MoNA
Locked
 
|
I'm neck deep into an argument with a friend about the ethical use of violence (e.g. punching nazis) and continue finding rabbit holes, which my dilletante homunculus prevents me from diving into, that look like "sophistry" (air quotes indicating the abused meaning, not the proper philosophical one). With that preamble, I offer the below, which is interesting because this sophistry comes with SOFTWARE! 8^)
The Moral Narrative Analyzer https://mnl.ucsb.edu/mona The Moral Mind https://www.news.ucsb.edu/2019/019588/moral-mind -- 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
|
|
It's not that deep. Someone is (physically) attacking you for some bonkers reason? It's fine (and even encouraged some say) to some how deffend your self. So there you go- a not all that deep example On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 3:40 PM glen <[hidden email]> wrote: I'm neck deep into an argument with a friend about the ethical use of violence (e.g. punching nazis) and continue finding rabbit holes, which my dilletante homunculus prevents me from diving into, that look like "sophistry" (air quotes indicating the abused meaning, not the proper philosophical one). With that preamble, I offer the below, which is interesting because this sophistry comes with SOFTWARE! 8^) ============================================================ 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, that's a reasonable heuristic. But there are complications. A good example might be the "preemptive strike", when you perceive a slow-growing threat, some of which may have a noisy signal prone to misinterpretation. (Thinking Iraq invasion.) E.g. our home grown domestic terrorists like Richard Spencer, the source of the "punching nazis" meme. When you see an insidious threat like Richard Spencer and even though he's not physically attacking you at the moment, you *think* he's inciting violence in some of his less refined flock, so you sucker punch Spencer during an interview.
Is that sucker punch an ethical use of violence? The MoNA work was supposed to indicate that there is a stable classification for deciding such things (by software assisted decision making). They posit 5 axes that seem to be stable: - Care or Harm - Fairness or Cheating - Loyalty or Betrayal - Authority or Subversion - Purity or Desecration I believe I can couch the Spencer sucker punch on either side of each of those axes, at will. That makes them look, to me, like rhetorical methods ... not moral intuitions. E.g. fairness vs. cheating. It's obviously cheating to sucker punch someone. Yet, it's obviously cheating for Spencer to cite "free speech" and maintain plausible deniability while inciting race- and class-based violence in his flock. Hence sucker punching him is a *more* honest, more fair, counter to his insidious rhetoric. So, whose being more fair or more cheating? The sucker puncher or the crypto-nazi? I honestly don't know. On 10/27/19 11:35 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote: > It's not that deep. Someone is (physically) attacking you for some bonkers reason? It's fine (and even encouraged some say) to some how deffend your self. So there you go- a not all that deep example ============================================================ 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:
< When you see an insidious threat like Richard Spencer and even though he's not physically attacking you at the moment, you *think* he's inciting violence in some of his less refined flock, so you sucker punch
Spencer during an interview. >
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had a great question for Mark Zuckerberg when she asked if Facebook thought it would be ok if a democratic candidate purchased advertisements that claimed certain Republican
adversaries had voted for the Green New Deal.
Or, why shouldn't civil rights organizations (secretly) hire private investigators and tee-up sufficiently-plausible criminal networks for the FBI to investigate via anonymous reporters?
Punching Spencer just suggests a lack of self control. A better way to approach the problem would be to create a situation in which he was arrested or died in some embarrassing way such that his supporters
would want to forget about him.
In both situations, putting aside the legal risks, I think this subversive approach violates some deeply ingrained notion of fairness. I can't see an explanation why it isn't happening all the time other than
self-censoring. Because if it were happening all the time, then folks like Spencer would be absent from the world.
Marcus
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of glen∈ℂ <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 8:16 AM To: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] MoNA Well, that's a reasonable heuristic. But there are complications. A good example might be the "preemptive strike", when you perceive a slow-growing threat, some of which may have a noisy signal prone to misinterpretation. (Thinking Iraq
invasion.) E.g. our home grown domestic terrorists like Richard Spencer, the source of the "punching nazis" meme. When you see an insidious threat like Richard Spencer and even though he's not physically attacking you at the moment, you *think* he's inciting
violence in some of his less refined flock, so you sucker punch Spencer during an interview.
Is that sucker punch an ethical use of violence? The MoNA work was supposed to indicate that there is a stable classification for deciding such things (by software assisted decision making). They posit 5 axes that seem to be stable: - Care or Harm - Fairness or Cheating - Loyalty or Betrayal - Authority or Subversion - Purity or Desecration I believe I can couch the Spencer sucker punch on either side of each of those axes, at will. That makes them look, to me, like rhetorical methods ... not moral intuitions. E.g. fairness vs. cheating. It's obviously cheating to sucker punch someone. Yet, it's obviously cheating for Spencer to cite "free speech" and maintain plausible deniability while inciting race- and class-based violence in his flock. Hence sucker punching him is a *more* honest, more fair, counter to his insidious rhetoric. So, whose being more fair or more cheating? The sucker puncher or the crypto-nazi? I honestly don't know. On 10/27/19 11:35 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote: > It's not that deep. Someone is (physically) attacking you for some bonkers reason? It's fine (and even encouraged some say) to some how deffend your self. So there you go- a not all that deep example ============================================================ 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 doubt it. I forget who the aphorism is attributed to, but "Never ascribe malice when incompetence will suffice" comes to mind. These subversive approaches may simply stretch the competencies and energy of the people who would otherwise carry them out. It's possible that it's simply too difficult to do the work, especially if the motivations and incentives are occult. Being paid in anything but money (which can be hidden in havens) is risky ... as the recent flak around RMS and the arc of Julian Assange demonstrate well enough. Both the Spencer-types and the sucker puncher are "in it" for the cheap thrills because anything more complex is too taxing.
But my proposition above is only convenient and a direct consequence of my doubt that there are such things as "moral intuition" or (in my other argument) "ethical intuition" [https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/ethical-intuitionism/]. We're always promoting our brain farts (ideas, feelings, faith-based beliefs, etc.) to ontologically dubious Real Things. My guess is there are no deeply ingrained things at all. It's relatively easy to radicalize an otherwise easy-going person. [https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g] Deprogramming cult members seems to consist mostly of changing their environment. Powerstancing may not make you feel powerful. Smiling may not make you feel happy, etc. It seems safer to assume infinite universal plasticity and induce ontology from data than to assume there exist viscously robust structures and all we need do is test for them. On 10/28/19 8:18 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > In both situations, putting aside the legal risks, I think this subversive approach violates some deeply ingrained notion of fairness. I can't see an explanation why it isn't happening all the time other than self-censoring. Because if it were happening all the time, then folks like Spencer would be absent from the world. -- ☣ 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
|
|
|
To me "RMS" denotes Richard M. Stallman but that's because I'm old I guess. ----------------------------------- Frank Wimberly My memoir: https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly My scientific publications: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 Phone (505) 670-9918 On Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 10:46 AM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: I doubt it. I forget who the aphorism is attributed to, but "Never ascribe malice when incompetence will suffice" comes to mind. These subversive approaches may simply stretch the competencies and energy of the people who would otherwise carry them out. It's possible that it's simply too difficult to do the work, especially if the motivations and incentives are occult. Being paid in anything but money (which can be hidden in havens) is risky ... as the recent flak around RMS and the arc of Julian Assange demonstrate well enough. Both the Spencer-types and the sucker puncher are "in it" for the cheap thrills because anything more complex is too taxing. ============================================================ 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 writes:
< These subversive approaches may simply stretch the competencies and energy of the people who would otherwise carry them out. It's possible that it's simply too difficult to do the work, especially if the motivations
and incentives are occult. >
AOC's contrast is nice because the loyal opposition have already done exactly what she said. So why not take the path of least resistance and make Facebook a mis-information battleground? If it further illustrates
the uselessness of Facebook, so much the better.
Marcus
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 10:45 AM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] MoNA I doubt it. I forget who the aphorism is attributed to, but "Never ascribe malice when incompetence will suffice" comes to mind. These subversive approaches may simply stretch the competencies and energy of the people who would otherwise
carry them out. It's possible that it's simply too difficult to do the work, especially if the motivations and incentives are occult. Being paid in anything but money (which can be hidden in havens) is risky ... as the recent flak around RMS and the arc of
Julian Assange demonstrate well enough. Both the Spencer-types and the sucker puncher are "in it" for the cheap thrills because anything more complex is too taxing.
But my proposition above is only convenient and a direct consequence of my doubt that there are such things as "moral intuition" or (in my other argument) "ethical intuition" [https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/ethical-intuitionism/]. We're always promoting our brain farts (ideas, feelings, faith-based beliefs, etc.) to ontologically dubious Real Things. My guess is there are no deeply ingrained things at all. It's relatively easy to radicalize an otherwise easy-going person. [https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g] Deprogramming cult members seems to consist mostly of changing their environment. Powerstancing may not make you feel powerful. Smiling may not make you feel happy, etc. It seems safer to assume infinite universal plasticity and induce ontology from data than to assume there exist viscously robust structures and all we need do is test for them. On 10/28/19 8:18 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > In both situations, putting aside the legal risks, I think this subversive approach violates some deeply ingrained notion of fairness. I can't see an explanation why it isn't happening all the time other than self-censoring. Because if it were happening all the time, then folks like Spencer would be absent from the world. -- ☣ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2
Yes. RMS: https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/17/20870050/richard-stallman-resigns-mit-free-software-foundation-epstein
On 10/28/19 9:53 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > To me "RMS" denotes Richard M. Stallman but that's because I'm old I guess. -- ☣ 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
|
|
|
And,
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 10:57 AM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] MoNA Yes. RMS:
https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/17/20870050/richard-stallman-resigns-mit-free-software-foundation-epstein
On 10/28/19 9:53 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > To me "RMS" denotes Richard M. Stallman but that's because I'm old I guess. -- ☣ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2
I’m still stuck on “root mean square”. L 2, Brute? --Barry On 28 Oct 2019, at 12:53, Frank Wimberly 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Yeah, Warren's stunt was nice, too. [https://www.cnet.com/news/warren-runs-a-false-facebook-ad-to-protest-false-facebook-ads/]
Again, though, this seems to be about rhetoric, not ingrained morality. AOC and Warren are *arguing* one point, Cambridge Analytica et al are arguing another point. Trump's comment during one of the debates with Clinton [ahem] resonated with *lots* of people, something about him not paying taxes makes him smart. Others are arguing that Trump not paying taxes makes him a cheater. The truth is largely irrelevant and what matters is the rhetoric. On 10/28/19 9:55 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > AOC's contrast is nice because the loyal opposition have already done exactly what she said. So why not take the path of least resistance and make Facebook a mis-information battleground? If it further illustrates the uselessness of Facebook, so much the better. -- ☣ 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:
"Again, though, this seems to be about rhetoric, not ingrained morality.
"
Except with the rhetoric (misinformation campaign) has a subversive operational side to it? That is too complex? It wasn't for the Trump campaign and the Russians. It is simply incompetence that explains why the Democrats (in 2016 or now) could be well-funded
but nonetheless fail given a nimble opponent that is willing to do *anything*? Yes, I suggest there is something ingrained about the campaigning Democrats (as individuals and as a party), that make them unable to take the gloves off. That makes them talk
in circles about what would bring back the Obama/Trump voter, humor the Deplorables, or in the other extreme advocate progressive but unrealistic objectives like Medicare for all that will be hard to pass and fund. Maybe Schiff et. al. have put together
a team that can get it done, or the `deep state' will eventually make a move.
Marcus
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 11:12 AM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] MoNA Yeah, Warren's stunt was nice, too. [https://www.cnet.com/news/warren-runs-a-false-facebook-ad-to-protest-false-facebook-ads/]
Again, though, this seems to be about rhetoric, not ingrained morality. AOC and Warren are *arguing* one point, Cambridge Analytica et al are arguing another point. Trump's comment during one of the debates with Clinton [ahem] resonated with *lots* of people, something about him not paying taxes makes him smart. Others are arguing that Trump not paying taxes makes him a cheater. The truth is largely irrelevant and what matters is the rhetoric. On 10/28/19 9:55 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > AOC's contrast is nice because the loyal opposition have already done exactly what she said. So why not take the path of least resistance and make Facebook a mis-information battleground? If it further illustrates the uselessness of Facebook, so much the better. -- ☣ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Barry MacKichan
Barry writes:
< I’m still stuck on “root mean square”. L 2, Brute? >
The person would be better understood using a tail statistic.
Marcus
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Barry MacKichan <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 11:10 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] MoNA I’m still stuck on “root mean square”. L 2, Brute? --Barry On 28 Oct 2019, at 12:53, Frank Wimberly 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Hm. OK. If I try my best to steel-man an argument, I'd have to say the only thing ingrained is the tendency to think systemically (democrats) versus the tendency to think causally (republicans). I can posit this is ingrained in their biology, either learned as they're reared or is some kind of genetic memory. [cue the folklore about the fat corpus collosum and multitasking]
If you believe in systematicity (?), then when you create a subversive infrastructure, that infrastructure can turn around and begin controlling you. [power corrupts] So, democrats, with their tendency to think systemically, might realize that their systemic thinking may well help them create a system that will run away and end up controlling them ... or resulting in bad things they can't estimate. It's not that're unwilling/unable to take the gloves off. It's that they *see* the consquences of taking the gloves off and don't want those consequences. If you believe in (simple/linear) causality, then any actions you take will be limited, maybe even atomic. [cue the folklore about how right-wingers believe in the Self-Made Man] You believe you can turn on a dime, your agency is atomic/autonomous. Sure, last election, you installed an occult infrastructure to "cheat". But the cheating ... [ahem] intelligent gameplay ... needed to be done and you won't need to game it anymore once you've overcome the Evil system that was in charge before. It's not that they're willing to do *anything*. It's that they *know* any (suspicious) action they take will have short-lived consequences and be compensated for by future (obviously good) actions. So, I still doubt we're talking about moral intuition. We may be talking about physiology, or anatomy, or some sort of natural selection. But it's not evidence of an ingrained morality. On 10/28/19 10:31 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Except with the rhetoric (misinformation campaign) has a subversive operational side to it? That is too complex? It wasn't for the Trump campaign and the Russians. It is simply incompetence that explains why the Democrats (in 2016 or now) could be well-funded but nonetheless fail given a nimble opponent that is willing to do *anything*? Yes, I suggest there is something ingrained about the campaigning Democrats (as individuals and as a party), that make them unable to take the gloves off. That makes them talk in circles about what would bring back the Obama/Trump voter, humor the Deplorables, or in the other extreme advocate progressive but unrealistic objectives like Medicare for all that will be hard to pass and fund. Maybe Schiff et. al. have put together a team that can get it done, or the `deep state' will eventually make a move. -- ☣ 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
|
|
|
Consider a large software project. It can be thought of as an org-chart with roles and responsibilities of people each having complementary skills. A new project can be thought of as a Platonic design that (just) needs a competent implementation. A new
project could also be a free-wheeling effort where anything goes provides a customer gets something -- such a project can be thought of as an evolving implementation or feature set that just needs to be rationalized well-enough to sell. An established software
project might be characterized more by bug-fixes and the refinement of documentation.
The metaphor of a software project to governance is loose, but both systemic (top-down) and causal personalities (bottom-up) could both identify a thing to ship (or sail) separate from themselves.
Someone that has been around software long enough has had the experience of having to do implementation or debugging when they would rather being doing design, or vice-versa. I just don't buy that experienced people have just one way of looking at things.
Similarly an experienced legislator can also wear the hat of a ruthless operative and then return to legislating when the deed is done. Because I wrote a throwaway Bash script yesterday doesn't mean I can't write some enduring C++ today. Just mop up the
blood from time to time, you know?
Marcus
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 11:57 AM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] MoNA Hm. OK. If I try my best to steel-man an argument, I'd have to say the only thing ingrained is the tendency to think systemically (democrats) versus the tendency to think causally (republicans). I can posit this is ingrained in their
biology, either learned as they're reared or is some kind of genetic memory. [cue the folklore about the fat corpus collosum and multitasking]
If you believe in systematicity (?), then when you create a subversive infrastructure, that infrastructure can turn around and begin controlling you. [power corrupts] So, democrats, with their tendency to think systemically, might realize that their systemic thinking may well help them create a system that will run away and end up controlling them ... or resulting in bad things they can't estimate. It's not that're unwilling/unable to take the gloves off. It's that they *see* the consquences of taking the gloves off and don't want those consequences. If you believe in (simple/linear) causality, then any actions you take will be limited, maybe even atomic. [cue the folklore about how right-wingers believe in the Self-Made Man] You believe you can turn on a dime, your agency is atomic/autonomous. Sure, last election, you installed an occult infrastructure to "cheat". But the cheating ... [ahem] intelligent gameplay ... needed to be done and you won't need to game it anymore once you've overcome the Evil system that was in charge before. It's not that they're willing to do *anything*. It's that they *know* any (suspicious) action they take will have short-lived consequences and be compensated for by future (obviously good) actions. So, I still doubt we're talking about moral intuition. We may be talking about physiology, or anatomy, or some sort of natural selection. But it's not evidence of an ingrained morality. On 10/28/19 10:31 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Except with the rhetoric (misinformation campaign) has a subversive operational side to it? That is too complex? It wasn't for the Trump campaign and the Russians. It is simply incompetence that explains why the Democrats (in 2016 or now) could be well-funded but nonetheless fail given a nimble opponent that is willing to do *anything*? Yes, I suggest there is something ingrained about the campaigning Democrats (as individuals and as a party), that make them unable to take the gloves off. That makes them talk in circles about what would bring back the Obama/Trump voter, humor the Deplorables, or in the other extreme advocate progressive but unrealistic objectives like Medicare for all that will be hard to pass and fund. Maybe Schiff et. al. have put together a team that can get it done, or the `deep state' will eventually make a move. -- ☣ 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 |
|
|
Very cool way to frame it! It well captures how I think of Pelosi, in contrast to AOC and Warren. Pelosi seems capable of maintaining multiple ways of operating to meet objectives that might seem to conflict otherwise. And I agree that *experienced* people do this ... have learned to do this ... or, put another way, anyone who *hasn't* learned to do it is weeded out. It sounds a bit like a biased sample, to me.
Anyway, the real trick is how one handles their failures. At the moment, I'm still capable of letting all the mostly indendent researchers use and abuse anything I've done at their leisure. I'm quick at cleaning up the blood and at least pretending there's still some coherence there. But I'm getting old. And my learnedness-combined-with-agility *experience* will eventually falter, if it hasn't already. How do we handle it when that happens? If we've spent our experienced years building and cleaning up occult infrastructure and we aren't replaced by people with similar Necker-cube swapping abilities, our legacy will be whatever mode dominates as we crash: hegemonic infrastructure or bursts of throwaway Bash code. On a similar note: Greg Walden, the sole Republican Rep here in Oregon, announced his retirement. It's sad because he's moderate and might be replaced by a jackass. It's good because maybe he's realized his party has been thoroughly infected and the only graceful denouement is to retire. On 10/28/19 11:42 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Consider a large software project. It can be thought of as an org-chart with roles and responsibilities of people each having complementary skills. A new project can be thought of as a Platonic design that (just) needs a competent implementation. A new project could also be a free-wheeling effort where anything goes provides a customer gets something -- such a project can be thought of as an evolving implementation or feature set that just needs to be rationalized well-enough to sell. An established software project might be characterized more by bug-fixes and the refinement of documentation. > > The metaphor of a software project to governance is loose, but both systemic (top-down) and causal personalities (bottom-up) could both identify a thing to ship (or sail) separate from themselves. > > Someone that has been around software long enough has had the experience of having to do implementation or debugging when they would rather being doing design, or vice-versa. I just don't buy that experienced people have just one way of looking at things. Similarly an experienced legislator can also wear the hat of a ruthless operative and then return to legislating when the deed is done. Because I wrote a throwaway Bash script yesterday doesn't mean I can't write some enduring C++ today. Just mop up the blood from time to time, you know? -- ☣ 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:
< If we've spent our experienced years building and cleaning up occult infrastructure and we aren't replaced by people with similar Necker-cube swapping abilities, our legacy will be whatever mode dominates as we crash: hegemonic infrastructure or bursts of throwaway Bash code. > I hope that is not true. I hope that the swapping abilities become a selective advantage in civilization. I think it is along the lines of your advocacy for role playing. The folks who don't want multiculturalism and progressive governance want a world of metaphorical shitty Bash scripts, because they can see anyone making a life that way, and easily anticipate how power can be accumulated in that world. They can't imagine spending time thinking about other points of view or exploring the interstitial space between moral systems. 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 |
|
|
Yeah, well said. I guess I hope the same thing.
On 10/28/19 12:25 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I hope that is not true. I hope that the swapping abilities become a selective advantage in civilization. I think it is along the lines of your advocacy for role playing. The folks who don't want multiculturalism and progressive governance want a world of metaphorical shitty Bash scripts, because they can see anyone making a life that way, and easily anticipate how power can be accumulated in that world. They can't imagine spending time thinking about other points of view or exploring the interstitial space between moral systems. -- ☣ 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
|
|
|
This was one of the best threads in a while IMO. I was still studying
the background material from the OP moral foundations theory (MFT) and the flagship study as I caught up with the evolving thread. I am still fascinated by the MFT work, etc... The AOC/Warren v Zuckerberg/FB examples were very motivating and timely... and the comparison to technology development was a painfully familiar domain as is the evolution past "agile experience". I particularly like the closing analogy of "interstitial space between moral systems" which leads me full circle back to moral foundations theory... Carry on, - Steve > Yeah, well said. I guess I hope the same thing. > > On 10/28/19 12:25 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> I hope that is not true. I hope that the swapping abilities become a selective advantage in civilization. I think it is along the lines of your advocacy for role playing. The folks who don't want multiculturalism and progressive governance want a world of metaphorical shitty Bash scripts, because they can see anyone making a life that way, and easily anticipate how power can be accumulated in that world. They can't imagine spending time thinking about other points of view or exploring the interstitial space between moral systems. ============================================================ 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 |