Any system can be gamed
Effectively gaming any system is not equivalent to beating it
but it is tantamount to taking ownership
I'll repeat
ANY system can be gamed
Democracy is a system
Capitalism is a system
Justice is a system
All these systems and most of the other ones have been gamed by smart and/or ruthless players
They are now owned by the players
If a player owns the game they reserve the right to win each round by any means
They may change the rules and move the goals with impunity
because rules and goals do not apply to or constrain the owner of the game
unless the owner drop the ball
When this happens the system will continue to bounce
until another gamer takes ownership
Sooner or later, all our games turn into Calvinball.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 21, 2012, 10:28:33 AM
Any system can be gamed
Effectively gaming any system is not equivalent to beating it
but it is tantamount to taking ownership
I'll repeat
ANY system can be gamed
Democracy is a system
Capitalism is a system
Justice is a system
Discordianism is a system. Anarchy is a system. "Individualism" is
definitely a system, and has most certainly been gamed.
Discordianism is a kind of anti system or meta system. I'm not saying it can't be gamed but there's limited reward for successfully doing so.
ETA: ... or maybe the whole point of discordianism is gaming the system :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2012, 02:50:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 21, 2012, 10:28:33 AM
Any system can be gamed
Effectively gaming any system is not equivalent to beating it
but it is tantamount to taking ownership
I'll repeat
ANY system can be gamed
Democracy is a system
Capitalism is a system
Justice is a system
Discordianism is a system. Anarchy is a system. "Individualism" is definitely a system, and has most certainly been gamed.
"Individualism" is a product, and we're the suckers that bought it.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 21, 2012, 08:23:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2012, 02:50:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 21, 2012, 10:28:33 AM
Any system can be gamed
Effectively gaming any system is not equivalent to beating it
but it is tantamount to taking ownership
I'll repeat
ANY system can be gamed
Democracy is a system
Capitalism is a system
Justice is a system
Discordianism is a system. Anarchy is a system. "Individualism" is definitely a system, and has most certainly been gamed.
"Individualism" is a product, and we're the suckers that bought it.
Interestingly enough, "fascism"
in the Roman sense of the word wasn't a bad thing. Working together with a common purpose is good for the soul.
Of course, being humans, we managed to fuck that up royally, and now it's anethema.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2012, 08:26:55 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 21, 2012, 08:23:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2012, 02:50:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 21, 2012, 10:28:33 AM
Any system can be gamed
Effectively gaming any system is not equivalent to beating it
but it is tantamount to taking ownership
I'll repeat
ANY system can be gamed
Democracy is a system
Capitalism is a system
Justice is a system
Discordianism is a system. Anarchy is a system. "Individualism" is definitely a system, and has most certainly been gamed.
"Individualism" is a product, and we're the suckers that bought it.
Interestingly enough, "fascism" in the Roman sense of the word wasn't a bad thing. Working together with a common purpose is good for the soul.
Of course, being humans, we managed to fuck that up royally, and now it's anethema.
We certainly did, and now we're dancing to the beat of our own individual drums, right toward the cliff. In individualistic lockstep.
I'm 41 and bitter because I've only just realized that I just spent the last 26 years of my life trying to figure out how to game the system, just like a good little consumer. Just like everyone else.
I'm 42 and happy as a pig in shit, cos I worked out my own little system and found out it works better for me than all the other gobshite I bought into, all those years ago.
I'm basically a practical hedonist - I do a bunch of shit I wouldn't necessarily choose to be doing in order to do the shit i want to be doing and taking that shit to the wall, regardless of social convention. I endeavor to limit the percentage of my time spent doing the former, to the favour of the latter.
All the other stuff, I observe, I discuss, but, other than on an intellectual level, I don't really give a fuck. My sphere of influence is miniscule. Very few people give a passing fuck about me and I return the favour.
The big system? The Machine? I can't avoid it. Wouldn't want to, some of it makes mundane shit easy as fuck but I try to limit how involved I get to the bare minimum. By some idealists standards I'm in to deep. From what I'd class as "normal" people's perspective I'm a bit out there but I don't present a threat to whatever bullshit they're wrapped up in. We get on fine.
I feel lucky on some levels because, in the absence of any cohesive social community in this society of alienation, I have managed to find a pretty solid group of community-minded people and made my own. I am really happy with my support system, although in the absence of a community ethic in the larger society I suspect it could be torn apart pretty easily by external forces.
