Arguments or Relationships 1st? Modern Family & "Emotional Digestion"

Variation, differences & Arguments... but long-term family relationships

I remember watching Modern Family in 2011 in Australia, and enjoying it a lot. It's useful to point out that everyone deals with each other daily and finds ways of getting along with each other even at the same time as dealing with how they don't get along, but I think with the ultimate thought that afterall, a family needs to understand that their relationships in whatever shape or combination or quality needs to be managed over the long-term.

With respect to Brexit and the EU and the Referendum, many different narratives have been applied to "shape it" in a way that is universally recognizable by the public and politicians and news-media, for once all tending to agree on what is actually being talked about! An example that won't go away is that of "A Marriage", from Daniel Hannan's "A Doomed Marriage" to David Cameron's "A Marriage Of Convenience" to perhaps Nick Clegg's "A Marriage Made In Heaven" (!). Well... people's gut feeling  (CIB) is I think the main far removed now from Nick Clegg's views of "this marriage". Daniel Hannan's I think is stoking the wrongs of the arrangement in a group of people but not very helpful and David Cameron's is maybe sounding practical but does not feel emotionally satisfying... indeed I think again most peoples' gut feeling is that a Remain vote won't resolve these underlying "emotional fissures" even if they feel that this is the most sensible option to remain in the Single Market and enjoy our present "Special Status" in the EUropean Union "Family".

Jared Diamond in traditional garb: The Traditional remains within the Modern.

There's an interesting anecdote recalled by Jared Diamond in context to how people relate to each other and especially so when "differences" arise in a communities In Conversation Jared Diamond: full transcript:-

"That’s true and I discussed examples in my book of the un-moderness of modernity. I point out the distinction between modernity, between modern societies and traditional societies is not an either or. But I go though some examples of what is embedded within modern society is a lot that is still traditional.

For example: rural areas of modern society, Montana where my wife and kids and I spend our vacations. When Montana ranchers have a dispute they don’t call a lawyer, they don’t call police they deal like New Guineans because they know that that rancher has been there for 20 years. That rancher his or her children could be there for the next 50 years.

Right or wrong what the cow did on that particular day, that’s secondary. You got to deal with the rancher for the next 50 years. And so the focus is on dispute resolution in a traditional way where the goal is to re-establish a relationship and to maintain the ability to interact with each other, rather than right or wrong as the law states in a society."

Now, I'm going to make a very very bold assertion or claim:-

"The entire Referendum Campaign and indeed much of the prior arguments have been restricted in accordance with "Resolution of Relationships" and the Political Movement to manage "Emotional Digestion" between different actors."

What I'm claiming is that so much vastness of so-called "higher forms of decision-making" at the national level and international level are about as traditional and "tribal" even as you care to consider from Papua New Guinea or Rural Montana: Far from being the "Bleeding Edge" of intellectual "rights and wrongs" of Globalization, Barriers To Trade, Multiple Guises of Trade, Unbundling, Harmonization of regulations and standards convergence, or the deeper insights into the nature of the EU from "Engrenage" or The Monnet Method, Beneficial Crisis, Industrialization of Warfare genesis of the EU Supranational design and so much more... there is mainly arguments avoiding these issues in accordance with ensuring the "status" of actors is carefully balanced in their emotional relations to each other at the political "world stage" levels of diplomacy and the like.

All along I've held sympathy with this in particular considering the fragility of the Eurozone. Indeed people prove themselves to be "apparently beyond rational decision-makers and the need to manage populations in an emotionally subtle manner may warrant some of the "delusional decision-making" that seems to occur. However, there are repercussions (to an exacting degree) and they can be claimed with significant confidence:-

The Mysterious Affair at The IEA Brexit Prize Competition... and Vote Leave.

• IEA Brexit prize: a challenge
• IEA Brexit prize: the farce continues
• EU referendum: voting out to stay in
• Brexit: a lack of realism from Bootle
• Brexit: questions to answer
• Brexit: The Winning Entry?
• Brexit: interesting coincidences
• IEA Brexit prize: last post
• Brexit: another nail in the coffin?

The above is a list of EUReferendum.com blogs on FLEXCIT's submission to the IEA Brexit Prize and the dubious process involved. The loss was significant firstly in monetary value of EUROS: 100,000 but as significant given this 100,000 would most likely have been reinvested in The Leave Alliance:-

The Leave Alliance: Showing how much can be productively done with so little

Worse, is the fact that the competition acted as an "smother" of the intellectual side to Brexit. Now this is an accusation you can read about in the above blog series. I'm far from a rampant "fan" jilted and out for revenge. My point of contention is much more savage: This is the sort of stunt or trick you'd expect in a Soviet Era government on it's people. There's dozens of examples of the trickery invoked to control people in the most manipulative and totalitarian methods. Yes, the stunt pulled here is an exhibition of a lack of democracy in action in the UK in our politics to ensure fair and free competition of ideas outside of those who hold onto power. The mendacity is costly.

The result was burying Mannsfields "magical numbers" entry in the economics of Brexit instead of which is what FLEXCIT achieves, defining the problem as a political one by decomposition of the problem (iterative withdrawal - the singular brexit plan on this paradigm shift - certainly of the many IEA candidates I read up at the time). Indeed the behaviour of the entire campaign is a masquerade of actual arguments burning off peoples' emotions in all areas of the UK until people feel "the referendum is a neverendum going nowhere ruled by Project Fear or Project Fantasy, equally resulting in "I don't know how to vote"."

IF - FLEXCIT had won the IEA Brexit Prize, and we'll see perhaps why it should have in a moment, the knock on effect of search results on google, on the entire shape of the argument of Brexit and "narrowing down solutions" leading to adult discussion of consequences and how to manage them could have been made possible. Doubly so when we look at The Electoral Commission's eventual designation to Vote Leave above!! With none other than Lord Lawson rearing again. In such circumstances with FLEXCIT as the prestigious title with more airtime by more people arguing about it, the designation might have been very different and Leave.EU might have been emboldened to adopt the idea (instead of backing off from it asper Aaron Banks).

Now to state my problem with the entire way our politics is conducted, my primary interest is raising the quality of arguments and hence educating and increasing understanding of people/electorate and voters during this Direct Vote Process to improve politics and hence national decision-making with a greater and wider competition of ideas and hence opening up to more sources, for selection and eventual refinement and adaptation and development.

And to come back to this assertion concerning FLEXCIT, fortunately it's all been summarized excellently so by The Brexit Door:-

Flexcit Breaks Cover – Newsnight

“These route maps by Pro Brexit thinkers”, he said, “go by names such as Flexcit, Europe 2.0, or the Liberal Case for Leave.” (Cook’s Piece starts at about 10 minutes)

In reality, Flexcit has been in the hands of the civil service since well before the Referendum was called.

Complexity is unavoidable

However campaigners try to avoid it, the truth is that the world is complex. Looking for simple soundbites might well be the stuff of campaigns in the modern televisual age. It is not the stuff of trade deals and international treaties. This is the real strength of Flexcit, it does the detail, proposes solutions both for short term and long term policy issues, and it is sympathetic to the political and economic issues that arise not just for the UK, but for the negotiators on the other side of the table – the EU 27.

It seems to me the public has merely been privy to the management of relations and indeed the priming the public for whatever new relationship (it will be new on both sides that is "guaranteed") results. Thus this question really is definitively a "Political Question" and a "Political Question" to answer ONLY!

 "The Liberal Case for Leave" - Everyone wants a positive relationship post-Referendum

You can determine this by the entire behaviour of our politicians which is only just in the last few days bubbling up visibly to the surface eg above.

To finish this blog: Previously I've criticized politicians delusional behaviour in The Political Glass Bead Game: Delusional Decision-Making and then I've criticized peoples' ignorance and ease of manipulation (voters) in The Dark Heart of Politics: Barriers To People? I think the combination is where the explanation for the behaviour I've described in this blog resides: Between the two. As suggested, a higher form of quality arguments and hence politics is possible and could have been possible as per FLEXCIT gaining earlier traction 2 years ago or winning the IEA prize (now it's apparently in the hands of the Civil Service) but that did not fit the actual conditions of politics: Politicians and People, and instead the trajectory of developments has led us all to this stage.

What next?

Leave Result: At one level positive change and trends, but at another still so many of the old underlying problems may continue to persist unchanged in how we organize large groups of people.

But to quote Dr. RAE North, even though overall the experience "out in the open" has been negative and indicates the same old problems will persist either result underlying the Referendum, namely that great expenditure is involved in the emotional digestion and preparation when people are involved in politics to the detriment of the actual quality of arguments being used; underneath this there's signs of positive progress in how we conduct our politics:-
 

EU Referendum: the debate moves underground

"We always said it would come to this. As Vote Leave increasingly departs from reality (not that it ever really had any grip), and the "remains" indulge in ever more vacuous rhetoric, what seems to be happening is that people, increasingly disillusioned with the official campaigns, are walking away from them and looking elsewhere for their information. They have come to the same conclusion , our bloggers have, that the legacy campaigners are irrelevant.

This was seen in the Scottish referendum, where vibrant debates were being played out, entirely unrelated to the official campaign and completely under the radar of the media and politicians. The debate went underground.

It is difficult to quantify this phenomenon, as there is not one debate but many. And while the pundits are watching the social media, this is by no means the full extent of the game. The classic forum is still a huge repository of debate and so are e-mail lists, mechanisms by which millions share their views away from what the media like to call the "mainstream"."

The Dark Heart of Politics: Barriers To People?

You can watch the full advert here: Robocop - Yamaha Heart Advert Commercial from Paul Verhoeven's Robocop. It's a brilliant piece of satire which Verhoeven observed directly as a Dutchman occuring in the United States which matches a useful quote by Isaac Asimov fr. "Why Society Needs Science-Fiction":-

"It is change, continuing change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be...Science fiction writers foresee the inevitable, and although problems and catastrophes may be inevitable, solutions are not."

