The goals of criticism

[Brian G. Rice]

I have just spent the last hour or so reading the reponse Jim and Michele
wrote to this group, and then the fallout from this response. Interesting
reading.

I have a question for those who have so vocally responded to the post by
Jim and Michele.

What do you want when you post a criticism on a board like this? What is
the goal?

Brian G. Rice

[Nancy Folsom]

In article <3a25b4b7$1@news.devx.com>, bgrice@entier.org says...
>
> I have just spent the last hour or so reading the reponse Jim and Michele
> wrote to this group, and then the fallout from this response. Interesting
> reading.
>
> I have a question for those who have so vocally responded to the post by
> Jim and Michele.
>
> What do you want when you post a criticism on a board like this? What is
> the goal?


Uh...are you saying that people don't have conversations on the
newsgroups? My. Someone should inform the owners of all the newsservers
in the world. In particular, DevX.

But, perhaps your comment is a thinly veiled criticism. Would you care
to try again...this time plainly?

--
Nancy
So that all can benefit from the discussion,
please post all followups to the newsgroup.

[Robert Scoble]

> I have just spent the last hour or so reading the reponse Jim and Michele
> wrote to this group, and then the fallout from this response. Interesting
> reading.
> I have a question for those who have so vocally responded to the post by
> Jim and Michele.
> What do you want when you post a criticism on a board like this? What is
> the goal?

To have someone post "interesting reading."

My goals were very clear and have been achieved.

What are your goals?

Robert Scoble

###

[Brian G. Rice]

I'm not saying anything, nor am I criticizing you. I am genuinely interested
in your goals when posting a response to an article. I am hoping that this
can be the seed of a discussion about the methods used to post responses
to articles.

So that there is no misconception, I have taken Jim’s Bootcamp, and employ
his techniques in my projects. This does not mean however that I am a defender
of his ideas. I am always seeking ways to improve on what I have learned
from Jim. I am hoping that the above question could lead to some productive
discussions about how to improve Jim’s ideas. I have now stated, in good
faith, my goals for this question. I hope that you will respond in kind,
and tell me what your goals are with the posts that you have made criticizing
Jim’s articles.

Brian G. Rice

Nancy Folsom <nancy_folsom@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <3a25b4b7$1@news.devx.com>, bgrice@entier.org says...
>>
>> I have just spent the last hour or so reading the reponse Jim and Michele
>> wrote to this group, and then the fallout from this response. Interesting
>> reading.
>>
>> I have a question for those who have so vocally responded to the post
by
>> Jim and Michele.
>>
>> What do you want when you post a criticism on a board like this? What
is
>> the goal?
>
>
>Uh...are you saying that people don't have conversations on the
>newsgroups? My. Someone should inform the owners of all the newsservers

>in the world. In particular, DevX.
>
>But, perhaps your comment is a thinly veiled criticism. Would you care
>to try again...this time plainly?
>
>--
>Nancy
>So that all can benefit from the discussion,
>please post all followups to the newsgroup.

[Brian G. Rice]

Thank you for your response.

My goals for posting that specific question are outlined in my reply to Nancy
Folsom. However, my goals for posting to a board like this in general is
to help the author of an article improve their ideas and/or method of delivery.

How would Jim or Michele responding to the posts made on this board enhance
your goal?

Brian G. Rice


"Robert Scoble" <rscoble@fawcette.com> wrote:
>> I have just spent the last hour or so reading the reponse Jim and Michele
>> wrote to this group, and then the fallout from this response. Interesting
>> reading.
>> I have a question for those who have so vocally responded to the post
by
>> Jim and Michele.
>> What do you want when you post a criticism on a board like this? What
is
>> the goal?
>
>To have someone post "interesting reading."
>
>My goals were very clear and have been achieved.
>
>What are your goals?
>
>Robert Scoble
>
>###
>
>
>
>

[Bob Foster]

I too have been extremely interested in the conversations here, Content AND
Style.

Content:
The label 'HumanOS' is so emotive anyway that it was bound to excite discussion...
why don't the authors just reply in kind? We could have a jolly good fight
about it and who knows we might end up with something rather new !

Style:
I have found it very refreshing to see the participants managing to pump
so much 'raw emotion' into a medium (ie text) which is usually portayed as
'lacking something' when it is compared to video and audio.

There is all the benefit of eyeball to eyeball communication without the
immediate threat of physical violence (which I suppose is the only limiting
factor in some 'face-offs' -
a-la-Gerry Springer)

The danger of course is that reputations might get a little battered, but
then in the interests of progressing human knowledge, perhaps there have
to be some casualties?

The other side of this is that reasoned, moderated discussion keeps everyone
on good terms with each other, but I suppose the danger is tha it becomes
so sterile that there are no seeds for innovation.

Does that describe your working environment?... or does the application of
'The Core' lead to a healthy balance of these two inevitably conflicting
forces?

[Craig Clearman]

Brian,

>What do you want when you post a criticism on a board like this?

To expand the communications in order to reach the ability to
correctly evaluate an idea. Simply being presented with an idea is
insufficient to judge its veracity. An idea needs to be able to refute
criticism to actually hold any weight.

Think back your college days when you heard about the Hegelian
Dialectic. That's exactly what you gain from criticism.

I would have thought that to be obvious, though.

I do find it unfortunate that the people who expressed this idea are
unwilling to attempt to defend it. It certainly leaves the impression
that they can not even begin to defend its premises. Truthfully, I
doubt that I'd even read anything more in the series due to this lack
of confidence.

Ciao, Craig

[Zane Thomas]

Brian,

>What do you want when you post a criticism on a board like this? What is
>the goal?

Two goals:

1. Describe what appears to be a lack of theoretical foundation for the
claims made; and

2. Engaged the authors in a discussion of that issue.



---
Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

[Nancy Folsom]

In article <3a2611f1$1@news.devx.com>, bgrice@entier.org says...
>
> I'm not saying anything, nor am I criticizing you. I am genuinely interested
> in your goals when posting a response to an article. I am hoping that this
> can be the seed of a discussion about the methods used to post responses
> to articles.

I see. And, yet, I don't. Goal. That's a damned interesting question.
When I'm having a Taoist moment, I have no goals. And the world is
good, then.

But. The goal of criticism is obvious. Improve or discard the presented
argument. All things bear criticism. And science seeks it out. Yearns
for it. Depends on it.

The column was a instance of bad science and logic and reasoning (or so
I thought at the time, now I know it was just marketing). I find it a
worthwhile, meaningful, beautiful, and noble goal to root out bad logic
and reasoning and to question unclear science when I can--me first, btw.
So, I asked questions and raised criticisms of a prominantly displayed
journalistic piece appearing in a respected technical journal.

Thinking it was science, a few of us dared to hold it to scientific
standards. Imperfect, but never-the-less, scientific.

As the controversy matured my goal was to communicate my complete
disappointment with having wasted my time on such a trivial matter. And
yet, I have to consider the idea that if every whacked out, ill-defined
idea is given a high-profile with no criticism, the gullible might be
prone to swallow without chewing.

I don't know if that's clear. I do mean to be. Please feel free to
follow up, if you like or care to.

[Brian G. Rice]

zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:
>Two goals:
>
>1. Describe what appears to be a lack of theoretical foundation for the
>claims made; and
>
>2. Engaged the authors in a discussion of that issue.

Zane,

Thanks for the response. I like your goals. Based on these goals, I am
going to criticize the first post you made about the Human OS article. I
will include the whole text of the first post at the end of this post.

I give this post a 3 out of 10. I like and appreciate your honesty in the
post. I very much like that you pointed out the lack of support in the article
for the section “…the average
developer suffers the misery of ineffective communications roughly 100 percent
of the time…”. I found your use of references well thought out. I liked
that you were willing to engage. To get a 10 (to make this post perfect),
I would focus more on which aspects of the article lack theoretical foundation.
I would ask the authors clear questions about these areas, giving them a
chance to provide you with any clarification they could. I would compliment
the pieces of the article you did like. I would provide a welcoming environment
in which the authors could comment. I would focus only on your goals for
posting the article.

