>> That's fine; you are allowed to have a wrong opinion.
john g marr <jmarr_at_unm.edu> wrote:
> Is that a fact?
No, of course not! It seems some people didn't catch this as anything
but an outrages comment made as a joke. I guess we're too busy looking
for the smiley face.
Of course there is no correct opinions. That's why they are called
opinions. I thought all of my writing here (both contextually, locally
and historically) would make that rather clear, but my apologies for
not throwing in a *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink* :) LOL LMAO etc.
:)
> Don't lose your cool here
I didn't.
>> you're selecting the semantics *for* me rather than trying to clear them.
>
> I selected a particular definition of a word in order to avoid semantic
> misunderstanding.
My point was that through that selection it's a bit pointless to carry
through with an argument, no?
>> I think it's fairly obvious that I judge "revolutions" on more complex
>> notions of pre, during and post events.
[..]
> Social revolutions are destructive forms of confrontation. They may result
> from the need to change institutionalized forms of confrontation, or they
> may result from giving too much power to an irrational, self-serving
> minority (or etc.). The result is simply to perpetuate the idea that
> confrontation is the best way to solve problems.
What, now? Revolutions don't have to be vocal, or violent, or
confrontational, or bad, or noisy, or deadly. Lots of them are, in
fact, silent and almost invisible, it's just that some big violent
historical ones have given them all a bad name.
>> It's called progress, even if it means the revolution happened for all the
>> wrong reasons and had terrible results.
>
> I absolutely disagree-- progress is made despite revolutions.
That's a non sequitur; no where do I state that revolutions must
happen for progress to happen, I merely pointed out that they are
good, in as much as they happen for a reason; at some point when we
need to turn around, flip over, do the opposite, break some habit, or
stop following some norm. These things happens because a change is
*needed*. Sure, you can get there through evolution, as you say, but
no where does it say that evolution don't have revolutions in them;
they most certainly do.
> Using
> confrontation and destabilization as problem-solving mechanisms keeps the
> one main stumbling-block preventing progress in place--
I think you're too hung up on the French revolution. My revolutions
also includes cultural, scientific, historical and cosmological ones.
Also; Dewey made a revolution. It's not *all* pain and suffering, even
though that also happens. I just don't see them as categorical evil
things, and I'm tempted to say that they are required for progress;
the bloody messes generally happens at points where nice, easy-going,
slow progress could not take us further.
>> any breakup of established patterns of fundamentals are good
>
> So you favor "terrorism"? :)
Why does disagreement to you so often get interpreted as extremism? :)
>> even if I by that don't mean good for the people involved at the time.
>
> Ah, the proverbial Flood concept. Did that really work out so well? Should
> we work together to encourage cataclysm, or work together to mitigate it?
Flood? I wish you could be a bit more concrete.
>> RDA is considered a good thing? I thought it was too little, waaaaaaaay
>> too late?
> What would you have done and when (and why)?
Hopefully by the question you're not implying that library politics
must be embedded in the answer? Because the main reason a lot of stuff
doesn't happen at the necessary speed in the library world is not
knowledge nor expertise, but risk and politics.
> Opposition to the RDA "revolution" appeared in part because the reasons
> why some folks confronted with it might be destabilized were not discussed.
Hmm, not so sure about that. Most of what I heard (half as insider,
half as outsider) was that it was a band-aid effort on the underlying
somewhat documented model of MARC21, in an effort to make current
infrastructure somewhat more useful. But most of the critique I heard
was "too little, too late".
> Of course you can ignore "the people involved at the time", and the
> revolution will take root-- not because revolutions are good, but because of
> "social amnesia."
Again I'm not fully understanding what you're trying to say. Could you
be a bit more concrete?
> Nothing is ever written in cement, so it's never too late to remedy
> problems, or would you prefer to trash RDA altogether?
RDA was probably the right idea, only finalised long after all the
opportunities for library meta data had gone away. It should have been
in place more than 20 years ago, back when FRBR was concocted, *then*
maybe. But even then, RDA is not future proof, nor is it even good for
current practices of normalised data. It's polish on the AACR innards
of the MARC21 turd, and sorry if that offends anyone involved, but
this meta data is not suited for anything but what librarians might
care about, but to make things worse a lot of the criticism has been
about the fact that a lot of catalogers and librarians don't think it
suits them, either.
