Arizona meets the Facebook community
Locked
12
12
Arizona meets the Facebook community
 
|
Facebook has a fan page group "I'm American but I look like an illegal immigrant from Europe"
1100 fans so far. This is their visual icon: ( for those of you not in the US of A, the southwestern state of Arizona, which borders on Mexico, just passed controversial immigration laws) Tory  ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Arizona meets the Facebook community
|
|
It's not Arizona. Arizona was simply the first state to have the guts to act. More than 50% of Americans apparently approve the Arizona law. We should boycott the entire country--except perhaps enclaves like Sante Fe (?) and Los Angeles (where I live). Do you know what the statistics are with respect to how people in Sante Fe feel about the new law?
-- Russ On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Victoria Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Arizona meets the Facebook community
|
|
Maybe we should discuss (ad nauseam) developing a theorem about why people in Santa Fe feel the way they do about the new law.
--Doug
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Arizona meets the Facebook community
|
|
Re: Arizona meets the Facebook community
|
Administrator
|
Re: Arizona meets the Facebook community
|
|
Re: Arizona meets the Facebook community
|
|
Nick- Please cite the facts that support your contention re the Arizona law empowering the police to ask for papers if you just happen to "look" Mexican and the source of the heavy weapons flowing to Mexico. The idea that the types of military-grade weapons used comes from smuggling civilian weapons bought in border states is refuted by: The 90% of weapons having a US origin figure quoted by the Obama administration is called into question by that notoriously right-wing organization, the Annenberg Public Policy Center: Reading the text of the bill: I see no statute that entitles a "show me your papers" demand unless it is in the course of investigation of a crime. The straw man argument that police in Arizona (many of whom are Hispanic themselves) will harass people because they don't like the way they look BECAUSE of this bill does not seem logical. No doubt harassment occurs now, for a variety of reasons, but it would seem to be isolated incidents caused by bad cops, just like everywhere else in the US (or Mexico, for that matter). The Arizona bill provides for a fascinating study in emergence to anyone interested in complexity theory in the sociologic context. The current situation of increased crime, massive expenditure of Arizona capital and lack of federal responsibility in dealing with the situation has placed the situation at the "edge of chaos". The attractor wells are now insufficient to stabilize the situation, and something needs to change. It strikes me that introducing political ideology and straw-man arguments into the mix clouds the opportunity to learn something from the situation. David Snowden has eloquently shown, in his Cynefin Framework, what happens when an attempt is made to treat a complex domain as though it were simple, or even complicated: it drives the domain into chaos. The Arizona law can be viewed as a probe. The key is to now sense for the emergent order and respond. Or we can just sit back and watch the situation devolve into chaos..... I usually do carry my driver's license when I go to the mall, even when I ride my bike. I sort of like the idea of someone knowing who I am if I'm hit by a bus. If I happen to buy an adult beverage, I have to "show my papers", and that isn't to a cop, or even because I am being investigated for breaking a law. I don't feel imposed upon. When I lived in Austria, I had to carry my Ausweis all the time, and show it upon occasion when I went to a hotel, cashed a check and once, to "the man", when I attempted to ride the streetcar without paying and was caught. Russ #3 Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ On May 9, 2010, at 1:04 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Arizona meets the Facebook community
|
|
Re: Arizona meets the Facebook community
|
|
Re: Arizona meets the Facebook community
|
|
Nick and Steve-
Will be happy to hold my mind open. This issue points out a number of clearly important points. David Logan, a professor of mine at USC in the master's program on management, investigated the importance of "rhetoric" in forming the dominant culture of an organization. The popular version of the findings in his research is found in "Tribal Leadership". The more difficult academic underpinnings are in 3 papers I can send to anyone who is interested. In them, he talks about the "terministic screens" we ALL use in viewing external reality. The power, and the inherent danger, is that someone skilled in rhetoric can manipulate those screens and bring to bear latent "values" of individuals. On the positive side, it can be used to promote a "noble cause" and increase productivity enormously. On the negative side, it can produce the equally powerful, yet destructive, causes we saw in Germany and Austria in the 30's and 40's. Part of my reason for living in Austria was an attempt to understand that. The debate on this Arizona law has tweaked terministic screens on all sides of the ideologic spectrum. It strikes me as a tremendous validation of Logan's