Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mongrel]

Also, I think Aintaer is right in the sense that the author seems to be making a lot of leaps to justify something he really doesn't have to. But even if his support is bad, I think there's something in the theory if you just ignore the silly "other species prove my theory" failures and concentrate exclusively on us.

I don't think it's a question of homeostasis vs stagnation. I think having a small number of contrarians is simply an important guard against monoculture as well as a constant "Live Test" of our defences.

[Brentai]

As I suspected, I apparently did it.

I may have been misclicking things last night.

[Aintaer]

lolololololol

• System != Complex system
• Beehive != Single organism
• Randomness != Parasitism

Male bees (drones) are born by one single interaction, that of the queen bee and the cell in which she is laying that egg. Specifically, the larger cells encourage her to lay unfertilized eggs. Bees can and do control the ratio of worker cells to drone cells through a complex interplay of many environmental factors (season, colony size, etc). Even if the process were completely random, that it is random does not necessitate parasitism, much less same-species parasitism.

This is a counter-example, guild. I am not saying all complex systems are like bees, that would be an analogy; rather, bees are an example of a complex system. Calling a whole beehive one organism is very gestalt but not, scientifically speaking, true. That it is one example of a complex system without same-species dishonesty is antithetical to Sneider's original claim that All complex systems have it.

Plus, in reality all he is trying to do is postulate the "necessity" of a security effort to any computer system. That is the core argument of his book. This may or may not have merit from a technical standpoint. But he's arguing from a sociological perspective. And from that perspective, this is unsubstantiated. One can entirely explain the existence of security and parasitism through evolutionary lens and drop his entire argument through scientific parsimony.

[gg]

lolololololol

• System != Complex system
• Beehive != Single organism
• Randomness != Parasitism

Male bees (drones) are born by one single interaction, that of the queen bee and the cell in which she is laying that egg. Specifically, the larger cells encourage her to lay unfertilized eggs. Bees can and do control the ratio of worker cells to drone cells through a complex interplay of many environmental factors (season, colony size, etc). Even if the process were completely random, that it is random does not necessitate parasitism, much less same-species parasitism.

This is a counter-example, guild. I am not saying all complex systems are like bees, that would be an analogy; rather, bees are an example of a complex system. Calling a whole beehive one organism is very gestalt but not, scientifically speaking, true. That it is one example of a complex system without same-species dishonesty is antithetical to Sneider's original claim that All complex systems have it.

Plus, in reality all he is trying to do is postulate the "necessity" of a security effort to any computer system. That is the core argument of his book. This may or may not have merit from a technical standpoint. But he's arguing from a sociological perspective. And from that perspective, this is unsubstantiated. One can entirely explain the existence of security and parasitism through evolutionary lens and drop his entire argument through scientific parsimony.

There is same-species dishonesty insofar as one of the mating males is pushing others aside with his superior methodology of mating by having a stronger dick or whatever. You can't have it both ways.

Or are you saying that cheating at competition is not the kind of parasitism he's talking about? Being better at eating all the food, taking the women and generally getting away with deplorable bullshit? I guess you could say that's not cheating, but then what is? I steal money in board games. Don't let me play board games with you. I cheat hard.

And please define the word in red before we can continue.

[Aintaer]

Can somebody else rephrase what guild is talking about because he makes less sense with every post.

[sei]

There is same-species dishonesty insofar as one of the mating males is pushing others aside with his superior methodology of mating by having a stronger dick or whatever. You can't have it both ways.

Guild is implying that possessing beneficial mutations automatically categorizes one as part of the dishonest minority. My impulsive response would be, "Hey, possession of superior genes isn't really the same as conscious defection." Guild could counter that the inclination to defect is genetically derived (since free will is an illusion to begin with) and thus that volition is a stupid criterion.

Thus, being morally flexible is kind of like having a huge cock.

