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...
>>>
