I am starting the readers mail format. Issac from NY emails about The Case for the Negative Freedom in Isaiah Berlin v. the Existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre:
1) So I watched all 3 hours of ‘the trap’ last night, and I have 2 notes. I think that Adam Curtis is making a mistake when he equates the individual in the Hayekian spontaneously generated order, with the simplified benefit maximizing individual presumed in John Nash’s game theory as applied to life. While the individuals in both of these systems are presumed to serve only their own self-interest, my impression is that the Hayekian view would allow for a lot more complexity in terms of the motivations of the participants, and complexity in terms of outcome. (I’m thinking of Nassim Taleb’s distinction between the hubristic outlook of deterministic mathematical models when applied to the real world which I see as related to the work of Nash in game theory, and the more complex fractal math of Benoit Mandelbrot which I see as being related to the ideas of Hayek.) While contemporary work in behavioral economics might disturb the hold that some give to game theory on its power to predict human behavior, I don’t think that this work would at all discount the ideas of Hayek.
This kind of oversimplification and muddling of ideas and of the connections between ideas and events, really made it hard for me to take Curtis seriously. I take it that, that is what you were referring to when you mentioned the broad brush.
Issac, you know several people emailed me about The Trap and The Century of Self that they watched the entire 3-4 hour series in one sitting. Naturally this is because Adam Curtis lifts the veil on many new and pivotal ideas that we not only take for granted but believe to be eternal. Indeed there is a huge flaw in oversimplification of the complex concepts. But you can imagine that delving into the complexity will turn the documentary in an unwatchable page of Talmud. Instead this documentary is the best conversation starter. It’s like Bible that despite being cryptic addresses the visceral dilemmas of our existence. I don’t know much about Hayek, but Nash reappears at the end on the 3rd film, cured from his schizophrenia, to imply that there is more complexity to the game. And this brings me to the second point you make, are people expecting the worse from their fellow citizens, even to larger degree than ever in history?
2) (and this might be related to your post earlier today) I think that among frum people, the simplified model of the individual presumed in game theory, that is suspicious and ruthless and traitorous, is much more prevalent than in the larger society, where people are generally more trusting and cooperative.
Indeed, paradoxically the frum culture is the most selfish and unfriendly society, but specifically about the anonymous comments. A religious person is always wearing a mask in public. The true feeling, thoughts, the rebellious and transgressive urges are separated from the public persona. But the internet medium compels transparency and honesty, it induces the real-time expression of the real. For a religious person to speak honestly without a mask is like going naked through a public square, an unnatural act.
So comments on frum blogs are graffiti walls in a school bathroom. Scribbled opinions with no expectation of conversation (the frum blogs are actually worse than a public toilet. In a toilet you can occasionally encounter a draiwing or an original poem but people who leave graffiti on the frum blogs have been indoctrinated into a system that values quotations, someone’s opinion above even the anonymous personal expression). One step up is when people create a name and a character. You can have a dialogue with a character but this is also problematic. As we discussed everything we do, including the conversation is a game . And you have to put some chips on the table to play a game properly. Speaking as some character means that you are playing the game with no chips on the table and it changes what you say to the core. You need a special permission for that but it poisons the well nevertheless.
Further reading: Tagged as:
adam curtis,
anonymity,
comments,
economy,
isaiah berlin,
readers mail
Rarefied Reflection No. 1
by Ben Atlas on 12.28.2009.8:35am · 0 comments
I am starting the readers mail format. Issac from NY emails about The Case for the Negative Freedom in Isaiah Berlin v. the Existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre:
Issac, you know several people emailed me about The Trap and The Century of Self that they watched the entire 3-4 hour series in one sitting. Naturally this is because Adam Curtis lifts the veil on many new and pivotal ideas that we not only take for granted but believe to be eternal. Indeed there is a huge flaw in oversimplification of the complex concepts. But you can imagine that delving into the complexity will turn the documentary in an unwatchable page of Talmud. Instead this documentary is the best conversation starter. It’s like Bible that despite being cryptic addresses the visceral dilemmas of our existence. I don’t know much about Hayek, but Nash reappears at the end on the 3rd film, cured from his schizophrenia, to imply that there is more complexity to the game. And this brings me to the second point you make, are people expecting the worse from their fellow citizens, even to larger degree than ever in history?
Indeed, paradoxically the frum culture is the most selfish and unfriendly society, but specifically about the anonymous comments. A religious person is always wearing a mask in public. The true feeling, thoughts, the rebellious and transgressive urges are separated from the public persona. But the internet medium compels transparency and honesty, it induces the real-time expression of the real. For a religious person to speak honestly without a mask is like going naked through a public square, an unnatural act.
So comments on frum blogs are graffiti walls in a school bathroom. Scribbled opinions with no expectation of conversation (the frum blogs are actually worse than a public toilet. In a toilet you can occasionally encounter a draiwing or an original poem but people who leave graffiti on the frum blogs have been indoctrinated into a system that values quotations, someone’s opinion above even the anonymous personal expression). One step up is when people create a name and a character. You can have a dialogue with a character but this is also problematic. As we discussed everything we do, including the conversation is a game . And you have to put some chips on the table to play a game properly. Speaking as some character means that you are playing the game with no chips on the table and it changes what you say to the core. You need a special permission for that but it poisons the well nevertheless.
Further reading:Tagged as: adam curtis, anonymity, comments, economy, isaiah berlin, readers mail