asymmetric snooping
Locked
12
12
 
|
On 9/25/13 9:44 AM, glen wrote:
> While it makes perfect sense to use a digital classification scheme > (confidential, secret, top secret, nuclear, etc.) as a guide for an > individual (artifact or human) making a decision, it is unreasonable > to expect that classification scheme to arise naturally. The thing > about measures is that they can't really be planned, at least not > completely. E.g. whether George W. Bush will be considered anything > other than an idiot 100 years from now is not something we can > specify. Hence, measures tend to produce continua, even if forcibly > discretized. I don't really see what you mean by "arise naturally", nor do I see why W's historical significance is something that needs to be anticipated. People, I think, can come to `classify' the importance of their information. For example, if a gay person applies for a job and has reason to think that their employer would be biased against that, they might either avoid that employer, or keep their status a secret. A person might not disclose their age or marital status for similar reasons, say, because they believed the employer preferred a young, single person would work harder. The process of growing up, and observing how social systems impinge on individuals forces a person to extrapolate to anticipate outcomes, and to discriminate how they reveal information. It seems to me the difference between the `classification' that government or a corporation performs is just that the rules are formed by powerful organizations rather than individuals or families, political advocacy groups, churches, etc. > > I suppose this is just another form of Stallman's argument for viral > openness in the face of the weaker forms. The real target is the > behavior of the humans. The fossilized imprints of their behavior is > only a side effect. Of course.. > > But that takes me back to the main issue, which is the privileged > access of the morlocks. Can the eloi _ever_ expect privacy? > I think no, unless they go to the trouble of thinking hard about how they reveal information, and employ a means by which they enforce it (not just relying on mechanisms provided by a company that will happily betray their users when the government comes down on them). This may just make them, or select them as, morlocks. 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 |
|
|
On 09/25/2013 11:24 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> I don't really see what you mean by "arise naturally", Hm. A classification can be descriptive or prescriptive. You can imagine any process being observed and every aspect being classified according to a theory-laden measure. Then you can imagine either multiple simultaneous observers or multiple, sequential observers. Each measure is theory-laden. But unless they are all structured around the same theory, you'll eventually see some generic properties across all the individual measures. This meta-measure usually arises without the imposition of a "master theory". The multiple discretized classifications, because they classify the process slightly differently, the meta-measure that arises will often 'smooth out' many (most?) of those discretizations into things like real number percentages. > nor do I see why > W's historical significance is something that needs to be anticipated. Well, many of the examples we talk about where humans control the openness of whatever channels is a direct function of the individual's expectations of the audience/receiver. Managing expectations is the primary justification for opening or closing a channel. > It seems to me the difference between the > `classification' that government or a corporation performs is just that > the rules are formed by powerful organizations rather than individuals > or families, political advocacy groups, churches, etc. OK. But the difference underlying _that_ difference is that individuals/families don't usually write down the rules. I assert that the bases for individuals' closing/opening channels is not _rules_, it's perfectly situational. But even if there are rules, they are implicit or unstated, allowing the higher degree of variability in their control over the opacity of the information. The govt or corporation, being artifacts in themselves _must_ encode and make somewhat permanent their rules. > I think no, unless they go to the trouble of thinking hard about how > they reveal information, and employ a means by which they enforce it > (not just relying on mechanisms provided by a company that will happily > betray their users when the government comes down on them). This may > just make them, or select them as, morlocks. I agree. Personally, I think I'd love it if we were all morlocks. And if we buy into the arguments of the utility of specialization (exhibited best by large corporations like walmart), then to some extent, we _are_ all morlocks. We all have our area of expertise and can be considered asymmetrically powerful within that domain. But for some reason I can't articulate, I don't buy that. I think there are zombie-like humans wandering around who never get good (or adequate) at anything. Or perhaps they get good at one thing but then unjustifiably believe they are good at other things without doing the work needed to become actual morlocks in that new domain. (If that's true, then it brings a whole new dimension to "outsider everything".) Regardless, open artifacts don't _facilitate_ morlocks. Morlocks are facilitated by other morlocks and the artifacts are just media for morlock-morlock communication. Perhaps the openness of the artifacts is (largely) irrelevant. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella I learned how to lie well and somebody blew up ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
On 9/25/13 2:06 PM, glen wrote:
> This meta-measure usually arises without the imposition of a "master > theory". The multiple discretized classifications, because they > classify the process slightly differently, the meta-measure that > arises will often 'smooth out' many (most?) of those discretizations > into things like real number percentages. I suspect a choice in practice is often between the people that like theories and the people that don't. Making theories is labor intensive so the folks that like theories tend get together and debate 'em, write papers, build tools, etc. The others press +1 on Facebook and act instinctively or imitate some alpha dog. > OK. But the difference underlying _that_ difference is that > individuals/families don't usually write down the rules. I assert that > the bases for individuals' closing/opening channels is not _rules_, > it's perfectly situational. Worriers are people that are modeling and in some sense making up rules -- playing out scenarios, thinking of contingencies, etc. "Rules" can be a shorthand for thought, rather than just carrying the connotation of influence and regulation from the outside. 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 |
|
|
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 09/25/2013 01:24 PM:
> I suspect a choice in practice is often between the people that like theories and the people that don't. Making theories is labor intensive so the folks that like theories tend get together and debate 'em, write papers, build tools, etc. The others press +1 on Facebook and act instinctively or imitate some alpha dog. > [...] > Worriers are people that are modeling and in some sense making up rules -- playing out scenarios, thinking of contingencies, etc. "Rules" can be a shorthand for thought, rather than just carrying the connotation of influence and regulation from the outside. I largely agree. But my skeptical homunculus is dancing around with ants in its pants. Theorizers and worriers do construct rules. And the serious ones convict themselves to those rules. Most of the ones that happen (by randomness, I assert) to turn out validated become even more permanent convicts ... spending their entire lives chained to some imaginary correlation between their own brain farts and reality. Some of the ones that happen (also by accident) to turn out falsified end up believing there's a conspiracy against them, that they are right despite a preponderance of evidence against their pet idea. Of course, there are rational subsets of both, the ones who farted the right idea realize the role of luck in the process and the ones who got it wrong revise their world view and move on to the next challenge. But it's my assertion that this latter group shares a large intersection with the opportunist "plussers". And I would further assert (again without justification or testing criteria - because that's how I roll) that this is normal animal behavior. The fittest amongst us don't spend much time constructing rules. And even if we do, we're ready to abandon those rules for new ones at the drop of a hat. And this is what makes animals different from their artifacts. It also speaks to the deeper meaning of the word "open"... as in extensible (up, down, in, and out). -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella I'm writing history with the back of my hand ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
On 9/26/13 10:23 AM, glen wrote:
> The fittest amongst us don't spend much time constructing rules. And > even if we do, we're ready to abandon those rules for new ones at the > drop of a hat. A counterexample that comes to mind is investment strategy. Also, long ago I used to develop substantial amounts of Lisp for my Windows manager and Emacs. This was just to tune my environment, do automated filtering of e-mails, etc. Now I realize that I don't have the time or access to control the environments I work in, and it's mostly a waste. Keeping closer with the topic, I think some people often`classify' personal, but controversial political views. Helen Thomas comes to mind as a cautionary tale. Whenever an influential person speaks, especially a person in politics, they may choose to not speak to many sorts of topics. I accept that some politicians are quick on their feet and can modulate `at the drop of a hat', but I think it takes some planning too, at least for folks early in their career. They analyze their constituency, and build a dynamic rank ordering in their head of the top ten ways to go down -- some of these they must learn the hard way. Note I don't think this inhibition is healthy, or even particularly honest, but I think it occurs. 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 |
|
|
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 09/26/2013 10:29 AM:
> A counterexample that comes to mind is investment strategy. Also, long ago I used to develop substantial amounts of Lisp for my Windows manager and Emacs. This was just to tune my environment, do automated filtering of e-mails, etc. Now I realize that I don't have the time or access to control the environments I work in, and it's mostly a waste. If "mostly" simply means > 50%, then yeah. But even 1% investment into your generalizable efficacy can swamp a 49% waste in efficiency. > Keeping closer with the topic, I think some people often`classify' personal, but controversial political views. Helen Thomas comes to mind as a cautionary tale. Whenever an influential person speaks, especially a person in politics, they may choose to not speak to many sorts of topics. I accept that some politicians are quick on their feet and can modulate `at the drop of a hat', but I think it takes some planning too, at least for folks early in their career. They analyze their constituency, and build a dynamic rank ordering in their head of the top ten ways to go down -- some of these they must learn the hard way. Note I don't think this inhibition is healthy, or even particularly honest, but I think it occurs. Alright. You win that one. 8^) A balance on the spectrum between pure situational facility and a dynamic selection amongst pre-constructed rules is probably the most robust. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Should have left him in the stream. Cooing at the smitten queen. ============================================================ 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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |