[FRIAM] labels

Sat Oct 10 14:43:14 EDT 2020

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> 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> <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Steve Smith
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 10, 2020 9:55 AM
> *To:* 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
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> <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> <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>
> 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> 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
> 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/
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> 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
> 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/ab4a83ba/attachment.html>