Exactly! I suppose it could be Dunning-Kruger, right? Because Deutsch is cognitively endowed, he over-estimates the cognitive endowment of those around him ... thinking that others are good faith, and actually work to develop stances and arguments. But a lot of us don't. We may try. And we may think we do. But most of us are morons who can't think our way out of a paper bag, including me. As Dave rightly points out, and Deutsch echoes, it's the *confidence* in one's own stance that causes problems. And tribal membership seems to increase confidence without increasing rhetorical substance.
There's a tinge of the invisible hand in Deutsch's invocation of error correction... the system will heal itself. On 9/2/21 9:55 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I think of quantum error correction, which aims to isolate the consequences > of errors and correct them with exact perfectly-calibrated interventions. > This is in contrast to U.S. politics where people don't know what is wrong, > advocate clumsy interventions, and just generally screw everything up. > Deutsch's pitch about "advocacy" therefore doesn't ring true to me because I > don't see people here engaging in specific arguments about the contexts in > which things are true, they just carry on about their identity and their > grievances. There are no fair matches when bad faith actors rile up people > rather than questioning their own reasoning and their values. So to me, the > EU is kind of appealing because the error correction -- in my mind -- needs > to be performed on individuals as well as organizations. People are > defective. There's no free lunch though. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021 9:20 AM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Liberal dilemmas > > I suppose. But what if Strawson's episodic/diachronic is empirically wrong? > What if we're all diachronic (narrative, even) to an overwhelming extent? > That implies some memory-deep (perhaps still mostly ontogenic) structure that > might only be reprogrammed with surgery, drugs, implants, trauma, etc. I use > that lemma when I argue that old animals must die, evolution requires it. > Granted, humans may be way more plastic than most animals. But Shirley > there's a limit. > > Along those same lines, I watched this video during my workout this morning: > > David Deutsch on Brexit and Error Correction https://youtu.be/xdtssXITXuE > > I had no idea Deutsch was a rhetorical component for Brexit ... makes sense > given his libertarian bent. I find the argument to error correction and > adversarial disputation compelling. But something rings hollow. It's too > dyadic, this side, the opposition, etc., which is odd given that the UK has a > parliamentary structure. The US seems more oriented to dyadic aversariality > (is that a word) than the UK. It was also odd that he lauds winning first > past the post by small margins and that such small margins support some sort > of individual commitment to a policy ... such that it can be falsified and > corrected for. It seems to me that these small margins are sources of > conflict and distrust, not coherent argumentation. I guess it's all so > "theoretical" that makes me skeptical. > > > On 9/2/21 8:04 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> A potential benefit of the episodic personality type is the ability to >> grieve failures and move on. >> >>> On Sep 2, 2021, at 7:50 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Well, I do feel pity for Dave and the obsolete people/modes being left >>> behind. Nostalgia is difficult. On his deathbed, with so much time to sit >>> and think about dying, my dad finally admitted that his "type A >>> personality" was an artifact of the circumstances within which he was >>> reared ('30s). And it wasn't at all successful under the >>> circumstances/times in which me and my sister were reared. My sister took >>> something more like Marcus' stance, an unvarnished "get with the program". >>> I took a more apathetic stance, "you're gonna to die soon, anyway, at which >>> your pain will end." >>> >>> I feel the same way when I see lions at the zoo, once glorious masters on >>> the Serengeti, now pathetic creatures burdened with claws and teeth and >>> nobody to fight with. It's truly sad. But it's also terrifying to me. Am >>> *I* capable of recognizing the signal when it comes my way? Or am I >>> destined to be a scared little snowflake, hiding in my nostalgia? ... >>> aggrieved, petulant, and burdened with my teeth and claws? >>> >>> I took a morning walk to downtown Olympia right after the pandemic. I >>> walk/run around 6am. As I was returning, walking, a man in a black gaiter, >>> sunglasses, and black hoodie, covered so well I couldn't see any of his >>> flesh ... hell, I don't even know if it was a man. Was walking toward me. I >>> didn't think much of it at the time. There was a new building across the >>> street with some weird structure (e.g. a kitchen on the 1st floor with no >>> other rooms attached ... WTF?). So I crossed to peer through the various >>> floor to ceiling plate glass windows to see if I could figure out what it >>> was for? >>> >>> When I was done peering into the windows, I noticed the man on the other >>> side of the street, stopped, staring at me. That scared me. Did he intend >>> harm? Was he offended that I crossed the street? Should I go back across >>> and say something? ... well, a couple of women walked past me audibly >>> wondering what this building was for and that distracted me. I talked to >>> them for a minute. And when I looked back the guy was gone. >>> >>> Have I become just like the scared little old lady that lives next door? >>> Afraid of progress? Afraid of diversity? Scared of my own shadow? I >>> honestly don't know. >>> >>> >>>> On 9/2/21 7:22 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>>> The signal to the welfare rancher is “Find a new line of work and quit >>>> your whining.” >>>> >>>>>> On Sep 2, 2021, at 7:05 AM, Eric Charles >>>>>> <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "The fact that you agree with the policies and actions does not mitigate >>>>> the harm caused." >>>>> >>>>> This seems to be a recurring theme in conversations I am having recently, >>>>> in several venues. I make a factual claim about damages caused by a >>>>> policy/action/decision. Someone objects to the factual claim because they >>>>> agree with policy/action/decision. I'm never quite sure where to go in >>>>> the conversation after that. >>>>> >>>>> Like, I saw someone post, non-sarcastically, a meme claiming that Biden's >>>>> withdrawal from Afghanistan was more peaceful that Trump's final days in >>>>> office. When I pointed out how obviously wrong that was, the >>>>> otherwise-sensible-seeming person couldn't do anything but insist that >>>>> withdrawing was the right thing to do. Like... come on man... I get >>>>> that... but what does that have to do with pretending things went well, >>>>> or were "peaceful"?!? >>>>> >>>>> So, like... yeah... you might agree with restrictions on the uses of >>>>> public lands... but that doesn't mean you need to pretend it has no >>>>> negative consequences for individuals. Just own that those harms will >>>>> happen, as part of your supporting the policy. >>>>> <mailto:echar...@american.edu> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 8:09 PM Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm >>>>>> <mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> __ >>>>> Marcus, you seem to miss my point; perhaps just baiting me. >>>>> >>>>> Honors at Highlands: this was part of a policy, stated publicly at a >>>>> Board of Regents meeting, "Highlands exists to provide degrees to >>>>> Hispanic students that could never obtain one at any other university. >>>>> Honors degrees, curricula, and courses are racist reasons that students >>>>> from northern New Mexico cannot succeed at other universities and, as >>>>> such, cannot be tolerated at Highlands." >>>>> >>>>> Posters: woman in question was a 30+ year old grad student (we shared >>>>> the same advisor). The posters were in my office for my enjoyment, >>>>> purchased at the university bookstore. Meeting was held in my office at >>>>> her request. They were prints of Dali work considered "great art." The >>>>> human figures are totally androgynous as well as being distorted in >>>>> typical Dali style. Her motive for filing the complaint was, she stated >>>>> in an email a year later, to discredit me with our advisor who she >>>>> thought showed a preference for my work over hers. The HR office, because >>>>> of their "enlightened liberal policies" accepted her complaint on its >>>>> face, no investigation; as the same policy stated one was not needed >>>>> because, as a male and academic staff, I had no defensible position to >>>>> consider. >>>>> >>>>> Ranchers: this particular family took 'stewardship' seriously and made >>>>> hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of improvements to public land. >>>>> but my point is simply that bureaucrats, kowtowing to liberal >>>>> environmental lobbyists set policy without regard to any 'facts on the >>>>> ground' or any science, simply on liberal philosophy of how things >>>>> "should be." >>>>> >>>>> Access: I too am a taxpayer. There are some very nice hot springs on >>>>> BLM land near by. They are maintained and upgraded by a volunteer public >>>>> group (pretty informal, word of mouth kind of stuff). Being old and >>>>> feeble, my access is increasing dependent on the use of an ATV. BLM >>>>> policy dictates constant reduction of motorized transport on that land, >>>>> so it will not be long before my access is de facto denied. This is a >>>>> personal example of a "woke" policy on increasing wilderness designations >>>>> thereby denying access to elderly, handicapped, and otherwise marginally >>>>> abled. >>>>> >>>>> You asked for examples of liberal actions/policies that caused harm, >>>>> to me specifically, but by implication in general. These are tangible >>>>> examples. The fact that you agree with the policies and actions does not >>>>> mitigate the harm caused. >>>>> >>>>> davew >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021, at 4:33 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Welfare ranchers, indeed. The rest of us have to constantly >>>>>> modernize our skills.. But freeloading off the public land and >>>>>> environment that’s “multigenerational” and must be preserved? Why? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Marcus >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com >>>>>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly >>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 1, 2021 3:17 PM >>>>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>>>>> <friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Liberal dilemmas >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I owned 40 acres in Torrance County, NM which was adjacent to a >>>>>> national forest. Ranchers were charged $1.21 per acre per year to use >>>>>> the NF land for grazing. I could have made $48 per year by charging a >>>>>> little less than the feds. My property taxes were $40 per year. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> Frank C. Wimberly >>>>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, >>>>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>>>>> >>>>>> 505 670-9918 >>>>>> Santa Fe, NM >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021, 1:50 PM Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com >>>>>> <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dave wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> < More significant: I have had my curricular materials censured >>>>>> and have had my job threatened on a number of occasions because it was >>>>>> deemed inconsistent with liberal values. Ironically, many of these >>>>>> events occurred when I was teaching at a Catholic university where I >>>>>> could, with impunity, challenge religious orthodoxy, but not liberal >>>>>> woke snowflake orthodoxy. I was once censured by the University of >>>>>> Wisconsin HR department because a female student filed a sexual >>>>>> harassment complaint because I had a meeting with her in my office where >>>>>> I had three Salvador Dali prints on my wall and "she was forced to look >>>>>> at breasts the entire meeting." Her complaint was upheld because neither >>>>>> the content of the Dali prints nor my intent or rational for having them >>>>>> in my office mattered — only her subjective feelings. At Highlands I was >>>>>> forbidden to offer Honors courses or any opportunities to earn extra >>>>>> credit in a class by tackling extra hard problems (these were software >>>>>> courses) because doing so was racist and unfair — simply >>>>>> because more non-Hispanic students obtained the extra credit or >>>>>> the honors designation. > >>>>>> >>>>>> So the university had the expectation that before advanced >>>>>> classes could be offered, there needed to an unbiasing of the candidate >>>>>> pool for those classes by adequately training everyone (every >>>>>> demographic) that was potentially feeding in to them? Ok. If the >>>>>> university wants to do this, or incentivized to do this, it is really >>>>>> just a matter of private/public strategy. If you don't want to work >>>>>> for a university that has this "fair" strategy, then don't. As for >>>>>> subjecting young students to strange imagery, I can see why one would >>>>>> not want to do that. Just as it would strange for a female professor to >>>>>> dress like a hooker. Organizations can have dress codes. Don't be a >>>>>> fool, universities are just another kind of business. You mess with the >>>>>> business, you will have a problem. It would be better if your >>>>>> department heads were "upstanders" and just said, "Hey Dave, how is this >>>>>> art helping your students?" >>>>>> >>>>>> < Not personal, but a relative: multi-generational ranch >>>>>> with Federal grazing right. Hundreds of thousands of dollars over >>>>>> the years were spent enhancing the Federal land, containment ponds >>>>>> for water that reduced erosion and flash flooding without >>>>>> diminishing runoff contribution to watershed; planting of native >>>>>> grasses, elimination of deadwood, etc. etc. End result was the >>>>>> ability to safely and sustainably graze X number of cattle. About >>>>>> five years ago, BLM issued a new policy dictating the maximum >>>>>> carrying capacity of Federal lands. The math was based on lowest >>>>>> common denominator. The policy was, at the behest of preservation >>>>>> groups, written with the specific intent to minimize and >>>>>> eventually eliminate the use of public lands for grazing. (Also >>>>>> mining and motorized recreational vehicle use.) Bottom line, >>>>>> allotment was taken away because it violated the numbers — not >>>>>> because there was any evidence of actual harm. > >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm a taxpayer. Why should I want off road vehicles or cows on >>>>>> federal land? I don't care about either of those things. This is a >>>>>> weird entitlement that these folks have in mind. As far as I was >>>>>> concerned the Bundy principals in Oregon deserved to be met by A-10s. > > -- > ☤>$ 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/ > -- ☤>$ 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/
