Well, where do you put inherited 'willful ignorance'? That kind is sort of 'built in'.
There are two of these that my work repeatedly runs into and I fail to find a way around. One is the evident fact that the active parts of nature develop locally and have their own local reactions to intruding impacts from other active parts of nature, and that that just does not correspond with the concept of everything being determined by its environment. Yet most scientists still remain focused on the inherited fascination with explaining what the determinants are. The other is how everyone who has it pointed out seems to acknowledge that a system for endless multiplication of wealth is a threat to everything people need and care about, but then say they're trying to ignore it to try to get along.. Phil From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 10:52 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E Dale - I think you're being too generous. I'm afraid that many fall into a category I'll call "Maliciously aware". "Willful Ignorance", in my vernacular is a dual of "Malicious Awareness". Just as most good physical comedians and rodeo clowns have to be "really, really good, to be that bad", Willful Ignorance is grounded in Malicious Awareness. Greenspan *had* to know that he was presiding at a series of dedications of a house of cards (Willfully pretending ignorance). Here you seem to agree that true ignorance may not be the issue. Again, I use Willful Ignorance in the same sense (mod subtleties) as you use Maliciously Aware. The difference is that it is the *affectation of ignorance* that makes it work. We have a system where certain players can reap short-term gains without being held accountable for long-term losses. I'm sure there are individuals on this list with more game-theory or behavioral-incentive knowledge that could elucidate the mechanisms better than I. Yes, and it is not surprising that we would "evolve" personality types to fill this niche. I think we've had such in our midst at least as long as we've not been nomadic. My personal belief is that survival units of "wandering tribe" are at least selected for "enlightened self interest" at the band level. At the scale we currently operate, I think it is at least (very) very hard for us to recognize enlightened self interest, much less be motivated to act on it. The most frustrating part is that I simply don't know what can be done about it and how I can help. I can choose to act in what I believe is a more moral way, guided by "enlightened self-interest", but that doesn't have much effect on the system as a whole. I (and many here I am sure) share this frustration. I certainly don't have any answers but I do have a few caveats: I believe that much of the power of the worst offenders in our ruling class (political, economic, religious) comes directly from an abuse of this very frustration in the rest of us. I believe that we have two basic operating modes, Willfull Ignorance and Enlightened Awareness. We ourselves, can be willfully ignorant. We willfully seek out "leaders" who will promise us what we want to hear, what feeds our greed and salves our fears, even when we know better. Willful Ignorance, IMHO, is driven by the two great motivators of "Greed" and "Fear". We constantly allow ourselves to be stampeded from one unsustainable/untenable position to another because it suits the interest of those who can extract profit from the massive movements (bull markets, bear markets, war, etc.) This is why our "two party system" doesn't really work. They can play "good cop/bad cop" with us over and over again and we never notice. All the while, if something turns out badly they claim "how could we have known?" but if it turns out well, they scream "See! I told you so!" And until it all falls down on our heads, we lap it up like cream from a saucer. I was at a lecture by Noam Chomsky several years ago. He was speaking on some topic related to NAFTA and the packed house hung on his every word. It was held at UNM and the audience was about 30% students and 70% yuppies. During the question and answer session, some poor schmuck stood up and asked. "Can you recommend any 'Socially Responsible' Investments?" Chomsky paused for maybe 5 seconds which was an eternity as the audience all leaned forward in their seats, held their breath, cocked their ears. When he finally spoke, a loud gasp went up. "Socially Responsible Investment is a contradiction in terms". I took his point to mean that wielding and hoarding resources in an abstract form (stocks, bonds, commodity futures, currencies, etc) is always fundamentally irresponsible. The point of an investment is to increase in value relative to the market... to "get ahead", and it is quite possible that this type of "getting ahead" is always "irresponsible". Within the capitalistic framework, capital *still* has to be applied with "enlightened self interest". Handing over your "wealth" to someone else to "maximize it's value" is fundamentally wrong. We might take our pet pig to the butcher because the butcher is better at making bacon, chops, ham, sausage from her, OR we might do it because we really don't want to know what it takes to turn a living, breathing, nuzzling friend into "dinner". Similarly, we don't want to operate third world sweat-shops, mines and plantations, but we do want the commodities they produce at the prices we pay (or lower if possible). Then we want our money managers to invest in the companies who oversee that because they are highly *profitable*. Worst yet, we can do all of the above, while whining and crying about global economic policy and foreign policy. In short, Willful Ignorance. The closest thing I have to an answer (for myself) is to realize that anyone in power is by definition a salesman... they will say and do what it takes to get us to buy their product (themselves, their policies) but we should not mistake this for them truly knowing what is best for us, and offering it to us out of the goodness of their heart. The myth of the "public servant" is an empty one, as much as we want to believe in it. The second part of this answer is to acknowledge that we, ourselves, might be our own worst enemy (ala Pogo). We live in such abstractions and so disconnected from the source of our sustenance, that we *cannot* know the consequences of our simplest actions. I may be exhibiting willful ignorance myself by wanting to believe in emergence in human behaviour, but your point that your own "enlightened self-interest" doesn't have much effect on the system as a whole, answers it's own implied question. Perhaps that is exactly the amount of effect it can (and should) have. If it has more than it's share of effect, then something else is happening and we are on the road to being part of the problem. I should know better than to write this early on a Sunday when I'm supposed to be getting ready for my daughter's wedding. Hmmm... could be a correlation. - Steve
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
