• Caro Visitante, por que não gastar alguns segundos e criar uma Conta no Fórum Valinor? Desta forma, além de não ver este aviso novamente, poderá participar de nossa comunidade, inserir suas opiniões e sugestões, fazendo parte deste que é um maiores Fóruns de Discussão do Brasil! Aproveite e cadastre-se já!

Small Talks

João Reato

Usuário
Oi. Geralmente começa assim. Você não sabe porque você tenta. Mas você gosta das pessoas, ou talvez se sente anti-social. Você quer se divertir, mas depois de tantos livros, tanta midia, um padrão tão elevado de cultura em tudo o que você vê e procura. Ai você se aproxima daquele grupo de amigos e tenta se divertir. Tenta comentar sobre um jogo quem sabe, mas porra cara, você simplesmente não sabe descrever a experiência que você quer compartilhar com essas pessoas e pra piorar ninguém te leva a sério, parece que ta todo mundo jogando poker contra você. Ai devagar vão te mostrando como tudo que você faz e fala é errado. Depois vão conseguindo te convencer e no fim você aceita. Ai começa o pesadelo sem fim e você fica ouvindo aquela politicagem, small talks, e as pessoas ainda se esforçam pra te manter perto, pra te crucificar, alguns até tentar te viciar em alguma droga. E os small talks continuam, até o momento que você não se lembra mais o quão gratificante é uma conversa sadia, uma amizade sincera e um mistério a ser desvelado. Parabens meu amigo. Você também é um Outsider.
A pergunta.... Como direcionar small talks e se isolar em grupos evolutivos se distanciando dos lobos em pele de cordeiro e se juntar a própria matilha. Como conversar uma conversa sem saber em qual assunto vai chegar e conseguir se divertir sem fazer o minimo esforço de manipular um grupo de pessoas. Como identificar, se afastar o quem sabe destruir um circulo vicioso de small talks praticado por individuos que formam um nucleo de falsidade?
 
Olá, João. É curioso que com o crescimento das redes sociais, as pessoas estão menos tolerantes e mais irascíveis em debates de qualquer natureza. Nada escapa da patrulha do cú alheio; tudo é passível de censura e reprovação. O resultado disso, é a pasteurização das conversas sobre a vida dos colegas, política e outros assuntos.
 
A linguagem é qualquer coisa de inaproximável mesmo. Em todas as épocas e lugares sempre vai ser impossível você se comunicar perfeitamente. Acho que é por isso que os mesmos temas são discutidos há séculos em filosofia. E o porquê de termos criado a poesia.

Essa conversa vai longe.

O problema da modernidade, para além das redes sociais mas as englobando, é uma pasteurização de todas as ideias, conceitos, e, como cereja do bolo, toda uma instituição de décadas de crise epistêmica, hermenêutica que se já deixa os pensadores maluquinhos se reflete no nosso dia-a-dia em um niilismo linguístico e social absurdo. Nós vivemos em uma espécie de oceano pré-Criação, informe, virtual, em nada definido e enformado. É uma coisa terrível, na verdade.
 
Oi. Geralmente começa assim. Você não sabe porque você tenta. Mas você gosta das pessoas, ou talvez se sente anti-social. Você quer se divertir, mas depois de tantos livros, tanta midia, um padrão tão elevado de cultura em tudo o que você vê e procura. Ai você se aproxima daquele grupo de amigos e tenta se divertir. Tenta comentar sobre um jogo quem sabe, mas porra cara, você simplesmente não sabe descrever a experiência que você quer compartilhar com essas pessoas e pra piorar ninguém te leva a sério, parece que ta todo mundo jogando poker contra você. Ai devagar vão te mostrando como tudo que você faz e fala é errado. Depois vão conseguindo te convencer e no fim você aceita. Ai começa o pesadelo sem fim e você fica ouvindo aquela politicagem, small talks, e as pessoas ainda se esforçam pra te manter perto, pra te crucificar, alguns até tentar te viciar em alguma droga. E os small talks continuam, até o momento que você não se lembra mais o quão gratificante é uma conversa sadia, uma amizade sincera e um mistério a ser desvelado. Parabens meu amigo. Você também é um Outsider.
A pergunta.... Como direcionar small talks e se isolar em grupos evolutivos se distanciando dos lobos em pele de cordeiro e se juntar a própria matilha. Como conversar uma conversa sem saber em qual assunto vai chegar e conseguir se divertir sem fazer o minimo esforço de manipular um grupo de pessoas. Como identificar, se afastar o quem sabe destruir um circulo vicioso de small talks praticado por individuos que formam um nucleo de falsidade?

Existe alguma resposta pra isso?
 
Bem, tinha um índice que os empresários usavam para aferir o efeito desse mesmo problema no mundo profissional que era o da dificuldade de se manter a fidelidade de um cliente, retenção de cliente ou algo assim.

Basicamente a conversa inicial superficial usada para se dirigir a alguém deveria ser o primeiro passo da hospitalidade na direção de manter um contato sustentável e com boas relações para oferecer continuidade de um serviço.

Mas tem sido muito deturpado. Ao invés do estranho abordar a pessoa com honra e boas maneiras ele trata de se aproveitar.

Porque para além do small talk da pessoa que pergunta se vai chover, a função social deveria ser a de construir o tecido da comunidade e não se ater apenas ao comitê de boas vindas. Mas como o nível do profissional no mercado anda ruim se trata muitas vezes de um sujeito que sabe o conteúdo e a matéria mas é um grosseirão oportunista que não sabe tratar as pessoas. Daí que entra muita gente em Facebooks dizendo que veio fazer amizade mas não fala que está num ambiente tendencioso, um lugar programado para ser insalubre porque se alimenta da competição e da energia liberada durante a ruptura e destruição das relações.

O que se tem hoje é muita gente adicionando amigos em razão de algum tipo de medo, seja por medo de não ter o contato daquela pessoa seja por medo de parecer antipático... Só que não adianta, tudo o que é construído com medo nunca vai ter o mesmo peso do que é construído por afinidade. E a bem da verdade, há um preço a se pagar no fim...

Que isso também é um vampirismo que na internet é o "vampiro virtual".

Quem quer sair desse meio tem que começar com coisas básicas, deixar de dar energia (cada pessoa tem suprimento limitado e precioso de energia que deve ser usado só aonde vale a pena) e isolar a fonte parasítica.

Para muita gente isso é dificílimo porque quem é vampirizado tem sinais de dependência, e eu diria que precisa cortar o contato tanto quanto uma pessoa viciada em sexo, uns 6 meses pelo menos.

Do contrário corre-se o risco de se transformar numa pessoa polida, mas vazia, o que chamamos de "simpatia de secretária" que é até um pequeno avanço em relação a grossura da pessoa que tem surgido atualmente de gente bem informada e imbecil só que muito longe do que precisa ser (simpatia artifical também leva ao vazio). Alguns lugares nem sequer tem a chance de ter a hipocrisia da "falsa simpatia" e a história termina em violência.

O caminho é fazer denúncias na medida do possível, desbaratar e expor na luz do sol para retirar o falso brilho dessas vitórias aparentes.
 
Belíssimo esse post, e muito verdadeiro, Akira.

Eu me sinto muito assim com o facebook. É como se fôssemos todos macacos presos em um viveiro mas humanamente (ou desumanamente) obcecados em fazer macauices para aparecer. Com o tempo a vaidade se entranha tão fundo na alma que esta deixa de ser vaidosa. Brutaliza-se. Petrifica-se em um tipo de caça animalesca. Devora-se.
 
Nós estamos no mesmo barco.

O ideal de interação moderna anda sofrendo ataques e perturbações, em especial as plataformas e programas que se submeteram de forma descuidada na política e vêm se chocando com a cultura da companhia de tecnologia e a dos usuários dela (evoluir, etc...). Se esse era o exemplo de interação do futuro então o exemplo dado às pessoas tem sido um exemplo ruim. A política ajuda no começo e depois cobra o preço.

E a sensação é mesmo a de conflito social permanente. Para efeito de comparação, certas decisões do Vale do Silício andam produzindo estranhamento com a base da internet, usuários comuns e novos empreendedores e está ficando caro abrir negócios na região devido a preferência por favorecer empresas que já tenham movimentação e capital consideráveis (na crise ninguém quer colocar a mão em cumbuca).

Os grandes players então se aproximam de engajamento político no que as plataformas começam a ter privilégio em relação ao produto (fluxo de informações). Daí o usuário comum se sente como garoto propaganda/promoter de uma corrida armamentista social, só que ao invés de dinheiro o usuário recebe a autorização para usar o sistema. Muitos ainda navegam desavisados na rede pensando que ainda tem toda liberdade de escolha para conter os principais efeitos deletérios das plataformas que usam.(parece afetar video-games também como atesta o interesse da indústria militar em jogos de guerra)

Em um sistema político que funcione uma empresa grande pode apoiar uma posição política sem tolher o funcionamento das conversas no mundo real. Infelizmente o sistema político americano tem tido momentos de querer dizimar as tradições sem pensar nas conseqüências (o que colocar no lugar) e como a galera da tecnologia sabe muito de computador e pouco de ser humano a tendência é inflar a bolha de erros.

Alguns links interessantes:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/005354-today-s-tech-oligarchs-are-worse-than-robber-barons

Today’s Tech Oligarchs Are Worse Than the Robber Barons
by Joel Kotkin 08/13/2016
800px-Zuckerberg_meets_Obama.jpg

Yes, Jay Gould was a bad guy. But at least he helped build societal wealth. Not so our Silicon Valley overlords. And they have our politicians in their pockets.

A decade ago these guys—and they are mostly guys—were folk heroes, and for many people, they remain so. They represented everything traditional business, from Wall Street and Hollywood to the auto industry, in their pursuit of sure profits and golden parachutes, was not—hip, daring, risk-taking folk seeking to change the world for the better.

Now from San Francisco to Washington and Brussels, the tech oligarchs are something less attractive: a fearsome threat whose ambitions to control our future politics, media, and commerce seem without limits. Amazon, Google, Facebook, Netflix, and Uber may be improving our lives in many ways, but they also are disrupting old industries—and the lives of the many thousands of people employed by them. And as the tech boom has expanded, these individuals and companies have gathered economic resources to match their ambitions.

And as their fortunes have ballooned, so has their hubris. They see themselves as somehow better than the scum of Wall Street or the trolls in Houston or Detroit. It’s their intelligence, not just their money, that makes them the proper global rulers. In their contempt for the less cognitively gifted, they are waging what The Atlantic recently called “a war on stupid people.”

I had friends of mine who attended MIT back in the 1970s tell me they used to call themselves “tools,” which told us us something about how they regarded themselves and were regarded. Technologists were clearly bright people whom others used to solve problems or make money. Divorced from any mystical value, their technical innovations, in the words of the French sociologist Marcel Mauss, constituted “a traditional action made effective.” Their skills could be applied to agriculture, metallurgy, commerce, and energy.

In recent years, like Skynet in the Terminator, the tools have achieved consciousness, imbuing themselves with something of a society-altering mission. To a large extent, they have created what the sociologist Alvin Gouldner called “the new class” of highly educated professionals who would remake society. Initially they made life better—making spaceflight possible, creating advanced medical devices and improving communications (the internet); they built machines that were more efficient and created great research tools for both business and individuals. Yet they did not seek to disrupt all industries—such as energy, food, automobiles—that still employed millions of people. They remained “tools” rather than rulers.

With the massive wealth they have now acquired, the tools at the top now aim to dominate those they used to serve. Netflix is gradually undermining Hollywood, just as iTunes essentially murdered the music industry. Uber is wiping out the old order of cabbies, and Google, Facebook, and the social media people are gradually supplanting newspapers. Amazon has already undermined the book industry and is seeking to do the same to apparel, supermarkets, and electronics.

Past economic revolutions—from the steam engine to the jet engine and the internet—created in their wake a productivity revolution. To be sure, as brute force or slower technologies lost out, so did some companies and classes of people. But generally the economy got stronger and more productive. People got places sooner, information flows quickened, and new jobs were created, many of them paying middle- and working-class people a living wage.

This is largely not the case today. As numerous scholars including Robert Gordon have pointed out, the new social-media based technologies have had little positive impact on economic productivity, now growing at far lower rates than during past industrial booms, including the 1990s internet revolution.

Much of the problem, notes MIT Technology Review editor David Rotman, is that most information investment no longer serves primarily the basic industries that still drive most of the economy, providing a wide array of jobs for middle- and working-class Americans. This slowdown in productivity, notes Chad Syverson, an economist at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, has decreased gross domestic product by $2.7 trillion in 2015—about $8,400 for every American. “If you think Silicon Valley is going to fuel growing prosperity, you are likely to be disappointed,” suggests Rotman.

One reason may be the nature of “social media,” which is largely a replacement for technology that already exists, or in many cases, is simply a diversion, even a source oftime-wasting addiction for many. Having millions of millennials spend endless hours on Facebook is no more valuable than binging on television shows, except that TV actually employs people.

At their best, the social media firms have supplanted the old advertising model, essentially undermining the old agencies and archaic forms like newspapers, books, and magazines. But overall information employment has barely increased. It’s up 70,000 jobs since 2010, but this is after losing 700,000 jobs in the first decade of the 21st century.

Tech firms had once been prodigious employers of American workers. But now, many depend on either workers abroad of imported under H-1B visa program. These are essentially indentured servants whom they can hire for cheap and prevent from switching jobs. Tens of thousands of jobs in Silicon Valley, and many corporate IT departments elsewhere, rent these “technocoolies,” often replacing longstanding U.S. workers.

Expanding H-1Bs, not surprisingly, has become a priority issue for oligarchs such as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and a host of tech firms, including Yahoo, Cisco Systems, NetApp, Hewlett-Packard, and Intel, firms that in some cases have been laying off thousands of American workers. Most of the bought-and-paid-for GOP presidential contenders, as well as the money-grubbing Hillary Clinton, embrace the program, with some advocating expansion. The only opposition came from two candidates disdained by the oligarchs, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

Now cab drivers, retail clerks, and even food service workers face technology-driven extinction. Some of this may be positive in the long run, certainly in the case of Uber and Lyft, to the benefit of consumers. But losing the single mom waitress at Denny’s to an iPad does not seem to be a major advance toward social justice or a civilized society—nor much of a boost for our society’s economic competitiveness. Wiping out cab drivers, many of them immigrants, for part-time workers driving Ubers provides opportunity for some, but it does threaten what has long been one of the traditional ladders to upward mobility.

Then there is the extraordinary geographical concentration of the new tech wave. Previous waves were much more highly dispersed. But not now. Social media and search, the drivers of the current tech boom, are heavily concentrated in the Bay Area, which has a remarkable 40 percent of all jobs in the software publishing and search field. In contrast, previous tech waves created jobs in numerous locales.

This concentration has been two-edged sword, even in its Bay Area heartland. The massive infusions of wealth and new jobs has created enormous tensions in San Francisco and its environs. Many San Franciscans, for example, feel like second class citizens in their own city. Others oppose tax measures in San Francisco that are favorable to tech companies like Twitter. There is now a movement on to reverse course and apply “tech taxes” on these firms, in part to fund affordable housing and homeless services. Further down in the Valley, there is also widespread opposition to plans to increase the density of the largely suburban areas in order to house the tech workforce. Rather than being happy with the tech boom, many in the Bay Area see their quality of life slipping and upwards of a third are now considering a move elsewhere.

Once, we hoped that the technology revolution would create ever more dispersion of wealth and power. This dream has been squashed. Rather than an effusion of start-ups we see the downturn in new businesses. Information Technology, notes The Economist, is now the most heavily concentrated of all large economic sectors, with four firms accounting for close to 50 percent of all revenues. Although the tech boom has created some very good jobs for skilled workers, half of all jobs being created today are in low-wage services like retail and restaurants—at least until they are replaced by iPads and robots.

What kind of world do these disrupters see for us? One vision, from Singularity University, co-founded by Google’s genius technologist Ray Kurzweil, envisions robots running everything; humans, outside the programmers, would become somewhat irrelevant. I saw this mentality for myself at a Wall Street Journal conference on the environment when a prominent venture capitalist did not see any problem with diminishing birthrates among middle-class Americans since the Valley planned to make the hoi polloi redundant.

Once somewhat inept about politics, the oligarchs now know how to press their agenda. Much of the Valley’s elite–venture capitalist John Doerr, Kleiner Perkins, Vinod Khosla, and Google—routinely use the political system to cash in on subsidies, particularly for renewable energy, including such dodgy projects as California’s Ivanpah solar energy plant. Arguably the most visionary of the oligarchs, Elon Musk, has built his business empire largely through subsidies and grants.

Musk also has allegedly skirted labor laws to fill out his expanded car factory in Fremont, with $5-an-hour Eastern European labor; even when blue-collar opportunities do arise, rarely enough, the oligarchs seem ready to fill them with foreigners, either abroad or under dodgy visa schemes. Progressive rhetoric once used to attack oil or agribusiness firms does not seem to work against the tech elite. They can exploit labor laws and engage in monopoly practices with little threat of investigation by progressive Obama regulators.

In the short term, the oligarchs can expect an even more pliable regime under our likely next president, Hillary Clinton. The fundraiser extraordinaire has been raising money from the oligarchs like Musk and companies such as Facebook. Each may vie to supplant Google, the company with the best access to the Obama administration, over the past seven years.

What can we expect from the next tech-dominated administration? We can expect moves, backed also by corporate Republicans, to expand H-1B visas, and increased mandates and subsidies for favored sectors like electric cars and renewable energy. Little will be done to protect our privacy—firms like Facebook are determined to limit restrictions on their profitable “sharing” of personal information. But with regard to efforts to break down encryption systems key to corporate sovereignty, they will defend privacy, as seen in Apple’s resistance to sharing information on terrorist iPhones. Not cooperating against murderers of Americans is something of fashion now among the entire hoodie-wearing programmer culture.

One can certainly make the case that tech firms are upping the national game; certain cab companies have failed by being less efficient and responsive as well as more costly. Not so, however, the decision of the oligarchs–desperate to appease their progressive constituents–to periodically censor and curate information flows, as we have seen at Twitter and Facebook. Much of this has been directed against politically incorrect conservatives, such as the sometimes outrageous gay provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.

There is a rising tide of concern, including from such progressive icons as former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, about the extraordinary market, political, and culture power of the tech oligarchy. But so far, the oligarchs have played a brilliant double game. They have bought off the progressives with contributions and by endorsing their social liberal and environmental agenda. As for the establishment right, they are too accustomed to genuflecting at mammon to push back against anyone with a 10-digit net worth. This has left much of the opposition at the extremes of right and left, greatly weakening it.

Yet over time grassroots Americans may lose their childish awe of the tech establishment. They could recognize that, without some restrictions, they are signing away control of their culture, politics, and economic prospects to the empowered “tools.” They might understand that technology itself is no panacea; it is either a tool to be used to benefit society, increase opportunity, and expand human freedom, or it is nothing more than a new means of oppression.

This piece first appeared in The Daily Beast.

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com. He is the Roger Hobbs Distinguished Fellow in Urban Studies at Chapman University and executive director of the Houston-based Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His newest book, The Human City: Urbanism for the rest of us, will be published in April by Agate. He is also author of The New Class Conflict, The City: A Global History, and The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. He lives in Orange County, CA.

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/005344-a-window-into-world-working-class-collapse

A Window Into the World of Working Class Collapse
by Aaron M. Renn 08/03/2016
Medora-film-poster-203x300.jpg

Some time back my brother recommended I watch the documentary film Medora, about a high school basketball team from rural Southern Indiana. I finally got around to doing it.

Someone described this film as an “inverse Hoosiers“, which is an apt description. Hoosiers is a fictional retelling of the Milan Miracle, the legendary story of how tiny Milan High School (enrollment 161) won the state’s then single-class basketball championship in 1954.

There’s no such happy ending in prospect in Medora (available on Netflix). The town’s basketball team had gone 0-22 the season before the film. The question is not whether they will win a championship or even the sectional, but if they can win just a single game.

The basketball team is a proxy for the community as a whole, a once proud town fallen on hard times. The town of Medora (pop ~700) and its surrounds, locals believe, used to be prosperous, socially cohesive, and have a great basketball team too.

This history is part mythological. I don’t doubt that these towns once had all the doctors and lawyers and such that people say they did. I’ve heard the same stories about where I grew up (two counties south). But that was a different era and I doubt there was ever real prosperity. Rural and small town life has always been tough in America.

But the social history certainly has much truth. Even in my own childhood I remember that people not only didn’t lock their houses, they left their keys in their cars. City water service, cable TV, garbage pickup, and even private telephone lines may not have been available, but it had its upsides too.

Today those Mayberry like characteristics are long gone.

In Medora we see not only poverty, but nearly complete social breakdown. I don’t recall a single player on the team raised in an intact family. Many of them lived in trailer parks. One kid had never even met his father. Others had mothers who themselves were alcoholics or barely functional individuals. They sometimes bounced around from home to home (grandmother, etc.) or dropped out of school to take care of a problematic mother.

These kids are also remarkably unsophisticated about the world. Once we see someone drive to Louisville – to pick his mother up from a rehab center – and another time one kid visits a seminary, but otherwise there’s no indication that these kids have spent much time or in some cases ever left Medora. One flirts with enlisting in the military. Another with what appears to be a for-profit technical college. But all of these are clearly unable to apply an independent knowledge or critical thought to what the sales reps for these entities are telling them.

Much of what structure exists in the town and the kids lives appears to be imported. Both the coach and one assistant coach appear to be from Bedford – 30 miles away. Neither really seems equipped to deal with these troubled kids.

Nothing indicates that these kids have much prospect of success in life.

Yet we see that there’s also little motivation on the part of the people in the town to actually change that. They are steeped in nostalgia and cling to a idealized vision of a past community that they surely know can never be reclaimed, yet insist on grasping until it is physically pried from their grip.

Medora is one of the last unconsolidated small town high schools left in Indiana. (I attended a small school, but one that was already consolidated, with the uninspiring name of South Central High School). It’s clearly not really viable as an independent school – it’s facing a major budget shortfall during the film – yet they steadfastly refuse to consider consolidation.

The town residents believe that the loss of the school would be the death knell of their community. They aren’t wrong about that. Merging the school would destroy the locus of identity. But the cold reality is that the modern world doesn’t need towns like Medora anymore. Always changing is the future as they say, but it’s hard to imagine anything that would sustainably restore the town. America is full of towns like Medoras. Some of them may experience a miracle. Most won’t, and will slowly bleed away to a dysfunctional rump community. (Interesting, Medora’s population grew by 23% during the 2000s, something worthy of further investigation).

The residents of Medora refuse to surrender their town and resolutely refuse to leave. In that they are not unlike the handful of people hanging on in depopulated Detroit neighborhoods who will accept planned shrinkage only over their dead bodies. It’s irrational to those of us who have no such attachment to a place, but it is clearly a sentiment that animates many such people all over the world.

The National Review’s Kevin Williamson blames the residents of these towns for their own demise. This is manifestly false. The people in these communities did not change the structure of the economy to render their homes obsolete. They did not invent the technology that destroyed the need for agricultural labor. They did not create the divorce revolution. They did not invent Oxycontin. These towns have always been belated, sometimes unwilling consumers of what is created elsewhere.

Yet the fact that outside forces acted on them does not absolve them from taking action now. Williamson is right about that. Much of the rural Midwest was settled by homesteaders who ventured off into the risky unknown, or German immigrants like the Renn family. These places were created by people who embodied different values than those who live there now, people who had no choice but to do something desperate in response to desperate conditions.

I chose to leave my hometown. Many other chose to stay. I know that many people there think it is God’s country and can’t imagine anyone ever leaving. I don’t want to claim that their attachment to place is less valid than my lack of it. Even in the city, to the extent that no one is attached to the place, to their neighborhood, for anything other than immediate self-interest, that’s not a good sign for the long term. I see today the consequences of viewing places purely as a mechanism for extracting personal or corporate profit in the now.

Yet the reality is that to the extent that people do choose to stay in the Medoras of this world, their future prospects aren’t good. Nor are those of their children. But if they leave their towns will die, along with a way of life. This isn’t a pleasant choice. They didn’t ask to be faced with it. But it’s the choice they face nevertheless.

Aaron M. Renn is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and an economic development columnist for Governing magazine. He focuses on ways to help America’s cities thrive in an ever more complex, competitive, globalized, and diverse twenty-first century. During Renn’s 15-year career in management and technology consulting, he was a partner at Accenture and held several technology strategy roles and directed multimillion-dollar global technology implementations. He has contributed to The Guardian, Forbes.com, and numerous other publications. Renn holds a B.S. from Indiana University, where he coauthored an early social-networking platform in 1991. His personal urban affairs website is Urbanophile, where this piece originally appeared.

https://www.govtechworks.com/hackers-to-pentagon-youre-doing-cyber-wrong/#gs.37o7P3A

Hackers to Pentagon: You’re Doing Cyber Wrong

by Tobias Naegele | Dec 4, 2015
Capt. Ian Norton, Sgt. 1st Class Tammy Rooks, Chief Warrant Officer 3 Samuael Blaney, Lt. Col. David Allen and Capt. George Allen of the Georgia Army National Guard train at the GTRI. This partnership is a key component to the Georgia Guard's success in amplifying its cyber defense capabilities. In two years, the Georgia Guard has grown from one trained cyber defense professional to 25. In the next 12 to 24 months, efforts to grow by another 20 cyber defense professionals will take place. (Photo by Renita Folds)

What happens when you bring together some of the nation’s leading hackers, the Pentagon’s chief of training and an Air Force Academy professor who teaches cyber skills to cadets? They all agree on one thing: The government’s approach to cyber security is coming up short.

They sat on the dais, an unusual assortment of experts at a conference for military simulation and training experts. No prepared speeches, just a wide open Q&A.

Their message in three bullets:

You can’t teach cyber defense without a thorough understanding and expertise in cyber offense
Cyber is all about breaking the rules. If you try to break cyber defense into a series of check-box requirements, you will fail
The Fifth Domain, as cyber is sometimes called in the military (joining air, land, sea and space) is not like the others. There is no high ground and the weapon you wield today may not even exist tomorrow

In the center was Frank DiGiovanni, director of Force Readiness and Training at the Pentagon, joined on his far left by Martin Carlisle, professor of computer science at the Air Force Academy. Sharing that stage were three of the best-known ethical hackers in the business: Jeff Moss, founder of Black Hat and DefCon, the two best-known annual hacker conferences; John Rigney, co-founder of Point3 Security, a Maryland cyber firm, who says he made his first hack at age 8; and Brian Markus, CEO of Aries Security, best known for his “Wall of Sheep” – an annual rite at the DefCon event, where he posts the names of all who have exposed themselves to security cyber hacks while attending the conference, which brings together some of the world’s top hacking talent.

What these five know about cyber security – or how to defeat it – can’t be cataloged. Indeed, part of their message is that cyber security, or cyber warfare, is so fluid, so rapidly evolving, that trying to define it or contain it is essentially impossible.

The government and industry are both in a quandary over the cyber challenge, partly because it’s unclear where their missions start and stop. America is fighting its cyber battles like the British fought in the American Revolution, he said. Back then, the British fought out in the open, following a well-drilled formula for combat. The Americans countered with guerilla warfare, fighting from the woods.

By limiting most of our defenders to defense-only approaches, the United States is effectively fighting while hand-cuffed. Cyber attackers, on the other hand, whether criminals or nation states, are playing without rules.

Said Markus: “We’re going up against a 300-pound fighter with one hand behind our back. We are going in with too many limitations.”

That’s the first thing cyber training needs to take into account: Cyber warriors have to be able to think like their attackers, and to do that they need to train like their attackers. Instead of focusing on rules and process, they need to focus on puzzle- and problem-solving.

Certifications are useful in understanding what people know, Carlisle said, but they are of limited use in fighting the active cyber attacker. Hackers buy cyber defense technology and then work on their own to defeat it. So one can’t be satisfied that having the best tools will be enough to protect your network.

The key to developing cyber talent isn’t to teach people to do well on certification tests, Carlisle and the others said, but rather to teach them to think and problem solve.

Said DiGiovanni: “If you think you can catalog every known thing that can happen to you, you’re wrong from the beginning…. To do this right, the training environ needs to be able to go beyond the square where you know exactly what you’re doing. The minute you do that, it’s exploitable. Someone will find a weakness in that training regimen and attack it.”

Similarly, Rigney questioned military efforts to standardize network design. “One attack profile means one target,” he said.

Cyber security is complex and fluid. Everything is changing, all the time, the panelists said. The military has the capability and the mission to develop the right tools. But to be successful, its policies and approach will have to change – and not just in how people are trained. One problem several panelists mentioned is that even when the military gets the training right, it sometimes mishandles the talent it produces.

This problem is not the military’s alone. Industry also makes mistakes. Markus described training programs to teach cyber skills that were highly successful, only to fail when it came to retaining talent. “When you train a bunch of people, and they get really excited, and amped up, and they have all this great knowledge of effects and warfare, and then you say, ‘Go watch the SOC [cyber operations center] logs,’ they say, ‘Fine, I quit. I want to go do something else.’ That’s why the industry is bleeding out people. They train them to be offensive warfare personnel, and then they have them go watch a gate.”

The military, everyone agreed, needs to be careful not to follow that model.

Carlisle, who emphasized he was speaking on his own behalf, and not for the Air Force Academy or the Air Force itself, said he rejects two common notions in military circles: First, that it’s ok to train for defense only out of concern about the risks involved with teaching people how to hack. “The military has certain fields, SEALs for example, who we accept that we train them to act with a certain degree of lethality. We should treat cyber the same way,” he said. Second, there are leaders who are satisfied to train cyber personnel only to lose them to industry after five or six years. Those leaders say what they really need are managers, not technical experts. “I reject that hypothesis,” he said.

The heart of cyber warfare, the panel agreed, is offensive operations. These are essential military skills they said, which need to be developed and nurtured – in order to ensure a sound cyber defense.

Tobias Naegele is the editor in chief of GovTechWorks. He has covered defense, military, and technology issues as an editor and reporter for more than 25 years, most of that time as editor-in-chief at Defense News and Military Times.
- Read more at: http://scl.io/Rt_7gaef#gs.37o7P3A

Sinistramente, quem tenta expor vem sofrendo tentativas de "assassinato" da imagem virtual com as reputações manchadas, quer dizer, aquele que expõe um erro crítico começa a correr risco:

14316889_10153730945921433_2743307143046626344_n.jpg
 
Esse comportamento está sendo ampliado com a ascensão tecnológica ou é comum ao ser humano em seu estado atual?

Na experiência que tenho, tais vícios e rituais são seguidos inclusive por aqueles sem qualquer contato com a conversação online. A escala é menor, mas ainda está presente.

Comunicar-se sem estar engajado produz esse tipo de conversa. Talvez nos comuniquemos demais quando um simples aceno de reconhecimento de existência seria suficiente para o efeito que as partes queriam produzir.
 
A tecnologia tem que ser vista como uma ferramenta que amplia nossos canais de comunicação permitindo que possamos interagir com mais as mais diversas culturas, etnias e idiomas mundo afora.

Mas não podemos esquecer que quem sempre tem o controle do leme da comunicação é o ser humano. Então com ou sem tecnologia, é o ser humano que tem o domínio das ações, então não será a tecnologia por si só que irá mudar essa situação seja pra melhor ou pior.
 
Esse comportamento está sendo ampliado com a ascensão tecnológica ou é comum ao ser humano em seu estado atual?

Na experiência que tenho, tais vícios e rituais são seguidos inclusive por aqueles sem qualquer contato com a conversação online. A escala é menor, mas ainda está presente.

Comunicar-se sem estar engajado produz esse tipo de conversa. Talvez nos comuniquemos demais quando um simples aceno de reconhecimento de existência seria suficiente para o efeito que as partes queriam produzir.

Bom se me perguntassem eu diria que desde sempre uma boa conversa significativa ou relacionamento importante nunca foram exatamente abundantes em nossa história.

A partir da aceleração da tecnologia o poder de construção e de destruição do ser humano se potencializa. Mas não é só isso. Conforme experimentos tais como jogos de realidade aumentada tipo Pokemon Go, Sites Políticos em tempo real que vão de campanha de vereador a Presidente, etc, apontam a tendência de que a separação entre nós e a tecnologia perca sentido. Da mesma forma que em certas culturas o mundo espiritual e o mundo material se tratem na verdade do mesmo mundo o mundo simbólico e virtual da computação e o físico tendem a fundir sua influência modificando profundamente hábitos, estratégias e conhecimentos iniciando pelas camadas mais conectadas e empurrando desde o "urbanita na bolha" em Londres e Paris até o pobre habitante de uma fazenda no interior do cerrado que só usa celular no fim de semana quando faz a feira da casa (Globalização).

No meio de todo o fogo cruzado há movimentos a favor do "Localismo" que pode equilibrar pontos na balança. Alguns artigos comentam que se as forças da sociedade não se voltarem para a manutenção de elementos importantes as estruturas estarão comprometidas:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/005385-our-town-restoring-localism
 
O que me lembra de descrição sagaz de Guenon do mundo moderno como sendo uma paródia, ou inversão grotesca, do mundo da Tradição.

Temos nossos ritos, nossa mitologia, uma liturgia toda própria, dogmas. Algo que nenhuma Igreja ou sociedade secreta continental jamais possuiu com essa integralidade, abrangência e, pior: inconsciência.
 
Combina com a passagem do Rico e de Lázaro. Quando os dois morrem o Rico vai para Hades/mundo dos mortos. Naquele lugar o Rico consegue ver a alegria e glória de Lázaro mas nada do mundo espiritual celestial o reconhece e ele está sedento e torturado pois a alegria não habita com ele mais.

Nesse momento,o Rico se pudesse convidar os amigos para um churrasco não encontraria o alimento do corpo e o alimento da alma (conversação e bons momentos) em um cenário de morte com elementos purgatoriais e infernais o alimento não empresta seu sabor, nem a conversa alimenta alma. A existência passa a ser uma sombra, uma abominação abissal em que resta apenas o horror do sofrimento espiritual. Raramente há espaço para apreciar as pequenas grandes coisas com o devido espírito de ação de graças e a divulgação nos empurra para que as tomemos como garantidas.

O Rico não desejava ser justo porque doía e mortificava o corpo.
 
Um dos maiores defeitos das redes sociais são os algoritmos que encontram pessoas de gostos e ideias semelhantes. Quando o grupo é pequeno, é possível uma troca saudável de opiniões; mas, quando se amplia para um grupo de milhares ou milhões de usuários onde um like é mais importante do que o conteúdo... está criado o o infame troll. É mais fácil e dá mais status insultar e agredir do que argumentar e chegar a um consenso. A velocidade da internet não permite mais reflexões.
 
O que o Elring falou tem nome inclusive, acho que é efeito bandwagon e alguns fóruns colocam limite de vários minutos para exibir os karmas dados evitando que as votem porque um monte de gente votou.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect

Bandwagon effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Cultural phenomenon" redirects here. For other cultural phenomena, see culture.


A literal "bandwagon", whence the metaphor is derived.
The bandwagon effect is a phenomenon whereby the rate of uptake of beliefs, ideas, fads and trends increases the more that they have already been adopted by others. In other words, the bandwagon effect is characterized by the probability of individual adoption increasing with respect to the proportion who have already done so.[1] As more people come to believe in something, others also "hop on the bandwagon" regardless of the underlying evidence.

The tendency to follow the actions or beliefs of others can occur because individuals directly prefer to conform, or because individuals derive information from others. Both explanations have been used for evidence of conformity in psychological experiments. For example, social pressure has been used to explain Asch's conformity experiments,[2] and information has been used to explain Sherif's autokinetic experiment.[3]

According to this concept, the increasing popularity of a product or phenomenon encourages more people to "get on the bandwagon", too. The bandwagon effect explains why there are fashion trends.[4]

When individuals make rational choices based on the information they receive from others, economists have proposed that information cascades can quickly form in which people decide to ignore their personal information signals and follow the behavior of others.[5] Cascades explain why behavior is fragile—people understand that they are based on very limited information. As a result, fads form easily but are also easily dislodged. Such informational effects have been used to explain political bandwagons.[6]

No caso de combater essas distorções depende também do que a pessoa estiver procurando. Para ilustrar, tem o diretor Mamoru Oshii que representou nos filmes dele momentos de guerra urbana moderna com choque de mundos culturalmente diferentes como "Jin Roh" e o elogiado até pelo James Cameron "Avalon" (uma fantasia Hacker que poderia ser assistida ouvindo Dark City do Machinae Supremacy).

Ele comenta que quem não houvesse curtido o filme dele seria porque o filme não era para aquele tipo de espectador dando a entender que para notar os pontos de apreciação da obra se deveria ter um mindset ou mentalidade específica do contrário não seria capaz de transitar corretamente nos significados na obra. (espírito da obra?) Quer dizer, ocorre que muita gente contacta pessoas pensando que todos os seres humanos pertençam a mesma disposição do mainstream, mas a verdade é bem outra.

Na internet a pessoa entra e sai de páginas feitas por pessoas completamente diferentes, travam contato com mundos e experiências diferentes de modo que a pessoa poderia optar por adquirir a capacidade de transitar nesses mundos para aproveitar o melhor deles ao invés de se involver diretamente na destruição de um mindset ruim.

Por exemplo, o nazismo (o trabalho do Oshii é simbolicamente preenchido com seus elementos) era um mindset, uma mentalidade que dominava uma região em uma época e que criava um muro contra pessoas que pensavam de forma diferente.

Por sinal, na Alemanha havia os espiões e infiltrados do sistema (como os Hackers e terroristas do Oshii) e havia forças (países) e grupos específicos para combatê-los e aos quais a pessoa podia se unir ou unir nos seus esforços.

Os descontentes raramente ficam expostos na mídia e a investigação de uma situação social nociva tende a vir mais da população civil comum que de instituições mainstream. Por exemplo, no site JapanFocus recentemente descobriram um grupo de 130 membros de uma polícia secreta japonesa que vem catalogando todos os muçulmanos do país (70 mil pessoas atualmente). A investigação não teria partido de nenhum jornal ou veículo oficial. (Foi parar na suprema corte de lá).

Spying on Muslims in Tokyo and New York — “Necessary and Unavoidable”?
Asia-Pacific Journal Report
http://apjjf.org/2016/18/APJ.html

Quer dizer, a pessoa pode acessar esses sites sem problema, mas deve saber que algumas mudanças importantes e necessárias não virão nunca do mindset oficial.
 

Valinor 2023

Total arrecadado
R$2.404,79
Termina em:
Back
Topo