A good empirical predictor of how people are is different than what makes for good people. I don't want to be understood by a coarse coding of my apparent community affiliations any more than I want to be understood by my zip code. Familiarity breeds contempt and all that.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ? Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 5:22 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again) On 02/07/2017 04:09 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I accept these are your assumptions. I find it to be misrepresentation of > the most interesting people, but a plausible representation for many others. Which raises the question: What's the ratio of "most interesting people" to "many others"? If you find most people in the "many others" category, then my assumptions would be better than random. But if you find that most people are "most interesting people", then my assumptions are worse than random. My guess is that you find there are fewer "most interesting people" than there are "many others". Personally, I find both types interesting. And some of the most interesting people are the least rational. I also gravitate towards small communities populated by perverse personalities. So many of my community-based decisions are based on being part of a community of misfits. >8^D -- ☣ glen ============================================================ 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
