Erica
I think I was the person to whom Richard was referring (obviously I
don't know for certain - perhaps he might have also meant someone else).
My choice to go offlist was guided by sensible consideration, not
necessity. I suspected that the elements of Richard's post I objected to
were largely a consequence of his not having fully thought through what
he said. Moreover, setting the context for my query involved some
disclosures that would have been inappropriate in the public context of
the list. Given these considerations I chose to query his post offlist
in a forthright but (I hope) constructive and polite manner.
Richard's response to me was also polite and constructive and it doesn't
seem to me that the interaction damaged either of us. It certainly
helped me a lot to appreciate his intentions and I was glad I'd raised
my concerns with him.
I was nevertheless going to suggest to him that he post something
further to the list about the topic so that we could continue the
conversation in public - for the very reasons you suggest - but
obviously he has already beaten me to it.
You say that offlist messages may come across as censorship, but you
seem to want to censor people from communicating offlist even though
there are many valid reasons why we might choose to communicate that way.
And in fact I'd have much preferred to post this reply offlist because
these etiquette discussions constantly de-rail meaningful discussion of
other topics. But I've confined myself to changing the subject line
slightly because in the circumstances going offlist really didn't seem
appropriate....!
J.
On 02/12/2010 13:57, Erica Brostoff wrote:
> Richard et al,
> It should not be necessary to post people off line, as I have
> "hinted" at before! An academic correspondent of mine not on this
> list, replied to this information about Wiltshire educational
> psychology posts, that it was not as drastic as reported. Surely, a
> similar simple response on the list is possible, and I am glad
> Richard has reported that he has been approached in this way.
> Although not intended as such perhaps, it comes across as a form of
> censorship, and, again, off list others cannot learn from slips,
> errors, misreporting, wild statements, and so forth if it is hidden.
> We can all be prone to error, apart from anything else because we
> cannot check everything, there is not time. (The "F" name may apply)
>
> I have been hesitating mentioning a conference last weekend, with
> relevance to DSM classifications, at which the keynote speaker was
> probably Dr. Daniel Siegal from UCLA, by videolink (to be green)
> talking on a conceptual schema linking virtually all the categories
> of the present DSM into a much simpler system and proposing remedies
> for individuals with neurological imbalances, to boot. I would be
> grateful NOT to receive comments on the use of the word imbalances,
> or these concepts, which are sure to upset someone on the list. His
> books are available and also talks on line, and he is the person to
> complain to, if complaints are merited.
>
> I write now, because he made the same point about academia, which he
> is trying to remedy by having multidisciplinary teams working on
> specific projects, which should, in principle, allow all to
> contribute according to their specialty. He said that the closer in
> content are academic disciplines, the greater the psychological
> distance they wish to keep. I am not sure how this can be usefully
> applied here, but Richard might like to contact him, possibly. It
> suggests that the value of talking between specialties can be
> encouraged without losing carefully-guarded existing identities. It
> was an encouraging talk in a day of encouraging talks entitled Brain
> Mapping run by Confer in London.
>
> Erica
>
> ___________________________________
> The Community Psychology List has a new website/blog at:
> http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/
> There is a threaded discussion forum:
> http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi
> There is a twitter feed:
> http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK
> To post on the website blog, forum or twitter feed, contact Grant or David at the email addresses below.
> David Fryer ([log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask])
> To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
--
*********************************************************
John Cromby
Psychology Division, SSEHS
Loughborough University
Loughborough, Leics
LE11 3TU England
Tel: 01509 223000
Email: [log in to unmask]
Personal webpage: http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~hujc4/
Co-Editor, "Subjectivity": www.palgrave-journals.com/sub/
*********************************************************
___________________________________
The Community Psychology List has a new website/blog at:
http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/
There is a threaded discussion forum:
http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi
There is a twitter feed:
http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK
To post on the website blog, forum or twitter feed, contact Grant or David at the email addresses below.
David Fryer ([log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask])
To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
|