<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>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.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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"... <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>"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". <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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... <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/6/22 8:37 AM, Marcus Daniels
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BYAPR11MB3830FED21F24C337F7E7F1EAC57E9@BYAPR11MB3830.namprd11.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
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.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
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.<br>
</div>
<br>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
Marcus<br>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt"
face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Friam
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> on behalf of glen
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gepropella@gmail.com"><gepropella@gmail.com></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 6, 2022 7:57 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><friam@redfish.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] more structure-based mind-reading</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span
style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 9/3/22 08:47, Marcus Daniels wrote:<br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
>> On Sep 2, 2022, at 7:17 PM, Steve Smith
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sasmyth@swcp.com"><sasmyth@swcp.com></a> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>>> On 9/2/22 8:17 AM, glen wrote:<br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 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).<br>
>>><br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> On 9/2/22 05:35, Marcus Daniels wrote:<br>
>>>> 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.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>>> From: Friam
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> On Behalf Of glen<br>
>>>> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 12:06 AM<br>
>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><friam@redfish.com></a><br>
>>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] more structure-based
mind-reading<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 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?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On September 1, 2022 7:29:45 PM PDT,
Marcus Daniels <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com"><marcus@snoutfarm.com></a> wrote:<br>
>>>>> 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.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Sep 1, 2022, at 6:25 PM, Prof
David West <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:profwest@fastmail.fm"><profwest@fastmail.fm></a> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> From glen: "If you want to share
values with some arbitrary shmoe, then get to<br>
>>>>> *work*. Build something or
cooperate on a common task. Talking,<br>
>>>>> communicating, is inadequate
at best, disinfo at worst."<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 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.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 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.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> davew<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022, at 12:30 PM,
Steve Smith wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 9/1/22 11:21 AM, glen wrote:<br>
>>>>> Inter-brain synchronization occurs
without physical co-presence during cooperative online
gaming<br>
>>>>> <a
href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393222001750"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393222001750</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 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".<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 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.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I agree somewhat with the spirit of
this, however a recent writer/book I discovered is Sand
Talk<<a
href="https://www.harpercollins.com/products/sand-talk-tyson-yunkaporta?variant=32280908103714"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.harpercollins.com/products/sand-talk-tyson-yunkaporta?variant=32280908103714</a>>
by Tyson Yunkaporta and more specifically his references
to "Yarning" in his indigenous Australian culture offered
me a complementary perspective...<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 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<<a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_object"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_object</a>>
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...<br>
>>><br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ<br>
<br>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-.
--- -.. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays
9a-12p Zoom <a href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
to (un)subscribe <a
href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>
archives: 5/2017 thru present <a
href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">
https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><br>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a
href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a>
to (un)subscribe <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
archives: 5/2017 thru present <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>