I wonder what would happen if the penalty were based on the offender’s salary and paid directly to the provider. So, let’s say the provider is earning 25 dollars an hour and the offender is earning 100 dollars an hour. So, now the penalty for THAT offender is 100 dollars per hour, or fragment therof. Would the offender still accept this penalty as a price of doing business?
N Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of David Eric Smith Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2020 7:01 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] millenarianism I don’t know if this embeds within Nick’s thread, but it is a lovely bookend to Marcus’s link: https://econpapers.repec.org/article/ucpjlstud/v_3a29_3ay_3a2000_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a1-17.htm Monetization of high-dimensional things, whether positive or negative, is a death knell. Eric On Jun 7, 2020, at 5:00 AM, Marcus Daniels <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: It’s because we were ruined. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html From: Friam <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > on behalf of "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Date: Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 12:44 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] millenarianism Well, as an ethologist, I should be the first at that barricade. So thanks for reminding me. Examining my own experience, I can only say that you are correct that there is direct pleasure in developing an argument, as “tactile” as the pleasure of forming Silly Putty into smooth balls or blowing bubbles with bubblegum. But that pleasure is eliminated IMMEDIATELY and completely, if I imagine that nobody will ever read and understand what I wrote. That’s a paradox, and one I don’t entirely understand. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2020 1:04 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] millenarianism Nick, I wonder if communicatory behavior is rewarding in its own right just as consummatory behavior is. Meta: I don't know if "communicatory" is a word. But I wanted parallel with "consummatory". --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 12:54 PM <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: We may disagree. I think that some spaces should be safe for some purposes. The question to be discussed, on a case by case basis, is, Are the functions of a space improved or diminished by making it “safe” in some specific way. But there’s another point, here. Assuming one is trying to convince others, not just mouthing off, when does aggressive rhetoric assist in changing minds. And if one is NOT trying to change minds, why exactly are we talking? That’s NOT a rhetorical question. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2020 12:01 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] millenarianism Nick writes: < Surely there is SOME value, SOME times, in just trying to “get on”. > I don’t see why the absence of that is hostility, or even bad. I do see situations in which individuals want latitude to have any remarks they make taken as valid and kind should be afforded the same discomfort they impose on others. I certainly am not arguing for safe spaces. Actual safe spaces are controlled by people that hold some power. Tear down that power – prevent communities -- and discussions will be safe. Marcus - .... . -..-. . ...- --- .-.. ..- - .. --- -. -..-. .-- .. .-.. .-.. -..-. -... . -..-. .-.. .. ...- . -..-. ... - .-. . .- -- . -.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . ...- --- .-.. ..- - .. --- -. -..-. .-- .. .-.. .-.. -..-. -... . -..-. .-.. .. ...- . -..-. ... - .-. . .- -- . -.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . ...- --- .-.. ..- - .. --- -. -..-. .-- .. .-.. .-.. -..-. -... . -..-. .-.. .. ...- . -..-. ... - .-. . .- -- . -.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
