[FRIAM] labels

Sat Oct 10 12:55:18 EDT 2020

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> *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>
> *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
> 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/ce7cf213/attachment.html>