Continuing in my heckle-mode:
Russ Rote, … striving for civility in the face of rampant aggression and evil makes no sense. … Civility does not solve every problem. Is there a gap between “makes no sense” and “does not solve every problem” Nobody claimed that civility would solve every problem, did they? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:10 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it) There was a good TED talk <https://www.ted.com/talks/caitlin_quattromani_and_lauran_arledge_how_our_friendship_survives_our_opposing_politics?rss#t-852200> by two women who remained friends even though they differed significantly politically. It's important, I believe, to be able to stay friends -- or at remain on civil terms -- with people we disagree with. However, I think that Marcus is right that in certain situations that's not the most important issue. As he said, politics today -- and for the past 2 decades or so -- has not been symmetric. One side, for the most part, has lived by the norm of wanting to remain on civil terms with the other side; the other side, has taken as its priority to grab as much power as possible without regard to anything else. Civil relations be damned. When an aggressor country invades a peaceful neighbor the priority is not to stay on civil terms; it's to survive and repel the invasion. When a psychopath attacks you, one's priority is not to stay on civil terms; it's to defend oneself against the attack. I'm sure there there are honest and civilized conservatives -- for example Ross Douthat of the NYT -- but so many of them don't care about remaining on civil terms. Their priority is to steal as much as possible in any way possible. When Obama nominated Garland and McConnell refused to hold hearings, Obama and Garland stayed on civil terms with McConnell. That didn't make peace or move any useful process forward. In that case it's not clear what else could have been done, but striving for civility in the face of rampant aggression and evil makes no sense. That's why no society can survive without some sort of norm enforcement mechanism, e.g., police, social disapproval, etc. Civility does not solve every problem. On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:40 AM Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com> > wrote: Nick writes: "Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas. It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying." That's a plausible assertion if the topic is about the social properties of the group. I don't see why it is plausible if the topic is some completely different thing, say, like how an engine works, or the diplomatic conditions in North Korea. But I wasn't talking about speaking impulsively, I was talking about speaking without concern for how certain people feel, or what they will do, and only being willing to get down to the brass tacks with them (if there is going to by any interaction at all). I don't see any reason to be generous and forgiving in the way Roberts' describes; it doesn't matter to me how hard the feelings are or how deep the divisions go. I think that is bad advice because it rewards the bully, and encourages him/them to do it again and again, knowing that the opposition with chicken-out in end in the name of civility. So, unlike Steve, I'm not optimizing for peace. (That's a fine thing for him to optimize for, but that's him.) It reminds me of what Christopher Hitchens' said a decade ago about a possible advanced agenda of Christian conservatives: "It wouldn't last very long and would, I hope, lead to civil war, which they will lose, but for which it would be a great pleasure to take part." Marcus _____ From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on behalf of Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net <mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:11:26 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it) Dear Marcus, Owen Allow me to heckle, if you will. Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, in caloris veritas. It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the moment. Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory: he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about anything. I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the social consequences of what we are saying. Hey Frank; did I get the Latin right? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:21 AM To: Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it) Owen, On several occasions over the years, I have been advised by `neural third parties' that the content of my writing can be edgy, but that in person I'm "Not that way" or "He's fine." Now, some people think that in-person interactions are more representative of a person's character. That if we just get in front of one another and _see_ the others' feelings, all conflict will be resolved. No. I would suggest Roberts' (Friedman, and other popular writers) preoccupation with civility is mistaken. Civility may keep people from killing each other, temporarily, but it certainly isn't informative. It is just the application of social skill, and this is not the same thing as listening, thinking, or being honest in debate. It is a weak facilitator. The problem with the current situation is that one side is just dishonest. In the ternary world of politics, the `don't care' folks are in the crossfire, and that is appropriate. Marcus _____ From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on behalf of Owen Densmore <o...@backspaces.net <mailto:o...@backspaces.net> > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 9:04:42 PM To: Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it) Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what we've been dealing with. https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5 Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home. -- Owen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove -- Russ Abbott Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
