loopiness (again)
Locked
12
12
 
|
The article I posted (and much of the conversations everywhere these days) is about things others say (fake news, Trump lying, Conway talking about massacres that didn't happen, etc.). For example, if you're a woman and you're trying to decide if Trump's words are meaningful (his locker room talk), you have to decide what community takes priority. Do you write off his offensive words and remain supportive of the things you think he's doing right? Or do you think of it as the last straw and switch sides? The same is true of fake news. When you see a news story with a headline that's plausible or fits your world view, what makes you decide to dig deeper to verify it or debunk it? An organizational concept is needed because we're clearly susceptible without it. A little reflection on how "us vs them" comes about would be useful. And I believe many people on this list disagree with my assertion that actions are required ... that we can approach truth with words and the concepts they evoke. Of course, with the flurry of dialogue between you and me, we're doing what Kasparov warned against: we're _exhausting_ the others' ability to participate. So, it's moot at this point, anyway. On 02/07/2017 02:39 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Why is an organizational concept needed here? I threw out a couple examples of what one could call a community, but really I think it is a silly, vague concept that points to some kind of psychological flaw or need people have for mirroring. Can't one individual just punch another one (or whatever) and that will be an action? Do we talk about expectations of a community to police its own worst actors? Until there is enough experience with punching, etc. there are no learnable patterns and no way to ground meaning. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
"For example, if you're a woman and you're trying to decide if Trump's words are meaningful (his locker room talk), you have to decide what community takes priority."
She doesn't have to decide on the basis of communities. She can look at the available evidence and estimate if this is the kind of leader that match her personal values and her interests. There is the question of set membership (e.g. woman, Caucasian), but that's doesn't need a loaded term like `community'. And it largely has to be done in meme space -- in her head -- because she probably won't get the opportunity to punch the candidate in the face to see what happens, or take the opportunity to punch the redneck neighbor in the face either to cause him to convince her he's right. "The same is true of fake news. When you see a news story with a headline that's plausible or fits your world view, what makes you decide to dig deeper to verify it or debunk it?" Even if you are biased and not playing fair (if there is such a thing at this point), you want to know what the truth is so that you can continue to not play fair. You want to know the risks and how to best generate lies that will achieve your objectives. "Of course, with the flurry of dialogue between you and me, we're doing what Kasparov warned against: we're _exhausting_ the others' ability to participate." If anybody starts firing off e-mails I'd respond to those too, at least until I get that e-mail back from the admins telling me what I want is done. The e-mails would arrive interleaved with yours. No problem. It's not like an in-person meeting where there is some alpha or authority to wrestle down or tip-toe around. This comes up in a lot of situations where there are high bandwidth people and low bandwidth people and deep or shallow people. Ideally the product of depth * bandwidth wins out. As it relates to high-stakes decisions like elections, I don't see a problem with exhausting others' ability to participate. Maybe the left just needs to get a lot louder and persistent. More twitter bots, better targeted propaganda, agents to infiltrate the opposition. At this point I have little faith in dialogue. 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
On 02/07/2017 03:19 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> She doesn't have to decide on the basis of communities. She can look at the available evidence and estimate if this is the kind of leader that match her personal values and her interests. There is the question of set membership (e.g. woman, Caucasian), but that's doesn't need a loaded term like `community'. And it largely has to be done in meme space -- in her head -- because she probably won't get the opportunity to punch the candidate in the face to see what happens, or take the opportunity to punch the redneck neighbor in the face either to cause him to convince her he's right. I completely disagree. People generally decide whether something is appropriate based on whatever communities they identify with. The TPP is a great example. Identifying as a neoliberal, I think the TPP is a good geopolitical move. But as an infotech professional, I think it's a terrible move. I don't have the time or inclination to double check all the geopolitical ramifications it might have. So, I have to trust some of the indirect analyses I've read (from within and without the neoliberal community). Similarly, I have to trust some of the analyses from places like the EFF. And the trusting (or not) of those analyses is largely in thought space. But establishing which communities I'm in and which take priority doesn't. That happens in meat space through social interaction (like contractual duties). If the Trump-supporting woman finds herself surrounded (at dinner, cocktail parties, church, wherever) with other women in her communities that write off Trump's misogyny, then she'll most likely write it off, too. If not, then not. I'd argue the majority of our opinions and decisions are made according to the communities with which we identify, not according to some idealistic rationality. > Even if you are biased and not playing fair (if there is such a thing at this point), you want to know what the truth is so that you can continue to not play fair. You want to know the risks and how to best generate lies that will achieve your objectives. Here again, I'd argue that if you identify with a "debunker" community, or one who holds facts in high esteem, you'll spend more time verifying and debunking news stories. But such a membership can't be determined solely by identifies-with. Lots of people think they hold facts in high esteem, but really just believe anything that looks like a fact. And that means that our mechanisms for determining what communities we're members of is broken. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Glen writes:
"I'd argue the majority of our opinions and decisions are made according to the communities with which we identify, not according to some idealistic rationality." I accept these are your assumptions. I find it to be misrepresentation of the most interesting people, but a plausible representation for many others. 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
On 02/07/2017 04:09 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I accept these are your assumptions. I find it to be misrepresentation of the most interesting people, but a plausible representation for many others. Which raises the question: What's the ratio of "most interesting people" to "many others"? If you find most people in the "many others" category, then my assumptions would be better than random. But if you find that most people are "most interesting people", then my assumptions are worse than random. My guess is that you find there are fewer "most interesting people" than there are "many others". Personally, I find both types interesting. And some of the most interesting people are the least rational. I also gravitate towards small communities populated by perverse personalities. So many of my community-based decisions are based on being part of a community of misfits. >8^D -- ☣ glen ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
A good empirical predictor of how people are is different than what makes for good people. I don't want to be understood by a coarse coding of my apparent community affiliations any more than I want to be understood by my zip code. Familiarity breeds contempt and all that.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ? Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 5:22 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again) On 02/07/2017 04:09 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I accept these are your assumptions. I find it to be misrepresentation of the most interesting people, but a plausible representation for many others. Which raises the question: What's the ratio of "most interesting people" to "many others"? If you find most people in the "many others" category, then my assumptions would be better than random. But if you find that most people are "most interesting people", then my assumptions are worse than random. My guess is that you find there are fewer "most interesting people" than there are "many others". Personally, I find both types interesting. And some of the most interesting people are the least rational. I also gravitate towards small communities populated by perverse personalities. So many of my community-based decisions are based on being part of a community of misfits. >8^D -- ☣ glen ============================================================ 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 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
< We should probably all practice saying, “There’s no evidence for that, but the important thing is … ” and “Well, I disagree, but let’s say you’re right. What about … ” without choking. > No. What’s needed are Trump-approved airplanes that crash, and Trump-approved investment advisors that steal your money.
With enough deregulation there are market opportunities here to fix the problem. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |