Madness in the Levels

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
1

I am jumping in late to this "madness" personal politics aside---

The Republican impeachment steamroller is a graphic example of what

happens when a control system is unable or unwilling to go up a level. No
Republican leader appears to have asked exactly what higher goal would be
served by impeaching the president and making Al Gore president, or what
alternative approaches might better serve this higher goal. No Republican
leader appears to have asked what might be gained by censuring the President
for lying to the public, his own cabinet, and the Congress, and _not_ voting
impeachment "to spare the country a lengthy debilitating trial." No Republican
leader seems to have asked whether it would be better for the Republicans to
face the electorate in two years after a bipartisan vote of censure or after a
party-line vote for impeachment that seems likely to result in an acquittal.
There is surely a significant advantage in having one's opponents ignorant of
PCT, even if one's allies are too.
<<<<<<<<

The above comment is not "Going UP a level" or at least not the correct LEVEL.
Political strategy is not the Controlling Level here and not one to appeal to,
for control.
Also "making Al Gore Pres" and "facing the electorate in two years" are
consequences of the appropriate level being controlled and are NOT intentions.

The goals (references) of the Pres. of the USA are stated in the "Oath of
Office" and in the "Constitution"

Impeachable offenses are those actions that violate the Oath and/or the
Constitution.

The implied and intended goals are not always aligned.

We are learning that it is "OK" to lie sometimes -- Lying is OK when it is
"disinformation" or at least can't be proven but not "OK" under oath when it
can be proven. That is perjury and that is Impeachable regardless of what is
being lied about.

Disinformation seems to be "OK" as it relates to "national security" but not
in personal matter the pres. was trying to avoid. That is considered
"obstruction of Justice" also an impeachable offense.

By lowering the argument down a few levels you get into childlike behavior of
name calling. It is the "Republicans" vs. the "Democrats" both words sound
like swear words when spoken by a member of one party in reference to a member
of the opposite.

PS It seems to be if you are upholding the "Oath of Office" you wont have to
worry about being impeached regardless of your politics.

Mark Lazare

2

[From Rick Marken (981221.1550)]

Mark Lazare (981221) --

We are learning that it is "OK" to lie sometimes -- Lying is OK
when it is "disinformation" or at least can't be proven but not
"OK" under oath when it can be proven. That is perjury and that
is Impeachable regardless of what is being lied about.

Here are some questions that seem interesting to think about from
a PCT perspective.

What is a lie?

Is lying always wrong? Why?

Are some people liars and others not?

Any thoughts anyone?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

3

[From Bruce Gregory (81221.2107 ED)]

me:

>>>>>>The Republican impeachment steamroller is a graphic example of what
happens when a control system is unable or unwilling to go up a level. No
Republican leader appears to have asked exactly what higher goal would be
served by impeaching the president and making Al Gore president, or what
alternative approaches might better serve this higher goal. No Republican
leader appears to have asked what might be gained by censuring
the President
for lying to the public, his own cabinet, and the Congress, and
_not_ voting
impeachment "to spare the country a lengthy debilitating trial."
No Republican
leader seems to have asked whether it would be better for the
Republicans to
face the electorate in two years after a bipartisan vote of
censure or after a
party-line vote for impeachment that seems likely to result in an
acquittal.
There is surely a significant advantage in having one's opponents
ignorant of
PCT, even if one's allies are too.
<<<<<<<<

The above comment is not "Going UP a level" or at least not the
correct LEVEL.

Must I take your word for it?

Political strategy is not the Controlling Level here and not one
to appeal to,
for control.

You speak with great certainty.

Also "making Al Gore Pres" and "facing the electorate in two years" are
consequences of the appropriate level being controlled and are
NOT intentions.

Who said they were?

The goals (references) of the Pres. of the USA are stated in the "Oath of
Office" and in the "Constitution"

Really? Don't we need the Test to determine this?

Impeachable offenses are those actions that violate the Oath and/or the
Constitution.

The lesson I took is that impeachable offenses are whatever the majority of
the House says they are. Did I miss something?

