Exactly, Glen,
You saw the question I asked and got to the question I really wanted to ask. I was a professor for years and in that role I tried to foster face to face conversation on tricky, intricate, issues. WHY? Face to face education is under a tremendous attack these days. Why not 32 MOOKS followed each by an objective test. Save on dormitories. Save on the whole in loco parentis thing. Who cares if they drink too much, take drugs, and rape each other if it's not on OUR watch? Higher ed could be so much more efficient. Do we really need to spend tens of thousands of dollars to teach kids how to GROOM? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 5:43 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat An appropriately timed interview in The Reasoner! <http://www.thereasoner.org/> http://www.thereasoner.org/ > Another thing I like about approaching argumentation this way is that it > forces us to confront another question, viz., why do we argue? I mean that to > be a teleological why with normative force—i.e., what should we want to get > out of arguing?— not the why in search of a causal explanation. > Epistemological and other cognitive considerations have to be prominent parts > of an account of argumentation. Again, virtues approaches to argumentation > embed arguing in a larger context: our cognitive lives. On 10/28/2015 04:05 PM, glen wrote: > On 10/28/2015 02:24 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> >> [NST==>Ok, you are forcing me to own up to my basic question. Why do >> people who disagree with one another bother to talk? What is the >> good in that? I assume it’s because we are striving for the >> non-zero-sum gains of concerted action. Also, there is some evidence, >> I gather, that involving more than one person in a decision actually >> improves the quality of the decision. <==nst] > > Well, my opinion isn't very useful, here. I tend to think we talk _mostly_ > as a replacement for grooming each other. Or perhaps I should phrase it as: > most of the talk we engage in is meaningless jabber that replaces grooming. > But perhaps each of us, all of us, does engage in some sort of reprogramming, > at least sporadically and rarely. > > The best I can do is tell you why _I_ talk (including these tl;dr e-mails). > It is in the hopes that I will be reprogrammed. Every word I read, every > noise I hear, wherever it comes from, whomever it comes from, _might_ > reprogram me. There are other ways to be programmed (working in the garden, > driving, hiking, etc.). But there is a kind of nuance to talk-talk-based > reprogramming that is difficult to get at any other way. > -- glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847 -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
