[FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Thu Sep 14 12:25:43 EDT 2017

Now that I've actually read the article I wouldn't change what I wrote, but
I'd like to add a brief comment.

I agree with Roberts that "it’s been a long time since I felt the thinness
of the veneer of civilization and our vulnerability to a sequence of events
that might threaten not just the policy positions I might favor but the
very existence of the American experiment."

But I disagree with Roberts that the problem is as symmetric as he makes it
out. (That was Marcus's point.)  He gives an example of Trump lying
followed by the press fact checking him. That's followed by Trump
supporters concluding that the press is unfair and Trump opponents becoming
even more convinced that Trump is a lying buffoon. I agree that that all
happens. (On Google+ where I post a lot, I often make that point when
someone posts a clear example of Trump's hying and hypocrisy. I say exactly
what Roberts said: that identifying yet more example of Trump's dishonest
won't convince anyone on either side. So perhaps we should get beyond
that.)  But as I said, it's not symmetric. When Trump lies yet another
time, it is the media's job to fact check him. (Roberts agrees with that.)
Then what? Trump and his supporters then attack the media. That's not part
of our political norms. When a politician is fact-checked we expect the
politician to respond honestly and his supporters to do likewise. The fact
that the Trump side continually breaks norms cannot be blamed on the Trump
opponents. Unfortunately Roberts is too committed to the conservative side
to be honest about that. His piece would have been a lot better if he had.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:10 AM Russ Abbott <russ.abbott at gmail.com> wrote:

> There was a good TED talk
> <https://www.ted.com/talks/caitlin_quattromani_and_lauran_arledge_how_our_friendship_survives_our_opposing_politics?rss#t-852200>
> by two women who remained friends even though they differed significantly
> politically. It's important, I believe, to be able to stay friends -- or at
> remain on civil terms -- with people we disagree with.  However, I think
> that Marcus is right that in certain situations that's not the most
> important issue. As he said, politics today -- and for the past 2 decades
> or so -- has not been symmetric. One side, for the most part, has lived by
> the norm of wanting to remain on civil terms with the other side; the other
> side, has taken as its priority to grab as much power as possible without
> regard to anything else. Civil relations be damned. When an aggressor
> country invades a peaceful neighbor the priority is not to stay on civil
> terms; it's to survive and repel the invasion. When a psychopath attacks
> you, one's priority is not to stay on civil terms; it's to defend oneself
> against the attack. I'm sure there there are honest and civilized
> conservatives -- for example Ross Douthat of the NYT -- but so many of them
> don't care about remaining on civil terms. Their priority is to steal as
> much as possible in any way possible. When Obama nominated Garland and
> McConnell refused to hold hearings, Obama and Garland stayed on civil terms
> with McConnell. That didn't make peace or move any useful process forward.
> In that case it's not clear what else could have been done, but striving
> for civility in the face of rampant aggression and evil makes no sense.
> That's why no society can survive without some sort of norm enforcement
> mechanism, e.g., police, social disapproval, etc. Civility does not solve
> every problem.
>
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:40 AM Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Nick writes:
>>
>>
>> "Allow me to heckle, if you will.  Marcus, your post exemplifies a
>> theory of human nature which is summarized by the motto, *in caloris
>> veritas.  *
>> It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the
>> moment.  Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory:
>> he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about
>> anything.  I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to
>> the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the
>> social consequences of what we are saying."
>>
>> That's a plausible assertion if the topic is about the social properties
>> of the group.   I don't see why it is plausible if the topic is some
>> completely different thing, say, like how an engine works, or the
>> diplomatic conditions in North Korea.  But I wasn't talking about speaking
>> impulsively, I was talking about speaking without concern for how certain
>> people feel, or what they will do, and only being willing to get down to
>> the brass tacks with them (if there is going to by any interaction at
>> all).   I don't see any reason to be generous and forgiving in the way
>> Roberts' describes; it doesn't matter to me how hard the feelings are or
>> how deep the divisions go.    I think that is bad advice because it rewards
>> the bully, and encourages him/them to do it again and again, knowing that
>> the opposition with chicken-out in end in the name of civility.  So, unlike
>> Steve, I'm not optimizing for peace.   (That's a fine thing for him to
>> optimize for, but that's him.)   It reminds me of what Christopher
>> Hitchens' said a decade ago about a possible advanced agenda of Christian
>> conservatives:  "It wouldn't last very long and would, I hope, lead to
>> civil war, which they will lose, but for which it would be a great pleasure
>> to take part."
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Nick Thompson <
>> nickthompson at earthlink.net>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:11:26 AM
>> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do
>> about it)
>>
>> Dear Marcus, Owen
>>
>>
>>
>> Allow me to heckle, if you will.  Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory
>> of human nature which is summarized by the motto, *in caloris veritas.  *It
>> is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the
>> moment.  Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory:
>> he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about
>> anything.  I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to
>> the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the
>> social consequences of what we are saying.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey Frank; did I get the Latin right?
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Marcus
>> Daniels
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:21 AM
>> *To:* Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do
>> about it)
>>
>>
>>
>> Owen,
>>
>>
>>
>> On several occasions over the years, I have been advised by `neural third
>> parties' that the content of my writing can be edgy, but that in person I'm
>> "Not that way" or "He's fine."   Now, some people think that in-person
>> interactions are more representative of a person's character.   That if we
>> just get in front of one another and _see_ the others' feelings, all
>> conflict will be resolved.  No.  I would suggest Roberts' (Friedman, and
>> other popular writers) preoccupation with civility is mistaken.   Civility
>> may keep people from killing each other, temporarily, but it certainly
>> isn't informative.  It is just the application of social skill, and this is
>> not the same thing as listening, thinking, or being honest in debate.  It
>> is a weak facilitator.  The problem with the current situation is that one
>> side is just dishonest.  In the ternary world of politics, the `don't care'
>> folks are in the crossfire, and that is appropriate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Marcus
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Owen Densmore <
>> owen at backspaces.net>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 13, 2017 9:04:42 PM
>> *To:* Complexity Coffee Group
>> *Subject:* [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)
>>
>>
>>
>> Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium
>> deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what
>> we've been dealing with.
>>
>>     
>>
>>
>> https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5
>>
>>
>>
>> Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.
>>
>>
>>
>>    -- Owen 
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
> --
> Russ Abbott
> Professor, Computer Science
> California State University, Los Angeles
>
-- 
Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170914/b08f7963/attachment.html>