[FRIAM] post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

[Steven A Smith]

Nick -

I'll second Glen's suggestion that you delineate as best you can,
specific things you don't understand and iterate with one or more of us
an those as best you can.   As evidenced by my discussion with Glen on
"means of production", it can be rather grueling for both sides, but
since I have a lot of trust in Glen's good intentions and his commitment
to not just throw up his hands and give up on the discussion, we are
powering through it and I *think* getting somewhere.  More on that on
that thread soon.

What I hear you saying is that our perspectives/experiences feel too
foreign to you to to know where to start?   While my response was rather
wordy (as are all of my  submissions), I think my perspective might be
closer to yours than Dave's for sure and perhaps others. 

- Steve

On 11/21/19 5:08 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> The only way to fix this is to do what I'm trying to do with Steve in the "means of production" thread. He seemed to use "means of production" as if it's a meaningful concept. And because I can't make sense of the phrase, I've asked him why he finds it meaningful. Then when he explains himself, I *try* to say what I thought he said but in my own words.
>
> Checking your rendition of what you think a person might say against that person is the only way to get better. You have to always ask "Did I restate your position right?"
>
> I don't intend to harass you, here. And I'm probably wrong. But I don't recall you ever doing that on this mailing list. You seem to hold quite fast to your side of the discussion. I'm a hypocrite, of course, because I don't do it anywhere near as much as I should. It's a flaw in our (particularly we males) ways of interacting. We're more interested in talking than listening. You could try it, now, by repeating back to one of us what you *think* we're saying and hope that person takes the (often significant) time, effort, and good will to iterate.
>
> Of course, that type of iteration is *nothing* like what we tend to get in "school".
>
> On 11/21/19 10:05 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> Your reactions to my "puritan" probe completely surprised me, and I realize that I don't have a good grip on your perspectives.  In a good "school", I should be able to anticipate, or even channel, the reactions of other members such that I could, if necessary,  fill in if one of you were absent.   But I can't.  I would like to do better.