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 <[email protected] > <mailto:[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]> >> <mailto:[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Steve Smith >> *Sent:* Saturday, October 10, 2020 9:55 AM >> *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> >> <mailto:[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]> <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 >> <http://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 >> <http://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 > <http://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/
