It's funny, having read the rest of this conversation (about modeling the reader's mind), it went very differently than I thought it would. I thought it would quickly go to a personal example in which it is obvious that modeling the writer's mind helps things.
Lets say, to pick an example completely at random, that I'm in a conversation, and the other person says something like "Yeah, but don't forget, I can see your mind." Well, usually that means they are being sarcastic, or making a joking new-age psychic reference. When Nick says it, he is being dead serious. I'm not sure there is anything fancier about "making a model of the writers mind" then that. Whenever we read anything we are constantly evaluating what things the writer meant seriously, which things they meant in jest; what things are crucial to the argument, which are distractions, etc. etc. etc. Eric On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 02:54 PM, "Marcus G. Daniels" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > > > Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================ 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
