Glen writes,
"Anyway, my point is basically that even the majority-vs-minority conception is
in the domain of Light. To be Dark means appreciating the entire (occult)
mechanism, but especially focusing on the rarely used pathways."
I'll distinguish between popular and powerful pathways. A re
On 06/29/2015 10:43 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Discovery of better models can invalidate consensus and orthodoxy. This leads to vested
interests being threatened and disruption. A typical response to this is to isolate the
disrupter. Tying them to stake and burning them is one way. Another
"If that's what you mean, then, yeah, OK. However, I prefer to call it Chaos
Magick or the Left-Hand Path. It's not dark ... just creepy. "
Discovery of better models can invalidate consensus and orthodoxy. This leads
to vested interests being threatened and disruption. A typical response t
On 06/27/2015 01:11 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
I'm left wondering if said darkness is a zero=sum and what the externalities of
such maunderings are?
I admit there is a sense that sentiment is zero-sum, the intuitive sense that
if you have a really positive response to some stimulus, then you can'
Nick wrote:
Glen wrote
No. I think the bulk of non-zero sum gains are a result of co-evolution of
competing scrutiny, the exploitation of niches the players stumbled upon
together. I.e. they're really zero-sum games where the externalities aren't
recognized by the players. And in that sense,
ent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 12:12 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
>
> On 06/26/2015 04:36 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > CBS or Comcast cover that, but also the evening news. In various
> situatio
glen ep ropella wrote:
On 06/26/2015 04:36 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
CBS or Comcast cover that, but also the evening news. In various situations
such conglomerates may find it in their interest to present information in
ways that benefit their bottom line, even to audiences that are above t
al Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ep ropella
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 12:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
On 06/26/2015 04:36 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> CBS or Comca
On 06/26/2015 04:36 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> CBS or Comcast cover that, but also the evening news. In various situations
> such conglomerates may find it in their interest to present information in
> ways that benefit their bottom line, even to audiences that are above the
> least common de
Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 7:28 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
That scratch in my surface jumps me back, yet again, to the postmodern
"Yeah but that process will tend toward the least common denominator. It's why
we end up with silly infotainment news programs that emphasize the weather
forecast and cute pictures of kids on their birthday."
CBS or Comcast cover that, but also the evening news. In various situations
such con
On 06/26/2015 03:21 PM, Steve Smith wrote:> Maybe a restatement of Glen's point
would be:
Misinformation and disinformation are a given:
How we manage our trust is the challenge.
Well, not quite. I would have said that trust is an unreachable limit. (And
distrust should also be an
``That person also could have said something like "People have diverse methods
for deciding what online content to trust", which would also been more useful.
It would imply that some of us are gullible and some of us are skeptical. But
I think what they really meant was "People are not very di
and what to let slide?
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 5:28 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
That scratch i
On 06/26/2015 02:55 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Are there not more and less risky sources? If you have source that provides
you with high-quality, predictive information, over and over and they are
right, should not that individual be allowed less scrutiny than a person that
has no track reco
FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
That scratch in my surface jumps me back, yet again, to the postmodern point:
Beware of the online war of propaganda
http://news.usc.edu/82853/beware-of-the-war-of-propaganda-taking-place-online/
> “People normally trust online content,” said Farshad Ko
That scratch in my surface jumps me back, yet again, to the postmodern point:
Beware of the online war of propaganda
http://news.usc.edu/82853/beware-of-the-war-of-propaganda-taking-place-online/
“People normally trust online content,” said Farshad Kooti, one of the Ph.D.
candidates at USC Vi
17 matches
Mail list logo
