Funny. I was just musing that social media is related to the thumbs up/ down of the Colosseum of ancient Rome! :-)
On Mar 29, 6:28 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh, the credits for pointing out the possibility/likelihood of being the > subject/object of distortions go to Rigs! Omitting the predicate might have > evoked the feeling you could have missed something, but no, you're right, > there was no point. > > The "Oh shit!" pedagogic method is called "black pedagogy", not to be > mistaken with "black humor", or with the connections to the past that Rigs > draws. > > Hey Neil, how about "New Shades Of Black" as a book title for the book I > have pre-ordered from you? Ok, I admit, I'm not really waiting, I have > already started reading. :) > > 2013/3/28 James <[email protected]> > > > > > One approach that I've rarely caught in a class is a teacher taking a no > > BS approach to the material. It seems useful to have a frank historical > > perspective on what motivates the theories or breaches the old paradigms, > > perhaps a creative excursion into cultural universals. Maybe picking a few > > wacky examples of applied economics and let them get a good laugh, then > > show parallels with their culture to get them thinking. > > > One example is ancient civilizations using up natural resources, then > > looking over the forecasted impact of the US aquifers bottoming out. > > Suddenly the conservationists don't sound as alarmist, is there a word for > > the "Oh shit!" pedagogic method? No offense but economics sounds boring in > > itself, but your thoughts here make it sound interesting. Are you allowed > > to hint to the class when you think something is little more than an > > academic publishing circle jerk? > > > Hmm, what you've said about 'distorting filters' has me wondering if I > > missed gabby's point. You lost a book and I was born.. :D > > > On 3/27/2013 7:28 PM, archytas wrote: > > >> I've just read a book that says neo-classical economics is just an > >> ideology forced down our throats by the vile rich - actually the whole > >> book probably says less than that as the authors won't call a spade a > >> spade. Gabby seems to have read he book too. It came 30 years too > >> late. I could have missed all those research methods classes and > >> worried less about feeling economics was a load of junk that could > >> only make sense to Monty Python's dead Norwegian Blue parrot. Perhaps > >> economists have just discovered the archive of my lecture notes, lost > >> on a bus in Lancaster in 1983? I seem to remember they advocated > >> swapping one set of distorting filters for another and mentioning the > >> term paradigm a lot. Big data was barred as positivist - a term I > >> loosely translated as 'guileless scientist like you Neil'. You had to > >> call data 'capta' to be in with the crowd that mistakenly thought it > >> was the in crowd, socially constructed facts from thin air I > >> interpreted as a source for green hydrocarbon production and taught me > >> to spell phenomenological. > > >> On Mar 25, 10:02 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> The Big Picture via distorting filters onto Big Data? > > >>> 2013/3/24 andrew vecsey <[email protected]> > > >>> I do not think that we lie to our self so much as that we only see/hear > >>>> what we want to see/hear. Also we tend to say what we think the other > >>>> persons wants to hear or say things to hurt other people. > >>>> On Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:46:03 AM UTC+1, rigs wrote: > > >>>>> I am more interested in why we lie to ourselves, suppress reality and > >>>>> snarl logic in our brains. There are life and death moments of > >>>>> survival, I suppose, but much of our potential is engineered by family > >>>>> and culture in order to achieve some sort of control and order. Even > >>>>> rebels are often little more than a reaction. Pretense and etiquette > >>>>> are often the same thing.//I must have "lost" my thought re "big > >>>>> data"/"Big Daddy? as an organizer of human knowledge versus the > >>>>> present scatterings and specialties.// Yes- I agree most have a gut > >>>>> reaction- but so do other life forms- it's a survival mechanism. But > >>>>> it can be distorted. > >>>>> On Mar 24, 4:12 am, andrew vecsey <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>> Faked enthusiasm is as easy to spot as fake love. It is like a built > >>>>>> in > >>>>>> like a lie detector that god created us with. Sounds like a good way > >>>>>> to > >>>>>> detect lying on the internet. You can call it "god" instead of "big > >>>>>> brother". > >>>>>> On Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:08:39 PM UTC+1, archytas wrote: > >>>>>> ..................... > > >>>>>>> Quite what junk DNA is has raised a big recent controversy - gist at > >>>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/****science/2013/feb/24/**<http://www.guardian.co.uk/**science/2013/feb/24/**> > > >>>>>> scientists-attacked-ove.<http:**//www.guardian.co.uk/science/** > >>>>> 2013/feb/24/scientists-**attacked-ove<http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/feb/24/scientists-attacked-ove> > >>>>> .>.. > > >>>>>> I agree with rigs that the term is unfortunate. > >>>>>>> ........but I could feign 'enthusiasm' .. > >>>>>>> ........' to detect resistance! Even this > >>>>>>> .....no employees dumb enough to support > >>>>>>> excellence, ...... > >>>>>>> if we spent out time pointing such devices at > >>>>>>> each other though rigs! Watch out for the first one minute dating > >>>>>>> agency providing such! Arghh" . > >>>>>>> On Mar 22, 1:06 pm, rigs <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Junk is an unfortunate adjective- it sounds too random. My guess is > >>>>>>>> that further selection takes place in this area which selects the > >>>>>>>> strongest marker- or whatever it's called- such in the color of > > >>>>>>> eyes, > > >>>>>> hair, and other characteristics. There are also generational skips > > >>>>>>> in > > >>>>>> play. I have noted other strange echoes of a missing parent such as > >>>>>>>> the style of laughter which is a surprise and so many other > >>>>>>>> recognitions. At any rate, we are just beginning to sort through > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>> data in this one area as in others- I think it is called "big data" > >>>>>>>> which will overcome the religious notion of "sins of the father" > > >>>>>>> stuff > > >>>>>> as well as curses and fate and will hopefully allow a more rational > >>>>>>>> and postive approach/life choices for each unique individual. But > > >>>>>>> it > > >>>>>> will also cause mischief. > >>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 5:16 am, andrew vecsey <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> Not all DNA code for protein. We have non coding DNA called "junk > > >>>>>>>> DNA" > > >>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>> ensure we are all unique. While normal DNA codes for protein to > > >>>>>>>> make, > > >>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>> example a "nose", junk DNA ensures that we grow a nose that > > >>>>>>>> "looks" > > >>>>>> like a > > >>>>>>>> mixture of our father`s and our mother`s nose. > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 22, 2013 12:36:39 AM UTC+1, Ash wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> My thoughts didn't include "junk DNA", my thinking on such > > >>>>>>>>> terms are > > >>>>>> mixed in that some genes may not be useful or represent just > > >>>>>>>>> another > > >>>>>> failure point, but also that the supposed junk in one set of > >>>>>>>>>> circumstances may prove quite beneficial in others like a > > >>>>>>>>> backup, an > > >>>>>> alternate development chain or complex interdependencies we > > >>>>>>>>> haven't > > >>>>>> observed yet. You may have a connection in mind I haven't > > >>>>>>>>> gleaned. > > >>>>>> Developing the market sounds similar but I am trying to root > > >>>>>>>>> out an > > >>>>>> aspect of this that doesn't require jumping to a premature > > >>>>>>>>> conclusion, > > >>>>>>>> such as in 'intelligent design', materialism, rigid ontologies > > >>>>>>>>> or > > >>>>>> realism. Thanks for helping me explore here gabby, lets hope > > >>>>>>>>> some > > >>>>>> form > > >>>>>>>> emerges in expression. :) > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2013 3:57 AM, gabbydott wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> Now that sounds more like you. :) > >>>>>>>>>>> What you are describing or asking I now > > >>>>>>>>>> understand/interpret/hear > > >>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>> terms of what I know about what they are trying to find out > > >>>>>>>>>> about > > >>>>>> "junk DNA". Its purpose/function/added value. As for what you > > >>>>>>>>>> describe > > >>>>>>>> as another way, I know/experience/see this in what the > > >>>>>>>>>> companies > > >>>>>> describe as "developing the market". We are still on topic, > > >>>>>>>>>> aren't > > >>>>>> we? > > >>>>>>>> 2013/3/21 James <[email protected] <javascript:> <mailto: > > >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] <javascript:>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I have a feeling you are being charitable with me gabby > > >>>>>>>>>> (cringe). > > >>>>>>>> What you say makes sense, and should add that the intent > > >>>>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>> refer > > >>>>>>>> to is in excess of that needed for mere gene survival > > >>>>>>>>>> fitness. > > >>>>>> In > > >>>>>>>> that sense I consider the adaptations as simulations and > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>> excess as breaking the barriers of meta-simulation, or in > > >>>>>>>>>> another > > >>>>>>>> way, not just running within time but operating on it by > > >>>>>>>>>> taking > > >>>>>>>> advantage of the rules and finding ways to bend them. Now > > >>>>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>> is my > > >>>>>>>> turn to ask, does that make sense [to anyone]? > >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2013 3:01 AM, gabbydott wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't know if this is good or bad, but i hear > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