I accept that there's potential for a tear-aparty situation but I refuse to dwell on it. It's never happened before, since I've been in primary school and I'm much smarter and a damn sight more agile that I was back then. Let them bring it. I'll holler and hoot and get as caught up in it as I can be arsed but there's always that issue of something else I'd have much more fun doing, dragging my attention away from whatever pernickety little - what society expects from me - gobshite. It's a no brainer for me. I have somewhere from fifty years to a century to spend and it's fucking mine and I'm fucking having it. Fuck anyone who wants to get in the way of that. So far no one has.
What isn't a "system"?
Quote from: Net on December 22, 2012, 11:14:35 AM
What isn't a "system"?
ETA: Misread question - answer made no sense :oops:
Quote from: Net on December 22, 2012, 11:14:35 AM
What isn't a "system"?
"System" is actually a point of view that can be applied to anything. Anything can be a system. But overapplying the point of view generates disadvantage (it's called the aneristic illusion, no?). Underapplying it, also. Applying it just right... is not a system - in the sense that no "system" is capable of dictating the actions that will result in applying the "system" point of view just right.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 21, 2012, 08:48:28 PM
I'm 41 and bitter because I've only just realized that I just spent the last 26 years of my life trying to figure out how to game the system, just like a good little consumer. Just like everyone else.
I'm 44 and I'm not bitter (well, at least not over this), because long ago, I learned to travel with the current. In certain situations, you can make big changes for yourself and for others, by studying the current that is carrying you.
This is NOT to say that I don't occasionally game the system or attempt to game the system. It just means that it isn't an ambition of mine.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 04:01:43 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 21, 2012, 08:48:28 PM
I'm 41 and bitter because I've only just realized that I just spent the last 26 years of my life trying to figure out how to game the system, just like a good little consumer. Just like everyone else.
I'm 44 and I'm not bitter (well, at least not over this), because long ago, I learned to travel with the current. In certain situations, you can make big changes for yourself and for others, by studying the current that is carrying you.
This is NOT to say that I don't occasionally game the system or attempt to game the system. It just means that it isn't an ambition of mine.
Funnily enough, the same here. The 44, and the rest of it, too. heh.
Quote from: holist on December 28, 2012, 04:28:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 04:01:43 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 21, 2012, 08:48:28 PM
I'm 41 and bitter because I've only just realized that I just spent the last 26 years of my life trying to figure out how to game the system, just like a good little consumer. Just like everyone else.
I'm 44 and I'm not bitter (well, at least not over this), because long ago, I learned to travel with the current. In certain situations, you can make big changes for yourself and for others, by studying the current that is carrying you.
This is NOT to say that I don't occasionally game the system or attempt to game the system. It just means that it isn't an ambition of mine.
Funnily enough, the same here. The 44, and the rest of it, too. heh.
How odd, then, that we're completely different.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 04:33:31 PM
Quote from: holist on December 28, 2012, 04:28:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 04:01:43 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 21, 2012, 08:48:28 PM
I'm 41 and bitter because I've only just realized that I just spent the last 26 years of my life trying to figure out how to game the system, just like a good little consumer. Just like everyone else.
I'm 44 and I'm not bitter (well, at least not over this), because long ago, I learned to travel with the current. In certain situations, you can make big changes for yourself and for others, by studying the current that is carrying you.
This is NOT to say that I don't occasionally game the system or attempt to game the system. It just means that it isn't an ambition of mine.
Funnily enough, the same here. The 44, and the rest of it, too. heh.
How odd, then, that we're completely different.
Different currents.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on December 28, 2012, 06:06:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 04:33:31 PM
Quote from: holist on December 28, 2012, 04:28:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 04:01:43 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 21, 2012, 08:48:28 PM
I'm 41 and bitter because I've only just realized that I just spent the last 26 years of my life trying to figure out how to game the system, just like a good little consumer. Just like everyone else.
I'm 44 and I'm not bitter (well, at least not over this), because long ago, I learned to travel with the current. In certain situations, you can make big changes for yourself and for others, by studying the current that is carrying you.
This is NOT to say that I don't occasionally game the system or attempt to game the system. It just means that it isn't an ambition of mine.
Funnily enough, the same here. The 44, and the rest of it, too. heh.
How odd, then, that we're completely different.
Different currents.
Different everything. A few examples:
1. I find the world fascinating as fuck, AS IT REALLY IS. He has to force himself to believe new age nonsense to even
pretend to stay interested.
2. I hate on everyone, sooner or later. His hate is WEAK, so he reserves it for people whom he perceives as being vulnerable for some reason.
3. I don't claim to be an expert on all subjects, nor would I care to be. He is convinced that he is, to the point that he feels both the need and the ability to psychoanalyze people over the internet.
holist kinda reminds me of some of the guys who have hit on Nigel on OkCupid, to hilarious results, when you put it like that.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on December 28, 2012, 06:23:40 PM
holist kinda reminds me of some of the guys who have hit on Nigel on OkCupid, to hilarious results, when you put it like that.
Yep. There's two kinds of people in this world, and fuck 'em both.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 04:01:43 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 21, 2012, 08:48:28 PM
I'm 41 and bitter because I've only just realized that I just spent the last 26 years of my life trying to figure out how to game the system, just like a good little consumer. Just like everyone else.
I'm 44 and I'm not bitter (well, at least not over this), because long ago, I learned to travel with the current. In certain situations, you can make big changes for yourself and for others, by studying the current that is carrying you.
This is NOT to say that I don't occasionally game the system or attempt to game the system. It just means that it isn't an ambition of mine.
I'm bitter in the same way I might be bitter if I drove across town and spent $20 on socks only to find that I could have gotten them online for $4. Delivered.
I guess the thing is that I've realized that I've been fighting against the wrong things for a long, long time, and inadvertently assisting the things I want to change. There are more effective ways to do this. :lol:
There is no system anywhere.
LMNO
-can't believe no one went for the low-hanging fruit first.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 06:15:33 PM
Different everything. A few examples:
1. I find the world fascinating as fuck, AS IT REALLY IS. He has to force himself to believe new age nonsense to even pretend to stay interested.
2. I hate on everyone, sooner or later. His hate is WEAK, so he reserves it for people whom he perceives as being vulnerable for some reason.
3. I don't claim to be an expert on all subjects, nor would I care to be. He is convinced that he is, to the point that he feels both the need and the ability to psychoanalyze people over the internet.
Some of these examples are misleading, while others are plain wrong.
1. I also find the world deeply fascinating as it is. We do appear to have some rather fundamental disagreements about how that is. The most important difference is that while I do not unreservedly subscribe to the scientific ethos, you do, and even insist that it is not an
ethos (i.e. a character, a style, i.e. a matter of some choice), it is just "right" (i.e. anyone who does not subscribe to it is stupid or evil or both). By this, you actually demonstrate an impressive degree of naivity. Science, as all who have studied the philosophy of science in a little depth know, does not stand up to rational scrutiny. Thank Eris for that, by the way.
2. By no means do you hate everyone. You are in fact quite protective of a number of people who attribute value to you. This may not be your fundamental motivation for being protective in that manner, but it might be (observe your interference in my conversation with Twid, who was doing just fine, but you went and protected him anyway). I find no enjoyment value in posturing about hating everyone (the two old geezers in the Muppet Show do it better, anyway) and in fact hate very very few people. This is because I think very few people deserve to be hated. I wouldn't say my hate is weak... it's very picky.
3. I do not claim to be and indeed am not an expert on practically anything (I'm quite good at guitar maintenance, playing music on a number of instruments, sharpening knives, rearing children and supporting people - oh, and translation). I have never psychoanalysed anyone, as I have not undergone psychoanalysis myself and hence I am not qualified. I have, on a few occasions and in most cases very reluctantly, offered therapy and advice to people that specifically requested this. As regards the incident you insist on referring to as you being psychoanalysed over the interwebs by me, it was nothing of the sort. I offered some opinions formed on the basis of the interactions I observed and participated in on this board. You, on the other hand, have issued a medical diagnosis about me (you know, the assburger thing). This is something I have decided to bear while grinning, for educational purposes.
Or Bill Me
Quote from: holist on December 29, 2012, 08:41:47 AM[...] Science, as all who have studied the philosophy of science in a little depth know, does not stand up to rational scrutiny [...]
Yes it does.
Sano,
studies philosophy of science at college.
Quote from: Sano on December 29, 2012, 12:28:06 PM
Quote from: holist on December 29, 2012, 08:41:47 AM[...] Science, as all who have studied the philosophy of science in a little depth know, does not stand up to rational scrutiny [...]
Yes it does.
Sano,
studies philosophy of science at college.
Yeah, um. :lol: I didn't read holist's post because of tl;dr (although I did skim enough to pick up that he thinks that "assburger" is a medical diagnosis, WTF), but that line alone makes me wonder if he actually paid attention to anything at all in college... or, in fact, went to "college" at all, as we understand the term. I took philosophy of science as well, it being a required course for science majors, and the whole point of it is that it does, in fact, stand up to rational scrutiny, which is what makes it "science".
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 29, 2012, 12:55:43 PM
Quote from: Sano on December 29, 2012, 12:28:06 PM
Quote from: holist on December 29, 2012, 08:41:47 AM[...] Science, as all who have studied the philosophy of science in a little depth know, does not stand up to rational scrutiny [...]
Yes it does.
Sano,
studies philosophy of science at college.
Yeah, um. :lol: I didn't read holist's post because of tl;dr (although I did skim enough to pick up that he thinks that "assburger" is a medical diagnosis, WTF), but that line alone makes me wonder if he actually paid attention to anything at all in college... or, in fact, went to "college" at all, as we understand the term. I took philosophy of science as well, it being a required course for science majors, and the whole point of it is that it does, in fact, stand up to rational scrutiny, which is what makes it "science".
so I've been following your academic exploits with some interest but I haven't actually managed to work out just what your major is; how does that stand atm? I'm not really sure how it works in the US system.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 29, 2012, 12:55:43 PM
Quote from: Sano on December 29, 2012, 12:28:06 PM
Quote from: holist on December 29, 2012, 08:41:47 AM[...] Science, as all who have studied the philosophy of science in a little depth know, does not stand up to rational scrutiny [...]
Yes it does.
Sano,
studies philosophy of science at college.
Yeah, um. :lol: I didn't read holist's post because of tl;dr (although I did skim enough to pick up that he thinks that "assburger" is a medical diagnosis, WTF), but that line alone makes me wonder if he actually paid attention to anything at all in college... or, in fact, went to "college" at all, as we understand the term. I took philosophy of science as well, it being a required course for science majors, and the whole point of it is that it does, in fact, stand up to rational scrutiny, which is what makes it "science".
Indeed. While there is an argument to be made that science isn't something that goes on without cultural influence, this does not preclude it from being something with very rigorous standards, dealing with falsifiable statements, etc. It is more than a little bit weird to say that science doesn't hold up to scrutiny while typing in a computer and probably being around many other objects which were ultimately the product of knowledge gained from science.
Also, isn't he the homeopathy guy? Don't they always try to sell it as a science? :?
You know, the problem with devout scientism followers is that when a "science" is debunked and is relegated to the status of a pseudo-science they just turn round and say that it was never a "real scotsman science" to begin with. Not only is that Win/Win for their side but it tends to obscure the [I want to say fact but I'll stick to] issue that not all "science" as performed by human actors is as good as the best.
Interesting that you use the example of the computer. While not disputing that there is science involved in computing I would actually place the PC firmly in the maths, technology and engineering camp; just a thought.
Quote from: MMIX on December 29, 2012, 02:32:04 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 29, 2012, 12:55:43 PM
Quote from: Sano on December 29, 2012, 12:28:06 PM
Quote from: holist on December 29, 2012, 08:41:47 AM[...] Science, as all who have studied the philosophy of science in a little depth know, does not stand up to rational scrutiny [...]
Yes it does.
Sano,
studies philosophy of science at college.
Yeah, um. :lol: I didn't read holist's post because of tl;dr (although I did skim enough to pick up that he thinks that "assburger" is a medical diagnosis, WTF), but that line alone makes me wonder if he actually paid attention to anything at all in college... or, in fact, went to "college" at all, as we understand the term. I took philosophy of science as well, it being a required course for science majors, and the whole point of it is that it does, in fact, stand up to rational scrutiny, which is what makes it "science".
so I've been following your academic exploits with some interest but I haven't actually managed to work out just what your major is; how does that stand atm? I'm not really sure how it works in the US system.
Right now, officially, it's biochemistry, but I will be changing that to either psychology with a microbiology minor, or microbiology with a psychology minor, with the goal of being accepted into the neuroscience graduate program.
The way it works in the US is that you spend your first two years mostly doing general requirements at the 100-200 level. The first 90-95 credits, assuming you have fulfilled all your requirements, make up your Associates degree in either arts or science. The second two years you are working on your Bachelor's degree in whatever field you've chosen; you need a minimum (depending on your major) of 72 300-400 level credits, for a total of 180 credits. The balance may be lower-division. My school finishes the Bachelor with a capstone project. Then you can go on for a Master's degree, which is typically 2 more years of studies at the 500-600 level plus field research, writing, and presentations, and then another 2-3 years for a Doctor of Philosophy degree. In my field of interest, the PhD years are spent doing research, writing, and presentations, with minimal coursework other than learning grant writing and other practical skills for becoming a primary investigator.
I'm currently in my second year, so I have a long long way to go.
Quote from: MMIX on December 29, 2012, 04:57:37 PM
You know, the problem with devout scientism followers is that when a "science" is debunked and is relegated to the status of a pseudo-science they just turn round and say that it was never a "real scotsman science" to begin with. Not only is that Win/Win for their side but it tends to obscure the [I want to say fact but I'll stick to] issue that not all "science" as performed by human actors is as good as the best.
Interesting that you use the example of the computer. While not disputing that there is science involved in computing I would actually place the PC firmly in the maths, technology and engineering camp; just a thought.
There is definitely what you could call "bad" science, that's anything from carelessly researched, poorly written, or deliberately misleading. Check out Ben Goldacre's website: http://www.badscience.net/ there's a link to his TED talk there too.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 29, 2012, 05:35:45 PM
Quote from: MMIX on December 29, 2012, 04:57:37 PM
You know, the problem with devout scientism followers is that when a "science" is debunked and is relegated to the status of a pseudo-science they just turn round and say that it was never a "real scotsman science" to begin with. Not only is that Win/Win for their side but it tends to obscure the [I want to say fact but I'll stick to] issue that not all "science" as performed by human actors is as good as the best.
Interesting that you use the example of the computer. While not disputing that there is science involved in computing I would actually place the PC firmly in the maths, technology and engineering camp; just a thought.
There is definitely what you could call "bad" science, that's anything from carelessly researched, poorly written, or deliberately misleading. Check out Ben Goldacre's website: http://www.badscience.net/ there's a link to his TED talk there too.
Lol, thats where I was just before I wrote that. Good link
ETA This one is quite fun from a UK perspective http://www.dcscience.net/?p=4615
Quote from: MMIX on December 29, 2012, 05:47:51 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 29, 2012, 05:35:45 PM
Quote from: MMIX on December 29, 2012, 04:57:37 PM
You know, the problem with devout scientism followers is that when a "science" is debunked and is relegated to the status of a pseudo-science they just turn round and say that it was never a "real scotsman science" to begin with. Not only is that Win/Win for their side but it tends to obscure the [I want to say fact but I'll stick to] issue that not all "science" as performed by human actors is as good as the best.
Interesting that you use the example of the computer. While not disputing that there is science involved in computing I would actually place the PC firmly in the maths, technology and engineering camp; just a thought.
Lol, thats where I was just before I wrote that. Good link
There is definitely what you could call "bad" science, that's anything from carelessly researched, poorly written, or deliberately misleading. Check out Ben Goldacre's website: http://www.badscience.net/ there's a link to his TED talk there too.
ETA This one is quite fun from a UK perspective http://www.dcscience.net/?p=4615
Oooh, nice! Thanks for the link!
Quote from: MMIX on December 29, 2012, 04:57:37 PMInteresting that you use the example of the computer. While not disputing that there is science involved in computing I would actually place the PC firmly in the maths, technology and engineering camp; just a thought.
There wouldn't be a pc in the world if we didn't know what electricity is and how it behaves. Same for the behavior of all the different materials involved in the construction of one.
Quote from: Sano on December 30, 2012, 12:56:46 AM
Quote from: MMIX on December 29, 2012, 04:57:37 PMInteresting that you use the example of the computer. While not disputing that there is science involved in computing I would actually place the PC firmly in the maths, technology and engineering camp; just a thought.
There wouldn't be a pc in the world if we didn't know what electricity is and how it behaves. Same for the behavior of all the different materials involved in the construction of one.
I would suggest that it is not so much about "knowing what electricity is and how it behaves" as it is about applying technological constraints to electricity, (which after all does exist in its wild form in nature,) to produce outcomes which are advantageous to humans. Interestingly humans are the primary materials involved in the construction of PCs.