[FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure

[Marcus Daniels]

Sure.   I'm just trying to get the "pathological" aspect of personality defined away.  You talk to your billionaire friend with the initials PT and he explains why it is necessary to drain the blood of random victims.  It all holds together from his integrated world view.  How can it be called immoral except by using another integrated world view?

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:17 AM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure

The problem is that, in the case of editing Wikipedia articles or a Jared Kushner operating some kind of "data science" scheme in the background, you can't tell whether a person who *seems* to not seek power actually doesn't seek power. Many of those wikipedia contributors are seeking power and aren't working for "the" common good (maybe some local in-group good, but not a global one). So, "seeming to seek power" might be a good indicator of someone who shouldn't have it. But "not seeming to seek power" isn't at all sufficient for identifying those who should have it.

And it's more difficult to simulate the moral code of someone who seems to NOT seek power.

On 8/10/21 10:54 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> What if they are integrated high-functioning sociopaths?   By a common-sense evaluation, Trump is high-functioning.  He became president, after all.   People that seek power tend to be the sort of people that probably shouldn’t have it, in my experience.
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Frank 
> Wimberly
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 10, 2021 10:33 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
> 
>  
> 
> Psychologists I know would call a person whose behavior is consistent with his self description is integrated rather than moral.  "Integrated" is usually a good quality but not if someone happily describes himself in sociopathic terms.  Trump is, in my non-professional opinion, an amoral, narcissistic sociopath.
> 
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> 
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 11:24 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Yeah, it was long. I only got through half of it during my workout this morning.
> 
>     I suppose it's right to say that the normative definition of moral 
> would exclude Trump (or people like him). But if we stuck to your idea 
> that a particular morality be *expressible*. (FWIW, I think the extra 
> qualifier "independently of oneself" is redundant, at least a little. 
> Any expression has to be at least somewhat objective ... spoken word 
> causes air vibrations, video recordings of someone talking, written 
> documents, etc.)
> 
>     So, there's a hot debate at the moment in machine learning about the different usage patterns for interpretable ML vs explainable ML, whereas "explainable" is weaker in that it doesn't give any direct access to the mechanism, only describes it somewhat ... "simulates" it. Interpretable ML is supposedly a kind of transparency so that you can see inside, have access to the actual mechanism that executes when the algorithm makes a prediction.
> 
>     Targeting your idea that a moral code must be expressible, do you mean a perfect, transparent expression of the mechanism a moral actor uses? Or do you mean simulable ... such that we can build relatively high fidelity *models* of the mechanism inside the actor?
> 
>     On 8/10/21 10:11 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
>     > The Envy video looked like a lot of fun, but it was too long for me to sit through it.
>     >
>     > Regarding morality, my guess is that it's not predictability that leads people to consider someone moral, it's acting according to a framework that can be expressed independently of oneself. Society-wide utilitarianism would be fine; "someone much like Trump [who] says they're an exploitative, gaming, solipsist" and then behaves in a way consistent with that description, would not be considered moral no matter how consistently their behavior simply optimized short-term personal benefits. After all, to take your own Trump example, I doubt that many people would characterize Trump as moral.
> 
>     -- 
>     ☤>$ uǝlƃ


--
☤>$ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/