RedJessi

Agreed - any group must maintain an influx that at least matches the outgoing membership in order to survive. However, (and I am just asking in a general sense, not because I am against the idea of anyone organizing or organizations in a broader sense) as I previously stated - the funnel of organizational filters allows for a group to become slightly better at what it already does - allowing for subtle changes....but what happens when an overhaul is needed? When the reach needs to exceed anything that has been reached for previously? In my experience, that can kill an organization just as well as anything else. (as in, the group that bites off more than it can chew and slowly collapses from within...like a flan in a cupboard! ) I think I this point we are bordering on semantics...which is better, an idea or a belief? (According to Kevin Smith - A belief is something people will kill or die for - ie, the crusades...an idea is a lot more maleable and able to accommodate change...and therefore less killing, I suppose. heh) Which is better, an organization or a group?

I think you meant why "elite" keeps coming up? Well, that is the assumption I will operate under as I try to respond - if not, disregard and clarify please? "Elite" is being used as a shorthand to acknowledge that there is an inherent ingroup/outgroup bias that is often present at many events. Just as people on this forum have referred to "pollywood pirates" and just as they have referred to those on this forum as "stitch nazis". I figure "elite" has less negative connotation than "nazi", less off-putting academic parlance than "ingroup" and still acknowledges that there are social constructs in place that put one group in higher standing than the other - a fact recognized by both the PC and non-PC alike.

Granted, I try to stay from absolutes in my statements....at the same time, isn't part of the (implied) purpose of an organization to sustain itself? And doesn't that therefore lend credence to the idea that changes of a broader swipe are negatives due to the impact they invariably have on said organizations? ie - couldn't it be argued that organizations stand in opposition to change?

Interesting statement. Are you limiting yourself? If you have no experienced with a so-called "elite event" first-hand, how would you know for sure? And just what is an "elite event"? And are there "non-elite events" too? Oh, I'm absolutely "limiting" myself. Another way to look at it that I am drawing a line as to where my involvement is appropriate for me - as Hurricane stated above, I don't feel the need/have desire to be recognized as the very best (which is not to say that it isn't a worthwhile goal, just that it is not MY goal). But the erroneous assumption is that I am doing so without any knowledge. Just because I have never been to such an event doesn't mean I haven't spoken to individuals that have or done research on what it takes to get there/be involved at that level. And I am sure that if I *DID* attend such an event, I would find aspects of it more than just a little enjoyable. But the rub of it is the amount of time/effort/dedication/cost - in all the previous areas as well as financial cost of clothing, accessories, weapons, books, vacation time, travel expense, etc etc - versus where I feel my level of enjoyment would be, compounded by the fact that I have several other hobbies - professional and personal - that I want to dedicate time to, have led me to the personal choice that elite events are not a priority/interest for me. I would define an "elite event" as one that is invite only, offers no or limited spectator involvement, and sticks to strict period accuracy as de riguer. I would define a "non-elite event" as something more along the lines of PiP - there are camps of PC and non-PC participants, it's open to spectators, it offers entertainment as well as education - from living history types to lecturing/academic types.

The other topic that I mentioned wanting to review before posting about has to do withthe idea of creating a centralized/insurable organization. The trouble with organizations is that they quickly create organizational filters - a process through which all new ideas must pass. This can be formal or informal - formal being submission, regimented procedures, etc; informal being more along the lines of perhaps you mention the idea to a few people of influence first, to get their support, before bringing the idea to the group as a whole. Even in organizations that on the surface seem extremely open to new ways of thinking can have such stringent filters that few ideas get implemented. Think of it like a funnel - wide open on one end, but so narrow and specifically shaped at the end that only ideas that fit the preconceived mold actually get through. Now, these filters come from expertise and the more "expert" an organization is, the more filters it is likely to have in place. Unfortunately, this means that while the filters can help the group get a little better at what it is that they already do, they also act of formidable barriers to doing something a whole lot better or completely differently. The most telling thing about all this is the source from which I pulled it: The Innovation Killer, by Cynthia Barton Rabe.

