Plato’s reading suggestions, episode 60

readingsHere it is, our regular Friday diet of suggested readings for the weekend:

A skeptical scientist explores mindfulness with an open mind.

Snopes is going through legal problems, but why is Mail going after them, exactly?

The power of concentration, a la Sherlock Holmes.

How to convince someone when facts fail, though I’d like to know how many people Shermer has actually convinced that way.

Fairy tales for the disillusioned, how appropriate for the beginning of the new year.

‪Online baring & sharing and the increasing conformity of contemporary society.

Advertisements

132 thoughts on “Plato’s reading suggestions, episode 60

  1. Hi Dan, Fortunately, my granddaughter spends most of her time on the computer using the MIT graphical programming on the computer writting and drawing cartoons about ‘Warrior Cat’s in MITs graphical programming language scratch. And thank the non-existent man in the sky (TNEMITS), Pokemon has passed.

    https://scratch.mit.edu/

    Of course Gossip will always be with us on or off line. Private Garden blogs only for people the kids actually know might be a good idea.My nephew had some unpleasant experiences with trolls on Facebook.My Granddaughter shows no interest social media (she just turned 12, so the ‘danger’ may not be past.).

    Like

  2. had thought we were talking about adults. You should have said so in the first place.

    It seems to me Dan did mention is teenage daughter quite far back.

    Like

  3. Robin, Well maybe the meaning of public forum is shifting to mean just public venue.

    If Stanford refused to let a Nazi speak in one of their auditoriums they are not violating his free speech rights. A Stanford owned auditorium is not a ‘public forum’ though it is a pretty public way to present your ‘ideas (if Stanford will let you).

    Like

  4. Hi synred

    “It seems to me Dan did mention is teenage daughter quite far back.”

    But not as the first response as I recall. Talking of children on the internet and adults on the internet are two separate subjects. It seems to me that deBrabander is not talking about children here.

    Also, on re reading the original article it does not seem to me that he is talking of oeople who intend to keep something private but it becomes public by mistake.

    It seems to me that he is talking of peoplw who make something public with the full intention of making it public.

    With such different understandings of the kind of revelations deBrabander is talking about, no meaningful discussion of it can take place.

    Like

  5. Hi synred

    Again, we were talking about people who believed they were speaking privately but were in fact speaking publicly.

    In the context then, all that was meant was a forum that was public I was saying that most people realise that their comments are viewable by the public

    Any legal meaning of the term and legal implications are not important or relevant for that point.

    Like

  6. Well quite a few adults are idiots too and quite a few children are not. There’s not likely much that can be done about in anyway other than prosecute those who break actual laws. It’s not the biggest danger in the world. They can’t literally mug you on the internet.

    Like

  7. What deBrabander is not saying is “you should not post stuff online that is too personal because you never know who might be reading it”. The knowledge of who might be reading it is his entire point, that people have created for themselves, in effect, a Panopticon and that it will be a regulator of their behaviour just as the original Panopticon concept was intended to be.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Hi synred

    Yes but the point I am making is that those are not the people deBrabander is referencing in his argument.

    Discussion of people who intend to keep something private but end up making up public is important but it is not relevant to the deBrabander article.

    Discussion on the dangers posed to children by the internet is very important but again, not relevant to the deBrabander article, we must assume he means adults.

    DeBrabander is talking about people who make public disclosures about themselves in full knowledge that the disclosures are public and the intent that this be so.

    Like

  9. Robin,
    “What deBrabander is not saying is “you should not post stuff online that is too personal because you never know who might be reading it”. The knowledge of who might be reading it is his entire point, that people have created for themselves, in effect, a Panopticon and that it will be a regulator of their behaviour just as the original Panopticon concept was intended to be.”

    Beautiful; you finally got it.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. “you should not post stuff online that is too personal because you never know who might be reading it”. The knowledge of who might be reading it is his entire point

    -->>Duh?

    Like

  11. Guys,

    This is a moderated public forum. It’s public because it isn’t by invitation only. Anyone can read my posts, anyone can comment. It is moderated in the sense that I can delete comments and/or ban people temporarily or permanently.

    Also, please, once more, abstain from personal attacks on the character of other commenters. If you are exasperated by some, or find them repetitive, or narcissistic, or whatever, JUST DON’T REPLY. There is absolutely no obligation to either read or respond to comments. Thanks!

    Like

Comments are closed.