|
Author
|
Topic: You Know What I Mean - Cool, Isn't It? (December 2001)
|
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 12-03-2001 10:13 PM
   
The December Philosophy update is now online. |
Kevin Ott
True Believer
|
posted 12-03-2001 10:16 PM
Is there a line, then, between conformity and nonconformity, or is that line drawn on a case-by-case basis? If Derek Jeter makes that play, he may earn the contempt of his teammates because he stepped outside of his "me" and took on a role not designed for him, even though he accomplished a goal that was shared by the team as a whole. Other team members may come to rely on Jeter to make such game-saving plays and consequently slack off, or they may deem him a showboater, and the relationships within the team will break down, causing less efficient play (Pro ball players probably have thicker skin than this, but it works for the purposes of the example).Is there some sort of social contract here? Do I as a first baseman tell myself that I will allow for Jeter to make plays that may compromise the appearance of my own abilities for the comparison, if it means winning the game? Or, conversely, if I am Jeter, do I sacrifice some of my ability so as not to unbalance the team? I asked a question like this on the philosophy thread dealing with language and communication. To what degree do we determine, and more importantly, how do we determine, where the boundaries for defining a term begin and end? How do I decide what is an unacceptable definition of the word "feminism?" How far outside of my scope of experience with the word must someone's definition fall in order for me to reject it? |
Pattie Gillett
True Believer
|
posted 12-03-2001 10:19 PM
I would be interested to hear how Dewey would discuss the situations and circumstances that prevent us from "taking the place of the other" and communicating as effectively as in Mead's models. Ultimately, isn't that what prevents us from forming Dewey's Great Community - the failure or perhaps the unwillingness to move back and forth between "I' and "others"?For example, on the baseball field, anything from fan interference to poor visibility can impair communication and prevent each "I" from going his job. In reality, any number of factors does the same disservice. Language, perhaps, or cultural differences can interfere. But on a more basic (even psychological) level, even assuming we share the same language, humans don’t always behave they way they intend to, and when we do things, we don’t always make our intentions known. Whether it is maliciously intended or not, humans have proven to be just as adept at miscommunication and manipulating responses out of one another as we are at the more basic actions. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 01-30-2002 11:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Ott:Is there some sort of social contract here? Do I as a first baseman tell myself that I will allow for Jeter to make plays that may compromise the appearance of my own abilities for the comparison, if it means winning the game? Or, conversely, if I am Jeter, do I sacrifice some of my ability so as not to unbalance the team?
Good question. I think this is one of those cases where the overall goals of the group come into play. One thing to keep in mind is that Jeter doesn't routinely play out of position -- 99 times out of 100, he sticks pretty much to the 'expected' response, and the one time he doesn't, he advances everyone's ultimate goal. If Jeter frequently played out of position, and messed up plays as a result, then there would certainly be a breakdown in his relationship between the others on the team. Likewise with the first baseman -- if he's skilled enough to be able to properly respond to a situation and know when to play 'outside the rules' then over the course of a season he'll likely have the opportunity to do so. If he doesn't have that skill, and instead is just very good at executing the anticipated responses, then accurate self-knowledge should result in him being content with the way things are. Of course, this is all dependent on a pragmatic, achieve-your-goals mindset. There might be someone who says that it's better to 'play the right way' than to do what is necessary to succeed. I think that's ultimately too rigid a position, but it's one that would fit in an absolutist world-view. As for Pattie's point -- I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head, and I'm not sure if there's anything more to say in response; certainly, the reason this site is here is to eliminate some of those miscommunicaitons, but there's certainly a long way to go. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 08-26-2002 01:51 AM
At risk of dwelling too much on the example and losing my point as a result, ESPN.com columnist Rob Neyer recently wrote a column in which he claimed that Jeter is, at best, an average shortstop. Like many of Neyer's columns, it provides an entertaining example of the contrast between rigorous empirical investigation and the opinions resulting from tradition or uninvestigated observation. But more to the point of this discussion, it raises an interesting question. If Neyer is correct, many people believe that Jeter is a better shortstop than he is. I don't know if that extends to his teammates, but if it does, would that result in them expecting Jeter to make plays he can't actually make, with the result that their "me" isn't actually appropriate to the situation? (New York's team defense is actually fairly low-ranked in the American League, for what it's worth.) If it doesn't extend to his teammates, does it matter if media and other observers are mistaken in their beliefs? What effect might this have on the way upcoming shortstops learn to play the game? This might factor into some of the potential problems Kevin brought up, as well.At any rate, it may be the case that I used a very poor example, at least as far as major league baseball goes, and I apologize for that.  | |
This Is Not News Forums
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
