Well... so much for discussing modeling... Personally, I am not a big fan of the Golden Rule because it implies that everyone should be happy with the same things. It also implies the very arrogant position that what you-in-particular want can be the "should" for everyone else. How about if we try to "do unto others as they would have us do"?
As an example I am sure many on the list are familiar with: My mother does all sorts of things for me that she wishes I would do for her. We reach an impasse when I try to explain (usually for the 20th time) that I actually dislike the thing she is doing. We can get into a similar place if, for example, we think of all the weird kinky things that some people might like us to do unto them, but we would really prefer they didn't do unto us. And yes, there is nobody on this list that someone, somewhere, wouldn't want to do some really, really nasty things with. (See "Rule 34")* Eric *This is where there is a small chorus says "speak for yourself"; for you people, imagine those desiring very boring and mundane things. P.S. Having many times been in the presence of "people with too much money", even by middle-income US standards, I find the types of behaviors Steve mentioned annoying, but in no way offensive. Of course, I have been raised to have a strong belief in personal property, and (despite my hippy parents) have strong Libertarian leanings. I have never seen anybody dump a month's worth of my wages on a single meal, but I have seen a month of my salary go to a table of meals, and I have attended private events that probably cost a year of my salary. I think such spending is dumb, I wish they would give a bit to me, but ultimately it is their money. And, since it is on topic, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." Grace is funny some times ;- ) On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 08:28 PM, glen <g...@ropella.name> wrote: > Steve Smith wrote at 09/27/2012 12:55 PM: >> I don't find the golden rule (one variant of "social >equality"?) exactly >> a delusional idea, though that is probably a thread unto itself. > >Well, it's on topic. The search for a biological mechanism for the >golden rule seems to target the disagreement between religion and >atheism. Personally, I think the golden rule is a largely useless >abstraction. It lacks any operational detail. Sometimes I might well >want to be punched in the face ... sometimes I don't. Sometimes I'd like >Renee' to offer me some of her candy bar. Sometimes I don't. I'm >currently ~20 lbs overweight. 8^) > >> BTW, I'm not sure I think of this as a "lossy compression" as a >> dimension-reducing projection. Multiple transactions can be like >> multiple points of view projected from said high dimension, recovering >> some of what was "lost" (obscured) in any given >transaction/POV. > >That's a great point. The compression algorithm is just as important as >its inputs and outputs. > >> In fact it is likely that I would not "sell" >> but "gift" such a precious nugget of protein/sustenance to the >right >> member of a community as an ultimately selfish act. > >This is also an interesting point. The dichotomy between selfishness >and altruism is false. I think it says something important when a gift >giver (loudly) claims they don't want/expect anything in return. I >like >to play with people who fail to come to my parties after I sent them an >invitation. They often will say things like "Don't stop inviting me", >which opens the door for Eris! My last victim, a neighbor, said >something like "I really wanted to come but blahblahblah." I >responded: >"That's OK. We only invited you so that you wouldn't call the cops on >us when we got too loud." I still don't know whether he knows I'm joking. > >> If you have ever suffered the attentions (presence) of someone >with "too >> much money", you might not call the last one "benign". >There is >> nothing more offensive than someone whose spare change exceeds your net >> worth, tossing it around as if they can buy you, or your firstborn, or >> your soul with the flick of a pen... > >I don't find that offensive at all ... ignorant, yes, but not offensive. > >> It is one of the worst things I >> find about first world tourists in third world countries, even without >> realizing it, dropping a months wages for someone in service class on a >> single meal for themselves. It is dehumanizing, even if it supports the >> tall pyramid of an extreme trickle-down economy. > >I guess I have to disagree there, too. I don't think that act, in >isolation, is dehumanizing. I think it depends more on the cloud of >attitude surrounding the act. If you treat the locals with respect, >look them in the eye, engage their customs, listen when they talk, etc. >... i.e. treat them like humans, then it doesn't matter one whit how >much you spend on your food. The trouble is that wealth engenders >abstraction. So, the wealthy tend to view everyone around them as tools. > >> to adding absolutely nothing to the economy >> except the management/manipulation/speculation of loans. > >I'm still torn on this. I do think "financial instruments", in >general, >are good. I just can't predict which ones will yield good things versus >bad things ... until _after_ we've used them and seen their effects. > >-- >glen > >============================================================ >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 > > > ------------ Eric Charles Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================ 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
