[p2p-research] Resilience and scale invariance

[Stan Rhodes]

No one claimed what you're saying, and anyone in the field would think
it was downright silly.  I certainly do.  No one's "blaming" mistakes
on the brain, or absolving themselves of responsibility, any more than
one blames gravity when they drop a laptop.

If anyone else thought I was making a case for absolving ourselves of
mistakes, I'd be surprised.  On the contrary, I study such things to
try to prevent them in some way, or reduce the damage they cause.

Anyway, you're confusing descriptive statements with normative ones,
and making a strawman to boot, and those are just in the first few
lines.  It's familiar, because you did the same thing in the first
email of mine you ever replied to on this list.

Lesson learned: shame on me.  Not going to play, Marc.

-- Stan



On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:56 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
> <<
>>
>> irrational mistakes do not have to be tied to emotion or
>> "malfunctions" in any way.  Again, optical illusions provide a useful
>> example of a perceptual system being tricked by working the way it is
>> supposed to work, with emotion playing no role.
>>
>>>
>
> If you blame mistakes on the way our brain works that does not take
> responsibility from the person committing the mistake to fix that mistake
> and correct their behavior (i.e. correct what makes them make mistakes, e.g.
> take some medication or correct the problem in their cognition)
>
> A cannibal's brain maybe wired to perceive people as food but that does not
> make eating people OK.
>
> I had read "Why We Make Mistakes" and found it to be tactically insightful
> but philosophically tacky.
>
> If my job was to follow a straight line and if my brain is wired to see the
> line as being curved while it's in fact straight then I need to wear some
> glasses that correct for the optical illusion or figure out a technique to
> see the line without any distortion.
>
> Personal responsibility cannot be abandoned by simply saying that look at
> optical illusions it's not our fault we were made that way.
>
> If you're in charge of some nuclear facility and your brain is wired to
> trick you in a way that causes the reaction to melt down you should really
> fix the way you process what your brain tells you, e.g. by establishing
> tests or using some tool.
>
> So as far as people's relationship to money (and relationships exists around
> money not just with money) even if people (we) are wired for certain
> behavioral patterns if those patterns are causing problems we need to
> abandon them.
>
> That is rationality.
>
> Emotion would be the fear one has of changing their behavior and the symptom
> of fear of changing a damaging behavior, IMO, is to blame it on the way our
> brains are wired. That is fear of change. That is emotion.
>
> Rationality would be to recognize the fear of change and actually proceed
> with making the change/fix.
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>>
>> -- Stan
>>
>> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 4:21 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> I thought you were an economist :)
>> >>
>> >> Can you please elaborate further on the relationship people have to
>> >> money,
>> >> from a psychological point of view?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Marc Fawzi
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>