Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
Glen writes: < Some lefties are like me, squawking because they're out of tune and will get to practical action sooner or later. But, yeah, some are just yelling Get Off My Lawn! > I recall arguing with someone about the tradeoff between health care for oneself or for one's child. That somehow it is "wrong" to have to make that choice and that one shouldn't have to. It only is wrong if enough people can be persuaded that it is wrong. Similarly the climate will happily change and kill as many people happen to be in the way. There's no Staples Easy button. No final authority to fix it all. I think that is starting to sink in after Trump. Marcus - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
That's a bit harsh. Of course, it depends on what you mean by "complain". There's something like hysteresis when some things change faster than other things, or the change required outstrips your plasticity. So, for example, when I moved to the PacNW, a pint of fresh brewed beer was $3-$4, cheaper than any of the good beer we could ever get in Texas. But now, a pint is >$6 at pretty much every brewery. What the hell am I paying for? I could get it cheaper at the damned Total Wine & More? I'm certainly not paying for the often Neanderthal perspectives of many brewer types! Of course, again being from Texas, it takes a bit of time to realize that what I'm paying for is *civilization* ... you know, where your government cares about things like long-term care for old people and whatnot. So my hysterical squawking about the price of a pint is NOT because the world isn't how I prefer. It's because I'm not "in tune" with the surrounding context. Some lefties are like me, squawking because they're out of tune and will get to practical action sooner or later. But, yeah, some are just yelling Get Off My Lawn! On 8/10/21 1:23 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > As far as I can tell, people that complain about the decay of morality are > mostly complaining about how the world isn't how they prefer. But they > either don't do anything to make the world they way they want, or do crazy > irresponsible things that don't even achieve their aims.. to the extent they > even understand them. I worry that the "left" has started to believe their > own Rachel-just-so stories about what is fair and unfair, good and bad, etc. > when in the end all there is power. Take it or have it taken from you. > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 1:09 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure > > OK. So cooperation is the foundation. As ContraPoints goes through her essay, > she makes the point that morality is an envy/resentment construct where those > without power express their inability to change the structure - can't take > down the big dog and maybe even don't WANT to take down the big dog. That > latter part would be a part of, at least, anarcho-syndicalism. Weak groups > may not want to take down powerful groups, rather model the dynamic further > into the future and nudge the powerful group. > > In either case, there's no need for morality as ContraPoints describes > because morality only comes from complete inability and resentment. As long > as you can nudge, you can replace morality with practical action. But, of > course, some of us want larger/faster nudges than others of us. So, there'd > still be a valid type of *frustrated* or somesuch ... maybe not morality but > "stance" or "operating principle". > > > On 8/10/21 12:15 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> Glen writes: >> >> < So, "seeming to seek power" might be a good indicator of someone who >> shouldn't have it. But "not seeming to seek power" isn't at all >> sufficient for identifying those who should have it. > >> >> Thus anarchists view that power should not be allowed, period -- all >> organization should be slowed. >> Enforcing that view is essentially impossible without creating the >> conditions for cooperation. There's always a big dog to take down. So in >> the end one can opt for Realpolitik or some bible thumping. There was never >> any morality. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Friam On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels >> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:26 AM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure >> >> Sure. I'm just trying to get the "pathological" aspect of personality >> defined away. You talk to your billionaire friend with the initials PT and >> he explains why it is necessary to drain the blood of random victims. It >> all holds together from his integrated world view. How can it be called >> immoral except by using another integrated world view? >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ >> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:17 AM >> To: friam@redfish.com >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure >> >> The problem is that, in the case of editing Wikipedia articles or a Jared >> Kushner operating some kind of "data science" scheme in the background, you >> can't tell whether a person who *seems* to not seek power actually doesn't >> seek power. Many of those
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
As far as I can tell, people that complain about the decay of morality are mostly complaining about how the world isn't how they prefer. But they either don't do anything to make the world they way they want, or do crazy irresponsible things that don't even achieve their aims.. to the extent they even understand them. I worry that the "left" has started to believe their own Rachel-just-so stories about what is fair and unfair, good and bad, etc. when in the end all there is power. Take it or have it taken from you. -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 1:09 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure OK. So cooperation is the foundation. As ContraPoints goes through her essay, she makes the point that morality is an envy/resentment construct where those without power express their inability to change the structure - can't take down the big dog and maybe even don't WANT to take down the big dog. That latter part would be a part of, at least, anarcho-syndicalism. Weak groups may not want to take down powerful groups, rather model the dynamic further into the future and nudge the powerful group. In either case, there's no need for morality as ContraPoints describes because morality only comes from complete inability and resentment. As long as you can nudge, you can replace morality with practical action. But, of course, some of us want larger/faster nudges than others of us. So, there'd still be a valid type of *frustrated* or somesuch ... maybe not morality but "stance" or "operating principle". On 8/10/21 12:15 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Glen writes: > > < So, "seeming to seek power" might be a good indicator of someone who > shouldn't have it. But "not seeming to seek power" isn't at all > sufficient for identifying those who should have it. > > > Thus anarchists view that power should not be allowed, period -- all > organization should be slowed. > Enforcing that view is essentially impossible without creating the conditions > for cooperation. There's always a big dog to take down. So in the end one > can opt for Realpolitik or some bible thumping. There was never any morality. > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:26 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure > > Sure. I'm just trying to get the "pathological" aspect of personality > defined away. You talk to your billionaire friend with the initials PT and > he explains why it is necessary to drain the blood of random victims. It all > holds together from his integrated world view. How can it be called immoral > except by using another integrated world view? > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:17 AM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure > > The problem is that, in the case of editing Wikipedia articles or a Jared > Kushner operating some kind of "data science" scheme in the background, you > can't tell whether a person who *seems* to not seek power actually doesn't > seek power. Many of those wikipedia contributors are seeking power and aren't > working for "the" common good (maybe some local in-group good, but not a > global one). So, "seeming to seek power" might be a good indicator of someone > who shouldn't have it. But "not seeming to seek power" isn't at all > sufficient for identifying those who should have it. > > And it's more difficult to simulate the moral code of someone who seems to > NOT seek power. > > On 8/10/21 10:54 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> What if they are integrated high-functioning sociopaths? By a common-sense >> evaluation, Trump is high-functioning. He became president, after all. >> People that seek power tend to be the sort of people that probably shouldn’t >> have it, in my experience. >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Frank >> Wimberly >> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 10, 2021 10:33 AM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure >> >> >> >> Psychologists I know would call a person whose behavior is consistent with >> his self description is integrated rather than moral. "Integrated" is >> usually a good quality but not if someone happily describes himself in >> sociopathic terms. Trump is, in my non-professional opinion, an amoral, >> n
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
OK. So cooperation is the foundation. As ContraPoints goes through her essay, she makes the point that morality is an envy/resentment construct where those without power express their inability to change the structure - can't take down the big dog and maybe even don't WANT to take down the big dog. That latter part would be a part of, at least, anarcho-syndicalism. Weak groups may not want to take down powerful groups, rather model the dynamic further into the future and nudge the powerful group. In either case, there's no need for morality as ContraPoints describes because morality only comes from complete inability and resentment. As long as you can nudge, you can replace morality with practical action. But, of course, some of us want larger/faster nudges than others of us. So, there'd still be a valid type of *frustrated* or somesuch ... maybe not morality but "stance" or "operating principle". On 8/10/21 12:15 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Glen writes: > > < So, "seeming to seek power" might be a good indicator of someone who > shouldn't have it. But "not seeming to seek power" isn't at all sufficient > for identifying those who should have it. > > > Thus anarchists view that power should not be allowed, period -- all > organization should be slowed. > Enforcing that view is essentially impossible without creating the conditions > for cooperation. There's always a big dog to take down. So in the end one > can opt for Realpolitik or some bible thumping. There was never any morality. > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:26 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure > > Sure. I'm just trying to get the "pathological" aspect of personality > defined away. You talk to your billionaire friend with the initials PT and > he explains why it is necessary to drain the blood of random victims. It all > holds together from his integrated world view. How can it be called immoral > except by using another integrated world view? > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:17 AM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure > > The problem is that, in the case of editing Wikipedia articles or a Jared > Kushner operating some kind of "data science" scheme in the background, you > can't tell whether a person who *seems* to not seek power actually doesn't > seek power. Many of those wikipedia contributors are seeking power and aren't > working for "the" common good (maybe some local in-group good, but not a > global one). So, "seeming to seek power" might be a good indicator of someone > who shouldn't have it. But "not seeming to seek power" isn't at all > sufficient for identifying those who should have it. > > And it's more difficult to simulate the moral code of someone who seems to > NOT seek power. > > On 8/10/21 10:54 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> What if they are integrated high-functioning sociopaths? By a common-sense >> evaluation, Trump is high-functioning. He became president, after all. >> People that seek power tend to be the sort of people that probably shouldn’t >> have it, in my experience. >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Frank >> Wimberly >> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 10, 2021 10:33 AM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure >> >> >> >> Psychologists I know would call a person whose behavior is consistent with >> his self description is integrated rather than moral. "Integrated" is >> usually a good quality but not if someone happily describes himself in >> sociopathic terms. Trump is, in my non-professional opinion, an amoral, >> narcissistic sociopath. >> >> --- >> Frank C. Wimberly >> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, >> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >> >> 505 670-9918 >> Santa Fe, NM >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 11:24 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ > <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Yeah, it was long. I only got through half of it during my workout this >> morning. >> >> I suppose it's right to say that the normative definition of moral >> would exclude Trump (or people like him). But if we stuck to your idea >> that a particular morality be *expressible*. (FWIW, I think the extra >> qualifier "independently of oneself"
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
Glen writes: < So, "seeming to seek power" might be a good indicator of someone who shouldn't have it. But "not seeming to seek power" isn't at all sufficient for identifying those who should have it. > Thus anarchists view that power should not be allowed, period -- all organization should be slowed. Enforcing that view is essentially impossible without creating the conditions for cooperation. There's always a big dog to take down. So in the end one can opt for Realpolitik or some bible thumping. There was never any morality. -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:26 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure Sure. I'm just trying to get the "pathological" aspect of personality defined away. You talk to your billionaire friend with the initials PT and he explains why it is necessary to drain the blood of random victims. It all holds together from his integrated world view. How can it be called immoral except by using another integrated world view? -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:17 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure The problem is that, in the case of editing Wikipedia articles or a Jared Kushner operating some kind of "data science" scheme in the background, you can't tell whether a person who *seems* to not seek power actually doesn't seek power. Many of those wikipedia contributors are seeking power and aren't working for "the" common good (maybe some local in-group good, but not a global one). So, "seeming to seek power" might be a good indicator of someone who shouldn't have it. But "not seeming to seek power" isn't at all sufficient for identifying those who should have it. And it's more difficult to simulate the moral code of someone who seems to NOT seek power. On 8/10/21 10:54 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > What if they are integrated high-functioning sociopaths? By a common-sense > evaluation, Trump is high-functioning. He became president, after all. > People that seek power tend to be the sort of people that probably shouldn’t > have it, in my experience. > > > > *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Frank > Wimberly > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 10, 2021 10:33 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure > > > > Psychologists I know would call a person whose behavior is consistent with > his self description is integrated rather than moral. "Integrated" is > usually a good quality but not if someone happily describes himself in > sociopathic terms. Trump is, in my non-professional opinion, an amoral, > narcissistic sociopath. > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 11:24 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Yeah, it was long. I only got through half of it during my workout this > morning. > > I suppose it's right to say that the normative definition of moral > would exclude Trump (or people like him). But if we stuck to your idea > that a particular morality be *expressible*. (FWIW, I think the extra > qualifier "independently of oneself" is redundant, at least a little. > Any expression has to be at least somewhat objective ... spoken word > causes air vibrations, video recordings of someone talking, written > documents, etc.) > > So, there's a hot debate at the moment in machine learning about the > different usage patterns for interpretable ML vs explainable ML, whereas > "explainable" is weaker in that it doesn't give any direct access to the > mechanism, only describes it somewhat ... "simulates" it. Interpretable ML is > supposedly a kind of transparency so that you can see inside, have access to > the actual mechanism that executes when the algorithm makes a prediction. > > Targeting your idea that a moral code must be expressible, do you mean a > perfect, transparent expression of the mechanism a moral actor uses? Or do > you mean simulable ... such that we can build relatively high fidelity > *models* of the mechanism inside the actor? > > On 8/10/21 10:11 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > > The Envy video looked like a lot of fun, but it was too long for me to > sit through it. > > > > Regarding morality, my guess is that it's not predictability that leads > people to consider someone moral, it's acting according to a framework that > can b
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
Sure. I'm just trying to get the "pathological" aspect of personality defined away. You talk to your billionaire friend with the initials PT and he explains why it is necessary to drain the blood of random victims. It all holds together from his integrated world view. How can it be called immoral except by using another integrated world view? -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:17 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure The problem is that, in the case of editing Wikipedia articles or a Jared Kushner operating some kind of "data science" scheme in the background, you can't tell whether a person who *seems* to not seek power actually doesn't seek power. Many of those wikipedia contributors are seeking power and aren't working for "the" common good (maybe some local in-group good, but not a global one). So, "seeming to seek power" might be a good indicator of someone who shouldn't have it. But "not seeming to seek power" isn't at all sufficient for identifying those who should have it. And it's more difficult to simulate the moral code of someone who seems to NOT seek power. On 8/10/21 10:54 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > What if they are integrated high-functioning sociopaths? By a common-sense > evaluation, Trump is high-functioning. He became president, after all. > People that seek power tend to be the sort of people that probably shouldn’t > have it, in my experience. > > > > *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Frank > Wimberly > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 10, 2021 10:33 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure > > > > Psychologists I know would call a person whose behavior is consistent with > his self description is integrated rather than moral. "Integrated" is > usually a good quality but not if someone happily describes himself in > sociopathic terms. Trump is, in my non-professional opinion, an amoral, > narcissistic sociopath. > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 11:24 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Yeah, it was long. I only got through half of it during my workout this > morning. > > I suppose it's right to say that the normative definition of moral > would exclude Trump (or people like him). But if we stuck to your idea > that a particular morality be *expressible*. (FWIW, I think the extra > qualifier "independently of oneself" is redundant, at least a little. > Any expression has to be at least somewhat objective ... spoken word > causes air vibrations, video recordings of someone talking, written > documents, etc.) > > So, there's a hot debate at the moment in machine learning about the > different usage patterns for interpretable ML vs explainable ML, whereas > "explainable" is weaker in that it doesn't give any direct access to the > mechanism, only describes it somewhat ... "simulates" it. Interpretable ML is > supposedly a kind of transparency so that you can see inside, have access to > the actual mechanism that executes when the algorithm makes a prediction. > > Targeting your idea that a moral code must be expressible, do you mean a > perfect, transparent expression of the mechanism a moral actor uses? Or do > you mean simulable ... such that we can build relatively high fidelity > *models* of the mechanism inside the actor? > > On 8/10/21 10:11 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > > The Envy video looked like a lot of fun, but it was too long for me to > sit through it. > > > > Regarding morality, my guess is that it's not predictability that leads > people to consider someone moral, it's acting according to a framework that > can be expressed independently of oneself. Society-wide utilitarianism would > be fine; "someone much like Trump [who] says they're an exploitative, gaming, > solipsist" and then behaves in a way consistent with that description, would > not be considered moral no matter how consistently their behavior simply > optimized short-term personal benefits. After all, to take your own Trump > example, I doubt that many people would characterize Trump as moral. > > -- > ☤>$ uǝlƃ -- ☤>$ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-com
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
Is it among the Zuni’s that anybody who seeks power is instantly disqualified? n Nick Thompson <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 1:55 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure What if they are integrated high-functioning sociopaths? By a common-sense evaluation, Trump is high-functioning. He became president, after all. People that seek power tend to be the sort of people that probably shouldn’t have it, in my experience. From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 10:33 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure Psychologists I know would call a person whose behavior is consistent with his self description is integrated rather than moral. "Integrated" is usually a good quality but not if someone happily describes himself in sociopathic terms. Trump is, in my non-professional opinion, an amoral, narcissistic sociopath. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 11:24 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> > wrote: Yeah, it was long. I only got through half of it during my workout this morning. I suppose it's right to say that the normative definition of moral would exclude Trump (or people like him). But if we stuck to your idea that a particular morality be *expressible*. (FWIW, I think the extra qualifier "independently of oneself" is redundant, at least a little. Any expression has to be at least somewhat objective ... spoken word causes air vibrations, video recordings of someone talking, written documents, etc.) So, there's a hot debate at the moment in machine learning about the different usage patterns for interpretable ML vs explainable ML, whereas "explainable" is weaker in that it doesn't give any direct access to the mechanism, only describes it somewhat ... "simulates" it. Interpretable ML is supposedly a kind of transparency so that you can see inside, have access to the actual mechanism that executes when the algorithm makes a prediction. Targeting your idea that a moral code must be expressible, do you mean a perfect, transparent expression of the mechanism a moral actor uses? Or do you mean simulable ... such that we can build relatively high fidelity *models* of the mechanism inside the actor? On 8/10/21 10:11 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > The Envy video looked like a lot of fun, but it was too long for me to sit > through it. > > Regarding morality, my guess is that it's not predictability that leads > people to consider someone moral, it's acting according to a framework that > can be expressed independently of oneself. Society-wide utilitarianism would > be fine; "someone much like Trump [who] says they're an exploitative, gaming, > solipsist" and then behaves in a way consistent with that description, would > not be considered moral no matter how consistently their behavior simply > optimized short-term personal benefits. After all, to take your own Trump > example, I doubt that many people would characterize Trump as moral. -- ☤>$ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
I deeply hope that my brain doesn't give out before I can study all those //'s more closely. n Nick Thompson thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 1:46 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure Yes, if you squint. The trick is that both opaque and transparent ML algorithms are *engineered*. So, rather than intension/extension, a better frame would be the gen-phen map, forward-inverse map. The opaque boxes are the, probably irreversible, result of a complicated process. I think information is lost in that process. So even if you can somewhat reverse engineer how an opaque algorithm was built, it wouldn't be very accurate. A better approach would be to interview a bunch of ML people and catalog how *they* would have created such an opaque model. There's probably an analog of that in ethology. On 8/10/21 10:41 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > I wonder if the interpretable/explainable distinction maps on to the > goal/function distinction which maps on to the phenomenon/epi-phenomenon > distinction which maps on the function spandrel distinction which maps on to > the intension/extension distinction which . > > Nick Thompson > thompnicks...@gmail.com > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 1:23 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure > > Yeah, it was long. I only got through half of it during my workout this > morning. > > I suppose it's right to say that the normative definition of moral > would exclude Trump (or people like him). But if we stuck to your idea > that a particular morality be *expressible*. (FWIW, I think the extra > qualifier "independently of oneself" is redundant, at least a little. > Any expression has to be at least somewhat objective ... spoken word > causes air vibrations, video recordings of someone talking, written > documents, etc.) > > So, there's a hot debate at the moment in machine learning about the > different usage patterns for interpretable ML vs explainable ML, whereas > "explainable" is weaker in that it doesn't give any direct access to the > mechanism, only describes it somewhat ... "simulates" it. Interpretable ML is > supposedly a kind of transparency so that you can see inside, have access to > the actual mechanism that executes when the algorithm makes a prediction. > > Targeting your idea that a moral code must be expressible, do you mean a > perfect, transparent expression of the mechanism a moral actor uses? Or do > you mean simulable ... such that we can build relatively high fidelity > *models* of the mechanism inside the actor? > > On 8/10/21 10:11 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: >> The Envy video looked like a lot of fun, but it was too long for me to sit >> through it. >> >> Regarding morality, my guess is that it's not predictability that leads >> people to consider someone moral, it's acting according to a framework that >> can be expressed independently of oneself. Society-wide utilitarianism would >> be fine; "someone much like Trump [who] says they're an exploitative, >> gaming, solipsist" and then behaves in a way consistent with that >> description, would not be considered moral no matter how consistently their >> behavior simply optimized short-term personal benefits. After all, to take >> your own Trump example, I doubt that many people would characterize Trump as >> moral. > > -- > ☤>$ uǝlƃ > > - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn > GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > > - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn > GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > -- ☤>$ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
The problem is that, in the case of editing Wikipedia articles or a Jared Kushner operating some kind of "data science" scheme in the background, you can't tell whether a person who *seems* to not seek power actually doesn't seek power. Many of those wikipedia contributors are seeking power and aren't working for "the" common good (maybe some local in-group good, but not a global one). So, "seeming to seek power" might be a good indicator of someone who shouldn't have it. But "not seeming to seek power" isn't at all sufficient for identifying those who should have it. And it's more difficult to simulate the moral code of someone who seems to NOT seek power. On 8/10/21 10:54 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > What if they are integrated high-functioning sociopaths? By a common-sense > evaluation, Trump is high-functioning. He became president, after all. > People that seek power tend to be the sort of people that probably shouldn’t > have it, in my experience. > > > > *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 10, 2021 10:33 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure > > > > Psychologists I know would call a person whose behavior is consistent with > his self description is integrated rather than moral. "Integrated" is > usually a good quality but not if someone happily describes himself in > sociopathic terms. Trump is, in my non-professional opinion, an amoral, > narcissistic sociopath. > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 11:24 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Yeah, it was long. I only got through half of it during my workout this > morning. > > I suppose it's right to say that the normative definition of moral would > exclude Trump (or people like him). But if we stuck to your idea that a > particular morality be *expressible*. (FWIW, I think the extra qualifier > "independently of oneself" is redundant, at least a little. Any expression > has to be at least somewhat objective ... spoken word causes air vibrations, > video recordings of someone talking, written documents, etc.) > > So, there's a hot debate at the moment in machine learning about the > different usage patterns for interpretable ML vs explainable ML, whereas > "explainable" is weaker in that it doesn't give any direct access to the > mechanism, only describes it somewhat ... "simulates" it. Interpretable ML is > supposedly a kind of transparency so that you can see inside, have access to > the actual mechanism that executes when the algorithm makes a prediction. > > Targeting your idea that a moral code must be expressible, do you mean a > perfect, transparent expression of the mechanism a moral actor uses? Or do > you mean simulable ... such that we can build relatively high fidelity > *models* of the mechanism inside the actor? > > On 8/10/21 10:11 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > > The Envy video looked like a lot of fun, but it was too long for me to > sit through it. > > > > Regarding morality, my guess is that it's not predictability that leads > people to consider someone moral, it's acting according to a framework that > can be expressed independently of oneself. Society-wide utilitarianism would > be fine; "someone much like Trump [who] says they're an exploitative, gaming, > solipsist" and then behaves in a way consistent with that description, would > not be considered moral no matter how consistently their behavior simply > optimized short-term personal benefits. After all, to take your own Trump > example, I doubt that many people would characterize Trump as moral. > > -- > ☤>$ uǝlƃ -- ☤>$ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
What if they are integrated high-functioning sociopaths? By a common-sense evaluation, Trump is high-functioning. He became president, after all. People that seek power tend to be the sort of people that probably shouldn’t have it, in my experience. From: Friam On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 10:33 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure Psychologists I know would call a person whose behavior is consistent with his self description is integrated rather than moral. "Integrated" is usually a good quality but not if someone happily describes himself in sociopathic terms. Trump is, in my non-professional opinion, an amoral, narcissistic sociopath. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 11:24 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote: Yeah, it was long. I only got through half of it during my workout this morning. I suppose it's right to say that the normative definition of moral would exclude Trump (or people like him). But if we stuck to your idea that a particular morality be *expressible*. (FWIW, I think the extra qualifier "independently of oneself" is redundant, at least a little. Any expression has to be at least somewhat objective ... spoken word causes air vibrations, video recordings of someone talking, written documents, etc.) So, there's a hot debate at the moment in machine learning about the different usage patterns for interpretable ML vs explainable ML, whereas "explainable" is weaker in that it doesn't give any direct access to the mechanism, only describes it somewhat ... "simulates" it. Interpretable ML is supposedly a kind of transparency so that you can see inside, have access to the actual mechanism that executes when the algorithm makes a prediction. Targeting your idea that a moral code must be expressible, do you mean a perfect, transparent expression of the mechanism a moral actor uses? Or do you mean simulable ... such that we can build relatively high fidelity *models* of the mechanism inside the actor? On 8/10/21 10:11 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > The Envy video looked like a lot of fun, but it was too long for me to sit > through it. > > Regarding morality, my guess is that it's not predictability that leads > people to consider someone moral, it's acting according to a framework that > can be expressed independently of oneself. Society-wide utilitarianism would > be fine; "someone much like Trump [who] says they're an exploitative, gaming, > solipsist" and then behaves in a way consistent with that description, would > not be considered moral no matter how consistently their behavior simply > optimized short-term personal benefits. After all, to take your own Trump > example, I doubt that many people would characterize Trump as moral. -- ☤>$ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam<http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
I think the kind of morality I would find useful would look something like Wikipedia contributors. Working away in obscurity for the greater good... -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 10:46 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure Yes, if you squint. The trick is that both opaque and transparent ML algorithms are *engineered*. So, rather than intension/extension, a better frame would be the gen-phen map, forward-inverse map. The opaque boxes are the, probably irreversible, result of a complicated process. I think information is lost in that process. So even if you can somewhat reverse engineer how an opaque algorithm was built, it wouldn't be very accurate. A better approach would be to interview a bunch of ML people and catalog how *they* would have created such an opaque model. There's probably an analog of that in ethology. On 8/10/21 10:41 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > I wonder if the interpretable/explainable distinction maps on to the > goal/function distinction which maps on to the phenomenon/epi-phenomenon > distinction which maps on the function spandrel distinction which maps on to > the intension/extension distinction which . > > Nick Thompson > thompnicks...@gmail.com > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 1:23 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure > > Yeah, it was long. I only got through half of it during my workout this > morning. > > I suppose it's right to say that the normative definition of moral > would exclude Trump (or people like him). But if we stuck to your idea > that a particular morality be *expressible*. (FWIW, I think the extra > qualifier "independently of oneself" is redundant, at least a little. > Any expression has to be at least somewhat objective ... spoken word > causes air vibrations, video recordings of someone talking, written > documents, etc.) > > So, there's a hot debate at the moment in machine learning about the > different usage patterns for interpretable ML vs explainable ML, whereas > "explainable" is weaker in that it doesn't give any direct access to the > mechanism, only describes it somewhat ... "simulates" it. Interpretable ML is > supposedly a kind of transparency so that you can see inside, have access to > the actual mechanism that executes when the algorithm makes a prediction. > > Targeting your idea that a moral code must be expressible, do you mean a > perfect, transparent expression of the mechanism a moral actor uses? Or do > you mean simulable ... such that we can build relatively high fidelity > *models* of the mechanism inside the actor? > > On 8/10/21 10:11 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: >> The Envy video looked like a lot of fun, but it was too long for me to sit >> through it. >> >> Regarding morality, my guess is that it's not predictability that leads >> people to consider someone moral, it's acting according to a framework that >> can be expressed independently of oneself. Society-wide utilitarianism would >> be fine; "someone much like Trump [who] says they're an exploitative, >> gaming, solipsist" and then behaves in a way consistent with that >> description, would not be considered moral no matter how consistently their >> behavior simply optimized short-term personal benefits. After all, to take >> your own Trump example, I doubt that many people would characterize Trump as >> moral. > > -- > ☤>$ uǝlƃ > > - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn > GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > > - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn > GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > -- ☤>$ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
Yes, if you squint. The trick is that both opaque and transparent ML algorithms are *engineered*. So, rather than intension/extension, a better frame would be the gen-phen map, forward-inverse map. The opaque boxes are the, probably irreversible, result of a complicated process. I think information is lost in that process. So even if you can somewhat reverse engineer how an opaque algorithm was built, it wouldn't be very accurate. A better approach would be to interview a bunch of ML people and catalog how *they* would have created such an opaque model. There's probably an analog of that in ethology. On 8/10/21 10:41 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > I wonder if the interpretable/explainable distinction maps on to the > goal/function distinction which maps on to the phenomenon/epi-phenomenon > distinction which maps on the function spandrel distinction which maps on to > the intension/extension distinction which . > > Nick Thompson > thompnicks...@gmail.com > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 1:23 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure > > Yeah, it was long. I only got through half of it during my workout this > morning. > > I suppose it's right to say that the normative definition of moral would > exclude Trump (or people like him). But if we stuck to your idea that a > particular morality be *expressible*. (FWIW, I think the extra qualifier > "independently of oneself" is redundant, at least a little. Any expression > has to be at least somewhat objective ... spoken word causes air vibrations, > video recordings of someone talking, written documents, etc.) > > So, there's a hot debate at the moment in machine learning about the > different usage patterns for interpretable ML vs explainable ML, whereas > "explainable" is weaker in that it doesn't give any direct access to the > mechanism, only describes it somewhat ... "simulates" it. Interpretable ML is > supposedly a kind of transparency so that you can see inside, have access to > the actual mechanism that executes when the algorithm makes a prediction. > > Targeting your idea that a moral code must be expressible, do you mean a > perfect, transparent expression of the mechanism a moral actor uses? Or do > you mean simulable ... such that we can build relatively high fidelity > *models* of the mechanism inside the actor? > > On 8/10/21 10:11 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: >> The Envy video looked like a lot of fun, but it was too long for me to sit >> through it. >> >> Regarding morality, my guess is that it's not predictability that leads >> people to consider someone moral, it's acting according to a framework that >> can be expressed independently of oneself. Society-wide utilitarianism would >> be fine; "someone much like Trump [who] says they're an exploitative, >> gaming, solipsist" and then behaves in a way consistent with that >> description, would not be considered moral no matter how consistently their >> behavior simply optimized short-term personal benefits. After all, to take >> your own Trump example, I doubt that many people would characterize Trump as >> moral. > > -- > ☤>$ uǝlƃ > > - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > > - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > -- ☤>$ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
Not surprisingly, Frank, I as a psychologist, like this rendition. N Nick Thompson <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 1:33 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure Psychologists I know would call a person whose behavior is consistent with his self description is integrated rather than moral. "Integrated" is usually a good quality but not if someone happily describes himself in sociopathic terms. Trump is, in my non-professional opinion, an amoral, narcissistic sociopath. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 11:24 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> > wrote: Yeah, it was long. I only got through half of it during my workout this morning. I suppose it's right to say that the normative definition of moral would exclude Trump (or people like him). But if we stuck to your idea that a particular morality be *expressible*. (FWIW, I think the extra qualifier "independently of oneself" is redundant, at least a little. Any expression has to be at least somewhat objective ... spoken word causes air vibrations, video recordings of someone talking, written documents, etc.) So, there's a hot debate at the moment in machine learning about the different usage patterns for interpretable ML vs explainable ML, whereas "explainable" is weaker in that it doesn't give any direct access to the mechanism, only describes it somewhat ... "simulates" it. Interpretable ML is supposedly a kind of transparency so that you can see inside, have access to the actual mechanism that executes when the algorithm makes a prediction. Targeting your idea that a moral code must be expressible, do you mean a perfect, transparent expression of the mechanism a moral actor uses? Or do you mean simulable ... such that we can build relatively high fidelity *models* of the mechanism inside the actor? On 8/10/21 10:11 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > The Envy video looked like a lot of fun, but it was too long for me to sit > through it. > > Regarding morality, my guess is that it's not predictability that leads > people to consider someone moral, it's acting according to a framework that > can be expressed independently of oneself. Society-wide utilitarianism would > be fine; "someone much like Trump [who] says they're an exploitative, gaming, > solipsist" and then behaves in a way consistent with that description, would > not be considered moral no matter how consistently their behavior simply > optimized short-term personal benefits. After all, to take your own Trump > example, I doubt that many people would characterize Trump as moral. -- ☤>$ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
I wonder if the interpretable/explainable distinction maps on to the goal/function distinction which maps on to the phenomenon/epi-phenomenon distinction which maps on the function spandrel distinction which maps on to the intension/extension distinction which . Nick Thompson thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 1:23 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure Yeah, it was long. I only got through half of it during my workout this morning. I suppose it's right to say that the normative definition of moral would exclude Trump (or people like him). But if we stuck to your idea that a particular morality be *expressible*. (FWIW, I think the extra qualifier "independently of oneself" is redundant, at least a little. Any expression has to be at least somewhat objective ... spoken word causes air vibrations, video recordings of someone talking, written documents, etc.) So, there's a hot debate at the moment in machine learning about the different usage patterns for interpretable ML vs explainable ML, whereas "explainable" is weaker in that it doesn't give any direct access to the mechanism, only describes it somewhat ... "simulates" it. Interpretable ML is supposedly a kind of transparency so that you can see inside, have access to the actual mechanism that executes when the algorithm makes a prediction. Targeting your idea that a moral code must be expressible, do you mean a perfect, transparent expression of the mechanism a moral actor uses? Or do you mean simulable ... such that we can build relatively high fidelity *models* of the mechanism inside the actor? On 8/10/21 10:11 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > The Envy video looked like a lot of fun, but it was too long for me to sit > through it. > > Regarding morality, my guess is that it's not predictability that leads > people to consider someone moral, it's acting according to a framework that > can be expressed independently of oneself. Society-wide utilitarianism would > be fine; "someone much like Trump [who] says they're an exploitative, gaming, > solipsist" and then behaves in a way consistent with that description, would > not be considered moral no matter how consistently their behavior simply > optimized short-term personal benefits. After all, to take your own Trump > example, I doubt that many people would characterize Trump as moral. -- ☤>$ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
Psychologists I know would call a person whose behavior is consistent with his self description is integrated rather than moral. "Integrated" is usually a good quality but not if someone happily describes himself in sociopathic terms. Trump is, in my non-professional opinion, an amoral, narcissistic sociopath. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 11:24 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote: > Yeah, it was long. I only got through half of it during my workout this > morning. > > I suppose it's right to say that the normative definition of moral would > exclude Trump (or people like him). But if we stuck to your idea that a > particular morality be *expressible*. (FWIW, I think the extra qualifier > "independently of oneself" is redundant, at least a little. Any expression > has to be at least somewhat objective ... spoken word causes air > vibrations, video recordings of someone talking, written documents, etc.) > > So, there's a hot debate at the moment in machine learning about the > different usage patterns for interpretable ML vs explainable ML, whereas > "explainable" is weaker in that it doesn't give any direct access to the > mechanism, only describes it somewhat ... "simulates" it. Interpretable ML > is supposedly a kind of transparency so that you can see inside, have > access to the actual mechanism that executes when the algorithm makes a > prediction. > > Targeting your idea that a moral code must be expressible, do you mean a > perfect, transparent expression of the mechanism a moral actor uses? Or do > you mean simulable ... such that we can build relatively high fidelity > *models* of the mechanism inside the actor? > > On 8/10/21 10:11 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > > The Envy video looked like a lot of fun, but it was too long for me to > sit through it. > > > > Regarding morality, my guess is that it's not predictability that leads > people to consider someone moral, it's acting according to a framework that > can be expressed independently of oneself. Society-wide utilitarianism > would be fine; "someone much like Trump [who] says they're an exploitative, > gaming, solipsist" and then behaves in a way consistent with that > description, would not be considered moral no matter how consistently their > behavior simply optimized short-term personal benefits. After all, to take > your own Trump example, I doubt that many people would characterize Trump > as moral. > > -- > ☤>$ uǝlƃ > > - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
Yeah, it was long. I only got through half of it during my workout this morning. I suppose it's right to say that the normative definition of moral would exclude Trump (or people like him). But if we stuck to your idea that a particular morality be *expressible*. (FWIW, I think the extra qualifier "independently of oneself" is redundant, at least a little. Any expression has to be at least somewhat objective ... spoken word causes air vibrations, video recordings of someone talking, written documents, etc.) So, there's a hot debate at the moment in machine learning about the different usage patterns for interpretable ML vs explainable ML, whereas "explainable" is weaker in that it doesn't give any direct access to the mechanism, only describes it somewhat ... "simulates" it. Interpretable ML is supposedly a kind of transparency so that you can see inside, have access to the actual mechanism that executes when the algorithm makes a prediction. Targeting your idea that a moral code must be expressible, do you mean a perfect, transparent expression of the mechanism a moral actor uses? Or do you mean simulable ... such that we can build relatively high fidelity *models* of the mechanism inside the actor? On 8/10/21 10:11 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > The Envy video looked like a lot of fun, but it was too long for me to sit > through it. > > Regarding morality, my guess is that it's not predictability that leads > people to consider someone moral, it's acting according to a framework that > can be expressed independently of oneself. Society-wide utilitarianism would > be fine; "someone much like Trump [who] says they're an exploitative, gaming, > solipsist" and then behaves in a way consistent with that description, would > not be considered moral no matter how consistently their behavior simply > optimized short-term personal benefits. After all, to take your own Trump > example, I doubt that many people would characterize Trump as moral. -- ☤>$ uǝlƃ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
The Envy video looked like a lot of fun, but it was too long for me to sit through it. Regarding morality, my guess is that it's not predictability that leads people to consider someone moral, it's acting according to a framework that can be expressed independently of oneself. Society-wide utilitarianism would be fine; "someone much like Trump [who] says they're an exploitative, gaming, solipsist" and then behaves in a way consistent with that description, would not be considered moral no matter how consistently their behavior simply optimized short-term personal benefits. After all, to take your own Trump example, I doubt that many people would characterize Trump as moral. -- Russ Abbott Professor Emeritus, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 9:56 AM Pieter Steenekamp < piet...@randcontrols.co.za> wrote: > Interesting work that Jonathan Haidt et al have done and moral foundations > of libertarians vs liberals and conservatives. > > I quote the abstract of the paper that can be referenced at : > https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366 > > Abstract > > Libertarians are an increasingly prominent ideological group in U.S. > politics, yet they have been largely unstudied. Across 16 measures in a > large web-based sample that included 11,994 self-identified libertarians, > we sought to understand the moral and psychological characteristics of > self-described libertarians. Based on an intuitionist view of moral > judgment, we focused on the underlying affective and cognitive dispositions > that accompany this unique worldview. Compared to self-identified liberals > and conservatives, libertarians showed 1) stronger endorsement of > individual liberty as their foremost guiding principle, and weaker > endorsement of all other moral principles; 2) a relatively cerebral as > opposed to emotional cognitive style; and 3) lower interdependence and > social relatedness. As predicted by intuitionist theories concerning the > origins of moral reasoning, libertarian values showed convergent > relationships with libertarian emotional dispositions and social > preferences. Our findings add to a growing recognition of the role of > personality differences in the organization of political attitudes. > > On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 17:49, Marcus Daniels wrote: > >> The great thing about ethics is that we have so many systems to choose >> from. I'll take my anarchist thinking except when I'm a stoic or a >> nihilist and Glen can advocate postmodernism, except when important topics >> like beer arise. >> >> -Original Message----- >> From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ >> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 7:45 AM >> To: friam@redfish.com >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure >> >> It's always unclear to me by what people mean by "moral". But this paper >> covers it fairly well, I think: >> >> The search for predictable moral partners: Predictability and moral >> (character) preferences >> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103121000998 >> >> The idea being that predictability is beneficial when the foundations are >> cooperative. But do we have to tie "moral" to cooperation? It seems >> straightforward that we could develop a rule-based morality based on greed, >> confidence games, and very tightly selfish heuristics. So, if someone much >> like Trump says they're an exploitative, gaming, solipsist ... then they >> steal money from their fellow taxpayers, they are *moral* ... they adhere >> to that standard. (And if someone says they're one of those, but behaves >> altruistically, then they're *immoral*.) >> >> As always, ContraPoints has an interesting take on a feeling that might >> be considered universally bad: >> >> Envy >> https://youtu.be/aPhrTOg1RUk >> >> In contrast to the other deadly sins, envy is more difficult to >> "moralize", individually or collectively. >> >> >> On 8/8/21 9:06 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >> > Jochen - >> > >> > Thanks for the original article reference. It lead me to seek out and >> find another interesting /relevant introductory/survey article: >> > >> > Stability of Democracies: A Complex Systems Perspective >> > <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/aaeb4d> >> > >> > In regards to your original question, my own biased intuition is that >> > it is a vicious (rather than virtuous) cycle. Our various corrupt >> leaders with notable presidents such as Harding (Teapot Dome), Nixon >
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
Interesting work that Jonathan Haidt et al have done and moral foundations of libertarians vs liberals and conservatives. I quote the abstract of the paper that can be referenced at : https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366 Abstract Libertarians are an increasingly prominent ideological group in U.S. politics, yet they have been largely unstudied. Across 16 measures in a large web-based sample that included 11,994 self-identified libertarians, we sought to understand the moral and psychological characteristics of self-described libertarians. Based on an intuitionist view of moral judgment, we focused on the underlying affective and cognitive dispositions that accompany this unique worldview. Compared to self-identified liberals and conservatives, libertarians showed 1) stronger endorsement of individual liberty as their foremost guiding principle, and weaker endorsement of all other moral principles; 2) a relatively cerebral as opposed to emotional cognitive style; and 3) lower interdependence and social relatedness. As predicted by intuitionist theories concerning the origins of moral reasoning, libertarian values showed convergent relationships with libertarian emotional dispositions and social preferences. Our findings add to a growing recognition of the role of personality differences in the organization of political attitudes. On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 17:49, Marcus Daniels wrote: > The great thing about ethics is that we have so many systems to choose > from. I'll take my anarchist thinking except when I'm a stoic or a > nihilist and Glen can advocate postmodernism, except when important topics > like beer arise. > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 7:45 AM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure > > It's always unclear to me by what people mean by "moral". But this paper > covers it fairly well, I think: > > The search for predictable moral partners: Predictability and moral > (character) preferences > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103121000998 > > The idea being that predictability is beneficial when the foundations are > cooperative. But do we have to tie "moral" to cooperation? It seems > straightforward that we could develop a rule-based morality based on greed, > confidence games, and very tightly selfish heuristics. So, if someone much > like Trump says they're an exploitative, gaming, solipsist ... then they > steal money from their fellow taxpayers, they are *moral* ... they adhere > to that standard. (And if someone says they're one of those, but behaves > altruistically, then they're *immoral*.) > > As always, ContraPoints has an interesting take on a feeling that might be > considered universally bad: > > Envy > https://youtu.be/aPhrTOg1RUk > > In contrast to the other deadly sins, envy is more difficult to > "moralize", individually or collectively. > > > On 8/8/21 9:06 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > > Jochen - > > > > Thanks for the original article reference. It lead me to seek out and > find another interesting /relevant introductory/survey article: > > > > Stability of Democracies: A Complex Systems Perspective > > <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/aaeb4d> > > > > In regards to your original question, my own biased intuition is that > > it is a vicious (rather than virtuous) cycle. Our various corrupt > leaders with notable presidents such as Harding (Teapot Dome), Nixon > (Watergate++) and DJT-45 (Tax, Emoluments, Election, Sexual Misconduct, > etc... many left to be exposed I suspect) definitely undermine the > confidence in and commitment to our imperfect Democracy, driving it further > away from any ideal it might aspire to. > > > > I personally wasted half of my voting life in reaction to Nixon and > > the next several cycles following. Watching the shenanigans of 2000 > and then 2016 and worse 2020, I expect there will be entire new generations > as disaffected as I was. It is hard to maintain a legitimate participatory > Democracy with that level of disaffection and confusion. > > > > The Wrong (formerly Right) Wing in the US seems nearly dead-set on > leveraging this to the extreme. In hindsight, the rhetoric of the Wrong > Wing has been playing at this for my entire adult life, but it is acutely > worse this past 1-5 years. From Trump's embrace of nearly every right > wing dictator he could find to Tucker Carlson in Hungary this week, it > seems to be happening entirely in plain sight! > > > > - Steve > > > > > > On 8/8/21 2:09 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote: > >> Goo
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
The great thing about ethics is that we have so many systems to choose from. I'll take my anarchist thinking except when I'm a stoic or a nihilist and Glen can advocate postmodernism, except when important topics like beer arise. -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 7:45 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure It's always unclear to me by what people mean by "moral". But this paper covers it fairly well, I think: The search for predictable moral partners: Predictability and moral (character) preferences https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103121000998 The idea being that predictability is beneficial when the foundations are cooperative. But do we have to tie "moral" to cooperation? It seems straightforward that we could develop a rule-based morality based on greed, confidence games, and very tightly selfish heuristics. So, if someone much like Trump says they're an exploitative, gaming, solipsist ... then they steal money from their fellow taxpayers, they are *moral* ... they adhere to that standard. (And if someone says they're one of those, but behaves altruistically, then they're *immoral*.) As always, ContraPoints has an interesting take on a feeling that might be considered universally bad: Envy https://youtu.be/aPhrTOg1RUk In contrast to the other deadly sins, envy is more difficult to "moralize", individually or collectively. On 8/8/21 9:06 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > Jochen - > > Thanks for the original article reference. It lead me to seek out and find > another interesting /relevant introductory/survey article: > > Stability of Democracies: A Complex Systems Perspective > <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/aaeb4d> > > In regards to your original question, my own biased intuition is that > it is a vicious (rather than virtuous) cycle. Our various corrupt leaders > with notable presidents such as Harding (Teapot Dome), Nixon (Watergate++) > and DJT-45 (Tax, Emoluments, Election, Sexual Misconduct, etc... many left to > be exposed I suspect) definitely undermine the confidence in and commitment > to our imperfect Democracy, driving it further away from any ideal it might > aspire to. > > I personally wasted half of my voting life in reaction to Nixon and > the next several cycles following. Watching the shenanigans of 2000 and > then 2016 and worse 2020, I expect there will be entire new generations as > disaffected as I was. It is hard to maintain a legitimate participatory > Democracy with that level of disaffection and confusion. > > The Wrong (formerly Right) Wing in the US seems nearly dead-set on leveraging > this to the extreme. In hindsight, the rhetoric of the Wrong Wing has been > playing at this for my entire adult life, but it is acutely worse this past > 1-5 years. From Trump's embrace of nearly every right wing dictator he > could find to Tucker Carlson in Hungary this week, it seems to be happening > entirely in plain sight! > > - Steve > > > On 8/8/21 2:09 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote: >> Good example. Like the USA South Africa was a former British colony. >> And both countries had to struggle with racism in the past. But the >> development of democracy was different. The rise and fall of >> democracy is an interesting topic >> https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691177465/the-decline >> -and-rise-of-democracy >> >> I wonder what the essential factor is: do immoral presidents cause >> the collapse of democracy in a country by undermining democratic >> institutions or is it the other way round: the economy (and therefore the >> country) is already broken and institutions are weak, which enables immoral >> authoritarian rulers to grab power? Or a combination of both? >> >> -J. >> >> >> Original message >> From: Pieter Steenekamp >> Date: 8/8/21 20:26 (GMT+01:00) >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure >> >> Well, I'm from South Africa, and we have been close to moral collapse and >> IMO that could have led to our state failing. >> >> If you ask ten South Africans you'll get maybe twenty opinions, below is >> just my very brief view of what has been and what is happening in South >> Africa. >> >> South Africa became democratic in 1994 with Nelson Mandela the president. >> With him at the helm we had the moral high ground. His immediate successor >> Thabo Mbeki also did well. But between 2009 and 2017 Jacob Zuma was our >> presi
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
It's always unclear to me by what people mean by "moral". But this paper covers it fairly well, I think: The search for predictable moral partners: Predictability and moral (character) preferences https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103121000998 The idea being that predictability is beneficial when the foundations are cooperative. But do we have to tie "moral" to cooperation? It seems straightforward that we could develop a rule-based morality based on greed, confidence games, and very tightly selfish heuristics. So, if someone much like Trump says they're an exploitative, gaming, solipsist ... then they steal money from their fellow taxpayers, they are *moral* ... they adhere to that standard. (And if someone says they're one of those, but behaves altruistically, then they're *immoral*.) As always, ContraPoints has an interesting take on a feeling that might be considered universally bad: Envy https://youtu.be/aPhrTOg1RUk In contrast to the other deadly sins, envy is more difficult to "moralize", individually or collectively. On 8/8/21 9:06 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > Jochen - > > Thanks for the original article reference. It lead me to seek out and find > another interesting /relevant introductory/survey article: > > Stability of Democracies: A Complex Systems Perspective > <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/aaeb4d> > > In regards to your original question, my own biased intuition is that it is a > vicious (rather than virtuous) cycle. Our various corrupt leaders with > notable presidents such as Harding (Teapot Dome), Nixon (Watergate++) and > DJT-45 (Tax, Emoluments, Election, Sexual Misconduct, etc... many left to be > exposed I suspect) definitely undermine the confidence in and commitment to > our imperfect Democracy, driving it further away from any ideal it might > aspire to. > > I personally wasted half of my voting life in reaction to Nixon and the next > several cycles following. Watching the shenanigans of 2000 and then 2016 > and worse 2020, I expect there will be entire new generations as disaffected > as I was. It is hard to maintain a legitimate participatory Democracy with > that level of disaffection and confusion. > > The Wrong (formerly Right) Wing in the US seems nearly dead-set on leveraging > this to the extreme. In hindsight, the rhetoric of the Wrong Wing has been > playing at this for my entire adult life, but it is acutely worse this past > 1-5 years. From Trump's embrace of nearly every right wing dictator he > could find to Tucker Carlson in Hungary this week, it seems to be happening > entirely in plain sight! > > - Steve > > > On 8/8/21 2:09 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote: >> Good example. Like the USA South Africa was a former British colony. And >> both countries had to struggle with racism in the past. But the development >> of democracy was different. The rise and fall of democracy is an interesting >> topic >> https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691177465/the-decline-and-rise-of-democracy >> >> I wonder what the essential factor is: do immoral presidents cause the >> collapse of democracy in a country by undermining democratic institutions or >> is it the other way round: the economy (and therefore the country) is >> already broken and institutions are weak, which enables immoral >> authoritarian rulers to grab power? Or a combination of both? >> >> -J. >> >> >> Original message >> From: Pieter Steenekamp >> Date: 8/8/21 20:26 (GMT+01:00) >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure >> >> Well, I'm from South Africa, and we have been close to moral collapse and >> IMO that could have led to our state failing. >> >> If you ask ten South Africans you'll get maybe twenty opinions, below is >> just my very brief view of what has been and what is happening in South >> Africa. >> >> South Africa became democratic in 1994 with Nelson Mandela the president. >> With him at the helm we had the moral high ground. His immediate successor >> Thabo Mbeki also did well. But between 2009 and 2017 Jacob Zuma was our >> president. He looted very seriously from the state and unfortunately under >> him many people in all state organisations started to also loot. The >> corruption became very deep. He is in jail now. >> >> We now have Cyril Ramaphosa as president and it's anybody's guess, but at >> least I'm very confident that Cyril is leading us again towards the moral >> high ground and away from state failure.
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
Steve, Thanks for your hopes for us in South Africa. I try not to be judgemental, so I will just say that South Africa's "Right Wing"'s world view differs radically from mine and in my opinion if their ideas are implemented it would lead to disaster. Fortunately for us they have negligible clout in society, we can safely just ignore them and move on.. P On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 at 18:33, Steve Smith wrote: > Pieter - > > > Your "The Wrong (formerly Right) Wing in the US" > > reminds me of the quote by Larry Elder: > > "Conservatives consider liberals well-intentioned, but misguided. > > Liberals consider conservatives not only wrong, but really, really bad > > people." > This smells strongly of a Strawman characterization and I hear this from > Right Wingers all the time. It sounds like a bit of projection > overlayed on "best defense is a good offense". > > My own erstwhile "Conservatism" was it's own style of misguided > good-intentions. For the most part, those I left behind there appear > to be acting out of variations on "greed and fear" which doesn't make > them really really bad people, but it doesn't bode well for them, nor > those they effect. This includes most of my and Mary's extended family > and many friends, neighbors, and former colleagues (LANL). > > I hope, for your sake, that So. Africa's "Right Wing" is not as "Wrong > Headed" as our own. > > - Steve > > > - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
Pieter - > Your "The Wrong (formerly Right) Wing in the US" > reminds me of the quote by Larry Elder: > "Conservatives consider liberals well-intentioned, but misguided. > Liberals consider conservatives not only wrong, but really, really bad > people." This smells strongly of a Strawman characterization and I hear this from Right Wingers all the time. It sounds like a bit of projection overlayed on "best defense is a good offense". My own erstwhile "Conservatism" was it's own style of misguided good-intentions. For the most part, those I left behind there appear to be acting out of variations on "greed and fear" which doesn't make them really really bad people, but it doesn't bode well for them, nor those they effect. This includes most of my and Mary's extended family and many friends, neighbors, and former colleagues (LANL). I hope, for your sake, that So. Africa's "Right Wing" is not as "Wrong Headed" as our own. - Steve - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
I don’t know who Larry Elder is, but I believe he is incorrect. The right wing of today in the USA believes, or at least says, that liberals are both misguided and really, really bad people. God told them so. On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 1:40 AM Pieter Steenekamp wrote: > Steve, > > Your "The Wrong (formerly Right) Wing in the US" > reminds me of the quote by Larry Elder: > "Conservatives consider liberals well-intentioned, but misguided. Liberals > consider conservatives not only wrong, but really, really bad people." > > > P > > On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 at 06:06, Steve Smith wrote: > >> Jochen - >> >> Thanks for the original article reference. It lead me to seek out and >> find another interesting /relevant introductory/survey article: >> >> Stability of Democracies: A Complex Systems Perspective >> <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/aaeb4d> >> >> In regards to your original question, my own biased intuition is that it >> is a vicious (rather than virtuous) cycle. Our various corrupt leaders >> with notable presidents such as Harding (Teapot Dome), Nixon (Watergate++) >> and DJT-45 (Tax, Emoluments, Election, Sexual Misconduct, etc... many left >> to be exposed I suspect) definitely undermine the confidence in and >> commitment to our imperfect Democracy, driving it further away from any >> ideal it might aspire to. >> >> I personally wasted half of my voting life in reaction to Nixon and the >> next several cycles following. Watching the shenanigans of 2000 and then >> 2016 and worse 2020, I expect there will be entire new generations as >> disaffected as I was. It is hard to maintain a legitimate participatory >> Democracy with that level of disaffection and confusion. >> >> The Wrong (formerly Right) Wing in the US seems nearly dead-set on >> leveraging this to the extreme. In hindsight, the rhetoric of the Wrong >> Wing has been playing at this for my entire adult life, but it is acutely >> worse this past 1-5 years. From Trump's embrace of nearly every right >> wing dictator he could find to Tucker Carlson in Hungary this week, it >> seems to be happening entirely in plain sight! >> >> - Steve >> >> >> On 8/8/21 2:09 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote: >> >> Good example. Like the USA South Africa was a former British colony. And >> both countries had to struggle with racism in the past. But the development >> of democracy was different. The rise and fall of democracy is an >> interesting topic >> >> https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691177465/the-decline-and-rise-of-democracy >> >> I wonder what the essential factor is: do immoral presidents cause the >> collapse of democracy in a country by undermining democratic institutions >> or is it the other way round: the economy (and therefore the country) is >> already broken and institutions are weak, which enables immoral >> authoritarian rulers to grab power? Or a combination of both? >> >> -J. >> >> >> Original message >> From: Pieter Steenekamp >> >> Date: 8/8/21 20:26 (GMT+01:00) >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure >> >> Well, I'm from South Africa, and we have been close to moral collapse and >> IMO that could have led to our state failing. >> >> If you ask ten South Africans you'll get maybe twenty opinions, below is >> just my very brief view of what has been and what is happening in South >> Africa. >> >> South Africa became democratic in 1994 with Nelson Mandela the president. >> With him at the helm we had the moral high ground. His immediate successor >> Thabo Mbeki also did well. But between 2009 and 2017 Jacob Zuma was our >> president. He looted very seriously from the state and unfortunately under >> him many people in all state organisations started to also loot. The >> corruption became very deep. He is in jail now. >> >> We now have Cyril Ramaphosa as president and it's anybody's guess, but at >> least I'm very confident that Cyril is leading us again towards the moral >> high ground and away from state failure. >> >> >> On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 at 19:18, Jochen Fromm wrote: >> >>> This paper from last year argues that moral collapse and state failure >>> are linked. Would you agree? >>> https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpos.2020.568704/full >>> >>> -J. >>> >>> >>> - . -..-. . -. -.. -..
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
Steve, Your "The Wrong (formerly Right) Wing in the US" reminds me of the quote by Larry Elder: "Conservatives consider liberals well-intentioned, but misguided. Liberals consider conservatives not only wrong, but really, really bad people." P On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 at 06:06, Steve Smith wrote: > Jochen - > > Thanks for the original article reference. It lead me to seek out and > find another interesting /relevant introductory/survey article: > > Stability of Democracies: A Complex Systems Perspective > <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/aaeb4d> > > In regards to your original question, my own biased intuition is that it > is a vicious (rather than virtuous) cycle. Our various corrupt leaders > with notable presidents such as Harding (Teapot Dome), Nixon (Watergate++) > and DJT-45 (Tax, Emoluments, Election, Sexual Misconduct, etc... many left > to be exposed I suspect) definitely undermine the confidence in and > commitment to our imperfect Democracy, driving it further away from any > ideal it might aspire to. > > I personally wasted half of my voting life in reaction to Nixon and the > next several cycles following. Watching the shenanigans of 2000 and then > 2016 and worse 2020, I expect there will be entire new generations as > disaffected as I was. It is hard to maintain a legitimate participatory > Democracy with that level of disaffection and confusion. > > The Wrong (formerly Right) Wing in the US seems nearly dead-set on > leveraging this to the extreme. In hindsight, the rhetoric of the Wrong > Wing has been playing at this for my entire adult life, but it is acutely > worse this past 1-5 years. From Trump's embrace of nearly every right > wing dictator he could find to Tucker Carlson in Hungary this week, it > seems to be happening entirely in plain sight! > > - Steve > > > On 8/8/21 2:09 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote: > > Good example. Like the USA South Africa was a former British colony. And > both countries had to struggle with racism in the past. But the development > of democracy was different. The rise and fall of democracy is an > interesting topic > > https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691177465/the-decline-and-rise-of-democracy > > I wonder what the essential factor is: do immoral presidents cause the > collapse of democracy in a country by undermining democratic institutions > or is it the other way round: the economy (and therefore the country) is > already broken and institutions are weak, which enables immoral > authoritarian rulers to grab power? Or a combination of both? > > -J. > > > ---- Original message ---- > From: Pieter Steenekamp > > Date: 8/8/21 20:26 (GMT+01:00) > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure > > Well, I'm from South Africa, and we have been close to moral collapse and > IMO that could have led to our state failing. > > If you ask ten South Africans you'll get maybe twenty opinions, below is > just my very brief view of what has been and what is happening in South > Africa. > > South Africa became democratic in 1994 with Nelson Mandela the president. > With him at the helm we had the moral high ground. His immediate successor > Thabo Mbeki also did well. But between 2009 and 2017 Jacob Zuma was our > president. He looted very seriously from the state and unfortunately under > him many people in all state organisations started to also loot. The > corruption became very deep. He is in jail now. > > We now have Cyril Ramaphosa as president and it's anybody's guess, but at > least I'm very confident that Cyril is leading us again towards the moral > high ground and away from state failure. > > > On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 at 19:18, Jochen Fromm wrote: > >> This paper from last year argues that moral collapse and state failure >> are linked. Would you agree? >> https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpos.2020.568704/full >> >> -J. >> >> >> - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> > > - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe <http://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/subscribe> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogsp
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
Jochen - Thanks for the original article reference. It lead me to seek out and find another interesting /relevant introductory/survey article: Stability of Democracies: A Complex Systems Perspective <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/aaeb4d> In regards to your original question, my own biased intuition is that it is a vicious (rather than virtuous) cycle. Our various corrupt leaders with notable presidents such as Harding (Teapot Dome), Nixon (Watergate++) and DJT-45 (Tax, Emoluments, Election, Sexual Misconduct, etc... many left to be exposed I suspect) definitely undermine the confidence in and commitment to our imperfect Democracy, driving it further away from any ideal it might aspire to. I personally wasted half of my voting life in reaction to Nixon and the next several cycles following. Watching the shenanigans of 2000 and then 2016 and worse 2020, I expect there will be entire new generations as disaffected as I was. It is hard to maintain a legitimate participatory Democracy with that level of disaffection and confusion. The Wrong (formerly Right) Wing in the US seems nearly dead-set on leveraging this to the extreme. In hindsight, the rhetoric of the Wrong Wing has been playing at this for my entire adult life, but it is acutely worse this past 1-5 years. From Trump's embrace of nearly every right wing dictator he could find to Tucker Carlson in Hungary this week, it seems to be happening entirely in plain sight! - Steve On 8/8/21 2:09 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote: > Good example. Like the USA South Africa was a former British colony. > And both countries had to struggle with racism in the past. But the > development of democracy was different. The rise and fall of democracy > is an interesting topic > https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691177465/the-decline-and-rise-of-democracy > > I wonder what the essential factor is: do immoral presidents cause the > collapse of democracy in a country by undermining democratic > institutions or is it the other way round: the economy (and therefore > the country) is already broken and institutions are weak, which > enables immoral authoritarian rulers to grab power? Or a combination > of both? > > -J. > > > Original message > From: Pieter Steenekamp > Date: 8/8/21 20:26 (GMT+01:00) > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure > > Well, I'm from South Africa, and we have been close to moral collapse > and IMO that could have led to our state failing. > > If you ask ten South Africans you'll get maybe twenty opinions, below > is just my very brief view of what has been and what is happening in > South Africa. > > South Africa became democratic in 1994 with Nelson Mandela the > president. With him at the helm we had the moral high ground. His > immediate successor Thabo Mbeki also did well. But between 2009 and > 2017 Jacob Zuma was our president. He looted very seriously from the > state and unfortunately under him many people in all state > organisations started to also loot. The corruption became very deep. > He is in jail now. > > We now have Cyril Ramaphosa as president and it's anybody's guess, but > at least I'm very confident that Cyril is leading us again towards the > moral high ground and away from state failure. > > > On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 at 19:18, Jochen Fromm <mailto:j...@cas-group.net>> wrote: > > This paper from last year argues that moral collapse and state > failure are linked. Would you agree? > https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpos.2020.568704/full > <https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpos.2020.568704/full> > > -J. > > > - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> > > > - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
Good example. Like the USA South Africa was a former British colony. And both countries had to struggle with racism in the past. But the development of democracy was different. The rise and fall of democracy is an interesting topichttps://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691177465/the-decline-and-rise-of-democracyI wonder what the essential factor is: do immoral presidents cause the collapse of democracy in a country by undermining democratic institutions or is it the other way round: the economy (and therefore the country) is already broken and institutions are weak, which enables immoral authoritarian rulers to grab power? Or a combination of both? -J. Original message From: Pieter Steenekamp Date: 8/8/21 20:26 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure Well, I'm from South Africa, and we have been close to moral collapse and IMO that could have led to our state failing.If you ask ten South Africans you'll get maybe twenty opinions, below is just my very brief view of what has been and what is happening in South Africa.South Africa became democratic in 1994 with Nelson Mandela the president. With him at the helm we had the moral high ground. His immediate successor Thabo Mbeki also did well. But between 2009 and 2017 Jacob Zuma was our president. He looted very seriously from the state and unfortunately under him many people in all state organisations started to also loot. The corruption became very deep. He is in jail now.We now have Cyril Ramaphosa as president and it's anybody's guess, but at least I'm very confident that Cyril is leading us again towards the moral high ground and away from state failure. On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 at 19:18, Jochen Fromm wrote:This paper from last year argues that moral collapse and state failure are linked. Would you agree?https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpos.2020.568704/full-J.- . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
Well, I'm from South Africa, and we have been close to moral collapse and IMO that could have led to our state failing. If you ask ten South Africans you'll get maybe twenty opinions, below is just my very brief view of what has been and what is happening in South Africa. South Africa became democratic in 1994 with Nelson Mandela the president. With him at the helm we had the moral high ground. His immediate successor Thabo Mbeki also did well. But between 2009 and 2017 Jacob Zuma was our president. He looted very seriously from the state and unfortunately under him many people in all state organisations started to also loot. The corruption became very deep. He is in jail now. We now have Cyril Ramaphosa as president and it's anybody's guess, but at least I'm very confident that Cyril is leading us again towards the moral high ground and away from state failure. On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 at 19:18, Jochen Fromm wrote: > This paper from last year argues that moral collapse and state failure are > linked. Would you agree? > https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpos.2020.568704/full > > -J. > > > - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > - . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
[FRIAM] Moral collapse and state failure
This paper from last year argues that moral collapse and state failure are linked. Would you agree?https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpos.2020.568704/full-J.- . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
