Bile humour Apathetic hemetic Fluent indifferent Emetic Phlegmatic

 
Tit-for-Tat: The Dilemma

(very old draft, revived)

Anyone familiar with Axelrod's iterated Prisoner's Dilemma competitions also knows that the winning strategy has always been Tit-for-Tat. The Tit-for-Tat strategy, upon its first encounter with a competitor, cooperates. Thereafter it does whatever its competitor does; if its competitor defects, it defects; if its competitor cooperates again, it again cooperates.

I'll admit this seems like a good strategy because pride is not a factor. Good behavior is rewarded, bad behavior is punished. However, outside of a computational simulation--in real life--there is a problem if this simple tactic is followed: miscommunication.

What if some misunderstanding arose in the relationship that caused one agent to defect when it should have cooperated? A simple mistake of judgement. Two otherwise cooperative people could then be forever caught defecting against one another. Tragedy. I think this happens often, and the agents will often continue to defect, not as a matter of mechanism, but as a matter of "principle" or pride (I'm sure there's a name for this logical fallacy), even when later evidence suggests there was an initial misunderstanding. After all, the initial misunderstanding is likely the fault of one agent who does not want to admit its mistake and lose face.

Every once in a while, one of the agents will need to take a chance and start to trust again, to cooperate, measuring its potential future (mutual) gain against that of a potential temporary (amutual) loss. The game, then, isn't when to defect, as in a normal iteration, but when to again cooperate.

posted by Phlegm at 11/15/2004 

 
One Final Wank

You're always talking. About nothing. About yourself. Previous posts about pride and memetics aside, consider this: talking about yourself provides others with information (or meta-information), and information can and will be used against you. If you believe the legend that the word "I" is said with the most frequency in conversations, then your prideful-ass "self" could be putting itself in danger. This doesn't just hold for conversation, but for any sort of signal. The clothing you wear, the food you eat, the work you do, the places you go, and the people you're seen with.

It is best if I only know what you want me to know. Try to play stereotypes to your advantage by adopting a timeless style: talk and appear in such a way that minimal inside information is transmitted without your consent. You'll be tempted to say more than is necessary, but such words are merely self-indulgent.

Being raised in a post-modern world, you're familiar with the temptation to make known every dark secret, make very obscene gesture, and utilize social savvy to perform convoluted pseudo-scientific behavioral experiments for your own entertainment. It is perhaps this post-modern element in today's society--the lack of shame, the false loss of pride, the pride in having faults and making them known to the world--that almost invariably causes you to like someone less the more you know about them.

Most of this information processing, these signals, serve a single function: they get you high. You will advertise your political views; tote the accomplishments of your significant other, child, or special interest group (as if they were your own); and blather about the lines at Disneyland; often justifying it as meaingful debate, human bonding, or intellectual discourse. Truth is--nobody cares. At most, you get high together, but it's mere wankerism. You're like the romantic who never gets laid because he's always hoping for something and never doing anything to get it. You want everything to just fall into your lap. You see why it's such a popular ideal.

You have intellect, yes. It's what gives you the power of simulation, of experiencing things in your mind--your morally significant (if illusory) free will. Use intellect to govern yourself and society. Be pragmatic. Don't be a wanker like [some tosser whose blog has since been removed, and about time, too].

That said, I'm done wanking it here. By definition, there are just some things that can't be done. You can't teach the value of education. You can't judge the law-giver. You can't preach silence.

Act. Let the rest of the world figure it out for itself.

posted by Phlegm at 8/13/2004  (0) comments

 
Highway Cooperation

Traffic is a favorite example of those discussing cooperation and defection. If only everyone went the speed limit, if only truckers only drive at night, if only people merged more readily during construction, if only--well, there wouldn't be traffic.

On the expressways just outside Grand Rapids, Michigan, an extraordinary traffic phenomenon has evolved, though it may be happening in other places, too. Here is what I witnessed:

Cruising along, I noticed cars merged into the right-hand lane as far as I could see. The left lane was entirely clear, save a black pickup-truck, rolling alongside at the same slow speed as the right-hand lane. Another car had just passed it on the left shoulder. I suspected what was going on, but since I don't live in the area, figured I'd defect and see what was going on (as I wouldn't have to face the iterative consequences of my actions).

I drove in the left-hand lane, passing everyone until I got to the truck. Shortly afterwards, the truck decided to merge into traffic (without problems, I add), and I took off again. Suddenly out of the right-hand lane, some other car starts to pull out in front of me to stop me! I didn't let up my speed, though, and he decided to merge back before I crashed into his car. When I finally made it to the obligatory merging site--where the construction cones were--the first person there waved me in! Amazing.

Before long, the left-hand lane opened up again, but only briefly. The impatient car ahead of me (the one who passed the black truck before me) pulled into it, only to be blocked by the car in front of him. He shouted out his window and waved his arms in fury, wondering what-the-hell this car's problem was. This happened more than once.

I later told my friend from the area about this, and he confirmed how crazy it seemed. Sometimes, he said, two cars will crawl along in the left-hand lane to prevent people from passing in the shoulder.

I have no doubts that this made my passage through construction more efficient (even without my defection). The irony I did witness, however, is that the lack of impatient tailgating prevented traffic from picking up (as it SHOULD) once it was merged. Instead, it choked until it finally split into two lanes again, crawling along as if there were an accident at the end of the bottleneck (there wasn't).

This cooperation surely evolved as an iterated case, where many people on the route were locals who took it day by day and saw the value in upholding this new driving code. I felt like a prick, being the defector, but hey, it was purely academic interest I tell you.

posted by Phlegm at 6/07/2004  (0) comments

 
God's Prideful Ass

Suppose (as I'm sure you have) that good can come from pride--that sometimes, without pride, more evil would come into the world. Fighting evil with evil, as it were.

I'd like to hear what those situations are. In most likelihood, anything good that apparently came from pride actually came from the pursuit of Quality. Indeed, the pursuit of Quality often appears prideful, but Quality is good because it is skillful, without pride.

Enough about that. I've talked about that enough, I think, so allow me to explain it with Christianity of all things. You'll never hear this in church (at least I never did), but the Bible--if you actually read it instead of take some starry-eyed disciple's word for it--implies that Satan is the embodiment of pride. Satan, in his pride, rejected God and brought pride down to Earth. Humanity, thus infected, has been a mud pit of evil ever since, and will continue to be until He returns in all His glory to establish His Kingdom. Even to the end, after all prophecies have been proven true, Satan will reject God and believe he can win. Such illogical behavior can only be the result of total pride (which is impossible to imagine). From the beginning of everything, it is pride that has always turned people away from God (and if it's to be believed, that includes me).

"But Phlegm," the newly analytical Christian screeches, "If God is a jealous god, and jealousy is just another form of pride, doesn't that make God prideful, too? If so, either God is flawed or pride can't be such a bad thing."

Forget your pastor's words for a moment (I know it's hard; even I still hear them) and consider that the phrase "our God is a jealous god" is utterly wrong. He's not jealous. He doesn't have so-called wrath. It's just either you're with Him or you're not, and it's up to you--even though everything's been predetermined--to make the choice. Your eternal damnation isn't His fury. He's supposedly sad at losing your soul. It's just that--thanks to Satan--this lake of eternal fire is the default destination of your soul and your only way out of it is to cling to Him.

Put that way, I don't see any contradiction. Any wrath or jealousy displayed by God in the Bible doesn't come across as pride at all, and should thus not be labeled as such. Instead, it should be recognized as normal operand conditioning: pursue Good and have eternal life, pursue Evil and suffer in Hell. Punishing bad behavior is not an exercise in pride, and it's unfortunate that Christianity--which uses EVERY meme trick imaginable--must use fear of eternal damnation as a motivator.

It's also unfortunate that Christianity itself is so motivated by pride, but eh, maybe another time.

posted by Phlegm at 5/11/2004  (0) comments

 
Cosmic Coincidence

Have you ever been thinking about something you haven't thought about in a long time, only to hear about it later that day? Or perhaps you encountered something obscure for the first time only to cross it again a few hours later. Of course, but if you think I'm about to sing the body holographic and praise these precognitive proofs of destiny and Divinity, you're so, so wrong. Life generates plenty of nifty coincidences without its drives running on infinite improbability.

Today, for example, I was thinking of a tune I hadn't thought of in a long time. I will not name it, since I don't want to spread that meme, but suffice to say it was one of the few popular tunes I happen to like from the 80s. Ten minutes later, it was playing in the restaurant I was in. Coincidence? I guess. Possibly influenced by my realization of the era of music that had already been playing? Maybe. Evidence of my psychic ability or psycho-temporal-kinesis? I'm sure of it.

Then later, over at Unmedia, someone mentioned Kuhn in a comment. Still later, I saw a link to Paradigm Shift over at Coherence Engine. Wow, two references to Kuhn in one day, someone I had completely forgotten in spite of my scientific background (yes, I am ashamed). Another cosmic coincidence! It was destined to happen.

Casting aside all the typical scientific evidence against such psychic or divine claims for a moment, I still can't wrap my ectoplasm around the notion that there is any significance whatsoever to these or any other perceived coincidences. Things are destined to happen only in the sense that they are determined to happen, but there's nothing special about that. Surely in a deterministic universe, everything is a coincidence, right? Surely for every cosmic so-called coincidence I experience, there were other coincidences I experienced but didn't recognize. Surely under a different set of initial conditions, a different set of coincidences would have taken place instead.

Recognize them, have fun with them, laud them if you like, but for GDF's (Great Deterministic Force) sake, don't live your life by coincidence. You will only end up encouraged and inspired and discouraged and frustrated at all the inappropriate times.

(For the record, yes, the title "What a Coincidence!" for this entry did cross my mind, but since I don't want to sound like some effing tabloid journalist vying for memetic grammy-in-a-box-like attention, I opted not to use it.)

posted by Phlegm at 3/16/2004  (0) comments

 
Happily Detatched

I'm not sure when it started happening, but at some point in my relatively recent life I stopped being the go-to guy for whenever people have problems. Perhaps it happened after I had a few revelations that lead to simple solutions to most common problems; people don't want solutions, they just want an open ear to implicitly validate their character. My solutions are always simple, yet somehow difficult for people to execute in practice (probably due to pride). What works for me can't work for them because they're not me. I call bullshit.

Enough about me (you may have noticed I limit how much I talk about myself). Point is, problems are generally a source of unhappiness--especially so-called personal problems--and unhappy, sunken feelings are often linked to feelings of loss. I'm homesick. My girlfriend broke up with me. Oohhh, some animal died. How can you lose something without a sense of attachment? Well, yeah, you can't.

Loss. Attachment. Both artifacts of the self/non-self illusion. This self, normally thought to be autonomous, nonetheless feels a connection to these other people, places, and things, the detachment of which could cause so much sorrow. Typically I hear people say, "They were never yours to begin with, so it can not be a loss!" I prefer to look at it from the other direction; everything is a part of me, so nothing can be gained or lost.

Again, the reason loss is felt is because you feel like a part of you is gone. How can something be a part of you? When the barrier between self and non-self is broken. When the self/non-self barrier is broken due to a sense of ownership rather than through dissolution of the ego, karmic repurcussions (such as sorrow) are in order.

"But Phlegm, I love my wife. Are you saying it's wrong for me to spend the rest of my life with her?" I wish! Heh, but seriously, no, I'm not saying that. True love (huh?!?), at least in my worldview, carries with it no sense of ownership, but instead a selfless realization of union. Jealousy, envy, possessiveness, and all that horrible stuff that happens in relationships is the result of pride and attachment. If you feel like you will die if you lose her, then yeah I think that's wrong, but that's another blog entry.

Just let go. The fewer attachments you have, the happier you will be.

posted by Phlegm at 3/16/2004  (0) comments

 
The Sin of Utilization

Strunk and White is a great little grammar book, but it has one major error: it lists "utilize" as a suitable substitute for "use" (which is also funny considering it discourages the -ize suffix in general). Utilize is not a synonym for use. To utilize something is to use something other than for its intended purpose, and thus rarely does the substitution make sense. If someone tells me to utilize a broom to sweep the floor, are they telling me to turn it upside-down and try it that way? I can't think of any other way to utilize it while still using it for its intended purpose.

An intended purpose presupposes a designer. Indeed, you can't utilize something if it wasn't intelligently designed, because it has no defined use. Most of our environment is the result of evolution, which has neither foresight nor design. Rocks have no intended purpose. Neither do dogs or bees (unless they were bred by humans for a purpose).

Clearly I'm not respecting the broom's design in trying to move dust with the handle. I'm not respecting the broom itself. Likewise, any damage done to the broom would render it incapable of fulfilling its purpose and would thus be disrepectful, whether the damage were purposeful or negligent.

Wait, I hear the naysayers now, "But Phlegm, oftentimes new uses for things are found after they are designed!" Really? I'd argue not. Does the new use fill a need, or is there another tool that already fills the need sufficiently well? If it fits the need better, could another tool be made to improve even upon that, perhaps based on the original design? It will probably end up modified to perform both tasks, yet inherit the original name (or a new version number). You would then feel not quite right about utilizing the original, since a new and better tool has been designed specifically for the new purpose.

Consumerism violates these principles. Things are expected to break, expected to be replaced. In fact, they're designed to break, such that in a twisted way they're still fulfilling their purpose. The higher purpose, of course, being Capitalism and the so-called advancement of society *cough cough*. I don't know who said it, but like many others, I'll say it again: where are we going in such a hurry?

posted by Phlegm at 3/03/2004  (0) comments

 
Karma is Misunderstood

My entire life, I've heard the term karma used in the following context:

"I had the worst day today. I spilled coffee on myself, was hit by a car, and broke up with so-and-so. Must be karma! I knew I shouldn't have cheated on that exam last week."

How utterly cosmic! How utterly...wrong.

The Law of Karma holds no such cosmic or chaos theory-inspired notions regarding the fundamental interconnectedness of all things. In Western terms, it can be understood as the Law of Causal Relationships. The Buddhist text has this to say about karma:

For every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skillful or unskillful.

Karma. Cause and effect. That's it. Nothing magical or spiritual is going on. If you do something skillful, it will cause a pleasant experience. If you do something unskill, an unpleasant experience will be caused. In the context of my blog, "skillful" and "unskillful" translate to "without pride" and "with pride", respectively. If I cheat on an exam, I'm only "cheating myself" (as I also heard often while in school), and something unpleasant related to the previous event will happen as a result (teacher punishes me, the rest of the class is harder because I didn't learn the fundamentals, or what have you). My cheating has nothing to do with my getting hit by a car the next day (unless my vengeful teacher is driving it).

"But Phlegm, how can you believe your cheating has nothing to do with these future events if you believe determinism is true?" Yes yes, according to my worldview, the present I'm in now is the culmination of everything that's ever happened in my past, and the present I'm in is the only possible present. Yes, I believe everything is interrelated, but what are the relative weights of the actions in my past? Most interconnectedness is negligible; if it weren't, how could we ever make a so-called decision? How could any event ever be correlated with a cause? Sure, it's possible my cheating started a convoluted series of events that somehow culminated in my getting hit by a car, but that's the stuff of short films and fables, and worrying about such things in daily life is foolish. Best not to worry and act without pride in the first place.

Does this mean every ill-intentioned action goes punished? Does this mean every well-intentioned action goes rewarded (or at least doesn't result in punishment)? No and no. What a shame. What now? Ohh I know, let's say if it doesn't happen in THIS life, it'll happen in the NEXT...

...and we get religion.

posted by Phlegm at 1/24/2004  (0) comments