The Teaching Machine.

What do you want to unpick? something about rules emerge and stabilise as the game evolves, implicitly, a collaboratively written script where roles are assumed and tried out, and rewarded or punished without being stated
 

suspended

Well-known member
besides, books are just conversations in a room

you go to the library. someone says their schpiel. you say your schpiel. people respond to each other
 

suspended

Well-known member
What do you want to unpick? something about rules emerge and stabilise as the game evolves, implicitly, a collaboratively written script where roles are assumed and tried out, and rewarded or punished without being stated
Yep, as long as that was clear from the excerpt, I just wasn't sure

There are interesting ramifications, of course. If "going along" is the highest utility return, because of the "pains of conspicuousness," and because individuals subtly police one another's behavior to stay in line, we should expect there to be a lot of inefficient equilibria.
 
The going along thing - I think about this a lot at work. In the charity sector especially there can be this very stifling culture of niceness that inhibits change and great work, the avoidance of negative feedback, the tolerance of shit. and I see parallels in psychedelic aesthetics, hippy slackness etc
 

WashYourHands

Cat Malogen
The going along thing - I think about this a lot at work. In the charity sector especially there can be this very stifling culture of niceness that inhibits change and great work, the avoidance of negative feedback, the tolerance of shit. and I see parallels in psychedelic aesthetics, hippy slackness etc

Spot on. Team meetings

“No, after you“

“Any questions? No? Ok let’s break for lunch”

“I really value your point“ (then does fuck all about it)

Gulf of difference between not for profit and actual graft. It becomes apparent immediately liaising with a dysfunctional Mind branch compared to another that’s on it
 

suspended

Well-known member
Right, Schelling talks a lot about how, because we don't explicitly hash-out most of our agreements, and keep them implicit and tacit, we need some shared object to consider and coordinate around.

Tacit coordination means, "no ability to communicate." Say you're a parachuter and you and a buddy get separated a mile apart. You each have a map of the town below, and there's a massive town square at the center of it. If you and your buddy want to find each other, even without the ability to communicate, you can be surprisingly successful just by going to a place that is "prominent" or stands out in some way. (The town square.) Because it "stands out," you can expect they can expect (etc) to meet there.

Another example is getting separated at a shopping mall, and meeting by the entrance, or by your car
 

suspended

Well-known member
The idea being that precedent—tradition, "the way things are done"—are a major "focal point" (like the town square, or mall entrance) that lets people coordinate without explicitly communicating.
 

suspended

Well-known member
Switching people into a better equilibrium is hard cuz, when you're in a coordination game where people benefit by mirroring one another's behavior (e.g. following proper turn-taking in a conversation), anyone who breaks out of that equilibrium, and chooses a different "move" in the game, will by definition lose utility, be worse off in the short-term. You have to work hard to get other people to switch over with you, so that you can together achieve the higher local maxima, or more pareto-efficient equilibrium.
 

suspended

Well-known member
A Keynesian beauty contest is one in which you don't try to pick the contestant you find most beautiful, but the one you think other people will find most beautiful. Obvious parallels here to fashion and pleasing people and choosing behavior by anticipating others' reactions
As G.H. Mead has argued, when an individual considers taking a course of action, he is likely to hold off until he has imagined in his mind the consequence of his action for others involved, their likely response to this consequence, and the bearing of this response on his own designs. He then modifies his action so that it now incorporates that which he calculates will usefully modify the other's generated response. In effect, he adapts to the other's response before it has been called forth, and adapts in such a way that it never does have to be made.
Keynes talks a bit about how this makes good investing in the stock market. So here's your stock market tip @luka, straight from a b-o-o-k!
 
In this fisher book he’s talking about reification, lukacs immediacy. Which feels relevant to what you’re on about. In terms of ideology, common sense an implicit or invisible set of rules that’s quite difficult to define cos we’re too inside it
 
A Keynesian beauty contest is one in which you don't try to pick the contestant you find most beautiful, but the one you think other people will find most beautiful. Obvious parallels here to fashion and pleasing people and choosing behavior by anticipating others' reactions

Keynes talks a bit about how this makes good investing in the stock market. So here's your stock market tip @luka, straight from a b-o-o-k!

You should check out hit UK tv show your face or mine
 
Top