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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Steve Smith > *Sent:* Saturday, October 10, 2020 9:55 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *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 > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *David Eric Smith > *Sent:* Saturday, October 10, 2020 3:47 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > *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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
