Showing posts with label cultural evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cultural evolution. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Caitlin Johnstone — On Biology, Brains, And Human Suffering
Evolutionary biology.
Caitlin Johnstone — Rogue Journalist
On Biology, Brains, And Human Suffering
Caitlin Johnstone
Monday, May 15, 2017
Kevin Laland — How Culture Shapes Human Evolution
Nature and nurture. Biological evolution makes cultural evolution possible.
How Culture Shapes Human Evolution
Kevin Laland | Professor of Behavioral and Evolutionary Biology at the University of St Andrews, and author of Darwin’s Unfinished Symphony: How Culture Made the Human Mind.
Why, then, haven’t gorillas invented Facebook, or capuchins built spacecraft? To achieve such high levels of cognitive functioning requires not just cultural intelligence, but also cumulative culture, in which modifications accumulate over time. That demands transmission of information with a degree of accuracy of which only humans are capable. Indeed, small increases in the accuracy of social transmission lead to big increases in the diversity and longevity of culture, as well as to fads, fashions, and conformity.
Our ancestors were able to achieve such high-fidelity information transmission not just because of language, but also because of teaching – a practice that is rare in nature, but universal among humans (once the subtle forms it takes are recognized). Mathematical analyses reveal that, while it is generally difficult for teaching to evolve, cumulative culture promotes teaching. This implies that teaching and cumulative culture co-evolved, producing a species that taught relatives across a broad range of circumstances….Project Syndicate
How Culture Shapes Human Evolution
Kevin Laland | Professor of Behavioral and Evolutionary Biology at the University of St Andrews, and author of Darwin’s Unfinished Symphony: How Culture Made the Human Mind.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Why Won't More Scientists Peer-Review Reality? Citizens Too.
(Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)
Scientists are hopless. Not THAT beer reviewed journal, silly. I mean ones critical for democracy.
Let's get serious.
Why do our rulers carry out winning political campaigns in trashy tabloids ... rather than peer-reviewed journals? :(
Prof. Brad Lewis notes that "I think many economists just ignore it because it's not in the peer-reviewed stream" - which brings up fundamentally interesting questions about power, politicians and scientists.
And overall, that's just not good enough. After all, if war is too important to be left to the generals, surely every process is too important to be left to the presumed process owners?
So why won't more scientists peer-review reality?
In science programs, we're taught everything about science, except WHY to pursue it, and how best to leverage it for mankind. That's stunning, if you stop and think about it.
Rulers & politicians like their scientists meek, malleable, and above all else, submissive.
Pair that with how little it takes to bribe & neutralize scientists & academics, and you have our quasi-feudal NeoLiberal state.
Here's my contention:
'The most important question in every science field - in fact in every human discipline - from day 1, may well be:
Move over combinatorial chemistry. Combinatorial Cultural Evolution is demanding it's due. Or else!
Let's drill down a bit deeper into this same topic.
Why don't more scientists use "Design of Experiments?" There are some fundamentally solid reasons in key instances (i.e., when experimental space or "policy space" includes discontinuities such as phase-changes, rather than smoothly extrapolated functions), but let's leave that question to later. The bigger & more immediate conclusion is that asking why more scientists don't use "Design of Experiments" is a relatively trivial question - asked most frequently by investors and accountants.
Scientists are hopless. Not THAT beer reviewed journal, silly. I mean ones critical for democracy.
Let's get serious.
Why do our rulers carry out winning political campaigns in trashy tabloids ... rather than peer-reviewed journals? :(
Prof. Brad Lewis notes that "I think many economists just ignore it because it's not in the peer-reviewed stream" - which brings up fundamentally interesting questions about power, politicians and scientists.
And overall, that's just not good enough. After all, if war is too important to be left to the generals, surely every process is too important to be left to the presumed process owners?
So why won't more scientists peer-review reality?
In science programs, we're taught everything about science, except WHY to pursue it, and how best to leverage it for mankind. That's stunning, if you stop and think about it.
Rulers & politicians like their scientists meek, malleable, and above all else, submissive.
Pair that with how little it takes to bribe & neutralize scientists & academics, and you have our quasi-feudal NeoLiberal state.
Here's my contention:
'The most important question in every science field - in fact in every human discipline - from day 1, may well be:
"how do we coordinate current & emerging knowledge in each discipline, with current & emerging knowledge in all disciplines?" 'That, after all, is how aggregates evolve.
Move over combinatorial chemistry. Combinatorial Cultural Evolution is demanding it's due. Or else!
Let's drill down a bit deeper into this same topic.
Why don't more scientists use "Design of Experiments?" There are some fundamentally solid reasons in key instances (i.e., when experimental space or "policy space" includes discontinuities such as phase-changes, rather than smoothly extrapolated functions), but let's leave that question to later. The bigger & more immediate conclusion is that asking why more scientists don't use "Design of Experiments" is a relatively trivial question - asked most frequently by investors and accountants.
The far bigger question?
Increasingly, our schools stunt, trap and enslave students intellectually, rather than setting them free. If that doesn't change, we can't change, fast enough. Specifically, our Adaptive Rate won't meet the demands of an accelerating Future Shockwave - unless we fundamentally & continuously improve our K-12 schools, so that all citizens act like owners of democracy, and practice contributing to where we're going, instead of leaving it to a small bevy of sociopathic "owners" practicing Central Planning.
If we don't selectively increase our rate of interactions .... we're dishonestly making a mockery of the scientific method, and of evolution.
We already know that aggregate evolution is leveraging the increasing inter-dependencies among growing numbers of components, across multiple levels of organization. That's why we have molecules, cells, cell-types, organs, physiologies, human cultures, and multi-nation alliances.
The way all aggregates handle an unpredictable stream of transient contexts is by reconnecting everything to everything, on-demand, before transiently settling into a relaxed organizational state continuously tuned (but not over-tuned) to a given context. That's exactly what we do every night when we go to sleep. Upon waking every morning, we've done the best we can to make sense of yesterday's data deluge, and interpret it per ongoing models ..... OR ... we've determined that it's time to re-assess everything (which we do mainly by replacing parent models with offspring models).
It seems reasonable to conclude that national aggregates of humans need a sample/assess wake/sleep cycle every bit as much as our personal aggregates of CNS neurons do. If citizens don't do periodic After Action Re-assessments at a quite fundamental level, then we don't have a democracy. Worse, if we don't educate and train citizens to be up to that frequent re-assessment task, then we can't have a democracy.
Why don't more citizens at least refer to Design of Experiments - and constantly enlarging perspective - when trying to run their [supposed] democracies?That's a far more fundamental question, and the answer is known. Our entire education system, from top to bottom, trains citizens to seek overly simplistic solutions to a series of increasingly complex tasks. Doh!
Increasingly, our schools stunt, trap and enslave students intellectually, rather than setting them free. If that doesn't change, we can't change, fast enough. Specifically, our Adaptive Rate won't meet the demands of an accelerating Future Shockwave - unless we fundamentally & continuously improve our K-12 schools, so that all citizens act like owners of democracy, and practice contributing to where we're going, instead of leaving it to a small bevy of sociopathic "owners" practicing Central Planning.
If we don't selectively increase our rate of interactions .... we're dishonestly making a mockery of the scientific method, and of evolution.
We already know that aggregate evolution is leveraging the increasing inter-dependencies among growing numbers of components, across multiple levels of organization. That's why we have molecules, cells, cell-types, organs, physiologies, human cultures, and multi-nation alliances.
The way all aggregates handle an unpredictable stream of transient contexts is by reconnecting everything to everything, on-demand, before transiently settling into a relaxed organizational state continuously tuned (but not over-tuned) to a given context. That's exactly what we do every night when we go to sleep. Upon waking every morning, we've done the best we can to make sense of yesterday's data deluge, and interpret it per ongoing models ..... OR ... we've determined that it's time to re-assess everything (which we do mainly by replacing parent models with offspring models).
It seems reasonable to conclude that national aggregates of humans need a sample/assess wake/sleep cycle every bit as much as our personal aggregates of CNS neurons do. If citizens don't do periodic After Action Re-assessments at a quite fundamental level, then we don't have a democracy. Worse, if we don't educate and train citizens to be up to that frequent re-assessment task, then we can't have a democracy.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Sociopath Capitalism. For When You Don't Care Enough To Ever Tell The Victims What Hit Them
(Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)
Randy Wray reposts an article about sociopathic capitalists outdoing Bolsheviks.
Same idea - gang power - just operating on a completely different level. Pointlessly.
I've heard people born in the old Soviet system say that they realized by age 12 that their whole culture was insane. Everyone knew it. It was in-your-face repression, despite unparalleled levels of STEM education.
It turns out that USA culture is now also insane. Just on a different level, that most plebes haven't even caught on to.
So it also turns out that it's not the little things in life that give one pleasure, in capitalism it's the BIG things ... especially those things that the victims don't even catch on to.* :(
I'm now wondering if some of the key differences between Russian & US culture are that:
What we have now has sunk to Sociopath Capitalism. For when you don't care enough to ever tell the victim what hit them.
A sociopath, by any other name, stinks as depressingly.
So what is Capitalism? That myth that we can all be Aristocrats. Just on different levels. And what is orthodox economics? Well, it's just recipes & justifications for exactly HOW we can sink to that level.
This is no surprise.. For every step in evolution, there are parallel steps in de-evolution. In biology, we call that Phenotypic Persistence. Others call it Institutional Momentum. It's the same thing as people who enslave their kids & grandchildren ... instead of getting out of their way. It's an evolutionary dead-end. Dead Culture Walking.
* You'd have to have heard a certain form of old Soviet jokes to really get this irony. They had jokes saying that joy (or relief) comes only from seeing others suffer (more than you) in "little" ways, that may not look at all little to Westerners.
Randy Wray reposts an article about sociopathic capitalists outdoing Bolsheviks.
Same idea - gang power - just operating on a completely different level. Pointlessly.
"The whole sordid experience reminds one of a Soviet-era story."If J&J Sixpack, Russian or US, love their children, then they really must make the effort to understand this story.
I've heard people born in the old Soviet system say that they realized by age 12 that their whole culture was insane. Everyone knew it. It was in-your-face repression, despite unparalleled levels of STEM education.
It turns out that USA culture is now also insane. Just on a different level, that most plebes haven't even caught on to.
So it also turns out that it's not the little things in life that give one pleasure, in capitalism it's the BIG things ... especially those things that the victims don't even catch on to.* :(
I'm now wondering if some of the key differences between Russian & US culture are that:
a) formerly well-educated Russians knew from day 1 that they were being totally screwed;
b) ill-educated Americans (given a few iPhones, t-shirts & basketball shoes, junk food & soap; oh, and endless re-runs of IQ-depleting tv) are totally unaware that they're being totally screwed, impersonally & indirectly.Either way, it's now past time for further cultural evolution.
What we have now has sunk to Sociopath Capitalism. For when you don't care enough to ever tell the victim what hit them.
A sociopath, by any other name, stinks as depressingly.
So what is Capitalism? That myth that we can all be Aristocrats. Just on different levels. And what is orthodox economics? Well, it's just recipes & justifications for exactly HOW we can sink to that level.
This is no surprise.. For every step in evolution, there are parallel steps in de-evolution. In biology, we call that Phenotypic Persistence. Others call it Institutional Momentum. It's the same thing as people who enslave their kids & grandchildren ... instead of getting out of their way. It's an evolutionary dead-end. Dead Culture Walking.
* You'd have to have heard a certain form of old Soviet jokes to really get this irony. They had jokes saying that joy (or relief) comes only from seeing others suffer (more than you) in "little" ways, that may not look at all little to Westerners.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
We Can't Have Our Evolution And Centrally Plan It Too
(Commentary posted by Roger Erickson.)
The image above drives home the ancient lesson that increasing capabilities always rest upon increasingly distributed foundations. That's true for weight in architecture, inter-relationships in resilient networks, and education in human populations.
As evidence, Bill Mitchell recently reiterated an idea that recurs periodically, but never quite often enough.
Yet clearly, “more” education alone won’t necessarily help. “Different” education is also required.
For example, something along the lines of OBT&E, which is a method, and also a reiteration of Natural Selection.
It's also clear that each and every one of our methods is necessary but not sufficient without ongoing adaptive intent - which becomes a method for coordinating all other methods. The utility of all methods still depends upon slowly molding a human culture with a collective focus on Cultural Adaptive Rate as the common guiding light - for all the milestone, Desired Outcomes we pursue as we continuously muddle on.
We have countless options, and they are usually increasing. Increasing our cultural Adaptive Rate reduces to collectively sensing, on any given day, what permutations of our ongoing choices will actually optimally INCREASE rather than reduce our net options.
That’s a practical math problem. In fact, it's a constantly changing, massively multi-variate, adaptive cultural calculus task which we can only pursue via brute-force group calculation (utilizing massively parallel feedback, i.e., by Democracy). By definition, our survival challenges can never be modeled as fast as they change. We have to calculate them, via distributed, organized trial and error. That, plainly and simply, requires complete focus on re-connecting everyone to everyone, and summarizing all available feedback soon enough to matter.
(Too bad financial liquidity isn't included in that plot!)
The image above drives home the ancient lesson that increasing capabilities always rest upon increasingly distributed foundations. That's true for weight in architecture, inter-relationships in resilient networks, and education in human populations.
As evidence, Bill Mitchell recently reiterated an idea that recurs periodically, but never quite often enough.
“A massive boost to public education is required."
Yet clearly, “more” education alone won’t necessarily help. “Different” education is also required.
For example, something along the lines of OBT&E, which is a method, and also a reiteration of Natural Selection.
It's also clear that each and every one of our methods is necessary but not sufficient without ongoing adaptive intent - which becomes a method for coordinating all other methods. The utility of all methods still depends upon slowly molding a human culture with a collective focus on Cultural Adaptive Rate as the common guiding light - for all the milestone, Desired Outcomes we pursue as we continuously muddle on.
We have countless options, and they are usually increasing. Increasing our cultural Adaptive Rate reduces to collectively sensing, on any given day, what permutations of our ongoing choices will actually optimally INCREASE rather than reduce our net options.
That’s a practical math problem. In fact, it's a constantly changing, massively multi-variate, adaptive cultural calculus task which we can only pursue via brute-force group calculation (utilizing massively parallel feedback, i.e., by Democracy). By definition, our survival challenges can never be modeled as fast as they change. We have to calculate them, via distributed, organized trial and error. That, plainly and simply, requires complete focus on re-connecting everyone to everyone, and summarizing all available feedback soon enough to matter.
No predictive power, but seemingly limitless adaptive power.
In other words, you can't have your evolution and Centrally Plan it too.
It seems that the baseline for all evolving organizations - of any sort whatsoever - is to have 80% of the components (whether cells, humans or even whole nations) enslaved & poorly managed by a minority still operating by yesterday's methodologies. Some things are always, briefly, the "keystone" species which both enforce existing structure & constrain Adaptive Change in every ecosystem. There are no clear lines separating phenotypic persistence, Institutional Momentum, and hegemony. Yet we must manage those distinctions as best we can.
That's our burden, as an evolving, growing aggregate. You better embrace & enjoy that task, 'cuz it's not going away.
That's the reality of organic growth. Central Planning is always fighting a staged retreat while racing to stay relevant to the expanding numbers who are escaping their comprehension.
On a personal level, it's not so different from what grandparents observe, as first their kids and then their grandchildren spiral out into the future.
It's up to us to make OUR continuous AND INCREASINGLY DISTRIBUTED transitions either relatively graceful, or rather tumultuous. How? Equally clearly, that depends on how we prepare our future citizens, by managing distributed education.
What's that old saying? If you really love something - even the future for you, your kids and your nation - then set it free? No, not unprepared in the middle of the road, figuratively, but in a somewhat protected practice field, and then make the sacrifices necessary to protect it as it learns how to be free from your constraints.
That seems to be what human evolution is all about. We can't have our aggregate evolution and Centrally Plan it too.
No, 2 + 2 (+ something unexpected) never equals just 4. Yet our electorate has to keep making that calculation on a national level, every day, and adjust to the continuous surprises. Human cultures compete on the basis of their aggregate cultural-CPU designs.
What's that mean for citizens? Probably the following message.
The alternative is already apparent.
In other words, you can't have your evolution and Centrally Plan it too.
It seems that the baseline for all evolving organizations - of any sort whatsoever - is to have 80% of the components (whether cells, humans or even whole nations) enslaved & poorly managed by a minority still operating by yesterday's methodologies. Some things are always, briefly, the "keystone" species which both enforce existing structure & constrain Adaptive Change in every ecosystem. There are no clear lines separating phenotypic persistence, Institutional Momentum, and hegemony. Yet we must manage those distinctions as best we can.
That's our burden, as an evolving, growing aggregate. You better embrace & enjoy that task, 'cuz it's not going away.
That's the reality of organic growth. Central Planning is always fighting a staged retreat while racing to stay relevant to the expanding numbers who are escaping their comprehension.
On a personal level, it's not so different from what grandparents observe, as first their kids and then their grandchildren spiral out into the future.
It's up to us to make OUR continuous AND INCREASINGLY DISTRIBUTED transitions either relatively graceful, or rather tumultuous. How? Equally clearly, that depends on how we prepare our future citizens, by managing distributed education.
Cultural embryology, that is.
I’ll liberally paraphrase Joshua Chamberlain, circa 1865.
“We have zero predictive power, but through training and education, we can determine what aggregate adaptive rate we can generate, when each novel group challenge appears.”
What's that old saying? If you really love something - even the future for you, your kids and your nation - then set it free? No, not unprepared in the middle of the road, figuratively, but in a somewhat protected practice field, and then make the sacrifices necessary to protect it as it learns how to be free from your constraints.
That seems to be what human evolution is all about. We can't have our aggregate evolution and Centrally Plan it too.
No, 2 + 2 (+ something unexpected) never equals just 4. Yet our electorate has to keep making that calculation on a national level, every day, and adjust to the continuous surprises. Human cultures compete on the basis of their aggregate cultural-CPU designs.
What's that mean for citizens? Probably the following message.
If you can't stand the physical math, get out of the evolution!
The alternative is already apparent.
(Right now, we're not using our brains in any organized way, either.)
Monday, April 14, 2014
US & EU Both Pledge "1 billion" ($/euro) Loan Guarantees For Ukraine - While Pledging Nothing More For Their Own Electorates
(Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)
Example? Reduced tariffs go directly back to the exporter? No, that only reduces costs for the importing consumers (maybe only the intermediary merchants), and MAY increase the volume of exports being extracted from the "beneficiary" country. In reality, look for more EU/US firms to set up subsidiaries in the UK, and move yet more jobs from serfs in receiving countries to even lower-paid serfs in sending countries being looted. Can you say "internal devaluation?"
Loan Guarantees For UkraineThis raises two sets of questions, about what we're doing domestically, and why, compared to what we're doing internationally, and why. Initial questions about why domestic US/EU electorates can't guarantee fiat investment in themselves, and instead submit to austerity ... is exceeded only by the sheer number & depth of half-truths, mis-conceptions and outright lies included in this article.
Example? Reduced tariffs go directly back to the exporter? No, that only reduces costs for the importing consumers (maybe only the intermediary merchants), and MAY increase the volume of exports being extracted from the "beneficiary" country. In reality, look for more EU/US firms to set up subsidiaries in the UK, and move yet more jobs from serfs in receiving countries to even lower-paid serfs in sending countries being looted. Can you say "internal devaluation?"
Where have we heard this story before?
Read on, & decide for yourself what these loan guarantees really imply.
There's a theme to the last 40 years? When electorates cede all governance to their merchant classes, they get what they claim was unpredictable ... less innovation, invention & leadership ... and more risk control, "management" and stagnation.
There's a theme to the last 40 years? When electorates cede all governance to their merchant classes, they get what they claim was unpredictable ... less innovation, invention & leadership ... and more risk control, "management" and stagnation.
What, exactly, WOULD the Desired Outcome for national policy be, if we bothered to survey our actual citizens? Can we pick some worthwhile goals FOR OURSELVES, and go for them, instead of merely managing existing risks? Forget defense & offense, the best cultural evolution is an active Adaptive Rate?
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Luddites Tout Luddite Internet
(Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)
Luddites Tout Luddite Internet
'Nuff said? Where have you heard that refrain before? Another variant of the constantly declining "Austerian Toolkit?"
Slow down ... the most commonly heard LAST MESSAGE heard from Old Generations .... as their newly spawned generations rapidly recede into the future.
Every generation, the new crop of humans leaves a "breadcrumb" signpost engraved with 4 characters - "WHY?"
There's never yet been an a meaningful answer. So no reason to slow the pace of cultural evolution yet.
Luddites Tout Luddite Internet
'Nuff said? Where have you heard that refrain before? Another variant of the constantly declining "Austerian Toolkit?"
Slow down ... the most commonly heard LAST MESSAGE heard from Old Generations .... as their newly spawned generations rapidly recede into the future.
Every generation, the new crop of humans leaves a "breadcrumb" signpost engraved with 4 characters - "WHY?"
There's never yet been an a meaningful answer. So no reason to slow the pace of cultural evolution yet.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Why Nearly Everyone Born After 1970 Should NOT Be Satisfied With Their Education - Or Upbringing
Commentary by Roger Erickson
And mostly disgusted with both of them.
Why anyone born after 1970 should be pissed.
Ok, this author is angry, but that's not really the point, is it?
For survival, the ONLY POINT - ever! - is to decipher context, and then adapt to it.
And mostly disgusted with both of them.
Why anyone born after 1970 should be pissed.
Ok, this author is angry, but that's not really the point, is it?
For survival, the ONLY POINT - ever! - is to decipher context, and then adapt to it.
Note that I specifically did NOT say "analyze context." When it comes to cultural evolution and adaptive rate, there is no TRY. There is only DO, or exit the stage extinct, or enslaved by those who will.
Saying that you've been had is just a euphemism for saying that you've been clueless up to now. Those people who've had you for lunch are NOT going to respond, after the fact, to complaints. Only action.
So. What, exactly are you - and your little Middle Class - gonna DO about it, now that you've noticed?
Saying that you've been had is just a euphemism for saying that you've been clueless up to now. Those people who've had you for lunch are NOT going to respond, after the fact, to complaints. Only action.
So. What, exactly are you - and your little Middle Class - gonna DO about it, now that you've noticed?
Tick-tock. Tick-tock.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Do The Suicidal Have An Exit Strategy?
Commentary by Roger Erickson
There is a class warfare and the [Middle Class] is not winning
Isn't class war analogous to Organ War, where the brain has placed a tourniquet around the neck, and the body is losing? :( [As an aside: What would a cultural face-palm signal look like? Please send your suggestions. Can we still muster the cultural bloodflow to signal one to ourselves?]
Instead of focusing on the trivial social-tourniquet question and the trivial answer, let's focus on the audience which must even ask this question of itself, and why it's stuck asking the same old, self-obvious question.
Saying is not the same as being heard. The accurate statement of the old Marketing Rule is that a message has to be RECEIVED 12 times - on average - before it registers with a resident. We have ~315 million residents in the USA alone. Be honest. What's the desired outcome that matters more than all others in this campaign - and what methods are needed to even take a step in that direction? Does 10% of the US electorate understand enough Civic Operations, Political Operations and Currency Operations to even make sense of their collective context?
Hence, don't be surprised that Bill Mitchell is fighting an uphill battle, still trying to get a 6000 year old message heard by an adequate proportion of people. Our population growth rate has ALWAYS outraced our self-knowledge propagation methods. We keep growing team-size faster than we can perfect team coordination.
There is a class warfare and the [Middle Class] is not winning
Isn't class war analogous to Organ War, where the brain has placed a tourniquet around the neck, and the body is losing? :( [As an aside: What would a cultural face-palm signal look like? Please send your suggestions. Can we still muster the cultural bloodflow to signal one to ourselves?]
Instead of focusing on the trivial social-tourniquet question and the trivial answer, let's focus on the audience which must even ask this question of itself, and why it's stuck asking the same old, self-obvious question.
Saying is not the same as being heard. The accurate statement of the old Marketing Rule is that a message has to be RECEIVED 12 times - on average - before it registers with a resident. We have ~315 million residents in the USA alone. Be honest. What's the desired outcome that matters more than all others in this campaign - and what methods are needed to even take a step in that direction? Does 10% of the US electorate understand enough Civic Operations, Political Operations and Currency Operations to even make sense of their collective context?
Hence, don't be surprised that Bill Mitchell is fighting an uphill battle, still trying to get a 6000 year old message heard by an adequate proportion of people. Our population growth rate has ALWAYS outraced our self-knowledge propagation methods. We keep growing team-size faster than we can perfect team coordination.
Human populations are ALWAYS a context late and a paradigm behind.
Real things change, folks, so yesterday's adequately real metric is totally nominal, virtual and outmoded today. We just have to keep our civic awareness within striking distance of reality, not necessarily spot on. How do we know when we're failing, and it's time for a version upgrade? When our policy institutions start to become academic jokes?
Before delving into potential methods to use, don't we need to settle on the capabilities we want to achieve? Where are we, where do we want to go, and only then how to get there from here? Since those all keep changing, what should we focus on? Most critically, adaptive cultural evolution means keeping an electorate and policy apparatus that can and does ADJUST just fast enough to chase faint survival paths. The path keeps disappearing, so just keep finding the path. Maintain group agility and maneuverability. This ain't rocket science.
That should be obvious to anyone who ever stops to actually think. Unfortunately, we teach - and allow - students to do everything EXCEPT that.
It's no wonder we maintain an electorate that keeps their eyes on everything except our own, emerging OUTCOMES!
Have some of our policy institutions become a total joke? Witness this twitter exchange, then decide for yourself.
@wonkmonk_ @SFFedReserve vasilis @v_vasilopoulos23m
Before delving into potential methods to use, don't we need to settle on the capabilities we want to achieve? Where are we, where do we want to go, and only then how to get there from here? Since those all keep changing, what should we focus on? Most critically, adaptive cultural evolution means keeping an electorate and policy apparatus that can and does ADJUST just fast enough to chase faint survival paths. The path keeps disappearing, so just keep finding the path. Maintain group agility and maneuverability. This ain't rocket science.
That should be obvious to anyone who ever stops to actually think. Unfortunately, we teach - and allow - students to do everything EXCEPT that.
It's no wonder we maintain an electorate that keeps their eyes on everything except our own, emerging OUTCOMES!
Have some of our policy institutions become a total joke? Witness this twitter exchange, then decide for yourself.
@wonkmonk_ @SFFedReserve vasilis @v_vasilopoulos23m
What Caused the Decline in Long-term Yields?
Overall? I'd say a long-term decline in Group Intelligence.
We NEED a long term "yield" from fiat.
Fine.
Should it be denominated in real or nominal terms?
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Trapped, Swinging Part-Way Between Nation & Individual? Stupid ... Like a Fox?
Commentary by Roger Erickson
This essay wanders a bit beyond the confines of economics, so I've placed it at the Open Operations blog.
We've Cleverly Trapped Ourselves, Swaying Part-Way Between Nation And Individual? Or Is That Stupid ... Like a Fox?
Probably better to place economics-oriented comments here. Especially if they're from Österreichian Ekonomists.
This essay wanders a bit beyond the confines of economics, so I've placed it at the Open Operations blog.
We've Cleverly Trapped Ourselves, Swaying Part-Way Between Nation And Individual? Or Is That Stupid ... Like a Fox?
Probably better to place economics-oriented comments here. Especially if they're from Österreichian Ekonomists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)