[FRIAM] more structure-based mind-reading

Tue Sep 6 14:14:52 EDT 2022

I can't find/recall the exact quote, but you made something of a convert 
of me when we were discussing whether creativity/learning was *anything 
more* than complex/elaborate mimicry.

Crypto-anythings (closeted "whatevers") have worked this in a similar 
way to spies, but where there is a little more complicity by the 
non-cryptos who may well be collaborating in the "closeting", in the 
spirit of "don't ask, don't tell"...

"I/he/she/it/ze can pass" is the bar...   it is OK if some/many of the 
observers "suspect" the true nature but the community shares the 
consequences of a community member proving to be "less than 
fully-compliant".

Whitelash supremacists' dog-whistles are a good example.   I don't want 
to think that my neighbor is part of that movement, so some of the 
slightly "off color" things she might say across the fence, I am 
inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to...  so if she notice I 
don't respond to her dog whistles, she continues to whistle them under 
her breath now and then, just to soothe her inner racist/mysXinist and 
maybe keep checking if I maybe have been "converted", and I continue to 
(hopefully) ignore it and keep bringing her casseroles (laced with 
xanax) when her husband is recovering from his latest self-inflicted 
gunshot wound...

In this case, we are *all* "acting as if"...   until someone gets 
converted to "radical honesty" and that just adds another level of 
indirection of (self/other) deception.

On 9/6/22 8:37 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I had to do some cybersecurity training and it was set up so that all 
> the choices one could make led to the same outcome. The point was to 
> understand the properties of the paths, not the outcome.
> While that wisdom might be of some value in some other situation, 
> often there is no discernable difference between the nuance in a 
> social rule and variation that arises due to novelty or ambiguity of 
> circumstances.  The signal to noise ratio just isn't high enough to 
> justify the extra precision.   The actors in this training could have 
> been interpreted as quietly demonstrating concern rather than 
> neglect.   One could imagine a cartel boss would not want to wait for 
> a reasonable number of outliers before taking action.   After all the 
> cartel boss is a criminal and not concerned with fairness.  An 
> experienced undercover cop knows she needs to mimic the expected 
> distribution very carefully, and that even if she does mimic it very 
> carefully her life is still in danger.
>
> Marcus
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of glen 
> <gepropella at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 6, 2022 7:57 AM
> *To:* friam at redfish.com <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] more structure-based mind-reading
> Well, Steve's targeting of "feeling included" does target 
> "understanding". I'd argue that the spies don't understand the 
> communities they infiltrate. Even deep undercover or method acting 
> doesn't provide understanding. I argue that any bad faith actor like a 
> spy or "acting while cynical" has a reductive objective as their 
> target. What was interesting about the concept of bad faith was 
> Sartre's suggestion that the deep undercover operator who finally 
> *does* begin to identify with the community they've infiltrated is the 
> interesting edge case. That's the cusp of understanding.
>
> I suppose I'm making a similar argument to EricC's argument for 
> "belief", which I call "dispositional". If you don't act on your 
> belief, then you don't actually believe that thing. So, an undercover 
> cop who infiltrates a drug cartel but refuses to Necklace a local 
> do-gooder just doesn't understand what it means to be in the cartel. 
> They can't understand. And they shouldn't understand. The spy is there 
> for a more specific objective, not understanding.
>
> One of those more specific objectives might be *prediction*. In 
> simulation and [x|i]ML, there's a stark distinction between predictive 
> versus explanatory power. Ideally, strong explanatory power provides 
> predictive power. But practically, 80/20, reductive prediction is 
> easier, faster, and more important. The excess meaning is swept under 
> the rug of variation or noise. At raves, a reductive objective is harm 
> reduction. Sure, it would be fantastic to teach all the kids 
> pharmaco[kinetics|dynamics] and chemistry ... as well as psychology 
> and neuroscience. But the harm reduction tent is not really there to 
> get into the kids' minds. The objective isn't understanding. It's a 
> reductive focus on dampening the edge cases.
>
>
> On 9/3/22 08:47, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > The claim is that there is all this diversity in subcultures and 
> that the only way to understand them is to participate in them.  If it 
> is possible to fake it, and I think it is, then that raises doubts 
> about the claim. That is what spies specialize in.
> >
> >> On Sep 2, 2022, at 7:17 PM, Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have spent most of my life avoiding "acting while cynical"... I 
> have *felt* cynical about a lot of things, and Marcus' description of 
> a lot of things speaks to my "inner cynic" but I haven't spent much 
> time being *harmed* by engaging in "performative activities while 
> feeling cynical about them".    If I dig a hole it is either because 
> *I* need a hole, or someone else *needs* a whole, and only rarely do I 
> help someone dig a hole as a team/trust/affinity building exercise 
> unless the   There are too many holes in the world that *want* digging 
> to spend much effort en-performance.
> >>
> >> I've never felt particulary "included" in any social circle and I 
> have seen that a little bit of "Performative Grease" might have helped 
> this square peg fit more-better in the round holes it encountered, but 
> generally I simply avoided those activities and drifted further and 
> further out.  That is not to say I haven't *tried* to be a good sport 
> and do what others were doing on the off chance that it would actually 
> be something that worked for me, but generally not.
> >>
> >> BTW... there seems to be some inverted general usage of 
> "square-peg/round-hole",   drilling a round hole and then driving a 
> square(ish) peg into it guarantees a good tight fit... it is preferred 
> to round peg-round hole in traditional joinery.
> >>
> >>> On 9/2/22 8:17 AM, glen wrote:
> >>> 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
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (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/
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoomhttps://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>    1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220906/aa94b291/attachment.html>