Friam

Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

Classic

List

Threaded

14 messages Options

thompnickson2

Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

Hi everybody,

I am often been hard pressed by members of the “home church” to supply examples of how locating motives “in the head” is not only a misdirection but actually a dangerous illusion. I give you https://shows.acast.com/the-report/episodes/the-impeachment-day-7 which, at minute 7:40, contains an argument that Trump’s motives cannot be inferred from his behavior because motives are inherently subjective, “in the head” of the motivated person. This, of course, contradicts long standing legal practice, where demonstrating motive from higher-order patterns in behavior (i.e., patterns distributed more broadly in time and space than in the moments surrounding the motivated act) is a necessary element in most criminal cases. It is, for instance, the main element that distinguishes manslaughter from murder. In fact, the whole range of offences resulting in death are distinguished by the degree to which the jury thinks the lethal act was “voluntary”.

By the way, that link will serve to introduce you to the lawfare “reports” which attempt to provide a neutral precis of the proceedings, day by day.

Nick

PS: I just did a dive into the legal dictionary. Interesting. Apparently, the law makes a big distinction between motive and intent, the former being more like having a reason to commit a crime, the latter being more like setting about to commit the crime. Interesting stuff, this law business No wonder Oliver Wendell Holmes was a pragmatist.!

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

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

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

But he impulsively blabs his motives in front of the camera every day?

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 11:37 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

Hi everybody,

By the way, that link will serve to introduce you to the lawfare “reports” which attempt to provide a neutral precis of the proceedings, day by day.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

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

David Eric Smith

Re: Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

I’m glad to have these resources, particularly the lawfare breakdowns.

However, in this conversation I would like to see us separate the things we credit with reflecting on real ideas from patent political nonsense and bad faith. Dershowitz exists to prove the maxim that there isn’t really any democratic robustness in the US legal system, and that in fact any outcome can be achieved through a parade of nonsense by whoever has the most money and power. That is why he takes case after case that have no legal merits, to preen by showing that it is the singer — particularly the singer Dershowitz — entirely, and not at al the song.

The right wing of the senate is also a case study in how corruption works at the institutional level, and how systems like Venezuela develop in the stages before the society is in riots and the outside world starts to notice that they exist. So what Dershowitz does in the senate is even more extravagant nonsense than what he would do in an actual court, to emphasize the fact that not only he, but they, achieve ends through manipulation of power without any role for principal.

In contrast, when there is real law, and a good-faith effort to use law to create a fair playing field, there can be a good discussion of how legal precedent is the applied domain of psychology. Then we can discuss the difference between German interpretations of the relative merits of punishment versus rehabilitation, and American positions on similar questions (perhaps more historically than in this particular distorted present).

Anyway, one more thing to feel sick about with an understanding that one has very little and limited agency in this big broken world,

Eric

On Jan 31, 2020, at 4:36 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

Hi everybody,

I am often been hard pressed by members of the “home church” to supply examples of how locating motives “in the head” is not only a misdirection but actually a dangerous illusion. I give you https://shows.acast.com/the-report/episodes/the-impeachment-day-7 which, at minute 7:40, contains an argument that Trump’s motives cannot be inferred from his behavior because motives are inherently subjective, “in the head” of the motivated person. This, of course, contradicts long standing legal practice, where demonstrating motive from higher-order patterns in behavior (i.e., patterns distributed more broadly in time and space than in the moments surrounding the motivated act) is a necessary element in most criminal cases. It is, for instance, the main element that distinguishes manslaughter from murder. In fact, the whole range of offences resulting in death are distinguished by the degree to which the jury thinks the lethal act was “voluntary”.

By the way, that link will serve to introduce you to the lawfare “reports” which attempt to provide a neutral precis of the proceedings, day by day.

Nick

PS: I just did a dive into the legal dictionary. Interesting. Apparently, the law makes a big distinction between motiveand intent, the former being more like having a reason to commit a crime, the latter being more like setting about to commit the crime. Interesting stuff, this law business No wonder Oliver Wendell Holmes was a pragmatist.!

N
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Gillian Densmore

Re: Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

Or he's a complete lunatic that's tried several times to break the rules? It's not that deep.

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 2:47 PM David Eric Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I’m glad to have these resources, particularly the lawfare breakdowns.

However, in this conversation I would like to see us separate the things we credit with reflecting on real ideas from patent political nonsense and bad faith. Dershowitz exists to prove the maxim that there isn’t really any democratic robustness in the US legal system, and that in fact any outcome can be achieved through a parade of nonsense by whoever has the most money and power. That is why he takes case after case that have no legal merits, to preen by showing that it is the singer — particularly the singer Dershowitz — entirely, and not at al the song.

The right wing of the senate is also a case study in how corruption works at the institutional level, and how systems like Venezuela develop in the stages before the society is in riots and the outside world starts to notice that they exist. So what Dershowitz does in the senate is even more extravagant nonsense than what he would do in an actual court, to emphasize the fact that not only he, but they, achieve ends through manipulation of power without any role for principal.

In contrast, when there is real law, and a good-faith effort to use law to create a fair playing field, there can be a good discussion of how legal precedent is the applied domain of psychology. Then we can discuss the difference between German interpretations of the relative merits of punishment versus rehabilitation, and American positions on similar questions (perhaps more historically than in this particular distorted present).

Anyway, one more thing to feel sick about with an understanding that one has very little and limited agency in this big broken world,

Eric

On Jan 31, 2020, at 4:36 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

Hi everybody,

I am often been hard pressed by members of the “home church” to supply examples of how locating motives “in the head” is not only a misdirection but actually a dangerous illusion. I give you https://shows.acast.com/the-report/episodes/the-impeachment-day-7 which, at minute 7:40, contains an argument that Trump’s motives cannot be inferred from his behavior because motives are inherently subjective, “in the head” of the motivated person. This, of course, contradicts long standing legal practice, where demonstrating motive from higher-order patterns in behavior (i.e., patterns distributed more broadly in time and space than in the moments surrounding the motivated act) is a necessary element in most criminal cases. It is, for instance, the main element that distinguishes manslaughter from murder. In fact, the whole range of offences resulting in death are distinguished by the degree to which the jury thinks the lethal act was “voluntary”.

By the way, that link will serve to introduce you to the lawfare “reports” which attempt to provide a neutral precis of the proceedings, day by day.

Nick

PS: I just did a dive into the legal dictionary. Interesting. Apparently, the law makes a big distinction between motiveand intent, the former being more like having a reason to commit a crime, the latter being more like setting about to commit the crime. Interesting stuff, this law business No wonder Oliver Wendell Holmes was a pragmatist.!

N
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

In reply to this post by David Eric Smith

Eric writes:

“That is why he takes case after case that have no legal merits, to preen by showing that it is the singer — particularly the singer Dershowitz — entirely, and not at al the song.”

One would think that after a long career at an elite U.S. university, one might look back on their career with a sense of calm and satisfaction.

Or maybe if one was mayor of a great U.S. city during a dark period, that would provide a sufficient pool of self-esteem? People come to be happier as they age, and accept their limitations and the journey of their life… Nah! Why not really screw the country before drifting into dementia?

Marcus

thompnickson2

Re: Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

Or screw your country after drifting into dementia.

But … I have to keep remembering … there are many people in my life whom I respect and who are trumpy.

Some how we have to find the occasion and the language to talk.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

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

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 3:36 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

Eric writes:

“That is why he takes case after case that have no legal merits, to preen by showing that it is the singer — particularly the singer Dershowitz — entirely, and not at al the song.”

One would think that after a long career at an elite U.S. university, one might look back on their career with a sense of calm and satisfaction.

Marcus

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

“Somehow we have to find the occasion and the language to talk.”

Shrug. There’s plenty of used and unused military properties out here on the west coast. A quick change of banner and it should be good to go.

A minor change of address on my taxes and 50 million others -- leave the credit unworthiness to those that don’t join the new coalition.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 3:36 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

Or screw your country after drifting into dementia.

But … I have to keep remembering … there are many people in my life whom I respect and who are trumpy.

Some how we have to find the occasion and the language to talk.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

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

Eric writes:

“That is why he takes case after case that have no legal merits, to preen by showing that it is the singer — particularly the singer Dershowitz — entirely, and not at al the song.”

One would think that after a long career at an elite U.S. university, one might look back on their career with a sense of calm and satisfaction.

Marcus

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

"But … I have to keep remembering … there are many people in my life whom I respect and who are trumpy."

Do I know any of them, Nick?

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 4:50 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

“Somehow we have to find the occasion and the language to talk.”

Shrug. There’s plenty of used and unused military properties out here on the west coast. A quick change of banner and it should be good to go.

A minor change of address on my taxes and 50 million others -- leave the credit unworthiness to those that don’t join the new coalition.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 3:36 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

Or screw your country after drifting into dementia.

But … I have to keep remembering … there are many people in my life whom I respect and who are trumpy.

Some how we have to find the occasion and the language to talk.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

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

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 3:36 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

Eric writes:

“That is why he takes case after case that have no legal merits, to preen by showing that it is the singer — particularly the singer Dershowitz — entirely, and not at al the song.”

One would think that after a long career at an elite U.S. university, one might look back on their career with a sense of calm and satisfaction.

Or maybe if one was mayor of a great U.S. city during a dark period, that would provide a sufficient pool of self-esteem? People come to be happier as they age, and accept their limitations and the journey of their life… Nah! Why not really screw the country before drifting into dementia?

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

David Eric Smith

Re: Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

I don’t think finding a language to talk will come from being co-opted in a bad-faith narrative where up is down and black is white, just because some people are angry and have been led to believe they want to tear truth up to revert to a game in which it is only who has power — wrongly believing it is them.

One brings character back into a community by first having character, and being willing to hang onto it.

The common language will have to come from having a material commitment to other people’s wellbeing, with enough understanding of their circumstances to address the complexity of those circumstances substantively. I think some of that will be barn-building without talking, and the building may need to go on for a while before there is a shared base of activity to talk about. Those who want to solve problems will need to accept that as the responsibility for the end they want, and do whatever they can think of to get to the goal, rather than being distracted by showing that they were “right" in some dispute. Shed the vanity; keep an eye on what matters. If there are others who just want to throw bombs and don’t want to contribute to understanding or helping anything, then that is part of the situation we have to deal with. Good-faith people from any starting point are welcomed. The nature of the problems will sort out who is contributing to solving something.

On Jan 31, 2020, at 8:35 AM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

Or screw your country after drifting into dementia.

But … I have to keep remembering … there are many people in my life whom I respect and who are trumpy.

Some how we have to find the occasion and the language to talk.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 3:36 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

Eric writes:

“That is why he takes case after case that have no legal merits, to preen by showing that it is the singer — particularly the singer Dershowitz — entirely, and not at al the song.”

One would think that after a long career at an elite U.S. university, one might look back on their career with a sense of calm and satisfaction.
Or maybe if one was mayor of a great U.S. city during a dark period, that would provide a sufficient pool of self-esteem? People come to be happier as they age, and accept their limitations and the journey of their life… Nah! Why not really screw the country before drifting into dementia?

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

I've been stewing in my own juices regarding the previous mentions of "puritanism" and my commitment to reductionism-resistance. It started awhile back when a friend forced me to read Michael Heumer's "The Problem of Political Authority", which was less interesting than his "Ethical Intuitionism", FWIW. In a bout of insomnia the other night, I ran across Bryan Caplin's post:

"Catholic" vs "Protestant" Ethics
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/04/catholic_versus.html

which (if you follow some of his other posts) seems to rely on a tendency to *reduction*. While reading all this hooha, I was reminded of mathematical intuitionism and finitism in response to transfinite numbers, as well as the objections to things like proof by contradiction.

I've avoided having any significant conversations with any right-leaning people, including those who believe we can "innovate" our way out of the climate crisis, precisely because of the sense that their positions are presented in "bad faith". And this morning, I ran across this rant:

Resist false hope: America under Trump is in big trouble, and there's no going back
https://www.salon.com/2020/01/31/resist-false-hope-america-under-trump-is-in-big-trouble-and-theres-no-going-back/

which distinguishes between "hope peddler" and "hope warrior", which seems a little silly to me (in the same way I didn't "fight" my cancer - metaphor run amok). But I like the appeal to action, the idea that *action* has meaning (as opposed to refreshing one's phone/browser/etc).

But there's an issue churning underneath all this that I think appeals to anyone exposed to "complex systems", where apparent complexity arises from a reduced rule set. As Pieter forced us to consider by presenting this group: <https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg#Copenhagen_Consensus_Project>, which do we choose? The catholic or Protestant approach? Complexity people would, arguably, choose the puritanical reduction to a *small* set of actionable targets, whereas it's also arguable that a more catholic approach (allowing anyone to work on whatever problem they found motivating) allows diversity [†].

And a subsequent question, after asking which approach to choose, is: How outraged should I be when talking with someone who does *not* choose the same approach I choose? And, similarly, how outraged should a puritan who reduces to climate crisis be with a puritan who reduces to the rise of fascism?

[†] Just a note to say that I don't argue for diversity for diversity's sake. But reductionism faces a problem in constructing seemingly open-ended systems, as the ALife sessions on OEE have shown, I think. Diversity seems, to me, to be a hallmark property of open systems. Catholic approaches to action are agnostic about the sources of diversity whereas puritan approaches are obliged to explain them.

On 1/30/20 4:00 PM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> I don’t think finding a language to talk will come from being co-opted in a bad-faith narrative where up is down and black is white, just because some people are angry and have been led to believe they want to tear truth up to revert to a game in which it is only who has power — wrongly believing it is them.
>
> One brings character back into a community by first having character, and being willing to hang onto it.
>
> The common language will have to come from having a material commitment to other people’s wellbeing, with enough understanding of their circumstances to address the complexity of those circumstances substantively. I think some of that will be barn-building without talking, and the building may need to go on for a while before there is a shared base of activity to talk about. Those who want to solve problems will need to accept that as the responsibility for the end they want, and do whatever they can think of to get to the goal, rather than being distracted by showing that they were “right" in some dispute. Shed the vanity; keep an eye on what matters. If there are others who just want to throw bombs and don’t want to contribute to understanding or helping anything, then that is part of the situation we have to deal with. Good-faith people from any starting point are welcomed. The nature of the problems will sort out who is contributing to solving something.

--
☣ uǝlƃ
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

Glen wrote

< FWIW. In a bout of insomnia the other night, I ran across Bryan Caplin's post:

"Catholic" vs "Protestant" Ethics
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/04/catholic_versus.html >

The thought that I cannot resist is of former colleagues that would sneer at uninteresting or insufficiently-cool research.

Insufficiently-cool research is research that could not possibly result in useful artifacts (or even taken decisions) because that engineering is for the little people to sort out. No, _truly_ cool research about the strivers' social fabric. Laugh. I never realized I had such strong feelings about Catholics! :-)

Marcus

gepr

Re: Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

Very nice! I never know whether you're arguing against or agreeing with me. The ambiguity is delicious.

The problem with action is _causa prima_, I guess. Since the thread is about one's locus of control, and has turned to the *depth* of one's intra-head gymnastics (being close or far from facts/outside world) and fidelity, your distance-from-application point follows right along.

Although I have a lot of criticism for "coherence theories of truth", I do spend some time trying to reconcile apparently contradictory ideas. And I can't help but wonder why someone wouldn't at least try to imagine how some bit of seemingly unactionable research might be put to good use ... before complaining how unactionable it is out loud anyway.

On January 31, 2020 11:56:13 AM PST, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "Catholic" vs "Protestant" Ethics
> https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/04/catholic_versus.html >
>
>The thought that I cannot resist is of former colleagues that would
>sneer at uninteresting or insufficiently-cool research.
>Insufficiently-cool research is research that could not possibly result
>in useful artifacts (or even taken decisions) because that engineering
>is for the little people to sort out. No, _truly_ cool research about
>the strivers' social fabric. Laugh. I never realized I had such
>strong feelings about Catholics! :-)

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

Glen writes:

< I never know whether you're arguing against or agreeing with me. >

I guess I was getting to that. :-)
Not that you were claiming it, but I am unconvinced that tradeoffs between creative aspirations and incompetent execution, or competent execution and boring aspirations explain the difference between the left and the right. I would say the Trump ilk have neither good aspirations nor good execution. I guess I value them less than Nick. :-)

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Trumps motives not judiciable because they are "in his head"

I agree. It seems the essence (that I care about) of "bad faith" has something to do with *not* having aspirations to creativity nor competent execution. The question comes, maybe, with respect to how broad/universal you expect your solution to be. I read this article over lunch:

Book Review: The Amazing Brain Cells That Link Mind and Body
https://undark.org/2020/01/31/angel-assassin-book-review/

And found the following exemplary statement:

> “If we overemphasize the workings of microglia, and the biological mechanisms by which illnesses of the brain emerge,” Nakazawa writes, “we invite the kind of biological reductionism that overmedicalizes and belittles the intimate connection between the mind and the way it gives birth to our human consciousness.”

Coincidentally, I met some political activists (at lunch) pitching the brewery to let them hold a ranked choice voting session where they demonstrated RCV, but absent the political overtones ... with a beer flight. So, the participants would RCV the beers in the flight. Fresh off the warning above about biological reductionism and microgliopathy, I had to ask them the extent to which they thought RCV was a panacea. How much of our political problems will it solve? Etc.

On 1/31/20 2:57 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I guess I was getting to that. :-)
> Not that you were claiming it, but I am unconvinced that tradeoffs between creative aspirations and incompetent execution, or competent execution and boring aspirations explain the difference between the left and the right. I would say the Trump ilk have neither good aspirations nor good execution. I guess I value them less than Nick. :-)

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen