while creating a cyber-profile of you to a very deep extent, engaging in psychological manipulation and experimentation - you're the lab rat, and wasting your valuable time...
Yes, in that the crisis has been produced by the algorithms in all growth capital-dependent social media - the destruction of actual authentic community by a "virtual community" of atomized individual capital sources... the announced problem is that "someone said something wrong on the Internet" and the proposed, inauthentic, solution is to create new bureaucracies with rules, regulations, surveillance, censorship, and punitive powers - which of course will create more atomization, paranoia, anxiety, and depression - creating the need for new "solutions" with more bureaucracies and so forth and so on ad infinitum - or at least until the money runs out or people get sick of it all and check out or rebel. The only time-honored, authentic, and effective solution to "someone said something wrong on the Internet", a problem which started with USENET News in the 1980s, is to ignore what was said and not start or take part in a "flame war". But the inauthentic solution is always more lucrative, especially for those who desire power over others, and cannot provide any sort of service that people would voluntarily and freely pay for, without coercion by law or force of arms. And, of course, the death knell for all bureaucracies erected with the announced original intent to "solve a problem" is the near prospect - much more, the bringing about - of an effective solution to the announced problem. And announced problems must get worse and the victim class increase, year after year, so that bureaucratic power and funding must increase exponentially (see this, it's important: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZA9Hnp3aV4) The continued prosperity of the Corporation-State is dependent on exponential growth, and that growth must have no limit...
Actually, the announced problem is very rarely, if at all, the actual problem. The actual problem in social media is the algorithm-driven social engineering and psychological manipulation, created to maximize earnings growth, year after year, and this is an exponential process. Without the algorithmic psychological manipulation, neither the actual problem nor the announced problem would exist - but there would be no earnings growth sufficient to support an increase in equity value, resulting in a decrease in equity stock value to zero. The for-profit Internet is thus shown to be self-limiting - as is any other process dependent on exponential growth, given finite resources...
I like and agree with the way you think and express yourself.
You are one of the few I've found who acknowledge the salience of 'real' communities (small, emergent, and relatively egalitarian) vs 'faux' communities — top-down, rule-driven constructs artificially created to serve the interests of a few sociopaths and the hordes who either depend on them or are hypnotized by them. I can't count the times I was put in FB jail or shadow-banned for breaking FB's (or YouTube's) "community" standards. 😂.
Regarding those dependent on the system ... Just a couple of weeks ago after teaching a few kids' classes here in Japan, I had a short dinner and drink with the Austrian uncle (by marriage) of one the Japanese kids. He is maybe about 25 years my junior, but firmly believes there is a technological fix to every problem and that by questioning globalist solutions to health- economic-environmental problems, I am a tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist. Of course he sees no cognitive dissonance in the fact that he is an institutionally dependent high school STEM teacher.
That YouTube link is an excellent restatement of the Malthusian Dilemma ... our collective failure and impossibility to maintain exponential growth within limited resources. And though this may be a great post-hoc justification for many of the globalist policies and heuristics ... ike the Trolley Car problem, a purely mathematical 'solution' can range from an ammoral solution to something that is altogether inhumane an reprehensible.
Though the lecturer in that podcast does not mention Malthus by name, I agree that Malthus, though wrong in specific predictions, was right in principle. But you highlight something that does not appear to be part of Malthus's observation. As you imply, the problem of overpopulation is made worse by the kind of people attracted to power over others ... those Cluster B - dark triad types. A. Lobaczewski's "Political Ponerology", needs a serious update, but then it would most likely be banned and buried ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ponerology
On listening to the video and reading our exchange, I was reminded of a relevant passage I'd read a few years ago ...
"Thus, Norse society’s structure created a conflict between the short-term interests of those in power, and the long-term interests of the society as a whole. Much of what the chiefs and clergy valued proved eventually harmful to the society. Yet the society’s values were at the root of its strengths as well as of its weaknesses. The Greenland Norse did succeed in creating a unique form of European society, and in surviving for 450 years as Europe’s most remote outpost. We modern Americans should not be too quick to brand them as failures, when their society survived in Greenland for longer than our English-speaking society has survived so far in North America. Ultimately, though, the chiefs found themselves without followers. The last right that they obtained for themselves was the privilege of being the last to starve."
Diamond, Jared. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed: Revised Edition (p. 276). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
On my better days, I go fishing. On my darker nights, I tend to agree with Ernst Mayr (first three paragraphs of Chomsky's 2010 Chapel Hill speech, https://chomsky.info/20100930/) ... human intelligence may be little more than a lethal mutation. Or as Stephen Hawking put it more bluntly ... "Greed and stupidity will mark the end of the human race."
On that, will grab a bite of an increasingly expensive dinner, and thank you for a stimulating exchange.
I also think, we should stop, people don’t understand that they are on a leash, and that most writers are there for that.
They mix truth with lies and the mass (for the most part) unable to think for itself, believes everything or almost and loses precious time. We could have already come out of this NWO, if we were united in this fight, instead of reading half-truths again and again.
These social networks are a very good trick, they prevent to live fully and to free themselves from dominators. But we say it and repeat it, it doesn’t change anything, see how many likes and comments there are here. I would not watch the videos, no time and no need, I’m for action, no chatting to infinity, exchange is one thing, commenting non-stop on everything or almost is another.
It is so, you may say true, but nobody cares, or almost.
I like Steve Martin, a not critical enough mind, I think, but he seems like a very nice person.
I think you are very intelligent, more intelligent than me, I noticed it on my first reading. But it could be, indeed, that your kindness, prevents you from being more critical, perhaps in connection with your life in Japan (or not), I have the impression, from the little I have read or seen in documentaries and films, that this is badly viewed there.
Yet a valid criticism, expressed without intention of harm, allowing to affirm with a valid argumentation, that the speech is false, is very important against malice (small or large deceptions...), it is in fact the only goal that matters. It is not the person who is targeted, but are discour false, erroneous etc., although the person must be denounced, so that deception is manifest, its words are important.
It is therefore a matter of denouncing evil.
So it’s not a choice between intelligence and kindness, but the ability to make valid criticism. There is a big difference, we can always hope that the person malhonnete, malicious etc. change and become a defender of humanity. This could be considered, as a chance offered, of an evidence of what it does, I am sure, that the critics back in my life, have allowed me to reflect on it, admit, evolve.
Here in France, people laugh at corrupt politicians etc. they let go, instead of putting an end to it, this attitude allows to be dominated, deceived etc.
I appreciate when I am shown that I am wrong, it allows me to move forward in the true, the beautiful etc.
I read your presentation on Quora, I have «When the monkeys take tea» by F De Waal, I do not know the title in English, I do not appreciate at all Sagan, but it does not coice the subject here.
I think there is confusion in the roles of processes in the system.
If intelligence is adaptive, and it is, then the different components cannot be static, rigid... It seems obvious to me that one will not be kind to someone who treats you, an adapted answer will be more just and more intélent. In animals, which I follow quite well closely, the same behavior is observed, it is also necessary for survival.
So kindness is a positive attitude in normal situation, out of conflict, there it is beneficial not only to the smooth running of our tribes, societies etc., but also to the survival of humanity, because it avoids the triggering of unnecessary conflicts. However, when you are attacked, deceived...respond by kindness is to give the baton with which you are hit. It is necessary, therefore, here too, an adapted response, that is intelligence, not the single answer, but cell adapted to the situation.
I do not speak of vengefulness, I am against, I am not the action to end a situation of conflict, deception etc.
I do not understand how one can confuse these different aspects of intelligence. I wonder if the conditioning in some cultures, e.g. Japan and its submission to the established code does not serve a plan of domination of the people, only a simple tradition of vesting to hurt or offend.
To take into account only the kindness (or the reaction abscne/ manifest action) as a response to one or more situations of conflict, we claim right to the current domination. It is therefore necessary to adapt our responses and actions to the given situations.
Haven't listened to the videos yet, and time might prevent me. But a BIG fan of Hannah Arendt! Spot on quotes! Sad that so few are taking note.
Something I just listened to while browsing that dovetails well with your post ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOw0inF8TFg
Cheers
Yes, in that the crisis has been produced by the algorithms in all growth capital-dependent social media - the destruction of actual authentic community by a "virtual community" of atomized individual capital sources... the announced problem is that "someone said something wrong on the Internet" and the proposed, inauthentic, solution is to create new bureaucracies with rules, regulations, surveillance, censorship, and punitive powers - which of course will create more atomization, paranoia, anxiety, and depression - creating the need for new "solutions" with more bureaucracies and so forth and so on ad infinitum - or at least until the money runs out or people get sick of it all and check out or rebel. The only time-honored, authentic, and effective solution to "someone said something wrong on the Internet", a problem which started with USENET News in the 1980s, is to ignore what was said and not start or take part in a "flame war". But the inauthentic solution is always more lucrative, especially for those who desire power over others, and cannot provide any sort of service that people would voluntarily and freely pay for, without coercion by law or force of arms. And, of course, the death knell for all bureaucracies erected with the announced original intent to "solve a problem" is the near prospect - much more, the bringing about - of an effective solution to the announced problem. And announced problems must get worse and the victim class increase, year after year, so that bureaucratic power and funding must increase exponentially (see this, it's important: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZA9Hnp3aV4) The continued prosperity of the Corporation-State is dependent on exponential growth, and that growth must have no limit...
Actually, the announced problem is very rarely, if at all, the actual problem. The actual problem in social media is the algorithm-driven social engineering and psychological manipulation, created to maximize earnings growth, year after year, and this is an exponential process. Without the algorithmic psychological manipulation, neither the actual problem nor the announced problem would exist - but there would be no earnings growth sufficient to support an increase in equity value, resulting in a decrease in equity stock value to zero. The for-profit Internet is thus shown to be self-limiting - as is any other process dependent on exponential growth, given finite resources...
I like and agree with the way you think and express yourself.
You are one of the few I've found who acknowledge the salience of 'real' communities (small, emergent, and relatively egalitarian) vs 'faux' communities — top-down, rule-driven constructs artificially created to serve the interests of a few sociopaths and the hordes who either depend on them or are hypnotized by them. I can't count the times I was put in FB jail or shadow-banned for breaking FB's (or YouTube's) "community" standards. 😂.
Regarding those dependent on the system ... Just a couple of weeks ago after teaching a few kids' classes here in Japan, I had a short dinner and drink with the Austrian uncle (by marriage) of one the Japanese kids. He is maybe about 25 years my junior, but firmly believes there is a technological fix to every problem and that by questioning globalist solutions to health- economic-environmental problems, I am a tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist. Of course he sees no cognitive dissonance in the fact that he is an institutionally dependent high school STEM teacher.
That YouTube link is an excellent restatement of the Malthusian Dilemma ... our collective failure and impossibility to maintain exponential growth within limited resources. And though this may be a great post-hoc justification for many of the globalist policies and heuristics ... ike the Trolley Car problem, a purely mathematical 'solution' can range from an ammoral solution to something that is altogether inhumane an reprehensible.
Though the lecturer in that podcast does not mention Malthus by name, I agree that Malthus, though wrong in specific predictions, was right in principle. But you highlight something that does not appear to be part of Malthus's observation. As you imply, the problem of overpopulation is made worse by the kind of people attracted to power over others ... those Cluster B - dark triad types. A. Lobaczewski's "Political Ponerology", needs a serious update, but then it would most likely be banned and buried ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ponerology
On listening to the video and reading our exchange, I was reminded of a relevant passage I'd read a few years ago ...
"Thus, Norse society’s structure created a conflict between the short-term interests of those in power, and the long-term interests of the society as a whole. Much of what the chiefs and clergy valued proved eventually harmful to the society. Yet the society’s values were at the root of its strengths as well as of its weaknesses. The Greenland Norse did succeed in creating a unique form of European society, and in surviving for 450 years as Europe’s most remote outpost. We modern Americans should not be too quick to brand them as failures, when their society survived in Greenland for longer than our English-speaking society has survived so far in North America. Ultimately, though, the chiefs found themselves without followers. The last right that they obtained for themselves was the privilege of being the last to starve."
Diamond, Jared. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed: Revised Edition (p. 276). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
On my better days, I go fishing. On my darker nights, I tend to agree with Ernst Mayr (first three paragraphs of Chomsky's 2010 Chapel Hill speech, https://chomsky.info/20100930/) ... human intelligence may be little more than a lethal mutation. Or as Stephen Hawking put it more bluntly ... "Greed and stupidity will mark the end of the human race."
On that, will grab a bite of an increasingly expensive dinner, and thank you for a stimulating exchange.
Cheers from a pre-typhoon Tokyo.
I also think, we should stop, people don’t understand that they are on a leash, and that most writers are there for that.
They mix truth with lies and the mass (for the most part) unable to think for itself, believes everything or almost and loses precious time. We could have already come out of this NWO, if we were united in this fight, instead of reading half-truths again and again.
These social networks are a very good trick, they prevent to live fully and to free themselves from dominators. But we say it and repeat it, it doesn’t change anything, see how many likes and comments there are here. I would not watch the videos, no time and no need, I’m for action, no chatting to infinity, exchange is one thing, commenting non-stop on everything or almost is another.
It is so, you may say true, but nobody cares, or almost.
I like Steve Martin, a not critical enough mind, I think, but he seems like a very nice person.
Hi Wendela.
Yeah, I tend to agree with you ... between intelligence and kindness, I tend to fall closer to one extreme at the expense of the other ... https://www.quora.com/If-you-had-to-choose-between-being-intelligent-and-being-kind-what-would-you-choose/answer/Steven-Steve-F-Martin
cheers.
I think you are very intelligent, more intelligent than me, I noticed it on my first reading. But it could be, indeed, that your kindness, prevents you from being more critical, perhaps in connection with your life in Japan (or not), I have the impression, from the little I have read or seen in documentaries and films, that this is badly viewed there.
Yet a valid criticism, expressed without intention of harm, allowing to affirm with a valid argumentation, that the speech is false, is very important against malice (small or large deceptions...), it is in fact the only goal that matters. It is not the person who is targeted, but are discour false, erroneous etc., although the person must be denounced, so that deception is manifest, its words are important.
It is therefore a matter of denouncing evil.
So it’s not a choice between intelligence and kindness, but the ability to make valid criticism. There is a big difference, we can always hope that the person malhonnete, malicious etc. change and become a defender of humanity. This could be considered, as a chance offered, of an evidence of what it does, I am sure, that the critics back in my life, have allowed me to reflect on it, admit, evolve.
Here in France, people laugh at corrupt politicians etc. they let go, instead of putting an end to it, this attitude allows to be dominated, deceived etc.
I appreciate when I am shown that I am wrong, it allows me to move forward in the true, the beautiful etc.
Thank you, Steve, I need to read your link.
I read your presentation on Quora, I have «When the monkeys take tea» by F De Waal, I do not know the title in English, I do not appreciate at all Sagan, but it does not coice the subject here.
I think there is confusion in the roles of processes in the system.
If intelligence is adaptive, and it is, then the different components cannot be static, rigid... It seems obvious to me that one will not be kind to someone who treats you, an adapted answer will be more just and more intélent. In animals, which I follow quite well closely, the same behavior is observed, it is also necessary for survival.
So kindness is a positive attitude in normal situation, out of conflict, there it is beneficial not only to the smooth running of our tribes, societies etc., but also to the survival of humanity, because it avoids the triggering of unnecessary conflicts. However, when you are attacked, deceived...respond by kindness is to give the baton with which you are hit. It is necessary, therefore, here too, an adapted response, that is intelligence, not the single answer, but cell adapted to the situation.
I do not speak of vengefulness, I am against, I am not the action to end a situation of conflict, deception etc.
I do not understand how one can confuse these different aspects of intelligence. I wonder if the conditioning in some cultures, e.g. Japan and its submission to the established code does not serve a plan of domination of the people, only a simple tradition of vesting to hurt or offend.
To take into account only the kindness (or the reaction abscne/ manifest action) as a response to one or more situations of conflict, we claim right to the current domination. It is therefore necessary to adapt our responses and actions to the given situations.
In-depth discussions are always interesting.