Posts from the Scotts

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Posts from the Scotts

gepr

It was pointed out to me awhile back that I'd been relatively quiet. So, here's an excuse to post! 2 posts by my favorite Scotts:

1) Against Lie Inflation
   https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/16/against-lie-inflation/

2) On two blog posts of Jerry Coyne
   https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4253

(1) is all about artificial discretization and ends with the very nice command: "don’t set thresholds for category membership so far outside a distribution that they stop conveying useful information." And (2) is a lesson in how fuzzy the line can be between quackery and authority (or woo and science, or the unjustified worship of fancy-talkin' folk >8^D). In particular, I like the question: "supposing, hypothetically, that I’d met Epstein around 2002 or so—without, of course, knowing about his crimes—would I have been as taken with him as many other academics seem to have been? (Would you have been? How sure are you?)"

--
☣ 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posts from the Scotts

Marcus G. Daniels
"She told me that sometimes she needed her boyfriend to do some favor for her, and he wouldn’t, so she would cry – not as an attempt to manipulate him, just because she was sad. She counted this as abuse, because her definition of “abuse” is “something that makes your partner feel bad about setting boundaries”. And when she cried, that made her boyfriend feel guilty about his boundary that he wasn’t going to do the favor. "

Needs context.  Suppose the boyfriend could get fired for providing the `favor' and she doesn't get a needed medical treatment unless he gets paid.   Self-indulgent crying would represent a lack of self-control that could destabilize the relationship.   It's abuse in the same sense that drug or alcohol abuse could destabilize a relationship.    The boyfriend could manage the issue, but at some point it stops being a relationship and more care of an adult dependent.

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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posts from the Scotts

gepr
Yeah, I had the same reaction. But I lost to my own argument. Since Renee's been a grievance officer for her union, she and I've had an argument about "violence in the workplace". She claims (and both the union and management agree) that harsh words and aggressive tone and body language constitute "violence in the workplace". My argument *against* that boils down to this. Anyone who's been punched knows the difference between physical violence and ... psychological "violence" (using quotes to give my opponents some, but not too much, benefit of the doubt). Call it "intimidation", "threat", "implied violence", whatever. Just don't draw a false equivalence between harsh words and being punched in the face. (Back during one of my co-op terms in the avionics lab at Vought Aircraft, a consultant actually punched the lab manager over how they defined a systems engineering concept ... I can't even remember which concept it was at this point. [sigh] A useful distinction is when Bao, the employee assigned to teach me how to program the flight simulator, refuted my claims about how Ctrl-C interrupts were handled by repeatedly hitting Ctrl-C *yelling* "See! See! Ctrl-C doesn't work!" It's difficult for me to draw an equivalence between the fists flying between the consultant and the manager versus Bao's rather silly emphatic gestures. 8^))

I also have to equivocate on "abuse", since I *pride* myself in my tendency to abuse software (indeed *any* conceptual structure) to a) break it and b) find uses for which it wasn't intended. From a "respect for persons" standpoint, it should be impossible to *abuse* a person if one never *uses* a person like a tool. Calling someone an "abuser" implicitly assumes that there are proper ways to use people and there are improper ways to use people, which seems a little silly when you say that out loud. People should not be used. I.e. if you're using, you're already an abuser. But, then again, I also pride myself on being a Good Tool. I make my use cases as clear as I can.

On 7/19/19 12:13 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> On 7/18/19 2:28 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:>
>> 1) Against Lie Inflation
>>     https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/16/against-lie-inflation/
>
> "She told me that sometimes she needed her boyfriend to do some favor for her, and he wouldn’t, so she would cry – not as an attempt to manipulate him, just because she was sad. She counted this as abuse, because her definition of “abuse” is “something that makes your partner feel bad about setting boundaries”. And when she cried, that made her boyfriend feel guilty about his boundary that he wasn’t going to do the favor."
>
> Needs context.  Suppose the boyfriend could get fired for providing the `favor' and she doesn't get a needed medical treatment unless he gets paid.   Self-indulgent crying would represent a lack of self-control that could destabilize the relationship.   It's abuse in the same sense that drug or alcohol abuse could destabilize a relationship.    The boyfriend could manage the issue, but at some point it stops being a relationship and more care of an adult dependent.
============================================================
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posts from the Scotts

Marcus G. Daniels
< Calling someone an "abuser" implicitly assumes that there are proper ways to use people and there are improper ways to use people, which seems a little silly when you say that out loud. >

That said, a physically weak person is entirely capable of abusing a physically strong person if they have the power of an organization behind them.
Yes being physically injured is different from other kinds of harm.   One can recover from some kinds of physical injury, but defamation or other workplace corruption could change the course of a life.

