From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Thu Sep 19 2002 - 04:30:14 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote on Wednesday, September 18, 2002 9:41 pm,
> I also apologize to the list for having become so
> notorious that an actual thread is devoted to my
> case (though, of course, I didn't start the thread).
Lee, you DID start the thread. You started the thread under the title
"*Why* People Won't Discuss Differences Objectively". You even asked for
list members to speak up if anyone else perceived the same complaints I had.
Louis responded to your request. (He also changed the thread title to the
above since we were no longer discussing "differences".) Now, after he and
many others answered your questions, you are pretending that this is an
unprovoked attack and that you didn't start the thread.
This is an example that other people can interpret as game playing. You ask
the question, and when people answer you, you attack the answer and claim
they started it.
> My first reaction is that I was shocked that at least
> four people do consider me guilty of "game playing",
> and, as you know, for every one person that posts such
> an opinion, there are many who simply don't trouble
> themselves to do so, or are reluctant for other reasons.
>
> Therefore, it seems immediately incumbent upon me to
> attempt to understand just how it is that I'm "playing
> games", and I continue to invite analyses---perhaps
> offline would be more appropriate, but suit yourself---
> that would provide me some insight. Now a small component
> of this criticism is directed towards "semantic games"
1. The above example of asking a question and then acting surprised that
people answered is one.
2. Another was the "Censorship" thread in which you implied ExI was
censoring you when they were not. What annoyed me most was that you were
discussing the problem off-line with Shaun and I, and yet were complaining
on the list as well. What you said to the list in private did not match
what you said to us in private.
3. You have sent me e-mail asking questions and then later send e-mail to
Shaun claiming that you never discussed the issue. After talking with me
and Shaun, you acted on the list like you couldn't get a response from ExI.
4. I confided to you once that I had accidentally gone over my
8-posts-per-day limit. You acted like it was no big deal and you wouldn't
complain, yet you sent a note to Shaun within minutes complaining of my
transgression.
5. In the "life-boat" thread, you insisted that you had never participated,
when in fact you were one of the more agitating participants. Later when
this was proved from the archives, you said you forgot posting anything
about it.
6. You offended Gina Miller to the point that she almost quit the list, and
at the same time sent a public "Open Letter to Gina Miller" acting like you
had no idea who might have offended her, and publicly denouncing the unknown
person whoever he might be.
7. You have argued positions and when proven wrong claim it was a thought
experiment and you never really held that position.
8. You have posted provocative positions and when people object or are
offended, you say it was deliberately provocative but not to blame you
because you really didn't mean it.
Basically, I and many others, no longer feel we can trust you or trust what
you say. You pretend to be friendly with someone in private e-mail while
attacking them at the same time elsewhere. You deliberately misrepresent
your position for effect or advantage, but not to accurately reflect a
consistent viewpoint. You think you can pigeon-hole other people and then
reframe their position into something they never said.
All of the above may be just "thought experiments" or "debating techniques"
to you. But to other people, they can appear dishonest or misleading. I
believe that most of the people who are so frustrated with you feel that
they have been misrepresented by you or somehow harmed by your games. They
are afraid of being burned again and now interpret everything you say as yet
another "strategy" on your part.
> Jef wrote
> Two things surprise me about this. The first is that I would
> have supposed that engaging in "semantic competition [rather] than
> understanding or illuminating new thoughts" would be something that
> applied to most of those who get into disputes on email lists
Perhaps this is so, but most extropians are deliberately trying to AVOID
this kind of on-line competition. This is why we often debate truth, logic,
scientific method or so forth. The idea of "winning the argument" is not
supposed to be one of the goals for this forum.
> The other is "anticipating" someone else's replies. On *one* reading,
> this is an innocent and even praiseworthy behavior, as it anticipates
> objections and so saves writing time. Could someone explain how this
> is not a good thing?
When your "anticipation" twists or misrepresents your opponent's views.
This is exactly what many of us have said, but you seem to dismiss that
part. If you really could anticipate people's responses, this would be
praiseworthy. But contrary to your self-evaluation, you cannot predict
other people very well. You are constantly responding to things they
haven't said yet and have no intention of saying. When you argue against
statements they never made, they tend to call this a "strawman" argument or
misrepresenting their opinion, or not listening or even waiting for their
opinion. This seems to be a common complaint in this thread, but you still
seem to miss the point. It is not the "anticipation" that is wrong, but
your inaccuracies and misrepresentation that is annoying.
But I'm totally baffled about "manipulating
> your conversation partner (opponent?)". How could one do that? Now,
> yes, one can make *good* points that are hard to respond to, but it's
> clear that something more than this is meant. Again, I would be very
> grateful for a clarification here, because a part of me (clearly not all
> of me if it's true that I'm just playing games) genuinely wants to know,
> and would appreciate any hints.
I think it has been clearly explained, just that you don't see it. As I
said before, it seems like you don't ask questions to get an answer, you ask
questions to start a debate so you can present your own theories. It's like
the person who asks, "What's wrong with this country? I'll tell you..."
without even waiting for a response. Except in your case, you pretend you
are asking questions and responding to others, while other feel that you
couldn't care less about their responses. This effect is especially
intensified when you wrongly anticipate their responses and the thread goes
off on one of your own tangents. This is what I meant when I said you end
up arguing with yourself instead of the other person. You don't seem to
notice when your anticipations are wrong, so you keep arguing against this
position that you posted instead of what the person actually said.
> I've looked over all of the above writing, and cannot
> see any places where I'm playing games or being disingenuous,
> but of course, criticism is always welcome. ("What a wonderful
> gift God could give us to see ourselves as others see us.")
You seem to have a very big blind spot such that you cannot see what other
people are saying. This is so pronounced, that many people might think you
are merely being misrepresenting. For example, you have admitted so many
"thought experiments", "deliberately provocative statements", "trying to
lead others to a position", and "not really holding that position" that it
is really hard to believe that you can't think of any situation where you
might have been manipulating the conversation. Just your concept of
"anticipating" people's responses and trying to answer their objections
before they even make them can be seen as manipulative. This makes the
other person wonder why they even need to response when you are posting both
sides of the conversation for them.
> Lee Corbin
I still maintain that you started this thread by asking your questions and
asking if anyone else agreed with me. However, I am embarrassed at how
quickly and strongly I championed the charge to list all of your stylistic
faults. In the interest of fair-play, I invite you and everybody else to
analyze my faults and annoying on-line style. I would "imagine" that people
find me intelligent, logical and a consistent seeker of the truth. But in
reality, I suspect that some people see me as liberal, politically correct,
thought police, control-freak, and all sorts of other things. I seriously
invite people to tell me how they perceive me. It seems only fair.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:09 MST