Friam

Behavior??

Classic

List

Threaded

6 messages Options

Prof David West

Behavior??

Glen made a comment, "humans don't have intention when they wink sarcastically." This triggered a memory of Clifford Geertz channeling Gilbert Ryle. Just before seeing Glen's comment I was reading a book on Influence and encountered some ethology and together they prompted a whole series of questions about behavior.

First a quote from Geertz/Ryle

"Consider two boys rapidly contracting the eyelids of their right eyes. In one, this is an involuntary twitch; in the other, a conspiritorial signal to a friend. The two movements are, as movements, identical; from an I-am-a-camera, "phenomenalistic" observation of them alone, one could not tell which was twitch and which was wink ... Yet the difference, however unphotographical, is vast. ... the winker is communicating ... 1) deliberately, 2) to someone in particular, 3) to impart a particular message, 4) according to a socially established code, and 5) without the cognizance of the rest of the company. That however is just the beginning. Suppose a third boy winks in an amateurish, clumsy, and obvious manner — he is parodying the wink ... not conspiracy, but ridicule is in the air. Complexities are possible, if not practically without end, at least logically so."

Then the ethology material

"Turkey mothers are good mothers—loving, watchful and protective. Virtually all of this mothering is triggered by one thing: the "cheep-cheep" sound of young turkey chicks. For a mother turkey the polecat is a natural enemy whose approach is to be greeted with squawking, pecking, clawing rage. If a stuffed model of a polecat is drawn by string to a mother turkey it evokes the appropriate offensive behavior, but if the same model has a hidden tape recorder that emits the "cheep-cheep" sound the mother not only accepts the oncoming polecat, but gathers it beneath her.

This kind of "fixed action pattern" can involve intricate sequences of behavior, such as entire courtship or mating rituals. (see attachement). The interesting aspect of this is how the sequences are activated — with a "trigger feature;" e.g. a particular shade of red or blue chest feathers, but not a perfect replica of a rival bird absent colored chest feathers.

Then my questions.

1- Is a "behavior" always a movement plus an X-factor?
1A. is the X-factor other nuances of movement, e.g. rippling eyelashes on the contracted eyelid?
1B. is the X-factor an intentional signal? or is it "meaning." is intention required?

2- Is behavior compositional? e.g. squawking, pecking, clawing behavioral "atoms" compose to an anti-polecat behavioral composition? (thinking of some kind of analog with atom --> molecule --> cell -- organism)

3- If meaning | signalling | intention is a required aspect of behavior, from whence it cometh?

4- is "behaviorism" necessarily a subset of semiology?

5- If behavior is compositional, are there rules or regularities of composition?

6- Can culture be seen as a collection of allowable patterns of composed behaviors?

7- Is it necessary to have a well developed discipline of what is observed outside the black box before attempting to infer what is within and whatever that might be, its relation to what is observed outside?

davew

-- --- .-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

ornithologist.jpg (748K) Download Attachment

thompnickson2

Re: Behavior??

Hi, David,

While I have great admiration for Ryle, and use his notion of levels of action gratefully, I think he and Geertz are just dead wrong here in their premise. I don't think anybody who was familiar with eye movements would ever take a wink for a blink. But the basic point is still right: a wink implies higher level of organization that a wink and a fake wink implies a higher level of organization still. Or, I think, Geertz would call it "deeper". "A deeper description".

Now on to ethology. As usual, I am going to punish your interest with an article. Here you get the entire history of ethology, is capsulated in three laws -- about 10 pages or so. Not a bad a bargain, eh? In fact, if you just read from section 4.0 on, you will get the examples, which contain most of the impact. They are very like the turkey/polcat example that you provide, one I had never heard before! Perfect!

Please see larding below.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 10:38 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] Behavior??

First a quote from Geertz/Ryle

"Consider two boys rapidly contracting the eyelids of their right eyes. In one, this is an involuntary twitch; in the other, a conspiritorial signal to a friend. The two movements are, as movements, identical; from an I-am-a-camera, "phenomenalistic" observation of them alone, one could not tell which was twitch and which was wink ... Yet the difference, however unphotographical, is vast. ... the winker is communicating ... 1) deliberately, 2) to someone in particular, 3) to impart a particular message, 4) according to a socially established code, and 5) without the cognizance of the rest of the company. That however is just the beginning. Suppose a third boy winks in an amateurish, clumsy, and obvious manner — he is parodying the wink ... not conspiracy, but ridicule is in the air. Complexities are possible, if not practically without end, at least logically so."

Then the ethology material

"Turkey mothers are good mothers—loving, watchful and protective. Virtually all of this mothering is triggered by one thing: the "cheep-cheep" sound of young turkey chicks. For a mother turkey the polecat is a natural enemy whose approach is to be greeted with squawking, pecking, clawing rage. If a stuffed model of a polecat is drawn by string to a mother turkey it evokes the appropriate offensive behavior, but if the same model has a hidden tape recorder that emits the "cheep-cheep" sound the mother not only accepts the oncoming polecat, but gathers it beneath her.

This kind of "fixed action pattern" can involve intricate sequences of behavior, such as entire courtship or mating rituals. (see attachement). The interesting aspect of this is how the sequences are activated — with a "trigger feature;" e.g. a particular shade of red or blue chest feathers, but not a perfect replica of a rival bird absent colored chest feathers.

Then my questions.

1- Is a "behavior" always a movement plus an X-factor?

1A. is the X-factor other nuances of movement, e.g. rippling eyelashes on the contracted eyelid?

1B. is the X-factor an intentional signal? or is it "meaning." is intention required?

2- Is behavior compositional? e.g. squawking, pecking, clawing behavioral "atoms" compose to an anti-polecat behavioral composition? (thinking of some kind of analog with atom --> molecule --> cell -- organism)

3- If meaning | signalling | intention is a required aspect of behavior, from whence it cometh?

4- is "behaviorism" necessarily a subset of semiology?

5- If behavior is compositional, are there rules or regularities of composition?

6- Can culture be seen as a collection of allowable patterns of composed behaviors?

7- Is it necessary to have a well developed discipline of what is observed outside the black box before attempting to infer what is within and whatever that might be, its relation to what is observed outside?

davew

-- --- .-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

jon zingale

Re: Behavior??

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Nick,

A friend sent me an article on pristine inner experience and it

sent me down a rabbit hole, eventually arriving at this blog post

by Russell Hurlburt. In the post, he talks about 5 features of

pristine inner experience. The first four seemed innocuous

enough, but the last one (spoilers) unsymbolized thinking

struck me as interesting. What are your thoughts on this

factorization? How do you reason about the existence of

unsymbolized thinking?

Jon

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Prof David West

Re: Behavior??

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Nick,

You said — "I don't think anybody who was familiar with eye movements would ever take a wink for a blink."

I can quickly think of hundreds of examples of this not being true. One, I watched a man lose a lot of money in a poker game because he misinterpreted a blink (sans signal content) as if it were a wink (with signal content), thinking that the spasm of the eyelid was a "tell" a kind of "winking to one's inner self."

But the interesting problem is with winks that are winks. How can you tell, absent context and cultural experience, if the wink were 'sincere', 'conspiritorial', 'seductive', 'parody', 'meta-parody', 'meta-anti-wink', etc.

davew

On Sat, May 16, 2020, at 11:29 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

Hi, David,

While I have great admiration for Ryle, and use his notion of levels of action gratefully, I think he and Geertz are just dead wrong here in their premise. I don't think anybody who was familiar with eye movements would ever take a wink for a blink. But the basic point is still right: a wink implies higher level of organization that a wink and a fake wink implies a higher level of organization still. Or, I think, Geertz would call it "deeper". "A deeper description".

Now on to ethology. As usual, I am going to punish your interest with an article. Here you get the entire history of ethology, is capsulated in three laws -- about 10 pages or so. Not a bad a bargain, eh? In fact, if you just read from section 4.0 on, you will get the examples, which contain most of the impact. They are very like the turkey/polcat example that you provide, one I had never heard before! Perfect!

Please see larding below.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 10:38 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] Behavior??

Glen made a comment, "humans don't have intention when they wink sarcastically." This triggered a memory of Clifford Geertz channeling Gilbert Ryle. Just before seeing Glen's comment I was reading a book on Influence and encountered some ethology and together they prompted a whole series of questions about behavior.

First a quote from Geertz/Ryle

"Consider two boys rapidly contracting the eyelids of their right eyes. In one, this is an involuntary twitch; in the other, a conspiritorial signal to a friend. The two movements are, as movements, identical; from an I-am-a-camera, "phenomenalistic" observation of them alone, one could not tell which was twitch and which was wink ... Yet the difference, however unphotographical, is vast. ... the winker is communicating ... 1) deliberately, 2) to someone in particular, 3) to impart a particular message, 4) according to a socially established code, and 5) without the cognizance of the rest of the company. That however is just the beginning. Suppose a third boy winks in an amateurish, clumsy, and obvious manner — he is parodying the wink ... not conspiracy, but ridicule is in the air. Complexities are possible, if not practically without end, at least logically so."

Then the ethology material

"Turkey mothers are good mothers—loving, watchful and protective. Virtually all of this mothering is triggered by one thing: the "cheep-cheep" sound of young turkey chicks. For a mother turkey the polecat is a natural enemy whose approach is to be greeted with squawking, pecking, clawing rage. If a stuffed model of a polecat is drawn by string to a mother turkey it evokes the appropriate offensive behavior, but if the same model has a hidden tape recorder that emits the "cheep-cheep" sound the mother not only accepts the oncoming polecat, but gathers it beneath her.

This kind of "fixed action pattern" can involve intricate sequences of behavior, such as entire courtship or mating rituals. (see attachement). The interesting aspect of this is how the sequences are activated — with a "trigger feature;" e.g. a particular shade of red or blue chest feathers, but not a perfect replica of a rival bird absent colored chest feathers.

Then my questions.

1- Is a "behavior" always a movement plus an X-factor?
   1A. is the X-factor other nuances of movement, e.g. rippling eyelashes on the contracted eyelid?
   1B. is the X-factor an intentional signal? or is it "meaning." is intention required?

2- Is behavior compositional? e.g. squawking, pecking, clawing behavioral "atoms" compose to an anti-polecat behavioral composition? (thinking of some kind of analog with atom --> molecule --> cell -- organism)

3- If meaning | signalling | intention is a required aspect of behavior, from whence it cometh?

4- is "behaviorism" necessarily a subset of semiology?

5- If behavior is compositional, are there rules or regularities of composition?

6- Can culture be seen as a collection of allowable patterns of composed behaviors?

7- Is it necessary to have a well developed discipline of what is observed outside the black box before attempting to infer what is within and whatever that might be, its relation to what is observed outside?

davew

-- --- .-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Steve Smith

Re: Behavior??

and....

"Sometimes a w/blink is just a w/blink?"

Nick,

You said — "I don't think anybody who was familiar with eye movements would ever take a wink for a blink."

I can quickly think of hundreds of examples of this not being true. One, I watched a man lose a lot of money in a poker game because he misinterpreted a blink (sans signal content) as if it were a wink (with signal content), thinking that the spasm of the eyelid was a "tell" a kind of "winking to one's inner self."

But the interesting problem is with winks that are winks. How can you tell, absent context and cultural experience, if the wink were 'sincere', 'conspiritorial', 'seductive', 'parody', 'meta-parody', 'meta-anti-wink', etc.

davew

On Sat, May 16, 2020, at 11:29 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

Hi, David,

While I have great admiration for Ryle, and use his notion of levels of action gratefully, I think he and Geertz are just dead wrong here in their premise. I don't think anybody who was familiar with eye movements would ever take a wink for a blink. But the basic point is still right: a wink implies higher level of organization that a wink and a fake wink implies a higher level of organization still. Or, I think, Geertz would call it "deeper". "A deeper description".

Now on to ethology. As usual, I am going to punish your interest with an article. Here you get the entire history of ethology, is capsulated in three laws -- about 10 pages or so. Not a bad a bargain, eh? In fact, if you just read from section 4.0 on, you will get the examples, which contain most of the impact. They are very like the turkey/polcat example that you provide, one I had never heard before! Perfect!

Please see larding below.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of Prof David West

Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 10:38 AM

To: [hidden email]

Subject: [FRIAM] Behavior??

Glen made a comment, "humans don't have intention when they wink sarcastically." This triggered a memory of Clifford Geertz channeling Gilbert Ryle. Just before seeing Glen's comment I was reading a book on Influence and encountered some ethology and together they prompted a whole series of questions about behavior.

First a quote from Geertz/Ryle

"Consider two boys rapidly contracting the eyelids of their right eyes. In one, this is an involuntary twitch; in the other, a conspiritorial signal to a friend. The two movements are, as movements, identical; from an I-am-a-camera, "phenomenalistic" observation of them alone, one could not tell which was twitch and which was wink ... Yet the difference, however unphotographical, is vast. ... the winker is communicating ... 1) deliberately, 2) to someone in particular, 3) to impart a particular message, 4) according to a socially established code, and 5) without the cognizance of the rest of the company. That however is just the beginning. Suppose a third boy winks in an amateurish, clumsy, and obvious manner — he is parodying the wink ... not conspiracy, but ridicule is in the air. Complexities are possible, if not practically without end, at least logically so."

Then the ethology material

"Turkey mothers are good mothers—loving, watchful and protective. Virtually all of this mothering is triggered by one thing: the "cheep-cheep" sound of young turkey chicks. For a mother turkey the polecat is a natural enemy whose approach is to be greeted with squawking, pecking, clawing rage. If a stuffed model of a polecat is drawn by string to a mother turkey it evokes the appropriate offensive behavior, but if the same model has a hidden tape recorder that emits the "cheep-cheep" sound the mother not only accepts the oncoming polecat, but gathers it beneath her.

This kind of "fixed action pattern" can involve intricate sequences of behavior, such as entire courtship or mating rituals. (see attachement). The interesting aspect of this is how the sequences are activated — with a "trigger feature;" e.g. a particular shade of red or blue chest feathers, but not a perfect replica of a rival bird absent colored chest feathers.

Then my questions.

1- Is a "behavior" always a movement plus an X-factor?

   1A. is the X-factor other nuances of movement, e.g. rippling eyelashes on the contracted eyelid?

   1B. is the X-factor an intentional signal? or is it "meaning." is intention required?

2- Is behavior compositional? e.g. squawking, pecking, clawing behavioral "atoms" compose to an anti-polecat behavioral composition? (thinking of some kind of analog with atom --> molecule --> cell -- organism)

3- If meaning | signalling | intention is a required aspect of behavior, from whence it cometh?

4- is "behaviorism" necessarily a subset of semiology?

5- If behavior is compositional, are there rules or regularities of composition?

6- Can culture be seen as a collection of allowable patterns of composed behaviors?

7- Is it necessary to have a well developed discipline of what is observed outside the black box before attempting to infer what is within and whatever that might be, its relation to what is observed outside?

davew

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Eric Charles-2

Re: Behavior??

I remember distinctly a meeting in which I mistook a Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel's facial tick for a communicative wink.... I didn't realize the mistake until over a week later, when I saw the tick happening in a context where it was clearly non-communicative ;- )

Dave asked: "But the interesting problem is with winks that are winks. How can you tell, absent context and cultural experience, if the wink were 'sincere', 'conspiritorial', 'seductive', 'parody', 'meta-parody', 'meta-anti-wink', etc."

I don't think there is any implication that you can. Outside of a context, there isn't any meaning to be spoken of, is there? For behaviors that are more tightly bound to by genetic constraints to reliably be deployed under certain circumstances, it seems fair to talk about such issues as if members of a species were mostly interchangeable. But for behaviors that are not so constrained (any behaviors highly mold-able by operant conditioning, for example) we their "meaning" would be determined by development, and being able to "tell" what was meant would also be determined by development.

That much of that individual development converges on similar outcomes for people who live near each other is most of what we mean by "culture", right?

Also, given that it is a developmental issue, it is unsurprising that some people are generally better at it than others, and that people are generally better at it in regards to people they know and situations they are familiar with.

-----------

Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist

American University - Adjunct Instructor

[hidden email]

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:21 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

and....

"Sometimes a w/blink is just a w/blink?"
Nick,

You said — "I don't think anybody who was familiar with eye movements would ever take a wink for a blink."

I can quickly think of hundreds of examples of this not being true. One, I watched a man lose a lot of money in a poker game because he misinterpreted a blink (sans signal content) as if it were a wink (with signal content), thinking that the spasm of the eyelid was a "tell" a kind of "winking to one's inner self."

But the interesting problem is with winks that are winks. How can you tell, absent context and cultural experience, if the wink were 'sincere', 'conspiritorial', 'seductive', 'parody', 'meta-parody', 'meta-anti-wink', etc.

davew

On Sat, May 16, 2020, at 11:29 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

Hi, David,

While I have great admiration for Ryle, and use his notion of levels of action gratefully, I think he and Geertz are just dead wrong here in their premise. I don't think anybody who was familiar with eye movements would ever take a wink for a blink. But the basic point is still right: a wink implies higher level of organization that a wink and a fake wink implies a higher level of organization still. Or, I think, Geertz would call it "deeper". "A deeper description".

Now on to ethology. As usual, I am going to punish your interest with an article. Here you get the entire history of ethology, is capsulated in three laws -- about 10 pages or so. Not a bad a bargain, eh? In fact, if you just read from section 4.0 on, you will get the examples, which contain most of the impact. They are very like the turkey/polcat example that you provide, one I had never heard before! Perfect!

Please see larding below.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of Prof David West

Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 10:38 AM

To: [hidden email]

Subject: [FRIAM] Behavior??

Glen made a comment, "humans don't have intention when they wink sarcastically." This triggered a memory of Clifford Geertz channeling Gilbert Ryle. Just before seeing Glen's comment I was reading a book on Influence and encountered some ethology and together they prompted a whole series of questions about behavior.

First a quote from Geertz/Ryle

"Consider two boys rapidly contracting the eyelids of their right eyes. In one, this is an involuntary twitch; in the other, a conspiritorial signal to a friend. The two movements are, as movements, identical; from an I-am-a-camera, "phenomenalistic" observation of them alone, one could not tell which was twitch and which was wink ... Yet the difference, however unphotographical, is vast. ... the winker is communicating ... 1) deliberately, 2) to someone in particular, 3) to impart a particular message, 4) according to a socially established code, and 5) without the cognizance of the rest of the company. That however is just the beginning. Suppose a third boy winks in an amateurish, clumsy, and obvious manner — he is parodying the wink ... not conspiracy, but ridicule is in the air. Complexities are possible, if not practically without end, at least logically so."

Then the ethology material

"Turkey mothers are good mothers—loving, watchful and protective. Virtually all of this mothering is triggered by one thing: the "cheep-cheep" sound of young turkey chicks. For a mother turkey the polecat is a natural enemy whose approach is to be greeted with squawking, pecking, clawing rage. If a stuffed model of a polecat is drawn by string to a mother turkey it evokes the appropriate offensive behavior, but if the same model has a hidden tape recorder that emits the "cheep-cheep" sound the mother not only accepts the oncoming polecat, but gathers it beneath her.

This kind of "fixed action pattern" can involve intricate sequences of behavior, such as entire courtship or mating rituals. (see attachement). The interesting aspect of this is how the sequences are activated — with a "trigger feature;" e.g. a particular shade of red or blue chest feathers, but not a perfect replica of a rival bird absent colored chest feathers.

Then my questions.

1- Is a "behavior" always a movement plus an X-factor?

   1A. is the X-factor other nuances of movement, e.g. rippling eyelashes on the contracted eyelid?

   1B. is the X-factor an intentional signal? or is it "meaning." is intention required?

2- Is behavior compositional? e.g. squawking, pecking, clawing behavioral "atoms" compose to an anti-polecat behavioral composition? (thinking of some kind of analog with atom --> molecule --> cell -- organism)

3- If meaning | signalling | intention is a required aspect of behavior, from whence it cometh?

4- is "behaviorism" necessarily a subset of semiology?

5- If behavior is compositional, are there rules or regularities of composition?

6- Can culture be seen as a collection of allowable patterns of composed behaviors?

7- Is it necessary to have a well developed discipline of what is observed outside the black box before attempting to infer what is within and whatever that might be, its relation to what is observed outside?

davew

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/