Thus spake Steve Smith circa 12/26/2008 01:10 PM:
> I don't think I've heard this term ("Snarky") used in "forever"... but
> sadly/strangely/wonderfully, it does describe Doug's style of humor. Knowing
> Doug pretty well and being on the Snarky end of his humor from time to time
> (always well deserved and returned, I must add) I can understand how the
> extra
> row of kinked barbs along the shaft of his snarky lampoons can gouge and dig
> if
> you don't already have some scarred over lacerations (shaped to fit) to turn
> them aside.
But it's not a matter of scar tissue! It's a matter of clarity,
precision, and accuracy of communication.
With the advent of remote (superset of "online") communication, we are
faced with a lack of natural/intuitive context for much of our
communications.
In the same vein as the argument about well-established "mathematical"
(more accurately termed "analytically tractable") models versus
agent-based (more accurately termed "combinatorial") models, our
communication _used_ to come with more context than it does in these
modern days.
Because Steve knows Doug pretty well, that context is present and the
snarkiness doesn't _prevent_ clear communication. In fact, it probably
enhances it. But for those of us who don't know Doug pretty well,
snarkiness _degrades_ communication. It's like a non-English speaking
Chinese person watching episodes of Saturday Night Live in order to
learn English. Sarcasm, sardonicism, irony, and inside jokes rely on a
well-accepted context with well-known infrastructure.
Indeed, when that infrastructure is present, it allows the conversants
to explore very subtle and sophisticated conceptual constructs. But
when that infrastructure is absent, it fosters miscommunication and
whatever particular psychological artifacts that may ensue from
miscommunication.
The same is true of scientific reproducibility in publications. Those
who rely too strongly on a common foundation produce irreproducible
crap. Yet those who attempt to expound on everything to facilitate
reproduction lose their reader in useless detail (thereby producing
irreproducible crap). The trick is to develop a conversational style
that is a soft mix of exploitable common context and welcoming hooks
into that context for those who don't have it.
Of course, there are those who don't care about, or even purposefully
oppose, clear communication. [grin] I seem to see many of these people
trolling around interdisciplinary groups. My guess is that these people
are some form of snake-oil salesmen who have a vested interest in
obfuscating communication for their own self-serving ends.
Interdisciplinary groups of people are particularly easy prey because
many people have a natural timidity/humility and give the obfuscators
the benefit of the doubt when they hear/read something overly jargonal
or complicated.
Of course, most snarky (sarcastic, sardonic, or ironic) expositions are
not purposeful attempts at obfuscation. ("Never ascribe malice where
incompetence will suffice.") On the other hand, many are.
--
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
