[Xmca-l] Re: Polls are Open

[Haydi Zulfei]

Mike,
David , in an off-list correspondence , told me that we are now ways away from the beginnings ; we should see if we are now in the middle or in the end . I considered it right . What remains for us to think about is whether reciprocity , interaction , maybe dialectics are things which could be agreed upon . What used to come up as muddy waters is now gone with the wind hopefully ! Thanks a lot !
      From: mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> 
 Sent: Saturday, 28 February 2015, 22:30:29
 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Polls are Open
   
With all of the demands on everyone's time, Rob, knowing what and how to
read as a means of pursuing one's projects is tough. Reviewers make
judgment calls. Sometimes there is news there to excite you, sometimes to
bore you, sometimes to irritate you. Hopefully there is something of use
there for everyone.

Lets see what the wisdom of the crowd tell us regarding choice of article
and hope that the crowd will be interested enough in the results to join in
the discussion! Hopefully the author can be talked into participating as
well; providing authors with feedback in a hurry is our anachronistic form
of social media.  :-)

Meantime, there's that interesting discussion about the precedence of deed
and word which is always interesting to think about.

Hoping for a spot of your English rain here.

mike

mike

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 10:27 AM, rjsp2 <r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk> wrote:

> I knew that I was jumping to conclusions on the basis of one word, and
> I'm quite sure it was tua non culpa, Mike; I shall have to read it now,
> but my impression is that there is more than a little work on the skill
> and art of medical diagnosis, and a continuing and healthy debate about
> how it can be taught to would be doctors.
>
> Rob
>
>
> On 28/02/2015 16:23, mike cole wrote:
>
>> Perhaps, Rob, like many contributors to this list and the journal, the
>> authors are not native speakers of English and the editors and copy
>> editors
>> who worked on the ms thought that the abstract made it was clear that this
>> was a paper about decision making. Residual misunderstandings are the
>> editors' responsibility of course. Mea 1/4 culpa.
>>
>> I believe all the articles are worth discussion. Voting is the easy part,
>> discussion a little more time consuming!  :-)
>> mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:01 AM, rjsp2 <r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>  I considered that, but it seems an odd way to put it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/02/2015 14:37, mike cole wrote:
>>>
>>>  Rob-- Perhaps the the author meant understudied by social scientists of
>>>> the
>>>> type
>>>> who publish in MCA?
>>>> mike
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 2:03 AM, rjsp2 <r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  I won't say which one I voted for, but I didn't vote for the oncology
>>>>
>>>>> one - I couldn't get past the authors' description of it as an
>>>>> understudied field. Oncology? Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28/02/2015 04:25, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you. I thought this would be tedious, but then: abstracts, not
>>>>>> full
>>>>>> articles! Then it got game-like. That of course is your intention.
>>>>>> Anyway
>>>>>> it all looks like expansion and third spaces. Fractally speaking. I
>>>>>> did
>>>>>> vote for the Dakota incident but all four of them look interesting.
>>>>>> Free!
>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    On Feb 27, 2015, at 1:35 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Dear Colleagues,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The polls are now open for the first number of MCA for 2015. Check
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> abstracts and see what you would like to discuss. The winner
>>>>>>> is made available free at the publishers. We'll arrange for that in a
>>>>>>> week
>>>>>>> or so when people have had a chance to check out the
>>>>>>> abstracts and to make a choice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Click here  http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Journal/poll.html  and vote as
>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>> as you can.  :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
>>>>>>> object
>>>>>>> that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    -- The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC
>>>>>> 000391), an
>>>>>>
>>>>> exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland
>>>>> (SC
>>>>> 038302). The Open University is authorised and regulated by the
>>>>> Financial
>>>>> Conduct Authority.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  -- The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391),
>>> an
>>> exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland
>>> (SC
>>> 038302). The Open University is authorised and regulated by the Financial
>>> Conduct Authority.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> -- The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an
> exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC
> 038302). The Open University is authorised and regulated by the Financial
> Conduct Authority.


>
>


-- 
It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
that creates history. Ernst Boesch.