Friam

Fwd: Major bug called 'Heartbleed' exposes Internet data

Classic

List

Threaded

88 messages Options

12345

Nick Thompson

Re: Openness amplifies Inequality?

“But only so many family oriented' people will work 12-16 hour days.”

This would seem to be the key. All the value-problems in our society would seem to be summarized in this one assertion. If one grants that women are predisposed by physiology to be more tied to infants that men, and that infants become childen, and that a family is made up of infants and children and their parents, and perhaps grandparents, and that, therefore, on average, women are more likely to be family oriented then men, and that, on average, corporations don’t give a shit about the maintenance of families, THEN, on average, women will be paid less than men because, on average, women are less likely to put in 16 hour days (working, or LOOKING like they are working) than men. So if a manager stereotypes candidates for a raise, he or she is less likely to EXPECT 16 hour days from female employees than from male employees. This is not to say that when women do escape the attractors of childbearing and nursing, they are probably better at putting in 16 hour days as men. But if we are to get out of this mess, and if we believe families are important to human individual and collective well-being, we have to find a way to counter the perverse incentives that afflict corporate managers. I think I might start by making it a crime to work more than 8 hours a day or to suborn the working of more than 8 hours a day.

See you all tomorrow,

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 Roger Critchlow
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 3:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Openness amplifies Inequality?

So, what's the question here?

You think maybe that the predominance of straight white men in technology is innately right? That other genders and races aren't capable of doing the job, so all those white male losers and assholes that we have to deal with are objectively the best people for the jobs they hold?

Or are you thinking that maybe all those white male losers got their skills and jobs through some sort of structural inequity that tilted the competition in their favor? That a kind of in-group altruism is operating here, where white men give each other a pass while agreeing to allow the jerks among them to beat up the women, persons of color, and non-normative gender identities so those uppity not male, not white, not straight competitors have to wade through piles of shit that straight white men never meet?

If you grant that the competition has been tilted in the past and is still tilted the present, by whatever mysterious mechanisms there might be that help some while hindering others, then it's hard to argue that the same mysterious mechanisms won't find their way into the future.

-- rec --

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Astra Taylor writes:

``Those women who do fight their way into the industry often end up
leaving -- their attrition rate is 56%, or double that of men -- and
sexism is a big part of what pushes them out. “I no longer touch code
because I couldn't deal with the constant dismissing and undermining of
even my most basic work by the ‘brogramming’ gulag I worked for,” wrote
one woman in a roundup of answers to the question: Why there are so few
female engineers?''

Women form cliques too. I'm all for prohibiting all of this (coalition
formation and politics) from the work place, but that's not likely to
happen. Make it as taboo as sexual harassment. Some people believe
that this is all part of what gives a team good morale and
communication. I think that's nonsense. A good team is made of people
that are engaged in the technical work, and not each other.

My experience is that, in the world of software engineering, women are
often easier to work with then men. Often they have better listening
skills and better impulse control -- and so there is less of the Not
Invented Here syndrome which plagues so many projects. But only so many
`family oriented' people will work 12-16 hour days.

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

Steve Smith

Re: Openness amplifies Inequality?

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

Roger -

So, what's the question here?

The original (implicit) question was *does* Openness amplify Inequality as a matter of course?

My elaborated question in light of both yours and Marcus' response is what the balance might be between:

A specific "conspiracy" by (straight?) white males to exclude all others from this profession (or access to any desirable resources?).
A less specific "conspiracy" by *any* dominant group to exclude all others from access to desirable resources.
A specific structural (in phase space) feature of this profession as a dynamic system which selects for homogeneity of membership and therefore access to certain desirable resources.
A general feature of a more general class of systems of which a profession such as this is likely to tend toward homogeneity.

Simply put, I think it may be a truism that "dominance begets dominance" rather than white-male-straightness is fundamentally hinky?

On the other hand, I think it *is* arguable that both maleness and straightness may select for specific behaviors (forms of aggression/competition?) that might actually aggravate/accelerate this dynamic at least in comparison to many (some average of) females and/or homosexual males.

I'm not as sure about whiteness (melanin content of skin?) though there may be a positive correlation between social groups which evolved in harsher climates with long periods of low productivity (winter) punctuated with shorter periods of high productivity and strategies for controlling the resulting resources effectively. This seems to be broadly correlated with the evolution of more northern peoples which seems also to select for lowered melanin in the skin.

I don't think it is unique to heterosexuals, nor men, nor white people to exhibit in-group altruism as you suggest or a familiarity-selfishness as Marcus riposted with. I only question whether this is unique to the impugned group. I make a weak argument above, I think that said group may be more capable or even inclined to such, but it doesn't seem to be a simple black and white matter.

That said, *as* a member of said group by circumstance, I *am* interested in understanding what kind of a system (social?) could be implemented/engaged-in which would not reinforce those qualities. It is accepted that as a member of said group (in our culture) that I have benefited from all of this, and I think I can find many ways in which I specifically *do*, although I can also find examples where I personally got the proverbial "short end" of this and that, so I am not without experience with "short ends", for whatever that is worth.

- Steve

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Openness amplifies Inequality?

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 16:22 -0600, Nick Thompson wrote:

> But if we are to get out of this mess, and if we believe families are
> important to human individual and collective well-being, we have to
> find a way to counter the perverse incentives that afflict corporate
> managers.

IMO, lurking in their minds is: What is this employee's absolute
priority? Is it the bottom line of the company or is it taking their
kids to school and helping with their homework and building treehouses?
What will be the employee's top priority on a day to day basis? If I
am cost constrained, who should I choose? Who is loyal to me? Who is
predictable and reliable?

Now it is possible that smarter or more productive employees can change
the rules of their priority list and still get more done than the person
putting in the hours, but I think that is the exception.

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

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: Openness amplifies Inequality?

On Apr 10, 2014, at 5:51 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 16:22 -0600, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> IMO, lurking in their minds is: What is this employee's absolute
> priority? Is it the bottom line of the company or is it taking their
> kids to school and helping with their homework and building treehouses?
> What will be the employee's top priority on a day to day basis? If I
> am cost constrained, who should I choose? Who is loyal to me? Who is
> predictable and reliable?

A very North American (and simply human, I suspect) perspective. I don’t have personal experience, but I believe the more “advanced” democracies of the world have recognized this tendency and legislated to regulate it. I do remember on one job where we worked in conjunction with folks in Germany, and I learned that employers were much more constrained in how many hours they were allowed to require. I’m uncertain as to what is the “best” balance between employers’ and workers’ rights.
============================================================
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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Openness amplifies Inequality?

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 16:38 -0600, Steve Smith wrote:

> The original (implicit) question was *does* Openness amplify
> Inequality as a matter of course?

Reading over the essay again, all she seems to notice are abusive
misogynistic trolls. I guess if they could be compartmentalized and
kept from seeing the evidence of each others fine work that would be
more like equality? Can't we just promise to make examples out of a few
of them from time to time and call it good?

I guess it depends whether you really care about norms in the larger
population, or whether you have the assumption that most of life (esp.
now) involves about filtering out the noise to find the signal, and that
it won't always be easy to find.

The opportunities for working in tech are way, way better now than when
I was a kid. Today a young person has at their disposal hundreds of
millions of lines of free source code to learn from, improve, and
exploit, and direct ways to engage with the companies that maintain that
code. Yes, there are still big distinctions between the haves and the
have nots, but there are more ways to move up. That's way more
interesting than worrying about the cretins that Ms. Taylor has
observed.

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

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: Openness amplifies Inequality?

In reply to this post by Gary Schiltz-4

In Iceland woman make more than men (working part-time); the gap is only 2.5% in Slovenia. Women are not equally represented in some of the highest paying professions, which accounts for much of the difference

Women lost their equal work status 10,000 years ago when the plow was invented. This is a complicated issue. It will take time.

I'm sure you guys can figure it out.

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Gary Schiltz <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Apr 10, 2014, at 5:51 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 16:22 -0600, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> IMO, lurking in their minds is: What is this employee's absolute
> priority? Is it the bottom line of the company or is it taking their
> kids to school and helping with their homework and building treehouses?
> What will be the employee's top priority on a day to day basis? If I
> am cost constrained, who should I choose? Who is loyal to me? Who is
> predictable and reliable?

A very North American (and simply human, I suspect) perspective. I don’t have personal experience, but I believe the more “advanced” democracies of the world have recognized this tendency and legislated to regulate it. I do remember on one job where we worked in conjunction with folks in Germany, and I learned that employers were much more constrained in how many hours they were allowed to require. I’m uncertain as to what is the “best” balance between employers’ and workers’ rights.

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

--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
[hidden email]
mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merlelefkoff

Steve Smith

Re: Openness amplifies Inequality?

On 4/10/14 10:47 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:

Women lost their equal work status 10,000 years ago when the plow was invented. This is a complicated issue. It will take time.

