Few of you ...
Locked
Re: Modeling 4chan: roles, topics, beliefs, strawman, anonymity, etc.
 
|
A story is imaginary or a reformulation of past experience. It's written down and static. A story has to fit together or else it is not a story, it is improvisation. A LEO would have to model the situation and estimate what risks she was prepared to take and to reconcile her job with her own values. A third situation would be the person that wants to visit different environments and develop the ability to navigate them, without regard to any underlying ideology or power structure behind that environment. Optionally, that person my retrospectively model the different experiences to find some unifying patterns.
On 1/28/19, 11:29 AM, "uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email]> wrote: I think so. It strikes me that committed actors try to authentically *be* the role, fill the role. I say this because they (in interviews and such) often use words like "bring humanity to the character" and "see the world from the character's perspective". They seem to do this *not* because they want to trick the audience (seemingly), but because they're acting like defense attorneys. Even the most horrible *person* deserves to be treated like a person. I suspect many/most (?) LEOs are pretending to be some person in order to *stop* that person from playing that role, whatever it is. The common trope is that an undercover LEO or spy might have to commit their own small crimes/sincerities in order to focus on the larger crimes/insincerities. A method actor would, I think, want to at least simulate the entire person, with no intention of *preventing* some aspects of the person from coming through. I think we can distinguish a spy whose purpose is to do something like "regime building" versus a spy whose intent is to, say, catch a mole. A spy who wants to, say, set/prop up a particular form of government, e.g. the Saudi Prince, would be more like the method actor and less like a LEO. On 1/28/19 10:18 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Is there an important difference between Stanislavski method acting and convincing insincerity? Similar skill set to vice cops and spies. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
I was struggling to find something to disagree with. 8^) But of course, I found it.
A story is not (purely) imaginary nor a (mere) reformulation of past experience. I think it's part-and-parcel of consciousness, whatever that is. We tell ourselves stories all the time, big and small ones. Is there a difference between a dynamic story and a static story? [Non]Linear stories? Multiple story tellers versus an omniscient third party narrator? Interactive versus passive? [†] Yes, of course. But they're still stories. [†] Bandersnatch was interesting: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9495224/ On 1/28/19 10:47 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > A story is imaginary or a reformulation of past experience. It's written down and static. A story has to fit together or else it is not a story, it is improvisation. A LEO would have to model the situation and estimate what risks she was prepared to take and to reconcile her job with her own values. A third situation would be the person that wants to visit different environments and develop the ability to navigate them, without regard to any underlying ideology or power structure behind that environment. Optionally, that person my retrospectively model the different experiences to find some unifying patterns. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Modeling 4chan: roles, topics, beliefs, strawman, anonymity, etc.
|
|
I would again make a distinction between private stories and public stories. I may delude myself, but I also have a set of experiences that are only mine and that I either could not or would not share. My self-stories (and dreams) are grounded in a way the stories I read are not. A fiction writer is trying to be entertaining, or at least sell books. An opinion writer is trying to persuade or manipulate. The actor's story comes from a script, and in that sense the it is static. A diary is distinct from these. There aren't the degrees of freedom available in a real life that are available to a writer inventing characters. Empathy one extracts from a story is not actually empathy, it is something that has been teed up for the reader.
On 1/28/19, 12:01 PM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: I was struggling to find something to disagree with. 8^) But of course, I found it. A story is not (purely) imaginary nor a (mere) reformulation of past experience. I think it's part-and-parcel of consciousness, whatever that is. We tell ourselves stories all the time, big and small ones. Is there a difference between a dynamic story and a static story? [Non]Linear stories? Multiple story tellers versus an omniscient third party narrator? Interactive versus passive? [†] Yes, of course. But they're still stories. [†] Bandersnatch was interesting: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9495224/ On 1/28/19 10:47 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > A story is imaginary or a reformulation of past experience. It's written down and static. A story has to fit together or else it is not a story, it is improvisation. A LEO would have to model the situation and estimate what risks she was prepared to take and to reconcile her job with her own values. A third situation would be the person that wants to visit different environments and develop the ability to navigate them, without regard to any underlying ideology or power structure behind that environment. Optionally, that person my retrospectively model the different experiences to find some unifying patterns. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
OK. Again, I don't think I disagree with (what I think) you're saying. But I am having trouble understanding why this is related to the difference between an undercover LEO versus a method actor. Are you willing to connect the dots more explicitly?
Although I agree with the gist of what you've said just below, I disagree with the (apparent) implication that an actor gets their story from *the* play/movie script. From what I've heard, an actor has to dig into their private, more grounded, stories in order to do a good job exhibiting the emotion the play/movie script (and the director in particular) need. Pile that ambiguity underneath the ambiguity that any good play/movie will *also* rely on the private stories inside the audience members. And that goes beyond merely ambiguous endings or director/theater cuts. It might lie in every inflection and movement of the actor(s). An actor *without* a backstory, more finely granulated, than that presented in the script alone, will likely give a flatter/2D performance. Even if (or especially because) the audience member can't "feel like"/empathize with the actor, they will likely have (or not) a "believability" or "suspension of disbelief" that percolates through the performance. On 1/28/19 12:40 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I would again make a distinction between private stories and public stories. I may delude myself, but I also have a set of experiences that are only mine and that I either could not or would not share. My self-stories (and dreams) are grounded in a way the stories I read are not. A fiction writer is trying to be entertaining, or at least sell books. An opinion writer is trying to persuade or manipulate. The actor's story comes from a script, and in that sense the it is static. A diary is distinct from these. There aren't the degrees of freedom available in a real life that are available to a writer inventing characters. Empathy one extracts from a story is not actually empathy, it is something that has been teed up for the reader. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Modeling 4chan: roles, topics, beliefs, strawman, anonymity, etc.
|
|
The "topic" is the content of the story, and there has to be some mutual understanding about it by the writer/director/actor/audience for it to mean anything. It seems like the potential importance of the "role" is to say some messages can't be communicated without an actor who is taken to be sincere. That's what I have a problem with.
On 1/28/19, 1:55 PM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: OK. Again, I don't think I disagree with (what I think) you're saying. But I am having trouble understanding why this is related to the difference between an undercover LEO versus a method actor. Are you willing to connect the dots more explicitly? Although I agree with the gist of what you've said just below, I disagree with the (apparent) implication that an actor gets their story from *the* play/movie script. From what I've heard, an actor has to dig into their private, more grounded, stories in order to do a good job exhibiting the emotion the play/movie script (and the director in particular) need. Pile that ambiguity underneath the ambiguity that any good play/movie will *also* rely on the private stories inside the audience members. And that goes beyond merely ambiguous endings or director/theater cuts. It might lie in every inflection and movement of the actor(s). An actor *without* a backstory, more finely granulated, than that presented in the script alone, will likely give a flatter/2D performance. Even if (or especially because) the audience member can't "feel like"/empathize with the actor, they will likely have (or not) a "believability" or "suspension of disbelief" that percolates through the performance. On 1/28/19 12:40 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I would again make a distinction between private stories and public stories. I may delude myself, but I also have a set of experiences that are only mine and that I either could not or would not share. My self-stories (and dreams) are grounded in a way the stories I read are not. A fiction writer is trying to be entertaining, or at least sell books. An opinion writer is trying to persuade or manipulate. The actor's story comes from a script, and in that sense the it is static. A diary is distinct from these. There aren't the degrees of freedom available in a real life that are available to a writer inventing characters. Empathy one extracts from a story is not actually empathy, it is something that has been teed up for the reader. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Aha! OK.
If we view stories as constrained in some way, then it's easy for me to agree with you. For example, if Little Red Riding Hood is only about wolves and people, then it really doesn't matter how well the story is acted. But if it's *also* a more occult story about trust and the wolf is a metaphor for some types of people, then it *does* matter how well it's acted. Sure, maybe the moral of that story is relatively obvious. But if we allow ≥ 2 layers for that story, we should probably allow N layers for any given story. Such complexity can be "unrolled" by being more explicit ... lots of dialog, lots of explaining characters thoughts, focus the camera on plot devices, etc. Or it can be *implied* with richly grounded acting. And the richer the acting, the more alternative inferences different audience members can make, whether they take the actor as sincere or not. The different layers will be differently sensitive to different audience members. Sure, maybe the main message comes through to everyone. But maybe layer_N only comes through to some tiny subculture (like staging various posters on the wall, or hand gestures, or whatever). Those not in the subculture would need that message to be unrolled for them. But further, I can continue to claim that roles are more expressive than topics because roles communicate the uncertainty/variation surrounding points of view that topics can only vaguely hint at. To me, this is why movie remakes are interesting ... and why different translations of the same fictions (e.g. https://www.npr.org/2019/01/14/684120470/after-24-years-scholar-completes-3-000-page-translation-of-the-hebrew-bible) are interesting. This is NOT to say that some messages can't be communicated without an apparently sincere vehicle. It's a meta-message about all the potential alternatives that vehicle *might* have taken. Awareness of that exploding graph of possibilities surrounding the story's particular ephemeris is what makes a story engrossing. On 1/28/19 1:05 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > The "topic" is the content of the story, and there has to be some mutual understanding about it by the writer/director/actor/audience for it to mean anything. It seems like the potential importance of the "role" is to say some messages can't be communicated without an actor who is taken to be sincere. That's what I have a problem with. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Modeling 4chan: roles, topics, beliefs, strawman, anonymity, etc.
|
|
Glen writes:
< But further, I can continue to claim that roles are more expressive than topics because roles communicate the uncertainty/variation surrounding points of view that topics can only vaguely hint at. > Or they can just be a distraction, like Elizabeth Warren showing that she drinks beer. If the actor creates a rich dictionary to bind the symbols of the story to, then that can add value. Other actors like Donald Trump only have the performance art, and no actual story. 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Hm. As shallow as I think Trump is, or as much as I think Warren is a gaming politician, I don't think any of it is (merely) a distraction. I'm rather fond of the concept of code switching (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code-switching) and it's extrapolation into other domains (e.g. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/). It would be a stretch to believe in the Freudian Slip. But such things do have meaning and can help understand deeper layerings of messages.
This is one of the reasons I'm saddened by the category of things that includes instant replay refereeing, hyper-realistic animated movies, deep fake videos, technically perfect guitar playing, etc. The very reasons I like Jimi Hendrix and Jimmy Page better than Joe Satriani (or even Stevie Ray Vaughn) are those little *errors* where the implementation doesn't quite match whatever "governing equations" you might infer they're trying to implement. The kerfuffle about the Saints' loss is a symptom of our being poised between the real and the fake. And to deny our political transition from newspaper/radio into TV, where any candidate must be somewhat telegenic would miss the social impacts of technology on politics (and every other social aspect of our lives). So, these are not distractions, at all. I'd claim they are indicators for deeper messages, waiting to be interpreted. On 1/28/19 1:57 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Or they can just be a distraction, like Elizabeth Warren showing that she drinks beer. If the actor creates a rich dictionary to bind the symbols of the story to, then that can add value. Other actors like Donald Trump only have the performance art, and no actual story. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Modeling 4chan: roles, topics, beliefs, strawman, anonymity, etc.
|
|
I think generative learning (e.g. for deep fake videos) could capture Hendrix or Page. Studying the deviations from the likely governing equations could be interesting (and probably could be quantified) but it also just could be some idiosyncratic bit of developmental history that means nothing. With governance, I want to get some evidence of the rough features of where they stand and how they are likely to act. I don't see it as relevant how they interact with their friends or their children because I am not looking for a friend or a parent. In technical conversations, I don't see it as necessary to pre-approve or seek pre-approval to segue from topic to topic -- to know the discussants role.
On 1/28/19, 4:04 PM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: Hm. As shallow as I think Trump is, or as much as I think Warren is a gaming politician, I don't think any of it is (merely) a distraction. I'm rather fond of the concept of code switching (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code-switching) and it's extrapolation into other domains (e.g. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/). It would be a stretch to believe in the Freudian Slip. But such things do have meaning and can help understand deeper layerings of messages. This is one of the reasons I'm saddened by the category of things that includes instant replay refereeing, hyper-realistic animated movies, deep fake videos, technically perfect guitar playing, etc. The very reasons I like Jimi Hendrix and Jimmy Page better than Joe Satriani (or even Stevie Ray Vaughn) are those little *errors* where the implementation doesn't quite match whatever "governing equations" you might infer they're trying to implement. The kerfuffle about the Saints' loss is a symptom of our being poised between the real and the fake. And to deny our political transition from newspaper/radio into TV, where any candidate must be somewhat telegenic would miss the social impacts of technology on politics (and every other social aspect of our lives). So, these are not distractions, at all. I'd claim they are indicators for deeper messages, waiting to be interpreted. On 1/28/19 1:57 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Or they can just be a distraction, like Elizabeth Warren showing that she drinks beer. If the actor creates a rich dictionary to bind the symbols of the story to, then that can add value. Other actors like Donald Trump only have the performance art, and no actual story. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Well, I agree completely about not requiring pre-approval for a segue. I go even further and don't see the need even for recognition that the transition has taken place. And I wouldn't know a segue if it hit me in the face.
With deep fakes and auditions for roles like political candidates or adoptable children, the question always boils down to how much of your time/energy do you pour into it. I always find diminishing returns quickly (being a dilettante). I recently saw some article on (I think) the Daily Beast about how photos of Trump seem to have been altered to make him look thinner and to lengthen his fingers. I got a couple of photos into the article and suddenly snapped out of it ... such a waste of time. I remember looking much closer at the questionable articles examining Obama's "long form birth certificate" ... with the supposed Word artifacts and such. But I also prettify JavaScript-based phishing attacks I get in the mail and unzip and read questionable PDF attachments. ... So, who knows? The recent "bomb threat" emails were *very* interesting, where you get a message saying there's a bomb in your office building and if you don't send bitcoin, they'll set it off. I can imagine that being pretty scary for someone who works in an office building (not me, of course). On 1/28/19 4:45 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I think generative learning (e.g. for deep fake videos) could capture Hendrix or Page. Studying the deviations from the likely governing equations could be interesting (and probably could be quantified) but it also just could be some idiosyncratic bit of developmental history that means nothing. With governance, I want to get some evidence of the rough features of where they stand and how they are likely to act. I don't see it as relevant how they interact with their friends or their children because I am not looking for a friend or a parent. In technical conversations, I don't see it as necessary to pre-approve or seek pre-approval to segue from topic to topic -- to know the discussants role. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Modeling 4chan: roles, topics, beliefs, strawman, anonymity, etc.
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Sigh...their are a bunch of things about this thread...I just can'tness 4Chan started as a buliten board a long time ago- as far as I know it's mostly Anonymous talk for the collectives: PhpSec and Anoynouse for sure. I think the other factions got booted off around 2012 or so for being to extreme even by their standards. LolSec for example had threatend peoples lifes wich while some in computer underground culture might think it'd be a good idea to beet the asterix star collon semi collon out of people..they were willing at one point to go their and got thrown out. Since then Anonymouse has (infamously ) grown from basically small interuptions to bring attention to social problems where the powers that be...litterally all over the world were ignoring. As of late 2017(?) or so when one of their top guys was assisnitated in france durring the Charlie Hepo (parden me that I haven't a clue how to spell in french) they've to sometime around 2018 taken on larger and larger targets. I think they took on ISIS(that one) ... Point being 4Chan isn't all that complicated. Carry on with what looks to be over thinking a simple topic though. On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 5:45 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: I think generative learning (e.g. for deep fake videos) could capture Hendrix or Page. Studying the deviations from the likely governing equations could be interesting (and probably could be quantified) but it also just could be some idiosyncratic bit of developmental history that means nothing. With governance, I want to get some evidence of the rough features of where they stand and how they are likely to act. I don't see it as relevant how they interact with their friends or their children because I am not looking for a friend or a parent. In technical conversations, I don't see it as necessary to pre-approve or seek pre-approval to segue from topic to topic -- to know the discussants role. ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: Modeling 4chan: roles, topics, beliefs, strawman, anonymity, etc.
|
|
< Carry on with what looks to be over thinking a simple topic though. > There are seven topics named in the subject line alone. And that’s before unfurling even one of them. (As much as I hate to argue for Glen’s position.) Marcus From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> Sigh...their are a bunch of things about this thread...I just can'tness 4Chan started as a buliten board a long time ago- as far as I know it's mostly Anonymous talk for the collectives: PhpSec and Anoynouse for sure. I think the other
factions got booted off around 2012 or so for being to extreme even by their standards. LolSec for example had threatend peoples lifes wich while some in computer underground culture might think it'd be a good idea to beet the asterix star collon semi collon
out of people..they were willing at one point to go their and got thrown out. Since then Anonymouse has (infamously ) grown from basically small interuptions to bring attention to social problems where the powers that be...litterally all over the world were ignoring. As of late 2017(?) or so when one of their top guys was assisnitated in france durring the Charlie Hepo (parden me that I haven't a clue how to spell in french) they've to sometime around 2018 taken on larger and larger targets. I think
they took on ISIS(that one) ... Point being 4Chan isn't all that complicated. Carry on with what looks to be over thinking a simple topic though. On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 5:45 PM Marcus Daniels <[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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: Modeling 4chan: roles, topics, beliefs, strawman, anonymity, etc.
|
|
Re: Wich Subject being a bit over thunk It was starting to look like 4Chan, Anyonymous and Anyonimity was. So me being me in a sassy just thought it'd be worth saying something mostly to rib that tendancy. But also to say uh you guys while smart look to be over thinking this one a lot. It's neet to see 4Chan as a rough template for thing though. On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:44 PM Marcus Daniels <[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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Yeah, it's a reasonable criticism. But, like the video I originally posted, it's too simplistic to paint the alt-right people (including Trump supporters) as trolls, jokers, anarchists, or lazy people living in their parents' basements. I posit there's a complex social systems problem to be solved (or at least worked on), particularly one suited to agent-based modeling.
To be honest, what originally sparked my interest about 10 years ago, came from my confusion around the term "hipster". I don't know where other people settled out in how they define it. But I believe it's fundamentally about irony. One of the key points mentioned in the video is the tendency for some dorks to test out some concept or phrase and dynamically customize their response according to how that concept/phrase is received. I've seen this first hand on Twitch. Some person will make a rape joke. If the other people in the channel condemn them for it, or the moderator bans them, the person will go one of two ways: 1) complain about the snowflakes in the channel or 2) apologize with "It was just a joke. I'm sorry." On the surface, one might wonder how someone might ever think that would work. My claim is along the same lines as why Trump seems to have so many personal sycophants, yet in public is an obvious buffoon. The interpersonal skills that work one-on-one or in small groups in meat space do NOT work in large groups or in virtual forums. Also mentioned in the video is the concept of maturing out of Stanislavski Opinions. Younger people, as they *learn* how to play well with others, may tend to "try on" opinions (or roles) to see how they fit ... kinda like wearing a hipster hat or jeans to a party. As they age, continue exploring the space of possible hats/roles, they converge into a diachronic narrative of their 'self', their identity. Further, at middle age, both women and men can face mid-life crises, empty nests, etc. where the identity upon which they've converged dissipates and they're left wondering: WTF? Seen this way, 4chan (and the like) might be a kind of annealing cauldron. Some plausible mechanisms for that cauldron are mentioned in the subject line. On 1/29/19 7:10 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote: > Re: Wich Subject being a bit over thunk > It was starting to look like 4Chan, Anyonymous and Anyonimity was. So me being me in a sassy just thought it'd be worth saying something mostly to rib that tendancy. But also to say uh you guys while smart look to be over thinking this one a lot. > It's neet to see 4Chan as a rough template for thing though. -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Modeling 4chan: roles, topics, beliefs, strawman, anonymity, etc.
|
|
Glen writes:
< Further, at middle age, both women and men can face mid-life crises, empty nests, etc. where the identity upon which they've converged dissipates and they're left wondering: WTF? > I don't really get the mid-life crisis thing. Maybe there is a mid-life modest heating event, I would like to think so. In the process of moving, we were going through our books, and could say in a matter-of-fact way and without regret say "We will never look at that again. Toss it." It's those poor younger people that still think they have a destination to get to! 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |