give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime; explain "profit" and you have no fish
-- rec -- On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 11:12 PM Eric Charles < [email protected]> wrote: > Hey there bub! You don't get to pawn your hard problems off on me! I mean > whatever you would mean :- ) > > I want to live in a society that solves the majority of these problems for >> me, on a regular basis, in a regular way, with a regular solution. > > > Yeah, agreed, that would be great. And it would be even better (right?) if > the problems never arose, because society preempted them, rather than > solving them after the fact. > > What does "better individuals" mean? > > > People who don't create the problems you are concerned with solving... > whatever those problems might be. In this particular case, we started out > talking about tragedy-of-the-commons problems and the false free-rider > problem. We could have people who encounter exactly those situations, with > default algorithms that avoid the "problem" part. If there are other > things that you think would make the world better, we can tack those on > too. > > I'm arguing for a middle-out approach. > > > I'm once again not sure that what you're describing is much different than > what I'm arguing for. You list pitfalls of being too invested in a purely > bottom-up approach or a purely top-down approach, and I agree those are > problems to be avoided. > > it's reasonable to suggest that all the ranchers get together on a >> dynamically allocated schedule to [dis]agree politely about who's (not) >> doing what. Such on-demand problem solving is certainly possible. And the >> more open-ended the participants' toolbox solutions are, the more likely >> that will happen > > > That sounds nice, but definitely isn't what I'm suggesting. Let's say you > have 3 people grazing on the commons, and that the land could provide ideal > conditions for 12 cattle, with a standard tragedy of the commons set up > (where 13 cows produces less meat, but whoever has an extra cow has more > meat than that individual would have without the extra cow). You could > build people for whom the 0-int, algorithmic response to such a situation > was simply to bring 4 cows each. If you had those people to start with, it > would take effort to explain to them why they might want to be open-ended > in considering bringing an extra cow. Everything about trying to make an > extra buck by undermining the collective would be unintuitive to them. They > wouldn't have to talk through solving the problem, their default approach > the situation would simply not lead to "tragedy". > > This is a means by which society can "solve the problem for you". One way > or another the solution is: People who don't do "tragedy" when presented > with a commons. The question is how we get such people. Maybe we get such > people because we fine or arrest anyone who starts down the tragic path. > Maybe let people head that direction, but we have a tax system that > continuously removes extra funds from their pockets and funnels that extra > monies into the maintenance of the commons, thereby creating people who > indirectly pay to clean up the the almost-tragedies they would otherwise > create. Presumably many other solutions are available. However, the ideal > solution, I assert, *if we could achieve it,* would simply be to have > people who don't want to *do* "tragedy", despite having the opportunity. > If no one wants to bring an extra cow, then we're good from the get go. > > P.S. I take my whiskey neat because that's the best way to have it. When I > drink coffee, it gets a lot of milk and sugar. If I'm not in a mood to > specify, then there are plenty of things to drink that tastes good without > modification ;- ) > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 11:19 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[email protected]> wrote: > >> OK. I have to make a technical correction, first. Then I'll move on to >> the meat. By 0-int, I mostly mean "algorithmic". I'm not suggesting that >> 0-int agents are simple or uncomplicated, only that they are limited in the >> open-endedness of their "algorithms". By claiming I'm a 0-int agent, what I >> mean is that I'm a fairly limited set of canned solutions/heuristics to >> common situations. Coming up with a *new* solution for every tweaked >> circumstance presents a combinatorial explosion that my pathetic toolbox of >> heuristics is incapable of handling. >> >> E.g. your rancher example -- Sure, it's reasonable to suggest that all >> the ranchers get together on a dynamically allocated schedule to [dis]agree >> politely about who's (not) doing what. Such on-demand problem solving is >> certainly possible. And the more open-ended the participants' toolbox >> solutions are, the more likely that will happen [⛧]. But sometimes ... >> sometimes, even open-ended, benefit-of-the-doubt, polite people need some >> time off from all that custom, on-demand, solution finding. >> >> That's why I order off the menu instead of what actually tastes better. >> Why I take my coffee black and my whiskey neat. Etc. I just don't have the >> energy, or algorithmic flexibility to custom-design a solution to each and >> every circumstance. >> >> I.e. I DON'T WANT to be a better person. I want to live in a society that >> solves the majority of these problems for me, on a regular basis, in a >> regular way, with a regular solution. >> >> That's the technicality. The meat of our disagreement, I think, is >> bottom-up vs top-down. To the extent we could indoctrinate every individual >> toward open-endedness, spread them out and give them the energy and >> curiosity required, it would provide for better coverage, both in time >> (rates of solutions) and space (variables addressed, composition of >> solutions, etc.). I agree with you on that point. But by disagreeing with >> you, I'm NOT taking a top-down perspective ... like some kind of state >> communism. I'm arguing for a middle-out approach. Starting from the bottom, >> with no destination in mind, ensures you'll never arrive. Starting at the >> top, with no atomic model of composable parts, ensures your castle will >> sink into the swamp. The only rational approach is middle-up and >> middle-down (not least because assertions about the bottom and top are >> metaphysical). >> >> So, targeting your concrete language directly, What does "better >> individuals" mean? Without a rock-solid idea of what an individual is, and >> without a rock-solid value system of what's "better", any system designed >> to optimize individuals will have more unintended than intended >> consequences. Would hyper-specialized magnet schools be better than broad >> spectrum liberal arts? Are "screens" bad and ink-on-paper good? Should all >> children be taught category theory *first*? Etc. There's plenty of work to >> do in this area. But ultimately, unless the higher order systems in which >> the individuals live are studied and engineered, the work done at the >> individual scope is Pyrrhic. >> >> >> [⛧] In fact, it does happen, regardless of how intricate the landscape. >> No matter what bureacracy you put in place, no matter how detailed and >> complete, the open-ended people will wiggle within or around it. >> >> >> On 3/28/21 2:37 PM, Eric Charles wrote: >> > I'm not sure "optimism" is the point of disagreement, beyond maybe >> optimism regarding our ability to probabilistically manipulate development >> trajectories. >> > >> > Our task... is to classify which infrastructure increases liberty. >> And to engineer it into place. >> > >> > >> > Yes, at least in the abstract I think we agree on that. The next >> question, I think, is whether we can find a way to characterize the types >> of infrastructure that tend to be good vs types that tend to be bad. >> (Acknowledging all the potential pitfalls of trying to categorize.) My bias >> is that, so much as efforts show to be possible, we have infrastructure >> that builds better people, rather than towards infrastructure that makes it >> impossible for people to behave badly. >> > >> > >> > Your setup attributes more commitment/energy from the agents ... >> energy they don't have or are unwilling to spend on that organizing setup. >> I tend to regard the agents as less intelligent than you consider them, >> likely because I'm less intelligent than you are ... we all generalize from >> our selves. I grok 0-intelligence agents because I am a 0-int agent! . >> > >> > >> > If I gave that impression, I apologize! Obviously your insinuation that >> I generally prefer dealing with intelligent people is correct, but also I >> am quite adverse to the idea that the world would be better if everyone >> suddenly became much more intelligent. Intelligent people do stupid and >> horrible things all the time, in the few intellectual/polymath groups . >> > >> > To try to be more clear, I do *not* think we need to make people so >> intelligent that they understand the "tragedy of the commons", and avoid it >> due to their superior intellectual skills. I'm *just* saying that we make >> people who, when they find themselves in such situations, behave in ways >> that don't lead to tragedy. Can we do that with 100% accuracy? Probably >> not. Or, at the least, not without methods I would probably judge >> unethical. Could we arrange learning situations so that a much larger % of >> the population avoided tragedy in such situations? For sure. Childrens TV, >> video games with different rule sets, curricular lessons that engage >> students in relevant situations without ever once mentioning the "tragedy" >> or trying to reason it out explicitly, etc. The goal is to produce >> "0-intelligence agents" that achieve better outcomes in commons-types of >> situations, without having to think it through. >> > >> > Some, who specialize in education, or other related topics, will later >> learn why the curriculum is constructed in that way, but that's a different >> conversation, for a much latter stage of life. >> > >> > This happens all the time, quite effectively, but usually to shitty >> ends. Laws, regulations, and engrained habits that disallowed the showing >> of interracial couples on TV created generations that finds such things >> "unnatural". Ditto any non-vanilla variety of sexual behavior and gender >> identification. Flooding the airwaves the other direction is creating a >> generation that, when in 0-intelligence mode, navigates through the world >> quite differently. My kids are only a few years apart and I can see it >> between them. We were watching the a cartoon and my older said something >> like "It's great to see a show with all this gender representation and >> without being judgy about sexuality", and my younger looked confused and >> honestly asked "Why is that odd?" >> > >> > I don't think it is overly optimistic to think we could make >> significant progress on the issues you and I both care about with >> investment in /that /type of infrastructure. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 5:48 AM ⛧ glen <[email protected] <mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > We do agree in our values. But we disagree in our optimism. The >> ecology you propose burns more energy than mine. Your setup attributes more >> commitment/energy from the agents ... energy they don't have or are >> unwilling to spend on that organizing setup. I tend to regard the agents as >> less intelligent than you consider them, likely because I'm less >> intelligent than you are ... we all generalize from our selves. I grok >> 0-intelligence agents because I am a 0-int agent! You, having rolled up a >> good character at the start of the campaign, are deluded into thinking >> everyone else also rolled well. 8^D >> > >> > In Utopia, all the agents spend reasonable amounts of energy, along >> diverse channels, to drive the ecology. But in this world, government is a >> necessary efficiency. Throughout history, when we *rely* on the individuals >> to do all this diverse work, they don't, even if, in an ideal world, they >> could. >> > >> > So we build infrastructure, eg government, to make the individuals >> more effective, to channel whatever energy/intelligence they have. >> > >> > Where our worlds meet, though, is that SOME infrastructure is >> debilitating. And SOME infrastructure is liberating. We agree that >> liberating government is good. And debilitating government is bad. >> > >> > Our task, then, is to classify which infrastructure increases >> liberty. And to engineer it into place. But that's very hard when so many >> of us maintain, despite the evidence, that all infrastructure is always bad. >> > >> > >> > On March 24, 2021 8:24:38 PM PDT, Eric Charles < >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> > >I think we probably pretty much agree. >> > > >> > >"It's a convenient fiction, or perhaps an approximating >> simplification" >> > >--- >> > >Yes! But we need some of those, and "the individual" is one that >> > >appeals to >> > >me. >> > > >> > > >> > -- >> > glen ⛧ >> >> >> -- >> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> 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 >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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 > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
