A small tool to view real-world ActivityPub objects as JSON! Enter a URL
or username from Mastodon or a similar service below, and we'll send a
request with
the right
Accept
header
to the server to view the underlying object.
{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
"type": "OrderedCollectionPage",
"orderedItems": [
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:854055763319291904",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"content": "The transmutation of Data to fact to value clarifies the conflation of meaningfully true and factually true. This, with utility and a full accounting of the transitions along that spectrum might aid in revealing the dimensions of meaning. It might also show why some might privilege meaning to the point of dismissing fact (pomo, idealists, transcendentalists, mystics etc.)<br /><br />Raw data, information in the absence of context, has no meaning. \"Raw data with no purpose\" states this idea in another way.<br /><br />When we pose a question or declare a fact, from which we draw on data to support the inquiry or assertion, we set a context. Setting the context draws boundaries to the relevance of data. Some data points will be relevant to the context, others not.<br /><br />Data points which have a relevance to context we call facts. <br /><br />The evaluation of some facts will have more relevance than other facts. The weight of relevance we call value.<br /><br />In other words, data becomes meaningful (value) as a fact due to the context (searches) which one superimpose upon the data blanket.<br /><br />The difficulty here stems from the source of the context. We set the context, by searching the inventory of data. By doing so, our search makes the data meaningful or not depending upon the particular search.<br /><br />If we only consider the data-fact-value and content-context relationships without considering the mind which is doing the searching, then we can make a whole boat load of nonsense arguments about reality.<br /><br />For example: pomo will say that facts are a social construct because data does not become a fact until we look for it, and our looking occurs within a social superstructure. Therefore all facts only demonstrate the bias of the person looking at the facts which is driven by their social standing. <br /><br />This underpins leftist arguments against evo-psych and genetic researchers. The facts these people bring to the debate only demonstrates their racist bias.<br /><br />They've privileged meaningfulness over the factual by claiming value stems from context rather than content because context dictates what will be considered content or not.<br /><br />This argument - facts reflect context opposed to verifying correspondence - creates a circular argument where meaning dictates facts and in turn facts reflect meaning. This clips off the data allowing data to be dismissed or reframed with no constraint (reframing). This allows one to drive context toward overloaded frames (ambiguity and intuition pumps) while remaining internally consistent.<br /><br />Transmutation across the data - fact - value transmutation loses cohesion and consistency. This is what allows pomo, mystics, transcendentialists to down grade or outright dismiss reality - asserting reality as inaccessible or indistinguishable from frames (linguistic frames, moral frames, categorical frames etc) - it's a convincing argument for truth relevatistism and coherence over correspondence.<br /><br />The person setting the context doesn't get accounted for, although intuitively it appears to have been. <br /><br />People reason to an ends - the ends one reasons toward dictates the context - ends ground in utility.<br /><br />When factoring in utility and WHY we are engaging in concept creation, data searching etc, the circular argument expands to include data and the purpose of the inquiry opposed to closing the fact value cycle to define intentions of person making the inquiry.<br /><br />The purpose or outcome we plan to use these concepts for and what success these concepts will provide in achieving this purpose, demands we measure and calculate effects and consequences in reality. In short, ultimately, all contexts (meaning) ground in effects (consequences). Understanding these effects demands we calculate data.<br /><br />Meaning defines the purpose. Purpose defines what effects must be obtained for success. Operational calcuability provides the methods in which success can be achieved. This way meaning (purpose) as well as factualality (is that a word) cohere according to utility. <br /><br />Meaning (Purpose, context, coherence) - imperative - intentional- what we wish to do (experience) with the concepts. Value<br /><br />Facts (content, data, coherence to correspondence) - declarative - what we are experiencing when we use these concepts<br /><br />Data (operational, correspondence - ostensive - actual - what we experience.<br /><br />When all three cohere and correspond we have fulfillment. Meaningfully fulfilled, factually actualized utility - I.e. agency<br /><br />Man reasons to survive. To reason requires evaluation. To survive our evaluation must correspond to reality and cohere to our goal. Utility grounds all meaning- agency is the only transcendence man seeks. The will to power (agency).<br /><br />Asserting primacy of transcendence for human action seeks will to power over others by reframing and loading MEANING as a priority over reason. This justifies (motivates) actions which may or may not have utility. The ambiguity of utility has been interjected by introducing the primacy of transcendence over data and utility.<br /><br />(Holds hand out, palm facing the earth)",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/854055763319291904",
"published": "2018-06-14T17:52:41+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "The transmutation of Data to fact to value clarifies the conflation of meaningfully true and factually true. This, with utility and a full accounting of the transitions along that spectrum might aid in revealing the dimensions of meaning. It might also show why some might privilege meaning to the point of dismissing fact (pomo, idealists, transcendentalists, mystics etc.)\n\nRaw data, information in the absence of context, has no meaning. \"Raw data with no purpose\" states this idea in another way.\n\nWhen we pose a question or declare a fact, from which we draw on data to support the inquiry or assertion, we set a context. Setting the context draws boundaries to the relevance of data. Some data points will be relevant to the context, others not.\n\nData points which have a relevance to context we call facts. \n\nThe evaluation of some facts will have more relevance than other facts. The weight of relevance we call value.\n\nIn other words, data becomes meaningful (value) as a fact due to the context (searches) which one superimpose upon the data blanket.\n\nThe difficulty here stems from the source of the context. We set the context, by searching the inventory of data. By doing so, our search makes the data meaningful or not depending upon the particular search.\n\nIf we only consider the data-fact-value and content-context relationships without considering the mind which is doing the searching, then we can make a whole boat load of nonsense arguments about reality.\n\nFor example: pomo will say that facts are a social construct because data does not become a fact until we look for it, and our looking occurs within a social superstructure. Therefore all facts only demonstrate the bias of the person looking at the facts which is driven by their social standing. \n\nThis underpins leftist arguments against evo-psych and genetic researchers. The facts these people bring to the debate only demonstrates their racist bias.\n\nThey've privileged meaningfulness over the factual by claiming value stems from context rather than content because context dictates what will be considered content or not.\n\nThis argument - facts reflect context opposed to verifying correspondence - creates a circular argument where meaning dictates facts and in turn facts reflect meaning. This clips off the data allowing data to be dismissed or reframed with no constraint (reframing). This allows one to drive context toward overloaded frames (ambiguity and intuition pumps) while remaining internally consistent.\n\nTransmutation across the data - fact - value transmutation loses cohesion and consistency. This is what allows pomo, mystics, transcendentialists to down grade or outright dismiss reality - asserting reality as inaccessible or indistinguishable from frames (linguistic frames, moral frames, categorical frames etc) - it's a convincing argument for truth relevatistism and coherence over correspondence.\n\nThe person setting the context doesn't get accounted for, although intuitively it appears to have been. \n\nPeople reason to an ends - the ends one reasons toward dictates the context - ends ground in utility.\n\nWhen factoring in utility and WHY we are engaging in concept creation, data searching etc, the circular argument expands to include data and the purpose of the inquiry opposed to closing the fact value cycle to define intentions of person making the inquiry.\n\nThe purpose or outcome we plan to use these concepts for and what success these concepts will provide in achieving this purpose, demands we measure and calculate effects and consequences in reality. In short, ultimately, all contexts (meaning) ground in effects (consequences). Understanding these effects demands we calculate data.\n\nMeaning defines the purpose. Purpose defines what effects must be obtained for success. Operational calcuability provides the methods in which success can be achieved. This way meaning (purpose) as well as factualality (is that a word) cohere according to utility. \n\nMeaning (Purpose, context, coherence) - imperative - intentional- what we wish to do (experience) with the concepts. Value\n\nFacts (content, data, coherence to correspondence) - declarative - what we are experiencing when we use these concepts\n\nData (operational, correspondence - ostensive - actual - what we experience.\n\nWhen all three cohere and correspond we have fulfillment. Meaningfully fulfilled, factually actualized utility - I.e. agency\n\nMan reasons to survive. To reason requires evaluation. To survive our evaluation must correspond to reality and cohere to our goal. Utility grounds all meaning- agency is the only transcendence man seeks. The will to power (agency).\n\nAsserting primacy of transcendence for human action seeks will to power over others by reframing and loading MEANING as a priority over reason. This justifies (motivates) actions which may or may not have utility. The ambiguity of utility has been interjected by introducing the primacy of transcendence over data and utility.\n\n(Holds hand out, palm facing the earth)",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:854055763319291904/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:854055587451056128",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"content": "The transmutation of Data to fact to value clarifies the conflation of meaningfully true and factually true. This, with utility and a full accounting of the transitions along that spectrum might aid in revealing the dimensions of meaning. It might also show why some might privilege meaning to the point of dismissing fact (pomo, idealists, transcendentalists, mystics etc.)<br /><br />Raw data, information in the absence of context, has no meaning. \"Raw data with no purpose\" states this idea in another way.<br /><br />When we pose a question or declare a fact, from which we draw on data to support the inquiry or assertion, we set a context. Setting the context draws boundaries to the relevance of data. Some data points will be relevant to the context, others not.<br /><br />Data points which have a relevance to context we call facts. <br /><br />The evaluation of some facts will have more relevance than other facts. The weight of relevance we call value.<br /><br />In other words, data becomes meaningful (value) as a fact due to the context (searches) which one superimpose upon the data blanket.<br /><br />The difficulty here stems from the source of the context. We set the context, by searching the inventory of data. By doing so, our search makes the data meaningful or not depending upon the particular search.<br /><br />If we only consider the data-fact-value and content-context relationships without considering the mind which is doing the searching, then we can make a whole boat load of nonsense arguments about reality.<br /><br />For example: pomo will say that facts are a social construct because data does not become a fact until we look for it, and our looking occurs within a social superstructure. Therefore all facts only demonstrate the bias of the person looking at the facts which is driven by their social standing. <br /><br />This underpins leftist arguments against evo-psych and genetic researchers. The facts these people bring to the debate only demonstrates their racist bias.<br /><br />They've privileged meaningfulness over the factual by claiming value stems from context rather than content because context dictates what will be considered content or not.<br /><br />This argument - facts reflect context opposed to verifying correspondence - creates a circular argument where meaning dictates facts and in turn facts reflect meaning. This clips off the data allowing data to be dismissed or reframed with no constraint (reframing). This allows one to drive context toward overloaded frames (ambiguity and intuition pumps) while remaining internally consistent.<br /><br />Transmutation across the data - fact - value transmutation loses cohesion and consistency. This is what allows pomo, mystics, transcendentialists to down grade or outright dismiss reality - asserting reality as inaccessible or indistinguishable from frames (linguistic frames, moral frames, categorical frames etc) - it's a convincing argument for truth relevatistism and coherence over correspondence.<br /><br />The person setting the context doesn't get accounted for, although intuitively it appears to have been. <br /><br />People reason to an ends - the ends one reasons toward dictates the context - ends ground in utility.<br /><br />When factoring in utility and WHY we are engaging in concept creation, data searching etc, the circular argument expands to include data and the purpose of the inquiry opposed to closing the fact value cycle to define intentions of person making the inquiry.<br /><br />The purpose or outcome we plan to use these concepts for and what success these concepts will provide in achieving this purpose, demands we measure and calculate effects and consequences in reality. In short, ultimately, all contexts (meaning) ground in effects (consequences). Understanding these effects demands we calculate data.<br /><br />Meaning defines the purpose. Purpose defines what effects must be obtained for success. Operational calcuability provides the methods in which success can be achieved. This way meaning (purpose) as well as factualality (is that a word) cohere according to utility. <br /><br />Meaning (Purpose, context, coherence) - imperative - intentional- what we wish to do (experience) with the concepts. Value<br /><br />Facts (content, data, coherence to correspondence) - declarative - what we are experiencing when we use these concepts<br /><br />Data (operational, correspondence - ostensive - actual - what we experience.<br /><br />When all three cohere and correspond we have fulfillment. Meaningfully fulfilled, factually actualized utility - I.e. agency<br /><br />Man reasons to survive. To reason requires evaluation. To survive our evaluation must correspond to reality and cohere to our goal. Utility grounds all meaning- agency is the only transcendence man seeks. The will to power (agency).<br /><br />Asserting primacy of transcendence for human action seeks will to power over others by reframing and loading MEANING as a priority over reason. This justifies (motivates) actions which may or may not have utility. The ambiguity of utility has been interjected by introducing the primacy of transcendence over data and utility.<br /><br />(Holds hand out, palm facing the earth)",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/854055587451056128",
