Friam

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

Classic

List

Threaded

22 messages Options

Nick Thompson

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

One of you said:

and I can't help but wonder *why* individuals are so entitled to think they deserve anything at all other than the opportunity to exist ... if even that.

Lurking in the back caves of my liberal bleeding heart lurks a troll who responds badly to "entitlement" and its close relative "victimhood."

Every entitlement enjoyed by one person relies on an obligation taken on by others. So the conversation should start with deciding what obligations we want to take on so as to afford a reasonable sense of safety and protection for others. I happen to think that I, and my children, and grandchildren will be happier there are basic supports to limit poverty, disease, and despair in the population around us. And, I am also glad when I think that those supports will be available for me and mine, should they become necessary. But is there a "moral hazard", here? Will I drive less cautiously because I have automobile insurance, smoke more and drink more Pepsi because I have health insurance, spend more freely because there will be food stamps? I suppose there's data on that, somewhere.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:00 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

Marcus wrote, in response to Glen:

> In the end, life is just a struggle for power.

I think this is technically accurate, but may carry a cynicism which ignores some subtleties along the way? It invokes the image attributed (I think) to Tennyson and perhaps exploited by Dawkins to provide contrast to support his Selfish Genery (Nick?). "Nature: Red in Tooth and Claw".

Edwin Wilson might anthropomorphize "genes" in Dawkins style, with his statement “morality is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate”, but it does seem to sum up one perspective on the illusions (or realities?) that seem to come along with cooperation

(symbiosis) in nature?

From my ALife days, "Life" is a lot of things at once, while being roughly as simple as systems which increase negentropy in the flux of free energy sources. Your "struggle for power" is perhaps a reflection of the competition for better exposure to said "flux". Coherence, Homeostasis, Reproduction, Competition for Resources... It seems like some here have been more deeply engaged in these topics than I... your colloquial use of "Power" would suggest a little higher level of emergent properties, implying networks of predator/prey, parasite/symbiote, even ecosystems? Erwin Schroedinger in his classic _What is Life?_ seemed to reduce it as well as any physicist could, yet still left open plenty of acknowledgement of higher level emergent properties (I think).

I have recently been reading up on "plant guilds" and in particular "tree guilds" to improve how I encourage or cultivate the landscape around my house to become more productive and interesting for me and mine. Recognizing the subtle interactions between highly distinct species (from every kingdom of life) and how their resonances can be reinforcing is fascinating. Of course, the ideal of what is "pleasing and productive" is highly context-dependent. I don't know what kinds of ecosystems have evolved around "invasive species" such as tumbleweeds, russian olives, tamarisk, but it might only be their relatively *recent* invasion that has us considering them a problem...

they haven't found an equilibrium with the other flora, fauna and hydrogeological phenomena (riparian in particular) and all WE recognize is the disruption of the old order, and lament the loss of the "convenient" qualities offered to us and ours by the old order.

I am also 90% of the way through Richard Powers latest Novel _Overstory_ which uses the lives and loves of perhaps a dozen humans to expose the rich and ancient history of and contemporary experience of Trees. It is something of an epic opus among his many richly complex books and characters. He did a reading at the Lensic in February and reported that during the course of the research for this book he moved to the edge of the Smoky Mountain National Park to be near the old growth forest there while he finished up the novel. The human societal metaphor of a Guild centered around a Tree seems pale in import and complexity in the face of his description of the legacy of trees and forests.

- Steve

> As soon as one starts to think in terms of entitled or not entitled (beyond rhetoric and tactics), it is just taking your eye off the ball. Whether it is for the best or not is in the end, subjective.

> Btw, it's good you point out the concept of the "underlying thread". Same idea: There's the stated topic of a thread and then there are latent topics. Usually latent topics are more interesting anyway. An individual can be a class or an individual can be one of a billion instances of a latent class. Mostly we are all redundant, and encouraged to be so -- the latter -- good little consumers, churchgoers, and taxpayers.

> On 4/10/19, 7:46 AM, "Friam on behalf of glen∈ℂ" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The underlying thread seems to be the extent to which we are part of a fluid and the extent to which that fluid's phenomena are distinct from those phenomena generated by the individual parts, the humans. Individualist ⇔ socialist spectrum, the ontological status of groups (including whether your animals are mere slaves or full members of your group), cyborg or healthy organelle, etc.

> It reminds me of the quote I think highlights the individualist's

> arrogance: "I don't know why we're here. But I'm pretty sure it's not

> to enjoy ourselves." (attributed to Wittgenstein)

> Why do we think we should ever "feel recharged", "be happy", "be healthy", etc? I look at the way my cats behave, compare their lives to that of the stray we fed (and who bled all over our patio every time he ate, who when we took him to the Feral Cat Society, killed him right off the bat because he had so many diseases) and I can't help but wonder *why* individuals are so entitled to think they deserve anything at all other than the opportunity to exist ... if even that.

> ============================================================

> 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

============================================================
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 Smith

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

One of you said:

and I can't help but wonder *why* individuals are so entitled to think they deserve anything at all other than the opportunity to exist ... if even that.

I didn't say it but I will defend it. Probably in one (or two) of my idiosyncratic ways:

I believe this was presented as more of a deep existential point rather than a progressive social one. E.G.: "Does this rock, the planet earth or for that matter *any planet* *deserve* an opportunity to exist?"
Even as a progressive social point, I think it is critical to notice that "what one deserves" is not commutative with "what a given society might choose to extend".

It would seem that "the Golden Rule" is reflexive but I contend that "Do unto others because you think others will and should (be required to?) reciprocate in kind" is not the same as "Do unto others as a way to participate in forming a desireable collective ethos which supports a cultural milieu in which I believe I would enjoy a favorable existence". I believe that "the Golden Rule"'s *gold* is in emergence.

Here is an interesting blog post on the topic of metal-metaphor rules (golden, brazen, iron, etc.) and the iterated prisoner's dilemma.

https://sites.google.com/site/markshirey/ideas/golden-rule-and-prisoner-s-dilemma

and of course the ever-popular variation on Tit-for-Tat: MOTH ;/

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/My-Way-or-the-Highway%3A-a-More-Naturalistic-Model-of-Joyce-Kennison/5ab1a937d62363f3816c6b80a53aba5730ef5806

Lurking in the back caves of my liberal bleeding heart lurks a troll who responds badly to "entitlement" and its close relative "victimhood."

Every entitlement enjoyed by one person relies on an obligation taken on by others. So the conversation should start with deciding what obligations we want to take on so as to afford a reasonable sense of safety and protection for others. I happen to think that I, and my children, and grandchildren will be happier there are basic supports to limit poverty, disease, and despair in the population around us. And, I am also glad when I think that those supports will be available for me and mine, should they become necessary. But is there a "moral hazard", here? Will I drive less cautiously because I have automobile insurance, smoke more and drink more Pepsi because I have health insurance, spend more freely because there will be food stamps? I suppose there's data on that, somewhere.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:00 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

Marcus wrote, in response to Glen:

> In the end, life is just a struggle for power.

I think this is technically accurate, but may carry a cynicism which ignores some subtleties along the way? It invokes the image attributed (I think) to Tennyson and perhaps exploited by Dawkins to provide contrast to support his Selfish Genery (Nick?). "Nature: Red in Tooth and Claw".

Edwin Wilson might anthropomorphize "genes" in Dawkins style, with his statement “morality is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate”, but it does seem to sum up one perspective on the illusions (or realities?) that seem to come along with cooperation

(symbiosis) in nature?

From my ALife days, "Life" is a lot of things at once, while being roughly as simple as systems which increase negentropy in the flux of free energy sources. Your "struggle for power" is perhaps a reflection of the competition for better exposure to said "flux".   Coherence, Homeostasis, Reproduction, Competition for Resources... It seems like some here have been more deeply engaged in these topics than I... your colloquial use of "Power" would suggest a little higher level of emergent properties, implying networks of predator/prey, parasite/symbiote, even ecosystems? Erwin Schroedinger in his classic _What is Life?_ seemed to reduce it as well as any physicist could, yet still left open plenty of acknowledgement of higher level emergent properties (I think).

I have recently been reading up on "plant guilds" and in particular "tree guilds" to improve how I encourage or cultivate the landscape around my house to become more productive and interesting for me and mine.   Recognizing the subtle interactions between highly distinct species (from every kingdom of life) and how their resonances can be reinforcing is fascinating. Of course, the ideal of what is "pleasing and productive" is highly context-dependent.   I don't know what kinds of ecosystems have evolved around "invasive species" such as tumbleweeds, russian olives, tamarisk, but it might only be their relatively *recent* invasion that has us considering them a problem...

they haven't found an equilibrium with the other flora, fauna and hydrogeological phenomena (riparian in particular) and all WE recognize is the disruption of the old order, and lament the loss of the "convenient" qualities offered to us and ours by the old order.

I am also 90% of the way through Richard Powers latest Novel _Overstory_ which uses the lives and loves of perhaps a dozen humans to expose the rich and ancient history of and contemporary experience of Trees. It is something of an epic opus among his many richly complex books and characters. He did a reading at the Lensic in February and reported that during the course of the research for this book he moved to the edge of the Smoky Mountain National Park to be near the old growth forest there while he finished up the novel. The human societal metaphor of a Guild centered around a Tree seems pale in import and complexity in the face of his description of the legacy of trees and forests.

- Steve

>   As soon as one starts to think in terms of entitled or not entitled (beyond rhetoric and tactics), it is just taking your eye off the ball.   Whether it is for the best or not is in the end, subjective.

>

> Btw, it's good you point out the concept of the "underlying thread".   Same idea: There's the stated topic of a thread and then there are latent topics.   Usually latent topics are more interesting anyway.   An individual can be a class or an individual can be one of a billion instances of a latent class.    Mostly we are all redundant, and encouraged to be so -- the latter -- good little consumers, churchgoers, and taxpayers.

>

> On 4/10/19, 7:46 AM, "Friam on behalf of glen∈ℂ" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>

>     The underlying thread seems to be the extent to which we are part of a fluid and the extent to which that fluid's phenomena are distinct from those phenomena generated by the individual parts, the humans. Individualist ⇔ socialist spectrum, the ontological status of groups (including whether your animals are mere slaves or full members of your group), cyborg or healthy organelle, etc.

>

>     It reminds me of the quote I think highlights the individualist's

> arrogance: "I don't know why we're here. But I'm pretty sure it's not

> to enjoy ourselves." (attributed to Wittgenstein)

>

>     Why do we think we should ever "feel recharged", "be happy", "be healthy", etc? I look at the way my cats behave, compare their lives to that of the stray we fed (and who bled all over our patio every time he ate, who when we took him to the Feral Cat Society, killed him right off the bat because he had so many diseases) and I can't help but wonder *why* individuals are so entitled to think they deserve anything at all other than the opportunity to exist ... if even that.

>

>

>     ============================================================

>     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
============================================================
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

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Everyone needs to understand---and soon---that the entitlement that allows us to exist as a species is disappearing rapidly as climate catastrophe continues to cascade. Everything else is noise.

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 1:02 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

One of you said:

and I can't help but wonder *why* individuals are so entitled to think they deserve anything at all other than the opportunity to exist ... if even that.

Lurking in the back caves of my liberal bleeding heart lurks a troll who responds badly to "entitlement" and its close relative "victimhood."
Every entitlement enjoyed by one person relies on an obligation taken on by others. So the conversation should start with deciding what obligations we want to take on so as to afford a reasonable sense of safety and protection for others. I happen to think that I, and my children, and grandchildren will be happier there are basic supports to limit poverty, disease, and despair in the population around us. And, I am also glad when I think that those supports will be available for me and mine, should they become necessary. But is there a "moral hazard", here? Will I drive less cautiously because I have automobile insurance, smoke more and drink more Pepsi because I have health insurance, spend more freely because there will be food stamps? I suppose there's data on that, somewhere.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:00 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

Marcus wrote, in response to Glen:

> In the end, life is just a struggle for power.

I think this is technically accurate, but may carry a cynicism which ignores some subtleties along the way? It invokes the image attributed (I think) to Tennyson and perhaps exploited by Dawkins to provide contrast to support his Selfish Genery (Nick?). "Nature: Red in Tooth and Claw".

