Objectivity is an Asset

[jacob]

Mostly in response to Riggerjack:

With all that information we now have access to, what could possibly go wrong? I don't think more information is necessarily a good thing. Every new invention that increased the access to information was hailed as a new era where people would become smarter, more knowledgeable, etc. With TV we'd all have access to the best teachers, etc. Ditto internet.

Well, some humans did use information to increase their knowledge, but a lot didn't.

Information comes in three flavors, information, misinformation, and disinformation. Without knowledge, that is, an framework for distinguishing these, information does not necessarily add, it may subtract.

One strategy for "subtracting" is to "flood the zone with shit". Provide so much information that framework-less humans get overwhelmed. If a personal epistemic framework already exists, one might be able to reject misinformation or disinformation as it appears. If a personal epistemic framework does not exist, easy access to large amounts of mis/dis/information makes it hard to get started---see pretty much any thread on investing.

Why do I think this is a problem? Because the world is too complex and too complicated to run on anarchy. Anarchy in a complex world destroys the perception of consequences. It's not a problem when people only hurt themselves (insofar nobody else cares about that) but it's a problem when people hurt others without consequences.

A good way to describe the problem is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework (please read)

What uncurated (=knowledge-free) mis/dis/information does is to drive the situation counterclockwise in Cynefin. This turns otherwise complex problems into chaotic problems. It makes the simple complicated (more rules) and the complicated complex (harder to manage). The lack of objectivity or even shared subjectivity means that relations become decoupled. Complex systems fail. Complicated systems become complex implying that they need constant "repair" to remain viable. Another word for complex systems failure is collapse.

This has wide consequences, that is, disinformation does not only affect the people who is misinformed, but it also affects people who aren't. As such disinformation comprises an indirect (third-person) attack: "Hey Carl, Bob said you were ugly", said Ann. Carl walks over and smacks Bob who never said such a thing. This would be an example of schoolyard disinformation or a third-person. Nation-level disinformation plays at a slightly higher level, but not much.

Objectivity does in that regard prevent third-person attacks.

In any way, please review the Cynefin framework. I'd be interested in hearing why/where/for whom a "chaotic" environment is preferable.

[Campitor]

Here's a video explanation of the Cynefin framework for those who have a hard time groking the Wikipedia article: https://youtu.be/N7oz366X0-8

One of the most interesting parts of the video was the summary on how to deal with different quadrants of the Cynefin framework:

• The complicated framework: The distinction between good practice and best practice is actually quite important. In a complicated domain there are several different ways of doing things all of which are legitimate if you have the right expertise. And trying to force people to adopt one of them is actually quite dangerous. You'll basically piss people off to be honest to the point where they will not apply best practice where it should be applied.
• The complex framework: Natural complexity workers...their reaction to a crisis is to get lots of different people from lots of different backgrounds in a desperate hope that someone will come up with the right solution - that's actually quite a good strategy.
• Chaotic framework: Fascists love a crises because then they can be given absolute command of everyone and everyone has to do what they're told.

I personally would like to avoid the Chaotic quadrant at all cost, at least at the global/societal level, because the risks are too high.

[jacob]

I personally would like to avoid the Chaotic quadrant at all cost, at least at the global/societal level, because the risks are too high.

I think being objective is more of an asset in the top quadrants, which require processing more information, than the bottom quadrants.

However, the complex and complicated quadrants are failing a lot of people in the simple quadrant / alternatively, a lot of people in the simple quadrant are failing to achieve the complicated quadrant ("the good paying white collar job"). As such there's no perceived difference in terms of risk between "failed simple" and "chaotic". "Chaotic" in that sense may easily be preferred because "why not [try chaos], at least it's different [from guaranteed failing]".

I wonder how "objectivity as an asset" can be protected. Perhaps "protection" is the wrong way to think about it. Can objectivity become antifragile?

[jacob]

Can objectivity become antifragile?

To answer my own question, one group that tends to welcome chaos are traders. The act-sense-respond mindset is a strange one. However, a trader might put on a position for no particular reason at all other than to see what happens and then respond accordingly. Chaotic prefers to reduce the utility of strategy so that tactics can shine. Strategy, of course, tries to do the opposite.

[7Wannabe5]

Some games use dice. Other games don’t.

[guitarplayer]

To answer my own question, one group that tends to welcome chaos are traders. The act-sense-respond mindset is a strange one. However, a trader might put on a position for no particular reason at all other than to see what happens and then respond accordingly. Chaotic prefers to reduce the utility of strategy so that tactics can shine. Strategy, of course, tries to do the opposite.

Jamming musicians would fall in the same category in my view, particularly jazz but to a lesser extent also other genres.

[white belt]

Jamming musicians is a good one. Another one off the top of my head are insurgents who benefit from chaos, particularly when fighting a numerically/technologically superior military force. I'd also classify many opportunists in the same category, whether that's someone who loots during periods of unrest or someone who posts up selling overpriced water bottles on an unusually hot day.

[jacob]

[...] when fighting [...]

To generalize: Any situation where the element of surprise is an advantage. This is not the case for simple, complicated, and complex situations.

[Jean]

That makes it a strategy then.

[7Wannabe5]

Weeds. The fact that particular weeds benefit from particular forms of chaos or environmental calamity lends itself to the art of diagnosing soil deficiencies based on type of weeds prevalent.

The “simple” act of tilling the soil or cutting a path creates a chaotic situation, forever altering the complexity of prior arrangements. Every gardener is a killer as well as a creator/care-giver.

[WFJ]

"Anti-Fragile" is a good book that explores benefiting from chaos.

These "Scare tactics" which fly in the face of any objective thinking go way back before "Peak Oil delusion". Soylent Green was the Global Warming movie demonstrating the Malthusian fears of the 1960-1970's and all predictions were worthless beyond electing green politicians and selling books and movies. This has not deterred Hollywood from making new scare tactic movies that only demonstrate terrible statistical assumptions. The first time I was exposed to Global Warming I had minimal stats knowledge, used only for simple gambling games (how this is designed) I humbly asked "what is the temperature prediction for any future period?" and was attacked by the professor. Students are exposed to GW/ACC well in advance of having the stats understanding to process the claims, again by design.

My humble opinion is we are in a media "Bull fight" where the media is the picador, weakening our critical thinking skills, allowing the general public to be more easily controlled as outrage generates far more clicks than objective information. I also hypothesize that physical sickness make humans more susceptible to influence, obese people will be more easily swayed than healthy people, but this is just speculation. I doubt there is an evil entity planning this fear porn with a desired end, but a result of media being mainly responsible for providing ad revenue rather than accurate information. COVID was flat out depressing for any applied data scientist as simple tenants of basic stats were trampled in order to further controls and provide justification for detrimental polices that are only now being revealed (see inflation).

[Riggerjack]

With all that information we now have access to, what could possibly go wrong? I don't think more information is necessarily a good thing. Every new invention that increased the access to information was hailed as a new era where people would become smarter, more knowledgeable, etc. With TV we'd all have access to the best teachers, etc. Ditto internet.

Well, some humans did use information to increase their knowledge, but a lot didn't.

Yeah. People. I'm pretty sure we could find the equivalent complaints in Latin, written by monks worried about losing their livelihoods to Gutenberg.

I get it, there IS an emergent value to shared curation. And it IS disappearing.

After we accept this loss, and can look closely at the systems that produced this emergent value. I was trying to make the point that this "emergent value of shared curation" doesn't seem to take much in the way of accurately reflecting reality.

This, to me, is good news. It means that this emergent value comes from the sharing, not the accuracy. And sharing just got easier.

None of this relieves your real complaint: That society no longer has this created objectivity.

Yeah, that seems like a problem, in particular because of the Robber's Cave experiment:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MBpj3QK ... experiment

.....


Humans are just really good at ingroup/outgroup dynamics. It's in our DNA.

But my belief (for which I present no evidence) is that this ingroup/outgrouping behavior is enhanced by a society that forces this as a development tool. If ingrouping isn't the essential point of school then I wonder why we group children into artificially homogeneous groups to learn to abuse each other with such vigor?

And that is the direction I look for solutions. Sometimes the most effective answer is to stop creating the problem...

We can't uninvent tech. Communication is cheap and common. We can't edit a created objectivity in this environment.

So maybe we should be working on the means of helping people with different worldviews tolerate their differences. Because different worldviews looks inevitable.

Maybe this is an equally intractable approach.

[sky]

How do you deal with stupid worldviews?

[Riggerjack]

I don't.

I'm deeply confused by why this is seen as such a problem.

The world has always been full of people who see things differently than I do. Usually, they disagree in uninteresting ways. Sometimes they disagree in very interesting ways. Screening the first set for the second set is one of the primary sources of pleasure in my life.

Do you not screen? Do you not have the ability to not engage uninteresting people?

[Riggerjack]

A good way to describe the problem is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework (please read)

Cynefin is to my mind, an odd model for this situation. In that I think of Cynefin as a management tool. And I don't see this media problem as a managed system.

As to the chaos quadrant, this is exactly the right space.

If one wants to make a change in an adaptive complex system, direct changes are ineffective.

What is needed, is new, different subsystems.

Every skunkworks project operates out of Chaos.

Chaos is where new things happen. From the chaos quadrant, new simple systems can be made. New simple systems can be engineered to create new complicated systems. New complicated systems are the growing medium of new complex systems.

So your adaptive complex system is going to try to adapt to changes at all levels. This will test those adaptive traits.

We are all familiar with the environment as a model for an adaptive complex system. If one changes an environmental factor, like rainfall, this affects which species do well/poorly. But it doesn't have a lasting effect.

But if you introduce kudzu, things DO change, with lasting effect. A new subsystem was introduced.

[sky]

One might be morally or religiously opposed to other worldviews.

One might be the target of intolerant worldviews.

Some people hold worldviews that are destructive to themselves or others.

Manipulative forces may try to create a cultural division by promoting worldviews that increase conflict.

I think that your approach in finding a change in human behavior is a good strategy. I don't see much effectiveness in a strategy of censorship. It is not possible to put the internet back into Pandora's box.

Tolerance sounds like the right direction, but I don't agree that all worldviews are equally valid. Some destructive worldviews need to be moderated or otherwise changed.

[Riggerjack]

One might be morally or religiously opposed to other worldviews.

Many are. This is a self terminating effort. One's efforts are directly opposed by the other. The net effect is found by subtracting the force of one from the other. This is the path of maximal resistance.

One might be the target of intolerant worldviews.

One might. In which case, paying attention to the subtractive nature of direct opposition should be considered.

Some people hold worldviews that are destructive to themselves or others.

Yes. I try not to spend much time with these people. For the same reasons, as above.

Manipulative forces may try to create a cultural division by promoting worldviews that increase conflict.

I expect they do/are. So what?

The reoccuring theme I see is a strong belief that "other people might be wrong", and that this is some kind of personal problem, for you. I see no effort at controlling your own actions and thoughts. Yet this is the ONLY form of control available to you.

Some destructive worldviews need to be moderated or otherwise changed.

There are 8 billion people on the planet. I guarantee that on any subject, most of them disagree with you in one way or another, about everything. Changing that directly is akin to moving oceans with a teaspoon. I'm not saying this is useless, but it seems a path to nowhere.

Sometimes, being a grown-up, means respecting another grown up's right to be wrong. Middle school stops in 8th grade for a reason.

[sky]

I am interested in your writing and will continue to read your thoughts.

[Riggerjack]

What I am trying to express, it that tolerance is not a gift you give to others. Tolerance, is the gift one gives to oneself.

With tolerance, one's own actions and thoughts can be one's own. Without it, one's actions and thoughts are overwhelmed by opposition, and thus determined by one's opponents.

Never let someone else's confused/destructive/threatening worldview determine one's own thoughts. In the same way one doesn't mud wrestle a pig.

[Mister Imperceptible]

I do agree to a point, but there are certain instances where the destructive thoughts of others manifest in the form of a harmful public policy that one has to deal with.

For example, I have now submitted two forms indicating I am vaccinated, whether I chose to get a vaccine for something I already caught and easily overcame, or not.

For the same reason you own a firearm because you think it is irrational to hide and shiver under your blankets when you hear a bump in the night, so too I must now analyze the actions and policies, and make preparations to deal with a monstrous malevolent bureaucracy. I don’t just get to hide under the blanket and pretend the monstrous malevolent bureaucracy does not exist. I have to deal with it and go around it. I cannot tolerate my own destruction.

Fortunately for me my strategy is self-contained, and may include enlightening some others, but it does not involve censorship or forcing everyone on the internet to never disagree with me.

So my heuristic is useful to me. That bureaucracy, and its public relations department, exists, and I interpret that the narrative they construct is useful to the ends of their bureaucracy, and not me.

Again, it was probably overly simplistic to say “everything they say is a lie,” but when the weatherman tells me it’s going to be 55 degrees today, I have no incentive to believe he is lying, or pushing pharma company profits, or trying to ostracize and marginalize and economically disenfranchise the critical-thinking and non-conforming elements of society, or trying to start a war to distract away from a banking collapse.

I think the weatherman is doing his best to tell the truth.