We've all got 'em. Each and every one of us tends to impose our own ideas on top of other peoples' ideas, because it's easier than listening. Problem is, when this goes to far - and what consists of too far may vary - communication becomes impossible. It's an easy trap to fall into. Humans are by nature a pattern-seeking species, and we are conditioned from birth into a win-lose mentality..."I must prove your idea wrong for mine to be right".
This tends to reach religious levels, when it comes to certain topics. We have seen this demonstrated on PD in multiple discussions, particularly on the subjects of drugs and politics. In one thread, the question was asked "WHY do people do drugs", and within a page, the discussion became "Drugs are MAGIC!" (no shit) to "Drugs will KILL YOU the FIRST TIME you even think about using them (hyperbole mine, but you get the point). Likewise, when a new political idea was brought up, but not yet explained, three people lined up to explain what it was, and why it wouldn't work.
This is because we all wear filters, through which we have chosen to view the world. Sometimes this is a good thing. I expect that a filter that says "there is no excuse for torture" will fly with most of us, for example. However, when those filters become so thick that you can't accept ANY view if it doesn't fit into a predetermined set of responses, then the filters have rendered you incapable of processing anything new.
I am willing to bet, for example, that at least one person - having read this - will read about half (or less) of #2, and assign the idea to "privilege" or "rational anarchy" or what have you, because their filters have become so ingrained that they have to pound everything into a round hole, no matter how square it is.
Is that any way for a human to act? Basically, you are willingly allowing yourself to act on programming as if you were a computer. And since you act on this programming, can you see an idea or the world you live in as it actually is? Obviously not.
One shocking truth (all the more shocking because it came from Robert Anton Wilson) is "The universe was not set up for the convenience of domesticated primates". Humans being what they are, this truth is unacceptable, so humans run out and invent religions, and wind up burning at the stake anyone who insists that this truth is actually self-evident.
As much as we all enjoy a good sneer at people who do that, we ourselves do it all the time. The universe presents us with facts...But we're so comfortable and in love with our preconceived notions and programming that we warp our own perceptions until we can't see the facts that blow holes in our lovely theories. Good examples of this are supply side economics, the free market, communism, anarchy, any engineering issues, and people who bet like fans in the playoff series.
The universe, of course, punishes you for this sort of thing. Not like an angry God would, but simply by allowing yourself to stick your own neck in a noose. The consequences of betting like a fan involve a light bank account and humiliation by your peers, people who believe in "the free market" tend to lose their arses to people who know better, and communists, libertarians, and anarchists always find themselves alone at parties, because they tend to be hopeless evangelizers, and who the hell wants THAT when you're fucked up on rum and looking for some dirtyfun? The penalties for ignoring engineering realities tend to be brutally self-evident, and occur much faster...just google "The Tacoma Bridge Failure" (Rumors that this was simply the inherent evil of Northwestern bridges notwithstanding.).
A few facts that might help break this conditioning:
1. Humans are not efficient. This is immutable. Ask yourself, "When was the last time someone dealt with me efficiently?" How did it make you feel? Humans are social creatures, and "social" is the enemy of efficiency. If your system or idea requires humans to be efficient, it will fail. This rules out communism, the free market, and libertarianism.
2. Humans automatically form "tribes". This is hardwired right into the backs of our brains. When there are 8 or more humans involved, they will form cliques, which lead to factions, which lead to tribes, which lead to governments. This is as sure as the fact that the sun will rise. This rules out anarchism.
3. Humans do NOT do what's in their best interests. Anyone who has ever seen Murphy's Law in action - in it's original form - knows this (the original version was "If there's more than one way to do a job, and one of those ways will result in disaster, then somebody will do it that way."). Another good truth to consider is Finagle's Law: Perversity (the tendency to do what is patently NOT in your best interest) tends to a maximum. Consider, for example, the schmoe making $20K/year screaming for a flat tax. It's going to bankrupt him, but he's been taught that a progressive tax is "unfair" to the wealthy. This truth prohibits a free market, libertarianism, and rational anarchy.
4. Humans do NOT do what's best for the group. Anyone who has worked for the government or a large corporation knows this. People tend to be petty and inefficient, and will make short-sighted decisions 999 times out of a thousand. Consider the subprime mortgage clusterfuck...Which required monumental fuckups of truly titanic proportions, which of course both the government and corporations fell all over themselves to commit. I propose that neither corporations nor governments are any more capable than each other, and anyone who knee-jerks to the contrary need only compare the American car companies' failures to the failure of our government to simply balance a budget. This rule prohibits communism and libertarianism.
5. Teenagers ARE going to fuck. This rule can't be changed without neutering the entire teenage population. This probits silly shit like "Abstinence Only Birth Control", which deserves a mention. What I mean by this rule is that people ARE going to follow biological imperatives before religious or social imperatives, and can explain a lot more behavior than Palin's daughter and kids like her.
These are only five examples, and by themselves trash the cherished beliefs of about 45% of the population. That 45%, of course, will continue to believe and in fact act on those beliefs, just as another 54% will continue to act on equally silly beliefs.
The question is, do you plan to be part of that 99%, or can you train yourself to be part of the 1% that is willing to take the bull by the tail and stare the unpleasant facts in the face? Do you have the GUTS to toss your pet theories when the universe demonstrates that they are wrong? Can you bring yourself to think of something NEW, or at least LOOK at something new? My idea may also be wrong, and I'm willing to see if it can be logically disproven, but before you can apply logic to that idea or anything else, you're going to have to take the blinders off.
Can you do that?
Okay for now,
Dok
:mittens:
:mittens:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 06:44:23 PM
Do you have the GUTS to toss your pet theories when the universe demonstrates that they are wrong?
It would seem that people need to be interested in
actively looking to disprove their pet theories even before the universe throttles them.
Many people don't formulate theories in falsifiable ways so they're resistant to change from the get go.
Great piece Dok.
It's very true. Filters are hard to get rid of. A lot of times, people may not even realize that they have those filters, they're so ingrained into the way a person thinks.
Also, if a person throws off one filter, who's to say they won't pick up another and cling to it just as tightly? Like a person who's a hardcore christian for most of his life, and then suddenly decides that since God hasn't granted all his prayers, there is no God, and becomes a hardcore atheist. Is it possible that some people just can't live without their blinders?
Also, this was awesome to read.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on March 30, 2010, 07:10:07 PM
:mittens:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 06:44:23 PM
Do you have the GUTS to toss your pet theories when the universe demonstrates that they are wrong?
It would seem that people need to be interested in actively looking to disprove their pet theories even before the universe throttles them.
Many people don't formulate theories in falsifiable ways so they're resistant to change from the get go.
Great piece Dok.
Thanks.
And you've hit the nail on the head. An untestable theory isn't a theory, it's a belief...and beliefs are fine, as long as they concur with reality. An example of this is the belief of many mainstream religions that we have to produce more people, as fast as we possibly can.
That particular belief is why a good chunk of world is turning into a desert. The universe will be along shortly to demonstrate why this is not a survivable belief.
An Englishman once wrote a poem describing the basic premise of my OP...
Quote from: Rudyard Kipling
The Gods of the Copybook Headings
AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Wonderful piece, and I'm glad you wrote it... it deals with a lot of stuff I've been mulling over for the last couple weeks.
A question though, and this is for my own edification, not an attempt to argue. My ignorance is limitless, so please bear with me for a moment...
But, what aspect of anarchism denies tribes or people working together? Why does anarchism have this "everyone for themselves" reputation when no dictionary definition of it I have read claims this?
Here's the first one I could grab:
anarchism |ˈanərˌkizəm|
noun
belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
"cooperative" would suggest working together, would it not?
Quote from: Professor Freeky on March 30, 2010, 07:14:21 PM
It's very true. Filters are hard to get rid of. A lot of times, people may not even realize that they have those filters, they're so ingrained into the way a person thinks.
Also, if a person throws off one filter, who's to say they won't pick up another and cling to it just as tightly? Like a person who's a hardcore christian for most of his life, and then suddenly decides that since God hasn't granted all his prayers, there is no God, and becomes a hardcore atheist. Is it possible that some people just can't live without their blinders?
Also, this was awesome to read.
1. True. If they hadn't forced themselves into believing these things to be the way things actually work, they wouldn't be so obstinate in the face of facts.
2. Everyone has filters. It is absolutely impossible to function without them. However, the trick is to keep the filters light, so you can change them to fit changing conditions or new data.
Quote from: Hoopla on March 30, 2010, 07:15:32 PM
Wonderful piece, and I'm glad you wrote it... it deals with a lot of stuff I've been mulling over for the last couple weeks.
A question though, and this is for my own edification, not an attempt to argue. My ignorance is limitless, so please bear with me for a moment...
But, what aspect of anarchism denies tribes or people working together? Why does anarchism have this "everyone for themselves" reputation when no dictionary definition of it I have read claims this?
Here's the first one I could grab:
anarchism |ˈanərˌkizəm|
noun
belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
"cooperative" would suggest working together, would it not?
Sure. Now try it with more than 7 people. Compulsion at some level becomes necessary, according to the 5 facts above, particularly numbers 1, 3, and 4. Hell, try running a maintenance crew for a week without any supervision. Even if they all know their part in the project, and they all want to make things work, if there's more than 7 people, it is going to drop in the pooper.
Humans are primates, and primates require at least one alpha in any sizeable group. The alpha is by definition a compelling influence. It's hardwired right into our brain. You MIGHT, should you comb the population thoroughly, find 8 people that can work together without an alpha (outliers exist in everything), but outliers are basis for a society...even a society inside a larger society.
Mm, you make an excellent point.
The cynicism depresses me somewhat, but at least cynicism is realistic.
Great piece, Dok.
I was just pondering such things myself, to wit: There are people who think they have an idea, and there are people who think they have the right idea. The former want to wake people up and have new ideas that break them out of a rut, and the latter want to wake people up and have their idea that breaks them out of the rut.
The latter rarely can be convinced of the former.
Interestingly, revolutionaries and neophytes often fall into both camps, and both types are prevelant at PD.com.
Quote from: Hoopla on March 30, 2010, 07:22:59 PM
Mm, you make an excellent point.
The cynicism depresses me somewhat, but at least cynicism is realistic.
Idealism is fine when it works. For everything else, there's cynicism...Or as I prefer to call it, "realism".
If you're running in the wrong direction, it doesn't really matter how fast you are.
I wonder if humans are capable of breaking their programming. Is it possible for a group of humans to be efficient, to do what's in their best interests, and to properly serve the group they join? It takes a conscious effort to overcome the monkeymind, and it's not something you can have turned on all the time. If humans can overcome their own mind's habits, I believe it's only for a short amount of time.
Which still gives me hope.
I love your point on efficiency. The other day I was at a fast food joint, and this 16 year old girl was working the counter and she looked like she hated it. She screwed up something minor and her manager came over and barked at her in front of me, which only made her turn a deeper shade of red.
I was thinking to myself, shit, this poor girl needs to learn to d e t a c h. She needs to put her ego in her coat pocket and hang it up when she comes in. She'll enjoy this job so much more if she just sheds her pride, her shame, and works like a well oiled cog.
Meanwhile, as I was typing this post, my new boss came by. I've only known her for a day, but IMO she doesn't seem to be playing with a full deck of cards. She gave me this monotonous task to do, didn't explain how to do it, and then walked away. THREE TIMES now she's come back to me to tell me that I made mistakes. But she never gave me proper instructions to begin with, so I'm getting a little frustrated at being told I screwed up. And the parable of the pissed off teenager comes to mind. I can accept that this system is either inefficient or antisocial, but I wish it could pick one or the other!
Quote from: LMNO on March 30, 2010, 07:27:59 PM
Great piece, Dok.
I was just pondering such things myself, to wit: There are people who think they have an idea, and there are people who think they have the right idea. The former want to wake people up and have new ideas that break them out of a rut, and the latter want to wake people up and have their idea that breaks them out of the rut.
The latter rarely can be convinced of the former.
Interestingly, revolutionaries and neophytes often fall into both camps, and both types are prevelant at PD.com.
Well, this is the whole reason for this post...or, more accurately, for this whole series. If we're going to survive in the Age of Dumb, we're going to need to be more clever than the monkeys. This will require learning to see things the way they really are, not the way your hopes and dreams would like them to be.
It's not easy, and it sure as fuck isn't pleasant...But eventually reality always wins, and that can be really ugly if you're mired in flawed suppositions and therefore operating from bad data.
There are, of course, more facts that impact us. Poor managers, for example, do not or can not understand that (RAW, again) communication is only possible in a non-punishing environment. The results of this are pretty self-evident, especially (again) if you work for a large company or the government.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 30, 2010, 07:33:15 PM
I wonder if humans are capable of breaking their programming.
No. A human can, but humans can't.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 30, 2010, 07:33:15 PM
Is it possible for a group of humans to be efficient, to do what's in their best interests, and to properly serve the group they join? It takes a conscious effort to overcome the monkeymind, and it's not something you can have turned on all the time. If humans can overcome their own mind's habits, I believe it's only for a short amount of time.
For a very small group, and for a very small time, multiple humans can violate the above facts. Sort of like the fact that (according to a Rand Corporation study) you only get about 5.5 hours of productive work out of people in a day. You CAN, for a short time, ramp that up as far as you please. But after a while, people get tired, discouraged, and angry, and then you're keeping them for 12 hours, but only getting that 5.5 hours of work out of them. In the same fashion, you can get people to cooperate for a short period of time (in a small group), but sooner rather than later, they start the normal monkey business.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 30, 2010, 07:33:15 PMI love your point on efficiency. The other day I was at a fast food joint, and this 16 year old girl was working the counter and she looked like she hated it. She screwed up something minor and her manager came over and barked at her in front of me, which only made her turn a deeper shade of red.
She'll work her ass off for an hour, and then hate her job. The results will be predictable.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 30, 2010, 07:33:15 PM
I was thinking to myself, shit, this poor girl needs to learn to d e t a c h. She needs to put her ego in her coat pocket and hang it up when she comes in. She'll enjoy this job so much more if she just sheds her pride, her shame, and works like a well oiled cog.
Or the manager could stop being a dick. That would be more productive. Or she could look for another job.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 30, 2010, 07:33:15 PM
Meanwhile, as I was typing this post, my new boss came by. I've only known her for a day, but IMO she doesn't seem to be playing with a full deck of cards. She gave me this monotonous task to do, didn't explain how to do it, and then walked away. THREE TIMES now she's come back to me to tell me that I made mistakes. But she never gave me proper instructions to begin with, so I'm getting a little frustrated at being told I screwed up. And the parable of the pissed off teenager comes to mind. I can accept that this system is either inefficient or antisocial, but I wish it could pick one or the other!
Inefficiency can be social or antisocial. Efficiency is always anti-social.
If people's basic tendency is to stratify, much like salad dressing, then is even the interaction between two people built around a hierarchy? Is it possible to have true equality between individuals?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 07:40:50 PM
Efficiency is always anti-social.
Depending on the scope of "social" and the goal of the task, in my view of things (which is not to ascribe my views to yours).
Sorry, I don't mean to be picking pedantic points with you, but this made me think of when I was in the recording studio last night. In order to reach our goal (a 4-person collaboration to achieve an aesthetically pleasing song) in the shortest amount of time (because we were paying by the hour), it was completely necessary to be social among the group.
However, what we were doing as a group would generally be classified as anti-social, as we were cooped up in a warehouse for 6 hours rather than contributing to our marriages and relationships.
Quote from: LMNO on March 30, 2010, 07:45:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 07:40:50 PM
Efficiency is always anti-social.
Depending on the scope of "social" and the goal of the task, in my view of things (which is not to ascribe my views to yours).
Sorry, I don't mean to be picking pedantic points with you, but this made me think of when I was in the recording studio last night. In order to reach our goal (a 4-person collaboration to achieve an aesthetically pleasing song) in the shortest amount of time (because we were paying by the hour), it was completely necessary to be social among the group.
However, what we were doing as a group would generally be classified as anti-social, as we were cooped up in a warehouse for 6 hours rather than contributing to our marriages and relationships.
Social is a pretty inclusive term. It would include work, including the studio.
Let me ask you this: Did you follow, for example, Robert's Rules of Order while banging around in the studio? Or was there the regular amount of coffee-snagging, grab ass, and side chatter?
Hmm...
I'm gonna side track, I'm sure of it. So let me know if this needs to be brought up in a different thread.
It seems to me that there may be a difference between an "aesthetic" goal and a "tangible" goal, in that traditional aspects of efficiency may not have the same results.
Shoving the guitarist in an isolation booth and telling him to get it done right, and get it done now, and show depth of emotion and really feel it, and do it in the next five minutes is likely to take much much longer than to be social, make him a comfortable monkey, and then hit record.
So in this case, "efficiency" means not treating him like a robot. You get a better product in a shorter amount of time.
Again, this is probably straying from your point. We can split this from the thread.
:mittens: This has made me think, because, truly, I'm an idealist, and that is why I get hurt a lot. I totally expect more out of the primates I live with and love, and so I get monkey-fucked, in a bad way. :x
I will write more. But I liked this, Horrible Troofiness though it was for me. I need to hear stuff like this, even if I espouse it more often, I don't always act like it IRL.
Another thought:
Humans act a certain way 99% of the time, and usually that way is depressingly counterproductive.
But some humans want to be in that 1%. And there must be examples of when that 1% has been uplifting, gratifying, and useful.
Dok, will there eventually be an essay when these minority behaviors are discussed and perhaps even developed?
Quote from: LMNO on March 30, 2010, 08:04:53 PM
Hmm...
I'm gonna side track, I'm sure of it. So let me know if this needs to be brought up in a different thread.
It seems to me that there may be a difference between an "aesthetic" goal and a "tangible" goal, in that traditional aspects of efficiency may not have the same results.
Shoving the guitarist in an isolation booth and telling him to get it done right, and get it done now, and show depth of emotion and really feel it, and do it in the next five minutes is likely to take much much longer than to be social, make him a comfortable monkey, and then hit record.
So in this case, "efficiency" means not treating him like a robot. You get a better product in a shorter amount of time.
Again, this is probably straying from your point. We can split this from the thread.
Naw, it's relevant. However, I am using the former definition of efficiency. The second method you mentioned I'd call being
effective. A sad fact is that most people view the terms as being the same thing.
Ah!
Clouds part; clarity arises.
Quote from: LMNO on March 30, 2010, 08:15:08 PM
Another thought:
Humans act a certain way 99% of the time, and usually that way is depressingly counterproductive.
But some humans want to be in that 1%. And there must be examples of when that 1% has been uplifting, gratifying, and useful.
Dok, will there eventually be an essay when these minority behaviors are discussed and perhaps even developed?
1. Precisely. The trick is to fall into that 1% as often as possible.
2. Yes, number 4, which will follow #2.
Mad Science isn't required to go in order. In fact, it
can't.
:magick:
We need one of those for MAD SCIENCE.
there are companies out there who are really lax on the social issues. There's an animation studio in white plains that has "costume fridays" instead of "casual fridays". I also read about a company which has a "you don't need to ask permission" policy regarding modifying your cubicle, showing up late, taking breaks, using sick days, etc etc.. and apparently their productivity is really high.
So are there working systems out there? Is it possible to devise a system which balances social and efficient environments? What would an ideal system look like?
Quote from: Cramulus on March 30, 2010, 08:19:41 PM
there are companies out there who are really lax on the social issues. There's an animation studio in white plains that has "costume fridays" instead of "casual fridays". I also read about a company which has a "you don't need to ask permission" policy regarding modifying your cubicle, showing up late, taking breaks, using sick days, etc etc.. and apparently their productivity is really high.
So are there working systems out there? Is it possible to devise a system which balances social and efficient environments? What would an ideal system look like?
Yes, there are working systems out there. As dysfunctional as my plant is, we have an enormous amount of leeway in how we conduct ourselves, run our departments, etc. My department is the most effective, not because I spend all day scheduling things to be efficient, but because I don't go out of my way to stomp on morale.
People WANT to be effective. Unfortunately, most managers, lead men, foreman, etc, view that as a threat. While I am by no means the perfect boss, I do my best to avoid that mentality.
Example: One of my electricians came up with a way to save us about $80K/year in vacuum blowers, and countless hours of down time. I invited him to the weekly planning meeting, and let him pitch his idea...all I did was make the engineer shut up until Don was done talking. The idea was brilliant, and Don looked like a genius. Best part is, I looked like a genius manager, because I hired Don, and fostered an environment where he felt both allowed and encouraged to look at new, better ways to do things.
The temptation is for a manager to either say "You aren't paid to think, get back to work", or to steal the credit. Either way ensures that nobody will ever try to improve things, ever again. But if you take off your blinders for ten minutes and actually LISTEN, the people that work for you will jump through hoops and be HAPPY.
And a happy human is an effective human. 99% of all problems at work and at home come from ignoring this fact.
The danger is, of course... There are some instances where it is bad to be a happy monkey.
But the value judgement of a process is different that what makes that process run smoothly.
Quote from: LMNO on March 30, 2010, 08:30:15 PM
The danger is, of course... There are some instances where it is bad to be a happy monkey.
Other than basic training in the military, I can think of no useful time to make people unhappy...provided we're talking about "happy" and not "complacent".
Hm. I will hold my thoughts until I hear more UT essays. It seems like I'm in need of more definitions.
Quote from: LMNO on March 30, 2010, 08:34:23 PM
Hm. I will hold my thoughts until I hear more UT essays. It seems like I'm in need of more definitions.
Problem is, the English language has become all stretchy since the late 70s, especially since the 90s.
Quote from: Jenne on March 30, 2010, 08:11:58 PM
:mittens: This has made me think, because, truly, I'm an idealist, and that is why I get hurt a lot. I totally expect more out of the primates I live with and love, and so I get monkey-fucked, in a bad way. :x
The opposite of win/lose is lose/win. <--- stupid corporate terms, but they apply.
Setting out to please everyone is a recipe for getting shat upon.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 08:39:22 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 30, 2010, 08:11:58 PM
:mittens: This has made me think, because, truly, I'm an idealist, and that is why I get hurt a lot. I totally expect more out of the primates I live with and love, and so I get monkey-fucked, in a bad way. :x
The opposite of win/lose is lose/win. <--- stupid corporate terms, but they apply.
Setting out to please everyone is a recipe for getting shat upon.
Can we get that on a t-shirt, please? I need to wear it, daily. It's why I get hung up on days like today when I think the world is LETTING ME DOWN, DAMMIT. It's my own BIP that has wrapped itself around me.
AGAIN.
:crankey:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 08:39:22 PM
Setting out to please everyone is a recipe for getting shat upon.
The good Doktor summarizes my adolescence, ITT.
:spit:
That ended up being a lot more scat-pron related than I intended, didn't it?
Quote from: LMNO on March 30, 2010, 08:50:02 PM
That ended up being a lot more scat-pron related than I intended, didn't it?
:lmnuendo: strikes again.
Quote from: LMNO on March 30, 2010, 08:46:18 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 08:39:22 PM
Setting out to please everyone is a recipe for getting shat upon.
The good Doktor summarizes my adolescence, ITT.
...my WHOLE existence. *now has something to put in the SHAME thread*
Quote from: Jenne on March 30, 2010, 08:40:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 08:39:22 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 30, 2010, 08:11:58 PM
:mittens: This has made me think, because, truly, I'm an idealist, and that is why I get hurt a lot. I totally expect more out of the primates I live with and love, and so I get monkey-fucked, in a bad way. :x
The opposite of win/lose is lose/win. <--- stupid corporate terms, but they apply.
Setting out to please everyone is a recipe for getting shat upon.
Can we get that on a t-shirt, please? I need to wear it, daily. It's why I get hung up on days like today when I think the world is LETTING ME DOWN, DAMMIT. It's my own BIP that has wrapped itself around me.
AGAIN.
:crankey:
Being altruistic is fine, provided you can afford it (emotionally or financially, as the case may be), you don't expect gratitude or reciprocation (when you get it, great), and you don't feel that it's your duty.
Quote from: LMNO on March 30, 2010, 08:50:02 PM
That ended up being a lot more scat-pron related than I intended, didn't it?
Is that possible?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 08:52:06 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 30, 2010, 08:40:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 08:39:22 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 30, 2010, 08:11:58 PM
:mittens: This has made me think, because, truly, I'm an idealist, and that is why I get hurt a lot. I totally expect more out of the primates I live with and love, and so I get monkey-fucked, in a bad way. :x
The opposite of win/lose is lose/win. <--- stupid corporate terms, but they apply.
Setting out to please everyone is a recipe for getting shat upon.
Can we get that on a t-shirt, please? I need to wear it, daily. It's why I get hung up on days like today when I think the world is LETTING ME DOWN, DAMMIT. It's my own BIP that has wrapped itself around me.
AGAIN.
:crankey:
Being altruistic is fine, provided you can afford it (emotionally or financially, as the case may be), you don't expect gratitude or reciprocation (when you get it, great), and you don't feel that it's your duty.
Can you remind me of this in a few years when I'm bitching about what I did for my kids and their apparent lack of appreciation of my efforts? Because knowing me as I do, this
will happen.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 08:53:12 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 30, 2010, 08:50:02 PM
That ended up being a lot more scat-pron related than I intended, didn't it?
Is that possible?
Stranger things have happened.
At least, that's what they tell me.
Quote from: Jenne on March 30, 2010, 08:51:19 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 30, 2010, 08:46:18 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 08:39:22 PM
Setting out to please everyone is a recipe for getting shat upon.
The good Doktor summarizes my adolescence, ITT.
...my WHOLE existence. *now has something to put in the SHAME thread*
So stop.
I have one of those cliche signs by my desk, but it's one I take very seriously.
"I can't please everyone every day. Today isn't your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good, either."
Which, when translated, means:
"I am here to make the plant run safely and smoothly. All other considerations, including your bloated ego, are secondary and will have to wait until I have time to listen to you bloviate to prove how smart you are."
Quote from: LMNO on March 30, 2010, 08:55:18 PM
Stranger things have happened.
Yeah, but how often can you get that many nuns drunk?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 08:55:31 PM
So stop.
Soooo much harder for me than it sounds.
But I AM trying...
Quote from: Jenne on March 30, 2010, 08:54:26 PM
Can you remind me of this in a few years when I'm bitching about what I did for my kids and their apparent lack of appreciation of my efforts? Because knowing me as I do, this will happen.
Sure, because they will be ungrateful from about age 16 to age 30, if my memory serves me correctly. It is my perception that adulthood, in the real sense of the word, doesn't happen before age 30 (if at all).
Quote from: Jenne on March 30, 2010, 08:57:23 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 08:55:31 PM
So stop.
Soooo much harder for me than it sounds.
But I AM trying...
It's hard for most people (those who aren't win/lose apes), especially females.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 09:01:39 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 30, 2010, 08:54:26 PM
Can you remind me of this in a few years when I'm bitching about what I did for my kids and their apparent lack of appreciation of my efforts? Because knowing me as I do, this will happen.
Sure, because they will be ungrateful from about age 16 to age 30, if my memory serves me correctly. It is my perception that adulthood, in the real sense of the word, doesn't happen before age 30 (if at all).
They're like that now, so I know it will be worse come testosterone-tiem. Sigh.
DOOMED TO DISAPPOINTMENT. Because I'm BUILT that way.
Breaking this mold sometimes breaks ME, you know.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 08:39:22 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 30, 2010, 08:11:58 PM
:mittens: This has made me think, because, truly, I'm an idealist, and that is why I get hurt a lot. I totally expect more out of the primates I live with and love, and so I get monkey-fucked, in a bad way. :x
The opposite of win/lose is lose/win. <--- stupid corporate terms, but they apply.
Setting out to please everyone is a recipe for getting shat upon.
But surely there is the opportunity to define a less Territorial solution that 'I Win, You Lose', isn't there?
I mean, given Jenne's comment " I totally expect more out of the primates I live with and love, and so I get monkey-fucked, in a bad way"
Maybe its not win or lose, but just a modification of the game rules she's playing under. 'I expect more' seems like a preconception. If we don't expect our loved ones to behave a specific way (or our co-workers or whatever other monkeys we deal with), then getting monkey-fucked by our own expectations no longer exists as a problem.
As much as we are all monkeys together, we're also very different... if you use the Leary 'circuits' model, we ALL imprint either high or low on the second circuit, but there are a lot of other circuits involved and lots of stuff that didn't make it into his model that complete the individual.
Do we really only have the option 'win/lose' vs 'lose/win' or can we look for something outside of that?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 09:02:20 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 30, 2010, 08:57:23 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 08:55:31 PM
So stop.
Soooo much harder for me than it sounds.
But I AM trying...
It's hard for most people (those who aren't win/lose apes), especially females.
:crankey:~~> I'm just going to let everyone know this is my face today. And my general attitude about everything and everyone.
Everything is disafuckingpointing. I feel sorry for the next jackoff who steps, because they really are going to get a kick to the nads.
I almost wish I was like this more often, because then I wouldn't BE a fucking doormat for my loved ones nor would I FEEL like this every so often. Like everything I do and say and whatever is useless.
I hate the rules, I hate them. I hate the exceptions too. I think exceptions allow people to be assholes and get away with it.
Monkey behavior? PAH! It's an excuse for people to fuck each other and NOT pay! Not give a shit! Just WALK THE FUCK AWAY without caring!
It's like personal victimhood.
Man I'm a whiner today. Sorry.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 30, 2010, 09:04:05 PM
But surely there is the opportunity to define a less Territorial solution that 'I Win, You Lose', isn't there?
I mean, given Jenne's comment " I totally expect more out of the primates I live with and love, and so I get monkey-fucked, in a bad way"
Maybe its not win or lose, but just a modification of the game rules she's playing under. 'I expect more' seems like a preconception. If we don't expect our loved ones to behave a specific way (or our co-workers or whatever other monkeys we deal with), then getting monkey-fucked by our own expectations no longer exists as a problem.
As much as we are all monkeys together, we're also very different... if you use the Leary 'circuits' model, we ALL imprint either high or low on the second circuit, but there are a lot of other circuits involved and lots of stuff that didn't make it into his model that complete the individual.
Do we really only have the option 'win/lose' vs 'lose/win' or can we look for something outside of that?
Sure. There's win/win, win/lose, compromise, lose/lose, and win or walk away.
The most effective is obviously win/win (some argue win or walk away, but that's not always possible), but it's difficult to achieve because people have been conditioned into one of the less effective solutions.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 30, 2010, 09:04:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 08:39:22 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 30, 2010, 08:11:58 PM
:mittens: This has made me think, because, truly, I'm an idealist, and that is why I get hurt a lot. I totally expect more out of the primates I live with and love, and so I get monkey-fucked, in a bad way. :x
The opposite of win/lose is lose/win. <--- stupid corporate terms, but they apply.
Setting out to please everyone is a recipe for getting shat upon.
But surely there is the opportunity to define a less Territorial solution that 'I Win, You Lose', isn't there?
I mean, given Jenne's comment " I totally expect more out of the primates I live with and love, and so I get monkey-fucked, in a bad way"
Maybe its not win or lose, but just a modification of the game rules she's playing under. 'I expect more' seems like a preconception. If we don't expect our loved ones to behave a specific way (or our co-workers or whatever other monkeys we deal with), then getting monkey-fucked by our own expectations no longer exists as a problem.
As much as we are all monkeys together, we're also very different... if you use the Leary 'circuits' model, we ALL imprint either high or low on the second circuit, but there are a lot of other circuits involved and lots of stuff that didn't make it into his model that complete the individual.
Do we really only have the option 'win/lose' vs 'lose/win' or can we look for something outside of that?
That would be nice, assuming there's something else, but really, doesn't it just delay the inevitable rise of bile in the throat when you realize YOU'VE BEEN HAD? AGAIN?!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 09:08:01 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 30, 2010, 09:04:05 PM
But surely there is the opportunity to define a less Territorial solution that 'I Win, You Lose', isn't there?
I mean, given Jenne's comment " I totally expect more out of the primates I live with and love, and so I get monkey-fucked, in a bad way"
Maybe its not win or lose, but just a modification of the game rules she's playing under. 'I expect more' seems like a preconception. If we don't expect our loved ones to behave a specific way (or our co-workers or whatever other monkeys we deal with), then getting monkey-fucked by our own expectations no longer exists as a problem.
As much as we are all monkeys together, we're also very different... if you use the Leary 'circuits' model, we ALL imprint either high or low on the second circuit, but there are a lot of other circuits involved and lots of stuff that didn't make it into his model that complete the individual.
Do we really only have the option 'win/lose' vs 'lose/win' or can we look for something outside of that?
Sure. There's win/win, win/lose, compromise, lose/lose, and win or walk away.
The most effective is obviously win/win (some argue win or walk away, but that's not always possible), but it's difficult to achieve because people have been conditioned into one of the less effective solutions.
Does compromise ever work?
Does anyone ever really use this?
Isn't this another form of giving up, in some way?
Jenne it sounds like you need some of this today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URE7--qtHck
and also some of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOZ1QQqBtwc
ETA: i've been trying trying to remember which video I wanted to show you for like a few weeks now. And I just remembered it's THIS ONE: http://www.hulu.com/watch/39106/its-always-sunny-in-philadelphia-who-pooped-the-bed -- sorry, it's 21 minutes long, but worth it
Awesome stuff, Dok.
1) Can I post this on my facebook (with due credit and a link back here)? I have a libertarian I've been trying to coax into looking at this kind of thing, and I'd like to think he is capable of being in that 1%. However, he's refused to come here, despite my best efforts because he's a lazy sod. :roll:
2) Your comments about certain ideas hitting religious levels really makes sense to me, having seen (and having BEEN) one of those humans obsessed with the free market and libertarianism.
Quote from: Jenne on March 30, 2010, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 30, 2010, 09:04:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 08:39:22 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 30, 2010, 08:11:58 PM
:mittens: This has made me think, because, truly, I'm an idealist, and that is why I get hurt a lot. I totally expect more out of the primates I live with and love, and so I get monkey-fucked, in a bad way. :x
The opposite of win/lose is lose/win. <--- stupid corporate terms, but they apply.
Setting out to please everyone is a recipe for getting shat upon.
But surely there is the opportunity to define a less Territorial solution that 'I Win, You Lose', isn't there?
I mean, given Jenne's comment " I totally expect more out of the primates I live with and love, and so I get monkey-fucked, in a bad way"
Maybe its not win or lose, but just a modification of the game rules she's playing under. 'I expect more' seems like a preconception. If we don't expect our loved ones to behave a specific way (or our co-workers or whatever other monkeys we deal with), then getting monkey-fucked by our own expectations no longer exists as a problem.
As much as we are all monkeys together, we're also very different... if you use the Leary 'circuits' model, we ALL imprint either high or low on the second circuit, but there are a lot of other circuits involved and lots of stuff that didn't make it into his model that complete the individual.
Do we really only have the option 'win/lose' vs 'lose/win' or can we look for something outside of that?
That would be nice, assuming there's something else, but really, doesn't it just delay the inevitable rise of bile in the throat when you realize YOU'VE BEEN HAD? AGAIN?!
I suppose it depends on the situation. Someone once said that in a game of 'tug of war' there were three way that someone was gonna hit the ground , you could pull the opponent and force them to fall down... they could pull you and force you to fall down, or one of you can just let go and the other person will fall on their face.
"Not win/lose" doesn't have to mean being gullible or naive or allowing someone that's monkey-fucked you to get another go at it.
There could be win/win assuming that the other person actually cares to work at both sides winning. There can also be " / " where you simply refuse to play the monkey game of "me vs you". There can simply be "me interacting with you" If its win or lose, then you're putting yourself in a position where you expect to gain (thats 'win'). But if you don't expect to gain, if you simply interact... then it might not be possible to 'be had again'.
I know I'm an optimistic hippie... :fnord:
Quote from: Jenne on March 30, 2010, 09:09:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 09:08:01 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 30, 2010, 09:04:05 PM
But surely there is the opportunity to define a less Territorial solution that 'I Win, You Lose', isn't there?
I mean, given Jenne's comment " I totally expect more out of the primates I live with and love, and so I get monkey-fucked, in a bad way"
Maybe its not win or lose, but just a modification of the game rules she's playing under. 'I expect more' seems like a preconception. If we don't expect our loved ones to behave a specific way (or our co-workers or whatever other monkeys we deal with), then getting monkey-fucked by our own expectations no longer exists as a problem.
As much as we are all monkeys together, we're also very different... if you use the Leary 'circuits' model, we ALL imprint either high or low on the second circuit, but there are a lot of other circuits involved and lots of stuff that didn't make it into his model that complete the individual.
Do we really only have the option 'win/lose' vs 'lose/win' or can we look for something outside of that?
Sure. There's win/win, win/lose, compromise, lose/lose, and win or walk away.
The most effective is obviously win/win (some argue win or walk away, but that's not always possible), but it's difficult to achieve because people have been conditioned into one of the less effective solutions.
Does compromise ever work?
Does anyone ever really use this?
Isn't this another form of giving up, in some way?
Compromise is actually a losing proposition. 1+1 = 1.5
Sometimes it's required, of course, but not as often as people think.
Quote from: Hover Cat on March 30, 2010, 09:28:02 PM
Awesome stuff, Dok.
1) Can I post this on my facebook (with due credit and a link back here)? I have a libertarian I've been trying to coax into looking at this kind of thing, and I'd like to think he is capable of being in that 1%. However, he's refused to come here, despite my best efforts because he's a lazy sod. :roll:
2) Your comments about certain ideas hitting religious levels really makes sense to me, having seen (and having BEEN) one of those humans obsessed with the free market and libertarianism.
1. Yes. ETA: Lazy libertarians? Who'd have thought it? :lulz:
2. The lure of it is that it seems to make sense. The problem is, it requires that humans act rationally for a significant percentage of the time.
Okay, let's assume that three people have primitive resources (wood for cooking, hand tools for agriculture, etc). One has grown corn, one has grown carrots, and the other has raised some chicken or beef.
If everyone eats only what they've produced, they'll die of malnutrition, eventually.
What is the most efficient solution, and why will that solution fail on a large scale?
The effective solution is that the three of them trade between each other for the things the need. On a large scale, however, people are clawing and scratching to be the guy that everyone goes to for their carrots, or whatever, and everyone wants more than what they really ought to have.
Am I right?
Quote from: Professor Freeky on March 30, 2010, 10:51:43 PM
The effective solution is that the three of them trade between each other for the things the need. On a large scale, however, people are clawing and scratching to be the guy that everyone goes to for their carrots, or whatever, and everyone wants more than what they really ought to have.
Am I right?
Incorrect. Now you have to build 3 fires to cook with. The effective solution is that you pour what everyone has into a pot, stew it, and everybody eats.
It doesn't work on a large scale, because there's a limit to the size of the fire and the pot. Also, if you continue to centralize beyond a certain point, you have a planned economy (See former Soviet Union for details on how this works out.).
The point here is that good ideas aren't always scalable.
Now, after a certain point, it does make sense to barter (or buy and sell once you curse yourself with currency), due to the above limitations. This will work for a while, but then the inevitable happens. 2 internets to whomever can spot the flaw.
Quoteand why will that solution fail on a large scale?
because it's two dudes and a chick
dude1 knocks of dude2 for fun and profit
I don't think it's an issue of "ought to have", Freeky, so much as what can be done without a) raping the ground in the name of getting more corn or b) damaging other people.
My guess at Dok's flaw is that beyond that limit, the ground-rape or other depletion of the resources commences and everyone's fucked. This is just a guess, since my brain is not working terribly well atm.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 10:23:52 PM
Quote from: Hover Cat on March 30, 2010, 09:28:02 PM
Awesome stuff, Dok.
1) Can I post this on my facebook (with due credit and a link back here)? I have a libertarian I've been trying to coax into looking at this kind of thing, and I'd like to think he is capable of being in that 1%. However, he's refused to come here, despite my best efforts because he's a lazy sod. :roll:
2) Your comments about certain ideas hitting religious levels really makes sense to me, having seen (and having BEEN) one of those humans obsessed with the free market and libertarianism.
1. Yes. ETA: Lazy libertarians? Who'd have thought it? :lulz:
2. The lure of it is that it seems to make sense. The problem is, it requires that humans act rationally for a significant percentage of the time.
Thanks! :) And he doesn't see the other side, which is what you're bringing up.
Quote from: Hover Cat on March 30, 2010, 11:12:27 PM
I don't think it's an issue of "ought to have", Freeky, so much as what can be done without a) raping the ground in the name of getting more corn or b) damaging other people.
My guess at Dok's flaw is that beyond that limit, the ground-rape or other depletion of the resources commences and everyone's fucked. This is just a guess, since my brain is not working terribly well atm.
Not quite. See above.
Great thread. Still absorbing it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 10:28:35 PM
Okay, let's assume that three people have primitive resources (wood for cooking, hand tools for agriculture, etc). One has grown corn, one has grown carrots, and the other has raised some chicken or beef.
If everyone eats only what they've produced, they'll die of malnutrition, eventually.
What is the most efficient solution, and why will that solution fail on a large scale?
Why would each only choose to grow or raise one though?
This thread is fanfuckingtastic!
Hoopla, since it's a hypothetical scenario, I'm not sure it needs an explanation as to why each guy only grows his specialty, but maybe each guy only knows how to do one and it takes up all his time.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 11:07:25 PM
Quote from: Professor Freeky on March 30, 2010, 10:51:43 PM
The effective solution is that the three of them trade between each other for the things the need. On a large scale, however, people are clawing and scratching to be the guy that everyone goes to for their carrots, or whatever, and everyone wants more than what they really ought to have.
Am I right?
Incorrect. Now you have to build 3 fires to cook with. The effective solution is that you pour what everyone has into a pot, stew it, and everybody eats.
It doesn't work on a large scale, because there's a limit to the size of the fire and the pot. Also, if you continue to centralize beyond a certain point, you have a planned economy (See former Soviet Union for details on how this works out.).
The point here is that good ideas aren't always scalable.
Now, after a certain point, it does make sense to barter (or buy and sell once you curse yourself with currency), due to the above limitations. This will work for a while, but then the inevitable happens. 2 internets to whomever can spot the flaw.
Is it because if one monkey sees something they want and cannot easily get it, the next option is stealing/killing the other guy and making off with whatever?
Will comment later, when have free time. Great work Dok. :mittens:
Quote from: Hoopla on March 30, 2010, 11:59:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 10:28:35 PM
Okay, let's assume that three people have primitive resources (wood for cooking, hand tools for agriculture, etc). One has grown corn, one has grown carrots, and the other has raised some chicken or beef.
If everyone eats only what they've produced, they'll die of malnutrition, eventually.
What is the most efficient solution, and why will that solution fail on a large scale?
Why would each only choose to grow or raise one though?
Um, I was making an analogy. For example, I am a good millwright, but not a very good lawyer.
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on March 31, 2010, 01:08:06 AM
This thread is fanfuckingtastic!
Thanks. I've been enjoying the hell out of the responses.
Quote from: Professor Freeky on March 31, 2010, 02:06:25 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 11:07:25 PM
Quote from: Professor Freeky on March 30, 2010, 10:51:43 PM
The effective solution is that the three of them trade between each other for the things the need. On a large scale, however, people are clawing and scratching to be the guy that everyone goes to for their carrots, or whatever, and everyone wants more than what they really ought to have.
Am I right?
Incorrect. Now you have to build 3 fires to cook with. The effective solution is that you pour what everyone has into a pot, stew it, and everybody eats.
It doesn't work on a large scale, because there's a limit to the size of the fire and the pot. Also, if you continue to centralize beyond a certain point, you have a planned economy (See former Soviet Union for details on how this works out.).
The point here is that good ideas aren't always scalable.
Now, after a certain point, it does make sense to barter (or buy and sell once you curse yourself with currency), due to the above limitations. This will work for a while, but then the inevitable happens. 2 internets to whomever can spot the flaw.
Is it because if one monkey sees something they want and cannot easily get it, the next option is stealing/killing the other guy and making off with whatever?
That's a possibility, but I was thinking more that the earliest and/or most successful farmers wind up with all the land (they aren't making any more, you see), and all the other farmers get to be employees and/or tenant farmers. The concept of a free market stops dead at this point, before it ever really got started. Historically speaking, that's about the time feudalism came into vogue (The gold and silver rushes in early American history also come to mind).
From there, it's all down hill, if you're a utilitarian/libertarian.
Oh, I see now.
Quote from: Professor Freeky on March 31, 2010, 02:44:21 AM
Oh, I see now.
This is what happens when you fill up the whole world with monkeys.
Response to OP, will go back through the discourse later.
:mittens:
The blinders are a solid things to consider, as they're usually the first thing needed and the last mentioned in any consideration of human behavior. Short version "Assumption is the mother of a proper fuckup."
A few IRL friends are involved with Freemasonry, and in talking with them about it, they openly admit that discussing religion or politics at meetings is strictly FORBIDDEN. It causes more harm than good to a group of people (Not supporting or running down Masons, ). Again, draws back just to what you were saying about the blinders. Politics and religion give some great opportunities for people to stumble onto one of the criteria upon which they WON'T speak to the other person. Again, not what's good for themselves OR the group, but something they can work around, given proper self recognizance.
Makes good sense. Can't wait to see more.
I'LL BE
the candlestick maker. with options
This thread sounds a lot like my philosophy Ethics course.
Except this thread is not about ethics, but about a more broader subject. The formula, however, is similar:
Every class the teacher began to explain a "solution" (a particular school of ethics, utilitarianism, egoism, deism, virtue ethics etc etc). The first 20-30 minutes were about explaining the basic ideas of this school of ethics, followed by an hour of shooting holes at it, debunking it and basically showing in what sort of ways it would not work and lead to horrible situations.
The end result, or at least, what I took home from it (apart from becoming more knowledgeable about the general field, of course), is that there apparently is no perfect solution that works in all cases. And that, IMVPO, utilitarianism seems fairest, on the whole.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 10:28:35 PM
Okay, let's assume that three people have primitive resources (wood for cooking, hand tools for agriculture, etc). One has grown corn, one has grown carrots, and the other has raised some chicken or beef.
If everyone eats only what they've produced, they'll die of malnutrition, eventually.
What is the most efficient solution, and why will that solution fail on a large scale?
Perhaps not directly germane to your point, but I think that the following quote is apt here:
QuoteA human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. Robert A. Heinlein
If the monkeys can only do one thing, they must become entirely socialized. If the monkey is adaptable, then he can find a way to scale a good idea. Maybe.
Yeah, what Rat said... if someone could only do one thing, well, yes they are sunk... but those who were adaptable would learn to do more.
I think the analogy was a little forced, but I see your point Dok.
:mittens:
This is good!!
I mean really good, as in should be a basis to build a curriculum on starting in say kindergarten!!
I am looking forward to more....
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 31, 2010, 02:09:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 10:28:35 PM
Okay, let's assume that three people have primitive resources (wood for cooking, hand tools for agriculture, etc). One has grown corn, one has grown carrots, and the other has raised some chicken or beef.
If everyone eats only what they've produced, they'll die of malnutrition, eventually.
What is the most efficient solution, and why will that solution fail on a large scale?
Perhaps not directly germane to your point, but I think that the following quote is apt here:
QuoteA human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. Robert A. Heinlein
If the monkeys can only do one thing, they must become entirely socialized. If the monkey is adaptable, then he can find a way to scale a good idea. Maybe.
Sorry, I got paged and had to run... but now I'm back for 5 mins.
My point of the quote is 'education'. The more we monkeys learn, the more adaptable we become. We begin to see more possible solutions to problems.
When Joe only knows about growing carrots, then he'll be fine, until the carrot blight hits... then Bob and Sam who grow potatoes and corn will be munching away... and Joe will starve (unless Bob and Sam are altruistic). I don't think its incidental that the feudal system in Europe began to fall apart as the effects of the Renaissance began to hit the serfs. Now they no longer knew only one thing (the same thing their father, grandfater, great-grandfater did), but they gained new and more knowledge.
There have been examples in history where specialization, or thinking 'I can do one thing, and barter for everything else' bit the monkeys in the ass. Specifically, France's tendency to grow grain... and grow only grain. They could barter the grain, the bread, etc... but when the weather changed, they nearly starved because they did not adapt, they had no knowledge beyond their grain and they refused to see anything else (more of those filters, Doc!).
I'm gonna run with this a bit more...
Education not only helps our farmers in the example, but it addresses the greater concern raised in Dok's original post. Filters and preconceptions seem to be more limited and narrow among those who have a more limited and narrow scope of education. We don't see options that require additional education. The 'smart' people at one time firmly believed that rats were generated in piles of rags (or in the mud from the Nile river banks) and that meat generated maggots. As knowledge was shared and people became more educated, the idea of abiogenesis was abandoned (well, at least pushed back to primordial ooze).
If a person only groks one political system, then all of their solutions will be predicated on the constraints of that single system. If they become educated in the theories behind many political systems, then they have more options to look at. They may have fewer preconceptions (or at least a less restrictive filter).
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 31, 2010, 05:13:36 PM
Filters and preconceptions seem to be more limited and narrow among those who have a more limited and narrow scope of education.
I strongly disagree. The size and shape of filters and preconceptions are in no way connected to the amount or type of education one has.
An educated person may know more "things", but that has nothing to do with any sort of bias or self-limiting thought process.
In
You Are Being Lied To, there is an essay (Chomsky, I think) which points out that while almost all top journalists and editors claim they are not coerced and can write and print what they want to, they also can't get to those top positions unless their opinions naturally line up with the accepted positions. Someone with a different bias would probably not even be able to get their foot in the door.
There are countless cases of educated men with massive bias and preconception. To say that education limits bias is, in fact, an elitist bias in itself.
Education can't remove bias, except in a very limited manner. You can teach critical thinking skills in a narrow field, but the second the student encounters a new set of problems he or she will fall back on to old habits.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 31, 2010, 02:09:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 10:28:35 PM
Okay, let's assume that three people have primitive resources (wood for cooking, hand tools for agriculture, etc). One has grown corn, one has grown carrots, and the other has raised some chicken or beef.
If everyone eats only what they've produced, they'll die of malnutrition, eventually.
What is the most efficient solution, and why will that solution fail on a large scale?
Perhaps not directly germane to your point, but I think that the following quote is apt here:
QuoteA human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. Robert A. Heinlein
If the monkeys can only do one thing, they must become entirely socialized. If the monkey is adaptable, then he can find a way to scale a good idea. Maybe.
Heinlein is incorrect (as usual). As technology has progressed, specialization has become a requirement, at least to some degree. The time required, for example, to become a surgeon rules out the garnering of the skills required to do any substantial work on a modern automobile.
And that was the point of the exercise, not an implication that a farmer can only grow one crop. I can also see that I apparently didn't state my case clearly enough in the OP, because the first question I asked had a stock Heinlein response plastered over it, which I probably should have expected.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 31, 2010, 05:28:42 PM
Education can't remove bias, except in a very limited manner. You can teach critical thinking skills in a narrow field, but the second the student encounters a new set of problems he or she will fall back on to old habits.
I'd like to see some support for that assertion.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 31, 2010, 05:13:36 PM
I'm gonna run with this a bit more...
Education not only helps our farmers in the example,
Sometimes I don't know why I bother.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 05:32:09 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 31, 2010, 05:28:42 PM
Education can't remove bias, except in a very limited manner. You can teach critical thinking skills in a narrow field, but the second the student encounters a new set of problems he or she will fall back on to old habits.
I'd like to see some support for that assertion.
Halpern, D.F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across
domains. American Psychologist, 53, 449–455.
Lehman, D.R., & Nisbett, R.E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the
effects of undergraduate training on reasoning. Developmental
Psychology, 26, 952–960.
Willingham, D.T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach?
American Educator, 31, 8–19.
Quote from: Hoopla on March 31, 2010, 02:37:05 PM
Yeah, what Rat said... if someone could only do one thing, well, yes they are sunk... but those who were adaptable would learn to do more.
I think the analogy was a little forced, but I see your point Dok.
I wonder.
I was talking about economy (the root of politics), with an analogy, not how to help farmers raise more than one crop, or the fact that humans aren't bugs, or education or any of that shit.
This is precisely what I was talking about. The question was predicated on an example that was obviously forced. Instead of dealing with the actual question, the filters slammed down and it became an essay on Robert Heinlien and how to train farmers, because that's just another chance to pimp out one particular brand of failed idealism.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 31, 2010, 05:34:02 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 05:32:09 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 31, 2010, 05:28:42 PM
Education can't remove bias, except in a very limited manner. You can teach critical thinking skills in a narrow field, but the second the student encounters a new set of problems he or she will fall back on to old habits.
I'd like to see some support for that assertion.
Halpern, D.F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across
domains. American Psychologist, 53, 449–455.
Lehman, D.R., & Nisbett, R.E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the
effects of undergraduate training on reasoning. Developmental
Psychology, 26, 952–960.
Willingham, D.T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach?
American Educator, 31, 8–19.
Okay, thanks. Any of that online?
This one is: http://pps.sagepub.com/content/4/4/390.full
Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K. (2009). Giving Debiasing Away: Can Psychological Research on Correcting Cognitive Errors Promote Human Welfare? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 390-398. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01144.x
Quote from: More broadly, despite widespread calls to teach and dissem-
inate critical thinking, which some authors (e.g., Lilienfeld,
Lynn, Namy, & Woolf, 2009) define as thinking intended to
overcome cognitive biases, relatively little research demon-
strates that critical-thinking skills generalize beyond the tasks
on which they are taught (cf., Halpern, 1998; Lehman & Nisbett,
1990). Indeed, critical thinking is often exasperatingly domain-
specific, with weak or nonexistent transfer across domains being
the rule rather than the exception (Willingham, 2007). Even
among exceedingly intelligent scholars, the capacity to think
critically is surprisingly nongeneralizable across disciplines
(Feynman, 1985; Lykken, 1991). For example, two-time Nobel-
prize winning chemist Linus Pauling (1980) was a devout be-
liever in megavitamin (vitamin C) therapy for cancer despite
overwhelming evidence against it, and Nobel-prize winning
physicist Arthur Schawlow (1993) was convinced of the effec-
tiveness of facilitated communication for autism—a technique
that has been thoroughly discredited (Jacobson, Mulick, &
Schwartz, 1995).
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 31, 2010, 11:30:48 AM
The end result, or at least, what I took home from it (apart from becoming more knowledgeable about the general field, of course), is that there apparently is no perfect solution that works in all cases. And that, IMVPO, utilitarianism seems fairest, on the whole.
What works for one situation may not work for another. There is no cookie cutter solution for everything, and to insist that all systems - or any system - would be completely scaleable (as one person has apparently asserted) if only humans were perfectly educated kind of reinforces my point.
IF A SYSTEM REQUIRES PERFECTION OR EVEN GENERAL COMPETENCE ON A LARGE SCALE,
IT WILL FAIL.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 31, 2010, 05:38:51 PM
This one is: http://pps.sagepub.com/content/4/4/390.full
Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K. (2009). Giving Debiasing Away: Can Psychological Research on Correcting Cognitive Errors Promote Human Welfare? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 390-398. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01144.x
Quote from: More broadly, despite widespread calls to teach and dissem-
inate critical thinking, which some authors (e.g., Lilienfeld,
Lynn, Namy, & Woolf, 2009) define as thinking intended to
overcome cognitive biases, relatively little research demon-
strates that critical-thinking skills generalize beyond the tasks
on which they are taught (cf., Halpern, 1998; Lehman & Nisbett,
1990). Indeed, critical thinking is often exasperatingly domain-
specific, with weak or nonexistent transfer across domains being
the rule rather than the exception (Willingham, 2007). Even
among exceedingly intelligent scholars, the capacity to think
critically is surprisingly nongeneralizable across disciplines
(Feynman, 1985; Lykken, 1991). For example, two-time Nobel-
prize winning chemist Linus Pauling (1980) was a devout be-
liever in megavitamin (vitamin C) therapy for cancer despite
overwhelming evidence against it, and Nobel-prize winning
physicist Arthur Schawlow (1993) was convinced of the effec-
tiveness of facilitated communication for autism—a technique
that has been thoroughly discredited (Jacobson, Mulick, &
Schwartz, 1995).
Okay, from that excerpt, I am having trouble understanding if the author is stating that multi-discipline critical thinking is impossible, or if we're just teaching it wrong.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 05:37:03 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on March 31, 2010, 02:37:05 PM
Yeah, what Rat said... if someone could only do one thing, well, yes they are sunk... but those who were adaptable would learn to do more.
I think the analogy was a little forced, but I see your point Dok.
I wonder.
I was talking about economy (the root of politics), with an analogy, not how to help farmers raise more than one crop, or the fact that humans aren't bugs, or education or any of that shit.
This is precisely what I was talking about. The question was predicated on an example that was obviously forced. Instead of dealing with the actual question, the filters slammed down and it became an essay on Robert Heinlien and how to train farmers, because that's just another chance to pimp out one particular brand of failed idealism.
This was DK's stock in trade when he was trolling us, by the way. Take a metaphor, and then stretch it to the breaking point. Even when I explicitly said that all metaphors are imperfect, he never stopped with shit like, "What are the floors made of in the Black Iron Prison? Can I tunnel out like in
Raising Arizona?"
ANYWAY.I'm going to try not to make any assumptions, so this may take a bit of back and forth.
In your example, Three Farmers (producers) throw their three crops (profits) into one pot, and each takes according to their need.
This, per you, is the most efficient solution
in this situation. However, you state this is not feasible for larger numbers.
Am I following you so far? Please correct if I'm fucking this up.
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 31, 2010, 11:30:48 AM
And that, IMVPO, utilitarianism seems fairest, on the whole.
Except that utilitarianism is also another idealistic system which plays fast and loose with how people actually think or behave. In fact, much of late 19th/early 20th century naive idealism in politics (the League of Nations, attempts to outlaw war, general belief in the infalliability of public opinion, that Reason can lead to ethical conduct etc) derived directly from Benthamite utilitarianism.
So while it may be fair, in the short term, it is untenable in the long term.
Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2010, 05:21:28 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 31, 2010, 05:13:36 PM
Filters and preconceptions seem to be more limited and narrow among those who have a more limited and narrow scope of education.
I strongly disagree. The size and shape of filters and preconceptions are in no way connected to the amount or type of education one has.
An educated person may know more "things", but that has nothing to do with any sort of bias or self-limiting thought process.
In You Are Being Lied To, there is an essay (Chomsky, I think) which points out that while almost all top journalists and editors claim they are not coerced and can write and print what they want to, they also can't get to those top positions unless their opinions naturally line up with the accepted positions. Someone with a different bias would probably not even be able to get their foot in the door.
There are countless cases of educated men with massive bias and preconception. To say that education limits bias is, in fact, an elitist bias in itself.
Apparently I wasn't clear enough. Sorry.
I should have said 'access to information' rather than education, it was a poor choice of words.
Education may entrench bias, but access to more information, may broaden the filtering system. (be it from self-education, schools, mentors whatever).
More information = more data to use in interpretation. Information/Education alone doesn't necessarily preclude filters and bais, but a lack of information, by definition is going to narrow your view of things and the options you're able to find when making hard decisions.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 05:37:03 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on March 31, 2010, 02:37:05 PM
Yeah, what Rat said... if someone could only do one thing, well, yes they are sunk... but those who were adaptable would learn to do more.
I think the analogy was a little forced, but I see your point Dok.
I wonder.
I was talking about economy (the root of politics), with an analogy, not how to help farmers raise more than one crop, or the fact that humans aren't bugs, or education or any of that shit.
This is precisely what I was talking about. The question was predicated on an example that was obviously forced. Instead of dealing with the actual question, the filters slammed down and it became an essay on Robert Heinlien and how to train farmers, because that's just another chance to pimp out one particular brand of failed idealism.
Err... I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way. I didn't intend that.
My point was that access to more information = more options in anything politics, economy (or farming).
If your economy is predicated on Bob doing X, Joe doing Y and Sam doing Z.... then everything will be fine until the market for X crashes out. Then Bob will be homeless. When all the jobs relating to Z move overseas, Sam will go bankrupt. Etc.
I am not trying to promote a failed political ideology... I'm just trying to argue the point that more information/education = more options instead of the only options being EITHER Bob grows all his own food OR everyone grows a specific crop ... the more Bob and Joe and Sam learn (the more information they have) the more options they can explore (be they farmers, factory workers, capitalists etc)....
Thus while the three of them sharing a pot may not scale, if they have access to enough information, they might adapt to a solution that does scale.
Also, I'm really not sure what political ideology you think I'm pushing, cause thus far nothing you've said is in conflict with my views on the topic.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 05:41:51 PM
Okay, from that excerpt, I am having trouble understanding if the author is stating that multi-discipline critical thinking is impossible, or if we're just teaching it wrong.
He's saying we haven't found anything that works reliably. It might be possible, but if it is we don't know how.
Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2010, 05:44:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 05:37:03 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on March 31, 2010, 02:37:05 PM
Yeah, what Rat said... if someone could only do one thing, well, yes they are sunk... but those who were adaptable would learn to do more.
I think the analogy was a little forced, but I see your point Dok.
I wonder.
I was talking about economy (the root of politics), with an analogy, not how to help farmers raise more than one crop, or the fact that humans aren't bugs, or education or any of that shit.
This is precisely what I was talking about. The question was predicated on an example that was obviously forced. Instead of dealing with the actual question, the filters slammed down and it became an essay on Robert Heinlien and how to train farmers, because that's just another chance to pimp out one particular brand of failed idealism.
This was DK's stock in trade when he was trolling us, by the way. Take a metaphor, and then stretch it to the breaking point. Even when I explicitly said that all metaphors are imperfect, he never stopped with shit like, "What are the floors made of in the Black Iron Prison? Can I tunnel out like in Raising Arizona?"
ANYWAY.
I'm going to try not to make any assumptions, so this may take a bit of back and forth.
In your example, Three Farmers (producers) throw their three crops (profits) into one pot, and each takes according to their need.
This, per you, is the most efficient solution in this situation. However, you state this is not feasible for larger numbers.
Am I following you so far? Please correct if I'm fucking this up.
You're right on the money. Systems that work at one level of complexity don't necessarily work on another, and the more flawed the system, the less complexity it can stand.
Communism and other near-ideal systems work very well at the family/clan level. They don't work for shit at anything larger than that.
Tribalism works well at several levels, but doesn't deal well with modern transportation and communication. It is a VERY survivable system for an isolated community.
The two most robust systems seem to be representative democracy and constitutional monarchies, but we seem to be passing the limits there, as well. Global economies and near-instant (or in the case of the Romans, paralyzingly slow) communications seem to be part of the problem, but it is certain that there are other factors.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 31, 2010, 05:50:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 05:41:51 PM
Okay, from that excerpt, I am having trouble understanding if the author is stating that multi-discipline critical thinking is impossible, or if we're just teaching it wrong.
He's saying we haven't found anything that works reliably. It might be possible, but if it is we don't know how.
I think I can agree with that. Let me chew on this a while.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 31, 2010, 05:49:02 PM
If your economy is predicated on Bob doing X, Joe doing Y and Sam doing Z.... then everything will be fine until the market for X crashes out. Then Bob will be homeless. When all the jobs relating to Z move overseas, Sam will go bankrupt. Etc.
I am not trying to promote a failed political ideology... I'm just trying to argue the point that more information/education = more options instead of the only options being EITHER Bob grows all his own food OR everyone grows a specific crop ... the more Bob and Joe and Sam learn (the more information they have) the more options they can explore (be they farmers, factory workers, capitalists etc)....
Thus while the three of them sharing a pot may not scale, if they have access to enough information, they might adapt to a solution that does scale.
Also, I'm really not sure what political ideology you think I'm pushing, cause thus far nothing you've said is in conflict with my views on the topic.
Um, let's just forget the farmers, okay?
Simon Bolivar suggested republics worked best when they represented small countries. It could just be that I happen to agree with his bias, but I think he has a point. A nation like the USA, or even UK, has to take into account the wants and desires of 60-300 million people, with varying levels of influence, desires, deeply held beliefs and wants. Managing such a system, in a top heavy manner (which all governments, of the left and right, are guilty of) is simply untenable. This goes doubly for states enamoured with rational technocracy, like western Europe and the United States, because their bureaucratic structure not only breeds pointless institutional rivalry and feuding, it also creates a reaction in charismatic Hero figures, like Napoleon or Hitler, who promise to do away with such nonsense and embody the will of the people in an emotional and symbolic way.
There is work being done by people on the concept of the "resilient community", based around ideas gleaned from study of complex adaptive systems, but so far it is in its early days. However most advocates seem to think that radical decentralization and more power in the hands of the individual and community would be part of this process. I like this, but again, my biases run that way, and it does need more work and testing to be done on it.
Quote from: Cain on March 31, 2010, 06:00:54 PM
Simon Bolivar suggested republics worked best when they represented small countries. It could just be that I happen to agree with his bias, but I think he has a point. A nation like the USA, or even UK, has to take into account the wants and desires of 60-300 million people, with varying levels of influence, desires, deeply held beliefs and wants. Managing such a system, in a top heavy manner (which all governments, of the left and right, are guilty of) is simply untenable. This goes doubly for states enamoured with rational technocracy, like western Europe and the United States, because their bureaucratic structure not only breeds pointless institutional rivalry and feuding, it also creates a reaction in charismatic Hero figures, like Napoleon or Hitler, who promise to do away with such nonsense and embody the will of the people in an emotional and symbolic way.
There is work being done by people on the concept of the "resilient community", based around ideas gleaned from study of complex adaptive systems, but so far it is in its early days. However most advocates seem to think that radical decentralization and more power in the hands of the individual and community would be part of this process. I like this, but again, my biases run that way, and it does need more work and testing to be done on it.
Problem is, the vast majority of people can't be bothered with self-governance though, and less and less people are willing as the problems of the society grow more complex (many or even most of these problems being artificial or partisan trifles), which is why republics fail in the first place.
So, there appears to be two stages of building complexity:
Stage 1 is the amout of entities involved in the system. 3 people pooling profits in a communal way works. As you add more people, the complexity increases until a point is reached where communal sharing is no longer the best method.
Stage 2, by what I gleaned from Dok saying "Global economies and near-instant (or in the case of the Romans, paralyzingly slow) communications seem to be part of the problem," seems to be to be speed of communication. That is, when communication is slow it necessasarily limits
Perhaps there is only one stage of building complexity, which is the amount of people involved. Increases in technology and communication speeds make it possible for more people to become involved. If it takes 3 months to send a message, then only a few people can make decisions or affect the process. If it takes 3 seconds, then far more people can be involved.
So, a population of 300,000 with slow communication may have the same level of complexity as a population of 300, but as soon as you add fast communication, the complexity skyrockets.
Am I babbling, or does this fit?
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 31, 2010, 05:49:02 PM
Apparently I wasn't clear enough. Sorry.
I should have said 'access to information' rather than education, it was a poor choice of words.
Education may entrench bias, but access to more information, may broaden the filtering system. (be it from self-education, schools, mentors whatever).
More information = more data to use in interpretation. Information/Education alone doesn't necessarily preclude filters and bais, but a lack of information, by definition is going to narrow your view of things and the options you're able to find when making hard decisions.
Rat, access to information doesn't broaden a persons filters.
Case in point: Teabaggers. They have all kinds of preconceived notions, many of which are dead wrong (death panels, scary socialism, and so on). They all have access to information, be it on the internet or in a library. But they don't go looking for the information that would help them understand things better. Why? Possibly because a person's filters will slam the gates down on whatever they encounter that goes against their grain.
Yes, that is one of the issues I have with resilient communities, the point where it simply becomes stealth-anarchism of some kind.
I still like to think that small republics are generally viable, but then the question becomes whether complexity is an issue of size, or technological/social advancement, or (more likely) both. Because if it is either of the latter, then size wont solve the issue.
This is reminding me of Heuristics...
A Heuristic is a tool you use for solving problems. Trial and Error is a heuristic. Compromise is a social heuristic. Voting is a heuristic typically employed in democracies. The logic is that if you're encountering similar types of problems, you employ similar types of solutions.
The danger of relying on heuristics is that humans are bad at figuring out when to apply them. As it's said, "when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." We live in a world where there are certain rules, and when things change, we are bad at evaluating whether we should keep using those rules. I think this stems, in part, from the black swan effect - nobody can accurately predict the future. The current data set might not represent future data sets. A government based on the consent of 50%+1 seemed to work at a smaller scale, now we're seeing that a system in which 49% of the population is constantly pissed off is not a great engine for life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.
The misapplication of heuristics is what leads to cognitive biases. People are failing to legislate away internet piracy because they're still stuck of thinking of data in the same terms as material property. The trick in getting people to not apply the wrong heuristics is to get them to think about the problem in new ways. When you're stuck on a math problem, try drawing a picture of it. Maybe what we need is some new models or rules that will help us understand the bizarre era we're living in.
also relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 06:04:48 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 31, 2010, 06:00:54 PM
Simon Bolivar suggested republics worked best when they represented small countries. It could just be that I happen to agree with his bias, but I think he has a point. A nation like the USA, or even UK, has to take into account the wants and desires of 60-300 million people, with varying levels of influence, desires, deeply held beliefs and wants. Managing such a system, in a top heavy manner (which all governments, of the left and right, are guilty of) is simply untenable. This goes doubly for states enamoured with rational technocracy, like western Europe and the United States, because their bureaucratic structure not only breeds pointless institutional rivalry and feuding, it also creates a reaction in charismatic Hero figures, like Napoleon or Hitler, who promise to do away with such nonsense and embody the will of the people in an emotional and symbolic way.
There is work being done by people on the concept of the "resilient community", based around ideas gleaned from study of complex adaptive systems, but so far it is in its early days. However most advocates seem to think that radical decentralization and more power in the hands of the individual and community would be part of this process. I like this, but again, my biases run that way, and it does need more work and testing to be done on it.
Problem is, the vast majority of people can't be bothered with self-governance though, and less and less people are willing as the problems of the society grow more complex (many or even most of these problems being artificial or partisan trifles), which is why republics fail in the first place.
That's an interesting idea, can you expound on it a bit more?
What do you think causes the mindset where people can't be bothered with self-governance?
How does this cause republics to fail?
How does that contradict Simon Bolivar's argument?
Quote from: Professor Freeky on March 31, 2010, 06:11:49 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 31, 2010, 05:49:02 PM
Apparently I wasn't clear enough. Sorry.
I should have said 'access to information' rather than education, it was a poor choice of words.
Education may entrench bias, but access to more information, may broaden the filtering system. (be it from self-education, schools, mentors whatever).
More information = more data to use in interpretation. Information/Education alone doesn't necessarily preclude filters and bais, but a lack of information, by definition is going to narrow your view of things and the options you're able to find when making hard decisions.
Rat, access to information doesn't broaden a persons filters.
Case in point: Teabaggers. They have all kinds of preconceived notions, many of which are dead wrong (death panels, scary socialism, and so on). They all have access to information, be it on the internet or in a library. But they don't go looking for the information that would help them understand things better. Why? Possibly because a person's filters will slam the gates down on whatever they encounter that goes against their grain.
Well of course, if you don't make use of information then it doesn't help... or if your pre-existing filters require that some types of information must be wrong then its not gonna help either.
Case in point with the French wheat farmers in the late middle ages. They had a specialization. The entire country's economic system was predicated on that specialization (hell their whole diet was predicated on it). Information existed which could have saved them, namely how to grow potatoes... but they had the Catholic filter in place which said that potatoes came from the Devil. So half the country starved to death and the other half had a revolt and beheaded a bunch of aristo's.
However, in England, Ireland etc. they used the information and didn't have the same problem as the French... until the Irish all settled on one specific type of potato to grow... which was susceptible to blight and BOOM they got a potato famine.
Information availability is a necessary part of changing filters... but the information has to be used, not ignored.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 31, 2010, 06:14:02 PM
This is reminding me of Heuristics...
A Heuristic is a tool you use for solving problems. Trial and Error is a heuristic. Compromise is a social heuristic. Voting is a heuristic typically employed in democracies. The logic is that if you're encountering similar types of problems, you employ similar types of solutions.
The danger of relying on heuristics is that humans are bad at figuring out when to apply them. As it's said, "when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." We live in a world where there are certain rules, and when things change, we are bad at evaluating whether we should keep using those rules. I think this stems, in part, from the black swan effect - nobody can accurately predict the future. The current data set might not represent future data sets. A government based on the consent of 50%+1 seemed to work at a smaller scale, now we're seeing that a system in which 49% of the population is constantly pissed off is not a great engine for life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.
The misapplication of heuristics is what leads to cognitive biases. People are failing to legislate away internet piracy because they're still stuck of thinking of data in the same terms as material property. The trick in getting people to not apply the wrong heuristics is to get them to think about the problem in new ways. When you're stuck on a math problem, try drawing a picture of it. Maybe what we need is some new models or rules that will help us understand the bizarre era we're living in.
also relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
That's sorta what I was trying to say and apparently failed at...
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 05:37:23 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 31, 2010, 05:34:02 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 05:32:09 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 31, 2010, 05:28:42 PM
Education can't remove bias, except in a very limited manner. You can teach critical thinking skills in a narrow field, but the second the student encounters a new set of problems he or she will fall back on to old habits.
I'd like to see some support for that assertion.
Halpern, D.F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across
domains. American Psychologist, 53, 449–455.
Lehman, D.R., & Nisbett, R.E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the
effects of undergraduate training on reasoning. Developmental
Psychology, 26, 952–960.
Willingham, D.T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach?
American Educator, 31, 8–19.
Okay, thanks. Any of that online?
I found the willingham paper: http://www.readingfirst.virginia.edu/elibrary_pdfs/Crit_Thinking.pdf
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 05:37:03 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on March 31, 2010, 02:37:05 PM
Yeah, what Rat said... if someone could only do one thing, well, yes they are sunk... but those who were adaptable would learn to do more.
I think the analogy was a little forced, but I see your point Dok.
I wonder.
I was talking about economy (the root of politics), with an analogy, not how to help farmers raise more than one crop, or the fact that humans aren't bugs, or education or any of that shit.
This is precisely what I was talking about. The question was predicated on an example that was obviously forced. Instead of dealing with the actual question, the filters slammed down and it became an essay on Robert Heinlien and how to train farmers, because that's just another chance to pimp out one particular brand of failed idealism.
Well I was under the impression we were having a discussion, and that questions poking at the ideas was part of the point.
But if all you were looking for was agreement, then, well... have fun.
Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2010, 05:44:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 05:37:03 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on March 31, 2010, 02:37:05 PM
Yeah, what Rat said... if someone could only do one thing, well, yes they are sunk... but those who were adaptable would learn to do more.
I think the analogy was a little forced, but I see your point Dok.
I wonder.
I was talking about economy (the root of politics), with an analogy, not how to help farmers raise more than one crop, or the fact that humans aren't bugs, or education or any of that shit.
This is precisely what I was talking about. The question was predicated on an example that was obviously forced. Instead of dealing with the actual question, the filters slammed down and it became an essay on Robert Heinlien and how to train farmers, because that's just another chance to pimp out one particular brand of failed idealism.
This was DK's stock in trade when he was trolling us, by the way. Take a metaphor, and then stretch it to the breaking point. Even when I explicitly said that all metaphors are imperfect, he never stopped with shit like, "What are the floors made of in the Black Iron Prison? Can I tunnel out like in Raising Arizona?"
Whoah. Did I just get compared to DK?
Damn. Ok, I am going to avoid 'Aneristic Illusions' like the fucking plague from this point forward.
Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2010, 06:10:46 PM
So, there appears to be two stages of building complexity:
Stage 1 is the amout of entities involved in the system. 3 people pooling profits in a communal way works. As you add more people, the complexity increases until a point is reached where communal sharing is no longer the best method.
Stage 2, by what I gleaned from Dok saying "Global economies and near-instant (or in the case of the Romans, paralyzingly slow) communications seem to be part of the problem," seems to be to be speed of communication. That is, when communication is slow it necessasarily limits
Perhaps there is only one stage of building complexity, which is the amount of people involved. Increases in technology and communication speeds make it possible for more people to become involved. If it takes 3 months to send a message, then only a few people can make decisions or affect the process. If it takes 3 seconds, then far more people can be involved.
So, a population of 300,000 with slow communication may have the same level of complexity as a population of 300, but as soon as you add fast communication, the complexity skyrockets.
Am I babbling, or does this fit?
I think there's multiple causes of complexity, but most of them are only significant in the minds of the population. For example, the internet has allowed vast amounts of
uncontrolled communication to take place. Since humans are geared to a pack mentality, the idea that no alpha is
in control of that communication bothers people a great deal. Rather than deal with the situation internally or externally, they simply throw up their hands about it...but continue to worry, on a level that they don't even conscioulsy recognize.
Consider: The forum Nazis we've run into at places like Deathbylollipops and CoG are obsessed with making everyone post in the same manner they do, in agreement with the ideas they are comfortable with, or they ban them. This is an effort to impose the pack mentality on what they see as uncontrolled - and thus wrong - information. Rather than process the information, or even - especially - allow "their people" to see/process it, they eliminate it.
Other examples would be globalization of the economy (we can't even predict or control our own economy, let alone a global one), or even arranging that everyone has access to vital services (hence the uproar over healthcare). Far easier, instead, to listen to a demagogue with easy answers than to think things through on your own, given that each of these issues bothers the hell out of people, and there is literally no end to the issues.
Quote from: Hoopla on March 31, 2010, 07:22:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 05:37:03 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on March 31, 2010, 02:37:05 PM
Yeah, what Rat said... if someone could only do one thing, well, yes they are sunk... but those who were adaptable would learn to do more.
I think the analogy was a little forced, but I see your point Dok.
I wonder.
I was talking about economy (the root of politics), with an analogy, not how to help farmers raise more than one crop, or the fact that humans aren't bugs, or education or any of that shit.
This is precisely what I was talking about. The question was predicated on an example that was obviously forced. Instead of dealing with the actual question, the filters slammed down and it became an essay on Robert Heinlien and how to train farmers, because that's just another chance to pimp out one particular brand of failed idealism.
Well I was under the impression we were having a discussion, and that questions poking at the ideas was part of the point.
But if all you were looking for was agreement, then, well... have fun.
WTF? Staying on point is "just looking for agreement"?
Goddammit. I knew this was a fucking mistake.
Quote from: Professor Freeky on March 31, 2010, 06:11:49 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 31, 2010, 05:49:02 PM
Apparently I wasn't clear enough. Sorry.
I should have said 'access to information' rather than education, it was a poor choice of words.
Education may entrench bias, but access to more information, may broaden the filtering system. (be it from self-education, schools, mentors whatever).
More information = more data to use in interpretation. Information/Education alone doesn't necessarily preclude filters and bais, but a lack of information, by definition is going to narrow your view of things and the options you're able to find when making hard decisions.
Rat, access to information doesn't broaden a persons filters.
Case in point: Teabaggers. They have all kinds of preconceived notions, many of which are dead wrong (death panels, scary socialism, and so on). They all have access to information, be it on the internet or in a library. But they don't go looking for the information that would help them understand things better. Why? Possibly because a person's filters will slam the gates down on whatever they encounter that goes against their grain.
THIS. THIS RIGHT FUCKING HERE.
FREEKY WINS THE INTERNET.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 07:38:22 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on March 31, 2010, 07:22:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 05:37:03 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on March 31, 2010, 02:37:05 PM
Yeah, what Rat said... if someone could only do one thing, well, yes they are sunk... but those who were adaptable would learn to do more.
I think the analogy was a little forced, but I see your point Dok.
I wonder.
I was talking about economy (the root of politics), with an analogy, not how to help farmers raise more than one crop, or the fact that humans aren't bugs, or education or any of that shit.
This is precisely what I was talking about. The question was predicated on an example that was obviously forced. Instead of dealing with the actual question, the filters slammed down and it became an essay on Robert Heinlien and how to train farmers, because that's just another chance to pimp out one particular brand of failed idealism.
Well I was under the impression we were having a discussion, and that questions poking at the ideas was part of the point.
But if all you were looking for was agreement, then, well... have fun.
WTF? Staying on point is "just looking for agreement"?
Goddammit. I knew this was a fucking mistake.
Roger, I was trying to clarify your point, to
me, for
my own edification. If that is getting off topic for you, then I am clearly too stupid to be part of the conversation.
Quote from: Hoopla on March 31, 2010, 07:31:31 PM
Whoah. Did I just get compared to DK?
Damn. Ok, I am going to avoid 'Aneristic Illusions' like the fucking plague from this point forward.
Are you kidding?
If you weren't trolling, then NO. YOU WERE
NOT COMPARED TO DK.
Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2010, 07:42:27 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on March 31, 2010, 07:31:31 PM
Whoah. Did I just get compared to DK?
Damn. Ok, I am going to avoid 'Aneristic Illusions' like the fucking plague from this point forward.
Are you kidding?
If you weren't trolling, then NO. YOU WERE NOT COMPARED TO DK.
Ok, my mistake.
Quote from: Hoopla on March 31, 2010, 07:41:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 07:38:22 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on March 31, 2010, 07:22:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 05:37:03 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on March 31, 2010, 02:37:05 PM
Yeah, what Rat said... if someone could only do one thing, well, yes they are sunk... but those who were adaptable would learn to do more.
I think the analogy was a little forced, but I see your point Dok.
I wonder.
I was talking about economy (the root of politics), with an analogy, not how to help farmers raise more than one crop, or the fact that humans aren't bugs, or education or any of that shit.
This is precisely what I was talking about. The question was predicated on an example that was obviously forced. Instead of dealing with the actual question, the filters slammed down and it became an essay on Robert Heinlien and how to train farmers, because that's just another chance to pimp out one particular brand of failed idealism.
Well I was under the impression we were having a discussion, and that questions poking at the ideas was part of the point.
But if all you were looking for was agreement, then, well... have fun.
WTF? Staying on point is "just looking for agreement"?
Goddammit. I knew this was a fucking mistake.
Roger, I was trying to clarify your point, to me, for my own edification. If that is getting off topic for you, then I am clearly too stupid to be part of the conversation.
That's okay, I'm done with it, too. At least for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 07:37:18 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2010, 06:10:46 PM
So, there appears to be two stages of building complexity:
Stage 1 is the amout of entities involved in the system. 3 people pooling profits in a communal way works. As you add more people, the complexity increases until a point is reached where communal sharing is no longer the best method.
Stage 2, by what I gleaned from Dok saying "Global economies and near-instant (or in the case of the Romans, paralyzingly slow) communications seem to be part of the problem," seems to be to be speed of communication. That is, when communication is slow it necessasarily limits
Perhaps there is only one stage of building complexity, which is the amount of people involved. Increases in technology and communication speeds make it possible for more people to become involved. If it takes 3 months to send a message, then only a few people can make decisions or affect the process. If it takes 3 seconds, then far more people can be involved.
So, a population of 300,000 with slow communication may have the same level of complexity as a population of 300, but as soon as you add fast communication, the complexity skyrockets.
Am I babbling, or does this fit?
I think there's multiple causes of complexity, but most of them are only significant in the minds of the population. For example, the internet has allowed vast amounts of uncontrolled communication to take place. Since humans are geared to a pack mentality, the idea that no alpha is in control of that communication bothers people a great deal. Rather than deal with the situation internally or externally, they simply throw up their hands about it...but continue to worry, on a level that they don't even conscioulsy recognize.
Consider: The forum Nazis we've run into at places like Deathbylollipops and CoG are obsessed with making everyone post in the same manner they do, in agreement with the ideas they are comfortable with, or they ban them. This is an effort to impose the pack mentality on what they see as uncontrolled - and thus wrong - information. Rather than process the information, or even - especially - allow "their people" to see/process it, they eliminate it.
Other examples would be globalization of the economy (we can't even predict or control our own economy, let alone a global one), or even arranging that everyone has access to vital services (hence the uproar over healthcare). Far easier, instead, to listen to a demagogue with easy answers than to think things through on your own, given that each of these issues bothers the hell out of people, and there is literally no end to the issues.
So, there should be a general point where an idea like "three people pool resources" turns into "alpha controls pack".
Can a point be identified where this occurs?
Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2010, 07:47:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 07:37:18 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2010, 06:10:46 PM
So, there appears to be two stages of building complexity:
Stage 1 is the amout of entities involved in the system. 3 people pooling profits in a communal way works. As you add more people, the complexity increases until a point is reached where communal sharing is no longer the best method.
Stage 2, by what I gleaned from Dok saying "Global economies and near-instant (or in the case of the Romans, paralyzingly slow) communications seem to be part of the problem," seems to be to be speed of communication. That is, when communication is slow it necessasarily limits
Perhaps there is only one stage of building complexity, which is the amount of people involved. Increases in technology and communication speeds make it possible for more people to become involved. If it takes 3 months to send a message, then only a few people can make decisions or affect the process. If it takes 3 seconds, then far more people can be involved.
So, a population of 300,000 with slow communication may have the same level of complexity as a population of 300, but as soon as you add fast communication, the complexity skyrockets.
Am I babbling, or does this fit?
I think there's multiple causes of complexity, but most of them are only significant in the minds of the population. For example, the internet has allowed vast amounts of uncontrolled communication to take place. Since humans are geared to a pack mentality, the idea that no alpha is in control of that communication bothers people a great deal. Rather than deal with the situation internally or externally, they simply throw up their hands about it...but continue to worry, on a level that they don't even conscioulsy recognize.
Consider: The forum Nazis we've run into at places like Deathbylollipops and CoG are obsessed with making everyone post in the same manner they do, in agreement with the ideas they are comfortable with, or they ban them. This is an effort to impose the pack mentality on what they see as uncontrolled - and thus wrong - information. Rather than process the information, or even - especially - allow "their people" to see/process it, they eliminate it.
Other examples would be globalization of the economy (we can't even predict or control our own economy, let alone a global one), or even arranging that everyone has access to vital services (hence the uproar over healthcare). Far easier, instead, to listen to a demagogue with easy answers than to think things through on your own, given that each of these issues bothers the hell out of people, and there is literally no end to the issues.
So, there should be a general point where an idea like "three people pool resources" turns into "alpha controls pack".
Can a point be identified where this occurs?
For most things, at 8 people, as far as I can see (anecdotal, personal observation of work crews and cabals, here. I once saw a study that reached the same conclusion, but as I can't remember who did it - or even if it was peer reviewed - I'm just going to rest on observation).
But the fact remains that it DOES occur, and it doesn't take many people for the first level of alphas to form... As there are several levels, from the supervisor at your job, to the CEO, to various levels of political leaders.
So, any workable model for any large social structure, be it economics, politics, religion, what have you, should take into account:
1) different solutions for different problems
2) instability via complexity
3) alpha leader behaviors
So far, so good?
Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2010, 07:55:09 PM
So, any workable model for any large social structure, be it economics, politics, religion, what have you, should take into account:
1) different solutions for different problems
2) instability via complexity
3) alpha leader behaviors
So far, so good?
Yeah, that's about right. The point that will be made in #2 (which, of course, comes after #3 :lol: ) is that our culture has reached its complexity limit, that no current models other than oligarchy or autocracy can even pretend to function in a post-republic period, and that given that, we are going to have to figure out how to get by - and even have a good time - in the mess that is on our doorstep.
However, it's impossible to have that discussion until people face some unpleasant facts about monkeys, how they operate, and what that will do to their pet theories.
In short, if a robust system becomes bogged down by complexity, replacing it with a less robust system isn't going to work...Note that oligarchies and autocracies are robust as hell
for a limited period of time. They look appealing as hell, when things are confusing. What they give you, though, can be amply demonstrated by the Peron government of Argentina (to include the flash in the pan dictators that came between them and the republic that preceded their autocratic phase).
More about this tomorrow or Friday. I'm a little too hot under the collar right now.
Ok, now I'm curious how this is gonna be resolved.
LMNO
-needles and pins.
Having read the OP, I am now extremely intrigued by Dok's #2.
Jokes aside, I plan to actually reread and attempt to learn in a permanent way, the content of the OP, so that I can actually bring it up and discuss it IRL with people.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 31, 2010, 08:09:11 PM
Having read the OP, I am now extremely intrigued by Dok's #2.
Jokes aside, I plan to actually reread and attempt to learn in a permanent way, the content of the OP, so that I can actually bring it up and discuss it IRL with people.
#2 will be preceded by 1.5 (on the same day, maybe in the same thread), in which I will be creating a glossary, since one is evidently needed. The English language has become too fucking malleable. This should be fixed by stuffing live badgers down the pants of people who make up new words for old concepts, and who use words utterly incorrectly to score a point (for example, calling illegal immigration an "invasion" to justify military action). Give them a pant load of claws and teeth. That'll cure them. Bastards.
This just in!
Badgers have invaded my pance!
\
:nigel:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 07:52:19 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2010, 07:47:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 07:37:18 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2010, 06:10:46 PM
So, there appears to be two stages of building complexity:
Stage 1 is the amout of entities involved in the system. 3 people pooling profits in a communal way works. As you add more people, the complexity increases until a point is reached where communal sharing is no longer the best method.
Stage 2, by what I gleaned from Dok saying "Global economies and near-instant (or in the case of the Romans, paralyzingly slow) communications seem to be part of the problem," seems to be to be speed of communication. That is, when communication is slow it necessasarily limits
Perhaps there is only one stage of building complexity, which is the amount of people involved. Increases in technology and communication speeds make it possible for more people to become involved. If it takes 3 months to send a message, then only a few people can make decisions or affect the process. If it takes 3 seconds, then far more people can be involved.
So, a population of 300,000 with slow communication may have the same level of complexity as a population of 300, but as soon as you add fast communication, the complexity skyrockets.
Am I babbling, or does this fit?
I think there's multiple causes of complexity, but most of them are only significant in the minds of the population. For example, the internet has allowed vast amounts of uncontrolled communication to take place. Since humans are geared to a pack mentality, the idea that no alpha is in control of that communication bothers people a great deal. Rather than deal with the situation internally or externally, they simply throw up their hands about it...but continue to worry, on a level that they don't even conscioulsy recognize.
Consider: The forum Nazis we've run into at places like Deathbylollipops and CoG are obsessed with making everyone post in the same manner they do, in agreement with the ideas they are comfortable with, or they ban them. This is an effort to impose the pack mentality on what they see as uncontrolled - and thus wrong - information. Rather than process the information, or even - especially - allow "their people" to see/process it, they eliminate it.
Other examples would be globalization of the economy (we can't even predict or control our own economy, let alone a global one), or even arranging that everyone has access to vital services (hence the uproar over healthcare). Far easier, instead, to listen to a demagogue with easy answers than to think things through on your own, given that each of these issues bothers the hell out of people, and there is literally no end to the issues.
So, there should be a general point where an idea like "three people pool resources" turns into "alpha controls pack".
Can a point be identified where this occurs?
For most things, at 8 people, as far as I can see (anecdotal, personal observation of work crews and cabals, here. I once saw a study that reached the same conclusion, but as I can't remember who did it - or even if it was peer reviewed - I'm just going to rest on observation).
But the fact remains that it DOES occur, and it doesn't take many people for the first level of alphas to form... As there are several levels, from the supervisor at your job, to the CEO, to various levels of political leaders.
Hrmmm, this is a good point. So some forms of government seem to work like this... If there are 8 of you and Arthur is the one that keeps whacking the Romans and Picts on the head with a chunk of sharp metal, well the other seven stick a crown on his head and call him King. However, once we no longer have Romans or Picts as threats, 'Alpha' becomes a weird and unwieldy thing, I think. I mean, I think Obama is a fine President, but I don't think he would be considered an Alpha male in most societies, nor would GWB, or Clinton.... or most of the smarmy senators.
That is, most of these guys don't walk into a room and have people ready to follow their lead until they get the most votes. In tribal systems, often the Alpha Male is the Alpha Male because he acts like one, he leads like one and if some other monkey tries to buck him they have a one on one knock down drag out fight until one of them rolls over. The Alpha male is the leader because he exhibits the qualities of the leader, he can lead and he makes the rest of the tribe follow. Many of our Presidents and other politicans seem capable of getting votes from 51+% of the population, but that doesn't necessarily mean that can lead, or force the followers to follow.
Do you think this shift in how we select our Alphas has a negative effect on the political system?
I would suggest that Obama is not the Alpha that controls the society...
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 31, 2010, 08:24:50 PM
Hrmmm, this is a good point. So some forms of government seem to work like this... If there are 8 of you and Arthur is the one that keeps whacking the Romans and Picts on the head with a chunk of sharp metal, well the other seven stick a crown on his head and call him King. However, once we no longer have Romans or Picts as threats, 'Alpha' becomes a weird and unwieldy thing, I think. I mean, I think Obama is a fine President, but I don't think he would be considered an Alpha male in most societies, nor would GWB, or Clinton.... or most of the smarmy senators.
That is, most of these guys don't walk into a room and have people ready to follow their lead until they get the most votes. In tribal systems, often the Alpha Male is the Alpha Male because he acts like one, he leads like one and if some other monkey tries to buck him they have a one on one knock down drag out fight until one of them rolls over. The Alpha male is the leader because he exhibits the qualities of the leader, he can lead and he makes the rest of the tribe follow. Many of our Presidents and other politicans seem capable of getting votes from 51+% of the population, but that doesn't necessarily mean that can lead, or force the followers to follow.
Do you think this shift in how we select our Alphas has a negative effect on the political system?
Whether or not he would be an alpha in most societies is pretty much irrelevant, because the fact is, he's in our society, and he is an alpha...In fact, on the political side, he is the king-hell granddaddy alpha.
And no, I think that humans are happy with an apha, and they're not really all that concerned with how he is picked. Arthur wasn't just valuable when there were Saxons to whack over the head,
he - or rather the position - was even more important afterward. Humans - at least the vast majority of them - NEED an alpha, whether real or imaginated, temporal or ideological. Even you. It's in the wiring.
Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2010, 08:27:26 PM
I would suggest that Obama is not the Alpha that controls the society...
There isn't ONE who does. There are dozens, probably hundreds. The system is far too complicated for a single alpha to control, under the current scheme.
I think this entire thread is going to wind up being pointless if people don't stop getting hung up on the (probably false) notion that there's a solution to this problem. If I understand the point so far, it's building to a conclusion of how to have your fun in spite of being confronted with an unsolvable problem.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 08:29:58 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 31, 2010, 08:24:50 PM
Hrmmm, this is a good point. So some forms of government seem to work like this... If there are 8 of you and Arthur is the one that keeps whacking the Romans and Picts on the head with a chunk of sharp metal, well the other seven stick a crown on his head and call him King. However, once we no longer have Romans or Picts as threats, 'Alpha' becomes a weird and unwieldy thing, I think. I mean, I think Obama is a fine President, but I don't think he would be considered an Alpha male in most societies, nor would GWB, or Clinton.... or most of the smarmy senators.
That is, most of these guys don't walk into a room and have people ready to follow their lead until they get the most votes. In tribal systems, often the Alpha Male is the Alpha Male because he acts like one, he leads like one and if some other monkey tries to buck him they have a one on one knock down drag out fight until one of them rolls over. The Alpha male is the leader because he exhibits the qualities of the leader, he can lead and he makes the rest of the tribe follow. Many of our Presidents and other politicans seem capable of getting votes from 51+% of the population, but that doesn't necessarily mean that can lead, or force the followers to follow.
Do you think this shift in how we select our Alphas has a negative effect on the political system?
Whether or not he would be an alpha in most societies is pretty much irrelevant, because the fact is, he's in our society, and he is an alpha...In fact, on the political side, he is the king-hell granddaddy alpha.
And no, I think that humans are happy with an apha, and they're not really all that concerned with how he is picked. Arthur wasn't just valuable when there were Saxons to whack over the head, he - or rather the position - was even more important afterward. Humans - at least the vast majority of them - NEED an alpha, whether real or imaginated, temporal or ideological. Even you. It's in the wiring.
Sure, I don't debate that point... my question was mostly on how it impacts the system. We're hardwired to have an alpha... but if the alpha doesn't take out the non-alphas that keep barking at him, does the hardwired system still accept him as an alpha? Or is the fact that dissent (other dogs barking and growling) is now accepted, create a diluting effect in the minds of the monkeys?
Art is King cause he'll beat the fuck out of our enemies and any motherfucker that tells him to fuck off.
Obama is President because a small majority of people picked him over McCain and Palin... and he likes to talk with enemies and smile and shake hands and tolerate dissent.
Do you think this difference creates a disconnect in the hard wiring? Or is 'alpha' code for 'I don't care who, someone lead me!'?
EDIT:
IE, if Art were President would we have Teabaggers...since they would presumably get hit in the head with Excalibur... or a .40 calibur ?
Do groups like Teabaggers have a hard wired need for a strong, barking, growling, pooping Alpha?
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 31, 2010, 08:32:10 PM
I think this entire thread is going to wind up being pointless if people don't stop getting hung up on the (probably false) notion that there's a solution to this problem. If I understand the point so far, it's building to a conclusion of how to have your fun in spite of being confronted with an unsolvable problem.
ECH wins the internet. Sorry, Freeky.
However, it's a little more complicated than that, and I'll wind up asking for all manner of input once I post the basic idea.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 31, 2010, 08:42:03 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 08:29:58 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 31, 2010, 08:24:50 PM
Hrmmm, this is a good point. So some forms of government seem to work like this... If there are 8 of you and Arthur is the one that keeps whacking the Romans and Picts on the head with a chunk of sharp metal, well the other seven stick a crown on his head and call him King. However, once we no longer have Romans or Picts as threats, 'Alpha' becomes a weird and unwieldy thing, I think. I mean, I think Obama is a fine President, but I don't think he would be considered an Alpha male in most societies, nor would GWB, or Clinton.... or most of the smarmy senators.
That is, most of these guys don't walk into a room and have people ready to follow their lead until they get the most votes. In tribal systems, often the Alpha Male is the Alpha Male because he acts like one, he leads like one and if some other monkey tries to buck him they have a one on one knock down drag out fight until one of them rolls over. The Alpha male is the leader because he exhibits the qualities of the leader, he can lead and he makes the rest of the tribe follow. Many of our Presidents and other politicans seem capable of getting votes from 51+% of the population, but that doesn't necessarily mean that can lead, or force the followers to follow.
Do you think this shift in how we select our Alphas has a negative effect on the political system?
Whether or not he would be an alpha in most societies is pretty much irrelevant, because the fact is, he's in our society, and he is an alpha...In fact, on the political side, he is the king-hell granddaddy alpha.
And no, I think that humans are happy with an apha, and they're not really all that concerned with how he is picked. Arthur wasn't just valuable when there were Saxons to whack over the head, he - or rather the position - was even more important afterward. Humans - at least the vast majority of them - NEED an alpha, whether real or imaginated, temporal or ideological. Even you. It's in the wiring.
Sure, I don't debate that point... my question was mostly on how it impacts the system. We're hardwired to have an alpha... but if the alpha doesn't take out the non-alphas that keep barking at him, does the hardwired system still accept him as an alpha? Or is the fact that dissent (other dogs barking and growling) is now accepted, create a diluting effect in the minds of the monkeys?
Art is King cause he'll beat the fuck out of our enemies and any motherfucker that tells him to fuck off.
Obama is President because a small majority of people picked him over McCain and Palin... and he likes to talk with enemies and smile and shake hands and tolerate dissent.
Do you think this difference creates a disconnect in the hard wiring? Or is 'alpha' code for 'I don't care who, someone lead me!'?
EDIT:
IE, if Art were President would we have Teabaggers...since they would presumably get hit in the head with Excalibur... or a .40 calibur ?
Do groups like Teabaggers have a hard wired need for a strong, barking, growling, pooping Alpha?
I think more than a few people have a real problem with an alpha that acts on the idea that a soft word and a sharp knife get you more than bellowing and swinging a club.
These people, as you say, fill the ranks of the teabaggers, and also the American Legion and other "nuke 'em all" clubs.
I would say that is also down to filters and perception. Because for them, leaders are charismatic Heroic wish-fulfillment props for their shitty lives, they want someone who they can live through vicariously and who can engage in violent and idealist actions so that they stop being Office Slave #32 but instead part of the War on [Something], fighting bravely (on the home front, of course).
You can't do that with someone who engages in diplomacy and keeps their nastier covert actions silent, so those feelings of resentment and anger are transferred onto them as a proximate cause.
Quote from: Cain on April 01, 2010, 10:24:03 AM
I would say that is also down to filters and perception. Because for them, leaders are charismatic Heroic wish-fulfillment props for their shitty lives, they want someone who they can live through vicariously and who can engage in violent and idealist actions so that they stop being Office Slave #32 but instead part of the War on [Something], fighting bravely (on the home front, of course).
You can't do that with someone who engages in diplomacy and keeps their nastier covert actions silent, so those feelings of resentment and anger are transferred onto them as a proximate cause.
Right on the money.
Quote from: Cain on April 01, 2010, 10:24:03 AM
I would say that is also down to filters and perception. Because for them, leaders are charismatic Heroic wish-fulfillment props for their shitty lives, they want someone who they can live through vicariously and who can engage in violent and idealist actions so that they stop being Office Slave #32 but instead part of the War on [Something], fighting bravely (on the home front, of course).
You can't do that with someone who engages in diplomacy and keeps their nastier covert actions silent, so those feelings of resentment and anger are transferred onto them as a proximate cause.
Excellent point, Cain.
Going to be a delay on the next installment. Fucking steam line just blew out, and I have to go fuck with things.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 05:40:26 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 31, 2010, 11:30:48 AM
The end result, or at least, what I took home from it (apart from becoming more knowledgeable about the general field, of course), is that there apparently is no perfect solution that works in all cases. And that, IMVPO, utilitarianism seems fairest, on the whole.
What works for one situation may not work for another. There is no cookie cutter solution for everything, and to insist that all systems - or any system - would be completely scaleable (as one person has apparently asserted) if only humans were perfectly educated kind of reinforces my point.
IF A SYSTEM REQUIRES PERFECTION OR EVEN GENERAL COMPETENCE ON A LARGE SCALE, IT WILL FAIL.
Skipping three pages of discussion to say: this perfectly crystallizes my thoughts on the matter.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 11:07:25 PM
Quote from: Professor Freeky on March 30, 2010, 10:51:43 PM
The effective solution is that the three of them trade between each other for the things the need. On a large scale, however, people are clawing and scratching to be the guy that everyone goes to for their carrots, or whatever, and everyone wants more than what they really ought to have.
Am I right?
Incorrect. Now you have to build 3 fires to cook with. The effective solution is that you pour what everyone has into a pot, stew it, and everybody eats.
It doesn't work on a large scale, because there's a limit to the size of the fire and the pot. Also, if you continue to centralize beyond a certain point, you have a planned economy (See former Soviet Union for details on how this works out.).
The point here is that good ideas aren't always scalable.
Now, after a certain point, it does make sense to barter (or buy and sell once you curse yourself with currency), due to the above limitations. This will work for a while, but then the inevitable happens. 2 internets to whomever can spot the flaw.
The other problem with the big pot is people who don't grow anything who want some of the soup. Works ok on a small scale, especcially if they do something else that is helpful, but t becomes hard to quantize that when things start to scale up.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 04, 2010, 11:21:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 11:07:25 PM
Quote from: Professor Freeky on March 30, 2010, 10:51:43 PM
The effective solution is that the three of them trade between each other for the things the need. On a large scale, however, people are clawing and scratching to be the guy that everyone goes to for their carrots, or whatever, and everyone wants more than what they really ought to have.
Am I right?
Incorrect. Now you have to build 3 fires to cook with. The effective solution is that you pour what everyone has into a pot, stew it, and everybody eats.
It doesn't work on a large scale, because there's a limit to the size of the fire and the pot. Also, if you continue to centralize beyond a certain point, you have a planned economy (See former Soviet Union for details on how this works out.).
The point here is that good ideas aren't always scalable.
Now, after a certain point, it does make sense to barter (or buy and sell once you curse yourself with currency), due to the above limitations. This will work for a while, but then the inevitable happens. 2 internets to whomever can spot the flaw.
The other problem with the big pot is people who don't grow anything who want some of the soup. Works ok on a small scale, especcially if they do something else that is helpful, but t becomes hard to quantize that when things start to scale up.
AGAIN, NOT THE FUCKING POINT OF THE ANALOGY. GODDAMMIT.
HOW ARE THOSE FILTERS FITTING, BABYLON HORUV? ARE THEY FUCKING COMFORTABLE? DO THEY LET YOU FUCKING SLEEP AT NIGHT?
OOK OOK, YOU GODDAMN PRIMATE.
I FUCKING HATE YOU ALL. DIE.
You know, the complete inability for some people to focus on the topic and not the goddamned sidetrack analogy does a better job of proving Roger's point about filters than anything I could possibly dig up.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 04, 2010, 11:29:59 PM
You know, the complete inability for some people to focus on the topic and not the goddamned sidetrack analogy does a better job of proving Roger's point about filters than anything I could possibly dig up.
Yes. This.
If any of you loved me, you'd all kill yourselves.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 31, 2010, 06:14:02 PM
This is reminding me of Heuristics...
A Heuristic is a tool you use for solving problems. Trial and Error is a heuristic. Compromise is a social heuristic. Voting is a heuristic typically employed in democracies. The logic is that if you're encountering similar types of problems, you employ similar types of solutions.
The danger of relying on heuristics is that humans are bad at figuring out when to apply them. As it's said, "when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." We live in a world where there are certain rules, and when things change, we are bad at evaluating whether we should keep using those rules. I think this stems, in part, from the black swan effect - nobody can accurately predict the future. The current data set might not represent future data sets. A government based on the consent of 50%+1 seemed to work at a smaller scale, now we're seeing that a system in which 49% of the population is constantly pissed off is not a great engine for life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.
The misapplication of heuristics is what leads to cognitive biases. People are failing to legislate away internet piracy because they're still stuck of thinking of data in the same terms as material property. The trick in getting people to not apply the wrong heuristics is to get them to think about the problem in new ways. When you're stuck on a math problem, try drawing a picture of it. Maybe what we need is some new models or rules that will help us understand the bizarre era we're living in.
also relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
majority rule can be a bitch on a small scale too. If you have 3 people, and one of them is always getting the shaft, that is not going to work in any sort of long term. I'd say democracy works best in small but not tiny groups, upwards of twenty but no more than a few hundred.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 04, 2010, 11:26:09 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 04, 2010, 11:21:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 11:07:25 PM
Quote from: Professor Freeky on March 30, 2010, 10:51:43 PM
The effective solution is that the three of them trade between each other for the things the need. On a large scale, however, people are clawing and scratching to be the guy that everyone goes to for their carrots, or whatever, and everyone wants more than what they really ought to have.
Am I right?
Incorrect. Now you have to build 3 fires to cook with. The effective solution is that you pour what everyone has into a pot, stew it, and everybody eats.
It doesn't work on a large scale, because there's a limit to the size of the fire and the pot. Also, if you continue to centralize beyond a certain point, you have a planned economy (See former Soviet Union for details on how this works out.).
The point here is that good ideas aren't always scalable.
Now, after a certain point, it does make sense to barter (or buy and sell once you curse yourself with currency), due to the above limitations. This will work for a while, but then the inevitable happens. 2 internets to whomever can spot the flaw.
The other problem with the big pot is people who don't grow anything who want some of the soup. Works ok on a small scale, especcially if they do something else that is helpful, but t becomes hard to quantize that when things start to scale up.
AGAIN, NOT THE FUCKING POINT OF THE ANALOGY. GODDAMMIT.
HOW ARE THOSE FILTERS FITTING, BABYLON HORUV? ARE THEY FUCKING COMFORTABLE? DO THEY LET YOU FUCKING SLEEP AT NIGHT?
OOK OOK, YOU GODDAMN PRIMATE.
I FUCKING HATE YOU ALL. DIE.
I think I missed the point then. Unless it was no system is one size fits all, they are all going to be appropriate in some situations and not in others. Which I agree with.
And no trouble sleeping, but I think my filters must be loose because I've been having some weird dreams lately.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 04, 2010, 11:49:33 PM
I think I missed the point then.
You illustrated the point.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 12:01:23 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 04, 2010, 11:49:33 PM
I think I missed the point then.
You illustrated the point.
Good, glad to be helpful, even if by being clueless.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 05, 2010, 12:47:44 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 12:01:23 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 04, 2010, 11:49:33 PM
I think I missed the point then.
You illustrated the point.
Good, glad to be helpful, even if by being clueless.
Can't do nothing for ya, man. Re-read the OP, and try again on the farmer analogy.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 04, 2010, 11:37:45 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 04, 2010, 11:29:59 PM
You know, the complete inability for some people to focus on the topic and not the goddamned sidetrack analogy does a better job of proving Roger's point about filters than anything I could possibly dig up.
Yes. This.
If any of you loved me, you'd all kill yourselves.
Sorry, no love from me, the most you get is begrudging respect.
Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2010, 06:10:46 PM
Perhaps there is only one stage of building complexity, which is the amount of people involved. Increases in technology and communication speeds make it possible for more people to become involved. If it takes 3 months to send a message, then only a few people can make decisions or affect the process. If it takes 3 seconds, then far more people can be involved.
So, a population of 300,000 with slow communication may have the same level of complexity as a population of 300, but as soon as you add fast communication, the complexity skyrockets.
Am I babbling, or does this fit?
How about: It's not the people, but the interactions that determine complexity.
2 humans = 2 interaction (both ways)
3 humans = 6
4humans = 12
10 humans = 90
etc
I'm going to start a list of 'good ideas' with an estimate of their effective range.
1 Anarchism( self-mockery ITT); Abstinence
1-8 True equality
2-15 Communism
2-1000 Alpha leader types
2-150 Altruism
2-500 Pure Democracy (voting on issues, not representatives)
6-100k Capitalism
1k-2m Representation
Anybody want to add?
2m+ : no workable solution; grab rifle, seek shelter.
:D
Quote from: Cain on March 31, 2010, 05:46:25 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 31, 2010, 11:30:48 AM
And that, IMVPO, utilitarianism seems fairest, on the whole.
Except that utilitarianism is also another idealistic system which plays fast and loose with how people actually think or behave. In fact, much of late 19th/early 20th century naive idealism in politics (the League of Nations, attempts to outlaw war, general belief in the infalliability of public opinion, that Reason can lead to ethical conduct etc) derived directly from Benthamite utilitarianism.
So while it may be fair, in the short term, it is untenable in the long term.
Yes. I came to this conclusion (that it seems fairest), because its counter-examples (as I said, every school of ethics was bombarded with counter-examples) seemed most contrived. Like the "kill one human, save five" examples I mentioned in another thread a while ago.
The real problem with utilitarianism, as you seem to say (but correct me if I misunderstand you), is that it's simply incredibly hard to keep up. Because some cases (and not even contrived ones) require an enormous amount of self-sacrifice. Like donating large amounts of your income to third world countries, once you found a proper organization that would maximize their happiness most efficiently.
So the real final conclusion I came to, if I had to pick one of these schools, I'd have to pick utilitarianism because it seems most fairest to me, however, I would have to be an immoral utilitarian cause I would not be able to keep it up ... :)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 31, 2010, 05:40:26 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 31, 2010, 11:30:48 AM
The end result, or at least, what I took home from it (apart from becoming more knowledgeable about the general field, of course), is that there apparently is no perfect solution that works in all cases. And that, IMVPO, utilitarianism seems fairest, on the whole.
What works for one situation may not work for another. There is no cookie cutter solution for everything, and to insist that all systems - or any system - would be completely scaleable (as one person has apparently asserted) if only humans were perfectly educated kind of reinforces my point.
IF A SYSTEM REQUIRES PERFECTION OR EVEN GENERAL COMPETENCE ON A LARGE SCALE, IT WILL FAIL.
This, and Cram's mention of the word "Heuristics" reminds me of the No Free Lunch Theorem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_free_lunch_in_search_and_optimization
Basically it describes a situation where it can be mathematically proven that there can be no generic search/optimization procedure (algorithm) that is efficient for every single possible problem. (BTW, also holds for meta-heuristics, which are generic optimization improvement methods, such as "best out of three" voting)
Quote"The 'no free lunch' theorem of Wolpert and Macready," as stated in plain language by Wolpert and Macready themselves, is that "any two algorithms are equivalent when their performance is averaged across all possible problems."[9] The "no free lunch" results indicate that matching algorithms to problems gives higher average performance than does applying a fixed algorithm to all.
Which is basically what you say, right?
The only useful solution to this problem is to use a different algorithm for different problems. Makes sense, but the only way to choose the right algorithm is to make use of "domain knowledge", which is external information based on the particular instance of the problem, but not part of the general class of problems.
In other words, it says (back to real world) you need to apply common sense and critical thinking skills. Which also do not scale well. So I am curious to read your next installments on these subjects :)
This thread has got me pumped. It looks like Dok's in top form lately.
I have nothing more to add, except that I await the next installment with great impatience.
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on April 10, 2010, 12:40:15 AM
This thread has got me pumped. It looks like Dok's in top form lately.
I have nothing more to add, except that I await the next installment with great impatience.
Dok's got jury duty for a couple weeks. We have to wait because of someone else's Constitution granted right to a fair triiiiiaaaal.
How rude of some people.
( :lol: )
Quote from: Professor Freeky on April 10, 2010, 12:43:38 AM
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on April 10, 2010, 12:40:15 AM
This thread has got me pumped. It looks like Dok's in top form lately.
I have nothing more to add, except that I await the next installment with great impatience.
Dok's got jury duty for a couple weeks. We have to wait because of someone else's Constitution granted right to a fair triiiiiaaaal.
How rude of some people.
( :lol: )
Right. I forgot about that.
Have fun, Dok. (he can't even read this right now, can he?)
:mittens: To both the OP and responses in this thread.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 06:44:23 PM
The question is, do you plan to be part of that 99%, or can you train yourself to be part of the 1% that is willing to take the bull by the tail and stare the unpleasant facts in the face? Do you have the GUTS to toss your pet theories when the universe demonstrates that they are wrong? Can you bring yourself to think of something NEW, or at least LOOK at something new? My idea may also be wrong, and I'm willing to see if it can be logically disproven, but before you can apply logic to that idea or anything else, you're going to have to take the blinders off.
- I think the motivation to take the filters and blinders off needs to exceed the motivation to keep them on.
- A major filter of mine is to view almost everything through the filter of individual motivations.
- Thus, I think I'm stuck until I come up with a better theory :-(