glen ep ropella wrote:
On 06/26/2015 04:36 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
CBS or Comcast cover that, but also the evening news. In various situations
such conglomerates may find it in their interest to present information in
ways that benefit their bottom line, even to audiences that are above the least
common denominator. Even if their news programs are credible and honest most
of the time, it's exceptional times where their reputation can be monetized.
These situations could plausibly impact people as much as propaganda.
Another good point that argues to the same conclusion, because anyone who
succumbs to flipping the trust bit opens themselves up to that sort of creeping
exploitation. That slow, imperceptible programming probably has _way_ more
impact than the relatively episodic nature of propaganda.
My brother-in-law moved from Socialist Spain in the late 80s where the
media was strictly state-controlled to Chile where they were able to
get, among other things, CNN. He thought he was in fat-city and
watched CNN religiously for world news, feeling like it was a drink of
cool clear pure spring-water. Then one day they were showing "riots"
at the capitol in Santiago which I drove past every morning and every
evening and in fact there were no riots... there were a few relatively
sedate collections of people with signs protesting, but the footage he
saw on CNN was patently a violent clash of protesters and police. Not
only did he drive past it every day but his co-workers were all Chilean
and would have known if there were violent clashes... they all laughed
at him when he said "but I SAW it on CNN!"... he never was able to
suss out exactly what the footage they showed was from, though there
*had* been violent protests at the capital over the last few years, it
must have been archival, and perhaps was presented as such (though he
insists it wasn't) but the net effect was to "flip his trust bit"
abruptly and irrevocably.
On 06/27/2015 06:50 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:> Glen,
Don't the bulk of non-zero sum gains arise from trust?
see MOTH, for instance.
No. I think the bulk of non-zero sum gains are a result of co-evolution of
competing scrutiny, the exploitation of niches the players stumbled upon
together. I.e. they're really zero-sum games where the externalities aren't
recognized by the players. And in that sense, if it is trust that prevents
them from recognizing the externalities, then trust is tantamount to ignorance.
I think this is a very interesting and profound point you two are
teasing out here. I have always wondered about the rhetoric of
zero-sum games... I have always suspected, as Glen suggests here that
the measure, the "sum" in question is very relative and contextual and
as stated here, is based on "ignoring externalities". It would seem in
the rhetoric of thermodynamics and the second-law and whatall that all
games are "negative sum"... that *any* turn of *any* crank is just
futile if you are seeking a positive sum from it. Neitczhe must have
loved it!
On the other hand, human "games" do not trade in conserved quantities
and concepts such as "love" may very well be the stuff of "positive
sums"... even if loyalty and nationalism might not be? Seems like the
kinds of things an evolutionary psychologist would know about?
- Steve
============================================================
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