The implied and intended goals are not always aligned.

This may be true, but I have no idea what it means. It doesn't sound like
PCT to me.

We are learning that it is "OK" to lie sometimes -- Lying is OK when it is
"disinformation" or at least can't be proven but not "OK" under
oath when it
can be proven. That is perjury and that is Impeachable
regardless of what is
being lied about.

Who is teaching us these "truths"? Would they become falsehoods if there was
a Democratic majority?

Disinformation seems to be "OK" as it relates to "national
security" but not
in personal matter the pres. was trying to avoid. That is considered
"obstruction of Justice" also an impeachable offense.

By lowering the argument down a few levels you get into childlike
behavior of
name calling. It is the "Republicans" vs. the "Democrats" both
words sound
like swear words when spoken by a member of one party in
reference to a member
of the opposite.

Is this my fault?

PS It seems to be if you are upholding the "Oath of Office" you
wont have to
worry about being impeached regardless of your politics.

Dream on. I don't know what you are smoking, but I wish you would share it.

Bruce Gregory

4

[From Bruce Gregory (981222.0955 EDT)]

Rick Marken (981221.1550)]

What is a lie?

To lie is to believe A is true and to assert that you believe not-A is
true. To know that someone is lying you must ascertain that they believe
that A is true and they say that they believe not-A is true.

Is lying always wrong? Why?

It is possible to image a range of situations in which a person would
lie. In many cases, you are expected to lie. Telling someone what you
thought of their intelligence, for example, would often be in very bad
taste. A film was recently made with Jim Carey (Liar! Liar!)that
highlighted the disasters that would befall someone who always spoke the
truth.

Are some people liars and others not?

Some lie more often than others. Some rarely lie. People can lie to
protect themselves or to protect others. The former tends to be frowned
on; the latter to be approved. Very few condemn the family that hid Anne
Frank from the Nazis for example.

Bruce Gregory

5

[From Rick Marken (981222.0830)]

Bruce Gregory (981222.0955 EDT) --

Thanks. Excellent answers. I've had some thoughts this morning
which are relevant to your answer to my question "What is a lie?"
You say:

To lie is to believe A is true and to assert that you believe
not-A is true. To know that someone is lying you must ascertain
that they believe that A is true and they say that they believe
not-A is true.

This answer is important because it makes clear that a lie
is about _perceptions_. A lie is an intentional behavior (so
PCT is relevant) aimed at evoking in another person a
_perception_ (what you call a "belief") that differs from
your own. If Clinton lied, he was intentionally trying to
evoke a perception in his inquisitors that differed from his
own.

So one thing that is important about lying (from a PCT perspective)
is that it's about _perceptions_ -- not what _really_ happened
in some objective sense. So if Clinton lied, he was intentionally
trying to evoke a perception in his inquisitors that differed
from his own perception. The perception in question was of what
Bill experienced while with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton's inquisitors
believe that Bill obviously perceived what is evoked in their
own brains by the words "sexual relations" so they are _sure_ that
when Bill said "I did not have sexual relations with her" it evoked
in their brains a perception that differed from the one Bill
actually had. I think this is because these people don't understand
that people deal with _perceptions_, not reality. Many of those
who think Clinton lied probably think he lied because he said
words that did not correspond to what is _objecitvely true_; to
what is reality.

If nothing else, PCT makes us aware of the fact that people are
dealing with their _perceptions_, not objective reality. People who
don't understand PCT may think it's obvious that "sexual relations"
really, objectively happened and that the pornographic Starr report
proves this. So they thing that Bill lied by intentionally not
saying what _really_ happened. But it is impossible to tell this
kind of lie because _no one_ has a direct line to reality; Bill
couldn't be lying about what _really_ happened because _no one_
knows what _really_ happens; all they know (and can talk about) are
there _perceptions_.

So the real question is whether Clinton lied in the PCT sense;
did he try to _intentionally_ evoke in his inquisitors a perception
that differed from his own. I think this question shows that
there are really two aspects to lying in the PCT sense: in PCT
lying involves 1)_intent_ to deceive (invoke perception P' in
your inquisitor knowing that you had perception P) and 2) actually
evoking P' rather than P, whether that was intended or not.

