EVERYBODY, This material is way too good to be packed down into the midden of old email. SO! Once again, I am going to ask this group a question I have asked before: how can we develop conventions (or write a software program) that will turn email correspondence into readable text. The three main problems are (1) headers (2) redundancy and (3) larding (which Steve Does here). Larding is the practice of distributing ones response in the text.
I suspect some simple conventions and a word macro would do the trick, but believe me, if you try to rescue one of these interchanges, it is VERY hard work. Nick -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 12:54 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] Cliques, public, private. Glen wrote (in response to my recent massive missive) - > I will briefly match your story with one of my own, then jump to a > conclusion. I used to do more tunneling than I do now. All growing > up I maintained (almost disjoint) sets of acquaintances. In high > school they had names: heads, jocks, brains, etc. Somehow, I managed > to float easily between them, controlling information flow so that any > antipathy one group had for another didn't bleed into an antipathy > toward me personally. In elementary school and college, there were > fewer names but sharper incisions. In elementary school, they were very temporary. > In college, they were very long-lasting. E.g. if you "collapsed" into > a Republican or perhaps a fan of Ayn Rand, you stayed there until long > after college had ended. I parallel your experience here. I grew up isolated from people in general and peers in particular. I had one sister 2 years older, my parents with a father who worked long hours. We mostly lived further from other people than I could walk easily alone. When I arrived at public school (a 2 mile walk, uphill each way, often in the snow) at age 6 I had very limited social experience with anyone much less children my age. I became very good, very quickly at integrating with any group. There weren't many, it was a small school in a small town. But I was so curious about other people and the dynamics of 3 or 5 or 9 boys running like a pack of wolves in the playground that I had to join in. I did not distinguish gender and was happy to sit and make mudpies with the girls, and many of them were as at home "roping" my heels as I ran past (yes, the school toys included lariats as well as kickballs) as the boys. By high school I was in a large town, small city where I could know all of my classmates (eventually a graduating class of 300) but not well like I did with a class of roughly 20. I knew how to kick shit with the stompers, I was clever enough to hang with the honor society kids, I was "hip" enough to hang with the drama kids, or the dopers if I wanted. I was not a team-sport kindof guy but was physical enough to hang with the jocks. But I was never really "in". I was invited in. But being fully "in" meant excluding members who were not "in". So the Stompers had to pick fights with the Jocks and the Stoners and tease the Drama and Band and Honor Roll kids. Similarly the Jocks and Stoners would pick on the "good kids" and pick fights with the other "bad kids". When I would stand up for the good kid they were picking on or refuse to join the rising rumble amongst bad kids on any side, I was marked... I must be "one of them". It never really caused me much trouble except that it was clear that I wasn't one of them and would never be even though I shared many of their interests and attitudes. I was as tough as most of the jocks or cowboys and the Stoners could be pretty mean but well, they were always stoned, so... whatever... but I was also a good student and *liked* most of the band/drama/smart kids even though they could be tweaks. But I also *liked* and identified with the cowboys (grew up pretty much as one), and the jocks (liked being athletic) and even the stoners (had my own outlaw side). So what was all the clicquing and intolerance about? Really? And why was I one of the few who could cut across those picket lines? And one of the few who didn't want to be a member of any one enough to reject the others? Later it was politics... I knew I didn't want to hand my body and soul to the US military under the circumstances of the Vietnam War... I wasn't sure it was a bogus war as many of my peers seemed to be, but I wasn't sure it was righteous as the remaining peers seemed to be. My leftie friends were sure I was a rightie and my rightie friends were sure I was a leftie and since I'd read too much Ayn Rand and Bob Heinlein before I had matured, I should have been a Libertarian but damned if they didn't all seem like arrogant, selfish pricks to me. This holds with me to today. I voted for Obama twice for reasons which probably don't fit those of anyone else who voted for him (hyperbole) and I would have voted for McCain when he was going up against Bush but not after he picked up Palin... I am a big Gary Johnson fan on many topics, but couldn't stand to throw my vote this time just to make a point. As for public/private, I didn't hide my affinity with these groups in high school... but they played "don't ask, don't tell" right up until I had to confront someone(s) about their exclusive (and abusive) behaviour of my friends who might not be "inside". I wasn't afraid the jocks would find out I got good grades or that the stoners would find out that I rode horses, or that the goodie two-shoes would realize that I was willing to break school rules or even real laws if it suited me enough. But I also had and required a private life. I spent hours of my time alone, enjoying the privacy of my own thoughts and actions. If anyone had insisted on taking that kind of privacy from me, I would have been furious. My parents, my teachers, my bosses, my friends all managed not to conspire to invade my private spaces, private times. Yet I had acquaintances who endured close supervision to the point of parents or teachers or bosses practically expecting to be able to read their minds. I watched people trade their privacy of thought and action for acceptance and approval. > I maintained my cross-group faculties until long after college. I > think it's what allowed me to successfully transition to the SFI from > Lockheed Martin. It served me well at LANL, even after it became somewhat of a hellhole (apologies to Marcus and others still there, I'm not saying it is that for you, just that it became that for me after 20 something years). > Nowadays, however, I have > grown impatient with entertaining others' stories and ideas. Then I am honored that you have entertained mine so far with some superficial level of patience <grin>. > When/if I > deign to argue with someone, my rhetoric is (seemingly) full of non > sequiturs because I want to skip to the end ... and having made a > lifetime out of arguing, I believe myself to be capable of predicting > where an argument will end up. You don't hold a candle to my wife who is twice as smart as I ever will be, but also not particularly linear. She doesn't just skip steps she makes 270 degree turns while I'm not looking without deigning to bring me up to speed. I take a lot of beatings when I argue with her, but I think I'm a better listener and thinker for it. > That impatience has seriously damaged some of the relationships > I've had with people who _thought_ they liked me. >8^) But, in the > end, I remember the quote from FDR (I think): "I ask you to judge me > by he enemies I have made." Well, it is probably auspicious that I started out thinking I *didn't* like you. I didn't like Doug when I met him the first time... but "curmudgeon" grows on me I guess. > Anyway, because I am a professional simulant Wow, that sounds like a line right out of Bladerunner... did you say Simulant or Replicant? > , I still have to maintain > an ability to tunnel in and out of gravity wells. When I engage a new > client and go through the requirements extraction process, my old > facility with perspective hopping revives and I end up having fun. Yup, I know the game, and play it well (enough). > Conclusion of this silly missive: I'd like to be able to run some > experiments like the following. Take all the guns from all the gun > advocates and hand them to the gun controlists. Force them to use and > abuse the guns for a significant amount of time. I was thinking impregnating every man who was anti-choice and forcing them to birth and raise the babies. It might not change their mind about abortion (I actually hope it wouldn't) but it might make them a lot more sympathetic and nurturing toward the women who *do* choose abortion. And it would also keep them off the streets in the meantime. > Then compare surveys > taken before and after the experiment. A similar experiment with any > given tool would be interesting. You'll have to pry my cordless drill and oscilliscope from my cold, dead fingers! > I know I'd like a few months to play with our army of drones in > foreign countries, for example. And I'd like to watch a few third world countries play with our army of drones in our country for a few months. Well, not really. I suppose I'd rather see what a few dramatic performance and guerilla artists did with them instead. -Steve ============================================================ 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 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