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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posts from the Scotts

gepr
Well, sure. But you seem to be relying on some sort of ontological primacy for the person/animal/organism. Processes like defamation or corruption (or their opposites) are only different from processes like tissue remodeling or healing in *scale* or degree, not type/kind. Both involve large collections of individuals to participate in a stable or dynamically evolving soup. Saying defamation or corruption could change the course of a life equivocates on "whose life?" E.g. the life of a skin cell is no different (in kind) from the life of the organism of whose skin it's a part. (Panpsychism anyone?)

This paper was interesting:
Self-Evaluative and Other-Directed Emotional and Behavioral Responses to Gossip About the Self
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6328481/

I'd be hard-pressed to make a serious disjoint separation between inter-cellular signaling and the type of signaling described above ... flippant distinctions, sure, but not serious ones.

On 7/19/19 8:29 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Yes being physically injured is different from other kinds of harm.   One can recover from some kinds of physical injury, but defamation or other workplace corruption could change the course of a life.


--
☣ 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posts from the Scotts

Steve Smith

Glen -

I keyboarded a typically long and torturous contribution to this thread early on, but decided to hold it back and look for a more succinct response.  Some high points, in summary:

  1. Stick and Stones ...
  2. Passive-Aggressive modes/roles in Kolmogorov Models
  3. Outlier identification within Persistent Homologies

- Steve

On 7/19/19 11:40 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
Well, sure. But you seem to be relying on some sort of ontological primacy for the person/animal/organism. Processes like defamation or corruption (or their opposites) are only different from processes like tissue remodeling or healing in *scale* or degree, not type/kind. Both involve large collections of individuals to participate in a stable or dynamically evolving soup. Saying defamation or corruption could change the course of a life equivocates on "whose life?" E.g. the life of a skin cell is no different (in kind) from the life of the organism of whose skin it's a part. (Panpsychism anyone?)

This paper was interesting: 
Self-Evaluative and Other-Directed Emotional and Behavioral Responses to Gossip About the Self
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6328481/

I'd be hard-pressed to make a serious disjoint separation between inter-cellular signaling and the type of signaling described above ... flippant distinctions, sure, but not serious ones.

On 7/19/19 8:29 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Yes being physically injured is different from other kinds of harm.   One can recover from some kinds of physical injury, but defamation or other workplace corruption could change the course of a life.


============================================================
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posts from the Scotts

Marcus G. Daniels

I suppose Glen is claiming that if abuse can be redefined outside of physical abuse, then the referent of the abuse can be defined outside of species and thus the killed cells from the physical abuse have a more severe outcome than the social consequences of non-physical but serious abuse amongst humans.  (Although I suppose stress responses from the non-physical abuses could result in cell death too.)    Fine.   I call that bait and switch.

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Steven A Smith <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Friday, July 26, 2019 at 8:53 AM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Posts from the Scotts

 

Glen -

I keyboarded a typically long and torturous contribution to this thread early on, but decided to hold it back and look for a more succinct response.  Some high points, in summary:

  1. Stick and Stones ...
  2. Passive-Aggressive modes/roles in Kolmogorov Models
  3. Outlier identification within Persistent Homologies

- Steve

On 7/19/19 11:40 AM, uǝlƃ wrote:

Well, sure. But you seem to be relying on some sort of ontological primacy for the person/animal/organism. Processes like defamation or corruption (or their opposites) are only different from processes like tissue remodeling or healing in *scale* or degree, not type/kind. Both involve large collections of individuals to participate in a stable or dynamically evolving soup. Saying defamation or corruption could change the course of a life equivocates on "whose life?" E.g. the life of a skin cell is no different (in kind) from the life of the organism of whose skin it's a part. (Panpsychism anyone?)
 
This paper was interesting: 
Self-Evaluative and Other-Directed Emotional and Behavioral Responses to Gossip About the Self
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6328481/
 
I'd be hard-pressed to make a serious disjoint separation between inter-cellular signaling and the type of signaling described above ... flippant distinctions, sure, but not serious ones.
 
On 7/19/19 8:29 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Yes being physically injured is different from other kinds of harm.   One can recover from some kinds of physical injury, but defamation or other workplace corruption could change the course of a life.
 

