[FRIAM] labels
Steve Smith
sasmyth at swcp.com
Sat Oct 10 19:11:29 EDT 2020
Frank -
Yes to both... attempting a formal mapping, but speaking loosely by
metaphor, awaiting that formulation...
Left/Right is discussed/expressed as a dimension. But I think we all
can agree that the political domain is in fact, higher dimensional than
that, and that our rhetoric projects dozens of issues onto that single
dimension.
I accept that it may be hard to put a metric on these dimensions, or to
agree on the metric (or dimensions). I would suspect that political
scientists *do* have metrics and dimensions, but the ones I use
anecdotally are simply my own wild-ass guesses. I believe the
anecdotally identified dimensions are at least *orderable* if not
*metrizeable*...
Does this still sound like nonsense?
- Steve
On 10/10/20 12:43 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Wait, what? Eigenvectors are properties of a linear transformation
> from a space to itself. What's the space and what's the linear
> transformation? Principal components analysis is a method of spanning
> a space of variables with one of lower dimension.
>
> Or are you speaking metaphorically?
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 12:27 PM Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com
> <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com>> wrote:
>
> Marcus -
>
> (in mild agreement/acknowledgement of your point as I understand it)
>
> I suppose my own biases about human nature are that we are driven
> along an internal greed/fear axis which is then "weaponized" by
> the politicos. The Right seems particularly adept at both, while
> impugning the Left as if they are the ones playing those trump
> (Trump?) cards...
>
> Other axes such as equality/equanimity, group loyalty/deference
> to authority, etc. seem *somewhat* orthogonal..
>
> I suspect the terms "Progressive" and "Conservative" don't really
> capture what is actually exhibited/explored by the Left/Right
> tug-of war. I know that as I have aged/matured/evolved I've
> become *much* more socially progressive whilst feeling much more
> conservative about progress itself... not trusting the headlong
> rush we are on, while acknowledging that it is (somewhat) inevitable.
>
> Following the arc of SteveG's ideas about collective intelligence,
> least/stationary action, bidirectional path-tracing as a paradigm
> that eclipses or replaces or maybe subsumes (neo) Darwinism and
> Paternalism, I also feel that we are overdue for some fundamental
> refactoring of our collective models/paradigms. I'm no more
> interested in the style of Pol Pot's Communism than I am in
> Hitler's Fascism or Stalin's Fascism-disguised-as-Socialism than I
> am in Trump's variants on the same. They seem like they are all
> aberrant excursions into a highly compressed (projection) subspace
> that is at best a *shadow* of what is really needed/possible.
>
> - Steve
>
> On 10/10/20 11:37 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>
>> My model is that people lean left and right as a developmental
>> aspect of personality, and the parties mimic but also manipulate
>> those patterns. People really must be gamed and manipulated by
>> politicians because even the best-intentioned people are often
>> ignorant of the complexity of the population and the
>> practicalities of governance. Worse, many people are blamers
>> who have nothing to add beyond What’s In It For Me.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com>
>> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Steve Smith
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 10, 2020 9:55 AM
>> *To:* friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] labels
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick-
>>
>> Not trying to ding you personally for this, but this kind of
>> blind deference to authority/party/tribe/loyalty is one of the
>> mechanisms I'm trying to tease a part with Marcus' reference to
>> the Left/Right *dominant* component as an inevitability? And I
>> *think* EricC's questioning of that assumption?
>>
>> How *do* our political parties "precess" in higher dimensional
>> space such that the subdominant components can "flip"
>> entirely... how did the party of Lincoln Republicans who
>> rejected secession and abolished Slavery and their opposition
>> which had a strong component of what became formally the
>> Dixiecrats, effectively flip positions? The party that accused
>> (accuses?) their opposition of being "tax and spenders" has
>> become "print money and spenders". How do deficit Hawks become
>> Deficit Doves or Owls, and is there an instantaneous "tunneling"
>> between these somewhat oppositional positions?
>>
>> https://citizenvox.org/2012/02/22/hawks-doves-and-owls-budget-policy-goes-to-the-zoo/
>>
>> - Steve
>>
>> Thaniks, EricS for reading and commenting on the Amy
>> Interview I am such a benighted, naïve, stupid, optimist. I
>> can imagine that if she were an Obama nominee, I would be
>> saying, “We have a good one here!”
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
>>
>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com>
>> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *David Eric
>> Smith
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 10, 2020 3:47 AM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> <friam at redfish.com> <mailto:friam at redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] labels
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, and not only Ugh.
>>
>>
>>
>> The two places this bothers me as a category error are:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. It conflates writing the rules of the game and being a
>> player in the game. Shubik used to harp on this: that the
>> government’s role as the declarer of monetary policy, and as
>> the participant in fiscal policy, were roles at different
>> levels, game designer versus large atomic player. The
>> category isn’t quite as clean here, in that a rule targeting
>> balanced affiliation isn’t exactly the same as playing for
>> one side. It is a bit more like certain monkey societies, in
>> which the problem-solver steps in on the side of whoever is
>> being attacked to lessen the asymmetry.
>>
>>
>>
>> But it still feels like it has a related problem, of defining
>> an outer law (constitution or statute for structure of the
>> court) in terms of a non-legal convention (the particular
>> parties and how they are non-formally categorized and
>> weighted in the society at this time), and that feels
>> completely unstable against drift.
>>
>>
>>
>> A more mechanism-design-y thing would be to revisit whichever
>> Federalist Paper it was that talked about the destabilizing
>> role of parties, never imagining the technologies for
>> coordination that would be available to them 230 years later,
>> and ask what the mechanism update is to the constitution in a
>> world where instabilities toward consolidation are so
>> extreme. Kind of the same spirit as revisiting capitalist
>> property rights laws when a warehouser and distributor can
>> come to own the whole economy.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. In the Coney Barrett talk that Nick circulated, she made
>> an important point that should be true, even if we could
>> argue that it is a smokescreen that isn’t true in reality.
>> She says “liberal/conservative” in regard to the
>> interpretation of constitutional law are different categories
>> from “liberal/conservative” as political affiliations. She
>> probably even believes it, though I expect that her SCOTUS
>> decisions will magically align with the political axes 100%
>> of the time, and one must ask how that happens to always be
>> the case.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, the question is whether it is all disingenuous.
>> Thomas Edsall had a decent article in NYT a few days ago on
>> originalism/living-text definitions, that was right on the
>> thread we were on. It is interesting that the opponents of
>> each side make _exactly_ the same accusation toward it: that
>> the side they are criticizing has no real method and is a
>> program for rationalizing whatever outcome the judge wanted
>> politically. To the extent that that is true in substance,
>> if obfuscated in appearance, then Coney Barrett’s claim that
>> they are different categories is a falsehood. One wonders
>> then at what level of argument one could force her to
>> acknowledge that error.
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 9, 2020, at 11:18 PM, Eric Charles
>> <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com
>> <mailto:eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- reconfigure (expand) it from 9 to 15 but
>> *balance* the Left/Right ideology (I think he proposed
>> 5/5) and then ---------
>>
>>
>>
>> Note that one thing both parties agree on is that we
>> should conceive politics as utterly and completely a
>> choice between the two of them. God forbid that we
>> conceive of judges using any other dimensions. In fact,
>> let's enshrine it in law that we must forever focus on
>> exactly whether we have a "balance" of "left" and
>> "right". Ugh!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 4:48 PM Steve Smith
>> <sasmyth at swcp.com <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Ha! I refer to the last bit as "ok fine, TWIST my
>> drinking arm!" when
>> someone offers to buy me one... the only one to
>> twists my drinking arm
>> this last six months has been Mary... and Maybe
>> Stephen and his circle
>> on "ZoomGrappaNight".
>>
>> I don't like the language around "packing the
>> court". I don't think
>> "reconfiguring the court" is the same as "packing the
>> court". Clearly,
>> the (not so) loyal opposition to the Dems *would*
>> pack the court... add
>> 6 more justices and make sure they are ALL
>> conservative leaners. Pete
>> Buttegeig was the first to speak of this in my
>> earshot, and HIS version
>> sounded pretty reasonable... reconfigure (expand)
>> it from 9 to 15 but
>> *balance* the Left/Right ideology (I think he
>> proposed 5/5) and then
>> leave it to the Justices themselves to fill the
>> remaining 5 (through
>> some arcane process?). What the Republicans have
>> been building up to
>> for decades is "packing the courts".
>>
>> Checks and balances are tricky, as is depending on
>> social norms and
>> standards, but I think it might be "as good as it
>> gets", at least for
>> the time being.
>>
>> - Steve
>>
>>
>> On 10/8/20 1:36 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:
>> > Ha! That was the essence of one of the 538 panel
>> member's phrasing suggestion for Kamala Harris in
>> response to Pence's question about packing SCOTUS.
>> The elaborated version was: "Because confirming
>> Barrett, NOW, is such a horribly wrong thing to do,
>> we have no choice BUT to pack the court." ... I.e.
>> now look what you made me do. That was my dad's
>> favorite phrase to justify whatever abuse he chose to
>> mete out that day. He once ran over my bicycle with
>> his truck. I *made* him run over my bike because I
>> left it laying in the driveway. It's a running joke
>> with my fellow drinkers who *regularly* FORCE me to
>> drink more than I should. There is no free will. I
>> live to serve.
>> >
>> > On 10/8/20 11:28 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> >> Look what you made me do,
>>
>>
>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,URHTYCOflB74O-_DI0dbEhUwuhzDGYhdSf7LRjl8tLmkmBJe0loSf3HRqMO-h67RLZ4QLL-6H3NYMq-vHO34GaSjKIco4zOUls70uHzwTBIWcvHn&typo=1>
>> un/subscribe
>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,oX4UeygX7WyjK2Xi8iHb-qXD9vWPVWi6XsrTB90sewU0zpNs-mvdsgHfOL2worw-ytWZ_18lnGwWfXgvRIFun1zpllz0K6lj9e3ZS4-6bI1o&typo=1>
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC
>> <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
>> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,qMX6P95xw33fEDq5XPleqTxWs0O9aB7WZ6yMGijXAOWIHS2Lt5NtZOSJanSIUypD21_kG17KJGuC6krWtw4GFYixe5n4YCeGwqIPwjaExwo2VX9KNYvp&typo=1>
>>
>>
>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
>> un/subscribe
>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,lZ9NlezAXRM1UtFBcPexp2OE5s5wCsat6c9eCh64km3EUesmzcIlKDfzSs9ZrJuMbsPJnP2WfadsCxnvI86yjYhX0VdrsjiRNTioFNEl4yQ,&typo=1
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC
>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,gAOKowwHhfsjxEeiJJ_3atSEBLz9pnU4UB3PBeOugHijREv3dfYC6ZaCsd6P40vUQJMuRXqDXu5JS1lb8Ktvn4Lf5hfdWyqtxhNRrHHmZkORJPyag89AuA,,&typo=1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>>
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
>>
>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe <http://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/subscribe> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20201010/36e0d99c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list