I had to do some cybersecurity training and it was set up so that
all the choices one could make led to the same outcome. The point
was to understand the properties of the paths, not the outcome.
While that wisdom might be of some value in some other situation,
often there is no discernable difference between the nuance in a
social rule and variation that arises due to novelty or ambiguity of
circumstances. The signal to noise ratio just isn't high enough to
justify the extra precision. The actors in this training could
have been interpreted as quietly demonstrating concern rather than
neglect. One could imagine a cartel boss would not want to wait
for a reasonable number of outliers before taking action. After all
the cartel boss is a criminal and not concerned with fairness. An
experienced undercover cop knows she needs to mimic the expected
distribution very carefully, and that even if she does mimic it very
carefully her life is still in danger.
Marcus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of glen
<[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 6, 2022 7:57 AM
*To:* [email protected] <[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] more structure-based mind-reading
Well, Steve's targeting of "feeling included" does target
"understanding". I'd argue that the spies don't understand the
communities they infiltrate. Even deep undercover or method acting
doesn't provide understanding. I argue that any bad faith actor like
a spy or "acting while cynical" has a reductive objective as their
target. What was interesting about the concept of bad faith was
Sartre's suggestion that the deep undercover operator who finally
*does* begin to identify with the community they've infiltrated is
the interesting edge case. That's the cusp of understanding.
I suppose I'm making a similar argument to EricC's argument for
"belief", which I call "dispositional". If you don't act on your
belief, then you don't actually believe that thing. So, an
undercover cop who infiltrates a drug cartel but refuses to Necklace
a local do-gooder just doesn't understand what it means to be in the
cartel. They can't understand. And they shouldn't understand. The
spy is there for a more specific objective, not understanding.
One of those more specific objectives might be *prediction*. In
simulation and [x|i]ML, there's a stark distinction between
predictive versus explanatory power. Ideally, strong explanatory
power provides predictive power. But practically, 80/20, reductive
prediction is easier, faster, and more important. The excess meaning
is swept under the rug of variation or noise. At raves, a reductive
objective is harm reduction. Sure, it would be fantastic to teach
all the kids pharmaco[kinetics|dynamics] and chemistry ... as well
as psychology and neuroscience. But the harm reduction tent is not
really there to get into the kids' minds. The objective isn't
understanding. It's a reductive focus on dampening the edge cases.
On 9/3/22 08:47, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> The claim is that there is all this diversity in subcultures and
that the only way to understand them is to participate in them. If
it is possible to fake it, and I think it is, then that raises
doubts about the claim. That is what spies specialize in.
>
>> On Sep 2, 2022, at 7:17 PM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I have spent most of my life avoiding "acting while cynical"...
I have *felt* cynical about a lot of things, and Marcus' description
of a lot of things speaks to my "inner cynic" but I haven't spent
much time being *harmed* by engaging in "performative activities
while feeling cynical about them". If I dig a hole it is either
because *I* need a hole, or someone else *needs* a whole, and only
rarely do I help someone dig a hole as a team/trust/affinity
building exercise unless the There are too many holes in the world
that *want* digging to spend much effort en-performance.
>>
>> I've never felt particulary "included" in any social circle and I
have seen that a little bit of "Performative Grease" might have
helped this square peg fit more-better in the round holes it
encountered, but generally I simply avoided those activities and
drifted further and further out. That is not to say I haven't
*tried* to be a good sport and do what others were doing on the off
chance that it would actually be something that worked for me, but
generally not.
>>
>> BTW... there seems to be some inverted general usage of
"square-peg/round-hole", drilling a round hole and then driving a
square(ish) peg into it guarantees a good tight fit... it is
preferred to round peg-round hole in traditional joinery.
>>
>>> On 9/2/22 8:17 AM, glen wrote:
>>> 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/
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p
Zoomhttps://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