For the past number of blogs, the target or subject has been "Vote Leave". They have been a particular focus or face of the problems of our politics but not the full picture. You the viewer are the final piece in this picture of politics and the need to see politics and it's problems. Before suggesting this, much like science-fiction we need to look at "society" with new eyes. Some of the examples can be found easily on YouTube:-

It's amazing how these actors enact such unreal scenarios as if that is the most perfectly natural thing in the world to do!

These "live" commercial dial-up infomercial" mistakes are pure gold for combining the complete phony sensory information from what you understand the situation to actually be.

And so this all leads on to how we actually do politics in our present time, our present politicians, our present media and finally - YOU! ("The Viewer") - our present people:-

 

EU InOrOut: David Cameron, full 'debate' (02Jun16) ~ Brought to you by Sky News on Sky News TV news and also Sky News Mobile as well as Sky News Internet and did we mention, Sky News...

In the previous blog the contention was made concerning the difficulty of people to perceive politics. A large part of this problem is that in fact, unquestionably politics is produced in a form that "works" at exciting people emotionally in some manner or other: Namely emotionally unbalancing them through the senses: The more effective at this the more proven the data that people will be persuaded or at least influenced how to vote through their emotions more than their own assessment of their level of understanding.

In the above "interview" all I'm seeing is a bunch of actors selling some obscenely weird context to me... their manner reminds me of the over-excited commercial actor, desperately talking too quickly to fit in their spiel in the seconds of advertising available to grab peoples' attention and effect a sale to a mass of passive viewers.

This is the context that I would introduce to:-

EU Referendum: breaking the bubble

"And Remember... We Care!"

"By so doing, Roland managed to demonstrate that, once shorn of its identity, there is a real demand for the ideas expressed in Flexcit."

We see that FLEXCIT, a highly researched treatment of Brexit, is exposed to these same forces of societal selection on appearance and advertising that dominates so much of how we attempt to communicate our political decision-making. This is a very real result. The supposed "intelligensia" from Isaac Asimov again:-

"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

"And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all."

And to come back to FLEXCIT and "Breaking The Bubble" above:-

"For all that, we are under no illusions. Leaving the EU is not only a revolution in our relations with the Continent. It is also a fundamental restructuring of domestic governance, involving a long-overdue reshaping of the post-war settlement. Not by any means do we underestimate the gravity of what we propose.

That is why we need to win the intellectual argument - and why we need a plan. Flexcit demonstrates that this can do this without undue pain and without unacceptable risk. At the end of the process we have a United Kingdom fit to do business with the world as it is rather than how it was when Mr Monnet dreamed up the European Union.

Yet, only weeks now from the referendum, we're still discussing the basics. Roland Smith is still having to hide the true source of his papers for fear of offending the "nose bleeders". And Mr Cameron is thus able to get away with criticising the "leave" campaign for not having a plan, when we've had one all along." 

If you do read the above blog post, it's particular focused summary of so much work to attempt to communicate without the excesses of advertising in the way I've attempted to describe and compare above. For these reasons:-

1. It's more honest
2. It's more challenging to pay attention to and consider if you are used to the "advertising" of communication, it may even feel "alien" and unpleasantly "dense".
3. It will likely be far far less successful at communicating to numbers of people.
4. There is no short-cut to learning for oneself to be able to "blank out" the deceptions on our "doors of perception" perpetrated in favour of understanding the actual behaviour of people in connection with the quality of knowledge being conveyed Eg "Infocommercials".
5. As much as for example FLEXCIT can be offered to people, a very high quality form of knowledge on the EU, Referendum and Brexit subjects, the barriers to understanding, in this blog's case, "advertising as low quality communication" and hence high ignorance of politics will continue to result.
6. Vote Leave or Remain, the above (5.) holds and will take precedence before political progress is possible.
7. At the heart of FLEXCIT: Self-Governance, but this is exactly what the likes of David Cameron and the Westminster Political Class do understand very well about people: If they are able to communicate to people in a form that works, then people probably DO NEED such people to govern for them!

View From Vote Leave: Full of Complicity; Empty of Conscience

The view from The Eiffel Tower: People resemble the size and scale of swarming insects

In the previous blog, The Political Glass Bead Game: Delusional Decision-Making , the unreal nature of the political debate was described in broad brush terms with the use of the analogy of Herman Hesse's The Glass Bead Game. There's potential here that'll be revisited in the future some time after the Referendum. To use this context, the latest moves by Vote Leave concern Immigration:-

• Leave campaigners pledge 'fairer immigration' outside EU 
• EU referendum live: Brexit immigration plan would 'wreck economy'
• Restoring public trust in immigration policy - a points-based non-discriminatory immigration system 
• The Points Based System in Australia – Appropriate for the UK?
•  Just Read FLEXCIT on Migration and Stage 1: Soft Withdrawal via EFTA/EEA or Lost Leonardo's quick summary: On Immigration

Then to add:-

 Roll out the "Tory Civil War" Glass Beads...

The above sets out the descriptions for this blog. You can read the explanations via EUReferendum.com (strangely de-ranked by Google...

Google is the EU Remain campaign's secret weapon

• EU Referendum: handing victory to Project Fear  
• EU Referendum: open thread - immigration

If we look at some of Dominic Cummings' previous blogs and possibly link to his decision-making helming Vote Leave's decisions:-

• On the referendum #16: New ICM poll shows differential turnout could be important, only a third support the failing EU project 
• On the Referendum #6: Exit plans and a second referendum

1. "An interesting attempt at such a plan is FLEXCIT based on using the EEA as a transition phase – remaining in the Single Market and retaining a (modified) version of free movement – while a better deal, inevitably taking years, is negotiated. This is an attempt to take the Single Market out of the referendum debate. I will discuss the merits of this idea another time when I’ve studied it more." 
2. "Polls have shown for over a decade that most businesses regard the costs of the EU and the Single Market as greater than the gains and want many more powers brought back than Cameron is now asking for (e.g. ICM, April 2004)."
3. "Polls have consistently shown for over a decade that about 70% of businesses reject the rationale for both the Customs Union and the Single Market and want Britain to regain the power to make our own trade deals, which is not part of Cameron’s renegotiation effort (see ICM, April 2004 and October 2006)."

In the previous blog there was a spreadsheet image of some of the major donors to Vote Leave. It seems possible there is a link between Cummings' "polls on businesses" and these influential donors' narratives on The Single Market and the money that flows from such a Leave Organization.

Effectively, the data from polls (which shows Immigration as second most important issue) is a kind of argument developed from complicity: Complicity with what people feel they WANT or think they WANT as groups of swarming insects and the political group offering the most nectar will win their vote.

So we have this entirely absurd abstracted to nonsense Referendum Campaign as a result whereby those in power look down from such a height at the teeming multitudes and discern how to arrange them in formations that suit their obscure intentions.

What of course these polls don't tell us is how to argue in good conscience. People become numbers, similar with respect to the whole discussion on the industrialization of warfare that Dr. RAE North mentions: EU Referendum: remember Verdun . Such information becomes appalling knowledge felt when you consider all the men recruited in their villages and towns with NO INKLING THAT THEIR LIVES WERE TO BECOME MERE NUMBERS in quantification of piling more and more numbers against the enemies. What value their own individual lives and stories and livihoods removed and replaced by such numbers of losses:-

"French artillery alone fired more than twelve million shells, the German guns considerably more. The number of dead and wounded on both sides exceeded 700,000." 

What we have today in our media communication is a return to:-

• There is no significant problem with the EU: It is ALL good. The Guardian: Peddling hyper-emotionality.
• The only problem is the Tory "in-fighting" threatening this "good". (see above)
• "The EU Single Market is incredibly value to the UK for it's security and economic life!" EU Referendum: a flawed consensus
• "This is proven by the negative and short-termist emotionalists of the Vote Leave/UKIP Immigration complainers." (see links above that are incoherent from Vote Leave)
• "Really this Referendum is a big mistake where people don't think there is a major problem to hold such an event." Janan Ganesh: Thank you, you complete asshat: Janan Ganesh Is Wrong: Britain Can Still Make History – If We Leave The EU

Remember Vote Leave sent out their own leaflet with a deliberate lie on the front of it. Now they move into Immigration position which is determined not to boost their vote, but to UPHOLD the glaring deceit of the EU argument above.

"The stupidity of it all is that "Project Fear" could so easily be neutralised by pointing out that no government could or would ever allow the worst projections to come to pass. The most logical outcome would be the plan of which no one dares speak its name." 

There is little conscience and too much complicity in UK Politics magnified usefully by this EU Referendum Campaign and how debased it has been conducted by our own politicians and others.

The Political Glass Bead Game: Delusional Decision-Making

The Glass Bead Game (German: Das Glasperlenspiel):-

"The Glass Bead Game is "a kind of synthesis of human learning" in which themes, such as a musical phrase or a philosophical thought, are stated. As the Game progresses, associations between the themes become deeper and more varied. Although the Glass Bead Game is described lucidly, the rules and mechanics are not explained in detail."

So often it is the case that people talk or make a statement or a combination of such to make an argument about the EU Referendum, European Union or Brexit and they may make or use accurate descriptions or inaccurate and empty memes. They may indeed be able to explain these and hence they may even argue in a lucid manner.

But if you want a metaphor which describes THEIR BEHAVIOUR as opposed to taking at face value their WORDS, then you can use the example or metaphor of The Glass Bead Game whereby the total structure of what is said is divorced from a connection to the researched and hence inferred reality of the subjects above of Referendum, European Union and Brexit.

Namely the argument is detached and takes on it's own rules detached from feedback from research from real life!

Most people play this "game" when they talk about politics without realizing it: Indeed they play it because this is what the politicians and the journalists play over and over and over in their communication to the extent it replaces "the real thing" by and large. They don't realize that their descriptions are the glass beads, that their explanations are the advancement of their beads according to the rules they think the game is played by which advances the arguments in some way. And yet what they don't realize is that these "beads" or arguments or as I've called them before are often empty memes or if not they merely tools in the hands of the politicians before they introduce the next seemingly random rule that can never be fully explained, only described as our Glass Bead Game is related above.

Before giving an example let's look at Delusion:-

• certainty (held with absolute conviction)
• incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
• impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

The Glass Bead Game as we call it for now, is characterized by the above delusional properties. A statement can be made with "absolute conviction" even if it's a lie or else an opinion but presented as authorative information. Incorrigibility is taken as a given, that others will never admit they are wrong or mistaken and hence any argument cannot "win" despite this format being the type that is repeated on television endlessly: The sparring opponents of "biff-bam" politics. And finally nothing can be falsified: Facts depend on how you interpret them.

Here we see the conditions of the Glass Bead Game where the explanations are never clear and indeed what we have is a mixture of descriptions of delusion combined with the absence of rules or arbitrary rules of the media conduit. What is noticeable is that so many people want to contribute their opinion but end up adding yet another new glass bead to this game.

But like the game of the story, it is a rarefied activity increasingly so, it is merely a kind of national emotional soup to which people through in their ideas and hence what becomes increasingly the case: Politicians subvert the rules of politics increasingly so to gain an advantage amongst themselves and indeed use the Glass Bead Game to obfuscate and exclude people contributing arguments: What they say is if it is common sense or not is immediately converted into this bizarre game that means absolutely nothing beyond appearances or propaganda, persuasion, spin and where it inevitably leads: Newspeak.

Let's reconstruct some of the last few moves in this Glass Bead Game during this EU Referendum and it might help us Perceive The Game for what it is and hence it might allow us to learn what is a fabrication of misinformation which interacting with our emotions becomes delusional that then feeds into the game more delusional "selective rules" and what might otherwise be progressive problem solving:-

Vote Leave/Establishment (Red is Blue Glass Beads):-

• Have churned up everything in their denial of an exit plan: "A Deal As Good As If Not Better Than Switzerland" (Daniel Hannan's Glass Bead) ; An FTA similar to South Korea, Chile or Mexico (Numerous Vote Leave Politicians) ; A Canadian FTA with WTO Rules (Boris Johnson and Gove) etc
• Saving Billions of Pounds of EU Payments, Bonfire of Redtape Regulations, Control of Our Borders Absolutely, The European Wide Free Trade Area involves everyone from Iceland to Ukraine to Turkey Why Not the UK?
• £350 NHS + Immigration Control UKIP

UK Government/Establishment (Blue is Red is Yellow is Green etc Glass Beads):-

• Countless Studies of Magic Money on the curse of Brexit to the economy under WCS that are left open by Vote Leave's own glass bead moves
• The generation of David Cameron's absolute lie about Special Status and Political Union which is a heavy history of such Glass Beads from "It isn't happening" "Silent Treatment", "It is happening to others only", "It is happening but is positive", "It is happening but there's nothing we can do about it despite fighting vigorously against it!"

What's so interesting is the likes of some who take this game to be some form of superior and sophisticated exercise of human organization! The pundits pontificate on this sagely and utter their deliverances gravely! They don't have a fucking clue about the rules and that's the point: They gain their positions by appearing to be able to "divine" them more closely than people can!!

Here's a little conclusion: This activity is not the zenith at all, it's a barrier.

When there is block or barrier to innovation and invention and hence creativity which is the source of so much of our potential prosperity then it can be inferred that such a society if not progressing, may be closer towards declining? See our debt and deficit problems. See and observe the problems in the Eurozone.

The Political Delusional Activity that is so easy to observe in this Referendum Exhibition Glass Bead Game Match is the major result here. The problem with politics is that much of it cannot be perceived directly by people, and hence these layers and layers of obfuscation and Ivory Tower Selective forces lead to the observations described above:-

Alternatives To Certainty: A Bird In The Hand.

 

 ...and another one (Bullfinches are invariably found in pairs) in the bush!

Yesterday, a male Bullfinch above flew into a window, and stunned itself. Fortunately, it appeared only stunned and needed about 40 minutes to recover before flying away to a nearby apple tree with normal, strong flight returned and alertness in it's behaviour, restored.

Before then, I had picked it up and gone outside and held it in my hand in the sunshine until it had fully "woken up" while it seemed to doze off, at the same time as hoping it was merely stunned and not otherwise seriously injured. Well, it was wonderful to see such a beautiful creature so close and more so that it seemed to make a full recovery and fly away again. The above youtube clip is remarkably similar to my own experience, above, though I did not stroke the bird, merely providing a perch for it, in my hand and for some time a seat as it sat down for a good while too while it closed it's eyes and tried to recover from the stun or shock of it's impact. I remained calm though inwardly feeling consternation for such a bird, one of my favourites, in fact.

So I decided with this thought on my mind of such a beautiful creature to connect the experience with the current topic I noticed on the EU; afterall there's such little inspiration to be had from the channels of communication that so poorly serve the people in how our politics is conducted:-

1. Caroline Lucas was talking about people overestimating how democratic Westminster is.

2. Richard Dawkins was cited as suggesting his own ignorance is (he's actually aware of) is too high for people to really vote on this issue in a direct democratic vote ie Referendum.

3. Following on the daily status quo that "Remain" is the safe option" compared to "Leave" which is the essence of David Cameron's argument.

What I will say about the above: There's a lot of different things going on in what these people say. To briefly explain the arguments:-

1. Caroline Lucas is right: Westminster itself is not very democratic, but the argument she's really making is that for her particular arguments they deserve special status that is even less democratic so that they can't be modified as easily by voters, namely why she supports as a Green the EU.

2. Dawkins is it seems aware enough to assess his own state of ignorance and notice the low quality arguments in the news-media. But he fails to understand that ironically the process of Direct Democracy on the Subject as opposed to the People who espouse (supposedly for a range of subjects) is a positive experience for electorates to feedback on "democracy in action" directly. He also fails to appreciate that this activity promotes a higher trend of increase of knowledge on the subject and more pressure on the low quality arguments polluted by inverting the processes of conclusions and results. Namely polling presumes people already hold conclusions without recourse to results, so it's a question of massaging the message to assume the appearance that appeals to those people!!

3. And hence Cameron's "Devil's Trick" is to blind people to the actual EU Question = "EU Membership" not Economics.

• Description: Above I have described three people's arguments.
• Explanation: I've explained roughly the arguments used.
• Arguments: They each make some statements to form an argument to persuade others of some conclusion they desire or deem good.

This leads us to the question: How do we truly know the value of the above however? Well for that we'd need to deduct as much of the facts as possible. This is a complex process. So much so that:-

1. The complexity has limits to simplification.
2. The logistics of deducting and researching for oneself is necessarily highly involved and demanding and of course may be impractical for communication at a massive scale.
3. Where we can simplify we can make progress. Where we can't we have to rely on alternatives instead of "validation" we rely on "probability".

Hence the old cautionary phrase:-

In fact, Vote Leave have done everything possible it seems to me to ensure people think that Brexit is "a risk, because chances are that you (pl.) could lose everything."

Once people believe the frame of the question is this, then what David Cameron says sounds like the right answer...

... but it's the right answer to the wrong question! As per Roland Smith: Read The Question!

So people can save themselves time if they think and say these things with under a month until the voting day:-

• "I don't know enough how to vote."
• "They're all as bad as each other anyway."
• "It won't change anything anyway if I vote."

Let's look at Caroline Lucas' argument on our own Westminster Politicians:-

• "No Loss of Sovereignty" [Not Happening Argument]
• "There May Be Some Loss of Sovereignty but it's very little." [Happening but insignificant (and not applicable to the UK) Argument]
• "There is Some Loss of Sovereignty but it's worth it." [Happening and Significant and Applicable to the UK) but Positive]
• "Sovereignty is overrated and besides there's nothing we can do about it." [It's Happened already whether or not it's positive or negative and is now "normal" or "the way the world works" / status quo - there is no alternative.

On Richard Dawkins argument:-

• We've missed a Referendum on the previous major treaties, the problem is not a Referendum, it's not enough Referendums on subjects that are smaller and more apprehensible and applicable as and when they are passed for motion for democratic legitimacy by the people.
• We've been in the EEC/EU for over 40 yrs, a long enough time for people to educate more people, so the problem is not the impossibility of knowing, it's the methods or failure of democracy to do just that! See previous.
• His very argument that the Referendum should be an exlusive argument is indeed the very reason why he and so many others feel so ignorance: Because it is an exclusive argument under the current systemic failings of our politics in the UK, that led the UK into the EEC in the first place!

On David Cameron's argument:-

• People voting in the EU Referendum: The big con trick being asked of you is to apparently vote for either one set of Westminster Pro-EU politicians or an alternative set of Westminster Anti-EU politicians and both of their fallacious arguments come a distant second as if this is a General Election.
• This "Devil's Trick" by Cameron and Vote Leave is setting up the "One Bird In The Hand" Inductive Thinking in people to vote Remain.
• One bird in the hand may seem to be "probably" better than speculating on two in the bush. But in fact the Sovereignty of the People of the UK does not belong to either the EU or Westminster!
• This is indeed the question that is being asked in the EU Referendum as Roland Smith correctly points out.
• Knowing that is the question, the answer is simple. What is the best reason to vote to Leave the EU?

 

Success for me was seeing the Bullfinch fly away back into the bush and not in anyone's hand, thankfully!

Confused? Don't Be: Consensus Now! Contrition Much Later.

I may have misread the artist's intention here, but this is the nearest I could find to illustrate the targeted emotion of "Contrition". (Incidentally an emotion that I think is displayed a great deal more successfully in Japanese Anime than in Western animation which seems closer to some version of "humble-brag" and hence inferior storytelling execution and design for the viewing by children).

In our arguments, on such a complex and large subject as EU Membership, we deal with subjects that are not a question of complete exactness. As such the details we input into our arguments are mostly not a question of completely verified facts or figures though constituent parts of those arguments should/must contain as many of these as possible or as few of their opposite as possible). And so it must follow that any conclusions from results that analysis adn research allows, cannot equally be completely validated.

This then brings us into the realms of political consensus to dictate our decisions we would take once democratic discussion has operated on the above.

However, there is still a sequence:-

1. Identify The Problem
2. Narrow Down The Solutions Possible
3. Interpret The Consequential Outcomes

If you are at all familiar with EUReferendum.com for the past so many years, this is exactly I would say the work that has been (again I would say successfully) carried out there. Today's blog by Dr. RAE North, EU Referendum: the lack of a plan very much retrospects on that work (indirectly) point out because it has NOT being incorporated by either Aaron Banks or Dominic Cummings and hence why this is a mistake for the present Referendum campaign commandeered by Vote Leave:-

"But the alarming truth is that they probably can't. To win this referendum, we had to get in first and pre-empt the scare tactics, laying a solid base of reassurance. Thus, the moment Dominic Cummings, for no good reason, rejected the idea of an exit plan, the leave campaign's fate was probably sealed.

We might possibly have been able to claw back from this huge error if Arron Banks had been a man of his word, and backed Flexcit as he said he would. He would also have had to have been successful in seeking lead designation for the "leave" proposition. He was our last chance, and he failed.

For an excellent review of where we could have been, Andrew Stuttaford's article in National Review is the place to be, especially as he makes the point that we have been pursuing the idea of an exit plan for years, only to have been ignored for several and different reasons.

Asa Bennett helps by making it clear that Vote Leave's refusal to adopt and exit plan – any exit plan – was never personal. This was a function of the flawed logic and ignorance of Dominic Cummings, the progenitor of a failed strategy – and also the craven response of the people around Cummings who never had the courage to rein him in.

The result has been a train-wreck campaign."

Why did these people not use the work that had already been laid down? In their own pockets of supporters they decided variably that (2. Narrowing down the solutions possible) would lead to a loss of consensus amongst different groups: For Leave.EU/GO that meant the "anti-immigration" supporters. For Vote Leave that meant the Top Echelons of the "eurosceptic aristocracy" and their dysfunctional dynamic would not permit such.

So in this Consensus Activity without "2." we cannot break through the message to "3. Interpreting the Consequential Outcomes or indeed Conclusions" and hence "Uncertainty, Could & Consensus" and all pundits leaning on the findings of the Biggest Consensus" discernment possible from polls, from various groups of identities:-

It's not only the above who are famed for their prowess in lying. It's also groups of economists and their famed prowess for poor predictions:-

Economists deserve to be ignored

Brexit could add two years to austerity, IFS says

Brexiters’ insouciance is the privilege of the rich - Free FT piece

Only 27% of voters think Leave campaign "credible and trustworthy", down 10% in week.

The Treasury warns of a “do-it-yourself” recession after a Brexit vote

Leaving the European Union would be a “major mistake” that would cost Britain in both the short and the long term, almost 200 economists are warning today. In a letter to The Times, 171 academic and 25 non-academic economists say that Brexit would ...

Economic Brexit? Consensus/Computer says: "Inconceivable!"

Be that as it may, we do actually have certainty about something: EUReferendum.com predicted all this >2/3yrs ago and longer. In fact, EUReferendum.com is the source of "Problem Identification" it then follows with the most competent and rigorous analysis of the "Solutions Possible" and follows on with 3.

So let's come back to the orginal problem for this political Direct Democracy Referendum process:-

1. We cannot be completely exact.
2. This does not however preclude the principles of working towards verification of facts and figures into our arguments to the highest confidence degree (peer review is not the same as consensus through conviction of the largest group of people or the most socially elevated).
3. Hence our conclusions if we are to make predictions are to be considered with the most confidence towards validating our course of action in the subsequent outcomes of Remain or Leave.

But this is just to point out the obvious. What is the fundamental problem here in the actual process of politics, as opposed to working methodology for our information usage?

Education.

The information I think is very solid from EUReferendum.com. However the big problem is education. In fact this Referendum in 2016 premature it may be, it will act as the emotional consensus trigger towards a subsequent national contrition that is the release from the phony arguments freeing up space and putting people into a frame of mind where they DEMAND to learn more as opposed to react over-excitedly and in thrall to the habitual channels of communication of politics (juvenile quality) and we can see more mature methods introduced subsequently.

 What Happened? The shock of Brazil fans... ""this isn't supposed to happen to Brazil's national, football team.""

I might go further and say this Referendum, the more the FUD, The Economic Uncertainty is pushed by the Remain and Establishment groups in their consensus building the more this prestages the subsequent step of Education and the conditions that are needed to make this more possible than the past 2 years have suggested it has not been.

The need of people to learn I think will only be triggered after experiencing this contrition on a suitably mass and national scale. I think this because individual sense of contrition is different from when a whole group of people suddenly experience that they were all hopeless wrong or self-deceived in their previous impervious conviction of being right (especially being right together in such "sound" company!). That anime face I hope attempts to convey this "(collective) Oh Shit!" feeling.

So far the politicians and economists are paving the way. On the one hand, the UK gaining 10 years advance on this process could have been wonderful. But "could" as Remain keep pointing out is no good basis for arguments and ensuring we improve the quality of arguments in our national decision-making.

And this comes back to the second part of this blog, the first being the quality of arguments, the second being the quality of the participants of arguments: Namely people have to learn to elevate their own quality through mistakes and experience of making mistakes: This Referendum is at least conducive on that second part if not on the first part. The politicians and economists are purely reflecting this - which gives people an opportunity to see and experience their own limitations in contributing to real democracy and thus the narrow form it takes (exclusion) consequentially, by those big groups of consensus builders who effectively displace the widening of arguments by more contributions by more people.

To use a flesh example, when Brazil were thoroughly thrashed by Germany:

"This match, however, ended in a shocking loss for Brazil; Germany led 5–0 at half time, with four goals scored in a span of six minutes, and subsequently brought the score up to 7–0 in the second half. Brazil scored a goal in the last minute, ending the match 7–1."

I was not surprised: They had looked like a weak team riding their status for too long in achieving results while Germany had spent years of hard work building their team for winning the World Cup in 2014 (I think ever since England thrashed them back in the early 2000's 5-1 or something (2001)!). But you can see the shock and dismay of the fans above. At least losing so badly may lead to asking questions more seriously and hence identifying the problems more successfully.

Polls & Politics: A Finger Pointing To The Moon

 "I am a finger pointing to the moon. Don't look at me; look at the moon." ~ Gautama Buddha

Often when listening to some or other politics programme on the television, in particular Daily Politcs, Newsnight and Question Time from the BBC, I am very aware of a distinction:-

• When talking about Political Policy (what?)
• When talking about Political Personality (who?)

I consider most of the "who?" category to be secondary and "low quality information" and yet if I were to do a proportion measure on the above programmes and calculate the time spent between the two, it might be quite interesting to see how much time is spent on this "who?" and at the cost of "what?". Why is this? Indeed, do you agree or disagree that one is primary and two is secondary?!

You can easily make the connection between the quote above and this consideration of politically productive discussion vs (not always but mostly) empty discussion (in the main).

A big hint why this happens is actually provided recently by Pete North, in serendipitous fashion:-

The anatomy of failure

I remember a lot of "stick" that Pete North has taken, perhaps he's just one of these unfortunate types who the very look and sound of, is enough to piss people off and rub them up the wrong way... perhaps there's multiple other reasons that a radio talkshow could spend a good afternoon gossiping about and still not zero in on the de facto reason. It does not matter, we're not talking about Pete North, and the irony of "the look of disapproval" to "emote" this flaw... but what is worth saying is that this particular blog content is one of the most important made concerning the campaign process for this referendum.

Let's take another example however where this principle operates in polling data which is also something the pundits relish talking about as much as if not it seems more so than the actual political policy:-

Sex/Gender:-

Age:-

Ethnicity:-

Political Party:-

Socio-Economic Group:-

Education:-

Religion:-

 How will all these data sets describe how people will vote in the EU Referendum? So much is made of this and yet so little is made of:-

Knowledge Self-Awareness "&" Appropriate Application "&&" Recognition in Others

The above graph is quite easy to appreciate. If you have been reading the past five blogs at EUReferendum.com then it is easy to appreciate the "green line" of "How much more I realise there is to know".

I think a lot of people rightly identify themselves as "Beginner": "I know nothing". However, they are unable to assess or fall for incorrect measures when the likes of:-

Actors/Celebrities:-

Authorative Business Leaders:-

Celebrity "Popular" Politicians:-

Prestigious Politicians:-

Foreign "powerful" dignataries:-

Intelligent Sounding Academics:-

Officious-Sounding "Impartial" Think Tanks:-

Provide their "Hazard" "I'm an expert" (of what?) opinions and what I think people generally have as "good intuitions" are confused by such appearances by the above as the above "trump" such beginner opinions "I know nothing".

I personally believe this all leads to the simple outcomes of "top trumps" or "Butting heads" replacing arguments with fractured and fragmented fallacies empty memes/headline factoids (Hazard!):-

Impressive forces! But I think such polical outcomes in people leave the combatants exhausted and frustrated: "They're all as bad as each other" observation.

These are the old argument forms that are increasingly visible and condensed given the Referendum is directly on the subject of the EU and much much less on the "who?" of tribal politics. Therefore even in this error of UK Gov (Cameron/Eton) vs UK Gov (Johnson/Eton) Remain vs Leave outcome, there has been a by-product we can make future use from.

And that's more concentrated and effective methods at looking at that moon in all it's heavenly splendour:-

EUReferendum.com:-

EU Referendum: why we must leave	22/05/2016
EU Referendum: "pettifogging regulation"	21/05/2016
EU Referendum: polluted by ignorance	20/05/2016
EU Referendum: a matter of regulation	19/05/2016