<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Glen claims "antisocial" and I think Dave has mentioned his own
"tendency to withdraw from society" (my paraphrase, I welcome
correction or elaboration. I hypothosize that *many* who are
significantly engaged in online discussion/community may well fit
one of the myriad positions on (and near?) the anti-social
spectrum? <br>
</p>
<p>I personally prefer to consider myself to have "asocial
tendencies". I'm not entirely uncomfortable in social groups, but
I know I tend to prefer smaller groups or sub-groups within a
larger group, to the extreme of engaging mostly in serial
one-on-one conversations at dinner parties. I tend to reserve the
term "anti-social" for something a bit more active in the sense of
not only avoiding engaging in social groups/activities, but being
hostile (openly or not) toward such groups. I can admit to being
somewhat judgemental about large-group activities (attending pop
culture events en-masse, including political rallies and street
protests), but more in the sense of "I wouldn't be caught dead
doing that!" rather than "anyone who participates in such things
are mindless idiots!" I even accept that under the right
circumstances I have been known to participate. I do attend small
gathering performances/readings/events and in most cases find
their downside more about the tedium than the actual
content/experience itself.</p>
<p>My father (1927-2014) was a bit of a paradox on this topic. He
was born and raised amongst his hillbilly relatives. His father
(my grandfather (1898-1975) and grandmother(1899-1950) were the
first of their generation to get an advanced education (MS/BS
degrees vs typically 8th grade) and escape the day to day
circumstances of their otherwise humble origins. My grandmother,
despite education and living in a small city through her adult
life, never left her "mountain origins" while my grandfather
fashioned himself much more of a "modern man". My own father
spent his self aware life in one of three uniforms, two in the
service of the US Government. The first was in the Boy Scouts of
America for his teen years. The Second as a recruit in the US
Navy at the very end of WWII, not leaving dock until after VJ day,
spending his 3 years helping to clean up after the war in the
Pacific. The third was as an employee of the US Forest Service.
His roots and instincts were those of a very independent person
who felt by some measure that every man was an island, yet his
practice was to find his place as an island as a member of an
Archipelago. Half the allure of the Boy Scouts and of the US
Forest Service was his draw to spend time in the wilds... the
other half seems to have been to *also* have the sanction of the
authority of a uniform and a set of rules. His stint in the Navy
may have been the same. <br>
</p>
<p>Many of his anecdotes about both the USN and USFS involved him
recognizing/discovering/exercising the distinction between blind
observance of rules and the recognition and pursuit of the spirit
of the rules, and him having ultimately prevailed over strict
interpretations with common sense actions in the spirit when not
the letter of the regulations. His proudest moment may have been
when his court martial was dismissed abruptly after being charged
for deriliction/AWOL during the Port Chicago disaster in 1944
where 320 Navy men were killed and a similar number were injured.
He was a medical aide/assistant on his ship which was docked near
the disaster and when the injured personnel began arriving, he
reported for duty without being called. After several shifts of
non-stop desperate work to do triage and save the lives (and often
limbs) of those harmed, he returned to his berth only to be
arrested for having not been available when they came to collect
him for duty in the emergency. They apparently ignored or didn't
believe his "alibi" and he went through the whole formal process
of being held for a court marshal which fortunately was quite
prompt and at least there, when he gave his account, the "judge"
recognized his earnest honesty and apparently he was not the first
or only one to be mis-charged/handled in this way. There were
at least another dozen altercations of this style (if not gravity)
in his career in the USFS. He seemed to trust implicitely that
the system would ultimately "do the right thing" and it didn't
seem to bother him much that he could-be mishandled while the
"sheels of justice" turned. His USFS career involved a huge amount
of time in the field (forest), even during his mid-career stint in
middle management (District Ranger). It was as if he was
simultaneously addicted and allergic to the basic nature of
organized systems of authority. <br>
</p>
<p>In the shadow of his addiction/allergy, I avoided uniforms
entirely excepting a few months in the BSA at his insistence. I
gave over to the shirt and necktie but it all felt too much like
being a member of the "hitler youth" to me. I was <i>institutionalized</i>
at LANL for 27 years with (too) many of the same features. In
place of a uniform, I had a security clearance, a Z-number and a
Badge which came with their own egregious rule-sets and implied
authority and paradoxes. During that time, my best work was done
as the de-facto leader of small teams (3-10). Each time that
de-facto leadership lead to a formal leadership position, it
eventually went bad, requiring me to move on to fresh pastures. I
made a couple of lame attempts at rising to middle management but
couldn't hold a straight face during the interview process,
knowing that I didn't respect many (if any?) of my would-be peers
and fearing that I was about to join them by way of the "Peter
Principle". My 27 year career at LANL consisted of patchwork of
jobs like this ranging from 3-7 years in duration. I was very
relieved the day I decided to leave LANL (2008) and shocked at how
much MORE relieved I was the day I surrendered my clearances
(2010).<br>
</p>
<p>Outside of my institutionalization in BS (big science), I have
often been self-employed and entrepreneurial and generally fairly
independent in my work. I always saw the benefits of working
within an organizational context to be "convenient" but suspect.
<br>
</p>
<p>Anecdotally Yours,</p>
<p> - Steve<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/15/19 9:18 AM, ∄ uǝʃƃ wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ed5b9620-284a-dd3e-236e-29b36284a2e9@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I don't know, man. I'm an antisocial person. But I seem to meet a lot of people who truly *enjoy* being in and playing on teams. Teams are, by definition, algorithmic, some more, some less. The same could be said about going to arena sized concerts, or chanting silly things at protests or rallies: Lock Him Up! Lock Him Up! 8^)
These people don't *seem* like they feel demeaned. They seem energized by their mob behavior. Teams are energized when they play "in the zone". Etc. Even in the case of the high rank *nodes*. Their decisions are more algorithmic than those of the low rank nodes. The difference is they have to be *rational* ... they have to encapsulate much more of the algorithm inside their heads, whereas the low rank nodes have more of the algorithm in the machinery and processes around them ... the "extended mind" as it were.
The people who "hate the government" are *big* team players. That's the problem. They're upset because they don't feel like they're part of the team. They've been left out (mostly because they can't catch or hit the damned ball!).
On 1/14/19 10:48 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Oh, it was more than the pomp Wouk bristled at. It was the removal of discretion, as well. The American military is perhaps better than most in that regard, but any military has to operate on algorithms, and nobody likes to be a node in an algorithm. So, I guess my thesis was that in the second world war we got a double and conflicting lesson: how effective an algorithmic system can be AND how demeaning it can be to be part of one. Two solutions present themselves: 1. Hire mercenaries and 2. Automate. Of course we have done both.
An officer of your dad’s rank, of course, was an exception and even within that giant system he made big decisions daily, decisions that affected the lives of thousands of people. There is a scene in that same book where an officer is required to make one of those decisions between surely killing 50 strangers or threatening the life of 150 you know that utilitarians are fond of posing. It’s a harrowing scene.
I wonder what the relation is between a distaste for government and service as an enlisted soldier. That’s not a rhetorical question. I do wonder. I am thinking there is a high correlation between states with high military participation and states with anti-government politics. When a conservative thinks of “government” is he more likely to think of the military?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>