Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Red Cliffs Of Dawlish
Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Sunday, 27 March 2016

How To Vote: A Simple Guide to Decision-Making

Confusion of arguments predominantly involves the 'mixing up of' these 3 Decision Levels (simplified)

One of the 'most crude' and stupid arguments I've come across does not come from the Remain advocates but from the Leave advocates. It's so staggeringly stupid that stupidity on such a scale becomes "invincible ignorance". There is no argument against such a position because it is so devoid of thought that it is sub-thought, emotional-conviction and hence to argue against it is misdiagnosing the problem of the people who believe in the position, not appreciating that a position must be built from an argued case. I think I've managed to identify the problem in their thinking, their confusion: It's above, mixing the levels of decision-making in combination with not holding the requisite knowledge to understand the argument themselves.

Now it's not my preference to direct the description of someone's intelligence to "stupid" without good reason: Afterall, mistakes and errors are in the majority and all different types of mistakes and errors make them very reasonable to make by anyone!! The real trick is not calling someone stupid, but in UNDERSTANDING HOW they have made their mistake: This is incredibly useful way to learn for oneself. And I've benefited from it a lot and I too make mistakes and errors.

An intellectual foundation and attention to detail are essential in the #Brexit campaign ~ The Sceptic Isle / Ben Kelly

So why call this mistake stupid? It's an absence of thought, that is what I would argue is stupid, the opposite of intelligent, an application of thought/thinking. People assume if enough people hold enough conviction then the vote "will go their way". An example, "events" will dictate the vote such as:-
  • Immigration (leave)
  • Terrorism (leave)
  • Uncertainty (remain)
  • No Alternative (remain)
Now these types of arguments all fall within the same category: Stupid! So stupid in fact, that looking at how the nation and how the political leaders actually arrive at decisions, makes for viewing a world that full of madness. I don't think it's unexpected that when things don't turn out how we anticipated them to for our benefit, we see so much "pulling at heart-strings" and "why is the world/politicians/people such a terrible place?!". Stupidity is the singular answer.

Stupidity is a lack of intelligence, understanding, reason, wit or sense. Stupidity may be innate, assumed or reactive – a defence against grief or trauma.

The root word stupid, which can serve as an adjective or noun, comes from the Latin verb stupere, for being numb or astonished, and is related to stupor. In Roman culture, the stupidus was the professional fall-guy in the theatrical mimes.
According to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, the words "stupid" and "stupidity" entered the English language in 1541. Since then, stupidity has taken place along with "fool," "idiot," "dumb," "moron," and related concepts as a pejorative appellation for human misdeeds, whether purposeful or accidental, due to absence of mental capacity.

We'll come back to this later. First what is this stupid mistake?

Ben Kelly The Sceptic Isle: An intellectual foundation and attention to detail are essential in the #Brexit campaign, manages to provide a very useful argument to correct it:-
"We are told by some that having a plan is not necessary or helpful and that we are wrong to worry about “unnecessary detail”. Obviously, we couldn’t disagree more. The purpose of a plan is not so that the whole public should read it, but so that it gives our campaign and our arguments an intellectual foundation. It is absolutely necessary to know the details so that when people raise questions, as they inevitably will, we have the answers. Brexit is complex and people are worried about the details, therefore to refuse to worry about details or offer any kind of plan when proposing what amounts to the biggest political change in 50 years and a huge geopolitical event is an abdication of responsibility."
I've tried to illustrate this visually previously:-

What A PLAN looks like: The Big Triangle that's a complete plan? That's called FLEXCIT: The Market Solution - from which all derivative details derive from.

The first thing to assert as Ben Kelly does is:
  1. We have a highly credible plan
  2. We have an alternative to the Status Quo (or Null vs Alternative Hypothesis in scientific testing language)
From this "credible" (believable) plan we move onto the merits which are data-driven or research driven. We've removed FUD and moved onto Intelligence-driven arguments which are positive in nature: Innovative-seeking to find solutions and happy outcomes.

1. Plan: A detailed "how to" achieve/do something from NOW/HERE to THEN/THERE:-

However, I think the problem can be highlighted if we relearn how to communicate using simple English and being precise in the words we use:-

  1. Plan = "a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something."
  2. Navigation = "the process or activity of accurately ascertaining one's position and planning and following a route."
  3. Negotiation = "discussion aimed at reaching an agreement."
In the case of the Leave side of the argument, the Alternative Hypothesis or question, we have to have a plan "to do something". That "something" is to "navigate and plan a route to a new position from our present position". This is done in the context of a discussion between different parties to reach a mutual agreement. This is an assertion of very simple intelligence. As Ben Kelly describes:-

2. Navigation: From-To via what is In between:-

"The questions come thick and fast in this debate: How will the economy be affected by Brexit? Will I still be able to live and work in Europe? What about our trade deals with other countries, will they need to be renegotiated? How will the negotiations work? Will the EU look to punish us for leaving?  What about agriculture subsidies after the abolition of the Common Agricultural Policy, will farmers lose out? The financial sector is vital for Britain, will leaving be detrimental? Will we get a say in its regulation? They go on and on."

3. Negotiation: UK WITH EU on Leaving realistically and mutually:-

 Reading The Market Solution Introduction we can list the key concepts of a workable plan:-

  • We must have an Exit Plan that plots the route, demonstrates an Alternative Hypothesis and hence choice to the null/default choice of Remain - except this time we have a vote for the first time as a voting public
  • Such a plan must be modest and set expectations that are fair with the EU's side of the negotiation as much as it is for the UK.
  • As such a gradual, staged, soft or iterative withdrawal is safest and most reasonable expectation setting.
  • Negotiation on compromise means that minimizing number of total outcomes increases probability of agreed settlement between both parties.
  • Thus advocating "conviction-based" "blue-sky" proposal NOW are damaging to future proposal THEN! Do not do this to win votes!
  • Removing predictive models that are based on garbage data or garbage processing is enormously aided by declaration to retain MEMBERSHIP OF The Single Market.
  • A holistic solution means that short-term TACTICAL solutions serve the larger Strategic Goal of transferring from Supranationalism to Intergovernmentalism. Any short-term deficiencies must either be reassured via Operationally repatriating the entire acquis so there is little to no actual change to derivative policies.
  • Both Trade and Migration are linked to TACTICAL reorientation from EU/EEA to EFTA/EEA as the short-term immediate solution. This allows future Strategic alterations and fits the holistic solution sense above.
  • MEMBERSHIP OF the Single Market requires the rules top be applied. Anything less unravels this holistic tactical solution and that then has negative repercussions to all operational details on policy. Thus failure to secure and retain Single Market access will lead to failure to achieve our strategic destination.
  • The conditions to all the above negotiations, the legal process to go with the securing of the Single Market is Article 50 which has limitations. Thus removing Legal and Economic questions leaves purely Political Questions which = "Withdrawing from EU Treaties" only = Successful Brexit negotiations navigated using a detailed Plan: FLEXCIT: The Market Solution.
  • The Six Staged Plan is the complete Strategic Decision-Making Level.
  • Repatriation of the acquis is the Operational decision-making.
  • The subsequent few years (EFTA/EEA) is the Tactical Decision-Making Level.
The Current confusion over the EU Referendum debate:-

 Deception via Imbalanced Perception: David Cameron's LIE depends on confusing "Operational Decision-Making" for Remain as a safe option compared with "Strategic Leap Into The Dark" disaster for Leave.

Whereas, Supranationalism is the fundamentally flawed and faulty and POLITICAL question that we want voters to consider as the Null Hypothesis vs Alternative Hypothesis or Paradigm: Intergovernmentalism.

We can only get to that question by removing Economic and Legal issues:-

  • Single Market Access (Tactical)
  • Article 50 Lisbon Treaty + Repatriation of Entire Acquis (Operational)
 This leaves A Simple Guide on How to Vote:-
  • Supranationalism or Intergovernmentalism
Given that the question on Remain should be Strategic Level decision-making given our Referendum is for x43 Years of Membership covering x9 EU Treaties towards "Ever Closer Union" once you remove the above (below) levels the decision-making for voters who do not need to know all the details because they are covered  on both sides of the question, then it looks like voting for the next 10-20,30 years outside the EU is a very very valid and viable decision to consider. It's also a very simple question too to answer given we have the EU Treaty Rules themselves with which to refer tot he Strategic Decision-Making of the EU which has led to the EUROZONE which will have new Treaty for more Sovereignty to the EU coming up before 2025.

When the Deception is on an enormous scale... the stupidity that follows

It should be discernable that David Cameron's deal is dressed up as "Strategic" when it's barely even "Operational" given it is not legally-binding. It serves to confuse voter's decision-making that the UK has "special status" which is camouflage for No EU Reform whatsoever. Our Prime Minister is a failure and worse: A Liar and a deceiver of the people.

This is the gift of Supranationalism working through him presently and previously via his predecessors in entering the UK into the EEC back in 1973 (Jan) on the pretext that Strategically it was a Market Solution.

We all make mistakes, sometimes we're stupid. That's forgivable. But what I think our Membership of the EU proves, our Null Hypothesis is that it is built on Deception at the highest level of decision-making: Strategic.

 Honest Mistakes: We can learn from. Deception however...

This deception is not stupid, it is intelligence used for hurtful and destructive outcomes; even if the intentions were presumably "good"; the intelligence is infernal and it leaves the quality of arguments and political decay in the UK as it's defining outcome which in effect is a kind of increase in stupidity; Check: EU Referendum: corruption at the heart of the media and EU Referendum: the Johnson saga continues a decrease in intelligence at the top of the UK's strategic decision-making processes and people; wouldn't you agree?