And back to Mission; I LOVE LOVE LOVE the fundamental attribution error theory. It was actually a huge break through in my own thinking that - ironically enough - lead me away from evolutionary psychology research and towards the actual psychotherapy I do now. It was the theory that most perfectly dovetailed with something I had pretty much believed for a large portion of my life but didn't know there was a theory to explain it. One of my favorite quotes was also spawned by the theory - by Edward Jones who responded to Lee Ross's initial publication of the idea by saying he found the term (fundamental attribution error) "overly provocative and somewhat misleading" before adding "Furthermore, I'm angry that I didn't think of it first." Anyway, it was my consistent questioning of the extrapolated labels that had been decided upon through observation of unrelated personality characteristics that convinced me I might possibly make a good therapist (ie, a personal desire to avoid the behavior by which conclusions are jumped to in order to avoid the complex entanglements that invariably come up by actively jumping right into said entanglements and attempting to....uh....detangle them). You are right - but until people stop stereotyping, it's something that we will have to deal with - both good and bad. On the upside, the more individuals can participate in conversations like this - and actively learn about these attributional biases and errors and such - the more they can become aware of the behaviors and attempt to avoid them. If only there were a way to make it sound less.....academically obtuse. lol Sterling - are you using the MultiQuote or reply functions? Glad to make you grin, Mickey! And you are correct about the secondary stickiness. I've been avoiding broaching that as it is a topic I feel would become more volatile. PC/Non-PC is more broad and easily recognizable and less likely to be taken personally. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that was a perfect example of the Fundamental Attribution Error! You state that "pollywood pirates" are only interested in renfaires and pub crawls - both of those are assumptions and are equally as inaccurate as you say the impression you've gotten of an elitist as a negative is. But in that statement you have made something of a slur (pollywood) as well as made assumptions against people who are not "on top of their game" and do not "aspire" to be/do more. I am not ignoring that you give "street performers" credability of a sort, but merely asking that you look to how you language also puts them down. For clarity, I also did not state that ALL PC pirates put non-PC pirates down. If that were the case, I would not be involved in this conversation at all. But I started out in March 2008 as a non-historical pirate. I went to pirate day at the local Renfaire. I typically went to renfaire about once a year or so, and had standard rennie garb - so I added stereotypical elements and called it pirate. In fact, here's a picture from that morning before heading out to the faire: I had fun - enough so that I decided to attend PiP, on my own, without knowing a single soul in the community beyond what I learned in about 5 weeks of posting here (intermittently at best, due to school) before the event. But between March 08 and December 08, with no input from anyone else, I had begun to make changes to the clothing I had. I started opting for handspun and linen fabrics, got a pair of breeches (as interpretation that women were likely to dress like men on ships) and thus I was slightly better by the time PiP rolled around. But I still had zippered slouch boots, metal grommets, upholstery fabrics, and rennie bodices as well - though at PiP I purchased a weskit to further my gear. The point being : this had nothing to do with how the public, how the rennies or how the pirates would view me - because I wasn't attached to any particular group. But to assume that I was uninterested or just out for a day of drinking is just as erroneous as the charges you level against the idea that elitist groups have a negative impact overall (which, interestingly enough, I don't believe anyone implied). I can say that if I ran into someone who treated me, in the above garb, as if I WERE only interested in drinking at faire....well, I certainly wouldn't be part of this community. In fact, it would totally turn me off to the hobby as I would take it as a slight against my intellectual capacity based on what I was wearing and therefore having absolutely nothing to do with reality (ie fundamental attribution error! hehehe). However, I feel that I was lucky with the people who I did form relationships with, as they have helped me in research (and sewing - where I have limited ability) as well as teaching me various and sundry bits of data and skills. And because of those people, in a relatively short period, my kit has become much more accurate (following image from May 09 - a mere 5 months after PiP - and the boots are gone, though you can't see! LOL): However, much like Mission - I have no interest in participating in elite events. Does this mean I don't "aspire" to more than what I have? Absolutely not. It just means that what I most appreciate about the hobby is the teaching/learning/community aspect. So, the real question to me is, how much does an elitist attitude damage that aspect?

I resemble that remark. Say, you did see this! I didn't figure you for a regular Twill visitor. I sneak in on occasion. Post on even more rare occasion. I try to be verrrry sneaky and only do so at 3am. heh Sort of. The strict definition is that members see their own group as being more varied than members of the outgroup.It's kinda like the attributional bias - in that you see youself or your group as being more varied because you are on hand to observe it more, whereas you see other individuals/groups and make cognitive leaps of potentially erroneous inductive reasoning as shorthand. Or, another way to put it would be - because we have a fair amount of information regarding members of our own group (ingroup) we are able to differentiate among them. But we tend to view members of other groups (outgroups) as being very similar to each other.Like stereotyping, to a degree. Like deciding all PC pirates are holier-than-thou stitch counters or that non-PC pirates are Jack-Sparrow-come-latelys who won't be arsed to put time or research into their kit. This gets really destructive when we get to attributional errors. I believe that hits the nail directly on the head. But groups are a natural part of any social function. Curiously, the ingroup is only 'in' if there is consensus (and then it's only in for the individuals who happen to agree with the consensus - either negatively or positively.) 'Period correctness' provides a natural organizing principle for group inclusion at some pirate events. (Although I find this primarily absent at PiP...which is why I think it is one of the greatest events I attend.) This is true, but it is the value placed on one group over another. In the case of pirating, what I see is a way of thinking that communicates that PC pirates are better than non-PC pirates - which crosses ingroup/outgroup borders, as "reel" pirates (once confronted by an individual who is a stickler for accuracy) will - even if begrudgingly or with a sense of personal injury - afford the PC pirates the privileges denied to themselves. Again, taking this to attributional errors mars that statement. If a member of an outgroup does something bad (be rude, condescending, snaps about the quality of their kit, etc) we tend to conclude "Thats the way those people are". In contrast, when an ingroup member does something equally negative, we tend to make dispositional attributions, blaming the individual rather than the group. Thus, a non-PC pirate has one negative encounter with a PC-pirate and the assumption is that all PC pirates are uptight braggarts who are in a closed group. This can, of course, seriously damage an individuals desire to join the group (and thus, they will stick to the relative safety of the group they know - even if disparaged). Something else in this thread triggered a memory to an article I recall reading - but I will have to wait until I get to my office to review the article to see if it's worth posting here. Which is to say, I may actually be back to a twill thread.

Oooo.....Island could be fun!

came across some more from Halloweens past:. A punk rag doll - may hair was actually pink and red at the time - so I braided in loads of dreads and wool (about 80 braids plus tied in Colinette .5 wool), then tied it all into knots on either side of my head like pigtails. Punk anime kitty girl. Alas, no shots of the tail. Female version of The Crow Angel (this was for an angels/demons party that took place on 6-6-06)

http://www.acws.co.uk/ no kidding!

The problem with creating elite events is that you end up with elitists. And the meta communication that comes with that social standing is often interpreted as others to be condescending at least - hostile at worst. For example, being called out in the manner I was (which is to say, in a vague enough manner that neither Misson or myself are quite sure why our names are appearing, other than perhaps a penchant for verbosity in regards to topics psychological) by someone who has taken a stance of more accuracy. Now, I could take this to be calling me out as a newbie (since pip 08 was my first ever event) or as a newbie who gets things particularly wrong as far as accuracy, or as a person who is especially known for being defensive and not assuming people are trying to help. I could also take is as the near opposite of those things - that I am a particularly erudite and even headed newbie who has all the style and class that should be associated with events. (I think my metal grommets and zippered boots prove otherwise). What makes me decide on which course of belief to take? In large part it comes from the tone, context, and such as well as what I know of or any history I have with the person speaking. Thus, I think it's easy for a newbie to feel talked down to or vaguely ridiculed at events, because of the aforementioned elitist matter. Being a resident expert tends to bring with it certain behavior patterns - in the group these behaviors work to identify the leaders. They also work to identify and divide the "ingroup" and "outgroup". This is all part of social identity theory - and if you really want the info, I can certainly provide it - but for the sake of not derailing a twill thread any further, I will end with this synopsis of how the theory could converge with your specific question: By creating this ingroup (accurate) and outgroup (newbie/ less accurate/ "reel") there is an inherent outgroup homogeneity bias (the theory that those of the outgroup are less varied than those of the ingroup) and generally people tend to privilege the ingroup members over the outgroup members. Thus, being an outgroup member can really suck - and thus, people are more prone to get defensive.

That man is going to lose body parts.

Nevermind! LOL

Ok, my review of The Lost Symbol is now up on the Misfits website - which is more like a review wrapped in an open letter. - so you can read all about it and comment till your heart's content!

I am assuming you mean Angels & Demons an DaVinci Code and not Deception Point and Digital Fortress. And no - Angels & Demons/DaVinci Code were junk-food fiction - not wonderful literature, but fun and entertaining fictional fluff. Plowing through The Lost Symbol was a meandering and plodding chore centered around a foregone conclusion.

I'll bring me poking stick!!

I finished The Lost Symbol. Ugh. Bad stuff. I may be writing a review for a website - if so, I will post a link to it here.

I don't arrive until Friday Night most likely, but here's where I should be able to pitch in: Fri Gate Duty 0100-0300 Sat Cleaning Detail: 1830 Sat Trash Detail: 1900 I'm leaving Sunday afternoon, so that limits me again. Sorry!

GOOD LORD Mission!! You risked life and limb! Great pic! (apparently I love exclamation points and will use them with wild abandon today! WILD ABANDON I TELL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!) !!!

*waits impatiently for pics and stories!

It's just the fact that it is a handwritten manuscript. Just makes me all sorts of curious about the person that wrote it.

I rather love my truck - Sarge (the plate currently reads "ARRRRGG") But if the Aptera goes into it's production plans and becomes available outside of California, at 300mpg it might be my next car: I've always loved the '56 Bel Air But of you're going to GO BIG, there's the $95mil Oculus: They say it's a "Superyacht" supposedly modeled after a killer whale. Looks more the eels from the Little Mermaid to me

WOW. That is incredible!

lol Thanks for the response though!