People before tribes
We have a patient suffering kidney failure; he's in a lot of pain and the disease will soon kill him. He could be saved - if someone would donate a kidney to be transplanted into this patient's body. So, as a matter of ethics, somebody ought to do that, right?
But who, exactly?
Somebody asked whether there's a purpose to my life (or that of whoever cared to answer) - on Twitter, where my profile description currently consists the the three words "Anchorite, apostate, asteroid."
I don't think there is. I used to think there was, but it's been some years since that fell apart for me. However, it's interesting what's left.
How should institutions make hiring and promotion decisions, in theory? How do institutions make such decisions, in actual practice? What happens, and what should happen, when someone's career is interrupted? Is it possible to restore an interrupted career, and should that be done? What happens to institutions when society overproduces, or underproduces, elite individuals? This article looks at ways to understand these questions, starting from an historical episode.
Once there was a Sultan who fucking loved science. That was the slogan embroidered upon his robe.
This is the final part of a three-part series on the cognitive deficit in hypothetical thinking: some people seem unable to handle thinking about a difference between what is real and what is imagined.
This is the second part of a three-part series on the cognitive deficit in hypothetical thinking: some people seem unable to handle thinking about a difference between what is real and what is imagined. In the first part, I discussed this deficit as an abstraction. In this second part, I'll look at some legal and political examples.
In The World As If, Sarah Perry gives "an account of how magical thinking made us modern." She discusses how to define "magical thinking" and suggests that the diverse things to which people apply that label form "a collection of stigmatized examples of a more general, and generally useful, cognitive capacity." Namely, the capacity to entertain false, "not expected to be proven," or otherwise not exactly true propositions as if they were true.
Although magical thinking may often be called a behaviour of children or of those in primitive cultures, what Perry calls the "as if" mode of thought (I want to also include "what if") is in no way primitive. The view that magical thinking is for children and the uneducated can and should be inverted: mastery of hypothetical "as if" cognition is necessary for functioning as an adult in a literate technological society, and characteristic of the most sophisticated thinking human beings ever do.
One way people divide themselves into tribes is over word usage. If one tribe claims a certain sequence of letters has a certain meaning, and another claims it has a different meaning, then there are plenty of opportunities for them to misunderstand each other or each declare the other Wrong. There may not be a lot we can do about it when there's a direct disagreement on the one true meaning of exactly one word.
However, human language is more complicated than that. One sequence of letters may not have just one meaning and in particular, it may be used in more than one syntactic role such that the different ways of using it have different meanings. At that point it may not even be right to call it one "word"; it is two words, with different meanings and also different grammar, that only happen to share a spelling. And if two tribes use words that differ in this way, maybe there is some hope of building a bridge between them by making clear that their uses of the same sequence of letters really refer to different things and do not need to have identical meaning. That is what I'd like to talk about here: how different syntax can be a clue to different meaning.
Today I changed the motto on this Web site, and in my email signature, to read "People before tribes"; it formerly referred to "principles." Where it appears in Japanese translation, I've similarly changed 理 to 族. The intended meaning has not changed, but in the years since I started using it, the former wording has become too easily misunderstood, often as the direct opposite of what I intended for it to mean.
As human beings we naturally divide ourselves up into groups that purport to be about beliefs and ideologies, and we tend to hate those of other groups irrationally and on the basis of entire groups; we are inclined to lose sight of the fact that everybody is human and everybody's a unique individual not well described by their group membership. It's important to pay attention to individuals (people) and to actively ignore membership in identity groups (tribes). That is what my motto is about. But it's possible to misread the words if you think that "people" actually means tribes and that "principles" refers to important ideas - like the important idea of being blind to identity group membership, itself.
At the time I first started using this motto, it was obscure and uncontroversial. Nobody else was writing much about these things. Unfortunately, there's been a great rise in the popularity of the opposite of my position in the last few years, and it has become a topic of general discussion, to the extent that relentless one-sided chanting can be called any kind of "discussion." I've also become more acutely aware of the practical irrelevance of the literal content of belief in principles to groups that claim to define themselves by principles, and I want to talk about group membership directly when literal belief is not the real issue. As a result, it has become more important to make sure that I'm not misunderstood, and although it's a shame to lose the snappy alliteration of the old wording, this change seems important.
I'm very interested in cognitive deficits: tasks it may seem human brains ought to be able to perform, but that at least some brains cannot. This time around I'd like to say a few words about mathematical foundations and the ability to understand them. The fact is that there are some questions - and they're very simple ones - that neither a human brain nor anything that functions like a human brain can answer. And understanding that fact is itself a problem that may be challenging for at least some brains.
Sometimes I find myself on the receiving end of false accusations of "straw man" argumentation, and it feels like this happens abnormally often to me in particular. It's baffling because when it happens, it doesn't make any sense.
The lovely and talented Scott Alexander has a posting on Cost Disease: the costs of some things, notably education and medical care especially in the USA, have increased in the last few generations to a really unfathomable extent. He gives detailed statistics, but it's typically about a factor of 10 after accounting for general inflation. Why has this happened? He gives some hypotheses, and in a followup posting shares some ideas contributed by readers, but it's not at all clear what's going on. And it seems like knowing might be valuable, because the fact of this phenomenon's occurrence (whatever the cause) is causing a great deal of misery for a whole lot of people, bearing on many other important issues.
I don't know either, but it made me think of some things.
In which a Parable is Related and Betting Strategies are Considered
[first chapter] | [all in this series]
Aardvark: Friend Bandicoot, I heard an interesting story recently. Perhaps you might find it edifying.
Bandicoot: Oh, goody! I do like stories, Friend Aardvark.
In which there is an Inquiry into What Counts, and into the Aardvark's Commitment to the Cause
[first chapter] | [all in this series]
Bandicoot: Friend Aardvark, I've got the module passing the test suite now!
Aardvark: Really?
B: Yes.
A: And it's really the module passing the test suite, not one of your school chums hiding inside the computer?
B: Uh-huh. Well, almost.
Some Clinical Consequences of Introjection
[first chapter] | [all in this series]
Bandicoot: Friend Aardvark, I've given a lot of thought to our conversation the other day about the ontology of software engineering.
Aardvark: I had hoped you would.
B: It took me a while to see it, but I think your point about no one single test case being necessary is in fact correct.
Studies in Ontology, with a Hint of Romance
[first chapter] | [all in this series]
Aardvark: Friend Bandicoot, do you know what a formal ontology is?
Bandicoot: Yes, Friend Aardvark. I learned about them in library school.
Introducing the Mechanical Australian
[first chapter] | [all in this series]
Bandicoot: Friend Aardvark, I've implemented the double-double feature you wanted in the parser.
Aardvark: Again, Friend Bandicoot?
B: Well, you keep telling me to re-do it.
In which a Feature is Implemented, but At What Cost?
[first chapter] | [all in this series]
Bandicoot: Friend Aardvark, Friend Aardvark! I've added that extra double-double feature you wanted in the parser!
Aardvark: Really?
B: Yes!
A: Really really?
B: Of course!
A: Not just "almost," Friend Bandicoot?
In which we Accept our Limitations with Humility
[first chapter] | [all in this series]
Bandicoot: Friend Aardvark, Friend Aardvark! I've added that extra double-double feature you wanted in the parser!
Aardvark: Really?
B: Yes!
A: Really really, Friend Bandicoot?
B: Of course! Well. Almost.
A: I see.
In which a Blow is Struck for Feminist Scholarship
[first chapter] | [all in this series]
Bandicoot: Friend Aardvark, I implemented the double-double feature you wanted.
Aardvark: That's excellent, Friend Bandicoot.
B: Yes.
A: So, the test suite passes now, right?
B: Well... actually, I did something even better.
A: Oh.
In which Priorities have been Implemented
[first chapter] | [all in this series]
Bandicoot: Friend Aardvark, Friend Aardvark!
Aardvark: Good morning, Friend Bandicoot.
B: I implemented the optional extra double-double feature!
A: You mean, the module can finally add two plus two?
B: That's what I said.
In which Priorities are Set
[first chapter] | [all in this series]
Bandicoot: Good morning, Friend Aardvark!
Aardvark: Good morning, Friend Bandicoot.
B: I'm wearing my programming trousers again today.
A: I can see that you are.
B: Well?
In which a Debt is Paid
[first chapter] | [all in this series]
Post-It note on the Aardvark's office door: Home sick today. Migrane.
In which a Post-Mortem Offers Valuable Insight
[first chapter] | [all in this series]
Aardvark: Good afternoon, Friend Bandicoot. I'm sorry to be late for this meeting.
Bandicoot: That's quite all right, Friend Aardvark. Is your head feeling better?
A: No. But we need to get this module out the door anyway, so I'll go be sick some other day. I spent most of this morning going through the test suite trying to figure out what's wrong with your code, and I think I've at least got some idea -
B: But there's nothing wrong with the code. You saw me demo it yesterday.
In which a Demonstration Begins Well, and Concludes
[first chapter] | [all in this series]
Aardvark: Good morning, Friend Bandicoot. I trust you slept well?
Bandicoot: Very well, thank you, Friend Aardvark. It was most restful knowing I'd completed the project and wouldn't have to do any more work on it. Do you have new glasses today?
A: Yes, these are my demonstration spectacles.
B: Very appropriate to the occasion!
In which Concern is Expressed for One's Health
[first chapter] | [all in this series]
Aardvark: Good morning, Friend Bandicoot.
Bandicoot: Good morning, Friend Aardvark!
A: I'm surprised to see you here so early. Usually, you don't come in until just before lunch.
B: I was here all night!
In which there is No More Progress, and a Management Decision is Made
[first chapter] | [all in this series]
Aardvark: Are you almost finished with that module for evaluating expressions?
Bandicoot: Yes! I have your module for parsing strings 80% complete!
A: Friend Bandicoot...
In which there Has been a Little More Progress, but Just a Little
[first chapter] | [all in this series]
Aardvark: Friend Bandicoot, where do you stand with the expression evaluation module?
Bandicoot: I'm about 80% finished with the expression parser, Friend Aardvark. It's fun! I do like parsing.
In which Progress is Reported
[first chapter] | [all in this series]
Aardvark: Friend Bandicoot, how is that expression evaluator coming along?
Bandicoot: Oh, you mean the parser? It's about 75% complete, Friend Aardvark.
In which Some Points are Clarified, but One is Left Unanswered
[first chapter] | [all in this series]
Bandicoot: Friend Aardvark, Friend Aardvark!
Aardvark: Oh, good morning, Friend Bandicoot. I see you're wearing your programming pants again today.
B: Trousers.
A: What?
"Ah, why, ye Gods! should two and two make four?"
- Alexander Pope, "The Dunciad"
In which a Project is Initiated
Bandicoot: Good afternoon, Friend Aardvark. I trust you're well?
Aardvark: Yes, thank you, Friend Bandicoot. Are you ready to do some software engineering?
My text for today is from Pink Floyd (Another Brick in the Wall, part II): "If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!" I'd like to talk about the fallacy embedded in that statement. It's related to many well-known fallacies, but I haven't been able to find an existing name that applies specifically to this fallacy in this form without mixing it up with other things. So I'd like to give it a new name: let this be known as the fallacy of the Pudding.
December 2011 on Earth, but it is eternal midmorning on the third layer of the Astral Plane. THOMAS OF AQUINO, NICHOLAS FLAMEL, and K'UNG FU-TZU sit at a card table, in that order clockwise around the table. At the fourth, otherwise unoccupied, spot sits an ominous blue-painted Chinese porcelain ginger jar.
I recently visited Seth Godin's Web log to dig out his item about yak shaving, and while I was there I saw this recent posting about being missed. He asks the question: if you didn't show up, if you suddenly went away, who would miss you? And he proposes that it might be a valuable goal to make it so that a lot of people would miss you. That's certainly an interesting and important question to ask, but I think it's really the wrong question to ask.
Imagine a young man nearing his 16th birthday, the day when he'll be eligible to get a driver's license. And let's imagine this is before graduated licensing was a big thing, or else imagine that he's maybe a little older and getting ready for the final level of the graduated system instead of the first level, or something like that. The point isn't exactly his age, just that he's about to get to the point where having a vehicle of his own would be a pretty good thing.
Hatred is not the same thing as fear, not even if they often occur at the same time to the same people. When you pretend that those two things are identical to each other, and attempt to build that pretense into the language instead of admitting that it is an activist position - for instance, when you use words like "homophobia" - you make the world a less good place and you harm those of your goals that are worth promoting.
This is important.
Before history when people had to go somewhere they would walk. Nobody went anywhere often enough for anyone to consider the issue of regularly following the same routes or making the path easier; what trails existed were created by other animals who might from time to time often travel the same way. Humans might exploit those, but only in an opportunistic fashion, greedy by the computer scientist's definition of the word.
People have the wrong idea about the law. They think it's magic. They think that the law consists entirely of arbitrary rules, technicalities, and loopholes, and that dealing with the law is primarily about getting around the challenges the system creates. The idea that there might be real standards of conduct with a point to them that you're supposed to actually follow instead of getting around, doesn't count for much. I think it's partly the fault of the media, in showing us ten examples of dysfunctional nonsense in the law for every one example of the system actually working as it's meant to, so that we think the dysfunctional nonsense is what it's actually meant to be about. It's also the fault of the legislators, courts, and lawyers, for putting way too much dysfunctional nonsense into the law in the first place. But it's not all dysfunctional nonsense. The law generally does have a point to it, and the system is meant to actually work and to be for real.
Okay, it's been about two months since I posted my piece about colourful bits, and I really should have posted a follow-up before now, but better late than never. First of all, here are ten other places that carried the story, in no particular order:
As of Summer 2024, my article "What Colour are your bits?" has been online 20 years, and people are still linking to it as a benchmark. It's clear that people still care about intellectual property in general and copyright in particular, and the difference, if any, between identical copies of things is still important; but the most salient issues today are not directly related to the verbatim copying that was a big deal in 2004 and was the main topic of "What Colour." I've written other articles about today's issues, and I wish my more recent articles would get the attention that the 20-year-old one still commands; they are more relevant now.
In particular, people in 2024 care a lot about how intellectual property issues and "creator's rights" relate to material that is not actually created by humans - like the output of so-called "generative AI." I talk about that in some detail in my article on training and copyright on the Eleven Freedoms site. I don't think the copyright issues associated with generative models are actually so new after all, and they are best understood using the existing concept of fair use. Copyright holders worry about how to exercise control over the use of "their" creative material for training models; but that begs the question of whether copyright holders ever had, or should have, a right to any such control. If a human can read a book and learn from it, and then write their own books, why shouldn't a computer?
Another of my recent articles, possibly my most important one ever, discusses two conflicting points of view somewhat like the views of "computer scientists" and "lawyers" below, but in the realm of institutional hiring and promotion. That is my 2021 piece on Scarcity, abundance, and lost careers. The difference between "lawyers" and "computer scientists" might be said to reflect a difference between abundance and scarcity: recognizing that a work can be copied at effectively zero cost makes works plentiful, whereas extending ownership of the original to ownership of all copies greatly reduces the supply of works, and then either view has important consequences. Similarly, institutions that see promotion candidates as being abundant or scarce will operate differently from each other and will have difficulty comprehending each others' points of views. The tension between scarcity and abundance leads to dysfunctional situations like the "elite overproduction" currently eating up some North American cultures; I think there's a way to understand that and several other current issues in a consistent framework.
Now, the historical article on Colour.
There's a classic adventure game called Paranoia which is
set in an extremely repressive Utopian futuristic world
run by The Computer, who
is Your Friend. Looking at a recent LawMeme
posting and related discussion, it occurred to me that the concept of
colour-coded security clearances in Paranoia provides a good metaphor for
a lot of copyright and intellectual freedom issues, and it may illuminate
why we sometimes have difficulty communicating and understanding the
ideologies in these areas.
An article based on this one and its follow-ups, by me, Brett Bonfield, and Mary Fran Torpey, appeared in the 15 February 2008 issue of LJ, Library Journal.
aardvark academic anime arch astrology ballad bandicoot cargo colour compsci conspiracy copenhagen copyright crypto cthulhu dares dragon dreams economy electronics employment environment fandom fiction finance games halloween hardware kde latex linguistics links linux livejournal math meta music myth networking north-coast nov01 occult pandemic personal philosophy poetry politics pornography privacy programming psychology publishing pudding reference religion scifi security sex socialnet software sonnet spam sports travel typography web webcomics winnipeg アニメ 作りましょう 写真 宗教 日本語 日記
