![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 5 to 29 of 79. Go back in thread:
Posted by sleepygirl2 on July 28, 2013, at 21:55:39
In reply to Re: Social Skills, posted by alexandra_k on July 28, 2013, at 17:39:14
:-)
Thanks
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2013, at 21:08:01
In reply to Re: Social Skills » alexandra_k, posted by sleepygirl2 on July 28, 2013, at 21:55:39
part of the reason why i got such a hard time was that people thought that i was the typical, arrogant, first year. a lot of first years really do seem to have an unreasonably high opinion of their knowledge / abilities. you have students trying to teach / help other students before they even have their first assignments back. and in the gym you have skinny looking dudes who really can't do anything spouting off this and that rubbish about how to get results. people don't seem to have the ability to think about who is giving the message and whether the message is likely to be true or not. i could tell them what i'd been up to and give them my cv and somehow they were still going to make me study for... what... 4 years before getting the opportunity to sit in on graduate student seminars? why should i be patient. if i'm patient the way they want me to be i'll have accomplished less than half of what i would otherwise. i'm sick of people holding me back / making me feel bad for wanting me to be better and faster.
just like the birds... the noisiest, most confident, wins. because it is about popularity / status. not the search for truth. not the acquisition of knowledge.
when you don't have the ability to think critically about what a person is saying (to have a conversation with them and figure how much they are legit vs b*llsh*t yourself) then things like suits become very important. i see that 'dressing for success' is important when you need to impress people who don't have any other way of assessing your legitimacy. put on a white coat and most people will do anything lolz. i suppose philosophy consciously rebels against that. the most senior get to cultivate the hobo look. the more junior / lowly ranked individuals can be distinguished by the cut of their suits lolz. because... what else have they got???
i have been watching more of MadMen. things have picked up again... interesting themes. i know a real life Joan. the guys all say she is a 'perfect woman'. and... she is. in that traditional sense. i think that is a case of wonderful social skils. i admire that, oh yes indeed. it is not me at all. but that takes a hell of a lot of work. i admire that oh yes, indeed. Peggy is great, too. and the whole tension about how to be part of / be competitive in a male dominated environment as a woman. their ad agency is a lot like academic ha. people sleeping in their offices and making progress over drunken lunches. ahaha.
so... first wife (second, actually). went from being sweet to being a cold bitch. now... (season 5)... i don't much like her at all. the actress one... well... quote for my life: 'not every girl can do what she wants. the world can't support that many ballerinas'. i know somebody else said that. but i need to remember it. to suck at your talent... he... gave her the freedom to pursue it, though. that was something. perhaps... freedom can be part of / negotiated within relationships. i don't know. and the other chick... the other partner's wife... divorce... now she gets her own apartment. freedom... i don't know what to say.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 25, 2013, at 4:16:12
In reply to Re: Social Skills, posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2013, at 21:08:01
noone ever saw the little one
people heard her sometimes
her pain is silenceyou know. sometimes this calmness comes over. centered. emotion is felt intensely. but quietly. peacefully. no hysteria. no production. and an attitude comes with. i'm not sure what it is... i'm not sure...
but that is the background for her pain
the screaming came lateri suspect it is the years (and years and years and years) of pain that i used to feel at night
curled up because there was no other way to be
in the mattress that sunk down into the pit in the middle
the alertness for her
in case she got bored and decided to come jolt me from bed
for this or that made up reason
this or that made up excuse
so she could have a yell
release some tension
then get some sleep herself.which is probably why i can't sleep with people moving about the house. especially when there isn't a deadbolt lock on my door.
it has been years now.
but the motor memory of that.
i don't suspect it will ever go away.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 3, 2013, at 19:13:56
In reply to Re: Social Skills, posted by alexandra_k on August 25, 2013, at 4:16:12
and maybe it is not a motor memory... i need to check again but there is some stuff...
the 'default' mode of thought... kind of free associating. dreaming. daydreaming. then effortful thinking as our supervisor comes online and we direct our thinking on logical trains. i forget who... mental time travel... we don't need to act and get the consequences of our acts and learn that way... we can mentally run through different options and different likely outcomes... our ideas can die in our steed.
the default... brain dump. there is something about how relative levels of neurotransmitters globally affect things... the idea of salience. surprise.
i am... at the moment... my supervisory process is weak. external stimuli is high salience. i get the orienting response automatically and it is really hard to refocus... since i quit smoking. maybe... some psych med could help me a little with that...
apparently there is something about levels... that seems to produce the wandering thing (i get stuck in my wanderings) and (get this) a negative affect. that people get this at times around sleeping... something to do with transmitter levels.
so... that is it. sometimes i ruminate on traumatic past. actually... that isn't even true anymore. i hardly ever ruminate on traumatic past anymore. hardly ever. i hardly ever get flashes of hard stuff either. but i do get that mental wandering and negative affect... sounds like... it is normal.
huh.
huh.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2013, at 23:04:39
In reply to Re: Social Skills, posted by alexandra_k on September 3, 2013, at 19:13:56
maybe at some point i'll get inspired to do a proper literature review and sort this stuff out properly...
introversion / extroversion
low stimulus / high stimulus (seeking. need of course to distinguish this from the different idea of impoverished environments - the later distinction doesn't map)
high levels of autonomic arousal / low levels of autonomic arousal
internally motivated / externally motivated
low maintenance / high maintenance (ok, i just threw that one in there)there is a lot of stuff... a lot of pop culture - which complicates things... i suspect i should avoid the pop culture stuff... but i have been influenced by 'quiet - the power of introversion in a world that can't stop talking' and related stuff. even though i haven't read it. there is of course something to it... and to the idea that some people won't do any work unless you are on their backs all the time whereas other people can't do any work unless you leave them alone so they can freaking get on with it.
one idea is there is a difference... different ways of being... i do worry about this thought because it seems dangerous in a sense... but i really do think that the former is a *better* way of being. one that is... selected for, yeah. or not. but only not because it doesn't have a particular genetic basis since it is mostly the result of socialization (so the heritability component is lacking).
