A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

glen ep ropella

https://evolution-institute.org/project/society-for-the-study-of-cultural-evolution/

> A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
>
> Why a new society?
>
> Our capacity for culture stems from our ability to receive, process, integrate, and transmit information across generations. The study of human culture and cultural change has made great strides during the last few decades in fields such as anthropology, computer science, evolutionary biology, neurobiology, psychology, and sociology. Yet, the study of cultural change as an evolutionary process, similar to genetic evolution but with its own inheritance mechanisms, is only now becoming a central area of scientific inquiry that spans these disciplines and holds much potential for academic integration.
>
> Outside the Ivory Tower, all public policies attempt to accomplish cultural change in a practical sense to reach their various objectives, yet they rarely draw upon an explicit scientific theory of cultural change. A new society is needed to catalyze the study of cultural change from a modern evolutionary perspective, both inside and outside the Ivory Tower.
>
> A recent EI workshop, “Advancing the Study of Cultural Evolution: Academic Integration and Policy Applications,” laid the groundwork for the formation of a society. The workshop was organized by Michele Gelfand, a cultural psychologist at the University of Maryland, and EI President David Sloan Wilson. The participants represented a melting pot of disciplines that need to become integrated to create a science of cultural change informed by evolutionary theory. They strongly endorsed the need for a society to accomplish the objectives identified during the workshop.
>
> What will the SSCE do?
>
> We envision an activist society that does much more than publish a journal and host an annual meeting. One of our first items of business will be to collectively identify “Grand Challenges” in the study of cultural evolution; these will define the agenda of the society. Then we will work toward the creation of basic scientific research programs and practical initiatives to tackle the Grand Challenges. We expect scientific research and real-world solutions to go together through the creation of field sites for the study of cultural evolution, similar to biological field sites.
>
> Who should join the SSCE?
>
> We encourage the following people to become founding members:
>
>     Academic professionals, graduate students, and undergraduate students from any discipline relevant to cultural evolution. We especially encourage the next generation of scientists to become involved.
>     Anyone (professional or nonprofessional) who is trying to accomplish positive cultural change in the real world and who would like to base their efforts on cultural evolutionary theory.
>     Anyone (professional or nonprofessional) with an intellectual interest in cultural evolutionary theory who would like to get involved and support the newly emerging field.
>     We are especially eager for our members to come from all cultures around the world—an appropriate ideal for a Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution!
>
> What will happen right away?
>
> When you become a founding member…
>
>     You will be added to our mailing list to receive regular communications.
>     You will be consulted, if you desire, to provide input in the creation of bylaws for the society and important decisions concerning dues, an annual conference, and a journal.
>     You can help us identify grand challenges for the study of cultural evolution.
>     You can get involved in the projects that we create to tackle the grand challenges.
>
> We look forward to starting the SSCE with a diverse membership and to offer both intellectual stimulation and practical knowledge for improving the quality of life.
>
> Please help us recruit founding members by bringing our invitation to the attention of your friends and associates! We aim to be inclusive and diverse.



--
glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

Nick Thompson
So, Glen.  Are you fur it or agin it?  

n

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ep ropella
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 9:04 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution


https://evolution-institute.org/project/society-for-the-study-of-cultural-evolution/

> A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
>
> Why a new society?
>
> Our capacity for culture stems from our ability to receive, process, integrate, and transmit information across generations. The study of human culture and cultural change has made great strides during the last few decades in fields such as anthropology, computer science, evolutionary biology, neurobiology, psychology, and sociology. Yet, the study of cultural change as an evolutionary process, similar to genetic evolution but with its own inheritance mechanisms, is only now becoming a central area of scientific inquiry that spans these disciplines and holds much potential for academic integration.
>
> Outside the Ivory Tower, all public policies attempt to accomplish cultural change in a practical sense to reach their various objectives, yet they rarely draw upon an explicit scientific theory of cultural change. A new society is needed to catalyze the study of cultural change from a modern evolutionary perspective, both inside and outside the Ivory Tower.
>
> A recent EI workshop, “Advancing the Study of Cultural Evolution: Academic Integration and Policy Applications,” laid the groundwork for the formation of a society. The workshop was organized by Michele Gelfand, a cultural psychologist at the University of Maryland, and EI President David Sloan Wilson. The participants represented a melting pot of disciplines that need to become integrated to create a science of cultural change informed by evolutionary theory. They strongly endorsed the need for a society to accomplish the objectives identified during the workshop.
>
> What will the SSCE do?
>
> We envision an activist society that does much more than publish a journal and host an annual meeting. One of our first items of business will be to collectively identify “Grand Challenges” in the study of cultural evolution; these will define the agenda of the society. Then we will work toward the creation of basic scientific research programs and practical initiatives to tackle the Grand Challenges. We expect scientific research and real-world solutions to go together through the creation of field sites for the study of cultural evolution, similar to biological field sites.
>
> Who should join the SSCE?
>
> We encourage the following people to become founding members:
>
>     Academic professionals, graduate students, and undergraduate students from any discipline relevant to cultural evolution. We especially encourage the next generation of scientists to become involved.
>     Anyone (professional or nonprofessional) who is trying to accomplish positive cultural change in the real world and who would like to base their efforts on cultural evolutionary theory.
>     Anyone (professional or nonprofessional) with an intellectual interest in cultural evolutionary theory who would like to get involved and support the newly emerging field.
>     We are especially eager for our members to come from all cultures around the world—an appropriate ideal for a Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution!
>
> What will happen right away?
>
> When you become a founding member…
>
>     You will be added to our mailing list to receive regular communications.
>     You will be consulted, if you desire, to provide input in the creation of bylaws for the society and important decisions concerning dues, an annual conference, and a journal.
>     You can help us identify grand challenges for the study of cultural evolution.
>     You can get involved in the projects that we create to tackle the grand challenges.
>
> We look forward to starting the SSCE with a diverse membership and to offer both intellectual stimulation and practical knowledge for improving the quality of life.
>
> Please help us recruit founding members by bringing our invitation to the attention of your friends and associates! We aim to be inclusive and diverse.



--
glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

gepr
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

Stephen Guerin
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Yay! Cause at this point the world could really use social activism and public science education through an evolutionary psychology lens. Woohoo SocioBiology 2.0*

-S

* now with Multi-Level Group Selection flavor crystals.

--- -. .   ..-. .. ... ....   - .-- ---   ..-. .. ... ....
1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505
office: (505) 995-0206  mobile: (505) 577-5828   
tw: @redfishgroup  skype: redfishgroup

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, Glen.  Are you fur it or agin it?

n

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ep ropella
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 9:04 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution


https://evolution-institute.org/project/society-for-the-study-of-cultural-evolution/

> A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
>
> Why a new society?
>
> Our capacity for culture stems from our ability to receive, process, integrate, and transmit information across generations. The study of human culture and cultural change has made great strides during the last few decades in fields such as anthropology, computer science, evolutionary biology, neurobiology, psychology, and sociology. Yet, the study of cultural change as an evolutionary process, similar to genetic evolution but with its own inheritance mechanisms, is only now becoming a central area of scientific inquiry that spans these disciplines and holds much potential for academic integration.
>
> Outside the Ivory Tower, all public policies attempt to accomplish cultural change in a practical sense to reach their various objectives, yet they rarely draw upon an explicit scientific theory of cultural change. A new society is needed to catalyze the study of cultural change from a modern evolutionary perspective, both inside and outside the Ivory Tower.
>
> A recent EI workshop, “Advancing the Study of Cultural Evolution: Academic Integration and Policy Applications,” laid the groundwork for the formation of a society. The workshop was organized by Michele Gelfand, a cultural psychologist at the University of Maryland, and EI President David Sloan Wilson. The participants represented a melting pot of disciplines that need to become integrated to create a science of cultural change informed by evolutionary theory. They strongly endorsed the need for a society to accomplish the objectives identified during the workshop.
>
> What will the SSCE do?
>
> We envision an activist society that does much more than publish a journal and host an annual meeting. One of our first items of business will be to collectively identify “Grand Challenges” in the study of cultural evolution; these will define the agenda of the society. Then we will work toward the creation of basic scientific research programs and practical initiatives to tackle the Grand Challenges. We expect scientific research and real-world solutions to go together through the creation of field sites for the study of cultural evolution, similar to biological field sites.
>
> Who should join the SSCE?
>
> We encourage the following people to become founding members:
>
>     Academic professionals, graduate students, and undergraduate students from any discipline relevant to cultural evolution. We especially encourage the next generation of scientists to become involved.
>     Anyone (professional or nonprofessional) who is trying to accomplish positive cultural change in the real world and who would like to base their efforts on cultural evolutionary theory.
>     Anyone (professional or nonprofessional) with an intellectual interest in cultural evolutionary theory who would like to get involved and support the newly emerging field.
>     We are especially eager for our members to come from all cultures around the world—an appropriate ideal for a Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution!
>
> What will happen right away?
>
> When you become a founding member…
>
>     You will be added to our mailing list to receive regular communications.
>     You will be consulted, if you desire, to provide input in the creation of bylaws for the society and important decisions concerning dues, an annual conference, and a journal.
>     You can help us identify grand challenges for the study of cultural evolution.
>     You can get involved in the projects that we create to tackle the grand challenges.
>
> We look forward to starting the SSCE with a diverse membership and to offer both intellectual stimulation and practical knowledge for improving the quality of life.
>
> Please help us recruit founding members by bringing our invitation to the attention of your friends and associates! We aim to be inclusive and diverse.



--
glen ep ropella -- <a href="tel:971-255-2847" value="+19712552847">971-255-2847

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

Nick Thompson
In reply to this post by gepr

Glen,

 

I am afraid I have not been following this closely enough to know the white hats from the black hats.  I think one of the dimensions of disagreement here is on the possibility of social planning.  If one thinks that the subject matters studied by sociologists and economists are essentially chaotic,  then social planning is either foolish or manipulative … like bishops telling parishioners to defer gratification so they, the bishops, can live opulent lives in the Bishop’s Palace.  As a consequence of running such a scam, the Vatican runs half of Rome, right?  That new society sounds like a reforming and a planning lot.  That’s as far as my thinking has gotten on this.  As you see, it’s not very far. 

 

My grandchildren are visiting, and between dealing with them, and  naps and long nights of dead sleep to recuperate, I don’t have much time to mull over emails these days.  Feel free to ignore me.

 

All the best,

 

Nick

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of gepr
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 10:17 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

 


On Jun 29, 2015 7:08 PM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> So, Glen.  Are you fur it or agin it?

I don't see any reason to be against it. Why? Are you against it?

> https://evolution-institute.org/project/society-for-the-study-of-cultural-evolution/
>
> > A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

Nick Thompson
In reply to this post by Stephen Guerin

Steve,

 

There is NOTHING woo-hoo about multilevel selection!  See http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/nthompson/1-websitestuff/Texts/2000-2005/Shifting_the_natural_selection_metaphor_to_the_group_level.pdf

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 10:27 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

 

Yay! Cause at this point the world could really use social activism and public science education through an evolutionary psychology lens. Woohoo SocioBiology 2.0*

 

-S

 

* now with Multi-Level Group Selection flavor crystals.


--- -. .   ..-. .. ... ....   - .-- ---   ..-. .. ... ....

1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505

office: (505) 995-0206  mobile: (505) 577-5828   

tw: @redfishgroup  skype: redfishgroup

 

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

So, Glen.  Are you fur it or agin it?

n

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ep ropella
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 9:04 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution


https://evolution-institute.org/project/society-for-the-study-of-cultural-evolution/


> A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
>
> Why a new society?
>
> Our capacity for culture stems from our ability to receive, process, integrate, and transmit information across generations. The study of human culture and cultural change has made great strides during the last few decades in fields such as anthropology, computer science, evolutionary biology, neurobiology, psychology, and sociology. Yet, the study of cultural change as an evolutionary process, similar to genetic evolution but with its own inheritance mechanisms, is only now becoming a central area of scientific inquiry that spans these disciplines and holds much potential for academic integration.
>
> Outside the Ivory Tower, all public policies attempt to accomplish cultural change in a practical sense to reach their various objectives, yet they rarely draw upon an explicit scientific theory of cultural change. A new society is needed to catalyze the study of cultural change from a modern evolutionary perspective, both inside and outside the Ivory Tower.
>
> A recent EI workshop, “Advancing the Study of Cultural Evolution: Academic Integration and Policy Applications,” laid the groundwork for the formation of a society. The workshop was organized by Michele Gelfand, a cultural psychologist at the University of Maryland, and EI President David Sloan Wilson. The participants represented a melting pot of disciplines that need to become integrated to create a science of cultural change informed by evolutionary theory. They strongly endorsed the need for a society to accomplish the objectives identified during the workshop.
>
> What will the SSCE do?
>
> We envision an activist society that does much more than publish a journal and host an annual meeting. One of our first items of business will be to collectively identify “Grand Challenges” in the study of cultural evolution; these will define the agenda of the society. Then we will work toward the creation of basic scientific research programs and practical initiatives to tackle the Grand Challenges. We expect scientific research and real-world solutions to go together through the creation of field sites for the study of cultural evolution, similar to biological field sites.
>
> Who should join the SSCE?
>
> We encourage the following people to become founding members:
>
>     Academic professionals, graduate students, and undergraduate students from any discipline relevant to cultural evolution. We especially encourage the next generation of scientists to become involved.
>     Anyone (professional or nonprofessional) who is trying to accomplish positive cultural change in the real world and who would like to base their efforts on cultural evolutionary theory.
>     Anyone (professional or nonprofessional) with an intellectual interest in cultural evolutionary theory who would like to get involved and support the newly emerging field.
>     We are especially eager for our members to come from all cultures around the world—an appropriate ideal for a Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution!
>
> What will happen right away?
>
> When you become a founding member…
>
>     You will be added to our mailing list to receive regular communications.
>     You will be consulted, if you desire, to provide input in the creation of bylaws for the society and important decisions concerning dues, an annual conference, and a journal.
>     You can help us identify grand challenges for the study of cultural evolution.
>     You can get involved in the projects that we create to tackle the grand challenges.
>
> We look forward to starting the SSCE with a diverse membership and to offer both intellectual stimulation and practical knowledge for improving the quality of life.
>
> Please help us recruit founding members by bringing our invitation to the attention of your friends and associates! We aim to be inclusive and diverse.



--
glen ep ropella -- <a href="tel:971-255-2847">971-255-2847

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

glen ropella
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

That's a great point.  But I suppose it all depends on who composes it.  To say a group like this will advocate foolishly or manipulate without admitting that every other group, without exception(!), advocates foolishly and manipulates, is to place too much burden on these particular people.  We all do our best to balance what we think should happen against worries that interference could go wrong.  (Some of us are better at that balance than others.  But that's also true of everyone about everything ... which makes it a useless statement.)

In the end, to be against something before it's even begun is a bit silly, I think.  Personally, I'm neutral.  But it's interesting in the same way Lessig's May One or the genetic literacy project are interesting ... and manipulative.  Even more political is the interesting "neoreactionary" movement.  I'm even neutral about that, though I think I'm starting to turn a bit against it.  The trick, as we've been discussing, is to never flip the bit one way or the other.


On 06/29/2015 07:43 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I am afraid I have not been following this closely enough to know the white hats from the black hats.  I think one of the dimensions of disagreement here is on the possibility of social planning.  If one thinks that the subject matters studied by sociologists and economists are essentially chaotic,  then social planning is either foolish or manipulative … like bishops telling parishioners to defer gratification so they, the bishops, can live opulent lives in the Bishop’s Palace.  As a consequence of running such a scam, the Vatican runs half of Rome, right?  That new society sounds like a reforming and a planning lot.  That’s as far as my thinking has gotten on this.  As you see, it’s not very far.

--
⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella
She'll borrow bullets and return em' to your skull


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

Nick Thompson
Glen,

Oh, I don't think that these people are manipulative, particularly.  Not at all.  There is at least one person on the list I am enthusiastic about. If I were to think anything bad about them (and I don't think I do), it would be that they are naive. I just think that the whole project looks like it is based on the idea that we can analyze, plan, and reform in the societal domain, and I wasn't sure whether that was your cup of tea?   I believe that we can do all of those things, but I am beginning to wonder if my commitment to that idea is more a value than a belief.   An example of a kind of phenomenon that makes me doubt the possibility of successful social planning is the apparent rush to tear down the confederate battle flag that seems to be surging through the south.  Talk about tipping point!   Could we have planned for that?  

Nick

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 11:01 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution


That's a great point.  But I suppose it all depends on who composes it.  To say a group like this will advocate foolishly or manipulate without admitting that every other group, without exception(!), advocates foolishly and manipulates, is to place too much burden on these particular people.  We all do our best to balance what we think should happen against worries that interference could go wrong.  (Some of us are better at that balance than others.  But that's also true of everyone about everything ... which makes it a useless statement.)

In the end, to be against something before it's even begun is a bit silly, I think.  Personally, I'm neutral.  But it's interesting in the same way Lessig's May One or the genetic literacy project are interesting ... and manipulative.  Even more political is the interesting "neoreactionary" movement.  I'm even neutral about that, though I think I'm starting to turn a bit against it.  The trick, as we've been discussing, is to never flip the bit one way or the other.


On 06/29/2015 07:43 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I am afraid I have not been following this closely enough to know the white hats from the black hats.  I think one of the dimensions of disagreement here is on the possibility of social planning.  If one thinks that the subject matters studied by sociologists and economists are essentially chaotic,  then social planning is either foolish or manipulative … like bishops telling parishioners to defer gratification so they, the bishops, can live opulent lives in the Bishop’s Palace.  As a consequence of running such a scam, the Vatican runs half of Rome, right?  That new society sounds like a reforming and a planning lot.  That’s as far as my thinking has gotten on this.  As you see, it’s not very far.

--
⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella
She'll borrow bullets and return em' to your skull


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

Carl Tollander
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Given the name, I'd feel a bit more comfy if there were greater
representation from biology or, gods forbid, genetics...also, no
phenomenologists (e.g. Sabine) out there.

Appendix 4 in
https://evolution-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Final-CE-Conceptual-Framework-Mar-4-2015.pdf 
is interesting wrt concerns expressed here.  (I found myself relating to
the McElreath comments, not that I know diddly...)

On 6/29/15 9:01 PM, glen wrote:
> That's a great point.  But I suppose it all depends on who composes it.  To say a group like this will advocate foolishly or manipulate without admitting that every other group, without exception(!), advocates foolishly and manipulates, is to place too much burden on these particular people.  We all do our best to balance what we think should happen against worries that interference could go wrong.  (Some of us are better at that balance than others.  But that's also true of everyone about everything ... which makes it a useless statement.)
>
> In the end, to be against something before it's even begun is a bit silly, I think.  Personally, I'm neutral.  But it's interesting in the same way Lessig's May One or the genetic literacy project are interesting ... and manipulative.  Even more political is the interesting "neoreactionary" movement.  I'm even neutral about that, though I think I'm starting to turn a bit against it.  The trick, as we've been discussing, is to never flip the bit one way or the other.
>
>
> On 06/29/2015 07:43 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> I am afraid I have not been following this closely enough to know the white hats from the black hats.  I think one of the dimensions of disagreement here is on the possibility of social planning.  If one thinks that the subject matters studied by sociologists and economists are essentially chaotic,  then social planning is either foolish or manipulative … like bishops telling parishioners to defer gratification so they, the bishops, can live opulent lives in the Bishop’s Palace.  As a consequence of running such a scam, the Vatican runs half of Rome, right?  That new society sounds like a reforming and a planning lot.  That’s as far as my thinking has gotten on this.  As you see, it’s not very far.


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

Marcus G. Daniels
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
"Anyone (professional or nonprofessional) who is trying to accomplish positive cultural change in the real world and who would like to base their efforts on cultural evolutionary theory."

What is "positive"?     What if culture is nothing more than inertia and mean reversion that inhibits individuals from turning over every rock and looking at every possibility?  Is that hypothesis not "positive"?  Down-sizing and extinction events happen in biological evolution, will these kinds of events be studied?  If so, are such events not "positive" or just part of the natural world?  Is it negative to relate cultural phenomena like fundamentalist religions to economic vitality?   Or if one can think about whatever, can one define it for myself as "positive" and that'll do?  Is this an "activist society" because there are good outcomes to seek that are self-evident to the group, and that one ought to know, or just because experiment is essential in learning about cultures work and so trying stuff out will be informative?   What experiments are off limits, e.g. is this a U.S. based organization -- hard to know since they hide their domain registration!

Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[ SPAM ] Re: A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

Steve Smith
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nick wrote!
>   If I were to think anything bad about them (and I don't think I do), it would be that they are naive. I just think that the whole project looks like it is based on the idea that we can analyze, plan, and reform in the societal domain, and I wasn't sure whether that was your cup of tea?

To paraphrase Guerin "Psychohistory!  WooHoo!"



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

Robert J. Cordingley
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
The 2014 Annual Report names names for the Board of Directors
See
https://evolution-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NP_EI_2014_AnnualReport_web-printout.pdf
Robert C

On 6/29/15 10:43 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> is this a U.S. based organization -- hard to know since they hide their domain registration!

--
Cirrillian Web Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

Marcus G. Daniels
Robert wrote:

"The 2014 Annual Report names names for the Board of Directors See https://evolution-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NP_EI_2014_AnnualReport_web-printout.pdf"

Gosh, can't we put science in one bin, politics in another, and religion somewhere else?    Has it occurred to them that QoL changes as a function of experience?   That people adapt to their environment?   There is not one QoL fitness landscape, but many, and many in a life?    These folks would be scary if they had resources, like a ranch in Antelope OR.    I was in California a couple weeks ago and watched Jerry Brown talk about the water crisis.  He's gifted in his profession of folksy persuasion, but it is clear that's his profession.    These folks seemto think they can do that job.   I don't think they could begin to.    Meh.

Marcus    

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

Marcus G. Daniels
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nick writes:

"I just think that the whole project looks like it is based on the idea that we can analyze, plan, and reform in the societal domain, and I wasn't sure whether that was your cup of tea?"

It seems to me the job of a politician is to navigate the values of their constituency and their party.  Together they form or at least admit goals.   The job of a scientist is to learn how systems work, and communicate it in precise language.   Put them together and one has a sort of constraint or satisfiability problem.    If one wants to optimize for the maximum economic return from fossil fuel use, then one can look at the best estimates of the IPCC for what the side-effects of that would likely be.   Are they survivable, for the relevant people, and not too expensive within a relevant time window?  Similarly, if one wants to have equal distribution of wealth, one set of social norms or another, social science can offer a set of constraints to put into a calculation.   If the constraint problem can't be satisfied, then either the model is inadequate or the goals are not responsible.    If completely different goals can be satisfied with different cost structures, then it is no bu
 siness of social scientists, wearing their scientist hat, which goal to pursue.  To say one is a conservative or a leftist suggests which types of goals will be sought, but it is just a preference so long as either class of goal in a constraint system could be satisfied.   Like anyone, a scientist can have those preferences and pursue them passionately, ruthlessly, or whatever.  But the worst thing is for a person whose profession it is to get to the fact of the matter, not to know if they are lying.

Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

glen ropella
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

I'm an omnivore!  8^)  I not only drink tea, but pretty much everything else I find laying around.

Seriously though, I don't really believe in (pure) cultural evolution, at all.  As I've repeated, ideas are illusory.  It's our bodies that are important.  Hence, culture reduces to the artifacts and natural structures we swim in.  But there are several in the cultural evolution community who take artifacts seriously.  So, the domain is interesting to me.

As for the yammering (here and elsewhere) about the activism, I can only repeat that objective truth is also illusory.  Scientific objectivism is a delusion and those who would separate the rest of motivated human activity (including motivated reasoning) from "science" are deluded.  We all act, whether our thoughts correlate with our actions or not.  Ridiculing say, a hamster for acting like a hamster is a kind of psychopathy, though clearly many of us get our kicks that way.  I'd guess that snark correlates with the narcissism index.

But re: thoughts, I can also say that _embedding_ one's thoughts as deeply in, as tightly coupled to, one's actions, does allow for agility.  Taking huge, far-sighted, ideological stances and making huge sweeping plans on _anything_ is .... well, ideological (which is an insult) and goes directly against everything biology has taught us over these last 156 years.  Biological systems are complexes of tightly coupled, small changes that can eventually produce dramatic differences.  But action is all very local.  So, I try to make my actions small, realizing that 99.99% or more of all my actions are inconsequential.  If thought is causative at all, it is at this very small scale.  The rest is noise.

All that is preamble to my (again repetitive) statement that diversity is good.  Hence, yet another organization populated at least by scientifically oriented people is a good thing ... just like both the genetic literacy project and the union of concerned scientists are both good things.  Hell, even the Discovery Institute is a good thing to some (small) extent, with their grand assertion buried in all sorts of difficult to tease out pseudoscience.  This is us.  This is biology.


On 06/29/2015 08:40 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Oh, I don't think that these people are manipulative, particularly.  Not at all.  There is at least one person on the list I am enthusiastic about. If I were to think anything bad about them (and I don't think I do), it would be that they are naive. I just think that the whole project looks like it is based on the idea that we can analyze, plan, and reform in the societal domain, and I wasn't sure whether that was your cup of tea?   I believe that we can do all of those things, but I am beginning to wonder if my commitment to that idea is more a value than a belief.   An example of a kind of phenomenon that makes me doubt the possibility of successful social planning is the apparent rush to tear down the confederate battle flag that seems to be surging through the south.  Talk about tipping point!   Could we have planned for that?  

--
⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella
If there's something left of my spirit


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

Marcus G. Daniels
"As for the yammering (here and elsewhere) about the activism, I can only repeat that objective truth is also illusory. "

So long as we see these organizations in evolutionary terms, then there is no problem.   But then why object when thieves act like thieves?
(Because there's some species of individual that objects to that?   It's tautological, or merely the observation there is no free will.)  Corruption is just part of our human activity.  Let's just let one dog eat the other and get on with it..   Okay.    Diversity or no diversity, who cares?

Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[ SPAM ] Re: A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

Steve Smith
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Glen sed:
> ...
> But re: thoughts, I can also say that _embedding_ one's thoughts as deeply in, as tightly coupled to, one's actions, does allow for agility.  Taking huge, far-sighted, ideological stances and making huge sweeping plans on _anything_ is .... well, ideological (which is an insult) and goes directly against everything biology has taught us over these last 156 years.  Biological systems are complexes of tightly coupled, small changes that can eventually produce dramatic differences.
I think this point is important or at least interesting:  The *point* of
ideologies is to set a (more) global fitness function, allowing a
different mode of coupling than happens, for example, without shared
ideology.
>    But action is all very local.  So, I try to make my actions small, realizing that 99.99% or more of all my actions are inconsequential.  If thought is causative at all, it is at this very small scale.  The rest is noise.
At one level, what made the Roman Empire the Roman Empire was the
gajillion small actions of a bazillion human beings, yet, it was the
fact that they shared an ideology (no matter what the class, the Roman
"culture" had a story with a place in it for you, whether you be
Emperor, Soldier, Slave, or Conquered Subject) which went a long way to
define "what it was to be a Roman"...

Or when a bunch of  Athapascan peoples migrated from the Pacific
Northwest to the Southwest and became who we call "Navajo" and "Apache",
they shared *something* more than genes and language... they shared a
mythology and a world-view that differed enough from the extant peoples
living *in* the Southwest that they remained distinct, were not
assimilated... but established a complementary (if often conflictatory)
presence in and amongst and around the various cultures already
en-situ...  " what it was to be Dine' " could possibly be reduced to
their genes, their language and the artifacts they carried or knew how
to make... but I find it easier/better if I include the "stories they told".
> All that is preamble to my (again repetitive) statement that diversity is good.
Diversity is a good antidote/counterpoint to ossification, as structure
is a good antidote/complement to randomness.   This is the tension
between Logos and Chaos...   with a narrow regime where "truly
interesting stuff" happens...  Class IV Cellular Automata, for example,
Universal Computation for example, "Life Itself", for example.

On the other hand, these distinctions might just be illusions, held by
the delusional.   But this argument begs the question of "who" or "what"
is delusional?   An individual sentient creature such as a human
being?   A group of sentients with a shared "ideology"?

Just sayin'

- Steve


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

gepr
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ SPAM ] Re: A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

glen ep ropella
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
On 06/30/2015 09:14 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> " what it was to be Dine' " could possibly be reduced to their genes, their language and the artifacts they carried or knew how to make... but I find it easier/better if I include the "stories they told".

Yes, compression is real, not ideological.  The reason you feel it easier/better is because it helps you with the inverse map from phenomena to mechanism.  You have to act on the mechanism.  Compression helps you do that.  But it doesn't mean that the ideology is shared.  It means the compressed analog is shared.  The analog is a stand-in for the ephemeral thing you recognize/register.  Funny enough, because there are a bunch of animals almost identical to you standing about, they recognize/register that ephemeral thing in much the same way.  Their analogs are very similar to your analogs because your body is very similar to theirs.

When/if we find communicative life elsewhere (here or other planets), we'll be able to test the hypothesis completely.  But we can do it in small bits right here and now.  Do amputees "understand" the world in the same way non-amputees "understand" the world?  Did Helen Keller think the same way sighted and hearing people think?


> On the other hand, these distinctions might just be illusions, held by the delusional.   But this argument begs the question of "who" or "what" is delusional?   An individual sentient creature such as a human being?   A group of sentients with a shared "ideology"?

The delusion is simply in assuming the analog _is_ its referent.  It would be like wondering why real airplanes aren't made of balsa wood.  This is why I tend to think tele-war (very remotely operated weapons like drones) will cause something like PTSD similar in devastation, but from the opposite circumstance, to the close-up witness of, participation in, violence.  That sort of removal from your context can be very difficult, I suspect.  You have no choice but to act as if the analog (controller) is the referent (weapon).  And it is the same ... yet it's not, because of the very complicated machinery between the controller and the controlled, machinery invisible to the operator.

What's doing the assuming?  Your body, of course.  The better the analog, the more your body is tricked into acting upon the idea as if it's the referent.  Ideas are brain processes, analogs for real things to which they refer.  E.g. mental manipulation of an image of a 3D object engages many of the same circuits as actual manipulation of the 3D object.  The better the ideas, the easier it is to be tricked into thinking those analogs are ultimately accurate, so accurate that the idea is the real thing.  The smarter you are, the more likely you are to be tricked ... which means I'm completely safe.

--
glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ SPAM ] Re: A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution

Curt McNamara
                  Curt

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:00 PM, glen ep ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 06/30/2015 09:14 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
" what it was to be Dine' " could possibly be reduced to their genes, their language and the artifacts they carried or knew how to make... but I find it easier/better if I include the "stories they told".

Yes, compression is real, not ideological.  The reason you feel it easier/better is because it helps you with the inverse map from phenomena to mechanism.  You have to act on the mechanism.  Compression helps you do that.  But it doesn't mean that the ideology is shared.  It means the compressed analog is shared.  The analog is a stand-in for the ephemeral thing you recognize/register.  Funny enough, because there are a bunch of animals almost identical to you standing about, they recognize/register that ephemeral thing in much the same way.  Their analogs are very similar to your analogs because your body is very similar to theirs.

When/if we find communicative life elsewhere (here or other planets), we'll be able to test the hypothesis completely.  But we can do it in small bits right here and now.  Do amputees "understand" the world in the same way non-amputees "understand" the world?  Did Helen Keller think the same way sighted and hearing people think?


On the other hand, these distinctions might just be illusions, held by the delusional.   But this argument begs the question of "who" or "what" is delusional?   An individual sentient creature such as a human being?   A group of sentients with a shared "ideology"?

The delusion is simply in assuming the analog _is_ its referent.  It would be like wondering why real airplanes aren't made of balsa wood.  This is why I tend to think tele-war (very remotely operated weapons like drones) will cause something like PTSD similar in devastation, but from the opposite circumstance, to the close-up witness of, participation in, violence.  That sort of removal from your context can be very difficult, I suspect.  You have no choice but to act as if the analog (controller) is the referent (weapon).  And it is the same ... yet it's not, because of the very complicated machinery between the controller and the controlled, machinery invisible to the operator.

What's doing the assuming?  Your body, of course.  The better the analog, the more your body is tricked into acting upon the idea as if it's the referent.  Ideas are brain processes, analogs for real things to which they refer.  E.g. mental manipulation of an image of a 3D object engages many of the same circuits as actual manipulation of the 3D object.  The better the ideas, the easier it is to be tricked into thinking those analogs are ultimately accurate, so accurate that the idea is the real thing.  The smarter you are, the more likely you are to be tricked ... which means I'm completely safe.

--
glen ep ropella -- <a href="tel:971-255-2847" value="+19712552847" target="_blank">971-255-2847


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
12