S.
I like the taxonomy. What do you suppose would be the chi-squared
probability of your occupying the various cells. For me, I find that
I avoid playing “Expert” in the topic of “evolution of communication”
because the expectations are high and I always disappoint them. Best
to play Expert when the topic is something I know nothing about.
N
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Steven
A Smith
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 15, 2019 1:13 PM
*To:* friam@redfish.com
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Few of you ...
I appreciate the introduction of "roles" and "topics" and "attractors"
here. I would say that *I* experience all three slightly differently:
Roles: This subdivides into (roughly?) 3 modes
1. Roles I was born/raised into... Son, brother, classmate,
boyfriend, husband, father. These were handed to me by the
culture I "became me" in. I may have been mildly more self-aware
and some might say cynical in my living/experiencing/elaborating
these roles.
2. Roles I adopted more consciously... Friend, Student,
Employee/Subordinate, Researcher, Technologist, Businessman,
etc. These roles are modeled after the ones I saw, but I believe
my engagement with them exceeded some threshold of self-awareness
to become self-intention. Each of these roles might have supspecie.
3. Roles such as I think Glen refers to, roles adopted in a very
transient mode... understanding I'm doing so for a specific
purpose in a specific context for (nominally) a very limited
time.... fellow traveler, cynic, seducer, authoritarian,
submissive, pleader, demander, ranter, raver, etc...
Topics: I believe these are orthogonal to Roles and I can approach
any topic from the point of view of one of the roles, or perhaps
vice-versa. Topics generally subdivide as follows for me:
1. Personal. Things that have an immediate and *personal* meaning to
me. These are mostly about self-image, psychological and
emotional states, physical states, immediate intimate relations, etc.
2. Public. These things tend to fall into the arena of (possibly
well informed) opinions such as politics, religion, aesthetic
preferences, etc.
3. Technical. These things generally fall in to the categories of
Science or Technology... things which can be studied and much
derived from "first principles". These things (in principle) can
be tested in something like an objective mode. The "soft
sciences" are getting "harder" all the time as they take on more
mathematical rigor, as we live and study them longer we have more
formal models for them, as we discover/develop new measurement
technologies which were presumed to be out of reach in the past
(e.g. fMRI, crypto, big-data analysis, etc.)
Attractors: I take these to be the psychosocial context in which I
discover these roles (and role-topic pairs?) and my relation to
them. The larger culture is where these attractors (in particular
the born/raised roles (1)) exist. Type 2 Roles are usually more
context specific, based in some subculture experience and therefore
the attractors are more dependent on the sub-context. Type 3 Roles
seem to have the most restrictive attractors, depending more on my own
psychosocial context than perhaps the others, or maybe more to the
point, those contexts are more idiosyncratic to me. They are more
likely to be adopted transiently and therefore have less investment
and equally I feel the "attractors" are more sweeping... there is a
lot more "acting as if" or "fake it til you make it" for me in this
domain. I might enter a conversation for example, not intending to
be a cynic, but quickly find myself drawn into it by my conversant's
adopting a Pollyanna role, for example.
- Steve
On 1/15/19 12:20 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Marcus,
Would you be happier if we called them "attractors". Surely you, stalwart
individualist that you are, would agree that there is something out there
that "attracts you" to certain lines of behavior in social situations?
Or perhaps not?
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 11:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<friam@redfish.com>
<mailto:friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Few of you ...
Glen writes:
< It's truly a breath of fresh air when I run across someone else who is
willing to swap roles several times through a single conversation. >
Why do there have to be roles and not just topics?
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003:http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003:http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
