Friam

Faith

Classic

List

Threaded

118 messages Options

1 ... 3456

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: faith

Not necessarily, the religious conversion will likely reduce the kill-off rate.

On the other hand, I suppose, we could encourage Islamic and Christian themed gangs and still achieve a reasonable kill-off goal.

On Sep 26, 2012 4:19 PM, "Russ Abbott" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Driving home I heard a report about New Zealand gangs. Apparently there are more gang-members per capita in New Zealand than any other country. (Surprised me.) Some of them are terribly violent. Very scary. Some have been reformed after finding Jesus. One of the best things that religion has ever done!

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105
Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Victoria Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote:
It's your honesty I've always loved about you, Steve.
I'm going with the weasel.

T

On Sep 26, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

Tory -

Why is the idea of two differing but synergistic approaches so challenging to so many on this list? Or are you arguing for the fun of the game?

I'm pretty sure both the Monkey and the Weasel are in it for the endorphins released.

The Mulberry bush is an innocent bystander, if in fact the center of the play.

The Tigers are merely victims of their own Vanity and the cleverness of our friend Sambo.

Sambo, perhaps has more significant motives.

I know I don't.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tory -

Why is the idea of two differing but synergistic approaches so challenging to so many on this list? Or are you arguing for the fun of the game?

I'm pretty sure both the Monkey and the Weasel are in it for the endorphins released.

I don't think I'm talking about two differing approaches.

Some beliefs are so common that no one even thinks about them. Many people deny that they're beliefs at all. Other beliefs extend and explain and modify the common ones in different ways. But I say we're all believers on this bus, some are just more conscious of it.

-- rec --

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: faith

Well, speaking from my own (apparent) semi-unique perspective: Darwin's proposition of "Survival of the Fittest" would seem to scream out for the elimination of degenerate components of society which threaten to bring the entire species to total extinction.

And, being an engineer, I cannot but cheer and encourage any activity that speeds the destruction of those destructive elements of society. Like gang conflicts, for example. And religion, for another. Not that there is much difference, really.

--Doug

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Tory -

Why is the idea of two differing but synergistic approaches so challenging to so many on this list? Or are you arguing for the fun of the game?

I'm pretty sure both the Monkey and the Weasel are in it for the endorphins released.

I don't think I'm talking about two differing approaches.

Some beliefs are so common that no one even thinks about them. Many people deny that they're beliefs at all. Other beliefs extend and explain and modify the common ones in different ways. But I say we're all believers on this bus, some are just more conscious of it.

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Nick Thompson

Re: faith

Darwinism only says that the least prolific will be eliminated. It says nothing about degeneracy, unless, of course profligacy is defined as “advanced.” Spencer was the social Darwinist, not Darwin. In fact, it was SPENCER, who coined “the survival of the fittest”, I believe.

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 9:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith

--Doug

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tory -

Why is the idea of two differing but synergistic approaches so challenging to so many on this list? Or are you arguing for the fun of the game?

I'm pretty sure both the Monkey and the Weasel are in it for the endorphins released.

I don't think I'm talking about two differing approaches.

-- rec --

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Arlo Barnes

Re: faith

Thank you Nick, I was going to say the same thing.

-Arlo James Barnes

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Still, irrespective of whomever coined that old "fittest" rubric, dead gang members are far more productive members of society than live ones, I suspect.

On Sep 26, 2012 9:48 PM, "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Darwinism only says that the least prolific will be eliminated. It says nothing about degeneracy, unless, of course profligacy is defined as “advanced.” Spencer was the social Darwinist, not Darwin. In fact, it was SPENCER, who coined “the survival of the fittest”, I believe.

N

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 9:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith

Well, speaking from my own (apparent) semi-unique perspective: Darwin's proposition of "Survival of the Fittest" would seem to scream out for the elimination of degenerate components of society which threaten to bring the entire species to total extinction.

And, being an engineer, I cannot but cheer and encourage any activity that speeds the destruction of those destructive elements of society. Like gang conflicts, for example. And religion, for another. Not that there is much difference, really.

--Doug
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Tory -

Why is the idea of two differing but synergistic approaches so challenging to so many on this list? Or are you arguing for the fun of the game?

I'm pretty sure both the Monkey and the Weasel are in it for the endorphins released.

I don't think I'm talking about two differing approaches.

Some beliefs are so common that no one even thinks about them. Many people deny that they're beliefs at all. Other beliefs extend and explain and modify the common ones in different ways. But I say we're all believers on this bus, some are just more conscious of it.

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: faith

I suspect that the more sensitive members of this list will think that my last message was unnecessarily pejorative with respect to gangs, and gang members. It would probably therefore be foolish of me to suggest including child-abusing priests, scientologists, and more than a few of the military industrial profiteers in the "better off dead" list.

So I won't.

Best to quietly just resume the scholarly discussions about "faith".

Don't you think?

On Sep 26, 2012 10:03 PM, "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Still, irrespective of whomever coined that old "fittest" rubric, dead gang members are far more productive members of society than live ones, I suspect.

On Sep 26, 2012 9:48 PM, "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Darwinism only says that the least prolific will be eliminated. It says nothing about degeneracy, unless, of course profligacy is defined as “advanced.” Spencer was the social Darwinist, not Darwin. In fact, it was SPENCER, who coined “the survival of the fittest”, I believe.

N

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 9:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith

Well, speaking from my own (apparent) semi-unique perspective: Darwin's proposition of "Survival of the Fittest" would seem to scream out for the elimination of degenerate components of society which threaten to bring the entire species to total extinction.

And, being an engineer, I cannot but cheer and encourage any activity that speeds the destruction of those destructive elements of society. Like gang conflicts, for example. And religion, for another. Not that there is much difference, really.

--Doug
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Tory -

Why is the idea of two differing but synergistic approaches so challenging to so many on this list? Or are you arguing for the fun of the game?

I'm pretty sure both the Monkey and the Weasel are in it for the endorphins released.

I don't think I'm talking about two differing approaches.

Some beliefs are so common that no one even thinks about them. Many people deny that they're beliefs at all. Other beliefs extend and explain and modify the common ones in different ways. But I say we're all believers on this bus, some are just more conscious of it.

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: faith

The common theme, however, just to tie a bow on it, is societal degeneracy.

On Sep 26, 2012 10:15 PM, "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]> wrote:

I suspect that the more sensitive members of this list will think that my last message was unnecessarily pejorative with respect to gangs, and gang members. It would probably therefore be foolish of me to suggest including child-abusing priests, scientologists, and more than a few of the military industrial profiteers in the "better off dead" list.

So I won't.

Best to quietly just resume the scholarly discussions about "faith".

Don't you think?

On Sep 26, 2012 10:03 PM, "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Still, irrespective of whomever coined that old "fittest" rubric, dead gang members are far more productive members of society than live ones, I suspect.

On Sep 26, 2012 9:48 PM, "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Darwinism only says that the least prolific will be eliminated. It says nothing about degeneracy, unless, of course profligacy is defined as “advanced.” Spencer was the social Darwinist, not Darwin. In fact, it was SPENCER, who coined “the survival of the fittest”, I believe.

N

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 9:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith

Well, speaking from my own (apparent) semi-unique perspective: Darwin's proposition of "Survival of the Fittest" would seem to scream out for the elimination of degenerate components of society which threaten to bring the entire species to total extinction.

And, being an engineer, I cannot but cheer and encourage any activity that speeds the destruction of those destructive elements of society. Like gang conflicts, for example. And religion, for another. Not that there is much difference, really.

--Doug
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Tory -

Why is the idea of two differing but synergistic approaches so challenging to so many on this list? Or are you arguing for the fun of the game?

I'm pretty sure both the Monkey and the Weasel are in it for the endorphins released.

I don't think I'm talking about two differing approaches.

Some beliefs are so common that no one even thinks about them. Many people deny that they're beliefs at all. Other beliefs extend and explain and modify the common ones in different ways. But I say we're all believers on this bus, some are just more conscious of it.

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

And even the least prolific might manage to survive through a generation where they deserved extinction, such can be the luck of the draw.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum, but Darwin isn't going to help you on less than geologic time scales.

-- rec --

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Darwinism only says that the least prolific will be eliminated. It says nothing about degeneracy, unless, of course profligacy is defined as “advanced.” Spencer was the social Darwinist, not Darwin. In fact, it was SPENCER, who coined “the survival of the fittest”, I believe.

N

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 9:03 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith

Well, speaking from my own (apparent) semi-unique perspective: Darwin's proposition of "Survival of the Fittest" would seem to scream out for the elimination of degenerate components of society which threaten to bring the entire species to total extinction.

And, being an engineer, I cannot but cheer and encourage any activity that speeds the destruction of those destructive elements of society. Like gang conflicts, for example. And religion, for another. Not that there is much difference, really.

--Doug
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Tory -

Why is the idea of two differing but synergistic approaches so challenging to so many on this list? Or are you arguing for the fun of the game?

I'm pretty sure both the Monkey and the Weasel are in it for the endorphins released.

I don't think I'm talking about two differing approaches.

