labels

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
100 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: labels

Steve Smith



It is the first principal component..

Agreed, but is that a feature of our winner-takes-all voting system?   Do we *like* having our lives/livelihood reduced to such?  Do we have a choice in letting this projection of a "properly complex life/value-system" onto a pair of polarized political parties?



On Oct 9, 2020, at 8:40 PM, Steve Smith [hidden email] wrote:



I agree that the illusion of there being only the single axis of Left/Right is a travesty.  

I also intuit that my own preferences for ranked-choice-voting to *allow in* more dimensions may be naive in some way I don't fully apprehend.

I'd love for you (and others) here to explore the paradoxes and inconsistencies implied in all of this.

On 10/9/20 9:18 PM, Eric Charles 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 <[hidden email]> 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
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/ 
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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://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/ 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: labels

Steve Smith

this is a bit old (2003?) and limited, but someone's attempt at doing this analysis... 

http://politics.beasts.org/scripts/eigenvectors

On 10/10/20 12:02 AM, Steve Smith wrote:



It is the first principal component..

Agreed, but is that a feature of our winner-takes-all voting system?   Do we *like* having our lives/livelihood reduced to such?  Do we have a choice in letting this projection of a "properly complex life/value-system" onto a pair of polarized political parties?



On Oct 9, 2020, at 8:40 PM, Steve Smith [hidden email] wrote:



I agree that the illusion of there being only the single axis of Left/Right is a travesty.  

I also intuit that my own preferences for ranked-choice-voting to *allow in* more dimensions may be naive in some way I don't fully apprehend.

I'd love for you (and others) here to explore the paradoxes and inconsistencies implied in all of this.

On 10/9/20 9:18 PM, Eric Charles 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 <[hidden email]> 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
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/ 
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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://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/ 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/ 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: labels

Steve Smith
In reply to this post by Steve Smith

https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/78/S1/344/1836831


On 10/10/20 12:02 AM, Steve Smith wrote:



It is the first principal component..

Agreed, but is that a feature of our winner-takes-all voting system?   Do we *like* having our lives/livelihood reduced to such?  Do we have a choice in letting this projection of a "properly complex life/value-system" onto a pair of polarized political parties?



On Oct 9, 2020, at 8:40 PM, Steve Smith [hidden email] wrote:



I agree that the illusion of there being only the single axis of Left/Right is a travesty.  

I also intuit that my own preferences for ranked-choice-voting to *allow in* more dimensions may be naive in some way I don't fully apprehend.

I'd love for you (and others) here to explore the paradoxes and inconsistencies implied in all of this.

On 10/9/20 9:18 PM, Eric Charles 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 <[hidden email]> 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
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/ 
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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://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/ 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/ 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: labels

David Eric Smith
In reply to this post by Eric Charles-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
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 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/ 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: labels

Marcus G. Daniels
In reply to this post by Steve Smith

One can consider the other eigenvectors combined with different bindings of the first, but that means sovereign states.    That could be the direction we are headed.    Canada has more players, but there’s always going to be the biggest one.

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 11:02 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] labels

 

 

 

It is the first principal component..

Agreed, but is that a feature of our winner-takes-all voting system?   Do we *like* having our lives/livelihood reduced to such?  Do we have a choice in letting this projection of a "properly complex life/value-system" onto a pair of polarized political parties?

 



On Oct 9, 2020, at 8:40 PM, Steve Smith [hidden email] wrote:



I agree that the illusion of there being only the single axis of Left/Right is a travesty.  

I also intuit that my own preferences for ranked-choice-voting to *allow in* more dimensions may be naive in some way I don't fully apprehend.

I'd love for you (and others) here to explore the paradoxes and inconsistencies implied in all of this.

On 10/9/20 9:18 PM, Eric Charles 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 <[hidden email]> 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
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/ 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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://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/ 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: labels

thompnickson2
In reply to this post by David Eric Smith

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

[hidden email]

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

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 3:47 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
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 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/ 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: labels

Steve Smith
In reply to this post by David Eric Smith

EricS-

There are times when our system of governance feels a bit like someone's attempt to re-enact "Fury Road" in Core Wars...   maybe it is inevitable that our best attempts to create modularity and orthogonality (terms, separation of powers, checks and balances, etc.) that we will have developed (caustic/toxic?) self-modifying code...

Convolving the political process of selecting our representatives and the execution of their duty *as* our representatives would be more fascinating if it didn't have so much potential impact on our everyday lives.   I believe we tolerate (encourage?) it *partly* because the biggest effect is on the top and the bottom of our caste/class pyramid... such that the Koch Bros & their ilk have the resources to game the system and the base of people below a poverty line are so without resources (including confidence and will sometimes) as to be entirely manipulable by the carrots and sticks that our representatives are given to wield to support their popularity/electability rather than to apply thoughtfully to help shape (not inform) the socioeconomic context their electorate has asked them to achieve.

- SteveS

On 10/10/20 3:47 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
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 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://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: labels

Steve Smith
In reply to this post by thompnickson2

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

[hidden email]

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

 

 

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 3:47 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
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 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://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: labels

Marcus G. Daniels

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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 9:55 AM
To: [hidden email]
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

[hidden email]

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

 

 

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 3:47 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
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 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://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: labels

Steve Smith

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 [hidden email] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 9:55 AM
To: [hidden email]
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

[hidden email]

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

 

 

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 3:47 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
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 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://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/ 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: labels

Frank Wimberly-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 9:55 AM
To: [hidden email]
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

[hidden email]

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

 

 

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 3:47 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
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 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://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/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/ 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: labels

Marcus G. Daniels

One could imagine a large covariance matrix of individual preferences, say.  If you are pro-life, you are probably also religious, and probably not living in a city.

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 11:43 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] labels

 

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 <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 9:55 AM
To: [hidden email]
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

[hidden email]

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

 

 

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 3:47 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
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 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://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/


- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/ 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: labels

jon zingale
This post was updated on .
It's funny that you mention "not living in the city". Sarah pointed out this
morning that with the exoduses from major metropolitan centers like Los
Angeles, Chicago, and New York City, voter distribution is likely to be
affected in a way not seen in a very long time.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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/ 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: labels

Marcus G. Daniels
To the extent it occurs, it probably helps my cause.   In my last two jobs, there have been individuals working out of Wyoming!

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 12:23 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] labels

It's funny that you mention "not living in the city". Sarah pointed out this morning that with the exoduses from major metropolitan centers like Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City, voter distribution is likely to be affected in a way not seen in perhaps a very long time.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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/ 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/ 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: labels

Frank Wimberly-2
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Ok.  In the late sixties I worked on a federally funded project to do a longitudinal study of US highschool students who graduated from 1960 to 1964.  For each of several tens of thousands of students we had values of several hundred variables.  We applied many multivariate statistical techniques to try to understand those student cohorts and even to make predictions about demands for educational resources, numbers of people pursuing various career paths, etc.

The project was called Project Talent.  The techniques applied, included factor analysis, principal components, discriminant functions, etc.  All the software was in Fortran.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 1:13 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

One could imagine a large covariance matrix of individual preferences, say.  If you are pro-life, you are probably also religious, and probably not living in a city.

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 11:43 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] labels

 

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 <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 9:55 AM
To: [hidden email]
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

[hidden email]

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

 

 

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 3:47 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
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 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://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/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: labels

Marcus G. Daniels

Before the days of the soft Python wimp!

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 12:30 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] labels

 

Ok.  In the late sixties I worked on a federally funded project to do a longitudinal study of US highschool students who graduated from 1960 to 1964.  For each of several tens of thousands of students we had values of several hundred variables.  We applied many multivariate statistical techniques to try to understand those student cohorts and even to make predictions about demands for educational resources, numbers of people pursuing various career paths, etc.

 

The project was called Project Talent.  The techniques applied, included factor analysis, principal components, discriminant functions, etc.  All the software was in Fortran.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

 

On Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 1:13 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

One could imagine a large covariance matrix of individual preferences, say.  If you are pro-life, you are probably also religious, and probably not living in a city.

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 11:43 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] labels

 

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 <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 9:55 AM
To: [hidden email]
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

[hidden email]

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

 

 

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 3:47 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
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 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://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/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Political compass teest

jon zingale
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2
I just took the political compass test and surprise surprise, I am a
left-libertarian.

Take the test here if you are interested:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

<http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/file/t395744/Screen_Shot_2020-10-10_at_3.png>



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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/ 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Political compass teest

George Duncan-2
Jon, I took it. I'm barely left on economics and strongly libertarian on social issues

George Duncan
Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
georgeduncanart.com
See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Land: (505) 983-6895  
Mobile: (505) 469-4671
 
My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix order and luminous chaos.

"Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may then be a valuable delusion."

From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn. 

"It's that knife-edge of uncertainty where we come alive to our truest power." Joanna Macy.




On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 3:22 PM jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:
I just took the political compass test and surprise surprise, I am a
left-libertarian.

Take the test here if you are interested:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

<http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/file/t395744/Screen_Shot_2020-10-10_at_3.png>



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/ 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Political compass teest

Marcus G. Daniels
In reply to this post by jon zingale
Regard for human life might be another dimension.  There you could get pro-lifers and non-violent humanitarians together distinct from militant groups on the left and right.    Left-libertarian, no surprise, for me too -- about where they put Gandhi.   Definitely an incomplete categorization in my case.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 2:22 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] Political compass teest

I just took the political compass test and surprise surprise, I am a left-libertarian.

Take the test here if you are interested:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

<http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/file/t395744/Screen_Shot_2020-10-10_at_3.png>



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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/ 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/ 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Political compass teest

Russ Abbott
In reply to this post by George Duncan-2
Pretty much on the diagonal, about 3/8 of the way from the center to the lower-left corner.  Not very extreme, but like many of you, L-L.

-- Russ Abbott                                      
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles


On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 2:52 PM George Duncan <[hidden email]> wrote:
Jon, I took it. I'm barely left on economics and strongly libertarian on social issues

George Duncan
Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
georgeduncanart.com
See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Land: (505) 983-6895  
Mobile: (505) 469-4671
 
My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix order and luminous chaos.

"Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may then be a valuable delusion."

From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn. 

"It's that knife-edge of uncertainty where we come alive to our truest power." Joanna Macy.




On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 3:22 PM jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:
I just took the political compass test and surprise surprise, I am a
left-libertarian.

Take the test here if you are interested:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

<http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/file/t395744/Screen_Shot_2020-10-10_at_3.png>



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
12345