Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

'300' from Osprey...

 Post subject: '300' from Osprey...
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2007 8:19 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
May I just add I did like the pictures - however they are a touch drab for 6mil (what there are other scales), those chaps would be wearing flouresents in any army I painted (cue competition to see how many historical gamers can have heart attacks).

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: '300' from Osprey...
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2007 1:20 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
IMO the smaller the scale of the figures, the brighter the shade of the colours you should use, because it looks better on the table and the small scale alters our perception of colours so that they appear duller than they really are.  Fluorescent would be too much for me though I think :)

and...


(The_Real_Chris @ May 10 2007,06:06)
QUOTE
- my job depends on such suffering
-I don't care really, its just another program in a long line
-I know exactly the most effective actions to take to advocate for them. Ultimate resolution is political so I cheerfully bypass the buerocracy that says I'm not supposed to do anything and leave it to HQ and instead try and get foriegn ambassedors to put pressure on.
-National staff on all sides have varying levels of compassion and competence - all hold the refugees in some level of contempt for a variety of reasons.
-So is it wrong?
Yes, I am informed by the example of my parents who were moral Catholics dedicated to serving others. Since they were also quite pragmatic and i require some ethical structure to remain in the society I inhabit, plus my wife would box me if i got to cynical and started being mercenry, theirs is better than nowt, so I go with that.
-Do I care? No, I know what to do, do it, know my chances of success and can give you the likely scenarios 5 years from now, can tell you exactly the strategies required (fall into two camps - variety of 'get better' and 'get worse', the former leads to better conditions the latter to the closure/disbanding of the camps and they get to take their chances outside) etc.
-Sometimes I get moved, other times I'm too busy trying to figure out what angle the person in front of me is trying to push and most of the time its run of the mill human suffering which is hardly novel.
-Great eh? A sorry state of affairs to be in, but at least i am still worth my salary unlike many others in the same field.
-Would i have been one of the great philantrophists of times past who decided against the grain of society to improve the lot of their fellow man? No idea, I can see how I could have gone both ways.

Wow that was an in depth analysis! Thank you.  Some interesting statements there, including the fact that you appear to attribute your sense of right and wrong to your parents and their value system, your need to have an ethical structure to be part of society... and your wife  :D . Sounds very functional and pragmatic. Is this system also why sometimes you get moved , why you describe things as a sorry state of affairs, or do you think there may be something more innate about those affective judgments also?

And if you can be bothered... a follow up question that is hypothetical... on a scale of 0-5 with 5 being 'a lot' and 0 being 'none', what level of concern and personal motivation would you feel to change the situation of people trapped in a refugee camp if they were:

1. Your wife and immediate family
2. Your siblings (if you have any)
3. Your cousins
4. Distant relations you have met only a few times.
5. Distant relations you have never met.
6. Members of epicomms who have replied in this thread (we were on our way to an epic convention and got lost or something...)

(Anyone else who wants to answer it would be interesting too...).

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: '300' from Osprey...
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2007 2:15 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(Markconz @ May 10 2007,01:20)
QUOTE
That's why I recommended getting the latest versions rather than earlier approximations...

If you want to try and decide what is right or wrong, science places the most powerful tools in your hands to examine an issue from various perspectives, including the vastly important - why your mind and others minds will likely come to the conclusions that they will.

Well... didn't this just devolve into a deep philosopical discussion.

I had a long response typed in, but I deleted it.  Basically, it comes down to  I just don't think science is the answer for moral considerations.  The past and continued failures are too numerous to list.

In all seriousness, if we were to reach a point during my lifetime where moral decisions were reduced to scientific formulae, I'd hop on the first boat for the island.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: '300' from Osprey...
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2007 4:05 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(nealhunt @ May 10)
QUOTE

In all seriousness, if we were to reach a point during my lifetime where moral decisions were reduced to scientific formulae, I'd hop on the first boat for the island.


Here's the scientific formula underlying your moral instincts Neal. Have you got a boat, and what island?:



You're not alone in being unhappy about it being reduced to a scientific formula. Its discoverer went mad at the implications and killed himself (Price). Nonetheless his equation proves fantastically powerful in predicting the circumstances in which people will or will not be altruistic to others.

Bit of a shock, kinda like Galileo saying those nasty things about the earth not being the center of the universe, or Darwin daring to suggest we are apes with a bit more cortex and less well developed sense of humour. Still, we get over it eventually  :).

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: '300' from Osprey...
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2007 4:19 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Heh.

"The island" is a reference to Brave New World - the place where alphas and above could choose exile over participation in the system.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: '300' from Osprey...
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2007 4:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:52 am
Posts: 10348
Location: Malta

(nealhunt @ May 10 2007,17:19)
QUOTE
Heh.

"The island" is a reference to Brave New World - the place where alphas and above could choose exile over participation in the system.

I knew it wasn't Malta somehow.....

Good grief- Markconz, can you elaborate on the source of the maths bit please?

_________________
Back from oblivion (again)?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: '300' from Osprey...
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 5:09 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

(Markconz @ May 10 2007,18:20)
QUOTE
And if you can be bothered... a follow up question that is hypothetical... on a scale of 0-5 with 5 being 'a lot' and 0 being 'none', what level of concern and personal motivation would you feel to change the situation of people trapped in a refugee camp if they were:

1. Your wife and immediate family
2. Your siblings (if you have any)
3. Your cousins
4. Distant relations you have met only a few times.
5. Distant relations you have never met.
6. Members of epicomms who have replied in this thread (we were on our way to an epic convention and got lost or something...)

The sorry state of affairs is a comment on myself. I fully believe if I had a level of irrational faith like the vast majority of people in the world I would be a far happier person and able to attribute actions to it, provide justifications, feel more sure of myself etc.

As it is from the earlist age I've had zero faith and a lot of cynacism. How sad for me :)

Moved is simply sometimes you feel a brief connection with someone for whatever reason, imagine yourself in similar circumstances and feel a level of empathy that normally escapes me. I often get it when i see a kid with downs being happy. Course don't get that out here, they tend to kill them when it manefests as an unbarable burden, or keep them under lock and key as an embarrisment.

For these people its typically when i can't see any solution to their problem and they are utterly screwed, which isn't often.

As to the scaling first off its not that easy. Part of the problem here is the level of educational attainment, imagination and citizenship (they have none in both Bangladesh and Burma). Everyone on that list has the third and the first and has more of the second. A more fair comparison would be say refugee camps in places like Bosnia (internally displaced people) or Lebanon (Iraqi's). The options then become different but roughly I would do anything legal/illigal for my family, do the same for my siblings but with different considerations as there is more of them so illigal actions would probably curtail my activities before I finished, then everything legal from there on down. For those I have a connection to I would coach more and speak off the record to (e.g. well, if hes forced x number of women into prostitution, taken your rations and gotten two of your sons killed by local villagers and there is zero evidence and witnesses -  I suggest just killing him) but I couldn't do illigal things like give jobs, visa's etc as that would compromise the other work I was doing. unless of course I judged my position as useless, in which case I would see how much I could do before I got found out.

I don't go down to far on your 0-5 scale as my sense of professionalism means I don't consider performing below a certain level. That is doing everything in my power but in a non personal engaging fashion.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: '300' from Osprey...
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 3:42 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(vanvlak @ May 10 2007,15:39)
QUOTE
Good grief- Markconz, can you elaborate on the source of the maths bit please?

:D Without wanting to get into too much detail, it is a derivation related to Hamilton?s work on kin selection and how evolution of altruistic behaviour is possible (it's a problem for evolutionary theory at a face level). Essentially the important realisation is that selection pressure operates at the level of the gene rather than the individual organism.  This means that even extreme behaviours that destroy their host organism, may be selected for if the destruction (or injury) to the host organism somehow increases the frequency of genes for that behaviour through promotion of wellbeing of other hosts.  Formally a costly altruistic action will be carried out if:

   rB - C > 0

where

   r = the genetical relatedness of the recipient to the actor, usually defined as the probability that a gene picked randomly from each at the same locus is identical by descent.
   B = the additional reproductive benefit gained by the recipient of the altruistic act,
   C = the reproductive cost to the individual of performing the act.


Human hardwired moral instincts (and monkey moral instincts for that matter) are largely based around kin selection (and a few other factors such as reciprocal altruism). An example is the pattern described by Chris of greater aid to closer kin as compared to more distant:

"...roughly I would do anything legal/illegal for my family, do the same for my siblings but with different considerations as there is more of them so illegal actions would probably curtail my activities before I finished, then everything legal from there on down."

Really it is obvious and a tautology, but importantly this pattern (and a surprising range of other decisions in different moral dilemmas) is universal across all cultures studied thus far.  However, there is an important caveat to the whole thing. In the EEA (Environment of Evolutionary adaptation) which is hunter gatherer bands of at most a few hundred individuals, a simple cognitive mechanism for determining who is closely related kin and who is not has sufficed for rapid evolution of altruistic hardwired responses. That is - if they look like you, speak like you, and you live with them, they are your kin and you should be altruistic towards them, and more so if they are immediate family (there strong instincts for dealing with cheaters too).

However given the sudden change from hunter gatherers to massive settlements and a global community our kinship determination cognitive processes are easily confused. For example people will send aid money to people in distress they have never met but have seen on TV (which provokes an empathic hardwired response - at least until habituation sets in...). Thus moral instincts generalise very easily from a hundred close kin, to millions in a nation, to billions in a world - provided you can see them on TV etc?. (and provided they are not portrayed as a direct threat to your own kinship group).  

Humans are extraordinarily and consistently altruistic in the right circumstances (even Chris without 'irrational faith' to guide him will still break the law to rescue close kin), Exceptionally harsh and rare religious systems occasionally (and with considerable difficulty) restrict altruistic instincts, but more often religions heartily endorse general moral instincts (and claim them as their own special domain, despite the fact that even monkeys obey them?). Strong altruistic instincts can be a double edged sword of course. War is most effectively started by appeals to self sacrifice on behalf of the kinship group - to promote its welfare in a ?crisis? and defend it from 'enemies' and 'threats' and ?the other? (and the less said about the unfortunate vulnerability of primates (including humans) to persuasion by ?alpha males? the better).

There's more to it, including myriad complicating considerations such as sexual selection, and the detail is important, but I?ve rambled on about this enough I think.?

If anyone is still reading this far  :laugh:  , an on topic example of this equation in action is choice of the 300 Spartan soldiers at Thermopylae ? all were chosen because they had sons. Thus all were already reproductively successful and extremely altruistically motivated to defend that genetic inheritance despite the sacrifice involved.

Applications of Price equation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation

About Price:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: '300' from Osprey...
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 7:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:52 am
Posts: 10348
Location: Malta
Phew - I sure asked for it! But that was interesting. Thanks Markconz. :) :) :)
The 300 detail is a good example - there, see, I DID read that far ;)

_________________
Back from oblivion (again)?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: '300' from Osprey...
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2007 4:09 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Well I finally decided to go see the '300' movie just to see what all the fuss was about... I can sum it up in one line:

A gay-pride parade gets attacked by a horde of mimes!  

Were those immortals supposed to look like clowns or was that mime-look just an unfortunate coincidence? Either way it left me in stitches  :D



Less mardi-gras and mimes, more shield walls please!

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net