Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
On 06/27/2015 01:11 PM, Steve Smith wrote: I'm left wondering if said darkness is a zero=sum and what the externalities of such maunderings are? I admit there is a sense that sentiment is zero-sum, the intuitive sense that if you have a really positive response to some stimulus, then you can't also have a very negative response to that same stimulus ... at least not at the exact same instant. Things like the necker cube or the rubin vase help demonstrate that the two positions (negative and positive) might well be very close together in the same higher dimensional space. Or, in other words, what looks like non-zero-sum in low dimensions can easily be zero-sum in higher dimensions. The same applies to overcoming logical paradox, untying knots, etc. How anyone could possible consider these things dark is beyond me. Maybe, Nick, what you mean to say is that logicians, mathematicians, programmers, big data researchers, etc. are masters of the Dark Arts? If that's what you mean, then, yeah, OK. However, I prefer to call it Chaos Magick or the Left-Hand Path. It's not dark ... just creepy. 8^) -- ⇔ 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
Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
If that's what you mean, then, yeah, OK. However, I prefer to call it Chaos Magick or the Left-Hand Path. It's not dark ... just creepy. Discovery of better models can invalidate consensus and orthodoxy. This leads to vested interests being threatened and disruption. A typical response to this is to isolate the disrupter. Tying them to stake and burning them is one way. Another way is to buy up all of the intellectual property in the vicinity and get lawyers busy. It's kind of all the same thing.The tactics change depending on social constraints, the relative size of the minority to majority, and governance systems already in place. Dark is what the majority calls the minority. It serves their purposes. Marcus 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
Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
On 06/29/2015 10:43 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: Discovery of better models can invalidate consensus and orthodoxy. This leads to vested interests being threatened and disruption. A typical response to this is to isolate the disrupter. Tying them to stake and burning them is one way. Another way is to buy up all of the intellectual property in the vicinity and get lawyers busy. It's kind of all the same thing.The tactics change depending on social constraints, the relative size of the minority to majority, and governance systems already in place. Dark is what the majority calls the minority. It serves their purposes. What amazes me is how quickly the transition can be made, indicating something like a neutral network. Thanks for eyeballing disruptive technologies, because they are an excellent example. Most of the (usually libertarian) technologists who think we'll _invent_ our way out of things like overpopulation or climate change tend play this game very well. They rely on the 2 basic assumptions that: 1) the unforeseen attractor(s) will be large enough to be promoted from minority to majority and 2) the path to (or emergence of) the unforeseen attractor(s) will be fat (or quick, respectively). For a technology to actually be disruptive, it has to flip the space relatively quickly. So, it's less about taking the road less traveled and more about strategies for becoming preadapted to the landscape that will soon emerge. I'd regard these types, the ones that want to anticipate the wave just early enough to _ride_ it, as Right-Hand Path magicians. The LHP magicians tend to stay in the minority, perhaps even on purpose. We become skilled at staying in the shadows and as soon as something we do/enjoy shows signs of becoming popular, we change what we do/enjoy so as to avoid the stampede. Anyway, my point is basically that even the majority-vs-minority conception is in the domain of Light. To be Dark means appreciating the entire (occult) mechanism, but especially focusing on the rarely used pathways. -- ⇔ 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
Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
Glen writes, Anyway, my point is basically that even the majority-vs-minority conception is in the domain of Light. To be Dark means appreciating the entire (occult) mechanism, but especially focusing on the rarely used pathways. I'll distinguish between popular and powerful pathways. A reason the powers-that-be circle the wagons on things like renewable energy is because they had/have enough instinctive fear to imagine it could well succeed; so, in the medium term, obstacles must be created to slow it. (Until they can hire people with interest of this occult mechanism to sort it out for them.) Being an early bitcoin miner was pretty much a requirement for being a bitcoin millionaire (at least with the means later to make large capital investments). Even in the mainstream trading systems, the exploitable inefficiencies are transitory, and knowledge of them is held closely by the people that model those systems. Again, rarely used pathways lead to profit. Imagination and the occult go together. Rapid growth and the occult go together. Marcus 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
Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
Glen, Don't the bulk of non-zero sum gains arise from trust? see MOTH, for instance. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 7:28 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat? That scratch in my surface jumps me back, yet again, to the postmodern point: Beware of the online war of propaganda http://news.usc.edu/82853/beware-of-the-war-of-propaganda-taking-place-online/ http://news.usc.edu/82853/beware-of-the-war-of-propaganda-taking-place-online/ “People normally trust online content,” said Farshad Kooti, one of the Ph.D. candidates at USC Viterbi who worked with Galstyan. “Unfortunately, this introduces an opportunity to spread misinformation by using automated bots that are very hard to detect.” Misinformation and disinformation are NOT the threat. Trust is the threat. -- glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847 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 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
Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
On 06/26/2015 04:36 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: CBS or Comcast cover that, but also the evening news. In various situations such conglomerates may find it in their interest to present information in ways that benefit their bottom line, even to audiences that are above the least common denominator. Even if their news programs are credible and honest most of the time, it's exceptional times where their reputation can be monetized. These situations could plausibly impact people as much as propaganda. Another good point that argues to the same conclusion, because anyone who succumbs to flipping the trust bit opens themselves up to that sort of creeping exploitation. That slow, imperceptible programming probably has _way_ more impact than the relatively episodic nature of propaganda. On 06/27/2015 06:50 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: Glen, Don't the bulk of non-zero sum gains arise from trust? see MOTH, for instance. No. I think the bulk of non-zero sum gains are a result of co-evolution of competing scrutiny, the exploitation of niches the players stumbled upon together. I.e. they're really zero-sum games where the externalities aren't recognized by the players. And in that sense, if it is trust that prevents them from recognizing the externalities, then trust is tantamount to ignorance. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.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
Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
Glen wrote No. I think the bulk of non-zero sum gains are a result of co-evolution of competing scrutiny, the exploitation of niches the players stumbled upon together. I.e. they're really zero-sum games where the externalities aren't recognized by the players. And in that sense, if it is trust that prevents them from recognizing the externalities, then trust is tantamount to ignorance. Nick responds: WOW! DARK! Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ep ropella Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 12:12 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat? On 06/26/2015 04:36 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: CBS or Comcast cover that, but also the evening news. In various situations such conglomerates may find it in their interest to present information in ways that benefit their bottom line, even to audiences that are above the least common denominator. Even if their news programs are credible and honest most of the time, it's exceptional times where their reputation can be monetized. These situations could plausibly impact people as much as propaganda. Another good point that argues to the same conclusion, because anyone who succumbs to flipping the trust bit opens themselves up to that sort of creeping exploitation. That slow, imperceptible programming probably has _way_ more impact than the relatively episodic nature of propaganda. On 06/27/2015 06:50 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: Glen, Don't the bulk of non-zero sum gains arise from trust? see MOTH, for instance. No. I think the bulk of non-zero sum gains are a result of co-evolution of competing scrutiny, the exploitation of niches the players stumbled upon together. I.e. they're really zero-sum games where the externalities aren't recognized by the players. And in that sense, if it is trust that prevents them from recognizing the externalities, then trust is tantamount to ignorance. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.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 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
Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
No, not dark. In fact it's liberating! On Jun 27, 2015 12:36 PM, Nick Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Glen wrote No. I think the bulk of non-zero sum gains are a result of co-evolution of competing scrutiny, the exploitation of niches the players stumbled upon together. I.e. they're really zero-sum games where the externalities aren't recognized by the players. And in that sense, if it is trust that prevents them from recognizing the externalities, then trust is tantamount to ignorance. Nick responds: WOW! DARK! Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ep ropella Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 12:12 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat? On 06/26/2015 04:36 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: CBS or Comcast cover that, but also the evening news. In various situations such conglomerates may find it in their interest to present information in ways that benefit their bottom line, even to audiences that are above the least common denominator. Even if their news programs are credible and honest most of the time, it's exceptional times where their reputation can be monetized. These situations could plausibly impact people as much as propaganda. Another good point that argues to the same conclusion, because anyone who succumbs to flipping the trust bit opens themselves up to that sort of creeping exploitation. That slow, imperceptible programming probably has _way_ more impact than the relatively episodic nature of propaganda. On 06/27/2015 06:50 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: Glen, Don't the bulk of non-zero sum gains arise from trust? see MOTH, for instance. No. I think the bulk of non-zero sum gains are a result of co-evolution of competing scrutiny, the exploitation of niches the players stumbled upon together. I.e. they're really zero-sum games where the externalities aren't recognized by the players. And in that sense, if it is trust that prevents them from recognizing the externalities, then trust is tantamount to ignorance. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.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 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
Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
Nick wrote: Glen wrote No. I think the bulk of non-zero sum gains are a result of co-evolution of competing scrutiny, the exploitation of niches the players stumbled upon together. I.e. they're really zero-sum games where the externalities aren't recognized by the players. And in that sense, if it is trust that prevents them from recognizing the externalities, then trust is tantamount to ignorance. Nick responds: WOW! DARK! yes! That is one of the things we depend on Glen for! But his darkness on such matters often serves to increase contrast IMO. I'm left wondering if said darkness is a zero=sum and what the externalities of such maunderings are? 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
Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
On 06/26/2015 02:55 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: Are there not more and less risky sources? If you have source that provides you with high-quality, predictive information, over and over and they are right, should not that individual be allowed less scrutiny than a person that has no track record, or a bad track record? Given finite attention, doesn't a person have to decide what to scrutinize, and what to let slide? Yes. But you're not talking about the same thing, I think. When someone says something like People normally trust online content, they're not talking about a continuum or spectrum of trust. They're talking about a binary predicate. That person could have made a more refined statement like People tend to trust online content from sources they find mostly trustworthy. But they would not have said that, I think, because the generalization being made is more like People are not skeptical enough of online content. It's the _enough_ that addresses your point. A similar problem adheres to the word skeptical. I wear that word as a badge. But the recent synonymizing of skepticism with denialism has me worried. I can no longer say I'm an AGW skeptic because people hear I'm an AGW denier, which I'm not. So, skeptical() has also become boolean, like trust(). If those words weren't being [re]defined in that way, then you'd be right. I could say, for example, I trust Fox News to a given extent ... and I could say it with a straight face. That person also could have said something like People have diverse methods for deciding what online content to trust, which would also been more useful. It would imply that some of us are gullible and some of us are skeptical. But I think what they really meant was People are not very diverse in deciding what online content to trust. They simply believe what they see without any scrutiny. And, worse, the article's and project's very existence is implying that it's OK to be gullible, we'll just clamp down on these evil sources of [dm]isinformation for you. You just go on believing whatever you see without any scrutiny. -- ⇔ 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
Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
Maybe a restatement of Glen's point would be: Misinformation and disinformation are a given: How we manage our trust is the challenge. I was introduced to Dempster-Shafer theory on a project a number of years ago... and was impressed by some of its' utility as a formalism on the problem we were working (actually extensions to D-S theory)... On the original topic, however, I feel like my world has been, for a very long time, invaded by the forces of propaganda, misinformation and disinformation. One of the more interesting books I received when my grandfather died was entitled Straight and Crooked Thinking written near the turn of the 20th century... and of course we have the Greeks coining concepts such as rhetoric and sophistry millennia ago. - Steve Are there not more and less risky sources? If you have source that provides you with high-quality, predictive information, over and over and they are right, should not that individual be allowed less scrutiny than a person that has no track record, or a bad track record? Given finite attention, doesn't a person have to decide what to scrutinize, and what to let slide? -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 5:28 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat? That scratch in my surface jumps me back, yet again, to the postmodern point: Beware of the online war of propaganda http://news.usc.edu/82853/beware-of-the-war-of-propaganda-taking-place-online/ “People normally trust online content,” said Farshad Kooti, one of the Ph.D. candidates at USC Viterbi who worked with Galstyan. “Unfortunately, this introduces an opportunity to spread misinformation by using automated bots that are very hard to detect.” Misinformation and disinformation are NOT the threat. Trust is the threat. -- glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847 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 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
Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
Are there not more and less risky sources? If you have source that provides you with high-quality, predictive information, over and over and they are right, should not that individual be allowed less scrutiny than a person that has no track record, or a bad track record? Given finite attention, doesn't a person have to decide what to scrutinize, and what to let slide? -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 5:28 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat? That scratch in my surface jumps me back, yet again, to the postmodern point: Beware of the online war of propaganda http://news.usc.edu/82853/beware-of-the-war-of-propaganda-taking-place-online/ “People normally trust online content,” said Farshad Kooti, one of the Ph.D. candidates at USC Viterbi who worked with Galstyan. “Unfortunately, this introduces an opportunity to spread misinformation by using automated bots that are very hard to detect.” Misinformation and disinformation are NOT the threat. Trust is the threat. -- glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847 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
Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
``That person also could have said something like People have diverse methods for deciding what online content to trust, which would also been more useful. It would imply that some of us are gullible and some of us are skeptical. But I think what they really meant was People are not very diverse in deciding what online content to trust. They simply believe what they see without any scrutiny. And, worse, the article's and project's very existence is implying that it's OK to be gullible, we'll just clamp down on these evil sources of [dm]isinformation for you. You just go on believing whatever you see without any scrutiny.'' Are the trustworthy sources playing a long game? The defection will come, it is just a matter of how many people are sucked-in before it does.. Marcus 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
Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
On 06/26/2015 03:21 PM, Steve Smith wrote: Maybe a restatement of Glen's point would be: Misinformation and disinformation are a given: How we manage our trust is the challenge. Well, not quite. I would have said that trust is an unreachable limit. (And distrust should also be an unreachable limit -- there is information to be gained even from the most random looking sources -- eg the cosmic background.) On 06/26/2015 03:34 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: Are the trustworthy sources playing a long game? The defection will come, it is just a matter of how many people are sucked-in before it does.. Yeah but that process will tend toward the least common denominator. It's why we end up with silly infotainment news programs that emphasize the weather forecast and cute pictures of kids on their birthday. To say anything useful literally _means_ to say something that is more likely to cause someone to defect ... even if the defection is because the audience doesn't have the attention span required. -- ⇔ 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
Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
Yeah but that process will tend toward the least common denominator. It's why we end up with silly infotainment news programs that emphasize the weather forecast and cute pictures of kids on their birthday. CBS or Comcast cover that, but also the evening news. In various situations such conglomerates may find it in their interest to present information in ways that benefit their bottom line, even to audiences that are above the least common denominator. Even if their news programs are credible and honest most of the time, it's exceptional times where their reputation can be monetized. These situations could plausibly impact people as much as propaganda. Marcus 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] [ SPAM ] where is the real threat?
That scratch in my surface jumps me back, yet again, to the postmodern point: Beware of the online war of propaganda http://news.usc.edu/82853/beware-of-the-war-of-propaganda-taking-place-online/ “People normally trust online content,” said Farshad Kooti, one of the Ph.D. candidates at USC Viterbi who worked with Galstyan. “Unfortunately, this introduces an opportunity to spread misinformation by using automated bots that are very hard to detect.” Misinformation and disinformation are NOT the threat. Trust is the threat. -- glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847 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
