Trying out some automatic spell checking so if I frell(sp?) any of the
previous post, my apologies.
--- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><snip>
>
>> Essentially we seem to agree on the facts and how
>> things have played out. What
>> we disagree on was the appropriateness of the actions
>> that were taken concerning "spin".
>>
>> As such I would like to continue and focus more closely
>> on this part, if you don't mind.
>
><rubs hands together gleefully>
>Talking about talking? Oh, goody!
>
>> What I find amazing is that I am always on the
>> other side of this dichotomy
>> when it comes to person-to-person communication.
>
>You touched upon this in an earlier post.
>
>> At times I wish people would just get the Gist of
>> what I or others mean and not
>> pick apart the details which are often due to
>> misspeaking. It's not always
>> that one doesn�t know sometimes, one might just pull
>> out the wrong words.
>
>What I notice about email, as much as I enjoy the
>List, is that as _conversation_ it is lacking ~1/4+ (I
>am _so_ guessing this figure!)
I keep hearing %70 but I also work with an anthropological linguist who says
this figure is ridiculous and depends greatly on culture. There is also a lot
of blabbing about how every culture has the same non-verbal signals for the
same thing, and while this is true to some extent it is not by any means
universal. Sorry, just providing a difference in _opinion_, finding
supporting evidence is left as an exercise for the reader.
>of the communication
>that occurs in face-to-face interactions. Body
>language, facial expression and tone-of-voice can
>enhance, reinforce, shade/nuance, and even reverse or
>negate the words spoken.
There are many who do not necessarily fit the same mold. Algonquin men for
instance can use very little body language when speaking among friends in
agreement, but can show �exaggerated� body language when only very slight
disagreement.
Those who have Autism or the milder form Asbergers(sp?) typically do not have
the right mental mapping for body language. These people find it difficult to
understand body language and so typically ignore it. They can also exhibit
the absolute wrong body language for how they feel or what they are thinking.
On the other hand many with this type of brain are quite good at reading
people. Anecdotally, with friends who are like this, they seem to also
constantly and evenly appear slightly annoyed. Once again anecdotally, the
one body stance which has the highest probability to work in every situation.
If you are going to have one expression, you have to choose one you are going
to get the most out of.
Many Dyslexics (such as myself) are very good at �reading people� only, not
while they themselves are talking. I can tell you my hypothesis on what I am
doing. I am trying to process my thoughts into language and that is the same
system I use to read body language. The system I would use to process
language most likely developed early and was coded for some other task (most
likely visual processing) <off the top of my head here so� Annals of Dyslexia
�march 99???? Or so->. Anyway, whatever the reason, I can�t do both at the
same time. If someone makes an exaggerated expression then I stop translating
thoughts to words, loose my place, and have to reset to get back. Like an old
VCR that when you hit pause and then play it has to rewind a bit and start
over before the pause. It is important for me to note here that I can very
easily talk and perform motor functions or logical processing at the same
time. The cerebellar(sp?) dysfunction hypothesis popular in the early 90s is
now known to not be the case. < Ramus(sp?), Franck et.al. (2002) The
relationship between motor control and phonology in dyslexic children.>
>Emotions are a pale shadow
>of this vibrant non-verbal signaling. For me
>especially, both by nature (I have 'always' been
>empathic) and training (observation is vital to
>medical personnel), this void hampers my ability to
>understand what is actually *meant* rather than just
>what is being *written.*
So do you naturally try to read in and fill the gap between the written word
and the �to coin and acronym- NVS (non-verbal signaling)? Do you try and
imagine what the NVS would be? Do you try and read between the lines on an
emotional level?
>And of course reading posts while sleep-deprived or
>stressed-out doesn't help either. :P
>
>Somewhat tangentially: regarding your
>'opposite-sidedness' in person-to-person
>communication: how are you at interpreting the
>desires/intentions/forthcoming actions of domestic
>animals (dogs, cats etc.), whose communication is of
>course totally non-verbal? (but not non-vocal) Or
>getting them to understand yours?
It is xcellent, as long as I am not trying to explain something or write
something at the same time.
>> At the same time, I hold no negative assessment of Bush
>> et. al. for spinning as I
>> see spinning a requirement to communicate with and
>> persuade the American
>> public. The emergent properties of this appears
>> contradictory. "Listen to
>> what I mean not what I say" "Listen to what I say
>> not what it sounds like I
>> mean". The key to the difference is in the use of
>> logic and recognizing
>> mistakes rather than recognizing spin.
>
>As you said earlier, many people seem to be too lazy,
>distracted or uncritical of what they hear and read.
>I don't know how to correct that except by teaching
>critical thinking in school (I suppose some private
>schools do this). So one question is, should our
>government look upon its constituency as PT Barnum
>would, or as sheep to be led, or wolves who are
>content to follow-the-leaders but might turn upon them
>and tear them up if sufficiently angered?
And my answer to this is that they should do what they think is right, the
communication to the masses should follow whatever paradigm they find to be
most effective.
Now, which paradigm I personally would prefer to be most effective would be
in agreement I believe with the one you would also choose.
>
>Transparency and accountability lessen the State's
>predatory abilities; both of these principles have
>been under attack by the current admin, IMO.
Can you give examples of this? Are you not speaking form a basis of
comparison? (in which case I would agree with you). However� as an example,
how many companies have been shown to be up-to-something since Bush become
president in comparison to Clinton? Remember they were all up to the same
�stuff� when Clinton was president.
Then the question comes to mind, is it better to take small steps or have
large revolutions?
>Which in
>turn has led to my distrust of their motives in just
>about every arena.
Would you always distrust any government?�Is that not a sign of a healthy
democracy?
>One of the dangers to 'the
>spinners' is that if *enough* people become aware of
>excessive manipulative spin, they might revile and
>attack those who twist critical truth. Or disbelieve
>*anything* the spin-mongers say because of the prior
>perceived manipulation(s).
We can only hope that *enough * people become aware, but I also hope that
with that awareness comes some maturity so that attacks are unnecessary.
Do you think that Wofowitz(sp?) et.al. admissions about the amount of �spin�
that wend into the WMD thing increase or decrease the level of awareness?
>In looking at health-related studies, one has to be
>aware of the bias(es(sp?)) of the investigating group or
>institution, who funded it, and what agenda(s) they
>have. Of course we don't call it "spin," but those
>who attempt to suppress data or retrospectively change
>parameters of their study are castigated if/when the
>misdirection is discovered. As well they ought to be.
>So one of *my* fundamental precepts is that in matters
>of great import, presentation of data and conclusions
>therefore needs and ought to be unbiased, with
>interpretation(s) clearly stated as such.
What id this didn�t work and those you wanted to convince always believed the
spinsters? Would it not be best if you learned to do some spinning yourself
(without falsifying evidence, performing slanted studies or lying of course)?
><wry aside> Working with a law office has
>been...interesting. (and these are non-advertising,
>'take a case only if it's clearly winnable' kind of
>guys) ;}
>
>Now in non-vital matters, "white lies" and "spin" are
>to be expected -- frequently I still find it annoying,
>but must admit to using both!
I only use this crap at work.
>> I am interested in your take on person to person
>> communication, what you think
>> would have been the most appropriate action taken by
>> Bush et. al., and how
>> the spin doctors from their opposition could have
>> been dealt with without
>> resorting themselves to any degree of "spin"/
>
> First part: answered, at least partially, above. I do
> think that a certain degree of "white lying/spin" is
> necessary to keep social interactions smoother. Frex(sp?):
> a friend, obviously pleased with her new purchase,
> asks you at a party how you like her new dress. Do
> you say , "All those ruffles - I'm thinking: "potato
> chips," and that shade of yellow makes you look like a
> zombie!" or "Oh, so Victorian is back "in" now? You
> know, I think that green-&-blue scarf of yours would
>*really* contrast nicely with the yellow..."
You see, I would never ever do this. I would tell her exactly what I thought.
Not being derogatory. In fact I find it offensive when people do this sort of
thing to me. Usually it is clear to see what they really think, and if not,
then it does hurt later when you find do find out.
I find this sort of lying and speaking around the truth despicable. Perhaps
it is my cultural upbrining, but I �can�t express this enough.
>But if
> you're shopping with her, you can say when she tries
> it on, "Mmm, I don't think it does anything good for
> your shoulders....nah, not a keeper." Yup, spin is
> needed here for sure! ;)
Wow. So our disagreement is actually much more subtle than it might appear. I
despise spin of this sort, but recognize that it is effective in public
persuasion. We both can see through the spin in most cases, but you find that
person to person spin is acceptable, and (unsaid) probably even the courteous
thing to do. At the same time you find public persuasion spin despicable.
What exactly is it that allows you to have a difference of opinion on the
two?
I can see that there are actually several types of spin and I differentiate
between them. Here I provide a list hitting �waypoints� on the axis going
from acceptable to unacceptable.
Type A) Saying something in a certain way so that it has a particular sound
or feel to it.
Type B) Using a particular set of words which allows others not paying close
attention to �read in� some unspoken and perhaps unintended information.
Type C) Stating things in a way so that particular facts, or true beliefs are
hidden, but not in a way that gives a skewed view.
Type D) Stating facts, but leaving particular facts which might be important
unstated.
Type E) Stating only what suggests the state one wishes to be conveyed.
Different than leaving out information which may contradict, it is including
only information so that a particular picture is painted.
Type F) Simply not stating facts, so that an assumption of agreement is
portrayed.
Type G) Miss stating facts. Stating true things in such a way that one
purposefully makes it sound like something else which is not true.
Exaggerating. Saying it�s two orders of magnitude when it is only one. Etc.
Type H) Lying.
While I do not prefer (B) I do find both (A) and (B) acceptable. Sometimes in
extreme situations (C) may be necessary. The rest I find despicable in an
amount equivalent to the points on the axis.
What Bush did in the quoted speech is of type (B). The �Yellow Potato Dress�
incident, fictional as it may be, is of type (D) �the woman asked for an
opinion on the dress, but the true opinion was never given.-
> Second part: I've given my 'ideal actions taken' in
> several prior posts; in "Debbie-World" things would have
> been done much more diplomatically from the beginning
> of his Admin! ;) <serious> After 9-11, there was so
> much goodwill and sympathy for the US; here was a
> chance for Bush to reverse his prior arrogance and
> isolationism, to say 'we need your help - your ideas,
> your intelligence - to make sure this doesn't happen
> again to any country.' Now that does have some spin,
> particularly WRT the "not again" part -- because
> terrorists will strike (and have struck, frex(sp?) Bali) in
> the future. Under-the-table arm-wrenching might have
> convinced France, Germany, Russia to be more
> supportive - or at least stand aside. I think there
> would have been a reasonable chance for this to work,
> given the fact that a good resolution *did* get passed
> despite the hostility these countries had towards the
> Bush Admin last fall.
You are describing the course of events leading up to the conflict in
Afghanistan. France, Germany, and Russia, had too much at stake for Iraq to
be an acceptable target. The end-game was always going to be war. There was
no other option. On this we disagree I believe, and respectfully.
> If it didn't, then report how
> their economic interests in Iraq have contributed to
> major suffering for the Iraqi people and others
> (although perhaps that wasn't done because of the
> backfire potential WRT US involvement/support of Iraq
> in the '80's [1]).
It is also not advisable to call a shaky ally a liar to his face. It is
seldom effective. See type (C).
> Or state with noble conviction
> that 'now we understand all too well what you in
> Europe/the Middle East/wherever have suffered from
> terrorist attacks; we did not, before. And we will
> not allow a few to keep us -or you- in the role of
> victim. Our strength will serve as a bulwark between
> those who support terrorists, and the innocent of the
> world. We will go were they hide, and root them
> out..." etc. etc. etc., enforce the Resolution etc
> <grimace> But I still haven't seen convincing
> evidence that Iraq was a direct threat to the US.
We did do this. Iraq was -becoming- a direct threat, but the maneuver was
necessary, because with the state of the world, the situation in Iraq was
unacceptable.
> Third part: I'm truly not trying to cop-out here, but
> I didn't hear what groups like ANSWER (was that it?)
> said, except for snippets on this List, so I can't
> address this adequately. If anyone knows a site
> listing the major 'spins,' I'll at least read it.
> Offhand, showing one's nobility, self-sacrifice and
> concern for the 'innocent of the world' ought to go a
> long way to countering unfavorable spin. But having
> hospitals looted while the Ministry of Oil was
> protected does *not* help WRT the 'Blood for Oil'
> angle!
Blood for Oil wasn�t enough �spin� for you? It was not expected that
Hospitals would be looted. Just as with riots in the US where the mob is an
overwhelming force, the focus was on the protection of bystanders and not
property. And to that the benefit of chaos on one side to an organized force
on the other and it is clear that the proper decisions were made at the time.
(given that the planning did not anticipate the looting of hospitals). �Win
the war, sort it all out later.- Not nice, but effective.
> Debbie
> who can spin as well as the next person... ;)
Jan
Who is not so good at the spin thing�.;)
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