============================================================
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posts from the Scotts

gepr
Well, bait and switch is a common, special, sub-category of the very topic, which is: the map between how we (artificially) cut up the world versus how the world actually is. What Alexander was pointing out was exactly that. Of course, when it's our preemptively registered ontology that's being denied/neglected, we tend to use derogatory terms like "bait and switch". But when it's the fidelity of the others' ontology that's being challenged, we tend to be a bit sanctimonious.

Aaronson's post, being largely about quackery/authority follows from Alexander's because we often (always?) derive our ontology from some arbitrary world-cutter [†] we found laying on the ground when we were born/growing. As I commented before in my response to Eric's comment about figuring out who amongst us talks just to hear themselves speak versus those who have something potentially interesting to say, I have to worry if I am *also* a "kibitzer and a dilettante", with only cheap tricks like bait and switch, etc. ... and if so, what does that mean?

[†] Meant to allude to a cookie dough cutter.

On 7/26/19 10:34 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I suppose Glen is claiming that if abuse can be redefined outside of physical abuse, then the referent of the abuse can be defined outside of species and thus the killed cells from the physical abuse have a more severe outcome than the social consequences of non-physical but serious abuse amongst humans.  (Although I suppose stress responses from the non-physical abuses could result in cell death too.)    Fine.   I call that bait and switch.

============================================================
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posts from the Scotts

gepr
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
It's not clear to me which of these Marcus was responding to. But it seems like he was responding to (1) with the variation as a function of changes in perspective. But your teasing with (2) seems likely, too, from which I infer that our world-cutters are dynamic and can be complexified depending on whatever feedback mechanisms they're dependent on.

I don't quite grok how (3) applies, I guess. My understanding of abduction (whatever it actually means) has done the most for me regarding how to handle outliers of any kind. Anomalies can never be ignored. If one's world-cutting seems persistent, my preference is to assume that it's motivated reasoning and the consistency is artificial.

On 7/26/19 8:53 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>  1. Stick and Stones ...
>  2. Passive-Aggressive modes/roles in Kolmogorov Models
>  3. Outlier identification within Persistent Homologies

============================================================
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posts from the Scotts

Steve Smith

> It's not clear to me which of these Marcus was responding to. But it
> seems like he was responding to (1) with the variation as a function
> of changes in perspective. But your teasing with (2) seems likely,
> too, from which I infer that our world-cutters are dynamic and can be
> complexified depending on whatever feedback mechanisms they're
> dependent on.

I will admit to "playing" with the other topic you mentioned in your
previous post in this thread, regarding the difference between talking
to hear your own voice and having something interesting to say.    As
you know from some of our private correspondence, I often indulge in the
former and then never post it because I recognize that what I'm
blathering on about might be more self-indulgent than relevant.   So in
this case I tried to distill the essence of a long-winded response into
bullet-points...

1) is probably most self-evident.  2) is an elaboration of 1... 
referencing the predator-prey like dynamics between what we call
passive-aggressive and aggressive-aggressive... for example, watching
various raptors being *harried* by much smaller birds (protecting their
nests?).   Here we might see a bird whose claws are adapted for perching
and whose beak is adapted for seed-cracking using (threatening?) them in
the mode that the (much larger and constitutionally more aggressive)
raptor is adapted for (clutching, tearing).  I watched my younger
daughter take on this role with my older when they were in their
teens... the younger was used to being (mildly) bullied by her older
sister until one day she "found her voice" and discovered that she could
"harry" her big sister very effectively with much more meticulously
constructed barbs than her sister had ever used (along with physical
dominance based on size-differences).   I *didn't* (have to/choose to?)
teach either of them the "sticks and stones" taunt because it seemed it
would only aggravate such aggressive dynamics.   I saw it used that way
myself as I grew up.

> I don't quite grok how (3) applies, I guess. My understanding of
> abduction (whatever it actually means) has done the most for me
> regarding how to handle outliers of any kind. Anomalies can never be
> ignored. If one's world-cutting seems persistent, my preference is to
> assume that it's motivated reasoning and the consistency is artificial.

3) is an under-elaborated reference to the question of "what means an
anomoly/outlier?".   For a given choice of model-fitting (choice of
ontology) it is likely that there will be outliers...  yet another model
(ontology) would fit some of these outliers and expose "yet other"
outliers.   Blended or composed models/ontologies may resolve that
tension (including more outliers) but at some point such
blending/composition will become forced and suggest a more complete
reformulation/refactoring of the model.  This is partly responsive to
our offline discussion about the question of how dynamic (mental) models
really are/can-be/should-be.  

I liked the term you used of "world-cutter" but when I read the footnote
referencing "cookie cutter" as the source of the metaphor I was
disappointed.   I thought you were referencing something closer to what
James Burke coined in (of "Connections" fame) his "Axemaker's Gift" 
which contended that there was a convergence/co-evolution of the
development of neo lithics and language in hominid history.   He
proposed the phrase "cut and control" to describe both the way
constructed edged blades allowed humans to cut and control the physical
world and the way language (nouns in particular) could be used to cut
and control the conceptual world.  By naming and categorizing things,
humans made them more useful for their purposes in an analogous way to
using edged stones to slice open and separate animal hides from flesh
and fascia, to separate tendons and sinew for use in stitching and
binding, to separate digestible portions from non-digestible, to
pre-masticate, etc.  

- Steve

>
> On 7/26/19 8:53 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>>  1. Stick and Stones ...
>>  2. Passive-Aggressive modes/roles in Kolmogorov Models
>>  3. Outlier identification within Persistent Homologies
>
> ============================================================
> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posts from the Scotts

Marcus G. Daniels
In reply to this post by gepr
The refusal to optimize on one dimension is in general a good policy.   And illustrating the interchangeability of symbols in a structural argument is also a good thing.   A better way to argue though, which is not to boil the ocean but simply to say, "Instances are of no interest to me, let's talk about the class."
Relates to this:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/27/what-conservatives-gets-wrong-about-cosmopolitans
The nationalists and demagogues refuse to argue their general point, and instead rely on preemptively registered ontologies to persuade.

============================================================
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posts from the Scotts

Steve Smith
Marcus -
> The refusal to optimize on one dimension is in general a good policy.
I assume you mean this in the sense of "single issue voters" and in the
more general sense of multivariate optimization being more "effective"
than univariate in general problem solving?
>    And illustrating the interchangeability of symbols in a structural argument is also a good thing.
I'm guessing this references the Sticks and Stones issue?  Or perhaps
more?  What Glen was seeming to try to do when you called "bait and
switch" on him?
>   A better way to argue though, which is not to boil the ocean but simply to say, "Instances are of no interest to me, let's talk about the class."
> Relates to this:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/27/what-conservatives-gets-wrong-about-cosmopolitans

I'm liking this article (after fighting my way through the WP's
ad-blocking-blocker in conflict with my recently upgraded Firefox's
automatic ad-blocking, etc.  

I went looking for the "complement" of "Cosmopolitan" and have yet to
find anything satisfying, the *antonyms* being all somewhat less helpful
than I hoped.   My pursuit is in service of trying to understand what
the paths might be from the extreme parochialism that comes with being
born into *one body* and raised (usually) by *one family* in *one
community/region/province/nation* to what the article articulates so
well about what "true Cosmopolitanism" can be.  

As a "recovering" conservative (never registered Republican, but voted
Reagan (once)) I am not sure if I grew out of a parochialism inherited
from being born/raised rurally, among people whose bread was buttered
entirely by extractive "industry" (mostly ranching, some timber, some
mining) or if it was (as it felt at the time) escaping the naivete of
youth, wanting my answers to all be simple (if you ain't with me, you
must be against me!).  And a victim of those who would exploit that
naivete with their rhetoric.   As I look at our country (the entire
first world?) under an extreme tectonic tension between what seems like
cosmipolitanism and parochialism I find myself looking to "routes out"
of that tension. 

A colleague once offered me the meta-pattern (intending it to apply to
software engineering, but being more generally useful in all
design/engineering) of  "If you find a problem too hard to solve, add an
extra level of indirection".  "Extra degree of freedom" or "extra
dimension" might also be substituted.    What IS the "extra level of
indirection" that is useful in resolving some of this tension without
requiring the equivalent of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions?   It
seems the feature of Obama voters becoming Trump voters reflects some of
this tension.  Two *very* different targets of "populism" and
"hopey-changeyism"...   One (to me) much more virulent than the other.

> The nationalists and demagogues refuse to argue their general point, and instead rely on preemptively registered ontologies to persuade.

This tweaks my general intuition about the question of how we obtain and
form our ontologies and how we possibly might resolve them against one
another.  My primary *technical* work with ontologies began with the
Gene Ontology which was an attempt to resolve *many* disparate bodies of
knowledge/understanding about genes into a single global ontology.  I
was (and continue to be) only a layman in biology at best (or using
Glen's term, dilletante) so a lot of what was implicit in the Gene
Ontology (ca 2004) was arcane to me, but I had hints that a *lot* of
compromises were made to fit them all together.  It seems that politics
and maybe even more to the point "statesmanship" has the same problem.  

We have two general ontologies encoded in our major political
parties/movements where anti-Abortion, Gun Rights, Death Penalty, and
Hawkishness reside comfortably together while  roughly the complement
(appositionally opposite?) values, mores of the "other party" also seem
to fit together even though both sides would seem to have huge internal
tension within their value system/ontology (e.g the left splitting hairs
about when is a foetus a human and when is it OK to use deadly
force?).   Perhaps when held in dynamic tension, the two in opposition
help to hide/hold the paradoxes at bay in the other?   Are we on the
verge of some kind of potential "overdue refactoring" as opposed to
"total collapse"?

The article on Cosmopolitanism seems to reference this somewhat...  
That "giving a damn about the world at large" does not have to be in
opposition to "giving a damn about one's
family/community/region/nation", yet it is caricatured/characterized
that way so often.  How might one (one self or all-one) resolve this
kind of (artificial/rhetorical?) difference without geologic upheaval?

- 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


============================================================
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posts from the Scotts

Marcus G. Daniels
Steve wrote:

    I assume you mean this in the sense of "single issue voters" and in the
    more general sense of multivariate optimization being more "effective"
    than univariate in general problem solving?

One might argue that is harmful to eat animals.   One way argue that would be to imagine that you were to be eaten.  How would you feel?    That assumes that all species are equally valuable or perceive things in a comparable way.   A hedonist might argue that the pleasure of eating meat is self-evident and not arguable.   Another way would be to argue that raising animals is too energy intensive, and that it produces greenhouse gases.  That would be pointing to a shared environment that would impact many species.    Or one might argue that carnivores are evolved for eating flesh, and so if all life is valuable then there is a paradox.    There are many perspectives one could take on the matter, some there are more objective and quantifiable than the others.   A rational decision involves agreeing on what matters and then making a decision based on all of those things.   Prescriptive cultures either fail to recognize the complexity of what matters (poor modeling), or they make up some random stuff and fail to learn from their social experiments.   The failure becomes doctrine and impacts their economies and quality of life for centuries.

Steve writes:
   
    The article on Cosmopolitanism seems to reference this somewhat...  
    That "giving a damn about the world at large" does not have to be in
    opposition to "giving a damn about one's
    family/community/region/nation", yet it is caricatured/characterized
    that way so often.  How might one (one self or all-one) resolve this
    kind of (artificial/rhetorical?) difference without geologic upheaval?
   
Logic?   If the whole is in equilibrium than the parts are in equilibrium.
I think upheaval is ok.   A few small earthquakes here and there won't release the energy.  

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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posts from the Scotts

Steve Smith

Marcus wrote:
>
> One might argue that is harmful to eat animals.   One way argue that would be to imagine that you were to be eaten.  How would you feel?    That assumes that all species are equally valuable or perceive things in a comparable way.   A hedonist might argue that the pleasure of eating meat is self-evident and not arguable.   Another way would be to argue that raising animals is too energy intensive, and that it produces greenhouse gases.  That would be pointing to a shared environment that would impact many species.    Or one might argue that carnivores are evolved for eating flesh, and so if all life is valuable then there is a paradox.    There are many perspectives one could take on the matter, some there are more objective and quantifiable than the others.   A rational decision involves agreeing on what matters and then making a decision based on all of those things.
As an oft-vegetarian who has even flirted with veganism along the way,
I've explored the full range you mention above and been pressed up
against folks who fall on both ends of the spectrum who trivialize the
issues out of hand.  Similar things happen for me in my complex
relationship to many social issues as well, ranging from abortion and
gun rights to the tensions between local/global awareness/choices.  
>    Prescriptive cultures either fail to recognize the complexity of what matters (poor modeling), or they ma!
>  ke up some random stuff and fail to learn from their social experiments.   The failure becomes doctrine and impacts their economies and quality of life for centuries.
I'm painfully aware of the many examples where fossilization of
ideas/preferences/??? into doctrine has shaped my world (and that of
those I care about) in painfully limiting ways.  On the other hand, the
truism that "constraint provides form" reminds us that there is
something *useful* if nothing else about *some* constraints, even if by
some measure they seem arbitrary?    The interesting landscape seems to
be among the split hairs of "how complex is enough?", "which model?" and
the map/territory dualities.   Glen often accuses me (and others) of
"premature registration" which I acknowledge is one of my modes of
error, and often "unnecessary"...  
>  How might one (one self or all-one) resolve this
>     kind of (artificial/rhetorical?) difference without geologic upheaval?
>    
> Logic?   If the whole is in equilibrium than the parts are in equilibrium.
> I think upheaval is ok.   A few small earthquakes here and there won't release the energy.  

My bad for invoking an inapt or at least misleading metaphor.   I think
this is part of the problem I'm trying to expose...  if we treat the
socioeconomicpolitical tensions of our current moment as being framed
entirely within a "conserved energy" model, then the only answer IS to
break a lot of eggs (switching to a culinary metaphor) to make our
omelette or have tectonic upheavals to renormalize the system.   Too
much of our energy seems to be going into characterizing "the other" as
inimical to our own interests and all but guaranteeing a "tectonic
event" is the only way to resolve those differences.

I made reference to "adding another level of indirection" to point in
the general direction of admitting a more complex model that *subsumes*
the disparate models that are currently at odds.   I agree/accept that
some of the ways the models disagree may be fundamentally opposed and
perhaps eggs will be broken, earthquakes and volcanism will be
triggered, but I suspect a great deal of the tensions we experience
*can* be resolved through a more complex model.

I think the local/global duality might be a good example...  the "think
global/act local" bumper sticker did seem to acknowledge that when it
first erupted.   When we consider the ways that a (more) global
optimization may actually improve our local circumstance, albeit in a
higher-dimensional space than the one we originally considered, this is
what happens.  

- 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posts from the Scotts

Marcus G. Daniels
Steve writes:

    Too much of our energy seems to be going into characterizing "the other" as
    inimical to our own interests and all but guaranteeing a "tectonic
    event" is the only way to resolve those differences.

“How did you go bankrupt?"
Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”

― Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises

============================================================
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posts from the Scotts

gepr
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
The 3 excerpts below seem to indicate the (my?) problem. At first, I though Marcus was agreeing with me by listing options for harm-of-eating-animals. But then he goes toward monism-by-unification with "agreeing on what matters" and whole-equilibrium-implies-part-equilibrium. And I thought Steve agreed with me by arguing for complexification and allowing duality. But then he reduces to unification-by-hidden-variables and ways-that-are-fundamentally-opposed.

The heart of the problem is this *intolerance* for inconsistency (otherwise known as reductionism?). Why do we (and I'm not immune, despite my schizotypal rhetoric) insist on boiling everything down to 1 or a few fundamental, self-consistent, things? Why can't reality be an inherently unpatterned mess of infinite, inconsistent, things? The heuristics that work in one era fail in another era, and so on, forever? The heuristics that work for one agent (e.g. 2 eyes, 10 fingers) fail for another agent? Why do we need universality across space, time, and world-cuttings?

I really like the idea that we need such things because we're resource and inference-style constrained computational devices ... as I imagine someone like David Wolpert might argue. But why can't the types over which one infers and one's inference style be dynamically context-sensitive such that practically, methodologically, deep pluralism is a more accurate way to model what it is _we_ are? Why is that sort of thing so repellent?

Maybe I'm a victim of my culture? Maybe deep pluralism is less repellent in Eastern philosophies, with multiple gods, or a reliance on "mystery" or somesuch? But, sheesh, I too get irritated when surrounded by *woo* people unwilling to really play some zero sum game, some admittedly temporary local what-if, set up by whoever the dungeon master is that evening. So, my willingness to play reductionist games prevents me from hanging out with the woo-peddlers who prescriptively and without irony, embrace pluralisms like "all is one" or "the Lord works in mysterious ways", seemingly just so they can be comfortable in their reductive grokking.

Bah! The jet lag must have scrambled my brain.

On 7/27/19 12:13 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> wanting my answers to all be simple
On 7/27/19 12:54 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> On 7/27/19 12:13 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>> The article on Cosmopolitanism seems to reference this somewhat...
>> That "giving a damn about the world at large" does not have to be in
>> opposition to "giving a damn about one's
>> family/community/region/nation", yet it is caricatured/characterized
>> that way so often.  How might one (one self or all-one) resolve this
>> kind of (artificial/rhetorical?) difference without geologic upheaval?
>
> Logic?   If the whole is in equilibrium than the parts are in equilibrium.
> I think upheaval is ok.   A few small earthquakes here and there won't release the energy.

On 7/27/19 1:44 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:>

> I made reference to "adding another level of indirection" to point in
> the general direction of admitting a more complex model that *subsumes*
> the disparate models that are currently at odds.   I agree/accept that
> some of the ways the models disagree may be fundamentally opposed and
> perhaps eggs will be broken, earthquakes and volcanism will be
> triggered, but I suspect a great deal of the tensions we experience
> *can* be resolved through a more complex model.
>
> I think the local/global duality might be a good example...  the "think
> global/act local" bumper sticker did seem to acknowledge that when it
> first erupted.   When we consider the ways that a (more) global
> optimization may actually improve our local circumstance, albeit in a
> higher-dimensional space than the one we originally considered, this is
> what happens.

============================================================
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posts from the Scotts

Marcus G. Daniels
Glen writes:

< But then he goes toward monism-by-unification with "agreeing on what matters" and whole-equilibrium-implies-part-equilibrium. >

The context was Steve's query about whether I think that multi-objective optimization is better than single-objective optimization.   That's not monism, it's a high dimensional Pareto curve where some variables are weighted as less important than others.   Lack of internal consistency or lack of evidence could be  reasons to weight them down.  That's not how it works in the idiocracy, of course.

< I really like the idea that we need such things because we're resource and inference-style constrained computational devices ... as I imagine someone like David Wolpert might argue. But why can't the types over which one infers and one's inference style be dynamically context-sensitive such that practically, methodologically, deep pluralism is a more accurate way to model what it is _we_ are? Why is that sort of thing so repellent? >

In a recent Handmaid's episode June asks Eleanor (who has severe mental health problems and a husband that is a war criminal) if she’s ever considered leaving Gilead.  Eleanor responds “You mean somewhere where I can get mood stabilizers instead of herbal tea?”   Besides the implications of pluralism on practical governance, there's the issue of overfitting.   If every situation can be explained by an unlimited number of parameters, it is never really modeled but just memorized.   What insane thing do I have to do to survive another day in Gilead?   Many handmaids lose their mind and do just that -- not just obey, but internalize the coercion as a good thing.   It occurs to me that a valuable ability of adulthood (at least in the US) is be at ease with insincerity.  In my mind it is the same thing as turning off the unification engine.  

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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posts from the Scotts

Steve Smith
In reply to this post by gepr

glen∈ℂ wrote:
> The 3 excerpts below seem to indicate the (my?) problem. At first, I
> though Marcus was agreeing with me by listing options for
> harm-of-eating-animals. But then he goes toward monism-by-unification
> with "agreeing on what matters" and
> whole-equilibrium-implies-part-equilibrium. And I thought Steve agreed
> with me by arguing for complexification and allowing duality. But then
> he reduces to unification-by-hidden-variables and
> ways-that-are-fundamentally-opposed.

I am inspired/excited by your use of an implied "pattern language" in
these hyphenated flaws-in-thinking or is it modes-of-thinking?   I'm
reminded of a book (long misplaced) I inherited from my grandfather's
library (born in 1898) who was for a modest time (<10 years) the
principal of a High School.  The book's title was "Straight and Crooked
Thinking" and had a modest amount of marginalia in his (I think?)
hand...   it was ostensibly written to help with the problems associated
with a newly literate (nouveau-literati?) class of people his age (and
perhaps older) who were abruptly inducted into RRR (readin', 'ritin,
'rithmatiken) by the introduction of widespread public schools in their
era, as well as the attendant bump in periodical publication and radio
broadcasting. 

I think we (both the plebians and elites alike) suffer from "crooked
thinking".... I don't know if a "pattern language" (ala Christopher
Alexander) is accessible enough to the masses to help, but might provide
good reference material for trying to straighten *some* of our crooked
thinking out.

>
> The heart of the problem is this *intolerance* for inconsistency
> (otherwise known as reductionism?).
And of course, what I propose/suggest/allude-to above is more of this,
as if all thought patterns can be reduced to a (small number of) finite
archetypical patterns.
> Why do we (and I'm not immune, despite my schizotypal rhetoric) insist
> on boiling everything down to 1 or a few fundamental, self-consistent,
> things? Why can't reality be an inherently unpatterned mess of
> infinite, inconsistent, things?
This is the classic tension between Logos and Chaos which may only be an
illusion auto-generated by the Logos itself.
> The heuristics that work in one era fail in another era, and so on,
> forever? The heuristics that work for one agent (e.g. 2 eyes, 10
> fingers) fail for another agent? Why do we need universality across
> space, time, and world-cuttings?

