Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Red Cliffs Of Dawlish
Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Saturday, 25 June 2016

Structured Information (Arguments) vs Visible Disintegration (EU Politics)

Network Effect: Graph Theory describing System Risk or Failure: Source/Attribution:

Well the Result did not match the Performance of the campaign and my prediction of a close Remain victory was wrong! What occurred was the choice by many millions that the Referendum provided a great opportunity to vote AGAINST our entire political establishment's own position.

Now I have to say, this inference by so many people shows good common sense. If the deductive arguments are so horribly polluted, then a proxy argument against people who time and time again distort and deceive, is a very fair way of discerning a choice to be made with low information.

Unfortunately, I don't feel that our politics has an underlying positive change from such a result. The Referendum was a "one-off" and little will visibly change after the Leave vote as predicted in FLEXCIT: The Market Solution.

My intention was to pack in the blogging for a time and move on with other things, but it's worth one more post to point out the observation of how people have reacted to the Referendum result.

Let me say that according to my own perception of Performance matching Results, I've been very pacific about either result: Some part of me wants the opportunity to campaign and educate in another Referendum more people more successfully. But another part of me is delighted to see so many people who used such horrible manipulation of communication (were they self-deluded?) to confuse so many people, and for me to see their works of deception destroyed in a big way. Pete North notices this also, particularly the malign effects of "Identity Politics" which have taken pride of place in the BBC's coverage of the past 24HRS+:-

I try to find ways of visualizing ideas, arguments, concepts and the like. If I were to paint a picture on a canvas between what appears so according to the Left/BBC and their "Identity Politics" I would paint a surrealism picture which is showing a lot of imagery in an incoherent but strangely captivating and slightly disturbing form: You can google such pictures if you like. When I look at these, they are powerfully engaging my emotional brain but I don't like them, they don't seem to have any greater ideas behind them (perhaps there's the odd exception I am unaware of?) that connects "function and form" holistically.

And so we see so much wailing and rending of clothes post-Referendum with so much inchoate nonsense spoken. There's two really good examples I watched and show of this:-

 The above presenter in Brussels conflates emotional reaction (you can decode it in her tone of voice change when asked the relevant question) with statements of facts and logical sequence of assertions and their degree of certitude or indeed that abused word in the media "Uncertainty". Secondly and a great example by Richard Starkey of the below:-

"Negative conflation, which is used mainly in attack propaganda, is employing a negative presentation idea to deliver a desirable payload idea. For instance, Stephen Lewandowsky used a negative presentation idea in a subsequently retracted paper, which was that climate skeptics had been scientifically classified as conspiratorial, reactionary and psychologically disturbed individuals. Reconstructing the shattered propaganda syllogism and expressing it explicitly; skeptics are deranged, you’re a skeptic, therefore you’re deranged. The implicit and unexpressed payload idea is of course that the last thing you’d want to be known as is a skeptic."
"Attack propaganda, as its name suggests, is nothing more than aggression against opponents but it also serves the useful purpose of scaring any of your own fellow travellers, who may be having doubts, to stay on side.
When used skilfully, explicit conflation very often goes unnoticed by those on whom it is being practised, but even when they do happen to have vague doubts about the payload idea, it does tend to mute objections, if not suppress them entirely. It takes a strong personality not to hesitate expressing reservations with a subtly conflated idea, which everyone else around you appears to think is obviously a good idea."

We see in the Newsnight debate with Paris Lees an attempt at "negative conflation" but fortunately we have Richard Starkey who is indeed a "strong personality" and he points out problems he has with this "group psychology" form of identity politics above and around the fallacy of arguments on display, veiled by so much hyper-emotional conflation and confusion (and likely as Pointman suggests Conditioning). It ends with Paris Lees attacking Richard Starkey for being "white, male" and apparently "privileged" just after he's pointed out perhaps the major reason why "unprivileged" people voted for Leave: And thus imo successfully answered the question why people in a democracy voted Leave. Thus understanding the situtation, is the first step to helping resolve problems for people! But no, for those conditioned by "Identity Politics" the stimulus of hyper-emtional signals is too big a reward or too big a personal cost to leg go of...

Now coming away from the first picture which is visible, when I trained as an undergraduate scientist, one of the core lessons was to "DEFINE: WHAT?" before working forwards with explanatory value of theories and hypothesis. Indeed the eventual result of the EU I think is fairly certain from extrapolating it's trajectory once this definition is zero-in'd on:-

To me what this allows is a network of arguments around the entire subject to form the visual image I have in my mind of the EU Referendum and Brexit subjects as per the blog's opening .gif image of graph theory showing system risk and failure in banks, to illustrate. This mental imagery is for me infinitely more structured and pleasing than the surreal images of emotion and incongruous confusion that issues forth like a tidal wave from the BBC and politicians. It's why I said before that the "Performance" vs "Results" once skillfully arrived at give a sense of pacific emotion towards the outcomes which are understandable and not confusing at all, but the rational analysis of the performance is where success and failure and detail is found.

Instead what we're witnessing is a lot of emotional people worried on a scale of millions of millions and guess what? This surrealism is manifest in the markets and volatility of currencies! It's self-made with the blame on "a dangerous referendum" and the like being bandied around.

If you look at things, the EU/EZ is in much more severe existential and concrete risk of failure and disintegration of it's over-elaborate political networks and the repercussions these have on the other areas such as economy and hence much further on people's lives. All you had to do was read the 615 pages of The Great Deception to consider that this "network of 28 nations" is at serious risk of failure.

They now expect the UK to trigger Article 50 due to this, but the UK has it's own problems to attend to and the should not trigger Article 50 until the problem has been examined and worked on in anticipation of the EU's own silly 2 year limit on Article 50!

See FLEXCIT: The Market Solution: 3.0 The Negotiating Framework

"Assuming a referendum has been held, culminating  in a victory  for the "leave" campaign, there will be a number of preliminaries that the UK government will have  to  address  before  the  parties  can  even sit  down  at  a  table.  These  are  not incidental to the process, but will define and shape the negotiations and strongly affect their outcome."
And, to compare the "Visible Disintegration" with the above FLEXCIT structured arguments (sanity):-

 The patience of a Saint compared to the madness of the Crowd.

"While they're sweeping up all those chicken heads, we have Flexcit for you: it's all worked out here. Just follow the instructions and you won't go far wrong. Written by hundreds, read by thousands (currently over 80,000), this is the definitive exit plan, as noted by The Register.

There is also the video which helps explain some of the issues, and the short version here.

Over the next hours, weeks and months we are going to be assailed by ill-informed comment in super-tanker quantities, much of it from the BBC whose David Dimbleby referred to Article 50 as "Chapter 50" - reflecting the degree of knowledge and insight in the institution.

In this and other media organisations - and in government itself - there is terrifyingly little knowledge of the workings of the EU, and next to none about how we should extract ourselves from it. Listening to some of the offerings is painful."

Be careful who you allow yourself to listen to!

Finally, Farewell: I hope this blog despite it's many deficiencies has been useful!