Brainstorming came from Osborn in 1939 as a method for creative problem solving. He was frustrated by employees’ inability to develop creative ideas individually for ad campaigns. … Osborn claimed that two principles contribute … “1. Defer judgment,” and “2. Reach for quantity.” (
Added 8Sept: There is some tension between this post and my older post on The Felt & The Unfelt.
There is! And which one is more right is closely related to the question of whether signaling is conscious (and accomplished in near mode, as the earlier article entails) or subconscious (and accomplished in far mode, as follows from the present posting).
I think there is a trend towards more nuanced characters in that way - the tragedy of moral ambiguity. Also, it's more terrifying because more realistic to have a villain who is nice to children and helps old ladies across the road but just happens to be building an anti-asian army.
The boorish villain particularly of victorian earlier works didn't even need to be attributed far-mode thinking, he was repulsive enough in his proximity that it was rarely necessary to paint in the distance.
I'd say the corollary of your villain-who-likes-flower-arranging is the hero with the drinking problem and the estranged wife who can't help fighting for justice.
Interesting that the classic game 'Pacman' AI was programmed with 'near' and 'far' modes' for enemy behaviour.
I also used 'near' and 'far' modes in my trading spreadsheet for horse racing prediction markets on Betfair. The price movements have a 'far mode' behaviour further out from the race (lower volatility, looking for general horse race categories), and there's a sudden phase-change to a 'near mode' behaviour as the event gets close in time (higher volatility, need more precise info on specific horses). Could be a general feature of prediction markets? If so, I can well image any working AGI needing the near-far mode split.
I've noticed this too. If you read older works, most villains tend to be selfish and evil in both near and far mode. But in modern works villains who believe in some evil cause in far mode, but are disciplined and selfless in near mode, seem to be very popular. I wonder what motivated this change?
As read your posts on construal theory, there's something about the nature of the dichotomy between near and far that seems to be changing between contexts.
I'm not sure if it's that the position intermediate between near and far should be looked at more closely, or that there's another axis nearby that bears examination. I feel like I'm missing something important here.
I can't quite put my finger on it though, not enough to come up with a test. I'm not quite sure what it is, but it's tickling my brain every time I read one of these posts.
Yes Slytherin is certainly not selfless. Slytherin simply symbolizes our baser near-mode desires, which people like to pretend don't exist. Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff symbolize the 'passive voices' of the mind, Sytherin and Gryffindor are the 'active voices'. But evil is indeed far more likely to come from Gryffindor (heroic narratives, far) than Slytherin (practical hacks, near).
I was just thinking when I read your last post "How is he referring to a 'standard finding' of near-far mode? I thought that was just his own organizing framework." So it's very helpful in this post to be reminded that "near-far mode" means "construal level theory," which is what I'd have to call it to make it sound official to friends (even though your near-far framework is what makes me remember it.)
I had a writing class in my freshman year of Fine Arts college that was focused on the Holocaust. The final project was "What can Art do in face of the Holocaust?" I wrote about how the frame of mind and paradigm of art itself was at the root of what made the Holocaust possible... I decided it was too contraversial an idea, so I presented on how I was afraid to present my idea... Had I had this post as a reference, I might have had the courage-through-validation to present my original thought.
Bayesian Induction/Decision Theory = Evaluation/Optimization = Near ModeCategorization/Information Theory = Creativity/Signaling = Far Mode
Also Far is intimately connected with conscious experience, whereas Near does not neccesserily require conscious deliberation.
Near mode is Slytherin/Ravenclaw-like (mechanics of winning), far mode is more Hufflepuff/Gryffindor-like (social image, heroic ideals).
The key question to which no one can give me a straight answer is what is the exact relationship between the two? Is a general intelligence that runs on near mode alone possible, or is far mode actually a neccessary feature of general intelligence?
Added 8Sept: There is some tension between this post and my older post on The Felt & The Unfelt.
There is! And which one is more right is closely related to the question of whether signaling is conscious (and accomplished in near mode, as the earlier article entails) or subconscious (and accomplished in far mode, as follows from the present posting).
Good point, Evan!
I think there is a trend towards more nuanced characters in that way - the tragedy of moral ambiguity. Also, it's more terrifying because more realistic to have a villain who is nice to children and helps old ladies across the road but just happens to be building an anti-asian army.
The boorish villain particularly of victorian earlier works didn't even need to be attributed far-mode thinking, he was repulsive enough in his proximity that it was rarely necessary to paint in the distance.
I'd say the corollary of your villain-who-likes-flower-arranging is the hero with the drinking problem and the estranged wife who can't help fighting for justice.
Interesting that the classic game 'Pacman' AI was programmed with 'near' and 'far' modes' for enemy behaviour.
I also used 'near' and 'far' modes in my trading spreadsheet for horse racing prediction markets on Betfair. The price movements have a 'far mode' behaviour further out from the race (lower volatility, looking for general horse race categories), and there's a sudden phase-change to a 'near mode' behaviour as the event gets close in time (higher volatility, need more precise info on specific horses). Could be a general feature of prediction markets? If so, I can well image any working AGI needing the near-far mode split.
I've noticed this too. If you read older works, most villains tend to be selfish and evil in both near and far mode. But in modern works villains who believe in some evil cause in far mode, but are disciplined and selfless in near mode, seem to be very popular. I wonder what motivated this change?
As read your posts on construal theory, there's something about the nature of the dichotomy between near and far that seems to be changing between contexts.
I'm not sure if it's that the position intermediate between near and far should be looked at more closely, or that there's another axis nearby that bears examination. I feel like I'm missing something important here.
I can't quite put my finger on it though, not enough to come up with a test. I'm not quite sure what it is, but it's tickling my brain every time I read one of these posts.
Yes Slytherin is certainly not selfless. Slytherin simply symbolizes our baser near-mode desires, which people like to pretend don't exist. Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff symbolize the 'passive voices' of the mind, Sytherin and Gryffindor are the 'active voices'. But evil is indeed far more likely to come from Gryffindor (heroic narratives, far) than Slytherin (practical hacks, near).
Thanks for the post-- that lays the ideas out very neatly.
I think a typical move in politics is to claim that the other side is moved by bad abstract theory.
I never quite believed that the Pure Blood project made sense for Slytherin-- too abstract, too idealistic. Slughorn is true Slytherin.
I was just thinking when I read your last post "How is he referring to a 'standard finding' of near-far mode? I thought that was just his own organizing framework." So it's very helpful in this post to be reminded that "near-far mode" means "construal level theory," which is what I'd have to call it to make it sound official to friends (even though your near-far framework is what makes me remember it.)
I had a writing class in my freshman year of Fine Arts college that was focused on the Holocaust. The final project was "What can Art do in face of the Holocaust?" I wrote about how the frame of mind and paradigm of art itself was at the root of what made the Holocaust possible... I decided it was too contraversial an idea, so I presented on how I was afraid to present my idea... Had I had this post as a reference, I might have had the courage-through-validation to present my original thought.
The Well-Intentioned Extremist is indeed a popular villain type these days...
Bayesian Induction/Decision Theory = Evaluation/Optimization = Near ModeCategorization/Information Theory = Creativity/Signaling = Far Mode
Also Far is intimately connected with conscious experience, whereas Near does not neccesserily require conscious deliberation.
Near mode is Slytherin/Ravenclaw-like (mechanics of winning), far mode is more Hufflepuff/Gryffindor-like (social image, heroic ideals).
The key question to which no one can give me a straight answer is what is the exact relationship between the two? Is a general intelligence that runs on near mode alone possible, or is far mode actually a neccessary feature of general intelligence?
Th two modes should be related, far term thought gives us a goal, short term thought arranges events to match the goal.
Good synthesizing post bringing your experiments with near/far into you improvement of social epistemology project.