> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Dave Land > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:15 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Ghostpost...synthetic biology and security > > Forgive my pedantry, but "shill" -- literally, someone allied with the > "house" who places bets to attract customers and figuratively, someone > associated with a "seller" (of products or politics) who pretends to > be independent while selling their wares -- is quite a different word > from "shrill".
No sweat...I understand the concept and just typed to fast. > > He is evidently much more than a Bush shill, but I perceived him as > being too caught up in the administration's world-view. The perception > may have been wrong. He has a worldview that has some things in common with that of Bush, much more than you or I do. At the same time, you have a worldview that has a lot more in common with Noah Chomsky than he does. The questions raised by the clash of those two worldviews are far more interesting that comparing an contrasting the mockable worldviews of Bush and Chomsky. > > He has strong differences with many on this list, including me, on a > > number of subjects...but that's no more accurate than calling your > > position "America is always wrong". > It has been said. I shrug it off the best I can, but sometimes, I take > it personally and respond inappropriately in ways that do not move a > friendly conversation forward. We all do that...which is why I cringe when I see it. That sort of discussion rarely, if ever, leads to greater understanding. I know, from posts, that I'm not the only one who thinks Brin-L has lost a lot when it lost a good deal of its range of ideas. I often find myself taking the most conservative position here, and I'm a moderate Democrat, clearly left of center in the US. > > Do you really not understand that, Dan? You are a bright, articulate > guy, and I think you understand human nature better than that > statement suggests. Well, on some level I can make a model of it, but I still don't have any empathy with it. For better or worse, I am interested in the manner in which other people construct worldviews. For example, before joining Brin-L (8 years or so ago I think), I regularly had discussions with alternate thinkers on sci.physics. That is to say, folks who thought that QM and SR were clearly wrong, and were examples of herd mentality and a lack of courage among scientists. The model I make is that it is tied to the reasons folks are fundamentalists....the need for a simple, certain worldview that can be counted on. But, I'm not there, I have no empathy for that position. So, my models are mere empirical, they have no feel for what is going on inside folks heads. > People resist the subtleties of others' viewpoints because they dig in > in an argument, and seriously considering the others' point of view > would weaken their position. But, even in a debate which is clearly an adversarial, win/lose proposition, it pays to understand one's opposition. In real life, I guess the problem is that, if one doesn't do this, there is always the chance that one will have one's opinion changed. I know that Gautam and I have changed each others opinions on a number of topics. But, I'd rather be open to having my mind change than make a total idiot of myself insisting that something that is out of touch with reality is correct. Part of this comes from being in physics, where one is looked at rather askew when one is proven wrong and still keeps arguing for an interpretation of the data, or a way to work out the problem. Further back, I was very socially unaware as a kid, and often was ridiculed as a result. Typically, I walk through the day each evening and determine where and how I many have made mistakes. I often use my wife for a reality check when I do this. Starting with my dissertation, I'd wake up at night thinking that I might have made a mistake on X, setting me back weeks, if not months. Most of the time, the check worked....but I always needed to check as soon as possible. So, I really want to understand the positions of others. I realize there are times that people see me as putting words in my mouth. What it is, from my point, is deducing logical conclusions from stands. As an example, I give last night's post...where I state that waiting for UN approval requires waiting on the approval of Russia and China. Now Jon Louis, if asked directly if the US needs the approval of China and Russia to act, might think that these authotarian societies need not have veto power on the actions of the US...but that is a logical consequence one must accept. > Call it weakness, call it efficiency, call it what you will, it is > human nature, and it is difficult to overcome. But, only for some folks. Lord knows, it's not that I'm without flaws, or blind points. It's just that I have a drive to see the flaws in every position, including my own. I try to attack the flaws to fix them , often unnerving folks around me. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
