are we how we behave?

[Steve Smith]

Marcus -

Marcus -

My quote of Heinlein the renowned "Human Chauvanist" was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.   I applaud the general spirit of the polymath, always seeking, never-say-die he implies here, but as you point out, there is no clear boundary around how much one can learn.

And in the spirit of your last response characterizing polyculture over monoculture somewhat as the "foam" Glen referenced earlier, I cannot but agree with you.

The richness obtained and experienced by being *an individual* in the context of a (multi?)culture is not only that everyone else "has so much to teach you" but also that "there is so much you can defer to others".  This doesn't have to be an either-or between depth/breadth, but maybe more of an appreciation for being (more) able to choose a subset of what breadth/depth one will seek to explore/cover?

- Steve

On 3/6/19 2:29 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Steve writes:

“Reminds me of the (in)famous Robert Heinlein quote so (s?)favored by Libertarians and other strong Individualists: 

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

 

Life has finite length and the rate of learning is finite.   Individuals aren’t going to learn how to do everything.   It isn’t even helpful to write down a list of `everything’ and say go learn that.  Because it just insults the vastness of everything, and assumes that collectively we see even a little of it.    Why not throw “become a world class violinist” or “become the top cited researcher in string theory” or “break the two hour barrier on the marathon” into the mix too?

 

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

============================================================
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]

I think we have been Cartooned?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxdGjwyWsAAgFGV.jpg

Steve writes:

"I think you described the difference between vocational training and an education."
 
Do you believe the courses captured something deep, learned by humanity over generations, or is it simply that it was broader than vocational training?
I don't really buy it.  I think there is not a useful skeleton that connects people.   We are all aliens, or at least can aspire to be, and that is for the best. 

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

============================================================
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]

I think your argument is damaged by the inclusion of "world class", "top cited", etc.  Such competitive reframings of capability/merit are the evidence that social darwinism, capitalism, and neoliberalism are failures as -isms.  Whether one plans the *best* invasion, is the fastest/best diaper changer, etc. is irrelevant.  What matters is whether delegation to an other/specialist *requires* some degree of understanding of what it is being delegated.

I.e. do I simply take my car to the mechanic so she can *fix* it?  Or do I take my car to the mechanic so that she can replace the alternator because I've already done a diagnostic on the battery and know it's fine?  And is the former or the latter more indicative of general intelligence?

On 3/6/19 1:29 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Life has finite length and the rate of learning is finite.   Individuals aren’t going to learn how to do everything.   It isn’t even helpful to write down a list of `everything’ and say go learn that.  Because it just insults the vastness of everything, and assumes that collectively we see even a little of it.    Why not throw “become a world class violinist” or “become the top cited researcher in string theory” or “break the two hour barrier on the marathon” into the mix too?


--
☣ 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

[Roger Critchlow-2]

When you ask people to be well rounded, aren't you assuming that you know the convex hull of the knowledge they need?

But as Hamming pointed out in Learning to Learn (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2FF649D0C4407B30), they knew in the 50's that most of the scientists who had ever lived were alive right then, that the scientific literature was growing exponentially, and that no one would ever review it all.  And those things have been true in every decade since then.

So who's got their finger on the pulse of knowledge?  We've all been becoming absolutely and relatively more ignorant all through our lives.  Experts rule over ever shrinking domains.  Laboratories are organized gangs of specialists competing to recast problems into nails for their hammers.  Narrow specialists dominate because it's the only safe thing to profess.  Spread out and some specialist will rip you a new one.

-- rec --

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:47 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Marcus -

Marcus -

My quote of Heinlein the renowned "Human Chauvanist" was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.   I applaud the general spirit of the polymath, always seeking, never-say-die he implies here, but as you point out, there is no clear boundary around how much one can learn.

And in the spirit of your last response characterizing polyculture over monoculture somewhat as the "foam" Glen referenced earlier, I cannot but agree with you.

The richness obtained and experienced by being *an individual* in the context of a (multi?)culture is not only that everyone else "has so much to teach you" but also that "there is so much you can defer to others".  This doesn't have to be an either-or between depth/breadth, but maybe more of an appreciation for being (more) able to choose a subset of what breadth/depth one will seek to explore/cover?

- Steve

On 3/6/19 2:29 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Steve writes:

“Reminds me of the (in)famous Robert Heinlein quote so (s?)favored by Libertarians and other strong Individualists: 

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

 

Life has finite length and the rate of learning is finite.   Individuals aren’t going to learn how to do everything.   It isn’t even helpful to write down a list of `everything’ and say go learn that.  Because it just insults the vastness of everything, and assumes that collectively we see even a little of it.    Why not throw “become a world class violinist” or “become the top cited researcher in string theory” or “break the two hour barrier on the marathon” into the mix too?

 

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

============================================================
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]

Roger -

If your point is that it is not my place (or within my ability) to determine the (desired) shape of said Pareto Frontier for anyone else, I can't argue a bit.  

My position is that I favor each and every one of us taking whatever responsibility for understanding our own "convex hull" of capability/knowledge/intuition as we are capable of and "managing" it to the best of our ability.  

On one extreme, that might mean just joining a harsh cult and managing one's own "convex hull" by "picking a good cult" and subsuming oneself well into it.  On the other is some (not quite so caricatured, perhaps) version of Heinlein's near-belligerent "Human Chauvanist".

If I can attain proper non-attachment, even enlightenment (whatever that actually means), I might well "manage" said "convex hull" merely by observing it as it evolves into whatever it is becoming as I stumble (or float or charge or careen) through life.

- Steve

On 3/6/19 3:59 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:

When you ask people to be well rounded, aren't you assuming that you know the convex hull of the knowledge they need?

But as Hamming pointed out in Learning to Learn (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2FF649D0C4407B30), they knew in the 50's that most of the scientists who had ever lived were alive right then, that the scientific literature was growing exponentially, and that no one would ever review it all.  And those things have been true in every decade since then.

So who's got their finger on the pulse of knowledge?  We've all been becoming absolutely and relatively more ignorant all through our lives.  Experts rule over ever shrinking domains.  Laboratories are organized gangs of specialists competing to recast problems into nails for their hammers.  Narrow specialists dominate because it's the only safe thing to profess.  Spread out and some specialist will rip you a new one.

-- rec --

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:47 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Marcus -

Marcus -

My quote of Heinlein the renowned "Human Chauvanist" was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.   I applaud the general spirit of the polymath, always seeking, never-say-die he implies here, but as you point out, there is no clear boundary around how much one can learn.

And in the spirit of your last response characterizing polyculture over monoculture somewhat as the "foam" Glen referenced earlier, I cannot but agree with you.

The richness obtained and experienced by being *an individual* in the context of a (multi?)culture is not only that everyone else "has so much to teach you" but also that "there is so much you can defer to others".  This doesn't have to be an either-or between depth/breadth, but maybe more of an appreciation for being (more) able to choose a subset of what breadth/depth one will seek to explore/cover?

- Steve

On 3/6/19 2:29 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Steve writes:

“Reminds me of the (in)famous Robert Heinlein quote so (s?)favored by Libertarians and other strong Individualists: 

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

 

Life has finite length and the rate of learning is finite.   Individuals aren’t going to learn how to do everything.   It isn’t even helpful to write down a list of `everything’ and say go learn that.  Because it just insults the vastness of everything, and assumes that collectively we see even a little of it.    Why not throw “become a world class violinist” or “become the top cited researcher in string theory” or “break the two hour barrier on the marathon” into the mix too?

 

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

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

[Frank Wimberly-2]

Roger,

Almost every time I ask a lawyer a question he refers me to someone who is a specialist.  Same with doctors.

Frank

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:00 PM Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

When you ask people to be well rounded, aren't you assuming that you know the convex hull of the knowledge they need?

But as Hamming pointed out in Learning to Learn (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2FF649D0C4407B30), they knew in the 50's that most of the scientists who had ever lived were alive right then, that the scientific literature was growing exponentially, and that no one would ever review it all.  And those things have been true in every decade since then.

