OK. If we talked in terms that allowed good faith from any of the perspectives,
then I'd be able to simulate your complaint. I don't want to reread the
article. But if her complaint is simply being on opposite sides of a
transformative event from those she's complaining about, and your complaint is
that she should be more realistic about the distribution of people who go
through such transformative events, then I agree with you. It's myopia and
self-centeredness all the way around.
But that would eliminate things like "turning the tables" and
dominance-via-vulnerability as consciously engaged bad faith actions. I want to eliminate
the bad faith accusation from the conversation because I think it's over-used, at the
least, and usually abused, at worst. When someone accuses another of acting in bad faith,
it's most likely the *accuser* that's wrong, including in that article. But that's just
my experience. And being able to restructure such arguments so that every perspective can
be simulated by good faith actors helps me steel man others' arguments and tune my
intimacy according to context.
The asshole attractor is a strong one. And if you classify someone that way,
you may not be able to pull them out of it. So, in that sense, I agree with you.
On 1/14/22 09:47, Marcus Daniels wrote:
The claim in the original article that I disagree with is that there are all
these men malfunctioning because of their stoic upbringing. I think I could
make the case there are many people (not just men) failing because they didn't
have this upbringing. Call it decadence. Call it self- indulgence, weakness,
or a failure to mature with suitable meta-diagnostics.
She mentions different real-world and pop-culture examples of cruel behaviors
(in men) that pretend to be vulnerable when they are being dominant. She
seems to fail to recognize that to the extent this is really happening (beyond
fictional accounts), it could be because they recognize quite well what is
expected but resent having to play that game. So, they turn the tables. Does
that mean they are malfunctioning, or just that they aren't nice according to
some definition? Dominance relations are a constant part of modern life, it
shouldn't be surprising that people practice it in their professional and
personal lives.
Marcus
________________________________
From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of glen <geprope...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 10:35 AM
To: friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality
OK. If the answer is "yes" at least in some special cases, then why can't the answer be
"yes" in the large intimate network sense? What's different about the advocacy of (good
faith) vulnerability in men? ... caveated with scoped cliques in the networks, of course. Perhaps
the question boils down to how big the networks can be? Or perhaps whether there are sub-networks
within the networks? E.g. scales of vunlerability?
Just the other day, I was sporadically commenting in the chat of a Twitch streamer. A question
about an artifact of the game he was playing came up. His moderator gave one (false) answer. I gave
a (true) contradictory answer. The streamer and moderator called my answer a "lie" and
then commented "that sets the tone for the relationship" ... i.e. the *para*social
relationship between the streamer and me, a rando on the internet. Note, they did not test the
answers by taking the action in the game. So neither of us were provided the opportunity to be
demonstrated as wrong or right. As the rando on the internet, I don't take offense for being
falsely accused of lying because the streamer is the vulnerable one. We see his face, can deduce
where he's from by things he says and his accent, can induce many other characteristics from all
sorts of data he provides ... however well he thinks he can shield himself.
It strikes me that such parasocial relations are a scaled back intimacy ... somewhere
more intimate than, say, movie star, but less intimate than, say, your local Rotary Club
president, which is less intimate than your local "drum circle" or poker pals.
Etc.
Given that heterarchy, I'm having trouble reconstructing your original complaint about
the article, that it's overbearing on both men and women. In fact, the article seems to
be indirectly arguing *for* such a heterarchy. We might sum it up as: Be intimate. That
the author didn't caveat it with "in moderation" shouldn't bother us too much
... because it's common sense that everything be done in moderation.
On 1/14/22 09:04, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Glen writes:
< Does the state-hiding machine present a more expressive problem solver than
would otherwise be achievable without hiding state? And is that extra expressibility
necessary (or more convenient/efficient) than with an in principle equivalent
flattened (set of) machine(s)? >
Yes, modularity in computer software is one example that comes to mind. When
all the world is expressed in readable, or especially writable global
variables, it is very difficult to build a reliable system, because programmers
will inevitably misunderstand when/what/how/why they can touch something.
Similarly, it is simply too difficult to understand another person to reliably
anticipate all their needs and help them. Some of their needs are inherently
private and they must learn ways to maintain themselves.
Another example that comes to mind are metapopulations. The spatial
separation of groups allow for the local adaptation to different environments
and innovation in those environments. The spatial separation ensures that if
there is an environmental crisis, the species won't go extinct. Musk's slogan
for going for Mars, for example. If we are all entangled into one emotional
stew, there better be isolated airlocks to jettison parts of the superorganism
if a part has a massive malfunction or infection.
Marcus
________________________________
From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of glen <geprope...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 9:34 AM
To: friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality
Well, this reminds me of hidden state machines and the law of requisite
variety. If we're trying to explain why humans have persnickety preferences,
including state-hiding tendencies like focusing on emotion vs brute fact,
rather than argue for a flattening of the collective human/biological
machine(s), we should look at both the machine(s) and the environment(s) in
which they're grown.
Does the state-hiding machine present a more expressive problem solver than
would otherwise be achievable without hiding state? And is that extra
expressibility necessary (or more convenient/efficient) than with an in
principle equivalent flattened (set of) machine(s)?
I'm then reminded of demonstrations (?) that zero determinant game strats, while able to
dominate in ideal contexts, don't do so well in evolutionary contexts. So, perhaps the
answer to these questions is simply "No" ... that the hidden state doesn't
provide any extra problem solving ability and the tendency to (or advocacy of) avoid the
flattening is an operable sign of bad faith? Or, in the lingo of the laity, curmudgeons
are a justified cost because they more quickly indicate the bad actors. Get off my lawn!
And if the answer is "No", how do we explain the existence of this "cognitive
ease", this tendency to rely on stereotypes and historicity-reinforced signs (perhaps now
having lost/changed their referents)?
On 1/13/22 16:48, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Anyway, the reason I noticed this article is that I posit that the steely harm
reduction approach that was discussed recently is in my mind a form of
stoicism. Can one put away their emotional responses and make hard choices
based on the greater global good? If one engages in large intimate social
networks, I would say two things are likely to happen: 1) executive decisions
become harder because there is diffusion of sensitive information, and thus
political complications in making them. Members in the network may not be
sharing the whole factual context (preferring the emotionally laden parts) 2)
there are still dominance relations (her language), but they are just manifest
in different ways. Namely by being in the center of a social network and
slightly censoring the information that gets passed along.
As it relates to the subject line, there may be some weak tendency one has to
share or not share by default depending on hormones/genetics.
________________________________
From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Marcus Daniels
<mar...@snoutfarm.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 5:12 PM
To: friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality
< So, I'd argue against you completely. This essay is talking about how to detect
and operate in the presence of bad faith. And, to be clear, the bad faith actor
doesn't necessarily *know* that they're acting in bad faith. In fact, it's a more
canonical case of bad faith if the actor has simply habituated to it. >
A contrast she draws is between petulant vulnerability and "real" vulnerability. That it is
"scary" and "any less necessary, for men".
There's another option which is not to use "the language of vulnerability as a cudgel",
but also not engage "the human condition of reliance on others." She is expressing an
expectation for high intimacy, and it is implicit that there is something wrong with keeping your
distance. I've seen this false choice portrayed by other so-called feminists. I don't buy it.
Marcus
________________________________
From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of glen <geprope...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 4:55 PM
To: friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality
What's interesting about that essay is its appeal to character or "virtue ethics", I
think. I've tried to address this a few times in past threads, especially when concepts like
"bad faith" arise. Rittenhouse' crying looked precisely like bad faith to me. I get
accused of it a lot because I enjoy playing roles and believe playing roles (like Devil's Advocate)
facilitates healthy reasoning. (E.g. EricC's accusation of illiberalism on my part when condemning
the anti-masker's punching of the doctor.)
So, I'd argue against you completely. This essay is talking about how to detect and
operate in the presence of bad faith. And, to be clear, the bad faith actor doesn't
necessarily *know* that they're acting in bad faith. In fact, it's a more canonical case
of bad faith if the actor has simply habituated to it. Rittenhouse's crying on the stand
and Kavanaugh's crying in his confirmation hearings both seem to me to be statements
about their *character*. That means whatever ways we have/develop to detect bad faith can
be made reflective ... kinda like the Reddit forum "Am I the Asshole?" 8^D
I doubt one's oxytocin-laced skepticism over such acting is completely
arbitrary ... or even a preference at all.
On 1/13/22 14:33, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Well, now that I've taken one extreme position, let me take the other extreme
position! This essay reflects, IMO, an arbitrary preference for social
affinities of a certain sort, and it is only one sort of valid class of
relationships. Relationships that have benefits, but also costs. It's not
just overbearing on how men should be, but also on how women should be.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/opinion/toxic-masculinity.html
--
glen
Theorem 3. There exists a double master function.
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