I actually own a primitive plow (more appropriately known as an Ard) which my wife and I used in our garden for a (very) short time. Despite my wife being no slouch physically, mentally nor emotionally, it *always* worked better when I was harnessed up to pull the ard and she managed the guiding of the path and depth of the (wooden) share rather than vice-versa. If we were being paid for this work according to it's utility it would be a very low rate and I think her task would be more valuable since in principle I could (and should) be replaced by a stronger and more tireless beast.

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Openness amplifies Inequality?

In reply to this post by Gary Schiltz-4

On 4/10/14, 5:09 PM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
> A very North American (and simply human, I suspect) perspective. I
> don’t have personal experience, but I believe the more “advanced”
> democracies of the world have recognized this tendency and legislated
> to regulate it.
To actually regulate it, it would be necessary to take steps to stop
work off hours. For abstract activities like software development that
is close to impossible. There's always a way to do more work than the
other guy by putting in more effort. Anyway, what's with this
heavy-handed regulation? Why is investing in children/family any more
valuable than investing in work? It's a planet running out of natural
resources, after all.

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

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: Openness amplifies Inequality?

Actually, I was thinking more specifically of the regulation from the employers’ side, i.e. limiting the ability to *require* employees to work more. I’m not necessarily advocating for more or less regulation, just pointing out that some countries have at least attempted to regulate the process. Maybe labor laws were more important in the early 20th century as the industrial revolution was getting in full swing. Or not :-)

On Apr 11, 2014, at 8:48 AM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 4/10/14, 5:09 PM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
>> A very North American (and simply human, I suspect) perspective. I don’t have personal experience, but I believe the more “advanced” democracies of the world have recognized this tendency and legislated to regulate it.
> To actually regulate it, it would be necessary to take steps to stop work off hours. For abstract activities like software development that is close to impossible. There's always a way to do more work than the other guy by putting in more effort. Anyway, what's with this heavy-handed regulation? Why is investing in children/family any more valuable than investing in work? It's a planet running out of natural resources, after all.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: Openness amplifies Inequality?

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Ah, visualize the scene: Steve pulling the plow, singing "I'll never be your beast of burden” and his wife behind with the whip, shouting “More work, less singing!” :-)

On Apr 11, 2014, at 12:07 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 4/10/14 10:47 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
>>
>> Women lost their equal work status 10,000 years ago when the plow was invented. This is a complicated issue. It will take time.
> I actually own a primitive plow (more appropriately known as an Ard) which my wife and I used in our garden for a (very) short time. Despite my wife being no slouch physically, mentally nor emotionally, it *always* worked better when I was harnessed up to pull the ard and she managed the guiding of the path and depth of the (wooden) share rather than vice-versa. If we were being paid for this work according to it's utility it would be a very low rate and I think her task would be more valuable since in principle I could (and should) be replaced by a stronger and more tireless beast.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

Beast of Burden

Gary -
> Ah, visualize the scene: Steve pulling the plow, singing "I'll never be your beast of burden” and his wife behind with the whip, shouting “More work, less singing!” :-)
It is strange how many classic rock lyrics I mismapped at an early
age. I always heard this one as "I want to be your beast of burden"!

Yearning to return to the Garden of Eden, aka "En da Gadda da Vida!"
- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: Beast of Burden

On Apr 11, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Gary -
>> Ah, visualize the scene: Steve pulling the plow, singing "I'll never be your beast of burden” and his wife behind with the whip, shouting “More work, less singing!” :-)
> It is strange how many classic rock lyrics I mismapped at an early age. I always heard this one as "I want to be your beast of burden"!
>
> Yearning to return to the Garden of Eden, aka "En da Gadda da Vida!"
> - Steve
And I always thought Credence Clearwater Revival was singing “there’s a bathroom on the right.” [bad moon on the rise]. Less classic rock, but still apropos to the discussion (yeah, right!), is Tom Waits' “Get Behind the Mule (in the Morning and Plow)”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue5eM2q3rOI.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

Re: Beast of Burden

Gary -

You know me too well (despite having never met):

Tom Waits' “Get Behind the Mule (in the Morning and Plow)”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue5eM2q3rOI.

Tom Waits might be my muse or maybe my guru...

Apropos of the plow theme:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fju9o8BVJ8

On the topic of religion:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5X4N2exOsU

And tucking my kids in at night!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7TvKXt2s4

My wife's typographical take on my many un(der)funded projects:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEIm9pxr5_E

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Nick Thompson

Re: Openness amplifies Inequality?

In reply to this post by Merle Lefkoff-2

Merle,

I am sure we CAN’T figure it out without your help as a “emergentist”. The damage done by discrimination is a great example of non-zero-sum losses. The problem is similar to the problem of inequality of opportunity generally. The attractor is for the children of better-off people to be better-off and for better-off children to become better-off adults and have better-off children. As an example I give you the Wood-Gormely [elementary] school here in Santa Fe, which has a richer educational program because the parents throw resources and time at it. And, I assume, simply because it has an aura of a place where Parents give a damn. Thus, despite being a Public School, it becomes by virtue of these investments of time and resources and energy, a “better” public school. To deprive all parents of the possibility of investing in the school their kid goes to is to deprive all schools of something essential; but the possibility of such investment leads inevitably to the genealogical flow of social benefits. Which is why we have to revive the notion of social Democracy in this poor sad country of ours.

FRIAMMERS could be crucial to such a discussion, if only by virtue of having the conceptual tool of the “attractor” at our disposal. In complexity terms, what is it that social democracies do? Is it basin filling?

Take care,

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 Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 10:48 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Openness amplifies Inequality?

Women lost their equal work status 10,000 years ago when the plow was invented. This is a complicated issue. It will take time.

I'm sure you guys can figure it out.

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Gary Schiltz <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Apr 10, 2014, at 5:51 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 16:22 -0600, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> IMO, lurking in their minds is: What is this employee's absolute
> priority? Is it the bottom line of the company or is it taking their
> kids to school and helping with their homework and building treehouses?
> What will be the employee's top priority on a day to day basis? If I
> am cost constrained, who should I choose? Who is loyal to me? Who is
> predictable and reliable?

A very North American (and simply human, I suspect) perspective. I don’t have personal experience, but I believe the more “advanced” democracies of the world have recognized this tendency and legislated to regulate it. I do remember on one job where we worked in conjunction with folks in Germany, and I learned that employers were much more constrained in how many hours they were allowed to require. I’m uncertain as to what is the “best” balance between employers’ and workers’ rights.
============================================================
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

--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
[hidden email]
mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merlelefkoff

Steve Smith

Re: Openness amplifies Inequality?

Nick -

Merle,

I am sure we CAN’T figure it out without your help as a “emergentist”. The damage done by discrimination is a great example of non-zero-sum losses. The problem is similar to the problem of inequality of opportunity generally. The attractor is for the children of better-off people to be better-off and for better-off children to become better-off adults and have better-off children. As an example I give you the Wood-Gormely [elementary] school here in Santa Fe, which has a richer educational program because the parents throw resources and time at it. And, I assume, simply because it has an aura of a place where Parents give a damn. Thus, despite being a Public School, it becomes by virtue of these investments of time and resources and energy, a “better” public school. To deprive all parents of the possibility of investing in the school their kid goes to is to deprive all schools of something essential; but the possibility of such investment leads inevitably to the genealogical flow of social benefits. Which is why we have to revive the notion of social Democracy in this poor sad country of ours.

FRIAMMERS could be crucial to such a discussion, if only by virtue of having the conceptual tool of the “attractor” at our disposal. In complexity terms, what is it that social democracies do? Is it basin filling?

And "preferential attachment" and "canalization" and "coevolution on fitness landscapes", et cetera...

I was impressed that the original author in question, Astra Taylor even *referenced* complexity science topics. I'm not of the belief that sprinkling complexity science terms onto a problem will magically remove it's stains, BUT I do believe that many real-world, everyday challenges in the world *can be* and often *must be* modeled as the non-linear systems that they are, rather than fitting them to a simple linear system, then drawing totally undermotivated and usually bogus conclusions based on those models.

When usually we hear "the Rich get Richer", it rings our bell of unfairness and abuse of power rather than being accepted as a truism about positive feedback (even in linear systems) and preferential attachment and canalization...

While the rhetoric of equality politics may have been critical to break over from the old cultural hegemony into a new basin of attraction, I don't think that the challenge remains making the point that "power corrupts" over and over again, but rather seeking a dynamic which has the properties we (think that?) we desire. "Be careful what you wish for" being an entirely other question, I fear.

Vonnegut's short story "Harrison Bergeron" is a cautionary tale of one ultimate consequence of linear, brute force attempts at achieving "equality".

"You Don't Always Get What You Want" - Stones

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

glen ropella

Re: Openness amplifies Inequality?

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

On 04/10/2014 04:31 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> Yes, there are still big distinctions between the haves and the
> have nots, but there are more ways to move up. That's way more
> interesting than worrying about the cretins that Ms. Taylor has
> observed.

We've been here before:

Re: using openness as a tool for opacity
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2013-October/020821.html

While I agree that openness increases the kind and degree of
opportunities to "move up" (or move in, out, down, and through), I
maintain that openness allows for _more_ exploitation by the "haves" of
the "have nots". The increase in opportunities simply changes the
landscape (another buzzword I hate but can't avoid).

We can analogize with the industrial revolution. Instead of being
exploited by wealthy landowners with good blood, the serfs in the newly
formed US were exploited by clever tricksters who knew how to "move up"
and then game the system so that they "stayed up" ... they even engaged
in sophisticated propoganda schemes like donating money to construct
libraries and such for the "public good".

The asymmetries being amplified by our new openness are simply different
from those that dominated before the openness. Our new masters will be
(are, actually) people like the brogrammers ... people like Musk and
Schmidt. And it's not really money that the "haves" have... it's the
agility (and other salient attributes) to manipulate the new social
manifold.

Overall, openness is used by the morally corrupt contingent of these
tricksters to achieve and maintain hegemony ... or simply to engage in
perverse behavior:
http://www.cultofmac.com/157641/this-creepy-app-isnt-just-stalking-women-without-their-knowledge-its-a-wake-up-call-about-facebook-privacy/

--
⇒⇐ 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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Openness amplifies Inequality?

On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 09:50 -0700, glen wrote:
> The asymmetries being amplified by our new openness are simply
> different from those that dominated before the openness. Our new
> masters will be (are, actually) people like the brogrammers ... people
> like Musk and Schmidt. And it's not really money that the "haves"
> have... it's the agility (and other salient attributes) to manipulate
> the new social manifold.

What is the alternative?

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

Steve Smith

Re: Openness amplifies Inequality?

Glen -

Well intuited/analyzed/stated as always!

> On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 09:50 -0700, glen wrote:
>> The asymmetries being amplified by our new openness are simply
>> different from those that dominated before the openness. Our new
>> masters will be (are, actually) people like the brogrammers ... people
>> like Musk and Schmidt. And it's not really money that the "haves"
>> have... it's the agility (and other salient attributes) to manipulate
>> the new social manifold.
> What is the alternative?
>
> Marcus

And yes, this is what I'm asking this august body to consider... are
there alternatives?

Are our only options extremes such as all rushing headlong to become the
new "robber barons" ourselves, based on your (possible) ability/agility
to manipulate said "new social manifold" (great term by the way, unless
it is just another way avoiding saying "landscape";) or taking the
oppressive route as told in Vonnegut's tale of imposed social equality
through handicapping everyone down to a least common denominator.

Perhaps it is the question of the commons where the commons is Glen's
"new social manifold". Can we in any way apply our presumed
"enlightened self interest" to the shaping of said commons or restating
the above? Bending dangerously the "landscape metaphor, do we just
carve huge moguls in it with our rambunctious race to the bottom,
exposing rocks and other hazards thereby undermining the experience of
all others on the slopes except the most keenly facile? Or do we take
an army of bulldozers to the slopes and make a flat plain of them to be
enjoyed by all equally with no advantage proffered to diversity of
circumstance and ability?

"Hey McCloud, get offa my Ewe!" - not the Stones

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

glen ropella

Re: Openness amplifies Inequality?

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

On 04/11/2014 10:07 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 09:50 -0700, glen wrote:
>> And it's not really money that the "haves"
>> have... it's the agility (and other salient attributes) to manipulate
>> the new social manifold.
>
> What is the alternative?

Well, they come in 2 categories:

1) regressive - go back to things like royalty or landedness, or
2) experiment and analyze for the types of manifolds that lead to
more/good symmetry, then support those.

Lumping all of (2) into "oh well, we just have to live with it" seems a
bit defeatist. And claiming that _all_ openness is always a good thing
seems a bit naive, as well. Admitting that some types of openness
amplify undesirable asymmetries (including security through obscurity)
seems to me like a progressive step forward.

--
⇒⇐ 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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Openness amplifies Inequality?

On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 10:26 -0700, glen wrote:

> 2) experiment and analyze for the types of manifolds that lead to
> more/good symmetry, then support those.

Symmetry of what? What is an example of such a manifold?

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

12345