Agreeing
I agree!
I understand it well. Not perfectly, but enough I have no questions to ask. Nothing is confusing me and needs clarifying. Basically I get it.
I don't have any criticism of it. That's because it's good. Whether something merits criticism is not an attribute of me.
I don't have anything to add. No new ways to approach the material, no further applications, no new ideas that build on it. This is primarily because it's pretty complete already; the author didn't leave much for me to add. Secondarily, it's because while I do understand it well, I'm not beyond it. It's at my level, not beneath me, so that's why I don't have more advanced stuff to add.
So, there is this narrow no-reply zone. It takes some pretty specific stuff to get into the zone. Most ideas in the world are either advanced or confusing enough I'd have questions, or at a low enough level I'd have criticism or improvements. With all those things I can have a discussion. But there is this little window where I end up not replying at all. I'd like to discuss, but I just can't find anything to say.
It seems like a shame. Material exactly at my level would be good to engage with, right?
Now, there's a couple things about this situation that I've noticed are a little strange.
This no-reply zone is small, but I reply to less than 5% of the philosophical emails which I receive and generally agree with. How can that be?
And second, it's not just me. Most other people seem to have larger-than-expected no-reply zones. And not just that. By some strange coincidence, their zone coincides with my zone. Time after time, I see some post that, unfortunately, is right in the middle of my no-reply zone, so try as I might I can't reply. But it's really interesting and I want there to be discussion of it. And then no one else replies. At first I thought it was just bad luck, but then I started counting and I noticed that happens on around 50% of philosophical posts that I generally agree with.
I understand it well. Not perfectly, but enough I have no questions to ask. Nothing is confusing me and needs clarifying. Basically I get it.
I don't have any criticism of it. That's because it's good. Whether something merits criticism is not an attribute of me.
I don't have anything to add. No new ways to approach the material, no further applications, no new ideas that build on it. This is primarily because it's pretty complete already; the author didn't leave much for me to add. Secondarily, it's because while I do understand it well, I'm not beyond it. It's at my level, not beneath me, so that's why I don't have more advanced stuff to add.
So, there is this narrow no-reply zone. It takes some pretty specific stuff to get into the zone. Most ideas in the world are either advanced or confusing enough I'd have questions, or at a low enough level I'd have criticism or improvements. With all those things I can have a discussion. But there is this little window where I end up not replying at all. I'd like to discuss, but I just can't find anything to say.
It seems like a shame. Material exactly at my level would be good to engage with, right?
Now, there's a couple things about this situation that I've noticed are a little strange.
This no-reply zone is small, but I reply to less than 5% of the philosophical emails which I receive and generally agree with. How can that be?
And second, it's not just me. Most other people seem to have larger-than-expected no-reply zones. And not just that. By some strange coincidence, their zone coincides with my zone. Time after time, I see some post that, unfortunately, is right in the middle of my no-reply zone, so try as I might I can't reply. But it's really interesting and I want there to be discussion of it. And then no one else replies. At first I thought it was just bad luck, but then I started counting and I noticed that happens on around 50% of philosophical posts that I generally agree with.
Comments
http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/12/12/whats-appreciative-thinking/
Alan Forrester at 1:40 PM on December 22, 2009 | Permalink
When I see something that I agree with, I'm not really interested in discussing it myself, but I am interested in getting other people to discuss it. If it's a bad idea then they might have a criticism I hadn't thought of. If it's a good idea then they might be persuaded of it, spreading the good idea.
Richard Fine at 9:38 PM on January 3, 2010 | Permalink
Elliot at 9:49 PM on January 3, 2010 | Permalink
Anonymous at 6:46 AM on January 4, 2010 | Permalink
One of the contradictions is between the non-reply zone being narrow and rare, but being used to explain not replying to a wide variety of material.
In actuality, when a person thinks he agrees with something, but has nothing to say about it, no criticism and no questions, he hasn't understood it. Here is another way to reach the same conclusion:
Understanding things is not a dead end.
Elliot at 7:09 PM on January 4, 2010 | Permalink
If that's why it's not a dead end, then can't there exist a temporary no-reply zone, between learning the idea and learning the criticism/extension of it?
Sitting at a reply-box thinking about the idea, is sometimes a less efficient way of finding new criticisms/extensions of it, than leaving to conduct practical tests for a bit.
Richard Fine at 9:01 PM on January 4, 2010 | Permalink
New knowledge leads to new problem situations, new problems, more new knowledge, and so on. It's lack of understanding that leads to dead ends, getting stuck, and so on.
Elliot at 9:56 PM on January 4, 2010 | Permalink
Richard Fine at 8:53 AM on January 5, 2010 | Permalink
Or people posting "a while ago we talked about X, and now I've learned that..." and saying some stuff.
If it was just a time lag, one could just not post for the first say 30 days and then post every day thereafter for the rest of their life. (I exaggerate slightly, but you get the idea?)
Elliot at 10:57 AM on January 5, 2010 | Permalink
I don't often see people replying to posts over a month old on email lists. I can think of two explanations: one, I'm not on very many email lists; and two, people forget that the discussion was had, or have trouble finding it.
Why don't you reply to 95% of your philosophical emails?
Richard Fine at 1:14 PM on January 5, 2010 | Permalink
On another note, the learning time lag theory involves one learning stuff, and that means thinking about questions, and that provides plenty of stuff one could post.
As to me, you seem to have misunderstood my post to be a personal statement. It isn't.
Elliot at 1:24 PM on January 5, 2010 | Permalink
Why does not understanding something mean you'd have no questions about it? Surely the opposite is true, e.g. asking for clarification or further explanation.
I didn't think your post was a personal statement, I was just looking to explore the example you gave. Does it corroborate the theory that the discussion stops because you've still not got problems/questions/extensions to add, or not?
Richard Fine at 2:40 AM on January 6, 2010 | Permalink