[FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality

Sun Jan 16 00:50:40 EST 2022

Oh, Gawd!  What on earth, in citizen-gab, is a hidden state machine? From
whom is it hiding??  How does a machine infer it's own state, anyway.  Can a
machine mistake it's own state?   Sheeesh!

n

Nick Thompson
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 10:35 AM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality

Well, this reminds me of hidden state machines and the law of requisite
variety. If we're trying to explain why humans have persnickety preferences,
including state-hiding tendencies like focusing on emotion vs brute fact,
rather than argue for a flattening of the collective human/biological
machine(s), we should look at both the machine(s) and the environment(s) in
which they're grown.

Does the state-hiding machine present a more expressive problem solver than
would otherwise be achievable without hiding state? And is that extra
expressibility necessary (or more convenient/efficient) than with an in
principle equivalent flattened (set of) machine(s)?

I'm then reminded of demonstrations (?) that zero determinant game strats,
while able to dominate in ideal contexts, don't do so well in evolutionary
contexts. So, perhaps the answer to these questions is simply "No" ... that
the hidden state doesn't provide any extra problem solving ability and the
tendency to (or advocacy of) avoid the flattening is an operable sign of bad
faith? Or, in the lingo of the laity, curmudgeons are a justified cost
because they more quickly indicate the bad actors. Get off my lawn!

And if the answer is "No", how do we explain the existence of this
"cognitive ease", this tendency to rely on stereotypes and
historicity-reinforced signs (perhaps now having lost/changed their
referents)?

On 1/13/22 16:48, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Anyway, the reason I noticed this article is that I posit that the steely
harm reduction approach that was discussed recently is in my mind a form of
stoicism.   Can one put away their emotional responses and make hard choices
based on the greater global good?   If one engages in large intimate social
networks, I would say two things are likely to happen:  1) executive
decisions become harder because there is diffusion of sensitive information,
and thus political complications in making them.  Members in the network may
not be sharing the whole factual context (preferring the emotionally laden
parts) 2) there are still dominance relations (her language), but they are
just manifest in different ways.  Namely by being in the center of a social
network and slightly censoring the information that gets passed along.
> 
> As it relates to the subject line, there may be some weak tendency one has
to share or not share by default depending on hormones/genetics.
> ________________________________
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Marcus Daniels
<marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 5:12 PM
> To: friam at redfish.com <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality
> 
> < So, I'd argue against you completely. This essay is talking about how to
detect and operate in the presence of bad faith. And, to be clear, the bad
faith actor doesn't necessarily *know* that they're acting in bad faith. In
fact, it's a more canonical case of bad faith if the actor has simply
habituated to it. >
> 
> A contrast she draws is between petulant vulnerability and "real"
vulnerability.   That it is "scary" and "any less necessary, for men".
> There's another option which is not to use "the language of vulnerability
as a cudgel", but also not engage "the human condition of reliance on
others."  She is expressing an expectation for high intimacy, and it is
implicit that there is something wrong with keeping your distance.   I've
seen this false choice portrayed by other so-called feminists.  I don't buy
it.
> 
> Marcus
> ________________________________
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of glen
<gepropella at gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 4:55 PM
> To: friam at redfish.com <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality
> 
> What's interesting about that essay is its appeal to character or "virtue
ethics", I think. I've tried to address this a few times in past threads,
especially when concepts like "bad faith" arise. Rittenhouse' crying looked
precisely like bad faith to me. I get accused of it a lot because I enjoy
playing roles and believe playing roles (like Devil's Advocate) facilitates
healthy reasoning. (E.g. EricC's accusation of illiberalism on my part when
condemning the anti-masker's punching of the doctor.)
> 
> So, I'd argue against you completely. This essay is talking about how to
detect and operate in the presence of bad faith. And, to be clear, the bad
faith actor doesn't necessarily *know* that they're acting in bad faith. In
fact, it's a more canonical case of bad faith if the actor has simply
habituated to it. Rittenhouse's crying on the stand and Kavanaugh's crying
in his confirmation hearings both seem to me to be statements about their
*character*. That means whatever ways we have/develop to detect bad faith
can be made reflective ... kinda like the Reddit forum "Am I the Asshole?"
8^D
> 
> I doubt one's oxytocin-laced skepticism over such acting is completely
arbitrary ... or even a preference at all.
> 
> On 1/13/22 14:33, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> Well, now that I've taken one extreme position, let me take the other
extreme position!   This essay reflects, IMO, an arbitrary preference for
social affinities of a certain sort, and it is only one sort of valid class
of relationships.  Relationships that have benefits, but also costs.   It's
not just overbearing on how men should be, but also on how women should be.
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/opinion/toxic-masculinity.html

-- 
glen
Theorem 3. There exists a double master function.

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
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/