Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Red Cliffs Of Dawlish
Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Saturday, 31 October 2015

Argument Abstraction

How To Disagree: Paul Graham's Hierarchy of Argument Quality

All the blogs to date have been aligned towards this one blog.

It threads together all the ideas concerning Metacognition, "beginning to begin", "Concept Shifts" and measuring quality of arguments in relation to the upcoming EU Referendum (EUReferendum.com), Brexit (FLEXCIT) and Democracy (The Harrogate Agenda). The above diagram is from Paul Graham's How To Disagree (and is relatively well known):-
"The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.

Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.

The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face."

 xkcd: Duty Calls

Democracy's vitality principle is the quality and distribution and frequency of argumentative engagement between people, as humorously satirized by xkcd. Where this declines, the "power to the people" also declines as per The Goldfinch and the Gilded Cage with it and centralization of power inevitably increases, in our case along The Road To The European Union (not necessarily for the better quality of life experience of people):-

 T.H. White: "100 People: 1:9:90"

In A Clash Of Kings it was noted that "the nine knaves" (see T. H. White's The Book Of Merlyn above) arguments belong in a different dimension to our arguments, "We The People" or "we the ninety fools" because we spend our valuable time, energy and attention unwisely as per Squaddie TV. And Off The Ball Movement illustrated "the one central question" in our argument in comparison to the "ten thousand details" it is constituted from that is the focus:-

"Choosing How We Are Governed?"

In The Referendum Question which will be posed most likely in 2017:-

 "Choosing How We Are Governed?"

  • Remain = Supranationalism
vs
  • Leave = Intergovernmentalism
 At The Bruges Group meeting in terms of agreement and consensus were reached via x2 Important "Concept Shifts":-
  • "If we were asked to join the EU today, would we?"
  • "The EU is Leaving us." 
You can see that BOTH of these concept shifts are successful because they are underpined by quality hierarchy of argument via:- 

Refuting The Central Point


DH6: of EU membership is based honestly and truly and openly on rejecting Supranationalism as incompatible and possibly therefore deleterious to democracy as our and Western Nations' system of governance. Therefore in the 2017 Referendum the question itself holds the correct Frame Of Reference considering our current EU Membership of >40yrs. Answering the question is a question of disagreeing with Supranationalism as well as defining it's alternative given the concept shift above:-

Brexit = "Withdrawal from the European Union (EU) Political membership, representation in it's political institutions (Parliament, Council etc) - ONLY ie Supranationalism (QMV) removal."

If this central point of disagreement is not acknowledged, explained and distributed as the "Intellectual Foundations" of all subsequent and derived arguments of detail, then progress will be limited: Effectively as per Dr. RAE North EU Referendum: we, the invisibles because as referenced the arguments of A Clash Of Kings dominate instead, "the nine knaves" and their "labyrinths of chicanery, malice and war." instead of Off The Ball Movement and the people's argument as per a "Bottom-Up Referendum".


Counterargument and Confusion

DH4: One of the prevailing arguments of Brexit supporters at the moment is inference that leaving the EU for an alternative would be straightforward and obviously positive; given that we now have >40yrs of "the data has been returned and the results are clear" on EU membership for prosperity (see Lakshmi: Goddess of Prosperity (1) and Lakshmi: Goddess of Prosperity (2) in which a new "Demand-Supply paradigm/foundation to our relationship is being requested by "the nine knaves" with the other "nine knaves" across the EU". Unfortunately I cannot argue along these lines as they must take their Order Of Precedence in our argument's hierarchy behind the above:-
 Daniel Hannan: Greed is our good and our right (and the politicians' snare)

And at When To Attend/Hold Meetings The Bruges Group meeting, it was noticed that the failure to distribute arguments effectively (the confusion in matching arguments to group size hence follows) is boiled down to a lack of "beginning at the beginning": To acknowledge a "guiding principle" for the foundations (integration) of all subsequent arguments and the "differentiation of details". This is outstandingly important for refutations such as from Daniel Hannan:-

"So, to summarise, Norway has a much better deal than the UK, but Switzerland’s is better yet. There is no reason why, after Brexit, we shouldn’t get an even more attractive arrangement. We are 65 million people to Norway’s five million and Switzerland’s eight million. We run a massive trade deficit with the EU (but a surplus with the rest of the world). On the day we left, we’d become the EU’s single biggest market, accounting for 21 per cent of its exports – more than its second and third largest markets (the US and Japan) combined.
To be clear, both Norway and Switzerland are inspiring, beautiful, freedom-loving countries. They’re both in my top ten favourite nations. They are the two wealthiest states in Europe and, according to the United Nations (which measures literacy, longevity, infant mortality and the like) the two happiest places on Earth. Their deal with the EU would be a big improvement on where we are now; but we can realistically expect to do far, far better."

It's not that Hannan is necessarily wrong to point out and compare and contrast Norway and Switzerland vs the EUROZONE Crisis between Supranationalism and Intergovernmentalism; it's that his arguments appear driven by greed; built on confidence vs uncertainty of the "nine knaves" / A Clash Of Kings mentality that the ruling political class believe is the right application of control on the "ninety fools" / "We The People" and a new superficial Demand-Supply Relationship is the language of power. And the results are a staggering retardation of argument quality over decades of EU Membership. In the real-world a self-correction of arguments would be driven by success and failure transparency eg Sports Teams and their methods feedback loop as per Pattern Recognition and Argumentum Ad Infinitum :-

Work of The Nine Knaves: "ad hominem" and "name-calling": Backing up Orthodoxy of a consensus of confusion in the news media
"More than ten years ago, and I others were arguing strongly that we needed to develop an exit plan, for when we had an opportunity to leave the EU. The need became even more apparent when the prospect of a referendum emerged."
Dr. RAE North writes and responds to Dominic Cummings (clearly one of the nine knaves in Cameron's A Clash Of Kings "above the line" allowed arguments with the EU as demonstrated by the Legacy News-Media's 1984 -like splash coverage of our Prime Minister's malignant lies) EU Referendum: internet nutters and reported by the legacy new-media:-
"One of these was Professor Iain Begg, writing in the Telegraph under the headline, "What might Britain leaving the EU look like? No-one really knows", with the sub-title, "The EU referendum debate has gone on as if there is a clear vision for what a 'leave' vote might mean, and this should be a cause for concern"."
 Our 1984-Like Legacy News-Media: Tools of the Nine Knaves

In general you'll find that the most visible "Above-The-Line" "eurosceptic arguments" which are intended to sound most plausible, persuasive (because all the best lies contain a nugget of truth within them") and patriotic such as from Daniel Hannan, John Redwood, Bill Cash, The Brexit IEA Short-List (loaded jury!) eg Ian Mansfields Economic Demand-Supply Min-Max fallacy to Hannan's "sweet-but-distant promise dreamland" of Swiss-Style Association Membership all are allowed to trend towards David Cameron's EU deal that retains Supranational Membership and hence does not refute the central point of the argument.

The Min-Max Fallacy to distract via guile, greed and prestige away from "The Rules Of The Game"

The rest of the "Above-The-Line" arguments from both Pro-EU relies on FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) and failing that "Confusion or Noise Generation" to destroy the quality of arguments downwards to eg UKIP's rhetoric and image on Immigration aka "name-calling" or appeals to authority and omission.

Unfortunately Owen Paterson had a golden opportunity to raise the quality of arguments and did not (it looks like a conscious decision if study carefully to "take a dive" given his reaction shows "pride" at having to hold his tongue. If he were ignorant there would not have been pride and hence pain showing:-

Owen Paterson: "Taking a Dive": Pride and Pain

"My Favourite option is the British Option: We are the 5th largest economy in the world... ." [No, No, No!]

He was saying this as The Bruges Group meeting and tbh it played on my mind, but I wondered if it was a tactical position or an "argumentum ad populum" for a positive reason to leave or a counterargument to the Pro-EU FUD of a scary Brexit (which I think can be progressed as per "refuting directly the central point FIRST!). Why, I cannot tell, and he has to put up with a cipher media personality dominating the interview and "knocking him out cold". All it does is show that the orthodoxy of confusion of the nine knaves reigns longer than 40yrs: It's impossible to predict the defining narratives of the Brexit campaign ; perhaps because he's a member of Vote Leave under Cummings and "the nine knaves" are having their say:-
"Lord Voldemort's" David Cameron's malignant lies

We can see here EU Referendum: in the deadly grip of "Europe" that the "normal rules of argument" are frozen and their critical importance demonstrated in Learning & Playing The Rules Of The Game . There's a very simple reason why this is so crucial: By raising our own standards, our own conduct of behaviour and values and consistency, we force our opponents to also "play by the rules" under a fair trial and contest of quality of arguments without which corruption like a cancer eats away at prosperity and allows our Prime Minster be it Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, John Major or David Cameron to lie to millions of people as per Big Ben: The Four-Faced Liar .

If we are to improve the quality of arguments and avoid these traps, then refuting the central point must be established between all Brexiteers, a priori. When I was at the Bruges Group meeting the working hypothesis was "different people have different reasons for Brexit" so to choose a plan would inevitably divide them. I can't express the emotion this generates in me: Modern Art:-

Tracy Emin's Unmade Bed: "Fifteen years on, it can be yours for an estimated price of between £800,000 and £1.2m." (2014)

The above seems to me the state of mind of most "eurosceptics" confusion and hence lack of unity of objective even though they can be categorized by their unity of purpose. Instead of the "death by a thousand contested details" that Hannan, Paterson and Cummings and the Brexit IEA Papers all purport to be the "state of the art of EU-Sceptic arguments" establishing the the first position in our arguments on EU Membership vs Brexit and defining them, leads to a concept shift and shafts the "nine knaves" of their most potent tools of deception:-
The above "Below-The-Line" arguments contain vast ranges of detail on only Step 1 of Brexit as a flexible process. A large component of the arguments have resorted to "death by a thousand details", instead of asserting the refutation of the central point of the argument FROM WHICH (correct frame of reference and order of precedence) we derive the next step of the argument and hence pull all people who decide they want to disagree with the EU Membership question in our referendum. Progress will come from unifying people via their arguments' competition, not excluding 90% of people from that process nor from "wishing that all people's arguments were the same/singular".

For the next 2yrs and less, the role of all Brexiteers is to throw down the gaunlet at the politicians for quality arguments and hence Real Democracy In Action:-

Throwing Down The Gauntlet at "The Establishment" for Quality Arguments




Monday, 26 October 2015

Off The Ball Movement

The Rugby World Cup will likely see an increased uptake of learners to the various rugby codes across nationalities, demographies and levels.

I spent some of the weekend coaching as well as enjoying The Rugby World Cup, and two thoughts came to mind: One, you can easily forget how useful as a coach it is to apprehend in your own mind, how much information new players have to contend with; when they're learning a new activity, discipline or vocation. Two, breaking down the information into the core components for the players/learners to practice, particularly the elements that make up the "backbone" of the activity itself from which the finer details all stem; is the route to successful "uptake" and hence deriving three: Doing the above as much as possible as opposed to talking about it, is where the learning is SMARTER. The above picture is a Touch Footy or Touch Rugby Team game; a streamlined version of various rugby codes; but as with the related forms, it involves a focus on the ball as well as on the movement of all the players off the ball AND on both teams either side of offence or defence contexts.



Given the EU Referendum on the UK's membership is around 1-2 years away, there's going to be a rapid uptake of "learners" to the subject. An often asked question concerns: "How does one learn more about the EU Referendum or Brexit for people completely new to it?" Considering the above, to simply "use your eyes" and look around a wide range of different sources which will help gain an overview and a "feel" for the subject, is a very useful start:-

Google













You can already see in a short sample of blogs, around a common "intellectual architecture" or "map", that there is diversity in approaches, in individual styles and in complexity and frequency of information! Let alone in the "Noise to Signal ratio" of disparate contributions to the debate.

But I think a general overview and a quick scan of a lot of such blogs, can rapidly yield more generally useful information with which to form an impression (The idea of "Blink" in a sense) of such variously scanned as a group and gradually over time, with various subsequent "Blinks" a picture emerges along with your own set of personal questions more concretely defined for yourself. It's also noticeable how much information there is potentially to "keep up with" daily, weekly or even monthly concerning the above list of blogs, let alone further types of information:-
  • Twitter
  • Videos or TV Interviews/presentations
  • Legacy News-Media
  • Political Information Websites
  • Academic Papers
  • Live Meetings
Etc. It's a huge range to consider and that's even assuming someone is interested or even aware in the first place and secondly aware beyond the Legacy News-Media also. This "Environment" in a sense needs it's own map as well as an actual map of the "Tools" with which people learn ie "the core skills" and thence onto the actual application of this information in action: Debate, argument, questions and answers, review and memory and consolidation.

In coaching the above, people have short attention-spans, that can be "revved back up" with some fun games before another drill exercise. But ultimately getting people to the stage where they can play and enjoy a team game and get fit without realizing it, is the intended result! The details are just that details towards those simple outcomes; how they're organized and put together, however makes all the difference of success.

For the UK, that seems pretty obvious: "Choosing How We Are Governed". Everything else is detail:-





Sunday, 25 October 2015

Squaddie TV

A source of warmth, light and a sense of safety and a place for stories

It's that time of year again, when "the clocks go back" and "the nights draw in". Time for log-fires if you're lucky enough to have one, to keep warm both physically and mentally, after eating a hearty roast lunch or dinner, perhaps. A nick-name for fires outdoors is "squaddie tv", as it offers an inherently absorbing spectacle when you're outdoors pitched-up for the night. I remember reading one of Haruki Murakami's books, in which it's speculated that the reason Russians come up with so many interesting aphorisms is because they have such long Winters to think about them!

Camp fires as well as log-fires tend to be good times to hold conversations, share stories and think more meditatively. One interesting conversation often concerns the make-up of the actual fire itself such as:-


For log-fires I generally find the pyramid technique works best with different size pieces: They tend to insulate the sides and fall into the middle reducing the speed of loss of hot air upwards, and generally easier to "top-up". This will be a staple of my conversations in the darker months to come! Of course living in colder climes such as the UK and Northern Europe, a large part of how we run our societies is dictated by the need to keep warm, historically. This meant a greater "pressure" to plan for the future and for communities to organize and plan collectively, to see out the Winter.

I can't help but think this is similar and a good time to consider the UK's future, with from October, a likely 2 years or 23 months count-down to the EU Referendum which seems likely in 2017. Interestingly fires have a long prehistoric place in our culture and language:-


In Stephen Mithen's The Prehistory of the Mind, we see how long in our species evolution was spent "around fires"; the first spark of our future civilization's growth. The process was very long, but Professor Mithen speculates that general types of intelligences integrated over this evolutionary period, resulting in the "sudden" spike of progress in homo sapiens culture and hence evidence in the archeological record. Robin Dunbar explores in Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language, the correlation between "brain size and group size" in apes:-



 (L) Brain Size evolution spike (R) Correlation Group Size + Brain Size
"What Dunbar suggests—and his research, whether in the realm of primatology or in that of gossip, confirms—is that humans developed language to serve the same purpose, but far more efficiently. It seems there is nothing idle about chatter, which holds together a diverse, dynamic group—whether of hunter-gatherers, soldiers, or workmates.
Anthropologists have long assumed that language developed in relationships among males during activities such as hunting. Dunbar’s original and extremely interesting studies suggest otherwise: that language in fact evolved in response to our need to keep up to date with friends and family. We needed conversation to stay in touch, and we still need it in ways that will not be satisfied by teleconferencing, email, or any other communication technology. As Dunbar shows, the impersonal world of cyberspace will not fulfill our primordial need for face-to-face contact."

In short the basic "modules" in our ape ancestors began increasingly to integrate via language development in connection with increasing group size and social communication. What's pertinent to this blog is that Dunbar's Number is an "upper limit of ~150 and secondly that we need conversation as humans amongst those we trust, to exchange valuable information, connect ourselves to valuable social relationships which all deeply influence our decision-making capacities for successfully predicting events and hence making good choices for ourselves.

What this demonstrates is the huge value that personal social networks will have on our national debate in the upcoming EU Referendum. Dr. RAE North has coincidentally taken this option though arrived at via alternative means, most interestingly to take note of; EU Referendum: the cascade system and which is one of the motivating inspirations for writing this blog; attempting a new entry per day for one month on general themes and the context of the argument. But it ties in with the above science, that how you choose to make your decisions relies as much on your sources as it does on who you trust, the people behind the sources! And I have pause to be positive given a recent article exposing The Establishment's strategy in the run-up to the EU Elections:-

The Cameron Deception: “Associate membership” of the EU ~ Ben Kelly

Ben Kelly, The Sceptic Isle (see blogroll) writes: The Cameron Deception: “Associate membership” of the EU and really shows for one of the few times nearer and nearer "real time" the working of The Great Deception (beyond EUReferendum.com). We come back to telling stories in front of fires and how these stories were instrumental either in information exchange or in social cementing of relationships and how in our colder climes we tended to need to plan ahead for our survival. Well today, in the modern world, the basic needs are still the same even if they take different forms. For many Modern Family s' the Television takes center stage in the sitting-room as the "glowing images flicker comfortably in front of our collective eyes, entertaining us and allowing us to collect together in front of it too. Where our ancestors' communities might have gathered around a fire, to exchange useful gossip and information, we now tend to rely on our televisions for our "national debate" shaping narratives. Unfortunately, the TV despite it's "quantum leap" in technology compared to a log-fire as entertainment is not an unqualified success or mixed blessing: Dr. Aric Sigman's work in my opinion is of interest; particularly his work on attention and infants exposure to television apart from national statistics on television "consumption" leisure time. As anyone who has young children might be able to tell you: TV is a tempting "baby-sitter" and equally a very tempting "default" relaxation device to switch on and "veg-out" viewing of an evening, after a long work day.
TV Tendencies: "Why... how did I end up watching this crap?!"

As Pete North writes (see blogroll) We're better off with Spongebob, with focus on political "trusty-worthy" or even useful source of information, our tv's may beguile us with "familiar faces stepping into our living room and talking to us about politics" but it is an illusion, we might be more on guard of if we choose more carefully who to trust and where we get our information from. My suggestion for this Winter, until the days are once again long, warm and full of better things to do outside than inside, would be to invite some friends around (or go to a pub where they put on a good, roasting blaze) and "switch on" some "squaddie tv" and arm yourselves with more useful and trustworthy sources of information such as from White Wednesday (see blogroll) in this stupendous compilation, bursting with interesting content to hold your attention and act as valuable information you might be able to share with those you know and trust: The Norway Option — Some bookmarks:-




Saturday, 24 October 2015

A Clash Of Kings

"The dog does not bother you, does she? She's a friendly dog and I'm sure she will behave herself."

I've shown the above picture to various people concerning President Putin's meeting with Germany's Chancellor Merkel and mostly everyone finds it a very amusing anecdote and seems to be based more or less in recorded fact, for example on wikipedia the dog, Koni's entry mentions such a meeting. Either way, it's a great anecdote of "A Clash Of Kings", and the attempt to gain some small advantage of perception/image that symbolizes the greater "(A) Game Of Thrones" being played; and the anecdote of the "guest" who has some form of fearful aversion or allergy to pets which ineluctably are drawn to such people with their innocent friendliness, and they either rub their fur coats against such a person (if they're allergic) or press their noses into the groin region or in the case of Merkel are oblivious to the fearful aversion they evoke. But Koni is not "sniffing around" by accident in the diplomatic room... .

In George R.R. Martin's Clash Of Kings, there's an especially piquant scene involving "The Seven Kingdom's" ruling Privy or Small Council in which they concoct a form of propaganda against one of their enemies:-

EU Reform: A Clash Of Kings? "The best lies contain within them nuggets of truth."
"And the best lies contain within them nuggets of truth, enough to give a listener pause... in my experience, the more bizarre and shocking a tale, the more apt it is to be repeated." ~ Lord Petyr Baelish "Littlefinger", A Clash Of Kings, p.209-210.
And this is as per "A Clash Of Kings" a particularly potent form of weapon: To fabricate false arguments against your opponents, so that they end up fighting against an invisible hand and thereby fail to land a real blow on "the perpetrator" themselves and their own "nexus of power": We already looked at the importance of memory in our starting premises in Eurosceptic "Amnesia" vs Brexiteer "Total Memory Recall" and the results of our Legacy News-Media's "amnesia" on the EU Referendum reporting in Understanding The Mountains of Madness and compared this to establishing the historic major pattern of this debate on the EU in Pattern Recognition and the fallacies of our Political Class leading to defective decision-making in  Argumentum Ad Infinitum . All these components can be brought to bear on the UK Prime Minister David Cameron's "EU Reform "euroscepticism" as per Politicians: No Taste, No Style, So Derivative! and his Fallacy of The Middle Way Argument crunching the "political arithmetic" based off public sentiment swings from polling data as opposed to changing the knowledge of the public in the lead-up to the EU Referendum and thereby depriving them of an opportunity to experience enhanced real "direct" democracy, as per Learning & Playing The Rules Of The Game:-


Our modern day "Oracle": Google Trends: "EU Reform" 2005-2015

This shows how effective all the above propaganda has been in stringing along the public a false story on the EU and dragging it on for in the above picture of "news trending" via google data, over a decade. If we simply use the above time-line and apparently we're going to hear about Cameron's Reform plans "soon", it is rational to tell David Cameron that we do not trust him that it is time for him to shut-up and stop lying to us. We just have to look at the above and notice how long we have been lied to without a vote either.

Fortunately this has been well known at EUReferendum.com for sometime, as per most recently Dr. RAE North writes: EU Referendum: there are no negotiations:-
"This cannot be repeated enough times: there are no negotiations. Mr Cameron is perpetrating a charade, an outrageous pretence, going through the motions in order to convince a gullible media and an unknowing electorate that he is striving to deliver a new relationship with the EU."

Interestingly the Legacy Media has finally caught up in Peter Oborne's article in the Daily Mail:

"Indeed, Osborne has now helped to arrange for Mandelson — who was twice forced to resign from Labour governments — to become the president of the Great Britain China Centre. This is a prestigious post, which will see him promoting mutual trust and understanding between the UK and China.

Mandelson and Osborne want the referendum to be held at the last possible moment.
 

Britain will not be part of this group and will be given a so-called ‘escape clause’

It means that David Cameron will be armed with powerful weapons to argue for Britain’s continued membership of the EU, even if he fails to win the concessions for Britain that he has said he aims to achieve.

He will be able to argue, very plausibly, that EU membership gives the UK the best of both worlds: that is, we remain part of the wider European trading area, while escaping the onerous burdens of membership of a new European superstate.
This riddle from A Game Of Thrones sums up the public's predicament:-

Where does power reside?

“In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. ‘Do it,’ says the king, ‘for I am your lawful ruler.’ ‘Do it,’ says the priest, ‘for I command you in the names of the gods.’ ‘Do it,’ says the rich man, ‘and all this gold shall be yours.’
"So tell me – who lives and who dies?”


Friday, 23 October 2015

Sequential Problem-Solving in Corvids

8-Step Sequential Problem-Solving in Corvids

The above diagram shows the sequence of steps a corvid (New Caledonian Crow) has to perform, in the right order in order to be able to collect a food reward:-

  1. The Corvid must secure a small stick that it can retrieve, first. (1)
  2. It must use this stick to extract (2), (3), (4) stones from separate containers.
  3.  It must drop each stone into another container (5) to push a weight (6)
  4. To acquire a longer stick (7)
  5. To use this to then extract the food reward in yet another container (8).
Here's a video of this process:-

 8-Step Sequential Problem-Solving in Corvids

Referring again to When To Attend/Hold Meetings concerning what is talked about but as important how such group meetings are organize (or not organized) concerning the content of "The Problem" being discussed and the intention to improve more people's understanding of "The Problem" so that we can scale it up to a national vote in our Direct Democracy Popular Referendum, we subsequently noted how essential it is as preliminary work to abstract the essential rules, definitions and contextual concepts with which to create productive communication of understanding, as per Learning & Playing The Rules Of The Game.

It was noted that "scaling up arguments" to more people is very different from "scaling down arguments" to more people which does have a name: "Dumbing Down". Simplification or abtraction of basic headline understanding of various components in "The Problem" that we're discussing is perfectly reasonable to then communicate economically and at a level of understanding different people find necessary. However that arises from correct identification and understanding and definition of the "The Problem" in the first place.

 Because this simple difference as above is not observed, and politicians are in the business of winning numbers of votes, they will resort to the techniques and methods that THEY understand which derive from the above. They won't necessarily understand the problems any more than any one else. For example the Smoothies entreneur Richard Reed, has been speaking recently along with a host of other such "VIP's" in the public eye. Yet these people, businessmen, dignitaries of various kinds don't necessarily understand the problem anymore than anyone else albeit insights from their experiences may be of heuristic value simply because it's not biased source necessarily as it invariably will be from politicians!

Here's the present state of the EU Referendum debate and Brexit discussions Sturgeon's Law:-

The state of "eurosceptic"/EU Referendum Pro-EU and Anti-EU or Brexit Arguments


Even when there are useful or interesting facts, the sheer lack of of "A Guiding Principle" or "Meta-Organization" behind their presentation and dissemination leaves their input value to this "national debate" mostly impaired. Not only this but this "conventional wisdom" becomes it's own "barrier to uptake and understanding" of this subject to more people: Confusion reigns and hence Boredom and Apathy are inevitable results. Pete North (see blogroll) is currently writing about this result Lord Lawson is a bloody fool and Don't get your hopes up. We're stayng in the EU. There's very little surprise in this result as will be explored in the next blog. But for the record there is a conceptual understanding that ties all the seemingly disparate components together.

And yet as Dr. RAE North writes, the people who run the "eurosceptic campaigns" such as UKIP, LEAVE.EU, Vote Leave (just look at these websites to consider how poorly organized their thinking is) are demonstrating 2 things:-

  • Our modern politics is so degraded the professional "national decision-makers" demonstrate very low quality in their abilities to think clearly, to problem-solve and to construct arguments on a national, political scale and in fact they thrive on the opposite, on prolonging problems presented as intractable and inducing "national anxiety" as per Our Government: "Ifs, Buts, Maybes"
  • It's a 2-way street: The British People are so turned off the subject partly as a deliberate policy by the political Establishment that when the time comes for a Test of Direct Democracy, they're simply not prepared to pass this test and and hence chronically national decision-making invariably will lead to for many people a devaluation of the standard of life they're accustomed to or would wish for their children, not understanding the decision-making drives the state of the economy over the longer time-frame above periodic cycles.

Looking at some of the Eurozone Nations which will make-up the New Federal Structure of the EU in it's upcoming New Treaty, it can't be helped but to consider they need a strong "state" to drive through reforms for this nations, because the structure and organization of them is so inadequate. Effectively what such nations require is an Adult-Child relationship between State>Society. It's an interesting way of considering things, particularly in the UK where the Legacy Media, in particular in it's depiction of our Politicians as a "Ruling Class", "Tory Toffs", "Banker-Xankers" and so on and so forth, is seemingly catering to an audience who enjoys this content more than resolving the practical problems:-


Peter Osborne's: The Triumph of the Political Class

For example the wage increases during austerity: Politicians Pay Rise Until Austerity Measures Can Be Lifted. Looks like there's only x7 signatures... . There's a couple of questions here: Do we in the UK feel as if it time for an Adult-Adult relationship between State-Society? And if we do, perhaps we should start to question the performance of our Political Class more closely compared to the pay they entitle themselves for. As per Lakshmi: Goddess of Prosperity (1) I'm highly sceptical they're value for money.

And to prove it, to show that if Corvids (Crows and Ravens) can use sequential problem-solving, then this is type of problem-solving (minimizing assumptions and maximizing focus through parsimony) what Dr. RAE North's FLEXCIT plan adopts and hence is another Concept Shift away from other Brexit plans which are declarative min-max fallacies (as per Daniel Hannan's energetic but misguided thinking) as opposed to iterative testing and adapting process according to Learning And Playing The Rules Of The Game:-

Connecting the past to the future: A coherent, structured, sequential British Exit (Brexit)

 
 Even understanding the above, you'll still get people who prefer the rule of "sentiment" across millions to "knowledge enhancement" as a way to improve the quality of arguments and hence put "working in action" the real creation of Direct Democracy that then itself becomes the precursor to future democratic reforms of our own governance instead of the "Lip Service  to democracy and progress of our present Political Class.

 

Thursday, 22 October 2015

Learning & Playing The Rules Of The Game

Specification of a Rugby League field of play (pitch) - not football!

The above Rugby Football League (Rugby League) team sport's field of play dimensions is an integral part of the rules of the game, defining the game space and as you can see, are themselves strictly defined. In such a contest 2 opposing teams obey the same set of rules and within those limitations, attempt to out-play each other. In general the number of players per team game ranges from about ~4-25. Robin Dunbar as per Dunbar's Number points out:-
Robin Dunbar: "The size of almost all inner cabinets around the world is somewhere in the order of 12 to 15. People seem to settle out at these grouping layers quite naturally, according to the task they’re doing." "Without language, Dunbar speculates, humans would have to expend nearly half their time on social grooming, which would have made productive, cooperative effort nearly impossible."
Different group sizes are required for different tasks and the greater the group size the rise in "overhead for group cohesion" as briefly looked at in When To Attend/Hold Meetings. It follows, that areas of the world with a "tribal" composition of human groups need to spend more of their social overhead on group cohesion activities, such as religious practices and observances, and/or bureaucratic organization at a national scale or else they lapse into "Failed Nation State status" such as Sudan: Lords of the Tribes - The Real Roots of the Conflict in South Sudan.

It also is worth suggesting that the EU's drive alongside the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to create and support a "universal human rights set of rules" is firmly rooted in the absolute necessity to service the increasing "group cohesion overhead" of political union of 500m Europeans of diverse and different nationalities. By implication, the dilution of features of cultures that prevent or limit that goal may be observable? If so, then the incoherent results we see in the Regional Migration Policy amongst others across the entire EU follows (see EUReferendum.com references from OMG !!!! Parakeet invasion). Secondly the rulings of The European Court of Justice (ECJ) also tends towards upholding "Ever Closer Union", effectively ruling in favour of EU Stability as opposed to representing the realities of different nation states already have with each other through culture, history and customs.

This trend is so easily observed that it's useful to listen to what Pro-EU VIP's sometimes have to say from their equally welcome point of view; a famous quote from French foreign minister Laurent Fabius:-
'Britain joined a football club. They can't now say in the middle of the match that they want to play rugby. It's one thing or the other.'
 This quote is very useful analogy to the very clear rules of the EU which are discussed and explicitly focused upon in "BRIEFING PAPER Number 07230, 15 June 2015 - "Ever Closer Union" in the EU Treaties and Court of Justice case law By Vaughne Miller" (google cache av. online). However in the paper despite making clear what "sort of game" the EU Political "Ever Closer Union" is, the advice to modify the game rules for different players is absurd if we hold to the concept of "playing by the same rules".


The highlight of The Bruges Group meeting of the speakers, Owen Paterson, made it clear referencing:-

Namely from my notes of the meeting: The History of the EU founded by Jean Monnet and Arthur Salter from their experiences of the World Wars and the "failure in their eyes" of The League Of Nations to form a Supranational Political Government of Europe to prevent further wars. Hence "Ever Closer Union" is not a "clause that can be simply crossed-out, otherwise you have an entirely different basis of governance. This is backed up by the above "Fundamental Law" applied to members of the EU:-
"This proposal for a Fundamental Law of the European Union is a comprehensive revision of the Treaty of Lisbon (2007). Replacing the existing treaties, it takes a major step towards a federal union"
One of the Concept Shifts that can be introduced is as per Robert Oulds book, the idea of a "Democratic Deficit" concerning the EU. However from Jean Monnet and Arthur Salter's experiences of the League Of Nations where the power of national members Veto's reduced it's role from their Supranational vision, they decided to ensure the voting procedure of the EU would be based on

 Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) designed to create a "democratic dilution"

as per trend from Bruges Group with phasing out of National Vetos, and thus far from being a "defect" it was a "vital function" of Supranationalism. Lost Leonardo (see blogroll) explains the gradual removal of Vetos (as per Monnet's plan all along) via "Engrenage": This is How the EU Works! :-

EU "Influence": QMV proportion per EU members

"The proposal was agreed by Qualified Majority Vote (QMV) in the Council of Ministers. This is the essence of supranational (“above the nation”) treaty governance.

This process of engrenage and the supranational governance it empowers is what grants EU institutions the authority to override the democratic nation-states that consent to become (and remain) EU Member States. It is supranationalism that provides the impetus for ever deeper integration; ever more power for the Commission—and the other EU institutions—and the consequent diminution of power among the governments of the Member States, let alone the Parliaments of the Member States, to say nothing of the people who vote in those countries’ ‘democratic’ elections.

The smaller EU member nations are particularly badly served due to the “weighting” that is applied to the EU system of QMV in the Council of Ministers and the European Council, based, as it is, upon the size of the voting country’s population as a proportion of the Union as a whole."
These are the rules of the game. And another Concept Shift is possible aligning the difference between Rugby's Rules and Football's Rules, as per Owen Paterson, the EU is leaving the UK:-

"They Are Leaving Us!" 

This all demonstrates another Concept Shift, our Referendum on EU Membership:-

Brexit = A Political Event equivalent to The Reformation

And hence some of the Definitions Owen Paterson insisted upon making apply:-

  1. European Union (EU) =/= Europe
  2. European Union =/= The Single Market
  3. Referendum = "A Golden Opportunity" to Renegotiate The Political Rules (as above Supranationalism via QMV) and hence remove 1/28th influence on various global seats.
Owen Paterson went on to speak about how only North Korea and Sudan don't have trade agreements with the Single Market (European Economic Area EEA) and therefore by implication of the above, the arguments of what choice we are deciding on is a choice of Which Rules We Choose for Our Governance, I would conclude? The Single Market is not a matter of concern in making this choice.

For Owen Paterson, 3 major areas needed to be delivered in such a renegotiation:-
  1. Trade With the World as an Equal Member of the World Community
  2. Cooperation with the EU which allows it to "forge a new country" without us getting in the way, upsetting the rules they choose to adhere by.
  3. Ensure our laws are made in our Parliament under our democratic system.
Owen Paterson made some very useful contributions to the debate, in a very confident and positive manner. He made some clear definitons concerning the EU, Single Market and the context of the Referendum being above party-politics; he made clear that the EU effectively wants to "play by a different set of rules" to what Britain does and this is what defines our renegotiation.

Finally from defining what is the EU? as per the history, as per the current chief rule-makers in Brussels, Owen Paterson offered another Concept Shift of our relationship with the EU and with the World:-

The Supranational EU's Concentric Circles Relationship with the European Nations

The above shows the present "Concentric Circles" of power and loss of influence towards the periphery of the Supranational EUropean Union, as per Pattern Recognition to which Mr. Brexit (see blogroll An Independent Britain) provides an example of our loss of influence/sovereignty/power Remember how we keep being told EU member states are sovereign? and again A central reason why the UK should vote to leave the EU However Owen Paterson provided variety of examples of Global Regulatory Bodies where Britain needs to exert our own influence:-

 The Real "Top-Tables" of influence on Global Regulation and Standards "upstream" of the EU


 Coming back to Britain's rejection by France's Charles De Gaulle of our application to membership in 1963:-
"It's not a matter of sentiment but of facts and figures."
It is suggested that De Gaulle's real reasons was to ensure that France had acquired sufficient influence for it's farmers before Britain could then later join. And here is a difficulty with the mixture of the Political ambitions of the EU and the effects this has on "group cohesion" and their role as a regional standards body with all European member nations subordinate to the EU, as a consequence. To quote Bismark in 1886:-
"I have always found the word Europe in the mouths of those politicians who were demanding from other powers something that they did not dare demand  in their own name."
Namely there should be a forum free from sentiment, either hostile or sentimental and based on impartial reporting of facts and figures. The problem with the EU's role is European Court of Justice Biased referee? and time and again it's Group Cohesion is being tested it uses the word "Solidarity" or for "Economic Reform" as cloak to "Political Integration": "AN OPTIMISTIC VISION OF A POST-EU UNITED KINGDOM" - Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP

"Nothing more exemplifies the determination to pursue the political project regardless of economics than the manner in which the euro has been supported in breach of treaty provisions. As Christine Lagarde as French Finance Minister said:
 

“We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.”

Whatever we think we have agreed to, as long as supreme power is exercised by the European Commission and Court, the rules can be changed after the event.

We have now come to the fork in the road.The Eurozone has to become, in effect, a new country to make a full redistributive federal state where there are legitimate means of transferring funds from the wealth creating areas such as Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg or Noord-Brabant to places like Andalucía, the Mezzogiorno and the Peloponnese where it is simply not possible to create wealth at the rate  at  which their countries joined the Euro. In  order  to make  such  a  shift legally  watertight, particularly with reference to German constitutional arrangements, it is most likely that they will eventually needa new treaty"

It's this "internal logic of the EU Treaties" that drives the Rules they really play by. Not the rules of the real world according to the greater context of Globalization and hence the Concept Shift from a Concentric insular looking EU to a Hierarchical though not subordinate vision of the UK:-

 Hierarchical Reconnection with the global world

 In The Bruges Group meeting When To Attend/Hold Meetings there was a lot of "conventional wisdom" that no exit plan must be deployed or else divisions in the group would inevitably arise due to everyone holding a "different reason for leaving". And yet, this circular reasoning is quite similar to our Argumentum Ad Infinitum systemic defect of thinking. What needs to be understood is the concepts that arise from the details of research conducted, to reverse Charles De Gaulle's statement on the EU itself, and avoid sentiment but base our choices on facts and figures which define the set of Rules we are to play by with respect to the greater reference to the world and to the EU - and they are very clearly defined (For Example Article 50 TEU Lisbon Treaty): Within this "field of play" we can be certain those rules will be consistent and impartial as befits all good "officiation of rule systems" (Interesting to note the furore over Craig Joubert). All Brexiteers have to start doing is "learning the rules of the game" and then start enjoying playing our role in this global team game:-

 Britain has enjoyed great success exporting it's sports rules around the world!

Wednesday, 21 October 2015

When To Attend/Hold Meetings

Britain in a Global World: Rejecting renegotiation, leaving the EU

So far I've attended a few political meetings, from The Campaign For An Independent Britain (CIB) as per How do you become a "eurosceptic"?Global Britain, and the The Bruges Group (as above). It's interesting to note they're all cross-party or non-affiliated (Global Britain) as well as focused on the full picture of UK/Britain in reference to the EU and to the World. As a voter it's a lot more satisfying proposition to be involved and interested in. The "biff-bam" personality politics of party-politics in Westminster as reported ad naseam, by The Legacy Media isn't productive or interesting in my opinion. Evidently it does serve a function, a high-class version of the Celebrity Stories which reminds me of studies done on Monkeys: Monkeys Pay Per View: Adaptive Valuation of Social Images by Rhesus Macaques :-

Individuals value information that improves decision making. When social interactions complicate the decision process, acquiring information about others should be particularly valuable. In primate societies, kinship, dominance, and reproductive status regulate social interactions and should therefore systematically influence the value of social information, but this has never been demonstrated. Here, we show that monkeys differentially value the opportunity to acquire visual information about particular classes of social images.

I've come to the conclusion that the General Elections in the UK are, for a general voter, a complete waste of time but also emotional energy and attention. Voting for squabbling parties that soon forget their promises before an election doesn't encourage much future trust in the system of politics used. So instead of voting for something I don't believe in (thus having to endure some form of cognitive dissonance or Catch-22 dilemma?) 
A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules. An example includes: "To apply for this job, you would have to be insane; but if you are insane, you are unacceptable for the job."

Catch-22s often result from rules, regulations, or procedures that an individual is subject to but has no control over because to fight the rule is to accept it. Another example is a situation in which someone is in need of something that can only be had by not being in need of it. One connotation of the term is that the creators of the "catch-22" have created arbitrary rules in order to justify and conceal their own abuse of power.
The logical extraordinary alternative is to donate a small amount of money directly to a small and specific political cause I do believe in, interact with, contribute actively with and learn from others in such a group; because I've taken some time to try to understand it and think there's a chance it will be a productive function; a positive feedback-loop on decision-making: My own, the groups and hopefully connecting wider and wider until eventually at the national governance level; an example of which is provided by Christopher Booker: Our 'Snatch’ campaign is still saving soldiers’ lives:-


 Catch-22: Do Something Different!

It seems like a more honest and direct way of "voting" to me; particularly if you consider that "half our government is in Brussels as well as Westminster", it's diluted democracy even more as per Sir James Goldsmith Euro Moments: Goldsmith on setting up Referendum Party. Who knows perhaps cross-party groups that promote not voting in the General Elections is a good way to arm-wrestle our government into democratic reforms such as The Harrogate Agenda?

I was fortunate in the CIB meeting, because it was very high quality information and presentation, the size of the group was about right no more than 30 (high-end of classroom size to note); the people there were in general "on the same wavelength" with some of the basics to be presented, discussed and developed, there was diversity in the groups broken down into workshops again changing the dynamic and of course the extra-ordinary material or work being presented by Dr. RAE North (see EUReferendum.com blogroll), FLEXCIT: The Definitive EU Exit Plan For Britain:-

 Flexcit: The highest quality understanding is online for people to use and debate with...

So there are some meetings despite the above being freely available which very much are worth attending. However this raises possibly a critical question to consider upon which the fabric of success or failure is going to be woven into everyone's effort:-

What is the value of meetings for Brexiteers and how can they be of real value to those who attend them and what shape do they currently take?


 No words: The context & body-language tells the story


I also attended a Global Britain meeting, a while ago and although the pedigree of speakers and attendees was extremely high,with almost all "The Usual Suspects", it felt like a lot of "treading water" was being done; a lot of low quality communication exchanges between people: A genteel peace being observed in the room as opposed to exploring and structuring the debate more logically. There was nothing there that anyone serious and committed (in conviction, ideals or finance even) could not have already covered in their own time or even previously up to that point in time with some 3/4 years until a possible referendum out of over 40 years to get to this "home-straight" point in time. From that perspective it was for me, very bizarre ie not very efficient. Why?

Last night I attended The Bruges Group meeting, for two preceding reasons: Robert Oulds , The Bruges Group director is in my opinion from his speeches and his book as per Literature And Science : Everything you wanted to know about the EU - But were afraid to ask very informative (facts for memory recall), structured and referenced, well written and organized around "a guiding principle", above all. Secondly, one of the speakers was Owen Paterson, who again has been raised before. For example:-

Owen Paterson ("in beautiful Shropshire"): The EU is doing the leaving (subject) of the UK (object) = New Relationship

I spoke briefly to Robert Oulds, while in the process of acquiring some extra materials for future use (another reason to attend the meeting), and complimented him on a particular passage in his book. The significance, or qualifier of quality of the above two, to single out, is that due to starting with "a guiding principle" (whatever that may be!!), it follows that their thinking and organization of thoughts is invariably conducive to producing the most essential component of progression between arguments: A Concept Shift. This does not have to be as "disruptive (positively)" as a Paradigm Shift but can be in the most simple details or larger general topic realignments/reconnections between different sub-topics within a subject (tbc in future blog post).

 "AN OPTIMISTIC VISION OF A POST-EU UNITED KINGDOM"

~ Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP

 Eg of "a guiding principle": Meta-organization forms content coherence

I took some extensive notes, partly because I was always taught "active learning/listening" is a more productive use of your time but also because I generally have a constitution that requires me to fidget actively to avoid feeling sleepy! Overall I did not learn anything new in this meeting, there were some useful "concept shifts" however from hearing how other people think about things so it definitely useful attending. However the other area that was useful was hearing the type of questions posed and here the flaws were evident. Many of the questions were random. What I mean is that a lot of the people present did not have a "a guiding principle" so many of the questions were of the type: "Basic FAQ", basic preliminary grounding for REAL DISCUSSION. If you're familiar with different forums online, they always encourage new posters (aka noobs/newbies) to read the FAQ because such questions are diverting from productive discussion, evidently. And yet these meetings (Global Britain and Bruges a bit less so fail to apply such conventions in personal groupings? Examples if I refer to my notes were:-
  • FUD & Status Quo Effect of Referendums
  • Role of The Media eg BBC bias
  • Cost of EU Membership
  • Priority: Economics of Politics?
  • Difference between T. of Rome: Freedom of Movement of Labour and T. of Lisbon: Freedom of Movement of People
Etc. There were equally some good questions and the best of the night was concerning:-
  • The role of David Cameron and the question of Trust in what he delivers?
The above question refers to EUReferendum.com (quelle surprise!) of whom the questioner said to me later they are a regular reader, there. It may seem I'm being biased or appear to be attempting a superior tone. But when you've seen an example of the idea of "a guiding principle" then you see it's absence, you really really notice it! We can look at different group contexts:-
  • Self-Study, online research to establish the basics for oneself and perhaps more depending on time and inclination.
  • Conversation between a few well-acquainted participants who are able to match each other's mental models of understanding more rapidly to then use as a basis for arguing from. Rapid increase in understanding for individuals possible here eg "mentoring".
  • Small Group for specific discussion; useful for introducing new ideas to an established idea: Creative, challenging & constructive criticism to refine ideas and test them.
  • Classroom Size where differences can be discussed productively atst as progression: Increasing group aggregate understanding is usually the intended result of such group size or depending on the people: Between up and below.
  • Large Group/Lecture Size: Generally more 1/Few-Many relationship. The message has to be generalized for a larger variability of understanding and needs.
  • Crowd Gathering: Primarily slogans, working the crowd, chanting, singing, much more focus on "group affirmation" what the EU keeps on calling "Solidarity" ie the overhead for "group cohesion" is very high and hence meaningful communication is overwhelmingly reduced.
I have some interesting notes from The Bruges Group meeting, but I can't help think the above consideration is a higher priority to establish. And this comes back to what Dr. RAE North has been saying time and time and time again:-


Chimpanzee Politics!

EU Referendum: biding our time:-
"When it comes to running the campaign, one of our strongest suits is that we are the only group to have adopted Flexcit, and thus are the only group promoting a comprehensible and credible exit plan."
EU Referendum: agreement on a plan:- 
"But the paper ignores Flexcit, as do most Europhile organs, inventing any number of excuses for doing so, when challenged. But they all amount to the same thing. They dare not acknowledge it because it so comprehensively demolishes their superficial and facile arguments."
Honestly I would be almost persuaded to express some form of demonstrative "cri de coeur!" of unfairness, except there's no reason to when if you think about the behaviour of The Legacy News Media, of our own Government in Westminster and even of some deceptive or self-deceived "eurosceptics" that their collective behaviour is something you'd expect to be reported by the primatologist Frans De Waal, in Chimpanzee Politics:-
"As we watch the chimpanzees of Arnhem behave in ways we recognize from Machiavelli (and from the nightly news), de Waal reminds us again that the roots of politics are older than humanity."
As referred to, The Bruges Group meeting had some useful contributions, group affirmation itself is useful, not least for donations to the group itself or the chance to hear the people "in the trenches in politics" giving their views live to a room aka these days as "Face Time" and meeting some other people and learning what their point of view is. It was useful to provide elements of the above "group compositions" as above too. But the limitations and contradictions of not having an Exit Plan in contention with maintaining "group integration/disintegration" and the ambiguity this casts everything else under this shadow resulted in for example contradictions, repetitions, lack of deduction, circular reasoning etc etc, in my opinion, too much of that "treading water" sensation.
 FLEXCIT: A fully integrated, researched argument: A Concept Shift and A Guiding Princple: All-in-One = a fully Scalable National Argument usable for different group sizes

There's a distinct lack of understanding the difference between: "A Guiding Principle" (Integration) and "Diversity of Details" (Differentiation). This is in my opinion the basis for holding meetings for different group sizes, their quality and hence productive "scaling up of arguments" over time to more and more people. Of course different people will be receptive at different group sizes and hence type of message. But you have to have the actual "concept shift" itself first before "scaling up the argument to different group sizes" instead of "scaling down of arguments" to reach more people, aka "Dumbing Down" That's back on The Road To The European Union. And surely this relies on "a guiding principle" already agreed upon?