<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/28/22 10:19 AM, glen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:8de13351-91b2-0ef8-0025-6a220b922e28@gmail.com">Very
cool! Thanks. I need this. I've made a new friend with an MD
focused on Psychiatry. She's a psychodynamics therapist (which
I've ranted about with Frank). At supper, I consistently used the
word "argument", e.g. "We have a lot of arguments in our future".
She and her husband kept objecting to the word "argument",
insisting that we use softer words like "discussion" or whatever.
After lots of poking and shredding, it came to the concept of
foundationalism ... the idea that there *can be* some common
ground within which to be collaboratively adversarial. I'm
skeptical that such foundations are even possible, much less
findable and measurable. But as long as we can identify *that*
we're assuming such a foundation, defining a game of some sort,
then I can play along nearly as if I actually agree on that
foundation, at least for awhile.
<br>
<br>
Maybe this construct will help us find a way to do that without
anyone feeling bullied.</blockquote>
<p>And maybe for some (of us) the feeling of being bullied is
necessary to activate the adversarial mode needed? I sense that,
among contrarians (of which we have a couple of full-timers and
myriad part-timers here?) there is an ideation on their (your)
part that your collaborator (opponent) *must* feel confronted (if
not bullied) to achieve the activation potential that might be
measured by Kahneman's "15 point IQ rise"? As a subject of
well-intentioned confrontation by "the Loyal Opposition", I do
find contradiction, confrontation, disagreement to be useful to
provoking/managing my own participation. <br>
</p>
<p>I am naturally both skeptical and critical on the inside but have
been trained into being overtly cooperative in most contexts. I
think it is MY adaptation to real-world bullies who want to create
a pretext for conflict that invites more bullying (see Putin v
Ukraine). I therefore (I think) seek out those who do not have
so much of that adaptation but in fact, are not actually
died-in-the-wool bullies... just ones who play that role on TV (or
at the Pub or in Internet Fora).<br>
</p>
<p>Another fascinating (and relevant IMO) article in the Atlantic
does a pretty good job of outlining a perspective on the
complexity of self-other consciousness/awareness from a particular
evolutionary-theoretic point of view. Maybe right up Nick's
alley?<br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/how-consciousness-evolved/485558/">https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/how-consciousness-evolved/485558/</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>This whole thing rhymes (I find) with the Generative Adversarial
Network discussions we've had here in the past.</p>
<p>And for some of us, maybe we can fold in Hypergraphs also... ;^)<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:8de13351-91b2-0ef8-0025-6a220b922e28@gmail.com">
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/28/22 08:19, Steve Smith wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Glen wrote, a few weeks ago, about an old
friend/colleague who had been out of touch who confronted him
with having "bullied him intellectually" a while back. I
didn't think too much of it at the time because I experience
Glen's confrontational style to be more about contrarianism than
bullying, though on sensitive subjects it is hard not to feel
any assertive disagreement otherwise.
<br>
<br>
This list traffic, I find, has a mix of fraternalism and
adversarialism that can be both disarming and uncomfortable at
times, which I believe is part of the reason for the
lurker/poster and the female/male participant ratios. I may
not be calibrated well on that topic. It is just an intuition.
<br>
<br>
In any case, the following Edge lecture on "Adversarial
Collaboration" really rung a bell with me:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.edge.org/adversarial-collaboration-daniel-kahneman">https://www.edge.org/adversarial-collaboration-daniel-kahneman</a>
<br>
<br>
He covered several interesting and relevant (to me) topics:
<br>
<br>
1. Confirmation Bias is widespread, insidious, and hard to
detect in oneself.
<br>
2. People don't change their minds.
<br>
3. Healthy attempts to change another's mind can be beneficial
to both sides in spite of the above.
<br>
5. "Angry Science" is supported by mob/tribalism, but does not
serve.
<br>
5. "Adversarial Collaboration" is a good alternative to
"Angry Science"
<br>
<br>
And most poignant to my own aging/transition process:
<br>
<br>
*/Old people don't really kick themselves. Their regret is
wistful, almost pleasant. It's not emotionally intense./*
<br>
<br>
All in all, I found the topic and Kahneman's treatment very
interesting, both in observing the general progress of Science
and in my own navigation through this ever-expandingly complex
world, with or without the help of experts and peers.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>