Marcus, Hmmm! This communication is a case in point. You hear me to say something like .... forgive the hyperbole ... I have to know whether Marcus's father flogged him with wet noodles before I can understand what he means by his views on writing in forums and listservs. But that is not what I meant to say. I meant to say that language is always ambiguous and that you have to build a big picture of what is being said out of the little words that are offered you. Before you responded to my message, you built a model of my mind. I would say you built the wrong model, although (at the risk of drawing Russ back to this argument) we might bring evidence to bear and argue that point. In short, we held different models of my mind, and it led to a misunderstanding.
If one tries to be aware of the different models that might be built on the same words, it helps to make a conversation more fruitful, I believe. If one has read some history of thinking on the subject, one has more potential models available to apply to any utterance. One is more likely to understand what the speaker meant. I thought the comment on the New Criticism was interesting, but I am not sure it's relevant here. Literature is not designed to inform in the same way that I assume [hmmmm!] postings to this list are designed to inform. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([email protected]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: Marcus G. Daniels <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > Date: 9/15/2009 3:40:14 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] comm. (was Re: FW: Re:Emergence Seminar--BritishEmergence) > > 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 ============================================================ 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