So who's got their finger on the pulse of knowledge?  We've all been becoming absolutely and relatively more ignorant all through our lives.  Experts rule over ever shrinking domains.  Laboratories are organized gangs of specialists competing to recast problems into nails for their hammers.  Narrow specialists dominate because it's the only safe thing to profess.  Spread out and some specialist will rip you a new one.

-- rec --

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:47 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Marcus -

Marcus -

My quote of Heinlein the renowned "Human Chauvanist" was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.   I applaud the general spirit of the polymath, always seeking, never-say-die he implies here, but as you point out, there is no clear boundary around how much one can learn.

And in the spirit of your last response characterizing polyculture over monoculture somewhat as the "foam" Glen referenced earlier, I cannot but agree with you.

The richness obtained and experienced by being *an individual* in the context of a (multi?)culture is not only that everyone else "has so much to teach you" but also that "there is so much you can defer to others".  This doesn't have to be an either-or between depth/breadth, but maybe more of an appreciation for being (more) able to choose a subset of what breadth/depth one will seek to explore/cover?

- Steve

On 3/6/19 2:29 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Steve writes:

“Reminds me of the (in)famous Robert Heinlein quote so (s?)favored by Libertarians and other strong Individualists: 

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

 

Life has finite length and the rate of learning is finite.   Individuals aren’t going to learn how to do everything.   It isn’t even helpful to write down a list of `everything’ and say go learn that.  Because it just insults the vastness of everything, and assumes that collectively we see even a little of it.    Why not throw “become a world class violinist” or “become the top cited researcher in string theory” or “break the two hour barrier on the marathon” into the mix too?

 

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

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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

If one could even show that one convex hull subsumes another, then maybe I start to believe that the well-roundedness notion isn’t complete nonsense.    But knowledge isn’t just a container, it is at least a network.   And how do you jump from point to point in this high dimensional space if the points are too far apart?  Do the dimensions in this space mean anything anyone agrees upon?

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 4:00 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] are we how we behave?

 

When you ask people to be well rounded, aren't you assuming that you know the convex hull of the knowledge they need?

 

But as Hamming pointed out in Learning to Learn (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2FF649D0C4407B30), they knew in the 50's that most of the scientists who had ever lived were alive right then, that the scientific literature was growing exponentially, and that no one would ever review it all.  And those things have been true in every decade since then.

 

So who's got their finger on the pulse of knowledge?  We've all been becoming absolutely and relatively more ignorant all through our lives.  Experts rule over ever shrinking domains.  Laboratories are organized gangs of specialists competing to recast problems into nails for their hammers.  Narrow specialists dominate because it's the only safe thing to profess.  Spread out and some specialist will rip you a new one.

 

-- rec --

 

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:47 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Marcus -

Marcus -

My quote of Heinlein the renowned "Human Chauvanist" was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.   I applaud the general spirit of the polymath, always seeking, never-say-die he implies here, but as you point out, there is no clear boundary around how much one can learn.

And in the spirit of your last response characterizing polyculture over monoculture somewhat as the "foam" Glen referenced earlier, I cannot but agree with you.

The richness obtained and experienced by being *an individual* in the context of a (multi?)culture is not only that everyone else "has so much to teach you" but also that "there is so much you can defer to others".  This doesn't have to be an either-or between depth/breadth, but maybe more of an appreciation for being (more) able to choose a subset of what breadth/depth one will seek to explore/cover?

- Steve

 

On 3/6/19 2:29 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Steve writes:

“Reminds me of the (in)famous Robert Heinlein quote so (s?)favored by Libertarians and other strong Individualists: 

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

 

Life has finite length and the rate of learning is finite.   Individuals aren’t going to learn how to do everything.   It isn’t even helpful to write down a list of `everything’ and say go learn that.  Because it just insults the vastness of everything, and assumes that collectively we see even a little of it.    Why not throw “become a world class violinist” or “become the top cited researcher in string theory” or “break the two hour barrier on the marathon” into the mix too?

 

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

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

[Nick Thompson]

Well, perhaps Roger.  But isn’t also the case that each of those specialists is basing his work on assumptions outside his specialty that other specialists know to be false? 

 

See my article for the argument, admittedly in one case, only.

 

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 Roger Critchlow
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2019 4:00 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] are we how we behave?

 

When you ask people to be well rounded, aren't you assuming that you know the convex hull of the knowledge they need?

 

But as Hamming pointed out in Learning to Learn (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2FF649D0C4407B30), they knew in the 50's that most of the scientists who had ever lived were alive right then, that the scientific literature was growing exponentially, and that no one would ever review it all.  And those things have been true in every decade since then.

 

So who's got their finger on the pulse of knowledge?  We've all been becoming absolutely and relatively more ignorant all through our lives.  Experts rule over ever shrinking domains.  Laboratories are organized gangs of specialists competing to recast problems into nails for their hammers.  Narrow specialists dominate because it's the only safe thing to profess.  Spread out and some specialist will rip you a new one.

 

-- rec --

 

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:47 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Marcus -

Marcus -

My quote of Heinlein the renowned "Human Chauvanist" was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.   I applaud the general spirit of the polymath, always seeking, never-say-die he implies here, but as you point out, there is no clear boundary around how much one can learn.

And in the spirit of your last response characterizing polyculture over monoculture somewhat as the "foam" Glen referenced earlier, I cannot but agree with you.

The richness obtained and experienced by being *an individual* in the context of a (multi?)culture is not only that everyone else "has so much to teach you" but also that "there is so much you can defer to others".  This doesn't have to be an either-or between depth/breadth, but maybe more of an appreciation for being (more) able to choose a subset of what breadth/depth one will seek to explore/cover?

- Steve

 

On 3/6/19 2:29 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Steve writes:

“Reminds me of the (in)famous Robert Heinlein quote so (s?)favored by Libertarians and other strong Individualists: 

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

 

Life has finite length and the rate of learning is finite.   Individuals aren’t going to learn how to do everything.   It isn’t even helpful to write down a list of `everything’ and say go learn that.  Because it just insults the vastness of everything, and assumes that collectively we see even a little of it.    Why not throw “become a world class violinist” or “become the top cited researcher in string theory” or “break the two hour barrier on the marathon” into the mix too?

 

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

============================================================
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]

If person with skill 1 delegates to individuals with distinct skills 2 and 3 and person with skill 3 delegates to individuals with skills 4 and 5 the kind of overlap of the kind you mention still can occur.     If developing any these skills takes decades, why is it important that everyone have some practical understanding of the other skills?   More importantly, why should we ever want to decrease the total number of skills?   So that we can `relate' to one another and keep the peace (be luddites)?  

On 3/6/19, 4:00 PM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

    I think your argument is damaged by the inclusion of "world class", "top cited", etc.  Such competitive reframings of capability/merit are the evidence that social darwinism, capitalism, and neoliberalism are failures as -isms.  Whether one plans the *best* invasion, is the fastest/best diaper changer, etc. is irrelevant.  What matters is whether delegation to an other/specialist *requires* some degree of understanding of what it is being delegated.
   
    I.e. do I simply take my car to the mechanic so she can *fix* it?  Or do I take my car to the mechanic so that she can replace the alternator because I've already done a diagnostic on the battery and know it's fine?  And is the former or the latter more indicative of general intelligence?
   
    On 3/6/19 1:29 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
    > Life has finite length and the rate of learning is finite.   Individuals aren’t going to learn how to do everything.   It isn’t even helpful to write down a list of `everything’ and say go learn that.  Because it just insults the vastness of everything, and assumes that collectively we see even a little of it.    Why not throw “become a world class violinist” or “become the top cited researcher in string theory” or “break the two hour barrier on the marathon” into the mix too?
   
