Talk:Macy conferences

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Systems (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Cybernetics.
 

Further reading[edit]

  • N. Katherine Hayles, How We Became Posthuman (1999) - 129.21.198.113 16:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Content of the conferences[edit]

I added a list of some of the topics discussed at the conferences, to give a sense of what they were about. The list is taken entirely from an American Society for Cybernetics page that cites research by Steve Joshua "Heims' The Cybernetics Group, Dupuy's Mechanization of the Mind, and other sources." I am not satisfied with my cherry-picking and rephrasing, but it's at least a start. dweinberger (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on, who are we kidding? The self-professed point of the entire conference was to promote an anti-authoritarian personality. This entire article is so skewed as to be somewhat embarassing, an example of how to gloss over the entire point of a subject. This group seems to have been composed of scientific determinists who were heavily into systems thinking. In other words, cybernetics was not simply "one" area of discussion; it was critical to their entire way of thinking. If we're honest about it, Freudian mass psychology (al la Ed Bernays) dominated big politcal business interests and still does today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.3.170 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

CIA reference?[edit]

Is the fact that some of these folks went on to controversial activities for the CIA really the one follow-on fact worth citing? They also went on to contribute rather mightily in some sciences. dweinberger (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is just one spin off. I think the problem here, isn't that these fact are being mentioned, but that other spin offs aren't mentioned as well. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Timing[edit]

The remark might be vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.32.1 (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It was by 180.149.192.133. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.32.1 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)