[FRIAM] anthropological observations

[Prof David West]

Venturing an opinion —

The State put a traffic signal at an intersection because (anthropomorphizing here) The State determined that a number of factors (sight lines, traffic volume, ...) made it advisable to regulate the flow of traffic.

The State also made an assumption about the typical driver — they are incapable of making an evaluative decision with regard all those factors and therefore their behavior must be controlled by mandating stopping at a red light.

The State also makes the assumption that the average highway patrol person either lacks the right (only judges may interpret the law) or the capability to decide if issuing a ticket at 3 am is reasonable. The Law is the Law. This is Fetishizing the Law.

In the case of the traffic signal, the assumptions made about typical drivers and highway patrol persons are probably not unreasonable.

In the case of off-label meds, it would seem much more reasonable to assume that the typical physician IS capable of making an evaluative decision and should therefore be supplied with as much information as possible in support of that decision. This is what I believe I observed in Europe.

In contrast, what I believe I am seeing in the US response nothing more than "The Law Is The Law."

davew



On Mon, Apr 13, 2020, at 3:24 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> Friammers,

> 

> Allow me some ill-informed maunderings about the chlor-whatitsface controversy: It seems to me the controversy has to do with our ambivalence with respect to the law. Do we wait for a green light on a deserted street at 3 am or do we drive right through because we KNOW that basic purpose of that light system is to prevent accidents and that there is NO possibility of an accident under present circumstances. When do we take the law into our own hands?

> 

> Now the Health Expert Community Knowledge (hereafter, HECK) tells us that chlor-whatitsface might help some people and might harm some others, and so we should not use it on a single patient until we can *guarantee* to that patient that it will do more good than harm. Meanwhile we hear of doctors writing themselves prescriptions for themselves and their families, just in case. "Aw, HECK, let's just try it."

> 

> So to what extent, I am wondering, is not pushing out chlor-whatitsface to every hospital in the country a case of stopping at the red light at the wilderness intersection in the middle of the night? 

> 

> And why DO we do that? I think we do it because respect for the law is a thing itself and has benefits. Socrates did have a reason to drink the hemlock. Well-designed laws have benefits for the vast majority of citizens in the vast majority of circumstances, and laws, even well designed ones, do not survive long in a society of citizens who pick and choose among them. But Socrates also had reasons not to drink the hemlock. And it's quite possible that, contrary to his final reasoning, we would all be better off, now, if he hadn't. 

> 

> Nick

> 

> Nicholas Thompson

> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

> Clark University

> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com

> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

> 

> 

> 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 1:53 PM
> To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] anthropological observations

> 

> I presume it's this one:

> 

> Die geheimen Gene: Das Geheimnis der Kirche und die soziale DNA https://books.google.com/books?id=lpqUDwAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Jochen+Fromm%22&hl=en&source=newbks_fb

> 

> No copies seem to be available. I also assume propaganda plays a prominent role in your explanation. I keep wondering why Trump's sycophants like Navarro keep claiming the Spanish Flue happened in 1917 instead of 1918. E.g. in this clip: https://youtu.be/nSx704KK_Ik

> 

> #5 and #6 from this list seem plausible to me:

> https://theweek.com/articles/832990/6-theories-trumps-pointless-lies

> 

> When Trump hears Navarro say "1917", it's a signal of loyalty, even if everyone knows it's the wrong year, that he uses that year, helps confirm his loyalty. Knowing to use "1917" instead will help me code-switch if I find myself in a conversation with these people. If you use "1918", they'll know you're out-group. Hypothesis #6 is only plausible if you think Trump is an idiot. But I buy the argument put forth here:

> 

> Tony Norman: Who are you going to believe — POTUS or an actual expert?

> https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/tony-norman/2020/04/07/1917-Donald-Trump-truth-George-Orwell-Anthony-Fauci-Peter-Navarro-hydroxychloroquine/stories/202004070017

> 

> Maybe it's a perverse mix of the expression of power, loyalty, and getting the audience used to fudging the details ... encouraging the cult members to impute the nomothetic even though it fails to fit the idiographic.

> 

> 

> On 4/13/20 11:04 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:

> > Link! I should buy the German version and see if I can read some of it. The last time I tried that was with Faust after my German II semester in college ... terrible failure.

> 

> 

> --

> ☣ uǝlƃ

> 

> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe 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
> unsubscribe 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/20200414/58c8a8fc/attachment.html>