Thanks,
Brian G. Rice

zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:
>
>Geez Louise, are those people serious?
>
>Apparently the authors feel they are blessing us with some unique
>revelation:
>
>"As with the PC and Web waves, developers will first be intrigued by, then
>attracted to, and, finally, compelled to leap into this next big wave-the
>emergence of software that runs in your head, the first instance of which
>can be visualized as a special-purpose OS for the human mind."
>
>A bit of reading might make them a bit more humble. I suggest Richard
>Dawkins (orginator of the meme-meme), Daniel Dennett (Consciousness
>Explained), and Karl Popper (for lessons on logical thinking).
>
>"The protocols we use between people have never been designed."
>
>True, and for good reason. The protocols we use have evolved and continue
>to evolve. Attempting to replace the dynamic nature of evolution with
>preconceived ideas about design is foolish.
>
>"There are no guaranteed transmissions at the person-to-person level of
>the protocol stack. People don't "get" each other and, worse, they don't
>know they don't get each other."
>
>Words are inprecise, which is why dictionaries provide multiple
>definitions and even then are unable to convey all the nuances provided
by
>the context of evolving discourse. It requires effort and thought, not
>protocols, for people to achieve mutual understanding.
>
>"All you need to know is that—according to a 1998 Standish Group survey
of
>8,000 software projects—only 16 percent of all software development
>projects come in on time and within budget. Meanwhile, the average
>developer suffers the misery of ineffective communications roughly 100
>percent of the time."
>
>No, that's all I need to know. What I do need to know is where the
>"roughly 100 percent of the time" came from. Making up statistics to
>support what was already an argument based in vagueness hardly helps.
>
>
>Etc ... I'll be happy to give the next article a similar treatment.
>
>Bah, psycho-babble, it sucks.

[Brian G. Rice]

Thanks for the response Craig.

Craig Clearman <chclear@nospam.please> wrote:
>Brian,
>
>>What do you want when you post a criticism on a board like this?
>
>To expand the communications in order to reach the ability to
>correctly evaluate an idea. Simply being presented with an idea is
>insufficient to judge its veracity. An idea needs to be able to refute
>criticism to actually hold any weight.
>
>Think back your college days when you heard about the Hegelian
>Dialectic. That's exactly what you gain from criticism.
>
>I would have thought that to be obvious, though.

The expansion of communication is a worthy concept, I agree. Reading many
of the original posts in response to Jim and Michele, the goals of the posters
were not clear to me. This is the reason I am asking the question.

>I do find it unfortunate that the people who expressed this idea are
>unwilling to attempt to defend it. It certainly leaves the impression
>that they can not even begin to defend its premises. Truthfully, I
>doubt that I'd even read anything more in the series due to this lack
>of confidence.

My goal in this discussion is not to defend or indict Jim and Michele. I
am looking for an honest exploration of the methods used to facilitate the
goals of the posters on this board. As a group, I hope that we could investigate
our existing methods and improve on them.

Regards,
Brian G. Rice

[Brian G. Rice]

Thank you for the on going discussion. I am enjoying this.

Nancy Folsom <nancy_folsom@hotmail.com> wrote:
>But. The goal of criticism is obvious. Improve or discard the presented

>argument. All things bear criticism. And science seeks it out. Yearns
>for it. Depends on it.

Just so that I am clear, my understanding of what you have written above
is that your goal in posting in response to articles is to criticize, and
this criticism is to be used to help the authors improve their idea, or discard
it. I am going to continue with this post with this understanding. If it
is wrong, please ignore the rest of this post and correct my error.

>The column was a instance of bad science and logic and reasoning (or so

>I thought at the time, now I know it was just marketing). I find it a
>worthwhile, meaningful, beautiful, and noble goal to root out bad logic

>and reasoning and to question unclear science when I can--me first, btw.

>So, I asked questions and raised criticisms of a prominently displayed
>journalistic piece appearing in a respected technical journal.
>
>Thinking it was science, a few of us dared to hold it to scientific
>standards. Imperfect, but never-the-less, scientific.

My goal with this thread of conversation is to investigate the method of
our communications in response to articles, not to defend or indict the authors
of this particular article.

Based on the goals you have given for your posts, I am going to criticize
your first post. It is a very long post, so instead of re-posting it here,
I have included the link to it: http://news.devx.com/cgi-bin/dnewswe...item=824&utag=

I give this post a 3 out of 10. I like your willingness to engage the board
in a discussion. I appreciate that you took the time to fully read the article
before responding. I like that you have identified many areas within the
article that the authors could improve on. To improve this article, bringing
it to a 10, I would ask the authors for clarification of areas that were
confusing. I would address those questions directly to the authors. When
refuting claims that seem to have little scientific validity in them, I would
reference my points. Finally, I would foster an environment of respect and
collaboration.

Regards,
Brian G. Rice

[Brian G. Rice]

Hi Bob.

Thanks for the response and the questions. My goal with this thread of conversation
is to investigate the manner of our responses to posts. I am happy to discuss
my experiences with the core, but would prefer to do so in another thread.

"Bob Foster" <bob@fosterfinch.co.uk> wrote:
>Style:
>I have found it very refreshing to see the participants managing to pump
>so much 'raw emotion' into a medium (ie text) which is usually portayed
as
>'lacking something' when it is compared to video and audio.

I have been online for a fairly long time, and it has been my general experience
that the text medium of the Internet is generally not lacking in emotion


>The danger of course is that reputations might get a little battered, but
>then in the interests of progressing human knowledge, perhaps there have
>to be some casualties?

Do you think that the advance of human knowledge through discussion has to
be combative?

Regards,
Brian G. Rice

[Bob Foster]

>>The danger of course is that reputations might get a little battered, but
>>then in the interests of progressing human knowledge, perhaps there have
>>to be some casualties?
>
>Do you think that the advance of human knowledge through discussion has
to
>be combative?

Brilliant ! .. You finished your post with a Question

My approach is that I *love* questions and I am, in general, wary of answers.
I am particularly suspicious of people who present their offerings as 'ultimate'
or 'perfect' answers....

All we can hope to achieve are theories that sometimes provides answers to
*specific* questions in *specific* contexts...

In working towards an answer to the question of
'What is the most effective method for advancing human knowledge?'

History tells us that the 'fastest' method is probably 'war'.. but we all
recognise that we need to balance this with the discomfort that war always
produces.. (particularly for the losers!)

We now have a wide range of alternative suggestions for ways to behave when
we are trying to advance human knowledge.. however the model that we all
still subscribe to is war:
- economic war through the stock market,
- recreational war through sporting competition,
- academic war through discussions like this!

Personally, I think the tendancy to 'fight' is built deep down into our genes..
The only hope(?) of permanently changing this tendancy is through genetic
engineering.. with all the attendant dangers of cloning to try to avoid war
that attend a politically correct generation such as ours !

But:

Maybe we won't follow the genetic engineering path to eliminate all dissenting
voices?

Maybe we will recognise that 'healthy competition' helps us to feel alive
and perhaps there's nothing wrong it so long as no one gets hurt?

Perhaps this method of advancement has survived all of the natural selection
of the last few thousand years because it *is* the most effective method
for advancing human knowedge?

If we can harness the effectiveness of the fight instinct into non physically
violent forms of interaction then I believe we will have gained the best
balance we can hope for in looking for the best method for advancing human
knowledge.

Isn't that precisely what is happening on this forum?

Lets welcome it rather than suppressing it !




I would like to live in a time when society was sufficiently well developed
to be confident that it cold deal with all events that might cause



Perhaps the next time we will be 'really effective' in advancing human knowledge
will be an inter-planetary war?

Until .. and until then we and (collaborative research, and computer modelling)

exploration individual research Experience tells us that the 'most pleasant'
method is perhaps academic debate
unfortunately the most effthat
this area of 'how do we the same question can have different (perhaps even
contradictory) answers when the questions are posed in different contexts.

[Bob Foster]

I intended to finish with:
'Lets welcome it rather than suppressing it !'

(the rest of the post was my 'scratchpad'.. sorry if it has confused anyone
)