I feel I am unqualified to respond to this post.
I have read and enjoyed Steve Schild's recent posts to the WOD group, and I find his writing pleasingly articulate and surprisingly straightforward (particularly in comparison to most of what passes for online discourse in a great many groups such as this one). Unfortunately, my familiarity with the man is limited to these posts, and I cannot, therefore, faithfully respond to allegations concerning what he does or does not believe.
I can report, however, that he neither proposed nor professed the belief David ascribes to him ( "'silencing' is caused by one set of attributes" ) in any of the materials I've read. (If I have missed a posting or passage in which he did so, I trust someone can and will forward it to the group for verification.) In fact, Mr. Schild said -- in the very post that spawned the subject line above -- that he had been contacted by
"at least three WOD subscribers who said they refrained from joining in the discussion for fear of being criticized or attacked by those who disagree with them. I mention that because it's exactly the sort of "silencing" that I believe can go on in any forum that's dominated by a small group of people of the same ideological ilk."
While I concur with the anecdotal evidence David provides as refutation of the "single attribute" theory, this argument underscores the weakness and futility not of Mr. Schild's posting but rather of the straw man "beliefs" that have been set up in their place. The former is a reasonable, general statement of opinion based on collected data (i.e., this type of silencing CAN go on in groups); the latter is an absolute, untenable, and easily disproved supposed rule of human behavior (i.e., silencing is caused solely and only by a single set of attributes).
As to the question of preconscious bias, I must again claim ignorance as to the existence of bias in Mr. Schild's work as I have neither seen his presentation nor been privy to the inner workings of his mind. (Frankly, I'd need one or the other before being so audacious as to suggest such a thing.) I certainly would expect some, given that bias (particularly the preconscious variety) is practically unavoidable in most human endeavors, but I would no sooner consider a researcher's initial hypothesis a bias than I would consider his/her casual observations in another forum as findings reported in a study.
My unfamiliarity with Mr. Schild's presentation (for which I do not blame Mr. Schild, as his need to publish the work he created far surpasses the WOD's need for a quick peek) likewise prevents me from adequately commenting on its "newness." I agree once again with David that the study seems to report something many of us already know experientially to be true. Then again, one might just as easily fault the Surgeon General for determining that cigarette smoke is dangerous to one's health when that simple fact is readily apparent to the casual observer and rational thinker. Research is often performed to scrutinize and verify the things we already know (or suspect) to be true; it does not always tell us "new" things.
Finally, it has always been my understanding that both "shooting fish in a barrel" and "getting out of a wet paper bag" were figures of speech indicating things done easily and with little effort or expertise. Despite my many years on the planet, however, I have never known these metaphors to have values relative to each another. Not knowing which scenario is the easier of the two, I can only process the information literally, so I must again discount my opinions on the efficacy of the simile.
Ignorantly yours, -Spencer Madsen
David wrote:
[Winona Online Democracy]
You seem hell bent on hammering in one point, and one point alone. It seems that you believe "silencing" is caused by one set of attributes and only one set. That is nothing more than ... it seriously lacks any ... backing. This almost goes back to the question about preconscious biases. It seems many are present but not being recognised or disclosed as requested.
If I see seventy posts in my mailbox, as I have been for the last several days, am I going to say something? NO. Why, because there is a pretty damn good chance someone or several people have already stated fragments of my opinion, and I see no point in getting off my lazy butt to type it myself when someone already has.
Am I being silenced by the Big Mouths or the "oligarchs" to quote you? NO. (reread that twice, Steve.)
Some persons do not type at ninety words per minute as I do so, I would hypothesise that they will not be as likely to want to throw the entire opinion out in the open because of time issues. That is self silencing in a different form that is the opposite from the fear imposed silencing that has been flaunted as pervasively as Chinese products in the US of A.
I have been on enough lists that have 'oligarchies' to recognise active voices are nothing more than what is in the community in the realistic sense. You have a city council that speaks often. The crowd that occasionally shows up to the meetings and the voters. What you have documented is nothing new. It is nothing more than an extension of a human behaviour already known about with a few fancy words and 30 point type*. Is that aspect of a community an oligarchy too? Are you going to tell me because all 650 people do not chime in to answer a question on an AppleScript list by Apple that the big mouths are silencing them too? Why not study that list and all the other lists that Apple Computer hosts as well? I would quote Dwayne's dictionary definition of oligarchy but then again someone may get mad because Daniel Webster defined the word oligarchy before someone 'wrote' a one hundred page paper and slapped a title on it.
* I should draw reference to a "unique" study done by the University of Madison involving underage drinking among other things...
BTW, Attack Intended, deal with it, Steve Schild, it is called a difference of opinion. I should make what others wrote look like child's play because you have been leaving plenty of material that would make such comments very easy to make. It would make shooting fish in a barrel look like getting out of a wet paper bag.
Please rip me apart because I do not care anymore. If they want to kick me off, so be it. The criticism is long overdue. I will just read letters to the editors in foreign newspapers from Americans which are just as ... to read!
BTW I have a problem with individuals making comments based on studies they refuse to publish publicly. One could refrain from making public comments until one knows whether they will be published and then present. The Bush administration may see this technique as appropriate but to most people it is not. I will repeat the request for a public showing of the data for others to digest at will. This tactic reminds me of Ed McGaa, the pathetic person that tried to hoodwink the Green Party, in a bid for US Senate by trying to campaign solely on "Buy my book It's in there." I joined the opposition early, and he lost big time.
BTW... PDFs on Websites are really handy ways to distribute information. HTML is pretty effective as well but that is another topic.
******************************************** David Dittmann
(snip)
_______________________________________________
This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy
All messages must be signed by the senders actual name.
No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list.
To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit
http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona
Any problems or suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at
http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