So was RDA the right thing to do?
I'd say, most definitely, no. But it was maybe all that the library
world *could* do. Which is maybe an even sadder answer.
>> You are not being specific again.
>
> It's pretty easy to present evidence (which I did)
Huh? What evidence?
> to support a "working
> hypothesis" that a lot of people prefer to be confrontational just because
> fighting (predation) feels good, rather that to pursue knowledge or solve
> problems (which may require some control over emotions).
Your working hypothesis needs evidence to distinguish it from crank
ideas, but also the expression "some people prefer" is meaningless;
how many? Some percentage of all people? Two people and 200.000 people
fit your "a lot of people" depending on the context you're thinking
of. What we've got, then, so far is opinion without a lot of context.
And I disagree with you based on my own experiences in and out of the
library world; most people just wants to get along and resolve
problems, and only a small, tiny minimum of people make a lot of noise
in order to sound like they're bigger than they are, and of course
that makes them very visible. But not a lot of people, only a lot of
noise.
>> Your observations, I take it? Or do you have any research to back you up?
>
> In true librarian-style, I won't spoon-feed you an answer. Search the
> research on "bullying", "manipulation", "logical fallacy", "psychopathy",
> "social amnesia", "human intraspecies predation", "neuropsychology" and the
> threads that lead to related topics. Try to come up with correlations
> between those topics.
In true librarian-style you're avoiding specifics and being clear, and
I don't think that's a good thing. Now I happen to know quite a bit on
all of the topics you listed, so if you actually have a point, then
why not just make it?
> Psychologists conclude that there really are people who have no genuine
> emotions (unless cornered). Neurophysiologists and geneticists agree that
> there are physical explanations for the problem. I conclude that there are
> behavioral and physical parallels between human "psychopathy" and animal
> "predation."
Uh, there's a physical explanation for absolutely everything you can
think of, so I'm not sure why you think that link is important nor how
you can call such a statement concluding? And *what* parallels?
> I agree, in that humans are becoming better informed and more capable of
> producing resources to permit movement away from animal behaviors, but human
> predators today have more tools to instill confrontational behavior
> (considered "entertaining") than ever before also. If we follow your advice
> ("any breakup of established patterns ... are good even if [not] for the
> people involved at the time"), we can say that, practically, the predators
> are exposing themselves to eventual destruction, but meanwhile I'd rather
> not see all the poor, the intellectuals, the scientists, the librarians, and
> the idealists go to their deaths (and there are plenty of historical
> examples of that).
You're taking "my advice" which wasn't advice and popping it into a
different context than where it was given, so I don't see the point
you're trying to make.
>> I want some research to back up such big statements
>
> Since such "big statements" are "working hypotheses" (theories that can be
> tested), that research is in progress all the time. You'll find a lot of it
> on the Internet.
That ... didn't sound like a librarian talking. Hmm.
> What's missing is correlation between diverse specialized
> aspects of related research
Plenty of that going around, not sure why you say this?
Inter-disciplinary research and meta research is just as valid a
science as any other. Do you mean, they don't find the conclusion you
do? Or haven't done the right meta research project that you'd like?
>> You have to cover a lot of historic ground in order to make
>> your point, so I wouldn't be sure about it.
>
> I'm 70, so I'm running out of time for doing the such detailed correlations
> as between history and the "working hypotheses" of "aggressive narcissism"
> and "human intraspecies predation." But I'd pay for the supercomputer, the
> programmers, and the data analysts to do it if I could. Meanwhile, I'll pay
> my taxes and ask for equal respect with astronomers.
I was pointing to making grand statements. There's a lot of historical
ground to cover in order for you to be right, so if you do make those
big statements some people will think you a bit loopy for failing the
smell test. That is not the same as saying you're wrong, only that the
bombast clouds your message.
>> A need is a subjective thing
>
> You mean like food? :)
Food implies taste, which is a subjective thing. Many people confuse
needs with wants, as I'm sure you are aware. There really are few
needs, and even then they are subjective; you don't have to eat, sleep
and have sex. You'll die or go mental or never have kids, but need is
still rooted in the individual. And, some people don't feel the need
to eat food, and end up shortening their lives because of it. Need is
a subjective thing, in as much as the subjective is linked to the
individuals free choices.
>> thinking you can figure that out is ignorant.
>
> IMHO, that comment is just plain obstructive. My approach is to find common
> threads that can be connected to create a relatively simple way of
> explaining to the prey how to neutralize predatory behaviors.
It's not meant neither as derogatory nor obstructive; the closer to
reality a model comes, the less of a model it is. It's in the nature
of the concept of models, and has nothing to do with our abilities,
yours nor mine.
>> Critical thinking, eh? I'm reminded of a survey of philosophers of Ethics
>> recently done whether they acted more ethical than other people. Quite the
>> contrary.
>
> The philosophers probably reached their conclusion through implementing
> critical thinking. Ethics is a different topic altogether, although
> debunking critical thinking outright *could* have unethical intents. The
> real question is: why would philosophers of ethics NOT want to study how to
> act more ethically than they presently perceive themselves as acting?
There's many philosophical question the philosophers should or should
not do or ask, but they are, at the core, still human, and with that
all the baggage of human behaviour and emotions that render the
*ideal* of critical thinking less plausible. Now, don't get me wrong,
I'll be the first to shout "critical thinking" as a thing all people
should engage in, but even people who *do* shout it fail miserably at
times. There's a big hoopla these days in the skeptic societies where
some big players are caught out being very non-skeptic, as an example.
It's an ideal. We'll never get there. IMHO.
>> Critical thinking is one of those things that sounds brilliant on paper
>> and when you say it out loud, but in practice is littered with problems.
>
> Let's work 'em out!
If only it was that easy. :) Human emotions and behaviour is the
biggest problem; we are always affected by things we do not realize
affects us. Within such a framework there's little we can do to
proclaim critical thinking going on. And there's tons of research on
this, too, in cognitive science and psychology; smell, emotions,
touch, light, sounds all affect how we judge seemingly unrelated
things. If the smell of coffee makes us more ethical while fart smells
makes us less so, how are we to talk about anything normative in
ethics? As far as I'm concerned, the problem with humans and their
ideals is that they will never reach them. However, realising that is
perhaps the best insight we can have.
>> Sure, we should strive towards it, but I see more human folly than serious
>> practitioners.
>
> The folly is proof of the need to strive. Let's gradually change the
> balance.
I'm with you, on paper. How are you practically going about it?
Education, perhaps, but I see well-education buffoons all the time ...
>> It's a utopian dream, an ideal; I'd be careful holding it up as the
>> shining sword that makes us "better" than animals.
>
> Not what I said. I said having the *potential* (the capability) to be
> critical thinkers makes us more *potentially* capable of solving problems
> than *other* animals.
Well, it's certainly clearer. And something I agree with, without
bringing in all those things that for the same reasons also makes us
worse. Our ability to fix things has got nothing on the ways in which
we can screw them up! And *that* makes us definitely different from
most other animals; no one can screw things up like we can!
>>> Information overload is a form of over-stimulation.
>>
>> No, it's not. Information overload just means too much information.
>
> Again, disagreement, and it is important-- central to the problem.
> "Overload" is individually based-- it results from one having an emotional
> reaction to being overloaded (over-stimulated)-- feelings of inadequacy,
> incompetence, and anxiety (fear).
Hmm. No, that's not what overload mean, as such, but the way it might
be used in some contexts. But let's agree then that "information
overload" cause emotions in humans, but based on cognitive
disorientation of the amount of information.
> There is no "overload" if one doesn't feel
> "overloaded." Therefore, the solution is to train people to fight off the
> negative feelings, not to restrict information.
Not all overload emotions are negative; I think it's fair to say that
if a problem looks too complex I'm happy to ignore it or choose not to
engage with it. If it's too much information I can quite casually not
bother, without any emotional baggage. But then, we all react
differently, even though I think this is not due to training to deal
with it as much as we all have different cognitive travels through our
own history as humans growing up.