I think it is a natural "holy grail" to seek (for Logos itself, of which
we seem to be poster-children)... not a GUT necessarily, just another
gradient-following... up the gradient of entropy with myriad
false-summits in an infinite dimentsional manifold?

>
> I really like the idea that we need such things because we're resource
> and inference-style constrained computational devices ... as I imagine
> someone like David Wolpert might argue.
I can see how this might support that, but I'm not sure it is
necessary.   Just another "world-cutting" as you say... but an
interesting one, though I would want to characterize it more in the mode
of "the nature of consciousness itself".
> But why can't the types over which one infers and one's inference
> style be dynamically context-sensitive such that practically,
> methodologically, deep pluralism is a more accurate way to model what
> it is _we_ are? Why is that sort of thing so repellent?
I don't know that what I understand your "deep pluralism" as, to be *so
repellent*, but definitely somewhat rare, exotic and often chosen only
as a "last resort".   To the extent that *I* have both modes pulling at
me, I like to think of "deep pluralism" as the superposition of a
plurality of monist views...   it doesn't add anything except maybe a
bridge from the more monist to the more plural mode...   or perhaps
provides a poor substitute for the authentic pluralism the way digital
music doesn't match the warmth of analog vinyl tracks conditioned
through vacuum tubes (or is that just nostalgia?).
>
> Maybe I'm a victim of my culture? Maybe deep pluralism is less
> repellent in Eastern philosophies, with multiple gods, or a reliance
> on "mystery" or somesuch? But, sheesh, I too get irritated when
> surrounded by *woo* people unwilling to really play some zero sum
> game, some admittedly temporary local what-if, set up by whoever the
> dungeon master is that evening.
I'm on yet another fence here... amongst woo-peddlers, I become fairly
painfully reductionist and linear, but when the dominant mood in the air
is more cartesian and reductionistic, I tend to feel
protective/defensive.    Following Carse's "Finite and Infinite Games",
i contend that zero sum games really arent' that interesting, and when
they *are* interesting it is in a higher dimensional, non-zero sum
game... a couple of old friends rotating and iterating through a variety
of zero sum games (basketball, golf, canasta, swordfighting) to search
the space of their *relationship* which grows and enrichens through the
play, with any given zero-sum score meaning little-to nothing except as
a game-piece in the non-zero, synergistic game?
> So, my willingness to play reductionist games prevents me from hanging
> out with the woo-peddlers who prescriptively and without irony,
> embrace pluralisms like "all is one" or "the Lord works in mysterious
> ways", seemingly just so they can be comfortable in their reductive
> grokking.
Yes, there is a paradox in that... using "the unknowable" as an embrace
to actually achieve the "need to know".  I used to have a friend whose
nature was very reductionistic right up until he got cornered, whereupon
he would say "well, you never know!" in a tone that pretty much wasn't
that different than flipping the chessboard on check(mate) and
pretending that nothing had happened.
>
> Bah! The jet lag must have scrambled my brain.

Back from the UK Swarmfest meetup?  How was it?




============================================================
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posts from the Scotts

Marcus G. Daniels
Steve writes:

    I'm reminded of a book (long misplaced) I inherited from my grandfather's
    library (born in 1898) who was for a modest time (<10 years) the
    principal of a High School.  The book's title was "Straight and Crooked
    Thinking" and had a modest amount of marginalia in his (I think?)
    hand...  

How about Hairpin rather than Crooked?    Some just don't make the turn.  They cannot see what is right there.

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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posts from the Scotts

gepr
Yes, exactly! Referring back to the spectrum between episodic and diachronic personalities, it strikes me that the regular accusations I get of non sequitur, are something like hairpin turns in my (always bad) rhetoric. It's also just plain fun to do it and I wish others would do it to me as often as I do it to them. ... golden rule and all.

But I prefer to think of it not as any kind of smooth ephemeris, but as a scattered sampling of the larger space. When I'm actually trying to lay out a game to my fellow discussants, I'm trying to splat some paint on the parts of the space I think are particularly convoluted, with little pockets of can't-get-there-from-here.

Good presenters/writers don't do that, of course. They form complete sentences and attempt to draw lines between the dots. I'm impressed by such people in the same way I'm impressed by skilled violinists. But I have no interest whatsoever in playing the violin, either. It's way more fun (and effective) if you provide *some* dots and let each connect them (or not) as they please.

On 7/28/19 3:47 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> How about Hairpin rather than Crooked?    Some just don't make the turn.  They cannot see what is right there.

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