Glen, Oh, I don't think that these people are manipulative, particularly. Not at all. There is at least one person on the list I am enthusiastic about. If I were to think anything bad about them (and I don't think I do), it would be that they are naive. I just think that the whole project looks like it is based on the idea that we can analyze, plan, and reform in the societal domain, and I wasn't sure whether that was your cup of tea? I believe that we can do all of those things, but I am beginning to wonder if my commitment to that idea is more a value than a belief. An example of a kind of phenomenon that makes me doubt the possibility of successful social planning is the apparent rush to tear down the confederate battle flag that seems to be surging through the south. Talk about tipping point! Could we have planned for that?
Nick Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 11:01 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution That's a great point. But I suppose it all depends on who composes it. To say a group like this will advocate foolishly or manipulate without admitting that every other group, without exception(!), advocates foolishly and manipulates, is to place too much burden on these particular people. We all do our best to balance what we think should happen against worries that interference could go wrong. (Some of us are better at that balance than others. But that's also true of everyone about everything ... which makes it a useless statement.) In the end, to be against something before it's even begun is a bit silly, I think. Personally, I'm neutral. But it's interesting in the same way Lessig's May One or the genetic literacy project are interesting ... and manipulative. Even more political is the interesting "neoreactionary" movement. I'm even neutral about that, though I think I'm starting to turn a bit against it. The trick, as we've been discussing, is to never flip the bit one way or the other. On 06/29/2015 07:43 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > I am afraid I have not been following this closely enough to know the white > hats from the black hats. I think one of the dimensions of disagreement here > is on the possibility of social planning. If one thinks that the subject > matters studied by sociologists and economists are essentially chaotic, then > social planning is either foolish or manipulative … like bishops telling > parishioners to defer gratification so they, the bishops, can live opulent > lives in the Bishop’s Palace. As a consequence of running such a scam, the > Vatican runs half of Rome, right? That new society sounds like a reforming > and a planning lot. That’s as far as my thinking has gotten on this. As you > see, it’s not very far. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella She'll borrow bullets and return em' to your skull ============================================================ 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