> You could, dangerously, even encourage incompetence by using the
> "information overload" argument to restrict the free-flow of information--
> somebody's bound to come along (if they haven't already) to say: "Let's save
> pubic money by catering only to the lowest common denominators of competence
> [in the prey]." Example-- limit college education to the wealthy and people
> with high IQs (and people more interested in business than philosophy).
That would be a straw-man, of course. Most information overload comes
from presentation, not data content. Most of these problems can be
helped by abstractions and simplifications, and a two-to-three tier
system of complexity.
>>>> How is neuroplasticity suppose to fix the problem of information
>>>> overload?
>
> Brain structures result in emotions and behaviors. Education changes brain
> structures.
No, you can't make a categorical statement like that; not all
education changes brain structures, a lot of it makes the existing
patterns stronger, and a lot of education is wasted without leaving a
single trail of ever having been present. The *ideal* of education
changes structures, but the reality of it - and of human nature - is
not so simple.
> Train humans to control overstimulation (both cause and effect) and engage
> in practical critical thinking, and the "overload" problem no longer exists
> for those trained.
[...]
>> Have you got this training? Is it available? Can we see it?
>
> I've got mediation training. I've got a decade of research under my belt.
> Search "Critical thinking--Study and thinking." Design a class covering
> the logical and cognitive fallacies. Read "Teaching about hegemony"
> by Paul Orlowsky. Research ways to use the behaviors used to diagnose
> "psychopathy" ("aggressive narcissism") to explain "human intraspecies
> predation" in general.
To which my answer is, still ;
> Educating [everybody] is a hopeless endeavour.
> No, it's inevitable. Why, predatory talking heads in the media do it every
> day! :) Ask yourself why they might not consider what they do hopeless (my
> theory-- because emotionless predators don't ever think that way--if
> something predatory doesn't work, they just go on to other methods--
> predation is compulsive!).
You're a bit stuck on this predation thing. I get the feeling you mean
it in different ways depending on where you use it, but I'm not sure I
understand quite how it works out. Is market analysis predation, then?
Selling a product? Earning a living? Being professional? Are farmers
predating the earth for potatoes? I think the word "predation" needs a
bit more explanation.
> Hey-- we can at least educate everybody about the ineffectiveness of
> cynicism.
Not sure I agree; often it works great!*
* May or may not be a cynical statement
>>> let's create information environments that neutralize the causes and
>>> effects of overstimulation and instill critical thinking.
>>
>> Like?
>
> Required high school (or maybe earlier) courses (and library-taught course
> for adults) in: Mediation, Neutralizing bullying, Recognizing logical and
> cognitive fallacies, Discourse analysis, The nature of propaganda,
> Historical precedents for contemporary social problems, Defining and
> identifying glib speech, manipulation, absence of empathy, and sociological
> strategies and tricks used to deceive, and Application of collaboration in
> the classroom (instead of competition) in discussing each of these topics.
> No grades, no absolutely correct answers, just venues for students to
> interrelate with each other in performing critical thinking.
Hmm, you realize that this is supposed to be in the context of library
systems? :)
>> How many thousands of models of the mind and grading of mental
>> capacities have we come up with so far? Are they ... correct? Or
>> useful when scrutinized?
>
> All are "working hypotheses" to be tested. Testing for practical
> applications to improve the human state is more sensible that trying to
> prove any models "correct" outright.
My point was that no model will ever be correct; as soon as it
*matches* reality, it's no longer a model, but reality.
[...]
> See "Hare Psychopathy Checklist" articles for behaviors patterns and
> possible physical causes.
There's a long list of criticism of that checklist.
>>> Don't forget: "The medium [message] IS the massage."
>>
>> That's library-speak for the status quo without sounding like there's
>> a revolution in need of happening.
>
> No, it's saying that HOW something is said can be more effective
> (affective) that WHAT is said: body language, tone, intimidation,
> manipulative rhetoric, etc. Right now, there is a "revolution" of
> self-obsession out there approaching advocacy of anarchy that need to be
> *stopped*! ASAP.
I don't agree; people are becoming more and more aware of marketing
bullshit all the time, where success often can be measured in how a
company is being honest, straight to the point, open and simpler to
interact with. It's a revolution!
Hah!
Regards,
Alex
Received on Wed Oct 09 2013 - 22:22:56 EDT