[FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 164, Issue 38

[Jon Zingale]

​Thank you, those responsible for the
discussion regarding simulation​ and
the real. Here is a competition currently
sponsored by MIT where competitors write
AI to perform automated war: BattleCode <https://www.battlecode.org/>.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:00 AM, <friam-request at redfish.com> wrote:

> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
>         friam at redfish.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         friam-request at redfish.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         friam-owner at redfish.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs (Robert Wall)
>    2. Meet the Math Professor Who?s Fighting Gerrymandering With
>       Geometry - The Chronicle of Higher Education (Tom Johnson)
>    3. Re:  Meet the Math Professor Who?s Fighting Gerrymandering
>       With Geometry - The Chronicle of Higher Education (Merle Lefkoff)
>    4. FW: Grasping the scary, shaping local action (Nick Thompson)
>    5. FW: trump/Ford (Nick Thompson)
>    6. help with memory (Nick Thompson)
>    7. Re: help with memory (Russell Standish)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Robert Wall <wallrobert7 at gmail.com>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:18:39 -0700
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs
> Hi Vladimyr,
>
> Nice to chat with you on the glen-channel. :-)  I guess I came late to the
> chat without fully understanding the how it was vectored.  It happens ...
> age ...
>
> Wrt conflating the two models of "being in the groove," y' all seem to be
> focused on the, perhaps, unintentional fusing of the real with the symbols
> we assign to the real for analysis or other purposes.  This issue works on
> many levels.  Csikszentmihalyi discusses this "being in the zone" in a
> positive way where creativity happens and what is really lost is our sense
> of self in the process.  Whitehead writes about this as a continuous
> process change that largely is motivated by "feeling."  But there is
> another side that you and Glen seem to be discussing that presents a more
> destructive side, where one loses the understanding that the
> representational is not the represented. We give too much meaning to the
> symbols such that they migrate from epistemological to ontological.  The
> question becomes are the symbols real?  So this is more one of delusion.
> Okay ... I think I am "in the groove" now. :-)
>
> You draw an interesting distinction between war-oriented computer games
> and real war engagements.  The distinction, however, seems to be fading
> away in the drone-engagement wars.  The representational becomes the
> grounded reality.  An emulation and not a simulation.  One of the
> combatants--the targeted--are but mere symbols, like on a heads-up display
> in a military fighter plane or just images on a computer monitor. Empire
> can go to war without actually going to war ... at least not until you have
> to own and occupy what Empire has destroyed: the livelihoods of the
> newly-minted refugees and the newly-minted enemies.  Killing becomes
> painless and remorseless and danger-free.  It becomes like a war-oriented
> computer game in that no one is shooting back at the guy who is pulling the
> trigger or at the "joy" stick.
>
> For a time, I used to build educating simulators for propositional war
> games that were used tactically in the field and strategically in a
> so-called war college. But these were still the kind where the assets and
> weapons were symbolic and just representational of possible eventualities.
> The goal was war training with only cyber-oriented risk ... kind of like a
> flight simulator.  But now, these simulators seem to have been weaponized
> and the risk all but eliminated.
>
> When you finally remove all the meaning from the math notation and just
>> manipulate the markings, it can be very hypnotic.
>
>
> Yes. For the triggermen, the process is kind of like the one Glen
> describes where the symbols have become ungrounded, valueless, meaningless.
> But, in reality, the "game" is no longer a simulation (a model) but an
> emulation (a surrogate for something real) operating in real time. And, for
> the targets, the process is the opposite of the one Glen describes where
> the symbols are very much grounded. Is the corollary that the triggermen
> are Platonists and the targeted combatants are Constructivists?
>
> Most of my time working under the rubric of systems engineering, though,
> was in building simulators for decision support.  This I much preferred.
> This seemed more constructive than destructive or combative, even if still
> only a simulator. But are we deluded to believe these models, or any model,
> to be reasonable facsimiles of the modeled, at least in the context of its
> range of applicability? Is *face validity* enough?  I mentioned some
> issues concerning this in the previous post.