[Aintaer]

So therefore all societies must develop guards against huge cocks? That is the logical conclusion of Schneider's argument anyway.

How is developing beneficial mutations tantamount to deception against cooperation? The concept is that cooperative societies must have deceivers who reap benefit from others' cooperation by their deception. Hence in case of bees, there must exist a type of worker bee that tries to pose as a drone so as to be fed without needing to do work. This, as far as I know, has not happened nor is possible. Yet by Schneider's theory, this is not only possible, it is a requirement, as well as a requirement for the queen, or a class of other bees, to detect and reject such poser workers.

Let me point out further:

All complex systems contain parasites.  In any system of cooperative behavior, an uncooperative strategy will be effective -- and the system will tolerate the uncooperatives -- as long as they're not too numerous or too effective

Summary: uncooperatives are parasites.

The term "dishonest minority" is not a moral judgment; it simply describes the minority who does not follow societal norm. Since many societal norms are in fact immoral, sometimes the dishonest minority serves as a catalyst for social change.

Summary: parasites are...instruments of social change.

Either he is referring to symbiotic parasitism in the latter case (violating his use of the word "uncooperative" in the former), or he is hugely overstepping the limits of the definition of parasitism. Martin Luther King was very much uncooperative to the status quo during the Civil Rights Era, but I would hardly call him a parasite to society, nor "dishonest" in the manner that he was avoiding the security mechanisms of society. (I guess you could make that argument, but then what does "dishonest" mean?)

In fact, all I see is Schneider gradually redefining his terms to suit the topic. And yes guild, sociological. Schneider was the one who brought it into the conversation by making the "dishonest minority" instruments of social change. Sociologically, it is just a relabeling of the existing Marxist framework (yay communism). Marx's contribution to Sociology was the framework that all human society is stratified into classes, and that there is continual conflict between classes. See Marxist Sociology and Conflict theory. So nothing new on that front.

Biologically, Schneider's argument is wholly eclipsed by the evolutionary framework in explaining parasitism. Evolution explains it without issuing blanket statements like "All complex systems contain parasites."

And to go completely overboard, the mathematical definition of a Complex system is one in which the system itself has emergent properties not evident from properties of its constituents. For his argument to be true, one necessary emergent property of ANY system is not just ability to support but existence of constituents who do not contribute to the emergent properties of itself. Consider the Three Body problem in physics. The problem itself is dealing with the mathematical chaos of three sets of very well defined interactions. According to the theory of "dishonest minority", one of the three interactions must be deceptive and not contribute to the chaotic property of the Three Body. Which means the Three Body problem should be generally reducible into a Two Body problem. This is patently, mathematically, false.

[Pacobird]

There is same-species dishonesty insofar as one of the mating males is pushing others aside with his superior methodology of mating by having a stronger dick or whatever. You can't have it both ways.

Guild is implying that possessing beneficial mutations automatically categorizes one as part of the dishonest minority. My impulsive response would be, "Hey, possession of superior genes isn't really the same as conscious defection."

ayn rand: the new godwin's law

Anyway, Richard Dawkins has a pretty good discussion of hyper-communal insects like bees and ants in The Selfish Gene, explaining why they seem to engage in such ludicrous levels of altruism compared to other animals.  The thesis of the book as a whole in an extremely simplistic way is that your job as an organism is to pass on your genes.  The most expedient way to do this is to survive and reproduce, but failing that you aren't the only individual to have your genes; this leads in to a biological explanation of why we look out for family units, tribalism, etc.

Bearing this in mind, communal insects will put the needs of the hive before themselves as individuals, not out of any sense of altruism or affection (even ascribing these things to bees is obviously silly) but because the bees themselves are all essentially twins with identical genetic material; it doesn't matter, from the "perspective" of a selfish gene, whether one individual bee lives, reproduces, or whatever.  Because each individual bee is inconsequential and is not hard-wired for self-preservation, it seems weird to me to even think of a The Invention of Lying-type scenario where a bee mutates the ability to take advantage of its hive, much less the hive having a strategy to retaliate.

This sort of situation becomes even less plausible under selfish gene theory when applied to drones, because they're all genetic copies of each other so there's nothing to be gained by a drone forcing out his "competition".

Of course, the only real consequence of this cooperation for other species is when the hive is brought under the control of a talented Bee Whisperer, like Oprah.

[sei]

all I see is Schneider gradually redefining his terms to suit the topic

This was it from the outset.

[gg]

So therefore all societies must develop guards against huge cocks? That is the logical conclusion of Schneider's argument anyway.

Mmm, yeah. Basically that's what haters are.

How is developing beneficial mutations tantamount to deception against cooperation? The concept is that cooperative societies must have deceivers who reap benefit from others' cooperation by their deception. Hence in case of bees, there must exist a type of worker bee that tries to pose as a drone so as to be fed without needing to do work.

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 Schneider wrong. I postulate you know almost nothing about bees. In fact, I bet you've never even BEEN a bee.

This, as far as I know, has not happened nor is possible. Yet by Schneider's theory, this is not only possible, it is a requirement, as well as a requirement for the queen, or a class of other bees, to detect and reject such poser workers.

If able. Or to be replaced by them if possible (and therefore necessary, beneficial parasitism).

Let me point out further:

All complex systems contain parasites.  In any system of cooperative behavior, an uncooperative strategy will be effective -- and the system will tolerate the uncooperatives -- as long as they're not too numerous or too effective

Summary: uncooperatives are parasites.

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. Schneider 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.

The term "dishonest minority" is not a moral judgment; it simply describes the minority who does not follow societal norm. Since many societal norms are in fact immoral, sometimes the dishonest minority serves as a catalyst for social change.

Summary: parasites are...instruments of social change.

Either he is referring to symbiotic parasitism in the latter case (violating his use of the word "uncooperative" in the former), or he is hugely overstepping the limits of the definition of parasitism.

Or a third option you are intentionally ignoring. Dichotomy is typically a red flag to me, in terms of argument at least.

Martin Luther King was very much uncooperative to the status quo during the Civil Rights Era, but I would hardly call him a parasite to society, nor "dishonest" in the manner that he was avoiding the security mechanisms of society.

But...

(I guess you could make that argument, but then what does "dishonest" mean?)

Exactly.

In fact, all I see is Schneider gradually redefining his terms to suit the topic.

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.

And yes guild, sociological. Schneider was the one who brought it into the conversation by making the "dishonest minority" instruments of social change. Sociologically, it is just a relabeling of the existing Marxist framework (yay communism). Marx's contribution to Sociology was the framework that all human society is stratified into classes, and that there is continual conflict between classes. See Marxist Sociology and Conflict theory. So nothing new on that front.

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. Like math. Let's get back to math later, though.

Biologically, Schneider's argument is wholly eclipsed by the evolutionary framework in explaining parasitism. Evolution explains it without issuing blanket statements like "All complex systems contain parasites."

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.

And to go completely overboard, the mathematical definition of a Complex system is one in which the system itself has emergent properties not evident from properties of its constituents. For his argument to be true, one necessary emergent property of ANY system is not just ability to support but existence of constituents who do not contribute to the emergent properties of itself. Consider the Three Body problem in physics. The problem itself is dealing with the mathematical chaos of three sets of very well defined interactions. According to the theory of "dishonest minority", one of the three interactions must be deceptive and not contribute to the chaotic property of the Three Body. Which means the Three Body problem should be generally reducible into a Two Body problem. This is patently, mathematically, false.

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.

[Aintaer]

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.

[gg]

 So long as you're admitting you were wrong, I'm happy. Good discussion!

[Aintaer]

Like I already responded to your PMs, if you're really that desperate for a "win" then yeah guild, you won ALL my internets. PLUS a pony.