Joe:
Well put -- thanks . . . !!
For me the *key* to Gregg's ToK system is the fact that he has
introduced "dimensions of complexity" -- not "levels" (at least in his
terminology) -- which is to say, there is no reason to consider the
"complexity" of the four major categories as being the "same" (i.e.
based on identical dynamics or metrics) as each other. In fact, it
would appear that they are quite different.
This is in sharp disagreement with everyone else I know of who uses
the heuristic of "complexity." David Christian's "Big History" and
the work at the Santa Fe Institute presume that there is only one
"complexity" and that it can be used to explain everything that ever
happened -- from the "Big Bang" to the "Arab Spring." There are no
"dimensions" in those accounts.
That's nuts (or, more specifically, a fundamental result of the
*failed* hunt for a ToE via "science" under ELECTRIC conditions) . . .
<g>
He goes on to explain that there are *four* different "informational
systems" that drive these *four* different "dimensions of complexity"
-- without (as far as I can tell) attempting to show any "unifying"
links between them (other than to call them all "informational," which
then isn't carefully defined.) No, "information theory" as we now
have it won't solve this conundrum.
What drives "complexity" for Matter, Life, Psychology and Culture
could then be studied and explained in more detail, each distinct
one-from-the-other -- as Gregg will have to do before he rolls this
out for wider scrutiny. "Reducing" them all to the same underlying
"principle" would, it seems to me, collapse the entire exercise and
beg the question of why Gregg has put the last 20+ years into this
effort.
Mark
P.S. "Terrorism" is, of course, a euphemism (for television
consumption.) It is simply "medieval" Islam that is involved. This
begs the question of what *caused* that to happen? Why did a part of
the West, based like the rest on the Bible (and, in particular, the
Book of Revelation), suddenly "decide" to go on the attack? What
happened?
Fundamentalist Islam has been around for a long time. I spent many
years traveling to Saudi Arabia (becoming an expert on Arabic
calligraphy &c), so why did Osama Bin Laden &al (including the
mujahedin in Afghanistan) "suddenly" become such a problem? What
*formally* caused all this to happen and how does the "Cultural"
dimension of "complexity" explain it (or not)? And what does all this
have to do with my Center's motto "Digital *retrieves* the Medieval"?
Quoting Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>:
> Mark, fully agreed. And that's precisely one of the important
> feature of the filters, at the psychological level and then at the
> private-public interface. If you're suggesting that the "private
> Trump" differs from the "public Trump" (which includes the info
> presented not only by the 'left' media, but the WSJ, Fox News,
> Breitbart, etc.), then I agree too. If you're suggesting that the
> information that people consume directly influences their
> perceptions of Trump or anyone else...absolutely! And, if you argue
> that the digital age and the mediums available have a powerful
> impact, we are fully agreed. In addition, look at the actual
> *behaviors* enacted as President, i.e., from tweeting to cabinet
> appointments to policy decisions. There are clear, predictable
> patterns as well and confirmatory evidence. The odd exceptions
> remain just that: "odd" and "exceptions."
>
>
> My own view of science and "prediction" is that we continually
> increase the levels and degrees of informational complexity as we
> move from Matter-Life-Mind-Culture. I don't have time to delve into
> this today, but it's highly "predictable" in my view that the
> explanatory power of physics and their "behavioral fields" exceeds
> that of the biologists and their behavioral fields, who exceed the
> psychologists, who exceed the people that do the lamest job of all:
> people like me (i.e. sociologists)! Factor in the impact of
> technology at the next level and, yes, we have our explanatory
> challenges ahead.
>
>
> To give you one simple example: a "brilliant" (just ask him!) and
> well-known sociologist predicted that the conditions that promoted
> terrorism in the early 21st century would lead ultimately to the
> demise of terrorism because technology would shrink the world,
> cultural differences would dissipate, etc. I remember thinking: "Oh,
> I don't see THAT happening." Quite the opposite: we are able to
> establish entirely separate realities online and find communities
> that reinforce any and every imaginable 'belief' system and
> normative framework. And that's what has happened. We see evidence
> not only in the great East-West chasm that you've suggested, but
> streams and ripples aplenty off the main river on which your work
> mainly focuses. In the broader schema, I'm fully confident that
> human conflict will remain as important - and predictable - as ever,
> both at the individual and at the group-societal-international
> level. And I'm generally an optimist! Go figure. Best, -joe
>
>
>
> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>
> Associate Academic Dean
>
> King’s University College at Western University
>
> 266 Epworth Avenue
>
> London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3
>
> Tel: (519) 433-3491
>
> Fax: (519) 963-1263
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> ______________________
> eiπ + 1 = 0
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion
> <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Mark Stahlman
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:20 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: draft blog on Trump Algorithm
>
> JOe:
>
> Fair enough -- however, as a social scientist, what you can "predict"
> re: Trump is just what you can see and, needless to say under these
> circumstances, that is only what CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WaPO &c want you to see
> . . . !!
>
> Many who actually know Trump (including some who I know personally)
> have repeatedly said that the "actual" person has little in common
> with the "public persona" now on display. As I recall, your ToK
> lecture discussed the various "filters" we use for our different
> "faces."
>
> In most cases, it is only a TELEVISION "personality" (or in Trump's
> case an "anti-television" persona) that is available for this purpose
> when dealing with figures like this and as has been recently shown for
> many others -- like Charlie Rose, who I have spent time with -- they
> often behave in "private" very differently than they do in "public."
>
> It would seem to me that any discussion of Trump needs to take this
> into account, along with his "public" situation and how he thinks he
> needs to act under those circumstances. Just sayin' . . . <g>
>
> Mark
>
>
> Quoting Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Dear Mark et al:
>>
>>
>> Mark writes: " 'Trump' and 'Algorithms' have *nothing* to do with
>> what is going on in the world today (which, alas, it is my job to
>> understand.)" And, I'll go out on a limb, to guess that you believe
>> you do a pretty good job of that and would defend your positions
>> accordingly. But you're not alone.
>>
>>
>> That's precisely what most of us do who have spent our lives as
>> social scientists, i.e., we search for explanations of human
>> behaviour and focus on trying to understand "what's going on in the
>> world". We propose ideas and conduct research to evaluate the
>> quality of those ideas. As with any human endeavor, there's
>> tremendous variability in the range of the quality of the
>> theorizing, as well as the quality of the research that a diverse
>> group of practitioners undertake.
>>
>>
>> Gregg's algorithm, for example, proposes to explain Trump's
>> behavior. I got sidetracked from sending out an email earlier
>> suggesting that the algorithm could be viewed as a type of
>> predictive hypothesis that can then be weighed again the evidence,
>> past-present-future. In Trump's case, the predictive validity is
>> almost 100%. As Gregg indicated, I'd be shocked if he did something
>> different (and that's a good thing, or I'd be out of a job: people
>> are largely predictable, including us!). Then I read that Trump was
>> commenting on his administration's job with respect to Puerto Rico
>> and the loss of life there. I used Gregg's algorithm and predicted
>> with 100% accuracy his behaviour.
>>
>>
>> That's the job of social science: to propose theories and test their
>> validity accordingly. That's what we do. I think the APA's concern
>> has to do with doing clinical assessments of people's psychological
>> fitness, or the normative aspects of "armchair psychologizing" and
>> making public pronouncements about mental stability, etc. I don't
>> see that as what Gregg was doing. But I hope you're not implying,
>> Mark, that Gregg as a social scientist should not be trying to
>> explain & predict human behaviour. I think that's a foundational
>> aspect of the job - and Gregg and many others do a great job of that
>> in their various fields.
>>
>>
>> As a sociologist, I certainly do not focus nearly as much attention
>> on explaining "individual behaviour" and, instead, locate
>> individuals in broader historical and cultural contexts. Thus my
>> "explanations" tend to be of a different form than those of my
>> psychology colleagues. And I certainly agree that, in some important
>> ways, Trump's a "symptom" of much broader forces, etc. (but that's a
>> much larger discussion). That said, what's especially remarkable
>> about Trump - and a great many people - is how consistently he fits
>> the predictive patterns.
>>
>>
>> Finally, the experts I "know" (er, and I guess, for once, I actually
>> include myself in that category!) are well aware that we belong to
>> an incredibly diverse species, culturally-linguistically-and
>> otherwise, so I don't see anything controversial about your premise
>> in that regard. Most of us figured out early on that the whole "We
>> Are the World" concept was hardly an accurate description of
>> humanity or the current stage of our evolutionary development.
>>
>>
>> Anyway, like you Mark, I too predicted the Trump victory in advance
>> of election day - based on the evidence at the more granular level
>> of the battleground states. The main difference from your prediction
>> was simply that I expected there to be a large turnout, based on
>> behavioral/motivational indicators, whereas you anticipated a sharp
>> decline. But it was the largest turnout ever in terms of total
>> votes, although proportionately not the largest obviously. Where I
>> strongly agree with you, however, is with respect to the enormity of
>> the impact of the digital world in shaping human behaviour and the
>> long-term implications and impacts (which we're already seeing in
>> various measurable ways, including neurally, psychologically, and
>> culturally). But there's more than enough work to go around in
>> trying to "understand the world" (even as we enter increasingly into
>> a post-work stage of history!). Best, -joe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>>
>> Associate Academic Dean
>>
>> King’s University College at Western University
>>
>> 266 Epworth Avenue
>>
>> London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3
>>
>> Tel: (519) 433-3491
>>
>> Fax: (519) 963-1263
>>
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> ______________________
>> eiπ + 1 = 0
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: tree of knowledge system discussion
>> <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Mark Stahlman
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 12:42 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: draft blog on Trump Algorithm
>>
>> Gregg:
>>
>> As you know, the APA has a rule against "analyzing" anyone without
>> actually taking them on as a "client." I know it's tempting to
>> imagine that you know enough about a person based on how they are
>> portrayed on television but I suspect that is not how you think
>> clinical psychology should actually work in real life . . <g>
>>
>> More importantly, since this is a world leader you're talking about --
>> who has been the target of relentless 24/7 attacks -- I can tell you
>> that "Trump" and "Algorithms" have *nothing* to do with what is going
>> on in the world today (which, alas, it is my job to understand.)
>>
>> "Racism" is a *meme* that is being deployed by the TELEVISION paradigm
>> because it is desperately trying to hold-on, even though obviously it
>> has become totally obsolete now that we are DIGITAL. None of the memes
>> make any sense anymore. Nike's "Just Do It!" has now turned into a
>> boycott against them.
>>
>> As we wrote more than a year ago, we are living with the "end of
>> memes." As it turns out, yesterday the EU actually passed a law
>> against them (or what most in the Internet think they are).
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_rally-2Dpoint-2Dperspectives_the-2Dend-2Dof-2Dmemes-2Dor-2Dmcluhan-2D101-2D2095ae3cad02&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=rG9ldyCLY_blxNmVNHkATP3u_ZUsQRv_uFOxF8AU5NM&s=yeRR2HMCB-3DGCJbBeJqJ9PR8pL738sMyV2a7pSq5IA&e=
> [https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cdn-2Dimages-2D1.medium.com_max_1200_1-2Av9S1BTDD1DCh6eeGwBuyuQ.png&d=DwIGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gwXaX4wQfaBHxiDr6NZGPtDwhffMLBeLsTWOjI94bJw&s=nk0qluqPjmF95_46leUFnI5Wjf1-GFjPqvP5qLc9qCs&e=]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_rally-2Dpoint-2Dperspectives_the-2Dend-2Dof-2Dmemes-2Dor-2Dmcluhan-2D101-2D2095ae3cad02&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=rG9ldyCLY_blxNmVNHkATP3u_ZUsQRv_uFOxF8AU5NM&s=yeRR2HMCB-3DGCJbBeJqJ9PR8pL738sMyV2a7pSq5IA&e=>
>
> The End of Memes or McLuhan 101 – Rally Point Perspectives –
> Medium<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_rally-2Dpoint-2Dperspectives_the-2Dend-2Dof-2Dmemes-2Dor-2Dmcluhan-2D101-2D2095ae3cad02&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=rG9ldyCLY_blxNmVNHkATP3u_ZUsQRv_uFOxF8AU5NM&s=yeRR2HMCB-3DGCJbBeJqJ9PR8pL738sMyV2a7pSq5IA&e=>
> urldefense.proofpoint.com
> by Mark Stahlman, President, Center for the Study of Digital Life,
> with Deborah Newman, Doc Searls, Peter Berkman, Ben Stolz, Jeff…
>
>
>
>> [https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cdn-2Dimages-2D1.medium.com_max_1200_1-2Av9S1BTDD1DCh6eeGwBuyuQ.png&d=DwIGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ui70xS8SHJOAQL2qOgwE0n8kCnPLvdEe29bjUEPZiQQ&s=jy-WPp8K1lMBzEo3Cby_8UNEH4u56BKyPNg3i_nMwp0&e=]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_rally-2Dpoint-2Dperspectives_the-2Dend-2Dof-2Dmemes-2Dor-2Dmcluhan-2D101-2D2095ae3cad02&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=rG9ldyCLY_blxNmVNHkATP3u_ZUsQRv_uFOxF8AU5NM&s=yeRR2HMCB-3DGCJbBeJqJ9PR8pL738sMyV2a7pSq5IA&e=>
>>
>> The End of Memes or McLuhan 101 – Rally Point Perspectives –
>> Medium<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_rally-2Dpoint-2Dperspectives_the-2Dend-2Dof-2Dmemes-2Dor-2Dmcluhan-2D101-2D2095ae3cad02&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=rG9ldyCLY_blxNmVNHkATP3u_ZUsQRv_uFOxF8AU5NM&s=yeRR2HMCB-3DGCJbBeJqJ9PR8pL738sMyV2a7pSq5IA&e=>
>> urldefense.proofpoint.com
>> by Mark Stahlman, President, Center for the Study of Digital Life,
>> with Deborah Newman, Doc Searls, Peter Berkman, Ben Stolz, Jeff…
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> TELEVISION tried to convince us that there is a "Family of Man," as
>> the ideology behind its "globalist" ambitions. None of that makes any
>> sense any more. Hopefully my posts about China have been helpful to
>> illustrate this "new" reality.
>>
>> Brexit. Italy. Hungary. And now Sweden &c. Trump is only the
>> "symptom" of something much larger. This is a world-wide phenomenon
>> and has little to do with Trump or anyone else's "personality" (or
>> presumed "stage of development.")
>>
>> Welcome to the future (which isn't at all like most people thought it
>> would be) . . . !!
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>>> Hi List,
>>>
>>> Hope this finds everyone doing well.
>>>
>>> Yesterday I did a very quick blog on why it is important that we
>>> are clear about the two meanings of the word
>>> racism<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201809_racism-2Dtwo-2Dvery-2Ddifferent-2Dmeanings-2Dthe-2Dword&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=rG9ldyCLY_blxNmVNHkATP3u_ZUsQRv_uFOxF8AU5NM&s=tE-Ingd_BGoxaTBCY7DW5kKdSgdo1LsmG-2SIZaduI4&e=>.
>>>
>>> Today, I woke up and found myself sketching out a draft of a blog
>>> on “The Trump Algorithm.” It is attached.
>>>
>>> Would welcome feedback on it if you have it. Will likely post on
>>> Saturday, assuming Trump’s character structure remains in place for
>>> the next two days 😊.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Gregg
>>>
>>> ############################
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> or click the following link:
>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> or click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> or click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
