Jewish proverb" " A whole fool is half a prophet."
My friend Avraham (non FRIAM) recently mentioned that my description of how and why I want to totally reinvent the manner in which most software is developed as "prophetic." davew On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, at 2:33 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote: > Pay it forward, bet on the loonie. > > -- rec -- > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 2:23 PM Nick Thompson <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Roger, ____ >> __ __ >> That was exactly my point. That’s what makes it “altruistic” in some sense >> to be a looney- croney, i.e.,, to be somebody who invests in a single >> looney. Unless all looney-cronies take out a common insurance policy, most >> are going to lose. Yet, it is the loonies that explore new spaces, and thus, >> with their individual sacrifices, benefit the whole. So you don’t need to be >> dubious, any more. ____ >> __ __ >> 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:* Wednesday, September 18, 2019 2:03 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake____ >> __ __ >> Read a blog post at https://stratechery.com/2019/day-two-to-one-day/ >> yesterday which was examining Amazon's balance of harvesting (twiddling the >> search engine to maximize Amazon's profits) versus investing (putting up >> $800 million to achieve single day deliveries) against the stated Bezos >> principles of how Amazon should work. That's the same exploit/explore >> tradeoff that reinforcement learning tries to automate, it's the decision >> between optimizing the bottom line or attempting to grow the area of the >> plane that the bottom line rests upon, it's searching where the light is >> good versus exploring the shadows, wandering around with your favorite >> hammer looking for nail-like problems versus browsing a yard sale and >> finding a new tool.____ >> __ __ >> Nick's assertion that investing in fringes never pays off on average seems >> highly suspect. Much of what we take for granted in our world was so far on >> the fringe that it didn't even exist in 1819. So, no, for an individual >> making investment decisions being a looney-croney rarely pays off, but for >> the economy as a whole the loonies have run the table time and time >> again.____ >> __ __ >> -- rec --____ >> __ __ >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:21 AM Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> >> wrote:____ >>> I wouldn’t invest it in research, I’d invest it in development and then >>> hire a team that understood research. There is $5k spent per person (all >>> persons) by venture capital in San Francisco alone. That’s not like the ~ >>> $500k per person at a DOE government lab, but the total amount in the >>> region is about like the combined DOE and NSF budgets, of which only a >>> fraction goes to research anyway.____ >>> ____ >>> *From: *Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of Nick Thompson >>> <[email protected]> >>> *Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> <[email protected]> >>> *Date: *Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 9:07 AM >>> *To: *'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>> <[email protected]> >>> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake____ >>> ____ >>> Steve, ____ >>> ____ >>> If you had money to invest on research, and were hoping to make 5 percent >>> on your money, would you give it to an nsf vetted project, or to a random >>> project? The former, surely. Yet, if everybody invests that way, all the >>> money ends up being piled up in the middle and nothing novel is ever tried. >>> We need the loonies, and we need some crazy people who have faith in >>> loonies. They are the equivalent to “sports” in a breeding program. Without >>> loonies and their cronies, there is no variation for selection to work on. >>> Unfortunately, most people who bet on loonies loose. Yes, a few win big, >>> but most lose. So, on average, it doesn’t pay to be a loonie-croney. That’s >>> the paradox. This leads me to the conclusion that madness is a form of >>> altruism. ____ >>> ____ >>> 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 *Steven A >>> Smith >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 18, 2019 11:35 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake____ >>> ____ >>> Dave - >>> ____ >>>> ____ >>>> It seems like the ideas that seem to capture my imagination - Sheldrake, >>>> quantum consciousness among them - tend to be labeled as "pseudo." This is >>>> annoying, first because my hermeneutical hackles bristle whenever anyone >>>> tries to assert their interpretation as privileged over someone else's; >>>> and because there seem to be so many cross-connections that afford all >>>> within the net to gain plausibility simply from being in the net.____ >>>> ____ >>> Thanks for making this point and sharing this predilection. I find a >>> duality in this experience myself which can be a challenge to manage. I >>> deeply share your suspicion/resentment of "privileged interpretation". I >>> also am deeply suspicious of persuasive modes of communication (NLP as an >>> extreme example, bad but conventional rhetoric second to that). I have been >>> a direct "victim" of this in my life from time to time, but more >>> chronically I have *observed* others being persuaded to believe things for >>> which there is either shaky evidence or which is highly contradicted by the >>> evidence available. My judgement of this can sound or feel like my own >>> positioning with "privileged interpretation" which is what makes >>> manipulative rhetoric so insidious. I agree that all that is labeled >>> "pseudo" is not false or flimsy, or is only *contingently* so. ____ >>> On the other hand, one of the common tools I've seen in this type of >>> manipulative rhetoric is to *claim* that dismissal by the mainstream is >>> nearly "proof" of truthiness. For example, Climate Denial, AntiVax, >>> ChemTrails, UFOlogy, etc. seem to hold up as their prime (or at least >>> significant) evidence the simple fact that the "mainstream" or the >>> "establishment" dismisses them. The apparent bias of many to believe >>> anything wrapped up in the trappings of a "conspiracy".____ >>> On the other other hand, new or changing or revolutionary paradigms in >>> knowledge are *naturally* strongly or fundamentally counter to the >>> common/standard "truth". Copernicus and Galileo and their move from >>> geocentric to heliocentric astronomical models.____ >>> You use the phrase "capture my imagination" which I find *also* holds a >>> dualism for me. On the one hand, I believe that intuition is a critical >>> element in my own understanding and knowledge of the world. On the other, I >>> find that my "imagination" is vulnerable to "whimsy" and a carefully >>> constructed "whimsy" can be as compelling in it's own way as the biases of >>> "conspiracy". The carrot to go with the stick.____ >>> Being trained formally in Science and Mathematics, I have a deep respect >>> for the methods and sensibilities of those domains. Working in "Big >>> Science" among a broad cross-cutting set of disciplines (27 years at LANL) >>> also gave me a deep suspicion of "received wisdom". While the largest >>> portion of the work I observed stood on it's own merits, the largest >>> portion of the *funding* for the work seemed to follow the biases of >>> "privileged interpretation" and "received wisdom". I also felt that >>> *publication* of scientific work went through a similar but not as extreme >>> biased filter. Peer review and reproduction of results are central to >>> scientific progress, so this can be problematic. On the other, other, other >>> hand, irresponsible publication of "hooey" without proper peer review seems >>> somewhat pervasive and corrupts the process in it's own insidious way.____ >>> <ramble off>____ >>> - 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 >>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove____ >> ============================================================ >> 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 >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > ============================================================ > 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 > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
