Mind's Eye Re: A Book At Xmas or two

Psychology can seem very trivial when it tells us we lie a lot and try
to fell we are still the good guys via internal rationalisation. In
many ways it is. Ariely's paper is full of sings of the golden calf -
attempts to position the author/s as key researchers to be followed,
leading to large numbers of citations that bring research money,
professorial status and reward - papers and books are often dishonest
in this respect. 'Character reading' has been dismissed for longer
than they suggest, a typical academic ploy in establishing new ground
is being broken.
The big lies told to us tend to be control frauds. My guess is we can
reduce finance to programs embodied iin machines in a way that would
bring itt under democratic control. Instead we have the nonsense of
Merton-Black-Scholes and Gaussian copula used as magic wands by an
esoteric circle to keep real democratic scrutiny away. Neither is
really more complex in eliminating risk than Tote betting. They
remind me of Latin mass or English poseurs at German opera. I know
they don't and can't work. In practice they form part of a common
accounting system that hjave allowed 24hr profit and loss to 'justify'
big payments from the future now (all very Enron). I'm suer the
'maths' is a con and have ordered a few books on this aspect.
The real problem is a mix of our gullibility towards and fear of power
and lots of stuff to do with ownership and the ease with which we re
bought off real democratic communion. If there are time travellers
amongst us they are fastbucks from the future pretending to be the
rewards from investment. We are not bankrupting our as yet unborn
kids through government borrowing but rather indenturing them to
bonuses being taken now for non-work by parasites.

People don't really follow argument - too much teaching on my part -
because you can't wake most from ideology. To be free of the chains
of illusion you need to know the complexities of lying and self-lying
- a process that feels clanky and metallic itself - a further burden.
Machiavelli told us about argument and we let them turn our attention
to his evil.

On 25 Dec, 23:08, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One sense of it I have is the move from coal through oil to another
> form of carbon democracy - and a change from sabotage economics (where
> democratic claims could be advanced by worker power and large rents
> could be made from oil by preventing this and ensuring sales at high
> mark-up to production cost) to something new.  Human thinking is still
> massively parochial and remaining so despite new technology - my hope
> is what we have called argument since the Greeks will collapse in the
> face of new opportunities to do stuff. I suspect the hard part will be
> recognising much of what we think is work is neurotic.  The thing now
> is looking past the tipping point to see what of what we can imagine
> is supported by fact and direction now - and what this reveals of what
> ideology holds us in trance now.  If we move to greater equality past
> the tipping point we can't really understand what this might be in
> current terms.  I often wonder what it would be to write other than as
> a functionary (to an organisation, audience, for sales and so on).  I
> have as little clue on what spirituality would be in a world free of
> material want or in a more directly honest world in which, say, a
> bullshit bell rang when we engage rationalisation.
> Turkey dinner, washing up done, settled to watch some television - now
> searching for the link to a friend who has recorded some French films
> for me and the cat brush!
>
> On 25 Dec, 18:28, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I suspect you are right about that brink, with quantum computing, graphene
> > product development, and all the other game changers coming down the pike,
> > a revolution in human relations would seem imminent. Discussing the
> > possibilities here, a real pleasure.  Time to watch Leonard Cohen in his
> > London concert.  Santa was good.
>
> > On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:32:28 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>
> > > Max had a good time with a 6 year-old sheep dog (who insisted I threw
> > > her ball) whilst I had a chat with a nice guy 'escaping' family.
> > > Daughters have entered Xmas spirit - I 'forced' them to read some
> > > Molly - and ended 30 year war!  Max is a massive treat with hardly a
> > > bad bone in him - grandson much the same.
>
> > > There's free economics book here -
> > >http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf
> > > - it's faulty but at least throws some alternatives our way.  The guy
> > > is more rigs' side of the political fence than me but anyone with any
> > > sense surely knows GOP/Demo Left/Right is the problem not about
> > > alternative solutions.
>
> > > On 25 Dec, 15:55, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > What I'm after is is something better than virtue ethics Molly - the
> > > > psychologists miss the point that language already posits multiple
> > > > meanings.  People rely on assessment of character and this turns out
> > > > to be a dreadful fiction..  We end up in fantasies of the competitive
> > > > advantage of creativity Allan describes (or Habermas).  Ariely gives
> > > > me a big feeling that we already knew his 'discovery' and Molly's
> > > > critique above - in short we could do better than this in here.  My
> > > > own feeling is we're on the brink of cracking the arguments open to
> > > > see new outcomes.  In most of the games played in classrooms like
> > > > 'negotiation' someone reasonably bright (there turn out not to be
> > > > many) can see the fault lines in the game - much as in Molly's 'kind
> > > > of rubbish' above.
>
> > > > My thesis is we may be far enough down the road to a human science now
> > > > for the material and its thinking to challenge the current status quo
> > > > as science once challenged 'the church'.   Much academic work seems
> > > > part of the wrong side to me in insisting we have to be so ludicrously
> > > > clever to do it and basing what can be done in politesse and etiquette
> > > > that prevent us calling a spade a spade to distinguish such from a
> > > > shovel (important as shovels serve a different purpose). I think we
> > > > can already embody a lot of clever work in machines that can't break
> > > > rules and would encourage us to move away from chronic worship of the
> > > > golden calf and fear that cleverness is just how we are governed by
> > > > flim-flam.  Must walk dog.
>
> > > > On 25 Dec, 12:25, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I wonder if the researchers took into account that a truly ethical
> > > person
> > > > > would not participate in the kind of rubbish that presents predictable
> > > > > limited outcomes as fact.  There may, indeed, be a correlation between
> > > > > creativity and ethics, but I suspect it is more inclusive and requires
> > > > > examination without the limits designed to define results. I keep
> > > going
> > > > > back to the model of spiral dynamics, one that allows and understands
> > > that
> > > > > we all move up and down and between memes during our lives given the
> > > > > circumstances of our experience.  Someone who does not have enough
> > > money
> > > > > for food may cheat in this experiment more than someone who has never
> > > > > known financial stress or hunger.  Here is a pretty good explanation
> > > of the
> > > > > original Graves material, although I've seen better, its the best I
> > > could
> > > > > find online this
> > > > > morning.
> > >http://www.edumar.cl/documentos/SD_version_for_constellation5.pdf
>
> > > > > On Monday, December 24, 2012 5:58:21 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>
> > > > > > A free paper with the ideas is at
> > > > > >http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/11-064.pdf
> > > > > > I was interested because I find professional ethics and religious
> > > > > > morality collapse under circumstances of self-interest and become
> > > > > > rationalisation.  WE need creative solutions - but there is a dark
> > > > > > side to creativity.
>
> > > > > > On 24 Dec, 22:03, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >  "The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone —
> > > > > > > Especially Ourselves" by Dan Ariely asks a seemingly simple
> > > question —
> > > > > > > "is dishonesty largely restricted to a few bad apples, or is it a
> > > more
> > > > > > > widespread problem?" — and goes on to reveal the surprising,
> > > > > > > illuminating, often unsettling truths that underpin the
> > > uncomfortable
> > > > > > > answer. Like cruelty, dishonesty turns out to be a remarkably
> > > > > > > prevalent phenomenon better explained by circumstances and
> > > cognitive
> > > > > > > processes than by concepts like character.
>
> > > > > > > Work like this is challenging traditional economics - the genre is
> > > > > > > 'behavioural economics'.  My own take on this book and a lot of
> > > work
> > > > > > > from brain science and history is that we are at a tipping point
> > > in
> > > > > > > respect of the possibility of a human science.  I'd like to see a
> > > > > > > broader literature take up this challenge beyond current drivel on
> > > > > > > black and white hats.
>
> > > > > > > So what are you guys reading?

--