I have spent most of my life avoiding "acting while cynical"... I have
*felt* cynical about a lot of things, and Marcus' description of a lot
of things speaks to my "inner cynic" but I haven't spent much time being
*harmed* by engaging in "performative activities while feeling cynical
about them". If I dig a hole it is either because *I* need a hole, or
someone else *needs* a whole, and only rarely do I help someone dig a
hole as a team/trust/affinity building exercise unless the There are
too many holes in the world that *want* digging to spend much effort
en-performance.
I've never felt particulary "included" in any social circle and I have
seen that a little bit of "Performative Grease" might have helped this
square peg fit more-better in the round holes it encountered, but
generally I simply avoided those activities and drifted further and
further out. That is not to say I haven't *tried* to be a good sport
and do what others were doing on the off chance that it would actually
be something that worked for me, but generally not.
BTW... there seems to be some inverted general usage of
"square-peg/round-hole", drilling a round hole and then driving a
square(ish) peg into it guarantees a good tight fit... it is preferred
to round peg-round hole in traditional joinery.
On 9/2/22 8:17 AM, glen wrote:
OK. But the affinity and "inner self" alluded to by the phrase "faking
it" is nothing but a personality momentum, a build-up of past
behaviors, like a fly-wheel spun up by all the previous affinities and
faking of it. We faked it in our mom's womb, faked it as babies, faked
it as children on the playground or in class, etc. all the way up to
the last time we faked it digging ditches or pair programming in Java.
The only difference between feeling an affinity and engaging in a new
faking it exercise is the extent to which the new collaboration is
similar to the previous collaborations. As both Steve and Dave point
out, spend enough time living in a world and you'll grow affine to
that world (and the world will grow affine to you).
I suppose it's reasonable to posit a spectrum (or a higher dim space)
on which some people have particularly inertial fly-wheels and others
have more easily disturbed things that store less energy. Of the Big
5, my guess would be neuroticism would be most inertial. Perhaps
openness and agreeableness would be the least inertial.
On 9/2/22 05:35, Marcus Daniels wrote:
There are many common tasks that parties could direct their attention
toward. This happens at companies, prison cafeterias, and
churches. That it is grounded in a particular way doesn't make it
any truer, or anyone more committed to it. We are often forced to
participate in cultures we don't care about, and faking it is an
important skill. Just because someone sweats or gets calluses or
tolerates others' inappropriate emotions in some circle of people,
doesn't mean there is any affinity toward that circle. Oh look, he
dug a hole. I dug a hole. Sure, I'd do those kind of performative
activities if I were a politician, as I bet there are people who
think this way.
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 12:06 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] more structure-based mind-reading
And, of course, there is no such thing except appearance. What could
it possibly mean to say that an appearance of a bond exists, but no
actual bond exists?
On September 1, 2022 7:29:45 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels
<mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote:
If you want to create the appearance of a bond where none exists,
get to work. Once one recognizes the nature of work it is easy.
On Sep 1, 2022, at 6:25 PM, Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
From glen: "If you want to share values with some arbitrary shmoe,
then get to
*work*. Build something or cooperate on a common task. Talking,
communicating, is inadequate at best, disinfo at worst."
This is kinda the whole point of Participant Observation at the core
of cultural anthropology. The premise is you cannot truly understand
a culture until you live it.
Of course, there is still a boundary, a separation, between the
anthropologist and those with whom she interacts, but sweat,
calluses, blood, and emotions go a long way toward establishing
actual understanding.
davew
On Thu, Sep 1, 2022, at 12:30 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
On 9/1/22 11:21 AM, glen wrote:
Inter-brain synchronization occurs without physical co-presence
during cooperative online gaming
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393222001750
There's a lot piled into the aggregate measures of EEG. And the mere
fact of the canalization conflates the unifying tendencies of the
objective (shared purpose) with that of the common structure
(virtual world, interface, body, brain). But overall, it argues
against this guru focus on "sense-making" (hermeneutic, monistic
reification) and helps argue for the fundamental plurality,
openness, and stochasticity of "language games".
If you want to share values with some arbitrary shmoe, then get to
*work*. Build something or cooperate on a common task. Talking,
communicating, is inadequate at best, disinfo at worst.
I agree somewhat with the spirit of this, however a recent
writer/book I discovered is Sand
Talk<https://www.harpercollins.com/products/sand-talk-tyson-yunkaporta?variant=32280908103714>
by Tyson Yunkaporta and more specifically his references to
"Yarning" in his indigenous Australian culture offered me a
complementary perspective...
I definitely agree that the "building of something together" is a
powerful world-building/negotiating/collaborative/seeking
experience. The social sciences use the term Boundary
Object<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_object> and Boundary
Negotiation Artifact. Jenny and I wrote a draft white-paper on
the topic of the SimTable as a "boundary negotiating artifact" last
time she visited (2019?). A lot of
computer-graphics/visualization products provide fill this role, but
the physicality of a sand-table with it's tactility and multiple
perspectives add yet more. The soap-box racer or fort you build
with your friend as a kid provides the same. The bulk of my best
relationships in life involved "building something together" whether
it be a software system or a house...
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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/
