<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Glen writes:</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="color:rgb(32, 31, 30);font-family:"Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px;background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255);display:inline !important"><
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)? ></span><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="color:rgb(32, 31, 30);font-family:"Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px;background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255);display:inline !important"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="color:rgb(32, 31, 30);font-family:"Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px;background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255);display:inline !important">Yes,
modularity in computer software is one example that comes to mind. When all the world is expressed in readable, or especially writable global variables, it is very difficult to build a reliable system, because programmers will inevitably misunderstand when/what/how/why
they can touch something. Similarly, it is simply too difficult to understand another person to reliably anticipate all their needs and help them. Some of their needs are inherently private and they must learn ways to maintain themselves.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="color:rgb(32, 31, 30);font-family:"Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px;background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255);display:inline !important"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="color:rgb(32, 31, 30);font-family:"Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px;background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255);display:inline !important">Another
example that comes to mind are metapopulations. The spatial separation of groups allow for the local adaptation to different environments and innovation in those environments. The spatial separation ensures that if there is an environmental crisis, the
species won't go extinct. Musk's slogan for going for Mars, for example. If we are all entangled into one emotional stew, there better be isolated airlocks to jettison parts of the superorganism if a part has a massive malfunction or infection. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Marcus</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of glen <gepropella@gmail.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 14, 2022 9:34 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">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.<br>
<br>
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)?<br>
<br>
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!<br>
<br>
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)?<br>
<br>
On 1/13/22 16:48, Marcus Daniels wrote:<br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> ________________________________<br>
> From: Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of Marcus Daniels <marcus@snoutfarm.com><br>
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 5:12 PM<br>
> To: friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com><br>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality<br>
> <br>
> < 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. ><br>
> <br>
> A contrast she draws is between petulant vulnerability and "real" vulnerability. That it is "scary" and "any less necessary, for men".<br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> Marcus<br>
> ________________________________<br>
> From: Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of glen <gepropella@gmail.com><br>
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 4:55 PM<br>
> To: friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com><br>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality<br>
> <br>
> 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.)<br>
> <br>
> 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<br>
> <br>
> I doubt one's oxytocin-laced skepticism over such acting is completely arbitrary ... or even a preference at all.<br>
> <br>
> On 1/13/22 14:33, Marcus Daniels wrote:<br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/opinion/toxic-masculinity.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/opinion/toxic-masculinity.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
glen<br>
Theorem 3. There exists a double master function.<br>
<br>
<br>
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam<br>
un/subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>
archives:<br>
5/2017 thru present <a href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><br>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>