[FRIAM] Few of you ...

[Nick Thompson]

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/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 1:13 PM
To: friam at 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-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 11:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  <mailto:friam at redfish.com> <friam at 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-COMIC http://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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20190115/54a155f1/attachment.html>