is it possible that ...

[gepr]

... being reasonable is a bad thing?

Nick's entreatment here [1], this article [2], Dave's assurances here [3], rule #5 here [4], the hidden spoiler effect criticism of ranked-choice voting [5], counterintuitive irrationality from appeals to rationality like [6], [7] and [8], etc.

Appeals to "enlightenment" seem flawed. You can't have a reasonable discussion with a bad faith actor. I experienced this personally when my very friendly Christianity-on-his-sleeve neighbor would consistently engage me in conversation, and insist he felt love and had empathy for everyone. But when the topic came up of the billboards the Freedom from Religion foundation put up across Portland, he literally *spat* the word "atheist". The way he said the word and the context of the sentence in which he used it were dripping with hatred. I immediately stopped him and asked why he said it that way, with such hatred. He had no idea what I was talking about. After like 30 minutes more of talking about it, forcing him to use the word over and over again, telling him again and again that while I don't call myself that, a *lot* of my *friends* do call themselves that. And if he really hates atheists, then he also hates me. Etc. He finally admitted that maybe, deep down, he does hate atheists because God hates them. Therefore it's proper to hate them. I felt like I should take a shower after that conversation.

Is being reasonable the right thing? If it doesn't work with my neighbor, after hours in several open conversations, who *could* it work with? If Bitecofer is right, and people who claim to be independent might actually be crypto-partisans, people who wear the masks of "enlightenment" and "rationality" might actually be crypto-tribalists, then what's the point of being reasonable or "utilitarian". We should all hoist the Jolly Roger and begin slitting throats.

Maybe we need the obligatory "complex adaptive system" rhetoric to argue that the feedback loop in which reasonableness has a lower rate than, say, a human lifetime? The reasonableness we display over, if we're lucky, 80 years of life only shows *effect* after, say, 150 years ... or 300 years? All those stories of brilliant, sensitive people who fought the reasonableness fight over their lives and die insane or by their own hand might be victims of a cause-effect rate mismatch? Or perhaps there's a transfinite game theoretic explanation where populations of partisans co-evolve with populations of the swayable reasonable but the cycles are invisible to the history-impaired ... or the system-impaired (those who can't think in terms of collectives)?

I suppose my agnosticism reigns and I have a moral imperative to be reasonable when the use case calls for it and slit throats when the use case calls for that. But I definitely need better metrics to summon the right tactic at the right time.



[1] http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/Trumps-motives-not-judiciable-because-they-are-in-his-head-tp7594411p7594416.html

[2] New research may explain the weakness of centrism and the religious left
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/02/new-research-may-explain-the-weakness-of-centrism-and-the-religious-left/

[3] http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/Up-and-Out-vs-Down-and-in-tp7594452p7594453.html

[4] Autocracy: Rules for Survival
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/10/trump-election-autocracy-rules-for-survival/

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Spoiler_effect

[6] https://heterodoxacademy.org/
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
[8] https://alfanl.com/2017/03/03/the-owning-of-scott-aaronson/

--
☣ 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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Glen writes:

<  Is being reasonable the right thing?  >

I do wonder about Warren, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Buttigieg and their rhetoric trying to pin blame on the divider-in-chief rather than on those that voted for him.  It seems like crypto-partisanism to me.   They have to be different things to different people, that’s politics.   I would love to have an option, at least in ranked choice voting, who had the basic agenda to finish the culture war by any means necessary and to severely punish bad-faith actors as you describe.

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]

Heh, good game, ranking as enablers. From most enabling to least, I'd go with:

1) Buttigieg
2) Klobuchar
3) Warren
4) Sanders

(3) and (4) are really a toss-up. Sanders seems light on specifics and long on rants. And the devil is always in the detail. So Warren might be less enabling than Sanders by using corral fences with fewer unfilled holes. But she seems very Trumpian in her confidence that any of her plans would survive contact with the battlefield. Sanders may well end up with better plans if he turns out to be more adaptive, relaxing *into* the landscape rather than trying to out-think it. In the end, I think it'll be easier for deeper thinking Evildoers(TM) like Thiel to game Warren than Sanders, which is why I'd rank her as more enabling than Sanders. Buttigieg's Moderate Rhetoric looks to me like a red meat buffet, waiting to be gobbled up by the Evildoers ... like so many octogenarian Casino-goers. If he's the nominee, here's hoping that deep down he's a 3D foam of camouflaged steel traps waiting to lop off the fractal tendrils of our squidlike Leviathans.

On 2/13/20 8:13 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I do wonder about Warren, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Buttigieg and their rhetoric trying to pin blame on the divider-in-chief rather than on those that voted for him.  It seems like crypto-partisanism to me.   They have to be different things to different people, that’s politics.   I would love to have an option, at least in ranked choice voting, who had the basic agenda to finish the culture war by any means necessary and to severely punish bad-faith actors as you describe.


--
☣ 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

[George Duncan-2]

I'll rank this way:

1. Bloomberg

2. Buttigieg

3. Klobuchar

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:36 AM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Heh, good game, ranking as enablers. From most enabling to least, I'd go with:

1) Buttigieg
2) Klobuchar
3) Warren
4) Sanders

(3) and (4) are really a toss-up. Sanders seems light on specifics and long on rants. And the devil is always in the detail. So Warren might be less enabling than Sanders by using corral fences with fewer unfilled holes. But she seems very Trumpian in her confidence that any of her plans would survive contact with the battlefield. Sanders may well end up with better plans if he turns out to be more adaptive, relaxing *into* the landscape rather than trying to out-think it. In the end, I think it'll be easier for deeper thinking Evildoers(TM) like Thiel to game Warren than Sanders, which is why I'd rank her as more enabling than Sanders. Buttigieg's Moderate Rhetoric looks to me like a red meat buffet, waiting to be gobbled up by the Evildoers ... like so many octogenarian Casino-goers. If he's the nominee, here's hoping that deep down he's a 3D foam of camouflaged steel traps waiting to lop off the fractal tendrils of our squidlike Leviathans.

On 2/13/20 8:13 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I do wonder about Warren, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Buttigieg and their rhetoric trying to pin blame on the divider-in-chief rather than on those that voted for him.  It seems like crypto-partisanism to me.   They have to be different things to different people, that’s politics.   I would love to have an option, at least in ranked choice voting, who had the basic agenda to finish the culture war by any means necessary and to severely punish bad-faith actors as you describe.


--
☣ uǝlƃ

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

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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

I don’t think of Bloomberg as being disguised, though.   He’s a Romney-like option.   At this point, I’m less concerned about enabling Thiel-type people than I am about enabling frothing morons.   At least Nixon cared enough about true and false to adapt his lies around facts, rather than to deny the possibility of facts.   One EvilDoer™ can be contained.   50 million of them is a bigger problem.

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of George Duncan <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 8:42 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] is it possible that ...

 

I'll rank this way:

 

1. Bloomberg

2. Buttigieg

3. Klobuchar

 

George Duncan

Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
georgeduncanart.com

See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Land: [phone]  

Mobile: [phone]

 
My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix order and luminous chaos.

 

"Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may then be a valuable delusion."

From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn. 

"It's that knife-edge of uncertainty where we come alive to our truest power." Joanna Macy.

 

 

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:36 AM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Heh, good game, ranking as enablers. From most enabling to least, I'd go with:

1) Buttigieg
2) Klobuchar
3) Warren
4) Sanders

(3) and (4) are really a toss-up. Sanders seems light on specifics and long on rants. And the devil is always in the detail. So Warren might be less enabling than Sanders by using corral fences with fewer unfilled holes. But she seems very Trumpian in her confidence that any of her plans would survive contact with the battlefield. Sanders may well end up with better plans if he turns out to be more adaptive, relaxing *into* the landscape rather than trying to out-think it. In the end, I think it'll be easier for deeper thinking Evildoers(TM) like Thiel to game Warren than Sanders, which is why I'd rank her as more enabling than Sanders. Buttigieg's Moderate Rhetoric looks to me like a red meat buffet, waiting to be gobbled up by the Evildoers ... like so many octogenarian Casino-goers. If he's the nominee, here's hoping that deep down he's a 3D foam of camouflaged steel traps waiting to lop off the fractal tendrils of our squidlike Leviathans.

On 2/13/20 8:13 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I do wonder about Warren, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Buttigieg and their rhetoric trying to pin blame on the divider-in-chief rather than on those that voted for him.  It seems like crypto-partisanism to me.   They have to be different things to different people, that’s politics.   I would love to have an option, at least in ranked choice voting, who had the basic agenda to finish the culture war by any means necessary and to severely punish bad-faith actors as you describe.


--
☣ uǝlƃ

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

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

[Steve Smith]

Damn!  I need that T-Shirt for my campaigning!

"a 3D foam of camouflaged steel traps waiting to lop off the fractal tendrils of our squidlike Leviathans"

On 2/13/20 8:13 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

I do wonder about Warren, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Buttigieg and their rhetoric trying to pin blame on the divider-in-chief rather than on those that voted for him.  It seems like crypto-partisanism to me.   They have to be different things to different people, that’s politics.   I would love to have an option, at least in ranked choice voting, who had the basic agenda to finish the culture war by any means necessary and to severely punish bad-faith actors as you describe.

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

I’m a sucker for science shows about dogs.   My wife was watching one last night and I stepped-in to see a part of it.   The observation was that intensive breeding for or against sociality can occur with foxes within a few generations, like it has for dogs, and probably other animals too.   The odd thing is that while this is happening other properties come along for the ride too, like spots.   This suggests there could be a whole complex of correlated (epi)genetic and biochemical indicators for humans as well.  

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Steven A Smith <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 10:11 AM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] is it possible that ...

 

 

Damn!  I need that T-Shirt for my campaigning!

"a 3D foam of camouflaged steel traps waiting to lop off the fractal tendrils of our squidlike Leviathans"

 

On 2/13/20 8:13 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

I do wonder about Warren, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Buttigieg and their rhetoric trying to pin blame on the divider-in-chief rather than on those that voted for him.  It seems like crypto-partisanism to me.   They have to be different things to different people, that’s politics.   I would love to have an option, at least in ranked choice voting, who had the basic agenda to finish the culture war by any means necessary and to severely punish bad-faith actors as you describe.

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