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:-

FLEXCIT: The Market Solution

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?

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:-