The idea of an induced expression centroid that provides a spanning basis for a large proportion of people's expressiveness is interesting. The tricky part is that any such basis may be too dynamic to provide a persistent compression, reliable over time [⛧]. If it were stable, I feel like it would amount to an assertion of cultural universals. And if that's the case, then it might reduce to biology, which would make it another form of Nick's criticism, albeit a data-driven one.
[⛧] Maybe that's a plausible idea for populism is an ambiguous term? On December 23, 2020 1:20:05 PM PST, Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> wrote: >If there is an ordinary person class or subclass, which I also doubt, >then it is dispensable, or even a liability, because it is just another >person heating up the atmosphere and accelerating the demise of life as >we know it on earth. In this view, one would compress out the >sameness using the population for context (the Great Dictionary), and >whatever is unique is the value of that person. One might not be >surprised if individuals with low residual entropy might find safety in >numbers or even declare their concerns to be a movement. > -- glen ⛧ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/
