Happily Almost Ever After: Towards a Romantic Account of Détente

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the concept of détente. I am fairly certain it is going to play a big role in my next book, but I haven’t figured out the precise details.

A détente is a general easing of tensions within an adversarial relationship before underlying conflicts have been resolved (otherwise you would call it “peace”). I think of détente as a “happily almost ever after” narrative pattern. Unlike a truce though, a détente is a sort of indefinite cessation or slowing down of conflict without specific expectations of alternative approaches towards resolution, or specified time limits. You know a decisive drive towards an outcome will be resumed, but you don’t know when, why, how or where for sure. You just collectively agree that now is not the time or place.

I’ll sketch out in general terms why the concept is interesting, but I am going to wander quite a bit along the way and use this post as an excuse to philosophize about game theory and academic culture, and share an interesting anecdote. You’ve been warned.

Utopia for Realists

In political science, where the concept of détente originated, the adversarial relationship is generally one involving a symmetric balance of power, such as the US-USSR relationship during the height of the Cold War. The easing of tensions in that case had a somewhat literal and quantitative character, since it involved attempting to slow down nuclear and missile proliferation.  A détente is usually consciously engineered by the concerned parties.

If you interpret the term more broadly as any sort of temporary peace with an element of conscious intent, you start to see why the idea is so useful. It is the realist’s substitute for utopia.

The narrative pattern is ubiquitous in fiction. The end of The Hobbit is a détente because of the unresolved matter of the One Ring and the Necromancer. It was conscious because Gandalf could have chosen to drive that matter towards resolution immediately after the Smaug adventure, but chose to let that sleeping dog lie for a while. The Necromancer too, prefered to delay an active hunt for the One Ring while recovering his strength (this narrative pattern is faithfully replicated in the Harry Potter series). Each of the Terminator movies ends in a détente rather than a happily-ever-after condition.

Most real-life struggles never really end. All we enjoy are periods of détente with the forces we all constantly struggle against, individually and collectively.

So to engineer a détente is to choose peace and relaxation for a while. It is happily ever after for realists.

The idea of a détente is interesting because it represents a change in the character of an equilibrium situation through some sort of engineered, negotiated process. I believe we’re going to be doing a lot of such engineering and negotiation in this century, but around technology, not politics or war.

A Digression into Game Theory

Before I get to détente, I need a little digression into game theory, the most common framework used in the social sciences for modeling partially adversarial situations (including détente). The game-theoretic approach is so dominant for such questions that if you choose to ignore it, or even reduce it to secondary status (as I plan to), you sort of have to defend your decision to pre-empt certain futile debates.

I need to talk specifically about  the well-known Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma (IPD) model, sometimes called the e. coli of social science research.

If you aren’t familiar with the prisoner’s dilemma (PD) paradox and its fertile, iterated cousin, you should read the Wikipedia entry linked above before proceeding.

I have a love-hate relationship with game theory in general and IPD in particular. I even worked briefly (and due to my inexperience at the time, not very successfully) with Robert Axelrod, the pioneer in the field, before finally cooling on the field permanently. I suppose it helped that my PhD adviser was equally suspicious and wary of the subject. He viewed it as a rabbit hole from which, if you were not careful, you could not escape. I initially disagreed with him, but after a few conversations and exploratory forays into the field, I came to share his views.

In my opinion, game theory in general is a frustrating but fundamental cognitive framework for anyone interested in complex social systems. If that describes you, you should have more than a passing familiarity with it. Even the non mathematically-inclined should make an effort to understand the basics. The basic math is not very hard at all. The subject is challenging because it demands agile shifting of perspectives among various modeled points of view, not because the math is hard. In a way, game theory is like calisthenics for perspective refactoring.

Axelrod’s two books The Evolution of Cooperation and The Complexity of Cooperation give you a sense of how powerful game theory can get. If you are inclined to wander beyond the Prisoner’s Dilemma to models of things like management-labor negotiations or market competition, Thinking Strategically by Dixit and Nalebuff is the standard text for simplified, applied game theory. For those of you who want to get into the more mathematical end of things, there are plenty of standard texts in a variety of flavors ranging from the Von Neumann and Morgenstern Ur text to more modern treatments to suit the subtly differing tastes of mathematicians, sociologists, economists and engineers. Explore the selection and pick a suitable starting point if you need to educate yourself on the subject.

