< 1 2 3 4 > 
 
   
 

Believe it or not ...

 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5796
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
10 October 2019 21:19
 
Traces Elk - 10 October 2019 09:17 PM
Jb8989 - 10 October 2019 06:43 PM

Collective unconscious, cultural attactors, collective conscience, cultural cognitions.

They’re all trying to capture a social mind, of sorts.

Sounds like a kind of ad hoc substitute for all those folks who have given up believing in gods and still seek a powerful, disembodied force capable of battling evil in the world. I’m only half-serious, here: sometimes people develop coinages like this because they see themselves as BIg Thinkers. It all converges where folks like to make pronouncements they cannot definitively be shown wrong about, and so we are back to finding replacements for gods. It’s not philosophy, it’s not social science. What is it? it’s Ripley’s believe it or not!!

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3953
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
10 October 2019 22:45
 
Traces Elk - 10 October 2019 09:19 PM

It all converges where folks like to make pronouncements they cannot definitively be shown wrong about

That’s a good example; you are including yourself in that statement, aren’t you?

It’s not philosophy

Philosophy is word salad.

it’s not social science

Social science is BS.

What is it?

I might be wrong.  Might you be?

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3953
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
10 October 2019 23:55
 

It?

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6670
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
11 October 2019 07:57
 
Traces Elk - 10 October 2019 09:19 PM
Traces Elk - 10 October 2019 09:17 PM
Jb8989 - 10 October 2019 06:43 PM

Collective unconscious, cultural attactors, collective conscience, cultural cognitions.

They’re all trying to capture a social mind, of sorts.

Sounds like a kind of ad hoc substitute for all those folks who have given up believing in gods and still seek a powerful, disembodied force capable of battling evil in the world. I’m only half-serious, here: sometimes people develop coinages like this because they see themselves as BIg Thinkers. It all converges where folks like to make pronouncements they cannot definitively be shown wrong about, and so we are back to finding replacements for gods. It’s not philosophy, it’s not social science. What is it? it’s Ripley’s believe it or not!!

Maybe, but I think some of it plays. While neither agency or autonomy map onto group think, I think that Echo Chambers on the nasty political side of things and the collective conscience on the side of things where human decency should transcend theological artifacts, are good descriptions at times for how suggestible we are in droves.

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  2248
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
11 October 2019 12:18
 
Jb8989 - 11 October 2019 07:57 AM
Traces Elk - 10 October 2019 09:19 PM
Traces Elk - 10 October 2019 09:17 PM
Jb8989 - 10 October 2019 06:43 PM

Collective unconscious, cultural attactors, collective conscience, cultural cognitions.

They’re all trying to capture a social mind, of sorts.

Sounds like a kind of ad hoc substitute for all those folks who have given up believing in gods and still seek a powerful, disembodied force capable of battling evil in the world. I’m only half-serious, here: sometimes people develop coinages like this because they see themselves as BIg Thinkers. It all converges where folks like to make pronouncements they cannot definitively be shown wrong about, and so we are back to finding replacements for gods. It’s not philosophy, it’s not social science. What is it? it’s Ripley’s believe it or not!!

Maybe, but I think some of it plays. While neither agency or autonomy map onto group think, I think that Echo Chambers on the nasty political side of things and the collective conscience on the side of things where human decency should transcend theological artifacts, are good descriptions at times for how suggestible we are in droves.

Doesn’t a term like “Collective Unconscious” carry a good bit of woo baggage which blurs the verbal picture of associated items, well into the realm of the obscure?

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5796
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
11 October 2019 15:58
 

Cultural attractor theory is a term you can search on the internet.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/ptb/6959004.0009.013/—cultural-attractor-theory-and-explanation?rgn=mainview=fulltext

This may take you to the abstract, and there is a link on that page to a PDF version of the article and a DOI link so you can read it as a web page, too.

That article alone contains thousands of words and has a list of citations a yard long, and is probably as brief a summary as can be found. The abstract:

Cultural attractor theory (CAT) is a highly visible and audacious approach to studying human cultural evolution. However, the explanatory aims and some central explanatory concepts of CAT remain unclear. Here I remedy these problems. I provide a reconstruction of CAT that recasts it as a theory of forces. I then demonstrate how this reinterpretation of CAT has the resources to generate both cultural distribution and evolvability explanations. I conclude by examining the potential benefits and drawbacks of this reconstruction.

If anyone reading this understands it and can explain the explanation, he’s welcome to try. I’m not going to argue that ideas / culture do not evolve. Dawkins’ meme concept is what a lot of authors use as a unit of cultural transmission. Decades later, nobody’s the wiser. We write a small number of words, call the phrase a meme, and leave it at that. It’s supposed to refer to an idea or some distillation thereof. If someone says X is a meme, who can argue with that?

What you guys ought to do is focus on one or two memes and discuss those as examples showing cultural transmission of information, instead of name-dropping some grand theoretical framework with hundreds or thousands of authors. Preferably in a separate thread, but really, this thread is impossible to derail.

[ Edited: 11 October 2019 16:07 by Traces Elk]
 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16399
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
11 October 2019 16:45
 
Traces Elk - 11 October 2019 03:58 PM

Cultural attractor theory is a term you can search on the internet.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/ptb/6959004.0009.013/—cultural-attractor-theory-and-explanation?rgn=mainview=fulltext

This may take you to the abstract, and there is a link on that page to a PDF version of the article and a DOI link so you can read it as a web page, too.

That article alone contains thousands of words and has a list of citations a yard long, and is probably as brief a summary as can be found. The abstract:

Cultural attractor theory (CAT) is a highly visible and audacious approach to studying human cultural evolution. However, the explanatory aims and some central explanatory concepts of CAT remain unclear. Here I remedy these problems. I provide a reconstruction of CAT that recasts it as a theory of forces. I then demonstrate how this reinterpretation of CAT has the resources to generate both cultural distribution and evolvability explanations. I conclude by examining the potential benefits and drawbacks of this reconstruction.

If anyone reading this understands it and can explain the explanation, he’s welcome to try. I’m not going to argue that ideas / culture do not evolve. Dawkins’ meme concept is what a lot of authors use as a unit of cultural transmission. Decades later, nobody’s the wiser. We write a small number of words, call the phrase a meme, and leave it at that. It’s supposed to refer to an idea or some distillation thereof. If someone says X is a meme, who can argue with that?

What you guys ought to do is focus on one or two memes and discuss those as examples showing cultural transmission of information, instead of name-dropping some grand theoretical framework with hundreds or thousands of authors. Preferably in a separate thread, but really, this thread is impossible to derail.

Memes are not at the forefront any more. There are basically three approaches to cultural evolution that are still going, although memetic can deal the simple models of the spread of simple ideas, products, etc., using analogies to information diffusion on graphs, for example. (1) The “standard” model, well developed (e.g., Richardson & Boyd, Bowles & Gintis, Henrich, etc., etc.) which looks to model the mechanisms of accurate transmission; (2) cultural attractor theory (Sperber, Scott-Philips, etc.), which asks why certain content gets transmitted with far greater than expected accuracy; (3) Worldview theory (Gabora), which takes individual worldview as the elements of cultural evolution (since, in the end, culture just is a coalition of individual worldview in some level of agreement). If you explore the literature you’ll find lots of work that’s been done in each of these three approaches.

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6670
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
11 October 2019 18:01
 

What about control theory. It’s the theory that people will engage in criminal behavior unless certain personally held social controls (like a strong investment in conventional, legitimate activities, or a believe that criminal behavior is morally wrong) , are in place to prevent them to do so. Cultural norms bend toward this, no?

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  22647
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
11 October 2019 18:13
 
Jb8989 - 11 October 2019 06:01 PM

What about control theory. It’s the theory that people will engage in criminal behavior unless certain personally held social controls (like a strong investment in conventional, legitimate activities, or a believe that criminal behavior is morally wrong) , are in place to prevent them to do so. Cultural norms bend toward this, no?

Some religions practice this.  You are a sinner and will sin unless kept in check with fear, rules, tradition, etc.  It’s a tried and true method.  And someone at the top profits.

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6670
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
12 October 2019 06:53
 
EN - 11 October 2019 06:13 PM
Jb8989 - 11 October 2019 06:01 PM

What about control theory. It’s the theory that people will engage in criminal behavior unless certain personally held social controls (like a strong investment in conventional, legitimate activities, or a believe that criminal behavior is morally wrong) , are in place to prevent them to do so. Cultural norms bend toward this, no?

Some religions practice this.  You are a sinner and will sin unless kept in check with fear, rules, tradition, etc.  It’s a tried and true method.  And someone at the top profits.

I think that the overlap of court cultures and religion tells a story about how far back political mobilization goes. I think that since we had people and desires, we had those trying to make rules based on authority for cultural do’s and don’ts. In some sense, religion has come full circle in its influence, and instead of being the trend setter might wind up being the big brother disruptor. In that sense I have some hope for my Jebus people.

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6670
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
12 October 2019 07:10
 
burt - 11 October 2019 04:45 PM
Traces Elk - 11 October 2019 03:58 PM

Cultural attractor theory is a term you can search on the internet.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/ptb/6959004.0009.013/—cultural-attractor-theory-and-explanation?rgn=mainview=fulltext

This may take you to the abstract, and there is a link on that page to a PDF version of the article and a DOI link so you can read it as a web page, too.

