-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > I reckon that what many `real-life' individuals or groups often _mean_ > is a subconscious impulse: to impose their personal set of issues on > others and get people to go their way, so as to make their life > better. They _mean_ to stick others in their mud, their group think, > their business goals, etc. Joe's a good guy! (Where `good' is > defined by `amenable to our needs'.)
I'm not so sure. When you hang out with think-tank types (or, in general, people who are smarter than they _need_ to be), then this may be true. But, I don't think it's not true for the general population. For the most part, what I see around me are a bunch of Pavlovian reactive systems behaving mindlessly. That sea of behavior is sporadically broken by people wafting at the fog and doing something purposeful. But, by and large, people are just doing what they do because ... well, that's what they do. Those of us for whom the basic necessities only consume a percentage of our resources might run around imposing their issues on others (and some might just spend their free cycles watching American Idol); but, those of us who use all their resources just to survive and spawn don't. > I'd say social networks mediated by technology can be interesting > _because_ participants don't have to be intimate. Well, at the risk of being redundant, _all_ social networks are mediated by technology because humans always create and use artifacts. One of the most basic forms of technology is clothing and personal hygiene products, which have mediated almost all of my social networks over my entire lifetime. But, then again, I've only been to a nude beach once and I have no intentions of attending Burning Man. [grin] Hence, social networks mediated by technology are interesting because humans find humans interesting. These social networks are interesting to humans because they consist of humans. And they're interesting regardless of the technology and regardless of the intimacy. (Of course, interest doesn't always coincide with usefulness.) Now you might say that _you_ (Marcus) find social networks (the "mediated by technology" is redundant and annoying ;-) interesting because of the spectrum of intimacy. But, all that means is that your interests focus on intimacy. It doesn't directly say anything about social networks in general. In order to say something about social networks in general, we'd have to talk specifically about which technology mediates the particular social network of interest. > Discussants who might > not even be able to tolerate one another in person can find common > ground. Take all of those mere common denominator discussions and > contrast them against the alternative which is that they might not occur > at all given personal idiosyncrasies, or geographic or cultural > boundaries. I suggest redefining `common denominator' to as `dimensions > of intersection' and remember there are billions of people all with > different dimensions. I like the reformulation from common denominator to dimensions of intersection. But, what is it you're really saying, here? You're saying: "Discussants who are normally so pathological that they can't interact with their peers find solace in the abstraction provided by certain devices." So, again, the only thing we achieve is the ability to "relate" and empathize with the perverts. > Perhaps it would be better if we could and did try infinitely hard to > understand all of the details of all kinds of people, but the fact is > almost no one does that, at least without having some professional > responsibility to do it or appear to do it. True. However, the vast majority of us can and do try infinitely hard to understand _some_ of the details of some kinds of people, particularly the individuals (and the classes to which they belong) we've chosen to consort with. For me, I try quite hard to understand my mom, Renee', and my friends. And I try quite hard to understand their histories, which are largely encapsulated by (stereo-)types. It's also true that the vast majority of us have small, tight networks and large, loose networks. We don't try near as hard to understand the individuals in those large loose networks. And anyone who thinks this can be overcome by arbitrary changes in the _technique_ that supports the network is delusional. In the end, it's all about attention and where you choose to place yours, regardless of the technique. > As for "heavily abstracted dialog" it sounds a lot like scientific > analysis and peer review to me. > And as for exploitation, I can see your point, but the reverse can also > be true. Manipulative people with professions like preachers and > teachers rely on the fact that they have a captive audience that will > confirm to a certain set of polite behaviors to make verbal > communication work at all. In e-mail, such `presenters' can get > shredded in short order. That's true. But, if we took those who shred the preacher/teacher on an e-mail list and placed them inside the preacher's church or the teacher's classroom, then the shredders will be shredded. What does that mean? Only that preachers and teachers are facile with one technique and e-mail participants are facile with another technique. The techniques of classrooms and mega-churches is exactly analogous with the technique of e-mail distribution lists. And they are both forms of abstraction. - -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com Whenever we depart from voluntary cooperation and try to do good by using force, the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions. - -- Milton Friedman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGyzCUZeB+vOTnLkoRAn6uAJ4uv+1QKxOtaPrnZV2+sU8Lj8JWKwCfdrXq nIKBVGVUveiznqYQzEHufcc= =Cjc+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ============================================================ 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
