From my viewpoint, maybe influenced by the Silicon Valley smog, I
choose to label what you call "gladiatorial combat" as "healthy
competition" or "entrepreneuralism." "Reasoned discussion" implies
going up the ladder of inference until agreement is possible at a
values or mental model level. I suggest that sometimes ideas and
issues need to be tested in the "marketplace," which is often a
capricious judge. So the product of the reward times the assumed
probability of success has to far outweigh the known investment of
capital and ego. Happily, there are lots of talented people willing
to take this risk, or we wouldn't have the pleasure of the media we
are now using.
Joe Podolsky
podolsky@hpcc01.corp.hp.com
______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: Re: Anonymity in Meetings LO2798
Date: 9/13/95 2:10 PM
Now actually, rereading your message once again, I find I could clarify
even a bit more. The contexts I was referring to are those where it's
necessary to examine and decide upon just ONE out of a number of mutually
incompatible courses of action. I felt strongly at the time, and still
do, that in such situations what's needed is a) to define the choices as
clearly as possible, so that we can b) examine thoroughly the expected
consequences of each course. In such deliberations, associating each
course of action with an individual participant amounts to staging a
gladiatorial combat instead of a reasoned discussion.
Regards
Jim Michmerhuizen jamzen@world.std.com
web residence at http://world.std.com/~jamzen/
-----------------------------------------------------^---------------------
. . . . . . . . . . Actions speak louder than words . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . but not as clearly . . . . . . . . . .
---- end of Jim's message ----
--
Joe Podolsky
podolsky@hpcc01.corp.hp.com