Friam

capitalism vs. individualism

Classic

List

Threaded

130 messages Options

1234567

Prof David West

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

Mea Culpa - you are absolutely correct that the vegan straw man (pun kinda actually intended) was a silly thing to raise and makes me guilty of the same errors I chastise in others.

It would be an interesting exercise to enumerate the actual individuals I am lumping into "They," but it would have to be more nuanced than simply "in" or "out." Categories would include active story tellers, e.g. Schiff, bruised egos, e.g. Hillary, partisan sharks smelling blood in the water, pundits protecting a reputation, distancing opponents, e.g. the Democratic presidential hopefuls, etc. — because it is never black and white.

Pelosi would not make the collection, except maybe as a "prisoner of circumstances."

The most distressing, to me, aspect of what is happening is that the discussion - rational on both sides, critical of both sides, has been reduced to a pretty much exclusive focus on one office and one individual. It is impossible to have an informative discussion about actions taken by the individual, in historical context, in terms of philosophy, policy, and context.

I was speaking recently with a friend whose profession is political historian. She was comparing Trump and JFK with regards actions in the areas of nepotism (and generally trusting family and "cronies" over political professionals) and the intelligence community (both men spoke ill of it and ignored it). Interesting stuff, but she could not imagine such a discussion getting attention, or getting published, in today's black and white rhetorical context.

davew

On Sun, Nov 10, 2019, at 5:52 PM, glen∈ℂ wrote:

> I guess we don't disagree nearly as much as I inferred from your
> earlier post. But I also worry about the narratives surrounding Schiff.
> I agree that AOC is more rational. But many of the right-wing sites are
> claiming Pelosi is as questionable as Schiff. And I disagree
> completely. Pelosi is partisan. But everything I've seen her do seems
> completely above board. So, if there are credible complaints against
> Schiff, those making them should, themselves, be rational -- specific
> and particular -- rather than painting all Democrats with the same
> brush. If you're serious about your 500-1000 particular people, it
> helps to name a few inside that set and name a few outside that set. If
> you did that, you could come up with a better name for that set than
> "they".
>
> It's the over the top rhetoric that's causing the problem. E.g. when
> you say things like:
>
> On 11/10/19 1:26 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > They dismiss ideas, like solving the cow flatulence problem by banning meat and making everyone a vegetarian/vegan, as nonsense, ...
>
> You're installing that straw man, that anyone's seriously suggested
> banning meat and forcing everyone to be veg, into your rhetoric. And
> those little rhetorical injections color/weaken the whole argument. The
> farmers and ranchers I've talked to are *also* committed to
> conservation, including exploring ideas like no-till and organic pest
> control. The same's true of sport hunters and fishermen, who often side
> with environmentalists against things like motorcycles and atvs in the
> woods.
>
> So why inject the silly straw man? Why not try to construct your best
> representation of the "other side"? E.g. it's clear that *reducing*
> meat in the 1st world diet would help a little with climate change. But
> removing meat altogether presents lots of problems, problems we could
> work on if people would quit their bad faith characterizations of the
> other side.
>
> On 11/10/19 12:59 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > is dead on, with a minor caveat: ... rational people should welcome rational challenges ...
> >
> > What Schiff, and the 500-1000 people I am including in "They" is not rational - it is emotional and ego-driven.
> >
> > Based on her questioning of several Trump admin witnesses, Ocasio-Cortez should be leading the impeachment effort - quiet, informed, questions that clearly demonstrate the errors of the other side — rational challenges absent all the ad hominen rhetoric. It would quickly be obvious to the majority of the population why Trump should be removed. And, in the short run, it would give the Republicans the grounds for actually supporting impeachment and convicting — something that will never happen with the toxic-partisan Schiff-led efforts.
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

Prof David West

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nick,

The discussions I participated in concerned breeding alternatives (did you know that more than 90% of the dairy cows in the US today descend from exactly two bulls?) in order to enhance desired traits; and feed, natural and organic supplements but not pharmaceutical.

I listened to one presentation that analyzed the "efficiency" of animal protein production in the context of land that is not amenable to plant/crop agriculture. Its a complicated problem, but, within certain limits, beef cattle ranching is "green." As always it is greed factors arising from selfish capitalism that prompt too many to exceed those limits.

