DOH!
Locked
12
12
 
|
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Parks, Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 07/06/2015 10:52 AM, Curt McNamara wrote:
> http://blog.ted.com/7-talks-on-the-benefits-of-gaming/ > In the lab, Bavelier and her team measure the impact of gameplay on the brain. While your mom might have told you that staring at screens will wreck your eyes, Bavelier’s lab actually found that playing 5 to 15 hours a week of video games correlates with better vision — and the ability to see more detail in the context of clutter. Interesting coincidence. Periods when I do play (almost exclusively console), it's usually about 8-10 hours/week, perhaps split over 2-3 days. That's about all it takes before I'm sated. Turn based strategy games keep me involved for longer per playing episode. Action games tire me out (bore me) quicker. Social games (like WoW) mostly just irritate me because ... well, people are still people, even if they're dressed up as Orcs. I do sympathize with Marcus' lament about exploring FSMs. Social games are non-finite. And the good ones are nonlinear, as well. If I could only play exclusively with bots, instead of those irritating people. 8^) -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ 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 cody dooderson
“A pilot might either fly a physical airplane as part of an exercise or they may fly a simulator. Either way, their actions are translated to a scorekeeping
mechanism that is automated.” At some point won’t these behaviors too be mastered by machine learning? Obviously, I’m not just taking on gaming here, I’m taking on the idea that people
ought to master narrow “skill sets” at all. Ok, so a gamer can track 7 objects instead of 3. Machines could track hundreds or thousands. Better to design the machine, no? Marcus
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
On 07/06/2015 11:10 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> At some point won’t these behaviors too be mastered by machine learning? Obviously, I’m not just taking on gaming here, I’m taking on the idea that people ought to master narrow “skill sets” at all. Ok, so a gamer can track 7 objects instead of 3. Machines could track hundreds or thousands. Better to design the machine, no? Arbitrary google response: Age-related differences in multiple-object tracking. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15746018 Let's say you wanted to, I don't know, _drive_ or maybe juggle ... or simple play flag football with your grandchildren. It seems like multiple object tracking exercise might help. It's a bit silly to suggest such skills are always "narrow". I had an interesting discussion the other day. A friend suggested she _needed_ a personal trainer in order to exercise, that without the trainer, she would neither be motivated nor know what/how to do various exercises. She used this "disability" of hers to argue that she doesn't get much out of yoga (the 1 or 2 times she tried it, heh). I can't really sympathize much with her position. The point of exercising is to consistently _try_ things ... to poke around and see how/if you could do it slightly differently. Having another person tell you what/how to do something is way less rewarding than learning how to do it yourself ... even if all we're talking about is twirling a coin between your fingers. (Sure, if you're really really good at something and you want to be much better, then you need a trainer to sqeeze out that hidden performance, but not at the amateur level.) For the exact same reason, running on forest trails (as opposed to treadmills or in circles on a rubber trac k) is actually a very "broad" skill. And it's a very handy one. Is it better to build a robot that can run on forest trails? No. That would be very cool. But having your robot run around the mountain isn't near as rewarding as doing it yourself. Is it better to build a robot to run in circles on a rubber track? Yes, absolutely. I see zero benefit from having humans do that, much less rewarding the fastest ones with medals. 8^) -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ 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 cody dooderson
It’s such a shame that we still “can’t all just get along”, and
instead keep developing more and more advanced ways of subjugating each other, killing and terrorizing. The liberal vs. conservative noise in the USA got me thinking a lot about this. When I moved to EC, the previous 8 years of BushCo had moved my politics pretty far left, to the point that I was quite happy with Correa’s victory. Now, after seeing the extent to which the past corruption has been merely legitimized (pushed upward), I’m not so sure where I stand. It seems to me that a lot of human history is some variation of the theme of "you have more than I have, that’s not fair, so I’m going to take some (all in some cases) from you.” There’s a lot to be said for that. If we didn’t have such strong strucutres in place (governments, social norms), we would each have just about what we could defend against our neighbors. The problem is that governments, especially in conjunction with philosophies and religions, can legitimize quite a range of behaviors, and our war games (real and otherwise) just enforce this. On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Parks, Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote: > You are venturing into the world of serious games. Humans have always > played games to sharpen intellect, gain skills, refine tactics, understand > the ramifications of strategy, and entertain themselves. I'm currently > helping to author a paper about the security requirements of serious games, > so this subject is fresh in my mind. > > As hunter-gatherers, humans allowed their children to play hide and seek, > use child-sized weapons, and hunt small game. These were practice games for > adulthood. > > This concept of transforming necessary military skills and learning them by > games, either as children or later as adults, has continued throughout human > history. In the 1800s, the Prussians added to the physical games with > tabletop (or sandtable top) intellectual games that abstracted military > units and allowed future officers to play without having to use real people, > animals, and supplies. That game was called Kriegspiel and has continued to > evolve to this day. > > Chess is sometimes considered the original Kriegspiel. Most historians > agree it is derived from Chaturanga, invented in the Gupta Empire somewhere > between 280 and 550 CE. Modern chess was formalized from the derivative of > shatranj (Muslim version from the original) in about 900-1000 CE in southern > Europe. As a game, chess trains the player to think ahead, understand the > consequences of their actions, and generally improves the mind. > > In the age of Industrial Warfare new weapons, new logistics, new > transportation, new communication methods, and the sheer size of armies > required games to understand the bitter lessons learned in wars. These > games were physical games to learn how all of these factors interact in the > physical world before they could be abstracted to the tabletop as > Kriegspiel. As late as the buildup to the US entry into WWII, the Army held > huge maneuver exercises in the South to practice and understand how war was > already being fought in Europe. > > Those large, physical games still take place, but as computers have become > more and more important parts of the military, the games have added > computers. These computers have themselves effectively created a fifth > domain for military conflict (after Land, Sea, Air, and Space) which most > authorities call Cyberspace. The interesting aspect of this is that, > increasingly, the other domains are being abstracted into Cyberspace. A > pilot might either fly a physical airplane as part of an exercise or they > may fly a simulator. Either way, their actions are translated to a > scorekeeping mechanism that is automated. > > There is an interesting trend within the videogame community where players > create modifications of the game they love playing. I get Amazon Local > emails because of my Prime membership, and one offer I have seen a lot, > recently, is a course to teach a child how to create mods for Minecraft. > Modding Minecraft involves learning Java, understanding the data storage > scheme of the game, and understanding the "physics engine" of Minecraft. > This all translates to skills useful in programming and software systems > engineering. Mods for other games are similiar in nature. > > The bottom line here is that games have been one of mankind's way of > learning and researching for a very long time. Some games are more valuable > for learning specific things while others are more entertaining. Just as > not everybody needs and wants to do "productive" work, not everybody needs > and wants to play strictly serious games like agent-based simulation (yes, I > am saying that many of the folks on this list are playing games in their > work and research). There is a spectrum of entertainment that describes > games - some games are strictly business and some games are a little > business with lots of entertainment. Entertainment can be necessary to > entice players to the game to learn. Sometimes, the entertainment becomes > the primary goal of the players and any learning is purely happenstance. > > Personally, I like games because they help me hone my bad guy skills. In a > very few cases, I learn new real-world attacks from the game content, > usually from seeing other people try things that I assumed would not work. > More often, I figure out how to use the game functions to win more easily - > something that equates directly to using a system with computers to attack > itself. Occasionally, I learn how to break the computer program behind the > game in a way that works for non-game computer programs. > > Ray Parks > Consilient Heuristician/IDART Old-Timer > V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 > NIPR: [hidden email] > SIPR: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder) > JWICS: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder) > > > > On Jul 5, 2015, at 9:44 PM, cody dooderson wrote: > > This is a very interesting subject. I often wonder if Im doing anything > useful for society and/or the universe. I think the answer is probably no, > but the future is notoriously hard to predict. It seems like most useful > inventions are born from silly fascinations. For instance, fire was probably > once thought of as a frivolous and sometimes dangerous magic trick. Same > with music, microscopes, gun powder, and quantum physics. As for video > games, I wonder if they will ever become useful, for anything other than > training drone pilots. I hope so. > Any way, I hope you all figure out whats useful before my mid-life crisis. > > > > Cody Smith > > On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> > wrote: >> >> But Gary! How do you make that distinction ... the difference between the >> innocent useless and the harmful useless? I took a whack at that in the >> article I sent, but I never felt I nailed it. >> >> Nick >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology >> Clark University >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gary Schiltz >> Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2015 10:06 PM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] DOH! >> >> Well, you’re in good company here :-) >> >> Actually, I also distinguish between “the useful stuff” that we do and the >> less useful, but I suspect that both are necessary. We're complex creatures >> that become bored doing only the useful stuff, and our brains need for us to >> do “the fun stuff” too. Maybe it’s somehow like sleep, nothing obviously >> productive is occuring, but it appears to perform some necessary >> physiological functions (cleanup of waste products, other?) as well as >> leading to various conceptual leaps that don’t seem to come as much in >> conscious thought. >> >> Now, the *real* bullshit of constantly new stuff just to get us to buy it, >> I’m more dubious about that. Maybe in the same way that the arms race and >> SDI led us to create new useful stuff, creating endless new crap has some >> useful function. I don’t know. >> >> “Give us bread, but give us roses" >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> > So's my wife! And I love her dearly! And after all, I made my living >> > studying the behavior of crows. I enjoy bull shit and bullshitters. >> > >> > But still, Gary, are you committed to the notion that there is no useful >> > distinction to be made between bullshit and productive labor? And is there >> > nothing queer about the idea that some people get to earn their living doing >> > bullshit, while others have to do productive labor? >> > >> > Nick >> > >> > >> > >> > Nicholas S. Thompson >> > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University >> > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gary >> > Schiltz >> > Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2015 9:36 PM >> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] DOH! >> > >> > My god, it’s full of…. BULLSHIT! >> > >> > Well, making things and growing food are great, but it would be a lot >> > less interesting world if that’s all we did. Certainly Santa Fe would be. >> > >> > Gary [husband of an artist] >> > >> > On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Nick Thompson >> > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Dear Friammers, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am late to this conversation but it has just impinged on something >> >> I have been thinking about a LOT. I used to be sure that there was a >> >> firm distinction between productive labor and … to use the technical >> >> term … bullshit. Growing food and making automobile engines were >> >> examples of productive labor; designing this year’s fashions in >> >> automobiles and clothing, that was an example of bull shit. It truly >> >> disgusts me that the automobile industry designs a pretty good car >> >> every decade or so, and then, stops making them because, because, >> >> after all, there always must be something new. (Oh what has Subaru >> >> done the Forrester and Volvo to the Volvo Wagon? Once they comfortable >> >> boxes in which to carry people around. >> >> Now they both look like outsized running shoes with gun slits for >> >> windows. >> >> That’s the essence of bullshit. LL Beans had a pretty good winter >> >> coat a >> >> decade back; can’t get it any more. More bullshit. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Now gambling and gaming in any form (e.g., investment banking) seem >> >> to me to lean pretty heavily on the side of bullshit. But I have >> >> begun to worry that, one of these days, I am going to wake up having >> >> realized in a dream that EVERYTHING is bullshit. Certainly that’s >> >> the direction that complexity thinking leads us. Or, at least, to >> >> the realization that because there is nowhere near enough productive >> >> labor to go around, most of us have to paid to do bullshit to keep us >> >> from doing real harm. Anyway, Penny and I published something about >> >> that >> >> 35 years back. Perhaps some of you like to look at it. It’s called, >> >> “A Utopian Perspective on Ecology and >> >> Development.” For all I know, you might its first readers! The >> >> authors >> >> would love to hear from you. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> >> >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology >> >> >> >> Clark University >> >> >> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus >> >> Daniels >> >> Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2015 6:21 PM >> >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] DOH! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Arlo writes: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> “It is not some secret mystical human experience, nor does it have to >> >> be some weird pop-culture cult, but just another way to spend some free >> >> time.” >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I suppose the distinction I’m making is between open vs. closed or >> >> leading >> >> vs. following. With so much unknown in the world, why use hours of >> >> wakefulness to enumerate the states of a finite state machine? In >> >> what way >> >> is there anything to discover from a game? I appreciate there is a >> >> craft >> >> to making a storyline and a craft to in designing the graphics and >> >> physics engines, and of course the graphic arts in designing the visual >> >> appearance >> >> of characters. But I appreciate the story like I’d appreciate >> >> literature >> >> or art – I am not an expert in those things, and so I am not a >> >> participant – >> >> I am merely a consumer. On the technology side, I can acknowledge >> >> that >> >> gaming software is sometimes impressive. But why _bother_ writing it >> >> _except_ to sell it? Another way to ask the question is how is it >> >> more >> >> significant to be a gamer than, say, a reader of fiction or even a >> >> moviegoer? How is being a gamer a Thing? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Marcus >> >> >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at >> >> cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe >> >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > >> > ============================================================ >> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe >> > at St. John's College to unsubscribe >> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > >> > >> > ============================================================ >> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe >> > at St. John's College to unsubscribe >> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Human behaviour is human behaviour and it has not changed in 50,000+ years. Humans act in their own self-interest at many levels - see Maslow's Hierarch of Needs. The purpose of civilization is to allow humans to behave the way they will behave with as
little destructive collateral effects as possible. Sometimes, the structures of a society and government are enough to control the behaviour - sometimes more force is necessary. The key is to apply as little force as is necessary and to be perceived as applying
the force fairly (not necessarily equally).
Unfortunately, society and government are made up of humans and they will find ways to use what power is allotted to them by other humans in ways that are advantageous to themselves. History shows that no matter how idealistic and utopian the original
goal of a society or government it will be changed by the humans in charge to give themselves advantage. The purpose of the US constitution is to pit these humans against each other so that their pursuit of self-interest will be in conflict with others in
government. The intent of the writers was that each group would prevent the others from gaining enough power to be destructive - thus the separation of powers into three branches of government.
Humans also tend to form groups and place the survival of the group as more important than the survival of other groups. When the group rises to the status of a nation-state or boundary-crossing movement (usually religious), the groups can get into
conflict. This is a fact of the human condition. The best prepared group will survive these conflicts. War games are one of the methods of preparing. I understand your plea and I sympathize - but history proves that we can't all just get along.
Ray Parks
On Jul 6, 2015, at 1:31 PM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
http://m.gapminder.org/videos/200-years-that-changed-the-world/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-decline-of-violence/ Curt On Jul 6, 2015 6:02 PM, "Parks, Raymond" <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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
"Let's say you wanted to, I don't know, _drive_ or maybe juggle ... or simple play flag football with your grandchildren. It seems like multiple object tracking exercise might help. "
Usually the best way to develop a motor skill, or a particular kind of fitness, is to do that thing. In retrospect, the original question I was asking was a selfish question. It should have been "What's in it for me to be a gamer?" But generally people didn't know my values, and then told me about their values. Ok. I know how to drive, I don't have grandchildren, don't want to play flag football, and I have no interest in juggling. So in answer to my question, "Why would I want to play a game, instead of other things I do", the answer is, for me, I would not. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Heh, as if the argument weren't absurd enough already, there's this: Is Facebook the next frontier for online learning? http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2015/is-facebook-the-next-frontier-for-online-learning/ I try to avoid facebook, despite my omnivorism. But "when in Rome"... -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella I got my face in the furnace, I got my snake in a sleeve ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Yup, one of the arguments in the list of reasons-gaming-is-good TED talks was that they can be engaging as an educational tool.
But you're clearly just trying to horrify me now. :-) -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 8:53 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] DOH! Heh, as if the argument weren't absurd enough already, there's this: Is Facebook the next frontier for online learning? http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2015/is-facebook-the-next-frontier-for-online-learning/ I try to avoid facebook, despite my omnivorism. But "when in Rome"... -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella I got my face in the furnace, I got my snake in a sleeve ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
@Cody As to video games, I submit they're somewhat useful or at least can be depending on what you consider useful of course. SimCity (for example), EverQuest(was is/was) believe it or not used in Leadership, and Project Management courses-basicly build a city and what do you do when something goes wrong. if I recall someone years ago from someone Orion Games talked at the Complex showing real world examples of fire-fighters, and pilots used Flight sims to help with training. World of Warcraft and other Massive Online Sims (or MMO/ MMORPG/ MMOAs) are often used as part of "humanistic design" resliance studies, leadership studies as well because you are in a group. How do you have to take criticism. How do you handle it? Can you get a group together? etc. I am unclear how useful those life skills are, but leadership skills and someway to be somewhat self reliant and managing tasks is likely at least somewhat useful in day-to-day life. On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: Yup, one of the arguments in the list of reasons-gaming-is-good TED talks was that they can be engaging as an educational tool. ============================================================ 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 Curt McNamara
I would postulate that, especially in the last 200 years, communication has been a significant or, possibly, most significant agent of change in terms of violence. Even in the prestate societies (whatever that means), some if not most people would not see
a violent death or the results - 500 per 100,000 means you would have had a 0.5% chance, all things being equal. As people collected together into larger communities and, eventually, states/countries, the all things being equal would change - even if you
didn't see the violent death you heard about it.
In the last 200 years, there has been a significant change in communication. Knowledge of violent death has become increasingly accessible. Early telegraphs and newspapers of the early 19th Century showed violent deaths to more people than had ever previously
seen it or heard about it through oral communication. Henry Crabb Robinson, for example, contributed war news from Napoleons Spanish and German campaigns to The Times of London. With the advent of wired telegraphy, violent death literally came home to people.
William Howard Russell was able to send his dispatches to The Times from the Crimean War via submarine cable to Varna, Bulgaria, and from there through French circuits to Austria in weeks after battles. People at home in England were exposed to violent death
in the war zone in a relatively short time and in more detail. The addition of photography made violent death during the US War Between the States more real to the folks back on the farm - real pictures of real death along with written accounts were delivered
within days of occurrence. The trend has only continued, with movies (who remembers the newsreels at the cinema?), radio, television, and now Internet videos bringing violent death to viewers in near real-time.
I postulate that the effect of seeing and hearing of violence more often and in greater and greater detail has led to the reluctance of committing violence. Presumably, prestate societies had on the order of 1000 or so people involved with the 500 per
100,000 violent deaths. As more people saw or heard about violent deaths in graphic detail (rather than a sterile announcement), that number of people has increased. Nowadays, I would expect the number of people who have seen the details of violent death
to be on the order of 10,000 out of that 100,000, even though the number of such deaths has decreased.
In my personal experience, people who have seen (or, especially, caused) violent death are reluctant to cause it again. Thus, my hypothesis that exposure to violent death through improved communications is a major factor in the reduction in the rate of
violent death.
Ray Parks
Consilient Heuristician/IDART Old-Timer V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: [hidden email] SIPR: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder) On Jul 6, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Curt McNamara wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Another example of something that is unambiguously a game, due to the competitive and puzzle-like nature it has, and is also (perhaps unrelatedly) useful, due to the research potential of it, is Foldit. -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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |