I'm not so sure about "Clearly this is different Normal than the mathematical Normal. In factperhaps the exact opposite." This sort of thing always brings to mind a wonderful (and scarily accurate) quote from George Carlin: "Think how stupid the average person is, and realize that half of them are stupider than that." (OK, yes, median would be more correct, but I doubt the mean and median are far off here...)
I just recently read Susan Jacoby's book, The Age of American Unreason (http://www.amazon.com/Age-American-Unreason-Vintage/dp/1400096383/), which devotes a bit if time to discussing why intellectuals aren't necessarily trusted or liked (at least in America). The book has its flaws -- she's much better at history than at making solid, evidence based arguments against things like the gender-based education, the dangers of television-watching for children and the "death" of writing, reading and conversation, made worse by the internet -- but the history she tells is compelling, which makes the book worthwhile. Brent P.S. this may be my first post, so I guess I'm delurking here. Hi! ________________________________ From: Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky <vbur...@shaw.ca> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 3:40:53 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] "Being Normal for Dummies" That seems to be at the core of this issue, the two minds. I agree Steve there are at least two different ways at looking at this silly notion ( My ex-wife would say there is only one and she seems to be the world's leading authority on Normal Behavior). The very fact that you can elucidate two positions seems to imply that you have an ability that Normal people do not possess. Normal people do not wish to hear the alternative versions. Normal people see nothing sinister about making a man, pin a Pi figure on his lapel and make him sit at the back of the bus. Normal people never worry about what happens to the urine and crap going down the toilet. It is disturbing to have lived through all our training and realize that not everybody appreciates us. Sometimes I suspect that we are resented because the bar was held to high. Other times I suspect that since we all started out Normal some of us don't recognize that we are still related to the herd more intimately than we acknowledge. Outside of our fields we are basically as ignorant as the rest of the herd and just as vulnerable to bogus ideas. Climate Change was just one example of many scientists at odds with each other. Having more than one mind seems to be quite reasonable even necessary but when it gets defined as a pathology we just might have flatted the tires of our only escape vehicle. I have a relative who is an Orthopedic Surgeon and often he can scare the crap out of me with his opinions of the world. So as long as everybody aspires to be Normal lets try and figure out what that means? Does anyone have a " Being Normal for Dummies" that I can borrow. Clearly this is different Normal than the mathematical Normal. In fact perhaps the exact opposite. Are there any Normal people in this group which we can reference or use as referees? Maybe the reason we are all here is because we have been rejected by Normal Society? So are we creating our own asylum? Dr.Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology) 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R2J 3R2 (204) 2548321 Phone/Fax vbur...@shaw.ca -----Original Message----- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: April 27, 2010 1:36 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] Scientists and Mathematicians as Scapegoats Vlad(imyr) - It doesn't surprise me that people who are smarter than we are intimidate us. We are often intimidated by people who are bigger or more attractive, why not smarter (more educated, more functional in abstract but relevant topics)? A more general question might be "why do we vilify or scapegoat those more able than us?" One good reason might be that on average, humans have a propensity for "taking advantage", using what advantages they have over others in a selfish way. We can be thoughtless bullies. I am of two minds on this one. (does that imply schizophrenia?) On one hand (mind?), as a member of the class of people who are educated in math and sciences and have some apparent innate ability with these subjects, and who has been subject to "blameful" rhetoric from those who are not educated (or adept?) in such intellectual pursuits, I am very aligned with your thesis about "scapegoating". On the other hand (mind?), I have observed that a great deal of conventional mathematics and science is based in very analytic and reductionist approaches. <preaching-to-choir> Such approaches can have great utility for isolating and understanding subsystems in said relative isolation. Unfortunately they can obscure total system behaviour/understanding and lead to unfortunate (mis)understandings. <goofy-personal-anecdote-about-contemporary-science> I feel lucky to have come of age in Math/Science as nonlinear science was just beginning to get a foothold (early 80's). While I never became a harp-playing crystal-gazer, the New Age movement of the 80's and it's influence or congruence with modern science (Tao of Physics, etc.) has been a positive thing. Even "old" modern physics (early 20 century) like Relativity and Quantum Theory has offered science some new paradigms for thinking about reality and even causality than it's roots in Descarte's and Plato and the like. <long-winded-attempt-to-summarize> The point of this is that the narrow application of reductionistic, linear approaches to science (and engineering and economics and ...) may have very inconvenient, outrageous, unintended consequences. Smart, educated people (like mathematicians and scientists and engineers) who have been exposed to other ways of thinking who continue to "hold the throttle down" as we plunge toward a potential abyss might not be without blame for the resulting disasters in our various global systems (climate, biosphere, economy, socio-religio-economic)... I'm not big on labels like "evil" but I do think we all deserve to (continue to?) reflect on our role in the myriad global scale problems the world might be facing. Some of us feel absolved when we throw our plastic packaging into a recycle bin, or buy a hybrid car, but it goes just a tad deeper than that, and there is a passive "evil" to stopping there (if that far). If horrific possibilities (and realities) of nuclear physics didn't wake us up, and the consequences of rampant greenhouse gas release doesn't wake us up, then will it be a silly "unexpected" consequence of genetic engineering or nanotechnology? I believe in the "grey goo" scenario about as much as I might have that the first nuclear explosion might have "ignited the atmosphere", but the probability is not zero and the consequences are about as high as we can measure... not sure how to resolve the limit of the infinite divided by the infinitesmal in this case... but I don't think we can dismiss it entirely. Don't say oops! - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
