This explained why all of the mistakes the strange new ideology has produced haven't caused cognitive dissonance that would force a reevaluation. Maximum evil of opponents + ultimate victory required + subtle cues from fellow swarm members + the ability of the swarm to pivot to a new target even without a centralized leader = cognitive d…
This explained why all of the mistakes the strange new ideology has produced haven't caused cognitive dissonance that would force a reevaluation. Maximum evil of opponents + ultimate victory required + subtle cues from fellow swarm members + the ability of the swarm to pivot to a new target even without a centralized leader = cognitive dissonance will not be noticed by most and will actively be suppressed, even unconsciously, by the swarm.
Meanwhile, the cost of using either voice or exit in opposition has been increased. What worries me the most over the last two podcasts is that even if the adults in the room put together a reasonable solution, those advocating peace on both sides would be hamstrung by their respective swarms. And the same type of swarms likely exist in both Russian and China in different spaces in-between, and we may not have the cultural competence to identify them.
Quite, if you can privatize the profits and distribute the costs, and be distracted from the consequences your well intentioned but ignorant advocacy allowed.
The "swarm" idea is handy for answering the "why are all these reasonable people I know suddenly acting crazy?" question, but I would still like to know what to do next. The problem is an old one to some extent, going back to people with hammers seeing nails everywhere, though the aspect where people buy in without consciously choosing to do so - as in Darryl's AI short story idea - is more powerful and pernicious than anything that's come before. There may be no more effective form of social control for humans than subtle signals delivered across multiple media; it really digs deep into our evolutionary wiring.
Data control, or even data awareness, may be a solution. Another may be "doing real things with real people." Selecting leaders who have wrestled with practical problems might help; paper-pushers, bean-counters, and chair-force warriors have been the death of many organizations, and the network-engaged are all this and more. But it can't just be leaders. We need a conscious, deliberate, distributed effort to unplug so we can get the perspective to see networks as tools, not as all-encompassing realities.
Our institutions built to resist popular pressure and make judgements using rational criteria rather than emotion are being swept away by the Swarm. I'm thinking of the judiciary and the Senate. Journalism is of course in bad shape too, with a contest on between swarm journalists and those still focused on discovering facts.
I've been reading "Icarus Fallen" (another MM recommendation) and, after listening to the John Robb interview this morning, just happened to reach the chapter in the book titled "A Morality of Emotion & Indignation", and... damn - a lot of it compliments what Mr. Robb is talking about in regard to all the things you just called out in your first paragraph in that:
- people's ethical systems are no longer moored in place by anything resembling absolute values, and instead are fluid, and are guided by more relativist & subjective notions of "good" & "evil";
- you can think of "evil" then as not fixed, but whatever is fashionable; in the context of the network swarm, it's almost like everybody receives a patch/OS update that redefines the evil du jour on a ongoing basis. Being unmoored to anything solid, it can be the complete opposite of what it was last week, and few people will call out any bullshit, hypocrisy, or contradiction - even if it is completely contradictory with a prior version of "evil", it's all "evil", it's the current version, and that's all that matters. The ethical system compares itself only with the current iteration of evil, and disregards whatever is older than five minutes ago. (And this is where you fall in line or be ostracized or worse.)
- instead of making rational, deliberate moral judgments that weigh an idea or situation against a fixed ideal, our judgements become reactive & emotional (and the faster they happen the better); think here of the "empathy triggers" concept
- the shallow lack of a formal ethical structure makes it easier to align people broadly in opposition to something vs for anything
- it is an ethics of complacency that is itself something like a consumption good - it becomes part of our identity, and there is virtue & satisfaction associated with going along with the tribe; it is low commitment and requires little to no actual sacrifice (which makes Mr. Robb's comments about the swarm not fearing its own mortality way effing scarier)
- this flexible & fluid ethical system is perhaps itself a product of the technological environment in which it is currently operating to terrifying effect (it seems it can potentially be frustrated/distracted/diverted; it also may be vulnerable to its "reasonable promise" being somehow shown to be unattainable)
- attempts to "debate" or otherwise appeal to reason are self-defeating, not just in that they are a waste of time at the margin, but that they cast a doubt upon the evilness of the evil (which everybody knows is evil), and - who would be most likely to question whether the evil du jour is actually evil, than somebody who is "on the side" of that evil; if you were "good" you would know perfectly well that there is nothing to debate (DC's comparison to a cult applies here, as well as with Mr. Robb's sentiments re: reaction against dissenters/actors (corporate/public & private) who don't fall in line).
Anyway, still working my way through the book (which is great thus far), but thought it was very random & fortuitous that the section I happened to be on jived with the points you called out above / complimented Mr. Robb's thesis as it did. I wasn't familiar w/ JR prior to listening to the interview, but... now have more to add to the pile.
This explained why all of the mistakes the strange new ideology has produced haven't caused cognitive dissonance that would force a reevaluation. Maximum evil of opponents + ultimate victory required + subtle cues from fellow swarm members + the ability of the swarm to pivot to a new target even without a centralized leader = cognitive dissonance will not be noticed by most and will actively be suppressed, even unconsciously, by the swarm.
Meanwhile, the cost of using either voice or exit in opposition has been increased. What worries me the most over the last two podcasts is that even if the adults in the room put together a reasonable solution, those advocating peace on both sides would be hamstrung by their respective swarms. And the same type of swarms likely exist in both Russian and China in different spaces in-between, and we may not have the cultural competence to identify them.
Isn’t it wonderful?
Quite, if you can privatize the profits and distribute the costs, and be distracted from the consequences your well intentioned but ignorant advocacy allowed.
Need to figure out how to re-direct awful results engineered by good intentioned people.
The "swarm" idea is handy for answering the "why are all these reasonable people I know suddenly acting crazy?" question, but I would still like to know what to do next. The problem is an old one to some extent, going back to people with hammers seeing nails everywhere, though the aspect where people buy in without consciously choosing to do so - as in Darryl's AI short story idea - is more powerful and pernicious than anything that's come before. There may be no more effective form of social control for humans than subtle signals delivered across multiple media; it really digs deep into our evolutionary wiring.
Data control, or even data awareness, may be a solution. Another may be "doing real things with real people." Selecting leaders who have wrestled with practical problems might help; paper-pushers, bean-counters, and chair-force warriors have been the death of many organizations, and the network-engaged are all this and more. But it can't just be leaders. We need a conscious, deliberate, distributed effort to unplug so we can get the perspective to see networks as tools, not as all-encompassing realities.
Our institutions built to resist popular pressure and make judgements using rational criteria rather than emotion are being swept away by the Swarm. I'm thinking of the judiciary and the Senate. Journalism is of course in bad shape too, with a contest on between swarm journalists and those still focused on discovering facts.
I've been reading "Icarus Fallen" (another MM recommendation) and, after listening to the John Robb interview this morning, just happened to reach the chapter in the book titled "A Morality of Emotion & Indignation", and... damn - a lot of it compliments what Mr. Robb is talking about in regard to all the things you just called out in your first paragraph in that:
- people's ethical systems are no longer moored in place by anything resembling absolute values, and instead are fluid, and are guided by more relativist & subjective notions of "good" & "evil";
- you can think of "evil" then as not fixed, but whatever is fashionable; in the context of the network swarm, it's almost like everybody receives a patch/OS update that redefines the evil du jour on a ongoing basis. Being unmoored to anything solid, it can be the complete opposite of what it was last week, and few people will call out any bullshit, hypocrisy, or contradiction - even if it is completely contradictory with a prior version of "evil", it's all "evil", it's the current version, and that's all that matters. The ethical system compares itself only with the current iteration of evil, and disregards whatever is older than five minutes ago. (And this is where you fall in line or be ostracized or worse.)
- instead of making rational, deliberate moral judgments that weigh an idea or situation against a fixed ideal, our judgements become reactive & emotional (and the faster they happen the better); think here of the "empathy triggers" concept
- the shallow lack of a formal ethical structure makes it easier to align people broadly in opposition to something vs for anything
- it is an ethics of complacency that is itself something like a consumption good - it becomes part of our identity, and there is virtue & satisfaction associated with going along with the tribe; it is low commitment and requires little to no actual sacrifice (which makes Mr. Robb's comments about the swarm not fearing its own mortality way effing scarier)
- this flexible & fluid ethical system is perhaps itself a product of the technological environment in which it is currently operating to terrifying effect (it seems it can potentially be frustrated/distracted/diverted; it also may be vulnerable to its "reasonable promise" being somehow shown to be unattainable)
- attempts to "debate" or otherwise appeal to reason are self-defeating, not just in that they are a waste of time at the margin, but that they cast a doubt upon the evilness of the evil (which everybody knows is evil), and - who would be most likely to question whether the evil du jour is actually evil, than somebody who is "on the side" of that evil; if you were "good" you would know perfectly well that there is nothing to debate (DC's comparison to a cult applies here, as well as with Mr. Robb's sentiments re: reaction against dissenters/actors (corporate/public & private) who don't fall in line).
Anyway, still working my way through the book (which is great thus far), but thought it was very random & fortuitous that the section I happened to be on jived with the points you called out above / complimented Mr. Robb's thesis as it did. I wasn't familiar w/ JR prior to listening to the interview, but... now have more to add to the pile.