Re: [AUDITORY] Silence from leaders in auditory science (Etienne Gaudrain )


Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] Silence from leaders in auditory science
From:    Etienne Gaudrain  <egaudrain.cam@xxxxxxxx>
Date:    Mon, 31 Mar 2025 15:40:35 +0200

--0000000000004d0ba40631a39173 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Doug, First, I would like to commend the courage it takes to be a dissonant voice in a group that seems to be thinking uniformly. Thank you for engaging in a conversation, and thank you for your patience. Second, I would like to state that I agree with you that although scientists can be cunning in their pursuit of factual truth in their domain of expertise, they can also be hopelessly na=C3=AFve, especially when it co= mes to outside forces exploiting or directing our work. After all we have been willingly gifting all our (publicly funded) research to a publishing industry that has made billions out of it, and has now grown enough to lobby governments to set the rules defining scientific excellence... However, I must confess that I do not understand what you are implicitly referring to. I reread all the messages, and I see various quotes and metaphors, that, frankly, escape me a bit. But at the center of your comments, there seems to be the allusion to a role of the media (although that point was initiated by J. Scott Merritt) and funding sources in steering politically motivated research? Am I understanding that correctly? If so, can you give some more specific examples? Especially in our field? I think it is important for everyone to know. And if I misunderstood, would you please have the patience to spell it out for me? Again, I think it might be very informative. It could very well be that I am not familiar with the US American system enough to get it, and it is obvious to many. Sorry if that is the case. Still, I suppose that I might not be the only one who is confused here and could benefit from some clarification. Once more, thank you for your patience. Best regards, -Etienne On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 at 06:15, Douglas Scott <jdmusictuition@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > The snark is completely uncalled for. > > For the record, I wasn't referring to the Cocktail Party Effect, but > rather to Champagne Socialism. This is not intended to be partisan. I'm > certainly not trying to attack one ideology or another here (although I > certainly do get the distinct impression that I am being attacked by a > particular ideology): Any research becomes susceptible once they place > political concerns over scientific concerns. In this case, it is > specifically the phenomenon where well funded researchers choose not to > consider the sources of funding of their research, or the ultimate ethica= l > implications of accepting it, because doing so risks that funding. > > The analogue to the Cocktail Party Effect would be where a researcher > tunes valid sources of information (even from erstwhile political allies) > to focus on a message that elevates their own specialty for short term > gains to their own careers at the risk of damaging scientific integrity a= nd > the trust of the general public in science in the long run. > > I am also fully aware of the political realities connected to funding. > However, what I am advocating against is bringing political discussions > into actual scientific forums. It's one thing to discuss such things at > cocktail parties, Cocktail Party Effect or no. Quite another to bring it > into the lab. > > Doug > > On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 at 00:32, Nathan Barlow <nb.audiology@xxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> Congratulations on the correct mention of The Cocktail Party effect. >> >> Sadly I was not playing white noise whilst reading your passage from >> 1940s Italy , so was not experiencing said neurological effect when your >> conclusion mentioned said Effect. >> >> Such is life. >> >> >> N. >> BSc, PGDip, MSc(SpchSci)(Hons), CoP, MSc(Clinical Audiology)(Soton) >> www.eresope.wordpress.com >> @xxxxxxxx >> >> >> On Tue, 25 Mar 2025, 04:32 Douglas Scott, <jdmusictuition@xxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> >>> Alain >>> >>> If you want to talk politics we can do so. >>> >>> I understand the apprehension you feel, but have you considered the fac= t >>> that it is precisely a result of the low quality of the information on = the >>> matter you are consuming? I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm just >>> pointing out that media organisations take in the same sources of fundi= ng >>> that many researchers have come to rely on for very nefarious purposes = from >>> less than salubrious sources. Otherwise thoughtful and intelligent peop= le >>> who only dip their toes in the water and react emotionally to an endles= s >>> stream of manipulative propaganda are exactly the target market. >>> >>> As a general rule, if you are told you should feel bad for holding >>> certain opinions or questioning others, there is a very high chance tha= t >>> you are a target of information warfare. Eco's often misunderstood essa= y on >>> Ur-Fascism provides a really useful sanity check that is particularly a= pt >>> in the present time: >>> >>> *"On the morning of July 27, 1943, I was told that, according to radio >>> reports, fascism had collapsed and Mussolini was under arrest. When my >>> mother sent me out to buy the newspaper, I saw that the papers at the >>> nearest newsstand had different titles. Moreover, after seeing the >>> headlines, I realized that each newspaper said different things. I boug= ht >>> one of them, blindly, and read a message on the first page signed by fi= ve >>> or six political parties =E2=80=94 among them the Democrazia Cristiana,= the >>> Communist Party, the Socialist Party, the Partito d=E2=80=99Azione, and= the Liberal >>> Party.* >>> >>> *Until then, I had believed that there was a single party in every >>> country and that in Italy it was the Partito Nazionale Fascista. Now I = was >>> discovering that in my country several parties could exist at the same >>> time. Since I was a clever boy, I immediately realized that so many par= ties >>> could not have been born overnight, and they must have existed for some >>> time as clandestine organizations."* >>> >>> I personally find that applying this test to every political panic to b= e >>> a useful balm. >>> It's a much broader discussion that extends well beyond the current era >>> to larger currents of the global social and economic order basically si= nce >>> WW2, long-past the point where it should have rightly collapsed. Curren= t >>> events are the continued unresolved fallout of what happened in 2007. D= on't >>> look to journalists, wikipedia (which, on political matters, is just >>> basically just the opinions of the sponsor of editors' cocktail parties= ), >>> or AI (which, on political matters, is basically just repackaged wikipe= dia) >>> for insight into matters like this. As Mark Twain noted: "If you don't = read >>> the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're >>> mis-informed". Better to be uninformed, but unfortunately the system ha= s >>> become so all-pervasive that it is impossible to remain free from its >>> influence unless you actually devote some serious thought to it. >>> >>> Long story short: Science cannot save itself by becoming a cloying >>> mouthpiece for the local the cocktail party circuit. Those days are, be= it >>> fortunately or unfortunately, well passed. >>> >>> Doug >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 04:47, Alain de Cheveigne < >>> alain.de.cheveigne@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> Scott, >>>> >>>> I followed your advice, and read what you had to say with empathy and >>>> an open mind. Sadly, it does not make good sense. You complain that t= he >>>> list 'devolves into a political battleground,' but then wade in >>>> wholeheartedly. You defend a pristine channel of scientific debate, bu= t >>>> defend the notion of science itself being sacrificed to fix the debt. >>>> >>>> As an accomplished engineer, you should feel that something is wrong. >>>> For one thing, the cost of science is a minor factor in the debt. We >>>> usually attend to major factors before minor. For another, science (li= ke >>>> other elements of society funded collectively) creates the platform on >>>> which you and others create wealth. It seems strange that the richest >>>> country on the planet suddenly thinks that such basics are not worth p= aying >>>> for. A reluctance to pay tax is the major factor in the debt. >>>> >>>> An apt metaphor is an apple tree. All we care for is the apples, but w= e >>>> would not get rid of leaves, branches, roots, soil and water because t= hey >>>> appear wasteful. A tree might benefit from pruning to remove dead woo= d and >>>> superfluous branches, but you do not go at it with a chainsaw. >>>> >>>> What is happening to the US reminds me of the zombie ants who suddenly >>>> figure that it is a good idea to latch on to a leaf and die. In the an= t, >>>> this behavior results from the hijacking of neural circuits that proce= ss >>>> information and control action. Those circuits normally ensure >>>> homeostasis, keeping the ant (and its colony and species) alive, much = like >>>> the controls of a plane keep it in the air. Hijacking those controls m= ight >>>> allow the hijacker to influence the trajectory to their benefit, at th= e >>>> expense of the plane and its pilot. >>>> >>>> You single out 'polarization' of the (US) electorate and 'modern media= ' >>>> as causes. Why is it that I, who am not part of that electorate and pa= rtake >>>> sparingly of social or even written media, am so apprehensive of the >>>> current trajectory? >>>> >>>> To answer the original question about the 'silence of senior leaders', >>>> those 'leaders' are confused and scared. Confused because their usual >>>> levers of action no longer work and they do they fully understand why = and >>>> how to fix them, and scared because of recent examples of retribution = and >>>> bullying, in scientific spheres or elsewhere. >>>> >>>> This is why politics might seep into the scientific debate from time t= o >>>> time. Regrettable? Yes. >>>> >>>> Alain >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > On 22 Mar 2025, at 17:05, J. Scott Merritt <alsauser@xxxxxxxx> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > I am saddened to see the Auditory List devolving into a political >>>> battleground. If additional political "discourse" is needed, there is >>>> certainly no shortage of other places on the web where it can be found= . >>>> > >>>> > From my perspective, the -central- problem with US politics is the >>>> increasing polarization of the electorate. Gone are the moderate >>>> statesmen/women that seek a fair compromise acceptable to most. I put= the >>>> blame for this situation firmly at the feet of modern media - where al= l of >>>> the incentives are singularly aligned with increased "engagement" of t= heir >>>> viewers. >>>> > >>>> > Given that view point, I disagree with the premise that each side >>>> should put as much effort as possible into organizing their resistance= and >>>> further arguing their points. Instead, I believe we need more people = to >>>> listen carefully, with patience and empathy, to the grievances of all = sides >>>> in hopes of finding a middle ground that works for all. >>>> > >>>> > I would venture to say that the majority of the US electorate would >>>> agree that the massive debt that US has run up is a significant proble= m, >>>> and would further agree that reduced scientific research funding is an >>>> appropriate (albeit small) step to address that problem. As such, it = would >>>> be hard to argue that reduced scientific research funding, by itself, = is an >>>> assault on American democracy. >>>> > >>>> > It can certainly be argued that the methods apparently being used to >>>> reduce funding are crude and not well prioritized, with an emphasis on >>>> haste rather than wisdom. Unfortunately, I fear that this will remain= the >>>> case while the electorate is so heavily polarized and we careen viciou= sly >>>> to the left or right after each election. >>>> > >>>> > So ... my suggestions is NOT to "put as much effort as possible into >>>> organising resistance to this coup" ... but rather to engage -individu= ally- >>>> with those of differing viewpoints, with patience and empathy, in hope= s of >>>> reaching a better shared vision and understanding. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 08:25:25 +0000 >>>> > Petter Kallioinen <000001c5645d28b7-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> I am writing from Stockholm following what I take to be the fall of >>>> American democracy. My advice is to not the resist the urgency of this >>>> situation and not hope for the best. What I would suggest is for every= one >>>> to minimize their ordinary work on a stable level and put as much effo= rt as >>>> possible into organising resistance to this coup. Everyone! >>>> >>> --0000000000004d0ba40631a39173 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">Dear Doug,<div><br></div><div>First, I would like to comme= nd the courage it takes to be a dissonant voice in a group that seems to be= thinking uniformly. Thank you for engaging in a conversation, and thank yo= u for your patience.</div><div><br></div><div>Second, I would like to state= that I agree with you that although scientists can be cunning in their pur= suit of factual truth in their domain of expertise, they can also be hopele= ssly na=C3=AFve, especially when it comes to outside forces exploiting or d= irecting our work. After all we have been willingly gifting all our (public= ly funded) research to a publishing industry that has made billions out of = it, and has now grown enough to lobby governments to set the rules defining= scientific excellence...</div><div><br></div><div>However, I must confess = that I do not understand what you are implicitly referring to. I reread all= the messages, and I see various quotes and metaphors, that, frankly, escap= e me a bit. But at the center of your comments, there seems to be the allus= ion to a role of the media (although that point was initiated by J. Scott M= erritt) and funding sources in steering politically motivated research? Am = I understanding that correctly?</div><div><br></div><div>If so, can you giv= e some more specific examples? Especially in our field? I think it is impor= tant for everyone to know.</div><div><br></div><div>And if I misunderstood,= would you please have the patience to spell it out for me? Again, I think = it might be very informative.</div><div><br></div><div>It could very well b= e that I am not familiar with the US American system enough to get it, and = it is obvious to many. Sorry if that is the case. Still, I suppose that I m= ight not be the only one who is confused here and could benefit from some c= larification.</div><div><br></div><div>Once more, thank you for your patien= ce.<br>Best regards,<br>-Etienne</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><br></di= v><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr= " class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 at 06:15, Douglas Scott &lt;<a h= ref=3D"mailto:jdmusictuition@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank">jdmusictuition@xxxxxxxx= ail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"= margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-lef= t:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">The snark is completely uncalled for.<div><br></div= ><div>For the record, I wasn&#39;t referring to the Cocktail Party Effect, = but rather to Champagne Socialism. This is not intended to be partisan. I&#= 39;m certainly not trying to attack one ideology or another here (although = I certainly do get the distinct impression that I am being attacked by a pa= rticular ideology): Any research becomes susceptible once they place politi= cal concerns over scientific concerns. In this case, it is specifically the= phenomenon where well funded researchers choose not to consider the source= s of funding of their research, or the ultimate ethical implications of acc= epting it,=C2=A0=C2=A0because doing so risks that funding.</div><div><br></= div><div>The analogue to the Cocktail Party Effect would be where a researc= her tunes valid sources of information (even from erstwhile political=C2=A0= allies) to focus on a message that elevates their own specialty for short t= erm gains to their own careers at the risk of damaging scientific=C2=A0inte= grity and the trust of the general public in=C2=A0science in the long run.<= /div><div><br>I am also fully aware of the political realities connected to= funding. However, what I am advocating against is bringing political discu= ssions into actual scientific forums. It&#39;s one thing to discuss such th= ings at cocktail parties, Cocktail Party Effect or no. Quite another to bri= ng it into the lab.</div><div><br></div><div>Doug</div></div><br><div class= =3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 = at 00:32, Nathan Barlow &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:nb.audiology@xxxxxxxx" targe= t=3D"_blank">nb.audiology@xxxxxxxx</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote cla= ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid = rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div>Congratulations o= n the correct mention of The Cocktail Party effect.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"= auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Sadly I was not playing white noise whils= t reading your passage from 1940s Italy , so was not experiencing said neur= ological effect when your conclusion mentioned said Effect.=C2=A0</div><div= dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Such is life.=C2=A0</div><div dir= =3D"auto"><br></div><div><br></div><div><div dir=3D"ltr">N.<div><font size= =3D"1" style=3D"background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" color=3D"#666666">BSc, P= GDip, MSc(SpchSci)(Hons), CoP, MSc(Clinical Audiology)(Soton)</font></div><= div><span style=3D"background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font color=3D"#00000= 0"><a href=3D"http://www.eresope.wordpress.com" target=3D"_blank">www.ereso= pe.wordpress.com</a></font></span></div><div><span style=3D"background-colo= r:rgb(255,255,255)">@xxxxxxxx</span></div><div><span style=3D"background-co= lor:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></span></div></div></div></div><br><div class=3D"= gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, 25 Mar 2025, 04:= 32 Douglas Scott, &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jdmusictuition@xxxxxxxx" target=3D= "_blank">jdmusictuition@xxxxxxxx</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class= =3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rg= b(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Alain<div><br></div><div>= If you want to talk politics=C2=A0we can do so.<br><br>I understand the app= rehension you feel, but have you considered the fact that it is precisely a= result of the low quality of the information on the matter you are consumi= ng? I&#39;m not trying to be condescending, I&#39;m just pointing out that = media organisations take in the same sources of funding that many researche= rs have come to rely on for very nefarious purposes from less than salubrio= us sources. Otherwise thoughtful and intelligent people who only dip their = toes in the water and react emotionally to an endless stream of manipulativ= e propaganda are exactly the target market.<br><br>As a general rule, if yo= u are told you should feel bad for holding certain opinions or questioning = others, there is a very high chance that you are a target of information wa= rfare. Eco&#39;s often misunderstood essay on Ur-Fascism=C2=A0provides a re= ally useful sanity check that is particularly apt in the present time:=C2= =A0</div><div><i><br></i></div><div><i>&quot;<span style=3D"color:rgb(51,51= ,51);font-family:&quot;Helvetica Neue&quot;,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font= -size:14px;text-align:justify">On the morning of July 27, 1943, I was told = that, according to radio reports, fascism had collapsed and Mussolini was u= nder arrest. When my mother sent me out to buy the newspaper, I saw that th= e papers at the nearest newsstand had different titles. Moreover, after see= ing the headlines, I realized that each newspaper said different things. I = bought one of them, blindly, and read a message on the first page signed by= five or six political parties =E2=80=94 among them the Democrazia Cristian= a, the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, the Partito d=E2=80=99Azione, = and the Liberal Party.</span></i></div><div><div style=3D"text-align:justif= y"><font color=3D"#333333" face=3D"Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-s= erif"><span style=3D"font-size:14px"><i><br></i></span></font></div><p styl= e=3D"box-sizing:border-box;margin:0px 0px 10px;text-align:justify;color:rgb= (51,51,51);font-family:&quot;Helvetica Neue&quot;,Helvetica,Arial,sans-seri= f;font-size:14px"><i>Until then, I had believed that there was a single par= ty in every country and that in Italy it was the Partito Nazionale Fascista= . Now I was discovering that in my country several parties could exist at t= he same time. Since I was a clever boy, I immediately realized that so many= parties could not have been born overnight, and they must have existed for= some time as clandestine organizations.&quot;</i><br><br>I personally find= that applying this test to every political panic to be a useful=C2=A0balm.= </p>It&#39;s a much broader discussion that extends well beyond the current= era to larger currents of the global social and economic order basically s= ince WW2, long-past the point where it should have rightly collapsed. Curre= nt events are the continued=C2=A0unresolved fallout of what happened in 200= 7. Don&#39;t look to journalists, wikipedia (which, on political matters, i= s just basically just the opinions of the sponsor of editors&#39; cocktail = parties), or AI (which, on political matters, is basically just repackaged = wikipedia) for insight into matters like this. As Mark Twain noted: &quot;I= f you don&#39;t read the newspaper, you&#39;re uninformed. If you read the = newspaper, you&#39;re mis-informed&quot;. Better to be uninformed, but unfo= rtunately the system has become so all-pervasive that it is impossible to r= emain free from its influence unless you actually devote some serious thoug= ht to it.<br><br>Long story short: Science cannot save itself by becoming a= cloying mouthpiece for the local the cocktail party circuit. Those days ar= e, be it fortunately or unfortunately, well passed.<br><br>Doug<br><br><br>= </div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_= attr">On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 04:47, Alain de Cheveigne &lt;<a href=3D"mailt= o:alain.de.cheveigne@xxxxxxxx" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">alain= .de.cheveigne@xxxxxxxx</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail= _quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204= ,204);padding-left:1ex">Scott, <br> <br> I followed your advice, and read what you had to say with empathy and an op= en mind.=C2=A0 Sadly, it does not make good sense. You complain that the li= st &#39;devolves into a political battleground,&#39; but then wade in whole= heartedly. You defend a pristine channel of scientific debate, but defend t= he notion of science itself being sacrificed to fix the debt. <br> <br> As an accomplished engineer, you should feel that something is wrong. For o= ne thing, the cost of science is a minor factor in the debt. We usually att= end to major factors before minor. For another, science (like other element= s of society funded collectively) creates the platform on which you and oth= ers create wealth. It seems strange that the richest country on the planet = suddenly thinks that such basics are not worth paying for. A reluctance to = pay tax is the major factor in the debt.<br> <br> An apt metaphor is an apple tree. All we care for is the apples, but we wou= ld not get rid of leaves, branches, roots, soil and water because they appe= ar wasteful.=C2=A0 A tree might benefit from pruning to remove dead wood an= d superfluous branches, but you do not go at it with a chainsaw.<br> <br> What is happening to the US reminds me of the zombie ants who suddenly figu= re that it is a good idea to latch on to a leaf and die. In the ant, this b= ehavior results from the hijacking of neural circuits that process informat= ion and control action.=C2=A0 Those circuits normally ensure homeostasis, k= eeping the ant (and its colony and species) alive, much like the controls o= f a plane keep it in the air. Hijacking those controls might allow the hija= cker to influence the trajectory to their benefit, at the expense of the pl= ane and its pilot.=C2=A0 <br> <br> You single out &#39;polarization&#39; of the (US) electorate and &#39;moder= n media&#39; as causes. Why is it that I, who am not part of that electorat= e and partake sparingly of social or even written media, am so apprehensive= of the current trajectory?<br> <br> To answer the original question about the &#39;silence of senior leaders&#3= 9;, those &#39;leaders&#39; are confused and scared. Confused because their= usual levers of action no longer work and they do they fully understand wh= y and how to fix them, and scared because of recent examples of retribution= and bullying, in scientific spheres or elsewhere.<br> <br> This is why politics might seep into the scientific debate from time to tim= e. Regrettable? Yes.<br> <br> Alain<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> &gt; On 22 Mar 2025, at 17:05, J. Scott Merritt &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:alsau= ser@xxxxxxxx" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">alsauser@xxxxxxxx= T.COM</a>&gt; wrote:<br> &gt; <br> &gt; I am saddened to see the Auditory List devolving into a political batt= leground.=C2=A0 If additional political &quot;discourse&quot; is needed, th= ere is certainly no shortage of other places on the web where it can be fou= nd.<br> &gt; <br> &gt; From my perspective, the -central- problem with US politics is the inc= reasing polarization of the electorate.=C2=A0 Gone are the moderate statesm= en/women that seek a fair compromise acceptable to most.=C2=A0 I put the bl= ame for this situation firmly at the feet of modern media - where all of th= e incentives are singularly aligned with increased &quot;engagement&quot; o= f their viewers.<br> &gt; <br> &gt; Given that view point, I disagree with the premise that each side shou= ld put as much effort as possible into organizing their resistance and furt= her arguing their points.=C2=A0 Instead, I believe we need more people to l= isten carefully, with patience and empathy, to the grievances of all sides = in hopes of finding a middle ground that works for all.<br> &gt; <br> &gt; I would venture to say that the majority of the US electorate would ag= ree that the massive debt that US has run up is a significant problem, and = would further agree that reduced scientific research funding is an appropri= ate (albeit small) step to address that problem.=C2=A0 As such, it would be= hard to argue that reduced scientific research funding, by itself, is an a= ssault on American democracy.<br> &gt; <br> &gt; It can certainly be argued that the methods apparently being used to r= educe funding are crude and not well prioritized, with an emphasis on haste= rather than wisdom.=C2=A0 Unfortunately, I fear that this will remain the = case while the electorate is so heavily polarized and we careen viciously t= o the left or right after each election.<br> &gt; <br> &gt; So ... my suggestions is NOT to &quot;put as much effort as possible i= nto organising resistance to this coup&quot; ... but rather to engage -indi= vidually- with those of differing viewpoints, with patience and empathy, in= hopes of reaching a better shared vision and understanding.<br> &gt; <br> &gt; <br> &gt; On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 08:25:25 +0000<br> &gt; Petter Kallioinen &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:000001c5645d28b7-dmarc-request= @xxxxxxxx" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">000001c5645d28b7-dma= rc-request@xxxxxxxx</a>&gt; wrote:<br> &gt; <br> &gt;&gt; I am writing from Stockholm following what I take to be the fall o= f American democracy. My advice is to not the resist the urgency of this si= tuation and not hope for the best. What I would suggest is for everyone to = minimize their ordinary work on a stable level and put as much effort as po= ssible into organising resistance to this coup. Everyone!<br> </blockquote></div> </blockquote></div> </blockquote></div> </blockquote></div> --0000000000004d0ba40631a39173--


This message came from the mail archive
postings/2025/
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University