creativity and innovation they are putting down as individualist activities. not arising from teams. nice to have a job where you are *trusted* to do your work from anywhere... any country... anyplace you like... especially if you make enough money to put yourself someplace nice...
or not. stay with your group sharing your pumpkins if you like.
i suspect it is more a case of needs must. the loudest voice for collectivism is the voices of those who are incapable of looking after themselves. the old people (of the tribe. hey the old people of my tribe are having trouble adjusting to things like the rights of women, too). the borderline intellectually handicapped. of course that is the answer to hte health care crisis. as it always was: that is womens work. your job is to stay in the tribe and look after the tribe. otherwise you have been *urbanized* we spit on you.
i saw a pic of obama chatting to a girl... 'what a wonderful block tower! you must have worked real hard to build that! let me take some of your blocks and give them to the kids who have been sleeping all day!' that is the fear of welfare cultures... of course the fear of lack of welfare culture is the thought that you 1) might find yourself in the wrong group or 2) that the appropriate attitude is one of pity or empathy or assistance rather than blame. how do we decide? can't vs won't? i don't understand how we decide... no... i don't understand how we *should* decide. because we don't want to encourage / reward them... but we might find ourself in the wrong group...
maybe it is about the possibility of getting out? but then you still have the cases of 'can't'. i suspect most are about 'cant'. it is just that when the crabs panic and start clawing at you when you try and leave that things become harder...
was i a crab for my father?
for sure.
sigh.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2013, at 23:15:05
In reply to Re: Social Skills, posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2013, at 23:04:39
but that is thought to be different because his inclusive fitness is determined by my successes. which is why your family members (especially older ones) are thought to sacrifice themselves in order to benefit you as you are the part of them that will survive once they are gone... it is actually in their (genes) best interests for them to sacrifice themselves for your benefit...
and something is broken down or f*ck*d right up when that doesn't happen. when familial bonds are about... the kids serving the adults rather than the other way around.
part of the worry about euthenasia is the old people who will sacrifice themself for (their) perceived good of the family.. when the family says that no! it is actually in the families best interests to have grandpa or ma around... there is the grandmother hypothesis... kids do better with grandparents around... of course they do... parents to better too...
well.. some of them. not when everyone has to hang about looking after grandpa instead of doing what is in their best interests...
apparently you can't talk of selection between cultural groups of humans because of gene flow. too much interbreeding for true genetic difference. thus there isn't reliable inheritance. i sort of take the point... but i sort of don't. most 'traditional' cultures... seems to me... aren't doing so well. we can pour money at them but it is pouring money at a sinking ship. these cultures aren't evolving they aren't adapting they aren't keeping up. they aren't very well able to incorporate technological advances etc... insofar as the cultures are alive they are segregated from the mainstream...
and of course there are other cultures that are alive and developing and flourishing... modern day... all kinds... chinese... indian... western... lots of different ones. and of course there is through-traffic. but there are also clear cases where cultures clash. norms and expectations etc. and people make choices which one they follow in what respects...
seems to me you can trace this... then see the 'sick' or 'dying' ones... those relegated to the ICU living on borrowed time... not enough impetus or momentum from within to evolve things to incorporate modern advances...
seems to me.
not entirely sure why a generation of academics is anti this line of thinking... except that everyone skirts well away from the possibility of anything vaguely hinting suggesting anything at all to do with anything sorta kinda like eugenics. (what do we do about intellectually handicapped people with genetic disorder who are institutionalized and fertile currently?) genetic screening...
there is a downs syndrome 'movement' apparently... to do with quality of life... i feel squeemish...
or perhaps there really are issues with high fidelity inheritance and the reification of memes that is problematic in ways that currently escape me.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2013, at 23:33:24
In reply to Re: Social Skills, posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2013, at 23:15:05
and of course 'intelligence' is a problematic notion. i've been reading... i think of this as pop culture, too... stuff about 'giftedness'. particularly interesting is the idea that it can indeed make sense to consider gifted individuals to be 'special needs' similarly to how we consider intellectually handicapped individuals to be special needs.
it interested me a great deal that *motivation* was meant to be part of the syndrome. DRIVE.
there is a (pop culture) idea of 10,000 hours to expertise (based on number of hours of practice over a period of about 10 years). if you consider experts in various fields (piano, violin, ice hockey, chess etc etc) what they have in common is at least 10,000 hours of (mentally focused) practice. not that this is sufficient for expertise. but that it is necessary. what kind of DRIVE do you need to sustain that focused practice?
that that is a huge part of 'gifted'. The ability to get really very excited indeed about esoteric things (chess etc) and get total immersion lost in them for hours and hours and hours over a period of around 10 years. To become obsessed about them. Living and breathing. That a huge part of the development of excellence is the motivation and drive and fact that one gets enjoyment from the activity.
Instead of... Being poked and prodded into pretending to care and half heartedly twiddling in front of the 10 x more exciting infomercials...
Instead of... Sleep.
So much made sense...
INtense frustration at hearing someone say the same thing for the 10th time when I got it round 1. Intense frustration at people stopping - just when things were about to get interesting / take off. Apparently gifted learners aren't 'good learners' with 'good work habits'. Mostly... They have no work habits. F*ck.
My supervisor... Wasn't naturally gifted. He has worked hard and worked dilligently. Now... He comes out with things that truly sound gifted. But his brain doesn't work like a computer at a billino miles an hour like some othe rminds.. And he... Has no time for the 'gifted' thing. For him... Dillegent hard work is the key. We have whatever intellegence we need or we wouldn't have been accepted... So now you can forget about that and just work freaking hard. Fair enough...
But I see now why I had so many 'behavior problems' in school. And I've rediscovered my behavior problems and frustrations over these last couple years... I've met people... I... I didn't think there were people like that. I didn't htink... There actually were people like that. I... I don't know what to say.
Some strategies are 'frequency dependent'. Insofar as the introversion thing is 1 in 3... That suggests something. I wonder how it correlates with intelligence. Trouble is... I don't have faith in standard measures of intelligence. I suspect because my strengths / weaknesses balance out to average. Placing me in... The wrong group.
Motivationally.
Sometimes. But tehn... What hte f*ck am i doing now? i ask myself... always. shiver.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2013, at 23:58:15
In reply to Re: Social Skills, posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2013, at 23:33:24
sigh.
this is all because i've told the girls across the hall *at least three times* that they can be as noisy as they want in their rooms *with the doors shut* and i can't hear them at all - but if they make noise in the hall *i can't hear anything but them*.
it is a combination of stupidity and wilfull ignorance.
i do appreciate that most of the course that one of them is on is in fact devoted to teaching them to wash their hands. that they will be taught this repetitively over the course of the semester. and that *still* the significant majority will forget but they will have to pass them any way.
(actually i hear medical students are just about as bad. sigh).
so what makes me think that they can stop slamming doors, singing in the halls etc after only three tellings?
what am i supposed to do? i don't understand.
ideally...
i suppose humour could help. i could go out and be all cheerfully like 'oh, hello noisy one!' and if i'm suitably cheerful it might not be quite as tedious for them as it would be for me.
but then i would be *rewarding* them for their noisiness. since their noisiness is all about their informing other people 'here i am!' since they are lonely and wish others would make noise so they could go bug them. so... that strategy would only result in their making more noise...
if i yell at them... i still feel that it would be a case of punishment is better than no attention.
how the f*ck did i manage to be the keeper of the intellectually handicapped asylum?
and why am i feeling so... hostile? scathing? about intellectually handicapped people? isn't that.... awful? what is happening to me???????
Posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2013, at 0:25:14
In reply to Re: Social Skills, posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2013, at 23:58:15
if i don't get in to a hall next year i'm not sure what i'm going to do.
here... it is a fundamental issue of incompatibility.
they need to be closer to me and i need them to back off.
everything i do is geared around them backing off.
everything they do is geared around being closer to me.
i feel cornered and in danger of lashing out (what the f*ck do i have to do to have you back the f*ck off)
they feel... i don't know. that i would look after them better than they look after them.
what they fail to grasp is that the only reason why that is true is because i am not looking after them. i am only looking after myself.
if i started looking after them then i wouldn't be looking after myself anymore. and then i'd do as sh*t of a job at looking after them as they do.
awesome. lets all stay in this sh*t hole and suck together.
don't, whatever you do, pay attention in class, distinguish yourself by actually learning something, and earn your f*ck*ng way out. don't you dare. you selfish bitch. can't you see my retirement plan is... you? let me look after you dear, here eat fattening cookies mmmmm yeah. i know what is good for me - i mean you. of course i do.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 18, 2013, at 15:09:27
In reply to Re: Social Skills, posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2013, at 0:25:14
if you have a common space... some grazing land. a lake. woods. the ocean. the skies.
then if everybody does what is rationally in their own best interests (to use up more of the communal resource for ones personal profit than everyone else - to gain the competitive advantage)... then it will eventually be ruined for everyone.
natural selection can result in situations where what improves my inclusive fitness (e.g., to have more sheep than you) results in the extinction of us all.
in order to prevent the tragedy of the commons you need to regulate it. if you rely on individual conscience to police then you select for selfish individuals who are insensitive to the good of the group (and to their own longer term welfare).
e.g., psychopaths. or just your average insensitive idiot.
natural selection is incremental: not goal or ends directed. a trait isn't selected 'for the good of the group' but it is present in the group in higher frequencies in subsequent generations for doing better than other variants.
this is what makes the evolution of co-operation seem puzzling...
the best strategy is if everyone co-operates / has a conscience. but given that one cheats / defects, it seems that everyone else must, too. so given that the default was to be un co-operative, how could co-operation have gotten up off the ground as a viable strategy?mutual benefit
but why co-operate when it is in your best interests to defect?
it isn't in your best interests to defect - you will be punished
but why punish when doing so is individually costly?
because if you cheat me I'LL BE SO INCENSED I'LL STRIKE THE FURY OF THE GODS UPON YE
and the outrage i reliably feel in response to injustice is hard to fake
(pro-social emotions include emotions that make us likely to punish / police defectors because they prevent the population being over-ridden by selfish bastards)this is why people get together and bond by expressing appropriate disgust / condemnation / admiration for the actions of others. the function is signalling ones moral attitudes / emotions that you will then muster to motivate co-operation / punishment of defection. seeing whether people have the appropriate attitudes / emotions. Whether they can harness those in ways that make mutual collaborative activity possible. Seeing whether their judgements about others possessing the appropriate attitudes / emotions are reliable. Reputation. For what is important. Namely, for figuring out who to trust with potentially mutually profitable co-operative activities. e.g., i have research funding. i give you some money, you produce some work. i get more research funding for work that was produced. you get more money. you give more work. and so on. you need to know who the defectors are to avoid them... or the whole ship goes down. reputation (of those with reputation) is important. Of course it is complicated by some people being trustworthy with some things in some circumstances but not with these other things over there... The judgements we must make...
hardest thing in the world: deciding who to engage in co-operative activity with
a lot depends on situation...
MUTUAL BENEFIT. with minimal opportunity to use the ring of gyges...
could mental illness be a tragedy of the commons? how so?
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 18, 2013, at 22:29:26
In reply to tragedy of the unregulated commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 18, 2013, at 15:09:27
> if you have a common space... some grazing land. a lake. woods. the ocean. the skies.
>
> then if everybody does what is rationally in their own best interests (to use up more of the communal resource for ones personal profit than everyone else - to gain the competitive advantage)... then it will eventually be ruined for everyone.
>
> in order to prevent the tragedy of the commons you need to regulate it. if you rely on individual conscience to police then you select for selfish individuals who are insensitive to the good of the group (and to their own longer term welfare).
>
> hardest thing in the world: deciding who to engage in co-operative activity with
>
> could mental illness be a tragedy of the commons? how so?Could Babble be a commons? How so?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on September 19, 2013, at 18:25:27
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by Dr. Bob on September 18, 2013, at 22:29:26
is this about the three post rule?
Posted by alexandra_k on September 19, 2013, at 18:26:10
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 19, 2013, at 18:25:27
:-/
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 21:05:40
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 19, 2013, at 18:25:27
> is this about the three post rule?
That wasn't what I had in mind, but thanks for remembering. :-)
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on September 20, 2013, at 4:23:36
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 21:05:40
well then...
i guess you could view it as a commons.
some points of similarity that occur to me, that might be relevant...
it is a space.
that was a potential problem with the mental illness idea... i guess my thought there was that mental illness might be selected for (without being adaptive) rather than dysfunctional (to the individual). but i think now that the crucial bit that got me excited was the idea that inclusive fitness or evolution by selection doesn't necessarily produce adaptation.
even though Campbell's Biology (what is that, like the very best textbook in the whole freaking world!!!) says:
(concept 23.4 HEADER --)
'Natural selection is the only mechanism that consistently causes adaptive evolution'
That is not true.
WHat is this notion of adaptation? fit between organism and environment? What the hell does that mean? Consider the behaviour of the handstanding beetle that stands on its head in deserts so morning dew collects on its body and runs down into its mouth. or darwins finches with beaks and foraging behavior both adapted to a niche... What is this notion of fit?
Consider also... (I totally stole this).
a gene that is only carried on the y chromosome... results in the y sperm swimming faster than the x sperm so they tend to reach (hence successfully fertilize) the egg before the x's get there. this will take over the population and eventually... result in the extinction of the species (including that particular gene, of course) from too many boys / not enough girls.
what we seem to have here is... un co-operative genes (that replicate themselves to the cost of the genes they are supposed to be co-operating with). but also ultimately... to their own demise... which... isn't very rational. seems to me. more things considered... isn't very optimal. isn't very adaptive.
anyway... back to babble...
it is space limited (sort of) in the sense that people who look at the boards are looking at a certain number of posts because older posts are archived.
the three post rule is an obvious one with respect to limiting the frequency of posts by a single poster. which limits the frequency of their posts relative to others. which alters the sample that a new poster perusing the boards is likely to read. which alters their decision whether to join...
perhaps...
basic things...
these boards are obviously tended. there aren't a bunch of 'enlarge your penisses with natural artificial supplementz!' posts. insofar as the internet is a commons the problem is... the sh*t that the masses contribute. that takes so very much time... to sort though. hence the three post rule, again.. sigh. (i only violate it because i feel like i'm running out of space. but this shows that babble is indeed space limited, in a sense). and it is weird, right, because i can make this post (for example) as long as i like (to the best of my knowledge).... anyway... i need to get better at impulse control. clearly.
what else.... i don't know.
i don't know.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 20, 2013, at 5:10:22
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 20, 2013, at 4:23:36
oh.
policing is costly.
it takes time and effort to punish defectors - and one runs the risk of the defector retaliating.
i guess that is what can be nice about having a leader. someone else to bear the cost of punishment.
i have only recently come around to viewing failing to punish defectors as itself being a kind of defecting.
i think that sometimes that is what people mean when they tell me to 'stand up'. i think that oftentimes people do attempt to take advantage of me to test my limits... how much i will let them get away with and then what i will do. am i the kind of person who punishes appropriately or am i the kind of person who lashes out? that is valuable information to know about a person...
i shock people because when people test me... my response is to opt out. i... lack the... emotional control. to meet out appropriate punishment.
i think.
i am not a leader. not that kind of leader. i don't know.
of course i do know that someone has got to do it.
probably.
i guess libertarians or whatever focus on ways in which cultures / peoples have solved tragedy of the commons situations appropriately.
i think we need to look to anthropology and consider the cases. i'd be interested to consider some of the best cases from anthropology for different sorts of solutions to tragedy of commons situations / different forms of governments...
Posted by alexandra_k on September 20, 2013, at 18:29:37
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 20, 2013, at 5:10:22
typically in the human behaviour case people consider:
- collection of resources
- distribution of resources
- mate selection / care of offspring (guys need to trust the offspring is theirs, girls need to trust they will receive appropriate assistance with bearing the metabolic costs of pregnancy / lactation - at the very least -)with respect to co-operation. there are opportunities to defect (or to be incapacitated in some way) with respect to these...
(i'd be interested to know whether people with mental illness have problems assessing their contribution in public goods games / whether their future discounting is more extreme. difficulties with 'mental time travel'? or perhaps math? lolz.)
message board analogy?
in order for evolution to occur you need
- high fidelity inheritance (copies resemble parents more than non-parents)
- competition for finite resources (differential reproduction)
- variation in traitsmessage board analogy?
(cultural artifacts are problematic because transmission is more horizontal than vertical. the next generation profits - but it is unclear that ones own offspring profits more than their age mates. while some apprentices are their parents genetic offspring most aren't.)
in order for there to be a tragedy of the commons there needs to be:
- a commons. a space. i think we can grant that message boards are a space / place in a sense.
- the space to be finite in some way. for there to be competition. with respect to either something that can be got out of the space (a resource) or with respect to ones representation in the space (like bacteria populating a fixed size petrie dish with unlimited food supply). like... having posts in the unarchived space? perhaps... having people respond to your posts? perhaps... what, exactly? this is interesting...- the possibility of getting more of the above in a way that stabotages the possibility? liklihood? of others getting that. and... of yourself getting that (over the longer term)
i suspect... too many posts seeking support and not enough posts offering it could do that. that was actually what drew me to the site (along with all the other checks of no spam, no advertising, text / literacy based)... the intelligent, articulate, caring responses that people were getting from others.
how there certainly did seem to be norms of reciprocity on these boards. thoughtful responses to particular individuals - then you were in fact more likely to receive back in kind.
a lot of other message boards you can put a lot of time and energy into thoughtful responses to particular individuals - and not even get any acknowledgement back. or get dismissive acknowledgement.
seems to me.
hmm.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 21, 2013, at 2:51:12
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 20, 2013, at 18:29:37
> it takes time and effort to punish defectors - and one runs the risk of the defector retaliating.
>
> i guess that is what can be nice about having a leader. someone else to bear the cost of punishment.I'm reminded of something Twinleaf posted recently on Admin:
> > The history of sharing leadership with you -i.e. the deputies - has been unexpectedly negative
--
> in order for there to be a tragedy of the commons there needs to be:
>
> - a commons. a space. i think we can grant that message boards are a space / place in a sense.
>
> - the space to be finite in some way. for there to be competition. with respect to either something that can be got out of the space (a resource) or with respect to ones representation in the space (like bacteria populating a fixed size petrie dish with unlimited food supply). like... having posts in the unarchived space? perhaps... having people respond to your posts? perhaps... what, exactly? this is interesting...
>
> - the possibility of getting more of the above in a way that stabotages the possibility? liklihood? of others getting that. and... of yourself getting that (over the longer term)It was interesting to take a look at the 1968 article by Garrett Hardin in Science. In addition to the points you've already made:
> > natural selection favors the forces of psychological denial (8). The individual benefits as an individual from his ability to deny the truth even though society as a whole, of which he is a part, suffers.
> >
> > Education can counteract the natural tendency to do the wrong thing, but the inexorable succession of generations requires that the basis for this knowledge be constantly refreshed.
> >
> > In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of pollution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in--sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water; noxious and dangerous fumes into the air, and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight. The calculations of utility are much the same as before. The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. Since this is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of "fouling our own nest," so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free-enterprisers.
> >
> > The social arrangements that produce responsibility are arrangements that create coercion, of some sort.
> >
> > Taxing is a good coercive device. To keep downtown shoppers temperate in their use of parking space we introduce parking meters for short periods, and traffic fines for longer ones. We need not actually forbid a citizen to park as long as he wants to; we need merely make it increasingly expensive for him to do so. Not prohibition, but carefully biased options are what we offer him.
> >
> > To many, the word coercion implies arbitrary decisions of distant and irresponsible bureaucrats; but this is not a necessary part of its meaning. The only kind of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected.
> >
> > To say that we mutually agree to coercion is not to say that we are required to enjoy it, or even to pretend we enjoy it. Who enjoys taxes? We all grumble about them. But we accept compulsory taxes because we recognize that voluntary taxes would favor the conscienceless. We institute and (grumblingly) support taxes and other coercive devices to escape the horror of the commons.http://www.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full
> insofar as the internet is a commons the problem is... the sh*t that the masses contribute. that takes so very much time... to sort though.
> a lot of other message boards you can put a lot of time and energy into thoughtful responses to particular individuals - and not even get any acknowledgement back. or get dismissive acknowledgement.
What I had in mind originally wasn't how many posts were posted, but what kind. The issues Hardin grouped under the heading "pollution".
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on September 21, 2013, at 18:11:33
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by Dr. Bob on September 21, 2013, at 2:51:12
I hadn't read the Hardin article. Perfect statement of a position on mental illness (whether true or false, perfect statement of a position).
:-)
I think part of the negative experience of the deputies was facing hostility from those they punished and from other members of the community who disagreed with their decision to punish and / or with their decision to more generally participate in the process of sanctions. I think that came as a bit of a shock. And then the deputies wanted special protection from those kinds of hostilities (which involves more punishments being doled out) and things got hard... Of course the deputies all turned out to be a hell of a lot stronger than they thought... Something something about iron and fires...
I dug around some more and, of course, Ostrom won the Nobel prize already for looking at anthropological solutions to tragedy of commons. I just knew it would be a good idea to do that :-)
(Profiting, as I do, from interacting with *other people* who have been influenced by her work).
It is a whole field... There is a 'Journal of Commons' even. Lol.
I found "Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict in computer communities" - but I'm having trouble re-finding the internal content for the first chapter... Found this handy summary here:
But it doesn't quite do justice to parts I thought were worth drawing out... The social dilemma's... Ostrom's 8 features...
Posted by alexandra_k on September 21, 2013, at 23:33:24
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 21, 2013, at 18:11:33
If you are driving a car you can detect hazards pretty quickly and send a signal for the car to speed up or veer in order to protect yourself. If you are remote controlling an exploratory vehicle on Mars things are harder because of the time delay. If you wanted the vehicle to come to no harm the best thing to do would be to try and program in some sorts of intelligence. The ability to detect the edge of a surface and stop before falling off it, for instance.
Imagine that you have some terminal disease but scientists can offer you the option of being stored safely away while they work on a cure at which point they will revive you and cure you. You need to figure out what kind of vehicle to put yourself in while your body awaits a cure. What will your strategy be? Will you get a vehicle that burrows you down below the earth and hides? Will you get a vehicle that moves about in the effort to avoid predators?
I am not doing Dennett's example justice...
But the idea is that we are such vehicles for our genes. They get together and co-operate in order to produce a vehicle to house themseleves in: Us. They give us brains so we can respond to the changing world / environment in order to protect them... But...
Perhaps... We can use some of the tools they gave us to look after them... We can subvert those... We can use those... To look after ourself. Perhaps even at their expense.
I mean...
From my perspective...
A teacher can contribute / leave much more than many genetic parents do. Leave more what? Whatever it is that WE (as people) care about. The influence of Newton and Einstein etc etc etc. I don't even know if they had kids or not. In a sense... Who cares?
Genes just aren't particularly important to us. Not for the things that matter to us. Things like... Creativity. Intelligence. Kindness. Pro-Sociality... The effects of genes is really very negligable compared to the effects of environment / teaching. By this I mean to say: Most viable human beings have the potential to be much more creative, intelligent, kind, and pro-social (for example) than they currently are with their current genetic endowment - if only they had better environmental and educational conditions.
It... Doesn't matter who the breeders are (from our point of view) so long as some of us do... The things we care most about... Are more horizontally transmitted (from one generation to the other) rather than vertically (from parents to offspring). Public education etc acts as a buffer from having particularly sucky parents...
Adoption...
