[Martin Taylor 2012.04.21.09.52 CET]
[Martin Lewitt 2012 Apr 20 1924 MDT]
[Martin Taylor
2012.04.20.22.16 CET]
[Martin Lewitt 2012 Apr 20 1344 MDT]
[Martin
Taylor 2012.04.20.15.01 CET]
[Martin Lewitt 2012 Apr 19 2357 MDT]
[From Rick Marken (2012.04.19.1515)]
Martin Lewitt (2012 Apr 19 0424 MDT) --
I don't know how a lesser of two evils motivation would evaluate in MOL,
but I don't have a lot of time at the moment. I basically vote as an
act
of self defense....
OK, it sounds you vote to control for keeping you perception of
government as close to zero as possible. I wonder if you could now
tell me why you want no government.
Not "no" government, but smaller much less intrusive government. ...[long decription of less intrusive government]
You didn't answer Rick's "why" question in this
MOL experiment.
It is difficult to relate the lower level detail
below to the more theoretical level we are discussing.
Assuming that HPCT is a realistic model of the way
biological control works, the diagram for ringing the door
bell should work equally well if “voting intention” is the
reference to the lower level system and we ask what is
controlled at the next level above (which may actually be
several perceptions in parallel, all contributing to that
reference value “vote X” or “vote Y”.
The problem with "the next level above" is that what is
controlled in the voting booth may be trivial. The informative
perceptual control may have taken place hours or years before.
What is happening when that lever is pressed may be mere
controlling for concordance with one’s recollection.
That is actually what I meant by what is controlled in the voting
booth. You have decided over the years what will, at a much lower
level and on a specific occasion, become the reference for the
actual action sequence when you vote.
I get the sense you are getting at ultimate
perceptions being controlled for.
Rick must answer for himself, but if I were running the
experiment, I would only be asking you about your own idea
about what you might be controlling one level up. Bill has
said that this is often a difficult exercise, and when I
apply it to myself, I do find it difficult. But apparently
the result is often worth the effort.
Humans can have complex models in their heads, and can be
controlling projected perturbations in complex future patterns
rather than the next sensation.
That is an abstract answer to a fairly concrete question.
My sense is that among you, me, Rick, and Bill, there is very little
difference in the high-level reference values – the results we
would like to see. The differences among us seem to be in the
analysis of the environmental feedback pathways in those complex
models in our heads. There is a very large difference in the way we
think the social environment that provides the feedback pathways
works. For example, you and I agree that we want an environment in
which we feel safe, but disagree as to whether this occurs when
everyone perceives that everyone else is liable to kill them in the
slightest case of minor conflict.
Part of this is probably due to the fact that we live in very
different environments. Several of your answers on the list of
“Martin L’s wants” refer to the absurdities of the US health care
system, with its indulgence of for-profit medicine and private
insurance companies. If you lived in other parts of the westernized
world, your experiences and hence your analyses might be different.
The values may differ less than you realize. I find it
useful to also consider the values you articulate and find it
intellectually interesting and affirming when I find the same
ultimate votes justified under both systems of values.
Here's the list, with your preferences followed by mine,
Martin L: smaller much less intrusive government
Martin T: The size and intrusiveness of the government seems to be a consequence of control of other items of the list. Like the angle of the steering wheel when driving a car, the angle at any moment is give a reference value by the controller for staying in the lane. If achieving the other goals means less government and less intrusive government (two different things), then I'm all for it. If achieveing the other goals means bigger and more intrusive government, I'm all for that.
I find that the evaluation of consequences requires
evaluation, not just of the ends, but of the means to that end,
and that in the non-linear world, the values represented in the
means used are material to the results, even if the means are
less simplistically direct.
That seems to be standard HPCT, I think. We differ in the results of
our analyses more than in the desired results of imagined action.
“The values represented in the means” all derive from our top-level
control units eventually. The problem is to reduce conflict among
the proliferation of mid-level control units that support the
higher-level ones.
Unlike Bill, I do not believe we have enough degrees of freedom to
allow for the elimination of those conflicts by reorganization even
if we had infinite time to do so. Given the ever-changing nature of
the environment (social and physical), reorganization has to happen
over relatively short time-scales compared with the time-scales of
the high-level control processes, with the result that most people
remain considerably conflicted all their lives. This is a small part
of the background analysis that leads me to disagree with you on
guns.
Martin L: Lower taxes.
Martin T: Observation of the relationship between tax levels and average wealth and quality of life generally leads to the conclusion that higher taxes generally means people have more control over those things that require money, which is how I interpret being more wealthy. So my preference is for higher taxes.
That is a simplistic linear view, that ignores the
distributed nature of the knowledge of what would make people
feel more wealth and produce more wealth.
I disagree with you on both parts of that statement. It is more an
observation of a correlation than a theoretical analysis. We know
that correlation does not imply causation, but correlation does
imply either that both correlated variables are influenced by some
common factor or that one influences the other. The theoretical part
is that I doubt that improved health and ability to control one’s
perceptions by using money lead to higher taxes. If that is correct,
then either some other factor leads both to improved quality of life
(ability to control) and higher taxes, or that higher taxes lead to
improved quality of life.
