Facebook

Barry, please tread lightly in Volant. 'This thread is insulting as hell' doesn't sound like the friendly discussion we want to have. People are starting to complain

Let me rephrase that more gently then.

Uffda! That thread was dispiriting as hell.

Would you care explaining what was dispiriting and insulting? I'd like to understand

Sure. But first, may I invite you to catch up with my newest posts on the long thread? Let me know when you have caught up.

I have read them. I didn't understand yyour question to David

The one about tongue-in-cheek comments?

Yes

(PS I'm against tongue-in-cheek, irony, and in-jokes myself)

So how do you resolve that (mild) conflict? David not only engages in subtle (i.e. hard to recognize) tongue-in-cheek comments, he calls attention to them (in case someone thought he was being serious (rather than snarky, ironic, or mocking). So is that an acceptable practice, an eschewed practice, or what?

So my question to him had to do with recognizing a snarky comment as an intentional insult vs a good natured jest.

I'm spearheading that it should be discouraged to the other moderators. it leads to misunderstandings, and misunderstandings is where most problems start.

Which, I suppose, comes down to diving the other guy's intent. And intent, being an aspect of Theory of Mind, is notoriously hard to divine, if the other person is not franky disclosing it.

I thought that was probably what you meant, but couldn't get that out of it. You may have confused the subject of the sentence. And it felt like a question within a question

"Diving" should have been "divining" there.

Yes, I got that

But I suspect few people apprehended the intent of my comment about the thread being "insulting as hell."

Exactly. And that is also why David accused you of not following a social contract yourself

If you read that long "About Volant" page, and then read that long thread about whether Volant has, wants, doesn't have, doesn't want a social contract (with the sidebar on the irrelevant subject of rules), the whole thread comes off as a self-insult. That is the thread doesn't insult any one person, but serves to self-indict (or self-insult) itself vis-a-vis the About page as a frame of reference.

How can one not follow a non-existing (or Null) social contract?

So was he seriously indicting me, or simply making a silly joke that no one got?

Ah, I get it. The thing is, the group description was written by the owner (Nth) when the group was set up. This poll was a new proposal not from the owner or moderators, but a member; prompted by your talk about introducing a social contract. From our point of view, that is just a discussion. We believe that discussion is good. That is the point of a discussion group after all. I think he was being serious

So I asked him for some criterion for diving intent and/or for recognizing when someone has their tongue firmly planted in their cheek, in a text chat where the bulge in the shape of a person's cheek cannot be seen with one's own eyes.

How about taking a poll among those in the thread. How many thought he was being silly, making a joke that only a logician would appreciate? How many thought he was seriously indicting me? I'd love to know how various people understood him.

*divining* Ues, that is difficult, and why emoticons were invented. But they don't always do it well enough, and people forget to use them. More importantly we're an international group and have different senses of humour and understand things differently, so my point is exactly that it is too dangerous to use if we want to remain objective and calm

How come I cannot spell divining correctly? Is it a Freudian thing here. Am snorkeling too deep in the snarky waters?

:-) Perhaps you have autocorrect on?

Not sure I would call his comment snarky though, that's a very subjective term

Is Volant an Intentional Community? A Learning Community? If it's a Learning Community, it is mathematically impossible not to have burbling emotions. Do you know about that theory, relating emotions to learning?

I was trying to find the correct synonym and failed to come up with the one I was searching for.

I don't know the exact definitions. But it is intentional, but in a learning stage. This is another thing that is putting people off, I have to be frank enough to say, you insist on exact definitions in pre-existing forms. I always want definitions to, I always ask 'what exactly do you mean by x'; but I don't insist on it being something officially defined in a paper somewhere, I'm happy with their description of how they interpret it

That then becomes our tacit little social contract in that discussion, which is enough to move forward with the dialogue

Have you ever read any Dostoevsky? One of his short stories is called "The Dream of a Ridiculous Man."

There are many shades of ridicule, including good natured teasing, ribbing, taunting, mocking. These can be trecherous waters for middle school kids.

So that thread is sort of self-ridiculing, if you get what I am trying to say.

In logic and rhetoric, I have no doubt you know about Reductio ad Absurdum. Anything which is logically self-inconsistent is "absurd" in term of math-logical analysis or rhetorical analysis.

Yes, I get it now . But the way you put it sounded insulting. Especially when you use a swear word, people will err to taking it badly. Good natured teasing and such I broadly put under "in-jokes"

A group enroute to optimal best practices has to squeeze out of existence the near-optimal but sub-optimal shortcomings.

Now in an online group, one seriously needs to know how much joking, jesting, and good-natured ribbing is acceptable, because we don't want to bruise any egos.

Polish, yes. Bruise no.

So how much grit on the sandpaper is the right amount for polishing without abrading?

Yes, I know reductio ad absurdum, and the other logical fallacies. But this is not a closed system. It's a an organically growing organism. Evolving. What is said on the About tab is not necessarily 100& true of the discussion, and vice versa

And that clearly depends on the emotional maturity of the individuals being shined up.

Absolutely

The fact that Nth took a poll (at my request) to obtain unanimous consent to whole-heartedly welcome me into Volant, without that IQ / Mensa Test Rule is significant here.

How coarse the sand paper is, is what we're discussing now. FYI, we're talking about creating two groups, one for thick skinned people who are passionate and want to vent, and one dispassionate group

One of the main reasons I inquired (of Nth) about a Social Contract (beside to simply apprehend the Vision and Mission of the group) was to calibrate whether this was to be diplomatically politically correct or easy-going with a modest amount of good-natured jesting.

Which reminds me, one of your comments was that the page says you must be so and so. That was changed just before you joined. We replaced it, so people who even haven't taken an IQ test can join under the correct circumstances. The page hasn't been updated yet as we want to figure this out first and include that too

And the (mostly unspoken) answer was to treat each person the way they (individually) wanted to be treated, without a uniform standard for all.

Yes - main point being civility

Nathan expressly asked me to submit some scores for standardized tests of some sort. But I haven't taken any such standardized tests since my public school and college undergraduate years, back in the 1960s. Nor do I even have, know, or remember any scores. I'm not sure they were even disclosed to us in those days.

Civility is a very fluid concept. Is it civil for a moderator to arbitrarily and capriciously moderate/block/ban/eject someone without first engaging in good faith conflict resolution or due process?

Yes, I know, that was before we changed the rules. We realised there were a lot of interesting people on the waiting list, who for some reason or another couldn't achieve the admittance rules. So we voted to relax it, and you and some others got in

That practice (censoring/blocking/banning) is a recurring theme in online communities, especially those w/o social contracts.

Civility is indeed a bit subjective and more importantly very cultural. Which is why we want to work out some rules. And as mentioned, we don't know yet how course or fine to make it

By the way, if anyone thinks they made a mistake in voting to invite me (perhaps because Nth misrepresented my character), they are welcome to rescind or reverse their vote and expel me. I don't want to be in a group if there is even one person who is hostile and antagonistic to my existence or presence amongst them.

I don't think "some rules" are a viable solution. That's why I asked Nth about the Social Contract Model (which expressly eschews the rule-based method of social self-regulation). I disbelieve in, disvalue, and disfavor a rule-based method of regulation in general (not just for human groups, but for any system).

In our deliberations we are of course including your Social Contract examples, and will probably take some inspiration from there.

No one has gone as far as being antagonistic about you, so there's no reason to expel you, but there are murmurs. You may have noticed that you don't get many replies. Several have said that they deliberately have started to shun you

One thing that is not at all clear to me is whether people apprehend the distinction between Rules (Kohlberg Stage 4 and below) and Social Contract Models (Kohlberg Stage 5 and above). After being in that (ridiculous) thread, I concluded that roughly half the participants did not appreciate the concept or distinction between Rules and Social Contracts (even after I carefully explained it).

Do those who shun me find me to be intellectually intimidating? Boring? What? What is the diagnosis of their disaffection, given that they freely consented to admit me?

What is the aspect of my character that they take exception to?

Obviously I have a blind spot here. They are seeing something they don't like, but I have no clue what it is. What is the name of the dimension of my character that they find undesirable?

Can you facilitate a research into that baffleplexing question of mine?

Indeed, no one has the same definition as you. And they perceived that you were trying to push it forcibly down their throats. Most of the people are free thinkers, and couldn't care less if it's called a rule, a guideline, a contract, a protocol, a standard, or a policy. They're just using the dictionary terms which is mostly synonyms. Going into detail of what 'official' term to use, is, as I said, putting people off. They want to discuss the big issue, not the details. This is where the use of 'engineer' disparagingly comes from. You graciously volunteered the information that you can't understand or comprehend something unless it comes with a complete model. That's not what the group is doing, they think freely without boundaires. I'm guessing you have a hard time brainstorming too?

