Graal VM
Locked
12
12
 
|
Glen writes:
< Well, it's not really the curation of triggers that you raise. You're raising the curation of possible actions/bins the trigger disambiguates. > Sure. And if the action gets you killed, the tail recursion is avoided! ( run(Env) :- trigger(Env), action(Env,NewEnv), run(newEnv). run(Env) :- \+trigger(Env), run(Env). Tiny holes!!!! 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 |
|
I don't think I believe in desensitization theory. But I do believe in practice makes perfect ... aka indoctrination. When I was trying to eat fewer animals before being diagnosed with lymphoma, I embarked on a long indoctrination to eat beets every time it was offered on the menu of whatever restaurant I was at. I still hate beets. But I can, now, converse coherently with those of us weird enough to, for whatever bizarre reason, eat them. Maybe one day I'll do the same with kiwi fruit ... and maybe I'll host a beehive ... or start collecting wasp nests. heebeeheebeeheebee
On 2/21/20 11:47 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Sure. And if the action gets you killed, the tail recursion is avoided! ( > > run(Env) :- trigger(Env), action(Env,NewEnv), run(newEnv). > run(Env) :- \+trigger(Env), run(Env). > > Tiny holes!!!! -- ☣ 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
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Steve writes:
< I am also interested in what an everyday interpretation of Quantum Superposition might be when applied to collective knowledge/consciousness/decision-making. My recurrent harping on ranked-choice voting is a very thin appeal in that direction... a reduction/projection/collapse of these more esoteric idea(l)s into something more practical/pedestrian? > In an imperative computer program, people often think of uninitialized variables as defaulting to zero or some random bad state. A better way to think of them is as free variables that will take on all possible values for their type. Figuring out which value is best (or worst), for some purpose, is a search problem. For classical computers this will be exponentially expensive with the number of variables. < Dave is less specific about the qualities of these substances/experiences and *how* they improve Quality of Life, but I think it is fair to say he endorses them (with various qualifications). I've not read Michael Pollan's "How to Change your Mind", but I have read Oliver Sacks widely including notably "Hallucinations" which does make a case for the value of psychoactive drugs and other hallucination-inducing experiences. > Taking a hallucinogenic might be one way to move in `brain configuration space' with much bigger steps than could be accomplished by learning or therapy. This might be appealing if one suspected that the mental health space was bumpy but pretty flat and yet connected in surprising ways. Say, that preconceived notions of happiness or satisfaction were inadequate to capture the breadth of possible experience. What are the criteria that should go into a multi-criterion optimization anyway -- maybe it only looks flat and bumpy because impoverished objectives makes it look that way? It is not clear that moving around in a space is especially enriching (I would say that about travel to some extent) but it could be informative as to what kinds of depth might be interesting. 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen -
> Hm. I must have dropped the ball, here. I'm talking about a) being *aware* of one's triggers and b) where there are none, *installing* them. You're talking about triggering the way the right wingers talk about it ... as if it's a bad thing. My point in arguing with Steve's position is that reduction, triggering is a Good Thing. Maybe it's a Kierkegaardian argument. IANAP (I am not a philosopher. >8^) thanks for reminding me (on of my) part of the larger argument. I am not adept enough in my own argument here to provide a good balance between the modes of annealing we are discussing. I practice (all the time) collapsing the superposition of complex possibles into specific, direct action, I guess it is called "life is what happens while making other plans"?. Sometimes I'm (self) aware of that (making decisions/responding) and sometimes not (triggered/reacting?). Somewhere in between is the "chip on the shoulder" metaphor, where I might deliberately set a trigger/trap/chip to be triggered/snapped/knocked-off as a way to force myself to make decisions and/or relieve myself from the responsibility of those decisions. I'm surprised (but welcome more introspection) that you would prescribe *installing triggers* in the light of your proscription against *premature binding* in general. I'm sure there are plenty of nuances I'm missing here. > EI isn't about diminishing triggers ... or it shouldn't be, anyway. It should be about being aware of triggers, both yours and others'. The righties' PC problems reflect their trigger-awareness *disability*. It's just too difficult for them to keep track of what pronoun you want others to use ... or whether we have to put stalls around every toilet ... or why can't blatant Nazi's spout their hatred in the square without being ridiculed themselves. > > But you don't need to launch into a pompous lecture about EI in order to get people to think reflectively about themselves and others. People have been thinking reflectively for 10,000 years. I'd also be interested in more reflection on the qualitative difference between self-reflection and emotional intelligence? Is the latter anything more than "pompous" name for self-reflection? Or is it a particular quality or mode OF self-reflection? I will admit to not having a specific understanding/definition of the term, and suspecting that our (half?) generational difference means that this (like a lot of pop) terminology means something different to you than to me (see discussion of basis spaces from recent threads?). > The self-detection of vague things like degraded performance, insular thinking, etc. *is* about defining and installing particular and specific triggers. That's what I've been trying to claim, however incompetently. I can't attest to your (in)competence in this, but it does feel like I'm starting to get it, though I'm not clear on the nuances of what you mean by installing specific triggers. Roughly maybe, but I think an example or two might help? - 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Dewd!
