Re: The five percent

[GB Steve]

The Forge isn't for everyone. It's for those who love it, who love debate, who love new thought; those who love it enough to work with those who they disagree with in order to build it stronger.

I don't love the Forge. What's said here is often just as likely to piss me off as anything. I realise that not being one of the regular crew and not agreeing with the local memes means that my contributions are more likely to go uncommented than others. But the Forge does challenge me and give me plenty to think about.

From the outside, the Forge looks as strong as ever. I can see that the only real danger is getting into a rut. And so I think that, not only will you always have that 5% who march to a different tune, but more so, you need them. Whether they are right or wrong, it's the difference of point of view that helps the Forge along and keeps it fresh.

[Ron Edwards]

The above post was split from its recent addition to an older thread, The five percent.

Hello Steve,

With respect, I think you're missing Clinton's point. It doesn't have anything to do with liking the Forge or agreeing with any particular point of view.

Instead, it has to do with what we must agree upon in order to disagree effectively. I submit that the 5% Clinton is talking about are "noise," as opposed to signal. Signal may be positive or negative, but it's always useful. Noise is merely noise, and is rightly ignored.

That's what makes those Infamous Five threads (which the original thread was part of, or spawned from) so important. They ended up identifying why and how things actually get done here, and it had a hell of a lot more to do with (a) the hobby in general as a social activity and (b) the Forge as an intellectual activity than with any particular agree/disagree point of discussion.

Yes, cogent disagreement and rigorous back-and-forth are what makes the accomplishments here so effective. But that's not the 5% that Clinton is talking about. He's talking about those who cannot enter the process because they can't understand the foundation of agreement.

And again, that agreement has nothing to do with GNS or any specific intellectual or analytical content. It has to do with why we're here.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Steve, is your point that you feel that you're being relegated to the status of a 5% member? That you're arguments are being ignored? Because if so, that ought to be rectified. As Ron said, you represent the kind of person we would prefer to be opposing our views, and as a minority, we ought to greatly value your sort of participation - it can't be easy.

So, do you feel ghettoized? Is that the problem? Is the valuable minority being ignored?

Mike