Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Medians and Their Role in Controlling the Flow of Traffic
What a stupid title. This post has nothing to do with medians, or traffic control. That being said, it's true that medians have a dramatic effect on traffic control. You can only go one way when the street is divided by a median. And if the streets are sufficiently narrow, as ours are, for example, you can't even turn around. There's no room for a U turn or a Y turn, and you're only allowed to proceed in one direction anyway. Boy, do medians "control" traffic.
This post is about an ongoing conversation-- debate, really-- I've been having with one of our neighbors. The debate is about the difference between expressing oneself and communicating here, in this blog, and communicating by using e-mail and a carefully selected recipient list. My argument is that the blog is a better place to communicate, since it is completely open, anyone can communicate anything, and anyone who does communicate anything will get feedback, expressing either agreement or disagreement. Our neighbor argues two things. One is that the blog seems to her in some sense stacked, in that much of the correspondence is in agreement with what the commonest contributors say, and further, that people who respond with disagreement seem to get essentially pummeled, by me. Her other argument is that there should be nothing wrong with communicating preferentially with like-minded people, and there should be nothing pejorative attributed to people who don't want argument or disagreeing feedback. These are people who either preach to the converted, or, as I often see it, convert the congregation.
But here's my problem. If extremists only communicate with like-minded extremists, but all factions have to coexist, then there is an impossible and maladaptive tension that can only result in endless and hopeless conflict. No one ever learns anything from anyone else, so no one has an opportunity to change his or her mind, and there is not even an opportunity to "agree to disagree," with mutual full understanding of the competing arguments.
I myself have changed my thinking and understanding, and concluding, about things lots of times. I couldn't do that if I shielded myself from having to know what the other argument was. And further, the thing that would lead me to shield myself would be my sense of having either a strong mind or a weak mind. If I thought I had a remarkably strong mind (or does this work out to be a weak mind?), so that I decided I already knew everything there was to know, then I would have neither need nor desire to know what anyone else thinks. If I was afraid I had a hopelessly weak mind, I would not want to leave myself vulnerable to confounding input, like a dinghy at sea without a paddle, susceptible to what anyone said. I would want quickly to find a position and cling tightly to it, avoiding having to know any other side, or even information.
When communication is sheltered and controlled, there is no opportunity to make a U turn, a Y turn, or any turn at all, and those following the thread/lead of the communication are not allowed to go in the other direction anyway, even if they could. What happens at times, though, is that someone may find a way to alter his or her direction, and what I have typically seen happen is that he or she then is dismissed from the travel club or circulation list.
I do think this blog is a uniquely adaptive place for Village residents to communicate about Village-related issues. It's true that if someone communicates here, he or she, myself included, takes the risk of getting feedback, maybe disagreement. Is that a problem? Personally, I only learn from people who disagree with me, or who can tell me something I didn't already know. What should be concluded about someone who presents himself or herself as knowledgeable about Village matters, and who may want to influence the thinking of others, but who can't tolerate learning something he or she doesn't already know, or being disagreed with?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you are splitting hairs. There is little difference between the blog and the e-mail. Most people who are on your e-mail list and who regularly read your blog are like-minded individuals. This is similar to what we see with the news channels and the polarization of their followers (people like to hear things they already believe in). It is the rare person who watches MSNBC and FOX news and comes to their own conclusion. I grant you that you are expressing your views in a public forum where the other side could read and respond, but that is not the most likely scenario.
ReplyDeleteWhat we really need is a sanctioned blogosphere on the biscayne park website that is access controlled to include only residents and includes polls and other functionality. This would allow more sharing and discussion from different points of views. This initiative would likely cost less to develop than what was spent on the park mural and would pay dividends.
One thing I caution you on is the use of vitriol in your posts as it ensures that the other side will not take you serious or read your posts. For example, "If extremists only communicate with like-minded extremists". In this phrase you are branding the other side as extremist and yourself as the open minded, superior individual. I personally don't take offense, but if I were the neighbor you are referring to or someone who was included on this "secretive" e-mail (otherwise known as e-mail), I would not take kindly to you and would not consider your points as having any merit...in fact, I would think you are an extremist.
Your concept of having open dialogue is the right one, but that is easy to say when you are controlling the open communication as the owner of the blog.
Hope you don't take any of these comments as offensive. I thought this was an interesting post and felt compelled to respond.
Thanks, H. Much appreciated. No offense taken whatsoever.
DeleteYou raise a few independently important points. First, let me talk about your ideas as to who should sponsor a blog. And by the way, I am the founder of this one. I am not the owner. The blog is registered to me, and all relevant e-mail alerts come to me, because that's the way blogspot/google sets it up. But anyone at all is welcome to contribute and to be a "guest author." If Chuck, or Milt, or Drew Dillworth, or you, or anyone wanted to post any time, or all the time, it would be more than fine with me. I post, because there's something I want to say. If there's something you want to say, please, by all means...
I agree with you that people gravitate, and I'm quite sure some gravitate here. Although some people are not like-minded with me, or perhaps were but aren't any more, read this blog. If they want to, whether or not they feel outnumbered, they respond. That's the big difference between this blog and private e-mails. Barbara Kuhl just wrote to Heidi Shafran, John Hearn, all the Commissioners (except me), and others complaining about what I write in this blog and saying I have said things that are not true. She could have said that in a blog comment, but for whatever are her reasons, she chose not to. But she knows what she wants to criticize or disagree with, or what I say that's wrong, because she can see, is welcome to see, what I say. If someone else sends out private e-mails and says things that aren't true, or where there's a perfectly valid contrasting side, neither I nor many of us will even know about it, if we're not on the list. To make matters worse, there are some people who send out such e-mails and who block people like me from replying to them. If there's another view, they don't want to know about it. But they do want their communications to influence others. I hope you can see the huge difference.
As for who might own, operate, run, or whatever else, a blog different from this one, or as a replacement, you offer some reasonable choices. If the Village wants to do one, that's great. We don't need two. If you basically like this one, but you think I'm too much of a lightning rod, then maybe you would like me to transfer it to you. If you're interested, let's talk.
Sometimes, I'm guilty of pure vitriol. The example you gave is not an apt one. I meant it in the more abstract sense, and if someone wanted to say that I personally am an extremist, that would be OK. I don't think I am, but I do diametrically disagree with some people and some approaches. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that I only think "the other side" is extremist, and I'm the open-minded, superior good guy. I do always try to be open-minded, and I try to do what I think is right. But I wouldn't say that doesn't apply to some other people. What I'm very much saying, though, is that if someone wants to communicate, but it's only one way, and no disagreement is allowed, then that person is not being open-minded.
So thanks again for the response, and always feel free to jump in. As I said, if you have more to say, let me make you a guest author, and you can post anything you want any time you want.
Fred
H,
DeleteI agree in that you raised several good points here, and that effort is welcomed… and I think also the main point of this discussion. Fred's use of language (thought in my mind is mostly meant to be ultra-descriptive) can come across as pointed or demonstrative. I think we all get that and I have been accused of the same thing by some. Sometimes he pushes beyond the point that he should as a Village Commissioner and trust me in that he has been reminded of this on more than one occasion.
However, I have also found him to be flexible and open minded with his thinking and decision making. That cannot be said of some residents on the other side of Village topics. And that has proven to be both unacceptable and unproductive.
In so far as your suggestion of a change of blogosphere venue, there has been no evidence that this would be a viable solution. Meaning, those who, for whatever reasons, choose not to post here would still be held accountability on any "other site" location. And that seems to be the main sticking point. They want to have their voices heard, (fair enough) but fail to represent their points for debate or, heavens forbid, scrutiny. They have been asked to, pleaded with to stand up on their own and speak their mind on issues. And this has, unfortunately mostly gone unanswered. Some have hid in a cowardly manner behind one anonymous self-formed group or the other. This also has failed to provide any hope of progress and/or Community understanding.
Simple parroting from some selectable grouped email (that may or may not represent the salient truths) has not been productive and is NOT the answer. Personal accountability is.
"H." Milton
PS, H: I do not in any sense at all "control[] the open communication as the owner of the blog." I could control or manipulate posts, and I could delete comments, but I don't do either. This blog is purely open. The blog belongs to the neighborhood, not to me, in every possible sense that it could, under the rules of blogspot/google.
DeleteI have invited active participation from people who disagree strenuously with me. When I was running for Commission, I invited ALL of my opponents to use the blog to post whatever they wanted, so they could reach that many more BP residents and interested people. Some accepted the offer, and others did not. I hope no one was afraid to post, because he or she imagined I would tamper with what they wrote. I have never given anyone reason to think I would do that, and I have never done it. The only minor exception is when I couldn't restrain myself from fixing a grammatical or spelling mistake.
As I said, I'm highly supportive of removing any concern about conflict-of-interest. If you or someone else wants to "own" the blog, I will be happy to transfer it to you. All I would ask is that it remain open and available to all of us. We should all be able to read it, and we should all be able to write in it.
And just to come back to your opening point, if contribution to this blog seems in any way one-sided, it is the fault of the people on "the other side." It's not my fault, and it's not the fault of those who do contribute. Anyone at all who wants to contribute has always been welcome to do so. If those who disagree don't post anything, then they can explain to you why they don't have the courage of their convictions. They are not welcome to blame me, or anyone else, for being available to let them know if they're wrong, or if someone just disagrees. Being told I'm wrong, or that someone disagrees with me, is the risk I always take, too, and that's some of what I get. That's what open blogs are for, or what they should be for.
Thank you again for the additional heads up about my style, and I will continue to endeavor to tone myself down.
Fred
H,
ReplyDeleteJust one more point about your reply. You "quoted" me as having referred to a "secretive" e-mail circulation. I did not say secretive. I said selected. Of course all e-mails are in some sense secret, since you choose which recipients you want. But if you send e-mails of interest to a population of people, even though you have selected recipients, you might recognize that you are limited in only knowing of those people. You might be willing, or even eager, to include others, as long as they are interested in the topic you are addressing. In a case like that, someone might approach you and ask to receive your general interest communication, and you might cheerfully agree to "add them to the list/circulation." Also in theory, since you are presenting yourself as both interested and informed about the topic about which you wrote the e-mail, you might be receptive to, and even welcome, feedback about your e-mail. If you're seeking to inform, you might particularly appreciate its being brought to your attention if you made a mistake. All of that is absolutely true, by the way, of this blog.
The question is, what does it say, and is what it says legitimate, if an e-mailer refuses to share his or her thoughts with others who should be the target audience-- will not include them in the circulation, even if they request it-- and further refuses to be told a mistake has been made, or even a material difference of interpretation is available? If an e-mailer sends an e-mail, and the concept of the e-mail is that what is contained is important for people who live in BP to know, and you live in BP, wouldn't you assume not only that you should know what's in the e-mail, but that the e-mailer would want you to know it?
It would not be hard to make sense of the system the e-mailer used, if you discovered two things: that the e-mailer misinformed, and that the e-mailer would only communicate with people who either didn't know they were being misinformed, or who were unlikely to confront. That's the one-way, narrow street, tightly controlled, so drivers can only go where the traffic architect wants them to go, whether it's good for them to be there or not. That is fundamentally, structurally, philosophically different from this blog.
As I said, if I'm the wrong person for this blog, let's get someone else. But I hope you will agree that there is nothing remotely similar about using an open blog to communicate and discuss, and using a tightly controlled e-mail system. Not even close.
Fred
I hear what you both are saying. I hear bits and pieces from the several factions that are in the village and also realize that the majority of the residents probably fall in the independent category. This likely results in them being influenced by whichever faction they live closer to, socialize with, etc.
ReplyDeleteI feel like all parties involved are passionate about the village and that is good, except that we can't seem to harness that for good and instead the debate devolves into misinformation and name calling.
I think we need to find a way to inform the independent majority (which I consider myself a part of).
H,
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you say, and all that you imply. It's a really big problem that people gravitate to what is familiar and most easily accessible. The result is precisely what you conclude.
I still think the best thing is if all communication, from everyone, is fully open to all of us. We can't force people to listen to all sides of any issue, and people can trust, and conclude, what they like, but it helps matters immeasurably if at least all of the same information is available to everyone.
Fred