[FRIAM] Friam Norms of Thread Bending

[Prof David West]

The original post included two "bending invitations:" the troll about Kipling and the levity about Ahnold. It would be surprising if, in this group, they had not been accepted.

There is no importance to be attached to that post - it was simply an attempt to expose and make concrete points of divergence in my understanding vis-a-vis others in the online conversation last week and to provide seeds — if and only if there is any interest — for conversation this coming Friday. Nothing profound here.

davew


On Wed, Mar 24, 2021, at 8:42 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:
> On 3/23/21 2:23 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> > Like all healthy communities, I'm glad to see continued "good natured
> > heckling" amongst the most vocal here.
> > 
> > 
> > On 3/23/21 2:06 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> >> If your are correct that the comment "self-comstrained"  then I was fool to pay any attention to it whatsoever.  Fools rush in... etc.  
> 
> I think Dave prophetically argued (in the OP) against Nick's later 
> claim to foolishness (see below). It's not foolish to pay attention to 
> EricC's spandrel-like thread bending. It is a hallmark of nonlinear 
> thinking.
> 
> On 3/23/21 8:11 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > This also means, that individual feature-traits — ... — cannot, and should not be "explained" independently. To do so is to focus on the 'noise' and not the 'signal'. Such efforts are the product of 19th century thinking and unworthy of complexity scientists like yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
> 
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>