(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
Cuttlefush posted:the more i think about this question the more i'd have liked to start with https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/index.htm. it really depends on the person and their headspace, but for something short, comprehensive, and readable without any background i think that's the best mix. the marxist doctrine section that goes philosophical materialism -> dialectics -> materialist conception of history -> class stuggle makes a lot more sense to me as a first look than jumping in on any specific one of those. I love it, thank you very much. Also, FartS: Cpt_Obvious posted:gently caress you for tricking me into clicking a vaush video.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
Since the 1980s western capitalism has transitioned more and more towards finance capitalism & rentseeking, and away from industrial capitalism. What if any works go into the mechanics of why this transition occurred and the consequences within the western world of the working classes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
double nine posted:Since the 1980s western capitalism has transitioned more and more towards finance capitalism & rentseeking, and away from industrial capitalism. The Long Twentieth Century - Giovanni Arrighi
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
it's important not to get too hung up on the industrial vs. financial capitalism divide because the former naturally creates and indeed relies on the latter. even though a static hoard of money as such is the opposite of what capitalism requires, the exigencies of capital turnover and realization of value in the market actually requires ever-increasing supplies of liquid currency and increasing populations of specialized commercial and financial capitalists to manage that money all these people are still sitting down at the same dinner people and dividing up the surplus value created in the act of production between themselves in proportion to the capital they've invested, but it's a trap to imagine that some of them are somehow parasitic on the others. merchant capitalists just do what a sub-department of an industrial capitalist would have to do otherwise
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 21:07
|
|
|
Yeah there's no more separation between financial capital and industrial capital more than any other competition between different capitalists but understanding why finance has become so dominant is important because it teaches a lot about the circulation and accumulation of capital, what's actually valued by the system of capitalism, and it's got major ramifications for domestic politics and international solidarity with what that means for the global political economy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:it's important not to get too hung up on the industrial vs. financial capitalism divide because the former naturally creates and indeed relies on the latter. even though a static hoard of money as such is the opposite of what capitalism requires, the exigencies of capital turnover and realization of value in the market actually requires ever-increasing supplies of liquid currency and increasing populations of specialized commercial and financial capitalists to manage that money michael hudson among others seems pretty hung up about this divide. i guess because if you differentiate industrial from financial capital, the former has some upsides - infrastructure, creating real use values, and so on. i think you're right, but in the transition from one dominated by the former to one dominated by the other - there's at least one adam curtis documentary* that focuses on the pre-reagan/shareholder value uber alles/neoliberal era and interviews a bunch of capitalist management types from the keynesian era. they really did view capitalism differently to an extent - the finance capital types descending on them were seen as a plague upsetting their own empires, they had some sympathy for the workers being laid off (reducing the size of their empire), ties to local community being severed as they wound down plants and factories, etc. in the end their views of how capitalism 'ought' to be run proved to be outmoded and got swept away by finance because the system could only tolerate the low rates of return keynesianism had led them into for so long. * yeah yeah i know but if there's one thing he's good for is digging up real good footage/interviews/primary stuff from decades ago that's been memory holed even if his own analyses are more aesthetic than materialist edit: this was it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfzdXaLR8sQ Some of the viewpoints are fascinating (see 6:50)- the new capitalist class emerging at the time saw the older class as elites denying them access to wealth and glory, they saw the emergence of financial era as democratization. and here's the view from the old era at 12:55 and 15:15 ) mila kunis has issued a correction as of 22:07 on Apr 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 21:25
|
|
|
There are structural antagonisms between finance and industrial capital. For example, industrial development benefits from low prices of credit and interest rates, which harms banking; one of the greatest successes of German political economy was realizing this and intervening in order to enmesh finance and industry into a degree of interdependence. A more recent example would be South Korea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
Cuttlefush posted:the more i think about this question the more i'd have liked to start with https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/index.htm. it really depends on the person and their headspace, but for something short, comprehensive, and readable without any background i think that's the best mix. the marxist doctrine section that goes philosophical materialism -> dialectics -> materialist conception of history -> class stuggle makes a lot more sense to me as a first look than jumping in on any specific one of those. Hey still on the topic of simplified theory: with regard to organizational documents or group readings. Is it ableist or an accessibility issue to write things in a complex way? I feel like ambiguity leads to unprincipled misreading and debate over interpretation rather than ideas as presented. Like alternate meanings can be weaponized in a libbish way. Like I heard this stat “54% of USAians read at 6th grade level.” But you got “uneducated” peasants and marginalized and all sorts of people (from the CPC in the 20s to the RIBPP today) understanding diamat and all manner of philosophy. It feels like a patronizing road to tread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 00:50
|
|
|
If you're writing for a general audience and your piece is full of academic jargon or otherwise uses a specialized vocabulary that the audience can't reasonably be expected to possess, that's not ableism or an accessibility issue, it's just lovely writing. If you're super concerned that writing for the hoi polloi will mean you're misunderstood because you then can't use super precise terminology, well yeah welcome to writing for a general audience. Making yourself understood without requiring the reader to have existing knowledge is a skill, and a rare one at that. Good writers will handle that in a variety of ways depending on the nature of the piece. If you've got space, footnotes that reference more in depth/academic sources, a bibliography, specific callouts in the text to other pieces that give more details, etc. all serve to both clarify in the event someone tries to misrepresent you and also give interested readers a way to get more information.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 01:07
|
|
|
Sunny Side Up posted:Hey still on the topic of simplified theory: with regard to organizational documents or group readings. Is it ableist or an accessibility issue to write things in a complex way? I feel like ambiguity leads to unprincipled misreading and debate over interpretation rather than ideas as presented. Like alternate meanings can be weaponized in a libbish way. Like I heard this stat “54% of USAians read at 6th grade level.” But you got “uneducated” peasants and marginalized and all sorts of people (from the CPC in the 20s to the RIBPP today) understanding diamat and all manner of philosophy. It feels like a patronizing road to tread. good writing is good writing and bullshit writing is bullshit writing. zizek is a bullshit writer. lenin and his translators are not. i think there are a lot of overly complex/poorly written bits of theory (not from lenin) but that's because it's very hard to write clearly and simply. simplified as in written well but simply (making it good introductory stuff) is good. simplified as in taking core theory and interpreting it at a lower level for some reason is almost always bad. stuff like the manga version of capital is it's own thing (i think - i assume it doesn't say it's just as good as reading). the 'explainerization' of complex topics in general is extremely bad, imo. i think that might be what you're getting at?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 01:24
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:it's important not to get too hung up on the industrial vs. financial capitalism divide because the former naturally creates and indeed relies on the latter. even though a static hoard of money as such is the opposite of what capitalism requires, the exigencies of capital turnover and realization of value in the market actually requires ever-increasing supplies of liquid currency and increasing populations of specialized commercial and financial capitalists to manage that money the antagonism is not between industrial capitalists and financial capitalists. the antagonism is between capitalists and the state they inhabit. it is the responsibility of a state to control its own money supply, keeping it out of the hands of the capitalists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 01:25
|
|
|
Cuttlefush posted:good writing is good writing and bullshit writing is bullshit writing. zizek is a bullshit writer. lenin and his translators are not. i think there are a lot of overly complex/poorly written bits of theory (not from lenin) but that's because it's very hard to write clearly and simply. Azathoth posted:If you're writing for a general audience and your piece is full of academic jargon or otherwise uses a specialized vocabulary that the audience can't reasonably be expected to possess, that's not ableism or an accessibility issue, it's just lovely writing. If you're super concerned that writing for the hoi polloi will mean you're misunderstood because you then can't use super precise terminology, well yeah welcome to writing for a general audience. Making yourself understood without requiring the reader to have existing knowledge is a skill, and a rare one at that. Thank you both, most people were in strict agreement after a number of criticisms were implemented with this thing we’re writing as an org but one person ran it through a bot that said it’s written at a post college level. It seems straightforward and agreeable to the rest, and there is almost zero jargon especially of the ML variety. But this person expressed significant concern about accessibility and ableism. It seems well written and as brief as is practical to eliminate ambiguity. I just do agree (without being patronizing) that things should be accessible and had no good argument besides “we’ll read through this together with new people to the org” and “we want to raise people up and avoid underestimating their capacity.” In addition to the potential pitfalls I mentioned. I also don’t have much energy to do a complete rewrite after most people are good with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 01:50
|
|
|
Sunny Side Up posted:Thank you both, most people were in strict agreement after a number of criticisms were implemented with this thing we’re writing as an org but [b]one person ran it through a bot that said it’s written at a post college level[b]. It seems straightforward and agreeable to the rest, and there is almost zero jargon especially of the ML variety. But this person expressed significant concern about accessibility and ableism. It seems well written and as brief as is practical to eliminate ambiguity. I just do agree (without being patronizing) that things should be accessible and had no good argument besides “we’ll read through this together with new people to the org” and “we want to raise people up and avoid underestimating their capacity.” In addition to the potential pitfalls I mentioned. this sounds wreckery (probably just dumb). i dunno. that aint right though. christ
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 01:56
|
|
|
I mean, there's a valid point that even without getting jargony that pieces can use language that makes it harder for the intended audience to read, or that could come across as "academic", which might also be another word for too nerdy or too "ivory tower" or whatever term you want when someone talks down to their audience. Not saying that is happening here, of course, but it is worth keeping in mind depending on how different your audience might be from you and your group's perspective.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 01:58
|
|
|
yeah i mean particularly the robot bit
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 02:00
|
|
|
Sunny Side Up posted:Thank you both, most people were in strict agreement after a number of criticisms were implemented with this thing we’re writing as an org but one person ran it through a bot that said it’s written at a post college level. It seems straightforward and agreeable to the rest, and there is almost zero jargon especially of the ML variety. But this person expressed significant concern about accessibility and ableism. It seems well written and as brief as is practical to eliminate ambiguity. I just do agree (without being patronizing) that things should be accessible and had no good argument besides “we’ll read through this together with new people to the org” and “we want to raise people up and avoid underestimating their capacity.” In addition to the potential pitfalls I mentioned. wrecker, fire into the sun
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 02:03
|
|
|
I wouldn't trust whatever some dumb app spits out. Just show it to some people among the intended audience, ask them what they think the gist of it is, and adjust as necessary. If that person thinks they can do one that is free of ableism or whatever tell them to go wild and see if their stuff's up to snuff, but if 99% of people who drafted it think it's fine and especially if it's time sensitive then calls for delays should be weighed against your responsibility to membership to not be a ramshackle org incapable of sending out even a simple memo or meeting minutes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 02:09
|
|
|
it sounds like they're probably reading the clippy pop up box from Grammarly, which tries to model "readability" based on bodies of text it has classified as being academic or ad copy or a cover letter or whatever. they're not going to have a great corpus of working class literature nor the incentive to help you write such accomplishments. one could imagine the model says it's academic if you're using groups of terms that never appeared in its training data anywhere else but cultural criticism, history, textbooks etc. there are simple algorithms that calculate based on sentence length and so on to give a "reading level" as they do in Microsoft Word but that's not a great measure for other reasons
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 02:09
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I wouldn't trust whatever some dumb app spits out. Just show it to some people among the intended audience, ask them what they think the gist of it is, and adjust as necessary. If that person thinks they can do one that is free of ableism or whatever tell them to go wild and see if their stuff's up to snuff, but if 99% of people who drafted it think it's fine and especially if it's time sensitive then calls for delays should be weighed against your responsibility to membership to not be a ramshackle org incapable of sending out even a simple memo or meeting minutes. i agree with this, and i'll point explicitly to effort being a great divider between people who have concerns and 'concerns'; if they really found it important, they'd have rewritten it themselves
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 02:18
|
|
|
I freaking love you all. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 02:28
|
|
|
Probably don't go hollaring that they're a wrecker tho, it'll definitely cause a disrupting delay and it's way more likely they're just way too online and saw a tweet from some dumbass.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 02:46
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Probably don't go hollaring that they're a wrecker tho, it'll definitely cause a disrupting delay and it's way more likely they're just way too online and saw a tweet from some dumbass. Nah, I’m not tactless, but I have my head better wrapped around the criticism now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 03:19
|
|
|
Sunny Side Up posted:What is the simplest-written and most straightforward traditional work of theory? Engels posted:What is the proletariat? I’m not sure how relevant this very strict definition is. just given the prevalence of 401k plans it would reclassify a decent percentage of workers Sunny Side Up posted:Hey still on the topic of simplified theory: with regard to organizational documents or group readings. Is it ableist or an accessibility issue to write things in a complex way? I feel like ambiguity leads to unprincipled misreading and debate over interpretation rather than ideas as presented. Like alternate meanings can be weaponized in a libbish way. Like I heard this stat “54% of USAians read at 6th grade level.” But you got “uneducated” peasants and marginalized and all sorts of people (from the CPC in the 20s to the RIBPP today) understanding diamat and all manner of philosophy. It feels like a patronizing road to tread. it isn't ableist at all, no. but that example of "uneducated" Chinese peasants understanding communist theory is a point in favor of my firm belief that if a writer can't faithfully relate complex topics in a broadly accessible way it's because they don't completely understand it not that they all have to write in that way (and some will naturally be better at it than others [and others would rather write for an academically-oriented/specialist audience]), but I’m sure Mao Marx or Lenin could figure out how to teach communism to an elementary school class
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 04:10
|
|
|
i do not think marx would be capable of that
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 04:29
|
|
|
indigi posted:it isn't ableist at all, no. but that example of "uneducated" Chinese peasants understanding communist theory is a point in favor of my firm belief that if a writer can't faithfully relate complex topics in a broadly accessible way it's because they don't completely understand it mao absolutely slams on people for refusing to break with formalist writing to fit things to the audience and situation at hand (and the lack of real understanding of the theory that implies) repeatedly throughout his works quote:The third indictment against stereotyped Party writing is that it shoots at random, without considering the audience. A few years ago a slogan appeared on the Yenan city wall which read, "Working men and peasants, unite and strive for victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan!" The idea of the slogan was not at all bad, but the character kung [kung, meaning working] in kung jen [kung jen, meaning working men], was written as zigzag, with its perpendicular stroke twisted into a zigzag. How about the character jen [jen, meaning men]? It became three slanting, with three slanting strokes added to its right leg. The comrade who wrote this was no doubt a disciple of the ancient scholars, but it is rather baffling why he should have written such characters in such a place, on the Yenan city wall, at the time of the War of Resistance. Perhaps he had taken a vow that the common people should not read them; it is difficult to explain otherwise. Communists who really want to do propaganda must consider their audience and bear in mind those who will read their articles and slogans or listen to their speeches and their talk; otherwise they are in effect resolving not to be read or listened to by anyone. Many people often take it for granted that what they write and say can be easily understood by everybody, when it is not so at all. How can people understand them when they write and speak in Party stereotypes? The saying "to play the lute to a cow" implies a gibe at the audience. If we substitute the idea of respect for the audience, the gibe is turned against the player. Why should he strum away without considering his audience? What is worse, he is producing a Party stereotype as raucous as a crow, and yet he insists on cawing at the masses. When shooting an arrow, one must aim at the target; when playing the lute, one must consider the listener; how, then, can one write articles or make speeches without taking the reader or the audience into account? Suppose we want to make friends with a person, whoever he may be, can we become bosom friends if we do not understand each other's hearts, do not know each other's thoughts? It simply will not do for our propaganda workers to rattle on without investigating, studying and analysing their audience. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_07.htm
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 04:31
|
|
|
indigi posted:I’m not sure how relevant this very strict definition is. just given the prevalence of 401k plans it would reclassify a decent percentage of workers I think it's relevant. I'm not trying to say it makes western workers not-workers, but something I'm thinking a lot about with the whole cybernetics thing is how the complex ways we have been enmeshed in capital informs our behavior compared to a worker who draws no profit from capital. we draw profit from 401ks, even from pensions, from owning houses in the imperial core that increase in value from the wealth extracted from the periphery, etc. I'm not exactly sure what that makes us, but it inextricably ties our interests up with the interests of capital and channels our behavior into reproducing capitalism without quite making us capitalists, which I usually take to mean a person who draws enough profit from their capital to reproduce themselves without selling any labor. it's why I sometimes capitalize Capital, the ecosystem with different trophic levels, as distinct from capital as money that makes money, or capitalism as the dynamics of that system. I think you can look at industrial and financial capital in a similar way, as capitalists filling different niches in that ecosystem. we can also distinguish between small or first order capitalists, who can buy labor to make money (e.g., factory labor) from big or higher order capitalists, who can also buy labor to depress wages and shape the ecosystem (e.g., political labor). that's probably just an artifact of my own starting point and can be expressed in less revisionist terms, but it's useful for me to understand the behavior. Zodium has issued a correction as of 09:17 on Apr 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 09:05
|
|
|
you tailor your communication to your audience, and this requires mastery and a williness to trying to understand the minds of the people you are speaking too. people fail at this by coughing up parts of a book, either because they didn't fully digest it or because of a sense of superiority this doesn't mean that everything will be explainable to everyone, that's just a matter of being good enough at communication. five year olds don't know a bunch of things, you could teach them calculus by teaching them until they were ten year olds, but that's not what people mean
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
Zodium posted:I think it's relevant. I'm not trying to say it makes western workers not-workers, but something I'm thinking a lot about with the whole cybernetics thing is how the complex ways we have been enmeshed in capital informs our behavior compared to a worker who draws no profit from capital. we draw profit from 401ks, even from pensions, from owning houses in the imperial core that increase in value from the wealth extracted from the periphery, etc. I'm not exactly sure what that makes us, but it inextricably ties our interests up with the interests of capital and channels our behavior into reproducing capitalism without quite making us capitalists, which I usually take to mean a person who draws enough profit from their capital to reproduce themselves without selling any labor. it's why I sometimes capitalize Capital, the ecosystem with different trophic levels, as distinct from capital as money that makes money, or capitalism as the dynamics of that system. You mention cybernetics a lot in your posts. Could you talk a little about what it means in the context of marxism?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 15:50
|
|
|
Principles of Communism is a text i still really like, even though it has one glaring mistaken prediction in it: the claim that communism necessarily has to start in the imperial core rather than the periphery because the imperial core has more highly-developed industry and whatnot. i think history has decisively disproven marx and engels on that point i really do appreciate Principles's definition of "proletariat" because it makes it very clear that "proletarian" isn't the same as "worker"; slaves and peasants are also workers, they're just not the specific kind of worker that's completely unmoored from lord and land and has to sell their labor power day-by-day to survive. it's true that a literal leading here makes you cease to be proletarian the moment you get any stock options, but i think the definition still works when we understand a little more about the dynamics of the working vs. the managerial class and how e.g. a manager isn't a proletarian even if he A) gets paid a wage and B) doesn't even get a 401k. the question is whether capital valorization makes you stronger or weaker relative, and whether your livelihood actually depends on successful capital valorization rather than the production of mere use-values
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
AnimeIsTrash posted:You mention cybernetics a lot in your posts. Could you talk a little about what it means in the context of marxism? gently caress me, i accidentally refreshed just before finishing my reply i wont speak for Zodium here, but for some context cybernetics went through a period of being labeled bourgeois bullshit in the ussr and then acceptance after Kruschev took over. there are a shitload of russian language papers on cybernetic everything but i dont think very many of them were translated. https://cosmonautmag.com/2022/10/soviet-cybernetics-an-introduction/ is a decent looking article covering some of that and with a translated version of one of the early soviet cybernetics papers. not familiar with cosmonautmag so if it's actually poo poo or something, whoopsies (anyone know what its deal is?) 'cybernetic capitalism' i use as a shorthand for capitalism's build up of feedbacks and now literally constructed algorithms that have some control over information and markets. the speedtrading stock market bots, social media, search engines, the algorithmic nature of what information people can get. commodification of information, communication, enclosing some of the last commons (like old internet) i don't really think that's meaningfully important from a marxist perspective in the sense that it shouldn't change how someone reads Capital or Imperialism or anything. also i think almost all of the english language writing on 'cybernetic capitalism' smell like bullshit. Cuttlefush has issued a correction as of 18:01 on Apr 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
double nine posted:Since the 1980s western capitalism has transitioned more and more towards finance capitalism & rentseeking, and away from industrial capitalism. the long twentieth century is precisely what you're looking for, it's good
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
Cuttlefush posted:https://cosmonautmag.com/2022/10/soviet-cybernetics-an-introduction/ is a decent looking article covering some of that and with a translated version of one of the early soviet cybernetics papers. not familiar with cosmonautmag so if it's actually poo poo or something, whoopsies (anyone know what its deal is?) there’s a lot of overlap with DSA’s Marxist Unity Group: https://www.marxistunity.com/points-of-unity-and-immediate-tasks
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 17:21
|
|
|
AnimeIsTrash posted:You mention cybernetics a lot in your posts. Could you talk a little about what it means in the context of marxism? Marxist cybernetics, in a very short and brutal summary, refers to the application of electronic systems of planning, feedback and control in political economy. The name is a holdover from the 50s; a reason why it remains so is because doing applied computer science for political economy is interdisciplinary as gently caress and is a point of relevance for many analyses. For example, a major factor of analysis for Marxist computer scientists/cyberneticists about the fall of the USSR deals with the refusal of developing information infrastructure, which we now know would have solved many of the hurdles of economic planning and organization.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 18:13
|
|
|
so it's just computers
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 18:16
|
|
|
not really depending on what you mean by computer. it's worth reading some of the article in https://cosmonautmag.com/2022/10/soviet-cybernetics-an-introduction/ but the important part isKey Features of Cybernetics posted:This area of science is developing rapidly and does not yet constitute a sufficiently coherent and operational scientific discipline. At present, three main fields have developed within cybernetics, each of which is of great importance in its own right:
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:so it's just computers hehehehe tbqf, given our time, it's important to emphasize that they are the antithesis of startup mentality and elonmuskery. Instead of "programmer thinks he is better than experts of twelve other different fields about this issue", it's about integrating those systems with societal necessities and scientific approaches to develop socialism, basically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 18:28
|
|
|
resolve contradictions by going on the computer
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
the computer told me to get off the computer
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 18:54
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:so it's just computers no not really. i heard about cybernetics before but didn't really learn about it until encountering it studying psychology. in particular I encountered it in the context of personality research with the "cybernetic big five theory": quote:Cybernetics, the study of goal-directed, adaptive systems, is the best framework for an integrative theory of personality. Cybernetic Big Five Theory attempts to provide a comprehensive, synthetic, and mechanistic explanatory model. Constructs that describe psychological individual differences are divided into personality traits, reflecting variation in the parameters of evolved cybernetic mechanisms, and characteristic adaptations, representing goals, interpretations, and strategies defined in relation to an individual's particular life circumstances. The theory identifies mechanisms in which variation is responsible for traits in the top three levels of a hierarchical trait taxonomy based on the Big Five and describes the causal dynamics between traits and characteristic adaptations. Lastly, the theory links function and dysfunction in traits and characteristic adaptations to psychopathology and well-being. I don't follow this stuff closely anymore but the paper has a nice overview of how cybernetics can be used to study things that aren't computers: quote:The fundamental premise of CB5T is that any adequate theory of personality must be based in cybernetics, the study of goal-directed, self-regulating systems (Austin & Vancouver, 1996; Carver & Scheier, 1998; DeYoung, 2010c; Peterson & Flanders, 2002; Van Egeren, 2009; Wiener, 1961). Cybernetic systems are characterized by their inclusion of one or more goals or reference values, which guide the work carried out by the system. (In psychology, the term "goal" is sometimes reserved for conscious representations of goals, but the term is more general in cybernetics, and many goals are not conscious.) Further, all cybernetic systems receive feedback, through some kind of sensory mechanism, indicating the degree to which they are moving toward their goals. Finally, they are adaptive and adjust their behavior, based on feedback, to pursue their goals. Cybernetics is a useful, and perhaps even necessary, approach to understanding living things (Gray, 2004, chap. 3).  this may not be the best way to study human personality but it could be an example of how if you conceive of a thing like a computer you can try to reason about it in such a manner.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
oh no
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 19:00
|
|