From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Aug 29 1999 - 19:01:07 MDT
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Natasha Vita-More wrote:
> Her encouragement of me to move forward, don't look back, take it on,
> and ignore the small-minded folks who feel envy or anger or combativeness
> who try to tear down the strengths of creativity.
Envy and anger are perhaps the smallest part of the problem. In truth
the problem stems from combativeness, which it most cases, stems from
simple, pure and unadulterated fear.
Consider this: from Science: 285(5432) [27 Aug 1999]:1339-1341 :
> Results reported in this month's issue of Nature Neuroscience suggest
> that the hippocampus, a twist of tissue deep in the brain long believed to
> help form only conscious memories, also serves certain memories that don't
> rise to the level of awareness. The finding bolsters an emerging theory
> that the role of the hippocampus in memory is to relate different elements
> of experience--a role that is suggested by the fact that it receives
> information from many other brain regions.
If you have read Minsky's Society of Mind (admitedly difficult for
me to read), then this makes even more sense. People mentally have
a "survival paradigm", that is primarily what development is all about --
do this and you survive (maybe even reproduce), do this and you don't.
These paradigms are tuned, primarily, *beneath the level of awareness*!
They operate primarily the same way we drive a car (i.e. without much
conscious thought).
When we invoke the "winds of change", we are simultaneously invoking
"threats to survival using known paradigms". Those "who try to tear
down the strengths of creativity" are primarily doing so out of
the fear of survival. [The more you create which is "different",
the more difficult you make the selection of a proper survival path.]
> It is hard sometimes because it impairs, but it is essential in order
> to get work done when on presenting new ideas that ruffle feathers.
It is hard because negative feedback from external entities strengthens
those parts of our minds that seek approval, consensus & acceptance
as natural survival strategies. We are doing more than "ruffle
feathers" we are informing people that they are standing under
an avalanche, that they are doomed if they do not learn to snowboard
quickly. Those looking down the mountain slope, not hearing the rumble
of snow behind them, will be saying, "You are completely crazy,
there has never been an avalanche here." In those situations it
is useful to remember the Titanic.
>
> I say stand firm, be publically polite and learn how to express ideas
> objectively and with a calm but speak up when misinformation needs to
> be addressed. The skills that allow adversaries to *not* feel threatened
> and is our best tool.
>
I agree with you to a very large degree that this is the best way to
proceed. However, we can be the most skillful people in the world and
the average person (not even adversaries), *would* feel threatened,
by the very nature of what we are discussing.
It is important to acknowledge concerns and perspectives when they
have a basis. It is important to address them when they have
been thought about or debated. It is important to relate current
concerns with unknown solutions to past concerns with unknown
solutions (so people realize that running the "Unknown" rapids
is survivable).
However, it is also appropriate to aggressively stop incorrect
memes and where appropriate force those memes to be self-confronting.
A majority of individuals do not have the time or background to
"judge" the arguments and so they "trust" the experts (witness
the Ag-bio debates where different sides choose their respective
experts). In many cases, the argument is won simply on the
basis of who is perceived to be most confident in their opinion.
Confidence has many presentation styles. Perhaps the task we
face is presenting a variety of those styles, so that individuals
with style preferences will gravitate to the one they feel is
most compatible. There is no style that works universally and
it takes a very talented individual to switch styles on the fly
(at which point we become accused of being politicians). Perhaps
our strength is in having different perspectives and styles,
embracing that, and encouraging others to do the same. Perhaps
we must be the antithesis of "Men in Black".
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:56 MST