Cell phone turns 40
Locked
 
|
Happy birthday cellphone
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Thanks a lot, dude. The second post that makes me feel incredibly old at 54 :-)
I certainly remember life without cell phones, trying to find a public phone and the right change. Incredible how much things can change in such a short time (including the differing perceptions of what constitutes "a short time"). The other post was Owen's note about John Resig. Since I'm not active in the JavaScript world, I had only heard his name, so I did a bit of digging. Holy crap, one of the recognized experts on JavaScript, author of two books, "Dean of Computer Science" at Khan Academy, so busy that he doesn't want job offers or speaking engagement offers... "Back in my day" (said with the crotchety old man voice), someone with that kind of notoriety would be assumed to be at least in his 40s or 50s (of course there have always been exceptions, e.g. prodigies like Mozart). This guy is freaking 28 years old! Look at www.khanacademy.org/about/the-team - not many gray hairs there. Actually, it makes me feel rather hopeful about the future, but at least a little intimidated... ;; Gary ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Gary -
Thanks a lot, dude. The second post that makes me feel incredibly old at 54 :-)You and me both (56)... In my Private Investigator days (late 70s) I carried a fully analog pager and had a CB Radio under the dash and a roll of dimes in the ashtray of my AMC Gremlin and a cassette tape-based answering machine on my landline. No Rockford or Magnum (though with some of their *funkier* characteristics I suppose). I knew where all the pay phones were and which ones worked and which ones were likely to have boogers on the handset. My wife *hated* the CB (with all the noisy "Breaker Breaker" ratchetjaw chatter) but was willing to leave it on a mostly unused channel for me to check in with her on. She didn't take messages but usually was willing to tell me if *any* messages had come in and in a pinch would play them back for me. My first Cell was a Motorola Brick (beam me up Scotty!) that I had for work for about a year in the mid 90's I didn't go back to a cell until the early 2000's and was at least a year late on the smart-phone bandwagon. I remember when (crotchety old man voice) the term "Internet Time" was coined. It wasn't that long ago except in "Internet Time" where it is of course, eons! I feel more deprecated (and hopeful) than intimidated! I voted for Obama more because he was young than because he was not-white. I would have voted for Hillary if she wasn't *older than me* (and of course wasn't *actually* HIllary)... I want my children's generation *30 somethings* to take the reins firmly from my *parents* and my own generation (50s through 80s) and be ready to include the *20 somethings* as they demonstrate their ability (plenty who are, see Resig and some of our own constituency right here!). I guess you 40-somethings (Guerin, et al) should just accept being the wise elders you already have become and get over having the chance to run the world into the ground. - 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 |
|
|
You want to feel old? Try interacting with the Android development community. The average age of the CyanogenMod community, for example, appears to be about 14 years. I actually heard one of the CM devs refer to one of their "senior" developers, who turns out to be 30 years old.
--Doug
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Doug Roberts
[hidden email] ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Going through some old emails and completing and sending drafts I had.
He is young compared to most presidents, but JFK and Teddy Roosevelt outflanked him, and nobody can go younger than 35 (I don't believe the 30s-40s barrier has been breached yet). Not that it matters - I think two 42-year-olds can relate to each other as much or as little as a 25- and a 55-year-old; what depends more is interests, and their living situation.
However, the perception of age still seems to matter to people for whatever reason. You may notice that when Obama wants to look like the fresh new face (whenever I think of that expression, I think of how acne is predominantly a teenage affliction) of America, hope and change and all that (as seen in election campaign events), he dyes his hair black...when he wants to look put-upon, as when dealing with Republican leadership, he dyes it greyer. Probably it is naturally somewhere in between.
I recognize that it is a colloquialism, but is there really any good reason to use the concept of 'generations'? I may have said this before on this list, and have definitely said it elsewhere, and will doubtless say in in the future. After all, humans are not born in batches, and most societal changes either happen gradually or affect people of all ages. And there is the question of how generations are defined: for example, my parents born circa 1950 are solidly in the Baby Boomer generation, so as their child I might fall in Generation X - but many Generation Xers have children or even in some cases grandchildren my age. And what generation they are called is uncertain also...are they Generation Y? Generation Next, as the New Mexican seems to call them? The Internet generation (Vince Cerf, Doug Engelbart, Tim Berners Lee et al. should feel a bit ignored for that)? What was the 'Me' generation again? Some people are calling the youngest members of society right now 'Generation Z' - once we run out of Latin characters do we switch to Greek, like hurricanes? Basically I think it is a silly arbitrary system, but would welcome any and all arguments to the contrary. -Arlo James Barnes ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Arlo -
He is young compared to most presidents, but JFK and Teddy Roosevelt outflanked him, and nobody can go younger than 35 (I don't believe the 30s-40s barrier has been breached yet). Not that it mattershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age gave me some interesting info, including the fact that Bill Clinton was younger than Obama (at inauguration). I always was lead to believe that JFK was closer to the magic "floor" age of 35 than his almost 44 and was surprised at Teddy R's 42! Thanks for the history lesson. - I think two 42-year-olds can relate to each other as much or as little as a 25- and a 55-year-old; what depends more is interests, and their living situation.I do agree that on an individual level, age is only one differentiator among many. However, the perception of age still seems to matter to people for whatever reason. You may notice that when Obama wants to look like the fresh new face (whenever I think of that expression, I think of how acne is predominantly a teenage affliction) of America, hope and change and all that (as seen in election campaign events), he dyes his hair black...when he wants to look put-upon, as when dealing with Republican leadership, he dyes it greyer. Probably it is naturally somewhere in between.Age is a reasonable positive correlate for experience. The 25 year old in question will have had 5-15 years of "adult-like" experiences to draw from where presumably the 55 year old will have at least 30 or more... no matter their circumstance. Age is also a reasonable negative correlation for innocence which can translate into naivete (for better and worse) while the loss of naivete can lead to various forms of cynicism (read the FRIAM archives?) and negativity. Not hard connections, just correlations. You don't have to be old to be wise nor to be cynical, but it seems to help. I recognize that it is a colloquialism, but is there really any good reason to use the concept of 'generations'? I'll offer two arguments for this. The first is
simple and personal. I am much more able/comfortable tracking
my children's cohort than I am people younger or older, because
I am in regular contact with them and have been since they were
born. So, "my children's generation" is probably more aptly
"the cohort of people born within roughly 5 years of my own
children (1975-1985). The second argument is that while
generations in the sense of a labeled X, Y, Z or "greatest" is a
bit trite and seems contrived, there is often (maybe more
historically than contemporarily) a natural oscillation between
parent and child. The old adage "some things skip a generation"
is apt in my experience... for example, my own father rebelled
against certain aspects of my grandfather's nature which I in
turn rebelled against, roughly returning full circle to certain
aspects of my grandfather's nature (e.g. My grandfather was an
avid journaler and correspondent while my father probably wrote
no more than 3 letters in his life, each one fitting onto less
than a single sheet of paper). It also seems (anecdotally) true
that parents try to give *their* children what *they* didn't
have... again leading to an oscillation in many dimensions with
a time constant of roughly the age of reproduction.
I may have said this before on this list, and have definitely said it elsewhere, and will doubtless say in in the future. After all, humans are not born in batches, and most societal changes either happen gradually or affect people of all ages. And there is the question of how generations are defined: for example, my parents born circa 1950 are solidly in the Baby Boomer generation, so as their child I might fall in Generation X - but many Generation Xers have children or even in some cases grandchildren my age. And what generation they are called is uncertain also...are they Generation Y? Generation Next, as the New Mexican seems to call them? The Internet generation (Vince Cerf, Doug Engelbart, Tim Berners Lee et al. should feel a bit ignored for that)? What was the 'Me' generation again? Some people are calling the youngest members of society right now 'Generation Z' - once we run out of Latin characters do we switch to Greek, like hurricanes?There *is* some batching, first correlated with the staging and returning-from wars... and the second is simply the second order effect of THOSE children coming of age and having their own 15-30 years later. I agree that there is huge skew among individuals based on many features, but you pointed out specific examples, some of which are notable. My parents grew up with a post-WWI cohort who missed the roaring 20's, lived through the depression (as children), participated in WWII (cheering, waiting, fighting, assembling, etc.), enjoyed a very hopeful and prosperous 50s when they all began to have children in record numbers (with lower infant/birthing mortality), then suffered the 60's in their middle age with *their* children who defined themselves through sex, drugs, rockNroll, and social justice causes. Which leads us to the "baby boomers" who shared not only *parents* of this former "greatest" generation and all the experiences above, but also a boom in populations... new schools being built everywhere for them, neighborhoods afloat in the flotsam and jetsam of largish families with limited infant and birthing mortality or debilitating ilness, and excess time (urban/suburban youth without the kinds of chores and responsibilities rural youth had). I resented being referred to as a "baby boomer" as I happened to come in on the tail end, (late 50s) and lived rurally, missing the bulk of the unrest of the 60's (by my age and isolation). Most "boomers" I knew were hippies (or wannabes) and I tended to associate more with the folks in-between... those born *during* the depression or war. Had they been more cosmopolitan, they would have been of the "Beat" generation. Instead they were a smaller cohort "lost" between "generations" (supporting your point of course). So, I agree that the broad brush of "generation this or that" is a convenient shorthand at best and a harmful fiction at worse. Basically I think it is a silly arbitrary system, but would welcome any and all arguments to the contrary.I'll grant you that it can be very dismissive and can also miss important nuances. There are also many "outliers" in the distribution(s) that do not classify easily. Some of the distinctions are arbitrary and others are silly. Both of my daughters would be GenX I guess, but neither of them exhibit the stereotypical traits , but much of their cohort does seem to fit the stereotype (lazy, incompetent, lost?) to some extent. The difference might just be that I am close to them and not to most of their cohort. Personal situations *do* matter. If (big IF) we acknowledge any validity to the "greatest", "boomer", "X", "Y", "Z" or "YY" classifications I would insist that they are projections of multi-dimensional inclusion sets as well as deserving "fuzzy" membership operators. In contrast, I was born on the cusp of Aquarius leading to Pisces. I don't hold much belief that there are only 13 kinds of people and/or that you can distinguish them by what stars or planets were in the sky when they were born... however, I do suspect there *may* be some correlation (especially as is my harp, pre/extra urban-modern era) with the time of year one is conceived, gestated and then born into the world... Whether your mother was malnourished during your first, third or all three trimesters or during nursing, and whether you learned to crawl in fresh green grass under blue skies or in snow under grey. But probably not what the heavens looked like that time of year or any metaphysical properties embued by the odd mythological creatures or characters our ancestors identified in their configurations. Returning to the original context of my suggestion that it is time for a younger generation than my own to take up the reins, I hold to that. We "boomers" have proven on average to have a certain kind of narcissism as well-earned as the "greatest" generation had a simple-minded selflessness. Despite Obama's shortcomings, I am glad he is younger than me rather than older and I hope whomever follows to pick up *his* mess (left to him and created by him) has at least as fresh of a view as he claimed in the hopey-changey campaign. A young(er) leader *should* have many senior advisers and probably a *very young* staff... Or I could just be in reaction to the Cheney-Rumsfeldt-Wolfawitz oldschool gang with Bush as puppet and Rice and Powell as token smart-black-people. Or I just don't trust my own cohort, I feel I know them too well... - 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 |
|
|
Steve Smith wrote at 04/28/2013 05:50 PM:
> The second argument is that while > generations in the sense of a labeled X, Y, Z or "greatest" is a bit > trite and seems contrived, there is often (maybe more historically than > contemporarily) a natural oscillation between parent and child. The old > adage "some things skip a generation" is apt in my experience... for > example, my own father rebelled against certain aspects of my > grandfather's nature which I in turn rebelled against, roughly returning > full circle to certain aspects of my grandfather's nature (e.g. My > grandfather was an avid journaler and correspondent while my father > probably wrote no more than 3 letters in his life, each one fitting onto > less than a single sheet of paper). It also seems (anecdotally) true > that parents try to give *their* children what *they* didn't have... > again leading to an oscillation in many dimensions with a time constant > of roughly the age of reproduction. I often wonder how much of this is perceived oscillation versus actual oscillation. My skepticism revolves around 1) evo-devo as well as 2) intention vs. actuality. Re (1), when I was a kid, the distinction between my parents' ideology and behavior seemed _huge_, at both a very young age all the way through the first half of my 20s. However, as I hacked my way through the latter half of my 20s, and through my 30s, I began to notice _jarring_ similarities ... to the point, now, that it's difficult for me to distinguish. My behaviors are more starkly different than my ideology (ideologies, if you allow that the human mind -- or just my mind -- is inconsistent). But, the older I get, the more capable I become of both contrast and comparison with the surrounding "generations". Re (2), my parents (and their parents ... and the parents of my generation as well as Renee's grandchildren's parents) all seem to have fairly stark differences between what they say they teach their children and what they actually teach their children. The issues run the gamut of everything from racism, to diet, to work ethic, and money management. Between any parent-child pair, there can be 4 possible oscillations: P^intent to C^intent, P^intent to C^behavior, P^behavior to C^intent, P^behavior to C^behavior. And this ignores the social pressures that surely must come into play. (E.g. the influence of the parents of my frenemies, both directly and indirectly, or the influence of pop culture, etc.) In short, without some more comprehensive data, the complexity of the possible relationship dynamics seems to be ripe for selective attention, confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, etc. > There *is* some batching, first correlated with the staging and > returning-from wars... and the second is simply the second order effect > of THOSE children coming of age and having their own 15-30 years later. > > [...] So, I agree that the broad brush of "generation this or that" is a > convenient shorthand at best and a harmful fiction at worse. The question is how much of the batching is a result of the measure (the model) and how much is ontologically present? What I find most useful are the biochemical measures. E.g. increased life span, increased cancer, increased rate of cancer survival, etc. I think if we can make an argument for generational binning, it should be in the context of those measures rather than (purely) cultural ones. (All these measures have cultural influences, of course.) > Returning to the original context of my suggestion that it is time for a > younger generation than my own to take up the reins, I hold to that. We > "boomers" have proven on average to have a certain kind of narcissism as > well-earned as the "greatest" generation had a simple-minded > selflessness. The _only_ thing that makes me wish the "longevity" people were onto something (or that maintains the tiny shred of fantasy about vampires I have left) is the idea that I could actually _watch_ any type of evolution with some level of objectivity, however minimal. Although I tend toward Taoism, my engineering homunculus rants and raves at not being able to separate myself from the morass around me. And for that reason, I agree with you about younger people taking over. The handful of people I've "mentored", for better or worse, and watched go on to do better than me (at everything) turned me on to the feeling. And that feeling then extended to everyone, including young people anonymous to me. I really enjoy hearing Renee' talk about how this or that doctor is "just a baby", or hearing about some high school kid solving a long-standing math problem, etc. ... makes me want to freeze my head before I die. 8^) -- =><= 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 |
|
|
Just to further bend this thread: Glen Wrote all seem to have fairly stark differences between what they say they teach their children and what they actually teach their children. The issues run the gamut of everything from racism, to diet, to work ethic, and money management. Between any parent-child pair, there can be 4 possible oscillations: P^intent to C^intent, P^intent to C^behavior, P^behavior to C^intent, P^behavior to C^behavior. This is an interesting model so long as we remember that “ Intending” ,”saying what they teach”, “actually teaching” are all behaviors, each occurring in its own circumstances and with its own reward contingencies. The behaviors that we identify with “intent” tend to occur in the context of justification, whereas the behaviors we identify with “behavior” tend to occur in the context of action. Telling what I intend to teach tends to occur when I am talking to other adults; the actual teaching tends to occur when only children are around. Furthermore, when you say to a child, “do as I say, not as I do”, do they learn to do what you say, to do what you do, or to say, “Do as I say, not as I do.” Or all three. It would be interesting to look at the four potential kinds of “inheritance” as the model suggests we do. I await your paper in JSPP. Nick -----Original Message----- Steve Smith wrote at 04/28/2013 05:50 PM: > The second argument is that while > generations in the sense of a labeled X, Y, Z or "greatest" is a bit > trite and seems contrived, there is often (maybe more historically > than > contemporarily) a natural oscillation between parent and child. The > old adage "some things skip a generation" is apt in my experience... > for example, my own father rebelled against certain aspects of my > grandfather's nature which I in turn rebelled against, roughly > returning full circle to certain aspects of my grandfather's nature > (e.g. My grandfather was an avid journaler and correspondent while my > father probably wrote no more than 3 letters in his life, each one > fitting onto less than a single sheet of paper). It also seems > (anecdotally) true that parents try to give *their* children what *they* didn't have... > again leading to an oscillation in many dimensions with a time > constant of roughly the age of reproduction. I often wonder how much of this is perceived oscillation versus actual oscillation. My skepticism revolves around 1) evo-devo as well as 2) intention vs. actuality. Re (1), when I was a kid, the distinction between my parents' ideology and behavior seemed _huge_, at both a very young age all the way through the first half of my 20s. However, as I hacked my way through the latter half of my 20s, and through my 30s, I began to notice _jarring_ similarities ... to the point, now, that it's difficult for me to distinguish. My behaviors are more starkly different than my ideology (ideologies, if you allow that the human mind -- or just my mind -- is inconsistent). But, the older I get, the more capable I become of both contrast and comparison with the surrounding "generations". Re (2), my parents (and their parents ... and the parents of my generation as well as Renee's grandchildren's parents) all seem to have fairly stark differences between what they say they teach their children and what they actually teach their children. The issues run the gamut of everything from racism, to diet, to work ethic, and money management. Between any parent-child pair, there can be 4 possible oscillations: P^intent to C^intent, P^intent to C^behavior, P^behavior to C^intent, P^behavior to C^behavior. And this ignores the social pressures that surely must come into play. (E.g. the influence of the parents of my frenemies, both directly and indirectly, or the influence of pop culture, etc.) In short, without some more comprehensive data, the complexity of the possible relationship dynamics seems to be ripe for selective attention, confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, etc. > There *is* some batching, first correlated with the staging and > returning-from wars... and the second is simply the second order > effect of THOSE children coming of age and having their own 15-30 years later. > > [...] So, I agree that the broad brush of "generation this or that" is > a convenient shorthand at best and a harmful fiction at worse. The question is how much of the batching is a result of the measure (the model) and how much is ontologically present? What I find most useful are the biochemical measures. E.g. increased life span, increased cancer, increased rate of cancer survival, etc. I think if we can make an argument for generational binning, it should be in the context of those measures rather than (purely) cultural ones. (All these measures have cultural influences, of course.) > Returning to the original context of my suggestion that it is time for > a younger generation than my own to take up the reins, I hold to that. > We "boomers" have proven on average to have a certain kind of > narcissism as well-earned as the "greatest" generation had a > simple-minded selflessness. The _only_ thing that makes me wish the "longevity" people were onto something (or that maintains the tiny shred of fantasy about vampires I have left) is the idea that I could actually _watch_ any type of evolution with some level of objectivity, however minimal. Although I tend toward Taoism, my engineering homunculus rants and raves at not being able to separate myself from the morass around me. And for that reason, I agree with you about younger people taking over. The handful of people I've "mentored", for better or worse, and watched go on to do better than me (at everything) turned me on to the feeling. And that feeling then extended to everyone, including young people anonymous to me. I really enjoy hearing Renee' talk about how this or that doctor is "just a baby", or hearing about some high school kid solving a long-standing math problem, etc. ... makes me want to freeze my head before I die. 8^) -- =><= 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 ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/29/2013 12:57 PM:
> The behaviors that we identify with “intent” tend to > occur in the context of justification, whereas the behaviors we identify > with “behavior” tend to occur in the context of action. I'm not so sure. Generally, I like and agree with your perspective on this ("beliefs are actions"). But I have my own anecdotal evidence that what we identify as "intent" is _not_ mere justification, at least not always. My example is my own parents. They almost always told me they intended to punish me. Then there was this little negotiation where they encouraged me to suggest my own punishment. It was a cruel, but effective game. The punishment that emerged was usually different than what I expected and, giving them the benefit of the doubt, what they expected. In the context of this dynamic, it's difficult for me to oversimplify their intent down to "justification". It was a very active, unpredictable process. At least in the cases where there was no established precedent, which for me was usual since my older sibling was female ... and well, she was their first kid, so they didn't have much precedent. (Just FYI, my first negotiating position was always whipping. I much preferred to be whipped than play along with all the other useless mind games. Sometimes, I pushed the game too far and got the whipping plus the mind games.) I have no idea how normal this negotiation was. So, you may rescue your assertion simply by prepending it with "Usually". ;-) > Telling what I > intend to teach tends to occur when I am talking to other adults; Again, I'm not sure this is so cut-and-dried. Every class I've ever taken started with a syllabus, which is a document stating what they intend to teach. And even though lots of children don't pay attention to it, it at least poses as a communication from adult to child. > the > actual teaching tends to occur when only children are around. Again, that's not so clear to me, especially since my dad had as little respect for my mom's intellect as he had for us kids' ... similarly, my mom had very little respect for my dad's "emotional intelligence" and had to teach him while simultaneously teaching us the same lessons. > I await your paper in JSPP. Heh, I only proposed the model as an alternative to Steve's defense of the discretization. I.e. the only motivation I'd have to implement the model, much less publish, would be to falsify a previous, implemented, model. -- =><= glen e. p. ropella May I present the semblance of a Scandanavian doppelganger. ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Glen -
> It also seems (anecdotally) true > that parents try to give *their* children what *they* didn't have... > again leading to an oscillation in many dimensions with a time constant > of roughly the age of reproduction. > I often wonder how much of this is perceived oscillation versus actual > oscillation. <snip> > In short, without some more comprehensive data, the complexity of the > possible relationship dynamics seems to be ripe for selective attention, > confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, etc. It is always assumed (at least by me) that (at least my own) anecdotal observations are not just at risk of selective attention, confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, etc. but almost *defined* by it. This might seem like a huge admission or dismissal of my elaborate offerings and opinions... and maybe many here have already made such, but I value the same from others in a way that I do not value objective observation and analysis. Selective attention might be the easiest to speak to. I value the "point of view" implicit in others' "selective attention", especially when it is particularly resonant or dissonant with my own. This coupling, perhaps is where confirmation bias can come from "see! I TOLD you so!" but it is also it's antidote: "Shit! I never quite saw it THAT way!". >> There *is* some batching, first correlated with the staging and >> returning-from wars... and the second is simply the second order effect >> of THOSE children coming of age and having their own 15-30 years later. >> >> [...] So, I agree that the broad brush of "generation this or that" is a >> convenient shorthand at best and a harmful fiction at worse. > The question is how much of the batching is a result of the measure (the > model) and how much is ontologically present? I am pretty compelled by the stories (and presumed collected and analyzed data) of the huge percentage of reproductive males who went off to war in WWII for years, were exposed to various revalatory (including traumatic) experiences, and returned to a cadre of young women who had come of age in their absence, many finding a new empowerment in having taken on the previously male-dominated jobs <rosie-the-riveter.image> . > What I find most useful > are the biochemical measures. E.g. increased life span, increased > cancer, increased rate of cancer survival, etc. I think if we can make > an argument for generational binning, it should be in the context of > those measures rather than (purely) cultural ones. (All these measures > have cultural influences, of course.) I'm not quite clear on this point. I suspect you have something here, I'm just not getting it yet. >> Returning to the original context of my suggestion that it is time for a >> younger generation than my own to take up the reins, I hold to that. We >> "boomers" have proven on average to have a certain kind of narcissism as >> well-earned as the "greatest" generation had a simple-minded >> selflessness. > The _only_ thing that makes me wish the "longevity" people were onto > something (or that maintains the tiny shred of fantasy about vampires I > have left) is the idea that I could actually _watch_ any type of > evolution with some level of objectivity, however minimal. Although I > tend toward Taoism, my engineering homunculus rants and raves at not > being able to separate myself from the morass around me. And for that > reason, I agree with you about younger people taking over. The handful > of people I've "mentored", for better or worse, and watched go on to do > better than me (at everything) turned me on to the feeling. And that > feeling then extended to everyone, including young people anonymous to > me. I really enjoy hearing Renee' talk about how this or that doctor is > "just a baby", or hearing about some high school kid solving a > long-standing math problem, etc. skewed across decades) "day". And yet they are... no less than we (adolescents in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's ...) were different from our parents and their peers? > ... makes me want to freeze my head > before I die. 8^) +1 - 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 |
|
|
Steve Smith wrote at 04/29/2013 01:59 PM:
> It is always assumed (at least by me) that (at least my own) anecdotal > observations are not just at risk of selective attention, confirmation > bias and motivated reasoning, etc. but almost *defined* by it. This > might seem like a huge admission or dismissal of my elaborate offerings > and opinions... and maybe many here have already made such, but I value > the same from others in a way that I do not value objective observation > and analysis. Please don't take my skepticism as rejection of the data. I think I'm as big a fan of anecdotal data as you are (though perhaps not as big a fan of anecdotes as you are). In fact, I'd guess that 50% of my rhetoric always boils down to: add concrete detail to that abstract oversimplification and let's see what comes out the other end!" But I am purposefully expressing skepticism of your second defense of the existence of (or use of the term) "generations". >> What I find most useful >> are the biochemical measures. E.g. increased life span, increased >> cancer, increased rate of cancer survival, etc. I think if we can make >> an argument for generational binning, it should be in the context of >> those measures rather than (purely) cultural ones. (All these measures >> have cultural influences, of course.) > I'm not quite clear on this point. I suspect you have something here, > I'm just not getting it yet. I mean taking/analyzing impersonal data that tests the hypothesis that generations exhibit patterns. Surely, by now, we have enough data on, say, heart disease rates spanning multiple generations? If so, then we should be able to see bumps in the curves (controlling for increased life span or other "universals"). If we also have data on cancer, diabetes, obesity, tooth decay, etc, then perhaps there are bumps in those curves. If the bumps line up at all, _where_ do they line up? Are there interesting patterns of near-discontinuities or inflection points between, say, the heart disease of the greatest generation and and that of the boomers? Do all the lines increase or decrease near each other? Are there portions of the lines where variability spikes, then drops? Etc. If generations actually exist, then we should be able to see them in this type of biomedical data. > "Kids these days" are no different than they were in our (various, > skewed across decades) "day". > And yet they are... no less than we (adolescents in the 50's, 60's, > 70's, 80's ...) were different from our parents and their peers? Well, again, I'm not so sure anyone's actually different from anyone else. Sure, choose any particular measure (aka model, aka predicate) and you can bin the universe. But absent the measure, are there any differences? And how _general_ can we make the measure? Can we say that some parent-child generations exhibit more or less difference than others? Do we have _any_ measures that are objective enough to make such claims? Or are all our measures defined so contrivingly within a given generation that they are too special to say anything useful about inter-generational differences, in general? (That sentence is more fun if you swap out different pronunciations of "G". ;-) I'm not asking rhetorical questions. I truly do not know the answers. -- =><= glen e. p. ropella Sporting scarlet letters of genetic imperfection, dear ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Glen -
Sorry... I didn't mean to sound defensive... I was intending something more like stridency! I don't doubt your appreciation for the mode, but was rather trying to acknowledge those who might not...It is always assumed (at least by me) that (at least my own) anecdotal observations are not just at risk of selective attention, confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, etc. but almost *defined* by it. This might seem like a huge admission or dismissal of my elaborate offerings and opinions... and maybe many here have already made such, but I value the same from others in a way that I do not value objective observation and analysis.Please don't take my skepticism as rejection of the data. I think I'm as big a fan of anecdotal data as you are (though perhaps not as big a fan of anecdotes as you are). In fact, I'd guess that 50% of my rhetoric always boils down to: add concrete detail to that abstract oversimplification and let's see what comes out the other end!" But I am purposefully expressing skepticism of your second defense of the existence of (or use of the term) "generations". And yes, I agree... the point of an anecdotal observation is usually as a point of departure, an opening of a potential hypothesis to begin gathering more rigorous data around. I mean taking/analyzing impersonal data that tests the hypothesis that generations exhibit patterns. Surely, by now, we have enough data on, say, heart disease rates spanning multiple generations? If so, then we should be able to see bumps in the curves (controlling for increased life span or other "universals"). If we also have data on cancer, diabetes, obesity, tooth decay, etc, then perhaps there are bumps in those curves. If the bumps line up at all, _where_ do they line up? Are there interesting patterns of near-discontinuities or inflection points between, say, the heart disease of the greatest generation and and that of the boomers? Do all the lines increase or decrease near each other? Are there portions of the lines where variability spikes, then drops? Etc. If generations actually exist, then we should be able to see them in this type of biomedical data. Ah yes, though this could be like looking for the keys you lost in the alley under the streetlamp some distance away "because the light is better". Nevertheless, in support of your statement, I think there must be existing data and analysis on this point, usually I presume to support specific issues (such as the medical problems you describe), and I agree that it would be useful. On the other hand, I'm not setting out to *prove* my concept of what is generational, but rather to explain or illuminate it. I also don't want to pretend that it is universal (that all properties skip generations, or that all generational sequences experience this type of skipping). I agree with Arlo's proposition that much of the conveniences of our idea of "Generation This" and "Generation That" *are* somewhat contrived, I'm only trying to make the argument that there *are* couplings between "generations" which yield interesting oscillations with periods roughly on the order of human reproduction cycles. I also think there are arguments for some "phase locking" such as significant social events that help to group a distribution more into a "bin". I think in "our time" the 60's had several such events ranging from the Vietnam War to Civil Rights and Equal Rights movements. This united/coupled roughly "a generation". I was on the young end, my wife (7 years my senior) was in the middle. I was counter-counter-culture in my sensibilities and circumstances, but despite not identifying with the majority of my peer group thus defined (+12, -3 years?) I am definitely a product of those times and the resonances established. I *would* be interested in finding work that might have been done around this (presumed) phenomena... Nick's suggestion of writing a paper (or generating a formal model?) was probably only partly serious. I'm reminded of his own MOTH (my way or the highway) model based on the prisoners dilemma: I agree with Nick's implication that there could be some quibbles/variants on this but for the sake of arguement it is a good start. - Steve I am wrestling with the paradoxes of this."Kids these days" are no different than they were in our (various, skewed across decades) "day". And yet they are... no less than we (adolescents in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's ...) were different from our parents and their peers?Well, again, I'm not so sure anyone's actually different from anyone else. Sure, choose any particular measure (aka model, aka predicate) and you can bin the universe. But absent the measure, are there any differences? And how _general_ can we make the measure? Can we say that some parent-child generations exhibit more or less difference than others? Do we have _any_ measures that are objective enough to make such claims? Or are all our measures defined so contrivingly within a given generation that they are too special to say anything useful about inter-generational differences, in general? (That sentence is more fun if you swap out different pronunciations of "G". ;-) I'm not asking rhetorical questions. I truly do not know the answers. In my youth, my parents generation (depression/WWII) were very clear that my generation (Baby Boom) were from a different planet (where apparently sex, drugs, rockNroll, poorGrooming, etc. were the only commodities). They themselves did NOT distinguish themselves overtly from *their* parents' generation, though they did speak of some of their parents' limited understanding of the technology (specifically communication and transportation) that was coming of age as they were (the cohort born about the time of the automobile, the airplane, the telephone and the wireless) and lack of access to modern medicine (though not lack of access to medical understanding?). My grandparents knew the names of the cancers and strokes and heart attacks and tuberculosis that killed their parents, even if there was little to be done about it. My generation (raised by parents who read Dr. Spock but often did not spare the rod at risk of spoiling the child) was determined to not alienate their children as our parent's generation had us. We gave our children odd names (taken from fantasy and psychadelic experiences or from soap operas) and we inserted ourselves into their lives in ways our parents never would have imagined. And to some effect, but not to the extent intended? The unction of population control lead me to be raised among families of 1-4 children while my parents generation were usually raised among families of 5 to 10. My children were raised among families of 1-2 with my own peers often choosing to be childless. My children's peers appear to be choosing between 0-1 child. Having been married to two women from large(ish) families, I claim there is a huge difference between being 1 of 6 or 8 and being 1 of 2 (as am I, and as were my own children). So my (also not rhetorical) question is roughly: Do these differences yield qualitative and quantized results in individuals or groups? I would think that cultural anthropologists and even evolutionary psychologists (Nick?) might already have a bead on this work? Thanks to Arlo (and Glen) for confronting my assumptions... this is teasing out a more interesting question I think. - 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 |
|
|
OK. We don't really disagree. But I'll push the point just a tiny bit further and see if it goes anywhere. On 04/29/2013 03:31 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > On the other hand, I'm not setting out to *prove* my concept of what is > generational, but rather to explain or illuminate it. > > [...] > > I'm only trying to make the argument that there *are* > couplings between "generations" which yield interesting oscillations > with periods roughly on the order of human reproduction cycles. Even though you're not setting out to provide evidence for your concept of generational, you do assert the existence of generational couplings (distinct from other types of coupling) and that these couplings yield interesting oscillations. I infer that to mean that these generational couplings are somehow more evident, more influential, more something than other inter-group couplings. Perhaps they're not "more", but just different. In any case, what we need in order to have a useful discussion is some definite identification of that type of coupling. And for that, we need some type of data, or at the very least a clear measure that could generate the data. Without that, I can, literally, choose _anything_ and call it a generational coupling. I can say, for example, that my grandfather's appreciation for pecans was very high, my father's very low, and mine very high. And to justify that, I can explain with something like: people of my grandfather's generation walked quite a bit (being depression era), took great pleasure in edibles found on the roadside, resulting in a behavior reinforcing feedback. But in my dad's generation, with the hegemony of car travel, grocery stores, gym-based exercise, a rebounding economy, etc. walking in your neighborhood and the interestingness of random snacks like pecans from pecan trees growing out of your neighbors' yards, waned. And now, with the "locavore" movement and a trend away from industrial farms toward CSAs, community gardens and the maker culture, I tend to really enjoy picking, say, apples from an apple tree in a neighbor's yard and eating it on my walk around the neighborhood. I can do this with _anything_ because I don't need any data in order to make such claims. The above is mostly true. But it's not definite beyond the concrete detail and context I provide. Any generational effect I might identify could well be purely a result of "instantaneous" (or short duration) social downward causation, not generational oscillation. I.e. maybe it's not "phase locking" so much as a drifting/wandering progression of social forcing? How would we know? So, in order to establish the existence of generational couplings (distinct from any other type of couplings), we need some aggregated, abstracted data. -- glen =><= Hail Eris! ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Glen -
OK. We don't really disagree. But I'll push the point just a tiny bit further and see if it goes anywhere. On 04/29/2013 03:31 PM, Steve Smith wrote:On the other hand, I'm not setting out to *prove* my concept of what is generational, but rather to explain or illuminate it. [...] I'm only trying to make the argument that there *are* couplings between "generations" which yield interesting oscillations with periods roughly on the order of human reproduction cycles.Even though you're not setting out to provide evidence for your concept of generational, you do assert the existence of generational couplings (distinct from other types of coupling) and that these couplings yield interesting oscillations. I infer that to mean that these generational couplings are somehow more evident, more influential, more something than other inter-group couplings. Perhaps they're not "more", but just different. In any case, what we need in order to have a useful discussion is some definite identification of that type of coupling. And for that, we need some type of data, or at the very least a clear measure that could generate the data. I agree, a proper social scientist intending to study this rigorously would, in fact, want to establish a hypothesis or set of hypotheses which are testable against data which has been or could be gathered. I am comfortable, in discussions such as these to take a wide swing at guessing what would A) be an interesting hypothesis and B) where or how data might be gathered to test it. I presume this is why various social scientists take a beating from the hard scientists: It is just a heck of a lot harder to gather data in a clearly objective and repeatable way. I'm sure there are elaborate protocols in Anthropology and Psychology to attempt to make this a bit better. But it would seem that "controls" are much harder to establish than with physical systems such as masses in motion, electromagnetics, or even biological systems. It seems more appropriate for my little "Garage Science" experiment (if only a thought experiment) to look to the "fossil record"... to some sort of correlative, already established record of the behaviour, activities or perhaps as you suggest medical records of the subjects. I used the example of my grandfather's interest in literacy (as evidenced in his reading and writing habits) vs my fathers, and then my own. Each of us has a similar level of education (not normalized to the eras, but still similar) of roughly 6 years of post-secondary education (grandfather with a Masters in Geology, father with two Bachelors in Biology and Forestry, self with Bachelors in Mathematics and in Physics with a whole wad of graduate credits in Mathematics and Computer Science). In principle, a sample could be found of 3 or more generations and through interviews of the living generations, a general measure of how prone to reading/writing each of the members might be extractable, etc. (how many books do you/father/grandfather own? how much personal correspondence do each of you maintain? how many journal entries (words, lines, pages?) do you average? etc.) The details of such a test are precisely what academic researchers in the social sciences do. It even seems likely that a literature search would unearth such work. It even seems possible that some of the folks on this list who work more in the social sciences already know of work in this area. Or that this list could *be* the sample set (not likely to get more than a small handful of respondents, however). While I think that *health* statistics are more available suggest, I'm personally not as interested in those aspects of a life. They may correlate (folks who spend more time reading/writing may spend less time running, jumping, tumbling and therefore enjoy the health benefits of more cardiovascular health, etc.) I guess at this point, I've proposed a model that is not particularly well validated (by me)... but then that is usually what this level of discussion consists of doesn't it? Speculation about what models *might* have some validity and how they *might* be tested and maybe some anecdotal dogpiles to support/contradict the models proposed? If I find some scholarly work already done in the area, I'll toss it in. In the meantime, I'll hold to my intuition that "stuff skips a generation" and that this statement is a more specific instance of "there are generational oscillations of period 1 generation based on negative coupling between adjacent generations". This could be limited to our own culture (western, north american, some class subset of same?). I suppose it could be limited to the (confirmationally biased) subset of people who I talk to about such things. - 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 |
|
|
On 04/30/2013 12:07 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> (how many books do you/father/grandfather own? how > much personal correspondence do each of you maintain? how many journal > entries (words, lines, pages?) do you average? etc.) I think I can gather some data. I already have a number of questions I ask various people in social settings. Since I loathe small talk, I have to entertain myself in some way. If I don't have questions to ask, I usually end up getting in an argument and making everyone mad at me. So, i'll add these questions to my list of things to ask when I get bored in social situations. ;-) My own answers to these questions are: Grandfather: more reading depth, less breadth: not at all a writer Dad: very broad, not much depth: not at all a writer Me: some depth, some breadth: lots of correspondence, some publication It's difficult for me to extract a pattern from that. Then again, I was adopted and have no idea who my biological parents are. Given the measures we've chosen, there is no method for teasing apart nature vs. nurture. Had we chosen more biologically relevant measures, it might be easier to do so. > I guess at this point, I've proposed a model that is not particularly > well validated (by me)... but then that is usually what this level of > discussion consists of doesn't it? Speculation about what models > *might* have some validity and how they *might* be tested and maybe some > anecdotal dogpiles to support/contradict the models proposed? It seems the norm for this mailing list. But other communities can be more tolerant of deeper exploration. I'm not addicted to "closure". But I do seek it out and appreciate it when I find it. (I've really enjoyed Arlo's recent resurrections.) -- glen =><= Hail Eris! ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Glen -
>> I guess at this point, I've proposed a model that is not particularly >> well validated (by me)... but then that is usually what this level of >> discussion consists of doesn't it? Speculation about what models >> *might* have some validity and how they *might* be tested and maybe some >> anecdotal dogpiles to support/contradict the models proposed? > It seems the norm for this mailing list. But other communities can be > more tolerant of deeper exploration. I'm not addicted to "closure". > But I do seek it out and appreciate it when I find it. (I've really > enjoyed Arlo's recent resurrections.) I would suggest that the norm for this mail list tends to stop at proposing a model very informally with some occasional argument pro and con and an occasional reference to scholarly work by someone. That satisfies me most of the time, though *more* would always be welcome. I appreciate both your and Arlo's deeper questioning of my informal suggestion of a model. - 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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |