The Shape of Conversation

Discussions are great fun, and not only for the content. We can enjoy the topic being discussed, and the minds we're discussing it with—but sometimes it's even more interesting to step back and look at the "shape" of conversation itself.

Conversations are carried on at different levels. There is the main subject and then various sub-levels underneath. Each of these sub-levels deals with issues that are successively more distant from — or subordinate to — the main subject. I can liken it to a series of threads, some long and some short, some continuous and some broken.

Generally, a single thread is declared (or tacitly agreed) to be the "main thread" of discussion. All other threads are classified relative to this. Some threads run parallel to this main thread.

Since we're already talking about threads, let's use a metaphor from weaving. In the fabric industry they call the threads that run long-wise the warp threads. When a speaker/discusser traverses a parallel thread ("walking a warp"?), this is normally considered merely an alternative way of walking the main thread — after all, you get to approximately the same place as you would if you had stayed on that main thread.

But there are also the threads that run at right angles to the main thread. Fabric makers call these perpendicular threads the woof. From the standpoint of the main discussion warp, woof threads are a detour; discussions that spring from such woof are considered digressions from the main topic.

In this model, a conversation can be a single thread or, more interestingly, a piece of fabric with both warp and woof. One-dimensional conversations are the most limited; they have only warp. The average conversation is two-dimensional; it digresses a bit, weaving in some woof with the warp. And from time-to-time, you find yourself in a very digressive conversation where there is as much woof as there is warp — so that you'd be hard-pressed to identify any single topic as the main one.

But all this is based on a flat piece of fabric. But some fabrics are multi-layered, which give us the possibility of traversing the layers. Conversationally, you could make a "meta-comment" — a comment about the discussion itself — which often engenders a "meta-conversation." This, strictly, is not the same as a digression from the main thrust of the discussion. It's not simply taking a detour to the same goal; it's stepping outside, or above, the original conversation, to look down at it from a new viewpoint. Following the fabric analogy, this requires looking at the third dimension of the cloth: the layer of the fabric.

The really skillful conversationalist can lithely skip from warp to woof to layer, never losing the thread of conversation. To such a person, 3-dimensional discussions are the most delightful. They require more effort, needing as they do an ongoing intellectual peripheral vision. But they offer far greater rewards, not only in what you may discover, but in the pleasure of getting there. A tapestry is so much richer than mere cheesecloth.

Now, if we carried this dimensions thing just one notch farther: What would the fourth dimension map to?

I leave that, dear reader, as an exercise for you.

.

"Global Warming" also an attack on young minds

In the seeming landslide of misinformation about "global warming," I often quail at the thought of the harm being done to the minds of children—both in form and content. They pack up their books and go off to school where they're filled to capacity with drivel (and worse)—and they innocently believe it when they hear that our planet is approaching doom and that Man is guilty for it.

Their teachers—far from being the shining defenders of rationality and truth—are generally agents (unwitting or not) of the very deception the kids need a defense for. And it's not only falsehoods about science and statistics and causality that are chalked onto the blank slates of those young minds: it's also the very style of mis-thinking that allows such falsehoods to exist and to drool out across the cultural mainstream.

So what are the kids "taught"?

Bad science, invalid statistics, unsound causal deductions (like "what comes before is inevitably the cause of what comes after"), a deep-seated fear of imminent doom, and an overarching feeling of guilt that they're a member of the race that "killed the planet."

That last might be the worst and most insidious of all, since young minds aren't up to the job of defending themselves against the assignment of unearned guilt, especially when meted out by people they trust.

I'll say more of this dangerous and disgusting attempt at corrupting our young citizens' minds in a separate post, but for now let me mention a piece of good news.

At least one author of childrens' books is fighting back. Al Sonja Rice-Schmidt, producer and writer of Emmy-nominated TV programs, is tackling the world of children’s literature with her book, Deb & Seby’s Real Deal on Global Warming. Currently the Co-Executive Producer of the Disney series, Cory in the House, Schmidt's foray into children’s books is aimed at easing their growing fears about warming trends, with a more positive perspective on man-made global warming.

Some of the topics she covers: "Who's telling us all this scary global warming stuff and why?" "We are Not all Doomed!" "How have 'x-treme greenie meanies' been the boss of us!" "Fact!! No debate!" "No Facts!! Prove it!!" "Earth's warming and cooling is so Old News!" and "Global Warming and other eco-oopsies"

It's about time someone wrote a counter-balance book for young minds on the scurrilous pseudo-topic of "global warming." It was published just in time for Earth Day 2008, and is available from Amazon and other outlets. It's aimed at ages 9 to 12.

As an interesting side note, the book's website has links to several pages over at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which claims to be "dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that individuals are best helped not by government intervention, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace." I know only a little about the CEI, but that statement of principles is an excellent start.

.