> I suspect I have trypophobia <https://www.google.com/search?q=trypophobia&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6wPbzsOPnAhXVsJ4KHfiIDusQ_AUoAXoECBEQAw&biw=1489&bih=861>. But having a *name* for the trigger helps me a lot, even if I can't help that my heart races and I start sweating when I look at that set of google images. I can't say that I go into cold sweats with this imagery but it does trigger some very visceral (and strangely ambiValent) reaction... my instinct is to suggest that this particular "phobia" is broader/deeper than any one person or set of experiences or cultural embeddings. This particular suite of images/subjects seems to include A) fruiting-body-seeds erupting; B) insect hives; C) skin eruptions/disease. A) seems pretty benign but B) and C) would seem to have some survival value in aversion. "don't go kicking a hive" and "keep your distance from bad rash/hive/spongiform-skin-conditions because it might be catching". I am *drawn* to A) but B) and C) cause more tension with a certain fascination/revulsion. I wonder if this correlates in any way with more "social/cultural" triggers. Having been raised in the West by parents who left the hills of Appalachia after WWII, I still can't hear an Applachian drawl (and the many variants of "southern" from TX to FL to VA) without thinking "ignorant", even though most of my relatives are relatively well educated and not (always) as parochial/provincial as the stereotypes might imply. I know others who romanticize the "southern accent" even (especially?) if they don't "hail from those parts, y'all". <shudder> - 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
On 2/21/20 1:10 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > I'm surprised (but welcome more introspection) that you would prescribe > *installing triggers* in the light of your proscription against > *premature binding* in general. I'm sure there are plenty of nuances > I'm missing here. That's a good point. I suppose I should distinguish between an installed trigger and a pre-existing one. My guess is their persistence differs. A pre-existing one (installed "naturally", genetics or non-conscious learning) is likely to persist longer than a purposefully installed one. I'm sure there are other ways to distinguish. E.g. authenticity, "false humility", etc. And we can say the same thing about semantic binding. An artificially installed binding will be weaker and less likely to persist than one that "grew organically" or was defined in one's genes. But neither need be _premature_. For example, someone who comes to believe they drink too much alcohol might install a trigger like "when I get home from work" (paired with an action like "make tea instead of opening a bottle of wine"). They may do that prematurely or it may well be totally appropriate. Most people might say if that person has never had more than 1 glass of wine after work, then such a trigger is installed prematurely because that's not really an alcohol problem. But if the person always drinks the whole bottle after opening it, then that trigger installation isn't premature. (Yes, I'm aware that the "therapists" claim alcoholics already have occult triggers that they need to discover and think about ... but I'm skeptical of their claims. And, in any case, the difference between "recognition" and "learning" is a bit of a sophism.) The discussion of "habituation" talks a little about semantic binding and when binding might or might not be premature. So, that's fairly well handled already. > I'd also be interested in more reflection on the qualitative difference > between self-reflection and emotional intelligence? Is the latter > anything more than "pompous" name for self-reflection? Or is it a > particular quality or mode OF self-reflection? I will admit to not > having a specific understanding/definition of the term, and suspecting > that our (half?) generational difference means that this (like a lot of > pop) terminology means something different to you than to me (see > discussion of basis spaces from recent threads?). I'm too ignorant to really treat this properly. But my point (esp. in using the words "lecture" and "pompous") was along the same lines of what Rebecca (skepchick) was saying about figuring out Dawkins is wrong about eugenics. There are 2 ways to tell someone that Dawkins is wrong: 1) launch into a full graduate degree lecture series of genetics and selective breeding vs. 2) identify the critical points and place them in an example a "normal" will understand, like the cocker spaniel. I.e. you don't need to understand genetics to know Dawkins is wrong. Similarly, you don't need to know anything about "emotional intelligence" to understand triggers and to know that your grandma has triggers just like that emo teen hanging out at the 7-eleven. > I can't attest to your (in)competence in this, but it does feel like I'm > starting to get it, though I'm not clear on the nuances of what you mean > by installing specific triggers. Roughly maybe, but I think an example > or two might help? By asking for more examples, it seems the original one (Ellison's Trump support) isn't meaningful for you? Another example might be learning that your organization accepted money from a convicted sex offender like Epstein. These are triggers for some people. They'd trigger me, too. And I seriously *wonder* about those who are *not* triggered by such. If being funded by a sex offender does *not* trigger someone, then I'd suggest they install such a trigger ASAP. 8^) For example, Steven Pinker didn't *seem* to have a pre-existing trigger. But lots of people *told* him he should be at least a little bit ashamed. So, my advice to Pinker would be that he install a trigger ... something like "When Alan Dershowitz asks your professional opinion on something, anything ...". That's a trigger Pinker might want to install. -- ☣ 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
|
|
|
Glen writes:
< By asking for more examples, it seems the original one (Ellison's Trump support) isn't meaningful for you? Another example might be learning that your organization accepted money from a convicted sex offender like Epstein. These are triggers for some people. They'd trigger me, too. > A reason I can see for avoiding a term like EI is because others might not have a binding for it, or there are too many different bindings observed for it. And, specifically, that it is "pompous" to use the term if it is expected there is no binding -- a way to bully the conversation in some direction putting the other party at a disadvantage. But it is hypocritical if one turns around and assumes there are shared values and that we should or do all have them. This is arguing in bad faith because some values are assumed to be mandatory and other optional, rather than all things being optional. 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen -
>> I'm surprised (but welcome more introspection) that you would prescribe >> *installing triggers* in the light of your proscription against >> *premature binding* in general. I'm sure there are plenty of nuances >> I'm missing here. > That's a good point. I suppose I should distinguish between an installed trigger and a pre-existing one. My guess is their persistence differs. A pre-existing one (installed "naturally", genetics or non-conscious learning) is likely to persist longer than a purposefully installed one. I'm sure there are other ways to distinguish. E.g. authenticity, "false humility", etc. > > And we can say the same thing about semantic binding. An artificially installed binding will be weaker and less likely to persist than one that "grew organically" or was defined in one's genes. Thanks for the disambiguation... in my vocabulary/experience I think what you are calling "installed triggers" are what I call "heuristics", though in any other audience THAT might be considered pompous in one of the ways Marcus indicates? I *do* have the experience of *choosing* to behave or respond in one way or another. My own connotation of "trigger" I suppose is that it becomes a "reaction" rather than a "response" and in fact some "heuristic" I might adopt (like when I became a vegetarian in my teens? or decided that off-color jokes i thought were funny should rarely if ever be shared, even in the locker room environments that bred them) will eventually become (habituation?) a trigger in it's own right, eliciting a *reaction*, not a *response* anymore. As a fairly naive person most of my life, my self-awareness didn't extend to "triggers" as I understand them today. In fact it is only the last decade that I feel the term has come into wide use and come to have other than a clinical meaning? As a naive person, I recognized *others* seemingly uncontrollable, automatic reactions to things, but not so easily or often my own. And with that came a judgment (by me) that *their* "triggers" were a consequence of some kind of ignorance or ill-breeding or more often were *deliberate* expressions of (another pop psych term I had to learn) "passive aggression". Maybe it is an example of your "installed trigger" that I suppress that judgement and try to give more benefit of the doubt, let things play out a little further? >> I'd also be interested in more reflection on the qualitative difference >> between self-reflection and emotional intelligence? Is the latter >> anything more than "pompous" name for self-reflection? Or is it a >> particular quality or mode OF self-reflection? I will admit to not >> having a specific understanding/definition of the term, and suspecting >> that our (half?) generational difference means that this (like a lot of >> pop) terminology means something different to you than to me (see >> discussion of basis spaces from recent threads?). > I'm too ignorant to really treat this properly. But my point (esp. in using the words "lecture" and "pompous") was along the same lines of what Rebecca (skepchick) was saying about figuring out Dawkins is wrong about eugenics. There are 2 ways to tell someone that Dawkins is wrong: 1) launch into a full graduate degree lecture series of genetics and selective breeding vs. 2) identify the critical points and place them in an example a "normal" will understand, like the cocker spaniel. I will acknowledge that you are particularly good at 2) in this forum and I value it, even if my attempts to learn from it feel futile sometimes. > >> I can't attest to your (in)competence in this, but it does feel like I'm >> starting to get it, though I'm not clear on the nuances of what you mean >> by installing specific triggers. Roughly maybe, but I think an example >> or two might help? > By asking for more examples, it seems the original one (Ellison's Trump support) isn't meaningful for you? No... that is not the point of asking for more examples. It is seeking parallax on the concept of "installed triggers" vs "organic triggers?". Fortunately your earlier explanation sufficed, but these additional examples are still helpful for more fidelity. It really is a matter of fitting yet more data points registered in YOUR basis space to my own. In this case your *language* more than your *values*. That is a whole other discussion we have bopped in and out of here which I would like to see explored more. I think Marcus referred to it as "dimensional analysis" recently. Language and Values may not be the only two subspaces in human experience which have strong correlations but seem also to *suffer* when arbitrarily *conflated*. I'm wondering if this isn't responsive/reflective of this discussion about installed vs organic triggers? - 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
On 2/22/20 8:33 AM, Steven A Smith wrote: > Thanks for the disambiguation... in my vocabulary/experience I think > what you are calling "installed triggers" are what I call "heuristics", Well, for me, a heuristic is an *action* not a trigger. It's a response to a trigger. A trigger is a circumstance ... a condition that obtains. E.g. in a programming language, you might have something like if (x==2) then g(x); else h(x). Here "x==2" would be the trigger and g() or h() are the reactions. Perhaps h() is a heuristic algorithm and g() is an analytic solution. Of course, it's entirely plausible to have something like: while (x != 2) { x=h(x); }, which convolves the trigger with the heuristic. And I suspect something like that is a normal way to think about heuristics in the learning/psych sense. -- ☣ 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
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
On 2/22/20 7:45 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Glen writes: > > < By asking for more examples, it seems the original one (Ellison's Trump support) isn't meaningful for you? Another example might be learning that your organization accepted money from a convicted sex offender like Epstein. These are triggers for some people. They'd trigger me, too. > > > A reason I can see for avoiding a term like EI is because others might not have a binding for it, or there are too many different bindings observed for it. And, specifically, that it is "pompous" to use the term if it is expected there is no binding -- a way to bully the conversation in some direction putting the other party at a disadvantage. But it is hypocritical if one turns around and assumes there are shared values and that we should or do all have them. This is arguing in bad faith because some values are assumed to be mandatory and other optional, rather than all things being optional. Well, a) I didn't assume any shared values. I explicitly stated that such things are triggers for *some* people. I didn't say *all* people should be triggered by getting money from Epstein. And, given the popular culture at the moment I said I would *advise* Pinker to install a trigger, not that he must or even *should*. So, b) if you're accusing me of arguing in bad faith for rejecting the need for a sophisticated concept like EI, I think it's a false accusation. Even in my first post, I think I made the explicit comment that it doesn't matter whether the Oracle employee likes or dislikes that Ellison supports Trump. What matters is that the employee knows that Ellison = Oracle, hence Oracle supports Trump. And the question was whether that's a good trigger to have, regardless of how you react to the trigger. So, there are no shared values, here, only a rejection that we need sophisticated rhetoric like EI. -- ☣ 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
|
|
|
Glen writes:
< So, there are no shared values, here, only a rejection that we need sophisticated rhetoric like EI. > Reflection in "normals" language will be laden by taboos. (Like you said one might ask themselves what it would take kill someone.) Stepping back to a use a specialized language that tears away all of that "common sense" helps to avoid needless triggering. 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
I think different views may arise like this.
1) Agent runs all the time and has an active set of triggers and actions associated with these triggers. When triggers are too sensitive or actions too consequential, they are changed. Triggers and actions are being added and changed all the time. I'll call this the interpreter model. 2) Agent has an offline planning mode, and compiles the set of triggers and action, and periodically puts them into production. The planning mode is reflective and may use abstracted/specialized language to do the planning. Ethical thinking occurs in planning mode. I'll call this the metaprogramming model. The advantage of the metaprogramming model is that the triggers and action can operate at high speed. Don't think about dancing, dance. The metaprogrammer observes the consequences of reprogramming its reptile brain, but only a period of letting the reptile brain operate in the wild. Marcus On 2/22/20, 1:41 PM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: On 2/22/20 7:45 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Glen writes: > > < By asking for more examples, it seems the original one (Ellison's Trump support) isn't meaningful for you? Another example might be learning that your organization accepted money from a convicted sex offender like Epstein. These are triggers for some people. They'd trigger me, too. > > > A reason I can see for avoiding a term like EI is because others might not have a binding for it, or there are too many different bindings observed for it. And, specifically, that it is "pompous" to use the term if it is expected there is no binding -- a way to bully the conversation in some direction putting the other party at a disadvantage. But it is hypocritical if one turns around and assumes there are shared values and that we should or do all have them. This is arguing in bad faith because some values are assumed to be mandatory and other optional, rather than all things being optional. Well, a) I didn't assume any shared values. I explicitly stated that such things are triggers for *some* people. I didn't say *all* people should be triggered by getting money from Epstein. And, given the popular culture at the moment I said I would *advise* Pinker to install a trigger, not that he must or even *should*. So, b) if you're accusing me of arguing in bad faith for rejecting the need for a sophisticated concept like EI, I think it's a false accusation. Even in my first post, I think I made the explicit comment that it doesn't matter whether the Oracle employee likes or dislikes that Ellison supports Trump. What matters is that the employee knows that Ellison = Oracle, hence Oracle supports Trump. And the question was whether that's a good trigger to have, regardless of how you react to the trigger. So, there are no shared values, here, only a rejection that we need sophisticated rhetoric like EI. -- ☣ 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 |
|
|
With this example, I understand why Glen prefers triggers and actions to
be distinct, if/when/as I might use this language for agent modeling I would prefer the same. In my naive version of pop psych, I am used to "triggers" and "reactions" being somewhat convolved. The firearm metaphor is quite apt here... with a "hair trigger" and a gun whose "safety is off" or is "cocked" (double-action revolver/rifle). I take Glen's use of "installed triggers" to be something more like "quantized" self-awareness... and pre-existing/organic/unselfaware triggers to be *reactions*. As for "heuristics", I agree that they are more about responses than conditions for those responses, but I do have a hard time separating them entirely. I think of a heuristic as a "simplified rule of thumb used to respond quickly to an event where a more elaborately considered response may not be timely enough or simply not worth the effort". 1) in Marcus model seems to be the way thoughtful/considerate but possibly not terribly sophisticated people operate all of the time... they perk along 'reacting' to the world as it impinges on their bubble but may recognize when they are being oversensitive or causing undue harm with their reactions and re-evaluate one or both. 2) is what a more overtly self-aware person does, and in fact may do this kind of self-reflection and planning under the guidance of a friend, partner, mentor, therapist, or spiritual leader. In any case, the word "trigger" used to be a "trigger" for me, and made me withdraw from the conversation. When used to describe *my* (re)actions, it felt like a weapon being wielded to try to modify my behaviour,and when used to describe the speaker's actions, it felt like a shield being used to excuse/rationalize their own action. Like many pop-psych terms, I've "metaprogrammed" myself to recognize many of my "triggers", apply a "simple heuristic" in response, and then log the event for later review and consider installing a more sophisticated heuristic. - Steve On 2/22/20 4:11 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I think different views may arise like this. > > 1) Agent runs all the time and has an active set of triggers and actions associated with these triggers. When triggers are too sensitive or actions too consequential, they are changed. Triggers and actions are being added and changed all the time. I'll call this the interpreter model. > > 2) Agent has an offline planning mode, and compiles the set of triggers and action, and periodically puts them into production. The planning mode is reflective and may use abstracted/specialized language to do the planning. Ethical thinking occurs in planning mode. I'll call this the metaprogramming model. The advantage of the metaprogramming model is that the triggers and action can operate at high speed. Don't think about dancing, dance. The metaprogrammer observes the consequences of reprogramming its reptile brain, but only a period of letting the reptile brain operate in the wild. > > Marcus > > On 2/22/20, 1:41 PM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > On 2/22/20 7:45 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > Glen writes: > > > > < By asking for more examples, it seems the original one (Ellison's Trump support) isn't meaningful for you? Another example might be learning that your organization accepted money from a convicted sex offender like Epstein. These are triggers for some people. They'd trigger me, too. > > > > > A reason I can see for avoiding a term like EI is because others might not have a binding for it, or there are too many different bindings observed for it. And, specifically, that it is "pompous" to use the term if it is expected there is no binding -- a way to bully the conversation in some direction putting the other party at a disadvantage. But it is hypocritical if one turns around and assumes there are shared values and that we should or do all have them. This is arguing in bad faith because some values are assumed to be mandatory and other optional, rather than all things being optional. > > Well, a) I didn't assume any shared values. I explicitly stated that such things are triggers for *some* people. I didn't say *all* people should be triggered by getting money from Epstein. And, given the popular culture at the moment I said I would *advise* Pinker to install a trigger, not that he must or even *should*. So, b) if you're accusing me of arguing in bad faith for rejecting the need for a sophisticated concept like EI, I think it's a false accusation. > > Even in my first post, I think I made the explicit comment that it doesn't matter whether the Oracle employee likes or dislikes that Ellison supports Trump. What matters is that the employee knows that Ellison = Oracle, hence Oracle supports Trump. And the question was whether that's a good trigger to have, regardless of how you react to the trigger. > > So, there are no shared values, here, only a rejection that we need sophisticated rhetoric like EI. > > -- > ☣ 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 > ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Steve writes:
< In my naive version of pop psych, I am used to "triggers" and "reactions" being somewhat convolved. The firearm metaphor is quite apt here... with a "hair trigger" and a gun whose "safety is off" or is "cocked" (double-action revolver/rifle). > Hah, Glen "doesn't really believe in desensitization", but he sometimes opts for terms that are highly loaded terms in "normals" speak! "2) is what a more overtly self-aware person does, and in fact may do this kind of self-reflection and planning under the guidance of a friend, partner, mentor, therapist, or spiritual leader." Organizations too, e.g. rules of engagement: What-if scenarios and prepared plans of action having intended properties like being a proportionate response, shock-and-awe, etc. 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 |
|
|
On February 22, 2020 4:31:21 PM PST, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: >Hah, Glen "doesn't really believe in desensitization", but he sometimes >opts for terms that are highly loaded terms in "normals" speak! I suppose the fault is mine for not *emphasizing* the inspiration for my use of the term. Here it is again if anyone might care. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wJutA2czyFg6HbYoW/what-are-trigger-action-plans-taps, > trigger - The simple, specific sight/sound/smell/thought/feeling/etc. which you hook a behaviour onto. -- 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Yes. Whether it is filtered or invented, the same kind of preferences apply. (At least that is my hypothesis.). It is really more like the metaprogramming approach than a reactive reoptimization. I have to do similar things just to stay focused or avoid getting over-focused.
Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 23, 2020, at 5:37 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> On February 22, 2020 4:31:21 PM PST, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hah, Glen "doesn't really believe in desensitization", but he sometimes >> opts for terms that are highly loaded terms in "normals" speak! > > I suppose the fault is mine for not *emphasizing* the inspiration for my use of the term. Here it is again if anyone might care. > > https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wJutA2czyFg6HbYoW/what-are-trigger-action-plans-taps, >> trigger - The simple, specific sight/sound/smell/thought/feeling/etc. which you hook a behaviour onto. > > -- > 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 > 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen -
> I suppose the fault is mine for not *emphasizing* the inspiration for my use of the term. Here it is again if anyone might care. > > https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wJutA2czyFg6HbYoW/what-are-trigger-action-plans-taps, >> trigger - The simple, specific sight/sound/smell/thought/feeling/etc. which you hook a behaviour onto. Thanks for *re*emphasizing this. It helps me catch up on your specific use of terminology and/but illuminates the question of your earlier suggestion of *installing more triggers*. As already stated, I tend to interpret the term "trigger" as what they call a trigger-action. It is the *action* that I usually experience (a strong emotional response from others, or my own internal emotional response, not always evidenced to others clearly). I recognized (during the course of this discussion) that one of my "triggers" is the use of pop-psych (my judgement) terms like "triggers". When you suggested *installing more* all I could think was "there are already TOO MANY Trigger-Actions in this world, whyTF would you want to pollute the social sphere with *yet more*????" But after reading this article more thoroughly and reflecting on my understanding of your nature as well as reflecting on my own navigation of the social landscape I have co-created with those around me, I see the potential value/point of this TAP business. As a conflict-avoider, I learned to internalize the Action part of Trigger-Action quite a bit early on. While this has some short-term value, it has some long-term costs. Had I recognized my own triggers more overtly and consciously changed my associated actions, my life might have been more fulfilling. In particular I wouldn't have wasted so much of my own energy/volition/agency dancing through the landscape *avoiding* everyone else's triggers (to varying degrees of success). I had a friend with a brain injury who struggled even 25 years later (and lots of therapy including ECGs) to keep on task and not get flummoxed by various order-of-event sequencing in his plans. With your TAP reference, I now realize that he coped with that by building TA chains to get through complex operations that you and I might handle intuitively. I was often frustrated by the granularity of these chains, and when working with him would effectively disrupt his "sequencing" by skipping a step or doing them out of order. - 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |