[p2p-research] The psychopath as peer? (redirecting to other thread)

Paul D. Fernhout pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com
Wed Nov 4 14:00:51 CET 2009

See also the other thread I started here:
"[p2p-research] P2P platforms for wide ranging discussions beyond email? 
(was Re: The psychopath as peer?)"

Stan was not saying I should put stuff on the P2P blog' as I read it; he was 
suggesting I have a separate personal blog. And that is not the first time 
someone has made that suggestion; there's certainly a lot of truth to what 
Sam points out, as I write in the above linked post. But in general, as I 
say there, I think we need even better P2P communications tools than what we 
have. So, that is a way to take his point "meta" in a topical way. :-)

--Paul Fernhout
Two sort of blogs, where I sometimes take occasional posts here and 
elsewhere and rework them: :-)

Michel Bauwens wrote:
> Hi Stan,
> the policing remark is my responsibility only, just thinking through
> possible options for augmenting communicability. Ning offers threading and
> would be a separate place for discussions ... there was a flurry of good
> discussions in the beginning, but the p2p research list took over the
> momentum .. The complaints are generally of the high volume, but it is
> beyond my capacity to do more in managing/moderating that I'm doing already
> on the various p2p blog resources ..
> I would not find paul's link floods more appropriate for the blog, because
> of their unfinished nature. I do find them interesting, but volume is also
> an issue, but in case of time lack or when the topic is less interesting to
> me, I skip faster <g>
> Michel
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Stan Rhodes <stanleyrhodes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> To clarify, I was not suggesting any sort of policing.  I was offering
>> feedback only.
>> In the case of my original reply to this thread, I was correcting a
>> significant error, and suggesting the whole "clinical concept" of
>> psychopathy be taken with a shaker of salt.  I only offered that because I
>> was familiar with the topic area, and feel that attempting to place
>> "psychopathy" into the context of p2p interaction and peer production
>> generates heat but no light.  I usually consider my replies as a way to
>> flesh out sides of an issue not represented, to challenge assumptions, or
>> provide domain knowledge that may be counter-intuitive.
>> To me, it's not as much depth, but the conciseness issue that matters for
>> email. I'm not sure what Ning offers over email for discussion of p2p
>> research, other than not filling inboxes--maybe that's good enough for
>> many.  I don't visit the p2p ning very often. The the p2p research list
>> being more general than the p2p ning community seems rather
>> scope-backwards.  However, if it's evolved that way, so be it: the
>> relationships and channel of communications between the members is more
>> important and valuable than the original name of the list or community.  I
>> tend to think that while people pretend groups are organized by topic, they
>> ultimate become organized by community with shared interests, which matters
>> far more.
>> Conciseness really comes down to the signals people want from the list, and
>> how much noise they can handle in their email box (number of emails) and in
>> the email bodies themselves (body text of emails).  Notice, I'm not saying
>> what's signal versus noise--that's a personal judgement, although the
>> farther we get into extremes, the more people will agree.
>> While links are certainly concise in the body text, I tend to use RSS
>> reader aggregation to glance through those.  Out of my 1000+ unread p2p
>> research list emails, a lot are probably links.  My p2p research "box" is
>> sort of like an RSS reader in that way.
>> The body of emails being a shotgun commentary + link-flood is far harder to
>> deal with.  The technology, in my mind, for shotgun commentaries is the
>> blog.  Emails are "pushed" to my attention, whereas I can "pull" from a blog
>> when I choose.  Conceptually, emails are more of a conversation, and in
>> terms of dicussion about topics, more like being in a conference room.  I'm
>> not sure shotgun commentaries have a meatspace analog.
>> -- Stan
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>> It's kind of difficlt to police different styles as this is a mixed list,
>>> ranging from ryan's one line links to paul's link-floods, to stan and andy's
>>> super-thoughtfull mini-essays and many things in between ... one thing is
>>> that is there is no obligation to reply or even to read ...
>>> what about exporting in-depth debates to Ning, and open debates there, for
>>> 'limited' periods of time. For example, stan could say, I want to discuss
>>> this particular topic, let's do it this week in a forum on NIng?
>>> Michel
>>>   On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Stan Rhodes <stanleyrhodes at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Paul,
>>>> I do appreciate your enthusiasm, and I appreciate the very broad scope
>>>> and fuzzy nature of the p2p research group, but it's nearly impossible to
>>>> explore issues deeply with these sorts of threads.  I consider these large,
>>>> mostly digressive link-flood replies to be hand-waving that obfuscates any
>>>> attempt at concise and possibly insightful discussion about issues.
>>>> It might be worthwhile to consider using a blog for these long,
>>>> digressive, almost stream-of-consciousness emails, while using the p2p
>>>> research list to explore one or two very closely-related points in-depth.
>>>> Until something like that happens, I will have to bow out of replying to
>>>> these sorts of emails.
>>>> I only include the list on the reply so that anyone else who feels
>>>> similarly will know they are not alone.  If I am in the extreme minority,
>>>> that's fine too.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -- Stan
>>>>   On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:53 AM, Paul D. Fernhout <
>>>> pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
>>>>> Stan-
>>>>> You are right to be concerned about simple labels, and that's one
>>>>> reason, as a caveat, I mentioned the idea of moving beyond the paradigm of
>>>>> "psychopath" to maybe something more useful, someday.
>>>>> On neural evidence, you are right again that it is not for 100% sure
>>>>> genetic, but genes do affect a lot of how the brain is wired, in interaction
>>>>> with history and current environment, so it could be a factor.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

More information about the p2presearch mailing list