"published": "2018-06-14T17:51:59+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "The transmutation of Data to fact to value clarifies the conflation of meaningfully true and factually true. This, with utility and a full accounting of the transitions along that spectrum might aid in revealing the dimensions of meaning. It might also show why some might privilege meaning to the point of dismissing fact (pomo, idealists, transcendentalists, mystics etc.)\n\nRaw data, information in the absence of context, has no meaning. \"Raw data with no purpose\" states this idea in another way.\n\nWhen we pose a question or declare a fact, from which we draw on data to support the inquiry or assertion, we set a context. Setting the context draws boundaries to the relevance of data. Some data points will be relevant to the context, others not.\n\nData points which have a relevance to context we call facts. \n\nThe evaluation of some facts will have more relevance than other facts. The weight of relevance we call value.\n\nIn other words, data becomes meaningful (value) as a fact due to the context (searches) which one superimpose upon the data blanket.\n\nThe difficulty here stems from the source of the context. We set the context, by searching the inventory of data. By doing so, our search makes the data meaningful or not depending upon the particular search.\n\nIf we only consider the data-fact-value and content-context relationships without considering the mind which is doing the searching, then we can make a whole boat load of nonsense arguments about reality.\n\nFor example: pomo will say that facts are a social construct because data does not become a fact until we look for it, and our looking occurs within a social superstructure. Therefore all facts only demonstrate the bias of the person looking at the facts which is driven by their social standing. \n\nThis underpins leftist arguments against evo-psych and genetic researchers. The facts these people bring to the debate only demonstrates their racist bias.\n\nThey've privileged meaningfulness over the factual by claiming value stems from context rather than content because context dictates what will be considered content or not.\n\nThis argument - facts reflect context opposed to verifying correspondence - creates a circular argument where meaning dictates facts and in turn facts reflect meaning. This clips off the data allowing data to be dismissed or reframed with no constraint (reframing). This allows one to drive context toward overloaded frames (ambiguity and intuition pumps) while remaining internally consistent.\n\nTransmutation across the data - fact - value transmutation loses cohesion and consistency. This is what allows pomo, mystics, transcendentialists to down grade or outright dismiss reality - asserting reality as inaccessible or indistinguishable from frames (linguistic frames, moral frames, categorical frames etc) - it's a convincing argument for truth relevatistism and coherence over correspondence.\n\nThe person setting the context doesn't get accounted for, although intuitively it appears to have been. \n\nPeople reason to an ends - the ends one reasons toward dictates the context - ends ground in utility.\n\nWhen factoring in utility and WHY we are engaging in concept creation, data searching etc, the circular argument expands to include data and the purpose of the inquiry opposed to closing the fact value cycle to define intentions of person making the inquiry.\n\nThe purpose or outcome we plan to use these concepts for and what success these concepts will provide in achieving this purpose, demands we measure and calculate effects and consequences in reality. In short, ultimately, all contexts (meaning) ground in effects (consequences). Understanding these effects demands we calculate data.\n\nMeaning defines the purpose. Purpose defines what effects must be obtained for success. Operational calcuability provides the methods in which success can be achieved. This way meaning (purpose) as well as factualality (is that a word) cohere according to utility. \n\nMeaning (Purpose, context, coherence) - imperative - intentional- what we wish to do (experience) with the concepts. Value\n\nFacts (content, data, coherence to correspondence) - declarative - what we are experiencing when we use these concepts\n\nData (operational, correspondence - ostensive - actual - what we experience.\n\nWhen all three cohere and correspond we have fulfillment. Meaningfully fulfilled, factually actualized utility - I.e. agency\n\nMan reasons to survive. To reason requires evaluation. To survive our evaluation must correspond to reality and cohere to our goal. Utility grounds all meaning- agency is the only transcendence man seeks. The will to power (agency).\n\nAsserting primacy of transcendence for human action seeks will to power over others by reframing and loading MEANING as a priority over reason. This justifies (motivates) actions which may or may not have utility. The ambiguity of utility has been interjected by introducing the primacy of transcendence over data and utility.\n\n(Holds hand out, palm facing the earth)",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:854055587451056128/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:853384952522276864",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"content": "THE PROCESS OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT<br />by Bill Joslin<br /><br />So the process of cognitive development and concept creation would follow this spectrum.<br /><br />1) Analogistic : abductive, fictional, imaginary, free association, imaginable - hypothesis creation.<br /><br />2) Theoretical - inductive, narrative, possible, hypothesis development<br /><br />3) Axiomatic - deductive, descriptive, deterministic, testable, probable, provable law proposal<br /><br />4) Operational - descriptive, directive, decidable, actionable, warrant able, testable, falsifiable - creation(discovery) of law<br /><br />A (spectrum) process of constant disambiguation leading to more effective action (increases in agency) - which is why some may get stuck at one position and then assert each as separate discrete entities which are opposed to each other (a type of cherry picking) versus steps toward disambiguation",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/853384952522276864",
"published": "2018-06-12T21:27:07+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "THE PROCESS OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT\nby Bill Joslin\n\nSo the process of cognitive development and concept creation would follow this spectrum.\n\n1) Analogistic : abductive, fictional, imaginary, free association, imaginable - hypothesis creation.\n\n2) Theoretical - inductive, narrative, possible, hypothesis development\n\n3) Axiomatic - deductive, descriptive, deterministic, testable, probable, provable law proposal\n\n4) Operational - descriptive, directive, decidable, actionable, warrant able, testable, falsifiable - creation(discovery) of law\n\nA (spectrum) process of constant disambiguation leading to more effective action (increases in agency) - which is why some may get stuck at one position and then assert each as separate discrete entities which are opposed to each other (a type of cherry picking) versus steps toward disambiguation",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:853384952522276864/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:853384494080655360",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"content": "THE PROBLEM OF IDENTITY POLITICS<br /><br />If I define myself based on what you are i.e. I am the victim of your oppression, and hold this the core of my identity, how can I live with you? How can I live without you? How can my identity exist without it vandalizing your identity? How can you exist without it being an imposition on my identity?",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/853384494080655360",
"published": "2018-06-12T21:25:18+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "THE PROBLEM OF IDENTITY POLITICS\n\nIf I define myself based on what you are i.e. I am the victim of your oppression, and hold this the core of my identity, how can I live with you? How can I live without you? How can my identity exist without it vandalizing your identity? How can you exist without it being an imposition on my identity?",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:853384494080655360/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:853384244595163136",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"content": "Given the vast array of possibility and immense casual density of the universe, incrementally eliminating the arbitrary from the relevant recursively refines the process of knowledge production and choice of effective action. The spectrum from Analogy to Theory to Axiomatic Proof to Operational Description outlines the process of continuous disambiguation which iteratively remove doubt in preference, good, and truth and therefore future action. The degree of doubt which survives the disambiguation process dictates the degree of knowledge obtained. The degree of knowledge obtain dictates the effectiveness of action - the degree of agency obtained.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/853384244595163136",
