Friam

The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Classic

List

Threaded

36 messages Options

Owen Densmore

The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Administrator

Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what we've been dealing with.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5

Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.

-- Owen

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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Owen,

On several occasions over the years, I have been advised by `neural third parties' that the content of my writing can be edgy, but that in person I'm "Not that way" or "He's fine." Now, some people think that in-person interactions are more representative of a person's character. That if we just get in front of one another and _see_ the others' feelings, all conflict will be resolved. No. I would suggest Roberts' (Friedman, and other popular writers) preoccupation with civility is mistaken. Civility may keep people from killing each other, temporarily, but it certainly isn't informative. It is just the application of social skill, and this is not the same thing as listening, thinking, or being honest in debate. It is a weak facilitator. The problem with the current situation is that one side is just dishonest. In the ternary world of politics, the `don't care' folks are in the crossfire, and that is appropriate.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 9:04:42 PM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what we've been dealing with.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5

Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.

-- Owen

Nick Thompson

Re: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Dear Marcus, Owen

Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas. It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying.

Hey Frank; did I get the Latin right?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:21 AM
To: Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Owen,

Marcus

Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what we've been dealing with.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5

Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.

-- Owen

Steve Smith

Re: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

Owen -

Thanks for the link to something I would otherwise not have found.

I particularly appreciated his quote of Yeats, and cherry-picking from his other text, I was particularly taken by:

subtlety is not our strong suit as human beings. We like simple stories without too much nuance.

I am wonderfully conflicted by this observation:

I sometimes want to believe that a tiny ratchet up in the sophistication of our (individual and collective) awareness would resolve a lot of our misery.
Other times I am in despair when I realize that we seem to be headed the opposite direction, with no obvious "bottom" to bounce off of.

Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what we've been dealing with.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5

Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.

-- Owen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nick writes:

"Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas. It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying."

That's a plausible assertion if the topic is about the social properties of the group. I don't see why it is plausible if the topic is some completely different thing, say, like how an engine works, or the diplomatic conditions in North Korea. But I wasn't talking about speaking impulsively, I was talking about speaking without concern for how certain people feel, or what they will do, and only being willing to get down to the brass tacks with them (if there is going to by any interaction at all). I don't see any reason to be generous and forgiving in the way Roberts' describes; it doesn't matter to me how hard the feelings are or how deep the divisions go. I think that is bad advice because it rewards the bully, and encourages him/them to do it again and again, knowing that the opposition with chicken-out in end in the name of civility. So, unlike Steve, I'm not optimizing for peace. (That's a fine thing for him to optimize for, but that's him.) It reminds me of what Christopher Hitchens' said a decade ago about a possible advanced agenda of Christian conservatives: "It wouldn't last very long and would, I hope, lead to civil war, which they will lose, but for which it would be a great pleasure to take part."

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:11:26 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Dear Marcus, Owen

Hey Frank; did I get the Latin right?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

Owen,

Marcus

Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what we've been dealing with.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5

Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.

-- Owen

Russ Abbott

Re: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

There was a good TED talk by two women who remained friends even though they differed significantly politically. It's important, I believe, to be able to stay friends -- or at remain on civil terms -- with people we disagree with. However, I think that Marcus is right that in certain situations that's not the most important issue. As he said, politics today -- and for the past 2 decades or so -- has not been symmetric. One side, for the most part, has lived by the norm of wanting to remain on civil terms with the other side; the other side, has taken as its priority to grab as much power as possible without regard to anything else. Civil relations be damned. When an aggressor country invades a peaceful neighbor the priority is not to stay on civil terms; it's to survive and repel the invasion. When a psychopath attacks you, one's priority is not to stay on civil terms; it's to defend oneself against the attack. I'm sure there there are honest and civilized conservatives -- for example Ross Douthat of the NYT -- but so many of them don't care about remaining on civil terms. Their priority is to steal as much as possible in any way possible. When Obama nominated Garland and McConnell refused to hold hearings, Obama and Garland stayed on civil terms with McConnell. That didn't make peace or move any useful process forward. In that case it's not clear what else could have been done, but striving for civility in the face of rampant aggression and evil makes no sense. That's why no society can survive without some sort of norm enforcement mechanism, e.g., police, social disapproval, etc. Civility does not solve every problem.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:40 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick writes:

"Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas.
It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying."

That's a plausible assertion if the topic is about the social properties of the group. I don't see why it is plausible if the topic is some completely different thing, say, like how an engine works, or the diplomatic conditions in North Korea. But I wasn't talking about speaking impulsively, I was talking about speaking without concern for how certain people feel, or what they will do, and only being willing to get down to the brass tacks with them (if there is going to by any interaction at all). I don't see any reason to be generous and forgiving in the way Roberts' describes; it doesn't matter to me how hard the feelings are or how deep the divisions go. I think that is bad advice because it rewards the bully, and encourages him/them to do it again and again, knowing that the opposition with chicken-out in end in the name of civility. So, unlike Steve, I'm not optimizing for peace. (That's a fine thing for him to optimize for, but that's him.) It reminds me of what Christopher Hitchens' said a decade ago about a possible advanced agenda of Christian conservatives: "It wouldn't last very long and would, I hope, lead to civil war, which they will lose, but for which it would be a great pleasure to take part."

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:11:26 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Dear Marcus, Owen

Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas. It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying.

Hey Frank; did I get the Latin right?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:21 AM
To: Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Owen,

On several occasions over the years, I have been advised by `neural third parties' that the content of my writing can be edgy, but that in person I'm "Not that way" or "He's fine." Now, some people think that in-person interactions are more representative of a person's character. That if we just get in front of one another and _see_ the others' feelings, all conflict will be resolved. No. I would suggest Roberts' (Friedman, and other popular writers) preoccupation with civility is mistaken. Civility may keep people from killing each other, temporarily, but it certainly isn't informative. It is just the application of social skill, and this is not the same thing as listening, thinking, or being honest in debate. It is a weak facilitator. The problem with the current situation is that one side is just dishonest. In the ternary world of politics, the `don't care' folks are in the crossfire, and that is appropriate.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 9:04:42 PM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what we've been dealing with.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5

Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.

-- Owen

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

Russ Abbott

Professor, Computer Science

California State University, Los Angeles

Gillian Densmore

Re: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

What do we do about it? Their's a problem right? Looks like a bunch of issues.

How do we go about improving things? How do we do we start being helpful? be inpsiring and joy-full? How do we say wups!

And better yet

When are we going to say yea we've been jerks to each other? Why is housing and food of all things even a question? Why is it even a question to be silly? or chill?

My small part is asking how do I make something inspired by StarFleet?

Isn't that what that article is asking? I meen it is doing so in a pretty long way LOL but it looks like it's just asking: Uh why are we being jerks to each other?

Is it that America is in a dark period? or just sort of looks like that with a bunch of jerks at 1600 Penselvania Avenue saying a lot of jerky silly things really loudly?

Ok so the countery has some issues? No problem no wories! Wich ones can I (or you as a clever type) tackle? or WANT to take on?

What small things can others on this list say Oh my small thing? That was: I saying hi to my neighbor and doing Tai Chi or Aki-Do or what ever in the park encouraging others to join if they wish! (for example) I

Those kind of questions are a problem lol. My concern(s) for the list and others like it are: How do we go from fussing and focussing on all the crappy parts to...I'll just say it

How do we go from looking at it in a pretty gloopy depressing way to a more can do upbeat: Yeah! JustDoIt! For example: Well the job market is screwy, and some Human Thunky Wonks want 919231222 skills no one single person might have! Well that's a problem Ok so How about finding ways to make teams for those places? then they get the 9192223455 things they're look for. How do we provide energetic, fun way for people to do things?

Or (problem and it really is one): Gah Aquafria is a bit depressing to walk on because theirs not enough prettty green shrubs flowers. Well how do I ask the city about a nice plant homes their? that way we can get lilacs or PurpleBells and other reely pretty flowers and just makes that trial nice

And Stop reading depressing criticism (especially) while your having breakfast! Then you wonder why when I say: what up? you say: By the force! I am so depressed

Just finding I like to stop always saying oh their's a issue 99 times and instead think Huh how do might I do this? How can I tweak or improve (thing here) in a: simple, joyfull way? ^_^

Besides, i'd stay depressed and unmotivated.

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what we've been dealing with.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5

Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.

-- Owen

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

doug carmichael

Re: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

The word truth has an interesting history

begins in feudalism (same as troth, as in “i pledge thee my troth”) as a relation between two people (as in the knighthood ceremony)

moves on to the nature of tools, “this blade is true”

moves on to the relationship of things to things, true material world thing to thing as in science.

The human relation side has been slowly stripped out.

We have over objectified and materialized the world. Time for a reset to where truth has an element of faith and trust as interpersonal along with the material. Science actually does this, though unspoken, we feel faith and trust in another scientist as part of the science culture.

doug

On Sep 14, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Marcus, Owen

Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas.  It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying.

Hey Frank; did I get the Latin right?

Nick

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

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:21 AM
To: Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Owen,

On several occasions over the years, I have been advised by `neural third parties' that the content of my writing can be edgy, but that in person I'm "Not that way" or "He's fine."   Now, some people think that in-person interactions are more representative of a person's character.   That if we just get in front of one another and _see_ the others' feelings, all conflict will be resolved. No. I would suggest Roberts' (Friedman, and other popular writers) preoccupation with civility is mistaken. Civility may keep people from killing each other, temporarily, but it certainly isn't informative. It is just the application of social skill, and this is not the same thing as listening, thinking, or being honest in debate. It is a weak facilitator. The problem with the current situation is that one side is just dishonest. In the ternary world of politics, the `don't care' folks are in the crossfire, and that is appropriate.

Marcus
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 9:04:42 PM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what we've been dealing with.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5

Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.

-- Owen

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

Blessings,
Doug

Douglass Carmichael
[hidden email]
www.dougcarmichael.com

Russ Abbott

Re: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

Now that I've actually read the article I wouldn't change what I wrote, but I'd like to add a brief comment.

I agree with Roberts that "it’s been a long time since I felt the thinness of the veneer of civilization and our vulnerability to a sequence of events that might threaten not just the policy positions I might favor but the very existence of the American experiment."

