tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4266300416434206693.post445634859940425606..comments2023-08-11T12:04:42.077+02:00Comments on The Church of Rationality: 2x2 Views on ConversationsLemmusLemmushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00917054221547240969noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4266300416434206693.post-10965098790494587032009-07-07T21:15:14.552+02:002009-07-07T21:15:14.552+02:00To be sure. I think that among the first question...To be sure. I think that among the first questions we should ask in constructing more balanced cases is: What level of attention does each party to the conversation have a right to expect to receive from the other two parties? <br /><br />In scenario 1, A has need of B's expertise and may have a right to expect that B will give his or her undivided attention to a question within that expertise. C, meanwhile, has a right to expect that A and B will formally acknowledgement his or her presence, but may not have a right to expect more than that. <br /><br />In scenario 2, it is doubtful that A has a right to expect even that B and C will formally acknowledge his or her presence. B and C, meanwhile, have the right to expect intense attention from one another. If for whatever reason B is required to pay attention to any third person, C has a right to expect that third person also to pay attention to C. By A's attempt to claim B's undivided attention and his failure to pay attention to C, A is doing an injustice to B and C.Aciliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07785768453427754723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4266300416434206693.post-91060518575822645482009-07-07T18:57:34.350+02:002009-07-07T18:57:34.350+02:00Your scenarios are extreme indeed. I was thinking ...Your scenarios are extreme indeed. I was thinking of run-of-the-mill situations that contain nobody having just been released from prison, hating a certain topic or asking permission to discuss topic X. That's what the hypotheses are supposed to apply to. I agree that in a serious social psychology article such underlying assumptions should be made explicit.LemmusLemmushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00917054221547240969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4266300416434206693.post-13009040733984859522009-07-06T20:46:15.803+02:002009-07-06T20:46:15.803+02:00It would be interesting to design an experiment to...It would be interesting to design an experiment to test your hypotheses. If you did so, I think you would have to take several variables into account. Consider two extreme scenarios. <br /><br />Scenario 1. A has been seeking B out because B is the only person who can help A with a particular question. A has met B, but has not yet had a chance to raise the question, when C joins them unexpectedly. C begins making idle conversation. A turns to C, explains the situation, and asks C's permission to raise the question. C grants permission. A raises the question with B. A and B discuss the question, making occasional attempts to offer explanations to C. <br /><br />Scenario 2. A sees B and C. B and C are a married couple. B was once a chess champion, and has just been released from prison. C knows nothing about chess, in fact hates any mention of the game, but loves B intensely and is overjoyed to be reuntied with B. A walks up to them, stands between them, faces B, ignoring C, and asks B one question after another about technical matters relating to chess. <br /><br />Now I suspect that there would be very little variation between male and female respondents asked to evaluate the behavior of A in these two cases! But it would be a challenge to construct more closely balanced cases.Aciliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07785768453427754723noreply@blogger.com