>
> I'm comfortable with detailed criticism and familiar with the strange
> activity patterns of online forums. What disturbed me was the notion that
> knowledge, discussion or inquiry without immediate, direct application is
> undesirable. I find such a stance shortsighted, to say the least, and was
> taken aback that it seemed to be able to survive in intelligent, educated,
> experienced minds. Human knowledge is a vast web that only occasionally
> supports application, but it needs the whole web (well, most of it) to
carry
> the weight of need and use in such instances. Frequently, it's impossible
> to tell ahead of time which strands may take up the weight years later.
>
> I lumped a post of yours (Glen) with some others in my rant, because it
> seemed to support said stance by casting the unused as unreal, and hence
--
> in my mind, at the time -- unsuitable for discussion. That was probably
an
> unfair interpretation.
>
> Steve mentions good-natured ribbing among friends; this is valid and I'm
> aware that a large part of the FRIAM membership has face-to-face
interaction
> and enjoys a consequent sense of social awareness and cohesion that may
cast
> conversations in a different light. I should probably be more sensitive
to
> this.
>
> No need for saccharine, only respect for a sincere desire to know, to
> understand and to share insight. It underpins all human achievement and
it
> riles me to see it trivialised.
>
> Having said that, it is also true that capable minds and the bandwidth
that
> connects them are valuable resources. I acknowledge that signal-to-noise
> ratio and opportunity cost become relevant at some point and that opinion
on
> optimal focus, volume and quality may differ.
>
> Rikus
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "glen e. p. ropella" <
[hidden email]>
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 7:22 PM
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
<
[hidden email]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Criticism and feedback (was Re: Theory and practice)
>
> Thus spake Rikus Combrinck circa 09-10-11 01:53 PM:
> > What the hell? [...]
> > If there is the possibility of
> > additional insight, any insight, how about some applause when people
spend
> > their own resources to advance their understanding, and share it for
free
> > as
> > they go!
>
> Well, the thing you might be missing is that detailed criticism _is_
> applause in scientific circles. Online media are difficult to
> understand. Detailed criticism is usually a sign of _respect_ and
> should be interpreted as an "atta boy". But ignoring someone's post is
> NOT a secret message for that person to stop contributing. Sometimes,
> the impact of a post is quite large even if there is no response. These
> things are occult. But one thing is for sure, if a person takes the
> time to actually read and respond to what you've written, then it is a
> sign of RESPECT, even if (or perhaps especially if) the response is very
> critical.
>
> Now, while I agree that self-indulgent mocking in the form of "Oh no,
> not again", without any detailed criticism is bad form (because it's
> mostly useless), I don't think we need saccharine back-patting. But
> then again, I've been accused of total failure in my attempts to
> encourage people after doing a good job. ;-) So, what do I know?
>
> --
> 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