Edwin Wilson might anthropomorphize "genes" in Dawkins style, with his statement “morality is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate”, but it does seem to sum up one perspective on the illusions (or realities?) that seem to come along with cooperation
(symbiosis) in nature?

From my ALife days, "Life" is a lot of things at once, while being roughly as simple as systems which increase negentropy in the flux of free energy sources. Your "struggle for power" is perhaps a reflection of the competition for better exposure to said "flux".   Coherence, Homeostasis, Reproduction, Competition for Resources... It seems like some here have been more deeply engaged in these topics than I... your colloquial use of "Power" would suggest a little higher level of emergent properties, implying networks of predator/prey, parasite/symbiote, even ecosystems? Erwin Schroedinger in his classic _What is Life?_ seemed to reduce it as well as any physicist could, yet still left open plenty of acknowledgement of higher level emergent properties (I think).

I have recently been reading up on "plant guilds" and in particular "tree guilds" to improve how I encourage or cultivate the landscape around my house to become more productive and interesting for me and mine.   Recognizing the subtle interactions between highly distinct species (from every kingdom of life) and how their resonances can be reinforcing is fascinating. Of course, the ideal of what is "pleasing and productive" is highly context-dependent.   I don't know what kinds of ecosystems have evolved around "invasive species" such as tumbleweeds, russian olives, tamarisk, but it might only be their relatively *recent* invasion that has us considering them a problem...
they haven't found an equilibrium with the other flora, fauna and hydrogeological phenomena (riparian in particular) and all WE recognize is the disruption of the old order, and lament the loss of the "convenient" qualities offered to us and ours by the old order.

I am also 90% of the way through Richard Powers latest Novel _Overstory_ which uses the lives and loves of perhaps a dozen humans to expose the rich and ancient history of and contemporary experience of Trees. It is something of an epic opus among his many richly complex books and characters. He did a reading at the Lensic in February and reported that during the course of the research for this book he moved to the edge of the Smoky Mountain National Park to be near the old growth forest there while he finished up the novel. The human societal metaphor of a Guild centered around a Tree seems pale in import and complexity in the face of his description of the legacy of trees and forests.

- Steve

>   As soon as one starts to think in terms of entitled or not entitled (beyond rhetoric and tactics), it is just taking your eye off the ball.   Whether it is for the best or not is in the end, subjective.
>
> Btw, it's good you point out the concept of the "underlying thread".   Same idea: There's the stated topic of a thread and then there are latent topics.   Usually latent topics are more interesting anyway.   An individual can be a class or an individual can be one of a billion instances of a latent class.    Mostly we are all redundant, and encouraged to be so -- the latter -- good little consumers, churchgoers, and taxpayers.
>
> On 4/10/19, 7:46 AM, "Friam on behalf of glen∈ℂ" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>     The underlying thread seems to be the extent to which we are part of a fluid and the extent to which that fluid's phenomena are distinct from those phenomena generated by the individual parts, the humans. Individualist ⇔ socialist spectrum, the ontological status of groups (including whether your animals are mere slaves or full members of your group), cyborg or healthy organelle, etc.
>
>     It reminds me of the quote I think highlights the individualist's
> arrogance: "I don't know why we're here. But I'm pretty sure it's not
> to enjoy ourselves." (attributed to Wittgenstein)
>
>     Why do we think we should ever "feel recharged", "be happy", "be healthy", etc? I look at the way my cats behave, compare their lives to that of the stray we fed (and who bled all over our patio every time he ate, who when we took him to the Feral Cat Society, killed him right off the bat because he had so many diseases) and I can't help but wonder *why* individuals are so entitled to think they deserve anything at all other than the opportunity to exist ... if even that.
>
>
>     ============================================================
>     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
============================================================
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

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Executive Director, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

[hidden email]
mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

gepr

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

On 4/10/19 1:34 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> https://sites.google.com/site/markshirey/ideas/golden-rule-and-prisoner-s-dilemma

Excellent article! Thanks. Is it actually an article by Sagan? Or a blog post by Shirey?

In any case, the "Tin Rule" targets my confusion well, because it's modal, using 1 rule for 1 context and another rule for another context. What I don't understand is why anyone would even think in terms of fixed rules to begin with. The concept of Universal Income is fantastic and I'd gladly give up a large portion of my salary to support it. But, like all these XYZ Rule siblings (ancestors?) of Kant's Categorical Imperative, they seem to imply a STATIC or at least high inertially stable equilibrium ... something stable enough to make a "good" rule yesterday remain a "good" rule today.

I don't know what world(s) you people live in. But my world has never been that stable or well-defined. This is the origin of my question: Why (or "what canalizes" for Gary 8^) people to expect their world to treat them well? Why do people feel like their lives should be "pain free"? Why do people think they don't deserve to die starving in dirty streets? Etc.

What mechanism is responsible for these patterns of expectation, given (what seems to me) a co-evolutionary milieu far from equilibrium? Is it simply Hebbian/reinforcement learning, an embodied type of (false) induction? I'm skeptical because of your (Steve) question about the unreasonable efficacy of mathematics in modeling the world. Your mention of negentropy in this thread seems spot on.

But, like the Tin Rule, whatever answer is implied by such concepts must be at least modal, if not something more sophisticated like Aristotle's separation of causes (and/or Rosen's idea that some types of cause can be closed while the others remain open). We're not looking for something as simple as reinforcement learning. We're looking for principles of the universe robust to ... something yet fragile to something else.

On 4/10/19 1:34 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

>
>> One of you said:
>>
>>
>>
>> */and I can't help but wonder *why* individuals are so entitled to
>> think they deserve anything at all other than the opportunity to exist
>> ... if even that./*
>>
> I didn't say it but I will defend it. Probably in one (or two) of my
> idiosyncratic ways:
>
> 1. I believe this was presented as more of a deep existential point
> rather than a progressive social one. E.G.: "Does this rock, the
> planet earth or for that matter *any planet* *deserve* an
> opportunity to exist?"
> 2. Even as a progressive social point, I think it is critical to notice
> that "what one deserves" is not commutative with "what a given
> society might choose to extend".
>
> It would seem that "the Golden Rule" is reflexive but I contend that "Do
> unto others because you think others will and should (be required to?)
> reciprocate in kind" is not the same as "Do unto others as a way to
> participate in forming a desireable collective ethos which supports a
> cultural milieu in which I believe I would enjoy a favorable
> existence". I believe that "the Golden Rule"'s *gold* is in emergence.
>
> Here is an interesting blog post on the topic of metal-metaphor rules
> (golden, brazen, iron, etc.) and the iterated prisoner's dilemma.
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/markshirey/ideas/golden-rule-and-prisoner-s-dilemma
>
> and of course the ever-popular variation on Tit-for-Tat: MOTH ;/
>
> https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/My-Way-or-the-Highway%3A-a-More-Naturalistic-Model-of-Joyce-Kennison/5ab1a937d62363f3816c6b80a53aba5730ef5806
>
>> *//*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Lurking in the back caves of my liberal bleeding heart lurks a troll
>> who responds badly to "entitlement" and its close relative "victimhood."
>>
>> Every entitlement enjoyed by one person relies on an obligation taken
>> on by others. So the conversation should start with deciding what
>> obligations we want to take on so as to afford a reasonable sense of
>> safety and protection for others. I happen to think that I, and my
>> children, and grandchildren will be happier there are basic supports
>> to limit poverty, disease, and despair in the population around us.
>> And, I am also glad when I think that those supports will be available
>> for me and mine, should they become necessary. But is there a "moral
>> hazard", here? Will I drive less cautiously because I have automobile
>> insurance, smoke more and drink more Pepsi because I have health
>> insurance, spend more freely because there will be food stamps? I
>> suppose there's data on that, somewhere.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

Glen writes:

"What mechanism is responsible for these patterns of expectation, given (what seems to me) a co-evolutionary milieu far from equilibrium? Is it simply Hebbian/reinforcement learning, an embodied type of (false) induction? I'm skeptical because of your (Steve) question about the unreasonable efficacy of mathematics in modeling the world. Your mention of negentropy in this thread seems spot on."

Parents, educators, religious and political leaders and prison guards all lower the dimensionality of the space of the possible. To confront a complex world without a map or a rule book is a distraction and a drain. I doubt many people take a different route to work every day just for the fun of it. Likewise most people don't change their friends or their church every week. I could go to several different coffee shops but I really just go to one per vicinity. I could go to dozens of cultural events, some where I would blend-in and others where I would not. Let a hundred flowers blossom but I'll have my Benadryl tablets nearby.

People want to believe their life and tribe is worth something. To doubt that is to doubt every thought and action. (Which they should do, but simply cannot.)

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

Steve Smith

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen -

On 4/10/19 1:34 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

https://sites.google.com/site/markshirey/ideas/golden-rule-and-prisoner-s-dilemma

Excellent article! Thanks. Is it actually an article by Sagan? Or a blog post by Shirey?

I parse it as a blog post by Shirey which is composed of 3 included articles (I believe) 1) Dear Abby; 2) Carl Sagan; 3) Wendy Grossman, though I didn't fact-check if the included text is accurate. The bulk of it is attributed to Sagan. Oh if only TBL had been more true to Xanadu!

In any case, the "Tin Rule" targets my confusion well, because it's modal, using 1 rule for 1 context and another rule for another context.

I don't think of it as modal (though it is in the precise presentation offered) as much as dependent on an additional variable: social or genetic distance.

What I don't understand is why anyone would even think in terms of fixed rules to begin with. The concept of Universal Income is fantastic and I'd gladly give up a large portion of my salary to support it. But, like all these XYZ Rule siblings (ancestors?) of Kant's Categorical Imperative, they seem to imply a STATIC or at least high inertially stable equilibrium ... something stable enough to make a "good" rule yesterday remain a "good" rule today.

As a modeler/simulant, you know the answer to your own question: "all models are wrong, some are useful"? I'm not sure what the threshold (quality or quantity) you would put on when a "game's rules" are no longer fixed. I suspect most if not all of your code is not only finite in length but is not self-modifying? These would be fixed, if often very complex, rules?

I wonder if you are distinguishing Finite and Infinite Games (in the sense of Carse) or more Static V Dynamic balance?

I also tend to treat these "moral rules" as heuristics, as rules-of-thumb. I don't spend a lot of time considering the exceptions to rules like the 10 commandments, but believe that there are circumstances when I might Kill or Covet a Wife or Borrow and not Return something without undue guilt or collapse of the society I live in.

I don't know what world(s) you people live in. But my world has never been that stable or well-defined.

Is this not a matter of perspective? If I wrote my memoir, some would find my life's arc that of a veritable pinball careening off of a series of locales, jobs, partners, ideologies while others might find the streamlined arcs within it. In fact, I am editing my partner's memoirs right now for her and find the challenge to be precisely that... how to present the data (anecdotal factoids) in a way that preserves those collisions whilst fitting (some of) them to various (spliney) arcs, whilst still not overfitting or cherry picking (too much)?

This is the origin of my question: Why (or "what canalizes" for Gary 8^) people to expect their world to treat them well? Why do people feel like their lives should be "pain free"? Why do people think they don't deserve to die starving in dirty streets? Etc.

This seems to often be the domain of religion, even the pseudo-religion of "secular humanism". I would claim that as soon as you introduce the idea of "deserve" (even in the negative), you have introduced something very much like a religious framework. Being a society deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, we inherit a LOT of "deserves" and "deserve-nots" and "shalls" and "shants" from that tradition, even if it is encoded in political or social organizations. I myself, despite being raised nearly Agnostic and practicing as a (mild) Athiest am fascinated with the Judeo-Christian ideal of Divine Grace, independent of an anthropomorphised father-figure. In the spirit of JFK's "Ask Not" speech, I'm more interested in what I can do to make the world a "better" place (for all, though probably biased as with the tin-rule) than I am in how to manipulate others into making my own local "place" better for me personally.

I think this is where our democracy falls short, too often neglecting the basis of citizenship it is (presumed to be?) built upon. It is the duality of *rights* and *responsibilities* in a group that transcends simple kinship and possibly geopolitics. We have become overly focused on "what can (should) my country do for me"... and I say that as someone whose instincts as an individualist are *strong*. I'm not saying I *can't* withdraw from society and make (some level of) sense of myself as an individual or a member of a small(ish) group, but rather that I see benefits in *choosing* to throw in with a much larger group. I suppose, referencing back to the start of this discussion, *softening* the tin-rule, or *expanding the scope* of me/mine to be more inclusive with a *possible* goal of globalism or even pan-conscioussness-ism?

