At 12:10 AM 2/21/00 -0600, Mike Scoles wrote:
>Nobody is forcing anyone into this discussion. Sometimes recycled topics
>provide a chance for new perspectives--even though most of it might be the
same
>old arguments.
>
>Conversations work this way in the real world as well. It would be rather
rude
>to tell a friend, "Hey, we talked about this two weeks ago. Weren't you taking
>notes?" It would certainly make it difficult to find new friends!
I am also bothered when people say things like we shouldn't talk about
something because we've discussed it before. As Mike mentioned often times
our views change with time, or issues that were not as relevant to a
members currents world become more relevant as they begin teaching a new
course. Even more importantly, each on-line conversation is new because at
least some of the people listening and potentially contributing are new
and are now discouraged from responding. I agree that those who have taken
the time to respond with a major contribution will not always have time to
respond again, however, it is perfectly fine, in my view, to re post from
the archives an interesting discussion if it relevant.
Overall, I wonder if this is not an interesting psychological phenomenon of
this on-line communication medium-all of us, faculty and student alike,
assume more common ground among the members of the on-line community than
really exists. This then leads to miscommunication and in some cases to
hurt feelings and to flame wars. Although people say that computers are
cold and impersonal, in my experience the reverse often occurs, feelings of
closeness and intimacy that belies the fact that we are writing to many
virtual strangers. After all who else but TIPs greets me every morning at
7:00am in my office in Erie PA?
Any thoughts?
Dawn
>> deja vu all over again ;-)
>>
>> Gee, I hope folks have not forgotten the lengthy discussions we have had on
>> the
>> subject with headings such as "science, evolution, and beliefs" on or around
>> January '97, or those with the heading "Teaching skepticism- to what
>> extent?"
>> on or around October, '98 or some others we have had during the past four
>> years
>> where we have discussed some of the evidence for psi.
>>
>> Yes, I don't usually respond to this issue anymore as the archives
>> should provide enough info.
>
>--
>*****************************************************************
>* Mike Scoles * [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
>* Department of Psychology * voice: (501) 450-5418 *
>* University of Central Arkansas * fax: (501) 450-5424 *
>* Conway, AR 72035-0001 * *
>********* http://www.coe.uca.edu/psych/scoles/index.html ********
>
>
Dawn G. Blasko Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Experimental Psychology
Penn State Erie, The Behrend College
Station Road
Erie, PA 16563-1501
Office phone: 814-898-6081
http://www.pserie.psu.edu/hss/psych/blasko.htm