concepts, as the debate has far outstripped the actual provisions of the law. On the one side, it will do nothing to solve the underlying problems and is far from a magic bullet. Steve has exposed that quite well. On the other side, it is also a far cry from Fascism. Yet the actual problem: we have too much crime and it is draining our capacity in an unsustainable fashion, is lost in the rhetoric. The rhetoric has harnessed the "xenophobic, racist, bigoted" individuals to mindlessly support the bill, just as it has harnessed those who really, REALLY dislike George Bush to mindlessly oppose it. Through our terministic screens, of course, we only see the side that supports our ideology. THAT is the danger, IMHO. When one understands that, it is more easy to see how Adolph Hitler emerged though a mastery of rhetoric. I think the difficulty to "detune" our terministic screen is part of the reason we have problems dealing with Complex situations, and would much prefer to impose our brand of order on our external environment. Only through such a detuning can emergent order be recognized. The difficulty is part of the reason there are so few Bill Gates in the world. Our "first match" pattern recognition ability clouds the outliers and makes innovation such a rare event. Paradoxically, as pointed out by Argyris and Schön, smart people are the very ones who have difficulty in what they term "double loop" learning. We have learned a tremendous number of patterns, but "first match" can be quite a bit away from "best match". I'm not endorsing ignorance! Yet in looking at powered flight and the whole longitude question, it was not the "experts" who made the breakthrough. Smart people can detune their screen, but they have to make the conscious effort. Russ #3 Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ [hidden email] www.emergenthealth.net On May 9, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > Russ, > > Well, presumably i got those facts from some left wing rant. They both > seemed like the kind of "facts" that would be difficult to fake, so I > believed them. I will do my best to back them up. Please hold your mind > open for a time while I do that. > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([hidden email]) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] > > > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Russell Gonnering <[hidden email]> >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> >> Date: 5/9/2010 8:40:08 AM >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Arizona meets the Facebook community >> >> Nick- >> >> Please cite the facts that support your contention re the Arizona law > empowering the police to ask for papers if you just happen to "look" > Mexican and the source of the heavy weapons flowing to Mexico. >> >> The idea that the types of military-grade weapons used comes from > smuggling civilian weapons bought in border states is refuted by: >> > http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2009/03/legal-us-arms- > exports-may-be-source-narco-syndicates-rising-firepower >> >> The 90% of weapons having a US origin figure quoted by the Obama > administration is called into question by that notoriously right-wing > organization, the Annenberg Public Policy Center: >> http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/index.html >> >> Reading the text of the bill: >> http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf >> I see no statute that entitles a "show me your papers" demand unless it > is in the course of investigation of a crime. The straw man argument that > police in Arizona (many of whom are Hispanic themselves) will harass people > because they don't like the way they look BECAUSE of this bill does not > seem logical. No doubt harassment occurs now, for a variety of reasons, > but it would seem to be isolated incidents caused by bad cops, just like > everywhere else in the US (or Mexico, for that matter). >> >> The Arizona bill provides for a fascinating study in emergence to anyone > interested in complexity theory in the sociologic context. The current > situation of increased crime, massive expenditure of Arizona capital and > lack of federal responsibility in dealing with the situation has placed the > situation at the "edge of chaos". The attractor wells are now insufficient > to stabilize the situation, and something needs to change. It strikes me > that introducing political ideology and straw-man arguments into the mix > clouds the opportunity to learn something from the situation. David > Snowden has eloquently shown, in his Cynefin Framework, what happens when > an attempt is made to treat a complex domain as though it were simple, or > even complicated: it drives the domain into chaos. The Arizona law can be > viewed as a probe. The key is to now sense for the emergent order and > respond. >> >> Or we can just sit back and watch the situation devolve into chaos..... >> >> I usually do carry my driver's license when I go to the mall, even when I > ride my bike. I sort of like the idea of someone knowing who I am if I'm > hit by a bus. If I happen to buy an adult beverage, I have to "show my > papers", and that isn't to a cop, or even because I am being investigated > for breaking a law. I don't feel imposed upon. When I lived in Austria, I > had to carry my Ausweis all the time, and show it upon occasion when I went > to a hotel, cashed a check and once, to "the man", when I attempted to > ride the streetcar without paying and was caught. >> >> Russ #3 >> >> Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ >> [hidden email] >> www.emergenthealth.net >> >> >> On May 9, 2010, at 1:04 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: >> >>> Hey, guys. Isnt there already a law in Arizona that requires > employers to check the papers of anybody they hire and gives them a website > to do it? I understand that that law is not enforced, because, obviously, > it would interfere with employers exploitation of illegal aliens. If it > were enforced, much of Arizona's problem would be solved without the > application of racial profiling, wouldn't it? >>> >>> Owen, would you really be happy to have your papers demanded every time > you went to the Plaza because you happen to wear a pony tail? I really > find it hard to imagine any FRIAM member being happy to have to carry and > show papers every time she or he goes to the mall. You Defenders of Net > Freedom, you! >>> >>> Also, a lot of illegal traffic coming from mexico would be curtailed > if we would stop the flow of heavy weaponry from the US TO Mexico. >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> >>> Nicholas S. Thompson >>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >>> Clark University ([hidden email]) >>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >>> http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Owen Densmore >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> Sent: 5/8/2010 9:24:17 PM >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Arizona meets the Facebook community >>> >>> Nicely said. >>> >>> It does seem to me that the nation itself is waiting for the > immigration reform that should naturally be coming from the grid-locked > congress/senate. I hope Arizona forces us to act in unity. >>> >>> Its fine to revert to "don't ask, don't tell" but it's dishonest. >>> >>> Clearly the endgame will have to be amnesty plus a work visa plus a > means towards citizenship if desired. >>> >>> Unfortunately, the republicans have found a negative game strategy that > guarantees at worst a stalemate, and at best, a win in the next election. >>> >>> -- Owen >>> >>> >>> On May 8, 2010, at 8:45 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> > wrote: >>>> It's not Arizona. Arizona was simply the first state to have the guts > to act. More than 50% of Americans apparently approve the Arizona law. We > should boycott the entire country--except perhaps enclaves like Sante Fe > (?) and Los Angeles (where I live). Do you know what the statistics are > with respect to how people in Sante Fe feel about the new law? >>>> >>>> >>>> Those statistics were before major league baseball started organizing > to move the all-star game out of Arizona. >>>> >>>> Arizona was also the only state that had the guts to dis Martin Luther > King Jr's birthday as a holiday. Until the NFL moved the Super Bowl to > Pasadena from Phoenix. >>>> >>>> I also believe it's been demonstrated that you can get "more than 50% > of Americans to apparently approve" anything if you phrase the question > right. >>>> >>>> -- rec -- >>>> ============================================================ >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
PastedGraphic-3.tiff (14K)
Re: Arizona meets the Facebook community
|
|
Re: Arizona meets the Facebook community
|
|
Re: Arizona meets the Facebook community
|
|
Re: Arizona meets the Facebook community
|
|
Re: Arizona meets the Facebook community
|
|
Glen-
You are viewing reality through your own terministic screen, as do all of us. We seem to be using a different definition of "complexity". Mine is in line with the Stacey diagram of agreement/certainty or the Cynefin Framework of Snowden that deals with cause and effect. Perhaps therein lies the difficulty, and why I see something you do not, and vice-versa. In spite of that, we can probably both agree that the situation in Arizona is now out of any attractor well and unsustainable in it's present form. Unless a suitable attractor is found and amplified, Arizona will devolve further into chaos. The federal government has proven completely incapable of providing that suitable attractor well, hence the Arizona law, which both of us agree to be unsatisfactory, but for partially similar, and partially differing, reasons. That seems to describe a Complex Adaptive System-an attempt to adapt to a novel, and untenable, change in the system. Why do you feel I do not see logic in describing it as such?? You seem to be critical because I do not condemn the bill in the way you feel I should. Ok, that's fine. We differ on the weight and validity we place on our observations. You see the police itching to trample on the rights of brown people, and I do not. But what does that have to do with looking at the complex system into which the bill was introduced?? It doesn't change the fact that a suitable attractor needs to be found to bring the system into stability. Russ #3 Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ [hidden email] www.emergenthealth.net On May 10, 2010, at 2:16 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote: > Russell Gonnering wrote circa 10-05-09 07:39 AM: >> Reading the text of the bill: >> http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf >> I see no statute that entitles a "show me your papers" demand unless it is in >> the course of investigation of a crime. The straw man argument that police in >> Arizona (many of whom are Hispanic themselves) will harass people because they >> don't like the way they look BECAUSE of this bill does not seem logical. > > The trick is that you have to _look_ for the logic others use. This > often requires listening with empathy. The logic is there. Just > because _you_ don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. ;-) Now, > whether it's _valid_ or sound is another matter. But it is logical, as > is your position. > > Here's an excellent post on the subject: > > http://www.papersplease.org/wp/2010/04/28/new-arizona-immigration-law-and-id-demands/ > > If you read the comments, you'll see the following: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > # Checkpoint USA Says: > April 30th, 2010 at 12:06 am > > Microsoft Bob said: > > “Arizona is one of a few states with a “Stop and Identify” law: > > http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS > > This new law establishes criminal penalties. So if the officer suspects > you are violating this law, they can use the stop-and-identify statue to > require you to produce ID (see Hiibel). > > I believe if you refused to provide any ID you would simply be detained > under the stop and identify statue that has been on the books for 5+ years. > > Thus it is technically correct there is no “papers please” in this law, > but the effect of this law with others already on the books still leads > to that situation for all practical purposes, as far as I can tell.” > > I’ll be writing about this in more detail on my blog but the Arizona > Legislature has effectively shot itself in the foot with this one. > > In Hiibel v Nevada, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in pertinent part that > stop and identify statutes based upon reasonable suspicion were only > Constitutional when the individual being compelled to provide his name > doesn’t have a reasonable belief that his name will be used to > incriminate himself or assist in his prosecution: > > “In this case petitioner’s refusal to disclose his name was not based on > any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to > incriminate him, or that it “would furnish a link in the chain of > evidence needed to prosecute” him” > > With the advent of this new Arizona law designed to identify aliens so > as to prosecute them for not carrying their immigration papers, seeking > employment in violation of the law or trespassing, a person’s name will > indeed be used to incriminate or furnish a link in the chain of evidence > necessary to prosecute. As such, the Hiibel ruling doesn’t apply and the > stop and identify statute must be ruled unconstitutional in such > circumstances. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> The Arizona bill provides for a fascinating study in emergence to anyone >> interested in complexity theory in the sociologic context. > > So, if we're to believe this post, it is precisely that laws (and the > systems they govern) are _complex_ that constitutes the logic you don't > see. The LEOs already have the legal right to detain anyone who refuses > to show ID when asked. This new law, despite the modifications made > later, just puts more _focus_ on brown people. > > Now, it's true that IF (big if) the subject has her legal chops, has > read the law with wisdom, has had long conversations like the one we're > having now, or has some lawyer friends, THEN she can refuse to show ID > when the LEO demands it. She'll be detained; but even if she's here > illegally, the application of that law in that circumstance will be > deemed unconstitutional. And IF (another big if) she has the finances > or gets the attention of the ACLU, then she can pursue it all the way to > the supreme court or whatever path it takes through the courts. > > But how many subjects of this law... we _reasonably_ suppose are here > illegally... have the time, money, and privilege to gain this intimate > understanding of the law and law enforcement? My guess is pretty close > to zero. So, who's the _REAL_ target of this law? > > The poor and uneducated. They are the effective target. > > This law is a perfect example of treating the symptoms and not the cause. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Arizona meets the Facebook community
|
|
Re: Arizona meets the Facebook community
|
|
Re: Arizona meets the Facebook community
|
|
In reply to this post by glen e. p. ropella-2
Glenn-
It would be refreshing to find a venue in which my definition of complexity (and the one described by Snowden, Stacey, Arthur, etc.) can be discussed. "Interconnectivity" and "interwoven" things are present in "complicated" and even "simple" systems as well. The difference is in how cause and effect function in the system. Different dynamics are operative. This forum, on the other hand, usually has countless threads dissecting the exact meaning of this or that word, with voluminous rants on just why one particular individual is "wrong" and the author always "right". Then there is a counter rant, complete with the carefully annotated bits of the prior post, like yours below, describing how much in error the first (or was it the second) poster is or was and forever will be. In short, it dwells on the "complicated" and ignores the "complex". The "laws" assume more importance than the "interactions" and "emergence". The code of Conway's Game of Life assumes the real importance, instead of the patterns that emerge. I seem to recall scads of arguments from people wishing to assert just why "their" particular definition of emergence was correct, and others' wrong. Is this really people's idea of what complexity is all about? Such intellectual exercise is no doubt enjoyable to many people, but I tired of that long ago. If "suitable attractor" in the context of complexity theory is vague to you, I honestly don't know how we can have a discussion, as we are talking about such vastly different things. It would be better just to argue ideology and stop the charade of discussing complexity. Glen, I would suggest you read "Tribal Leadership" by David Logan. You can download an mp3 version for free from their website: www.triballeadership.net. Perhaps that will give you some insight into what I am talking about. Russ#3 Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ [hidden email] www.emergenthealth.net On May 10, 2010, at 4:36 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote: > Russell Gonnering wrote circa 10-05-10 02:02 PM: >> We seem to be using a different definition of "complexity". Mine is >> in line with the Stacey diagram of agreement/certainty or the Cynefin >> Framework of Snowden that deals with cause and effect. Perhaps >> therein lies the difficulty, and why I see something you do not, and >> vice-versa. > > My definition of "complex" is the (relatively) simple English one: > "Consisting of interconnected or interwoven parts; composite." When I > need something more ... fallutin' ;-) ... I tend toward Gell-Mann's > "plectics". > > That's why I cited the _other_ law that interconnects with the new > immigration law, because the context is critical. You can't just read > the 1 single law and think you understand it's implications. > >> That seems to describe a Complex Adaptive System-an attempt to adapt >> to a novel, and untenable, change in the system. Why do you feel I >> do not see logic in describing it as such?? > > Because you said that. You said: > > "The straw man argument that police in Arizona (many of whom are > Hispanic themselves) will harass people because they don't like the way > they look BECAUSE of this bill does not seem logical." > > You said it didn't seem logical. So, I attempted to point out the > logic, which is there. It's not illogical. Those who claim the police > in AZ will harass people because they don't like the way they look are > being _logical_. > > Again, of course, whether their logic is valid or sound is up for debate. > >> You seem to be critical >> because I do not condemn the bill in the way you feel I should. Ok, >> that's fine. > > No, actually. I'm not being critical of your position because you don't > condemn the bill. I'm being critical of your position because you're > not giving enough respect to the opposing viewpoint to make a robust > evaluation. > > The gist of it is that it's _true_ that there are no "show me your > papers" provisions in the new law. But _together_ with the other laws, > predisposition of LEOs, and the real correlation between immigrants, > poverty, and education level, this law amounts to a "show me your > papers" law... at least for a particular demographic. > >> We differ on the weight and validity we place on our >> observations. > > Wrong again. I don't place more or less weight or validity on my > observation. In fact, I have no idea how much weight or validity you > place on your observation. ;-) > >> You see the police itching to trample on the rights of >> brown people, and I do not. > > No. I don't see the police itching to trample anyone's rights. I see a > _systemic_ effect cascading from the implementation of a complex of > laws. The systemic effect I see is that the poor and uneducated will > experience a police state, while the wealthy won't. It just so happens > that in this region of the country, many of the poor and uneducated are > brown people. > >> But what does that have to do with >> looking at the complex system into which the bill was introduced?? >> It doesn't change the fact that a suitable attractor needs to be >> found to bring the system into stability. > > That's true enough, though it's incredibly vague... I'd argue too vague > to be operational. Before we can talk about attractors, we need to > define the measures (metrics, axes) we intend to use, even if it's to > give a huge set of measures we'll explore to look for the attractors. > > My first guess at a candidate would be the GPI (Genuine Progress > Indicator) and its constituents: Income Distribution, Housework, > Volunteering, and Higher Education, Crime, Resource Depletion, etc. But > I have no idea if we could identify any attractors in the spaces defined > by those measures, much less figure out how to tweak the laws so that > the system stays on or moves between attractors. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Arizona meets the Facebook community
|
|
Re: Arizona meets the Facebook community
|
|
Glen-
Why are you so sure you know what is in other people's minds? Your continual use of the annotated point-for-point refutation of why I am wrong and you are right just proves the point, doesn't it? Reductionism a a wonderful tool, for the complicated. But the complex is something entirely different. Here's an example I think you will understand: 747-interconnected and interwoven-can be reduced to its components, each optimized and reassembled and the whole is improved: COMPLICATED Brazilian Rainforest-interconnected and interwoven-destroyed if reduced to its components: COMPLEX Ambiguity, at least in my flawed perception, is one of the hallmarks of complexity. The current situation in AZ has been brought about precisely because of the LACK of an attractor--it is of course not an attractor itself. It has left the attractor well of stability that existed years ago and yes, is between attractors. The law put forward "could" be an attractor, but we won't know until we see the outcome. Complexity has "retrospective coherence". Cause and effect can only be judged after the effect has occurred. If I knew what the proper attractor was, it wouldn't be complex, now would it? It would just be another complicated system in which expert knowledge uncovers cause and effect. I honestly don't know why I am even continuing on in this... We are on completely different pages. I make the statement that watching what happens in AZ will be interesting from the complexity standpoint,and you make the assumption that I lack empathy, don't see logic, am only comfortable dealing with people who think like me, etc.. Is this really that much fun for you? Let's terminate this BS and go on with something interesting and important. Russ Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ [hidden email] www.emergenthealth.net On May 10, 2010, at 6:01 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote: > Russell Gonnering wrote circa 10-05-10 03:36 PM: >> It would be refreshing to find a venue in which my definition of >> complexity (and the one described by Snowden, Stacey, Arthur, etc.) >> can be discussed. "Interconnectivity" and "interwoven" things are >> present in "complicated" and even "simple" systems as well. The >> difference is in how cause and effect function in the system. >> Different dynamics are operative. > > Yes, it's always refreshing to find a community of people who build on > the same foundations as ourselves and explore the superstructure of that > foundation. This is why, I think, silos are prevalent in corporations > and universities. And it's also why discussions of complex systems are > interesting to me, because the people interested in complexity come from > all different backgrounds. It's interdisciplinary, which makes it > difficult to find a large group with the same foundations. > > But that reflects my choice of career, as well. I write simulations of > all sorts of things, allowing me to skate between domains. I never > commit fully to any one domain or foundation. It's true that makes me > scatter brained. But it also adds a synoptic view I don't think would > be attainable if I committed fully to any given domain. > > To each his own. > >> This forum, on the other hand, usually has countless threads >> dissecting the exact meaning of this or that word, with voluminous >> rants on just why one particular individual is "wrong" and the author >> always "right". Then there is a counter rant, complete with the >> carefully annotated bits of the prior post, like yours below, >> describing how much in error the first (or was it the second) poster >> is or was and forever will be. > > Wow. Either I've wildly mis-implied my point or you've wildly > mis-inferred my point. My point was only that it is entirely logical to > think the new AZ immigration law will cause racial profiling. You said > that it seemed illogical to you. I was merely pointing out that there > is logic in their position. > > I'm not trying to tit-for-tat you to death. I just wanted to make the > point that the criticism against the new law is based on logic. > >> Is this really people's >> idea of what complexity is all about? Such intellectual exercise is >> no doubt enjoyable to many people, but I tired of that long ago. If >> "suitable attractor" in the context of complexity theory is vague to >> you, I honestly don't know how we can have a discussion, as we are >> talking about such vastly different things. It would be better just >> to argue ideology and stop the charade of discussing complexity. > > Well, I understand your frustration. But the problem is a lack of > concreteness, not definitions. I don't have a problem with the phrase > "suitable attractor". I just don't know what attractor you happen to be > talking about. You seem to think that the current situation in AZ is on > an attractor; but we have no data. Is it really on an attractor? Or is > it moving between attractors? Has it _ever_ been on an attractor or has > it, for the last 200 or so years just _slowly_ been moving in an > attractor-less space? > > None of these questions will go anywhere without deciding what data we > want to look at. > >> Glen, I would suggest you read "Tribal Leadership" by David Logan. >> You can download an mp3 version for free from their website: >> www.triballeadership.net. Perhaps that will give you some insight >> into what I am talking about. > > Thanks. I'll put it in my queue. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |