do social weeds spread?
a while ago, i made some comments about tools and how you use them. a while later, i had some comments on communication among geeks domain experts specialists (it’s that definition thing). just hours ago, i watched a conversation grind to a halt because we had to re-define si prefixes and fairly common terms before we said anything substantial. my funk apparently continues.
then, today, i finally stumble into this. while that doesn’t really address the gap in language (syntactics, semiotics, metaphorics, semantics, pragmatics, whatever) that’s been bothering me so much lately, it’s someone’s attempt to improve the social standard. and i appreciate that.
but i’m still trying to buy a clue. does anyone have a clue they can spare?
There was a great article on Benjamin Franklin in Time magazine a while back (http://www.time.com/time/2003/franklin/bffranklin4.html)
When talking about the discussion group called “Junto” that he founded, it mentioned Frankilins insistance of absolute humility:
‘Franklin decreed that Junto members should put forth their ideas through suggestions and questions, using (or at least feigning) naive curiosity to avoid contradicting people in a manner that could give offense. “All expressions of positiveness in opinion or of direct contradiction were,” he recalled, “prohibited under small pecuniary penalties.”‘
Perhaps it is a *very* good online social maxim as well.
Comment by Adam Hill — September 28, 2003 @ 12:38 am
i rather appreciate that approach.
Comment by roj — September 28, 2003 @ 11:07 pm