On Wed, 13 Mar 2013, James Weinheimer wrote:
> In chess, everyone wants to checkmate their opponent
Ah, you need to eliminate the concepts of "checkmate" and "winning" and
concentrate on the underlying principles of competition to proceed. If you
pay attention to the game and not the "opponent" you will have more
success. You see, the rules of the game themselves have to be changed.
Until now we didn't associate behavior with neurophysiology-- we thought
everything was "moral" or "evil", right or wrong-- and we used calling
competition and manipulation "human nature" as a cop-out. Calling human
problems neurophysiological programming that can be corrected is more
productive and obviates the use of the personalizing yet empty old labels,
like "customer", "product", enemy" and "opponent."
> you must become much more subtle in your approach ... [Google's] purpose
> is to make money ..
How subtle is Google? If we are to overcome overt manipulation, we can't
be benign, particularly if Aggressive Narcissists are only concerned with
themselves and have complete disregard for unintended consequences. If
they are compulsively lacking in subtlety, we need to be more observant
and responsible and not surprised every time our pockets are picked.
That's simply what they do!
> there is no way they will change their behavior
There is one way-- by being proactive instead of victimized. We change
OUR behavior to recognize Aggressive Narcissist behaviors and label them
as such (or at least as counter-productive) in order to neutralize their
effectiveness. That way those behaviors will become ineffective, hopefully
to the point that our (hopefully) more constructive and collaborative
behaviors will spread in popularity.
Example: "Do you know that what you are saying sounds glib and
manipulative and what you are doing could be interpreted as
power-mongering and self-obsessed and you could be labeled an 'Aggressive
Narcissist' if you aren't more careful? You also need to be more careful
about historical precedents and unintended consequences, even to
yourself."
> provide people with an alternative view ... that Google users are ...
> being milked like cows ... it must be introduced gently.
What I'm suggesting is teaching people the game impersonally, what "being
milked like cows" is and how it works, without mentioning Google. I might
let some students explore specific *possible* examples they propose within
a context of exploring *all* possibilities, including unforeseen
circumstances, but let them decide how each situation can be interpreted.
I'd pose the questions: "Give some *possible* examples" and "Given a
particular situation, how many different possible interpretations can you
come up with, and which are superficial and which the most important ones
to consider in the long run."
> the catalog is broken
I would suggest that, in the strict library-world sense, that is open to
argument as long as patrons can find what they need and aren't driven to
total frustration. Of course, nobody is going to *benefit* from a broken
catalog. ("Really?", you say-- how about chopping library budgets to
prevent the efficient free distribution of unbiased information?).
> the catalog is broken and nobody seems to want to fix it.
How about substituting "society" for 'catalog"? Aggressive Narcissists
benefiting from a disordered society (even anarchy) will insist on
breaking it as much as it can be broken for any possible personal profits
and for the fun and joy of having power over the disordered population.
> I find it very difficult to conceive of a realistic way out of
> the difficulties we are in.
So what? Don't let the perceived difficulties themselves become
controlling obstacles. Just conceive until you get somewhere. Create
"working hypotheses" and test them. Mine is: "Behaviors derive from brain
structures. Brain structures can be affected positively (education) or
negatively (brain-washing), so empower education and critical thinking to
exceed the effect of brain-washing and manipulation."
We should do NOTHING that does NOT progress toward fixing the broken
society, especially suggesting that fixing it is either too difficult,
must be done less energetically than taking it apart, or is not our
responsibility. There is no higher goal, particularly when pushiness and
self-obsession are becoming ascendant.
Cheers!
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
jmarr_at_flash.net
** Forget the "self"; forget the "other"; just
consider what goes on in between. **
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Wed Mar 13 2013 - 19:15:38 EDT