I presume that most people object to component 1) of lying
rather than component 2). So I presume that the people who
object to Clinton's "lying" assume that he was intentionally
deceiving, not evoking the wrong perception in his inquisitors
by accident. But how do you know Clinton was doing 1) rather
than 2)? I think this is where you need to _test_ for the
controlled variable (as Bruce Gregory has noted). That is, you
would have to test to determine whether Bill was intentionally
trying to invoke a perception in his inquisitors that differed
from his own. It's not clear to me that Bill was doing this.

To make concrete what I mean here, suppose Bill had said "Yes
I did have sex with her". Does that mean he was not intentionally
deceiving based on what we know? Not at all. Bill is exactly
my age and when I was in high school, if you said you had
sex with someone and you had only gotten some head or tit then
you were considered a liar; you had evoked a perception, P',
in your listener (that you got laid) that did not correspond to
your actual perception, P (you didn't). This was a serious lie
because it communicated sexual prowass that you did not possess
and it sullied the reputation of the lady in question. So from
my perspective (and probably Bill's too) if Bill had said "Yes,
I did have sex with her" he would have been lying. So in my
world, if Bill did not perceive having intercourse with the lady
(which he apparently didn't) then he did not lie when he said
"No I did not have sex with her"; indeed, he get points for telling
the truth to the American public and to the courts and for
protecting the reputation of the lady involved when he said
"I never had sexual relations with that woman".

My conclusion, based on a PCT analysis of lying, is that the
people who are the most upset at Clinton for "lying under oath"
are the one's who couldn't get laid in high school;-)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

6

[From Bill Powers (981222.1118 MST)]

Rick Marken (981222.0830)

It's interesting how the discussion of Clinton's "lies" starts (finally) to
get interesting because of starting to treat PCT issues seriously instead
of just airing prejudices.

Rick's discussion of attitudes toward sex is most fascinating, being a good
way of surprising people up a level. The relationship between beliefs
(higher-level perceptions) and objective truth (other higher-level
perceptions) is worth study. But it's hard to maintain the detached
attitude necessary to do so. We are all convinced that our own belief is
the true one, even though ( I am convinced) none of them is.

I'd like to suggest that part of the fight between conservative Republicans
and liberal Democrats is about the difference between principles and system
concepts. Republicans, at least some of them, seem dead set against
something called "moral relativism." Moral relativism means that a
principle that's a good thing to follow in one circumstance may be neutral
or bad in another. The opposite of moral relativism seems to be moral
absolutism, which says that a principle that is good or bad must remain
good or bad regardless of circumstances. So if lying is bad, it's always
bad, no exceptions.

Moral absolutism concerns principle-level reference conditions. It says
that these reference conditions should be unchangeable. But if they were,
what would that tell us, PCT-wise? It would say that the system-concept
levels are disconnected from the rest of the hierarchy, or perhaps don't
even exist! In HPCT, a system concept is maintained against disturbances by
means of varying reference levels at the principle level. Suppose that in
your system concept, people exhibit respect for others by avoiding
confrontation and direct contradiction. But if one person violates these
principles, he or she can become a disruptive influence on everyone else,
and make the uniform maintenance of respect impossible. In that case, the
best thing to do is to enter into a confrontation and get it over with.
This doesn't mean that avoiding confrontations isn't a good idea. It just
means that it's _normally_ a good idea, but by no means _always_.

A moral absolutist would have to reject that flexible way of treating a
principle.

I think there is more to be said along these lines. It would be really
useful if we could work out just what is so different between Republicans
and Democrats, or other similar groups who can't stand each other.

Best,

Bill P.

···

Bruce Gregory (981222.0955 EDT) --

Thanks. Excellent answers. I've had some thoughts this morning
which are relevant to your answer to my question "What is a lie?"
You say:

To lie is to believe A is true and to assert that you believe
not-A is true. To know that someone is lying you must ascertain
that they believe that A is true and they say that they believe
not-A is true.

This answer is important because it makes clear that a lie
is about _perceptions_. A lie is an intentional behavior (so
PCT is relevant) aimed at evoking in another person a
_perception_ (what you call a "belief") that differs from
your own. If Clinton lied, he was intentionally trying to
evoke a perception in his inquisitors that differed from his
own.

So one thing that is important about lying (from a PCT perspective)
is that it's about _perceptions_ -- not what _really_ happened
in some objective sense. So if Clinton lied, he was intentionally
trying to evoke a perception in his inquisitors that differed
from his own perception. The perception in question was of what
Bill experienced while with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton's inquisitors
believe that Bill obviously perceived what is evoked in their
own brains by the words "sexual relations" so they are _sure_ that
when Bill said "I did not have sexual relations with her" it evoked
in their brains a perception that differed from the one Bill
actually had. I think this is because these people don't understand
that people deal with _perceptions_, not reality. Many of those
who think Clinton lied probably think he lied because he said
words that did not correspond to what is _objecitvely true_; to
what is reality.

If nothing else, PCT makes us aware of the fact that people are
dealing with their _perceptions_, not objective reality. People who
don't understand PCT may think it's obvious that "sexual relations"
really, objectively happened and that the pornographic Starr report
proves this. So they thing that Bill lied by intentionally not
saying what _really_ happened. But it is impossible to tell this
kind of lie because _no one_ has a direct line to reality; Bill
couldn't be lying about what _really_ happened because _no one_
knows what _really_ happens; all they know (and can talk about) are
there _perceptions_.

So the real question is whether Clinton lied in the PCT sense;
did he try to _intentionally_ evoke in his inquisitors a perception
that differed from his own. I think this question shows that
there are really two aspects to lying in the PCT sense: in PCT
lying involves 1)_intent_ to deceive (invoke perception P' in
your inquisitor knowing that you had perception P) and 2) actually
evoking P' rather than P, whether that was intended or not.

I presume that most people object to component 1) of lying
rather than component 2). So I presume that the people who
object to Clinton's "lying" assume that he was intentionally
deceiving, not evoking the wrong perception in his inquisitors
by accident. But how do you know Clinton was doing 1) rather
than 2)? I think this is where you need to _test_ for the
controlled variable (as Bruce Gregory has noted). That is, you
would have to test to determine whether Bill was intentionally
trying to invoke a perception in his inquisitors that differed
from his own. It's not clear to me that Bill was doing this.

To make concrete what I mean here, suppose Bill had said "Yes
I did have sex with her". Does that mean he was not intentionally
deceiving based on what we know? Not at all. Bill is exactly
my age and when I was in high school, if you said you had
sex with someone and you had only gotten some head or tit then
you were considered a liar; you had evoked a perception, P',
in your listener (that you got laid) that did not correspond to
your actual perception, P (you didn't). This was a serious lie
because it communicated sexual prowass that you did not possess
and it sullied the reputation of the lady in question. So from
my perspective (and probably Bill's too) if Bill had said "Yes,
I did have sex with her" he would have been lying. So in my
world, if Bill did not perceive having intercourse with the lady
(which he apparently didn't) then he did not lie when he said
"No I did not have sex with her"; indeed, he get points for telling
the truth to the American public and to the courts and for
protecting the reputation of the lady involved when he said
"I never had sexual relations with that woman".

My conclusion, based on a PCT analysis of lying, is that the
people who are the most upset at Clinton for "lying under oath"
are the one's who couldn't get laid in high school;-)

Best

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

7

[From Bruce Gregory (981222.1530 EDT)]

Bill Powers (981222.1118 MST)

I think there is more to be said along these lines. It would be really
useful if we could work out just what is so different between
Republicans
and Democrats, or other similar groups who can't stand each other.

Primates are tribal. We divide the world into "us" and "them".
Politicians try to convince us that they are part of "us" and that their
opponents are part of "them". "We" are the embodiment of virtue. "They"
are the embodiment of evil. "Lying" is simply one of the many
undesirable qualities "they" embody. Any other vice would have done
equally well. "We" lie, too, of course, but only for the right reasons.
"They" lie for the wrong reasons. Anything "we" do to "them" is
justified by the fact that they are the embodiment of evil--"they" are
sub-human. "We" will triumph, because God is on "our" side.

The Hebrew Bible (or the Old Testament) is a story told from this
perspective. It is the foundation of "our" way of life.

Bruce Gregory

8

[From Rick Marken (981222.1600)]

Bill Powers (981222.1118 MST)

It would be really useful if we could work out just what is so
different between Republicans and Democrats, or other similar
groups who can't stand each other.

Bruce Gregory (981222.1530 EDT)

Primates are tribal. We divide the world into "us" and "them".

This is a "dormative principle" explanation: People exhibit
tribalism because they are tribal. I think we should try to
find scientific explanations of behavior using models (like
PCT) and observation. I think Bill's observations about moral
absolutism and relativism would be a good start since they seem
to relate to the PCT hierarchy. As I mentioned in an earlier
post (and as Bill mentions in Powers (981222.1118 MST)) moral
absolutism, though a popular belief system, is probably
inconsistent with the nature of human nature. It's easy to
imagine how high gain control for moral absolutism (as opposed
to the acceptance of relativism) could lead to a significant
amount of intra and (even more likely) inter- personal conflict.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

9

[From Bruce Gregory (981222.2000 EDT)]

Rick Marken (981222.1600)

Bruce Gregory (981222.1530 EDT)

> Primates are tribal. We divide the world into "us" and "them".

This is a "dormative principle" explanation: People exhibit
tribalism because they are tribal.

These statements are not an explanation of any sort. They are simply
descriptions of what is observed.

I think we should try to
find scientific explanations of behavior using models (like
PCT) and observation.

I do too.

I think Bill's observations about moral
absolutism and relativism would be a good start since they seem
to relate to the PCT hierarchy. As I mentioned in an earlier
post (and as Bill mentions in Powers (981222.1118 MST)) moral
absolutism, though a popular belief system, is probably
inconsistent with the nature of human nature. It's easy to
imagine how high gain control for moral absolutism (as opposed
to the acceptance of relativism) could lead to a significant
amount of intra and (even more likely) inter- personal conflict.

Tribalism is observable in primates who lack language. It therefore may not
involve any view of moral absolutism, high or low gain. Humans have a more
sophisticated tribalism that employs all sorts of rationalizations.
Hypocrisy reveals that what gain there is involves the behavior of "them",
not "us". Ambrose Bierce defined a Christian as was who believes that the
teachings of the Bible are eminently suited for regulating the behavior of
his neighbor. Bierce would certainly have no trouble understanding
Washington today. I'm all in favor of a PCT explanation, but lets not build
it on the assumption that political rhetoric tells us something fundamental
about what people are controlling for.

Bruce Gregory

10

[From Bill Powers (981223.0554 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (981222.1530 EDT)

Primates are tribal. We divide the world into "us" and "them".

I concur with Rick on this sort of statement. It may be a pertinent
observation, but it doesn't explain anything. What I'm looking for is an
explanatory statement like "Republications lack the ability to perceive the
world as others perceive it." Such a statement could be tested outside the
context of the original question and found to be true or not true (I hasten
to add that I suspect it would be found not true). If found true, it would
constitute part of an explanation for the observed behavior. We could see
how the behavior in question would necessarily follow from lack of some
ability.

The kind of answers I think we would really find would have to do more with
factual beliefs. I think Republicans tend to believe that punishing people
"teaches them a lesson" or "serves as an example that deters others." A lot
of them seem to think that people who live in the USA are somehow chosen by
God to be better than people in other places (and of course many of them
profess to being Christians who believe in God, although liberals seem to
behave in a more Christ-like way).

But I have no systematic thoughts here. This is the sort of thing that a
sociologist should do. It could be that Democrats and Republicans simple
have different theories of human nature. If we could define those theories,
and get Democrats and Republicans to sign on to them ("Yes, that's how I
think people work"), we might set the stage for _testing_ those theories,
and finding evidence for or against them. It would be strange if people in
these two parties, so sharply divided over most basic human issues, could
not be distinguished from either other in SOME way other than the division
itself..

Best,

Bill P.

···

Politicians try to convince us that they are part of "us" and that their
opponents are part of "them". "We" are the embodiment of virtue. "They"
are the embodiment of evil. "Lying" is simply one of the many
undesirable qualities "they" embody. Any other vice would have done
equally well. "We" lie, too, of course, but only for the right reasons.
"They" lie for the wrong reasons. Anything "we" do to "them" is
justified by the fact that they are the embodiment of evil--"they" are
sub-human. "We" will triumph, because God is on "our" side.

The Hebrew Bible (or the Old Testament) is a story told from this
perspective. It is the foundation of "our" way of life.

Bruce Gregory

11

[From Bruce Gregory (981223.0935 EDT)]

Bill Powers (981223.0554 MST)

Bruce Gregory (981222.1530 EDT)

>Primates are tribal. We divide the world into "us" and "them".

I concur with Rick on this sort of statement. It may be a pertinent
observation, but it doesn't explain anything. What I'm
looking for is an
explanatory statement like "Republications lack the ability
to perceive the
world as others perceive it."

"Republicans are trying to preserve their power base of religious
fundamentalists and business men. Neither of these groups likes Bill
Clinton, albeit for different reasons. Republicans in Congress will
adopt any available strategy that they believe will diminish Clinton's
power or remove him from office." I maintain this is testable. Further
the reaction to Clinton's "lying" and the indifference to Reagan's and
Livingston's "lying" supports this view.

The kind of answers I think we would really find would have
to do more with
factual beliefs.

Sorry, I see no evidence to support this view. Republican's believe
whatever is convenient to believe in order to maintain their base
support.

Bruce Gregory

12

[From Greg Wierzbicki]

Bruce Gregory (981223.0935 EDT)]

Further
the reaction to Clinton's "lying" and the indifference to Reagan's and
Livingston's "lying" supports this view.

        And so, at long last, is it really "indifference to lying" which is to become
the control variable grail of advanced society?

Republican's believe
whatever is convenient to believe in order to maintain their base
support.

        OK, perhaps. But how is this different from say, groups of Democrats, or
conservatives, or liberals, or straight men, or catholics, or jews, or
homosexual women, or control system thinkers, or...or...or...?

Greg Wierzbicki

13

[From Bruce Gregory (981223.1120 EDT)]

Greg Wierzbicki

Bruce Gregory (981223.0935 EDT)]

> Further
> the reaction to Clinton's "lying" and the indifference to
Reagan's and
> Livingston's "lying" supports this view.

        And so, at long last, is it really "indifference to
lying" which is to become
the control variable grail of advanced society?

I don't understand this question.

> Republican's believe
> whatever is convenient to believe in order to maintain their base
> support.

        OK, perhaps. But how is this different from say,
groups of Democrats, or
conservatives, or liberals, or straight men, or Catholics, or Jews, or
homosexual women, or control system thinkers, or...or...or...?

Politicians are concerned primarily with the power they are able to
exercise as a result of their ability to be elected. Democrats are no
different than Republicans in this regard. It may be that the other
groups you mention are in a similar circumstance, but I am unaware that
this is the case.
I happen to prefer the Democratic to the Republican base, but this is a
personal preference. It may even be genetic in origin.

Bruce Gregory

14

[From Rick Marken (981223.0830)]

Bruce Gregory (981223.0935 EDT) --

"Republicans are trying to preserve their power base of religious
fundamentalists and business men.

Good hypothesis. I think a power base is just people who are willing
to vote for you and/or give you money. You control this "base" by
saying things that these people want to hear or things that are not
much of a disturbance to the variables these people control. I think
we can, then, get a pretty good idea of what Republicans (and
Democrats) control for by looking at what they say and the response
to what they say in the polls.

Republicans in Congress will adopt any available strategy that they
believe will diminish Clinton's power or remove him from office."
I maintain this is testable.

No question. I think politics is largely a matter of saying things
in a way that will appeal to the greatest number of people and
offend the fewest. Politicians try to adjust what they say to
control for the most people voting for them. If another person
(like Clinton) is able to say things that appeal to more and
offend fewer people, then this person's opponents are likely to
dislike him (or her) immensely.

Further the reaction to Clinton's "lying" and the indifference to
Reagan's and Livingston's "lying" supports this view.

I think this reveals a bit about what Republicans and many in
their audience are controlling for. Clinton's "lying" is a
disturbance to some perception of their's while Reagan's lying
is not. Obviously, the Republican's are _not_ controlling for a
perception of a high absolute level of honesty.

Actually, it's kind of cute how the Republicans have been changing
the verbal definition of Clinton's horrible "sin". Since most of
the Republican's in the House have been exposed as adulterers
(thank you Larry Flint!) Clinton's sin has changed from "adultery"
to "lying". But then someone noted that all these adulterous
House members had probably lied about their adultery when asked
about it by their spouses. So Clinton's sin became "lying under
oath". But then someone noted that the adulterers had taken an
oath to be faithful when they married; so they had effectively
lied under oath to their spouses. Now I think the sin is that
Clinton lied under oath to a federal grand jury. I think most
Republican's are safe on that one; I don't think any of them
were questioned under oath about their sexual affairs in front
of a grand jury.

Bill Powers (981223.0554 MST)--

The kind of answers [re: the difference between Republicans and
Democrats] I think we would really find would have to do more
with factual beliefs.

Bruce Gregory --

Sorry, I see no evidence to support this view. Republican's
believe whatever is convenient to believe in order to maintain
their base support.

I think it's the base support's beliefs that we are talking
about; though I think factual beliefs limit what any politician
would say to curry support from constituents.

But I tend to agree with Bill Powers; the differences between
Republicans and Democrats probably have a lot to do with
_factual_ beliefs about how the economy works, whether
population growth is a problem for people and the nature of
human nature itself; things like that.

One difference between Republicans and Democrats in terms of
factual belief is their economic belief regarding a balanced
budget. Republicans think a balanced budget is good for their
constituents; Democrats think it's bad for theirs; they like
deficit spending by the government. These are factual beliefs,
based on assumptions about how the economy actually works.

This difference between Republicans and Democrats could
(hopefully) be resolved by developing an accurate scientific
understanding of how the macro economy works. Such an
understanding would be based on matching models to actual
economic data. When this is done (see T.C. Powers, Leakage,
Benchmark, 1996) we find that both Republicans and Democrats
are wrong. Contrary to the Republicans, a balanced budget is
bad for _everyone_ (rich and poor) if it is balanced by tax
cuts for the rich and cuts in government spending. Contrary
to the Democrats, deficit spending is mainly a boon to the
rich becuase they now get to place their surplus income into
high yield government securities.

Clinton actually pulled one of the great economic coups by
giving the Republicans their balanced budget but balancing it
mainly with a tax increase on high incomes (the 1993 tax bill
that passed by one vote and was supposed to ruin the economy
according to Republican factual beliefs). Once the budget neared
balance, interest rates started coming down (to the chagrin of
rich people who had their money in T bills, etc) and the Fed
lowered it's rates, thus further reducing leakage and maintaining
growth at 4% and keeping inflation down to 3%.

I think once we start understanding the facts of mass phenomena
(like the economy) the nature of politics could change substantially,
for the better.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

15

[From Bruce Gregory (81223.1220 EDT)]

Rick Marken (981223.0830)

I think once we start understanding the facts of mass phenomena
(like the economy) the nature of politics could change substantially,
for the better.

I like your optimism even though I don't share it. One way to test your
conjecture would be to find out the extent to which people change their
opinions and beliefs on the basis of evidence. Unfortunately,
controlling for the perception of "being right" seems to be the rule
rather than the exception.

Bruce Gregory

16

[From Rick Marken (981223.1100)]

Me:

I think once we start understanding the facts of mass phenomena
(like the economy) the nature of politics could change
substantially, for the better.

Bruce Gregory (81223.1220 EDT)

I like your optimism even though I don't share it. One way to
test your conjecture would be to find out the extent to which
people change their opinions and beliefs on the basis of evidence.
Unfortunately, controlling for the perception of "being right"
seems to be the rule rather than the exception.

I agree with you completely. My optimism is just a way of
dealing with the finite time I have on this planet. I am
well aware of the fact that evidence is no match for the
desire to have one's beliefs be right. Heck, look at the
example I just gave: the evidence is clear that raising
taxes _does not_ hurt the economy (indeed, T.C. Powers' model
suggests that raising taxes on the rich -- especially those
on capital gains -- will significantly improve the economy
in terms of rate of growth in GNP). But this has not budged
those who (for whatever reason) continue to believe that
increasing taxes is a sure way to hinder the economy.

Ah, belief.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

17

[From Rick Marken (981223.1250)]

Greg Wierzbicki (981223) --

And so, at long last, is it really "indifference to lying" which
is to become the control variable grail of advanced society?

Not really. I think the goal is to understand lying as an aspect
of hierarchical interpersonal control and to be able to judge it
in that context.

I just had another thought: Why do people find Clinton's alleged
lie such a hugh threat to our democracy while dismissing Starr's
horrible _question_ -- the one that generated the lie -- as no
big thing? I wonder how many of the Clinton haters out there
lived through the McCarthy era and/or knew people who were
affected by it. I was very young when McCarthy ran amok. My parents
told me about the evil of McCarthyism but I didn't really get it
until just recently. So I suppose I have to thank Kenneth Starr
for helping me see the true evil of McCarthyism.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

18

[From Bill Powers (981223.1401 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (981223.0935 EDT)--

Republican's believe whatever is convenient to believe in order to

maintain >their base support.

But doesn't their base of support consist of other Republicans who believe
the same things? So that leaves us back where we started: just what is it
that a person believes that makes him or her a Republican (or a Democrat
etc.)?

Best,

Bill P.

19

[From Bruce Gregory (981223.1645 EDT)]

Bill Powers (981223.1401 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (981223.0935 EDT)--

>Republican's believe whatever is convenient to believe in order to
maintain >their base support.

But doesn't their base of support consist of other
Republicans who believe
the same things? So that leaves us back where we started:
just what is it
that a person believes that makes him or her a Republican (or
a Democrat
etc.)?

Republicans (and Democrats) do not share a common set of beliefs. If you
believe that in general government is a "bad thing" you probably vote
Republican. If you believe taxes should be lower you probably vote
Republican. If you believe that abortion is murder, you probably vote
Republican. If you believe that "family values" are important and should
be supported by the government, you probably vote Republican. If you
believe that there should be fewer government regulations on business,
you probably vote Republican. These beliefs are not all shared by a
majority of those who vote Republican.

Republican Congressman outside the most conservative districts found
themselves between a rock and a hard place. If they voted against
impeachment they would lose the support of the Christian right, which is
very good in getting voters to the polls. This might well lead to a
primary challenge and loss. On the other hand, if you voted for
impeachment you would lose the support of the majority of the voters
(70%) who oppose impeachment. Tough call. As you see some of them
decided to vote impeachment and then tell the Senate that they really
didn't mean it. Makes no sense unless you understand that there is
nothing consistent about the beliefs of those who they need to vote for
them in 2000.

Bruce Gregory

20

[From Rick Marken (981223.1430)]

Bruce Gregory (981223.1645 EDT)--

As you see some of them[House Republicans] decided to vote
impeachment and then tell the Senate that they really didn't
mean it.

Was this funny or what? These guys voted for a bill that said
Clinton should be removed from office. Then they say "we really
just wanted him punished for lying, not removed from office".
So here we have the spectable of Republicans -- those who would
protect us from that lying anti-Christ Clinton -- publicly lying
(by their impeachment vote) about wanting Clinton removed from
office for lying. Why aren't these guys calling for themselves
to be impeached for lying :wink:

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken