An interesting definition: "psychology is the discipline that explores the contradictions between the first and the third person point of view". Why do think it makes sense? Is it because the personality can be found at the places where both perspectives meet? Examples which define this personality spectrum would be Donald Trump who sees everything and everybody from the (selfish) first person point of view vs the Dalai Lama who considers everybody from the (selfless) third person point of view in the light of compassion.-J. -------- Original message --------From: [email protected] Date: 6/14/20 23:43 (GMT+01:00) To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response Somebody once said that Psychology is the discipline that explores the contradictions between the first and the third person point of view. I can see that. However, if I am to decide which side of the contradiction to privilege, I would choose the third person point of view. After all, there billions of you and only one of me. N Nicholas ThompsonEmeritus Professor of Ethology and PsychologyClark [email protected]https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Marcus DanielsSent: Sunday, June 14, 2020 2:57 PMTo: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response Would you ask a Facebook image labeling algorithm how it converts a picture into a name? If I were to try to write a set of bots to reproduce FRIAM conversations, I’d probably do it with an agent-based approach, and dump my mental model of each person into a program, and then run the programs together, like a sort of core-war game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_War I think the dynamics of this game would be predictable sometimes, and other times it would have long transients. Other times idiosyncratic word associations would redirect the conversation in unexpected directions. I’m not sure what you are asking. It seems like you see the reflection on behavior as different from behavior. To me it is all just behavior based on different inputs and types of outputs. From: Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of Russ Abbott <[email protected]>Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>Date: Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 1:30 PMTo: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response Marcus, That's a very fancy description. How did you come up with it? And how did you find the words to express it? -- Russ Abbott Professor, Computer ScienceCalifornia State University, Los Angeles On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 1:12 PM Jon Zingale <[email protected]> wrote:Nick,For what it is worth, I am not even sure we will come to agreeon the best way to describe the physics of the natural world.Jon--Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listservZoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriamun/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.comarchives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
