Marcus, I was puzzled, when you wrote ...
"It could be to communicate, but it could also be to entertain or to manipulate. If a reader thinks they are modeling a writer's *mind* (holy crap, the arrogance..), it's likely they are just going down the road the writer so competently put out for them." What sort of a "mind" did you have in mind? There are those of us out here that think that mind is just an individuals longstanding pattern of response and sensitiivity. So when you read what I write, you have to try and gather, from the short sample that I give you, what the over all pattern is. So it may be arrogance, but isnt it also a necessity? Arent you constantly building models of the minds of the people around you? Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([email protected]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: Marcus G. Daniels <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > Date: 9/15/2009 12:56:05 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] comm. (was Re: FW: Re: Emergence Seminar--BritishEmergence) > > Glen wrote: > > If you only extend your model to what is written and its > > (subjectively defined) _relevant_ context, you are basically > > decapitating the context and considering only the body. > [..] > > > And there are > > other uses where, not only should you make the mind of the writer part > > of the model, but you should also include the social extent of the > > writer. > > What is the goal of a writer? It could be to communicate, but it could > also be to entertain or to manipulate. If a reader thinks they are > modeling a writer's *mind* (holy crap, the arrogance..), it's likely > they are just going down the road the writer so competently put out for > them. > > In e-mail, compared to face-to-face communication, there are fewer > signals as to an individual's behaviors and constraints. With these > limited signals, it is more difficult for a reader to model the writer's > mind and the writer's social extent. To say that the reader has a > responsibility to form a model of the writer from an impoverished set of > signals (and others which may be in large part synthesis and > manipulation) means to invest in a bad model rather than getting better > information about the writer out-of-band. The writer that tries to > encourage such modeling from their writing alone is probably up to no > good. The models would be mostly cultural norms and the reader's > projections and, of course, the imaginary person the writer is trying to > put forth. > > Marcus > > ============================================================ > 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
