How so? I agree that's involved, but perhaps I should explicit about my above questions being about importing it to within-brain system-context/ecology dynamics.
-
-
Replying to @neuropoetic @kaznatcheev and
Chaos Retweeted Chaos
the statement of this i made here is subtly wrong, it's perception of importance, not perception of status, but it's an examplehttps://twitter.com/chaosprime/status/1142084737558880256 …
Chaos added,
Chaos @chaosprime"man is a social animal" sounds all fluffy bunnies but what it means is that there are deep structures in your brain that try to kill you if your perception of your social status is too low. in Dunbar-number-sized social groups most people could clear this bar. most now can'tShow this thread2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @kaznatcheev and
Thanks for the elaboration! I see it as off-loading value systems, insofar the signals of value - whether of pragmatic reward or epistemic salience - are the common currency by which loopy systems of evaluation develop The key problem is the power balance between these, I think
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @neuropoetic @chaosprime and
Importantly (to make a link to the dunbar-number you included), there is a decoupling between the amount of people in one's (perceived) community, and the (perceived) social signals as what the abstracted society/community believes, imposes, or values etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @neuropoetic @chaosprime and
This is further compounded by technology, where 'public opinion' and value systems can evolve far more rapidly and impose far more powerfully, in part by more proximal influence (less global broadcasting, more personal doxxing) and in part by 'virtual' organisation of influence.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @neuropoetic @chaosprime and
Now we have two dangerous decouplings: The perceived public will be contingent on not only IRL interactions, but also 'digital' or 'virtual' interactions, where the latter seems to grow only more influential wrt to the former, in part because the IRL is influenced by the virtual.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @neuropoetic @chaosprime and
And so both for the individual themselves, as well as the two 'types' of sociocultural umwelts, become dominated by the virtual, or the simulacra, by the network effects / autocatalytic territorialisation, in absence of counteracting/compensating influence towards human Being.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @neuropoetic @chaosprime and
Got a bit off-track but I wanted to push back a bit to the pessimism that the network effects of these system-ecology loops would always be bad. I think it depends on the scales one looks at. At more proximal scales, I believe it's more positive.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @neuropoetic @kaznatcheev and
oh that seems perfectly likely, i have clinician's error going on with it for sure
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @kaznatcheev and
Didn't know of that term! Thanks, TIL. If it's http://grokinfullness.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-clinicians-error.html …, then honestly we all heavily subject to that error.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
yeah, that's the one. you deal with people who have harmed themselves with X so you think of X as inherently harmful
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime @kaznatcheev and
So one other aspect here I find important to emphasize is not just the frequency or predominance of exposure to a particular association (X as bad), but also the very dimension of value and affect: modern discourse-via-tech seems to augment affect, and in turn P of clin. error
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.