On 01/25/2018 05:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > My take is that they wanted someone that would project into their (lower > dimensional) tribal space in a seamless way. It was an important part of > how they got along. > > You alluded to collective measures of fitness. A progressive’s measure of > fitness is not unlike Shannon entropy – let a thousand flowers bloom. A > conservative, however, fears that entropy will be too costly and that people > will forget previous fit strategies. In principle, maximizing entropy could > push out cultural norms since that is copied information. Imagine a finite > length bit string representing a program where skills related to football > were sacrificed for skills related to curling or dancing (or more esoteric > topics). If you think that the available bit string is short, that then one > might worry about locally (or universally) promoting the `right’ cultural > information in order for people to get along.
That's a great way to characterize the individualist vs. communitarian dichotomy. But I still think it's too false. The available bit string is so large it may as well be infinite. I could go further, I think, and assert that it's binned so thoroughly (hierarchically even) that it might as well not even be a discrete list at all. But what I'm going to say doesn't depend on the continuity of that machine. If the "metaphors everywhere" people are right, then it's reasonable to infer learning to use football as social grease would be trivial as long as the learner already has *some* form of grease. E.g. if one's used to schmoozing with colleagues in terms of ballroom dancing, that person can learn just enough of the rules and norms of football fans (and to whatever extent necessary, of the game, players, owners, etc.) and map that schema onto their extant ballroom dancing schema. We can do that analogizing because our "bit string" is reflective, parts of the bit string turn on or off other parts of it, chunk parts of it, etc. Of course, some domains select for different types of machine. The real trick, I think, lies in whether "conservatism" assumes less adaptability. Neoliberals, typically called "conservative" these days, should be comfortable with high entropy strategies because a tactic that emerged before will *re-emerge* if it's still appropriate. But authoritarian conservatives probably wouldn't. Similar binning can occur on the progressive's side. Those football fans you met with are probably a bit authoritarian, regardless of whether they're progressive or conservative, ultimately. Regardless of all my rhetoric, though, I think I see the point. A highly adaptive person may find it easy and good to sometimes merge with the mob, then decouple for awhile, then merge with another mob, etc. But a less adaptive person may accidentally *fall* into some form of groupthink and never find the opportunity to escape. That reduces my point to one of "be careful of falling into the groupthink trap that is individualism". -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ 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
