Posted by gardenergirl on May 20, 2005, at 11:57:24
In reply to Re: Requesting clarification » gardenergirl, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 18:53:59
> Holding values is different from actualizing values. Emmulation can be a means of vicariously affiliating with a value without any obligation to either hold the value or to actualize the value. With practice, populations can learn to articulate a value though they have no practical intent to ever actualize the value. Emmulation can be a means of practicing such suppression of a value.
Uh huh. So people who follow a trend that stemmed from behavior that could be intrepreted as values being actualized are, um? I'm not sure what you are saying about them.
> > Just following up. I do not see a post which states how many screen names you have used before. Would you please provide a link?
> > >
>
> No. It's easy to find. Please don't continue asking.Well I did say please, and if it were easy for me to find, I would not ask for assistance. Perhaps I am not inferring from your words the meaning you imply in said post, because I have not yet found a post that explicitly answers what I have asked.
>
>
> Why were you interested?In order to learn the answer. I can be a curious cat.
> > > If phsycians were found to be particularly prone to bluffing at card games because of the implicit trust others place in them, would that not be informative about how they tend to use the trust they earn?
> >
> > How many physicians?
>
> If a majority of the physicians one had encountered in a lifetime demonstrated a trait, would it be reasonable for that person to explore to what extent other physicians, not already identified, present a similar trait?Reasonable? I have no objection to your quest. I was inquiring about your methods.
>
> > Hmmm, that would be a winking emoticon. There are many others just as there are many words in a language.
> >
> > gg
>
>
> I don't understand how a "winking-just-kidding" emoticon is not sometimes a symbol of sarcastic intent.It actually does sometimes transmit a message of sarcastic or joking intent.
>Oddly, my read of the rules is that it is okay to talk at length about what we do not understand, but we are prohibited from explaining what we do understand, if the sole administrator abitrarilly concludes based entirely on his personal judgement, that somebody somewhere might theoretically feel offended by the understanding.
That is not my understanding of the rules. My own experience here is that we are free to discourse about any number of topics understood or not. However, there are ways to express one's ideas, thoughts, and feelings in ways that are less likely to offend someone. This may take more effort depending on the perceived degree of potential offense in the message.
>So, I proably can't tell you what I understand winking emoticons to represent in some circumstances.
Well, not knowing what your understanding is, I cannot refute this. But my guess is that there likely would be a way to express this within the guidelines of the board. Some posters use "civility buddies" for assistance.
> Nor can I complain about what I might perceive to be put-downs, because I beleive I am assigned in this context to a social teir that suffers from a more strict interpretation of rules than other posters who, for example, are allowed to cast all the meat eaters in the world as akin to rapists.
I have not experienced any hierarchy of posters receiving different treatment on this site. I do note differing skill levels in expressing oneself within the guidelines. There appears to be a learning curve for developing this skill. And having read the post you are implicitly referencing, I viewed said comparison as the content in an exercise in logical reasoning versus a statement of belief or fact.
>
> I can say that animals, humans included, sometimes demonstrate a major emotion while masking contrary emotions. Social pressure is especially effective at provoking suppression of contrary emotions. The contrary emotion is often identifiable through physical cues, nonetheless. I think the concept is sometimes called "leakage".Yes, we do lose all nonverbal cues in expression that we otherwise could observe in face to face communication. I believe that is how emoticons developed. They are rough attempts to portray a face, afterall.
>
>gg
poster:gardenergirl
thread:499301
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/500339.html