Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

Print Story Mirror mirror
Diary
By TheophileEscargot (Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 04:08:33 AM EST) Reading, Me, MLP (all tags)
Reading: "The Stone Gods", "The Buried Mirror". Me. Web.

What I'm Reading
Finished The Stone Gods by Jeanette Winterson. Kind of mythic sci-fi: several interlinked stories or versions of the same story of fleeing an environmentally devastated world for a new world. One is another race discovering Earth, one is of the last tree to be chopped down on Easter Island, one set in the near future.

Clumsy in places, haunting in others. I didn't think it was as good as the tightly-written "Weight": could maybe have done with another draft.

If you don't like or haven't read Winterson this probably isn't a good place to start, but if you like her books it's worth a look.

Review, review, review, review, review, extract.

What I'm Reading
Finished The Buried Mirror: Reflections on Spain and the New World by Carlos Fuentes. Tie-in with a TV series, it's a broad cultural and political history of the Spanish-speaking world, lavishly illustrated.

Found it interesting because I'm pretty ignorant of this stuff. Liked the way it integrates the art and the history together, so you get to see things in context.

However, it's necessarily a very high-level overview, so it might be a bit too elementary if you know much about the subject. Also the broad generalizations he makes aren't terribly convincing: it's hard to see a real cultural thread linking the pre-Roman population of Spain with modern Latin America, despite tenuous talk about resistance to authority.

Also, while the book seems to be thoroughly researched, I thought there was a bit of a lack of non-Hispanic historical context. For instance, he questions why Spanish culture resisted Islamicization while the Hellenized cultures of Egypt and Syria did not, but as we've seen Hellenization was not a deep process, just a thin overlay and small ruling class.

Overall though, an interesting and informative introduction to the topic.

Me
Flying to Spain tomorrow, then spending Xmas with the parents. Not sure when I'll be posting next.

Web
Monsters of the Programming World.

Desktop synchrotron.

Hieronymus Bosch action figures.

Economics. Economics and the Prisoners Dilemma.

Long but interesting PDF: What's wrong with academic economics?

< Photo Fun Challenge 5 - postponing deadline | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:
Related Links
- Review
- review
- review [2]
- review [3]
- review [4]
- extract
- Monsters of the Programming World
- Desktop synchrotron
- Hieronymus Bosch action figures
- Economics and the Prisoners Dilemma
- What's wrong with academic economics?
- TheophileEscargot's Diary

Amazon products

amazon_products: This box seems to be broken. Please email the site admin and tell them the time and date (and your timezone) so it can be fixed.

Comment Controls
View: Display: Sort:
Mirror mirror | 22 comments (22 topical, 0 hidden)
Don't like the sound of that Jeanette Winterson by nebbish (4.00 / 2) #1 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 04:57:19 AM EST
at all. Is it a bit structureless and all over the place? It also annoys me when authors write SF and distance themselves from the genre - though I must admit Margaret Atwood does the same and is very good.

Did you see Jeanette Winterson defending homeopathy in the Guardian? Jesus. Still, judge the art not the artist and all that...

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

It was quite heavily structured by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #2 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 05:15:39 AM EST
But didn't seem to quite fit together. Apparently she says she hates science fiction though. I don't know why she (PowerBook, this) and Margaret Atwood (Handmaid's Tale, Oryx and Crake) keep writing so much SF when they claim to hate it...
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
I don't know about Handmaid's by MartiniPhilosopher (4.00 / 1) #3 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 05:41:07 AM EST
but Oryx and Crake was very short on the science and I had a lot of trouble when reading it seeing the SciFi part beyond her version of the near future. There was a lot of glossing over of how the science of her world was working that what I see as a good SciFi book would have gone into, mostly out of trying to convince the reader that it was entirely possible. See: The Gap Series.

Whenever I hear one of those aforementioned douche bags pontificate about how dangerous [...] videogames are I get a little stabby. --Wil Wheaton.

[ Parent ]
I thought the genetics was OK by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #4 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 05:46:24 AM EST
It did bug me when in this super-paranoid future world of terrorism and genetically modified diseases, the commercial artist character sends out a portfolio as a physical package by mail.

I suspect in the future they may well have some form of electronic mail...
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
I don't think SF needs to have science in it by nebbish (4.00 / 1) #5 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:34:30 AM EST
Which does sort of bugger me for any kind of definition... Anyway, I never read Oryx and Crake (and should, really), but think the Handmaid's Tale is an absolute classic, one of the best ever dysopias and a feminist masterpiece.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
It depends, I think by MartiniPhilosopher (4.00 / 2) #11 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:26:55 AM EST
on where you're attempting to place the emphasis of the story. If the story's emphasis is going to be on how technology/technological change affects humanity then I think you had better get a good grasp on the science behind it. Otherwise you run the risk of having your own ignorance of such shining through and ruining what is otherwise a good story. This is what has happened to me with many of the cyberpunk and other computer-related goodies that seem to have captured a lot of my generation's imagination. I have a hard time getting past what I know and into their "what-if".

Whenever I hear one of those aforementioned douche bags pontificate about how dangerous [...] videogames are I get a little stabby. --Wil Wheaton.

[ Parent ]
short on/glossing over science by clover kicker (2.00 / 0) #19 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:32:23 AM EST
I don't think Zelazny ever explained a single bit of the science in his books/stories, and it didn't hurt a bit (admittedly I'm a drooling Zelazny fanboy).

But I think most would agree that a story about the consequences of ubiquitous reincarnation machines doesn't suffer by omitting how the machines operate.

[ Parent ]
Genre fiction is seen as "light" by nebbish (4.00 / 1) #6 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:39:05 AM EST
Whereas proper fiction (about relationships, set in north London) is serious and adult. So what to do when you realise SF isn't light at all, and in fact you are writing some? Well, instead of sticking up for the genre and its authors, continue to dismiss it by refusing to associate yourself with it, whilst plundering its ideas. Cowardly and dishonest.

As you can see, gets right up my nose.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
Dunno by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #7 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:44:12 AM EST
I don't think Margaret Atwood could have read much SF, since she clearly thinks she's being daringly original with pretty old ideas (like rich people living in heavily guarded gated communities with Mad Max-style anarchy outside).
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
Cynical answer by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #8 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:11:02 AM EST
"Literary" books earn more than "Sci Fi" books.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
and by MillMan (2.00 / 0) #20 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 09:20:45 AM EST
are taken far more seriously by pundits / intellectuals.

When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it?

[ Parent ]
Resistance to Islamicization by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #9 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:14:32 AM EST
I had always assumed it was that Christianity is inherently more resistant to change than the Pagan religions it supplanted.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
Possibly by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #15 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:00:26 AM EST
I think there's an easier migration path from polytheistic religions. You can hedge your bets by worshipping the new God and the old gods side by side for a bit: even though the new priests don't like it, polytheistic gods aren't that jealous.

Though IIRC much of North Africa was pretty heavily Christianized before Islam: St Augustine was from what is now Algeria.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Good point about Africa (nt) by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #17 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:23:44 AM EST

---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
North African and Middle Eastern by jump the ladder (2.00 / 0) #22 Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:33:04 AM EST
Christianity pre-islam was of the Donatist/Monophysite brand rather than the Byzantine/Roman type so was heavily persecuted by the Byzantine authorities. The Islamic rulers were welcomed by many of these christians as they didn't persecute them as much.

Also Spain after the reconquest had the infamous Spanish inquistation to make sure their former muslim population either fled the country or wrere forcibly converted.

[ Parent ]
Prisoners Dilemma by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #10 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:22:33 AM EST
It always annoys me when economists talk about it because they invariably ignore the human psychology of it. Human beings don't operate on a strict utility maximization basis.

The answer to his Cain and Abel story is that people have innate notions of fairness and propriety (whether these are inborn or cultural is a separate argument. People usually don't steal even if it would be in their rational best interest because they feel it is "wrong". This feeling of "wrongness" is not a rational thing but rather more likely the result of cultural/biological evolution.

It is interesting to note that they've done studies of monkeys in which said monkeys will reject deals when they are unfair even if it would be to that monkey's rational advantage to take the deal.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

What annoys me by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #12 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:36:09 AM EST
Is when they ignore the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, which is much more like real life, and most people's instinctive behaviour seems better suited to.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
I agree with Skinner by Alan Crowe (4.00 / 1) #16 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:11:15 AM EST
I follow B.F. Skinner's idea that the psychological aspects need to be necessary features of a theory that one deduces, and not merely sufficient features, that offer one explanation among many.

So working through the logic rigorously is important. Once you have checked out the logic of the the prisoners dilemma you can infer the implications of the theory and say that rational self interest implies mutual shafting in one-shot deals. Then you can observe that that is not what people do, so "rational self interest" is a false theory of human behaviour. You need "human psychology".

But you still want to distinguish between necessity and sufficiency. "A sense of fairness" is sufficient to explain the facts, but is it necessary? Rational self-interest leads to co-operation in iterated prisoners' dilemmas. Perhaps people aren't so much fair as limited: they always work in iterated mode, failing to take advantage of one-shot situations. What kind of evidence would favour one theory over the other?

[ Parent ]
I believe it is necessary by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #18 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:29:25 AM EST
People clearly make "moral" decisions that are counter to their own survival, etc. in situations where they are not observed.

You can't explain a soldier jumping on a grenade through rational self-interest.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
Logic of collective action by Alan Crowe (4.00 / 1) #13 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:49:41 AM EST

I see these Prisoners' Dilemma problems as similar to collective action problems, and think that there is a vital clue in Mao's dictum "kill one, frighten ten thousand".

Mancur Olsen famously pointed out the following problem in our usual understanding of rationality. Given a group of selfish people and a common goal we think that their selfishness will result in them pursuing their common goal. In fact their selfishness will cause them to hang back, hoping to "free ride" on the efforts of others. So the logically rigorous deduction from this theory is that selfish people will fail to achieve their common goals. We need another theory to explain why groups of people succeed in achieving common goals. This is what Mancur Olsen attempts to work out in his book, The Logic of Collective Action. One day I will fight my way through his dry academic prose and discover whether he succeeds.

Meanwhile I have my own thoughts; that one doesn't get a self consistent theory until you apply the logic of collective action three times.

First you identify the problem. Public goods don't get provided, due to the logic of collective action. The standard answer to this is for the state to coerce people, raising taxes, punishing evasion, and employing workers. The problem is that the state is one big example of collective action. Why does the tax collector collect? Why can't he leave it to the other tax collectors. Why does the road builder build? Surely he hopes to trouser his wages and drive on roads built by others. The second application of the logic of collective action undoes the first.

But wait. We are in danger of assigning a value to 0/0. Why did we phrase it the application of coercion, rather than resistance to coercion. When it comes to overthrowing a tyranny, we face the collective action problem for the third time. Some-one must be first to rebel and be shot down and killed for their courage. The incentives aren't there. There will be no first rebel and hence no rebellion.

Since the logic of collective action fatally undermines resistance to the state, it can be smoke and mirrors, the work of a small group, so long as they are quick to suppress minor insurrections. As Olsen makes very clear, small groups are different and collective action possible.

So now we have a sketch of how collective action is achieved, and an inglorious sight it is. The "free rider" problem cripples human society in three different ways and it is the delicate cancellation of these three different faults that makes it work.



Well by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #14 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:55:34 AM EST
The State solution uses coercion to make the individual consequences reflect the collective consequences. If an individual tries to free ride (say by not paying taxes) the State punishes that individual by putting him in gaol.

However, that only works as well as the State can detect infringments and enforce them.

The classic State-like solution to the original Prisoners Dilemma is that both criminals should join a gang which punishes all informers by killing them horribly.

That way neither criminal dares to inform, and they get the optimal outcome.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Merely figurines. by Horatio Hellpop (2.00 / 0) #21 Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 09:58:22 PM EST
No action, no action figure.

"You can't really know something until you ruin it for everyone." -some guy who used to have an account here

Mirror mirror | 22 comments (22 topical, 0 hidden)

Powered by Scoop  
 
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments and Stories are owned by the Poster and Licensed to "Hulver's site". See our Copyright page for more information.
faq | help | accounts