But once you know the basics, my advice is to severely limit your use of game theory as an intellectual tool except for very special situations (but since the subject is intellectual cocaine, there is a strong chance you will ignore my advice and become a serious addict anyway. But I can’t in good faith tell you to “just say no,” since being an addict is better than being ignorant of the field).

But basically, game theory should never be your main tool. Only a secondary tool.


Game Theory as a WMID

Because game theory is the finest discussion-killer known to humanity. In the wrong hands, it is a weapon of mass intellectual destruction. It takes extraordinary sensitivity and taste to use it in a way that opens rather than closes discussions. A level of sensitivity and taste that very few people reach. In fact, I consider myself as lacking the necessary level of taste to safely use game theory, and I am not being self-deprecating.

This is why Axelrod’s work is deservedly famous. He used game theory as a fertile and exploratory story-telling tool rather than as a destructive weapon. At the risk of annoying a lot of people, I think most classically trained economists use game theory in the WMID way.

Let me give you an example of the dangers from my younger, greener days.

Many years ago, I’d built some computer models I was quite proud of. The models pretty neatly captured many features of combat in a modern battlefield with lots of moving parts, such as drones, humans, networked C2 systems, AI systems and so forth. I felt that the models were at exactly the right level of abstraction to get at some interesting questions without getting bogged down in the details of hardware. Fun things and pretty graphics happened with my models when you hit “Go.”

I got an opportunity to talk about my work at Wright-Patterson AFB. After spending an hour explaining what I’d done, with nobody falling asleep or leaving, we were in the Q&A portion and having an interesting discussion of various subtleties. Then one guy in the audience (a visiting professor) offered up a comment with a rather supercilious air: “this is all very complex and interesting, but unnecessary. Let me offer you an even more abstract model than yours: at the highest level you are just doing some simple game theory.” (emphasis his).

In case you haven’t been exposed to much academic-speak,  “more abstract” and “higher level” are generally code for “I am smarter than you” status assertions.

I protested: “Yeah, sure, you could probably model this at a more abstract level using game theory, but that was not my point. I was trying to explore the phenomenology of decision-making in the presence of…”

But it was too late. The damage had been done. The discussion had been derailed and killed.

In hindsight, this was one of those formative events that led me to abandon academic research (which is full of such posturing and Q&A skirmishes that go nowhere), but that’s another story. I learned from that incident to spot and pre-empt use of many WMIDs that expert academics use to kill interesting debates that they are threatened by (game theory is one of the biggest status-asserting WMIDs, but there are others, such as global optimization, as in “that’s just a global optimization problem.”)

But to get back on track.

Game theory has this effect because it is more than a field of applied mathematics. To many, it is an incredibly satisfying appreciative world view for Life, The Universe and Everything. The entire universe starts to make a seductive and nihilistic sort of sense once you adopt game theory as a religion rather than a tool. The analogy to religion is not shallow. There are people who say “non-zero sum” the way religious people say “and then there was light.”  You see evangelical fervor in their eyes.

But the apparent appreciative power of game theory, for me is ultimately unsatisfying. Yes, such and such complex situation is a Nash equilibrium. Or such and such evolutionary process looks like an Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS) in IPD.

Then what?

Real-world systems are generally too complex to allow direct application of game theory as a practical tool. But even its appreciative use is toxic, because unlike most appreciative views that tend to open up fertile avenues for further exploration, game theory mostly makes you dismiss further exploration as unimportant. It makes you stop thinking rather than start.

Modeling Détente

A game theorist would most likely approach the idea of a détente as a shift from a regime of costly mutual defection (D-D) to one of less expensive mutual cooperation (C-C). Axelrod showed how this could happen even without centralized coordination.

There are many examples of varying complexity.  Two countries at war declaring a ceasefire is one. Companies competing fiercely agreeing to form a cartel is another.  A circle of people, each pointing a gun at his neighbor to the right, mutually agreeing to lay down the guns (or exchanging the guns for knives or fists) would be a third.

There are also plenty of examples in evolutionary biology, involving species such as bees and ants. You can read about them in Dawkins old classic, The Selfish Genewhich is a work that is very game-theoretic in both spirit and specifics, as is the rest of Dawkins work.

This general applicability is actually revealing. If the same model applies to ants, trench warfare in World War I, and brands competing in the marketplace, it is highly unlikely that you’ll get at the interesting differences among the situations using that model. The fact that ant or bee brains can “run” behavioral algorithms that result in game theoretic dynamics tells you how simple they are.

So a preference for game theoretic models is actually a preference for simplicity and generality, which I lack. I like complexity and narrative specificity.

To a certain extent, preferring simplicity and generality is a matter of taste and interest. But it is also a pattern of denial that rationalizes a distaste for actually diving into the details of things that have nominally been “explained.”

I view this stance as the essence of classicism: the intellectual aesthetic that draws the most narrow boundaries around what ought to be considered “interesting” and seeks to elevate things within the boundary as the only legitimate subjects of inquiry.

Dawkins is a very interesting scholar primarily because he is a sort of revolutionary classicist, an odd combination. I read The Selfish Gene (a sort of revolutionary perspective-refactoring of Darwinism into neo-Darwinism) and his most original work, The Extended Phenotypebut then felt no desire to read the rest of his books or follow him into militant atheism. Mainly because I felt he was repeating himself endlessly, adding more color and detail to his original ideas from the late seventies.

Dawkins well-known feud with his evil twin, Stephen Jay Gould is also revealing. Gould is probably best known (at least to lay people like me and, I assume, most of you) for his work on punctuated equlibria. This is, roughly speaking, the idea that speciation in biological evolution happens in bursts, with periods of equilibrium in between (a sort of life-versus-environment détente model).

Dawkins had specific technical and factual objections to Gould’s models, but his primary objection was an aesthetic one. He simply didn’t think it was a very important idea, deserving of the publicity it has received. He is quoted as saying: about it:

“It is a “minor gloss,” an “interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of neo-Darwinian theory,” and “lies firmly within the neo-Darwinian synthesis”.

This critique reveals something about Gould as well: classicists are most likely to disparage the views of romantics: those who draw the most relaxed boundaries around “interesting” (if they draw boundaries at all).

Romantics are not satisfied with just the premise and outcome of a story. They want to know the story itself; narrate the whole thing in all its path-dependent glory, and worry even about the local specifics that do not usefully contribute to the general theory.  They are particularists rather than grand unifiers.  They want to tell satisfying stories.

Of course, they have their own denials (often a weaker intellectual capacity for elegant generalization and unification, coupled with a sort of “stamp collector” addiction in the sense of the Rutherford quote), but romantics generally appreciate the value of classicist views more than classicists appreciate romantic views.

This is a high-level example, involving far more famous and important people, of the same sort of romantic-classicist skirmish that killed the discussion at my talk.

It is my belief that this (primarily aesthetic) stance adopted by Dawkins’ is due to his use of game theory as a primary tool. In fact I consider it something of a great tragedy that Dawkins himself never explored the ideas in The Extended Phenotype (which are not primarily game theoretic) much further. I suspect his game-theoretic roots made him abandon the most fertile directions suggested by EP.  The directions required a romantic, rather than classicist, imagination to explore.  And since Dawkins has mainly attracted other classicists to himself, these territories (the idea of “memetics” among them) remain both inadequately and inappropriately explored (by unifiers seeking to generalize rather than particularists seeking to narrate), and sort of permanently fenced off from all but the bravest romantics.

Now I don’t know enough about evolutionary biology to discuss the relative merits of the contributions of the late Gould and still-living Dawkins, but I have to say, aesthetically I am firmly on Gould’s side. Punctuated equilibria, whatever their origin, are fascinating as a narrative pattern. To me, they are the main plot in the story of evolution.  I want the blow-by-blow account of the Cambrian explosion. To dismiss the idea and focus exclusively on just the classicist framework is like saying about Shakespeare “all the plays are either comedies or tragedies, enough said.”

One of these days I’ll write more about romantics versus classicists (I recognized myself as a romantic after my PhD adviser sensitized me to the difference: he would remark about work that he approved of: “that is romantic science.”)

But back to our subject.

Modeling Détente: Take Two

The idea that détente is a shift from mutual defection to mutual cooperation, end of story, is where I was until a few months ago (shows you how much my own thinking has been compromised by game theory).

At the risk of going too meta, let me note that game theory itself is a mechanism by which détente can emerge within an intellectual culture, since it can shut off fertile areas of exploration and declare a temporary intellectual peace (I call it a WMiD because in thinking, war is preferable to peace, so anything that kills a war is prima facie a bad thing unless proven otherwise). In this case the idea of a détente hasn’t been seriously studied since Schelling and other Cold War era thinkers (at least to my knowledge, correct me if you know of interesting new developments), despite the obvious broader utility of the concept even (and perhaps especially) in our chaotic times.

So let us ask again, what is a détente?

And this time, let’s take note of the elements of a potential romantic answer, rather than a classicist answer. I can’t provide a complete account obviously, since I am just beginning to explore the idea, but here are the points I’ve noted.

  • In the simplest case, it is the engineered emergence some sort of temporary peace emerging from some sort of war, but not through decisive win-lose or win-win (see how seductive game-theoretic language is?) fulfillment/denial of objectives. Rather, it is a shift that emerges because everybody recognizes that decisive outcomes are not possible at that time and that the fighting might as well be abandoned for the time being. It is sort of a consensus that a state of diminishing returns has been reached.
  • In a slightly more complex case, it is the deliberate closing of one battlefront in order to concentrate action on another that is preferred by all parties (or a single dominant party), generally because a more decisive outcome seems likely on that front. In this case, engineering a détente on one front is a movement of proceedings to a different local optimum.
  • Unlike evolved cooperation (via natural selection), it is consciously engineered by intelligent agents.
  • In my ongoing examination of various examples, I’ve concluded that pure one-front détente engineering of the first sort is very rare. The second kind, the “move the action to a front where decisive outcomes are possible” kind, is far more common.
  • Sometimes, the front moves to another qualitatively similar front. So a détente engineered on the oceans might move a war to land. In other cases, the action moves to a different kind of front, hence “war is merely a continuation of politics by other means.”
  • It is possible to view politics, war, technology and culture as four cyclically connected détente zones. You can generalize the Clausewitz quote in the previous point to the obvious set of cyclic propositions (for example, “technology is a continuation of war by other means”). It is quite rare (perhaps impossible) for there to be quiescence on all four fronts at once.
  • Why would anyone want to move action elsewhere? Usually because a decisive outcome in a conflict is a kind of information discovery event about relative power and status. When you win or lose in a conflict, there is new information in play. Conflict without hope for a decisive outcome is in nobody’s interest.
  • One of my tentative conjectures is that conflict always moves to the locus where the most asymmetric new information will be generated. Except in cases where all parties are in collective denial because the information that might be generated is of a negative sort, there is usually somebody who benefits disproportionately from moving the action somewhere else, and somebody who loses. So engineering a détente is itself a meta-game, with all parties trying to move the action to fronts that favor them.

It is very tempting to model this meta-game using game theory as well. These models-within-models tend to get very confusing though. I am probably going to take a stab at it as an exploration on the side.

My main interest though, is in narrative patterns that lead into, and out of, détente situations. Who are the actors? How do they frame the situation? What moves are used in engineering the peace? How are new fronts selected? When do actors choose to disrupt a prevailing peace? What defines the realist utopia?

And in particular, I am interested in asking these questions about the story of technological evolution. I’d like a satisfying punctuated equilibrium model of technological change. I’d like to predict and characterize the next technological détente if there is going to be one, or satisfy myself that we’ll end up in long-term future nausea.

Sleeping Dogs and Useless Wars

The idea of a détente is useful in two ways.

First, for events and situations that are playing out on a larger canvas than you personally control, the idea helps you predict which conflicts might go quiescent soon, and which ones might flare up again.  Since there is no permanent peace, all you can do is track the action as it moves. If you think in terms of détente, you will recognize that conflicts don’t end and start because decisive outcomes have been attained. They end and start because it is possible, and in everybody’s interests to either declare a temporary new peace or start a new war. This mental model helps you make timing predictions better.

The heuristic here is to follow the information. Conflict is useful only insofar as it drives decisively towards some sort of closure. If a conflict is raging around what appears to be a de facto balance of power, with no hope of one side either prevailing or outlasting the other, you can expect the conflict to die down.

Conversely, if there is a period of apparent peace in some domain, conflict might flare up again if one party of the arranged balance of power has been quietly gaining or losing power, making open conflict worthwhile again (so the US-China relationship is one such, since the US is quietly losing power, while China is quietly gaining).

This is the sleeping dogs and useless wars heuristic.

Second, within domains that you can significantly influence, the heuristic can help you do more than predict the course of events. It can help you pick battles wisely and manage war and peace within your world. You don’t start fights until you know you have a realistic chance of winning. You sue for peace when you know you sense a looming violent stalemate. That’s a subject for another day.

If you are curious about how this idea is playing into my Game of Pickaxes book project, check out the video of my talk last week at Lean LA, and the slides


Get Ribbonfarm in your inbox

Get new post updates by email

New post updates are sent out once a week

About Venkatesh Rao

Venkat is the founder and editor-in-chief of ribbonfarm. Follow him on Twitter


  1. This description of detente seems to map well onto playing Go. One of the hardest things for a beginner is learning when to ‘accept’ or ‘propose’ a detente and start playing elsewhere on the board.

  2. I’ll try and play the romanticist and predict the next few posts along this series.
    It will link between hackstability and illegibility and since you have said it’s going to be about technological evolution, i wouldn’t be surprised to see the turpentine effect too being linked. Overall, i do agree with game theory’s addictive nature and the tendency to get used to kill interesting discussions.
    Though, on the non-zero sum problem reminds me of a lesswrong post about how it is not meaningful to use same strategies on infinite repetitions vs finite cases of say a coin-toss.

  3. I’m always amused at the gap between game theory as theory and game theory in application. There’s a good reason John von Neumann was a consistent poker loser.

  4. Venkat, the Internet, as a technology, does you no justice.

    Or at the very least it is a barrier to proper (writer intended) understanding even as it is a method for exposing thought and creativity to a wider audience. In fact I’m sure the web is mutually nausating for many people.

    • Venkat, the Internet, as a technology, does you no justice.

      I had a strange impression when reading his latest Forbes article on Microsoft and the comments. He acts there a bit like a thinker/theorist who can kill ten other writers – business analysts, journalists, story tellers or whatever you like to call them; semi-illiterates by his standard – by making wind with his right hand. I count the days till Venkat runs into his Zarathustra crisis, secludes himself from the market place, settles in a cave in the mountains, talking to animals and praising the noon.

      • Zarathustra crisis

        Transcendence is both a noble and priviledged, goal. Those who are able to actualize or move towards such a goal, unfortunately, have a tendency to shirk those who are not as blessed or fortunate as they are.

        It’s amazing how much difference a few years of development and nurture during a “good/better” economy can make all the difference. Such “better” thinkers in general hold onto classical notions and expectations from those economies.

        I’m thinking here of the growning poltical struggle between the Boomers and the Millenials. Wherein there would be a wide disagreement over what is “good” and what is “bad.” And thus what is of value to study in the first place.

        It is worth point out that in these circumstances those, “less-fortunate” ones are more prone to flights of romaticism (in essence the “sob story”). Although as such it is obviously more benign then the Intellectual Varient that Venkat hints at; as well spoken, well packaged ideas can be very dangerous in the wrong hands.

        Venkat at least seems to grasp the inherent danger here as he is engaging with formalied academic ideas even as he claims this is all just part of a, “penny-theatre.” Basically the lack of a defined audience (or perhaps simply the inclusion of it) is the only thing that sets this whole blog apart from an extended dissertation or post-graduate research on something all-together unique.

    • I have no idea what you are talking about. I am completely happy with the Internet and what it does for me, and how clearly it gets my intentions across.

      I don’t know what you mean by “mutually nauseating.”

      The web is basically pure self-selection. People who find each other nauseating generally don’t hang around the same places for very long.

      • Such reduction seems odd given your own self-espoused desire for deep understanding.

        The fact you don’t seem to grasp, and appear to bristle at my plain spoken language is exactly my point. If only “the web” were the only thing at work here.

        I don’t think there is much evidence to support your “move along” conjecture. It might make practical sense in your eyes but that belies the fact that much of what “take place on the web” has a deeper source of meaning itself beyond the web.

        I suppose you would have a point if your blog was purely personal, yet that is simply not the case. So I don’t think its fair to say that people or ideas that dislike each other should just “move along” Such clash of ideas in a university setting might be seen as fruitful in the end as it forces both sides to conduct further research in mutual support of the same discipline or topic. That’s just my $0.02.

        • I am not bristling. I genuinely do not understand you. Sometimes it is superficial (you phrase things in confusing ways that I cannot parse at all) and sometimes it is deep (you seem to operate with assumptions that I don’t get, and therefore cannot interpret what you’re trying to say). I try to understand you as I try to understand any other relatively regular reader or penny theater patron. I find you mildly interesting professionally as a blogger, since I can’t easily classify you as a fan, a serious critical reader, a troll, someone who views me as an enemy of sorts or just confused. I am leaning towards the last of those categories.

          You consider yourself plain-spoken, but you’re anything but. In fact you tend to use more abstruse concepts than I myself do. You’ve used words like “semiotics” and “rhetor” in the past. You’d be more at home in a university setting than I would. Your “blue collar intellectual” stance does not compute for me, but perhaps it computes for others.

          My “move along” remark was an observation, not a suggestion. In my experience, the Web self-organizes into islands of relatively harmonious agreement. There may be violent language on places like Hacker News and Reddit, but they agree at deeper levels enough to stay in the same online venue. Serious debate is very expensive stuff: time and energy consuming. People have to be paid to engage in more than casual debate. If I were defending an academic paper at a conference, the outcome of lots of federal funding, I’d set myself a higher standard for the amount of rigorous debate I felt I “owed” the audience (and the funding agency).

          I manage my time as best as I can to keep a blog running and income coming in. If you ran your own blog, you’d realize that on this end, it does in fact feel like I am running a grocery store of information products. Or at best, a penny theater with a lot of backstage activity that is invisible to you, so you dismiss my assertion that this is a lot more mundane and business-like than you think. In a theater, there may be a Shakespeare play going on up front, but in the back, the bulk of the activity has to do with painting sets, stitching costumes, memorizing lines, getting lunch delivered to the actors…

          I have no issues with you continuing to read here (if I did, I’d just block you or ignore you).

          I am merely puzzled that you appear to be masochistically subjecting yourself to stuff that makes you deeply unhappy when there is absolutely no need to.

          The Web is a big place. If “blue collar intellectualism” as an idea makes sense to you and appeals to you and you identify with it, I am certain there are others, and I am certain they probably discuss things elsewhere with less instant stalling at the very beginning of discussions such as you and I seem to encounter.

          I genuinely think you both over and underestimate me. I am good at a few things which form the basis for this blog. I am not particularly good at anything else. I can’t fight fires or operate lathes (at least not very well on the latter). I can’t program apps. I can think and write, and I make a living off those activities.

          You seem to expect more and come away disappointed in some areas, and assume things in other areas where you actually know nothing about where I am coming from.

          Basically, my current hypothesis is that you are something of an intellectual masochist if you continue to come here despite the pain it appears to cause you and the fact that you appear to get nothing out of any of the posts. It’s like you are coming here as a sort of moral duty to fight back against the power/influence of people like me, taken in aggregate, representing some sort of class of evil intellectual conjurers who are destroying society or something. A sort of #OccupyRibbonfarm one-person movement on your part against some sort of perceived intellectual 1% elite.

          I just find it amusing that you think one small blog is worth that much trouble.

          • you appear to be masochistically subjecting yourself to stuff that makes you deeply unhappy

            For all your comments about me taking you too seriously, this is you taking both my comments and your own writing way too seriously.

            I return out of genuince interest in the subjects for witch you write and not out of any positive or negative feelings over your particular way of addressing those subjects. You may feel that as your blog you have the lone say in how someone should react to how or what you write, but I think this is simply you taking both yourself and your writting too seriously.

            Now why should I contiue reading you ask? I see your writings as broadly addressing and contianing some of the ideas that I am deeply at odds with and see myself as living though. I could perhaps elaborate here, but I don’t think that is a good idea for now.

            I will agree with you that I “need” a university, I don’t have a Ph.d and though I would like one I can in no manner afford one (keep in mind here, you dismissed this outright at one of our earliest conversations. Yet you can see why I think it has great bearing now, I hope)

            Now I am not a man of letters that you are; and, I freely admit that I don’t really know where you’re coming from conceptually as you hop almost willy-nilly from one book and one concept to the next. Though I’ve made an effort to catch up on where you are coming from I am also having to make ends meet and deal with job retraining issues. My time is not always my own all the time. And given the relative ubiquity of WiFi this is a place where I can visit on a semi-regular basis.

            So I’m sorry to say that I don’t have the time that you demand for me to fully come to terms with your work, in the instant gratification sort of way that you desire. After all, how could you expect someone to parse on your phd level right off?

            Epecially when those ideas are launched with such fervor and frequency? Like you said I could just move on, yet I am curious and I like to learn. Is there something inherently wrong with my curiosity, in terms of this blog? I ask questions and it seems that I haven’t, and at this rate won’t, ask those questions in a way that follow with whatever you are building here.

            Now, don’t you just love how both of us seem to make the wrong inferences based upon our limited interactions? I freely admit I am reading you wrong, I just wish you would realize that you are doing the same.

            You’ve already conceptually modelled me without any real knowledge of me or looking beyond the superficial questions I’ve asked so far. Any student in a class is somewhat of a dunce (or else he/she wouldn’t be there right!) and is bound to ask dumb questions…

            I know its easy to paint me the dunce, I am after all just a lowly commenter confused by what he sees written. So I’m not sure what to say? How did my superficial questions ever get us to this point? This iself confuses me all the more. I must have connected with you emotionally even if my questions weren’t worth the effort or time to address, due to their own errant lines of thought.

            Should I not be curious about what you write, or in my own learning in general? Are you trying to imply something all together more elitist or sinister here? Like I said, if anything I’m even more confused. I guess my questions have bothered you more then you want to admit (yet in what way I can’t fathom).

            So please take this to heart, I’m sorry to bother you in such a dumb way and I’m sorry for the perceived animosity.

          • Lol, I give up.

  5. Alexander Boland says:

    The part about romantic vs. classical thinking grabbed my attention much more than detente, though it goes without saying that they’re fundamentally related. What I’ve learned through trial and error is that when I’m working on a project, classical thinking inevitably gets me into a rut. When I try to study things from too systematic/formal an angle (with no wild search for a new “appreciation”), I get into a rabbit hole as I go from building phenomenological intuition to ruminating on the exact same biases over and over.

    I realized this today when I thought it would be a good idea to read an academic paper on narrative cybernetics, only to realize that the poor writing style was making it impossible to generate the aesthetic momentum to have an “a-ha!” moment. Maybe romantic thinking is best viewed as a process of annealing, but I actually don’t like the analogy that I just brought up because it seems to demean romantic thinking to the status of benevolent noise.

    I’ve encountered two WMIDs on a regular basis in life: the first is accusations of “just-so stories”, and the second is when people make unreasonably frequent demands that you “define” your terms. Not that I have some problem with logical rigor, but I find that when I’m molding new ideas, I’m thinking in terms of poetry. Forgive this next bout of classical thinking, but I’m now thinking in terms of this dichotomy:

    Poetic thinking: free-association, connotation, “crossed wires”/contextual-slipperiness, tempo (as both emotion and rhythm), areas of bias/focus

    Structural thinking: definitions, conventions of “evidence”, Socratic method, static contextual framing

    I might even go so far as to say that the only difference between these two forms of thinking is whether semantic frames are frozen in place or allowed to morph/move/etc.

    • Game theory as another example of the “Ludic Fallacy” ( Taleb ) – or maybe even the prime example, the nerdy paradise that summarizes and drives the others ( closed model assumption, rationality assumption, equilibrium analysis etc. )?

  6. Alexander Boland says:

    Also, I’d like to thank you for being adventurous in your thinking about futurism. It’s become stuck in a very static classical framework:

    Peak oil + over-optimization + debt-based currency = inevitable quick-descent into entropic hell.

    It goes without saying that we need more people like you to find new appreciative models for our predicament.

  7. “To dismiss the idea and focus exclusively on just the classicist framework is like saying about Shakespeare “all the plays are either comedies or tragedies, enough said.”

    Haven’t finished reading post yet (about half way); but THIS is perhaps best tl;dr EVER!

  8. “Conflict without hope for a decisive outcome is in nobody’s interest.”

    The thing that strikes me about this is knowing what you are fighting over. When countries run their first nuclear tests, are they fighting for sovereignty, empire, or something else?

    In personal relationships, when someone brings up a former detente during an argument, are they trying to win the former detente or use that as ammunition in the current battle? Whats more dangerous, a jealous spouse gaining weight or a spouse quietly getting healthier?

    • That line struck me as well though for different reasons. Quite a few people (and companies) make big dollars keeping other agents’ conflicts alive without hope for a decisive outcome. See: Blackwater mercenaries and Haliburton as examples for War or the big media giants collectively as the pinnacle example for (American) Politics.

  9. Anthony says:

    “It can help you pick battles wisely and manage war and peace within your world. You don’t start fights until you know you have a realistic chance of winning. You sue for peace when you know you sense a looming violent stalemate.”

    Reminds me of John Boyd’s work on warfare, which I am only aware of due to your recommendations to read his biography. Specifically, it reminds of the notion in modern warfare that strength on weakness is better than strength on strength.

  10. Blake lively totally nude hobo caressing
    above a hobo.