karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (10/27/89)
This is in response to Chuq von Rospach, who wrote a long and
thoughtfully-considered response to my article, *real change won't
happen*. I'm thinking now that I didn't choose well when I chose
a title for my posting. I want to start this off by stating that I don't
feel that I have answers, but I have questions and there are certain
problems (at least, I call them problems) that I'd like to highlight.
I agree with you in *principle* that trying to push for greater distribution
should never be the reason/motivation behind naming newsgroups. But what
about *pragmatics*? I can think of two friends off of the
top of my head whose sites don't get rec groups. (While I can see
why an employer might not want its employees sitting around reading
rec groups, I'm sure glad that *I* get to read my .tv.uk!) Since I have
my ethical standards pretty intact, I disapprove of the machinations
and manipulations you talk about in your article. But, again *practically*
speaking, temptation to machinate and manipulate will be there as long
as cachet and, yes, distrubution, are issues.
What about pollution? Here we have a real problem, from my subjective
point of view. The purpose of the hierarchical system, as you've
described, is to organize the groups systematically. OK so far. But
this points up an important issue, one that has been raging (and
I'm sure raged long before I ever started reading this group)--
what if something doesn't fit into the system as it now exists? To
illustrate, I'll use, as an example, a subject that doesn't currently
exist on the net, one that's near and dear to my own heart.
As a person whose background is in clinical psychology, it really does
rub me the wrong way whenever someone dismisses what is one of my life's
*passions* as "just psych" or "unscientific." IMO, family therapy
is a topic that would probably fare as *.aquari* is faring. It would be
banished to rec because the majority of people on the net would say,
"It's not science." But what is science? Literature is full of
descriptions of how famous scientists and theoreticians have
gained their knowledge--and we're not talking here only about systematic
accumulation of information, we're talking about bursts of intuition,
flashes of insight, mystical and dreamlike visions. These are scientists;
is that science? Heck, I use the scientific method every time I try to
figure out where my missing son is most likely to be when I'm looking
for him at dinner time! Evaluate the possibilities, form a hypothesis,
test the hypothesis, evaluate the results. I used the scientific method
every time I worked with a client as a counselor. Gather information,
consider the possibilities, form a hypothesis, introduce an intervention,
evaluate the results, and over again in a cyclical fashion. The question
is, is that what science is--something where the scientific method is
used? Do mathematical theorems have to be involved in order for something
to be science? Or atoms?
My purpose in bringing this up is *not* to convince anyone that being a
therapist is being a scientist. (As an aside, I consider clinical
psychology, and especially strategic/structural family therapy, to
be science *and* art.) But family therapy sure as hell isn't rec, or
soc, or talk, or alt. Many might feel that it would stink sci up to high
heaven to have .psych.clinical in there. But I believe that it would
stink .psych.clinical up to high heaven to have it in rec. So, while
I could care less about aquariums, fish, marine life, etc, etc, I can
identify with the people who are pushing so hard to get their newsgroup
in sci--not because I think it *has* to be sci, but because the
system as it exists doesn't speak to all that there is in the world
and to all people's passions. To put a group called .psych.clinical in
sci would not really "say it all," but it would be closer to the truth
than to place in in any of the existing domains. My work as a therapist
was not "a means of refreshment or diversion." It involved the scientific
method. It was my work.
Please, don't jump to the conclusion that this means that I think the
aquaria group should be sci. I'm not looking at this in a dichotomized
fashion (i.e., either it's sci, or it's rec). I'm trying to broaden issues
by trying to put myself in the place of someone who feels very strongly
about a subject. I may change my mind upon further consideration, but
for now I say the problem is not whether studying fish is science or not.
The problem is broader than that, on a level above this particular issue.
The problem seems to be: 1) There is not a consensus on what science
*is*, and 2) The current system of classifying newsgroups does not speak
to everything. If a consensus could be reached about what gets to be
science, then I should think one could also be reached about what to do
with groups that currently don't fit into the categories that exist.
(That is, if consensus also has it that the current domain-based system
is the way to go.)
: My contention, based on reading sci.all and rec.all, is that it's a false
: perception. You are as likely to get a high-content low-noise, insteresting
: group in rec as you are in sci. On the other hand, you're as likely to get
: the idiots in a flamefest in sci as in rec.all. Functionally, on a purely
: objective basis, the domains are equal.
I strongly agree with you on this. I've found that the only way to
judge the quality of a newsgroup is to read it. But I still stand by
my belief that implicit value-judging is going on. And explicit, as well,
since many sites do not care to carry certain newsgroup domains. I didn't
mean to imply that I think that something *has* to be done about the
"my group's better than your group" situation, just that it exists, and
that it's human nature to want to be associated with something better,
not "worse."
: The unanswered questions, then, are: (1) do we find some way to do away with
: this false perception? Or do we accept it and try to bring it to fruition,
: since it seems the net *wants* it to be true; (2) Do we integrate it in some
: way into the naming decisions and attempt to steer 'worthy' groups to
: 'better' domains, or do we stick to an objective naming system? (3) How?
I'm pondering this one. As you can see from the above, I think that
*some* kind of new naming is in order to address the groups that are
falling through the cracks. (But not "biz," please. Yuck. I wasn't in
the family therapy "biz.") Your option (2) seems particularly unsatisfactory
because it begs the question, "Who's worthy to decide what's worthy?"
And (not to harp on the subject!), I think that *whatever* names consensus
comes up with, the implicit "my group's better than your group" stuff will
continue. That's the original reason my posting said that real change
won't happen. By that I meant: it's human nature and Western culture at
work; it will be sci over soc; it's embedded.
I have a fairly orderly mind (OK, sometimes), and I think that some kind
of classification of groups is a good idea. I'm one of those people who
actually *uses* the index in the back of the book. An index is a very
useful tool for finding one's way around. The hierarchical system has
the same purpose; I understand that. (Maybe hierarchy is a bad choice
of words; its essence involves evaluation and placing some things
over others. Maybe while we argue about the semantics of "science,'
we should also argue over what we could call our system of organization
instead of "hierarchy." Or we could argue about whether semantics are
important. Anything to get a breath of fresh air after all the salt water
we've been swimming in! :-) )
Isn't it disgusting when a person just brings up a bunch of issues and
then shrugs and says, "Gee, I don't know WHAT to do about this." Well,
my gift is often in seeing the issues in a situation; the solutions
don't come as easily!
Karen
--
Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA
..pacbell!mslbrb!everexn!karen
"You have to be a delinquent. If you are not a delinquent, I cannot
be a judge." (The judge to the whore in Genet's _The Balcony_)davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (10/31/89)
In article <1989Oct26.234217.988@everexn.uucp>, karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes: | As a person whose background is in clinical psychology, it really does | rub me the wrong way whenever someone dismisses what is one of my life's | *passions* as "just psych" or "unscientific." IMO, family therapy | is a topic that would probably fare as *.aquari* is faring. It would be | banished to rec because the majority of people on the net would say, | "It's not science." I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I use the guideline "is it a hobby" to decide if a topic is rec or sci. This is why aviation and ham-radio, both of which contain VERY technical content at times, are in rec. The readers and posters are mainly people who have a non-professional interest in the topic. I doubt that phychology is not something which people do as a hobby, and I would not feel that it belonged in rec. This is why I *do* feel that aquaria belongs in rec, not because of any lack of technical merit, but because the majority of the participants are not doing it as their major source of income. Obviously this is just my opinion, but it seems to meet the primary criterion of a guidline, in that it leaves few ambiguous cases. As I have said before in private messages, I don't feel that the benefit of another grand renaming would be worth the cost in redoing active lists, etc. What is needed is a whole better way to organize the data, something like hypertext. I have some links on one system which allow the user to look at messages in several ways, such as comp.os.sysv.bugs and comp.os.bugs.sysv, etc. This allows those using the visual reader to follow the tree in a way which means something to them. What we need is a way to translate a groupname into a keyword list to allow reading by actual topic. I realize that keywords don't work all that well, as used toady. Perhaps some database person can come up with an idea which will make this practical. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon