Psybertron Asks

Is it just me or is Putin playing the Russian hand as straight as could be in Ukraine?

With the UK press and media, and the rhetoric of various international premiers and foreign secretaries casting him as the bad guy, almost clamouring for violent conflict I can see Russia’s point.

OK, so as a “sovereign nation” Ukraine has rights not to be invaded (even threatened) by its powerful neighbour. But Crimea is a special case.

Geographically, thanks to Ukraine being split in half by the Dniepr, and the Crimea being further separated by an isthmus out into Russian waters, the Crimea is only part of Ukraine because of special circumstances. Originally bequeathed as a gift by Kruschev [*], the home of the Russian Black Sea navy as well as many ethnic Russians and Tatars, and a strategically significant territory overlooking the Kerch channel from Russia into the Black Sea, Crimea has always been a special case subject to special international conditions and agreements, before and since the break-up of the Soviet Union. People are humans, sovereign nations are just lines on maps after all.

I’m trying to imagine Scots Nats threatening British citizens and assets in Faslane or Leuchars with violence, and not expecting the UK government to assert its interests, yes vote or no.

Whatever the strategic economic and military power plays going on (which they clearly are), Russia’s not spilled any blood yet asserting its interests in Crimea, unlike the last few months’ events in Kyiv. Let’s keep it that way, and turn down the rhetoric please.

[Post note – I see today Thursday, the Crimean parliament has voted for Russia – the fact the arrangements include a Crimean parliament tells us it’s not as simple as Ukrainian sovereignty?]

[*] Paraphrasing from Wikipedia :

On 18 May 1944; [under Stalin] the entire population of the Crimean Tatars was forcibly deported.

On 19 February 1954; [under Kruschev] Crimea decreed to the Ukraine as a symbolic gesture.

On 20 January 1991; [under Ukrainian referendum] Crimea upgraded to an Autonomous Republic.

Since 1992;  autonomy vs self-government compromised as part of ongoing agreements to be part of Ukraine and partly fudged around both Ukrainian and Russian “shared” naval interests there and Crimeans being “permitted” to hold Russian

passports.

In 2014; By constitutional means or revolutionary coup in Kyiv, there is no way a Ukrainian government can determine the status of Crimea, without the agreement of both Crimea and Russia. What’s popular in Kyiv in 2014 doesn’t govern Crimea.

Excuse me, but why can’t it be Hull City Tigers – win-win.

Two interesting reads this morning.

Dan Dennett conversation in The Edge, on the co-evolution of culture with human individual mental capabilities. “De-Darwinizing” the presumed processes to recognise the chicken-and-egg of co-creativity.

Also today in Best Thinking is Alan Rayner’s piece “What Stops the Penny Dropping“, born of the frustration with “Abstract Mindedness” where we assume our reason is a thing apart from the world in which we (fail to) engage.

The common theme is receptivity as part of co-creativity.

[BTW still reading Terry Eagleton‘s “Culture and the Death of God”, reminded of course by Dennett’s cultural references. A slow read thanks to dense references and technical language, but still enjoying. Another case of if I had started taking detailed notes when I began reading, I’d have more notes than original text, but as it is I will have to read again if I am to have more than a few specific recollections. Good though.]

[Also this morning a plug from Amazon for Michael Tomasello’s A Natural History of Human Thinking – can’t help thinking reading the book description blurb – tell us something we don’t know?]

I was thinking this hearing the news stories around bitcoin going maintream, and noticed this post on LinkedIn today.

“the bitcoin industry embraces what it was built to avoid – rules and regulation”

Sooner or later every (would be) anarchist discovers “we” chose governance because it’s good for “us”. You listening Russell Brand?

As business advice – clearly comes across pretty cheesy to quote “Desiderata” as your inspiration – you only have to look at the comment thread in reaction to this LinkedIn post.

But as I’m always saying:

“What’s so funny ’bout peace, love and understanding?”

[No idea if Angela Ahrendts and her LinkedIn persona are for real – LinkedIn is a weird place, but who knows?]

London scenes blended from 1850’s / 1950’s to present day. Nice app.

Not sure about the “battleground” metaphor, but otherwise sounds about right. It’s a plug for tonight’s Horizon documentary featuring Daniel Kahneman on how we really make decisions. My governance agenda:

Post doc notes : Hmmm. Too much emphasis on “error and mistake”, too much emphasis on error relative to some “perfect” rational model – assumes perfect rational is best or right answer. Wrong, or wrong to assume necessarily right. Deviation from perfectly rational sure, but not “error”.

The loss aversion trait is only wrong if the “long term (mean) stats” are what really matter to the person making the decision as opposed to some hypothetical (non-existent) average rational agent. In practice we do NOT face an unmediated stream of repeat opportunities – all other things being equal (which they never will be).

Same comments I made when I read Kahneman originals.

Can’t believe no-one actually mentioned the bird-in-the-hand adage – it really is worth-two-in-the-bush. A loss DOES have negative worth two (or more) times greater than a prospective gain. Wisdom (and truth) in old wives rules of thumb. (Of course in some “perfect” markets, statistical long term population calcs do matter – but not in many real human situations. – Hence (macro) economics Nobel prize, but not individual human psychological.)

Kahneman’s work is very good in researching and understanding how the mind really does make decisions, but applied qualitative interpretations are as doubtful as the affects he documents. Come in Mr Quine.

One to watch later from IAI TV.
Now having watched:

Polly Higgins – all true, but mostly irrelevant, except the basic point “we” must take our responsibility for the planet, a duty of care.

Bjorn Lomborg – hits the point. A polarising debate between doomsayers and deniers is the last thing we need. Ultimately, like all anthropogenic activity, its technology-driven economic activity that changes things, laws and tax-funding regulate and incentivise but don’t solve.

Crispin Tickell – Anthropocene concept, OK. Climate change one issue amongst many – 20/20 hindsight – too non-committal (…. and why we never get anything done, says Bjorn).

Nigel Lawson – Climate change not the issue, it’s ever changing. Many of the warming effects, of emissions, greenhouse effects and conversion of fossil energy to low grade heat etc, are a reality, even if net global warming is an issue not worth debating. (Hmmm, Nigel vs Crispin enter into the gainsaying childish argument.)

Ho hum. No progress.

One for the “Everybody Wants a Revolution” pile.

The Limits of Non-Cooperation as a Strategy for Social Change

Civil disobedience is vital, but it is insufficient to transform society. A new science of cooperation illuminates the path ahead.

The strategy must be to achieve “solidarity” through collaboration. Resistance and revolution are mere tactics.

[Hat tip to Henry Gurr for the link.]

Reading Terry Eagleton’s Culture and the Death of God (2014)

Only read the first chapter The Limits of Enlightenment, but already finding lots of interest. In fact the style despite his usual sardonic wit is more academic paper (based on what was originally a lecture) with lots of referenced quotes to make his arguments. A couple of things to note for now:

For me, Gibbon’s “celebrated sentence”:

“The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosophers as equally false; and by the magistrates as equally useful.” (Quoted previously).

For the MoQists:

“The two camps, rational and experiential, are for the most part speaking past each other”

“In one sense, feeling is the most incontrovertible of grounds, while in another sense it is a notoriously slippery one.”