"published": "2018-06-12T21:24:19+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Given the vast array of possibility and immense casual density of the universe, incrementally eliminating the arbitrary from the relevant recursively refines the process of knowledge production and choice of effective action. The spectrum from Analogy to Theory to Axiomatic Proof to Operational Description outlines the process of continuous disambiguation which iteratively remove doubt in preference, good, and truth and therefore future action. The degree of doubt which survives the disambiguation process dictates the degree of knowledge obtained. The degree of knowledge obtain dictates the effectiveness of action - the degree of agency obtained.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:853384244595163136/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:853383753924411392",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"content": "Man must act to survive. To do so requires evaluation. Value occurs as a spectrum with the sacred at the high end.<br /><br />Valuation contains two dimension - the factual, the value of x is... And the meaningful, I value you as a friend (I really do).<br /><br />The sacred pertains to, usually, the meaningful in most conversations. <br /><br />All we are saying is <br /><br />1) the factual can be meaningful<br /><br />2) the.meaningful must be factual because man must act.<br /><br />Imma gunna expand on my wee bit above.:<br /><br />With the sacred being the high end of the meaningful spectrum, the equivalent on the factual spectrum would be law (as in laws of nature). Transcendence, mysticism etc conflate the high ends proclaiming the sacred to be law and claim the law to be meaningless. This provides a justification to privilege the sacred over law. Thus conclusions such as primacy over nature accompany such schools of thought. Other such reversals of contingency include primacy of consciousness, primacy of linguistics over cognition (even though consciousness can exist without language, yet language exists as an artefact of, albeit interdependent with, cognition.)<br /><br />How this pertains to agency... Meaningfulness can be found while in contemplation, or mulling things over, or reframing painful experiences into a meaningful experience. <br /><br />These are all domains of the mind which we have a lot of control over...we, our minds, are the only variable.<br /><br />In other words, it doesn't demand engagement with the external world where many factors playing into consequences exist outside our control. We can do it all in our heads if we.chose.<br /><br />By engaging the external world and engaging the factual, one can, with trial and error, as well as being subjected to failure, can make headway. <br /><br />This takes work and risk... So those who privilege the meaningful over the factual often do so out of risk aversion, or inexperience, or lack of ability. The meaningful is just lower cost. That's all. And because it is lower risk, those who seek low risks and lower costs investments and also those lacking opportunity and ability will tend toward the meaningful.<br /><br />Now there is the inverse of this with the factual dimension. They elevate reason to the sacred. They reject the meaningful as ineffectual time-wasters. While they do this, they make the factual sacred (Aristotelians who hold reason as a platonic form) and they tend to be just as creepy as those who prefer the meaningful.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/853383753924411392",
"published": "2018-06-12T21:22:22+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Man must act to survive. To do so requires evaluation. Value occurs as a spectrum with the sacred at the high end.\n\nValuation contains two dimension - the factual, the value of x is... And the meaningful, I value you as a friend (I really do).\n\nThe sacred pertains to, usually, the meaningful in most conversations. \n\nAll we are saying is \n\n1) the factual can be meaningful\n\n2) the.meaningful must be factual because man must act.\n\nImma gunna expand on my wee bit above.:\n\nWith the sacred being the high end of the meaningful spectrum, the equivalent on the factual spectrum would be law (as in laws of nature). Transcendence, mysticism etc conflate the high ends proclaiming the sacred to be law and claim the law to be meaningless. This provides a justification to privilege the sacred over law. Thus conclusions such as primacy over nature accompany such schools of thought. Other such reversals of contingency include primacy of consciousness, primacy of linguistics over cognition (even though consciousness can exist without language, yet language exists as an artefact of, albeit interdependent with, cognition.)\n\nHow this pertains to agency... Meaningfulness can be found while in contemplation, or mulling things over, or reframing painful experiences into a meaningful experience. \n\nThese are all domains of the mind which we have a lot of control over...we, our minds, are the only variable.\n\nIn other words, it doesn't demand engagement with the external world where many factors playing into consequences exist outside our control. We can do it all in our heads if we.chose.\n\nBy engaging the external world and engaging the factual, one can, with trial and error, as well as being subjected to failure, can make headway. \n\nThis takes work and risk... So those who privilege the meaningful over the factual often do so out of risk aversion, or inexperience, or lack of ability. The meaningful is just lower cost. That's all. And because it is lower risk, those who seek low risks and lower costs investments and also those lacking opportunity and ability will tend toward the meaningful.\n\nNow there is the inverse of this with the factual dimension. They elevate reason to the sacred. They reject the meaningful as ineffectual time-wasters. While they do this, they make the factual sacred (Aristotelians who hold reason as a platonic form) and they tend to be just as creepy as those who prefer the meaningful.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:853383753924411392/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:819280105774264320",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"content": "In any scenario, a remnant remains highly relevant.<br /><br />If a revolution and winning it: the values that prevailed must be preserved somehow into future generations...<br /><br />If revolution and fail: the values which succumbed must somehow be preserved into future generations<br /><br />if no revolution (status quo): these values must be preserved in the face of rapid erosion (our status quo today)<br /><br />Further to that, repairing and rebuilding this value set will cultivate a temperament of commons builders who will naturally outcompete and if necessary segregate.<br /><br />So the one scenario it doesn't fit is overt and rapid genocide (like South Africa)... but to that point - remnant + enclave might suffice...<br /><br />Here's the thing - the west is falling, not because of pomo rhetoric or changes in institutional foundations, these are effects of a society which failed in the intergenerational transfer of western values, social innovations and the foundations which both are grounded in (cultivation and maintenance of a specific temperament).... it was a failure of the remnant.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/819280105774264320",
"published": "2018-03-10T18:46:38+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "In any scenario, a remnant remains highly relevant.\n\nIf a revolution and winning it: the values that prevailed must be preserved somehow into future generations...\n\nIf revolution and fail: the values which succumbed must somehow be preserved into future generations\n\nif no revolution (status quo): these values must be preserved in the face of rapid erosion (our status quo today)\n\nFurther to that, repairing and rebuilding this value set will cultivate a temperament of commons builders who will naturally outcompete and if necessary segregate.\n\nSo the one scenario it doesn't fit is overt and rapid genocide (like South Africa)... but to that point - remnant + enclave might suffice...\n\nHere's the thing - the west is falling, not because of pomo rhetoric or changes in institutional foundations, these are effects of a society which failed in the intergenerational transfer of western values, social innovations and the foundations which both are grounded in (cultivation and maintenance of a specific temperament).... it was a failure of the remnant.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:819280105774264320/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:817855380923654144",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"content": "From Alain Kassabian<br />PART 2:<br /><br />\"The closest thing to criticism I see for Testimonialism, Sheepdog, Logos (symbiosis raising agency) is regarding the practical access the higher tiers of incentives. I see potential pitfalls as sensible considerations for optimal application, not as contrary to the notion of Testimonilaism, ie.:<br /><br />1 The idea of solving everything with words is absurd (strawman of Logos) - in reality we can use precise language to shift conditions towards the net agency (meta-incentive)<br /><br />2 The idea of society not collapsing under prosperity seems far fetched and challenging (strawman of Sheepdog) - in reality solving for agency, c, v, etc. using testimonialism offers value as an optimization, not a guarantee<br /><br />3 The idea of to more ideal institutions (martial societies, due diligence, warranties, honest prosecution) seems like brutal and far fetched LARPING to the modern mind (strawman of Testimonialism/Propertarianism) - in reality these are descriptions of the norms we cycle through from high to low trust<br /><br />The reason I don't see these as criticism is that the process discussed is a natural one with historical precedence. People are naturally intolerant of slights against their own interests and we have produced high levels of key items like precise law, high trust, c, and v. Additionally, the fragility of modernity and of successful civilizations in general is obvious. So to criticize a map of the biological and social systems detailing what happens as you either build up or tear down pro-trust norms as some impossible ideal is to miss the point. Things will never be perfect but we can incrementally suppress predation, parasitism, and the negative sides of co-operation, and at higher levels of Agency, C, and V, it should start looking about as ideal as it gets in reality.<br /><br />Again, a stoic shifting of attention to optimization rather than searching for some imaginary guarantee of success is more useful and therefore congruent with any value system you have that actually represents striving for good (symbiosis). So these measures that further testimonialism by sustaining high trust (symbiosis) are the point and throwing away the tools of measurement because \"life is really hard\" and \"that's impossible\" is clearly not as useful. There isn't even technically a requirement to do anything any harder, picking up better tools can make it easier to do what you already do (especially if they're built around empiricism, operational epistemology, incentives, clarity, parsimony).<br /><br />The other potential criticism that jumps out is for testimonialism is that \"it's censorship\", although, I see it as assumed (and Curt has also stated) that reserving access to free truthful speech is important. So, it might seem overbearing and authoritarian, but the fact is we have been and should continue to suppress deceptive behaviour that undermines our agency, sovereignty, and antifragility. This is the idea of preserving and expressing natural authority over arbitrary authority because it aligns with a meta incentive (agency gives you more of whatever you value).<br /><br />I sometimes wonder if this sort of adaption is innate to being or sentience regardless of what happens to any particular species: Logos, Sheepdog, the natural advantages available given sentience. Again, I agree that for personal sanity and maximized success across larger scales, a focus on what is in our control (demonstrating value) is a better frame for considering the odds, than to consider them primarily for how bad they seem (a result affected by our actions, but ultimately beyond our absolute control). Excuses for not taking the best shot is weak in the micro and macro sense, especially in terms of survivability and aesthetics. Again, I suppose the counter aesthetic is parasitism (not bothering to strengthen the ecosystem from which you come) and that's home how valid too (producing alienation, evasion, and excess fragility in the macro and micro)? Maybe it's bias to prefer the pole that corresponds to the in built non-psychopath intuition (as poorly as we stick to it at times) - but it seems justified describing the empirical realities of each pole (high and low trust).<br /><br />There are a few versions of this list, but these are essentially the 6-8 standards of measurement referred to in Testimonialism: <br /><a href=\"https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-adjective-form-of-truth/answer/Curt-Doolittle\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-adjective-form-of-truth/answer/Curt-Doolittle</a> <br /><br />Also: <br /><a href=\"https://propertarianism.com/2016/03/10/q-do-you-have-a-concise-definition-for-testimonialism/\" target=\"_blank\">https://propertarianism.com/2016/03/10/q-do-you-have-a-concise-definition-for-testimonialism/</a> \"",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/817855380923654144",
"published": "2018-03-06T20:25:17+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "From Alain Kassabian\nPART 2:\n\n\"The closest thing to criticism I see for Testimonialism, Sheepdog, Logos (symbiosis raising agency) is regarding the practical access the higher tiers of incentives. I see potential pitfalls as sensible considerations for optimal application, not as contrary to the notion of Testimonilaism, ie.:\n\n1 The idea of solving everything with words is absurd (strawman of Logos) - in reality we can use precise language to shift conditions towards the net agency (meta-incentive)\n\n2 The idea of society not collapsing under prosperity seems far fetched and challenging (strawman of Sheepdog) - in reality solving for agency, c, v, etc. using testimonialism offers value as an optimization, not a guarantee\n\n3 The idea of to more ideal institutions (martial societies, due diligence, warranties, honest prosecution) seems like brutal and far fetched LARPING to the modern mind (strawman of Testimonialism/Propertarianism) - in reality these are descriptions of the norms we cycle through from high to low trust\n\nThe reason I don't see these as criticism is that the process discussed is a natural one with historical precedence. People are naturally intolerant of slights against their own interests and we have produced high levels of key items like precise law, high trust, c, and v. Additionally, the fragility of modernity and of successful civilizations in general is obvious. So to criticize a map of the biological and social systems detailing what happens as you either build up or tear down pro-trust norms as some impossible ideal is to miss the point. Things will never be perfect but we can incrementally suppress predation, parasitism, and the negative sides of co-operation, and at higher levels of Agency, C, and V, it should start looking about as ideal as it gets in reality.\n\nAgain, a stoic shifting of attention to optimization rather than searching for some imaginary guarantee of success is more useful and therefore congruent with any value system you have that actually represents striving for good (symbiosis). So these measures that further testimonialism by sustaining high trust (symbiosis) are the point and throwing away the tools of measurement because \"life is really hard\" and \"that's impossible\" is clearly not as useful. There isn't even technically a requirement to do anything any harder, picking up better tools can make it easier to do what you already do (especially if they're built around empiricism, operational epistemology, incentives, clarity, parsimony).\n\nThe other potential criticism that jumps out is for testimonialism is that \"it's censorship\", although, I see it as assumed (and Curt has also stated) that reserving access to free truthful speech is important. So, it might seem overbearing and authoritarian, but the fact is we have been and should continue to suppress deceptive behaviour that undermines our agency, sovereignty, and antifragility. This is the idea of preserving and expressing natural authority over arbitrary authority because it aligns with a meta incentive (agency gives you more of whatever you value).\n\nI sometimes wonder if this sort of adaption is innate to being or sentience regardless of what happens to any particular species: Logos, Sheepdog, the natural advantages available given sentience. Again, I agree that for personal sanity and maximized success across larger scales, a focus on what is in our control (demonstrating value) is a better frame for considering the odds, than to consider them primarily for how bad they seem (a result affected by our actions, but ultimately beyond our absolute control). Excuses for not taking the best shot is weak in the micro and macro sense, especially in terms of survivability and aesthetics. Again, I suppose the counter aesthetic is parasitism (not bothering to strengthen the ecosystem from which you come) and that's home how valid too (producing alienation, evasion, and excess fragility in the macro and micro)? Maybe it's bias to prefer the pole that corresponds to the in built non-psychopath intuition (as poorly as we stick to it at times) - but it seems justified describing the empirical realities of each pole (high and low trust).\n\nThere are a few versions of this list, but these are essentially the 6-8 standards of measurement referred to in Testimonialism: \nhttps://www.quora.com/What-is-the-adjective-form-of-truth/answer/Curt-Doolittle \n\nAlso: \nhttps://propertarianism.com/2016/03/10/q-do-you-have-a-concise-definition-for-testimonialism/ \"",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:817855380923654144/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:817855085679755264",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"content": "From Alain Kassabian<br />PART 1:<br /><br />\"Testimonilaism is a series of standards including operational language, often applied to law, social systems, and incentives. The main (meta) incentive such analysis gives access to is described in Sheepdog, Logos, Stoicism, etc - technically the incentive is net agency. Testimonialism operationalizes operational epistemology: in order to facilitate that sort of high science you seem to need a high trust culture.<br /><br />The act of testimony is fundamental to high trust society, military, law, science, markets, and personal matters. Testimony (ideal application of speech) creates all the advantages of these institutions, that emerged by necessity when the West chose sovereignty as an organizing principle to maximize agency. Recognizing the connections here re-frames human speech, detailing the magnitude of the processes we evoke with our words and our actions. The institutions and norms we use to further our values are built out of the incentives we've faced and how we've integrated them.<br /><br />As intuitive as refining our speech is, it is also intuitive to obscure our speech to indulge vices and pettiness. Reducing anything, especially values down to just information and not bias is by it's very nature going to dig at what people value. So, to the extent each of us undermines this norm, we enable the continuing parasitization and atrophying of our commons (presently: western civilization). We slim down our chances for positive Black Swans and become ever more vulnerable to the negatives Black Swans. Holding the inverse position (antifragility) seems attainable and highly useful (as in negative common law removing exposure to negative black swans and opening up the various goods and positive black swans), so again, no guarantee - but maybe altering stress response to serve rather than undercut agency by knowing the value of and how to use what we have remaining. Completing the task of optimization is all we can guarantee, investing ourselves beyond that is spiting nature (stoics make it obvious how this makes you fragile and petty).<br /><br />All language is motivated, and motivations promote symbiosis or they do not. Incentives can thus be divided into two catagories: incentives for net agency (Sheepdog, Logos, Law, Empiricism) and incentives that sacrifice the ideal for more immediate gain (every time any of us obscure our testimony wittingly or otherwise). Seems Biohistory's C would be the biological conditions required to recognize/measure/optimize conditions for this incentive and V would be the conditions required to defend such an incentive. In an atrophying society perhaps the window for those higher incentives is more narrow, and the costs greater for opposing malincentives baked into leviathan like social structures, although the ultimate cost of abandoning healthy, pro-net-agency incentives is obviously greater if you frame it honestly.<br /><br />The precision Testimonialism affords for stoic analysis of how incentives stack and run through micro and macro social operating systems (norms) seems to reduce cognitive load. It doesn't solve everything but it addresses the meta question of how to measure and optimize available responses (Doolittle's \"efficient capture of calories\"as in Testimonialism, Propertarianism, Sheepdog, Antifragility, etc.). It shifts the focus to questions of agency and sovereignty (the conditions that underlie the various goods we pursue). On the micro level, the macro framing and organized elimination of fallacies makes shorter work of life planning, selecting information, and training your fast thinking. It's not hard to detect when yourself or someone else is bringing your attention to something other than evidence - appealing to loading etc.<br /><br />Part of the micro optimization resulting from and reinforcing Testimonilaism as a norm is that removing loading and solving for agency shifts the focus to improving rather than squabbling over primordial struggles (stoicism again). This affects physical health and offers an extremely integrated sense of meaning (ie. clear definition of symbiosis across scales). You mentioned in another thread that part of the aesthetic of bothering at all against such odds, is that demonstrating value as best we can, is worth it regardless of if those odds are overcome. I agree, and consider the counter aesthetic/value system to be parasitism (not strengthening the ecosystem from which you come), which in terms of objective usefulness and my own bias provides no legitimate alternative.<br /><br />The first signs I usually notice of downward drag and misintegrated incentives are usually myself or someone else choosing loading and overloading over parsimony, the better one can recognize striking directly at the truth, the more obvious evasive substitutes become (hence military reporting is loud and direct, asking for only the facts). It's a que that someone is skipping over something or semi to un-consciously avoiding information they perceive as counter to their incentives. To some degree (might depend on specifics), animosity can be inferred when incentives are guarded with deception, whether or not the person admits or realizes the incentives they answer to by operating in willful ignorance. In my mind, it stands out if I think, write, or speak something with loading - and that seems to be habituation of my fast thinking systems, so there's less of a knee-jerk response to use careless loading (although it takes energy to realize the amount of loading people use, and then to discern when it's appropriate - when it clarifies and transfers notions that survive empiricism).<br /><br />I also think letting empirical descriptions of incentives speak for themselves rather than telling people outright what to do, makes one appear more trustworthy - not to be confused with hiding one's own biases. People seem to intuitively mistrust loading against their own biases whereas they actively look for information regarding their incentives. Although, inflating language isn't always a bad idea, Curt had a post about how inflationary speech can actually be used to lower costs of communication and therefore further the expression of operational language, as long as we're packaging realities to the best of our ability.<br /><br />Limits are also a key concept that Operational Epistemology and Sheepdog underscore the importance of, and by their very nature, grate against value systems... it's very easy to not want to find the limit of a \"beloved\" notion. Yet, every statement has a limit and any view of the of the world is disjointed without sufficient emphasis on limits - this seems a common sub-optimal adaption (people refer to where their notions apply, not where they don't - no complete testing or even guarantee it's testable).\"",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/817855085679755264",
"published": "2018-03-06T20:24:07+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "From Alain Kassabian\nPART 1:\n\n\"Testimonilaism is a series of standards including operational language, often applied to law, social systems, and incentives. The main (meta) incentive such analysis gives access to is described in Sheepdog, Logos, Stoicism, etc - technically the incentive is net agency. Testimonialism operationalizes operational epistemology: in order to facilitate that sort of high science you seem to need a high trust culture.\n\nThe act of testimony is fundamental to high trust society, military, law, science, markets, and personal matters. Testimony (ideal application of speech) creates all the advantages of these institutions, that emerged by necessity when the West chose sovereignty as an organizing principle to maximize agency. Recognizing the connections here re-frames human speech, detailing the magnitude of the processes we evoke with our words and our actions. The institutions and norms we use to further our values are built out of the incentives we've faced and how we've integrated them.\n\nAs intuitive as refining our speech is, it is also intuitive to obscure our speech to indulge vices and pettiness. Reducing anything, especially values down to just information and not bias is by it's very nature going to dig at what people value. So, to the extent each of us undermines this norm, we enable the continuing parasitization and atrophying of our commons (presently: western civilization). We slim down our chances for positive Black Swans and become ever more vulnerable to the negatives Black Swans. Holding the inverse position (antifragility) seems attainable and highly useful (as in negative common law removing exposure to negative black swans and opening up the various goods and positive black swans), so again, no guarantee - but maybe altering stress response to serve rather than undercut agency by knowing the value of and how to use what we have remaining. Completing the task of optimization is all we can guarantee, investing ourselves beyond that is spiting nature (stoics make it obvious how this makes you fragile and petty).\n\nAll language is motivated, and motivations promote symbiosis or they do not. Incentives can thus be divided into two catagories: incentives for net agency (Sheepdog, Logos, Law, Empiricism) and incentives that sacrifice the ideal for more immediate gain (every time any of us obscure our testimony wittingly or otherwise). Seems Biohistory's C would be the biological conditions required to recognize/measure/optimize conditions for this incentive and V would be the conditions required to defend such an incentive. In an atrophying society perhaps the window for those higher incentives is more narrow, and the costs greater for opposing malincentives baked into leviathan like social structures, although the ultimate cost of abandoning healthy, pro-net-agency incentives is obviously greater if you frame it honestly.\n\nThe precision Testimonialism affords for stoic analysis of how incentives stack and run through micro and macro social operating systems (norms) seems to reduce cognitive load. It doesn't solve everything but it addresses the meta question of how to measure and optimize available responses (Doolittle's \"efficient capture of calories\"as in Testimonialism, Propertarianism, Sheepdog, Antifragility, etc.). It shifts the focus to questions of agency and sovereignty (the conditions that underlie the various goods we pursue). On the micro level, the macro framing and organized elimination of fallacies makes shorter work of life planning, selecting information, and training your fast thinking. It's not hard to detect when yourself or someone else is bringing your attention to something other than evidence - appealing to loading etc.\n\nPart of the micro optimization resulting from and reinforcing Testimonilaism as a norm is that removing loading and solving for agency shifts the focus to improving rather than squabbling over primordial struggles (stoicism again). This affects physical health and offers an extremely integrated sense of meaning (ie. clear definition of symbiosis across scales). You mentioned in another thread that part of the aesthetic of bothering at all against such odds, is that demonstrating value as best we can, is worth it regardless of if those odds are overcome. I agree, and consider the counter aesthetic/value system to be parasitism (not strengthening the ecosystem from which you come), which in terms of objective usefulness and my own bias provides no legitimate alternative.\n\nThe first signs I usually notice of downward drag and misintegrated incentives are usually myself or someone else choosing loading and overloading over parsimony, the better one can recognize striking directly at the truth, the more obvious evasive substitutes become (hence military reporting is loud and direct, asking for only the facts). It's a que that someone is skipping over something or semi to un-consciously avoiding information they perceive as counter to their incentives. To some degree (might depend on specifics), animosity can be inferred when incentives are guarded with deception, whether or not the person admits or realizes the incentives they answer to by operating in willful ignorance. In my mind, it stands out if I think, write, or speak something with loading - and that seems to be habituation of my fast thinking systems, so there's less of a knee-jerk response to use careless loading (although it takes energy to realize the amount of loading people use, and then to discern when it's appropriate - when it clarifies and transfers notions that survive empiricism).\n\nI also think letting empirical descriptions of incentives speak for themselves rather than telling people outright what to do, makes one appear more trustworthy - not to be confused with hiding one's own biases. People seem to intuitively mistrust loading against their own biases whereas they actively look for information regarding their incentives. Although, inflating language isn't always a bad idea, Curt had a post about how inflationary speech can actually be used to lower costs of communication and therefore further the expression of operational language, as long as we're packaging realities to the best of our ability.\n\nLimits are also a key concept that Operational Epistemology and Sheepdog underscore the importance of, and by their very nature, grate against value systems... it's very easy to not want to find the limit of a \"beloved\" notion. Yet, every statement has a limit and any view of the of the world is disjointed without sufficient emphasis on limits - this seems a common sub-optimal adaption (people refer to where their notions apply, not where they don't - no complete testing or even guarantee it's testable).\"",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:817855085679755264/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:816307513835708416",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"content": "Old CENTACS summary of the big five.<br /><br /> Need for Stability:<br /><br /> Stress triggers your automatic nervous system, or fight-or-flight response. A period of arousal is followed by a return to normalcy and calm. Individuals with higher N scores have a shorter trigger and can’t take a lot of stress before feeling it. People with lower N scores are able to take abundant amounts of stress before feeling it. <br /><br />Extraversion: <br />Sensation, or the five senses, is the trigger. Your E score is an estimate of the point when your motoric nervous system is aroused, becomes saturated with sensation and craves relief. Extraversion is traditionally associated with sociability because other people are the most common source of stimulation. People with higher E scores can take more sensation before becoming saturated. <br /><br />Originality: <br />Novelty is the trigger. Dopamine is widely considered the “creativity” chemical, with levels of dopamine and dopamine receptors related to one’s ability to hold visual images in the mind. Your O score represents the point at which you have used up your available dopamine in your pursuit of novelty and your system says “no more novelty or complexity. Take me back to the simple and familiar, the tried and true.” <br /><br />Accommodation: <br />The trigger is dominance. The arousal system consists of sex hormones (such as testosterone and estrogen) and serotonin, the neurotransmitter involved in sleep, depression and memory. For people with a relative abundance of male hormones and a relative deficit of female hormones, defiance is the norm. Someone with an opposite balance of hormones would normally be submissive. Your A score is an estimate of the point when you tire of being defiant and turn submissive. <br /><br />Consolidation:<br />Distractions are the trigger. The arousal system supporting C behaviors is the attentional focus system, greatly impacted by levels of testosterone. High levels of testosterone are associated with a greater capacity for sustained, repetitive, goal-focused behavior. Distractions trigger the attentional system, causing loss of focus.Your C score is an estimate of the point when you finally say, “That’s enough focusing for now. Time for a break.”<br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/816307513835708416",
"published": "2018-03-02T13:54:37+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Old CENTACS summary of the big five.\n\n Need for Stability:\n\n Stress triggers your automatic nervous system, or fight-or-flight response. A period of arousal is followed by a return to normalcy and calm. Individuals with higher N scores have a shorter trigger and can’t take a lot of stress before feeling it. People with lower N scores are able to take abundant amounts of stress before feeling it. \n\nExtraversion: \nSensation, or the five senses, is the trigger. Your E score is an estimate of the point when your motoric nervous system is aroused, becomes saturated with sensation and craves relief. Extraversion is traditionally associated with sociability because other people are the most common source of stimulation. People with higher E scores can take more sensation before becoming saturated. \n\nOriginality: \nNovelty is the trigger. Dopamine is widely considered the “creativity” chemical, with levels of dopamine and dopamine receptors related to one’s ability to hold visual images in the mind. Your O score represents the point at which you have used up your available dopamine in your pursuit of novelty and your system says “no more novelty or complexity. Take me back to the simple and familiar, the tried and true.” \n\nAccommodation: \nThe trigger is dominance. The arousal system consists of sex hormones (such as testosterone and estrogen) and serotonin, the neurotransmitter involved in sleep, depression and memory. For people with a relative abundance of male hormones and a relative deficit of female hormones, defiance is the norm. Someone with an opposite balance of hormones would normally be submissive. Your A score is an estimate of the point when you tire of being defiant and turn submissive. \n\nConsolidation:\nDistractions are the trigger. The arousal system supporting C behaviors is the attentional focus system, greatly impacted by levels of testosterone. High levels of testosterone are associated with a greater capacity for sustained, repetitive, goal-focused behavior. Distractions trigger the attentional system, causing loss of focus.Your C score is an estimate of the point when you finally say, “That’s enough focusing for now. Time for a break.”\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:816307513835708416/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:816306789051588608",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"content": "Conversation on Biohistory and it's relevance to other models:<br /><br />... An this doesn't regard learned skills but rather when stress responses move from coping into emergency mode and return to baseline. <br /><br />I think of it this way. A person who has a healthy stress response to new situations compared to one who has an lower threshold will be more amiable to new experience thus their personality will skew toward high openness. <br /><br /><br />A child who is consistently stressed at an age which they have some degree of control over the situation will skew toward conscientiousness but one who is stressed (punished or discipline is what I mean here) earlier in age when they have little control over the situation will skew toward narcissism. <br /><br />These then dictate the predominate survival strategy (conservative for the former progressive for the later)<br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/816306789051588608",
"published": "2018-03-02T13:51:44+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Conversation on Biohistory and it's relevance to other models:\n\n... An this doesn't regard learned skills but rather when stress responses move from coping into emergency mode and return to baseline. \n\nI think of it this way. A person who has a healthy stress response to new situations compared to one who has an lower threshold will be more amiable to new experience thus their personality will skew toward high openness. \n\n\nA child who is consistently stressed at an age which they have some degree of control over the situation will skew toward conscientiousness but one who is stressed (punished or discipline is what I mean here) earlier in age when they have little control over the situation will skew toward narcissism. \n\nThese then dictate the predominate survival strategy (conservative for the former progressive for the later)\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:816306789051588608/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:816306323331670016",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386",
"content": "It's all in Biohistory. The academic version is fully cited to both historical examples and the scientific studies.... It breaks out what hormones govern which behaviour constellations.<br /><br /> I think he has some bias in his assessment (his preferences for low testosterone etc)...<br /><br /> It even covers off supression of women (patriarchy) and how that increases traits of vigorousness in boys. This is then cross referenced to historical periods where we know mothers are more anxious (women in war with husband's gone and their homes being bombed) and looks at the behaviour of their kids. <br /><br />It's like most things in nature ... Simple processes, which are recursive, when coupled with other simple processes, create innumerable potential outcomes and appear massively complicated when they aren't. <br /><br />In this case it's the interaction between three dimensions of stress response. It fully accounts for reproductive strategies ( r k) survival strategies (alluded to above) and provide high resolution prediability and testibility of how each vector shifts according to changing conditions.<br /><br /> IMO it's huge. We ramble on about politics or law and how these result from or alter survival strategies etc when all of these are effects not causes. The causes are biological and epigenetic not philosophical or institutional. (Apologies now - no glasses)<br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/816306323331670016",
"published": "2018-03-02T13:49:53+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "It's all in Biohistory. The academic version is fully cited to both historical examples and the scientific studies.... It breaks out what hormones govern which behaviour constellations.\n\n I think he has some bias in his assessment (his preferences for low testosterone etc)...\n\n It even covers off supression of women (patriarchy) and how that increases traits of vigorousness in boys. This is then cross referenced to historical periods where we know mothers are more anxious (women in war with husband's gone and their homes being bombed) and looks at the behaviour of their kids. \n\nIt's like most things in nature ... Simple processes, which are recursive, when coupled with other simple processes, create innumerable potential outcomes and appear massively complicated when they aren't. \n\nIn this case it's the interaction between three dimensions of stress response. It fully accounts for reproductive strategies ( r k) survival strategies (alluded to above) and provide high resolution prediability and testibility of how each vector shifts according to changing conditions.\n\n IMO it's huge. We ramble on about politics or law and how these result from or alter survival strategies etc when all of these are effects not causes. The causes are biological and epigenetic not philosophical or institutional. (Apologies now - no glasses)\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/entities/urn:activity:816306323331670016/activity"
}
],
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/outbox",
"partOf": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/811659218955280386/outboxoutbox"
}