Diana Young
PM with Diana Young
Friday June 3rd
I am going to block Anne Marie LaMonde now. I prefer that, when someone finds me untrustworthy, that they disengage.
I wish I could just unfriend but I think it has gone beyond that.
Do you understand why she thinks you're a bot masquerading as a human? How can we resolve this puzzle?
I understand.
I really, completely, totally understand.
Fixing it.... well, I can't, by myself.
I cannot with her help.
And she does not trust me, so I can't help her.
Please lay out your theory, analysis, and evidence-based reasoning.
So that is why I blocked. She is potentially dangerous to me: she has a desire to harm.
She asked you not to trust me because she does not.
What would have been.... uh, preferred by ME is if she said that SHE does not trust me and let YOU choose to trust, or not.
given her feelings and experience
Fair warning: Because you are characterizing Anne-Marie, I reserve the right (without your consent) to share with her your characterizations.
Thank you.
For being clear.
What I see is: it takes two people to resolve a situation.
She does not trust me.
Thus, the situation is not resolve-able.
She felt offended. She feels that I am to blame.
I do not believe that conclusion follows.
Oh, okay. Where?
The situation is resolve-able?
Even if she does not trust me?
Nor do I adopt, without evidence and confirmation from Anne-Marie your Theory of Mind about her feelings, thoughts, or beliefs.
Well, I am guessing. Without her to confirm or deny, it is only a guess.
A guess is all I can possibly have.
It is my theory that IF she trusted me, AND she had an accurate TOM of herself, and I were paying attention and had the skills etc needd to understand, THEN I could with her help construct a TOM accurate enough for us to communciate in a way that was a benefit to both of us.
WIthout that, I am not sure that we could.
That could with her help construct a TOM of her, accurate enough for us to communciate in a way that was a benefit to both of us, and vice versa.
That does not seem to be what's happening.
I have unsubstantiate-able guesses. And she does too.
How could either truly "know" without running it by the other?
The guessings would be disconnected.
I know of one way to find out if you are a human and not a bot. Are you prepared to cooperate with me in a quick test?
And those, in my experience, often are painful, hurtful, offensive, mistaken and so on.
Yes, I will cooperate with you in a quick test.
Do you have your Mic (and maybe headphones) at the ready?
If so, give me a minute to set it up her for FB Voice Chat.
I do not have a microphone on this computer. I could give you a phone number.
I could switch computers but that would take time.
Do you have a mic on any computer/
Doesn't have to be done right now.
Yes, I have one computer that has a mic on it.
Do you have serious concern that I am a bot?
I am more interested in the efficient way of obtaining conclusive evidence, one way or another.
In the absence of demonstrable evidence, it's only an unscientific opinion.
Okay. Do you doubt your opinion that I am human?
I have no useful opinion. All I have is an open question and no conclusive evidence, one way or another.
It feels a little humiliating to me to be asked to prove I am human because someone doesn't.... think that I am and doesn't believe they can tell the difference.
I am startled to find you expressing a concern about proof, as we are not proving mathematical theorems here. We are doing what a scientists does, which is to obtain evidence to either confirm or refute each and every hypothesis on the table.
Someone BELIEVING that I am a bot does not turn me into one that I'd have to defend myself against being one, does it?
If what you need to trust me is to a hear a voice you know to be human, I can understand that.
There are two hypotheses on the table. I propose to falsify whichever one can be falsified.
OK
This is my Google Voice number, (678) 201-0997. If you call it, I will answer (if I know the call is coming)
Note that I do not prove anything. Rather I disprove a false hypothesis.
Yes. Okay.
I have the phone in front of me now.
In the meantime, I have a question for you that puzzles me.
And this is something that can be "know" - either I will answer, or I will not.
okay
Yesterday (or maybe the day before), I carefully wrote up a comment about the concept of proof, and how it is not a feature of the scientific method.
Given your skills at constructing and recalling accurate theories of mind, how come you didn't recall my philosophy about the absence of proof in the scientific method?