BTW, there was no implication that 'government should leave off ... and let the cattlemen solve it." What I did imply: "too many, if not most, government bureaucrats are arrogant, misinformed, if not outright ignorant, promulgators of rules and regulations that make sense only to them, based on ideas that they, and only they, KNOW to be the TRUTH, without giving credence to anything said by those with generations of actual experience." :) :)

davew

On Sun, Nov 10, 2019, at 5:57 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Gosh, Dave. What is the solution they are entertaining? As a guilty
> meat-eater, I want to know.
>
>
> I was musing the other day on the amount of food waste between harvest
> and eating and wondering vaguely if meat isn't a more efficient way to
> bring plants to table than we give it credit for. In the same way that
> I wonder about these claims that my lightbulbs are saving energy when
> they give off less heat ...during the winter? Aren't those nice warm
> incandescent lightbulbs helping to heat my house?
>
> I don't share your more general implication that government should
> leave off thinking about this stuff and leave the cattlemen to solve it
> on their own. That leads back to our conversation ofn Grapes of Wrath.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2019 2:27 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism
>
> Marcus,
>
> There was no implication that your ego was bruised, nor anyone else's
> outside of the very small number (500-1000) that I included in my
> definition of "They."
>
> I hope that when you talk about the "red hat folks," you are also
> speaking of a small, very small actually, percentage of those
> supporting Trump. The vast majority of Trump supporters are NOT "People
> with a backward way of thinking that need constant oversight. A
> danger to themselves and others."
>
> One tiny example: I was in the US the month of October and talking with
> a large number of ranchers. The conversations were about conservation
> and climate change. These people know far more about conservation and
> far more about how cattle contribute to green-house gasses than
> (almost) anyone in the government bureaucracy charged with writing
> rules and regulations.
>
> The ranchers (and I am excluding the large corporate ranches, but there
> are fewer of them than there are of corporate farms) are constantly
> seeking and applying knowledge to enhance conservation and to
> ameliorate adverse affects on climate. They justifiably take umbrage at
> the imposition of uninformed/misinformed regulations that frequently
> make things worse.
>
> They dismiss ideas, like solving the cow flatulence problem by banning
> meat and making everyone a vegetarian/vegan, as nonsense, not because
> they deny the climate effect, but because they are working on a better
> way to address the problem - and they know it is better because they
> have the data and a forward way of thinking about that data.
>
> And most of them are wearing red hats (actually the favored re-election
> hat is black with a flag motif on half the brim).
>
> davew
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 9, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > Dave writes:
> >
> > "And, in the case of Trump, motivated by deeply bruised egos."
> >
> > It is just not so. Sure, I was disappointed when George W was
> > elected. I was disappointed by what I saw was a preference too many
> > people had for a good 'old boy rather than a person with ideas for
> > governance. When 9/11 happened, I was supportive of the use of
> > violence. I remember his State of the Union address and being amazed I
> > supported this guy -- the loyal opposition. But this is what had to
> > be done. That carried over to Obama with the drone strikes too. Ugly
> > measures are sometimes needed for the greater good, or at least our
> > good.
> >
> > I see the red hat folks in much the same way I see militant Islamists.
> > People with a backward way of thinking that need constant oversight.
> > A danger to themselves and others. They are cultural regressions
> > waiting to happen, and both of them did. It really doesn't have
> > anything to do with Hillary and Donald.
> >
> > 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
>

Prof David West

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Schiff IS acting like a prosecutor.

Unfortunately, in this day and age prosecution and defense in the criminal system has nothing to do with truth or with justice. Prosecutors, in general, and almost universally, do their best to paint the defendant as 100% evil with no mitigating circumstances; as the defense tries to paint the defendant as an angel with nothing but minor and excusable faults. Black and White - no middle ground.

Schiff is acting like exactly that kind of prosecutor — he is not laying out the case, he is, substantially, making it up.

Moreover, presenting the case just might take into consideration little things like:

1. However accurate the interpretation of "do me a favor" might be, it does not fit the definition of a "crime" as laid out in Federal Law.

2. The impeachment clause as written and passed by the Continental Congress ended in four words, "against the United States." The "Style Committee," without permission, omitted those four words from the printed document. If extant they would make anything said or done in the Ukraine not subject to impeachment.

3. Plausible motive: is not to weaken a potential political rival, but a tantrum of a three year old being punished by his mother and pointing at his sister and saying she's bad too.

Lest it sound like I am defending Trump — I am not.

I find myself becoming increasingly petulant and angry, in all sorts of areas, not just politics, with people who are so absolutely certain that their interpretation of a complex data set is the ONE AND ONLY TRUTH. I believe, not know — not even think, but believe that such people are dangerous — to the body politic and to individuals. It matters not if the TRUTH originates from the "left" or "right" — "Science" or "God" the conviction of TRUTH leads, almost inexorably, to violence and/or tyranny.

Please excuse the raised voice.

davew

On Sun, Nov 10, 2019, at 6:05 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Dave,
>
> Funny. I don't read Schiff that way. I don't watch any TV, and get
> all my news from text or podcasts, so I may be missing a lot of
> nonverbals. But I thought his "It's not OK that ..." speech of a year
> or so back was terrific. I read him as a prosecutor. His job is to
> present the case.
>
> I do agree about A.O.C. But she was playing a different role. What
> was splendid about her questioning was the disciplined manner in which
> she stayed within the bounds of the role she was playing. She let the
> case present itself.
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2019 2:00 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism
>
> Glen,
>
> Your "larger point is that communities are
> > responsible for policing themselves. Everyone should *welcome*
> > challenges to their narrative. So, Obama should have welcomed
> > impeachment inquiries into his actions. Trump should welcome the
> > impeachment inquiry *and* that into Russian interference. All rational
> > people should welcome challenges to their words and actions."
>
> is dead on, with a minor caveat: ... rational people should welcome
> rational challenges ...
>
> What Schiff, and the 500-1000 people I am including in "They" is not
> rational - it is emotional and ego-driven.
>
> Based on her questioning of several Trump admin witnesses,
> Ocasio-Cortez should be leading the impeachment effort - quiet,
> informed, questions that clearly demonstrate the errors of the other
> side — rational challenges absent all the ad hominen rhetoric. It would
> quickly be obvious to the majority of the population why Trump should
> be removed. And, in the short run, it would give the Republicans the
> grounds for actually supporting impeachment and convicting — something
> that will never happen with the toxic-partisan Schiff-led efforts.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 9, 2019, at 3:49 PM, glen∈ℂ wrote:
> > While I agree that your *narrative* is plausible, I'm always skeptical
> > of such narratives. The system is more complex than these stories we
> > tell ourselves. I didn't confidently support impeachment until Trump
> > released his readout of the Ukraine call. And most of my more
> > conservative friends didn't support impeachment until the
> > whistleblower came forward. Those who've been shouting for Trump's
> > impeachment for years were not in control of the process.
> >
> > More importantly, I think Obama should have been impeached, as well.
> > To me, his drone strikes were very close to crimes against humanity ...
> > but, of course, crimes against humanity may not be crimes against our
> > country... I don't know. But the larger point is that communities are
> > responsible for policing themselves. Everyone should *welcome*
> > challenges to their narrative. So, Obama should have welcomed
> > impeachment inquiries into his actions. Trump should welcome the
> > impeachment inquiry *and* that into Russian interference. All rational
> > people should welcome challenges to their words and actions.
> >
> > Think of impeachment like your friend telling you there's spinach in your teeth.
> >
> > On 11/9/19 12:05 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > > "They" is a very small number of individuals who directly control/influence the existing impeachment effort — Schiff and 50+ percent of House Members, Hillary and her closest cohort, a finite number of columnists, pundits, and commentators.
> > >
> > > In my opinion, both the Clinton and the Trump impeachment efforts were not motivated by, and did not actualize, a very necessary system of checks and balances. Both were motivated by personal and partisan animosity.
> > >
> > > And, in the case of Trump, motivated by deeply bruised egos.
> > >
> > > "They" cannot believe that 49% of the electorate and most of the populace outside of the northeast, west coast, and enclaves like Santa Fe, could possibly disagree with them. Therefore, Trump supporters are certifiably: racists, deplorables, and/or uneducated fools. And Trump has to be illegitimate, and must be removed from office for no other reason than he is a symbol of "Their" failures.
> > >
> > > Impeachment is the wrong tool, wielded by the wrong people, for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time.
> > >
> > > Its inevitable failure will almost guarantee "four more years" and, far more importantly, devalue an essential check & balance tool to the point that future Houses will shy from its use and open the door to "really bad things."
> > >
> > > There are so many other ways that the country could have been
> > > protected from Trump and his re-election made impossible. But those
> > > alternatives would require reason, effort, and, most importantly for
> > > "They," some "agonizing reappraisal." (Mao)
> > >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > 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
>

gepr

culture vs things (was: capitalism vs. individualism)

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Yes! Along the same lines of communities policing themselves, pluralists are at risk of runaway relativism. I was reading this article <https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/smashing-the-patriarchy-why-theres-nothing-natural-about-male-supremacy> recently and was taken aback by this excerpt:

> Steven Pinker, for instance, has argued that men prefer to work with “things”, whereas women prefer to work with “people”. This, he said, explains why more women work in the (low-paid) charity and healthcare sector, rather than getting PhDs in science. According to Pinker, “The occupation that fits best with the ‘people’ end of the continuum is director of a community services organisation. The occupations that fit best with the ‘things’ end are physicist, chemist, mathematician, computer programmer, and biologist.”

I'm distressed by *celebrity*. But I don't draw a clear distinction between the cultural (aka "people") and the natural. I've forgotten who introduced me to it. But I like the concept of the "naturfact" ... like "artifact", but a found thing modified or remade by us ... partly synthetic, partly natural ... part thing, part "people". It's this mixing of the 2 categories that makes me interested in "stigmergy". One person's purely synthetic "city" is another person's purely natural habitat.

When I hear people seemingly committed to an obviously incompetent and corrupt person like Trump, no matter what he says or does, I can't help but think their commitment is purely a cultural commitment. They, like me, don't see a sharp distinction between natural things and cultural things. So, since they're part of my "tribe", I feel a special responsibility to criticize them and argue the complement: that there *is* a difference between real things (like facts) versus spun narratives or "cults of personality" (wherein both Trump and JFK are 2 peas in a pod, regardless of any other differences).

On 11/11/19 3:26 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> The most distressing, to me, aspect of what is happening is that the discussion - rational on both sides, critical of both sides, has been reduced to a pretty much exclusive focus on one office and one individual. It is impossible to have an informative discussion about actions taken by the individual, in historical context, in terms of philosophy, policy, and context.
>
> I was speaking recently with a friend whose profession is political historian. She was comparing Trump and JFK with regards actions in the areas of nepotism (and generally trusting family and "cronies" over political professionals) and the intelligence community (both men spoke ill of it and ignored it). Interesting stuff, but she could not imagine such a discussion getting attention, or getting published, in today's black and white rhetorical context.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: culture vs things (was: capitalism vs. individualism)

Pinker is an idiot. Always has been.

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 9:13 AM glen∈ℂ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Yes! Along the same lines of communities policing themselves, pluralists are at risk of runaway relativism. I was reading this article <https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/smashing-the-patriarchy-why-theres-nothing-natural-about-male-supremacy> recently and was taken aback by this excerpt:

> Steven Pinker, for instance, has argued that men prefer to work with “things”, whereas women prefer to work with “people”. This, he said, explains why more women work in the (low-paid) charity and healthcare sector, rather than getting PhDs in science. According to Pinker, “The occupation that fits best with the ‘people’ end of the continuum is director of a community services organisation. The occupations that fit best with the ‘things’ end are physicist, chemist, mathematician, computer programmer, and biologist.”

I'm distressed by *celebrity*. But I don't draw a clear distinction between the cultural (aka "people") and the natural. I've forgotten who introduced me to it. But I like the concept of the "naturfact" ... like "artifact", but a found thing modified or remade by us ... partly synthetic, partly natural ... part thing, part "people". It's this mixing of the 2 categories that makes me interested in "stigmergy". One person's purely synthetic "city" is another person's purely natural habitat.

When I hear people seemingly committed to an obviously incompetent and corrupt person like Trump, no matter what he says or does, I can't help but think their commitment is purely a cultural commitment. They, like me, don't see a sharp distinction between natural things and cultural things. So, since they're part of my "tribe", I feel a special responsibility to criticize them and argue the complement: that there *is* a difference between real things (like facts) versus spun narratives or "cults of personality" (wherein both Trump and JFK are 2 peas in a pod, regardless of any other differences).

On 11/11/19 3:26 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> The most distressing, to me, aspect of what is happening is that the discussion - rational on both sides, critical of both sides, has been reduced to a pretty much exclusive focus on one office and one individual. It is impossible to have an informative discussion about actions taken by the individual, in historical context, in terms of philosophy, policy, and context.
>
> I was speaking recently with a friend whose profession is political historian. She was comparing Trump and JFK with regards actions in the areas of nepotism (and generally trusting family and "cronies" over political professionals) and the intelligence community (both men spoke ill of it and ignored it). Interesting stuff, but she could not imagine such a discussion getting attention, or getting published, in today's black and white rhetorical context.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

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

twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

gepr

Re: culture vs things

LoL! First laugh of the day. Thanks.

On 11/11/19 8:15 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> Pinker is an idiot. Always has been.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Dave writes:

< The most distressing, to me, aspect of what is happening is that the discussion - rational on both sides, critical of both sides, has been reduced to a pretty much exclusive focus on one office and one individual. It is impossible to have an informative discussion about actions taken by the individual, in historical context, in terms of philosophy, policy, and context. >

Trump is not the primary tumor, but he is an active tumor.

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

Nick Thompson

Re: culture vs things

In reply to this post by gepr

G and M

It's the hair. Oh, god, what's living in that HAIR>

n

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen?C
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 9:17 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] culture vs things

LoL! First laugh of the day. Thanks.

On 11/11/19 8:15 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> Pinker is an idiot. Always has been.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Dave writes:

< I find myself becoming increasingly petulant and angry, in all sorts of areas, not just politics, with people who are so absolutely certain that their interpretation of a complex data set is the ONE AND ONLY TRUTH. I believe, not know — not even think, but believe that such people are dangerous — to the body politic and to individuals. It matters not if the TRUTH originates from the "left" or "right" — "Science" or "God" the conviction of TRUTH leads, almost inexorably, to violence and/or tyranny. >

Stopping behaviors that are counterproductive is different from promulgating a prescriptive ideology. The point is to open up space for what might work, and that which has yet to be falsified. The Trumpism behaviors are not drawn from a complex data set.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

On 11/11/19 10:40 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Stopping behaviors that are counterproductive is different from promulgating a prescriptive ideology. The point is to open up space for what might work, and that which has yet to be falsified. The Trumpism behaviors are not drawn from a complex data set.

Maybe not. But *how* do we open up that space for people who are dead set for Trump, against someone like Bill Weld or Joe Walsh? By the same token, how could we have opened things up for the Bernie Bros who were so against Clinton? Or the coming nastiness between whichever D's make it to the primaries?

I mean, if ranked choice were more widespread, that alone would help a lot. The tendency to -isms is canalized by over-zealous reduction. My self-ascribed Christian neighbor (who doesn't seem to be a follower of Christ, but whatever) once gave me a book with a title like "Jesus: Insane, Liar, or God." The idea being that the 3 ideas were mutually exclusive. When Dave points out that membership in his set of disgruntled people isn't crisp, he's only reiterating the thread topic: how to integrate -isms. I made my lame attempt to talk to my neighbor about the Axiom of Choice, modal logics, etc. ... and of course failed utterly. And I've heard people talk about *engaging* with Trumpists and trying to tease apart whatever good or bad the ecology associated with Trump has done or not done. But I fail every time I try. How do you crack open that layered chitin an Ismist accretes around their self without killing them?

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

Glen writes:

< And I've heard people talk about *engaging* with Trumpists and trying to tease apart whatever good or bad the ecology associated with Trump has done or not done. But I fail every time I try. How do you crack open that layered chitin an Ismist accretes around their self without killing them? >

I read this article yesterday, and I noticed the author was from the Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science. They’ve suspended charitable giving because, yeah, it is that one. There is something clearly wrong in middle America. Opioids haven’t provided the fix but it seems clear there is a hunger for something. Maybe it is a simple as a job with some dignity, or perhaps another intervention like easy access to antidepressants could help. It seems clear there is no possibility of persuasion. One idea would be large, needed infrastructure investments that would move workers to other parts of the country, increase their relative wealth (adjusting for cost of living), and break them out of their provincial habits. On the other side are various forms of boycott. For example, city workers in San Francisco can’t attend meetings in some states due to their stance on various civil rights issues. If it ever got Republic of Gilead bad, then nothing is off the table.

Marcus

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Dave writes:

< BTW, there was no implication that 'government should leave off ... and let the cattlemen solve it." What I did imply: "too many, if not most, government bureaucrats are arrogant, misinformed, if not outright ignorant, promulgators of rules and regulations that make sense only to them, based on ideas that they, and only they, KNOW to be the TRUTH, without giving credence to anything said by those with generations of actual experience." >

Yeah, ignorant rules like this, this, and this. Politicians and government regulators are not experts, and they are subject to lobbying by groups with selfish intent. Their constituents can also push them to make informed decisions too. Making it easier for resourced people to do the lobbying (striking down regulations and laws) just means more corruption.

Marcus

Gillian Densmore

Re: culture vs things

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

lol so that!

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 11:23 AM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

G and M

It's the hair. Oh, god, what's living in that HAIR>

n

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen?C
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 9:17 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] culture vs things

LoL! First laugh of the day. Thanks.

On 11/11/19 8:15 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> Pinker is an idiot. Always has been.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Interesting article.

I wonder, though, if what's "wrong" is not so much what's there, the thing being looked at, but more that/how we're looking at it. Because we're trying to unify this huge geographical region (and all the animals in it, all the microclimates in it, all the soil types, etc.) into a singular governing system, we're going to *see* things we've never seen before. Just like in that article where the claim is that consciousness comprises communication between parts of the brain, our awareness of how fundamentally different some parts of "rural America" are from some parts of the "coastal elites" depends on the fact that a) "rural America" has a, however erroneous, conception of "coastal elites" and vice versa. That the parts communicate and that b) we can measure such communication, is what's "wrong".

Imagine trying to unify all the native tribes like the Hopi and the Comanche, who seem very different (to me) from an ethical/behavioral point of view.

Perhaps rural America is obsolete and that's what's wrong? If so, infrastructure projects would be the fastest way to eliminate it, not to move the people out, but to move the city in ... make the entire 9.8 million km^2 into an urban, managed, space. Of course, I can't even get good broadband just outside of Portland... So, *that* ain't gonna happen.

On 11/11/19 11:41 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I read this article <https://aeon.co/essays/the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-is-a-distraction-from-the-real-one> yesterday, and I noticed the author was from the Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science. They’ve suspended charitable giving because, yeah, it is that <https://www.statnews.com/2019/10/03/top-colleges-took-in-at-least-60-million-from-family-that-owns-purdue-pharma-as-opioid-lawsuits-piled-up/> one. There is something clearly wrong <https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-summaries-by-state> in middle America. Opioids haven’t provided the fix but it seems clear there is a hunger for something. Maybe it is a simple as a job with some dignity, or perhaps another intervention like easy access to antidepressants could help. It seems clear there is no possibility of persuasion. One idea would be large, needed <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/10/california-fires-and-pge-toxic-debt/600979/> infrastructure investments that
> would move workers to other parts of the country, increase their relative wealth (adjusting for cost of living), and break them out of their provincial habits. On the other side are various forms of boycott. For example, city workers in San Francisco can’t attend meetings in some states due to their stance on various civil rights issues. If it ever got Republic of Gilead bad, then nothing is off the table.

--
☣ uǝlƃ
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

Glen writes:

< Perhaps rural America is obsolete and that's what's wrong? If so, infrastructure projects would be the fastest way to eliminate it, not to move the people out, but to move the city in ... make the entire 9.8 million km^2 into an urban, managed, space. Of course, I can't even get good broadband just outside of Portland... So, *that* ain't gonna happen. >

It is more complicated that urban vs. rural. In the bay area, I do have true gigabit speed from AT&T, but it was government regulation that facilitated that motivated AT&T to do it. Thank you government regulators. Meanwhile, my dad in rural Oregon also has it because he has a cooperative telephone company that just decided to save the money and make the investment.

Marcus

gepr

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

On 11/11/19 2:44 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> It is more complicated that urban vs. rural. In the bay area, I do have true gigabit speed from AT&T, but it was government regulation that facilitated <https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/07/att-gets-directv-merger-approval-must-deploy-fiber-to-12-5m-customers/> that motivated AT&T to do it. Thank you government regulators. Meanwhile, my dad in rural Oregon also has it because he has a cooperative telephone company that just decided to save the money and make the investment.

Of course. And it's not only with broadband:

Separate and Unequal Train Service Returns
https://www.dcreport.org/2019/10/18/separate-and-unequal-train-service-returns/

Yet another personal anecdote -- Up until about a month or so ago, I was an advocate for public transportation, in particular trains, buses, light rail, etc. But Renee' needed her car worked on, the shop being *VERY* close to a trolley stop in Portland. So, rather than me burning lots of gas driving my 12 mpg truck up there to pick her up [†], then driving it back up there to drop her off, I recommended she take the trolley to the light rail, then I could pick her up at the light rail stop, here. It's important to note that her employer provides free public transit rides and all she needs is her nursing badge to board any bus or train in the Metro area.

But even though the auto shop is only a few blocks from the trolley stop, she *refused* to take it. It was much more convenient for her to have me slice out 2 hours (1 hour per trip) of my day, burn a bunch of gas, etc. than it was to ride the train(s). And she's (ostensibly) also an advocate for public transportation.

This episode challenged my understanding of infrastructure. I don't think Renee's alone in this. I've heard people complain of the tiniest things about their public trans trips ... someone smacking their food ... someone with body odor ... the drunk guy passed out on the seat ... someone clipping their toenails ... etc. They all sound like rationalizations, to me. Whatever the deeper cause, there's something about us as a people that prevents effective sharing. So, I'm now considering changing all my advocacy from public transportation to massive swarms of publicly owned, self-driving, electric cars. And I'll start trashing Amtrak and Portland's TriMet every chance I get. 8^)

[†] I could have picked her up on my 55 mpg motorcycle. But my guess is she would have chafed at having to carry and put on her gear for such a short ride ... plus it was a bit cold and all that other "discomfort".

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

David Eric Smith

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

Good thread; far more than I can process.

But… (from Glen’s anecdote)

> This episode challenged my understanding of infrastructure. I don't think Renee's alone in this. I've heard people complain of the tiniest things about their public trans trips ... someone smacking their food ... someone with body odor ... the drunk guy passed out on the seat ... someone clipping their toenails ... etc. They all sound like rationalizations, to me. Whatever the deeper cause, there's something about us as a people that prevents effective sharing. So, I'm now considering changing all my advocacy from public transportation to massive swarms of publicly owned, self-driving, electric cars. And I'll start trashing Amtrak and Portland's TriMet every chance I get. 8^)

Not “as people”. As Americans. Important, I think, to acknowledge how malleable this is, and the role of culture (including institutions).

Live by the train systems in Japan for a while, and you are smacked in the face by the broken culture that Americans seem to believe is an irredeemable human condition. Come back to a city like Atlanta, and the impulse to blame that “you people aren’t even trying” is all but irresistable. A transition back to New York is still somewhat harsh, but not to the same degree.

The same can be said, for that matter, of cost control in the medical system. A person to whom I am connected had a ligament-replacement surgery done to reconstruct a joint, with a week in-hospital (because the Japanese hate to take unnecessary risks of anything), by a specialst who has trained and worked for decades in both Japan and the UK, and the most-caring hospital staff. It cost me 1000 dollars, and about 1/3 had been covered by national insurance. I think in the US, without coverage (which is the relevant situation in this case), a similar quality of treatment would have cost me more than my whole after-tax income for half a year.

If those are the stress-testing cases, think of what the difference can be in behavior on the street, and in other ordinary interactions.

American culture needs a hard kick in the ass, and an admonition to grow up, because we no longer have the slack to live like this and survive it. There are plenty of American people who are not the sources of that broken culture, and they already get kicked too much, so I don’t mean that. But the view that, while there are problems that will remain to afflict people under any case, still so much better an effort _can_ be made.

I constantly think of the saying “You know the ship's only in trouble if the sailors stop swearing”. Probably literally not true, but makes a point. I wonder what it would look like if Americans woke up to realize that the ship is in trouble.

Best to all,

Eric

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen writes:

< But even though the auto shop is only a few blocks from the trolley stop, she *refused* to take it. It was much more convenient for her to have me slice out 2 hours (1 hour per trip) of my day, burn a bunch of gas, etc. than it was to ride the train(s). And she's (ostensibly) also an advocate for public transportation. >

BART is easy for us. It is a downhill walk a couple blocks, and then 7 minutes in to work. It would be more than that for commuting by car. It addresses the parking problem, which would be a mess. For trips across the bay, it can be a big savings depending on the time of day. One could be parked for an hour trying to get on the bay bridge. At other times, I can understand why people might avoid it: People passed out on the floor, and various rough characters coming and going. It doesn't bother me enough not to do it -- I kind appreciate that reality check. And really in a city there are people working all times of day, and there would be witnesses even at odd hours.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Steve Smith

the Commons and Convenience

In reply to this post by gepr

I'd say "it's hard to share"... any "Commons" and maybe even moreso when
the Commons in question require big investment and technological
development... but I'm not quite sure why... it is as if whatever the
Commons delivers, we expect more?

It is also hard to give up "convenience", once habituated toit. I can
barely imagine tying up a hardwired phone line to get 300 or 1200bps
internet service today... I think I'd probably do without somehow. I
once walked, ran, rode my bike miles and miles to get where I needed to
go (school, work, etc.) but now that I have been conditioned to jumping
in a heated/AC car and driving 60-80 mph with a good quality sound
system and dozens of radio stations, hundreds of CDs ripped to the hard
drive and Bluetooth audio to allow me to chat with family and friends or
do some business or listen to a podcast, I'd have a hard time even going
back to driving 55 or having to leave my windows down to keep from
feeling a little hot on a warm day, much less live with my own singing
or a small handful of scratchy AM stations.

I think if I *lost* some of those conveniences for a while, I'd welcome
the lesser things back in a heart beat.

> Of course. And it's not only with broadband:
>
> Separate and Unequal Train Service Returns
> https://www.dcreport.org/2019/10/18/separate-and-unequal-train-service-returns/
>
> Yet another personal anecdote -- Up until about a month or so ago, I was an advocate for public transportation, in particular trains, buses, light rail, etc. But Renee' needed her car worked on, the shop being *VERY* close to a trolley stop in Portland. So, rather than me burning lots of gas driving my 12 mpg truck up there to pick her up [†], then driving it back up there to drop her off, I recommended she take the trolley to the light rail, then I could pick her up at the light rail stop, here. It's important to note that her employer provides free public transit rides and all she needs is her nursing badge to board any bus or train in the Metro area.
>
> But even though the auto shop is only a few blocks from the trolley stop, she *refused* to take it. It was much more convenient for her to have me slice out 2 hours (1 hour per trip) of my day, burn a bunch of gas, etc. than it was to ride the train(s). And she's (ostensibly) also an advocate for public transportation.
>
> This episode challenged my understanding of infrastructure. I don't think Renee's alone in this. I've heard people complain of the tiniest things about their public trans trips ... someone smacking their food ... someone with body odor ... the drunk guy passed out on the seat ... someone clipping their toenails ... etc. They all sound like rationalizations, to me. Whatever the deeper cause, there's something about us as a people that prevents effective sharing. So, I'm now considering changing all my advocacy from public transportation to massive swarms of publicly owned, self-driving, electric cars. And I'll start trashing Amtrak and Portland's TriMet every chance I get. 8^)
>
>
>
> [†] I could have picked her up on my 55 mpg motorcycle. But my guess is she would have chafed at having to carry and put on her gear for such a short ride ... plus it was a bit cold and all that other "discomfort".
>

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: the Commons and Convenience

Steve writes:

< It is also hard to give up "convenience", once habituated toit. I can
barely imagine tying up a hardwired phone line to get 300 or 1200bps
internet service today... I think I'd probably do without somehow. I
once walked, ran, rode my bike miles and miles to get where I needed to
go (school, work, etc.) but now that I have been conditioned to jumping
in a heated/AC car and driving 60-80 mph with a good quality sound
system and dozens of radio stations, hundreds of CDs ripped to the hard
drive and Bluetooth audio to allow me to chat with family and friends or
do some business or listen to a podcast, I'd have a hard time even going
back to driving 55 or having to leave my windows down to keep from
feeling a little hot on a warm day, much less live with my own singing
or a small handful of scratchy AM stations. >

There's no need to fall back to a 300 baud. Even a small community of ~ 20k people can build a fiber optic network -- an example is my dad's town. There's no need to drive 55 mph or even drive. High speed rail in China and Japan exceed 200 mph. This is the shortsightedness and lack of imagination in individualism: To deny or not even notice that many people have the same exact needs you do. But I guess we will be routing money to clever things like rebuilding the houses destroyed on coastlines from climate change.

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

1234567