3 ms·

“A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist.” S03E04 Y,M Oratores tend to overrate their own compute (wrt Hackers), mistaking gametalk for powertalk & vice v

“A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist.” S03E04 Y,M Oratores tend to overrate their own compute (wrt Hackers), mistaking gametalk for powertalk & vice versa (also: does the sage engage in PT), or, more rarely, tripping up in decidability problems (looking at you, Berne) Maybe a more parsimonious model is thus: labrats(nerds?designers?) are sometimes preferred over the bellicose(noncom jocks?hackers?) because oratores bet on them grokking accountability/accounts/accounting. In our worldtree/conjoinedtrianglesofequiodsuccess, however one cuts it, the nerd-jock & the weird-normie (as well any head of church?) provide glue. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41338777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41338777 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJYa68AnECY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJYa68AnECY “I believe fiction much more than non-fiction” (Clue to the real reason the gods/minds play with mortals — the [abacus] beads of the (demi)gods who are trapped in the Slow Zone or its border?. Think Greg Egan has a couple of shorts covering this angle too) EDIT: bellator von Hammerstein-Equord bet otherwise (Ritterbarde?)

082349872349872 2y ago
> does the sage engage in PT Mu! (category error, at least for the Aristotelean sage) The Gervais Principle describes how people behave in organisations (at the extreme: in prisons or gulags every inmate quickly becomes a sociopath); eudaemonia concerns people with sufficient autarky for yet another kind of talk: the enjoyable exploration of honourable topics among friends. Such then being the eudaemonic talk, the corresponding character on the side of deficiency is gametalk, and on that of excess powertalk. Gametalk is deficient because it speaks of nothing and goes nowhere; powertalk is excessive because it is purely instrumental, and furthermore uses a great deal of instrumentality only to arrive at places of small interest. compare https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker%20page%3D1124b https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext... and https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker%20page%3D1125a https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext... (all for now; I expect Epictetus will differ, for unlike Aristotle he's not about to argue that eudaemonia involves picking your parents wisely)
- gradschoolfail 2y ago
  Hey.. Eric Schmidt , and reportedly DJT exude eudaemonia. [cites available] I dont know about autarky and honour in those cases; might be deformed to work. Those are examples you might be familiar with, plenty anecdata of sociopathy back-inferred from distant effects being incommensurate with local affect. Fwiw i still find it hard to dichotomize banter of Sir H & Lord H, instrumental locally, but not overly excessive, and often returns to the status quo antebellum. Formulaic? server error on those links coukd be bw on my side..
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    try these links, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.183333/page/216/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.183333/page/21... to https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.183333/page/224/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.183333/page/22... ? As far as EES and DJT go, neither seem to have the proper mean concern with regard to riches, for both seem to have been excessive in getting and have been deficient in giving (NE II,vii.4). That said, based on personal communication with the former, he'd (in my limited sample) score well on Aristotle's checklist (NE IV,iii.14-34) for proper mean concern with regard to honour, while judging from the social media output* of the latter, he'd score poorly. * this is probably an upper bound: with the exception of (the fictional) Dolphus Raymond, I'm having trouble thinking of anyone who deliberately projects a dishonourable public persona to cover an honourable private one?
    - gradschoolfail 2y ago
      https://timkellogg.me/blog/2024/06/26/politics-analysis https://timkellogg.me/blog/2024/06/26/politics-analysis Any luck with the Schuetzenberger thm? Will get back to aristotle when more bw thanks!
      - 082349872349872 2y ago
        > to speak in shrill tones ... denotes an excitable and nervous temperament... — Ἀ thanks for asking — I've a decent handle on the original thm, but the categorical generalisation still has me stumped (when I first complained about categorical boilerplate in CS publications to a maths friend, he pointed out that when one's only familiar with a single concrete example, of course its generalisation is never going to seem helpful).

082349872349872 2y ago

> does the sage engage in PT Mu! (category error, at least for the Aristotelean sage) The Gervais Principle describes how people behave in organisations (at the extreme: in prisons or gulags every inmate quickly becomes a sociopath); eudaemonia concerns people with sufficient autarky for yet another kind of talk: the enjoyable exploration of honourable topics among friends. Such then being the eudaemonic talk, the corresponding character on the side of deficiency is gametalk, and on that of excess powertalk. Gametalk is deficient because it speaks of nothing and goes nowhere; powertalk is excessive because it is purely instrumental, and furthermore uses a great deal of instrumentality only to arrive at places of small interest. compare https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker%20page%3D1124b https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext... and https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker%20page%3D1125a https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext... (all for now; I expect Epictetus will differ, for unlike Aristotle he's not about to argue that eudaemonia involves picking your parents wisely)

gradschoolfail 2y ago
Hey.. Eric Schmidt , and reportedly DJT exude eudaemonia. [cites available] I dont know about autarky and honour in those cases; might be deformed to work. Those are examples you might be familiar with, plenty anecdata of sociopathy back-inferred from distant effects being incommensurate with local affect. Fwiw i still find it hard to dichotomize banter of Sir H & Lord H, instrumental locally, but not overly excessive, and often returns to the status quo antebellum. Formulaic? server error on those links coukd be bw on my side..
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  try these links, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.183333/page/216/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.183333/page/21... to https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.183333/page/224/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.183333/page/22... ? As far as EES and DJT go, neither seem to have the proper mean concern with regard to riches, for both seem to have been excessive in getting and have been deficient in giving (NE II,vii.4). That said, based on personal communication with the former, he'd (in my limited sample) score well on Aristotle's checklist (NE IV,iii.14-34) for proper mean concern with regard to honour, while judging from the social media output* of the latter, he'd score poorly. * this is probably an upper bound: with the exception of (the fictional) Dolphus Raymond, I'm having trouble thinking of anyone who deliberately projects a dishonourable public persona to cover an honourable private one?
  - gradschoolfail 2y ago
    https://timkellogg.me/blog/2024/06/26/politics-analysis https://timkellogg.me/blog/2024/06/26/politics-analysis Any luck with the Schuetzenberger thm? Will get back to aristotle when more bw thanks!
    - 082349872349872 2y ago
      > to speak in shrill tones ... denotes an excitable and nervous temperament... — Ἀ thanks for asking — I've a decent handle on the original thm, but the categorical generalisation still has me stumped (when I first complained about categorical boilerplate in CS publications to a maths friend, he pointed out that when one's only familiar with a single concrete example, of course its generalisation is never going to seem helpful).