Searching \ for '[OT] On greed two species' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=greed+two+species
Search entire site for: 'On greed two species'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] On greed two species'
2006\09\09@222427 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-Sep 09, at 19:38hrs PM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

M. Adam Davis wrote:

>> and as long as this sounds the same, there is a problem.
>
> I suppose I don't understand the problem.  This game merely points out
> that everyone generally makes the same assumption.  We have to act on
> incomplete information all the time, and it's the base set of
> assumptions that we work from that allow us to make decisions when
> information is incomplete.

The information in this case is not incomplete. It is just wrongly
interpreted. It sounds very specific and clear and unambiguous to me.

> Are you saying this assumption is problematic?  If so, what should we
> replace it with?  Would your new assumption work in the cases where
> others do not change their assumptions to match?

This depends on what you mean with "work", and a bit on the cases,  
too :)


Did you read the article at http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/GREED.htm ? It
explains the point in more detail for which the game is an  
illustration. If
you have read it, then we have something to discuss. If not, it probably
doesn't make sense that I re-phrase his arguments...

I think that acting on a base rule "more than the others" may have  
brought
an evolutionary advantage during a phase in our development --  
especially
when individual "fitness" driven evolution was important --, but it  
seems
to me that this is not a base rule that optimizes very well anything  
that
is of importance in our current phase. We, as a species, may be at a  
point
where it is important to know the difference between "as much as  
possible"
and "more than the others".

^ It is time for the species to split into two branches. One branch  
will be
those who are still
controlled by instincts programmed genetically from aeons (1) ago,  
Examples of
this are tribalism, xenophobia, last event emphasis, alpha/beta pack  
behaviour, and
over-breeding strategies.  The other branch will consist of man/
machine hybrids
which value intellect and reason as highly as emotion and physical  
prowess.
AGSC ^



(1) Aeon
1.        an indefinitely long period of time; age.
2.        the largest division of geologic time, comprising two or more eras.
3.        Astronomy. one billion years.


Gerhard

2006\09\09@225128 by Tony Smith

picon face
{Quote hidden}

Jocks & nerds, eh?  That'll work well.

Go read 'Brave New World' by Aldous Huxley.  Divides humans in 5 categories,
alpha to epsilon.  (well, they grew the humans to spec, but the point still
holds).

For the alphas who became a PITA, they got shipped off out of the way.

Orwell was wrong.  Huxley got it right.  Everyone happy!  Praise Ford and
pass the soma!

Tony

(I love getting spam selling soma.  Amuses me no end.)

2006\09\10@014428 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
>> This game merely points out that everyone generally
>> makes the same assumption.

What?  That the nature of a game is different than the nature
of real life?  Horrors!

BillW

2006\09\10@095143 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-Sep 09, at 20:51hrs PM, Tony Smith wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Jocks & nerds, eh?  That'll work well.

Go read 'Brave New World' by Aldous Huxley.  Divides humans in 5  
categories,
alpha to epsilon.  (well, they grew the humans to spec, but the point  
still
holds).

For the alphas who became a PITA, they got shipped off out of the way.

Orwell was wrong.  Huxley got it right.  Everyone happy!  Praise Ford  
and
pass the soma!

Tony

(I love getting spam selling soma.  Amuses me no end.)

^I pondered the wisdom of retorting to Tony's latest comments and
concluded that it would be wise to take a pass.....then my dinosaur  
brain
took over:  For the record i have read "Brave New World" and "1984" and
neither is a relevant response to my "species split" comments.  Many  
times I
have wondered if my words are converted before they reach Tony and  
then Tony's
words are converted before they reach me. Some kind of function f
(words) where
f(AGSCwords) = mangled    inverse f(mangled) = incomprehensible
I am not much of a cryptologist so I admit I am bewildered.  AGSC ^

2006\09\10@112337 by Tony Smith

picon face
{Quote hidden}

Not so hard to figure out, it's just binary.

You want to divide the world in two.

Nice people on one side, not so nice people on the other.

Such simplistic divisions are not unknown, you have the jock / nerd division
I mentioned, as well as evil / good, conservative / liberal (vice versa?),
aristocracy / peasantry, Sith / Jedi, Eloi / Morlock, master / slave, priest
/ worshiper, Red / Blue, Rebublican / Democrat, upper / lower class, Tutsi /
Hutu etc.

>From your comment, I assume the 'nice people' are the nerds, the thinker and
tinkerers of society.  The 'not nice' are the rest, they mow lawns, watch
football and dig ditches while the 'nice' people invent MP3 players and HTML
widgets.

In Huxleys world, the masses are controlled by making them happy, unlike the
Orwellian boot crushing the face.  The Alphas (nerds) went to the feelies
and thought a lot about how nice they were.  Lower classes (jocks) were bred
to perform the menial tasks.  1984 had the proles, of course you're not one
of those...

Look around, how many years 'After Ford' is it?  I didn't appreciate 'Brave
New World' when I first read it.  It was only years later it really made me
laugh.

Oh, and Tutsi / Hutu?  Google Rwanda.

Tony

2006\09\10@160317 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-Sep 10, at 09:23hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Not so hard to figure out, it's just binary.

You want to divide the world in two.

Nice people on one side, not so nice people on the other.

^ As I said before, Tony, you do not read the same words I write. An  
amazing
phenomena that I will have to simply accept.  All of the stuff you  
write below
has nothing to do with my thought processes.  Go figure.
I guess that stuff matches someone else you have met. Not me.  And  
you are so
sure you know my mind. again .... Amazing.
AGSC ^

Such simplistic divisions are not unknown, you have the jock / nerd  
division
I mentioned, as well as evil / good, conservative / liberal (vice  
versa?),
aristocracy / peasantry, Sith / Jedi, Eloi / Morlock, master / slave,  
priest
/ worshiper, Red / Blue, Rebublican / Democrat, upper / lower class,  
Tutsi /
Hutu etc.

> From your comment, I assume the 'nice people' are the nerds, the  
> thinker and
tinkerers of society.  The 'not nice' are the rest, they mow lawns,  
watch
football and dig ditches while the 'nice' people invent MP3 players  
and HTML
widgets.

In Huxleys world, the masses are controlled by making them happy,  
unlike the
Orwellian boot crushing the face.  The Alphas (nerds) went to the  
feelies
and thought a lot about how nice they were.  Lower classes (jocks)  
were bred
to perform the menial tasks.  1984 had the proles, of course you're  
not one
of those...

Look around, how many years 'After Ford' is it?  I didn't appreciate  
'Brave
New World' when I first read it.  It was only years later it really  
made me
laugh.

Oh, and Tutsi / Hutu?  Google Rwanda.

Tony

2006\09\10@162440 by Tony Smith

picon face
{Quote hidden}

Really.

In your own words:

Category A: those who are still controlled by instincts programmed
genetically from aeons (1) ago, Examples of this are tribalism, xenophobia,
last event emphasis, alpha/beta pack behaviour, and over-breeding
strategies.  

Category B: The other branch will consist of man/machine hybrids which value
intellect and reason as highly as emotion and physical prowess.

Looks pretty binary to me.  Jocks & Nerds pretty much covers it.  Morons &
Intellectually, if you prefer.  Epsilons & Alphas, as Huxley might have
said.

So what are you, A or B?

Tony

2006\09\10@163802 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-Sep 10, at 14:24hrs PM, Tony Smith wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Really.

In your own words:

Category A: those who are still controlled by instincts programmed
genetically from aeons (1) ago, Examples of this are tribalism,  
xenophobia,
last event emphasis, alpha/beta pack behaviour, and over-breeding
strategies.

Category B: The other branch will consist of man/machine hybrids  
which value
intellect and reason as highly as emotion and physical prowess.

Looks pretty binary to me.  Jocks & Nerds pretty much covers it.  
Morons &
Intellectually, if you prefer.  Epsilons & Alphas, as Huxley might have
said.

So what are you, A or B?

Tony

^ Amazing   simply amazing AGSC ^

2006\09\10@231200 by Tony Smith

picon face
{Quote hidden}

I though so too.

So, you wanna weed out the undesirables, or breed them out?

One is called genocide, the other eugenics.

Tony

2006\09\11@020135 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Many  times I
> have wondered if my words are converted before they reach Tony and
> then Tony's
> words are converted before they reach me. Some kind of function f
> (words) where
> f(AGSCwords) = mangled    inverse f(mangled) = incomprehensible
> I am not much of a cryptologist so I admit I am bewildered.  AGSC ^

It may be your unique ^quoting style^ that does it :-).
It really does make it very hard for we of the unevolved brains class
to follow. I'd suggest, as others have done already, that something a
wee bit closer to one of the several standards would make it far
easier to find your responses amongst the text and see where they
start and stop.


       Russell



2006\09\11@022237 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
>  > Many  times I
> > have wondered if my words are converted before they reach Tony and
> > then Tony's
> > words are converted before they reach me. Some kind of function f
> > (words) where
> > f(AGSCwords) = mangled    inverse f(mangled) = incomprehensible
> > I am not much of a cryptologist so I admit I am bewildered.  AGSC ^
>
> It may be your unique ^quoting style^ that does it :-).
> It really does make it very hard for we of the unevolved brains class
> to follow. I'd suggest, as others have done already, that something a
> wee bit closer to one of the several standards would make it far
> easier to find your responses amongst the text and see where they
> start and stop.

Russell, Thank You.

I just stopped responding to his posts because of the confusion
involved. Perhaps I should have been more forthright.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
spam_OUTjayTakeThisOuTspamsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Building Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! (Now I can get back to building robots.)

2006\09\11@025803 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> It may be your unique ^quoting style^ that does it :-).

> I just stopped responding to his posts because of the confusion
> involved. Perhaps I should have been more forthright.

Gus - I, and everyone else I'm sure, aren't trying to be rude.
It really is extremely hard on the brain to deal with your quoting
style.
The "^"s don't stand out well and ss they are not lways on new lines
it is extremely hard to separate comments from original subject. If
you have comments interspersed throughput a piece it is much much
harder to deal with than when other styles are used.
Using an eg ">" on  a new line would probably be better even though
that's the reverse of normal style.

Where I have a block of subect mattter that I'm quoting and it hasn't
got  ">" prepended to the lines (as in eg when I copy and paste) I
start the block with a ">", usually on a line of its own, and end it
with "/>". I think that most people would understand this (but I may
be wrong).

eg

>
time I tried to design such a regulator, I had an awful time trying to
get it to stop oscillating. I eventually discovered that this was
because of the nonlinear behavior of the pass transistor at low
currents (essentially because if the capacitance on the output got
charged to even slightly too high a voltage and there was no load on
the output, the op-amp's output would swing all the way to the
/>

like the above.

The (or a) reason why it matters is that there is so much to read
overall that being able to skim original text at speed and pick out
the new gems for response is crucial. A "buried" quoting style may
take quite literally 10 times as long to deal with, maybe even more in
some cases. When there are literally hundreds of posts a day on this
list alone it tends to make one less likely to deal with hard to deal
with material - even if the content is always marvellously worthwhile
:-)


       Russell


2006\09\11@044327 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> Gus - I, and everyone else I'm sure, aren't trying to be rude.
> It really is extremely hard on the brain to deal with your quoting
> style.

No, I'm not trying to be rude. It took me several posts to figure out
*what* you were doing, and then several more because my brain hurt
trying to sort out your comments from the rest. I have no problem
with the comments themselves.

> The (or a) reason why it matters is that there is so much to read
> overall that being able to skim original text at speed and pick out
> the new gems for response is crucial. A "buried" quoting style may
> take quite literally 10 times as long to deal with, maybe even more in

At least. I somewhat remember a study from my student days that text
written in either all caps or all lower case was very difficult to read
(in English). The assumption was that the normal reader used the correct
capitalization as queues to reading. And all correctness, in this
context, is a convention. Just like quoting text in email/news.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
.....jayKILLspamspam@spam@sprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Building Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! (Now I can get back to building robots.)

2006\09\11@095253 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
It would be nice if you two, you know who you are :-),  would trim the
quoted text quite  a lot more than you tend to. In fact, if you don't
trim it at all then trimming it by infinitely more would be good :-).

It's interesting to read what people say BUT oh so hard when there's
all the prior material there as well.


       Russell


2006\09\11@103233 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-Sep 10, at 21:12hrs PM, Tony Smith wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I though so too.

So, you wanna weed out the undesirables, or breed them out?

One is called genocide, the other eugenics.

Tony

^ You are talking to yourself, Tony since you insist on putting words
into my mouth that I never said and never thought. I am done discussing
philosophy with you.  Best  AGSC ^

-

2006\09\11@115419 by James Newton, Host

face picon face
> It may be your unique ^quoting style^ that does it :-).

Yeah, that is hard to follow. On the other hand, I enjoy seeing people try
things differently. Perhaps it would work better with something easier to
see like @@ or ***.


For example:


This is a test of the emergency @@( is this really an emergency? )@@
broadcasting system.


---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
jamesnewtonspamKILLspampiclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com


2006\09\11@123257 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 02:05:06 -0400 (EDT), D. Jay Newman wrote:

>...
> Russell, Thank You.
>
> I just stopped responding to his posts because of the confusion
> involved. Perhaps I should have been more forthright.

I'm lazier than that - I stopped reading them!  :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\11@135250 by Tony Smith

picon face
{Quote hidden}

A discussion implies a two way process.  You haven't defended or expanded on
your plan of improving the lot of humanity, merely stated that you've been
misunderstood.  Hardly a discussion.

Maybe we can have a philosphical discussion on what constitutes a
discussion, philisophical or otherwise.

Tony

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...