But I disagree with Roberts that the problem is as symmetric as he makes it out. (That was Marcus's point.) He gives an example of Trump lying followed by the press fact checking him. That's followed by Trump supporters concluding that the press is unfair and Trump opponents becoming even more convinced that Trump is a lying buffoon. I agree that that all happens. (On Google+ where I post a lot, I often make that point when someone posts a clear example of Trump's hying and hypocrisy. I say exactly what Roberts said: that identifying yet more example of Trump's dishonest won't convince anyone on either side. So perhaps we should get beyond that.) But as I said, it's not symmetric. When Trump lies yet another time, it is the media's job to fact check him. (Roberts agrees with that.) Then what? Trump and his supporters then attack the media. That's not part of our political norms. When a politician is fact-checked we expect the politician to respond honestly and his supporters to do likewise. The fact that the Trump side continually breaks norms cannot be blamed on the Trump opponents. Unfortunately Roberts is too committed to the conservative side to be honest about that. His piece would have been a lot better if he had.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:10 AM Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

There was a good TED talk by two women who remained friends even though they differed significantly politically. It's important, I believe, to be able to stay friends -- or at remain on civil terms -- with people we disagree with. However, I think that Marcus is right that in certain situations that's not the most important issue. As he said, politics today -- and for the past 2 decades or so -- has not been symmetric. One side, for the most part, has lived by the norm of wanting to remain on civil terms with the other side; the other side, has taken as its priority to grab as much power as possible without regard to anything else. Civil relations be damned. When an aggressor country invades a peaceful neighbor the priority is not to stay on civil terms; it's to survive and repel the invasion. When a psychopath attacks you, one's priority is not to stay on civil terms; it's to defend oneself against the attack. I'm sure there there are honest and civilized conservatives -- for example Ross Douthat of the NYT -- but so many of them don't care about remaining on civil terms. Their priority is to steal as much as possible in any way possible. When Obama nominated Garland and McConnell refused to hold hearings, Obama and Garland stayed on civil terms with McConnell. That didn't make peace or move any useful process forward. In that case it's not clear what else could have been done, but striving for civility in the face of rampant aggression and evil makes no sense. That's why no society can survive without some sort of norm enforcement mechanism, e.g., police, social disapproval, etc. Civility does not solve every problem.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:40 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick writes:

"Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas.
It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying."

That's a plausible assertion if the topic is about the social properties of the group. I don't see why it is plausible if the topic is some completely different thing, say, like how an engine works, or the diplomatic conditions in North Korea. But I wasn't talking about speaking impulsively, I was talking about speaking without concern for how certain people feel, or what they will do, and only being willing to get down to the brass tacks with them (if there is going to by any interaction at all). I don't see any reason to be generous and forgiving in the way Roberts' describes; it doesn't matter to me how hard the feelings are or how deep the divisions go. I think that is bad advice because it rewards the bully, and encourages him/them to do it again and again, knowing that the opposition with chicken-out in end in the name of civility. So, unlike Steve, I'm not optimizing for peace. (That's a fine thing for him to optimize for, but that's him.) It reminds me of what Christopher Hitchens' said a decade ago about a possible advanced agenda of Christian conservatives: "It wouldn't last very long and would, I hope, lead to civil war, which they will lose, but for which it would be a great pleasure to take part."

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:11:26 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Dear Marcus, Owen

Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas. It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying.

Hey Frank; did I get the Latin right?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:21 AM
To: Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Owen,

On several occasions over the years, I have been advised by `neural third parties' that the content of my writing can be edgy, but that in person I'm "Not that way" or "He's fine." Now, some people think that in-person interactions are more representative of a person's character. That if we just get in front of one another and _see_ the others' feelings, all conflict will be resolved. No. I would suggest Roberts' (Friedman, and other popular writers) preoccupation with civility is mistaken. Civility may keep people from killing each other, temporarily, but it certainly isn't informative. It is just the application of social skill, and this is not the same thing as listening, thinking, or being honest in debate. It is a weak facilitator. The problem with the current situation is that one side is just dishonest. In the ternary world of politics, the `don't care' folks are in the crossfire, and that is appropriate.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 9:04:42 PM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what we've been dealing with.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5

Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
--
Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

Russ Abbott

Professor, Computer Science

California State University, Los Angeles

Nick Thompson

Re: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

Continuing in my heckle-mode:

Russ Rote,

… striving for civility in the face of rampant aggression and evil makes no sense. … Civility does not solve every problem.

Is there a gap between “makes no sense” and “does not solve every problem” Nobody claimed that civility would solve every problem, did they?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:40 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick writes:

"Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas.
It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying."

That's a plausible assertion if the topic is about the social properties of the group. I don't see why it is plausible if the topic is some completely different thing, say, like how an engine works, or the diplomatic conditions in North Korea. But I wasn't talking about speaking impulsively, I was talking about speaking without concern for how certain people feel, or what they will do, and only being willing to get down to the brass tacks with them (if there is going to by any interaction at all). I don't see any reason to be generous and forgiving in the way Roberts' describes; it doesn't matter to me how hard the feelings are or how deep the divisions go. I think that is bad advice because it rewards the bully, and encourages him/them to do it again and again, knowing that the opposition with chicken-out in end in the name of civility. So, unlike Steve, I'm not optimizing for peace. (That's a fine thing for him to optimize for, but that's him.) It reminds me of what Christopher Hitchens' said a decade ago about a possible advanced agenda of Christian conservatives: "It wouldn't last very long and would, I hope, lead to civil war, which they will lose, but for which it would be a great pleasure to take part."

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:11:26 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)
Dear Marcus, Owen

Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas. It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying.

Hey Frank; did I get the Latin right?

Nick

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

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:21 AM
To: Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Owen,

On several occasions over the years, I have been advised by `neural third parties' that the content of my writing can be edgy, but that in person I'm "Not that way" or "He's fine." Now, some people think that in-person interactions are more representative of a person's character. That if we just get in front of one another and _see_ the others' feelings, all conflict will be resolved. No. I would suggest Roberts' (Friedman, and other popular writers) preoccupation with civility is mistaken. Civility may keep people from killing each other, temporarily, but it certainly isn't informative. It is just the application of social skill, and this is not the same thing as listening, thinking, or being honest in debate. It is a weak facilitator. The problem with the current situation is that one side is just dishonest. In the ternary world of politics, the `don't care' folks are in the crossfire, and that is appropriate.