I wonder if some of the nostalgia for "Nationalism" isn't rooted in the advantage gained when we transcended kinship or tribalism or regionalism, but then abberrated into the belief that xenophobic responses to "other" are not just positive but *necessary*? Conflating "having good friends" and "it is good to have a well-identified enemy"?

What mechanism is responsible for these patterns of expectation, given (what seems to me) a co-evolutionary milieu far from equilibrium? Is it simply Hebbian/reinforcement learning, an embodied type of (false) induction?

I think this ties back into the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma and your point about "why rules?". I think you are asking something more profound or more subtle than I am apprehending here. In the language you are hinting at, I think maybe there is a *coherence* advantage in "thinking one deserves", just as I believe there are *some* (group?) survival advantages to over-estimating one's abilities. Or perhaps the true advantage is from a group having a distribution of members from pessimist to optimist?

I'm skeptical because of your (Steve) question about the unreasonable efficacy of mathematics in modeling the world. Your mention of negentropy in this thread seems spot on.

But, like the Tin Rule, whatever answer is implied by such concepts must be at least modal, if not something more sophisticated like Aristotle's separation of causes (and/or Rosen's idea that some types of cause can be closed while the others remain open). We're not looking for something as simple as reinforcement learning. We're looking for principles of the universe robust to ... something yet fragile to something else.

I may have to re-read this paragraph when I've taken a break (maybe a nap!?) as I taste strong hints of profound/subtle in it, but am not quite getting the full implications. Or maybe you can elaborate/elucidate, or maybe someone else will respond to this particlarly... I need more parallax?

- Steve

On 4/10/19 1:34 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

One of you said:

*/and I can't help but wonder *why* individuals are so entitled to
think they deserve anything at all other than the opportunity to exist
... if even that./*

I didn't say it but I will defend it. Probably in one (or two) of my
idiosyncratic ways:

1. I believe this was presented as more of a deep existential point
     rather than a progressive social one. E.G.: "Does this rock, the
     planet earth or for that matter *any planet* *deserve* an
     opportunity to exist?"
2. Even as a progressive social point, I think it is critical to notice
     that "what one deserves" is not commutative with "what a given
     society might choose to extend".

It would seem that "the Golden Rule" is reflexive but I contend that "Do
unto others because you think others will and should (be required to?)
reciprocate in kind" is not the same as "Do unto others as a way to
participate in forming a desireable collective ethos which supports a
cultural milieu in which I believe I would enjoy a favorable
existence". I believe that "the Golden Rule"'s *gold* is in emergence.

Here is an interesting blog post on the topic of metal-metaphor rules
(golden, brazen, iron, etc.) and the iterated prisoner's dilemma.

     https://sites.google.com/site/markshirey/ideas/golden-rule-and-prisoner-s-dilemma

and of course the ever-popular variation on Tit-for-Tat: MOTH ;/

     https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/My-Way-or-the-Highway%3A-a-More-Naturalistic-Model-of-Joyce-Kennison/5ab1a937d62363f3816c6b80a53aba5730ef5806

*//*

Lurking in the back caves of my liberal bleeding heart lurks a troll
who responds badly to "entitlement" and its close relative "victimhood."

Every entitlement enjoyed by one person relies on an obligation taken
on by others. So the conversation should start with deciding what
obligations we want to take on so as to afford a reasonable sense of
safety and protection for others. I happen to think that I, and my
children, and grandchildren will be happier there are basic supports
to limit poverty, disease, and despair in the population around us.
And, I am also glad when I think that those supports will be available
for me and mine, should they become necessary. But is there a "moral
hazard", here? Will I drive less cautiously because I have automobile
insurance, smoke more and drink more Pepsi because I have health
insurance, spend more freely because there will be food stamps? I
suppose there's data on that, somewhere.

============================================================
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 Smith

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Marcus -
> Glen writes:
>
> "What mechanism is responsible for these patterns of expectation, given (what seems to me) a co-evolutionary milieu far from equilibrium? Is it simply Hebbian/reinforcement learning, an embodied type of (false) induction? I'm skeptical because of your (Steve) question about the unreasonable efficacy of mathematics in modeling the world. Your mention of negentropy in this thread seems spot on."
>
> Parents, educators, religious and political leaders and prison guards all lower the dimensionality of the space of the possible. To confront a complex world without a map or a rule book is a distraction and a drain. I doubt many people take a different route to work every day just for the fun of it. Likewise most people don't change their friends or their church every week. I could go to several different coffee shops but I really just go to one per vicinity. I could go to dozens of cultural events, some where I would blend-in and others where I would not.
I think this helps resolve my difficulty with this in my last post.   It
seems like an elaboration of "constraint provides form"?
> Let a hundred flowers blossom but I'll have my Benadryl tablets nearby.
>
> People want to believe their life and tribe is worth something. To doubt that is to doubt every thought and action. (Which they should do, but simply cannot.)

Both points nicely profound. I think the "scoping of identity" is the
core issue in how well this plays and how well it plays among different
groups.

The admonition that liberals engage too much in "identity politics" is
probably an exposure of this difference. Taking up the cause of those
who are *superficially* different from me in *similar ways* is one way
for me to expand my scope of identity and empathy.   Speaking/thinking
of my black/brown/yellow/red brothers/sisters *as* brothers and sisters
is just a matter of expanding my sense of self-concern to include a
broader set, along with their (relatively) unique set of issues.   Is
the complement (identifying groups so as to anti-identify?) always a
negative, xenophobic response? Is there anything like common
ground/compromise/alternative perspective to unite those in each camp?

- 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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

Steve writes:

< It seems like an elaboration of "constraint provides form"? >

Here I'll admit I just have no interest in games, puzzles, and most sports. Just what IS the point?
I think it is the same kind of psychology at work: Let's create some artificial thing that can be mastered or at least measured and that a group can all relate to in an straightforward way. For reasons I just can't get my head around, people just love this stuff. Playing by the rules is a Good Thing, whereas finding the weaknesses in a set of rules (e.g. hacking or using yet-to-be-identified performance enhancing drugs) is a Bad Thing. Manipulating a market is a bad thing, but gaming it is Good Thing.
What? The form is JUST a social form, not a universal form. If the system is to be cheated shall elect an authoritarian to do it. (Nixon replies, "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.") Duh.

< The admonition that liberals engage too much in "identity politics" is
probably an exposure of this difference. Taking up the cause of those
who are *superficially* different from me in *similar ways* is one way
for me to expand my scope of identity and empathy. >

What I'm pitching here is not to extend identity, but to annihilate it.

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

gepr

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

On 4/11/19 10:08 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> What I'm pitching here is not to extend identity, but to annihilate it.

Can we, though? In the conversation about playing roles instead of simply changing topics of conversation, there seemed to be quite a bit of push back in the sense of "authenticity". I may not be remembering well. But my argument for adopting roles was *in order to* allow for episodic people like me to avoid the pressure by others to "have an identity" or identify with some group or other. My lack of a coherent identity feels innate or learned at an early age. I think I do a fair job of seeming normal despite my lack ... mostly through attempts at consistency and efficiency. But I have to fight being offended when someone "identifies" (pigeonholes) me.

If *I* can't annihilate my identity, I can't help but wonder who can? Buddha?

--
☣ 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

Nick Thompson

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

Wait, Marcus, wait! Hang on, there! Didn't you just assert an identity?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 12:14 PM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

On 4/11/19 10:08 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> What I'm pitching here is not to extend identity, but to annihilate it.

Can we, though? In the conversation about playing roles instead of simply changing topics of conversation, there seemed to be quite a bit of push back in the sense of "authenticity". I may not be remembering well. But my argument for adopting roles was *in order to* allow for episodic people like me to avoid the pressure by others to "have an identity" or identify with some group or other. My lack of a coherent identity feels innate or learned at an early age. I think I do a fair job of seeming normal despite my lack ... mostly through attempts at consistency and efficiency. But I have to fight being offended when someone "identifies" (pigeonholes) me.

If *I* can't annihilate my identity, I can't help but wonder who can? Buddha?

--
☣ 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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

I'm not sure what you mean. In most programming languages there are different kinds of comparison operators. For example, Common Lisp has EQ which compares identity, EQL which compares values, EQUAL which checks for isomorphic objects, and EQUALP which is recursive. By avoiding use of EQ (identity) we have more costly comparisons, but they are transparent.

On 4/11/19, 11:17 AM, "Friam on behalf of Nick Thompson" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

Wait, Marcus, wait! Hang on, there! Didn't you just assert an identity?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 12:14 PM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

On 4/11/19 10:08 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> What I'm pitching here is not to extend identity, but to annihilate it.

Can we, though? In the conversation about playing roles instead of simply changing topics of conversation, there seemed to be quite a bit of push back in the sense of "authenticity". I may not be remembering well. But my argument for adopting roles was *in order to* allow for episodic people like me to avoid the pressure by others to "have an identity" or identify with some group or other. My lack of a coherent identity feels innate or learned at an early age. I think I do a fair job of seeming normal despite my lack ... mostly through attempts at consistency and efficiency. But I have to fight being offended when someone "identifies" (pigeonholes) me.

If *I* can't annihilate my identity, I can't help but wonder who can? Buddha?

--
☣ 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 Smith

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Marcus -

> Steve writes:
>
> < It seems like an elaboration of "constraint provides form"? >
>
> Here I'll admit I just have no interest in games, puzzles, and most sports. Just what IS the point?
> I think it is the same kind of psychology at work: Let's create some artificial thing that can be mastered or at least measured and that a group can all relate to in an straightforward way. For reasons I just can't get my head around, people just love this stuff.

I don't know that I feel the same for the same reasons, but I do have a
resonance with this kind of rejection of artificial "games".   While I
have been willing (even interested) in playing at various games in my
life, they rarely capture me the way they seem to for others.   For me,
the interesting aspect of a game is the opportunities for exploration
and discovery it provides.   For others it *seems* to be about a
false-mastery? Learning enough tricks idiosyncratic to that game and/or
their level or style of play with it, to be competitive/dominant.   An
acutely contemporary and relevant (political) example of this is Trump's
allegedly elaborate style of cheating at Golf.   I believe there is a
book out, elaborating the details of his myriad modes of cheating.
FWIW I found a great deal of my formal education to suffer the same kind
of gratuitousness...   When assigned 'all the odd numbered problems in
chapter 11' I was willing to do as many of them as I felt helped me
recognize the pattern of the principle being taught, but would often
stop at the point I had learned what I needed to, leading me to have
more than a smattering of B and C grades in subjects which I felt plenty
competent in (and usually got A grades on the tests). Some
teachers/profs seemed to understand that and accommodated while others
took it as a sign of laziness and/or disrespect.

I've heard your reference to things like "that a group can all relate to
it in a straightforward way" in other posts, and am empathetic with it
myself. I might seem to try to define groups (or activities or ideals)
which *I* want to be associated with (and measured/contested
against/amongst), but that might reflect a "lesser of evils" than
anything. I found formal education (at all levels but maybe more
acutely through the 6-14 levels?).   Early and late in my education I
felt a stronger sense of "play" and felt I was at least not interfered
too much with as I "explored" things not directly in the curriculum,
with a few notable exceptions.

> Playing by the rules is a Good Thing, whereas finding the weaknesses in a set of rules (e.g. hacking or using yet-to-be-identified performance enhancing drugs) is a Bad Thing.
But more recently elevated back to a "Good Thing"?   Most of MY extended
peer group seems to honor a certain amount of hacking (whether it be OS
Kernals, Network Security, Kitchen Skills, or their Own
Bodies/Performance).
> Manipulating a market is a bad thing, but gaming it is Good Thing.
> What? The form is JUST a social form, not a universal form. If the system is to be cheated shall elect an authoritarian to do it. (Nixon replies, "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.") Duh.
I think the catch 22 (or is it 333 or 666 in this case?) of this kind of
thinking is not that what the head of the executive branch does is by
definition not-illegal, but rather simply not-enforceable in our system?
>
> < The admonition that liberals engage too much in "identity politics" is
> probably an exposure of this difference. Taking up the cause of those
> who are *superficially* different from me in *similar ways* is one way
> for me to expand my scope of identity and empathy. >
>
> What I'm pitching here is not to extend identity, but to annihilate it.
What little Buddhist/Meditation affinity/practice I have suggests that
it is an illusion which on a good day is fully ignored ("but by whom?"
the paradox asks).   To the extent that *most* everyone I know presents
to me (or I apprehend them as such) as an ego-centric individual, I
don't know what it means exactly to annihilate our identities. Perhaps
you are speaking more of the social norms of crafting or projecting a
pseudo-identity from a buffet of "reserved identities" and building a
meta-game around them of "how one should (inter)act" with that milieu
looking a lot like the "games" you notice you don't enjoy playing.

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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

Steve writes:

< What little Buddhist/Meditation affinity/practice I have suggests that
it is an illusion which on a good day is fully ignored ("but by whom?"
the paradox asks). To the extent that *most* everyone I know presents
to me (or I apprehend them as such) as an ego-centric individual, I
don't know what it means exactly to annihilate our identities. Perhaps
you are speaking more of the social norms of crafting or projecting a
pseudo-identity from a buffet of "reserved identities" and building a
meta-game around them of "how one should (inter)act" with that milieu
looking a lot like the "games" you notice you don't enjoy playing. >

Among engineers, especially young ones, one way the ego-centric individual presents herself is via Not Invented Here (NIH). She simply cannot imagine studying and using another work. The tribe permits it so long as the tribe can be impermeable to criticism and that they can get her to associate the work with the group. It doesn't matter if it is grossly wasteful of time or money. Also NIH superficially makes the engineer appear more instrumental because she is solving a simpler problem than if she rationalized the state-of-the-art before beginning her venture.

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

gepr

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

What you seem to be describing is a kind of social "flow", where some say the ego disappears in the midst of it.

Google presented this:

Optimal Experience and Optimal Identity: A Multinational Study of the Associations Between Flow and Social Identity
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00067/full

which seems to argue to the contrary, that flow facilitates identity. I suppose it might be counter-intuitive to some. But it makes sense to me if we think of teamwork as a type of reinforcement learning, an entrainment to be a member of the team.

Whatever, though. The question it raises to me is the (canonical?) difference between ego and identity. Do any of you psych people care to provide distinguishing definitions for a lazy dilettante like me?

On 4/11/19 12:07 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Among engineers, especially young ones, one way the ego-centric individual presents herself is via Not Invented Here (NIH). She simply cannot imagine studying and using another work. The tribe permits it so long as the tribe can be impermeable to criticism and that they can get her to associate the work with the group. It doesn't matter if it is grossly wasteful of time or money. Also NIH superficially makes the engineer appear more instrumental because she is solving a simpler problem than if she rationalized the state-of-the-art before beginning her venture.

--
☣ 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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

Here is an example. It's come up in different ways over the years and I always find it strange. I recently was ask to fill in a form where I state what my role on project is. The project is not well defined and much should be debated IMO. But there is desire to get on with the business of doing the poorly-defined thing. In terms of skills, I could do different tasks on such a project. Should I write down the thing I expect people will expect me to write down (mimic their prejudices) in order to reduce cognitive dissonance and friction, or assert the thing I think is important, or even the thing I like, without regard to the shortest path to having the team `gel' (sarcasm). My experience is that there a part of any team that just wants consensus, and doesn't care one iota what or why they are doing the thing, or if it is even a good idea. It is a hunger for social order that I find incomprehensible and unnecessary.

On 4/11/19, 12:35 PM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

What you seem to be describing is a kind of social "flow", where some say the ego disappears in the midst of it.

Google presented this:

Optimal Experience and Optimal Identity: A Multinational Study of the Associations Between Flow and Social Identity
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00067/full

which seems to argue to the contrary, that flow facilitates identity. I suppose it might be counter-intuitive to some. But it makes sense to me if we think of teamwork as a type of reinforcement learning, an entrainment to be a member of the team.

Whatever, though. The question it raises to me is the (canonical?) difference between ego and identity. Do any of you psych people care to provide distinguishing definitions for a lazy dilettante like me?

On 4/11/19 12:07 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Among engineers, especially young ones, one way the ego-centric individual presents herself is via Not Invented Here (NIH). She simply cannot imagine studying and using another work. The tribe permits it so long as the tribe can be impermeable to criticism and that they can get her to associate the work with the group. It doesn't matter if it is grossly wasteful of time or money. Also NIH superficially makes the engineer appear more instrumental because she is solving a simpler problem than if she rationalized the state-of-the-art before beginning her venture.

--
☣ 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

gepr

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

Hm. One thing that's not addressed well in that paper (as far as I know, since all I did was skim ... and I'm completely ignorant of the entire domain) is identity fluidity. The seem to talk about the strength of one's feelings of belonging (or get-alonging, if we translate to your hunger for social order) without addressing any kind of dynamic shifting from one group to another, where the strength of identity is the same in both groups.

E.g. I was an "influence manager" at one of the jobs I hated. In that job, I had to instantaneously switch from the "engineer group" [†] to the "management group" many time during meetings ... like some sort of tortured rat hopping around on an electrified floor. I'm good at such hopping, which is why they paid me to do it. But my point is that the strength of my identity as part of management was equal to the strength of my identity as one of the engineers.

In such meetings, I didn't really care if people volunteered for a role or if they were assigned that role by the politic. But I did care that people weren't fostering friction because of their (seemingly static) visions of their self. The little voice in my head kept yelling: "Just try to do the work! Who cares what you think about your self?" I can see how some of them might think *I* had a hunger for social order. But in reality, it was a desire to escape the electrified floor that is people thinking their identities are real.

[†] Where "engineer" means "vaguely technical, geeky, person", unfortunately.

On 4/11/19 12:56 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> Here is an example. It's come up in different ways over the years and I always find it strange. I recently was ask to fill in a form where I state what my role on project is. The project is not well defined and much should be debated IMO. But there is desire to get on with the business of doing the poorly-defined thing. In terms of skills, I could do different tasks on such a project. Should I write down the thing I expect people will expect me to write down (mimic their prejudices) in order to reduce cognitive dissonance and friction, or assert the thing I think is important, or even the thing I like, without regard to the shortest path to having the team `gel' (sarcasm). My experience is that there a part of any team that just wants consensus, and doesn't care one iota what or why they are doing the thing, or if it is even a good idea. It is a hunger for social order that I find incomprehensible and unnecessary.
>
> On 4/11/19, 12:35 PM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> What you seem to be describing is a kind of social "flow", where some say the ego disappears in the midst of it.
>
> Google presented this:
>
> Optimal Experience and Optimal Identity: A Multinational Study of the Associations Between Flow and Social Identity
> https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00067/full

--
☣ 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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

Glen writes:

"Just try to do the work! Who cares what you think about your self?"

Uh huh. The right way to think is What Needs To Get Done, not whether you get github stars to show you did it in a day or a month, or that it shows any sort of consistency on your CV. No one gives a damn. Really no one.

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

Steve Smith

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Marcus -
> Among engineers, especially young ones, one way the ego-centric individual presents herself is via Not Invented Here (NIH). She simply cannot imagine studying and using another work. The tribe permits it so long as the tribe can be impermeable to criticism and that they can get her to associate the work with the group. It doesn't matter if it is grossly wasteful of time or money. Also NIH superficially makes the engineer appear more instrumental because she is solving a simpler problem than if she rationalized the state-of-the-art before beginning her venture.

I've done my time mentoring aspiring engineers. For the longest time,
I found a certain "reverse psychology" to work well. Instead of
assigning them to (find and) learn and use a
package/library/circuit/mechanism and have them resist and subvert that
assignment (like conjuring their own point-solution to a subset of the
real problem), I found that if I assigned them the problem of conjuring
their own algorithm and (re)implementing it, they would go bashing
around trying to find a shortcut (e.g. someone else having already
studied the problem well and found optimal solutions).

Even for myself, I've found that if a library/package/tool seems
intractable, if I go off and try to hamfist the same thing without the
leverage I come to appreciate more of the nuances of the problem as well
as being humbled into a new kind of patience by trying to solve it "the
hard way".

- 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

Steve Smith

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen -

I (think I) experience identity-fluidity through both the "group flow"
referenced in the article and what seems to be nothing more than good
old fashioned "empathy".

In "group flow" it is as if the team/group becomes part of my extended
self. This may reflect some narcissism on my part, why don't I
experience this as being "subsumed into a higher power/group/purpose"?

My "empathy", when properly challenged and exercised can lead me to see
things from many perspectives, not simply to "get along", but honestly
to try to understand the problem/solution space that is presented to us
as we explore it by studying it and developing (iterative) solutions.
My empathy simply proved me multiple parallax.   Admittedly it can also
freeze me with too much info/perspective and it can sometimes lead to
muddied/muddled understandings/solutions.

What Marcus references as "gelling" and "need for social order" strikes
me as superficial goals which are emergent properties, not sufficient
pre-conditions. My experience with overly formal organizations is that
they tend to try to enforce those things, losing track of why they can
be useful and how to make sure you obtain enough of them.

Working (mostly) alone, this has become almost entirely academic to
me... I know I was fairly happy to leave the institutional environment
over 10 years ago and while I made a good run at developing (and
participating in) medium sized project teams I degenerated to working
(mostly) as a singleton.

- Steve

On 4/11/19 2:13 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:

> Hm. One thing that's not addressed well in that paper (as far as I know, since all I did was skim ... and I'm completely ignorant of the entire domain) is identity fluidity. The seem to talk about the strength of one's feelings of belonging (or get-alonging, if we translate to your hunger for social order) without addressing any kind of dynamic shifting from one group to another, where the strength of identity is the same in both groups.
>
> E.g. I was an "influence manager" at one of the jobs I hated. In that job, I had to instantaneously switch from the "engineer group" [†] to the "management group" many time during meetings ... like some sort of tortured rat hopping around on an electrified floor. I'm good at such hopping, which is why they paid me to do it. But my point is that the strength of my identity as part of management was equal to the strength of my identity as one of the engineers.
>
> In such meetings, I didn't really care if people volunteered for a role or if they were assigned that role by the politic. But I did care that people weren't fostering friction because of their (seemingly static) visions of their self. The little voice in my head kept yelling: "Just try to do the work! Who cares what you think about your self?" I can see how some of them might think *I* had a hunger for social order. But in reality, it was a desire to escape the electrified floor that is people thinking their identities are real.
>
> [†] Where "engineer" means "vaguely technical, geeky, person", unfortunately.
>
> On 4/11/19 12:56 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> Here is an example. It's come up in different ways over the years and I always find it strange. I recently was ask to fill in a form where I state what my role on project is. The project is not well defined and much should be debated IMO. But there is desire to get on with the business of doing the poorly-defined thing. In terms of skills, I could do different tasks on such a project. Should I write down the thing I expect people will expect me to write down (mimic their prejudices) in order to reduce cognitive dissonance and friction, or assert the thing I think is important, or even the thing I like, without regard to the shortest path to having the team `gel' (sarcasm). My experience is that there a part of any team that just wants consensus, and doesn't care one iota what or why they are doing the thing, or if it is even a good idea. It is a hunger for social order that I find incomprehensible and unnecessary.
>>
>> On 4/11/19, 12:35 PM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> What you seem to be describing is a kind of social "flow", where some say the ego disappears in the midst of it.
>>
>> Google presented this:
>>
>> Optimal Experience and Optimal Identity: A Multinational Study of the Associations Between Flow and Social Identity
>> https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00067/full

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

Steve writes:

< What Marcus references as "gelling" and "need for social order" strikes
me as superficial goals which are emergent properties, not sufficient
pre-conditions. My experience with overly formal organizations is that
they tend to try to enforce those things, losing track of why they can
be useful and how to make sure you obtain enough of them. >

I suppose it is possible that people infer that consensus-building is expected of them and so they do it.

My hypothesis was not that, rather that it is really baked into personality. My evidence is incomplete, but if you are at an organization with tenured people that aren't at any significant risk from demonstrating pushback, and they never pushback, it may be because 1) they are ambitious and think that their blind compliance will result in their escalation in the organization (in contrast to fear of punishment which is implausible), or 2) it is their preference to seek consensus even if there is no grounded basis for it or functional harm caused by is absence.

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