3 ms·

Yes, I wasn't really taking any positions on either piece. My comments on this page were more to quickly summarize (in a reasonable way) some of the theme's inv

by 001sky 13y ago

Yes, I wasn't really taking any positions on either piece. My comments on this page were more to quickly summarize (in a reasonable way) some of the theme's involved in the posted article. As I do think they are legitimate (and interesting) questions. Some of the limitations (I think in line with your own notes, above) involve the language and linquistics of how these ideas are presneted. One purpose of such elementary paraphrasing is to simply cut through that, to the core elements (at least ones I found interesting). Stepping back a bit, I appraoch these questions from a form of functionial structuralism. That is, from the ideas that problems knowable in advance can be (at least in part) solved through technology. In politics, this is much like a SW problem: you have "political technology"--which is a fancy way of principles and ideas--which helps people organize complexity and prioritize decisionmaking and routines. At its most abstract basis, this has nothing to do with "formal organization" or "corporations" or "governemnts", but can be things so simple as tit-for-tat, memetics, and similar versions of abstract reciprocity. For example, if we know that trustworthiness is a problem (and intitively, we have detectors psychopaththy -- and manipulative, unprincipled opportinism -- its cousing), game theory tells us that tit-for-tat can make progress on even some difficult game-theorectic problems (prisioners dilemma). And I think here in these two essays we see people struggling to conceptualize and evaluate what re real problems. And real/observed anthropological responses to them.

dalke 13y ago
Elementary phrasing does not cut through language and linguistics - it makes it worse. As the Freemen essay emphasizes, terms like "elite" are used like "pinko", in my understanding, to delegitimize certain people even when the terms themselves are so ill-defined as to be meaningless. That's why Freemen proposed a specific definition of "elite", before continuing with the essay. I don't know what you're talking about when you say "problems knowable in advance ... can be solved through technology." There are many classes of problem which are impossible - travel to Andromeda within my lifetime, for one. Otherwise, since humans have used technology since our species first started, it seems pretty self-evidence that all solutions will at least in part use technology. All essays concerning the real world struggle to conceptualize and evaluate real problems. No essay can ever be a perfect reflection. So I believe you expressed a tautology. I think it's fair to say that "Tyranny of Structureless" is a much better attempt at trying to describe reality than critique. You can approach your analysis using any method you like, but if you can't judge the reasonableness or correctness of the underlying data then your model will suffer from "Garbage In, Garbage Out." The critique you pointed out is, in my opinion, mostly garbage.
- 001sky 13y ago
  To rephrase: (1) My post was only to invite people to read the topic ! (2) People are invited to post their own thoughts (3) I'm happy for people to have their own ideas (4) There's no debate with me--I take no position here (5) My only position is--some may find this of interest (6) A summary: indicative of content, not an evaluation Everyone has their own style of summary -- mine was merely to eliminate what might be loaded terms ('elite', 'pinko' etc) and focus more on subject-verb elements of the plot. And while there are many non-solvable problems in genral, the class of solvable problems normaly re-quires some form of either pre-conceptualization or accidental empirical discovery. The latter even then becomes the former once it is tested. But again, this is just my own experience. Perhaps this is a good reason not to annotate HN posts! Something I try to avoid. But every now and then its good to signal some information lest people think a submission is trolling based on the title alone or unfamiliarity. So it's good other people take interst in the subject. [ps] I probably shouldn't have posted in direct response to your comment, as it was more a crystalized thought of my own that reading your notes had suggested. It was not posted to be a critique of your comment, although I could see how you might perceive it that way. (It would be unfair at that--as I didn't really respond to you on your terms).

by 001sky 13y ago

dalke 13y ago

Elementary phrasing does not cut through language and linguistics - it makes it worse. As the Freemen essay emphasizes, terms like "elite" are used like "pinko", in my understanding, to delegitimize certain people even when the terms themselves are so ill-defined as to be meaningless. That's why Freemen proposed a specific definition of "elite", before continuing with the essay. I don't know what you're talking about when you say "problems knowable in advance ... can be solved through technology." There are many classes of problem which are impossible - travel to Andromeda within my lifetime, for one. Otherwise, since humans have used technology since our species first started, it seems pretty self-evidence that all solutions will at least in part use technology. All essays concerning the real world struggle to conceptualize and evaluate real problems. No essay can ever be a perfect reflection. So I believe you expressed a tautology. I think it's fair to say that "Tyranny of Structureless" is a much better attempt at trying to describe reality than critique. You can approach your analysis using any method you like, but if you can't judge the reasonableness or correctness of the underlying data then your model will suffer from "Garbage In, Garbage Out." The critique you pointed out is, in my opinion, mostly garbage.

001sky 13y ago
To rephrase: (1) My post was only to invite people to read the topic ! (2) People are invited to post their own thoughts (3) I'm happy for people to have their own ideas (4) There's no debate with me--I take no position here (5) My only position is--some may find this of interest (6) A summary: indicative of content, not an evaluation Everyone has their own style of summary -- mine was merely to eliminate what might be loaded terms ('elite', 'pinko' etc) and focus more on subject-verb elements of the plot. And while there are many non-solvable problems in genral, the class of solvable problems normaly re-quires some form of either pre-conceptualization or accidental empirical discovery. The latter even then becomes the former once it is tested. But again, this is just my own experience. Perhaps this is a good reason not to annotate HN posts! Something I try to avoid. But every now and then its good to signal some information lest people think a submission is trolling based on the title alone or unfamiliarity. So it's good other people take interst in the subject. [ps] I probably shouldn't have posted in direct response to your comment, as it was more a crystalized thought of my own that reading your notes had suggested. It was not posted to be a critique of your comment, although I could see how you might perceive it that way. (It would be unfair at that--as I didn't really respond to you on your terms).