if by 'populism' he meant ...
Locked
12
12
 
|
Britain’s Last Day in Brussels: A Populist Punch-Up
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/12/08/britains-last-day-in-brussels-a-populist-punch-up/ I've struggled to understand what populism means. The dictionary definition is no help (appeal to ordinary people) because I don't think such people exist. There is no "average person". We're all "elite" (special) in some way or another. Each thing has its own particularity. (Down to Pauli exclusion.) Binning concrete things into classes requires removing particulars. This kindasorta implies that populism means appealing to the most common feature set. Average every possible feature and choose the top, say, 5-7 most common features. But that's a problem because we people aren't very objective. So, a data-driven populist would stick pretty close to an algorithm like that. But a "populist" politician probably would not. There's some other criteria at work ... some *conception* of the ordinary person that isn't objective ... a kind of shared subjectivity, "intersubjectivity" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity>? My *guess* is that the way "populist" is used refers to a shared *delusion* ... like the American Dream, which was always a delusion. It's simply becoming more obvious as our information ecology changes. The intersubjectivity involved seems to be a mass psychogenic illness <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_psychogenic_illness> ... kinda like popular music and the same damned person winning the pop contest year upon year. I'd be grateful for any criticism of that conclusion. I have another idea that was triggered by the Byline article: that populism is a kind of forcing structure [⛧], a reduction from high to low dimension, from high to low diversity. Where "elites" take an appropriate amount of time to, say, explain/understand quantum decoherence, a populist over-simplifies it so that the "ordinary person" can believe they see it everywhere. Or, where "elites" accept the cost of sympathizing with each particular wak they meet, the populist stereotypes those [in|out] of their tribe. This 2nd idea could be seen as a derivative of the 1st one, where the shared delusion is the overly simplified model. I'm not as interested in criticism of this 2nd idea. Killing the 1st idea would, I think, kill the 2nd. But if the 1st idea sounds about right, then it might be worth trashing the 2nd. [⛧] ... whether [endo|exo]genous, which isn't irrelevant, but perhaps tangential. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: if by 'populism' he meant ...
|
To the extent I can be gzipped, am I not also redundant?
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 6:55 AM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: [FRIAM] if by 'populism' he meant ... Britain’s Last Day in Brussels: A Populist Punch-Up https://bylinetimes.com/2020/12/08/britains-last-day-in-brussels-a-populist-punch-up/ I've struggled to understand what populism means. The dictionary definition is no help (appeal to ordinary people) because I don't think such people exist. There is no "average person". We're all "elite" (special) in some way or another. Each thing has its own particularity. (Down to Pauli exclusion.) Binning concrete things into classes requires removing particulars. This kindasorta implies that populism means appealing to the most common feature set. Average every possible feature and choose the top, say, 5-7 most common features. But that's a problem because we people aren't very objective. So, a data-driven populist would stick pretty close to an algorithm like that. But a "populist" politician probably would not. There's some other criteria at work ... some *conception* of the ordinary person that isn't objective ... a kind of shared subjectivity, "intersubjectivity" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity>? My *guess* is that the way "populist" is used refers to a shared *delusion* ... like the American Dream, which was always a delusion. It's simply becoming more obvious as our information ecology changes. The intersubjectivity involved seems to be a mass psychogenic illness <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_psychogenic_illness> ... kinda like popular music and the same damned person winning the pop contest year upon year. I'd be grateful for any criticism of that conclusion. I have another idea that was triggered by the Byline article: that populism is a kind of forcing structure [⛧], a reduction from high to low dimension, from high to low diversity. Where "elites" take an appropriate amount of time to, say, explain/understand quantum decoherence, a populist over-simplifies it so that the "ordinary person" can believe they see it everywhere. Or, where "elites" accept the cost of sympathizing with each particular wak they meet, the populist stereotypes those [in|out] of their tribe. This 2nd idea could be seen as a derivative of the 1st one, where the shared delusion is the overly simplified model. I'm not as interested in criticism of this 2nd idea. Killing the 1st idea would, I think, kill the 2nd. But if the 1st idea sounds about right, then it might be worth trashing the 2nd. [⛧] ... whether [endo|exo]genous, which isn't irrelevant, but perhaps tangential. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: if by 'populism' he meant ...
|
|
I recently saw an article that defined populism as something like the resentment of poorly paid, poorly benefitted, and for the most-part hands-on workers toward those who have reasonably well-paying, well-benefitted, and can-work-from-home jobs. -- Russ Abbott Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:38 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: To the extent I can be gzipped, am I not also redundant? - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: if by 'populism' he meant ...
|
|
I held my own idiosyncratic (generally positive) apprehension of
"populism" both for best and worst for the longest time... maybe
right up until it was applied to Trump's appeal. I now map
"mobocracy" much more strongly onto it. For me Mobocracy fails
worse than the mere implications of "unwashed masses", but rather
the entrainment aspects of mob-swarms. An idea doesn't have to
be "good" to be "popular". On 12/23/20 9:47 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: if by 'populism' he meant ...
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Glen, Marcus,
I have always taken it to mean appeal to the "lowest" common denominator, "lowest" to be understood in a strictly mathematical sense. Sex Food, and rock and roll, rather than world peace and justice. I have been interested in the debate between AOC and Abigail Stanberger, who seem to agree that the Democrats should focus on getting particular things done and which particular things to get done, yet continue to be lured by the press into arguments around such words as "defund the police" and "socialism." They both seem very different from Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts for whom the slogans seem central. I thought I was going to have a conclusion about which of these was populism, but now that I get here, I see that I don't. Maybe Pressley is the populist because she avoids the details? Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 10:38 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] if by 'populism' he meant ... To the extent I can be gzipped, am I not also redundant? -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 6:55 AM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: [FRIAM] if by 'populism' he meant ... Britain’s Last Day in Brussels: A Populist Punch-Up https://bylinetimes.com/2020/12/08/britains-last-day-in-brussels-a-populist-punch-up/ I've struggled to understand what populism means. The dictionary definition is no help (appeal to ordinary people) because I don't think such people exist. There is no "average person". We're all "elite" (special) in some way or another. Each thing has its own particularity. (Down to Pauli exclusion.) Binning concrete things into classes requires removing particulars. This kindasorta implies that populism means appealing to the most common feature set. Average every possible feature and choose the top, say, 5-7 most common features. But that's a problem because we people aren't very objective. So, a data-driven populist would stick pretty close to an algorithm like that. But a "populist" politician probably would not. There's some other criteria at work ... some *conception* of the ordinary person that isn't objective ... a kind of shared subjectivity, "intersubjectivity" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity>? My *guess* is that the way "populist" is used refers to a shared *delusion* ... like the American Dream, which was always a delusion. It's simply becoming more obvious as our information ecology changes. The intersubjectivity involved seems to be a mass psychogenic illness <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_psychogenic_illness> ... kinda like popular music and the same damned person winning the pop contest year upon year. I'd be grateful for any criticism of that conclusion. I have another idea that was triggered by the Byline article: that populism is a kind of forcing structure [⛧], a reduction from high to low dimension, from high to low diversity. Where "elites" take an appropriate amount of time to, say, explain/understand quantum decoherence, a populist over-simplifies it so that the "ordinary person" can believe they see it everywhere. Or, where "elites" accept the cost of sympathizing with each particular wak they meet, the populist stereotypes those [in|out] of their tribe. This 2nd idea could be seen as a derivative of the 1st one, where the shared delusion is the overly simplified model. I'm not as interested in criticism of this 2nd idea. Killing the 1st idea would, I think, kill the 2nd. But if the 1st idea sounds about right, then it might be worth trashing the 2nd. [⛧] ... whether [endo|exo]genous, which isn't irrelevant, but perhaps tangential. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: if by 'populism' he meant ...
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
I first heard the word extensively as a description of the appeal of Huey Long. He was a Louisiana farm boy who didn't like city people. As governor he ordered the National Guard to occupy New Orleans' City Hall. They set up machine guns in the hallways. See He was famous for the campaign slogan, "A chicken in every pot." Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 10:07 AM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: if by 'populism' he meant ...
|
|
See: Masters, Lackeys and Serfs: Why Authoritarianism Persists in the 21st Century and How to Oppose It Tom On Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 10:19 AM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Or if you want to support local bookstores:
https://bookshop.org/books/masters-lackeys-and-serfs-why-authoritarianism-persists-in-the-21st-century-and-how-to-oppose-it-9786077891369/9786077891369 On December 23, 2020 10:22:00 AM PST, Tom Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote: >See: >Masters, Lackeys and Serfs: Why Authoritarianism Persists in the 21st >Century and How to Oppose It > >https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07FPZMBVN/ref=cm_sw_r_em_apa_bS44Fb1ZV2YVK > -- glen ⛧ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by thompnickson2
OK. I suppose I can take elements of all 4 responses and make my own criticism of my own idea. From:
• MGD: Not a delusion. A compressible thing has an internal, essential structure from which details can be [re]generated. And classes can be binned off that internal structure instead of the expanded (perhaps noisy) expression. And some things might be more compressible than other things. An "ordinary person" class could be built based on that compressibility and/or the extent to which we can distinguish between the essential (compressed) structure versus the ancillary fully expression. • RJA: Not a delusion. An intersubjective resentment over class or social status. • SAS: Maybe delusional, but requires a policy-making component. Basically a form of herd mentality. But add in an impetus to write the mentality into law. • NST: Not a delusion. An appeal to basic needs/instincts/emotions, lower on the pyramid. This would include experience-based tribalism like visible signals of the adoption of -isms. If I'm close in my restatements, only Steve allows for my assertion that the intersubjective stance is delusional. Everyone else seems to think there may be some actual basis for the stance. I'll have to read a book to extract Tom's or Frank's. 8^( On 12/23/20 9:16 AM, [hidden email] wrote: > I have always taken it to mean appeal to the "lowest" common denominator, "lowest" to be understood in a strictly mathematical sense. Sex Food, and rock and roll, rather than world peace and justice. I have been interested in the debate between AOC and Abigail Stanberger, who seem to agree that the Democrats should focus on getting particular things done and which particular things to get done, yet continue to be lured by the press into arguments around such words as "defund the police" and "socialism." They both seem very different from Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts for whom the slogans seem central. I thought I was going to have a conclusion about which of these was populism, but now that I get here, I see that I don't. Maybe Pressley is the populist because she avoids the details? On 12/23/20 9:06 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > I held my own idiosyncratic (generally positive) apprehension of "populism" both for best and worst for the longest time... maybe right up until it was applied to Trump's appeal. I now map "mobocracy" much more strongly onto it. For me Mobocracy fails worse than the mere implications of "unwashed masses", but rather the entrainment aspects of mob-swarms. An idea doesn't have to be "good" to be "popular". On 12/23/20 8:47 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > I recently saw an article that defined populism as something like the resentment of poorly paid, poorly benefitted, and for the most-part hands-on workers toward those who have reasonably well-paying, well-benefitted, and can-work-from-home jobs. On 12/23/20 8:38 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > To the extent I can be gzipped, am I not also redundant? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: if by 'populism' he meant ...
|
|
If there is an ordinary person class or subclass, which I also doubt, then it is dispensable, or even a liability, because it is just another person heating up the atmosphere and accelerating the demise of life as we know it on earth. In this view, one would compress out the sameness using the population for context (the Great Dictionary), and whatever is unique is the value of that person. One might not be surprised if individuals with low residual entropy might find safety in numbers or even declare their concerns to be a movement.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:51 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] if by 'populism' he meant ... OK. I suppose I can take elements of all 4 responses and make my own criticism of my own idea. From: • MGD: Not a delusion. A compressible thing has an internal, essential structure from which details can be [re]generated. And classes can be binned off that internal structure instead of the expanded (perhaps noisy) expression. And some things might be more compressible than other things. An "ordinary person" class could be built based on that compressibility and/or the extent to which we can distinguish between the essential (compressed) structure versus the ancillary fully expression. • RJA: Not a delusion. An intersubjective resentment over class or social status. • SAS: Maybe delusional, but requires a policy-making component. Basically a form of herd mentality. But add in an impetus to write the mentality into law. • NST: Not a delusion. An appeal to basic needs/instincts/emotions, lower on the pyramid. This would include experience-based tribalism like visible signals of the adoption of -isms. If I'm close in my restatements, only Steve allows for my assertion that the intersubjective stance is delusional. Everyone else seems to think there may be some actual basis for the stance. I'll have to read a book to extract Tom's or Frank's. 8^( On 12/23/20 9:16 AM, [hidden email] wrote: > I have always taken it to mean appeal to the "lowest" common denominator, "lowest" to be understood in a strictly mathematical sense. Sex Food, and rock and roll, rather than world peace and justice. I have been interested in the debate between AOC and Abigail Stanberger, who seem to agree that the Democrats should focus on getting particular things done and which particular things to get done, yet continue to be lured by the press into arguments around such words as "defund the police" and "socialism." They both seem very different from Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts for whom the slogans seem central. I thought I was going to have a conclusion about which of these was populism, but now that I get here, I see that I don't. Maybe Pressley is the populist because she avoids the details? On 12/23/20 9:06 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > I held my own idiosyncratic (generally positive) apprehension of "populism" both for best and worst for the longest time... maybe right up until it was applied to Trump's appeal. I now map "mobocracy" much more strongly onto it. For me Mobocracy fails worse than the mere implications of "unwashed masses", but rather the entrainment aspects of mob-swarms. An idea doesn't have to be "good" to be "popular". On 12/23/20 8:47 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > I recently saw an article that defined populism as something like the resentment of poorly paid, poorly benefitted, and for the most-part hands-on workers toward those who have reasonably well-paying, well-benefitted, and can-work-from-home jobs. On 12/23/20 8:38 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > To the extent I can be gzipped, am I not also redundant? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
The idea of an induced expression centroid that provides a spanning basis for a large proportion of people's expressiveness is interesting. The tricky part is that any such basis may be too dynamic to provide a persistent compression, reliable over time [⛧]. If it were stable, I feel like it would amount to an assertion of cultural universals. And if that's the case, then it might reduce to biology, which would make it another form of Nick's criticism, albeit a data-driven one.
[⛧] Maybe that's a plausible idea for populism is an ambiguous term? On December 23, 2020 1:20:05 PM PST, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: >If there is an ordinary person class or subclass, which I also doubt, >then it is dispensable, or even a liability, because it is just another >person heating up the atmosphere and accelerating the demise of life as >we know it on earth. In this view, one would compress out the >sameness using the population for context (the Great Dictionary), and >whatever is unique is the value of that person. One might not be >surprised if individuals with low residual entropy might find safety in >numbers or even declare their concerns to be a movement. > -- glen ⛧ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: if by 'populism' he meant ...
|
|
Glen, As an alternative to reading Garry Boulard's book you could read the Wikipedia article on Huey Long He was an early example if not the defining one of "populism", I believe. Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Thu, Dec 24, 2020, 6:37 AM ⛧ glen <[hidden email]> wrote: The idea of an induced expression centroid that provides a spanning basis for a large proportion of people's expressiveness is interesting. The tricky part is that any such basis may be too dynamic to provide a persistent compression, reliable over time [⛧]. If it were stable, I feel like it would amount to an assertion of cultural universals. And if that's the case, then it might reduce to biology, which would make it another form of Nick's criticism, albeit a data-driven one. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
I've read plenty of formulations of what it is. And I'm familiar enough with Long. What I want are criticisms of formulations. If you're not willing to criticize my formulation, then perhaps you could write a counterpoint and explain why Long was NOT populist? But I definitely encourage donations to Wikipedia. I gave them $50 this year.
On December 24, 2020 5:43:27 AM PST, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote: >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long > -- glen ⛧ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: if by 'populism' he meant ...
|
|
I'm not well-informed enough to write such a counterpoint. I know a certain amount about Long. He seems to to me like a Frankenstein combination of Sanders and Trump without the money. I think I mentioned that my great uncle Shirley Wimberly helped him write a book although they were political enemies according to Long's biographer T. Harry Williams. Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Thu, Dec 24, 2020, 9:08 AM ⛧ glen <[hidden email]> wrote: I've read plenty of formulations of what it is. And I'm familiar enough with Long. What I want are criticisms of formulations. If you're not willing to criticize my formulation, then perhaps you could write a counterpoint and explain why Long was NOT populist? But I definitely encourage donations to Wikipedia. I gave them $50 this year. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Well, Long is one example of a large set of one type of populism, characterized mostly by rhetorical opportunism. Unlike Trump, though, Long had what might be considered a mix between an actual basis for the separation of normies from elites ... mixed with opportunist fomenting of an extant delusion. So IMO, Long's mixed status is not a good case upon which to found a criticism of my idea that it's a psychogenic illness. But Bernie might be.
On December 24, 2020 8:27:29 AM PST, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote: >I'm not well-informed enough to write such a counterpoint. I know a >certain amount about Long. He seems to to me like a Frankenstein >combination of Sanders and Trump without the money. -- glen ⛧ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: if by 'populism' he meant ...
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen,
I think what is happening here is that, as is your wont, you have managed to make clear to us all that none us have a clue what populism is, including, perhaps, your self. I know you didn't ask for any more definitions, but how about this one: "Being guided in your choice of policies primarily by the roar of the crowd in front of you. Or the twitter feed." Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of ? glen Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2020 10:08 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] if by 'populism' he meant ... I've read plenty of formulations of what it is. And I'm familiar enough with Long. What I want are criticisms of formulations. If you're not willing to criticize my formulation, then perhaps you could write a counterpoint and explain why Long was NOT populist? But I definitely encourage donations to Wikipedia. I gave them $50 this year. On December 24, 2020 5:43:27 AM PST, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote: >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long > -- glen ⛧ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: if by 'populism' he meant ...
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen,
This is not about populism per se, but about your formulations. The very first post made we wonder how you would differentiate between a mass delusion and culture — other than put them on some kind of continuum or making the first a subset of the latter. None of your subsequent posts dealing with 'mechanisms/formulations' clarified this question. An alternative mechanism/formulation you might consider: the vTAO or virtual Adaptive Topographic Organism. You have never heard of this before because it was a model I proposed in my doctoral dissertation and I never had the chance to followup or operationalize the model because I was hired to teach software development. My problem was how culture affected cognition. The model starts with the Hopfield metaphor of a neural net: raindrops (inputs) falling on a topography (established by connection weights) and being channeled to low points (outputs). The topography was shaped by learning and adjustment of the weights. I extended this metaphor/model but making connection weights a function of the "constancy" of the inputs; with constancy being a combination of frequency and consistency. A feedback loop was established with the outputs altering the environment and altering the constancy of the inputs. Trivial example: you paint the inside of your house red (output) and that increases the constancy of receiving 'red' inputs. The metaphor/model was extended with seven 'layers' of topography: e.g. a core layer where the constancy is established simply by being carbon=based lifeforms, to culture shaping the gross geographic features, the penultimate layer of habit being akin to watershed, and the final layer being more or less intentional thought / free will / decision making etc. In my mind's eye I can see how the vTAO is consistent with, supportive of, the mechanisms/formulations in your posts, but that might just be misplaced pride in authorship. davew On Thu, Dec 24, 2020, at 9:08 AM, ⛧ glen wrote: > I've read plenty of formulations of what it is. And I'm familiar enough > with Long. What I want are criticisms of formulations. If you're not > willing to criticize my formulation, then perhaps you could write a > counterpoint and explain why Long was NOT populist? But I definitely > encourage donations to Wikipedia. I gave them $50 this year. > > On December 24, 2020 5:43:27 AM PST, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote: > >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long > > > > -- > glen ⛧ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: if by 'populism' he meant ...
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
There are different ways a branch in a (spanning) tree might arise. One is some shared value, like right to choose or right to life. Identity politics is another. Then there's (Democratic) party politics where an umbrella is suggested to ensure many weak connections can be maintained.
A fasces is a picture of how easy that is break down: Easier to insist on sticks of equal size and diameter and bind them together into a weapon where the rope is part of the tree, Mussolini style. -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of ? glen Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2020 5:37 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] if by 'populism' he meant ... The idea of an induced expression centroid that provides a spanning basis for a large proportion of people's expressiveness is interesting. The tricky part is that any such basis may be too dynamic to provide a persistent compression, reliable over time [⛧]. If it were stable, I feel like it would amount to an assertion of cultural universals. And if that's the case, then it might reduce to biology, which would make it another form of Nick's criticism, albeit a data-driven one. [⛧] Maybe that's a plausible idea for populism is an ambiguous term? On December 23, 2020 1:20:05 PM PST, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: >If there is an ordinary person class or subclass, which I also doubt, >then it is dispensable, or even a liability, because it is just another >person heating up the atmosphere and accelerating the demise of life as >we know it on earth. In this view, one would compress out the >sameness using the population for context (the Great Dictionary), and >whatever is unique is the value of that person. One might not be >surprised if individuals with low residual entropy might find safety in >numbers or even declare their concerns to be a movement. > -- glen ⛧ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: if by 'populism' he meant ...
|
In discussions where Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, or Lenin is mentioned I am
reminded that Franco stayed in power in Spain well into the 1970s. Further, it wasn't by upheaval or collapse that he left "office". Instead, as Wikipedia has it, "By 1973 Franco had surrendered the function of prime minister remaining only as head of state and commander in chief of the military". Wikipedia adds: "In Spain and abroad, the legacy of Franco remains controversial. The longevity of Franco's rule, his suppression of opposition, and the effective propaganda sustained through the years have made a detached evaluation difficult. For almost 40 years, Spaniards, and particularly children at school, were told that Divine Providence had sent Franco to save Spain from chaos, atheism, and poverty." -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
Excellent! Ignoring your vTAO for a second, I distinguish culture from a psychogenic delusion by its exogenous inputs. Culture, as I imagine it, is *definitely* derived from the actual world, whereas a psychogenic delusion *may* not be. On to your vTAO, I like the construction. But to pursue it as a mechanism, I'd want it to talk a bit about the coupling between the layers. E.g. between the core and culture, it seems clear that biological evolution is slower than cultural evolution. (Though with all the new data about microbiomes in our gut, on our skin, etc, as well as epigentics, it's not *that* clear.) That relative rate difference implies a loose coupling. *If* we can say/show that the coupling is *very* loose, such that one layer can have more or fewer degrees of freedom, *then* we might get to psychogenesis. We could also use error or randomness to do that. On 12/24/20 9:05 AM, Prof David West wrote: > This is not about populism per se, but about your formulations. > > The very first post made we wonder how you would differentiate between a mass delusion and culture — other than put them on some kind of continuum or making the first a subset of the latter. None of your subsequent posts dealing with 'mechanisms/formulations' clarified this question. > > An alternative mechanism/formulation you might consider: the vTAO or virtual Adaptive Topographic Organism. > > You have never heard of this before because it was a model I proposed in my doctoral dissertation and I never had the chance to followup or operationalize the model because I was hired to teach software development. > > My problem was how culture affected cognition. The model starts with the Hopfield metaphor of a neural net: raindrops (inputs) falling on a topography (established by connection weights) and being channeled to low points (outputs). The topography was shaped by learning and adjustment of the weights. > > I extended this metaphor/model but making connection weights a function of the "constancy" of the inputs; with constancy being a combination of frequency and consistency. A feedback loop was established with the outputs altering the environment and altering the constancy of the inputs. > > Trivial example: you paint the inside of your house red (output) and that increases the constancy of receiving 'red' inputs. > > The metaphor/model was extended with seven 'layers' of topography: e.g. a core layer where the constancy is established simply by being carbon=based lifeforms, to culture shaping the gross geographic features, the penultimate layer of habit being akin to watershed, and the final layer being more or less intentional thought / free will / decision making etc. > > In my mind's eye I can see how the vTAO is consistent with, supportive of, the mechanisms/formulations in your posts, but that might just be misplaced pride in authorship. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |