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 vbur...@shaw.ca -----Original Message----- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] 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...) lrudo...@meganet.net 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