I abhor coercion. I abhor force-feeding. I am baffled as to why they would impute to me an intent so antithetical to my person ethic.

(That was about the distinction between rules and contract. I'll come back to your later question=

So what is their understanding of my character? How can they have a mental model of me without having an actual model that they can put on display and say, "Here is my mental model of Barry. Come and examine it."

By the way, here is my (slightly tongue-in-cheek) self-model:

http://encyc.org/wiki/User:Moulton

So, is that an accurately self-deprecating self-model? ;)

Oh, the synonym I was looking for earlier was "sarcasm" (or "sarcastic remark").

You just demonstrated what is rubbing people the wrong way. 1. Everything must be a a predefined model before you can understand it - yet you pour papers and sites over us, too much for anyone to keep up with of YOUR preferred definitions. 2. You don't listen to anyone else's definitions. 3. You don't like to think in the abstract, it must be very precise indeed. 4. Rather than say something useful you keep posting links to your own sites - self glorifying is never well received, especially from a person who never praises another. 5. All of that makes you come across as a teacher rather than a colleague to spar with. You don't like sparring either I suspect? There - that's the summary of how people see you. And the vote has nothing to do with it; how could anyone who didn't know you beforehand know how you were going to actually behave?

The etymology of "sarcasm" (from the Greek) means "to tear flesh"). In other words, more than a little abrasive.

Only I wasn't being sarcastic. I was relaying what people are saying

Most models are not pre-defined, but constructed. I have spent my life constructing models, because without one, have no understanding of something. That's what it means to have a scientific understanding of something -- to have a functional working model of it. If people find that practice off-putting, then I conclude that people find the concept of science off-putting.

I am about the most abstract thinker you are likely to run into. So I am baffled at your theory that I eschew abstract thinking. Almost all of my thinking is via abstract models.

I tire of retyping my thoughts over and over and over. So I write them down, and when someone expresses an interest in one of my thoughts, I point them to a carefully crafted presentation of them. Is that a silly practice?

How do you know what I do or don't attend to? How do you know whether I accept or reject something I have observed another person to say or write?

Is Volant a place for sparring (fighting)? I thought not. I thought it was a place for discovery learning and gleaning insights. Have I deluded myself in that estimate?

Substitute "they" for "you" if those are the complaints of the ones who have formed their remarkable theory of mind about me.

And now I invite them to put their Theories of Mind about me on the table, in the open, and let's examine them the way we would examine any scientific theory or model.

Do they have the courage and personal integrity to do that?

Let's put their mental models of me on trial -- trial by the Scientific Method.

Bt sparring I mean DIALOGUE. You have not engaged in any dialogue. Onlu presented monologues. Sorry, the moderators have just had a vote, and it is negative

Then I request that you publicly expel me, setting forth your reasons analysis, and decisions for public examination.

"It seems to me that generally people think that less intelligent people are more likely to be passionate, throwing temper tantrums, while more intelligent people restrain themselves, keeping a cool head and thinking things through with an open mind. Is that true?"

It depends on what you mean by "passionate." Neil DeGrasse Tyson is passionate about science. So was Carl Sagan, who was often "astonished" at what he was discovering. I am passionate about STEM education, too, though not as demonstrative as Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Perhaps you'll understand the word 'emotional' better

Here is my understanding of emotions:

"Cognition, Affect, and Learning"

https://sites.google.com/site/barrykort/home/cognition-affect-and-learning

That's a summary of 30 years of research, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, which won the Best Theory Paper Award when it was first presented at an International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies.

So, Daniel, what is the name of the affective emotional state of the moderators, upon their deliberations and decisons? Was it perchance one of "exasperation"?

http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-study-in-exasperation.html

Just so you won't be blind-sided, please be aware that I have documented my experiences with Volant.

http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/search?q=Harrumph

Thank you for sharing that with me. That is very honourable. I will of course have to share it with the other moderators, in particular since you are mentioning actual names...

PS. Rather than a complete smear campaign, you might have mentioned that I was trying to reach out to you for hours

They are more than welcome to rejoin and engage with me in the comments section of my blog.

Please feel free to add your perspective to the story, by availing yourself of the comments feature of my blog.

It frankly wasn't clear to me if you were reaching out or signalling your intent to join in the shunning maneuver.

Note, also, that I have no idea who among the members are moderators with a vote, and who are not. I have no idea, for example, if you are one of the moderators, or one of those subject to moderation.

My first message to you was that I wanted to understand. And I really did. And After you explained about the self referencing irony, I understood what you meant. But that didn't megate the "general attitude" people were feeling you had towards them. People aren't machines with defined bt models you know. They're messy things

Of course people are, at times, inscrutable.

Maybe I'm also one of those inscrutable characters, from the point of view of those who have inexplicably mischaracterized and misjudged me.

I know, it's not clear who the moderators are. That is something I want to change too. (Yes, I'm a moderator=

It seems plausible that you would have been one who was at least attending the voting process.

Yes, I was. That was after, or rather at the end of, our chat

Beforethen, I was undecided, but worried

But I was frankly gobsmacked to discover there was no conflict resolution protocol, no hearing, no due process, just arbitrary, capricious, and summary expulsion. That seemed to me to be a bit odd for a group of highly intelligent scholars.

Perhaps now you appreciate why I asked Nathan up front whether there was a social contract setting forth mutually agreeable terms of engagement and a conflict resolution protocol.

Conflict resolution protocol is that the moderators vote whether to expel someone, by a simple majority. That is also hinted at on the About page where it says that if you don't behave you're expelled. You can consider our chat as the hearing. Due process is a legal term, and this is not a legal court. It's not capricious when several people complain and a majority votes out. This is not a research project, but a social group

Hi Daniel.

Any Saturday Morning Quarterbacking to report?

Are people still furious? Laughing? Confused? Exhausted?

Social Groups are remarkable creatures. Among the academics who studied them was a notable Cultural Anthropologist named Victor Turner. He observed the aftermath of a Breach of Expectations and modeled that aftermath in terms of a model he called Liminal Social Drama.

Has anyone gained any insight or become enlightened from yesterday's example of Liminal Social Drama?

Here, for your reference, is my summary of Victor Turner's model of Liminal Social Drama, in the wake of a Breach of Expectations:

http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/search?q=Liminal+Social+Drama

Have you been running a social experiment on us??

Nope. I was hoping to avoid the very thing that happened.

Clearly I failed in a epic manner, eh?

Yes, you did. The overall reaction is laughing I'm afraid

Actually, that's good. Comedy is better than tragedy, because it means the characters in the story had an epiphany. And this a most sanguine and desirable outcome.

:-) I agree

Excellent. I am gratified when authentic discovery learning takes place, even it takes place at my expense.

Have you made any progress in devising a more agreeable self-governance model?

Well, nothing was really changed. We were as you know already in the process of enhancing the ground rules of the group. None of that has changed

Yes, we have some good ideas, but your antics haven't influenced them or sped them up

It might take some time. It's actually a huge paradigm shift, to go from an authoritarian, rule-based regulatory model to a more enlightened and high-functioning egalitarian protocol.

Quite the opposite. As we have to work to get rid of your copies of confidential and copyrighted material all over the place

I don't think it's possible to speed up the learning process. Rather one can help get it unstuck or unblocked when people hit a stumbling block.

You were successful in slowing it down

Why are you working so hard?

As you know, we have a goal to achieve

What goal is that?

Don't start that again. I'm not buying your feigned stupidity. Think tank for hire. You really are a drama queen who needs attention all the time and should seek professional help, unless you are really doing research, in which case I'm offended

Why has MIT blocked your access to their site??

Oh, that goal. I wasn't clear on which one you were referring to.

Have I mentioned that I abhor drama? I study it so as to discover how best to avoid becoming ensnared in liminal social drama. Back when we wrote that peer-reviewed paper on Civility and Social Contracts, we noted that it often devolved into "lunatic drama" -- that being the term of art suggested by my co-authors in that paper.

What do you mean about MIT? I have no clue what you are referring to.

How about answering my question??

Ob, simultaneious posts

I'm not following you. What are you asking?

We've been told by MIT that you are blocked there. Anyway, you are distracting the moderators of this august group from the more important things with your copyright infringement and copying of confidential material.

That's news to me. Who did you talk to at MIT?

You are in direct violation of points 6 and 7 of the Rights and Responsibilities Contract that you approved when you signed on to Facebook

Never mind. We have a lawyer on it. Goodbye

Can we take these one at a time, please. What about MIT?

Our lawyer is on that

On what?

Bye

Did your lawyer tell you not to communicate with me?

I'll be happy to talk to him instead. What's his name and contact information?

I believe you have already been contacted. And yes, everything now goes through that way. BUE!!!

BYE!!!

I have not received any messages from anyone representing your interests.

No phone calls, no e-mail.