Never did sound like nonsense to me. I do think the scaling problems are large for most variables.
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 5:12 PM Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > Frank - > > Yes to both... attempting a formal mapping, but speaking loosely by > metaphor, awaiting that formulation... > > Left/Right is discussed/expressed as a dimension. But I think we all > can agree that the political domain is in fact, higher dimensional than > that, and that our rhetoric projects dozens of issues onto that single > dimension. > > I accept that it may be hard to put a metric on these dimensions, or to > agree on the metric (or dimensions). I would suspect that political > scientists *do* have metrics and dimensions, but the ones I use anecdotally > are simply my own wild-ass guesses. I believe the anecdotally identified > dimensions are at least *orderable* if not *metrizeable*... > > Does this still sound like nonsense? > > - Steve > On 10/10/20 12:43 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > > 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 <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > >> Marcus - >> >> (in mild agreement/acknowledgement of your point as I understand it) >> >> I suppose my own biases about human nature are that we are driven along >> an internal greed/fear axis which is then "weaponized" by the politicos. >> The Right seems particularly adept at both, while impugning the Left as if >> they are the ones playing those trump (Trump?) cards... >> >> Other axes such as equality/equanimity, group loyalty/deference to >> authority, etc. seem *somewhat* orthogonal.. >> >> I suspect the terms "Progressive" and "Conservative" don't really capture >> what is actually exhibited/explored by the Left/Right tug-of war. I know >> that as I have aged/matured/evolved I've become *much* more socially >> progressive whilst feeling much more conservative about progress itself... >> not trusting the headlong rush we are on, while acknowledging that it is >> (somewhat) inevitable. >> >> Following the arc of SteveG's ideas about collective intelligence, >> least/stationary action, bidirectional path-tracing as a paradigm that >> eclipses or replaces or maybe subsumes (neo) Darwinism and Paternalism, I >> also feel that we are overdue for some fundamental refactoring of our >> collective models/paradigms. I'm no more interested in the style of Pol >> Pot's Communism than I am in Hitler's Fascism or Stalin's >> Fascism-disguised-as-Socialism than I am in Trump's variants on the same. >> They seem like they are all aberrant excursions into a highly compressed >> (projection) subspace that is at best a *shadow* of what is really >> needed/possible. >> >> - Steve >> On 10/10/20 11:37 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> >> My model is that people lean left and right as a developmental aspect of >> personality, and the parties mimic but also manipulate those patterns. >> People really must be gamed and manipulated by politicians because even the >> best-intentioned people are often ignorant of the complexity of the >> population and the practicalities of governance. Worse, many people are >> blamers who have nothing to add beyond What’s In It For Me. >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On >> Behalf Of *Steve Smith >> *Sent:* Saturday, October 10, 2020 9:55 AM >> *To:* friam@redfish.com >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] labels >> >> >> >> Nick- >> >> Not trying to ding you personally for this, but this kind of blind >> deference to authority/party/tribe/loyalty is one of the mechanisms I'm >> trying to tease a part with Marcus' reference to the Left/Right *dominant* >> component as an inevitability? And I *think* EricC's questioning of that >> assumption? >> >> How *do* our political parties "precess" in higher dimensional space such >> that the subdominant components can "flip" entirely... how did the party >> of Lincoln Republicans who rejected secession and abolished Slavery and >> their opposition which had a strong component of what became formally the >> Dixiecrats, effectively flip positions? The party that accused (accuses?) >> their opposition of being "tax and spenders" has become "print money and >> spenders". How do deficit Hawks become Deficit Doves or Owls, and is >> there an instantaneous "tunneling" between these somewhat oppositional >> positions? >> >> >> https://citizenvox.org/2012/02/22/hawks-doves-and-owls-budget-policy-goes-to-the-zoo/ >> >> - Steve >> >> Thaniks, EricS for reading and commenting on the Amy Interview I am such >> a benighted, naïve, stupid, optimist. I can imagine that if she were an >> Obama nominee, I would be saying, “We have a good one here!” >> >> >> >> Nicholas Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >> >> Clark University >> >> thompnicks...@gmail.com >> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On >> Behalf Of *David Eric Smith >> *Sent:* Saturday, October 10, 2020 3:47 AM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <friam@redfish.com> <friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] labels >> >> >> >> Yes, and not only Ugh. >> >> >> >> The two places this bothers me as a category error are: >> >> >> >> 1. It conflates writing the rules of the game and being a player in the >> game. Shubik used to harp on this: that the government’s role as the >> declarer of monetary policy, and as the participant in fiscal policy, were >> roles at different levels, game designer versus large atomic player. The >> category isn’t quite as clean here, in that a rule targeting balanced >> affiliation isn’t exactly the same as playing for one side. It is a bit >> more like certain monkey societies, in which the problem-solver steps in on >> the side of whoever is being attacked to lessen the asymmetry. >> >> >> >> But it still feels like it has a related problem, of defining an outer >> law (constitution or statute for structure of the court) in terms of a >> non-legal convention (the particular parties and how they are non-formally >> categorized and weighted in the society at this time), and that feels >> completely unstable against drift. >> >> >> >> A more mechanism-design-y thing would be to revisit whichever Federalist >> Paper it was that talked about the destabilizing role of parties, never >> imagining the technologies for coordination that would be available to them >> 230 years later, and ask what the mechanism update is to the constitution >> in a world where instabilities toward consolidation are so extreme. Kind >> of the same spirit as revisiting capitalist property rights laws when a >> warehouser and distributor can come to own the whole economy. >> >> >> >> 2. In the Coney Barrett talk that Nick circulated, she made an important >> point that should be true, even if we could argue that it is a smokescreen >> that isn’t true in reality. She says “liberal/conservative” in regard to >> the interpretation of constitutional law are different categories from >> “liberal/conservative” as political affiliations. She probably even >> believes it, though I expect that her SCOTUS decisions will magically align >> with the political axes 100% of the time, and one must ask how that happens >> to always be the case. >> >> >> >> Of course, the question is whether it is all disingenuous. Thomas Edsall >> had a decent article in NYT a few days ago on originalism/living-text >> definitions, that was right on the thread we were on. It is interesting >> that the opponents of each side make _exactly_ the same accusation toward >> it: that the side they are criticizing has no real method and is a program >> for rationalizing whatever outcome the judge wanted politically. To the >> extent that that is true in substance, if obfuscated in appearance, then >> Coney Barrett’s claim that they are different categories is a falsehood. >> One wonders then at what level of argument one could force her to >> acknowledge that error. >> >> >> >> Eric. >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 9, 2020, at 11:18 PM, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> --- reconfigure (expand) it from 9 to 15 but >> *balance* the Left/Right ideology (I think he proposed 5/5) and then >> --------- >> >> >> >> Note that one thing both parties agree on is that we should conceive >> politics as utterly and completely a choice between the two of them. God >> forbid that we conceive of judges using any other dimensions. In fact, >> let's enshrine it in law that we must forever focus on exactly whether we >> have a "balance" of "left" and "right". Ugh! >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 4:48 PM Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: >> >> Ha! I refer to the last bit as "ok fine, TWIST my drinking arm!" when >> someone offers to buy me one... the only one to twists my drinking arm >> this last six months has been Mary... and Maybe Stephen and his circle >> on "ZoomGrappaNight". >> >> I don't like the language around "packing the court". I don't think >> "reconfiguring the court" is the same as "packing the court". Clearly, >> the (not so) loyal opposition to the Dems *would* pack the court... add >> 6 more justices and make sure they are ALL conservative leaners. Pete >> Buttegeig was the first to speak of this in my earshot, and HIS version >> sounded pretty reasonable... reconfigure (expand) it from 9 to 15 but >> *balance* the Left/Right ideology (I think he proposed 5/5) and then >> leave it to the Justices themselves to fill the remaining 5 (through >> some arcane process?). What the Republicans have been building up to >> for decades is "packing the courts". >> >> Checks and balances are tricky, as is depending on social norms and >> standards, but I think it might be "as good as it gets", at least for >> the time being. >> >> - Steve >> >> >> On 10/8/20 1:36 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: >> > Ha! That was the essence of one of the 538 panel member's phrasing >> suggestion for Kamala Harris in response to Pence's question about packing >> SCOTUS. The elaborated version was: "Because confirming Barrett, NOW, is >> such a horribly wrong thing to do, we have no choice BUT to pack the >> court." ... I.e. now look what you made me do. That was my dad's favorite >> phrase to justify whatever abuse he chose to mete out that day. He once ran >> over my bicycle with his truck. I *made* him run over my bike because I >> left it laying in the driveway. It's a running joke with my fellow drinkers >> who *regularly* FORCE me to drink more than I should. There is no free >> will. I live to serve. >> > >> > On 10/8/20 11:28 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> >> Look what you made me do, >> >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,URHTYCOflB74O-_DI0dbEhUwuhzDGYhdSf7LRjl8tLmkmBJe0loSf3HRqMO-h67RLZ4QLL-6H3NYMq-vHO34GaSjKIco4zOUls70uHzwTBIWcvHn&typo=1> >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,oX4UeygX7WyjK2Xi8iHb-qXD9vWPVWi6XsrTB90sewU0zpNs-mvdsgHfOL2worw-ytWZ_18lnGwWfXgvRIFun1zpllz0K6lj9e3ZS4-6bI1o&typo=1> >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> >> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,qMX6P95xw33fEDq5XPleqTxWs0O9aB7WZ6yMGijXAOWIHS2Lt5NtZOSJanSIUypD21_kG17KJGuC6krWtw4GFYixe5n4YCeGwqIPwjaExwo2VX9KNYvp&typo=1> >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,lZ9NlezAXRM1UtFBcPexp2OE5s5wCsat6c9eCh64km3EUesmzcIlKDfzSs9ZrJuMbsPJnP2WfadsCxnvI86yjYhX0VdrsjiRNTioFNEl4yQ,&typo=1 >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,gAOKowwHhfsjxEeiJJ_3atSEBLz9pnU4UB3PBeOugHijREv3dfYC6ZaCsd6P40vUQJMuRXqDXu5JS1lb8Ktvn4Lf5hfdWyqtxhNRrHHmZkORJPyag89AuA,,&typo=1 >> >> >> >> >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe <http://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/subscribe> >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe <http://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/subscribe> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/
