Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Social Dynamics Thought Experiment

  1. #1
    Creepy-male

    Default Social Dynamics Thought Experiment

    So I was thinking of a situation, purely speculative and hypothetical, a thought experiment.

    Let's pretend there is a confined space and in that space exists 2 people who are after one thing and that one thing can only be utilized by one person. Say a job, position, asset, money, or significant other. Anything -- for the sake of abstractness let's call this thing "the prize". 2 people are after the prize.

    The prize is given out based on merit, the best qualified of the 2 people will receive the prize, however this will be evaluated over a long amount of time by a secret observer that is outside the confined space.

    The game starts and the 2 people set out to prove they are the most qualified in order to receive the prize.

    Now let's consider that each person has two different types of merit -- Potential Merit and Manifest Merit. Similar to the concept of potential and kinetic energy in physics. Manifest Merit is what is explicit, the skill that is apparent in reality. Potential Merit is the talent which they possess that hasn't been turned into realistic results. Someone with a high potential merit is able to create larger gains in manifest merit with the same effort as someone without as high a potential merit.

    Let's say the situation starts off with person A having a high manifest merit but low potential merit and person B having a low manifest merit but a high potential merit.

    Consider the best strategy for person A to play against person B in order to win the prize.

    If person B is allowed to put effort over time into their potential they could easily exceed person A. So its vital for person B to convince person A that they shouldn't even try, psychologically this effect is referred to as learned helplessness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness. An example in animal behavior is that zoo keepers will tie a stake to a baby elephant at an early age, the baby elephant will not be able to move its foot, and after a while it accepts this. The baby elephant will eventually learn it is useless to try, and when it is an adult and fully capable of escaping the stake it won't even try.

    This is the psychological tactic that person B would have to use in order to win the prize, to convince person A of the futility of there efforts, so as to prevent them from defeating them. If person A though continues to ignore person B and match person A's effort though, given sufficient time they are favored.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now let's remove the mental boundary and consider the reality in which we live. If there is a limited number of prizes for a given population of people, these dynamics could play out in terms of potential and actual competency. However certain rules would have to be expanded.

    First instead of two people you could have 3 or more, so its possible that you'd have layered relations A->B may be characterized as A having the superior potential, but A-> C may be characterized as A having the superior actual competency but inferior potential. The more you expand things the more complex the one to one interactions become. Socially the one to one interactions would become too complex and instead stereotypes would have to be used to approximate people's standing based on the subcultures to which they belong... grouping sets of individuals together, and then breaking down the sets to the individual. Basically use induction and sets to make the one to one interaction more general.

    Second consider the balance between prizes and people. This is not a static relationship, but a dyanmic one. Through certain mechanisms prizes can increase, decrease or remain stable. Through certain mechanisms people can increase, decrease or remain stable.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What do you think this means in terms of society? I've been thinking about this.

    Are certain people out there psychologically at war with you to convince you of the futility of your efforts because they are threatened by your potential to exceed them? If you were on top in terms of merit would you be threatened by someones potential? Because people die does this imply that one should allow other younger than them to develop their potential, or does it imply that since your time is limited to play the game as aggresively as possible and win at as much as possible until you die? Is it good to create more prizes, act in such a way that increases the prizes -- and should these prizes go to those that don't have them or should they go to those that play the game the best? Is it bad to have a population that exceeds the population of prizes?

    What do you think?

    I think its a hard question

  2. #2
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    idk. To me this test is already skewered, because society values magic over melee naturally. Society like values people who are more creative and "pure" artistically wise, like the Jew Sages you know, rather than common blue collar folk who work hard for a living but... aren't as sexy or attractive.

    It requires some work, but the emotional alignment always comes before the practical work, as far as this society goes, a capitalist society ran by ideas. You can do a project and simply do it, or you can do a project with your best pure heart and soul and watch it envelop naturally into something much greater than yourself, and the world as it currently is. It *creates* worlds.

    I would say personally my best art did take some concrete effort but it also didn't. It was weird and paradoxical. It was like effortlessly full of effort. A lot of people will just bang their heads against something when emotionally it isn't going anywhere. And then they're like "Omg maybe my hard work and following the rules will actually pay off!" but they see that it doesn't and they get angry and they do something that hurts their social reputation perhaps and they're back to the empathetic cess pool of humanity instead of up there with the creators. (lol)

    If we lived in like a socialist society where Jews didn't always try to get people's money by making highly entertaining and colorful videos... then the "working people" would have more of a chance, but as it stands now they're kind of just fodder for them to laugh at/create more movies/tv shows with. Their castle keeps improving while the dirt below supporting it is... crumbling.

    As for socially discouraging somebody, that's only possible if your target adopts a victim mentality. I think the best "haters" can do is to discriminate against people. Like traditionally speaking the more redneck 'straight' people or whatever, discriminate against the rich homosexual jews from advancing in society. Probably somewhat out of jealousy, or because they see that their own hard work really isn't netting the sort of rewards they'd like to have. And instead of feeling like the higher classes are helping them, they feel condescended against instead. And it's like they don't understand how to play it from both ends, from both the law - and the drive of personal ambition.

    In many ways their stuck up behavior feels justified, because they just flat out know how to control people emotionally (or magically/potentially as you call it) rather than physically. Most anybody would feel good if a well-known celebrity gave them attention you know, like one little comment from them would really go somewhere whereas your midwestern mom nags at you for 15 hours to do something and it still doesn't really advance some place "spiritually." It's sort of like in an RPG game the physical class needs a lot of gear to do well but the magic class can own w/o such great gear.

    This is of course why I hate 'society' and all it entails because it really is just a pissing contest for people to try and see how much better than other people they can be. A true and loving friend is a rare find. And the whole thing is really smug and hateful and dark but of course it's naive and middle clath for me to think that I can make the world all hug and hold hands and get along.

  3. #3
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,129
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    .

    Are certain people out there psychologically at war with you to convince you of the futility of your efforts because they are threatened by your potential to exceed them? If you were on top in terms of merit would you be threatened by someones potential? Because people die does this imply that one should allow other younger than them to develop their potential, or does it imply that since your time is limited to play the game as aggresively as possible and win at as much as possible until you die? Is it good to create more prizes, act in such a way that increases the prizes -- and should these prizes go to those that don't have them or should they go to those that play the game the best?
    What do you think?
    1. Yes, clearly.
    2. No, but it would be in my best interest.
    3. Thats for each individual to choose. Both can result as beneficial for the future.
    4. Yes, and they should go to both. But they do go out according to the latter.
    5. Yes, but what can you do about it.
    6. That's life.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If it’s a disease, it’s nobody’s fault. Yay empiricism.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    So I was thinking of a situation, purely speculative and hypothetical, a thought experiment.

    Let's pretend there is a confined space and in that space exists 2 people who are after one thing and that one thing can only be utilized by one person. Say a job, position, asset, money, or significant other. Anything -- for the sake of abstractness let's call this thing "the prize". 2 people are after the prize.

    The prize is given out based on merit, the best qualified of the 2 people will receive the prize, however this will be evaluated over a long amount of time by a secret observer that is outside the confined space.

    The game starts and the 2 people set out to prove they are the most qualified in order to receive the prize.

    Now let's consider that each person has two different types of merit -- Potential Merit and Manifest Merit. Similar to the concept of potential and kinetic energy in physics. Manifest Merit is what is explicit, the skill that is apparent in reality. Potential Merit is the talent which they possess that hasn't been turned into realistic results. Someone with a high potential merit is able to create larger gains in manifest merit with the same effort as someone without as high a potential merit.

    Let's say the situation starts off with person A having a high manifest merit but low potential merit and person B having a low manifest merit but a high potential merit.

    Consider the best strategy for person A to play against person B in order to win the prize.

    If person B is allowed to put effort over time into their potential they could easily exceed person A. So its vital for person B to convince person A that they shouldn't even try, psychologically this effect is referred to as learned helplessness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness. An example in animal behavior is that zoo keepers will tie a stake to a baby elephant at an early age, the baby elephant will not be able to move its foot, and after a while it accepts this. The baby elephant will eventually learn it is useless to try, and when it is an adult and fully capable of escaping the stake it won't even try.

    This is the psychological tactic that person B would have to use in order to win the prize, to convince person A of the futility of there efforts, so as to prevent them from defeating them. If person A though continues to ignore person B and match person A's effort though, given sufficient time they are favored.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now let's remove the mental boundary and consider the reality in which we live. If there is a limited number of prizes for a given population of people, these dynamics could play out in terms of potential and actual competency. However certain rules would have to be expanded.

    First instead of two people you could have 3 or more, so its possible that you'd have layered relations A->B may be characterized as A having the superior potential, but A-> C may be characterized as A having the superior actual competency but inferior potential. The more you expand things the more complex the one to one interactions become. Socially the one to one interactions would become too complex and instead stereotypes would have to be used to approximate people's standing based on the subcultures to which they belong... grouping sets of individuals together, and then breaking down the sets to the individual. Basically use induction and sets to make the one to one interaction more general.

    Second consider the balance between prizes and people. This is not a static relationship, but a dyanmic one. Through certain mechanisms prizes can increase, decrease or remain stable. Through certain mechanisms people can increase, decrease or remain stable.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What do you think this means in terms of society? I've been thinking about this.

    Are certain people out there psychologically at war with you to convince you of the futility of your efforts because they are threatened by your potential to exceed them? If you were on top in terms of merit would you be threatened by someones potential? Because people die does this imply that one should allow other younger than them to develop their potential, or does it imply that since your time is limited to play the game as aggresively as possible and win at as much as possible until you die? Is it good to create more prizes, act in such a way that increases the prizes -- and should these prizes go to those that don't have them or should they go to those that play the game the best? Is it bad to have a population that exceeds the population of prizes?

    What do you think?

    I think its a hard question
    There are three talking points that no reasonable letter about speculation can possibly ignore:

    1. Unilateralism is, at its core, a refractory system that seeks to instill a general ennui.
    2. My contempt for speculation is boundless.
    3. Speculation is unable to support its assertions with documentation of any sort.

    I guess I should start by saying that speculation refers to a variety of things using the word "protocatechualdehyde". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, it's saying that it does the things it does "for the children", which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, its communications turn the stomachs of those who know even a little about the real world. Am I aware of how speculation will react when it reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because it plans to exploit the general public's short attention span in order to dominate the whole earth and take possession of all its riches. The result will be an amalgam of contumelious lexiphanicism and pea-brained larrikinism, if such a monster can be imagined.

    Speculation has yet to acknowledge the preternatural wickedness of the blood flowing through its veins. I state these facts only to give a bit of personal background as to why when speculation repeated over and over the rumor that it can succeed without trying, its devotees, never too difficult to fool, swallowed it, so to speak. I believe I have finally figured out what makes organizations like speculation direct social activity toward philanthropic flimflam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world.

    Speculation loves getting up in front of people and telling them that the rigors that its victims have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement. It then boasts about how it'll deny citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that it is capable of sooner than you think. It's all part of the media spectacle that is speculation. Of course, it soaks it up and wallows in it like a pig in mud. Speaking of pigs and mud, I cannot promise not to be angry at speculation. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me—as it leads speculation—to engage in the trafficking of human beings. And there you have it. Speculation's the earthly personification of Satan.

  5. #5
    Chronic Procrasturbator Nomenclature's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    TIM
    ESFp 3w4 SX/SO??
    Posts
    156
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm going to talk mainly about in high school rather than society at large, because first off, I just left the damn place, and second, it's a closed system where it's REALLY obvious who's competing with whom in what.

    Are certain people out there psychologically at war with you to convince you of the futility of your efforts because they are threatened by your potential to exceed them?
    Usually, it's other people who are intimidated by me or feel insignificant in my presence.

    And while it's cool that some place me on this pedestal or give me this attention, it's like... really, it's okay. Just do what you're passionate about, have fun with it, whatever. Focusing on yourself is a more constructive way of spending your energy than staring me down or saying "I'll never be good at this"...

    I'm not explicitly trying to make people feel bad. I really want to make it clear to them that I didn't just HAVE my abilities out of nowhere. It was the residual of everything I ever worked for over yeeaaars. Or maybe that's all easy to say because my my manifest merit is high and my potential merit is redonkulously high.

    Semi-related: that's why it pisses me off when people say "I saw a bunch of girls trying to do what you make look easy" and the "you" here has YEARS of experience more than them. Well shit, a person has to have sucked at least been a novice at some point to get good at it.

    If you were on top in terms of merit would you be threatened by someones potential?
    Hmmm, kind of. The person in particular I'm thinking about? I KNOW I could've had her manifest merit in a certain area by that age if my focus was in that area, but it wasn't. I get a lot of "I should have"s about high school looking at some of the underclassmen. But whatever; my senior year is over, I'm out of this place, and I have PLENTY to offer to the real world when selling myself. High school is NOTHING compared to everything after that.

    Also, I'm REALLY easily threatened when a female someone gets tons of attention, in whatever the hell she does, if it's partially because she's physically attractive to others. :/ It's like, damn, that's not really something I can change about myself out of my own merit, but shallow people are shallow. I KNOW I'll have to work harder than my attractive and titzilla counterparts in this society.

    Because people die does this imply that one should allow other younger than them to develop their potential, or does it imply that since your time is limited to play the game as aggresively as possible and win at as much as possible until you die?
    In high school, you have only four years and there's so much pressure to do MORE, SOONER. For academics, even though GPA is a long-term thing, there's still talk about who's doing more AP, what AP classes, dual enrollment in college classes, etc.; not to mention competitive entry into the National Honor Society, science fairs, etc. For athletics, junior varsity, varsity, captain, etc. Arts and writing, whether/where you're going to be displayed or published, how much money and what prizes you won, and how much you sold your works for.

    All before we turn 18. The people I'm talking about usually are hardcore academics, and then some-- there's a shit ton of prestige and social climbing at play that not only deals both popularity and how colleges and future employers evaluate you.

    In the real world, you could say I play the game aggressively because I believe I'm in my prime for learning ability, when my brain is still pruning and shearing its connections.

    Is it bad to have a population that exceeds the population of prizes?
    It's inevitable.

    @Absurd LOL at the unintentional juxtaposition in using "flimflam".
    Genghis Khunt, drippin' like twater.
    tumblr (nsfw)

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nomenclature View Post
    Absurd LOL at the unintentional juxtaposition in using "flimflam".
    The last thing I wanted to do this Saturday night was spend several hours writing, editing, and typing this letter. However, I needed to do it because it's undoubtedly the best way to uplift individuals and communities on a global scale to lift our nation from the quicksand of injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and what the focus of this letter will be: I like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: Flimflam demands absolute and blind obedience from its companions. If it didn't, they might question its orders to hand over the country to intemperate losers. This unrelenting demand of obedience also implies that flimflam claims to be supportive of my plan to focus on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what's happening in the world. Don't trust it, though; it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, it'll destroy any resistance by channeling it into ineffective paths. Not only that, but one of flimflam's associates keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that the Universe belongs to flimflam by right. The studies are full of "if"s, "possibly"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that it's easy enough to hate flimflam any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that flimflam is up to, things that ought to make a real flimflam-hater out of you. First off, its stories about nepotism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility.

    You might think that anyone who doesn't know that flimflam is self-deluded must be inhabiting a different world. Well, if that's the case, then I'm afraid flimflam's subordinates must have spent the past month on Mars. Even if one is opposed to distasteful recidivism (as I am) then, surely, an axiom among flimflam's secret police is that everything flimflam says is thoroughly and entirely true. That's self-evident, and even flimflam would probably agree with me on that. Even so, we must soon make one of the most momentous decisions in history. We must decide whether to let flimflam create a new cottage industry around its unruly form of adversarialism or, alternatively, whether we should bring important information about its semi-intelligible outbursts into the limelight. Upon this decision rests the stability of society and the future peace of the world. My view on this decision is that if flimflam is going to make an emotional appeal then it should also include a rational argument.

    It unquestionably shouldn't be necessary to have to say such things, but mischievous Huns are more susceptible to flimflam's brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle it puts them in. They then lose all recollection that we need to institute change. Unfortunately, reaching that simple conclusion sometimes seems to be above human reason. But there is a wisdom above human, and to that we must look if we are ever to combat the daffy ideology of hooliganism that has infected the minds of so many sullen philologasters. To summarize my views: Innocent children have been brainwashed by flimflam's eccentric blanket statements.

  7. #7
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Absurd I can't tell if you are serious or not, and if by flimflam you are referring to my content as a method of persuasion or you are talking about flimflam in society in general.

    Frankly I don't really care because I expect to get something absurd in response to this.

    You are doing a great job at being satirical to my writing tone though, you bastard.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •