Re: META: Posting resumes tomorrow

From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Jun 12 2004 - 01:31:20 MDT


Some disturbing ideas and trends and real problems with current FAI
proposals were aired. People got a bit upset in the process. Now
after "cooling down" we are mainly concerned with being "polite" but
are in danger of losing track of the real problems and disagreements
that gave much of the energy to the row. This may "feel better" and
I'm all for that. But not at the cost of sweeping under the rug real
problems and concerns.

-s

On Jun 11, 2004, at 7:30 PM, Philip Sutton wrote:

> Hi Eliezer,
>
>> I'd like to ask that we all make an exception to the usual SL4 list
>> rules and deliberately try to be polite to one another and avoid
>> stepping on toes.
>
> I think this is a really good idea. My feeling is that you have
> rediscovered why people invented politeness (which includes some
> degree of humility) in the first place. It's to avoid triggering
> flare ups
> like we had - especially when such flare ups may not just be cyclical
> phenomena but might lead to permanent damage to communication or
> collaboration.
>
>> Afterward, things can go back to normal.
>
> I would seriously reconsider this idea. If politeness is useful in
> preventing flare ups who has enough wisdom (and authority) to know
> that about 'now' is the time to reintroduce politeness to head off a
> flare
> up that has not yet happened? You said yourself:
>
>> I had no idea that was going to happen, and it illustrates the
>> difficulty of predicting the future even in simple matters; too many
>> unintended consequences.
>
> Given that we have just proven to ourselves the potentially damaging
> effects of rudeness (insensitivity?) is there anything that is so
> routinely
> damaging about politeness (sensitivity) that we would rather run the
> risk
> of the occasional (and, rarely, terminal) flare up?
>
> Why not run an experiment for 6 months and try politieness (and a
> modicum of humility) for the whole time and see if the intellectual
> output seems noticably less?
>
> Cheers, Philip



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT