kradeelav | (no subject)

three separate thoughts with a variety of connections:

I.

as i get older, but in the last five years especially, i find myself seeking out one trait in people above all others : integrity.

i like people from many walks of life, backgrounds, thoughts, experiences. (some would probably say i'm too open minded in that regard.)

but consistently, the people i feel the safest with can all be described with that trait. not quick to assume the worst of others. "the lights are on in the brain" to use a line from my dad. thoughtful -- not entirely with logic, but emotionally and timelessly thoughtful as well.

II.

but then, before i looked it up, i asked myself: what do *i* think is the definition of integrity?

after some thought: a consistent (almost stubborn ) trait of approaching every situation with good faith and an equally stubborn tenacity to never take the easy way out in terms of nuance.

upon looking it up and seeing the definitions offered -- "moral values" seems such a mealy-mouthed word -- that in hindsight -- that could mean anything, doesn't it?

III.

fascinating, to me - that i'm becoming rapidly more annoyed with the coercion involved with forced-AI-applications than technically by the fact of it existing to begin with.

i've written before that i feel quite sensitive to coercion for (possibly) unique reasons. i'll allow everyone one free pass (from companies to individuals) of accidentally stepping across boundaries, whether socially or at work, then a polite warning. but i expect that warning to be listened to, or I will act. (boundaries can, and i argue -- must be enforced for a peaceful life. if one's in a situation where boundaries by definition can't be enforced, that feels like a dire personal situation to get out of at all costs. sometimes i feel like people forget that you also can't outsource boundaries -- you can't force other people to do things you want -- but you can remove yourself from the situation.)

outsourcing infrastructure - the engine of boundaries in the digital age -- feels like it's showing its dark side in this particular topic. infrastructure could be a communications program (discord), an operating system (windows), a piece of hardware (phone), or even a third party company (cloudflare).

to me what matters is: can they cut you off from using the infrastructure? if yes, then it's outsourced and compromised. outsourcing boundaries in a tangible context in a great many ways. (the subtle "flip" to me is often shown in 'can they force updates on you' -- because once when that line's crossed, it's infrastructure-as-a-service, and not something owned.)

also outsourcing nuance, it feels like. and i'm not fond of that thought at all.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

halcyonstars

if it helps, the way I define integrity is 'committed to principles'.

to me integrity is more an action than a virtue or trait, which would simply be: if no one's watching and you know you can get away with it, would you still hold yourself accountable?

or the flipside: if you know everyone's watching and they're not on your side, would you still stand strong?

so upholding integrity is always a choice and one most authentically made privately

karel

that's something to think about; I've always thought of integrity as a sort of... internal vs external congruence and consistency and a commitment to maintaining that, in all that can branch out into, including overhauling one's schema when needed when inconsistencies are found. a mental rigor, I guess you could say

which when I rotate it, honestly feels a lot like what you've said

it's why I shifted over the years getting more and more socially permissive, away from punitive justice, away from censorship in ways my younger self would have refused to grasp - my mental structures and the lines I drew couldn't stand up to scrutiny and alignment against my other values...

and god, yes, about forced AI or really any coerced "evolution" of a product. I get so cranky when I'm being herded like that. it's artificial. if it can be explained by "this code had flaws, we had to upgrade it and unfortunately the upgrade couldn't handle this other method" or "this new method has been carefully studied and has been shown to be more pleasant" or... anything Real, then sure, I'll give it a good faith effort. if it's "this is just what's trendy in the tech world, and no, you can't opt out, because we need to show numbers of people using it," instant hate

amado1

Heavily agree on integrity. It's something I've been mulling over for the last few years, trying to figure out why I like the people I like and vice versa. The shorthand I've developed for it is, "I like abrasive people," which isn't 100% true. I often dislike abrasive people on first meeting because they're, you know, abrasive. But it often turns out that those are also the people willing to speak up when something isn't right, and they're more critical about EVERYTHING than others, more likely to question and think for themselves. The real sweet spot is someone who does that while also being kind and respectful. It takes longer to figure out who those people are, because they're quieter, but they're real gems.

kradeelav

ohhhh 100% to that sweet spot!!! it so often takes a little trust because those people have that surface level filter to stay pleasant go through life but they really are gems.

tbh another neat little venn diagram of people who aren't shy about critiquing things, but who never trash talk 'other people'. there's a nuanced awareness of social dynamics there too i think you've seen.

airlock384

methinks the word you're looking for is something along the lines of "intellectual vigor", but really, "not taking the easy way out" expresses it plain and clean. "curiosity" might be another; something like, a willingness to encounter new things with a disposition to see them for what they are, rather than a disposition to fit them into a pre-existing box posthaste. phenomenological thinking, perhaps!

(since everyone's mentioning what they think of as "integrity", mine would be: the ability to live up to one's own ideals very consistently, especially when those ideals aren't generous. because no one can live up to their own ideals all the time -- they wouldn't really be ideals otherwise -- but some people manage it more often than others, that's for sure !)

oh, and re: the two comments above, I think the word I'd use for that is "opinionated", and yeah, that's also one I gravitate towards, despite it sometimes conflicting with my own open-minded disposition. it's a bit of a weakness of mine actually I think, when I see that someone has high standards I get extra invested in meeting those standards.

and yeah, that's two of the grievances I have with AI -- one being that people approach it with terrible informational practices (although that issue predates AI by a long long shot); the other being, well, you called it "coercion", I think I'd call it "the fucking tech hype cycle again". although coercion is indeed in that wretched toolbox. the future is already here, and if you don't see it, I'll make you see it. risible when it's coming out of people with no power over me, an actual threat otherwise

maybe that's one of the many gifts to getting older -- getting the life experience to see how "easy" answers to deep issues have their own wrinkles and issues; like how punative justice to your point feels like a "clean" answer until one is put face to face with the tremendous cost...

anyway, proud of ya if it hasn't been said. shit's harder work than it looks ~

(oh my god the numbers thing, too real. artificially inflating numbers just /because/ is so stupid in comparison to any possible other real answer.)

mamuzzy

It is hard for me to define what is integrity. Something what is legal is not always right and doesn't always serve the wellbeing of people, and sometimes illegal stuff doesn't hurt people. There is also the situations where people mix together legality and morality, and get to those conclusions that everything that is legal is morally good, which is I think, bullshit. Sometimes people are representing good things but they would do awful things to enforce these positive values.

I think if the basis of a mindset is that we don't want to deliberately hurt people (mistakes can be and always will be made), then maybe we don't do it too wrong.

i quite like your conclusion :o good faith improvement feels like the least-worst thing out there - kinda like 'do better' as a gentle motto for oneself.

your mention of curiosity really is a great add-on to this topic about integrity. :o i also love how you added in the 'living up to ideals consistently' to your definition since that "consistently" is the hard part x) but still worth striving for, always.

oooh i really like how you framed it as both (with nobody *or* everyone seeing one's own actions) - a lot of times people simplify it to just the first. musing on this one for a while!

Custom Text