Thursday, March 7, 2024

Framing

Also, I like to remember that story about statistics.  It went something like this. 

If you were told a medical procedure had a 25% chance of killing you,  would you do it?

What about a 75% success rate?

It's the same data, just framed differently. So all those polls about how Trump won 63.9% (so far) of the Republican primary voters?

Also means 36.1% didn't vote for him, even though he's a former president with a lock on the party.

But sure, continue acting like that oathbreaking disaster is just another candidate. Whatever.  I don't like saying it's impossible for anything to change my mind on how to vote,  but there would have be something on the level of the crap Trump has already done for me to reconsider. 

Ain't That the Truth

From here:

We aren’t asking the Times’s news side to “crusade for change.” We’re not asking it to abandon independence as a “peacetime luxury.” We’re asking the Times to recognize that it isn’t living up to its own standards of truth-telling and independence when it obfuscates the stakes of the 2024 election, covers up for Trump’s derangement, and goes out of its way to make Biden look weak.

I pretty much haven't been posting because there's not really anything new to say.

It's a disgrace that Trump is the main contender for the Republican nomination. At this point,  it's not even just him. He's become a litmus test for how far the rot has grown, and it's disgustingly obvious that the answer is 'pretty far'.

Thursday, September 14, 2023

Survival of the Fittest - Fittest at What?

 There's a bit in Khalil Gibran's book The Prophet that I like to think about sometimes -

You often say, “I would give, but only to the deserving.”

The trees in your orchard say not so, nor the flocks in your pasture.

They give that they may live, for to withhold is to perish.

I think about how a tree gives, how it grows fruit and lets them fall where they may. Whether that fruit grows into another tree depends entirely on where it falls, and (as the quote above says) it doesn't think about whether recipients are deserving.

That has applications in a number of ways. Sometimes I think about it with regards to this blog, since it's freely open for anyone to stumble across. (Perhaps I could try to create a substack or patreon, and if I had enough followers to make a living solely by writing I might be tempted to do so... but I also kind of like the idea of just writing freely, and letting the posts fall where they may. Well, okay... the idea of getting paid to write is nice, it's just that it would also change how I write as I'd be tempted to try to write in ways that appeal to others. But I digress.)

I think about it too, with regards to how the military raises it's leaders. After all, they generally try to train everyone to be a leader, as you never know which are going to rise up through the ranks.

But to get back to this idea that a tree lets its seeds fall where they may, and it's the environment that determines what grows.

What survives, and is fit.

Or perhaps a better example is the peppered moth, which had mostly been white but as air pollution became more common quickly evolved to dark.

White moths had been more fit, until suddenly dark ones were more suited to the environment. And so we have 'survival of the fittest', except what is 'fit' changed as the environment changed.

That seems pretty true, to be honest. First, when you think about swords and spears and other weapons - some are more suited to certain environments than others. It depends on whether you're fighting in an enclosed space or not, on whether the combatants are wearing armor. On any number of factors.

Even the combatants themselves - perhaps on one day, one has a cold and isn't able to fight at their full capacity. Or they're still recovering from an injury. Or one is better at fighting in the rain, or the cold.

It can even change with age - someone young and inexperienced can lose, but win as that changes. Or someone at their peak can weaken as they grow older.

Which means there isn't ever really a way to win, once and for all. In fact, trying to be the 'fittest' is a bit of a loser's game. You may win for a time, but eventually you will fall.

It makes me think 'survival of the fittest' is really a shallow and superficial claim. It doesn't hold up to any real thought at all...

But then it's never about logic, is it? It's more of an emotional argument. It's the type of thinking that can make you feel special, privileged. After all, if it's survival of the fittest and you're the fittest, then you don't have to care about the other person. You won, they lost, they can suck it.

Perhaps if you point this out, instead of trying to be king of the hill, proponents would claim that there's some sort of level of acceptable 'fitness' for which your survival is earned... and anyone under that level somehow doesn't deserve to survive.

That has all sorts of problems too. Like who decides what's acceptable? The Nazis murdered Jews - but they also murdered or sterilized mentally handicapped people. Yet those who know and love a mentally handicapped person know just how wrong that is. How much  you can learn from someone with Down's syndrome. Or how someone like my uncle (who I've never been clear whether there's a genetic issue or whether it was because of some problems at birth, has been mentally handicapped all his life) who seems to brighten everyone's day.  

All in all, it seems a stupid and foolish thing to try to decide people's worth by some concept of 'fitness'...

Not sure where I'm going with this, other than it's a stupid idea that has led to all sorts of terrible things and I wish it was challenged more directly. Sure, eugenics and Nazis have a bad rep - but damn, some people sure are trying to make it palatable again. And the ones disgusted by it don't seem to be making good arguments about why it's a terrible idea.

Friday, September 8, 2023

The Legend of Randidly Ghosthound

I have realized that sometimes what I value most in a story is the way it makes me think.

Like with LitRPG - I do enjoy a good progression story, where a character grows stronger and more powerful... but there are also some disturbing elements to such stories, since even if the character uses their power well it still means that might makes right. 

And yet, reading such stories and noticing my reactions makes me think about them, and polish my counterarguments. (This is probably part of why freedom of speech is so valued, though I get the concern about giving a platform to nazis and other terrible ideas. It's just... those ideas are honestly so terrible it should be pretty easy to refute them. Like how I discussed before the stupidity behind racism. And don't get me started on 'survival of the fittest'. I do sometimes think it'd be nice to write a litRPG story deliberately addressing those elements, but let's be honest here. I'm not interested enough to write that in my spare time. Maybe if I was independently wealthy and didn't have to work for a living I'd consider it. Maybe when I retire. But it's not like people are throwing money at me to think about and write about whatever I want.)

That's not directly related to my current read. It's just that despite some issues with the writing (after the books that have been published to Kindle Unlimited, there are quite a few chapters on Royal Road... but a) I think the author might be using some sort of voice transcriber? There are far too many homonyms and b) I think the author sometimes forgets previous plot points) I do find the story fascinating.

Partly for the character growth - Randidly Ghosthound is extremely anti-social, and has a lot of challenges learning to handle the expectations that come with his power - and partly because of the way it continually subverts my expectations.

For example, quite a few beloved characters start off with a rather negative first impression. Descriptions that would normally foreshadow some future problem (like the 'greasy' guy who was one of the earliest people to join their village, to the blustering kid who jumped at the chance to found the village when Randidly realized he didn't want to deal with people and gave away the loot he'd gained to do so) generally don't. The kid turned out to do pretty well, even if Randidly did put him through some pretty harsh 'training', and the greasy guy was okay - up until *spoiler* his girlfriend got killed quite a while later, and even then he wasn't so much a bad guy as a badly grieving guy.

It's also interesting how initially Randidly seemed very concerned with finding his two closest friends. Except the closer he gets to finding them, the more it becomes obvious there were a lot of issues there, and maybe he isn't actually all that willing to face that. And face them.

That's all fascinating in and of itself, to me at least, but the reason I got the urge to write this was because I realized just how few really good mentor type characters he had. His parents were pretty awful, his 'friends' were kind of not really good friends, he didn't really have a good role model on how to lead (except for the support of one of the most interesting side characters, a woman who helped manage the village they founded... and has quite a lot of imagery associated with spiders. Luckily she seems to use her calculating nature for the better).

In some ways it's a bit depressing? It's kind of a dark world, in that almost every character is troubled in some way. Though it's not overly dark, and some of that just comes across as realistic. To me at least. Many of the characters are not all that logical, but they're generally trying their best.

Yet for some reason it reminds me of a troubled young soldier from my platoon. Back, when I was a young wet-behind-the-ears butterbar lieutenant. He said something once, about how we (referring to my boyfriend and I at the time) showed him that good people really do exist.

You would think that's a compliment? But it doesn't really feel like one. Or rather, the impression it gives of what his life was like is definitely NOT a compliment, as is the impression that how we were was something rare and unusual. 

I mean, I never really thought I was especially or unusually good. I don't feel like the vast majority of people I work with are any worse than I am. But maybe, for whatever reason, some people don't really encounter people like that.

I think that's why Randidly Ghosthound reminded me of him. Because he just doesn't seem to encounter people who are... I don't know the right term here. It's not even so much about being 'good', as just people with emotional intelligence? Ones who know how to navigate those social intricacies Randidly struggles with so much, and do so in a positive manner?

Something like that. God, the number of times he makes things worse for himself just because he doesn't want to talk. It's kind of interesting to have someone who, on the outside at least, does a good job of looking like a stoic and powerful guy, and on the inside you realize he's really just a hot mess. (But he gets better. Sometimes he has to, for plot reasons.)

It's also interesting to see him grow enough to realize that his 'friends' really kind of aren't. Not that he hates them or sees them as enemies, but even when they do meet up again they don't really recover their old friendship. I don't think I would want that in a lot of stories, since I do tend to enjoy the whole bonds of brotherhood (and sisterhood) and found family-type plots, but it's an interesting change, and the way I feel about it is educational.

Monday, August 28, 2023

Enrichment, Obligations, and Other Musings.

I was thinking a bit more about the appeal of litrpg stories, aided and abetted by my most recent read (The Legend of Randidly Ghosthound), and thought I'd start at the top.

Someone once joked that they needed 'enrichment', the same way that animals in a zoo do. 'Joke' probably isn't quite the right word here, because I think it's actually true - people need a certain level of stimulation.

Obviously, there are healthy and unhealthy types of stimulation (escaping into a fantasy novel, writing fanfic, drugs, creating 'drama' at work, etc) and ideally we would have rich and rewarding lives that give us that level of stimulation in positive ways.

I think this is also somewhat related to our attitudes towards risk. Or rather, I think about a study that showed as more systems are in place to make something safer (like car manufacturing), people start taking more risks, so that the level of risk tends to stay the same. On average, that is. Obviously different people have different levels of what's acceptable.

This, btw, also reminds me a bit of what's required to get in the 'flow'. 'Flow' is something that's interested me for quite a while, because it's part of what makes living... fun. It's rewarding. Maybe I should even say 'enriching'.

There are quite a few studies on how people achieve that state (here's one as an example), and from what I remember it goes like this:

You need something that is challenging, but not too challenging (or it's overwhelming and people just give up). It needs to be somewhat complex, something with a clear goal, and something 'fun'.

I first heard of the concept with regards to sports, and I think that's the focus of most studies, but I don't think it's limited to sports or physical activity. I think you can get into a state of flow when coding, for example. Or picking parts for shipping. 

I do think modern society is... well, lacking in enrichment and stimulation like that. At least, most jobs are. That's part of the reason it's so hard to stay motivated for so many low paying jobs. 

That's just the tip of the iceberg though. Because I think modern society makes it too easy to kind of sleepwalk through life. I got to thinking about that because of something that happened in The Legend of Randidly Ghosthound, though it's not a direct relation.

Randidly Ghosthound is a character in one of those system integration stories in LitRPG. Basically modern life got destroyed when earth got integrated into a system with game-like elements. Magic, swords, etc. Like many of these, Randidly soon becomes quite overpowered... though I like that it addresses some of the common issues with that sort of character. (i.e. for all that they note the problems with 'might makes right', the solution for the protagonist is almost always to become stronger. Basically their might makes right, but it's still a system where the most powerful character gets to dictate what happens. In this case a) he struggles to deal with his overpoweredness and b) because of some shenanigans on another planet he knows he won't be able to defeat one of the upcoming system challenges, which means he's also quite focused on trying to build other people up so that they can succeed when he can't help). 

Anyways, there was an interesting incident at one point - another planet was struggling in the system. He learned about it through an acquaintance, and wanted to help... but the person he met flat out didn't want him to save the planet. Basically that guy's daughter had been the hero of their planet, and died. He resented the rest of the population for putting that burden on his daughter, and still expecting other people to save them. (That doesn't quite feel like a good summary, but it's close enough).

It raised a whole slew of issues, from what Randidly's obligation was to this guy, whether that request took precedence over his own desire to help the planet, whether having the ability to help meant he was required to, and a bunch of other things. But what I wanted to focus on the most was how having one person step up as a hero allowed a lot of other people to... not.

That in a way, other people are able to coast, to stay weak. They don't have to push themselves to continue growing in strength.

Which I have mixed feelings about, because on the one hand I do have an ideal of a fully actualized individual. i.e. someone mindful and aware and capable of handling whatever comes their way.

On the other hand, nobody can do it all, and a large part of how society works is having people specialize in the things they can... and have friends or resources available for the things they can't. Like how one person might become a car mechanic, and another a computer expert. Both take a long time to master, and most people don't have the time or energy to master both (or maybe they can for those two, but don't have time to master cooking. Or some other task.) Point is we often need to outsource important tasks.

And yet... we still have to know how to evaluate the experts. How do you know that your car mechanic did a good job? Or that your computer expert knows what they're doing?

Hmmmm.

I suppose there's really two issues with the OP hero then. One - people expecting and demanding them to risk their lives saving them; and two - forgetting that even if you're not the one doing the job you still have a role to play. 

That latter one requires a bit more explanation, I think. 

Basically that whole scenario reminded me of how people will outsource things (like politics) without doing their due diligence. Like supporting Trump when Trump has repeatedly shown he was untrustworthy and shouldn't be in power. I know most people don't have the time to truly dig into politics and come to a well-thought out position, but we still have to do our due diligence when we're empowering someone to such a degree... and quite frankly anyone still supporting Trump hasn't done their due diligence. Or just doesn't care. 

Maybe you can't be the president, or governor, or member of congress... but that doesn't mean you should just tune everything out and let immoral and incompetent assholes win office without a fight.

Sunday, August 6, 2023

Too True

https://mastodon.social/@jensorensen/110838313154327216


I'd feel a lot better about plans to colonize Mars or tech leader plans for 'sustainability' if they showed any talent for addressing today's issues.

How can you be trusted to ensure a future 100 or even 1000 years from now, when you aren't doing the work here and now?

Especially if you're not addressing the things that make our current system unsustainable? 

And how can any such future be worthwhile, when you're writing off most of humanity?

If it's not geared towards making a sustainable society for everyone, and if it doesn't involve addressing the social dilemmas that make sustainability difficult, it's flawed from the start. 

Thursday, August 3, 2023

Trump Indictment

The number of pundits and opinion pieces trying to defend Trump is just disgusting.