sociometry of association elections

[thana ag]

Dear Adam,
SO glad you made your points.
I often thought of them in years past,but unlike you instead of voicing them,simply avoided making a decision, It was easier for me to make a decsion ,if I knew the person. I was voting for.Whether the person was a better choice for the position.,is fo course debatable. Your points,as usually, are well taken.
anath
  



From: ablatner at verizon.netTo: list at grouptalkweb.orgSubject: sociometry of association electionsDate: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:33:36 -0600


Time to vote for ASGPP executive officers, and I am motivated to speak up in a potentially politically incorrect fashion---I don't know--- but I became aware of at least soft currents of sociometric preferences operating in this process. I thought, hey, maybe lots of other people are sensing this, too, but what amused me is that this is exactly the kind of dynamic that doesn't get talked about openly---and therefore exactly why sociometry is so relevant. What if we were to talk openly about such issues?
 
   For example: 
-- Some of the people running I know and they have responded to me with positive reciprocity. I am therefore tempted to vote for them. I know them. They're nice. They're involved enough to be online, interacting. Several are on grouptalk. My temptation to vote is not so much influenced by issues and qualifications per se---such factors are difficult to weigh in terms of their actual ability to do the desired job. 
        Mainly, I'm wanting gung-ho enthusiastic folks not easily dissuaded by a number of major problems.
           Those who are running: Are they naive? Are they masochistic?  Truly enthusiastic?  Vulnerable to burn-out?
   Another quality I must confess I would wish for is a degree of transparency. Can I reach these folks? Will they make their email addresses available to the ASGPP community? Will they welcome input or be "too busy."  I fear being dismissed in a peremptory fashion----it has happened. 
 
  -- Others I don't know at all. Why not?  Why haven't they introduced themselves to me? (Not that I'm entitled because of seniorority, but rather because I go out of my way to be connected and when I don't connect---well, maybe it's not all my fault for not trying hard enough.) 
          Have they come to national conferences? Do I have photos of them? Are they on grouptalk? If so, do they say things or just lurk?
 
  -- Others I've known a little, they've dropped in and then disappeared for a while without saying anything... and I wonder what their levels of commitment are, how involved will they be, or how distracted they may become with other life roles? 
 
   -- And I feel that perhaps I have no right to these feeling-questions; but there they are anyway. So I thought I'd disclose them.
 
   -- Why don't a number of these folks participate in Grouptalk?  Eight years ago or so folks were afraid that they'd become bombarded with multiple grouptalk messages a day. It has been hardly that: I can go for days---maybe even weeks---without hearing a peep from anyone, and then half the time it's from one of our dear colleagues overseas! (Hi folks!)
 
     Is sociometry supposed to be operating in some social contexts but we should override such mundane, personal considerations when it comes to elections? 
 
Is anyone else tempted to--- or actually --- talking to others about which candidate do their friends prefer?
     Given an ignorance of candidates d, e, and f, I wish I could comfortably turn to someone,    person p, and ask, "Hey, you know some of these folks, or you've heard the scuttlebutt on these people---what do you think? 
          But that seems tacky. Or maybe just admitting it out loud seems tacky. Or maybe it isn't tacky at all, maybe that's actually the way politics happens in the world. Maybe that's Moreno's point. 
 
        Are the reasons put forth by the candidates sufficient to help me make a decision?  Hardly. 
 
   -- oh, yeah: Then there's what has been said casually, in gossip, or offhandedly by people we know and with whom we have medium -high to high tele about others... Let's not pretend that such statements aren't influential!   Yet I don't know how valid they are, and in cases like this, it begins to make a difference. Should I give in to my temptation to weigh whether to vote for x rather than y because z said something about y that may or may not be true, or interpreted correctly? 
      Well, really, let's admit that this kind of dynamic goes on all the time in all kinds of politics at every level of social organization, from one's small local club to national elections and international alliances. 
 
    Thoughts?   Warmly, Adam
 
 
Adam Blatner, M.D.   website: www.blatner.com/adam/   
_________________________________________________________________
Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious email.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_safety_112008 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20081122/08c54c5f/attachment.html>