decreases your credibility.
Your second response, identifying the non sequitur, increased your
credibility, somewhat, but only in proportion to the density of that
criticism.  Merely identifying a non sequitur isn't very deep; but at
least it's something.

>> Because this discussion is about credibility,
>
> So, if you are willing, I invite to describe or define your notion of
> "credibility", how it functions in communication, and so on. I do
> think it's potentially interesting (and it seems clear that what you
> mean by it is not what I think I'd mean by it, if I were pressed to
> accept the invitation I just gave you.

Well, I provided some of that in a previous post in this thread.

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.region.new-mexico.santa-fe.friam/13725

If that's inadequate, which it likely is, I can throw more words at it.

> A distinct and (I think) very important difference between
> advertisements (political or not) and conversations (including
> asynchronous ones on mailing lists) is that advertisements are
> all push, no pull.  This suggests (I think correctly) that any
> such dynamic as you identify in advertisements is very unlikely
> to exist in the same (or even a highly similar) way in conversations.
> I'm more interested in the case of conversations but I understand
> that many people are interested in advertisements too.

I'm not sure there is such a stark distinction between push media like
TV or newspapers or, even, books.  Being naive, I tend to think others
are like me.  When I watch TV or read something with no opportunity to
talk back, I have this (these?) little voice(s) in my head that
continually comments on what I'm reading/seeing.  Sometimes I even write
down what that voice says.  This is why I typically buy (important)
books rather than check them out from the library.  I tend to write in
the margins... in pencil... but still. ;-)

The "conversation" in such contexts isn't with the author so much as it
is with myself, my future self, and anyone who happens to tolerate later
discussions around a pint at the pub.  I've even been known to bring
some of my annotated papers and books _back_ after a thorny conversation
at the pub.

So, although I agree with you that these negative ads are push with
little chance for feedback, I still think they are part of a larger
"conversation".



Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 10-10-14 05:42 PM:

> If you look at poling figures in realclearpolitics.com you can see
> the effect of extensive advertising on the public. Assume that
> everybody is using negative adds in the last two weeks. Watch the
> curves move.
>
> The conventional wisdom is that negative advertising drags the
> shooter down with the target, but that it drags the target down
> more.
>
> Don't know if its true.

There must be some data somewhere on this sort of thing.  Perhaps this
is an effect of, or at least related to, the rise of electronic media?
I know there are studies of abstraction (e.g. anonymity) and the
tendency for abstraction to allow (or even reward) insults, harsh empty
rhetoric, etc.  In what sort of scientific journal would this sort of
thing be published?  "Journal of Sociology"?  Psychology?  Or is it one
of those (suspect) domains of "new media" or somesuch?

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-10-15 01:06 PM:
> now that I watch political debates without sound, I realize why
> Americans are acting like idiots. Everyone one debates sub vocally by
> condemning eachother "Saying someone's work is a piece of shit"
>
> Television has ruined discourse, thank god for the mute button. I love
> watching Anne Coulter I swear we could analyze her body gestures and come to
> some fascinating conclusions about the superior communication style she is
> hailed as representing. "Saying someone's work is a piece of shit" is the
> new standard.

Hm.  My knee-jerk reaction is to agree with you wholeheartedly.  But
because I couldn't reply immediately, I had time to think it over.  (How
appropriate, eh? ;-)  It seems to me that you're right in saying that
modern communication skills are somehow different from those of the
past.  Abstracting media like Facebook or TV definitely change the way
we communicate.  But I'm not sure it's reflective of idiocy or that it's
_ruined_ discourse.  Perhaps it's just changed it and older people will
see the change more negatively than younger people?

The idea of Ann Coulter as a highly skilled performance artist is
repulsive to me; but I'm open-minded enough to consider it.  (You know
what they say:  "If you're mind is too closed, nothing gets in.  If
you're mind's too open, nothing stays in.")  Of course, those of us
steeped in the old ways are going to look at the new ways as foreign...
those of us with the ability/energy will give constructive commentary
and may even try to engage.  Those of us without such ability/energy
will just yell "You kids!  Get off my lawn!" and return to whatever it
was we'd been doing for the last hundred years.

I tend to think, however, that what you're talking about is a very old
trick practiced by confidence men and gurus everywhere.  The judicious
use and interpretation of body language is probably of the same genus as
baring one's teeth, pounding one's chest, or puffing out your fur.
We've been doing it as long as we've had eyeballs.  That Ann Coulter
succeeds in her confidence trick is the amazing part to me, just as it
is amazing that people get away with flat out calling other peoples'
work "shit" or calling other people "idiots".

That Vizzini line from The Princess Bride comes to mind:

   "Have you ever heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates?  ... Morons!"

That statement clearly lowers Vizzini's credibility more than it would
ever lower the credibility of Plato, Aristotle, or Socrates. ;-)

> I have been fascinated by a similarity of body gestures of Muslim clerics
> versus American fundamentalist preachers. I have not worked out those
> details but will let you know what I learn.

Interesting!  I used to love listening to preachers on the radio.  In
some ways, probably because our ears are such fine-grained devices,
oration is more powerful than body language.  But I'd never really
thought of watching for similar tricks in TV preachers.  Of course,
listening to a voice on the radio is powerful for the same reasons
reading can be more powerful than movies.  Your mind has more freedom to
fill in the blanks.  Of course, it also has more freedom to be critical
of what's actually there, only what's observable.  As with the fiction
vs. fact part of the thread earlier, what we do with our mind _while_
engaged in the reading, TV watching, radio listening, or during a
conversation is what determines what we take home from such things.  I
think the same is probably true of e-mail and Facebook.

> So just what does it mean to be "Credible" when it can be dismantled as
> easily as making a "Stinky Face" or "Saying someone's work is a piece of
> shit"? Credibility is very fragile and delicate.

I lean toward critical rationalism (Popperian falsifiability).
Credibility comes at the _end_ of our evaluation, not at the beginning.
 It's become important to me to let anyone bring any idea or any object
to the table with as little pre-judice as possible.  Anything is allowed
to enter the competition.  It's what comes out the other end that
matters.  So, for me, credibility doesn't come at the _start_ of
anything.  It only builds (or degrades) over time and through effort....
at least that's what I like to _think_. ;-)

--
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

[Steve Smith]

I must have skipped this post when it first came by, but upon reading it
I wanted to alert folks here to an interesting project at NYU called the
Green Dot project.
      http://movement.nyu.edu/GreenDot/

My posting here is in response to  Vlad's references to Anne Coulter's
(apparently) highly effective body language.

I met Green Dot project member Peggy Hackney of the Integrated Movement
Studies ( http://www.imsmovement.com/index.php/faculty/ ) program when I
was seeking to understand how to analyze human posture for collaborative
decision making systems.  She is an expert in Bartlieneff and Laban
Motion Analysis.

What is interesting (or at least relevant) to Vlad's analysis of Anne
Coulter here is that the Green Dot system might very well be trainable
on the mannerisms Anne Coulter (apparently, as I don't know I've ever
seen her in action) uses to say that someone's work or words is "a piece
of shit" and perhaps find more of the same.

In my general interest in what kinds of tools might let the unwashed
masses (like myself) see through the charades of politicians and pundits
alike, I'm intrigued.

  - Steve

On 10/15/10 2:06 PM, Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote:

> To the Group and Glen,
> "Saying someone's work is a piece of shit..."
>
> Very profound I think, let me explain. Lately I have been watching a lot of
> American News and one character seems to show up repeatedly for unknown
> reasons. Anne Coulter.
>
> I find her discussions and arguments illogical and without any point that
> makes sense. She often fails to complete a sentence. I am however fascinated
> with the character she portrays.
> I muted my television one evening for whatever reason and focused on the
> scrolling banner. Then I noticed Miss Coulter and her animated body
> language. She would repeat certain gestures in highly structured manner.
> Inevitably she would make a "Stinky Face" whenever the opposition stopped
> talking.(For that matter she made them regularly while the opposition was
> talking) The Camera moved quickly to capture the "Stinky Face" then a flip
> of the hair and a down ward eye cast and a bit of a snear. I was fascinated.
> She defeated her opponent in a debate simply by making "Stinky Faces" and
> never making sense verbally. She would drown out her opponents at other
> times when the camera was focused on the opposition, so they could not be
> heard and then with a coup de grace she would make that "Stinky face" again
> followed by the Haughty aristocratic look of contempt. She debates with body
> gestures to control the camera angle.That is all that represents a
> victory.Simply to have the camera aimed at her.
>
> Anne Coulter wins debates before a camera by Body gestures. Indeed she is
> repeatedly "Saying someone's work is a piece of shit" without uttering a
> word. It works! You can defeat any statement by "Saying someone's work is a
> piece of shit" It is not a last resort but the first tool and now that I
> watch political debates without sound, I realize why Americans are acting
> like idiots. Everyone one debates sub vocally by condemning eachother
> "Saying someone's work is a piece of shit"
>
> Television has ruined discourse, thank god for the mute button. I love
> watching Anne Coulter I swear we could analyze her body gestures and come to
> some fascinating conclusions about the superior communication style she is
> hailed as representing. "Saying someone's work is a piece of shit" is the
> new standard.
>
> So in the realm of this chat group we are devoid of the "Stinky Face Weapon"
> so we are left with actually writing it down for everyone to see what we
> mean. If someone handed me a piece of meat on the veldt and another made
> that face I might not actually enjoy the gift.
> Debates are becoming increasingly unruly and that women's show the Veiw is
> simply the lowest form of human discourse I have ever witnessed. I just mute
> it and have a great chuckle at what is really becoming the defining
> attribute of modern communication skills.
>
> I have been fascinated by a similarity of body gestures of Muslim clerics
> versus American fundamentalist preachers. I have not worked out those
> details but will let you know what I learn.
>
> So just what does it mean to be "Credible" when it can be dismantled as
> easily as making a "Stinky Face" or "Saying someone's work is a piece of
> shit"? Credibility is very fragile and delicate.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky
> Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)
>
> 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.
> Winnipeg, Manitoba
> CANADA R2J 3R2
> (204) 2548321  Phone/Fax
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
> Of glen e. p. ropella
> Sent: October 14, 2010 4:56 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Case for a Literary Education (re 10 Best...)
>
> [hidden email] wrote  circa 10/14/2010 10:31 AM:
>> Having
>> myself come to the conclusion that _The American
>> Scholar_ was a piece of shit (during at least
>> part of Epstein's tenure as editor), I have
>> good reason to conclude that he's not a very
>> good editor, pretty good reason (I think)
>> to discount what he has to say about the value
>> of a "literary education", and very good reason
>> (independent of such discounting) to conclude
>> that his taste and mine differ a great deal.
> Saying someone's work is a piece of shit is entirely different from
> saying someone's taste is different from yours or accusing the subject
> of a non sequitur.  The former isn't the slightest bit constructive and,
> indeed, is destructive and petulant.  The latter is, at least, somewhat
> respectful in the sense that it helps the reader know that, if they like
> Lee's work, then they may not like Joseph's work, indeed Joseph's work
> might be a waste of time for that person.  And it's always helpful to
> know where your time might be wasted.  I suppose the former is _useful_
> in the sense that it decreases Lee's credibility (because he calls
> things he dislikes "shit") and may, in fact, make Joseph's work more
> attractive.
>
> I'm fascinated with our tendency to fling insults back and forth at each
> other, especially in these times of extreme political partisanship.
> Because this discussion is about credibility, I'll say that it would be
> interesting to study the extent to which "attack" or "negative"
> political ads lower the credibility of their target versus when (beyond
> what threshold) they actually lower the credibility of the supposed
> beneficiary.  Does anyone know of any studies that target that sort of
> "blowback"?
>
> Here in Oregon, we're seeing lots of political attack ads.  For the most
> part, to me, they increase the credibility of the attacked and decrease
> the credibility of the attacker, just as Lee's empty comment piques my
> curiosity in Joseph's work.  The more others insult the target and make
> empty comments or call them names, the more I tend to think they had
> something valuable to say and their opponents are just "lashing out"
> with no real justification for their own position.  Those expositions
> that avoid empty rhetoric and try to pinpoint, specifically, a
> distinction between the attacker and the attacked, increase the
> credibility of the attacker and decrease the credibility of the attacked.
>
> In any case, it's an interesting dynamic.
>

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