vision2020
Re: Checkers-Backgammon Etiquette
- To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
- Subject: Re: Checkers-Backgammon Etiquette
- From: ltrwritr@moscow.com (Mark Rounds)
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 14:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
- Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 14:56:30 -0700 (PDT)
- Resent-From: vision2020@moscow.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <eRcerC.A.FfC.McOG9@whale2.fsr.net>
- Resent-Sender: vision2020-request@moscow.com
Doug
This is probably the wisest thing interjected into this debate recently. I
have some issues with parts of it but it is a ray of sunshine. I am going
to make five suggestions for people on this list that still care what this
is all about and then shut up and go away.
1. Respect all of the participants as people making sincere statements.
2. Never use an epitath such as Modernist, Christian Right, Dawinist,
etc... and then say somebody, because they belong to this or that group,
believes something. Let them tell you what they believe and discuss that
way, as our point of views are tremedously diverse.
3. If the back and forth of a discussion goes on for more than two
iterations, offer to continue it off line or take a specific mailing list
that you can manage yourselves.
4. Don't always have to have the last word.
5. Always label your posts with clear heading so we can vote with our
delete buttons.
There, I am done ;-)
Mark
At 01:21 PM 6/24/02 -0400, Doug Jones wrote:
>Visionaries,
>
>May I make a plea that we step back from the discussion for just a
>second and watch what is happening? Talking to people across paradigms
>is a very tricky business, and I don’t think anyone on this list to
>date, including myself, is really any good at it.
>
>Imagine our discussions to be *like* a debate between the rules of
>checkers and the rules of backgammon. From the perspective of the
>checkers’ paradigm, backgammon is just stupid and circular. From the
>perspective of backgammon, checkers can’t possibly operate without dice
>and triangles. When the checkers side is challenged by a backgammon
>norm, all they see is arrogance, authoritarianism, dogmatism: “Who are
>these people to suggest that other rules exists; no rule in checkers
>allows for that” To themselves, checkers seems to be an obvious,
>natural, and a reasonable description of how the world works. To rebut
>the backgammon objections, all they have to do is cite more rules of
>checkers. And to find horrors in the other game, all you have to do is
>cite your own rules again: “Those evil backgammoners actually deny the
>morality of ‘kinging’ and ‘jumping;’ but the rules of checkers are so
>clear on those points.”
>
>The biggest problem seems to be those folks who insist that we’re only
>playing one game. For them, when someone tries to suggest something
>backgammonish, they will immediately assume their opponent is crazy,
>insincere, and manipulative, since “we all know the rules of checkers.”
>All the demonizing, motive-guessing, and name-calling occurs when we
>insist that we’re all playing checkers and that the rules of checkers
>are the ultimate reality.
>
>So back in our world, Joan O. accuses Doug W. and I of a “pattern” of
>defining, curtailing, and putting words into our opponent’s mouths and
>that that “isn’t dialog.” And Debi S. insists that we’re not
>schizophrenic but we act that way with “circular and self-referencing
>‘logical thought’ similar in kind if not degree.” The first thing that
>comes to mind on my game board is: are they serious? They’ve got to be
>joking. That’s exactly what they’ve been doing.
>
>But in the end, all this blind checkers-backgammon discussion is pretty
>boring and fruitless. What if we said to ourselves, the next time we
>think someone we disagree with on the list is cheating, manipulating,
>crazy, etc., we’ll stop and ask if we’re just pulling a
>“judge-checkers-by backgammon-mistake.” That would really raise the
>level of discussion.
>
>Won’t progress come when, instead of just using “our” game’s rules to
>veto another, we can ask if the game in question really lives up to its
>own rules: a checkers game that sneaks in moves from Monopoly flunks.
>Then we can politely observe among ourselves that “that” game fails to
>live up to its own rules or that “that” game claims to want “hotels” but
>the rules of checkers won’t allow for it. Why not just assume that each
>person is sincere but is talking from a different paradigm? That way we
>could get beyond demonizing anyone who disagrees with us. Is that too
>crazy?
>
>Sincerely,
>Doug Jones
>
>
>
>
>
>
><html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
>
><head>
><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
>
>
><meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document>
><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10">
><meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 10">
><link rel=File-List href="cid:filelist.xml@01C21B82.1BC83800">
><o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
> name="PersonName"/>
><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
> <o:DoNotRelyOnCSS/>
> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
></xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
> <w:WordDocument>
> <w:SpellingState>Clean</w:SpellingState>
> <w:GrammarState>Clean</w:GrammarState>
> <w:DocumentKind>DocumentEmail</w:DocumentKind>
> <w:EnvelopeVis/>
> <w:Compatibility>
> <w:BreakWrappedTables/>
> <w:SnapToGridInCell/>
> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
> </w:Compatibility>
> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
> </w:WordDocument>
></xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]>
><style>
>st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
></style>
><![endif]-->
><style>
><!--
> /* Font Definitions */
> @font-face
> {font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT";
> panose-1:2 2 6 2 5 3 6 2 4 3;
> mso-font-charset:0;
> mso-generic-font-family:roman;
> mso-font-pitch:variable;
> mso-font-signature:7 0 0 0 17 0;}
> /* Style Definitions */
> p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
> {mso-style-parent:"";
> margin:0in;
> margin-bottom:.0001pt;
> mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
> font-size:12.0pt;
> font-family:"Times New Roman";
> mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
>a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
> {color:blue;
> text-decoration:underline;
> text-underline:single;}
>a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
> {color:purple;
> text-decoration:underline;
> text-underline:single;}
>p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
> {margin:0in;
> margin-bottom:.0001pt;
> mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
> font-size:12.0pt;
> font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT";
> mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
> mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
>span.EmailStyle17
> {mso-style-type:personal-compose;
> mso-style-noshow:yes;
> mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
> mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
> font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT";
> mso-ascii-font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT";
> mso-hansi-font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT";
> color:windowtext;
> font-weight:normal;
> font-style:normal;
> text-decoration:none;
> text-underline:none;
> text-decoration:none;
> text-line-through:none;}
>span.GramE
> {mso-style-name:"";
> mso-gram-e:yes;}
>@page Section1
> {size:8.5in 11.0in;
> margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
> mso-header-margin:.5in;
> mso-footer-margin:.5in;
> mso-paper-source:0;}
>div.Section1
> {page:Section1;}
>-->
></style>
><!--[if gte mso 10]>
><style>
> /* Style Definitions */
> table.MsoNormalTable
> {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
> mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
> mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
> mso-style-noshow:yes;
> mso-style-parent:"";
> mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
> mso-para-margin:0in;
> mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
> mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
> font-size:10.0pt;
> font-family:"Times New Roman";}
></style>
><![endif]-->
></head>
>
><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='tab-interval:.5in'>
>
><div class=Section1>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'>Visionaries,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'>May I make a plea that we step back from
>the discussion for just a second and watch what is happening? Talking to people
>across paradigms is a very tricky business, and I don’t think anyone on
>this list to date, including myself, is really any good at it.
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'>Imagine our discussions to be *<b><span
>style='font-weight:bold'>like</span></b>* a debate between the rules of
>checkers and the rules of backgammon. From the perspective of the
checkers’
>paradigm, backgammon is just stupid and circular. From the perspective of
>backgammon, checkers can’t possibly operate without dice and
triangles. When
>the checkers side is challenged by a backgammon norm, all they see is
>arrogance, authoritarianism, dogmatism: “Who are these people to suggest
>that other rules exists; no rule in checkers allows for that” To
>themselves, checkers seems to be an obvious, natural, and a reasonable
>description of how the world works. To rebut the backgammon objections, all
they
>have to do is cite more rules of checkers. And to find horrors in the other
>game, all you have to do is cite your own rules again: “Those evil
backgammoners
>actually deny the morality of ‘kinging’ and ‘jumping;’
>but the rules of checkers are so clear on those points.”
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'>The biggest problem seems to be those folks
>who insist that we’re only playing one game. For them, when someone tries
>to suggest something backgammonish, they will immediately assume their opponent
>is crazy, insincere, and manipulative, since “we all know the rules of
>checkers.” All the demonizing, motive-guessing, and name-calling occurs
>when we insist that we’re all playing checkers and that the rules of
>checkers are the ultimate reality. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'>So back in our world, Joan O. accuses Doug
>W. and <span class=GramE>I</span> of a “pattern” of defining,
>curtailing, and putting words into our opponent’s mouths and that
that “isn’t
>dialog.” And Debi S. insists that we’re not schizophrenic but we
>act that way with “circular and self-referencing ‘logical
thought’
>similar in kind if not degree.” The first thing that comes to mind on my
>game board is: are they serious? They’ve got to be joking. That’s
>exactly what they’ve been doing. <span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'>But in the end, all this blind
checkers-backgammon
>discussion is pretty boring and fruitless. What if we said to ourselves, the
>next time we think someone we disagree with on the list is cheating,
>manipulating, crazy, etc., we’ll stop and ask if we’re just pulling
>a “judge-checkers-by backgammon-mistake.” That would really raise
>the level of discussion. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'>Won’t progress come when, instead of
>just using “our” game’s rules to veto another, we can ask if
>the game in question really lives up to its own rules: a checkers game that
>sneaks in moves from Monopoly <span class=GramE>flunks.</span> <span
>style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Then we can politely observe among ourselves
>that “that” game fails to live up to its own rules or that
“that”
>game claims to want “hotels” but the rules of checkers won’t
>allow for it. Why not just assume that each person is sincere but is talking
>from a different paradigm? That way we could get beyond demonizing anyone who
>disagrees with us. Is that too crazy?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'>Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><st1:PersonName><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span
> style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'>Doug
Jones</span></font></st1:PersonName><font
>face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-family:"OrigGarmnd
BT"'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="OrigGarmnd BT"><span style='font-size:
>12.0pt;font-family:"OrigGarmnd BT"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
>
></div>
>
></body>
>
></html>
>
Back to TOC