>
> With the FEM and CAD background, I suspect you were or are a structural
> engineer by profession.  In fact, educationally, FEM is being used to
> analyze Minecraft structural models.  But, these FEM models--like with,
> say, NASTRAN--are quite accurate at predicting the behavior of mechanical
> or structural devices under the expected stresses.  We could predict where
> they would break.  Had to be accurate to have any value.
>
> So I guess the point of all of this is that there is quite a spectrum of
> simulators to consider. In turn, there is a spectrum of the strength of
> binding between the representational and the speculative or represented.
> Analytical simulators are of no value if they are not believable, which
> comes about through the rigor of verification and validation.
>
> On the other hand, computer games are inherently unbelievable as they are
> just for entertainment. But, I have known some folks who get totally lost
> in cult-like internet games like Dungeons and Dragons, which is what ...
> forty-years old now?  Yeah, this is loopiness and possibly dangerously
> tautological. But delusions can be fun. An escape to an alternate reality.
> Good that Frank limits this to an hour/day for his grandson. :-)
>
> As for being in the zone socially, I disagree, though I don't particularly
>> care about any jargonal co-option of the term.  During hearty arguments,
>> mostly with religious people, I definitely lose myself in exactly the same
>> way I lose myself after that 3rd mile when running.  I have no illusions
>> that my zone is in any way shared by the people I'm arguing with, though
>> ... no more than I think you and I share internal constructs mediated by
>> the word "blue"
>
>
> To be clear, Glen, I was referring to a society being "in the zone" as a
> whole. Maybe this could mean an alignment of symbolic references.  Not
> sure, but, like you, somewhat dubious that this could happen. Within my
> philosophy group, we have discussed the idea of *conscious evolution*--becoming,
> say, wiser, by being "in the zone" so to speak--*with respect to the
> individua*l.  And I do see this as kind of a Csikszentmihalyi-est "being
> in the zone," a period of selfless awareness of a task or challenge. It's a
> neurological phenomenon. The objective is to make the period last as long
> as possible. Society is not very good at being selfless, even for a moment.
>
> Perhaps with the assistance of Hebbian learning, say, over time this is
> possible for individuals who work at it to remain in this state longer than
> is typical.  It becomes a skill or practice.  But bubbling this up to the
> level of a society does not seem possible.  Religion hasn't and won't do it
> because that's a model that requires blind credulity to the provided
> surreal symbols.  Even in the context of Hebbian learning, where are the
> "societal neurons" that need to be rewired from their inculcated states?
> They tend to be imbued in the laws and in the prevailing morality memes.
> But these are just things to be gamed to ensure a *face validity* with
> our self-full life simulations.
>
> The key component to any smart system is feedback.  But, we live in a
> society that is running open loop.  Another form of loopiness or delusion,
> I guess ... believing that everything will work out in the long run.  We
> are exceptional. We have democratic elections ... Hmmm,  I think the
> awakening is happening.  Maybe there is hope?  Is that a drone I hear above
> ... Oh, it's just an Amazone delivery ... or is it?  :-)
>
> Cheers
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky <vburach at shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the structure of thought .
>>
>>
>>
>> So am I an Iconoclast because I am all too aware of the misuse of Icons (
>> simulations). I taught FEM and CAD and
>>
>> saw puzzlement on the, soon to be, engineers faces. I have watched
>> engineers sneak out of the lecture hall when I started showing slides of
>>
>> summation of stacked matrices flying across the screen.
>>
>>
>>
>> So this alludes to a possible intrinsic Tautology or Loopiness in our
>> brains. The representation is conflated with the speculative but unknown
>> reality (since it is never completely understood anyway) Switching from one
>> state to the other might be called metaphysical thinking. A wonderful
>> source of confusion.
>>
>> Being totally immersed in a computer game might be said to be in the
>> groove but when one man fights another and we call that being in the groove
>> then are we conflating two models. If one is slaughtering the enemies on a
>> game platform one can say he is free of ethics or morality. When Bruce Lee
>> does the same on film
>>
>> many thought it real. but those who actually fought in life knew it was
>> BS on  constrained/elevated ropes.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the  mirror neurons discussed at length do as described then they must
>> occupy configurations near identical to neurons trained by self discovery
>> (learning)
>>
>> Then actual differentiation would seem very difficult.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a daughter  formally trained as a M.Sc. BioMedical Artist and we
>> used to argue about symbolic thinking , she pro and I con. But the
>> strangest part is that I am also or was considered a fair artist and
>> illustrator for a time. Indeed I use symbols very well but mistrust others
>> with lesser skill. Yet the most skillful are the most dangerous at least in
>> engineering. She would regularly remark that I sketched in perspective
>> complex machinery that did not yet exist and then built the working
>> prototypes. Nothing elegant but functional. She claimed only to draw what
>> already  really existed dead or alive, I always thought those arguments
>> were small expeditions into some form of knowledge about human thinking.
>> She thought otherwise unfortunately, but I have never had the fortune to
>> meet another with her combination of talents.  Somewhere in this
>> quasi-church may be others lurking in the shadows.
>>
>>
>>
>> I admit to being a rather visual thinker so data visualization is my
>> hobby now. And understanding Normal People, since they are so many...
>>
>> Perhaps this is not exactly the correct thread but miss the song of larks
>> on the prairie fields. A few notes brings back so many memories and the
>> smells
>>
>> of clover and honey.
>>
>> vib
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert
>> Wall
>> *Sent:* February-21-17 2:46 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Glen,
>>
>>
>>
>> What you describe as *flow* or being *in the zone* has been precisely
>> written
>> <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000W94FE6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1>
>> and talked
>> <https://www.ted.com/talks/mihaly_csikszentmihalyi_on_flow#t-396713>
>> about by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi as the Optimal Experience.  No one will
>> experience this quite the same way, as the flow experience requires
>> both skill and challenge in an area where flow will occur. By his own
>> statements, Einstein is said to have been in flow when he synthesized the
>> concept of General and Special Relativity. At the time he was arguably very
>> skilled in math and physics and, of course, very challenged.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, I prefer Alfred North Whitehead's (et al.) concept that we are
>> all always in *flow*. We just don't alway realize it. In his *Process
>> Philosophy*, as conveyed  in his *Process and Reality*, he writes about
>> the two modes of perceptual experience: (1) *Presentational Immediacy*
>> [the bits of data that get presented to us through our senses--or
>> imagination] and (2) *Causal Efficacy* [the conditioning of the present
>> by the past]. Curiously, Csikszentmihalyi says that we can only process
>> data from our senses at a rate of 110 bit/sec.  Reading this post likely
>> will chew up 60 bits/sec. of that bandwidth. 😴
>>
>>
>>
>> Why I bring this up at all is that Whitehead thinks that what integrates
>> these two modes into the whole of what we perceive is *Symbolic
>> Reference*. Symbolic reference is kind of like how we tag bits of our
>> real-world immersion for building a largely symbolic but sustainable--for
>> us individually--worldview. Most time these symbolic references are
>> provided to us--inculcated--by others like with a religion or by our
>> parents.  Most are satisfied with that. In your friend's case, I believe it
>> is possible that y' all were unsettling--challenging--his worldview ... or,
>> he challenging yours.
>>
>>
>>
>> Flow is not likely to be aroused in a social context. It is an inner
>> state ... what the Greeks and Csikszentmihalyi would say is the entering
>> into an alternate reality devoid of our sense of self.  Your existence
>> melts away in such a state. So our symbols get challenged or, perhaps,
>> disappear as well. French social philosophers Jean Baudrillard and Gilles
>> Deleuze also talk about symbolism, but it was at a social level.  As far as
>> I am concerned, Flow can't be achieved at the level of society ... but, boy
>> I wish that that were not so.  Csikszentmihalyi talks about the opposite of
>> Flow that occurs on a social level that often occurs when society has been
>> thrown into a chaos as with war or Trumpism. 🤔
>>
>>
>>
>> Is mathematics invented or discovered?  This is a perennial topic that
>> arises within my philosophy group.  It never really gets resolved, but how
>> could it be?   It is the ultimate of symbolic reference systems because of
>> its precision in predicting the way the world manifests itself to our
>> perception. This is not so true of our other symbols or abstractions. So
>> are they any different?  In a way, they are because mathematical symbols
>> form from an axiom-driven language. But, notwithstanding Jerry Fodor's
>> "built-in" syntactic language of thought, languages are human inventions
>> based on metaphors [if you like George Lakoff].  Languages work among
>> cultures because they are more or less conventional (acceptable) to a
>> culture.  The fact that they can be translated into other languages is
>> because we are all immersed in the same reality. In this way, I tend to
>> think of mathematics as invented. If you are a Platonist--a worldview--you
>> will likely disagree.
>>
>>
>>
>> As I often do, I  kind of resonate with Vladimyr's thought, which you
>> included in your post. It is very Csikszentmihalyi-est. I do think that
>> simulations can lure us into thinking that they are an exact dynamic
>> facsimile of the reality which they try to abstract into an analytical
>> model.  There are all kinds of things about simulations that can lead us
>> astray. Fidelity is one thing, obviously.  But, I think that the worst
>> thing--and this is often the fate of a simulator because of time and
>> funding--is when they get so complicated that no one understands the
>> process for how the results were computed.  This--like with many neural
>> networks--is when the simulator just become an Oracle.  This is kind of
>> what happened with Henry Markam's Blue Brain Project
>> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-human-brain-project-went-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it/>,
>> building a simulation of something for which they didn't know the first
>> principles.  I think also this is what John Horgan wrote about concerning
>> what was going on at the Santa Fe Institute in his *SA* article From
>> Complexity to Perplexity
>> <http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/hogan.complexperplex.htm>.
>>
>>
>>
>> But, as Vladimyr muses, maybe this is the best we can do ... and symbolic
>> reference is what nature served up for us to cope, concerning what we are
>> perceiving.  But, as with all smart systems, a smart entity will always try
>> to challenge and refine those symbols with continuous feedback--FLOW.
>> However, in the larger scheme of things, it really doesn't matter if
>> mathematics was invented or discovered. I mean, where did the concept of a
>> hammer come from? 🤔
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:13 AM, glen ☣ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> There's no doubt that there's some kernel of truth to the concept of
>> "flow" or "in the zone".  I always make the mistake of thinking others have
>> had similar experiences to mine.  But at our journal club a few weeks ago,
>> while discussing whether math is invented or discovered, one guy kept
>> conflating mathematical symbols with their semantic grounding.  A couple of
>> us kept trying to make the point that after you've abstracted all the
>> symbols away from their grounding, so that you're just manipulating the
>> symbols, you get into the state where you start to think of the math,
>> itself, as having an ontological existence.  You're "in the zone", so to
>> speak, where the math becomes real as opposed to a proxy for the real.
>> That the other guy couldn't grok it could be a sign that he's never entered
>> that zone, hamstrung by his grounding to physical reality.
>>
>> Or, he could have simply felt defensive because he thought we kept
>> attacking him ... you never know how some people interpret the milieu.
>>
>> On 02/20/2017 10:44 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote:
>> > Some music allows some people to focus longer. Maybe Taser jolts work
>> for others. The simulation lures us into fantasy lands. Which I kinda like
>> sometimes.
>> > Time links these sims of mine but temporality is a coincidence not a
>> true cause and we don't live long enough to test every contingency, so we
>> make do with delusions. There seems no path out of this box. The box just
>> grows with us.
>> > vib
>> >
>> > So why did evolution place so much emphasis on time...
>>
>> --
>> ☣ glen
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Tom Johnson <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> To: "Friam at redfish. com" <friam at redfish.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:35:33 -0700
> Subject: [FRIAM] Meet the Math Professor Who’s Fighting Gerrymandering
> With Geometry - The Chronicle of Higher Education
> Meet the Math Professor Who’s Fighting Gerrymandering With Geometry
> http://www.chronicle.com/article/Meet-the-Math-Professor/239260/
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Merle Lefkoff <merlelefkoff at gmail.com>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:44:32 -0700
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Meet the Math Professor Who’s Fighting Gerrymandering
> With Geometry - The Chronicle of Higher Education
> Interesting.  I posted on my Facebook page this morning an article about
> the federal court in Wisconsin questioning gerrymandering there--new
> precedent.  Wonder if this group was involved in this important court
> decision.
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Tom Johnson <tom at jtjohnson.com> wrote:
>
>> Meet the Math Professor Who’s Fighting Gerrymandering With Geometry
>> http://www.chronicle.com/article/Meet-the-Math-Professor/239260/
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
> President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
> merlelefoff at gmail.com
> mobile:  (303) 859-5609
> skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> To: Friam <Friam at redfish.com>
> Cc: "'Jonathan Barker'" <jsheddbarker at gmail.com>, "'Dix McComas'" <
> dixmccomas2 at gmail.com>, "'Rachel Folsom'" <rachelfolsom at mac.com>,
> "'Rachel Thompson'" <rachelwtoo at gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:09:49 -0700
> Subject: [FRIAM] FW: Grasping the scary, shaping local action
>
> Hi, everybody.
>
>
>
> Some of you might remember my friend Jonathan Barker, a political
> scientist from the University of Toronto, who came to visit with us a few
> years back.    I have turned to him to help me think about how much danger
> we are actually in, fascism-wise.  I think the short answer he would give
> is that the danger is substantial.
>
>
>
> Here are some materials he has forwarded to me to prod me along in my
> thinking  (links below).
>
>
>
> There is one more I will send in a separate message.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Jonathan Barker [mailto:jsheddbarker at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 22, 2017 2:21 PM
> *To:* Nancy Barker <jonabarker at sympatico.ca>
> *Subject:* Grasping the scary, shaping local action
>
>
>
> Greetings from Toronto,
>
> Here are four sources for understanding what US politics is in for and one
> very promising path of effective resistance and redirection. I read a lot
> on the new administration and these pieces, I find, throw a bright light on
> the unfamiliar events spilling out every day. Thanks to friends and
> relatives who signaled them to me.  But let me add that (the late) Sheldon
> Wolin in his 2008 book *Democracy Inc.: Managed Democracy and the Specter
> of Inverted Totalitarianism* shows how thoroughly the ground was prepared
> for the current corruption and strangulation of the political sphere of
> Democracy.
>
> Three to read, one to watch for a deeper and deeply disturbing exposure of
> the Trump phenomenon. You may have seen one or more of these.
>
> They complement, but do not duplicate, one another.
>
>
>
> All best,
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> (1)  https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n04/sidney-blumenthal/a-short-
> history-of-the-trump-family   [Sidney Blumenthal, A Short History of the
> Trump
>
> Family, London Review of Books]
>
> (2)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GAw6dvh8v4  [Masha Gessen on the
> Trump-Putin relationship - the fifth estate]
>
> (3)  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-
> to-build-an-autocracy/513872/  [David Frum, How to build and autocracy.
> the Atlantic]
>
> (4)  https://www.indivisibleguide.com/about-us/  [About the Indivisible
> Guide and the thousands of groups taking action to reclaim the public
> sphere in the U.S]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> To: Friam <Friam at redfish.com>
> Cc: "'Jonathan Barker'" <jsheddbarker at gmail.com>, penny thompson <
> penny.thompson at earthlink.net>, "'Dix McComas'" <dixmccomas2 at gmail.com>,
> "rachelfolsom at me. com" <rachelfolsom at me.com>, "'Rachel Thompson'" <
> rachelwtoo at gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:15:00 -0700
> Subject: [FRIAM] FW: trump/Ford
>
> Hi, everybody,
>
>
>
> Here is the second shoe.  I asked Jonathan to comment on trump on the
> basis of his experience with the Mayor of Toronto, a man named Ford, who
> managed to get himself reelected despite the fact that it was pretty clear
> he was a coke head … and a fool.  I asked him how was that possible and how
> do we fight it.
>
>
>
> See below.  I particularly urge you to “stay for “ the newspaper article
> at the end.  Both Jon’s letter and that article provide ground truth about
> the difficulties of extracting oneself from such a regime, once it has been
> stabled.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Jonathan Barker [mailto:jsheddbarker at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 18, 2017 8:30 PM
> *To:* Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> *Subject:* Re: trump/Ford
>
>
>
> The appeal to the anger of those who feel sidelined and ignored is is
> similar. They both attacked "the gravy train." They both had great need for
> popular approval and held the aim of limiting government and taxes. Ford in
> office was undisciplined and not very effective. He did not systematically
> attack all city services, but did cut their funding. He had links with
> shady operators, attacked the media, cared nothing for facts, stuck to a
> simple message. And his supporters stuck with him despite all the criticism
> and investigative reporting. Ford had a genuine affection for regular
> people, answered their calls, and even went to their houses to look after
> complaints about city services. He also had serious addictions to alcohol
> and other drugs.
>
> Opposing him had some similarities to opposing Trump. He did not have firm
> control of city council and the city is highly dependent on the province.
> There was room to stymie some of his efforts.  And after he admitted to
> substance abuse most power was stripped from his office. (There was no
> provision for removing him from office.) To get him out of power, like for
> Trump, required grass roots action: organize and get out the vote. But city
> politics has no organized parties in Toronto which means there were no
> party organizations to mobilize or to pry supporters from. The seeming
> futility of well-informed reporting and opposition arguments seems similar
> in the two cases. In his second election Ford might well have won because
> the non-Ford vote was split between two strong candidates, but cancer
> sidelined Ford before election day.
>
> Lessons: Use all available institutional weapons and reach into the places
> supporting Trump to organize and activate and inform the many people there
> who oppose him. The key problem is addressing the issues in the Trump
> voters minds in a convincing way. There are many strands here to think
> through. What can government and citizens do to reduce inequality and
> reverse the cultural and physical separation of class and identity groups?
> How to rehabilitate the reputation of government as a problem solver? And
> serous media as sources of true information? What groups and places to
> target first?
>
> Daniel Dale covered Ford and then Trump for the Toronto Star. Here are his
> thoughts about similarities and differences from an interview after the
> Republican convention.
>
> The nuclear codes are a worry...
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> =====================
>
> *Daniel Dale
> <https://twitter.com/ddale8?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor>
> on Donald Trump and Rob Ford*
>
> *Towards the beginning of Trump’s campaign, a lot of people drew
> connections between his political rhetoric and rise in popularity and that
> of Rob Ford. What’s diverged since — or only gotten bizarrely more similar?*
>
> A very big difference is that Ford managed to stay on his best behaviour
> during his first campaign, in which he managed to convince people he wasn’t
> quite the erratic, angry, scary man that people had said he was. Trump just
> doesn’t care. His behaviour has only gotten more concerning to a lot of
> people, but he’s unwilling to modify it.
>
> Another is that [Trump] has explicitly used racial or ethnic division in
> an attempt to fuel his popularity with a small segment of the population.
> Ford may have benefited from the homophobia of the part of the electorate
> who didn’t like George Smitherman [in 2010], or from blurting out in
> debates where he didn’t want immigrants coming to the city. But that type
> of fear-based appeal wasn’t something that he did.
>
> Early in the campaign there were eerie similarities. But the more it’s
> continued, the more they’ve diverged. Trump has gone beyond.
>
> I think it’s hard in general to compare a Canadian municipal campaign to a
> U.S. presidential one. But what we saw in Trump’s very dark, angry,
> fear-mongering speech at the Republican convention last week is nothing
> like what we saw from Ford. Trump is trying to make crime and law and order
> central to his campaign. That’s something that’s more often central to
> municipal campaigns, but it’s not something Ford talked about. Even in his
> fierce criticism of government, his message was practical: “I am a fixer. I
> will be more responsive to you than this current government.”
>
> If anything, that’s the parallel. When Trump said, “I am your voice, and
> you have been forgotten by elites who look after their own interests. I
> will be your champion.” That’s what Rob Ford did: Instead of Miller, this
> Harvard-educated lawyer who goes on about bike lanes, I will champion what
> you want me to champion.
>
> *What are some examples of these parallels or divergences you’ve seen in
> the last week during the Republican National Convention?*
>
> The most reminiscent to me during the convention was the way Trump and his
> campaign responded to the Melania plagiarism problem. It was so obvious
> that words had been copied. Political advisors spent days screaming the
> obvious thing: You acknowledge the issue, apologize and move on. But they
> denied, and said, “No, nothing’s wrong here, it’s just the media making
> things up.” I think at one point his spokesperson said something along the
> lines of Michelle Obama thinks she invented the English language
> <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288316-trump-aide-concept-that-michelle-obama-invented-the>
> .
>
> Finally, after dragging the news cycle on longer, they finally admitted an
> error. It was so Ford-like to me. It was this perpetual unwillingness to
> concede anything, and turning yourself into the victim of your own error.
> [from http://tvo.org/article/current-affairs/shared-values/
> rob-ford-donald-trump-and-the-future-of-politics].
>
> ===============
>
> On 2/16/2017 11:48 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> Wondering, to what extent your experience with Mayor Ford is a model for
> our experience with President Trump.
>
>
>
> Absent, nuclear codes, of course.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> To: Friam <Friam at redfish.com>, Faculty Discussion <
> faculty-general at lists.clarku.edu>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:04:38 -0700
> Subject: [FRIAM] help with memory
>
> Hi, Everybody,
>
>
>
> Does anybody remember from the 90’s (yes, the 90’s!) a computer web thing,
> VERY primitive, that tried to imitate a university with class rooms, and
> discussion groups.  It had a cheesy graphic interface you could “move
> around in”  I think it was called moo doo, but I possibly have it confused
> with the Vermont Fertilizer company of the same name.  I don’t know if it
> bears any relation to the educational software Moodle.
>
>
>
> Ring any bells?
>
>
>
> Have done some poking around on the web but I can’t find anything,
> possibly because of people using the same or similar names for other
> things.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Russell Standish <lists at hpcoders.com.au>
> To: Friam <Friam at redfish.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:54:58 +1100
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] help with memory
> I know ... I know !
>
> MOOC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 06:04:38PM -0700, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > Hi, Everybody,
> >
> >
> >
> > Does anybody remember from the 90's (yes, the 90's!) a computer web
> thing,
> > VERY primitive, that tried to imitate a university with class rooms, and
> > discussion groups.  It had a cheesy graphic interface you could "move
> around
> > in"  I think it was called moo doo, but I possibly have it confused with
> the
> > Vermont Fertilizer company of the same name.  I don't know if it bears
> any
> > relation to the educational software Moodle.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ring any bells?
> >
> >
> >
> > Have done some poking around on the web but I can't find anything,
> possibly
> > because of people using the same or similar names for other things.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> > Nicholas S. Thompson
> >
> > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> >
> > Clark University
> >
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> >
> >
> >
>
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------
> Dr Russell Standish                    Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Senior Research Fellow        hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> Economics, Kingston University         http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Friam mailing list
> Friam at redfish.com
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170223/f8d34d11/attachment-0002.html>