https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME
-- rec -- On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > Nick, > > It's the _shocked_ outrage I find tiresome. By all means be outraged at > any and all forms of corruption that take your fancy, and forge that > outrage into action. > > But if someone is shocked and thinks that shock is worth mentioning, > then he or she hasn't been paying attention or is exhibiting another kind > of "willful ignorance". > > -- rec -- > > Roger (et alii) - > > And what of "shocked but not surprised"? > > The longer I live, the more I experience this dichotomy... my intellectual > self has catalogued a wide enough range of behaviour and experience in the > world, that when confronted with a specific new point fact in the universe, > I can usually find a place to hang it in my world-view tree, but that > doesn't mean it doesn't disturb my soul when I first apprehend the > "factoid" in question. > > I wonder how this is affected by our wide-ranging apprehension mediated > (mostly, or formerly) by journalism (nod to Tom) and now (more recently) > crowd-sourcing of information from around the world (including in the > (willfully hidden from self?) corners of our own back yards). On one hand > we get desensitized (thus losing "shock value") and on the other hand we > are given much more context in which to help us properly understand > whatever "shocked but not surprised" factoid just got bounced off our > apprehension. > > Every time I feel "shocked" (if not surprised) I am thankful that my soul > remains tender enough to experience that. While I do have plenty of > callouses of cynicism, it is nice to be reminded that I am still alive > inside these multiple layers of insulation (economic and other forms of > security, cynicism, etc.). > > - Steve > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Nick Thompson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> But Roger, isn’t this a ticket to apathy? Where is the spur to action >> without outrage? I know that question sounds odd, but I am really asking >> it. Nick >> >> >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology >> >> Clark University >> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Roger >> Critchlow >> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:37 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher >> Education >> >> >> >> Of course the really fun thing about statistics is the ongoing discussion >> about the "willful ignorance" of scientists submitting papers with >> technically correct but wholly dubious claims of statistical significance, >> because -- rather, becorrelate -- their salaries depend on getting >> published. Funny that the language naturally inserts a causal claim into >> that observation, where I would rather put the cause on the system than the >> individuals, and I have to invent a word to back off >> >> >> >> I'm tending to see this issue theologically. The technical name for >> "we're all imperfect and we've always been so" is original sin. Feeling a >> bit of impostor syndrome? That's how the personal experience of original >> sin manifests. Disgusted that cops aren't fair, that rich people get >> privileges, that politicians repay rich people with more privileges, that >> FIFA is corrupt, that Australia outsources immigrant detention camps to >> Nauru, that Nauru denies visas to Australian civil rights lawyers seeking >> to defend immigrant rights, and so on? Yeah, well, be disgusted, but try >> not to get too righteous about it and spare us the expressions of shocked >> outrage. If you're shocked at this, then you haven't been paying attention. >> >> >> >> So, are there any entirely good or entirely bad persons? Or are they >> entirely figments of our imaginations? >> >> >> >> -- rec -- >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:10 AM, glen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Statistics is one tool. I'm not sure it's the most powerful tool, >> though. I tend to think the best tool is ... well, it goes by many names. >> One name is "active listening" ... "empathy" ... etc. The technique is >> well known to all of us (well unless we're autistic or psychopathic). When >> you hear someone say something that just sounds wrong, there are 2 basic >> steps: >> >> 1) find out why you think they're wrong (including the statistics that >> surround any of the facts involved), and >> 2) try to figure out what the speaker _really_ means by whatever nonsense >> they're spouting. >> >> Since I don't believe our thoughts are very accurate at all, I have no >> problems empathizing with someone who spouts (apparent) nonsense. I do it >> myself on a regular basis. I try not to. But it's difficult. In fact, >> the reason I find purposeful nonsense (including climate denial or >> chemtrails, but more like chatbots) so cool is because of the accidental >> nonsense in which we bathe. >> >> >> >> On 06/09/2015 08:36 AM, Grant Holland wrote: >> > Righto. So what we do is put a measure on "how much confidence" we >> have. Statistics gives us some tools for that - namely the "moment >> functionals" (mean, variance, skewness, etc.); and information theory gives >> us some more general tools for that - entropy and the other entropic >> funtionals. So maybe it's a mixture of the relative and the absolute. Maybe >> we've moved up to the "junior" level? >> > >> > Grant >> > >> > On 6/9/15 9:14 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> >> Correct. Nothing is certain. We've known that since Kant. NOW >> what? That >> >> there are no certain facts does not imply that some facts are not more >> >> enduring and useful than others. We need to get beyond the sophomoric >> >> revelation that "everything is relative." >> >> -- >> ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella >> Float away from those horizons >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
