Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Just like to pint out that being able to manage and organize statistics leads to "inside-the-box" thinking.

Posted by Mac at April 2, 2007 08:37 AM

Mac, tell that to Billy Beane.

Posted by Leland at April 2, 2007 08:50 AM

The internet is useless on April 1st.

Posted by Hal Duston at April 2, 2007 10:33 AM

Okay, let me rephrase a bit....MAY lead to inside-the-box thinking.

Posted by Mac at April 2, 2007 10:58 AM

Heh.

Posted by Greg at April 2, 2007 11:47 AM

Mac: "Just like to pint out that being able to manage and organize statistics leads to "inside-the-box" thinking."

The "box" being reality.

Hal: "The internet is useless on April 1st."

It's primary functions--porn, spam, and Russian money laundering--continue uninterrupted.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 2, 2007 01:57 PM

Squidward says: The "box" being reality.

That may very well be, but closeting yourself inside your definition of reality limits you to original thinking. Limits can be a bad thing. Trying to solve a problem the same way, over and over, because your definition of reality says it has to work is stressful, when perhaps a jump outside of your definition of reality will spark a novel idea and a completely different approach.

Reality itself, for everyone, is redefined every day, or should be in my opinion.

Posted by Mac at April 2, 2007 09:03 PM

Mac: "That may very well be, but closeting yourself inside your definition of reality limits you to original thinking."

My perception of reality is open-ended, but that which already exists can only be reinterpreted in the context of new information--it cannot simply be ignored or denied like conservatives do. There is nothing original about the way they think, it is subconscious and infantile bordering on reflex: Emotional proximity to the self determines all moral, ethical, and *factual* judgments. They wouldn't tolerate their own behavior from an outgroup for one second, nor listen to valid criticism from an outgroup without becoming outraged and vengeful.

They can view outgroups with unlimited negativity, but cannot hold them in any greater regard than as tools of ingroup interests; and ingroups they can hold to be absolute and definitive good in themselves, but cannot view anything they do negatively beyond the most innocuous and absolving terms.

Mac: "Trying to solve a problem the same way, over and over, because your definition of reality says it has to work is stressful"

My view of reality never says anything has to work other than mathematics, but it accepts the patterns in information until new information contradicts them.

"Reality itself, for everyone, is redefined every day, or should be in my opinion."

Open-endedness is desirable, but there's no point to denying that anything can be known. Reality is either progressive, static, or degenerate; you build on and reinterpret that which you've discovered, or you remain in orbit of the same patterns, or (like a "neocon") you invent reality second by second to suit emotional whims and become an idiot or a monster.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 3, 2007 01:53 AM

Wow Mac! You are a prophet. You put out that little box there, and BS jumps right into it and calls it home.

The box indeed is what people consider reality. Such reality use to include the world is flat, man cannot fly faster than the speed of sound, and that the Soviet Union could never be defeated. Some didn't think inside the box, and others, the box just seemed to get bigger (as if that was a bad thing).

Posted by Leland at April 3, 2007 06:16 AM

Brian said: My perception of reality is open-ended.

As it should be.

Then he says: it cannot simply be ignored or denied like conservatives do.

I don't do that and I am a conservative. Your lumping all conservatives together into a tight little group shows a closed-box mind.

This was my favorite: Emotional proximity to the self determines all moral, ethical, and *factual* judgments.

Moral and ethical judgements can come from the divine as well. Factual is factual.

And onward: nor listen to valid criticism from an outgroup without becoming outraged and vengeful.

I have listened (read) your criticisms and some have been valid. I also have responded in less than vengeful tones on several occasions. Uh oh, this conservative may be outside your definition.

Leland says: Wow Mac! You are a prophet. You put out that little box there, and BS jumps right into it and calls it home.

I should wear robes and sandals.

Posted by Mac at April 3, 2007 07:44 AM

"I don't do that and I am a conservative."

I've seen you do it occasionally.

"Your lumping all conservatives together into a tight little group shows a closed-box mind."

There's no "lumping," it's a description of a characteristic stemming from definitive traits. Otherwise you'll have a hard time explaining what connection religious fanatics, militarists, and corporate criminals have with each other that causes them all to identify with conservatism. The common thread goes down to narcissism, defining reality by arbitrary personal objectives rather than itself.