I am not good at certain kinds of remembering. I also do not know where to find things that I do not currently have in front of me. If I had something open in a window that had been in front of me, and a related discussion arose, I'd be more likely to remember than if I did not.
I need to be able to trust you to recall what I have labored to share with you, so that I can be confident I am not wasting my time informing you about the nature of the scientific approach to things.
I don't see how constructing an accurate theory of mind (which I can do cooperatively) is connected to recalling (I'd say that for me recalling is very different than the process of constructing because it, perforce, happens to me alone and is not going to be "live" and accurate: it would be like a still photograph of a living conversation: while I might "animalte" it with guessing that would not be real, as the live conversation was)
You demonstrate, from my perspective, a higher than average ability to organize, recall, and re-locate things you have written or that others have written.
I got call from a anyonymous number, an unidentified person, and a hang-up.
That was me on Google Voice. Let me try again.
http://www.musenet.info/WCE/Mymosh.html
A Conversation with Mymosh the Self-Begotten
See if you can see this group.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/TomBK
Learning outcomes are failing, learning processes are not working, and diagosis is missing.
We are all students, we are all teachers, we are all therapists, and we are all clients in therapy.
In education, we learn good and valuable things, but we learn them far in advance of when we need them.
In therapy, we learn good and valuable things, but we learn them after we've stumbled and fallen and gotten hurt by not being prepared.
In Just-In-Time Learning we learn things just as the time is approaching when we need the education.
We need to dial back from Therapy Mode to Timely Learning.
Google said we talked for an hour and 52 minutes.
Today
"I am going to block Anne Marie LaMonde now. I prefer that, when someone finds me untrustworthy, that they disengage. I wish I could just unfriend but I think it has gone beyond that." ~Diana Young
I missed this comment before.
You must not block her from reading the threads where she participated and where you posted comments about her character. It would be a violation professional ethics to do that.
Please unblock her at once, to protect yourself from being accused of a violation of professional ethics.
Today
You are saying that if she cannot re-read the conversations she was involved in and already read, you would consider this is a violation of my professional ethics?
If she cannot attend to a public thread in which her character has been imputed, then the party who has denied her that unalienable right has engaged in a violation of professional ethics.
You are saying that she believes her character has been impugned: she did seem to be saying this, also.
The thread is not public.
She has an unalienable right to attend to that thread in which her character has been impugned. Public means more than just a pairwise private conversation. All your FB friends (and in some cases friends of friends) can see and further comment in those threads.
Yes, my FB friend can see it. I believe it is set to "friends" rather than "public".
It would be an unforgivable outrage for you to deny her access to those threads in which her thoughts have been submitted and in which her character has been impugned.
I believe that she deleted, or blocked, the thread that was on her page. I could not see it.
I posted a thread on your TimeLine and observed it was visible by Friends of Friends. I expect you to be a professional and do the ethical thing here.
She deleted the thread she posted.
I'm trying to understand what you believe that is.
Are you suggesting that I delete hreads, also?
I believe you have committed a grievous injustice, an act unworthy of a professional.
I am suggesting you unblock her.
I am trying to understand.
Do you understand what it means to unblock her?
I am trying to understand why.
She deleted a thread: are you suggesting that it would be more professional if I deleted threads, too?
Because what you did is an egregious violation of professional ethics.
There would no longer be public conversation visible then.
I will say this one more time. Pay very close attention: I suggest, implore, and beg you to unblock her forthwith and without delay.
Do not destroy the evidence. That is also an ethical obligation on your part.
I understand that you want me to unblock her because you feel that it is a violation of professional ethics that she not be able to access threads that she participated in.
Now, can you anticipate the consequences if you decline to heed my advice here?
I can anticipate that you might demonize, dismiss, belittle and revile me.
I will cease to be able to trust you to treat anyone else in an ethical manner.
Though I really would like to know if there is another possible way. I would like to be really clear on what conditions or needs we are wanting to get met here.
I need to be able to trust you to engage in ethical best practices.
You would loose trust in me, if I do not do as you are ordering me to do.
I would prefer that we find a way that the all the needs in this situation be met.
Yes, there is another possible way. You could have the courage to apologize to Anne-Marie for treating her unjustly.
You believe that I treated Anne-Marie unjustly. She believes so, too.
Yes, I am so confident of that observation, that I am willing to go public with it.
Now, you are saying that you would say this to other people? That I acted hurtfully, and was not brave enough to apologize?
To me this feels like forcing: you want me to do something, and there will be negative consequences if I do not do this thing.
I really prefer to solve things with learning and communication rather than forcing.
I can still imagine a good outcome here.
I would like to put this conversation on hold, for right now.
I would say that I brought to your attention an instance of treating a correspondent in an unjust, ucongenial, uncollegiate, incivil, and unethical manner and you declined to rectify it when I brought it to your attention.
I'll give you a reasonable amount of time to come to your senses on this matter.
By the way, you have my permission to make this PM public, provided you publish it in its entirety.
You believe that I have wronged, and will not admit it. You are giving me a time limit, and an ultimatum.
I am asking to pause the conversation.
I have not conclude that you will not rectify the situation. I will wait a reasonable amount of time for that to happen to everyone's satisfaction.l
Now I feel a cortisol surge, or my heart beating quickly. prefer that, when I make a request to pause a conversation, that you consider my request.
You are saying that everyone's satisfaction will include mine?
And for what it's worth your hesitation and reluctance gives me shpilkes in the gennecktegessoink.
I am sorry that you, during our interaction, would feel shpilkes in the gennecktegessoink.
I believe that you will feel relieved after having made amends.
I am trying to understand if this is an ultimatum with demonization and reviling and abuse as a potential outcome, or if there are other possibilities.
In case you don't know what that portends, dyspepsia means my gut feeling is that this is not going to turn out well, leaving three people equally wounded.
Your theory of mind is not accurate.
I understand you want the unblocking; what I don't understand is if there are any other possibilities that you would consider.
A TOM cannot be accurate unless you help me to make it. I am guessing.
Feel free to come back to me in a day or two with a face-saving alternative.
Stop guessing at my frame of mind. You do not possess a reliable mental model of my frame of mind.
I want an outcome of mutual learning. Ultimatums are not usually a condition under which humans learn well. Obey, perhaps.
Without your help and cooperation, I will not possess a reliable mental model of my frame of mind. If you are unwilling to cooperate with me to create one, please let me know that this is the case.
I disagree with your characterization of me, also.
and would help you, if you wanted, to look at it.
Learning means, among other things, experiencing an Apostasy, a reversal of beliefs when one has been laboring under an undiagnosed misconception.
One thing I do not understand: to unfriend someone means they cannot see conversations they participated in. Is this also what you are saying is unethical?
To host a simulacrum of my frame of mind, you would need to acquire a graduate level of education in the STEM disciplines. Short of that, I see no likelihood of you being able to emulate my methods of reasoning.
You did not ask for this so I am unclear. Unblocking, as best I can tell, would not make the conversations visible to someone who was not a friend.
I don't care if you defriend her. That's not relevant. What's relevant is that you blocked her from seeing the evolution of her own work.
You were concerned about her not being able to see the conversations in which she participated in.
That's a consequence of blocking. That's what blocking means.
Okay....I certainly want her to be able to see the evolution of her own work.
I am unclear how unblocking will accomplish that, if she is not also my friend.
to the best of my knowledge, seeing my timeline is limited to friends.
It seems that deleting would not help, then.
All you need to do is remove the block. You don't have to friend her. Just let her see the continuing responses to her contributions.
Okay.... you are saying IF I unblock, she will be able to see this if she is not a friend?
I despair of you understanding the details of my reasoning. The bottom line is that it suffices to unblock her.
Yes. Just unblock. Remain mortal enemies if it pleases you to detest her. But let her see what you and others are saying in the wake of the record to date.
I am confused: if I I delete the threads, she will not be able to see the evolution of her work.
so you are saying, unblock, and do NOT delete?
Do not delete the threads. That's an even more egregious tactic.
That is what I thought.
Be a conscientious scientist. Show your work and let others see it, especially others who contributed to the dialogue.
She deleted a threads though so I thought that you were recommending or suggesting that for me also, but I did not understand why you would find it helpful.
No, I was distressed that she deleted her own thread, and I told her so.
I had proposed to diagnose the breakdown, for the benefit of constructive learning for everyone.
She deleted a thread: was that an egregious tactic? She was not showing her work or letting others see it: she deprived me of the ability to see it, and you also.
From a scientific point of view, discarding the data is a departure from scholarly ethics.
I thought you meant that she did not WANT people to see it, so I should deleted it, as she had, in order to be ethical. That did not make sense.
I also feel that discarding the data is a departure from scholarly ethics. It allows people to fantasize and invent when there is no record.
No. She wants to see the outcome of her intellectual contribution to a challenging learning journey.
Do you think she kept a copy?
I do too. She deleted the the thread that is part of the journey. She said so to you.
So, I wonder if she kept a copy.
No. But I was obliged to take a copy on her behalf and provide it to her. But if you do not unblock her, I will be burdened with the obligation to take additional snapshots as long as the thread is alive.
I also want to see the outcome of everyone's intellectual contributions to a challenging learning journey.
Do you see how much tsuris you brought upon three people by your precipitous, ill-conceived, unwise, and ill-advised actions?
Is it possible to "end" a thread? If it were no longer evolving or changing, would my providing a copy on DropBox be sufficient?
Is tsuris in a learning journey?
Right now, I am listening to find out what I can do to help create a learning outcome.
If I ended the thread and provided copies available on DropBox, would that allow her to see the outcome of her intellectual contribution to a challenging learning journey?
No, it is not possible to freeze a thread in FB. But threads tend to fade into oblivion after about a week of no activity.
Okay. So... if I unblocked her for a week, that might be enough for the threads to fade into inactivity?
If you summarily were to delete it without notice, I would make my last copy forever available on my own web site.
We are cooperating here, right? I am trying to understand what I can do that can help the outcomes you are concerned for, and also have a good outcome for me.
You are saying that you would expect notice if I re-blocked her after the threads are definitely dormant?
Let me be clear. When one of my correspondents behaves in an erratic manner (whether unethical or not), I do what I can to rectify it to the maximum extent possible.
Yes. I find this absolutely reasonable.
If it's a mere mistake of inadvertence, it's sometimes easy to fix. If it's a deliberate act of disruption, I do what I can to countermand it.
Okay.
How would you determine a deliberate act of disruption?
If someone says, "I goofed, can you help me fix it?" that's an easy call.
If they decline to repair a misadventure, I conclude it was intentional and not inadvertent.
If the person did not supply the information, I mean. Anne-Marie told you she deleted the thread so deleting was deliberate: disruption though?
Guessing why people might do things I find to be different from knowing.
I am not going to discuss Anne-Marie in a PM with you where she is not present to speak for herself.
Yes, on the goof.
I definitely want to have the most resonable after-the-fact learning experience possible here and am willing to invest and engage to do taht.
Guessing is a method that is 100% guaranteed to be wrong almost all the time.
"If they decline to repair a misadventure, I conclude it was intentional and not inadvertent." But if they decline to repair it in a way that satisfies who? Everyone? Or just you?
Rarely, a scientist guesses right, and comes up with an hypothesis that survives the rigors of the scientific method.
ideally a guess stands up under the scruity of many, not simply a single person.
I am becoming annoyed with your endless hair-splitting. After you repair the damage, we can resume a functional (and public) discourse on the elements of these questions.
I am trying to understand. I am needing to be clear. Are you saying you are out of patience with me?
If you are, I understand. We can pause the conversation.
Perhaps someday (but not tonight) I will succeed in explaining to you the fundamentals of scientific methods.
You are telling me how you think I should repair the damage. You are dictating to me.
I am out of time. D&D is over and it's time for me to pack up and drive home.
have a safe drive.
Good night.
Good night.