Martin L: Less bureaucratic access to prescription drugs. Martin T: I don't know how your access works. In my case, the doctor provides the prescription, I go to the pharmacy and get it, paying a small amount because it is mostly covered by insurance. I can't see where the bureaucratic component could be reduced much further, except by making the drugs free so that I needed only to go from the doctor to the pharmacist, and not offer any cash.
The doctor part is a superfluous bureaucratic intrusion.
Orally specifying the medication to the pharmacist would
eliminate more bureaucratic paperwork,
True, but it would be likely to lead to a greatly increased error
rate, with no way to determine the source of the error –
incompetent doctor, venal pharmacist, poor telephone line, or simple
mistake.
but being able to select the medication off the shelf and
just deal with the cashier would be even less bureaucratic.
and more frequently accidentally lethal or permanently damaging.
I’ve no problem with deliberate suicide, which seems a personal
choice, but very few people have seriously studied the required
dosages, the main effects, the multi-drug effects, and so forth.
That is what large-scale testing does before a drug is released for
prescription, and even then the results are only partial (see
thalidomide, for one of many examples). The imperfection of serious
testing should raise very large red flags when you think of the
problems that would arise if the general public were to be able to
select off the shelf those highly profitable drugs that the
companies wish to advertise as resolving problems they can persuade
people that they have.
If you are controlling for access to a particular
medication, you might find having the doctor and the insurance
company involved greatly increase both the expense to yourself
and society and ultimate may block your goal. It took me three
months, three physicians visits, some blood tests, an MRI and an
EEG to get access to the neuroprotective agent, rasagiline. The
co-pay is over $350 for a 90 day supply. I was lucky it only
took 3 physicians. Not having to pay for it, doesn’t mean it
doesn’t have a cost, it may just make your local decisions ill
informed about the cost.
I doubt I would think myself to have greater medical knowledge than
my doctor, but apart from that, your comment seems based on the US
for-profit system of medicine. Just think of how many people insist
their doctor prescribe antibiotics when they would be useless, and
how many fail to complete a programme of antibiotics when they are
useful. Think of the problems that now exist because of just this
one instance of partial self-medication.
Martin L: Medical diagnostics (I presume the implied "less bureaucratic access to")
Martin T: The same applies as above, with the added comment that sometimes there is a waiting list that could be reduced by the provision of more services. But I don't see any obvious excess of bureaucracy.
It doesn't sound like you are controlling at the same system
level as I am.
I don't understand this comment. I am, as is everyone else,
controlling at all levels. The point of the MOL exercise is to see
whether we can determine what the reference values are at the
different levels, and whether our behaviours at the different levels
are helping to control the relevant perceptions.
Martin L: Medical equipment (again I assume "less bureacratic access to")
Martin T: Again it's hard to comment. I have never wanted my own medical equipment more sophisticated than bandaids and the like, so I have no idea what bureaucracy is involved in getting some.
I needed 2 ltr/min of oxygen during sleep for the remaining
decades of my life. Government required that equipment
suppliers require a prescription. Insurance companies insisted
on a $200 per month service. I pointed out that an $800 unit
oxygen concentrator every 4 to 8 years would suffice. It took
the insurance company about 18 months to finally concede my
point and negotiate this alternative with the supplier. The
supplier was acquired by another company, and after repeated
attempts to prevent from insurance company from blindly paying
bills sent to it, I finally gave up. I’ve found it easier to
just deal directly with a supplier not so particularly about
government requirements.
Sounds as though the insurance company representatives were
controlling for higher profits for the company, which I guess is
normal in a for-profit health care system.
Martin L: Less delays in access to investigational new drugs
Martin T: Before agreeing or disagreeing with this in the case of any particular drug, I would have to have some idea of the reasons for the delay. If the reason is that the drug could be dangerous when administered to certain people as yet ill-defined, or in certain nutritional or pharmacological contexts as yet unclear, then I would ask for more delay. If the reason for delay is that the company doesn't see a large market and is witholding support for testing, then I would like to see less delay.
The Cato Institute has argued that 10s of thousands less
lives would be lost by better after market monitoring than by
the delays for 3rd phase clinical trials. The delays in
approving beta blockers and clot busting drugs were particularly
murderous.
An extreme word. You might as well argue that the Pope is the
greatest mass murderer in world history for prohibiting birth
control and abortion and thereby causing massive overpopulation in
places unable to support it. I would substitute “careful” for
“murderous”. It is easy to do a post-hoc analysis when you know what
results were obtained. It’s not so easy to say before the trial that
those would in fact be the results.
Martin L: no driver licencing
Martin T: I would cease driving or taking the bus if that went into effect! When I drive, I want to be assured that there is a reasonably high probability that the other drivers have a minimally certified level of competence. Belgium used to have no driver licencing up to a few decades ago, and it was well known in other countries that one should stay well clear of a car with a "B" sticker, not because all Belgians were bad drivers, but because one never knew whether they had passed a test of basic competence.
You had better stay off the ski slopes too.
I do, in fact. But I don't see the relevance. Incompetent skiers
aren’t likely to try the black-diamond slopes, whereas incompetent
drivers are quite likely to try the expressways.
Martin L: Higher or no speed limits
Martin T: I disagree with "higher", but I'm inclined to agree with "no", on the grounds that it seems that many people control a perception of the relation of their speed to the speed limit rather than to the traffic and road conditions. I have never felt safer driving on an expressway than at 170 kph on a unlimited autobahn, or more nervous than at 99 kph on the zero-tolerance 100kph limit in Victoria State Australia. In Ontario, 150kph is called "stunt driving" and results in confiscation of the vehicle. Most of the time it is apparent to the driver whether a certain speed is safe for the conditions. Warning signs can mark situations where a danger might not be apparent.
It is interesting that you don't think the same effect will
apply to unlicensed drivers. One alternative to licensing would
be just to note and cite poor control on the road.
I think I would not like no speed limits if there were unlicenced
drivers on the road.
Martin L: no safety regulations for cars
Martin T: See my answer to "no driver licence"
I don't see the similarity, presumably most "unsafe" cars
would be intermediate in weight and safety between motorcycles
and safe cars.
Motorcycles are large masses compared to human bodies, and move at
much greater speeds. If these “unsafe” cars were limited in speed to
a human’s trotting pace, I wouldn’t object. In fact, my paraplegic
mother had such a “car” that she used on the country roads in
Scotland. Its top speed must have been around 10 mph.
Martin L: Less restriction on my family's black soil use on my own land
Martin T: It is impossible to answer this without knowing what those restrictions are and why they exist. My own view is that there isn't much one can do on one's own land without having some effect outside one's boundaries, and that if those effects might disturb someone else's controlled perception there is a case for regulation.
Regulation is a blunt instrument, a valuable resource is
being wasted at far greater cost than just for septic systems
and reverse osmosis water treatment units.
I still have no idea what you are talking about. But it sounds as
though you have one particular purpose in mind that falls afoul of
some regulation you don’t like, and you generalize this to all
situations.
Martin L: More public land on the market for sale
Martin T: Can't comment. In my mind there is a case for excluding humans from very large swathes of the countryside, to allow the development of an ecology unaffected by the profit motive, thereby increasing the health of most humans in the neighbouring areas. But this does not mean that no public land should be sold for private use. As in the case of most of these "what Martin L. wants" items, my answer would depend on the specific situation.
Mine would be situational also. But few private persons
would go bankrupt and reduce their standard of living, and
investment in research and development when they knew they were
sitting on oil wealth.
This seems a non-sequitur. I thought at first you were saying that
any private person would prefer to destroy their land in order to
get oil out of the ground, because then they could have money
instead of the ecologically valuable land. But on rereading using
the assumption that you could not mean this, I fail to understand
what you do mean.
Martin L: Reduced restriction on polygamous marriage
Martin T: I would place no restriction on either polygamous or polyandrous marriage, provided always that all parties can control the related perceptions nearly error-free. I suspect that such a situation rarely occurs, but I would not legally prohibit it if it does occur.
Informed consent and natural consequences are sufficient most
of the time.
"Natural consequences" meaning babies? You can give "informed
consent" to something you don’t want to do, if the consequences
would be worse. It’s called “conflict resolution” in HPCT. I would
say that all parties should want the arrangement.
Martin L: easier border crossing and migration
Martin T: Crossing a border could hardly be easier than it is here (continental Western Europe), since it is often hard to know when one has crossed a national border other than by the road sign that says so. Crossing a border could hardly be more difficult than it is when one of the countries is the USA. So I suppose you are referring to the US border, not to West European borders. In that, I agree with you.
It is also the Mexican border. I'm for open immigration in
both directions, but I consider that orthogonal to securing the
boarder to prevent access by terrorists. Although if Mexico met
certain standards, I could see the border becoming like the
internal borders of the european community.
Mexican is just one US border. Anyone arriving by air or ship from
anywhere in the world is also crossing a US border. Anyway, the
border doesn’t seem to be secure against terrorists. It is just
difficult to cross for everybody. Terrorists get discovered by other
means, and are occasionally stopped at the border if they come from
outside the US.
The next step in the MOL exercise might be for us to go back and try again to answer Rick's "why" question.
Are you sure the answer doesn't require information about the
higher system models rather than more detailed analysis of
voting booth behavior?
The higher-level stuff is precisely the information the MOL exercise
hopes to elucidate. Who cares what happens in the booth, other than
why you choose one party rather than another?
[From Rick Marken (2012.04.18.1640 PDT)]
> ```
>
> as part of my interest in exploring the hierarchy I
> would like those who are willing to do it to answer the following
> question:
> Why do you vote for whoever you vote for? That is, what do you hope to
> accomplish by voting for one person rather than another in a national
> election?
> ```
Martin T
Martin T