Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Perhaps the biggest issue with the OP is that I wasn't straightfoward in saying that. (I'd strongly defend that someone should've been able to tell, but I suppose the empiracle data would be against me on that one.) I got what you were getting at, straight from the first post, or so I think. I also saw the flaws in the presentation, and that you did, too, so I ignored those; they weren't relevant. Frame of reference thing. Like with the "Language: The Human Condition" thread. Context is applied in interpreting what is said, so the thing is that the edges of the concepts you are trying to serialize into words will be padded out to fit whatever frame of reference exists and leftover context from the previous thought. Since most of the readers will never be in the same mindspace as a post was written in, one will see divergent interpretations. And since most readers are uninclined to assume the best, that means anything that isn't intended to generate vigorous nodding and standing ovations will need a bunch of scaffolding in order for the communication to succeed. Also, google "affective threshold" at some point. It's relevant in terms of having people listen. Corrections by replying to replies will tend to suffer from the same problem as a frog on a heat plate (or negotiations): a threshold is never reached, because the increments are too small. And, yes, correcting the most glaring errors in the presentation- early on- would have led to more productive debate. Health, al-Aswad.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind. From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way. We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|