Mmm, yeah. Basically that's what haters are.
And women!
Too narrow. Think more like a drone bee who gives a misleading dance then runs the other way to mate. Just because you don't know what's happening in a beehive doesn't make Schneier wrong. I postulate you know almost nothing about bees. In fact, I bet you've never even BEEN a bee.
Of course. Therefore I must be wrong. And you, having also never been a bee and knowing nothing about bees, must be right.
If able. Or to be replaced by them if possible (and therefore necessary, beneficial parasitism).
No evidence of this in bees. I of course welcome your expertise in bee parasitism.
You're adding TONS of negative context to the words "parasites" and "uncooperatives." When the system is threatened from within, it fights back. This is the premise of evolution. Let's see who's stronger: old or new. Schneier allows that some of the 'parasites' who are 'reaping the benefits of those who aren't as able as their allies' may be the correct ones from some vague theory of morality's standpoint.
I am using exactly his terms. What negative context is wholly his fault. I have nothing against the evolutionary view. I support the evolutionary view. If you take out his words and simply say "A minority is present in a healthy population to maintain genetic or memetic diversity." I would have stood under that banner the whole time.
Let me reiterate the argument I am making: Schneier is only relabeling existing frameworks on explaining sociological or biological phenomena. What he has advanced is at best misnomers for existing theories; at worst, a mistaken statement that overreaches the established semantics of words.
Or a third option you are intentionally ignoring. Dichotomy is typically a red flag to me, in terms of argument at least.
And blanket statements are typically red flags to me. When the word "all" is involved, it is often meant to be "Almost all" unless there is a direct logical connection between the concepts.
Exactly.
Exactly what? That I have once again established that he is mislabeling everything? From "dishonest" to "parasitism" to "complex system"?
I am constantly plagued by the need for new words when trying to describe similar concepts to people. Maybe he picked bad words to use. Maybe we don't have a good word for it. Maybe you thought of a better one.
I disagree whole heartedly with this assessment of Schneider's point having to do with classes at all. Maybe this is the crux of your problem. You don't believe in inborn rights of equality of opportunity? Or you think words have one definite meaning.
I think established words in established sciences have established meanings. When these words are combined into a logical argument that does not make sense or is inconsistent with established science, then these words are used wrongly. Schneier is a wonderful security expert who has contributed much to cryptography and cryptographic design. However he is not a sociologist and evidently not aware of the scientific literature in this realm. I reject his statements through which he derives a sociological theory because he uses words that are in science incorrectly
and without bothering to define what he means by those words. In doing so he is making an argument in the first paragraphs of his book that uses scientific concepts to lend credence to the argument. This is at best misleading.
And to be fair, Mongrel was the only person making reasonable claims in this thread to begin with. What we're doing is like holding both ends of a stick and trying to push the other person until one of us is standing next to him. And I don't think you're going to get there while I'm here.
But guild analogies are bad remember? And way to dismiss perfectly reasonable statements by Paco regarding the evolutionary lack of necessity for any 'dishonest minority' in bee society.
Math is a lie that exists only on paper and in computers (it exists only in our imaginations). You can neither prove that one of anything exists, nor accurately measure nor observe any particle, length or . Don't use math to prove things in a discussion about social interaction. Just don't.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha
...Okay okay. That's not completely fair. Let me recap my last post:
Analysis on Schneier's theory from multiple perspectives allow me to conclude that he cannot be approaching from a mathematical/physics perspective because the very concept is logically false. (I never thought he meant it that way anyway) This means he uses the phrase Complex system in a much less defined way. Let's assume he means biological systems. From a biological perspective, there are several counter-examples to his contention that any and all societies have parasites. There is existing definition for parasite in biology. So he can only be using the term very loosely, not from a scientific perspective. So the only approach he can be taking is a sociological one.
So first things first, Complex system should be replaced with "Human society", parasite should be replaced with "nonconformist". Because that is the only way he can make sense. Then his thesis would run "All human societies have nonconformists. In any cooperative society, uncooperatives will be tolerated as long as they're not too numerous or too effective." That's something I can agree to, but as I've said, I don't find this particularly groundbreaking. It reminds me of Marxist theory wherein the controlling class (Security) is constantly in struggle with the revolutionaries (Nonconformists). But I mean, that's just me.
Also, sorry I keep misspelling his name. It is, for the record, Schneier.