   
    --
    ☣ 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]

No, not so that we can "relate" or "keep the peace", but so that we know what problem is being solved.  In order to delegate, you have to know *something* about why you're delegating, right?  As Steve tried to point out with the "form leads/follows function" and his talk about a well-stated problem, in order to delegate, say, "fix my car", I have to know that the car is the problem.  If, for example, the real problem is that I don't know how to drive the car, there's nothing the mechanic will be able to do to "fix it" because the car's not the problem. (My mom once drove her Tbird until it completely ran out of oil. 8^O)

So, we have to have some practical understanding of the skills needed in order to a) choose who to delegate to and b) to even know that delegation of something is needed.  Of course, if I read you empathetically, I can admit that a lot of rhetorical weight sits in the word "practical".  What does it mean to have a practical understanding of, say, welding or brain surgery?  But I'd counter argue that a practical understanding of welding can stop at, say, an inventory of the tools needed and some of the safety practices ... just enough to prevent your motorcycle from exploding and to recognize whether you're being ripped off by the welder.  That's a "practical" understanding of welding, to some extent.  You don't have to be able to weld to have a practical understanding of welding.

But to be clear, that's what this thread is all about: can we (should we) characterize an individual by circumscribing what they do?  Is such circumscription even *possible*?  And to what extent do we damage their personhood by abstracting and idealizing away all the gory detail into some characteristic equation of that person? ... is a person roughly spherical in problem space?  Or are they a super complicated, high dimensional, unsimplifiable foam?


On 3/6/19 7:23 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> If person with skill 1 delegates to individuals with distinct skills 2 and 3 and person with skill 3 delegates to individuals with skills 4 and 5 the kind of overlap of the kind you mention still can occur.     If developing any these skills takes decades, why is it important that everyone have some practical understanding of the other skills?   More importantly, why should we ever want to decrease the total number of skills?   So that we can `relate' to one another and keep the peace (be luddites)?  

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

[Frank Wimberly-2]

>Or are they a super complicated, high dimensional, unsimplifiable foam?

Yes.  With consciousness which, as far as I can tell, no one can explain.

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019, 9:46 AM glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

No, not so that we can "relate" or "keep the peace", but so that we know what problem is being solved.  In order to delegate, you have to know *something* about why you're delegating, right?  As Steve tried to point out with the "form leads/follows function" and his talk about a well-stated problem, in order to delegate, say, "fix my car", I have to know that the car is the problem.  If, for example, the real problem is that I don't know how to drive the car, there's nothing the mechanic will be able to do to "fix it" because the car's not the problem. (My mom once drove her Tbird until it completely ran out of oil. 8^O)

So, we have to have some practical understanding of the skills needed in order to a) choose who to delegate to and b) to even know that delegation of something is needed.  Of course, if I read you empathetically, I can admit that a lot of rhetorical weight sits in the word "practical".  What does it mean to have a practical understanding of, say, welding or brain surgery?  But I'd counter argue that a practical understanding of welding can stop at, say, an inventory of the tools needed and some of the safety practices ... just enough to prevent your motorcycle from exploding and to recognize whether you're being ripped off by the welder.  That's a "practical" understanding of welding, to some extent.  You don't have to be able to weld to have a practical understanding of welding.

But to be clear, that's what this thread is all about: can we (should we) characterize an individual by circumscribing what they do?  Is such circumscription even *possible*?  And to what extent do we damage their personhood by abstracting and idealizing away all the gory detail into some characteristic equation of that person? ... is a person roughly spherical in problem space?  Or are they a super complicated, high dimensional, unsimplifiable foam?


On 3/6/19 7:23 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> If person with skill 1 delegates to individuals with distinct skills 2 and 3 and person with skill 3 delegates to individuals with skills 4 and 5 the kind of overlap of the kind you mention still can occur.     If developing any these skills takes decades, why is it important that everyone have some practical understanding of the other skills?   More importantly, why should we ever want to decrease the total number of skills?   So that we can `relate' to one another and keep the peace (be luddites)? 
============================================================
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]

< As Steve tried to point out with the "form leads/follows function" and his talk about a well-stated problem, in order to delegate, say, "fix my car", I have to know that the car is the problem.  If, for example, the real problem is that I don't know how to drive the car, there's nothing the mechanic will be able to do to "fix it" because the car's not the problem. >

For example, a young person that would not consider purchasing a car because there is Lyft would have no need to delegate this problem.  

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]

But if we infer from this that each person is inscrutably unique, then how do we classify them into groups so that we can make laws and even model them generically enough to take demographic statistics?  We can't be doomed to the computational complexity of treating each one *as* unsimplifiable foam.  We have to choose boundaries according to the task at hand... maybe I extend to my skin for one thing, extend to my social circle for another thing, extend to the entire built environment I bounce around in for another context, etc.  But each boundary comes with its own error, encapsulating, pigeon-holing, the person artificially.

Taken this way, it seems that the *only* path to True Justice is to build robots that *can* handle the computational complexity required to treat each individual as the special snowflake it is ... a kind of libertarian paradise.  UNLESS we think of the regular laity's "rules of thumb" and cultural tendencies/traditions as algorithms for handling that computation.  Then, we have to accept, to some extent, essentialist rhetoric like Cohen arguing that "yes, I've lied, but I'm not a liar" ... or even, perhaps, Rachel Dolezal's claim that she considers herself black.

That essence/identity is a computation, if we don't restrict ourselves to Lee's -- and others' -- overly strict requirements for "computation", namely that it be definite.  And I'd argue that Steve's identification of the more "open" types of computation like evolutionary algorithms and such, and his suggestion they are akin to a-little-more-generic intelligence boils down to the "openness" of that type of computation.  Bastardizing Feferman's terms, a schematic (axiomatic formal) system would be more like generic intelligence and a definite system would be more like specific intelligence.  A fully generic intelligence would, perhaps, have a graceful mechanism for filling in variables on the fly ... dynamic definiteness ... the artificial boundary would gradually give way as more specific questions were asked (and more details were filled in).

On 3/7/19 11:20 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>>Or are they a super complicated, high dimensional, unsimplifiable foam?
>
> Yes.  With consciousness which, as far as I can tell, no one can explain.

--
☣ 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

[gepr]

I'm not convinced.  If such a Lyft customer suffered a breakdown from Santa Fe to Tesuque at, say, noon in the summer, one might make an argument that it would be good for that Lyft customer to know something about how the car works ... at least well enough to know whether the driver was snowing him on this or that explanation of what was happening.  The consideration of edge cases are often decent heuristics for approximating complete security.

On 3/7/19 11:23 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> < As Steve tried to point out with the "form leads/follows function" and his talk about a well-stated problem, in order to delegate, say, "fix my car", I have to know that the car is the problem.  If, for example, the real problem is that I don't know how to drive the car, there's nothing the mechanic will be able to do to "fix it" because the car's not the problem. >
>
> For example, a young person that would not consider purchasing a car because there is Lyft would have no need to delegate this problem.  

============================================================
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]

There are security issues and there are non-security issues.   When it comes to plausible risk scenarios, one can invest in a common pool and as opposed to another specialized pool.   A ballerina that knows how to handle a gun, say.

On 3/7/19, 2:42 PM, "Friam on behalf of glen ∅" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

    I'm not convinced.  If such a Lyft customer suffered a breakdown from Santa Fe to Tesuque at, say, noon in the summer, one might make an argument that it would be good for that Lyft customer to know something about how the car works ... at least well enough to know whether the driver was snowing him on this or that explanation of what was happening.  The consideration of edge cases are often decent heuristics for approximating complete security.
   
    On 3/7/19 11:23 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
    >
    > < As Steve tried to point out with the "form leads/follows function" and his talk about a well-stated problem, in order to delegate, say, "fix my car", I have to know that the car is the problem.  If, for example, the real problem is that I don't know how to drive the car, there's nothing the mechanic will be able to do to "fix it" because the car's not the problem. >
    >
    > For example, a young person that would not consider purchasing a car because there is Lyft would have no need to delegate this problem.  
   

============================================================
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]

But, again, you're adding judgment and evaluative capabilities that seem to require some kind of understanding of the components involved.  How would a car-ignorant person know that a Lyft ride from Santa Fe to Tesuque might involve some risk of, say, dying of exposure?  We can assume they'd have some cultural/traditional experience that most Lyft cars are relatively new and clean. (Or that ballerinas don't typically hang out where guns are needed.)  And that might bridge the boundary between a [non]security issue.  But, again, this is not "to relate".  It's to solve a particular problem, whether or not that problem was implicitly solved by infrastructure (aka cultural tendencies).

On 3/7/19 1:46 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> There are security issues and there are non-security issues.   When it comes to plausible risk scenarios, one can invest in a common pool and as opposed to another specialized pool.   A ballerina that knows how to handle a gun, say.


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

[Prof David West]

"Lyft customer know something about how the car works ... at least well enough to know whether the driver was snowing him ..."

Or, her to believe the young man that just stated, " we just ran out of gas," as they reached an isolated spot on the side of the road.

davew

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019, at 2:42 PM, glen ∅ wrote:

I'm not convinced.  If such a Lyft customer suffered a breakdown from Santa Fe to Tesuque at, say, noon in the summer, one might make an argument that it would be good for that Lyft customer to know something about how the car works ... at least well enough to know whether the driver was snowing him on this or that explanation of what was happening.  The consideration of edge cases are often decent heuristics for approximating complete security.

On 3/7/19 11:23 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> 

> < As Steve tried to point out with the "form leads/follows function" and his talk about a well-stated problem, in order to delegate, say, "fix my car", I have to know that the car is the problem.  If, for example, the real problem is that I don't know how to drive the car, there's nothing the mechanic will be able to do to "fix it" because the car's not the problem. >

> 

> For example, a young person that would not consider purchasing a car because there is Lyft would have no need to delegate this problem.  

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

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

Attachments:

• pEpkey.asc
  

============================================================
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]

Obviously there would still be public pools of information.   "Lyft rider suffering with hypothermia stumbles out into traffic and is smashed by semi-truck on the 84.  News at 10."  Some might ignore the those public pools and some might get smashed on the 84.  Life goes on.  

On 3/7/19, 2:56 PM, "Friam on behalf of glen ∅" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

    But, again, you're adding judgment and evaluative capabilities that seem to require some kind of understanding of the components involved.  How would a car-ignorant person know that a Lyft ride from Santa Fe to Tesuque might involve some risk of, say, dying of exposure?  We can assume they'd have some cultural/traditional experience that most Lyft cars are relatively new and clean. (Or that ballerinas don't typically hang out where guns are needed.)  And that might bridge the boundary between a [non]security issue.  But, again, this is not "to relate".  It's to solve a particular problem, whether or not that problem was implicitly solved by infrastructure (aka cultural tendencies).
   
    On 3/7/19 1:46 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
    > There are security issues and there are non-security issues.   When it comes to plausible risk scenarios, one can invest in a common pool and as opposed to another specialized pool.   A ballerina that knows how to handle a gun, say.
   
   

============================================================
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]

Right, but ... as Dave's post indicates, we don't blame the victim for the crime. The whole point of infrastructure is to make progress on the goals we want.  Where individualism is effective, we want to foster it.  Where collectivism is effective, we want to foster that.  But without knowing where each is effective, we're like the car-ignorant Lyft driver.  Which pool should each of us pay attention to? And where do we get our guidelines for paying attention to which pool?


On 3/7/19 2:02 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Obviously there would still be public pools of information.   "Lyft rider suffering with hypothermia stumbles out into traffic and is smashed by semi-truck on the 84.  News at 10."  Some might ignore the those public pools and some might get smashed on the 84.  Life goes on.  


============================================================
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]

What crime?   I'm actually advocating purposeful collectivism.   Taking on risk -- walking away from the campfire -- for the sake of increasing entropy.   A few of the attached Borg meet their end in doing so.

On 3/7/19, 3:10 PM, "glen ∅" <[hidden email]> wrote:

    Right, but ... as Dave's post indicates, we don't blame the victim for the crime. The whole point of infrastructure is to make progress on the goals we want.  Where individualism is effective, we want to foster it.  Where collectivism is effective, we want to foster that.  But without knowing where each is effective, we're like the car-ignorant Lyft driver.  Which pool should each of us pay attention to? And where do we get our guidelines for paying attention to which pool?
   
   
    On 3/7/19 2:02 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
    > Obviously there would still be public pools of information.   "Lyft rider suffering with hypothermia stumbles out into traffic and is smashed by semi-truck on the 84.  News at 10."  Some might ignore the those public pools and some might get smashed on the 84.  Life goes on.  
   
   

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