[FRIAM] loopiness (again)

[glen ☣]

On 02/07/2017 03:19 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> She doesn't have to decide on the basis of communities.  She can look at the available evidence and estimate if this is the kind of leader that match her personal values and her interests.   There is the question of set membership (e.g. woman, Caucasian), but that's doesn't need a loaded term like `community'.   And it largely has to be done in meme space -- in her head -- because she probably won't get the opportunity to punch the candidate in the face to see what happens, or take the opportunity to punch the redneck neighbor in the face either to cause him to convince her he's right.

I completely disagree.  People generally decide whether something is appropriate based on whatever communities they identify with.  The TPP is a great example.  Identifying as a neoliberal, I think the TPP is a good geopolitical move.  But as an infotech professional, I think it's a terrible move.  I don't have the time or inclination to double check all the geopolitical ramifications it might have.  So, I have to trust some of the indirect analyses I've read (from within and without the neoliberal community).  Similarly, I have to trust some of the analyses from places like the EFF.

And the trusting (or not) of those analyses is largely in thought space.  But establishing which communities I'm in and which take priority doesn't.  That happens in meat space through social interaction (like contractual duties).  If the Trump-supporting woman finds herself surrounded (at dinner, cocktail parties, church, wherever) with other women in her communities that write off Trump's misogyny, then she'll most likely write it off, too.  If not, then not.

I'd argue the majority of our opinions and decisions are made according to the communities with which we identify, not according to some idealistic rationality.

> Even if you are biased and not playing fair (if there is such a thing at this point), you want to know what the truth is so that you can continue to not play fair.   You want to know the risks and how to best generate lies that will achieve your objectives.

Here again, I'd argue that if you identify with a "debunker" community, or one who holds facts in high esteem, you'll spend more time verifying and debunking news stories.  But such a membership can't be determined solely by identifies-with.  Lots of people think they hold facts in high esteem, but really just believe anything that looks like a fact.

And that means that our mechanisms for determining what communities we're members of is broken.

-- 
☣ glen