The claim is that there is all this diversity in subcultures and that the only way to understand them is to participate in them. If it is possible to fake it, and I think it is, then that raises doubts about the claim. That is what spies specialize in.
> On Sep 2, 2022, at 7:17 PM, Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > > 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/ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . 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/