Marcus
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 9:04:42 PM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what we've been dealing with.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5

Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.

-- Owen

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

Russ Abbott

Professor, Computer Science

California State University, Los Angeles

Russ Abbott

Re: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

In reply to this post by doug carmichael

Nick noted,

"Nobody claimed that civility would solve every problem, did they?"

I can't answer that question. If someone did, I disagree; I agree with those who would deny such a claim.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:28 AM Douglass Carmichael <[hidden email]> wrote:

The word truth has an interesting history

begins in feudalism (same as troth, as in “i pledge thee my troth”) as a relation between two people (as in the knighthood ceremony)

moves on to the nature of tools, “this blade is true”

moves on to the relationship of things to things, true material world thing to thing as in science.

The human relation side has been slowly stripped out.

We have over objectified and materialized the world. Time for a reset to where truth has an element of faith and trust as interpersonal along with the material. Science actually does this, though unspoken, we feel faith and trust in another scientist as part of the science culture.

doug

On Sep 14, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Marcus, Owen

Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas.  It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying.

Hey Frank; did I get the Latin right?

Nick

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

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:21 AM
To: Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Owen,

On several occasions over the years, I have been advised by `neural third parties' that the content of my writing can be edgy, but that in person I'm "Not that way" or "He's fine."   Now, some people think that in-person interactions are more representative of a person's character.   That if we just get in front of one another and _see_ the others' feelings, all conflict will be resolved. No. I would suggest Roberts' (Friedman, and other popular writers) preoccupation with civility is mistaken. Civility may keep people from killing each other, temporarily, but it certainly isn't informative. It is just the application of social skill, and this is not the same thing as listening, thinking, or being honest in debate. It is a weak facilitator. The problem with the current situation is that one side is just dishonest. In the ternary world of politics, the `don't care' folks are in the crossfire, and that is appropriate.

Marcus
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 9:04:42 PM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what we've been dealing with.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5

Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.

-- Owen

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

Blessings,
Doug

Douglass Carmichael
[hidden email]
www.dougcarmichael.com

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

Russ Abbott

Professor, Computer Science

California State University, Los Angeles

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

Russ writes:

"I say exactly what Roberts said: that identifying yet more example of Trump's dishonest won't convince anyone on either side. So perhaps we should get beyond that."

Yeah, time for lawyers, boycotts, and stuff like that.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Russ Abbott <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 10:25:43 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Now that I've actually read the article I wouldn't change what I wrote, but I'd like to add a brief comment.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:10 AM Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

There was a good TED talk by two women who remained friends even though they differed significantly politically. It's important, I believe, to be able to stay friends -- or at remain on civil terms -- with people we disagree with. However, I think that Marcus is right that in certain situations that's not the most important issue. As he said, politics today -- and for the past 2 decades or so -- has not been symmetric. One side, for the most part, has lived by the norm of wanting to remain on civil terms with the other side; the other side, has taken as its priority to grab as much power as possible without regard to anything else. Civil relations be damned. When an aggressor country invades a peaceful neighbor the priority is not to stay on civil terms; it's to survive and repel the invasion. When a psychopath attacks you, one's priority is not to stay on civil terms; it's to defend oneself against the attack. I'm sure there there are honest and civilized conservatives -- for example Ross Douthat of the NYT -- but so many of them don't care about remaining on civil terms. Their priority is to steal as much as possible in any way possible. When Obama nominated Garland and McConnell refused to hold hearings, Obama and Garland stayed on civil terms with McConnell. That didn't make peace or move any useful process forward. In that case it's not clear what else could have been done, but striving for civility in the face of rampant aggression and evil makes no sense. That's why no society can survive without some sort of norm enforcement mechanism, e.g., police, social disapproval, etc. Civility does not solve every problem.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:40 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick writes:

"Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas.

It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying."

That's a plausible assertion if the topic is about the social properties of the group. I don't see why it is plausible if the topic is some completely different thing, say, like how an engine works, or the diplomatic conditions in North Korea. But I wasn't talking about speaking impulsively, I was talking about speaking without concern for how certain people feel, or what they will do, and only being willing to get down to the brass tacks with them (if there is going to by any interaction at all). I don't see any reason to be generous and forgiving in the way Roberts' describes; it doesn't matter to me how hard the feelings are or how deep the divisions go. I think that is bad advice because it rewards the bully, and encourages him/them to do it again and again, knowing that the opposition with chicken-out in end in the name of civility. So, unlike Steve, I'm not optimizing for peace. (That's a fine thing for him to optimize for, but that's him.) It reminds me of what Christopher Hitchens' said a decade ago about a possible advanced agenda of Christian conservatives: "It wouldn't last very long and would, I hope, lead to civil war, which they will lose, but for which it would be a great pleasure to take part."

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:11:26 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Dear Marcus, Owen

Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas. It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying.

Hey Frank; did I get the Latin right?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:21 AM
To: Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Owen,

On several occasions over the years, I have been advised by `neural third parties' that the content of my writing can be edgy, but that in person I'm "Not that way" or "He's fine." Now, some people think that in-person interactions are more representative of a person's character. That if we just get in front of one another and _see_ the others' feelings, all conflict will be resolved. No. I would suggest Roberts' (Friedman, and other popular writers) preoccupation with civility is mistaken. Civility may keep people from killing each other, temporarily, but it certainly isn't informative. It is just the application of social skill, and this is not the same thing as listening, thinking, or being honest in debate. It is a weak facilitator. The problem with the current situation is that one side is just dishonest. In the ternary world of politics, the `don't care' folks are in the crossfire, and that is appropriate.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 9:04:42 PM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what we've been dealing with.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5

Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.

-- Owen

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

--

Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science

California State University, Los Angeles

Russ Abbott

Professor, Computer Science

California State University, Los Angeles

Russ Abbott

Re: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Marcus wrote,

"Yeah, time for lawyers, boycotts, and stuff like that."

Agree. Eventually one reaches the point that one has to fight back.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:32 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Russ writes:

"I say exactly what Roberts said: that identifying yet more example of Trump's dishonest won't convince anyone on either side. So perhaps we should get beyond that."

Yeah, time for lawyers, boycotts, and stuff like that.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Russ Abbott <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 10:25:43 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Now that I've actually read the article I wouldn't change what I wrote, but I'd like to add a brief comment.

I agree with Roberts that "it’s been a long time since I felt the thinness of the veneer of civilization and our vulnerability to a sequence of events that might threaten not just the policy positions I might favor but the very existence of the American experiment."

But I disagree with Roberts that the problem is as symmetric as he makes it out. (That was Marcus's point.) He gives an example of Trump lying followed by the press fact checking him. That's followed by Trump supporters concluding that the press is unfair and Trump opponents becoming even more convinced that Trump is a lying buffoon. I agree that that all happens. (On Google+ where I post a lot, I often make that point when someone posts a clear example of Trump's hying and hypocrisy. I say exactly what Roberts said: that identifying yet more example of Trump's dishonest won't convince anyone on either side. So perhaps we should get beyond that.) But as I said, it's not symmetric. When Trump lies yet another time, it is the media's job to fact check him. (Roberts agrees with that.) Then what? Trump and his supporters then attack the media. That's not part of our political norms. When a politician is fact-checked we expect the politician to respond honestly and his supporters to do likewise. The fact that the Trump side continually breaks norms cannot be blamed on the Trump opponents. Unfortunately Roberts is too committed to the conservative side to be honest about that. His piece would have been a lot better if he had.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:10 AM Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

There was a good TED talk by two women who remained friends even though they differed significantly politically. It's important, I believe, to be able to stay friends -- or at remain on civil terms -- with people we disagree with. However, I think that Marcus is right that in certain situations that's not the most important issue. As he said, politics today -- and for the past 2 decades or so -- has not been symmetric. One side, for the most part, has lived by the norm of wanting to remain on civil terms with the other side; the other side, has taken as its priority to grab as much power as possible without regard to anything else. Civil relations be damned. When an aggressor country invades a peaceful neighbor the priority is not to stay on civil terms; it's to survive and repel the invasion. When a psychopath attacks you, one's priority is not to stay on civil terms; it's to defend oneself against the attack. I'm sure there there are honest and civilized conservatives -- for example Ross Douthat of the NYT -- but so many of them don't care about remaining on civil terms. Their priority is to steal as much as possible in any way possible. When Obama nominated Garland and McConnell refused to hold hearings, Obama and Garland stayed on civil terms with McConnell. That didn't make peace or move any useful process forward. In that case it's not clear what else could have been done, but striving for civility in the face of rampant aggression and evil makes no sense. That's why no society can survive without some sort of norm enforcement mechanism, e.g., police, social disapproval, etc. Civility does not solve every problem.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:40 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick writes:

"Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas.

It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying."

That's a plausible assertion if the topic is about the social properties of the group. I don't see why it is plausible if the topic is some completely different thing, say, like how an engine works, or the diplomatic conditions in North Korea. But I wasn't talking about speaking impulsively, I was talking about speaking without concern for how certain people feel, or what they will do, and only being willing to get down to the brass tacks with them (if there is going to by any interaction at all). I don't see any reason to be generous and forgiving in the way Roberts' describes; it doesn't matter to me how hard the feelings are or how deep the divisions go. I think that is bad advice because it rewards the bully, and encourages him/them to do it again and again, knowing that the opposition with chicken-out in end in the name of civility. So, unlike Steve, I'm not optimizing for peace. (That's a fine thing for him to optimize for, but that's him.) It reminds me of what Christopher Hitchens' said a decade ago about a possible advanced agenda of Christian conservatives: "It wouldn't last very long and would, I hope, lead to civil war, which they will lose, but for which it would be a great pleasure to take part."

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:11:26 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Dear Marcus, Owen

Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas. It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying.

Hey Frank; did I get the Latin right?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:21 AM
To: Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Owen,

On several occasions over the years, I have been advised by `neural third parties' that the content of my writing can be edgy, but that in person I'm "Not that way" or "He's fine." Now, some people think that in-person interactions are more representative of a person's character. That if we just get in front of one another and _see_ the others' feelings, all conflict will be resolved. No. I would suggest Roberts' (Friedman, and other popular writers) preoccupation with civility is mistaken. Civility may keep people from killing each other, temporarily, but it certainly isn't informative. It is just the application of social skill, and this is not the same thing as listening, thinking, or being honest in debate. It is a weak facilitator. The problem with the current situation is that one side is just dishonest. In the ternary world of politics, the `don't care' folks are in the crossfire, and that is appropriate.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 9:04:42 PM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what we've been dealing with.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5

Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.

-- Owen

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

--

Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science

California State University, Los Angeles

--

Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science

California State University, Los Angeles

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

Russ Abbott

Professor, Computer Science

California State University, Los Angeles

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nick,

Daughter Diane says, "No. Either "calore" (singular) or "caloribus" (plural). You probably want singular."

Sorry,

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Sep 14, 2017 9:11 AM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Marcus, Owen

Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas. It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying.

Hey Frank; did I get the Latin right?

Nick

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

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:21 AM
To: Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Owen,

On several occasions over the years, I have been advised by `neural third parties' that the content of my writing can be edgy, but that in person I'm "Not that way" or "He's fine." Now, some people think that in-person interactions are more representative of a person's character. That if we just get in front of one another and _see_ the others' feelings, all conflict will be resolved. No. I would suggest Roberts' (Friedman, and other popular writers) preoccupation with civility is mistaken. Civility may keep people from killing each other, temporarily, but it certainly isn't informative. It is just the application of social skill, and this is not the same thing as listening, thinking, or being honest in debate. It is a weak facilitator. The problem with the current situation is that one side is just dishonest. In the ternary world of politics, the `don't care' folks are in the crossfire, and that is appropriate.

Marcus
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 9:04:42 PM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what we've been dealing with.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5

Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.

-- Owen

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

gepr

Re: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

Roberts says: "The country is on the wrong track. (Everyone believes this one)."

This sentence and the parenthetical convinced me of what RussA's already said, that Roberts is too trapped by his fear-based conservatism to see the asymmetry. What Roberts is saying is utter garbage. Everyone? Sheesh. I see the likes of Musk or the Y-Combinator crowd yapping all day about all the good things we're doing (here and in plenty of other countries). People as different as Hillary Clinton and Michael Shermer talk quite positively about our direction. I could go on. But the fundamental point is:

Conservatives are afraid. _They_ think the country is on the wrong track. Other than Trump and the last dying gasps of the traits that got him elected, the rest of us believe the country was (and kinda still is) on a very good track! To think otherwise is to be guilty of exactly what Roberts says is happening ... living in your own little bubble.

However, on the liberal side, we do have plenty of Chicken Little's. Stop freaking out and keep up the good work. Trump and his moron supporters are just one more problem we're working on. Tomorrow will be more like Starfleet as long as we keep working at it.

On 09/13/2017 08:04 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what we've been dealing with.
>
> https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5 <https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5>
>
> Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

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

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Gillian Densmore

Re: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Illegitimi non carborundum

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 11:05 AM, gⅼеɳ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Roberts says: "The country is on the wrong track. (Everyone believes this one)."

This sentence and the parenthetical convinced me of what RussA's already said, that Roberts is too trapped by his fear-based conservatism to see the asymmetry. What Roberts is saying is utter garbage. Everyone? Sheesh. I see the likes of Musk or the Y-Combinator crowd yapping all day about all the good things we're doing (here and in plenty of other countries). People as different as Hillary Clinton and Michael Shermer talk quite positively about our direction. I could go on. But the fundamental point is:

Conservatives are afraid. _They_ think the country is on the wrong track. Other than Trump and the last dying gasps of the traits that got him elected, the rest of us believe the country was (and kinda still is) on a very good track! To think otherwise is to be guilty of exactly what Roberts says is happening ... living in your own little bubble.

However, on the liberal side, we do have plenty of Chicken Little's. Stop freaking out and keep up the good work. Trump and his moron supporters are just one more problem we're working on. Tomorrow will be more like Starfleet as long as we keep working at it.

On 09/13/2017 08:04 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what we've been dealing with.
>
> https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5 <https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5>
>
> Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

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

gepr

Re: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Ha! Perfectamundo!

On 09/14/2017 10:16 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> /*Illegitimi non carborundum*/

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

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

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Stuff like--maybe revolution?

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Russ writes:

"I say exactly what Roberts said: that identifying yet more example of Trump's dishonest won't convince anyone on either side. So perhaps we should get beyond that."

Yeah, time for lawyers, boycotts, and stuff like that.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Russ Abbott <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 10:25:43 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Now that I've actually read the article I wouldn't change what I wrote, but I'd like to add a brief comment.

I agree with Roberts that "it’s been a long time since I felt the thinness of the veneer of civilization and our vulnerability to a sequence of events that might threaten not just the policy positions I might favor but the very existence of the American experiment."

But I disagree with Roberts that the problem is as symmetric as he makes it out. (That was Marcus's point.) He gives an example of Trump lying followed by the press fact checking him. That's followed by Trump supporters concluding that the press is unfair and Trump opponents becoming even more convinced that Trump is a lying buffoon. I agree that that all happens. (On Google+ where I post a lot, I often make that point when someone posts a clear example of Trump's hying and hypocrisy. I say exactly what Roberts said: that identifying yet more example of Trump's dishonest won't convince anyone on either side. So perhaps we should get beyond that.) But as I said, it's not symmetric. When Trump lies yet another time, it is the media's job to fact check him. (Roberts agrees with that.) Then what? Trump and his supporters then attack the media. That's not part of our political norms. When a politician is fact-checked we expect the politician to respond honestly and his supporters to do likewise. The fact that the Trump side continually breaks norms cannot be blamed on the Trump opponents. Unfortunately Roberts is too committed to the conservative side to be honest about that. His piece would have been a lot better if he had.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:10 AM Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

There was a good TED talk by two women who remained friends even though they differed significantly politically. It's important, I believe, to be able to stay friends -- or at remain on civil terms -- with people we disagree with. However, I think that Marcus is right that in certain situations that's not the most important issue. As he said, politics today -- and for the past 2 decades or so -- has not been symmetric. One side, for the most part, has lived by the norm of wanting to remain on civil terms with the other side; the other side, has taken as its priority to grab as much power as possible without regard to anything else. Civil relations be damned. When an aggressor country invades a peaceful neighbor the priority is not to stay on civil terms; it's to survive and repel the invasion. When a psychopath attacks you, one's priority is not to stay on civil terms; it's to defend oneself against the attack. I'm sure there there are honest and civilized conservatives -- for example Ross Douthat of the NYT -- but so many of them don't care about remaining on civil terms. Their priority is to steal as much as possible in any way possible. When Obama nominated Garland and McConnell refused to hold hearings, Obama and Garland stayed on civil terms with McConnell. That didn't make peace or move any useful process forward. In that case it's not clear what else could have been done, but striving for civility in the face of rampant aggression and evil makes no sense. That's why no society can survive without some sort of norm enforcement mechanism, e.g., police, social disapproval, etc. Civility does not solve every problem.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:40 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick writes:

"Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas.

It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying."

That's a plausible assertion if the topic is about the social properties of the group. I don't see why it is plausible if the topic is some completely different thing, say, like how an engine works, or the diplomatic conditions in North Korea. But I wasn't talking about speaking impulsively, I was talking about speaking without concern for how certain people feel, or what they will do, and only being willing to get down to the brass tacks with them (if there is going to by any interaction at all). I don't see any reason to be generous and forgiving in the way Roberts' describes; it doesn't matter to me how hard the feelings are or how deep the divisions go. I think that is bad advice because it rewards the bully, and encourages him/them to do it again and again, knowing that the opposition with chicken-out in end in the name of civility. So, unlike Steve, I'm not optimizing for peace. (That's a fine thing for him to optimize for, but that's him.) It reminds me of what Christopher Hitchens' said a decade ago about a possible advanced agenda of Christian conservatives: "It wouldn't last very long and would, I hope, lead to civil war, which they will lose, but for which it would be a great pleasure to take part."

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:11:26 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Dear Marcus, Owen

Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas. It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying.

Hey Frank; did I get the Latin right?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:21 AM
To: Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Owen,

On several occasions over the years, I have been advised by `neural third parties' that the content of my writing can be edgy, but that in person I'm "Not that way" or "He's fine." Now, some people think that in-person interactions are more representative of a person's character. That if we just get in front of one another and _see_ the others' feelings, all conflict will be resolved. No. I would suggest Roberts' (Friedman, and other popular writers) preoccupation with civility is mistaken. Civility may keep people from killing each other, temporarily, but it certainly isn't informative. It is just the application of social skill, and this is not the same thing as listening, thinking, or being honest in debate. It is a weak facilitator. The problem with the current situation is that one side is just dishonest. In the ternary world of politics, the `don't care' folks are in the crossfire, and that is appropriate.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 9:04:42 PM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what we've been dealing with.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5

Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.

-- Owen

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

--

Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science

California State University, Los Angeles

--

Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science

California State University, Los Angeles

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

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

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding

Saint Paul University

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

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

twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

Russ Abbott

Re: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Glen goes, "Other than Trump and the last dying gasps of the traits that got him elected, the rest of us believe the country was (and kinda still is) on a very good track!"

I wish I could be that optimistic. The Republicans have managed to get control of the majority of state governments, which let them gerrymander the districts in 2010. If they keep that control, they will continue with the gerrymandering. Between gerrymandering and the electoral college, it will be tough to get them out of power. Unfortunately, technology will not solve global warming and the increased pollution Trump has unleashed. It won't solve healthcare. It won't solve voter suppression. It won't solve troglodyte courts. It won't solve increasing inequality. No matter how good our technology gets, we can't ignore the damage government can do when controlled by the sort of people who have grabbed power -- and are doing their best to arrange things so that they keep it. I wish I could be more optimistic about the future of the country, but I'm not.

I'll tell you one other thing I'm not proud of in myself. I've been so angry at Republicans that I have had no sympathy for the people in Florida and Texas. I even know that most of the people who are hurt the most are probably Democrats. Still I can't seem to find any empathy for those states as such.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:39 PM Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Stuff like--maybe revolution?

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Russ writes:

"I say exactly what Roberts said: that identifying yet more example of Trump's dishonest won't convince anyone on either side. So perhaps we should get beyond that."

Yeah, time for lawyers, boycotts, and stuff like that.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Russ Abbott <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 10:25:43 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Now that I've actually read the article I wouldn't change what I wrote, but I'd like to add a brief comment.

I agree with Roberts that "it’s been a long time since I felt the thinness of the veneer of civilization and our vulnerability to a sequence of events that might threaten not just the policy positions I might favor but the very existence of the American experiment."

But I disagree with Roberts that the problem is as symmetric as he makes it out. (That was Marcus's point.) He gives an example of Trump lying followed by the press fact checking him. That's followed by Trump supporters concluding that the press is unfair and Trump opponents becoming even more convinced that Trump is a lying buffoon. I agree that that all happens. (On Google+ where I post a lot, I often make that point when someone posts a clear example of Trump's hying and hypocrisy. I say exactly what Roberts said: that identifying yet more example of Trump's dishonest won't convince anyone on either side. So perhaps we should get beyond that.) But as I said, it's not symmetric. When Trump lies yet another time, it is the media's job to fact check him. (Roberts agrees with that.) Then what? Trump and his supporters then attack the media. That's not part of our political norms. When a politician is fact-checked we expect the politician to respond honestly and his supporters to do likewise. The fact that the Trump side continually breaks norms cannot be blamed on the Trump opponents. Unfortunately Roberts is too committed to the conservative side to be honest about that. His piece would have been a lot better if he had.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:10 AM Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

There was a good TED talk by two women who remained friends even though they differed significantly politically. It's important, I believe, to be able to stay friends -- or at remain on civil terms -- with people we disagree with. However, I think that Marcus is right that in certain situations that's not the most important issue. As he said, politics today -- and for the past 2 decades or so -- has not been symmetric. One side, for the most part, has lived by the norm of wanting to remain on civil terms with the other side; the other side, has taken as its priority to grab as much power as possible without regard to anything else. Civil relations be damned. When an aggressor country invades a peaceful neighbor the priority is not to stay on civil terms; it's to survive and repel the invasion. When a psychopath attacks you, one's priority is not to stay on civil terms; it's to defend oneself against the attack. I'm sure there there are honest and civilized conservatives -- for example Ross Douthat of the NYT -- but so many of them don't care about remaining on civil terms. Their priority is to steal as much as possible in any way possible. When Obama nominated Garland and McConnell refused to hold hearings, Obama and Garland stayed on civil terms with McConnell. That didn't make peace or move any useful process forward. In that case it's not clear what else could have been done, but striving for civility in the face of rampant aggression and evil makes no sense. That's why no society can survive without some sort of norm enforcement mechanism, e.g., police, social disapproval, etc. Civility does not solve every problem.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:40 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick writes:

"Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas.

It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying."

That's a plausible assertion if the topic is about the social properties of the group. I don't see why it is plausible if the topic is some completely different thing, say, like how an engine works, or the diplomatic conditions in North Korea. But I wasn't talking about speaking impulsively, I was talking about speaking without concern for how certain people feel, or what they will do, and only being willing to get down to the brass tacks with them (if there is going to by any interaction at all). I don't see any reason to be generous and forgiving in the way Roberts' describes; it doesn't matter to me how hard the feelings are or how deep the divisions go. I think that is bad advice because it rewards the bully, and encourages him/them to do it again and again, knowing that the opposition with chicken-out in end in the name of civility. So, unlike Steve, I'm not optimizing for peace. (That's a fine thing for him to optimize for, but that's him.) It reminds me of what Christopher Hitchens' said a decade ago about a possible advanced agenda of Christian conservatives: "It wouldn't last very long and would, I hope, lead to civil war, which they will lose, but for which it would be a great pleasure to take part."

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:11:26 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Dear Marcus, Owen

Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas. It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying.

Hey Frank; did I get the Latin right?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:21 AM
To: Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Owen,

On several occasions over the years, I have been advised by `neural third parties' that the content of my writing can be edgy, but that in person I'm "Not that way" or "He's fine." Now, some people think that in-person interactions are more representative of a person's character. That if we just get in front of one another and _see_ the others' feelings, all conflict will be resolved. No. I would suggest Roberts' (Friedman, and other popular writers) preoccupation with civility is mistaken. Civility may keep people from killing each other, temporarily, but it certainly isn't informative. It is just the application of social skill, and this is not the same thing as listening, thinking, or being honest in debate. It is a weak facilitator. The problem with the current situation is that one side is just dishonest. In the ternary world of politics, the `don't care' folks are in the crossfire, and that is appropriate.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 9:04:42 PM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what we've been dealing with.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5

Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.

-- Owen

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

--

Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science

California State University, Los Angeles

--

Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science

California State University, Los Angeles

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

--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
Saint Paul University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

[hidden email]
mobile: <a href="tel:(303)%20859-5609" value="+13038595609" target="_blank">(303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

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

Russ Abbott

Professor, Computer Science

California State University, Los Angeles

gepr

Re: The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Well, Republicans aren't so bad. It's the conservative wing of their party that's bad. Similarly, Democrats aren't as bad as the Bernie-bros make them out. It's the conservative wing of the Democrats that's bad. So, to be clear, I like the majority of the Republicans I know. And I like the majority of the Democrats I know. Fortunately, my personality is such that thin-skinned people don't spend much time around me. And most conservatives are very thin-skinned.

But I'm not merely talking about technology, though I think you're wrong about its influence. Even if you're right, we still have plenty to be hopeful about: Obamacare, more experiments in UBI, people are living longer, murder is dropping, more people are recognizing their own implicit racism, our country's people are becoming a beautiful taupe color, I can go to pretty much any pub in Portland and listen to music with African or Middle Eastern influences, etc etc on and on.

The only thing you have to fear is fear, itself.

On 09/14/2017 12:57 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> Glen goes, "Other than Trump and the last dying gasps of the traits that got him elected, the rest of us believe the country was (and kinda still is) on a very good track!"
>
> I wish I could be that optimistic. The Republicans have managed to get control of the majority of state governments, which let them gerrymander the districts in 2010. If they keep that control, they will continue with the gerrymandering. Between gerrymandering and the electoral college, it will be tough to get them out of power. Unfortunately, technology will not solve global warming and the increased pollution Trump has unleashed. It won't solve healthcare. It won't solve voter suppression. It won't solve troglodyte courts. It won't solve increasing inequality. No matter how good our technology gets, we can't ignore the damage government can do when controlled by the sort of people who have grabbed power -- and are doing their best to arrange things so that they keep it. I wish I could be more optimistic about the future of the country, but I'm not.
>
> I'll tell you one other thing I'm not proud of in myself. I've been so angry at Republicans that I have had no sympathy for the people in Florida and Texas. I even know that most of the people who are hurt the most are probably Democrats. Still I can't seem to find any empathy for those states as such.

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

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

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen