Re: [FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
Nick writes: I just think that the whole project looks like it is based on the idea that we can analyze, plan, and reform in the societal domain, and I wasn't sure whether that was your cup of tea? It seems to me the job of a politician is to navigate the values of their constituency and their party. Together they form or at least admit goals. The job of a scientist is to learn how systems work, and communicate it in precise language. Put them together and one has a sort of constraint or satisfiability problem.If one wants to optimize for the maximum economic return from fossil fuel use, then one can look at the best estimates of the IPCC for what the side-effects of that would likely be. Are they survivable, for the relevant people, and not too expensive within a relevant time window? Similarly, if one wants to have equal distribution of wealth, one set of social norms or another, social science can offer a set of constraints to put into a calculation. If the constraint problem can't be satisfied, then either the model is inadequate or the goals are not responsible.If completely different goals can be satisfied with different cost structures, then it is no bu siness of social scientists, wearing their scientist hat, which goal to pursue. To say one is a conservative or a leftist suggests which types of goals will be sought, but it is just a preference so long as either class of goal in a constraint system could be satisfied. Like anyone, a scientist can have those preferences and pursue them passionately, ruthlessly, or whatever. But the worst thing is for a person whose profession it is to get to the fact of the matter, not to know if they are lying. 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] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
I'm an omnivore! 8^) I not only drink tea, but pretty much everything else I find laying around. Seriously though, I don't really believe in (pure) cultural evolution, at all. As I've repeated, ideas are illusory. It's our bodies that are important. Hence, culture reduces to the artifacts and natural structures we swim in. But there are several in the cultural evolution community who take artifacts seriously. So, the domain is interesting to me. As for the yammering (here and elsewhere) about the activism, I can only repeat that objective truth is also illusory. Scientific objectivism is a delusion and those who would separate the rest of motivated human activity (including motivated reasoning) from science are deluded. We all act, whether our thoughts correlate with our actions or not. Ridiculing say, a hamster for acting like a hamster is a kind of psychopathy, though clearly many of us get our kicks that way. I'd guess that snark correlates with the narcissism index. But re: thoughts, I can also say that _embedding_ one's thoughts as deeply in, as tightly coupled to, one's actions, does allow for agility. Taking huge, far-sighted, ideological stances and making huge sweeping plans on _anything_ is well, ideological (which is an insult) and goes directly against everything biology has taught us over these last 156 years. Biological systems are complexes of tightly coupled, small changes that can eventually produce dramatic differences. But action is all very local. So, I try to make my actions small, realizing that 99.99% or more of all my actions are inconsequential. If thought is causative at all, it is at this very small scale. The rest is noise. All that is preamble to my (again repetitive) statement that diversity is good. Hence, yet another organization populated at least by scientifically oriented people is a good thing ... just like both the genetic literacy project and the union of concerned scientists are both good things. Hell, even the Discovery Institute is a good thing to some (small) extent, with their grand assertion buried in all sorts of difficult to tease out pseudoscience. This is us. This is biology. On 06/29/2015 08:40 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: Oh, I don't think that these people are manipulative, particularly. Not at all. There is at least one person on the list I am enthusiastic about. If I were to think anything bad about them (and I don't think I do), it would be that they are naive. I just think that the whole project looks like it is based on the idea that we can analyze, plan, and reform in the societal domain, and I wasn't sure whether that was your cup of tea? I believe that we can do all of those things, but I am beginning to wonder if my commitment to that idea is more a value than a belief. An example of a kind of phenomenon that makes me doubt the possibility of successful social planning is the apparent rush to tear down the confederate battle flag that seems to be surging through the south. Talk about tipping point! Could we have planned for that? -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella If there's something left of my spirit 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] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
As for the yammering (here and elsewhere) about the activism, I can only repeat that objective truth is also illusory. So long as we see these organizations in evolutionary terms, then there is no problem. But then why object when thieves act like thieves? (Because there's some species of individual that objects to that? It's tautological, or merely the observation there is no free will.) Corruption is just part of our human activity. Let's just let one dog eat the other and get on with it.. Okay.Diversity or no diversity, who cares? 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] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
There's only 1 reason to interfere/intervene in the milieu around you, that is to participate. Is a search engine a participant in people's web browsing? One can define it that way, but that's not the usual business model.The usual model is to watch and learn, and sell their observations in some way to a third party. Most science is about teasing apart causation in as much detail as possible in a controlled setting. And engineering is about putting it back together in useful ways. Not everything can be understood or controlled that way, but the parts and pieces often can be. That's a fine thing to do, just not the only thing to do. I have no problem with activism. If there's no knowledge about how the parts and pieces of a social system work, nor experience with similar system dynamics behave, then, by all means dive in to the blood and muck, if that sort of thing is fun for you. But if I'm going to spend time debating, say, potential legislation, with people that don't share my particular preferences, then it is a good if we negotiate a protocol for identifying good and bad arguments, so we don't just talk about our preferences all day.The failure to find and maintain such a protocol means the activity becomes political, and is no longer a good faith discussion, but a rivalry.The fewer mutually accepted rules -- the nastier or more pointless the discussion may become. And the faster it gets nasty, the sooner we can found out who the big dog is, because that's all that is at stake. And it is not about objective reality, it's about precision of terminology. What is nailed down sufficiently-well for an analysis about the logical consequences of the nailed-down thing or system of things.It's not clear what this group of people is willing to nail down, even temporarily.Just like it isn't clear what climate change deniers are willing to nail down. It is bad faith, not skepticism, when people put their monetary or ideological goals ahead of the evidence, and then claim they are interested in the evidence. That's what I mean by corruption. 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] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
There's only 1 reason to interfere/intervene in the milieu around you, that is to participate. And we participate according to our bodies predilections. Each body is different. But most of us have gut reactions to some categories of things. (This is why I love horror movies... tropes like maggot infested zombie heads are culturally important because they are physiologically important.) We don't tend to stand by and let dogs eat each other because, well, it grosses us out. Similarly with thieves and other crimes. Corruption is abstract. We say we're against corruption. But when we're deep inside it, very close to when/where it's happening, it's different. Many of us don't see whatever is happening as corruption. And the more tightly coupled you are to it, the less likely you are to see it that way. Those of us less coupled to it, with bodies primed by different stimuli, are exposed to the complex and misunderstand it as corruption. Once we experience it, we're grossed out and work to stop or avoid it. On 06/30/2015 09:11 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: So long as we see these organizations in evolutionary terms, then there is no problem. But then why object when thieves act like thieves? (Because there's some species of individual that objects to that? It's tautological, or merely the observation there is no free will.) Corruption is just part of our human activity. Let's just let one dog eat the other and get on with it.. Okay.Diversity or no diversity, who cares? -- ⇔ 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] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
On 06/30/2015 11:34 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: Is a search engine a participant in people's web browsing? No. But the people who wrote the artifact (and maintain the servers, and tweak the algorithms, and use it for advertising) are participants in my web browsing. And it is not about objective reality, it's about precision of terminology. Bah. What can precise terminology mean without any stable referent? Precision _is_ about objective reality at least to some extent. At the very least, there has to be some way to measure the difference between 2 different terms or usages of a single term. So, even if the terms themselves don't map to reality, the metric used to contrast them does. So, your dependence on precise terminology implies a dependence on objective reality. What is nailed down sufficiently-well for an analysis about the logical consequences of the nailed-down thing or system of things.It's not clear what this group of people is willing to nail down, even temporarily. I agree that it's not clear for this new society. Just like it isn't clear what climate change deniers are willing to nail down. But it is NOT just like ... climate change deniers. Are you seriously making that equivalence? It is bad faith, not skepticism, when people put their monetary or ideological goals ahead of the evidence, and then claim they are interested in the evidence. That's what I mean by corruption. OK. I disagree, _if_ those people are up front that they put their monetary or ideological goals first. It's not bad faith or corruption, then. And you have to admit that by openly stating that activism is one of this new group's objectives, then it's a bit of a leap to accuse them of bad faith or corruption right off the bat. If it were bad faith, their true objectives would not be as obvious as they've made them. -- 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
Re: [FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
OK. Well, I liken it to evidence-based medicine. I don't really consider that sort of thing dilution or lowering the bar. It seems to me they're simply trying to ground policy in science. It's certainly extension of the science into non-scientific domains. And anytime you do that, you run the risk of backflow from the non-science into the science. So, having the same people do both activities is risky. You can't win if you don't play, though. On 06/30/2015 03:23 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: My objection was to your claim that nothing is for sure so might as well equivalence activism+science vs. science. I see this group of people as lowering the bar for scientific inquiry in their field, and at once diluting the efforts of social workers and other kinds of advocates. In my book that's a far worse offense than whatever benefit they think they'll get from coupling their inquiry to their advocacy. I guess if that's what they want, they can have it.As for the rest, whatever, I was just killing time until my tests came back. -- 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
Re: [FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
So, your claim that it's not about objective reality is simply false. Take away your assumption of objective reality and your precise terminology argument falls apart. The point is it doesn't matter if the scientific method reveals a model that is precisely what nature is. The illusion of objective reality is fine if it works. Just like it isn't clear what climate change deniers are willing to nail down. But it is NOT just like ... climate change deniers. Are you seriously making that equivalence? People on the left move the goal posts around to serve their argument just like people on the right. Sometimes people remove several words and replace them with ..., gosh, I don't know why! Why? Because removing the distracting text clarifies your analogy. You're claiming that the methods of the SSCE are just like the methods of climate change deniers. They're not just alike. Yes, they probably both move goal posts around, because everyone does that, especially as they grow and evolve, learn from what does and does not work, change membership, etc. Not nailing down exactly what you'll do from now till the year 3015 doesn't imply that you're not nailing things down just like climate change deniers aren't nailing things down. Your just like analogy is so vague it's mind-bending. Collect some like-minded folks, create a distinguished board of directors and start arguing from authority. The premise that there are any particular positive goals has not been demonstrated. It's just some randomwish-it-were-so thing they are throwing around -- it's not a hypothesis it is an assertion.At some point in their inquiry there exists the possibility that their goals can be falsified. So lose the goals and follow the evidence.The voting booth is good place for this kind of activity. OK. What you're doing is _predicting_ what the SSCE will do. That's fine. But it's bad faith of you not to be clear that this is merely your prediction. Or perhaps its (even weaker) your expectation. To some extent, I expect the same. But I'm usually wrong, which means I'm interested in seeing if it happens. -- ⇔ 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 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] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
Bah. Was looking at a build problem. Didn't mean to send that, meant to iconify that! My objection was to your claim that nothing is for sure so might as well equivalence activism+science vs. science. I see this group of people as lowering the bar for scientific inquiry in their field, and at once diluting the efforts of social workers and other kinds of advocates. In my book that's a far worse offense than whatever benefit they think they'll get from coupling their inquiry to their advocacy. I guess if that's what they want, they can have it.As for the rest, whatever, I was just killing time until my tests came back. -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 4:15 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution So, your claim that it's not about objective reality is simply false. Take away your assumption of objective reality and your precise terminology argument falls apart. The point is it doesn't matter if the scientific method reveals a model that is precisely what nature is. The illusion of objective reality is fine if it works. Just like it isn't clear what climate change deniers are willing to nail down. But it is NOT just like ... climate change deniers. Are you seriously making that equivalence? People on the left move the goal posts around to serve their argument just like people on the right. Sometimes people remove several words and replace them with ..., gosh, I don't know why! Why? Because removing the distracting text clarifies your analogy. You're claiming that the methods of the SSCE are just like the methods of climate change deniers. They're not just alike. Yes, they probably both move goal posts around, because everyone does that, especially as they grow and evolve, learn from what does and does not work, change membership, etc. Not nailing down exactly what you'll do from now till the year 3015 doesn't imply that you're not nailing things down just like climate change deniers aren't nailing things down. Your just like analogy is so vague it's mind-bending. Collect some like-minded folks, create a distinguished board of directors and start arguing from authority. The premise that there are any particular positive goals has not been demonstrated. It's just some randomwish-it-were-so thing they are throwing around -- it's not a hypothesis it is an assertion.At some point in their inquiry there exists the possibility that their goals can be falsified. So lose the goals and follow the evidence.The voting booth is good place for this kind of activity. OK. What you're doing is _predicting_ what the SSCE will do. That's fine. But it's bad faith of you not to be clear that this is merely your prediction. Or perhaps its (even weaker) your expectation. To some extent, I expect the same. But I'm usually wrong, which means I'm interested in seeing if it happens. -- ⇔ 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 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] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
On 06/30/2015 02:09 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: The referent could be different sorts of things, like waves or particles. The true nature of things forever remains unknown, but self-consistent precise descriptions are essential so that experiments can be conducted by different observers. Perhaps you missed my point. Inter-description measures like self-consistency are assertions about objective reality. The assumption that different observers can conduct similar experiments also depends on an objective reality. So, your claim that it's not about objective reality is simply false. Take away your assumption of objective reality and your precise terminology argument falls apart. Just like it isn't clear what climate change deniers are willing to nail down. But it is NOT just like ... climate change deniers. Are you seriously making that equivalence? People on the left move the goal posts around to serve their argument just like people on the right. Sometimes people remove several words and replace them with ..., gosh, I don't know why! Why? Because removing the distracting text clarifies your analogy. You're claiming that the methods of the SSCE are just like the methods of climate change deniers. They're not just alike. Yes, they probably both move goal posts around, because everyone does that, especially as they grow and evolve, learn from what does and does not work, change membership, etc. Not nailing down exactly what you'll do from now till the year 3015 doesn't imply that you're not nailing things down just like climate change deniers aren't nailing things down. Your just like analogy is so vague it's mind-bending. Collect some like-minded folks, create a distinguished board of directors and start arguing from authority. The premise that there are any particular positive goals has not been demonstrated. It's just some randomwish-it-were-so thing they are throwing around -- it's not a hypothesis it is an assertion.At some point in their inquiry there exists the possibility that their goals can be falsified. So lose the goals and follow the evidence.The voting booth is good place for this kind of activity. OK. What you're doing is _predicting_ what the SSCE will do. That's fine. But it's bad faith of you not to be clear that this is merely your prediction. Or perhaps its (even weaker) your expectation. To some extent, I expect the same. But I'm usually wrong, which means I'm interested in seeing if it happens. -- ⇔ 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] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
What can precise terminology mean without any stable referent? Precision _is_ about objective reality at least to some extent. The referent could be different sorts of things, like waves or particles. The true nature of things forever remains unknown, but self-consistent precise descriptions are essential so that experiments can be conducted by different observers. Just like it isn't clear what climate change deniers are willing to nail down. But it is NOT just like ... climate change deniers. Are you seriously making that equivalence? People on the left move the goal posts around to serve their argument just like people on the right. Sometimes people remove several words and replace them with ..., gosh, I don't know why! It is bad faith, not skepticism, when people put their monetary or ideological goals ahead of the evidence, and then claim they are interested in the evidence. That's what I mean by corruption. OK. I disagree, _if_ those people are up front that they put their monetary or ideological goals first. It's not bad faith or corruption, then. And you have to admit that by openly stating that activism is one of this new group's objectives, then it's a bit of a leap to accuse them of bad faith or corruption right off the bat. If it were bad faith, their true objectives would not be as obvious as they've made them. Collect some like-minded folks, create a distinguished board of directors and start arguing from authority. The premise that there are any particular positive goals has not been demonstrated. It's just some randomwish-it-were-so thing they are throwing around -- it's not a hypothesis it is an assertion.At some point in their inquiry there exists the possibility that their goals can be falsified. So lose the goals and follow the evidence.The voting booth is good place for this kind of activity. 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] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
That's a great point. But I suppose it all depends on who composes it. To say a group like this will advocate foolishly or manipulate without admitting that every other group, without exception(!), advocates foolishly and manipulates, is to place too much burden on these particular people. We all do our best to balance what we think should happen against worries that interference could go wrong. (Some of us are better at that balance than others. But that's also true of everyone about everything ... which makes it a useless statement.) In the end, to be against something before it's even begun is a bit silly, I think. Personally, I'm neutral. But it's interesting in the same way Lessig's May One or the genetic literacy project are interesting ... and manipulative. Even more political is the interesting neoreactionary movement. I'm even neutral about that, though I think I'm starting to turn a bit against it. The trick, as we've been discussing, is to never flip the bit one way or the other. On 06/29/2015 07:43 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: I am afraid I have not been following this closely enough to know the white hats from the black hats. I think one of the dimensions of disagreement here is on the possibility of social planning. If one thinks that the subject matters studied by sociologists and economists are essentially chaotic, then social planning is either foolish or manipulative … like bishops telling parishioners to defer gratification so they, the bishops, can live opulent lives in the Bishop’s Palace. As a consequence of running such a scam, the Vatican runs half of Rome, right? That new society sounds like a reforming and a planning lot. That’s as far as my thinking has gotten on this. As you see, it’s not very far. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella She'll borrow bullets and return em' to your skull 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] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
Yay! Cause at this point the world could really use social activism and public science education through an evolutionary psychology lens. Woohoo SocioBiology 2.0* -S * now with Multi-Level Group Selection flavor crystals. --- -. . ..-. .. ... - .-- --- ..-. .. ... stephen.gue...@redfish.com 1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505 office: (505) 995-0206 mobile: (505) 577-5828 tw: @redfishgroup skype: redfishgroup redfish.com | simtable.com On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Nick Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: So, Glen. Are you fur it or agin it? n 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: Monday, June 29, 2015 9:04 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution https://evolution-institute.org/project/society-for-the-study-of-cultural-evolution/ A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution Why a new society? Our capacity for culture stems from our ability to receive, process, integrate, and transmit information across generations. The study of human culture and cultural change has made great strides during the last few decades in fields such as anthropology, computer science, evolutionary biology, neurobiology, psychology, and sociology. Yet, the study of cultural change as an evolutionary process, similar to genetic evolution but with its own inheritance mechanisms, is only now becoming a central area of scientific inquiry that spans these disciplines and holds much potential for academic integration. Outside the Ivory Tower, all public policies attempt to accomplish cultural change in a practical sense to reach their various objectives, yet they rarely draw upon an explicit scientific theory of cultural change. A new society is needed to catalyze the study of cultural change from a modern evolutionary perspective, both inside and outside the Ivory Tower. A recent EI workshop, “Advancing the Study of Cultural Evolution: Academic Integration and Policy Applications,” laid the groundwork for the formation of a society. The workshop was organized by Michele Gelfand, a cultural psychologist at the University of Maryland, and EI President David Sloan Wilson. The participants represented a melting pot of disciplines that need to become integrated to create a science of cultural change informed by evolutionary theory. They strongly endorsed the need for a society to accomplish the objectives identified during the workshop. What will the SSCE do? We envision an activist society that does much more than publish a journal and host an annual meeting. One of our first items of business will be to collectively identify “Grand Challenges” in the study of cultural evolution; these will define the agenda of the society. Then we will work toward the creation of basic scientific research programs and practical initiatives to tackle the Grand Challenges. We expect scientific research and real-world solutions to go together through the creation of field sites for the study of cultural evolution, similar to biological field sites. Who should join the SSCE? We encourage the following people to become founding members: Academic professionals, graduate students, and undergraduate students from any discipline relevant to cultural evolution. We especially encourage the next generation of scientists to become involved. Anyone (professional or nonprofessional) who is trying to accomplish positive cultural change in the real world and who would like to base their efforts on cultural evolutionary theory. Anyone (professional or nonprofessional) with an intellectual interest in cultural evolutionary theory who would like to get involved and support the newly emerging field. We are especially eager for our members to come from all cultures around the world—an appropriate ideal for a Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution! What will happen right away? When you become a founding member… You will be added to our mailing list to receive regular communications. You will be consulted, if you desire, to provide input in the creation of bylaws for the society and important decisions concerning dues, an annual conference, and a journal. You can help us identify grand challenges for the study of cultural evolution. You can get involved in the projects that we create to tackle the grand challenges. We look forward to starting the SSCE with a diverse membership and to offer both intellectual stimulation and practical knowledge for improving the quality of life. Please help us recruit founding members by bringing our invitation to the attention of your friends and
Re: [FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
Glen, I am afraid I have not been following this closely enough to know the white hats from the black hats. I think one of the dimensions of disagreement here is on the possibility of social planning. If one thinks that the subject matters studied by sociologists and economists are essentially chaotic, then social planning is either foolish or manipulative … like bishops telling parishioners to defer gratification so they, the bishops, can live opulent lives in the Bishop’s Palace. As a consequence of running such a scam, the Vatican runs half of Rome, right? That new society sounds like a reforming and a planning lot. That’s as far as my thinking has gotten on this. As you see, it’s not very far. My grandchildren are visiting, and between dealing with them, and naps and long nights of dead sleep to recuperate, I don’t have much time to mull over emails these days. Feel free to ignore me. All the best, Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of gepr Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 10:17 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution On Jun 29, 2015 7:08 PM, Nick Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: So, Glen. Are you fur it or agin it? I don't see any reason to be against it. Why? Are you against it? https://evolution-institute.org/project/society-for-the-study-of-cultural-evolution/ A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution 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] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
Steve, There is NOTHING woo-hoo about multilevel selection! See http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/nthompson/1-websitestuff/Texts/2000-2005/Shifting_the_natural_selection_metaphor_to_the_group_level.pdf Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 10:27 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution Yay! Cause at this point the world could really use social activism and public science education through an evolutionary psychology lens. Woohoo SocioBiology 2.0* -S * now with Multi-Level Group Selection flavor crystals. --- -. . ..-. .. ... - .-- --- ..-. .. ... stephen.gue...@redfish.com mailto:stephen.gue...@redfish.com 1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505 office: (505) 995-0206 mobile: (505) 577-5828 tw: @redfishgroup skype: redfishgroup redfish.com http://redfish.com/ | simtable.com http://simtable.com/ On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Nick Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: So, Glen. Are you fur it or agin it? n 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 mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com ] On Behalf Of glen ep ropella Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 9:04 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution https://evolution-institute.org/project/society-for-the-study-of-cultural-evolution/ A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution Why a new society? Our capacity for culture stems from our ability to receive, process, integrate, and transmit information across generations. The study of human culture and cultural change has made great strides during the last few decades in fields such as anthropology, computer science, evolutionary biology, neurobiology, psychology, and sociology. Yet, the study of cultural change as an evolutionary process, similar to genetic evolution but with its own inheritance mechanisms, is only now becoming a central area of scientific inquiry that spans these disciplines and holds much potential for academic integration. Outside the Ivory Tower, all public policies attempt to accomplish cultural change in a practical sense to reach their various objectives, yet they rarely draw upon an explicit scientific theory of cultural change. A new society is needed to catalyze the study of cultural change from a modern evolutionary perspective, both inside and outside the Ivory Tower. A recent EI workshop, “Advancing the Study of Cultural Evolution: Academic Integration and Policy Applications,” laid the groundwork for the formation of a society. The workshop was organized by Michele Gelfand, a cultural psychologist at the University of Maryland, and EI President David Sloan Wilson. The participants represented a melting pot of disciplines that need to become integrated to create a science of cultural change informed by evolutionary theory. They strongly endorsed the need for a society to accomplish the objectives identified during the workshop. What will the SSCE do? We envision an activist society that does much more than publish a journal and host an annual meeting. One of our first items of business will be to collectively identify “Grand Challenges” in the study of cultural evolution; these will define the agenda of the society. Then we will work toward the creation of basic scientific research programs and practical initiatives to tackle the Grand Challenges. We expect scientific research and real-world solutions to go together through the creation of field sites for the study of cultural evolution, similar to biological field sites. Who should join the SSCE? We encourage the following people to become founding members: Academic professionals, graduate students, and undergraduate students from any discipline relevant to cultural evolution. We especially encourage the next generation of scientists to become involved. Anyone (professional or nonprofessional) who is trying to accomplish positive cultural change in the real world and who would like to base their efforts on cultural evolutionary theory. Anyone (professional or nonprofessional) with an intellectual interest in cultural evolutionary theory who would like to get involved and support the newly emerging field. We are especially eager for our members to come from all cultures around the world—an appropriate ideal for a Society for the
[FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
https://evolution-institute.org/project/society-for-the-study-of-cultural-evolution/ A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution Why a new society? Our capacity for culture stems from our ability to receive, process, integrate, and transmit information across generations. The study of human culture and cultural change has made great strides during the last few decades in fields such as anthropology, computer science, evolutionary biology, neurobiology, psychology, and sociology. Yet, the study of cultural change as an evolutionary process, similar to genetic evolution but with its own inheritance mechanisms, is only now becoming a central area of scientific inquiry that spans these disciplines and holds much potential for academic integration. Outside the Ivory Tower, all public policies attempt to accomplish cultural change in a practical sense to reach their various objectives, yet they rarely draw upon an explicit scientific theory of cultural change. A new society is needed to catalyze the study of cultural change from a modern evolutionary perspective, both inside and outside the Ivory Tower. A recent EI workshop, “Advancing the Study of Cultural Evolution: Academic Integration and Policy Applications,” laid the groundwork for the formation of a society. The workshop was organized by Michele Gelfand, a cultural psychologist at the University of Maryland, and EI President David Sloan Wilson. The participants represented a melting pot of disciplines that need to become integrated to create a science of cultural change informed by evolutionary theory. They strongly endorsed the need for a society to accomplish the objectives identified during the workshop. What will the SSCE do? We envision an activist society that does much more than publish a journal and host an annual meeting. One of our first items of business will be to collectively identify “Grand Challenges” in the study of cultural evolution; these will define the agenda of the society. Then we will work toward the creation of basic scientific research programs and practical initiatives to tackle the Grand Challenges. We expect scientific research and real-world solutions to go together through the creation of field sites for the study of cultural evolution, similar to biological field sites. Who should join the SSCE? We encourage the following people to become founding members: Academic professionals, graduate students, and undergraduate students from any discipline relevant to cultural evolution. We especially encourage the next generation of scientists to become involved. Anyone (professional or nonprofessional) who is trying to accomplish positive cultural change in the real world and who would like to base their efforts on cultural evolutionary theory. Anyone (professional or nonprofessional) with an intellectual interest in cultural evolutionary theory who would like to get involved and support the newly emerging field. We are especially eager for our members to come from all cultures around the world—an appropriate ideal for a Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution! What will happen right away? When you become a founding member… You will be added to our mailing list to receive regular communications. You will be consulted, if you desire, to provide input in the creation of bylaws for the society and important decisions concerning dues, an annual conference, and a journal. You can help us identify grand challenges for the study of cultural evolution. You can get involved in the projects that we create to tackle the grand challenges. We look forward to starting the SSCE with a diverse membership and to offer both intellectual stimulation and practical knowledge for improving the quality of life. Please help us recruit founding members by bringing our invitation to the attention of your friends and associates! We aim to be inclusive and diverse. -- 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
Re: [FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
So, Glen. Are you fur it or agin it? n 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: Monday, June 29, 2015 9:04 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution https://evolution-institute.org/project/society-for-the-study-of-cultural-evolution/ A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution Why a new society? Our capacity for culture stems from our ability to receive, process, integrate, and transmit information across generations. The study of human culture and cultural change has made great strides during the last few decades in fields such as anthropology, computer science, evolutionary biology, neurobiology, psychology, and sociology. Yet, the study of cultural change as an evolutionary process, similar to genetic evolution but with its own inheritance mechanisms, is only now becoming a central area of scientific inquiry that spans these disciplines and holds much potential for academic integration. Outside the Ivory Tower, all public policies attempt to accomplish cultural change in a practical sense to reach their various objectives, yet they rarely draw upon an explicit scientific theory of cultural change. A new society is needed to catalyze the study of cultural change from a modern evolutionary perspective, both inside and outside the Ivory Tower. A recent EI workshop, “Advancing the Study of Cultural Evolution: Academic Integration and Policy Applications,” laid the groundwork for the formation of a society. The workshop was organized by Michele Gelfand, a cultural psychologist at the University of Maryland, and EI President David Sloan Wilson. The participants represented a melting pot of disciplines that need to become integrated to create a science of cultural change informed by evolutionary theory. They strongly endorsed the need for a society to accomplish the objectives identified during the workshop. What will the SSCE do? We envision an activist society that does much more than publish a journal and host an annual meeting. One of our first items of business will be to collectively identify “Grand Challenges” in the study of cultural evolution; these will define the agenda of the society. Then we will work toward the creation of basic scientific research programs and practical initiatives to tackle the Grand Challenges. We expect scientific research and real-world solutions to go together through the creation of field sites for the study of cultural evolution, similar to biological field sites. Who should join the SSCE? We encourage the following people to become founding members: Academic professionals, graduate students, and undergraduate students from any discipline relevant to cultural evolution. We especially encourage the next generation of scientists to become involved. Anyone (professional or nonprofessional) who is trying to accomplish positive cultural change in the real world and who would like to base their efforts on cultural evolutionary theory. Anyone (professional or nonprofessional) with an intellectual interest in cultural evolutionary theory who would like to get involved and support the newly emerging field. We are especially eager for our members to come from all cultures around the world—an appropriate ideal for a Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution! What will happen right away? When you become a founding member… You will be added to our mailing list to receive regular communications. You will be consulted, if you desire, to provide input in the creation of bylaws for the society and important decisions concerning dues, an annual conference, and a journal. You can help us identify grand challenges for the study of cultural evolution. You can get involved in the projects that we create to tackle the grand challenges. We look forward to starting the SSCE with a diverse membership and to offer both intellectual stimulation and practical knowledge for improving the quality of life. Please help us recruit founding members by bringing our invitation to the attention of your friends and associates! We aim to be inclusive and diverse. -- 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] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
Glen, Oh, I don't think that these people are manipulative, particularly. Not at all. There is at least one person on the list I am enthusiastic about. If I were to think anything bad about them (and I don't think I do), it would be that they are naive. I just think that the whole project looks like it is based on the idea that we can analyze, plan, and reform in the societal domain, and I wasn't sure whether that was your cup of tea? I believe that we can do all of those things, but I am beginning to wonder if my commitment to that idea is more a value than a belief. An example of a kind of phenomenon that makes me doubt the possibility of successful social planning is the apparent rush to tear down the confederate battle flag that seems to be surging through the south. Talk about tipping point! Could we have planned for that? Nick 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 Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 11:01 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution That's a great point. But I suppose it all depends on who composes it. To say a group like this will advocate foolishly or manipulate without admitting that every other group, without exception(!), advocates foolishly and manipulates, is to place too much burden on these particular people. We all do our best to balance what we think should happen against worries that interference could go wrong. (Some of us are better at that balance than others. But that's also true of everyone about everything ... which makes it a useless statement.) In the end, to be against something before it's even begun is a bit silly, I think. Personally, I'm neutral. But it's interesting in the same way Lessig's May One or the genetic literacy project are interesting ... and manipulative. Even more political is the interesting neoreactionary movement. I'm even neutral about that, though I think I'm starting to turn a bit against it. The trick, as we've been discussing, is to never flip the bit one way or the other. On 06/29/2015 07:43 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: I am afraid I have not been following this closely enough to know the white hats from the black hats. I think one of the dimensions of disagreement here is on the possibility of social planning. If one thinks that the subject matters studied by sociologists and economists are essentially chaotic, then social planning is either foolish or manipulative … like bishops telling parishioners to defer gratification so they, the bishops, can live opulent lives in the Bishop’s Palace. As a consequence of running such a scam, the Vatican runs half of Rome, right? That new society sounds like a reforming and a planning lot. That’s as far as my thinking has gotten on this. As you see, it’s not very far. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella She'll borrow bullets and return em' to your skull 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] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
On Jun 29, 2015 7:08 PM, Nick Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: So, Glen. Are you fur it or agin it? I don't see any reason to be against it. Why? Are you against it? https://evolution-institute.org/project/society-for-the-study-of-cultural-evolution/ A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution 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] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
Anyone (professional or nonprofessional) who is trying to accomplish positive cultural change in the real world and who would like to base their efforts on cultural evolutionary theory. What is positive? What if culture is nothing more than inertia and mean reversion that inhibits individuals from turning over every rock and looking at every possibility? Is that hypothesis not positive? Down-sizing and extinction events happen in biological evolution, will these kinds of events be studied? If so, are such events not positive or just part of the natural world? Is it negative to relate cultural phenomena like fundamentalist religions to economic vitality? Or if one can think about whatever, can one define it for myself as positive and that'll do? Is this an activist society because there are good outcomes to seek that are self-evident to the group, and that one ought to know, or just because experiment is essential in learning about cultures work and so trying stuff out will be informative? What experiments are off limits, e.g. is this a U.S. based organization -- hard to know since they hide their domain registration! 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] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
The 2014 Annual Report names names for the Board of Directors See https://evolution-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NP_EI_2014_AnnualReport_web-printout.pdf Robert C On 6/29/15 10:43 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: is this a U.S. based organization -- hard to know since they hide their domain registration! -- Cirrillian Web Development Santa Fe, NM http://cirrillian.com 281-989-6272 (cell) 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] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
Given the name, I'd feel a bit more comfy if there were greater representation from biology or, gods forbid, genetics...also, no phenomenologists (e.g. Sabine) out there. Appendix 4 in https://evolution-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Final-CE-Conceptual-Framework-Mar-4-2015.pdf is interesting wrt concerns expressed here. (I found myself relating to the McElreath comments, not that I know diddly...) On 6/29/15 9:01 PM, glen wrote: That's a great point. But I suppose it all depends on who composes it. To say a group like this will advocate foolishly or manipulate without admitting that every other group, without exception(!), advocates foolishly and manipulates, is to place too much burden on these particular people. We all do our best to balance what we think should happen against worries that interference could go wrong. (Some of us are better at that balance than others. But that's also true of everyone about everything ... which makes it a useless statement.) In the end, to be against something before it's even begun is a bit silly, I think. Personally, I'm neutral. But it's interesting in the same way Lessig's May One or the genetic literacy project are interesting ... and manipulative. Even more political is the interesting neoreactionary movement. I'm even neutral about that, though I think I'm starting to turn a bit against it. The trick, as we've been discussing, is to never flip the bit one way or the other. On 06/29/2015 07:43 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: I am afraid I have not been following this closely enough to know the white hats from the black hats. I think one of the dimensions of disagreement here is on the possibility of social planning. If one thinks that the subject matters studied by sociologists and economists are essentially chaotic, then social planning is either foolish or manipulative … like bishops telling parishioners to defer gratification so they, the bishops, can live opulent lives in the Bishop’s Palace. As a consequence of running such a scam, the Vatican runs half of Rome, right? That new society sounds like a reforming and a planning lot. That’s as far as my thinking has gotten on this. As you see, it’s not very far. 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] A New Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
Robert wrote: The 2014 Annual Report names names for the Board of Directors See https://evolution-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NP_EI_2014_AnnualReport_web-printout.pdf; Gosh, can't we put science in one bin, politics in another, and religion somewhere else?Has it occurred to them that QoL changes as a function of experience? That people adapt to their environment? There is not one QoL fitness landscape, but many, and many in a life?These folks would be scary if they had resources, like a ranch in Antelope OR.I was in California a couple weeks ago and watched Jerry Brown talk about the water crisis. He's gifted in his profession of folksy persuasion, but it is clear that's his profession.These folks seemto think they can do that job. I don't think they could begin to.Meh. 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
