OK. But the affinity and "inner self" alluded to by the phrase "faking it" is
nothing but a personality momentum, a build-up of past behaviors, like a fly-wheel spun up by all
the previous affinities and faking of it. We faked it in our mom's womb, faked it as babies, faked
it as children on the playground or in class, etc. all the way up to the last time we faked it
digging ditches or pair programming in Java.
The only difference between feeling an affinity and engaging in a new faking it
exercise is the extent to which the new collaboration is similar to the
previous collaborations. As both Steve and Dave point out, spend enough time
living in a world and you'll grow affine to that world (and the world will grow
affine to you).
I suppose it's reasonable to posit a spectrum (or a higher dim space) on which
some people have particularly inertial fly-wheels and others have more easily
disturbed things that store less energy. Of the Big 5, my guess would be
neuroticism would be most inertial. Perhaps openness and agreeableness would be
the least inertial.
On 9/2/22 05:35, Marcus Daniels wrote:
There are many common tasks that parties could direct their attention toward.
This happens at companies, prison cafeterias, and churches. That it is
grounded in a particular way doesn't make it any truer, or anyone more
committed to it. We are often forced to participate in cultures we don't care
about, and faking it is an important skill. Just because someone sweats or
gets calluses or tolerates others' inappropriate emotions in some circle of
people, doesn't mean there is any affinity toward that circle. Oh look, he
dug a hole. I dug a hole. Sure, I'd do those kind of performative
activities if I were a politician, as I bet there are people who think this way.
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 12:06 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] more structure-based mind-reading
And, of course, there is no such thing except appearance. What could it
possibly mean to say that an appearance of a bond exists, but no actual bond
exists?
On September 1, 2022 7:29:45 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <[email protected]>
wrote:
If you want to create the appearance of a bond where none exists, get to work.
Once one recognizes the nature of work it is easy.
On Sep 1, 2022, at 6:25 PM, Prof David West <[email protected]> wrote:
From glen: "If you want to share values with some arbitrary shmoe, then get to
*work*. Build something or cooperate on a common task. Talking,
communicating, is inadequate at best, disinfo at worst."
This is kinda the whole point of Participant Observation at the core of
cultural anthropology. The premise is you cannot truly understand a culture
until you live it.
Of course, there is still a boundary, a separation, between the anthropologist
and those with whom she interacts, but sweat, calluses, blood, and emotions go
a long way toward establishing actual understanding.
davew
On Thu, Sep 1, 2022, at 12:30 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
On 9/1/22 11:21 AM, glen wrote:
Inter-brain synchronization occurs without physical co-presence during
cooperative online gaming
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393222001750
There's a lot piled into the aggregate measures of EEG. And the mere fact of the canalization
conflates the unifying tendencies of the objective (shared purpose) with that of the common
structure (virtual world, interface, body, brain). But overall, it argues against this guru focus
on "sense-making" (hermeneutic, monistic reification) and helps argue for the fundamental
plurality, openness, and stochasticity of "language games".
If you want to share values with some arbitrary shmoe, then get to *work*.
Build something or cooperate on a common task. Talking, communicating, is
inadequate at best, disinfo at worst.
I agree somewhat with the spirit of this, however a recent writer/book I discovered is Sand
Talk<https://www.harpercollins.com/products/sand-talk-tyson-yunkaporta?variant=32280908103714>
by Tyson Yunkaporta and more specifically his references to "Yarning" in his
indigenous Australian culture offered me a complementary perspective...
I definitely agree that the "building of something together" is a powerful
world-building/negotiating/collaborative/seeking experience. The social sciences use the term Boundary
Object<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_object> and Boundary Negotiation Artifact. Jenny and I wrote
a draft white-paper on the topic of the SimTable as a "boundary negotiating artifact" last time she
visited (2019?). A lot of computer-graphics/visualization products provide fill this role, but the physicality
of a sand-table with it's tactility and multiple perspectives add yet more. The soap-box racer or fort you build
with your friend as a kid provides the same. The bulk of my best relationships in life involved "building
something together" whether it be a software system or a house...
--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
