[FRIAM] more structure-based mind-reading

[glen]

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-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 12:06 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at 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 <marcus at 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 <profwest at 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...


-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