Coattails and Drafting

Depends. Reciprocity is different depending on the system. Votes in an election, lets says, may never see a return.

That said, there is an insidious nature of online reciprocity that Lauren ironically points out. That explains why some of the Web’s weaker elements display peas and wear funny hats and such.

- Amanda

- “The reciprocity we see online is an even stronger example of the value of cooperation, and the end of zero-sum thinking.”

Cluetrain crap.

Where? For what? You think “Peas” or other flash groups have much value? C’mon. It is more a demonstration of group pathology.

“Peas,” for example, isn’t about breast cancer. It’s about an immature group’s need to suckle. Totally pathetic. And using cancer to rationalize it makes the entire thing totally dishonest. There’s your value of online cooperation.

- “Before you accuse me of speaking in buzzwords, I am well-schooled in the principles of cooperation as scientifically explored by Robert Axelrod.”

So what are you saying… you read a few books, or what?

- “There’s nothing insidious about the nature of cooperation.”

Depends. Co-dependency certainly comes with negative consequences. So does Group Think. If history is any measure, competition kicked cooperation’s ass.

- “Giving someone a link is not taking anything away from yourself.”

Depends. Forming groups that in effect game Google to promote crap insidiously takes from all of us.

- “And I can’t imagine that displaying peas or wearing silly hats is any different than wearing lingerie.”

I can’t help that you cannot imagine the difference between apples and oranges. But it is a problem, for sure.

I’ll say this: No one could accuse us of leveraging the Strumpette brand for silly pathetic “love links.”

- Amanda

- “Apparently I have been talking over your head.”

Not in the slightest. Actually, I am quite confident that you, a member of the Nobodies-Now-Is-Gone-Crowd-Pink-Boa-Pea crowd, is not capable.

- “Axelrod’s research centers around the multiple iterations of the Prisoner’s Dilemmma, and dates back to the 70s and 80s. Therefore it doesn’t qualify as ‘Cluetrain Crap.’”

I never said Axelrod is Cluetrain crap. I said the weak shit your Pea brain “friendz” promote is Cluetrain crap.

- “’Group pathology’ is what you seem to term any cooperation where selfishness makes more immediate mathematical sense.”

Nope. Never said that. I said that your form of cooperation as demonstrated by your Nobodies-Now-Is-Gone-Crowd-Pink-Boa-Pea crowd is no more than co-dependence and group think, i.e. a social pathogen based on weakness of the members.

- “Life isn’t a zero-sum, one-off game. In fact, your insistence that it is contradicts your disdain for liberal politics.”

Non sequitur aside, I never said life is zero sum. I said that if history is any indication, competition kicked cooperation’s ass.

- “The winning strategy does NOT presume screwing your neighbor for immediate gain… it is a strategy of ‘tit-for-tat’ that starts with in initial condition of cooperation.”

No. The bottom line, that doesn’t work. It’s not practical. Socialism? Communism? C’mon Ike.

- “I am dumbing this down for you, Amanda.”

No. You are dumbing it down to appease your Pea-headed friendz.

- “The way to win is cooperate first, do-what-was-just-done-to-you next, and periodically forgive.”

Jesus was poor. So were/are most of his “friendz.”

- “As for ‘forming groups to game Google,’ I don’t know what that has to do with silly hats or peas, but you need to direct your complaints to Google.”

No. My complaint is with you and your friendz and your insecurity and seeming insatiable need to be popular. Your group rises to the level of High School.

- “You’re just pissed because you’re stuck on a worldview that elevates a particular strategy, and the world isn’t working the way you’d like.”

No. I’m pissed at ignorance and arrogance. I’m pissed at knuckleheads that blovate about topics they know very little about. I am pissed that your sorority praises ignorance.

- “I’m willing to bet that 98% of the people you classify as my “friendz” have no idea what I am talking about.”

I am willing to bet that that includes you.

- “But you have followed your initial premises into a logical dead-end, because Axelrod has proven mathematically a conclusion that you claim cannot exist.”

Okay, with that sentence, add me to the list of people that don’t know what the hell you’re talkin’ about. Now you’re at 100 percent.

- “You were at your best when you challenged thinking with thinking.”

But you haven’t made a case Ike!! You’ve done nothing but drop a name and reiterated your premise.

As far as me making a case, that’s not my job. I’m just trying to keep the knuckleheads honest. You on the other hand have turned to bolster their bullshit. Sad. You once were an independent thinker as I recall.

- “Would my site have greater traffic and ranking if I had your blogroll and played reciprocity games?”

First off, Strumpette doesn’t have a blogroll. Secondly, we promote critical thinking, not blather.

Ike,

I haven’t ducked a thing. However, I did shed light on the fact that “drafting” and such in the context of social media is for the weak and promotes the weak. As it celebrates the lame, it sucks the oxygen out of the system for real meaning thinking. Such is the pathology that is People’s Social Media Temple to which you apparently belong.

With regard to “intellectual rigor,” excuse me but okay, you start. Silly goose; this is a blog. To think that you’d have genuine intellectual rigor here is absurd.

With regard to you being a “free market disciple,” well then you are at odds with yourself. Cluetrain is anything but free market. Here: the system is either governed objectively or subjectively. What history has proven is that subjectively-based cooperative systems tend to be corrupt and inefficient. Again, as in your Pea-boa-now-is-gone misfits, the congregation ends up sucking the oxygen out of the room. Regrettably, the Google algorithm is designed to foster that.

With regard to “You are looking at the ‘score’ between individuals as though it were the only score that mattered”… and it’s losers who argue otherwise.

With regard to “Popularity was never on the table with me,” EXCUSE ME… look at your Twitters! Look at you peeps! Who are you trying to kid? C’mon, Ike. For the record, I am not arguing that you have you head up your ass; it’s up your group’s ass.

Lastly, as to wandering onto your playground with the assertion that you are full of it, I stand by that. It is you Ike whose thinking is variously clouded.

Well, at least this exercise will have helped you score a few point with your “friendz.”

Sincerely,

- Amanda

- “You have ducked everything.”

No. I have responded to your case as you’ve made it here. No Ike, my job is NOT to do your homework and help make your case.

- “Axelrod clearly shows that predators who aim to win every encounter at all costs end up losing in the long run.”

First time you said that. But that said, keep in mind, it is one math model contrived in the 70s. Context please.

That said, I am not advocating anti-cooperation. I am saying that yours (not necessarily Axelrod’s) is a subjective system and mine is an objectively competitive system. I lean toward Mother Nature; you associate, celebrate and elevate the lame.

- “Are you now admitting there was never any intellectual rigor on Strumpette?”

Absolutely! I’d be the first to admit there’s very little in the way of “intellectual rigor.” It’s a joke meant to parody and make fun of the very things you apparently hold dear. PR in and of itself rarely rises to the level of “intellectual rigor.” Axelrod as a tool to rationalize your friendz “love link” and such is ridiculous.

- “You blasted the hell out of people who tried arguing Keen’s “Cult of the Amateur” with you without having read the book. You’ve already admitted that you’re too chicken to read the Axelrod stuff, or that it is irrelevant to the discussion.”

Your penchant for non sequitur is only exceeded by your thing for trying to put words in my mouth. Your “chicken reference” is chicken shit. Again, not my job to make your case. Also, this post wasn’t about Axelrod, per se. It was a name you happen to drop in the comments.

- “The only reason you are coming back is because having the last word gives you a false sense of accomplishment. That way you don’t have to explain to your pals how an erudite intellectual such as yourself got schooled by a former teevee news guy. In Alabama.”

You’re f-in dreamin’. Like I said on Twitter, “I am not arguing that you have you head up your ass Ike; it’s up your group’s ass.”