Earlier, I wrote...
>>If a husband and wife do something, it is the husband and wife who do it,
>>not "the team" or "the marriage" or "the family." These are shorthand
>>descriptions for groups of people and it is the members of the group who do
>>things, not the group, whether the group consists of two or 20 or 200 or
>>2000 or 200,000,000.
Philip responds...
>Forgive me for my temerity, but it sounds to me that you believe if you
>repeat a statement often enough, and with enough convinction, it becomes
>true. Have you evidence to support this assertion?
You are excused your temerity, although I am somewhat puzzled by your
choice of that word. To me, it refers to a rash action based on an
underestimation of danger. In any event, what kind of evidence would you
find persuasive?
>Do you really mean that there is no such thing as a collective human
>entity which is not more than the sum total of its parts (or at least
>diferent from the some total of its parts), or am I unfairly paraphrasing
>you? If so, why do sports teams of all sorts train together as a team
>rather than as individuals and just get together for the match?
For what it's worth, and generally speaking, I subscribe to the view that
the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, the difference lying in
the relationships between and among the parts. Typically, these
relationships have temporal and spatial aspects. Thus, two halves of a
bun and a meat patty don't make a hamburger unless and until they come
together in space and time (usually with the meat patty between the two
halves of the bun).
As it happens, I am intimately familiar with team training, in several
formats and venues, ranging from the training provided to the plotting
room crew of a destroyer to the entire crew of that same destroyer. Ditto
for sports teams and consulting teams, to name a couple of others. So, to
answer your question directly, the teams train together to master not just
their individual roles as statically defined but to also master the
dynamic aspects of these roles as they play out in interaction with
others.
>And even if human beings do, at some level (probably unconsciously in the
>case of mob behaviour), make a "decision" to partake in group or
>collective behaviour, how can you justify either theoretically or
>empirically your assertion below that groups are "abstract?" ie have no
>actual existence:
Again, your choice of words puzzles me. I don't feel compelled to
"justify" my assertion to anyone. You are free to accept or reject my
assertion. You are also free to challenge it. However, if you wish to
challenge it, you must offer up evidence of your own in rebuttal, not
simply say you disagree and demand evidence from me.
Philip takes issue with this comment of mine...
>>My point was and is that abstract entities don't engage in action; people
>>do.
>This sounds like classic dualism to me. That is, a heirachy of reality.
I must confess my ignorance of "classic dualism." And, a question in
return: What is "a hierarchy of reality"?
>How then do you distinguish between "real" individuals acting in a group,
>and an "abstract" group consisting, I suppose, of "real" individuals?"
I'm not sure I can answer this directly (see comments below).
>Can't groups be non-abstract AND at the same time be composed of "real"
individuals?
I think that depends on how one uses the language.
The "NY Yankees" refers to an abstraction and to a very concrete set of
individuals. When speaking of the organization, the term "NY Yankees"
refers to an abstraction. When speaking of the current team roster, it
refers to a very specific set of individuals.
Finally, I am very taken by the Winston Churchill quote in Philip's email
signature and reproduce it here for those inclined to give it some thought
in relation to this thread...
>"Men stumble over the truth from time to time but most pick themselves up
>and hurry off as if nothing happened."
--Regards,
Fred Nickols Distance Consulting http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm nickols@worldnet.att.net (609) 490-0095
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>