That article alone contains thousands of words and has a list of citations a yard long, and is probably as brief a summary as can be found. The abstract:

Cultural attractor theory (CAT) is a highly visible and audacious approach to studying human cultural evolution. However, the explanatory aims and some central explanatory concepts of CAT remain unclear. Here I remedy these problems. I provide a reconstruction of CAT that recasts it as a theory of forces. I then demonstrate how this reinterpretation of CAT has the resources to generate both cultural distribution and evolvability explanations. I conclude by examining the potential benefits and drawbacks of this reconstruction.

If anyone reading this understands it and can explain the explanation, he’s welcome to try. I’m not going to argue that ideas / culture do not evolve. Dawkins’ meme concept is what a lot of authors use as a unit of cultural transmission. Decades later, nobody’s the wiser. We write a small number of words, call the phrase a meme, and leave it at that. It’s supposed to refer to an idea or some distillation thereof. If someone says X is a meme, who can argue with that?

What you guys ought to do is focus on one or two memes and discuss those as examples showing cultural transmission of information, instead of name-dropping some grand theoretical framework with hundreds or thousands of authors. Preferably in a separate thread, but really, this thread is impossible to derail.

Memes are not at the forefront any more. There are basically three approaches to cultural evolution that are still going, although memetic can deal the simple models of the spread of simple ideas, products, etc., using analogies to information diffusion on graphs, for example. (1) The “standard” model, well developed (e.g., Richardson & Boyd, Bowles & Gintis, Henrich, etc., etc.) which looks to model the mechanisms of accurate transmission; (2) cultural attractor theory (Sperber, Scott-Philips, etc.), which asks why certain content gets transmitted with far greater than expected accuracy; (3) Worldview theory (Gabora), which takes individual worldview as the elements of cultural evolution (since, in the end, culture just is a coalition of individual worldview in some level of agreement). If you explore the literature you’ll find lots of work that’s been done in each of these three approaches.

What does it mean that some content is generated with more accuracy? You mean from a supply and and demand perspective? Because we rely on it, like medical or financial information?

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5796
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
12 October 2019 09:14
 
Jb8989 - 12 October 2019 07:10 AM
burt - 11 October 2019 04:45 PM

Memes are not at the forefront any more. There are basically three approaches to cultural evolution that are still going, although memetic can deal the simple models of the spread of simple ideas, products, etc., using analogies to information diffusion on graphs, for example. (1) The “standard” model, well developed (e.g., Richardson & Boyd, Bowles & Gintis, Henrich, etc., etc.) which looks to model the mechanisms of accurate transmission; (2) cultural attractor theory (Sperber, Scott-Philips, etc.), which asks why certain content gets transmitted with far greater than expected accuracy; (3) Worldview theory (Gabora), which takes individual worldview as the elements of cultural evolution (since, in the end, culture just is a coalition of individual worldview in some level of agreement). If you explore the literature you’ll find lots of work that’s been done in each of these three approaches.

What does it mean that some content is generated with more accuracy? You mean from a supply and and demand perspective? Because we rely on it, like medical or financial information?

burt used the term transmission (of content), presumably referencing information-theoretic measures of accuracy. This means that to say anything substantive, we will specify some element of cultural content and how we assess accuracy of transmission with respect to that. Presumably, the researchers that burt is citing have selected examples and measures, but you’d have to read those authors to discover what they mean, and we might not always agree as to what constitutes an element of cultural content and then the information it in turn contains. This is pretty far from the meaty bits of rigorous information theory and you will probably just want to fast-forward to the conclusions about what sorts of content are transmitted and why it is passed along. I don’t think we are talking about scientific and technical content which is passed along by means of experiments that can be described and replicated or other observations and the methodology for obtaining them.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  22647
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
12 October 2019 09:41
 

burt brought up Trump.  He is staging rallies, calling the impeachment inquiry “unconstitutional”. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 specifically gives the House the sole power of impeachment.  Yet the crowds at his rallies lap it up when he attacks, and apparently nothing can shake the dedication of about 35-40% of the population.  Trump’s machine has so effectively packaged his position that some people CANNOT see it any other way. There is an accurate transmission of his message, but it is largely factually wrong.  Fox News is his propaganda machine, and many WILL NOT watch anything else.  Where does this fit in the whole cultural evolution discussion? Why do certain misguided and destructive ideas (slavery is our worst example) get so firmly entrenched that it literally takes war and generations of re-education to root them out?

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6670
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
12 October 2019 10:17
 
Traces Elk - 12 October 2019 09:14 AM
Jb8989 - 12 October 2019 07:10 AM
burt - 11 October 2019 04:45 PM

Memes are not at the forefront any more. There are basically three approaches to cultural evolution that are still going, although memetic can deal the simple models of the spread of simple ideas, products, etc., using analogies to information diffusion on graphs, for example. (1) The “standard” model, well developed (e.g., Richardson & Boyd, Bowles & Gintis, Henrich, etc., etc.) which looks to model the mechanisms of accurate transmission; (2) cultural attractor theory (Sperber, Scott-Philips, etc.), which asks why certain content gets transmitted with far greater than expected accuracy; (3) Worldview theory (Gabora), which takes individual worldview as the elements of cultural evolution (since, in the end, culture just is a coalition of individual worldview in some level of agreement). If you explore the literature you’ll find lots of work that’s been done in each of these three approaches.

What does it mean that some content is generated with more accuracy? You mean from a supply and and demand perspective? Because we rely on it, like medical or financial information?

burt used the term transmission (of content), presumably referencing information-theoretic measures of accuracy. This means that to say anything substantive, we will specify some element of cultural content and how we assess accuracy of transmission with respect to that. Presumably, the researchers that burt is citing have selected examples and measures, but you’d have to read those authors to discover what they mean, and we might not always agree as to what constitutes an element of cultural content and then the information it in turn contains. This is pretty far from the meaty bits of rigorous information theory and you will probably just want to fast-forward to the conclusions about what sorts of content are transmitted and why it is passed along. I don’t think we are talking about scientific and technical content which is passed along by means of experiments that can be described and replicated or other observations and the methodology for obtaining them.

So it’s like cultural context for receiving and giving everyday communication?

I once read where most people are blind to how something like 90% of communication (body and oral) is feelings-based opinions, but we actually operate under the belief that we’re dealing in facts everytime we open out mouths. So then one idea is the more “cultured” you can get, the more of an ability you have to communicate in social simplicities that transcend cultural divides.

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5796
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
12 October 2019 10:51
 
Jb8989 - 12 October 2019 10:17 AM
Traces Elk - 12 October 2019 09:14 AM
Jb8989 - 12 October 2019 07:10 AM
burt - 11 October 2019 04:45 PM

Memes are not at the forefront any more. There are basically three approaches to cultural evolution that are still going, although memetic can deal the simple models of the spread of simple ideas, products, etc., using analogies to information diffusion on graphs, for example. (1) The “standard” model, well developed (e.g., Richardson & Boyd, Bowles & Gintis, Henrich, etc., etc.) which looks to model the mechanisms of accurate transmission; (2) cultural attractor theory (Sperber, Scott-Philips, etc.), which asks why certain content gets transmitted with far greater than expected accuracy; (3) Worldview theory (Gabora), which takes individual worldview as the elements of cultural evolution (since, in the end, culture just is a coalition of individual worldview in some level of agreement). If you explore the literature you’ll find lots of work that’s been done in each of these three approaches.

What does it mean that some content is generated with more accuracy? You mean from a supply and and demand perspective? Because we rely on it, like medical or financial information?

burt used the term transmission (of content), presumably referencing information-theoretic measures of accuracy. This means that to say anything substantive, we will specify some element of cultural content and how we assess accuracy of transmission with respect to that. Presumably, the researchers that burt is citing have selected examples and measures, but you’d have to read those authors to discover what they mean, and we might not always agree as to what constitutes an element of cultural content and then the information it in turn contains. This is pretty far from the meaty bits of rigorous information theory and you will probably just want to fast-forward to the conclusions about what sorts of content are transmitted and why it is passed along. I don’t think we are talking about scientific and technical content which is passed along by means of experiments that can be described and replicated or other observations and the methodology for obtaining them.

So it’s like cultural context for receiving and giving everyday communication?

I once read where most people are blind to how something like 90% of communication (body and oral) is feelings-based opinions, but we actually operate under the belief that we’re dealing in facts everytime we open out mouths. So then one idea is the more “cultured” you can get, the more of an ability you have to communicate in social simplicities that transcend cultural divides.

I read somewhere that culture is “what’s left after you’ve forgotten everything else you set out deliberately to learn”. I doubt this will help. Anthropologists and maybe even sociologists used to try to figure out how to define culture, but I think that came a cropper, and they don’t do much of that any more. If we don’t have a definition of culture, we can’t be very definite about cultural context, either. I certainly don’t assume I know what you denote by it. I also don’t know how anybody figured out that 90% of communication is this or that. Maybe somebody thought that putting numbers in there would make that thought more impressive. I’m used to dealing with people who regularly try to cite data when they give an opinion, but if we don’t know the methodology, things get dim pretty quickly. So, if we read something once that said this or that,and we can’t say where we read it and why, there’s not much point in saying it, is there? At least I’ve quoted some words, and you can use a search engine to see if anyone famous said it.

[ Edited: 12 October 2019 10:53 by Traces Elk]
 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 >