This is perhaps one of the things that was wrong with eugenics. We... Don't have to worry about individuals with no social conscience breeding more than individuals with social conscience thus leading to the demise of our species... We... Have to worry about the lack of education / sucky environmental conditions / awful parenting that leads to individuals with no social conscience. The latter will fix things up for most everyone... The former... Well... You can send your criminals to Australia but new ones will only emerge as fast as you can ship 'em and Australians (now) aren't as criminal as they once were. Perhaps.
;-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 22, 2013, at 22:55:02
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 21, 2013, at 23:33:24
> Ostrom won the Nobel prize already for looking at anthropological solutions to tragedy of commons.
>
> I found "Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict in computer communities" - but I'm having trouble re-finding the internal content for the first chapter... Found this handy summary here:
>
> http://cscw10.hciresearch.org/content/managing-virtual-commons-cooperation-and-conflict-computer-communities-1996What anthropological solutions did Ostrom find?
Thanks for sharing that link, I hadn't seen it before. Do their conclusions apply to Babble?
> > Babble is a remarkable institution which enables cooperation, however significant shortcomings remain.
> > Babble has a double edge: monitoring is easier, but sanctioning becomes more difficult: communication costs are lower, but defecting costs increases: it's easier to find people with similar interests and collaborate, but it is also easier to be disrupted by people who want to prevent collaboration;
> > "Babble may not need to resolve these problems, it may simply become a public space in cyberspace where the balance between order and autonomy is decided in favor of the latter."--
> You can send your criminals to Australia but ... Australians (now) aren't as criminal as they once were. Perhaps.
Becoming less criminal sounds like a good thing. How did that happen?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on September 23, 2013, at 5:58:27
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by Dr. Bob on September 22, 2013, at 22:55:02
> > Ostrom won the Nobel prize already for looking at anthropological solutions to tragedy of commons.
> What anthropological solutions did Ostrom find?That there were some.
That some peoples do manage subtractable resources in sustainable ways without the imposition of top-down government.
(How is that for a different take on the problem?)
Apparently there was a commons where the locals had the rule that you could graze only as many cows on the commons over the summer as you could keep through the winter - and that prevented overgrazing. She has examples such as these. Her favorite example seems to be water irrigation in Nepal. She is fairly scathing about the actions of US engineers and policy makers who go on in there and try and impose "better" systems that end up not even working at all because they lack local ecological knowledge / knowledge of constraints that need to be plugged into their optimality models (e.g., that there are a few main springs and thus you will need to tap into one of those).
She characterises Hardin as posing a problem where the only solution was top down governmental control / regulation. Because that is what he suggests. But of course that is no solution at all. The problem recurrs at the level of government: Why co-operate rather than being selfish? This solution also gives us no traction on the problem of how once upon a time we weren't particularly co-operative but now we are highly co-operative. And fairly darned altruistic to our non-genetic kin. How the hell did that happen?
> These early empirical studies led over time to the development of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework. A common framework consistent with game theory enabled us to undertake a variety of empirical studies including a meta-analysis of a large number of existing case studies on common-pool resource systems around the world. Carefully designed experimental studies in the lab have enabled us to test precise combinations of structural variables to find that isolated, anonymous individuals overharvest from common-pool resources. Simply allowing communication, or "cheap talk," enables participants to reduce overharvesting and increase joint payoffs contrary to game theoretical predictions. Large studies of irrigation systems in Nepal and forests around the world challenge the presumption that governments always do a better job than users in organizing and protecting important resources.
>... the application of empirical studies to the policy world leads one to stress the importance of fitting institutional rules to a specific social-ecological setting. "One size fits all" policies are not effective. The frameworks and empirical work that many scholars have undertaken in recent decades provide a better foundation for policy analysis.
Hmm.
http://bnp.binghamton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Ostrom-2010-Polycentric-Governance.pdf
I didn't take a lot of time with it... Economics isn't really my strong point...
You might like:
>The classic models have been used to view those who are involved in a prisoner's dilemma game or other social dilemmas as always trapped in the situation withuot capabilities to change the structure themselves... Whethe ror not the individuals, who are in a situation, have capacities to transform the external variables affecting their own situation varies dramatically from one situation to the next. It is an empirical condition that varies from situation to sitaution rather than a lgoical universality... When analysts perceive the human beings they model as being trapped inside perverse situations, they then assume that other human beings external to those involved - scholars and public officials - are able to analyze the situation, ascertain why counterproductive outcomes are reached, and posit what changes in the rules-in-use will enable participants to improve outcomes. Then, external officials are expected to impose an optimal set of rules on those individuals involved. It is assumed that the momentum for change must come from outside the situation rather than from the self-reflection and creativity of those within a situation to restructure their own patterns of interaction.
>dramatic incidents of overharvested resources had captured widespread attention, while studies by anthropologists, economic historians, engineers, philosophers, and political scientists of local governance of smaller to medium scale common-pool resources over long periods of time were *not* noticed by many theorists and public officials.
Usenet is probably a case of one of them.
Babble isn't.
Yeah?
> Thanks for sharing that link, I hadn't seen it before. Do their conclusions apply to Babble?> > > Babble is a remarkable institution which enables cooperation, however significant shortcomings remain.
> > > Babble has a double edge: monitoring is easier, but sanctioning becomes more difficult: communication costs are lower, but defecting costs increases: it's easier to find people with similar interests and collaborate, but it is also easier to be disrupted by people who want to prevent collaboration;
> > > "Babble may not need to resolve these problems, it may simply become a public space in cyberspace where the balance between order and autonomy is decided in favor of the latter."To the best of my knowledge... They are mostly focused on the unmoderated areas of usenet. It is primarily due to the lack of a moderator that they say it comes down on automomy over order. I guess your presence tips things in favor or order. Or that is how they would view it, anyway.
> > You can send your criminals to Australia but ... Australians (now) aren't as criminal as they once were. Perhaps.
> Becoming less criminal sounds like a good thing. How did that happen?
I don't know much about the history of Australia (the demographic breakdown of immigrants) but I suspect it would be nicer being one of the guys (a mate, if you will) in Aussie than being one of the poor trying to make ones way in a class/heredity-based London.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 23, 2013, at 21:03:22
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 23, 2013, at 5:58:27
From:
>Poor Elizabeth Beckford. She was 70 years old and her crime was stealing 12lb of Gloucester cheese.
For that she could have hanged. Hundreds did in those violent, vengeful days, dancing "the Tyburn frisk" in the words of those who crammed around the gallows to watch this favourite spectator sport of the 18th century. But the state, in its mercy, saved her life - and gave her a punishment that some would see as worse than death.
>She was an unwilling passenger on a fleet of 11 ships that set out from England in 1787, the first of the convoys of the criminal underclass - as the ruling elite of Georgian England saw them - sent in chains to colonise new and dangerous shores on the other side of the world.
Those 736 sad souls on that pioneering voyage would establish a new world. Though she didn't know it - and the thought would have given her no consolation as she lay crammed with others in cell-like spaces below decks - Elizabeth was a founder member of a new country, Australia.
On Thursday, more than 200 years later, those who made those dreadful voyages - 163,000 in all over the years to come - are feted. Twenty-first century Australians celebrate their convict past, taking their lead from premier John Howard, a descendant of transported folk on both sides of his family.
The shipping and court registers of the banished have long lain in the National Archive in London. Now, in the knowledge that two million of us in Britain probably have blood links with Australia's criminal forebears, they have been put online for the hundreds of thousands of amateur genealogists in this country, eager to find out more about their roots.
The history they hide may not be pleasant. Elizabeth, incredibly, was not the oldest on that first ark of despair. Dorothy Handland, a dealer in rags and old clothes, was 82. How she was expected to contribute to empire-building in a virgin land whose hardships could only be guessed at is a mystery as great as the place she was being sent to.
But nonetheless she was among the waggon-loads of prisoners dragged down to the docks in Portsmouth from the sunless ship hulks at Woolwich where they had been held because the prisons were all full. They were dressed in rags, their faces pale from imprisonment, louse-ridden and thin as rakes from the slops they had been forced to live on.
Alongside the grannies were 120 other women, mostly young, like 22-year-old Elizabeth Powley. Penniless at home in Norfolk she had raided someone's kitchen for a few shillings' worth of bacon, flour and raisins and "24 ounces weight of butter valued 12d".
The death sentence on this starving girl was commuted and, as Robert Hughes, historian of the transportations, notes wryly in his book, The Fatal Shore, "she was sent to Australia, never to eat butter again".
At least the youngest of the "passengers", John Hudson, would never be pushed up another chimney. The nine-year-old sweep was condemned to seven years' exile for theft.
All on board were small-time criminals whose punishment, by the standards of later generations, in no degree fitted the crime. James Grace, 11, had taken some ribbon and a pair of silk stockings. John Wisehammer, 15, snatched some snuff from a shop counter in Gloucester.
For that, they would never see home again. The most extraordinary crime was that of William Francis, who stole a book about 'the flourishing state of the island of Tobago' from a gentleman in London. If he had had time to read it before he was caught, perhaps he had an inkling of what now lay ahead of him in a British colony far rawer than the West Indies.
There were no political prisoners, however, no rabble rousing, hay stackburning activists or trades unionists sentenced for their subversive activities, as some of today's anti-P*m Australians like to think. Nor, contrary to another common belief, were there any prostitutes as such - because prostitution was not a transportable offence at the time.
The women, however, were treated as whores. They arrived at the gangplank of their vessel, the Lady Penrhyn, almost naked and filthy, "in a situation that stamps them with infamy", according to the officer in command of the expedition, Captain Arthur Phillip.
He was appalled at their treatment by the magistrates who had sentenced them and the jailers who had held them. Whether he could guarantee them better lives at the end of their nine-month voyage was yet to be seen.
What they were about to embark on was the longest journey ever attempted by such a large group of people. Where they were going might as well have been the moon. Crewmen, let alone convicts, believed they would never see home or their loved ones again. "Oh my God," wrote one officer of Marines in his journal, "all my hopes are over of seeing my beloved wife and son."
As for the country they were going to, almost nothing was known except for the promise of Captain James Cook, its discoverer, that this 'New South Wales' as he chose to call it, was now British. But, to some observers of the hang 'em tendency, the thought that the felons might be better off than if they had languished in jail provoked bitter reproach. They were getting a new life, courtesy of the state, some argued. One balladeer wrote: They go to an island to take special charge Much warmer than Britain, and ten times as large. No customs-house duty, no freightage to pay, And tax-free they'll live when in Botany Bay.
Judging by the behaviour of some of the prisoners on that first voyage, the balladeer may have had a point. In truth, some of those on board acted in a way we associate with holidaying in Ibiza.
As they crossed into the tropics, and the hatches were taken off at night to let the prisoners breathe in some cool air, sex was rampant. The women prisoners were like stoats, according to the surgeon on one of the ships. They threw themselves at the sailors and Royal Marines in "promiscuous intercourse", he declared.
"Their desire to be with the men was so uncontrollable that neither shame - but, indeed, of this they had long lost sight - nor punishment could deter them."
Some were put in irons and others flogged, but the going-price for a quickie was just a tot of rum from a sailor's ration. Not surprisingly, the next problem for the captain was drunkenness among the same women.
The voyage rolled on seemingly endlessly with stops at Rio de Janeiro and Cape Town. The last leg was into the swells and troughs of almost uncharted waters of the Southern Seas.
The convicts were more crowded than ever because room had to be made for cows, horses, pigs and sheep for the future colony. Still the lechery continued. "There was never a more abandoned set of wretches collected in one place at any period than are now to be met within this ship," said the surgeon on the Lady Penrhyn.
Violent thunder squalls dumped tons of freezing water on the halfclothed convicts and dampened some of their ardour. The ladies fell on their knees praying.
And, finally, 252 days after leaving England they had made it to dry land as the ships anchored in Botany Bay. Forty-eight people had died - 40 of them convicts, five convicts' children. It was a tiny death rate compared with what they had achieved in that voyage.
"The sea had spared them," wrote Hughes. "Now they must survive on the unknown land."
It was a fortnight before enough tents and huts could be made ready and the female convicts could be disembarked. Sailors and women went mad with lust again.
That night a storm blew down the tents and rain lashed the camp. Male convicts pursued the women intent on raping them. Sailors from the ships, fuelled by rum, joined in.
"It is beyond my abilities to give a just description of the scene of debauchery and riot that ensued during the night," wrote the surgeon.
There was swearing, quarrelling, singing - "it was the first bush party in Australia," wrote Hughes, "and as the couples rutted between the rocks, their clothes slimy with red clay, the sexual history of colonial Australia may fairly said to have begun".
The next day the new governor harangued the convicts. He would stand no repetition of last night's orgy. Prisoners who tried to get into the women's tents would be shot. There was back-breaking work to do just to survive and if they did not work they would not eat, he told them.
The convicts had come to a hard country, as tough as any prison back home. They looked out on a territory that appeared fertile and lovely but was in fact arid. Beyond the landing grounds was bush, mile upon mile of it. There were Aborigines out there, too. Try to escape and they would spear you.
Even the Marine officers who ran the colony despaired. One wrote, that 'in the whole world there is not a worse country. All is so very barren and forbidding that it may with truth be said that here nature is reversed and is nearly worn out'. Surely, he added, the government would not think of sending any more people here.
But it did. The colony survived for its first year largely on rations it had brought with it, a diet of salt meat and leathery cakes baked on a shovel. Crops failed, illness struck down dozens of the convicts. But then supply ships arrived, and after that more convicts.
For some life was too harsh to continue. Dorothy Handland, now 84, who had endured so much already since her conviction back in England, hanged herself from a gum tree. She was Australia's first recorded suicide.
The convict colony clung on - just. There is no point in romanticising those days. Hughes's book makes clear that many of the convicts behaved badly, stealing each others' rations, and acting generally in the same dog-eat-dog fashion of the English slums they had come from.
On the other hand, they had little to cheer them. They worked on the land, hard, gruelling labour, often yoked together to haul timber in the absence of draught animals. Some preferred punishment to work.
The batch of women in the first fleet was not enough. More of marriageable age were needed and the next transport brought a boatload. The women convicts on the Lady Juliana had paired off with the crew as soon as they set sail from England. When she stopped in Tenerife and other ports along the way, a constant stream of male visitors came aboard, earning her a reputation as 'The Floating Brothel'.
On arrival in Australia they had money in their pockets, some a small fortune, for the half-starved convicts and sailors they were then married off to. Here was the "breeding stock", as one official in London put it, from which Australia would proudly grow.
Then land was granted to convicts who had served their time. There was an incentive at last. After 1792, four years after the first fleet first sailed into Botany Bay, the convict colony of New South Wales was self-supporting.
Back in England, the government hailed a victory. A worrying crime wave had been addressed. The criminal classes had been exiled and at no real cost.
That a whole continent would be conquered too was the unexpected bonus from those convict ships and their sorry cargoes.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2013, at 16:43:28
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 23, 2013, at 21:03:22
> some peoples do manage subtractable resources in sustainable ways without the imposition of top-down government.
Hardin didn't say there had to be top-down government:
> > To many, the word coercion implies arbitrary decisions of distant and irresponsible bureaucrats; but this is not a necessary part of its meaning. The only kind of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected.
> You might like:
>
> > When analysts perceive the human beings they model as being trapped inside perverse situations, they then assume that other human beings external to those involved - scholars and public officials - are able to analyze the situation, ascertain why counterproductive outcomes are reached, and posit what changes in the rules-in-use will enable participants to improve outcomes. Then, external officials are expected to impose an optimal set of rules on those individuals involved. It is assumed that the momentum for change must come from outside the situation rather than from the self-reflection and creativity of those within a situation to restructure their own patterns of interaction.I'm the "external official" here, yes? Assumed to be able to analyze the situation and change the rules to improve outcomes?
> > dramatic incidents of overharvested resources had captured widespread attention, while studies by anthropologists, economic historians, engineers, philosophers, and political scientists of local governance of smaller to medium scale common-pool resources over long periods of time were *not* noticed by many theorists and public officials.
>
> Usenet is probably a case of one of them.
>
> Babble isn't.
>
> Yeah?Isn't what? Local governance of smaller to medium scale common-pool resources over a long period of time?
> > > You can send your criminals to Australia but ... Australians (now) aren't as criminal as they once were. Perhaps.
>
> > Becoming less criminal sounds like a good thing. How did that happen?> Then land was granted to convicts who had served their time. There was an incentive at last. After 1792, four years after the first fleet first sailed into Botany Bay, the convict colony of New South Wales was self-supporting.
Thanks for finding and sharing that story. Incentive was the key?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2013, at 5:57:17
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2013, at 16:43:28
> > some peoples do manage subtractable resources in sustainable ways without the imposition of top-down government.
> Hardin didn't say there had to be top-down government
You are right, he didn't. In fact he acknowledges problems with this attempt at solution.
Ostrom characterizes much of the work since Hardin as thinking that this is the solution to tragedy of the commons situations, though. Whether she is setting up a straw man, or whether this is the case, this seems to be her target.> The only kind of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected.
But you don't want to put certain moderating policies to the vote.
> I'm the "external official" here, yes? Assumed to be able to analyze the situation and change the rules to improve outcomes?
You are if anyone is. I'm not entirely convinced you are an 'external official', though. I said more about this on admin.
> Isn't what? Local governance of smaller to medium scale common-pool resources over a long period of time?
That was my thought, yes. Babble isn't an example of unmoderated. I guess I was thinking that unmoderated was locally governed (social norms) rather than their being official moderation / official rules / sanctions.
> > Then land was granted to convicts who had served their time. There was an incentive at last. After 1792, four years after the first fleet first sailed into Botany Bay, the convict colony of New South Wales was self-supporting.
> Thanks for finding and sharing that story. Incentive was the key?I guess that is the way they tell the story. Being granted / Taking ownership.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.