From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Tue Mar 16 17:17:43 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA21330; Tue, 16 Mar 93 17:17:40 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA07432; Tue, 16 Mar 93 17:17:29 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) id ; Tue, 16 Mar 93 20:07:55 -0500 Message-Id: <9303170107.AA25208@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: ExI-Daily@gnu.ai.mit.edu Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 20:07:34 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <9303170107.AA25198@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> X-Original-To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu From: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: Extropians Digest V93 #0137 X-Extropian-Date: Remailed on March 17, 373 P.N.O. [01:07:54 UTC] Reply-To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: OR Extropians Digest Wed, 17 Mar 93 Volume 93 : Issue 0137 Today's Topics: NT Personalities [1 msgs] Dream scene -- my experimentation with lucid dreams -- skip if you want [1 msgs] ECON/LAW: Tragedy of the commons [2 msgs] Libertarian vs. Anarchocapitalist vs. Polycentric Law Societies [1 msgs] META: Is an armed society a polite society? [2 msgs] META: Why not moderation? [2 msgs] MISC: Mass stupidity [1 msgs] NAMES: How I became Max More [2 msgs] PSYCH:Myer-Briggs Nonsense [4 msgs] SHOOT: Me [1 msgs] organizations [3 msgs] Administrivia: This is the digested version of the Extropian mailing list. Please remember that this list is private; messages must not be forwarded without their author's permission. To send mail to the list/digest, address your posts to: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu To send add/drop requests for this digest, address your post to: exi-daily-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu To make a formal complaint or an administrative request, address your posts to: extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu If your mail reader is operating correctly, replies to this message will be automatically addressed to the entire list [extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu] - please avoid long quotes! The Extropian mailing list is brought to you by the Extropy Institute, through hardware, generously provided, by the Free Software Foundation - neither is responsible for its content. Forward, Onward, Outward - Harry Shapiro (habs) List Administrator. Approximate Size: 53546 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 12:03:56 -0500 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: organizations > From: jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) > Dale Worley writes: > >Also, how do we clear the deadwood out of the higher levels of > >organizations? > > By getting rid of organisations. Indeed. I'd kind of agree. The more I work in the "real world", the more I tend to think that were all formal heirarchical organizations to be replaced by webs of contracts for services, the world would be a better place. A few years back I remember that at Bellcore we had to pay some outrageous amount out of our budget for our office and lab space to our facilities department. We asked ourselves "what if we could use that money to rent a house for our group in town, and have a much nicer bunch of offices, plenty of room for our lab, and comfortable common areas and a real kitchen"? Now, of course, we couldn't actually do that, but imagine if what is now a multinational company was composed instead of organizations contracting with each other on a purely competitive basis, and if you didn't like the office space or stationary you could spend your budget with another organization within the same confederation or even outside the confederation? Perry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 12:42:21 -0800 From: jack velte Subject: PSYCH:Myer-Briggs Nonsense cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!esr@uunet.UU.NET (Eric S. Raymond) said... >> It is endlessly amusing to me to see normally sceptical and rational >> people praising irrational garbage like the Myer-Briggs test just >> because it agrees with their own prejudices about themselves. > >The Myers-Briggs test is in routine use by very hard-nosed corporations >for matching applicants to job classifications. Unlike any other psychometric >system of which I am aware, it has therefore passed a market test of its >predictive utility. a lot of companies (mostly in europe) use "handwriting analysis" to judge job applicants. united states psychologists generally view handwriting analysis on the same level as palm reading. "market tests" often take years or centuries to become valid. -jack ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 93 20:36:07 EST From: clayb@cellar.org Subject: META: Why not moderation? It seems ridiculous to me to be suggesting list mechanisms reminiscent of Rube Goldberg to control list noise, when the clearer step of moderation keeps being overlooked. There are obviously folks who read nearly every post on the list -- for example, Perry. How much harder would it be for Perry to moderate the list than to defend reason against the unwashed masses? (Mind you, I'm not volunteering Perry, although I would second it ). It's certainly easier to give some mystic the stiffarm than to debate him. The reason that moderation is used elsewhere, and not some penalty-ASCII- warfare system, is because it is simple and it works -- it is elegant. Aren't we supposed to be pragmatists, folks? Then why are we debating some abstruse and byzantine scheme for cutting down list noise, when the obvious solution is being used by others today? These are not idle questions, because the list, as I have seen it over the last week or so, is drowning in noise. I mean, c'mon, flying yogis? Why is that garbarge on the extropian list? As a result of all this noise, the list meets little of its potential, and that's a shame. Why aren't we improving the quality of this list today, by moderating it? Clay Bridges ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 13:57:31 -0800 From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) Subject: PSYCH:Myer-Briggs Nonsense Jack Velte writes: >a lot of companies (mostly in europe) use "handwriting analysis" to judge >job applicants. I can, in fact, vouch for this. Before I was offered a position with Credit Lyonnais, I had to submit a handwriting sample for analysis. Heaven knows what they determined, but I _did_ get the job. -- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 16:57:02 -0500 From: "W. Scott Meeks" Subject: MISC: Mass stupidity >Date: Mon, 15 Mar 93 18:28:11 EST >From: drw@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU > >Smaller jurisdictions may not help too much -- once people become >mobile between a set of jurisdictions, they tend to resemble each >other far too much. Prostitution is illegal nearly everywhere in the >US, despite no significant Federal pressure to make the laws uniform. Hmm, interesting point. It would be interesting to see the variances between the laws of the states of the union. I wonder if anyone has done this, at least for some set of interesting laws such as drug laws, sex laws, and certain economic laws. However, prostitution is legal in some European countries. How does this fit in with your thinking? > > But I've known "dissidents" since the time of the campus Marxists of > > the late 60s, and they never seem to want to leave the country, > > despite how bad it is... > > Well, of course not. What would they protest then? If you leave, > you put yourself out of the dissident game. > >I hope the libertarians don't fall into that trap. Certainly, the >self-styled "Anarchists" have done so already... You should try to not make so many sweeping generalizations. If you replace `the' in your final sentence with `some but not all' I'll accept it, but I believe there are several anarchists on this list who are not `out of the game.' For example, I generally consider myself to be an anarchist, but I still vote. I'm not sure it's really worth my time, but I do it anyway. Scott ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 16:58:20 +0000 From: andreag@csmil.umich.edu Subject: organizations Perry writes: > >> From: jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) > >> Dale Worley writes: >> >Also, how do we clear the deadwood out of the higher levels of >> >organizations? >> >> By getting rid of organisations. > >Indeed. I'd kind of agree. ... Otherwise known as an adhocracy. If anyone out there finds this idea fascinating, they should look at the work done by Tom Malone and others at MIT Sloan Schools' Center for Coordination Science (I think this is the title). Malone argues that computers and telecom are essentially coordiation technology, and therefor coordination rich systems like markets will now be able to compete with coordination cheap systems like beaurocracies. A very short comment on a very interesting topic. If there's more interest, I'll take some time to post a more thourough discussion. Andrea .............................................................. Andrea L. Gallagher Grad Student, Cognition & Perception andreag@csmil.umich.edu University of Michigan CSMIL: 313-764-6715 home: 313-994-9551 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 16:30:50 -0500 (EST) From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) Subject: PSYCH:Myer-Briggs Nonsense > There are also corporations that have used astrological profiles, > New Age Seminars/Channeling, Dianetics, and est. Does this mean that > these all have utility? These are fads which have come and gone. The Myers-Briggs inventory and equivalent systems have been in productive use for over 25 years. > Some "very hard nosed corporations" in the past have used race, gender, > and sexual preference as a way to amtch applicants to job classifications. > Does this also constitute a validation of their predictive utility? Sometimes. For example, if you are an employer in North Philadelphia, race is an unfortunately excellent predictor of literacy. > Can you point to a case where nearly identical companies with virtually > similar business conditions and competentcy of personal where the company > that used MB test did significantly better than the one that didn't? No. However, I *have* seen third-party breakdowns of populations in various job classifications by MB type that showed extremely high correlations of the kind predicted by MB theory. For example, computer programmers are almost all NTs, but their managers almost never are; management runs heavily to SJ types. -- Eric S. Raymond ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 14:46:07 -0800 From: cappello%cs@hub.ucsb.edu (Peter Cappello) Subject: organizations >Malone argues that computers and telecom are essentially coordiation >technology, and therefor coordination rich systems like markets will >now be able to compete with coordination cheap systems like >beaurocracies. > >A very short comment on a very interesting topic. If there's more >interest, I'll take some time to post a more thourough discussion. > >Andrea Harry Browne ("How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World") advocates, in the extreme, what Perry advocates: one-person businesses that contract for everything. The recent wave of corporate "down-sizings" may be explained partially with Tom Malone's insights. If so, then we can expect the size of commercial bureaucracies to decline as rapidly as advances in computer-mediated communication enable markets' purview/efficiency to increase. (-: Will we get to the point where a single human being becomes a hopelessly inefficient bureaucracy? :-) -Pete cappello@cs.ucsb.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 15:04:02 PST From: Robin Hanson Subject: META: Is an armed society a polite society? Proposed rule addition: You can only shoot once a month, and must wait three months to again shoot the same person. Hmm... perhaps I should make a few points clear. I do not have a strong belief that a "Polite Society" would work, nor do I think it is worth a lot of time analyzing whether it would work. But it just doesn't seem to cost much to try, and it has a certain novelty or aneqdote value, so why not just try it? And if someone out there is so upset by they way I wrote something that they are willing to stop all their posting for one week, then I do want to know about that, and want to make myself stop and take it seriously. Also remember that the net in general has a few frequent posters surrounded by a cloud of "lurkers", who are interested in the subjects but often put off by style of conversation, particularly the endless flaming. I've heard many complaints that folks would like to subscribe to this or that, but too bad it's taken over by these rude folk who seem to have nothing better to do all day than post as fast as they can type, and a bit faster than they should be able to think. In light of this, I don't think its such a bad idea to put equal power into the hands of folks who don't post as much, but who may spend a comparable time reading. On any one list, there is a highly skewed distribution of participation, and you do want those who participate more to have more power in that context. But over the net as a whole, I think the distribution is less skewed, and I want to consider the interests of those who would participate more if there were less flaming. Those who post frequently have usually made their peace with the medium, don't think the problem is really very bad, and focus on their right to declare just what they want to say just when they want to say it. But most people are more uncomfortable, and their interests matter. Nick Szabo writes: >Alas, I don't think it's in my best interest to join the >Feuding Society. (It's better to name it by its direct >effect than by its alleged indirect effect). Hmm, then do you propose we rename the Extropy list to "The Prolific Society"? :-) >Folks will shoot not only when a person is impolite, but also when >they disagree emotionally with them, or feel threatened by their >beliefs. Well this is possible - I'd like to try it and find out. >I frequently get "shot" in the form of gratuitous flames & insults, >which may hurt my reputation but doesn't stop me from posting. With a >Feuding Society sci.space would turn into a NASA house of worship, >patrolled by its taxpayer-funded goons. ... I'm better at stating >facts & opinions than at empathy & patience. Well your posts here have been polite, I'd say, but these comments seem to fit the flamer profile - including a great fear of any social pressure because it might hurt the true outcast/gadfly against the mistaken majority. >the Feuding Society like many of the ratings proposals favors the >popular post at the expense of the true post. Yes, well, it's harder to design social mechanisms based on the truth of a post. I would of course propose more use of bets. Tim May points out problems: >* The accounting could be a problem. I don't expect most of us will carry >around records of how many postings, how many challenges (and by whom?), >etc. This is solvable, but adds to the hassles of being on the Net and on >mailing lists. Simplicity is very important. But I think the rules I've proposed pass this test; tell me ways to simplify more. >* Precisely what problem does this solve? Rudeness? IMHO, we're remarkably >polite ... In fact, I happen to think we're too polite, too accepting. Yes, well overall the net certainly has rudeness problems. I'm now proposing a net-wide society, not specific to this list. >Consider a controversial poster--Pandit or Perry or me (take your pick). >The odds are quite high that a controversial posting will anger at least >one reader enough to take Pandit or Perry or me out of the posting business >for a week or a month. A small coterie of anti-Tim folks (just an example) >may even "rotate coverage" so that I'm off the list indefinitely. Possible, but why not wait to see if this problem occurs, and then quit the society if it does? It shouldn't cost much to try. >* Put differently, various posters will value posting privileges >differently. For example, I may consider being able to post to be very >valuable, while a casual member of the list (busy with other things, for >example) may place much less value on posting. I will not be willing to >lose my posting privileges casually, while others might. I agree these values may vary greatly for any one list, but claim they vary less when you consider the net as a whole. >* Unlike "real" shootings in the Wild West (which have likely been >exagerated over the years, by the way), zapping another poster is too >painless, too easy. Those going away for a vacation, for example, my choose >to zap a pesky poster--knowing it won't really hurt their own posting >careers. And those who want to just take a break may take someone with >them. The vacation problem has worried me. A rule against this would be hard to monitor, but maybe should be added anyway. If the pain is too little, then we should up the no-posting time period. Does two weeks sound more painful? >P.S. to Robin. Suppose I join the Polite Society and, two weeks from now, >"shoot" you. We're both off the list for, say, a week. After a week, I >shoot you again. And again. And so on. My proposed rule at the start of this (now long) post is to fix this. Tom Morrow writes: >I was speaking of *posting and reading* privileges. I thus did not >"dismiss [Tim's] point." In fact, I emphasized the loss of reading >privileges precisely because I do not think that lurkers will find the >threat of losing mere posting privileges much of a threat. For a net-wide society, its much harder to imagine monitoring the loss of all reading abilities. And I'm reluctant to have rules that can't be enforced. Do you still advocate losing reading rights for a net-wide society? Derek Zahn offers an interesting alternative, an accountability society wherein: >for WHATEVER REASON, I can CHALLENGE that person by asking a SPECIFIC >question about his or her statement (posting). The CHALLENGED member >must then respond to the question within one week with a reasoned >essay of at least 800 words answering the question. The CHALLENGER >must then respond, within a week, to that essay with an 800 word essay >of his or her own, on the topic. ... I like the core idea, but I am reluctant to commit to writing 800 words on any topic I may touch on just because someone else is also willing to write 800 words on this topic. Can the word limit be lowered or eliminated? >Also, if a member has >in the past ignored a CHALLENGE or failed to fulfill the >requirements of a CHALLENGER, statement of such reasons will >be adequate excusse for ignoring the CHALLENGE. I worry that this will be too vague; "I'm not going to respond to you because when you responded to Phil you didn't *really* answer his challenge." I agree with Nick Szabo that things should be clearer. Robin Hanson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 18:03:59 EST From: drw@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU Subject: ECON/LAW: Tragedy of the commons From: pmetzger@shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) > From: drw@bourbaki.mit.edu > > (Similarly, a society is not libertarian if as a practical necessity I > have to give up smoking dope in order to get a job. A society is > libertarian if I can smoke dope and still live decently.) Thats quite untrue. Its like saying a society is libertarian if I can avoid washing and still live decently. If employers mostly decide not to hire smokers, well, its their choice on whether or not you can smoke and still work for them. Similarly, I couldn't get a job on wall street and not wear a suit. Is this a non-libertarian thing? Of course not. So long as all the interactions involved are voluntary what we are dealing with is o.k. by libertarian lights. Whether you like the results is, of course, another story. OK, I understand your point. But might there not be a point where a society becomes so oppressive *in practice* that one would not be willing to call it libertarian, even if it evolved to that state by purely voluntary mechanisms? It seems that "libertarian" must state something about what the people in the society are actually allowed to do, otherwise it is not of much practical value. Dale Dale Worley Dept. of Math., MIT drw@math.mit.edu -- A man about to speak the truth should keep one foot in the stirrup. -- Old Mongolian Saying ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 14:59:20 PST From: more@chaph.usc.edu (Max More) Subject: NAMES: How I became Max More Amara said: < The Court Petition method is a real pain. And asked: So I have a question for folks like Max More, Tom Morrow, Simon! Levy etc. What method did you use to change your name? (Vince and I have a $5 bet riding on this.) I started using "Max More" (for those of you who haven't read EXTROPY #6 or earlier: "Max" has always been my fortuitously extropian name; "More" was invented, and I dropped my never-used middle name) in 1991, but decided to use the Court Petition method, finally legally, for all purposes, becoming "Max More" in Spetember 1991. I hope you won your bet, Amara. I recommend the Nolo Press book mentioned by Amara. I didn't find that it was "a real pain" to go the Court Petition method, though it takes a couple of months and costs a little (around $120 altogether, if I remember correctly). Certainly don't go this route until you've used your next extropian name for a few months; you want to be sure. The usage method may be adequate for you; not being a citizen of the USA (I'm still on a student F-1 visa, being clained by Britain as "their citizen", though I know I am truly only a citizen of the nation of Max More), I decided the Court Petition method would be wiser, having to change passports, drivers license, university records, etc. For those of you who are considering changing your name by either method, my advice is: (a) Take your time, choose carefully, and try it out for a while. "Choose carefully" means finding something extropic, that says something about you that you find important, and that you can use without people laughing and finding it impossible to take you seriously! (Thus, "FM-2030" is a dubious choice, though it may not have harmed him, because of what he already does for a living.) (b) Decide whether your extropian name is to be used only among Extropians and Extropian fora, like this list, or whether you will want to use it in all situation. If you will use it for all purposes, expect some friends (and others) to dislike it at first, simply because they are not used to it. A couple of long-time friends told me they preferred my old name, but later changed their mind. Other, highly Extropic folks (e.g. Tom Morrow) immediately found it more fitting than the old label. I think I like "Habs Meme-Hawk", though it'll take some getting used to. If you settle on this Habs, will you use it at work? The following is the roster of extropian names that come to mind, excluding those I'm not sure are publically known (some really wild names that only an extropian with a sense of humor would appreciate!): Max More Tom Morrow Mark Plus Mark Venture Simon! (or S1m0n) D. Levy Habs Meme-Hawk Klaus! von Future Prime (satire purposes only), or "Tim May" Ray ROMwell Derek VRRRROOOOOOOOMMMMMM! (My current favorite!) I know some people think name changes are silly. I find such an attitude conservative, unimaginative, and unextropic. Anyone seriously committed to self-transformation has a reason to change the label by which they are known. Your old name has roots, often referring to an old family trade, and will have link you with a particular country or culture - one that you may find unextropian. My old surname linked me to Ireland, not the first place you think of when you think of modern, future-oriented, past-paced, leading edge things. My new surname succinctly captures the idea of perpetually seeking to become better. Apart from removing undesired connotations, and creating desired connotations, renaming is itself an act of self-choosing of identity, a conscious, deliberate personal choice of your label, as opposed to effortlessly acquiescing in your "given", unchosen name. Some people may be satisfied with their given names. I retained "Max" (which my mother chose because I was the largest baby in the ward when I was born), because it goes perfectly with "More" and together they imply moving ahead as fast as possible. Tim May ("Tim May"!) gives some clever and sound reasons for his current name being extropian. He may or may not have intended satire, but some names are great as they are. Tim Starr, for example, probably likes his surname. Finally, Tom Morrow suggested adding a variable to your new name, so that you can easily modify it. I briefly considered "Max X More" for this reason, but decided I liked the simpler name, it would be taken seriously, and if I ever became my evil opposite, I could just change my name again to "Mini Less". :) Be prepared to frequently explain your new name to people who knew the old you. One of the philosophy professors at USC asked me why I didn't choose "Max Most". I explained that such a name would imply arrogantly that I was as good as could be, and that I had no reason to seek further improvement. I will also say that, if you choose a name that's not too weird, you will not lose any credibility if you are already known as a credible person. Rather, a stylish name makes you stand out and adds to your image - the reason why writers and actors do it, of course. Why shouldn't Extropians add drama too? Max More more@usc.edu Executive Director Extropy Institute (ExI) "Bigus Dickus has a wife you know... Her name is Incontinentia.... Incontinentia Buttocks" -- Monty Python's Life of Brian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 15:34:01 -0800 From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: NT Personalities >No. However, I *have* seen third-party breakdowns of populations in >various job classifications by MB type that showed extremely high >correlations of the kind predicted by MB theory. For example, computer >programmers are almost all NTs, but their managers almost never are; >management runs heavily to SJ types. >-- > Eric S. Raymond Programmers are almost all NTs? Aha! Now I know where "Windows NT" comes from. -Klaus! von Future Prime ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 15:33:54 -0800 From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: META: Why not moderation? Clay Bridges writes: >It seems ridiculous to me to be suggesting list mechanisms reminiscent of Rube >Goldberg to control list noise, when the clearer step of moderation keeps >being overlooked. There are obviously folks who read nearly every post on the >list -- for example, Perry. How much harder would it be for Perry to moderate >the list than to defend reason against the unwashed masses? (Mind you, I'm not >volunteering Perry, although I would second it ). It's certainly easier >to give some mystic the stiffarm than to debate him. Even though I have been one of the recent critics of such non-Extropian topics as reincarnation, flying yogis, witchcraft, voodoo, Christianity, and all the other "feelgood" crap, I see too many problems with any centralized form of moderation: 1. It smacks of central planning, of censorship, of the antithesis of much of what we believe in. (Note that most of us _do_ believe the ExI, as owners of the list (morally and practically) have every right to "do as they wilt", including moderation. But few of us would like that kind of solution.) 2. Moderation, even by someone who reads nearly every posting, would inevitably introduce time delays into the process. I value seeing an entire thread crest and then ebb in less than a day. (On the other hand, a longer time delay could cool some anger and could lower the overall volume.) 