[FRIAM] Graal VM

[uǝlƃ ☣]

OK. I initially thought you hadn't addressed the question at all. But the 2 included paragraphs do seem to a bit. It's difficult to work with the liberal/conservative dichotomy because I don't think anyone's *actually* liberal or conservative. Those are post-hoc attributes ascribed by some observer. From their internal perspective, people are taking whatever action their circumstances corral them into.

So, the 2nd paragraph is on target. Whether the trigger is a concretization of "stuck in a rut" or some other thing (the spare tire around one's waist, that 40 year old inceb playing video games in the basement, overwhelming feeling of doom every day all day, ... whatever) might be irrelevant. What matters is identifying the triggers. 

After a brief conversation about this with Renee', I don't even think the bins the triggers (and actions) are disambiguating matter that much. What matters is "what triggers you to act?" I'm not sure if it really takes emotional intelligence in the hoity-toity sense of that phrase. I think it merely takes recognition that you do have triggers. Anyone who's done something rash and has regrets should be capable of understanding they have triggers.

I'm a fan of Street Epistemology <https://streetepistemology.com/>. But the Socratic method (whichever way you interpret it) is expensive ... great for college students and those "paid to think", but not feasible for normals. Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) can help. But, again, it's "Therapy. OMG!" The atheists have a pretty good question to force the trigger in Theists (and vice versa): What would it take to convince you god doesn't exist? That seems to get the theist thinking a little deeper about their own triggers (or lack thereof). Maybe there exist questions of that sort for every dynamic?  What would it take for me to actually sit down and give "sadboi rap" a good critical listen? Ha! -- nothing ... there's no way I'm gonna do that. -- maybe that's my trigger to turn up the heat a little, fire up spotify and do it ...

That sort of thinking can get you in all sorts of trouble, though. E.g. what would it take to get you to kill someone? Etc.

On 2/21/20 8:50 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Both are unsatisfactory because the `goodness' function is constantly evolving.  People are born and die, for one thing.   Taking an agent-centric approach would be one way to rationalize the literal use of these protocols because people often get more rigid as they age.   (Pity the diachronic personality.)   Liberals would run hotter and longer and conservatives would quench rapidly.
> [...]
> It would better to have a bottom-up approach where people would learn to recognize being stuck-in-a-rut and subject themselves to a higher perturbation, rather than appealing to a monster to scramble other people who are already operating at high temperature.   That requires emotional intelligence that demagogues don't nurture.

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