I'm comfortable with detailed criticism and familiar with the strange activity patterns of online forums. What disturbed me was the notion that knowledge, discussion or inquiry without immediate, direct application is undesirable. I find such a stance shortsighted, to say the least, and was taken aback that it seemed to be able to survive in intelligent, educated, experienced minds. Human knowledge is a vast web that only occasionally supports application, but it needs the whole web (well, most of it) to carry the weight of need and use in such instances. Frequently, it's impossible to tell ahead of time which strands may take up the weight years later.
I lumped a post of yours (Glen) with some others in my rant, because it seemed to support said stance by casting the unused as unreal, and hence -- in my mind, at the time -- unsuitable for discussion. That was probably an unfair interpretation. Steve mentions good-natured ribbing among friends; this is valid and I'm aware that a large part of the FRIAM membership has face-to-face interaction and enjoys a consequent sense of social awareness and cohesion that may cast conversations in a different light. I should probably be more sensitive to this. No need for saccharine, only respect for a sincere desire to know, to understand and to share insight. It underpins all human achievement and it riles me to see it trivialised. Having said that, it is also true that capable minds and the bandwidth that connects them are valuable resources. I acknowledge that signal-to-noise ratio and opportunity cost become relevant at some point and that opinion on optimal focus, volume and quality may differ. Rikus -------------------------------------------------- From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 7:22 PM To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[email protected]> Subject: [FRIAM] Criticism and feedback (was Re: Theory and practice) Thus spake Rikus Combrinck circa 09-10-11 01:53 PM: > What the hell? [...] > If there is the possibility of > additional insight, any insight, how about some applause when people spend > their own resources to advance their understanding, and share it for free > as > they go! Well, the thing you might be missing is that detailed criticism _is_ applause in scientific circles. Online media are difficult to understand. Detailed criticism is usually a sign of _respect_ and should be interpreted as an "atta boy". But ignoring someone's post is NOT a secret message for that person to stop contributing. Sometimes, the impact of a post is quite large even if there is no response. These things are occult. But one thing is for sure, if a person takes the time to actually read and respond to what you've written, then it is a sign of RESPECT, even if (or perhaps especially if) the response is very critical. Now, while I agree that self-indulgent mocking in the form of "Oh no, not again", without any detailed criticism is bad form (because it's mostly useless), I don't think we need saccharine back-patting. But then again, I've been accused of total failure in my attempts to encourage people after doing a good job. ;-) So, what do I know? -- 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
