X-Message-Number: 32451
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:00:26 -0700
From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer <>
Subject: Re: D Stodolsky's Replies to Me

--------------050608040708070103010100


> Message #32446
> From: David Stodolsky <>
> Subject: Re: D Stodolsky's Replies to Me
> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:02:50 +0100
> References: <>
>
> On 3 Mar 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:
>
> > In addition, the Evaluators should be identified and their record of
> > message disposition choices should also be available to all CryoNet
> > subscribers in order to insure their continued impartiality.  > 
> Cooperative
> > group activities always work amicably and without suspicion when there
> > is total openness concerning all related actions
>
> Unfortunately, if you are evaluating your boss publicly your judgement 
> may no longer be impartial and if it is, you may be looking for a new  
> job. 

Not so at all.
First, it *is* possible for a person to be fully logical, circumspect 
and impartial in his/her judgment regardless of its object and 
importance to hir.
Second, any rational and self-respecting person would not want to work 
for someone who would not accept such impartial critique.
Third, if perchance one erred on the second through lack of knowledge 
beforehand, then finding out by losing one's job would be a positive 
occurrence since one does not want to work with/for such a person anyway.

> That is why anonymous peer review is the gold standard of  scientific 
> publishing.
>   

And my reasoning is *why* anonymous peer review is both cowardly and 
negative for the advancement of both science and society.

> > Unfortunately, Social Preferencing with respect to the personal
> > characteristics of other individuals, even more than with respect to
> > goods and services, requires the possibility of evaluating the
> > evaluator, and therefore cannot be fully effective until anonymity
> > ceases and total openness of one's personal life and 
> characteristics  > is embraced
>
> This is erroneous. I explain in a number of peer-reviewed publications 
> how both the protection of anonymity and evaluation of evaluators is  
> possible with a secure pseudonym system.
>   

It is your so-called "explanation" that is erroneous. You fail to 
understand that being anonymous in any manner is itself a degrading 
personal characteristic, which must necessarily detract from any 
credibility of an evaluator to the extent of hir anonymity.

What you are also apparently ignoring is that anonymous peer review is 
*far* from universally accepted. In point of fact, there is much debate 
and contention constantly and increasingly about its value. Please get 
yourself up-to-date on these developments.

**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting


--------------050608040708070103010100

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32451