[FRIAM] pride and entitlement (was 11 American Nations)
I'm always late to the game, since I (try to) unplug on weekends. But this excerpt caught my eye: On 11/10/2013 08:44 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > We are not > who we are proud of being for the most part, and I find that sad. Each > of those 11 nations in Woodard's model have a strong story about what > makes them unique, what they are proud of. I hope we might look to > those ideals and return to them, not as laurels to rest on, but things > to aspire to. > > [...] > > I believe that the only way out of our spoiled and usurious lifestyles > is to return to the roots of what we can honestly be proud of and focus > on that. In many ways, I feel we long ago threw out the baby and kept > the bathwater. It shows in virtually every walk of life. We are now > much more interested in what everyone else is "doing wrong" than what > "right we should be doing". To be proud of something that's biologically (or otherwise, I guess) determined seems a bit odd, to me. E.g. other Texans claim to be proud of their being born and/or raised in Texas makes me laugh and cringe at the same time. (To this day, Renee' claims that I'm not _really_ a Texan because I tend to point out the stupidity that is most of Texas ... my addiction to pickup trucks isn't enough, apparently. Having been adopted as an infant, I can't really argue with her... I used to imagine my biological mom was sequestered at a distant nunnery in Houston for 6-10 months to avoid the shame of birthing a bastard.) Anyway, I can't accept determined attributes as being something worthy of pride. Enter the "free will" -- for individuals -- and "stigmergy" -- for collectives -- debate(s). What attributes can we really be proud of and what do we chalk up as hysteretic? Similarly, what can we _expect_ from those around us without seeming "spoiled and usurious"? Even the most John Wayne style individualist (self sufficient, yet generous, honorable, naively respectful, etc.) will end up disrespecting her environment (people and things) because individualism is ... bullsh!t, to put it nicely. So, one not only should we have expectations, we _must_ in order to fully understand symbiosis. (That reminds me of the continuing increase in narcissism scores of college students. Oddly, as civilization progresses, entitlement progresses... funny that.) What should we expect, if not lives better, richer, more luxurious, more relaxing, than our parents'? -- ⇒⇐ glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] pride and entitlement (was 11 American Nations)
Glen: I took Steve's comments to refer to the behaviors that help define the people in each of the 11 Nations - not necessarily the genetically determined characteristics. For example: Appalachia & Yankeedom - the independence that brought them to America Yankeedom & Midlands - the family and community orientation. et cetera I took Steve's comments to mean if these groups could focus on the positive behavioral characteristics we could collectively interact more positively. I understand your frustration at not being accepted even though you have been a resident of a location for a very long time. I hear that New England is the same way as well as my own State of Minnesota. Tho to be (funny) fair, if you put on the Fargo Accent you will fit in "just swell, don' tcha know.." (Just mimic the speech patterns of Sarah Palin (I don't recommend her politics). Her family and others were settled from Northern Minnesota to a region of Alaska in the 1920s for employment. I understand the entire valley in Alaska all speak with the Fargo accent. StephT On 11/11/2013 11:04 AM, glen wrote: I'm always late to the game, since I (try to) unplug on weekends. But this excerpt caught my eye: On 11/10/2013 08:44 AM, Steve Smith wrote: We are not who we are proud of being for the most part, and I find that sad. Each of those 11 nations in Woodard's model have a strong story about what makes them unique, what they are proud of. I hope we might look to those ideals and return to them, not as laurels to rest on, but things to aspire to. [...] I believe that the only way out of our spoiled and usurious lifestyles is to return to the roots of what we can honestly be proud of and focus on that. In many ways, I feel we long ago threw out the baby and kept the bathwater. It shows in virtually every walk of life. We are now much more interested in what everyone else is "doing wrong" than what "right we should be doing". To be proud of something that's biologically (or otherwise, I guess) determined seems a bit odd, to me. E.g. other Texans claim to be proud of their being born and/or raised in Texas makes me laugh and cringe at the same time. (To this day, Renee' claims that I'm not _really_ a Texan because I tend to point out the stupidity that is most of Texas ... my addiction to pickup trucks isn't enough, apparently. Having been adopted as an infant, I can't really argue with her... I used to imagine my biological mom was sequestered at a distant nunnery in Houston for 6-10 months to avoid the shame of birthing a bastard.) Anyway, I can't accept determined attributes as being something worthy of pride. Enter the "free will" -- for individuals -- and "stigmergy" -- for collectives -- debate(s). What attributes can we really be proud of and what do we chalk up as hysteretic? Similarly, what can we _expect_ from those around us without seeming "spoiled and usurious"? Even the most John Wayne style individualist (self sufficient, yet generous, honorable, naively respectful, etc.) will end up disrespecting her environment (people and things) because individualism is ... bullsh!t, to put it nicely. So, one not only should we have expectations, we _must_ in order to fully understand symbiosis. (That reminds me of the continuing increase in narcissism scores of college students. Oddly, as civilization progresses, entitlement progresses... funny that.) What should we expect, if not lives better, richer, more luxurious, more relaxing, than our parents'? FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] pride and entitlement (was 11 American Nations)
I also was happy I spent much of last weekend *not *on my computer, for
once.
> Anyway, I can't accept determined attributes as being something worthy
> of pride. Enter the "free will" -- for individuals -- and "stigmergy"
> -- for collectives -- debate(s). What attributes can we really be proud
> of and what do we chalk up as hysteretic?
>
I do not really know enough about hysteresis to understand this analogy,
but I think this might be a conflation of meanings within the English
language. This kind of confusion happens pretty often, see my notes on
'expect' below. Pride can either mean a claim to competency ("look at this
vase I made, I am proud of it") or general approval associated with
identity ("I am proud of the Aerican Empire / Free & Open Source movements
/ city council although most of the contributions to these efforts were not
by me, because they do good things that I am in some small way a part of").
> Similarly, what can we _expect_ from those around us without seeming
> "spoiled and usurious"? Even the most John Wayne style individualist
> (self sufficient, yet generous, honorable, naively respectful, etc.)
> will end up disrespecting her environment (people and things) because
> individualism is ... bullsh!t, to put it nicely.
I have only seen a couple of John Wayne movies (sounds like that is
representative though, just kidding) but as I recall his characters 1)
shoot and punch people 2) sometimes just for fun, and 3) have been injured
and relied on help. He does not seem like the epitome of low impact living
to me.
> So, one not only
> should we have expectations, we _must_ in order to fully understand
> symbiosis.
There are many ways that biological symbiosis is different from social
symbiosis, but I think in both the usual sense of 'expectation' does not
apply ("I expect you'll be leaving on the 12:00 train, then", "You failed
to meet expectations, Bob, we will have to let you go", "Welcome welcome
welcome, to the land of expectations, to the land of expectations, to the
land [...]").
If a clownfish fails to ward off predators and parasites from a sea
anemone, the anemone is not going to say "What the heck man, we had a deal"
and withdraw it's protection, it is just going to continue what it was
doing. Of course, if it dies from parasitism and predation, the clownfish
has one less anemone to hide in. This is why not only biological forms can
evolve, but also ecosystemic patterns. The point is, symbiosis is not
exactly governed by consent, but by mutual opportunism. Each partner takes
what it wants/needs (there is really more of a gradient than a strong
distinction), and can afford to give a little. It is generalised
reciprocity:
An individual or species realises that if there are such-and-such defenses
and offenses *here*, and not *there* in order to save on the cost of
specialisation, then on average they tend to do alright.
So I think rather than having social conventions about how much we should
trust people (or how much we think people should trust us), trust should be
an analytic endeavour: we can use best practices in prediction, such as
they are, to try to guess what a more-or-less safe approach to a given
interaction would be, based off past patterns of activity, theories about
behaviour, and so on.
> (That reminds me of the continuing increase in narcissism
> scores of college students. Oddly, as civilization progresses,
> entitlement progresses... funny that.) What should we expect, if not
> lives better, richer, more luxurious, more relaxing, than our parents'?
>
This trend seems unsustainable, as there is no such thing as infinite
luxury, wealth, and relaxation. We should instead set some ulterior goal
(whatever you want, be it development of a field like technology or art, or
observation / replication of the universe) and then remove poverty,
discomfort, and stress where they impede completion of this goal to the
extent needed. I feel it would be much more beneficial to the species and
planet as a whole for someone else to be assured of a source of meals than
for me to have access to more technology. If we can do both, great
(sometimes these things can leapfrog).
-Arlo James Barnes
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] pride and entitlement (was 11 American Nations)
On 11/11/2013 10:22 AM, Stephen Thompson wrote:
> I took Steve's comments to refer to the behaviors that help define the
> people in each of the 11 Nations - not necessarily the genetically
> determined
> characteristics.
>
> I took Steve's comments to mean if these groups could focus on the positive
> behavioral characteristics we could collectively interact more positively.
Yeah, you're reading what he _means_, I think. [grin] I'm reading what
he wrote. (That's a literalist's brinkmanship, right there.) He ties
pride, rather explicitly, I think, to entitlement and a metaphorical usury.
But even if we didn't tie pride to entitlement, it's still unclear that
pride is well correlated with, say "doing good". With that, let's jump
ahead to Arlo's response:
On 11/11/2013 11:40 AM, Arlo Barnes wrote:
> Pride can either mean a claim to competency ("look at this vase I
> made, I am proud of it") or general approval associated with
> identity.
But, either way, it is, by definition, associated with "good". Even in
the negative connotation, it is an accusation that the prideful are
mistaken in their own estimation of the good with which they identify.
That judgment, that the attribute is "something to be proud of" implies
that you have a choice in the matter. And it's the attribution of
choice that I object to. It seems silly for me to be proud that I'm
bald. It seems equally silly for me to be ashamed of my baldness. This
doesn't mean I'm conflating the two meanings of pride. It simply means
that pride (or shame) isn't meaningful at all in the context of
determined traits, wherein there is no choice. It's as nonsensical for
me to be proud that I am bald as it would be for me to identify with
baldness. Similarly, I'm not ashamed nor proud that I was born/reared
in Texas.
If there's no choice in the matter, then there can be no pride. But
going back to StephT's[*] comment:
On 11/11/2013 10:22 AM, Stephen Thompson wrote:
> I took Steve's comments to mean if these groups could focus on the positive
> behavioral characteristics we could collectively interact more positively.
Yes, I take what he said the same way. But I object to the assumption
that we can objectively (or even collectively subjectively) determine
what is "good" or "positive". I would easily agree with the concept of
a target phenomenon (Arlo's "ulterior goal"), be it judged good or ill
by anyone on anywhere in space or time, then design our incentive (and
perhaps motivation) so as to best approach that target. But it strikes
me as hubris to assume that the optimum is somewhere _other_ than where
we are right here and now. I admit it doesn't seem that way to me,
either. But I wouldn't go so far as to condemn the current situation
without sufficient evidence (beyond justificationism).
In other words, whence cometh this Utopian optimism that we _could_ have
been in a better position than we are if we were just a little more
_perfect_ than we already are?
It's that question that raises the concepts of hysteresis and stigmergy.
> I understand your frustration at not being accepted even though you
> have been a resident of a location for a very long time. I hear that
> New England is the same way as well as my own State of
> Minnesota. Tho to be (funny) fair, if you put on the Fargo Accent
> you will fit in "just swell, don' tcha know.." (Just mimic the
> speech patterns of Sarah Palin (I don't recommend her politics). Her
> family and others were settled from Northern Minnesota to a region of
> Alaska in the 1920s for employment. I understand the entire valley
> in Alaska all speak with the Fargo accent.
Well, don't mis-take my meaning. I got along famously with the Texans
around me while I was there. And, to this day, it's relatively easy for
me to change my stripes when I'm visiting (conscious or not). But what
has always surprised me is the inability to step outside oneself ... to
realize how silly one's seemingly normal behavior can be. I have the
same problem with Oregon (primed, no doubt, by Marcus' and another
friend of mine's jokes prior to my moving here). I find myself breaking
into laughter at socially awkward moments because someone's
(authentically) wearing a hipster hat while denigrating (ironic)
hipsters, or sporting a huge ear wafer bitching about those pesky
conformists. The child-like inability to step outside their selves is
what cracks me up.
[*] Too many Steves! My name was almost Steve. My parents adopted an
infant before me and named him Steve, though I don't know whether it was
Stephen or Steven. Unfortunately (or fortunately - I never know which),
the church insisted on taking him back and they had to reapply, at which
point they got me.
--
⇒⇐ glen
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] pride and entitlement (was 11 American Nations)
On 11/11/2013 11:40 AM, Arlo Barnes wrote:
> I have only seen a couple of John Wayne movies (sounds like that is
> representative though, just kidding) but as I recall his characters 1)
> shoot and punch people 2) sometimes just for fun, and 3) have been
> injured and relied on help. He does not seem like the epitome of low
> impact living to me.
1) Some people need to be shot or punched or shot and punched. I know
saying that will get me in trouble. But I do believe it.
Dunning-Kruger comes to mind, here. _You_ are more competent than many
of your fellows. And, because you're more competent, you tend to over
estimate their competence. The good news is that if/when you witness
the incompetence of your fellows, you will revise your estimate
downward. ;-) The same can't be said of them. It takes _more_ than
witnessing others' competence to get them to revise their estimates of
their own competence.
2) But the fun was consensual, even if begrudgingly so.
3) I can't disagree, here. Individualism really is a (convenient) lie.
> There are many ways that biological symbiosis is different from social
> symbiosis, but I think in both the usual sense of 'expectation' does not
> apply ("I expect you'll be leaving on the 12:00 train, then", "You
> failed to meet expectations, Bob, we will have to let you go", "Welcome
> welcome welcome, to the land of expectations, to the land of
> expectations, to the land [...]").
>
> If a clownfish fails to ward off predators and parasites from a sea
> anemone, the anemone is not going to say "What the heck man, we had a
> deal"
I disagree. I firmly believe that even our most lofty thoughts are a
direct result of sensorimotor interactions with the world. Hence, when
a human thinks another "failed to meet expectations", it is precisely
the same sense of "expectation" as the failure of a clownfish to ward
off predators from an anemone.
> and withdraw it's protection, it is just going to continue what it
> was doing.
Now, the degree of "directness" could be debated. An anemone is a
simpler machine than a human. Hence, the transformation from failed
expectations to reaction will be simpler. But it's a difference of
degree, not kind. (Disclosure: I have, in the past, on this mailing
list, defended the idea that circularity provides for a difference in
kind. So, you could argue that the lack of a centralized nervous system
in an anemone prevents the same navel-gazing circularity we humans have.
Hence, we humans might engage in a different kind of "expectation" ...
perhaps "anticipation". But, I would counter that the relatively banal
vernacular use of "expectation" by most people isn't all that reflexive.
There may be some expectations... those having to do with the big
questions - why are we here, etc. - that engage this different kind of
expectation. But for the most part, we don't.)
> This trend seems unsustainable, as there is no such thing as infinite
> luxury, wealth, and relaxation.
Nah. I would argue that the ever increasing narcissism is analogous to
the increasing beat illusion
. The
NPI is flawed.
> We should instead set some ulterior goal
> (whatever you want, be it development of a field like technology or art,
> or observation / replication of the universe) and then remove poverty,
> discomfort, and stress where they impede completion of this goal to the
> extent needed. I feel it would be much more beneficial to the species
> and planet as a whole for someone else to be assured of a source of
> meals than for me to have access to more technology. If we can do both,
> great (sometimes these things can leapfrog).
Well, again, I think I have the same feelings you do. But I have to
check myself to be sure I have an accurate understanding of how the
universe works before I can make the same assertion. I'm usually
gobsmacked by how ignorant I actually am, which limits my conviction to
any particular societal objective.
--
⇒⇐ glen
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
