Pirah,
Not too long ago, you wrote a brief comment on the need to distinguish over enthusiastic sponsorship from reasoning based on genuine knowledge. I thought your comments were insightful and useful. You stressed the ability to defend a perspective as a key desideratum in choosing between fluff and substance (this my paraphrase.) I read what you wrote and applied it to myself. I know that my depth of knowledge here is not what it was in my profession. I read the boards for several years before I ventured any opinions. I do not believe that my opinions have more value than any one else's. I do not claim expertise. When I write I do try to make sound arguments, and I use a rhetorical style.
As you may or may not remember, as part of a effort trying to elucidate and understand network effects, I wrote a report on Yahoo that at least one respected elder on the thread thought lacked "objectivity." That has made me sensitive not only to such criticism but also to searching in what ways that may be true of me.
Now you ask, "Without that study [of its competitors], isn't it premature to be biased towards believing in the pongid nature of the company?" I believe that sentence implies more than a philosopical interest because it is, admittedly, always "premature to be biased" toward any belief without evidence. That you might be or appear to me to be, given my sensitivities, assuming that I have such a bias is disturbing to me, given that I am already predisposed to search for that possibility in me or to expect it as a criticism here.
If you remember what I said was, "What I read was not only interesting, but I smelled pongid odors." To me, that is a metaphor about having a hunch, which I then explored by studying BEA further. I do not accept my hypotheses as proof simply because it smells right. Also, I want to say that one of the disadvantages of being a retired psychologist is that sometimes you search for motivations when it may not be useful to yourself or others. For example, I learned from leading groups that questions often were a device to disguise opinions. So, I am far too prone not to accept social etiquette but to look closely at what may be, in fact, incidental, inconsequential, and insignificant. To translate this into ordinary language, I feeling a bit paranoid.
I ask myself, am I reading what you wrote correctly or too personally? I will assume that you have acidentally touched on one of my sensitivities and try to respond to your questions as mere philosophical "points."
I do not know precisely what led me to research BEA. Human beings do not have memories that are as incisive as our figurative language suggests. I have no exact knowledge of when, what, where, why, or how I decided to investigate BEA. Humans reconstruct memory as much as they retrieve exact traces. In mentioning Tomkins and Philp, I intended to give them credit for their insight and knowledge, which I do believe influenced me. However, this influence was to do more research, not to become a true believer.
As for whether others become believers or skeptics when they read what I write, I'd say it appears that they become skeptics. If you want to know whether I prefer believers or skeptics, I'd answer that I prefer people who autonomously seek information to arrive at their own conclusions. It is too early to for me to tell if anyone has chosen to do more research, but I think so. I think Mike or Tinkershaw seem to be either searching or trying out their new insights into BEA, but I also believe that this has been stimulated more by Paul Philp than by anything that I have written.
If you believe that I am being overly enthusiastic or too one-sided, or that I lack the information to backup my opinions, would you please say so by personal mail. If I am merely being paranoid would you say that, otherwise I will simply retire into my retirement, believing that I have done rather poorly when I hoped to do something useful, and, consequently, feeling quite sad.
I hope that you can help me sort my paranoia out. I am definitely having a bad mental health day.
Don |