Some beliefs are so common that no one even thinks about them. Many people deny that they're beliefs at all. Other beliefs extend and explain and modify the common ones in different ways. But I say we're all believers on this bus, some are just more conscious of it.

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Carl Tollander

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXfkCzcegiM&feature=related

On 9/26/12 10:19 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

The common theme, however, just to tie a bow on it, is societal degeneracy.

On Sep 26, 2012 10:15 PM, "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]> wrote:

I suspect that the more sensitive members of this list will think that my last message was unnecessarily pejorative with respect to gangs, and gang members. It would probably therefore be foolish of me to suggest including child-abusing priests, scientologists, and more than a few of the military industrial profiteers in the "better off dead" list.

So I won't.

Best to quietly just resume the scholarly discussions about "faith".

Don't you think?

On Sep 26, 2012 10:03 PM, "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Still, irrespective of whomever coined that old "fittest" rubric, dead gang members are far more productive members of society than live ones, I suspect.

On Sep 26, 2012 9:48 PM, "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Darwinism only says that the least prolific will be eliminated. It says nothing about degeneracy, unless, of course profligacy is defined as “advanced.” Spencer was the social Darwinist, not Darwin. In fact, it was SPENCER, who coined “the survival of the fittest”, I believe.

N

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 9:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith

Well, speaking from my own (apparent) semi-unique perspective: Darwin's proposition of "Survival of the Fittest" would seem to scream out for the elimination of degenerate components of society which threaten to bring the entire species to total extinction.

And, being an engineer, I cannot but cheer and encourage any activity that speeds the destruction of those destructive elements of society. Like gang conflicts, for example. And religion, for another. Not that there is much difference, really.

--Doug

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tory -

Why is the idea of two differing but synergistic approaches so challenging to so many on this list? Or are you arguing for the fun of the game?

I'm pretty sure both the Monkey and the Weasel are in it for the endorphins released.

I don't think I'm talking about two differing approaches.

Some beliefs are so common that no one even thinks about them. Many people deny that they're beliefs at all. Other beliefs extend and explain and modify the common ones in different ways. But I say we're all believers on this bus, some are just more conscious of it.

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Doug -

Pretending to be "one of the more sensitive members of the list", this sounds a lot like "the only good Injun is a dead Injun"...

But that isn't what I want to take exception to... what I want to take exception to is that you or I or anyone else gets to decide that behaviours which offend us are somehow "less fit" than those we approve of.   The fitness function is what it is, not what we want it to be... and there are many situations where what you and I would call incredibly offensive or bad behaviour is actually in some sick (by our measure) way, highly fit.

Or as a corollary, you and I don't get to decide what the "ideal society" is and declare all "antisocial" (relative to that ideal) are unfit and will be culled.

I would claim that some (all?) of the worst behaviours we know of are the precise result of natural selection. Our corrupt politicians, our paedophilic priests, violent gangs, etc *are* precisely what is being selected for.   Maybe a case can be made for the opposite simultaneously... that kindness and altruism can also have a high fitness (at least for the group, if not the individual)...

Darwinian selection works *through* extinctions...   whatever is left after the presumed "total extinction" of our species will be what was selected for. Maybe the meek will inherit the earth. Maybe our presumed imminent anthropogenic extinction event will remove all vertebrate life or maybe just the meanest, most aggressive peoples of the earth (those with nuclear/biological/chemical weapons)?

I contend it is a fanciful understanding of Darwinian Evolution to presume that it is going to cull what we find offensive or in fact dangerous to our own interests. Someone who believes (in doxastic terms, a peculiar or unstable reasoner?) that all drivers are out to get them when they are on a motorcycle (which has a high survival fitness while riding a motorcycle, but is nevertheless not correct) might also apply similar reasoning to natural evolution and fitness.

Your rhetoric is compelling to me *as* rhetoric... I *like* the idea that gang members, prurient patriarchs and plutocratic politicians are somehow less fit for survival in the current milieu than you and I and all our present company... but that doesn't make it true.

It seems to me that our role as conscious beings capable of forming societies is to not only form societies that meet our needs, but to (eventually) come to understand the complex dynamics of societies well enough to create and follow rules that not only *would seem to* lead to the ideals we seek, but in fact, *actually* lead to them?

I think this is far from a solved problem, but many of us *are capable* of recognizing that first order cause-effect rules isn't sufficient.   Forbid your priests to have sex while giving them absolute authority over the spiritual lives of their flock and *some* will become sex abusers... and in attempting to hide this consequence we end up institutionalizing it. Remove conventional social structures and opportunities for self esteem and material success from children and some will create their own through what we call "gang activity".   Let that go on for a generation or two and it will become endemic to our various socioeconomic landscapes (urban, suburban, rural, poor, middle class, rich, black, brown, yellow, red, white). Et cetera. Ad Nauseum. Illegimatus non Carborundum. Semper Fi.

- Steve

PS... I think I have got to take my thumb off this transmit switch!

Still, irrespective of whomever coined that old "fittest" rubric, dead gang members are far more productive members of society than live ones, I suspect.

On Sep 26, 2012 9:48 PM, "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Darwinism only says that the least prolific will be eliminated. It says nothing about degeneracy, unless, of course profligacy is defined as “advanced.” Spencer was the social Darwinist, not Darwin. In fact, it was SPENCER, who coined “the survival of the fittest”, I believe.

N

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 9:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith

Well, speaking from my own (apparent) semi-unique perspective: Darwin's proposition of "Survival of the Fittest" would seem to scream out for the elimination of degenerate components of society which threaten to bring the entire species to total extinction.

And, being an engineer, I cannot but cheer and encourage any activity that speeds the destruction of those destructive elements of society. Like gang conflicts, for example. And religion, for another. Not that there is much difference, really.

--Doug

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tory -

Why is the idea of two differing but synergistic approaches so challenging to so many on this list? Or are you arguing for the fun of the game?

I'm pretty sure both the Monkey and the Weasel are in it for the endorphins released.

I don't think I'm talking about two differing approaches.

Some beliefs are so common that no one even thinks about them. Many people deny that they're beliefs at all. Other beliefs extend and explain and modify the common ones in different ways. But I say we're all believers on this bus, some are just more conscious of it.

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

glen ropella

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Douglas Roberts wrote at 09/26/2012 09:03 PM:
> dead gang members are far more productive members of society than
> live ones, I suspect.

And here I was worried I wouldn't get enough _hate_ in my diet today.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Re: faith/Social Darwinism

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Well, of course, the ultimate arrogance of the Social Darwinist/Eugenics movements was the belief that they knew who was "fit", without ever investigating it. So far as I can tell, gang members are, in general, more fit than people in the same immediate environment who are not members of gangs.

If you are trying to change the environment, so that some other set of phenotypes is more fit, you might well get annoyed that the gangs don't want their world changed, but that doesn't mean they are not well adapted to their circumstances. Think of any old western with a gang in it... prior to the wandering protagonist... who is doing better, the townspeople or the gang?

Eric

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 11:53 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Douglas Roberts wrote at 09/26/2012 09:03 PM:
> dead gang members are far more productive members of society than
> live ones, I suspect.

And here I was worried I wouldn't get enough _hate_ in my diet today.

-- 
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

------------

Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: faith/Social Darwinism

It was a myth fostered by Hollywood that western towns were terrorized by criminal gangs. The townspeople were armed and as tough as the punks. Here is a notice that was posted widely in nearby Las Vegas, New Mexico:

NOTICE!

To thieves, thugs, fakirs and Bunko-Steerers, among whom are J. J. Harlin, alias “Off Wheeler;” SAW DUST CHARLIE, Wm Hedges, BILLY THE KID, Billy Mullin, Little Jack, The Cuter, Pock-Marked Kid, and about Twenty Others:

If found within the Limits of this City after TEN O’CLOCK P.M., this Night, you will be Invited to attend a GRAND NECK-TIE PARTY, the Expense of which will be borne by 100 Substantial Citizens.

Las Vegas, March 24^th, 1882.

Note that the “Billy the Kid” mentioned was not the famous William Bonney (alias Antrim) as he was killed in 1881.

Frank C. Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz

Santa Fe, NM 87505

[hidden email] [hidden email]

Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ERIC P. CHARLES
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:46 AM
To: glen
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith/Social Darwinism

Douglas Roberts wrote at 09/26/2012 09:03 PM:

> dead gang members are far more productive members of society than

> live ones, I suspect.

And here I was worried I wouldn't get enough _hate_ in my diet today.

--

glen

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

------------

Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: faith

In reply to this post by glen ropella

I, OTOH, was fairly certain I was going to encounter approximately the same amount as usual of, what do we call it? Pollyanna-like behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollyanna_principle

No, that's not quite right.

Academic ivory tower elitism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_elitism

Well no, that doesn't quite capture all of it either. Although this one sentence comes fairly close to capturing the dietary element that abounds here on FRIAM: Another criticism is that universities [substitute academics here for the purpose of my point] tend more to pseudo-intellectualism than intellectualism per se; for example, to protect their positions and prestige, academicians may over-complicate problems and express them in obscure language.

The Osterich Effect, but as applied to societal problems rather than economic ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich_effect

Some combination of the above, perhaps.

--Doug

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:53 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Douglas Roberts wrote at 09/26/2012 09:03 PM:

> dead gang members are far more productive members of society than
> live ones, I suspect.

And here I was worried I wouldn't get enough _hate_ in my diet today.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: faith

It's a shame I stopped reading when I did on the wikipedia academic elitism link when I got to the nugget I was looking for, because this nugget is a real gem:

"Some observers argue that, while academicians often perceive themselves as members of an elite, their influence is mostly imaginary: "Professors of humanities, with all their leftist fantasies, have little direct knowledge of American life and no impact whatever on public policy."^[3]

Academic elitism suggests that in highly competitive academic environments only those individuals who have engaged in scholarship are deemed to have anything worthwhile to say, or do. It suggests that individuals who have not engaged in such scholarship are cranks. Steven Zhang of the Cornell Daily Sun has described the graduates of elite schools, especially those in the Ivy League, of having a "smug sense of success" because they believe "gaining entrance into the Ivy League is an accomplishment unto itself."^{[citation needed]"}

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

I, OTOH, was fairly certain I was going to encounter approximately the same amount as usual of, what do we call it? Pollyanna-like behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollyanna_principle

No, that's not quite right.

Academic ivory tower elitism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_elitism

Well no, that doesn't quite capture all of it either. Although this one sentence comes fairly close to capturing the dietary element that abounds here on FRIAM: Another criticism is that universities [substitute academics here for the purpose of my point] tend more to pseudo-intellectualism than intellectualism per se; for example, to protect their positions and prestige, academicians may over-complicate problems and express them in obscure language.

The Osterich Effect, but as applied to societal problems rather than economic ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich_effect

Some combination of the above, perhaps.

--Doug

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:53 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Douglas Roberts wrote at 09/26/2012 09:03 PM:

> dead gang members are far more productive members of society than
> live ones, I suspect.

And here I was worried I wouldn't get enough _hate_ in my diet today.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

glen ropella

Re: faith

Nice! That was, truly, a bizarre little screed. And although you don't
get credit for writing any of it, there is plenty of value in the
synthesis of others' ideas into something new. Congrats! Definitely
worthy of your troll status. ;-)

Douglas Roberts wrote at 09/27/2012 01:56 PM:

> It's a shame I stopped reading when I did on the wikipedia academic elitism
> link when I got to the nugget I was looking for, because *this* nugget is a
> real gem:
>
> "Some observers argue that, while academicians often perceive themselves as
> members of an elite, their influence is mostly imaginary: "Professors of
> humanities, with all their leftist fantasies, have little direct knowledge
> of American life and no impact whatever on public
> policy."[3]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_elitism#cite_note-2>
>
> Academic elitism suggests that in highly competitive academic environments
> only those individuals who have engaged in
> scholarship<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_method> are
> deemed to have anything worthwhile to say, or do. It suggests that
> individuals who have not engaged in such scholarship are
> cranks<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)>.
> Steven Zhang of the Cornell Daily
> Sun<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_Daily_Sun> has
> described the graduates of elite schools, especially those in the Ivy
> League<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League>,
> of having a "smug sense of success" because they believe "gaining entrance
> into the Ivy League is an accomplishment unto itself."[*citation
> needed<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed>
> *]"

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: faith

You're welcome.

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:52 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nice! That was, truly, a bizarre little screed. And although you don't
get credit for writing any of it, there is plenty of value in the
synthesis of others' ideas into something new. Congrats! Definitely
worthy of your troll status. ;-)

Douglas Roberts wrote at 09/27/2012 01:56 PM:

> It's a shame I stopped reading when I did on the wikipedia academic elitism

> link when I got to the nugget I was looking for, because *this* nugget is a

> real gem:
>
> "Some observers argue that, while academicians often perceive themselves as
> members of an elite, their influence is mostly imaginary: "Professors of
> humanities, with all their leftist fantasies, have little direct knowledge
> of American life and no impact whatever on public

> policy."[3]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_elitism#cite_note-2>

>
> Academic elitism suggests that in highly competitive academic environments
> only those individuals who have engaged in

> scholarship<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_method> are

> deemed to have anything worthwhile to say, or do. It suggests that
> individuals who have not engaged in such scholarship are

> cranks<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)>.

> Steven Zhang of the Cornell Daily

> Sun<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_Daily_Sun> has

> described the graduates of elite schools, especially those in the Ivy

> League<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League>,

> of having a "smug sense of success" because they believe "gaining entrance

> into the Ivy League is an accomplishment unto itself."[*citation
> needed<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed>
> *]"

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

1 ... 3456