3. Who would moderate such an argumentative bunch? The moderated lists I'm familiar with are less political and more informational. The moderator's job is mostly to keep political debates from developing. But I agree with Clay that we are beginning to drown. Are there more ideas out there? -Tim May -- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: MailSafe and PGP available. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 15:48:41 PST From: desilets@sj.ate.slb.com (Mark Desilets) Subject: NAMES: How I became Max More Damn Max! Tht's truly inspirational. Here I was thinking that my name was an integral part of myself. Pshaw! I can shuffle off my mortal name and *keep* my coils! What a self-empowering experience. Therefore, forevermore, or at least until I reenter this routine, I shall be known as:` A. Young Protoghod or was it Jupiter Brain or was it Smarter N Yew or maybe Granite Rockbod on, the other hand E. Merchant Phenomenon has always grabbed me. Unless Yogi Levitates sounds better. Damn, this is just so hard. Other candidates include Jesus Suchs, Hugh G. Rection, Bill Melater, and of course I. R. S. Bitemee I guess I had better give it more thought. Say, More Thought.... Naw.! Sincerely, Smarter N Yew (I like this one) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 16:30:50 -0500 (EST) From: cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!esr@uunet.UU.NET (Eric S. Raymond) Subject: PSYCH:Myer-Briggs Nonsense > There are also corporations that have used astrological profiles, > New Age Seminars/Channeling, Dianetics, and est. Does this mean that > these all have utility? These are fads which have come and gone. The Myers-Briggs inventory and equivalent systems have been in productive use for over 25 years. > Some "very hard nosed corporations" in the past have used race, gender, > and sexual preference as a way to amtch applicants to job classifications. > Does this also constitute a validation of their predictive utility? Sometimes. For example, if you are an employer in North Philadelphia, race is an unfortunately excellent predictor of literacy. > Can you point to a case where nearly identical companies with virtually > similar business conditions and competentcy of personal where the company > that used MB test did significantly better than the one that didn't? No. However, I *have* seen third-party breakdowns of populations in various job classifications by MB type that showed extremely high correlations of the kind predicted by MB theory. For example, computer programmers are almost all NTs, but their managers almost never are; management runs heavily to SJ types. -- Eric S. Raymond ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 16:07:01 -0800 From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: META: Is an armed society a polite society? Having been intrigued by Robin Hanson's system and chastened by Tom Morrow's argument that I have engaged in "sloppy reasoning" (a worse insult to me than calling me a Druid!), I have decided to temporarily set aside my concerns and join "The Polite Society." Beginning in 2 weeks, we'll get some first-hand knowledge of how this system works. Let's get some other targets--er, I mean, "members." Kicking Robin off the list for a month won't be much fun. Tom? Pandit? Carol? -Tim May, "Polite Society Member Since 3-16-93 - 0 Hits, 0 Shots" -- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: MailSafe and PGP available. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 16:03:02 PST From: desilets@sj.ate.slb.com (Mark Desilets) Subject: SHOOT: Me Dear Listmembers, I have begun to feel badly about that last post. I hope Max didn't take offense, as it was intended in jest. Still, I have added to the noise. I therefore pronounce and execute the following sentence: I shall shoot myself. I shall not post again for one week. Apologies. Sincerely, Smarter N Yew Founder and Honorary President Society Here to Eliminate Excessive Posting ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 15:52:16 -0800 From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: Libertarian vs. Anarchocapitalist vs. Polycentric Law Societies Dale Worley writes: >OK, I understand your point. But might there not be a point where a >society becomes so oppressive *in practice* that one would not be >willing to call it libertarian, even if it evolved to that state by >purely voluntary mechanisms? It seems that "libertarian" must state >something about what the people in the society are actually allowed to >do, otherwise it is not of much practical value. David Friedman discussed this point a week or so ago. A "libertarian" society is not necessarily the same thing as an "anarchocapitalist" society (and neither is necessarily the same thing as a "polycentric law" (PPL) society). We may _hope_ that free market systems evolve toward some notion of libertarianism (live and let live, etc.), but this is by no means guaranteed. That some corporations and many families (both are categories in which customary law dominates) are domineering, controlling, rule-dominated, etc., shows this point clearly. Libertarianism obviously does not mean always getting one's way, always having whatever freedom one wishes. (There is reason to hope that market mechanisms will tend to favor a fair amount of liberty. As Perry, especially, has noted, under polycentric law the costs of enforcement lie with the rule-maker and cannot be pawned off on society. Thus, a restaurant owner who requires suits and ties must enforce this law himself and must suffer the consequences of lost business. Most restaurants thus have minimal dress codes. Contrast this with the various state-mandated wheelchair access zones and laws against smoking--enforced on the restaurant by exorbitant fines.) We can quit corporations whose rules bother us too much, we can divorce to leave marriages that are unsatisfactory, and most of us are anxious to leave our families by the time we're 18 or 20. These systems may be "oppressive," but in a much different sense than statist oppression usually is. -Tim May -- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: MailSafe and PGP available. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 19:39:38 GMT From: jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) Subject: ECON/LAW: Tragedy of the commons Dale Worley writes: >But I see that as a distinction that is much less firm than it first >appears. For one thing, "gain" and "loss" should be measured via all >effects of an act, not simply the gain or loss of physical access to a >thing. For much information ("IBM lost $1 billion this quarter.") it >is the *exclusive* possession of the information that makes it >valuable. The loss I sustain upon someone else knowing it is large, >direct, and measurable. The loss you sustain if someone else independently discovers the information is identical. In view of this, what does loss have to do with the matter? There are plenty of situations where a person may knowingly do something which will predictably cause loss to someone else, yet no liability attaches. (Selling a better mousetrap, for example.) Property rights do not exist objectively; they are social and legal symbolic constructs which can be created or destroyed at the stroke of a pen or the mere whims of those involved. It is useless to debate what property rights exist in tangible or intellectual objects independently of any social context. One can only ask what rights are recognised in a particular situation, what rights might come to be recognised under hypothetical circumstances such as PPL, or what rights would have desirable consequences if they were recognised. Given the existence of personal computers connected to worldwide electronic networks, I am sceptical of the practical possibility of legally preventing unauthorised copying and use of information. Recognising property rights in it therefore seems futile, at least on the local level. Witness alt.binaries.copyright-violations, er, alt.binaries.pictures. There are plenty of sites that won't carry it, but also plenty of sites that do. >Furthermore, tangible, physical property has uses which seem to >involve no loss of "use" to the owner, which are nonetheless reserved >to the owner. For instance, I have the nearly absolute right to >prevent people from walking on my real estate, even though it may be >demonstrable that their doing so will cause me no harm. This is so purely because the laws where you live so specify. There are countries where landowners do not have the legal right to totally exclude the public from their land. Neither system is "correct". Witnessing the hatred that English farmers have towards public rights of way (paths which through long customary use the landowner is legally required not to obstruct) I tend to believe that the notion of absolute territorial property rights owes more to primate politics than rational thought. -- ____ Richard Kennaway \ _/__ School of Information Systems Internet: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk \X / University of East Anglia uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk \/ Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 17:05:01 EST From: sulko-m@acsu.buffalo.edu (Mark A. Sulkowski) Subject: Dream scene -- my experimentation with lucid dreams -- skip if you want >You had a lucid dream, Nick, or something very near it. Lucid dreaming >offers us free virtual reality right now - it's being in the dream state >while being fully conscious. Scientific studies, by Dr. Stephen Laberge >of Stanford University, show that this state exists, and that it is >a learnable skill, and that it is much easier to induce in the morning. I can verify this from my own experience. In an eariler posting, I mentioned that I had practiced "guided meditation" (lucid dreaming) with success. It is a skill which can be learned, though I ascribe no particular supernatural meaning to it. It is no more supernatural or mystical than regular dreaming. >The conscious visualizations can be quite fantastically complex, and seem >as real as real can be. You are right that the visualizations can be fantastically complex, but I dispute that they are "as real as real can be". I can only speak from my own experience, of course, but I had such enormous success that I suspect I could not have gotten images more "real". That's an assumption, but perhaps you can relate to my experiences. I have only had three lucid dreams, after which I had discovered what I wanted to and stopped the experiment. If you aren't interested in reading about my experiences, just skip the rest of this posting. However, I did do some interesting things, so you may want to stick with me. LUCID DREAM EXPERIENCE #1 I don't recall the exact method I used to start lucid dreaming (I got it out of a book which I no longer have). I found a quiet room and turned off all of the lights except for a lit candle. No, the candle was not lit for any 'magickal' purpose. It helped me to enter the lucid dream state with a gentle flickering of light on my closed eyelids. Pure darkness was too distracting for some unknown reason. I layed down on the carpeted floor and started a guided meditation where I forced myself to imagine images as clearly as I could. I imagined myself leaving my apartment and walking out into a bright, sunny day. This was definitely "forced". I was in full, conscious control of what I was imagining. After a few minutes of this, some other part of my brain began to take over. There came a point where the images came unbidden and they were a "surprise". I didn't plan them in any way. The quality of the images improved slightly. My experience was of hurtling to the sky which I broke through as if the sky was made of craypaper instead of reflected light off of dust particles. I was in outerspace and could see the Earth surrounded by the craypaper (with a tiny hole in it, made by me) and also the Sun far off in the distance. So far, so good. Then, suddenly, I 'felt' some other part of my brain kick in. (I'm not sure how to explain that I know this, but the experience is unmistakable.) I saw a postcard image of a landscape. I believe the first image was of a forest of pine trees as seen from about 100 feet in the air. The image was remarkably detailed, much more so than one of my usual dreams. However, I hesitate to describe it "as real as real can be". There are distinct differences. The image looked more like a super-dream image instead of binocular eye-sight. Depth perception was off. It had a dream's flatness, even though there were depth cues. It just didn't seem like a binocular image. The colors of the trees seemed more like dream colors instead of colors from the retina. It is sort of like using computer graphics to represent reality. Computer graphics may look remarkably detailed, but you just *know* that it is artificially created. It has that *look* to it. That is the same feeling I had. The image faded out (neat effect!) and another faded in (also a neat effect!). It was of another landscape of some sort. I saw deserts and islands with sunsets and the like. They would have made great postcards. It's too bad I don't have the experience recording device from the movie "Brainstorm" or I would have made everyone copies on VHS. Anyway, I noticed that the images came up at regular intervals (about 3 full seconds each, 1 second for fade in/out) as if my brain had a timer going. It was like watching a slide show. I had maybe 8-10 images (I lost count). I found that I was fully conscious and could 'hear myself think'. I was so astounded by my success that I snapped out of the experience. LUCID DREAM EXPERIENCE #2 I was emboldened by my success, so I tried again two days later. It didn't work for some reason, so I actually tried to get some sleep that night. I fell into the very same kind of experience that I had two days ago. I didn't 'will' it, it just appeared spontaneously. I was conscious, though deeply, deeply relaxed. I saw one of my slideshow postcards. This time, the image was even more realistic -- the colors were stunning -- though it still looked more like a super-dream than real vision. The slideshow was on the same three second timer. The images were more detailed and were more likely to involve _motion_. I had one incredible scene of being a few feet over an ocean, and seeing a whale move beneath the ocean waves. Well worth the price of admission. I decided to experiment with my experience. Was this experience like looking through a 'third eye' or was this more like a graphics workstation? :) When one of the images started to fade, I willed the image to FREEZE. It did, but the next image faded IN anyway -- right over the first one! My field of imagination went almost completely white as the two images tried to occupy the same pixel area. I 'released' the first one, which faded out as usual, revealing the next image. A very interesting experience! I saw a few more images and then the experience was over. I am still not sure why image A superimposed with image B yields a nearly completely _white_ image. What does this mean about the brain and visualization? LUCID DREAM EXPERIENCE #3 This experience was not much like my first two and I will only skim through it. If you want a more detailed description, you may email me with a request. I saw a desert with a bright sun at zenith. Up in the sky I saw several tri-clusters of floating golden pyramids (actually tetrahedrons). On the sand, I saw an immense (mountain sized) structure, much like a (four sided) pyramid, but hollow underneath as if it had been crossed with the Eiffle Tower. In other words, the 'pyramid' sat on four 'legs', and underneath was hollow space like a small portion of an imaginary sphere had hollowed it out. The 'pyramid' was golden like the floating tetrahedrons, and was intricately carved. I floated underneath to see the carvings on the underside. The effect was like being in a bizzare cathedral. Then the experience stopped. Very interesting, but my regular dreams are enough for me. This was my last lucid dream. =============================================================================== | |\ /| | "But we must not follow those who advise us, being men, to | | \\ // | think of human things, and, being mortal, of mortal things, | | \\// | but must, so far as we can, make ourselves immortal..." | | Mark \/enture | - Aristotle, _The Nicomachean Ethics_ | =============================================================================== ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 Issue #0137 ****************************************