"Moral and ethical judgements can come from the divine as well."

Which divinity they follow is a function of tradition, which follows from their (unarticulated) belief that truth value is determined by the immediate social power of an institution.

"Factual is factual."

Conservatives who think still don't realize how their thoughts are derived, and don't understand the feedback process whereby facts are discovered. Reality begins empirically, but an intelligent conservative begins with Received Truth and then expounds on it. The most basic Received Truth, of course, is their emotions, so it becomes their "fractal," found at every level they look.

A highly talented conservative who doesn't like something will invent an elaborate and quite irrational ideology explaining why that thing, idea, or set of people is fundamentally bad. It could start as simply as not liking the way that someone looks to begin centuries of ethnic hatred, or being mistreated by a county clerk spurring violent anti-government militancy. The empirical feedback process is short-circuited in the conservative mind, so they don't have a "reality compass" letting them know when they're being stupid. Things only change when events cause their emotions to change, when the causal reality they can't see has a direct impact on the emotional reality they can.

"Uh oh, this conservative may be outside your definition."

I describe conservatism, not conservatives. A conservative is a person; conservatism is a set of personality traits, values, and beliefs, and the collection thereof in a group of people is an observed phenomenon, not a mathematical identity. All human language is heuristic.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 3, 2007 08:08 PM

Brian, by definition, that is exactly what 'a conservative' WONT do. To be a conservative means opposing change.

Posted by Adrasteia at April 4, 2007 03:57 AM

Under most circumstances, yes. I was saying that the only time a conservative will change is when something kicks them in the ass on a personal level: Suddenly recognizing the merits of stem cells when a life-threatening illness afflicts them or a loved one; deciding war should never be a tool of politics when a family member is sent into combat; learning hard lessons about the nature of capitalism when laid off in a time of record profits, etc etc. A large part of that ignorance is just plain laziness on their part.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 4, 2007 04:15 AM

religious fanatics, militarists, and corporate criminals have with each other that causes them all to identify with conservatism.

You're cherry-picking a bit, Brian. When you say "religious fanatics" you're restricting yourself to fairly mainstream folks, like Baptists and evangelical and such. Really outre religious cults, like Jim Jones' People's Temple, or the comet crazies, often identify with progressivism. They (like the progressives) say that society is too strait-laced to understand them, oppressed them with its absurd insistence that (say) one man not have five hundred wives, that the children go to school and get vaccinated, or that temple buildings have bathroom plumbing that's up to code, and doesn't simply dump the sewage into the community garden.

As for militarists, you restrict yourself to families where joining the military is a tradition, and who do a lot of shootin' in hunting season, maybe take an AR-15 down to the range on Saturday, too. These also are fairly law-abiding, harmless people. But if you look for people who think military force should be used without restraint to modify how great swathes of the world lives and thinks, well, in the 20th century you're going to come up with progressives, again. Mao and Stalin, to name the biggest criminals. But let us not forget that all of the major US wars were begun under progressive leadership (by Democratic Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson). It's just a logical consequence of progressive thinking that you're more willing to see force used to accomplish the change you're impatient to see.

Finally, what do you mean by "corporate criminals"? Do you mean corporate big shots convicted of vague crimes against the public interest, like Martha Stewart or the Arthur Andersen accountants? In these cases, you may be right, since their "crimes" are often enough only crimes in the eyes of the progressive, and bear a striking resemblence to what Stalin used to call anti-Soviet activity.

Or perhaps you mean corporate big shots convicted of ordinary, indisputable crimes like murder, robbery, theft, arson? In which case, I don't see any evidence that they're more likely to identify with conservative values, except in the sense that *all* successfully, wealthy people are more likely to identify with conservative values. (Conversely, penniless gang murderers and drug dealers are more likely to identify with progressive values, but we don't hold that against you.)

Adrasteia avers conservatism by definition means opposing change, but that's fatuous. To be conservative is to be skeptical of change, especially change for mere change's sake, in the blind hope that what is merely different will be better. You might better say that to be conservative is to be strongly skeptical of the power of human reason -- to be hesitant to sign on to new theories of human behaviour that promise to end the ancient ills of war, poverty, stupidity and bad manners overnight, at zero cost. It means to prefer small changes over large, and caution over adventure.

It's reasonable to say, by contrast, that the progressive believes in the power of reason, and is far more willing to roll the dice, try something new, tear everything down to Do It Right this time. Progressives undoubtably achieve greater things faster than conservatives. But, alas, they also achieve more horrible things faster, too.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 4, 2007 05:11 AM

"When you say "religious fanatics" you're restricting yourself to fairly mainstream folks"

Dobson, Falwell, Zawahiri, etc. are not "mainstream" by any stretch of the imagination, and the political power they've enjoyed at various times certainly doesn't change that.

"like Baptists and evangelical and such."

The churches aren't inherently fanatical, just the cultures where they're most prevalent.

"Really outre religious cults, like Jim Jones' People's Temple, or the comet crazies, often identify with progressivism."

Sure, but it's never reciprocated, and you're talking about several magnitudes lower scale. But on the other side of things, the megachurch phenomenon churned out millions of vicariously homicidal Republican voters, which the Party repaid with a wide-open door into the highest levels of government and fat taxpayer subsidies through the faith-based initiative.

"These also are fairly law-abiding, harmless people."

People usually are, but they can still act in aggregate to commit heinous crimes without ever pulling a trigger on a child, tossing a zyklon canister, or participating in torture.

"But if you look for people who think military force should be used without restraint to modify how great swathes of the world lives and thinks, well, in the 20th century you're going to come up with progressives, again."

Can't think of any. Wilson had some tendencies, but the other Powers ignored his agenda after the war.

"Mao and Stalin, to name the biggest criminals."

Neither of whom were progressives, unless your only criterion is that they weren't capitalists.

"But let us not forget that all of the major US wars were begun under progressive leadership (by Democratic Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson)"

You forgot Lincoln. There's also the small matter that every war in question but one was begun by the enemy, and that the exception was under a Texan.

"Finally, what do you mean by "corporate criminals"?"

My label is too limited. I meant people who generally live to make money, conduct their business with little to no sense of moral or ethical responsibility, and virtually all vote Republican for the tax cut payoffs they're guaranteed if successful.

"except in the sense that *all* successfully, wealthy people are more likely to identify with conservative values."

Yes, once they succeed.

"Conversely, penniless gang murderers and drug dealers are more likely to identify with progressive values"

Uh, no. They don't want to fundamentally change anything, just put themselves at the top.

"To be conservative is to be skeptical of change"

I'm glad you've consulted a dictionary, but we're discussing real phenomena. To be skeptical is to admit the reasonable possibility of error, but that has not typically been how conservatives respond to the world. And it is not change in general that excites their resistance, as the current regime proved overwhelmingly, but only change in the direction opposite to ideological mandates.

"You might better say that to be conservative is to be strongly skeptical of the power of human reason"

Which leaves only emotion, instinct, and tradition for them to rely upon. I quite agree with your assessment on this point.

"It means to prefer small changes over large, and caution over adventure."

Only when not in power.

Progressives undoubtably achieve greater things faster than conservatives. But, alas, they also achieve more horrible things faster, too.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 4, 2007 06:51 AM

Correction: Meant to put the last two sentences in quotes and respond, but nevermind.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 4, 2007 06:55 AM

Squidward said: ...it cannot simply be ignored or denied like conservatives do.

Then he said: There's no "lumping," it's a description of a characteristic stemming from definitive traits.

The first statement is a group "conservatives" i.e. People who consider themselves conservative. The word missing that changes the meaning to what you're claiming is "most" which you regretfully left out. "Most conservatives" changes the meaning to a fractured group of like thinking.

Which divinity they follow is a function of tradition

Not at all. I am one of the faithful, though I do not attend church, nor do I understand the need to be a sheep. Through my faith in a higher being, I know morality and ethics from the divine, unfiltered by religious doctrine. It may differ from your perception of morality or ethics, but it is pure and unfiltered.

Squiddie says: A highly talented conservative who doesn't like something will invent an elaborate and quite irrational ideology explaining why that thing, idea, or set of people is fundamentally bad...

Sort of like What "is" is? That was a liberal defense. :)

And then: I describe conservatism, not conservatives.

No, you said as above noted ...as conservatives do. That describes conservatives (in your opinion) and not conservatism.

Posted by Mac at April 4, 2007 10:58 AM

"The first statement is a group "conservatives" i.e. People who consider themselves conservative."

The only purpose of applying the label is to describe words and actions pertaining to it--i.e., people are not conservatives or liberals when talking about the Super Bowl. So your assumption that I describe people rather than ideas and behaviors is misplaced.

"I am one of the faithful, though I do not attend church, nor do I understand the need to be a sheep."

Then you are not a religious conservative. Those who are, virtually by definition rigidly and dogmatically worship the divinit(y/ies) of tradition.

"Through my faith in a higher being, I know morality and ethics from the divine, unfiltered by religious doctrine."

This sounds a lot like liberalism. Are you sure you're a conservative?

"Sort of like What "is" is?"

I fail to see the connection to what I said. A conservative's values are "received" from that which they perceive as prior, be it God, society, or their own emotions, and there is no effective limit to how far this fact can be scaled. Sometimes it can even lead conservatives to become liberals, if random chance pushes their emotions in the directions of compassion and altruism, but even then they will "receive" their version of liberalism from some kind of authority.

Two perfect examples are Germany and Japan: Highly conservative cultures even today, yet manifesting liberalism by virtue of having received it from authority after native forms led to trauma. I occasionally wonder what might have become of the South had Reconstruction not been sabotaged by Andrew Johnson, had it been given a new set of ideas to work with instead of just left to fester. IMHO, America is incomplete until the heretofore Red states discover their *creative* potential.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 5, 2007 04:45 AM

Brian says: This sounds a lot like liberalism. Are you sure you're a conservative?

Yes I am, when it comes to economics and government. Though in the spiritual field I am very liberal.

You said: I fail to see the connection to what I said.

Let me show you...

Squiddie says: A highly talented conservative who doesn't like something WILL INVENT an elaborate and quite irrational ideology explaining why that thing, idea, or set of people is fundamentally bad...

So I said...

Sort of like What "is" is? That was a liberal defense. :)

Pointing out our beloved previous President's attempt to redefine words do defend himself.

Posted by Mac at April 5, 2007 11:14 AM

"Yes I am, when it comes to economics and government. Though in the spiritual field I am very liberal."

Either set of values can lead to ideas associated with the other in specific contexts. Even though mine are fundamentally liberal, my personal philosophy borrows a lot from Nietzsche, and my leftist friends often regard my ideas with horror. They have trouble comprehending my avid support of space colonization--eternity and infinity are too far removed from the human condition to seem important beside rice bowls and malaria shots. Can't say I blame them for feeling that way, but I wish I could show them what I see when I look at the sky. Anyway, just a random tangent.

"Pointing out our beloved previous President's attempt to redefine words do defend himself."

He didn't attempt to redefine words, he over-literalized to dodge the question. And that doesn't have anything to do with my point, namely that a conservative starts from emotion as the basis and then rationalizes outward. Step on a conservative's shoe, and you may be starting a multi-generational ethnic hatred.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 5, 2007 01:07 PM

Step on a conservative's shoe, and you may be starting a multi-generational ethnic hatred.

Just another example of Swiderski's idiotic, mindless bigotry against "conservatives."

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 5, 2007 01:59 PM

Brian, don't be offended, but your reasoning is all over the place here, shotgun-like. I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but some discipline in your thoughts would, at the least, let you win more arguments.

There's no point in plodding through all your detail, e.g. pointing out the silliness of something like this:

Dobson, Falwell, Zawahiri, etc. are not "mainstream" by any stretch of the imagination

followed by this:

and the political power they've enjoyed at various times certainly doesn't change that.

Brian, Brian. How do you suppose people get political power, except by appealing to a broad swathe of folks, by being, in essence, in the mainstream? You've directly contradicted yourself. What you really mean instead of "mainstream" is something more like "reasonable". That saves you from the obvious logical contradiction, since it's quite possible for someone to be unreasonable but also appeal to enough people to be politically powerful.

If I had to guess, I'd say you're just offended by what you see as the self-labeled conservative's narrow-minded hostility towards folks not acting according to his ideas of what's proper, and you look for intellectual arguments about why that's wrong.

Don't bother. Really, it's pointless. People are different and have different tastes. Church-goin', Bible-readin' families with strong ideas about fathers ruling the roost with an iron rod have different ideas about what's proper than professional lesbian couples in the film industry. In fact, they'll both be pretty intolerant and harsh on people whom they find offensive, and they'll both see the speck of this in their opponent's eye without having a clue about the beam in their own. But that's human nature.

And it's just human nature to prefer, for no obvious reason, the company of one group over another. Maybe you just naturally like folks who become schoolteachers, city councilmen, and marriage counselors. Folks who prize a warm fuzzy feeling that we're all the same and all reading from the same page. And maybe I just naturally prefer folks who become soldiers, entrepreneurs, physicians and laboratory scientists. Prickly folk who prize individuality and strong senses of mutual obligation and duty.

So what? To each his own. You don't need to defend your choice rationally. All we really need to debate is how to live together, people of such varying taste. The Iraq war is a sad proxy for that debate -- which is really a domestic political debate -- because, truly, if it was begun by a Democratic President intent on liberating the Iraqi people (and their neighbors) from a brutal dictatorship, all you folks on the left would be among its most passionate defenders. (Conversely, and ironically, many of the people now supporting the war would also switch sides, and condemn it as a typical do-gooder's foolish waste of resources, a Middle Eastern Cabrini Green.)

Posted by Carl Pham at April 5, 2007 02:08 PM

Brian said: He [Clinton] didn't attempt to redefine words, he over-literalized to dodge the question.

Arguing over the definition of the words "is" is an attempt to redefine for his gain.

He said: conservative starts from emotion as the basis and then rationalizes outward.

I disagree vehemently! (kidding) I personally look at an issue and see how I believe it can benefit or become a detriment. Yes, emotions do come into it too, but only after I've looked into what I believe.

Posted by Mac at April 5, 2007 03:06 PM

"How do you suppose people get political power"

In this case, by cultivating relationships with an amenable organization, i.e. Republican Party.

"except by appealing to a broad swathe of folks"

By allying with the GOP, which then bundles their Trojan Horse social agenda with taxes and fear politics, religious fanatics can obtain power that the public would never directly grant them.

"I'd say you're just offended by what you see as the self-labeled conservative's narrow-minded hostility towards folks not acting according to his ideas of what's proper"

Religious fanaticism is much starker and more gothic than "narrow-minded hostility" to that which offends their sensibilities. People like Dobson literally believe in the Bible, including the Books of Genesis and Revelations, and that Christians should desire to bring about the Battle of Armageddon so that Christ would return.

They believe as an unquestionable fact that Satan is a real entity, that he and his demons are at work throughout the world constantly, that most human beings on Earth are damned to an eternity of torture and pain, and that evil is EVERYWHERE. These beliefs are not matters of faith with fanatics, but rather considered to be FACT, as solidly true in their minds as the ground beneath their feet (if not more so). Try to understand how things appear to such a mentality, the utter madness it implies. Neither of us could imagine the nightmarish fantasy world these people inhabit, and you would be naive to treat their psychoses as the quaint prejudices of down-home country folk.

Check out this videogame released by Rick Warren's organization:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/29/203330/248

These are people who believe as a fact that the events in the game will take place, and its objectives are to convert or execute the inhabitants of New York City as part of a paramilitary team of Believers. Naturally those who resist are demons, and are shown sinking to hell when executed. Obviously this is pretty funny, but it's rather sobering when you realize that Warren and his cadres literally believe the events depicted will happen and reflect what God wishes of Christians.

"and they'll both see the speck of this in their opponent's eye without having a clue about the beam in their own."

Relativism is all well and good when it makes sense, but equating the defensive reactionism of an activist lesbian with what I've just described above is all kinds of glib.

"Maybe you just naturally like folks who become schoolteachers, city councilmen, and marriage counselors."

I like scientists, engineers, scholars, authors, architects, science fiction geeks, classicists, and people with mischievous minds.

"all you folks on the left would be among its most passionate defenders."

A liberal president (or any president, FTM) doing what Bush has done is perhaps the second most unlikely scenario one could imagine; that liberals would support it is the first. There's also the small matter that an overwhelmingly liberal Congress would never have authorized it, and even Bush's rubber-stamp Congress would have refused under a Democratic President.

"Conversely, and ironically, many of the people now supporting the war would also switch sides, and condemn it as a typical do-gooder's foolish waste of resources, a Middle Eastern Cabrini Green."

That I don't doubt, although the criticism would be muted if the same elite money interests benefited as they have in fact.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 5, 2007 05:22 PM

Post a comment