Wes Burt wrote,
>To illustrate this mode of progress toward the future, the necessary sigmoid
>would have a horizontal axis of zero to 100% and beyond to show the various
>technical requirements that must be satisfied at 100% to reach the optimum
>rate of development at 100% on the vertical axis.
Wes continues to talk in pictures while his audience is mostly confined to
thinking in platitudes.
>It has been my impression, from five years experience with the chattering
>classes on the internet, that nearly everyone with an IQ. above 100 believes
>that his interests will drop like a stone if public policy is allowed to
>satisfy more than the 50 to 70% of the requirements for optimum development.
And most more zealous to fight the "superfluous" (to them) 30% than to
constructively defend their own 70%.
Since Wes introduced the topic of Greek names for shapes, I'll introduce my
own, chiasma, a cross or in this case a set of coordinates that cross in the
centre of a graph. The normal sense that people have of political
polarization is literal and one dimensional -- at the opposite ends of a
pole: X * ------------------- -*-X
But a very interesting thing occurs when we plot (and rotate) survey
responses on a two dimensional graph, political positions that we normally
think of as polarized may appear on the graph as orthogonal:
Y
|
|*
**|** O
|*
| * *
X --------------------SO-------D-------*--- -X
| * *
|
|
|
|
-Y
The individual clustered close to Y will, nevertheless, perceive those
clustered around -X as -Ys, while the individuals clustered around -X
perceive those around Y as Xs. The optimal compromise between Y and -X would
be found at point O, but since both side perceive their opponent's position
as diametrically opposed to their own, they are more likely to reach a
suboptimal stalemate at point SO, or if -X wield disproportionate power, a
suboptimal point of domination at D. In the illustration, I have shown D as
a less good outcome for -X than would have been a co-operative solution at O
because I think that's how it usually shakes down.
I would suggest that my chiasma and Wes's sigmoid are two ways of picturing
the same dilemma. Having more than one way to picture the problem doesn't
solve the problem, but it might be a way of recruiting a few more souls to
recognize what kind of a problem it is. It is a problem that is conceptually
"too simple" to believe because it contradicts our naive, antagonistic
perspective.
regards,
Tom Walker
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm
