Sometime on October 15th, a
posting I made on July 25, 2001 in the Guardian Talk threads
Psychwarfare, Casablanca . . . and terror - International
and Paradigm Shift. . whose getting there? - Science was
deleted by someone else. I believe that the posts were deleted to alter
the record of the work lchic and I have been doing on the NYT
Missile Defense board and here for more than two years. The deleted link
described, with many citations, a detailed briefing that I'd given
almarst - - the MD board's "Putin stand-in" in March of
2001.
I personally believe that Putin took time out of his schedule to attend
to that briefing - a time-out referred to in Muddle in Moscow http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=533129
Perhaps I'm incorrect, but that hope still seems consistent with the
facts - - and it seems to me that Putin's performance since that briefing
effort is consistent with attention to the briefing.
I comment on the deletion in MD4918 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/6215
The deleted link is reproduced in MD4919 - 4923 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/6221
For reasons that interested people can trace from links set out if they
click "rshowalter" in the upper left hand corner of this posting -
- lchic and I have been working under difficult circumstances,
doing work we've felt a duty to do. My motives have been professional and
economic, as well.
The "briefing effort" that took place on March 17 and 23, 2001 is
something I'm personally proud of, and sets out principles that I believe
are useful in national economic policy, for Russia and for other
countries. I'm posting them here on the Guardian Talk thread - -
Mankind's Inhumanity to Man and Woman and think it reasonable to
hope that people will refer to them.
I'm very grateful to the Guardian-Observer, and very much appreciate
the postings I'm permitted to do here
rshowalter - 04:57pm Mar
17, 2001 EST (#1126
From where I sit, Vladimir Putin seems to be a VERY impressive leader.
Maybe because I have a soft spot for some of the kinds of sophisication
that intelligence officers need. He's not being treated fairly in a
ECONOMIST story that I found interesting, but the circumstances, I
believe, may be much to his credit.
Muddle In Moscow http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=533129
starts and ends as follows:
The piece ends as follows:
rshowalter - 05:06pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1127
I'm wishing, as I often do, that my old friend and partner Stephen Jay
Kline were still alive. Steve and I worked together on two things - some
math, and the logic of complex, and especially socio-technical systems.
The part on sociotechnical systems is in large part written in Steve's
Steve wrote me a recommendation letter, that includes some things
helicopter designers and other technical people ought to know, in http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/klinerec
and I gave a eulogy of Steve in his memorial service in Stanford Chapel
that a lot of people liked. http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/klineul
I wish I could talk to Steve now, and ask
rshowalter - 05:31pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1128
When we apply SIMPLE models of structure to circumstances that have a
more complicated structure than we are thinking of, we can get into
trouble.
We can fail to see how thing work.
And we can be misled by thinking we see "contradictions" where there
are no logical contradictions -- though there may be aesthetic or moral
tensions.
A complex system can be two "contradictory" things at the same time --
in different places within the larger structure -- without contradiction.
Bertrand Russell got caught up with this one -- but for complicated
circumstances, and for dealing with complicated histories, it is an
essential thing to know.
It you know it -- solutions that seem "classified out of existence" are
seen, and these solutions can be real.
Some moral points can get clarified, too. " President Vladimir Putin’s biggest achievement in Russia has
been political stability. Intrigues—or at any rate confusion—now put
that in doubt .
" WHEN a government faces a no-confidence vote in parliament
backed by its own supposed supporters, something odd is afoot. When, a
few days later, those same law makers change their mind, it looks even
odder. And when the president of the country decides that this is just
the time to take a short holiday, then you have a choice between a bunch
of baroque conspiracy theories—or the conclusion that Russia’s political
leadership is losing its grip.
One "conspiracy theory" is that
the man is thinking, and taking time to concentrate.
" So far, Mr Putin has listened hard, but wavered when it comes
to decisions. Sometimes he favours his liberal advisers. The next minute
he is closeted with the hard men in uniform, or is being swayed by the
many denizens of the Kremlin left over from the Yeltsin era. He spends
an extraordinary amount of time talking to foreign leaders: this year’s
tally includes leading politicians or government officials from
Azerbaijan, Austria, Belarus, Britain, Finland, Germany, Iran, Israel,
Latvia, Moldova, NATO, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Slovakia, Slovenia,
South Korea, Ukraine and Vietnam. But at home, rather than get involved
in the current kerfuffle, Mr Putin went on holiday, to a mountain resort
in Siberia. Aides said he was working on an important speech."
That sounds like just what a brilliant leader, working to solve
essential problems, is supposed to do. Get advice, integrate information,
make judgements, for the sociotechnical system he leads, and figure out
how to solve problems, and find new hope.
CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS FOR MULTIDISCIPINARY THINKING .....
Stanford University Press , 1995
I'm going through some things
I hope President Putin knows, in that book.
" What could we tell Putin, that might help him do his job - a
job that he has to do well, in the interest of the world? "
I can
imagine some of the things Steve might say, and warn me to check, and I'm
taking a little time to think about them.
rshowalter - 05:38pm Mar
17, 2001 EST (#1129
rshowalter Sat 17/03/2001 16:51
People can be monsters and good people at ONCE - in different
aspects of their lives, or at different times.
An article that muddles this was published today which argued that
because the Poles were victims themselves, they weren't guilty, or anyway,
not very guilty, about what they did about to the Jews in WWII .
Life isnt that simple. It isnt that easy. There is no contradiction.
Only the compexities of the human condition.
The Japanese somehow feel that the horrors that they perpertrated in
WWII - among them atrocious crimes against women, can't be remembered,
because somehow that would make the good things in Japanese culture
unthinkable.
Rape Camp -- by Dawn Riley bNice2NoU "There's Always Poetry" Mon
26/02/2001 05:14
Japan may be having problems now, because, here and in a lot of other
ways, they are telling lies. Lies that keep them from facing more complex
realities.
rshowalter - 05:38pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1130
The problems of Russia, and the problems of dealing with the horrors of
the Cold War, and the miserable way it is continued, are morally hard
enough. Because much of the truth is ugly. But the ugliness is not
unthinkable, if one recognizes that one is not dealing with contradiction,
but complexity, then one is dealing with situations where there is some
hope of better action in the future. The ugliness of the past should
not be forgotten, and it must be dealt with -- but it need not paralyze
us.
The ugliness may involve crimes that need to be uncovered and punished.
Or situations where only a secular redemptive solution is possible, or
reasonable. In the situations that Russia faces, and the world faces, and
America faces, it seems to me that there are some of each kind, and
problems that require both approaches.
But, so long as people can understand the past well enough so that they
can learn from it, and react in terms of a workable system of agreed upon
facts, society can function well, and justly. For complicated enough
situations, the only safe and reliable "system of agreed-upon-facts" has
to be true.
The Russians, for decades, have been insisting in nuclear arms talks on
a clear statement of historical facts. Americans have resisted. The
Russians have been right on this matter. To go on, one needs the truth.
Anything else is too likely to mislead in an unpredictable future, where
people must act and cooperate on the basis of what they believe.
A sense of odds, of the reasons why truth is needed, is partly a
technical matter. Let me digress, and say a few things about "complexity"
as Kline defined it -- a sense, I feel, that gives TECHNICAL reasons why
lies are damaging not only morally, but practically, too.
rshowalter - 06:02pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1131
In Chapter 4, p 63, Kline writes this:
The truth is known, in such a circumstance, to be much more safe, and
much more advantageous, than lies or wrong ideas. And so checking for
correctness is very practical, and lies, even very well intentioned or
understandable ones, can be very damaging.
rshowalter - 06:10pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1132
Steve means something pretty simple when he speaks of his Index of
complexity -- it is, for all the systems we looked at (and I put hundreds
of hours into this part of Steve's work) C, the complexity number is
constrained as follows:
V + P + L < C < V times P times L
where
Human social systems, even simple ones, have C values in the
billions. In such very complex systems, we must create, operate,
and improve via feedback: that is, repeated cycles of human observations
plus trials of envisioned improvements in the real systems."
And so the truth is crucial for function. " War-vain glorious war gives silent approval to every sin on the
face of the earth. It justifies acts against the enemy that are
precisely anti-thetical to what is accepted inside the society. .
"The truth is bad enough and in some respects we must allow the
truth hold center stage.
People can be guilty and victims at
ONCE.
" In very complex systems, such as sociotechnical systems, we have
no theory of entire systems, and must therefore create, operate, and
improve such systems via feedback: that is, repeated cycles of human
observations plus trials of envisioned improvements in the real systems.
In such very complex systems, data from a wide variety of cases
therefore becomes the primary basis for understanding and judgements . .
. "
So for complex systems, and especially sociotechnical systems,
which are VERY complex, correct information matters, again and again,
because it is used as feedback to run or modify the system. Unchecked
assumptions can be expensive or disastrous. Lies can be disastrous.
Because if the reliability of the information used in the feedback is
limited, the function of the system is also limited -- and the system is
likely to fail badly if it has to be changed.
V is the number of independent variables
P is the number of independent parameters needed to distinguish the
system from other systems of the same class
and
L is the number of feedback loops both within the system and
connecting the system to its surroundings.
The most complicated
problems engineers can now solve explicitly have C < 5 (I'm expecting
to extend that a bit. )
rshowalter - 06:13pm Mar
17, 2001 EST (#1133
Here is the essence of the most effective psychological warfare - -
you mess up a system, and can even shut it down, by telling lies.
Russia has been the victim of some very sophisticated and effective
psychological warfare from outside, and has, to a significant degree, been
weakened by lies its own people and goverment have told.
Similar things, to a lesser degree, can be said of America.
We need, for practical reasons, to increase the probability of right
answers in our information systems -- we need to replace lies with truths.
On issues involving military balances, we need to very much increase
it.
Especially because peace requires it.
Russia has a right, and an obligation, to get a clear understanding,
that it can see and that other nations can see, of the threats to which it
has been subjected, and the deceptions.
For practical reasons, and for moral reasons. Peace and prosperity both
require it.
rshowalter - 06:17pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1134
As a practical matter, one checks facts and ideas by a matching process
--- matching the logic step by step against trusted standards, and ---
usually much more important, matching to see if what is said matches what
is there when you check.
rshowalter - 06:19pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1135
Refusal to check, and refusal to permit checking, can be very
dangerous, and damaging.
Especially where nuclear weapons are involved. And where nuclear
weapons are involved, the most essential things are hidden, and have been
hidden, and concealed, and lied about, actively and agressively for half a
century of terror.
rshowalter - 06:24pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1136
In HUMAN terms, getting at the truth may, very often, require
redemptive solutions -- because without them, the human resistance to
finding the truth may be absolutely insurmountable. And the costs of
"justice" -- even if you could decently define it - and sometime you can't
- can be prohibitive.
But the TRUTH is essential, for moral and psychological reasons, and
for practical reasons that become more compelling, at something like a
factorial rate of growth, as systems become more complicated.
rshowalter - 06:35pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1137
My computer seems to be under fairly heavy attack --I may get slowed
down a bit, but hope to keep on. ...
rshowalter - 07:20pm Mar
17, 2001 EST (#1138
While I write other things, I'd like to repeat #1085 rshowalter 3/16/01
3:16pm #1086, #1073 rshowalter 3/16/01 12:56pm #1078 rshowalter 3/16/01
1:23pm #1079 and especially #1080 rshowalter 3/16/01 1:32pm
rshowalter - 01:23pm Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1078
I hope that it is common ground that we can misunderstand each other in
many ways, dislike each other for many reasons, and have much about the
past between us that displeases us, and still live in peace.
Real peace - much farther from the brink of war, and a situation much
more comfortable and much less expensive, than what we have now.
Understanding and reconciliation on many matters might help. But we
don't have to like each other, either now, or in the future, to live in
peace.
I hope we can agree to that. If we can, we can avoid fictions that can
tie us both up, and make our interactions less comfortable than they could
be.
rshowalter - 01:26pm Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1079
But it is important that we resolve misunderstandings that could lead
to fighting, or that get in the way of complex cooperations that would be
in our mutual interests.
We can, I believe, hope to do this.
That would make other reconciliations more likely, and we could be
safer and richer, whether those reconciliations ever happened or not.
rshowalter - 01:32pm Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1080
I personally would like a chance to apologize for the actions of my
country toward Russia since WWII - but when I say that, I'm speaking for
myself, not for others.
I was once at a lunch, in Madison, with some distinguished Russian
educators. I proposed a toast, thanking the Russian people, whose
sacrifices in the Great Patriotic War may well have given me, and others
of my American generation, a chance to be born. That toast came from my
heart. I personally think the conflict between our coutries has been a
great human tragedy. But I can only speak for my own feelings here, not
for my country.
rshowalter - 03:16pm Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1085
We also can't imagine (I don't pretend that this is logical, but at the
level of our emotions it is real) that you feel we are threatening you
with first strikes with nuclear weapons. This essential fact about Russia
is not understood by most Americans, and is not even understood by most
Americans in our military forces. I believe that, for peace, we Americans
need to understand that for basic, unchangeable reasons, Russia does fear
first strike threats from us.
If Americans, as people, understood these things (and I grant you in a
more perfect world, these would be easy things to show) other barriers to
nuclear safety and a balanced peace would be relatively easy and certain
to be surmounted.
These things, in my view, are the most BASIC things that Americans need
to understand, in order for us to step back from nuclear peril, and from
unnecessary wars.
. . .
rshowalter - 03:31pm Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1086
It is worth remembering that animals, including especially human
animals, are opportunistic, and that misunderstanding can produce niches
where groups of people can make a lot of money without anybody knowing.
And then, these people will have both motive and power to see that the
misunderstanding continues. I'm afraid that this may have happened.
But the conspiracy part may have other explanations.
The misunderstanding part is real beyond question.
lunarchick - 07:47pm Mar
17, 2001 EST (#1139 of 1145) lunarchick@www.com
Putin has some respect for the truth. In his BBC online interview, when
asked why Mrs P didn't figure largely he said "If I told her to do
something she'd just do the opposite" ... It's good that Russian Women
have independence and a mind of their own!
On truth re Asia, with the concept of 'loss of faith', and failure to
appologise to the wronged-Raped women of Korea. The nepotism, corruptin
and failure to adhere to business principles has lead to the Economic
Downturn in Asia. Bank loans were issued on relationship a basis not a
business basis placing the Japanese economy in trouble for the past
decade. Wasn't Japan by 1990 valued at the same value as the whole of
North America. The day of accounting came.
The lack of 'truth' in the Eastern economies can not only lead to
disaster as above, but also to the takeover of the economy by 'straight'
business managers and operators. The doors are opening slowly to world
practice and dare I say it 'American Management'. To give American style
management it's due it has evolved through practise and scholarship last
century (C20).
lunarchick - 07:52pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1140 of 1145)
lunarchick@www.com
Thinking more on the 'insurance' matter, it occurs to me that the
concept of any National State being able, at will or on little pretence,
to create havoc for others, should be less of a happening than it has been
in the past.
Making States 'responsible' in relation to MD might be done by forcing
an insurance policy over missile holders.
It might be done by looking at the range of the weapon(s). Within that
circular range, the cost of a strike out of the highest priced target
should be calculated + the 'wide area' of the damage that could be created
+ the effect of the pollutant in the cloud and carried by wind.
This would be the insurance price for each missile, cumulatively.
Totally 'unaffordable' one would hope.
Yet this needs to happen to put 'responsibility' into the minds of
those with these lethal weapons.
lunarchick - 08:01pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1141 of 1145)
lunarchick@www.com
Doing something for a first time:
Note the storming of the Russian Plane in the Gulf.
The internet was used by the Russians to 'train' the local troups ..
who then stormed the plane.
The locals should have had all the information, which would have
included the fact that the onboard weapons were a pen-knife and a
kitchen-knife.
On storming the plane, I'm going to assume that the troups were
'scared' and even though they knew there was no fire power within the
plane, they forgot and wanted to first save themselves.
In doing this innocent people died.
Move this senario along to 'kids' working with MD buttons. A mature
operator who had to make a decision whether or not to press a detonator
button to lauch a nuclear winter killer rocket might think twice or three
times, might rationalise, look for 'error' message. Whereas giving the
button to the immature or 'warped' minded .. these might OBEY an order
because they had been schooled in obeyance.
Scarry Stuff !!
rshowalter - 08:03pm Mar
17, 2001 EST (#1142
There are some lawyers who might amuse themselves with that. Suing
specific people, and specific organizations. Perhaps they could be
organized, and act with a certain coordination. Might not be very
expensive to do .....
Now, I've got a something else, too "academic" maybe, but I want to
build on it.
rshowalter - 08:03pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1143
There are a lot of nice ideas in Kline's Appendix C "Hypothesis,
Guidelines, Data, and Queries
Here's one I think politicians, and others trying to figure out reality
from words, need to know:
Here's a pair of guidelines, that Steve sets out for scholarly groups,
that I think should apply to political and economic systems, too.
Reframings that preserve what works well empirically, for both systems,
might well improve things.
Also, when a system as a whole fails, it doesn't necessarily make sense
(for a social system, which is multiply articulated) to abandon and
discredit all of it. There may be good reasons to preserve the parts that
worked well. And may be good reason to be proud of all the parts of it
that worked well in the past, and especially the parts that worked well
consistently. " Hypothesis V: The need for at least Three views:" At least
three kinds of (correct) views are required for a reasonably good
understanding of heirarchically structured systems (such as all
sociotechnical systems) with interfaces of mutual constraint. These
kinds of views are: synoptic, piecewise, and structural. forget this, in
complicated circumstances, and an incomplete specification can mislead
you badly, whether the misspecification is intentional or unintentional.
rshowalter - 08:04pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1144
" Guideline for Scholarly Controversy: When two (or more) groups
of empirically grounded scholars create conflicting solutions for a
single problem, and this leads to back-and-forth arguments for decades,
then it is likely that each group has some of the truth, but not all of
it. .
Corollary: When two (or more) groups of empirically grounded
scholars have a long-continuing argument, an improved solution can often
be found by reframing the problem to include the solidly grounded data
underlying both sides of the argument.
The world views of the
Russians and Americans each have some of the truth, but not all of it.
rshowalter - 08:22pm Mar
17, 2001 EST (#1145
In the West, more in America than anywhere else, the idea has been
standard that conspiracies are somehow bad to talk about - that
everything is the result of impersonal forces, or anyway, "nobody's fault"
-- or, as a matter of convention, that's the way to talk about it.
Both patterns are sometimes empirically right, and sometimes
empirically wrong.
In cases where facts matter more than the comfort that comes from
social fictions, it would make sense to consider BOTH the "conspiracy"
kind of explanation, and the "no fault" pattern of explanation. In some
cases, one pattern will work, and in some other cases, the other.
In matters of war and peace, and especially where the nuclear terror is
concerned, facts matter.
And these facts should be determined, in specific detail. Because these
facts matter so much. Russia, and the rest of the world, and the 99.99% of
the American public which CANNOT have any interest in military
misrepresentation, should insist on it.
rshowalter - 09:14pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1146
rshowalter "Science News Poetry" 2/14/01 7:18am http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f1983fb/409
sets out the advantages of sending in clear in the new internet
world. Because mistakes and deceptions are so harmful to the workings of
sociotechnical systems, it is important that we move toward more open ways
of doing business. It is safe to do so.
Dawn Riley spoke of "One thousand and one excuses have been made as
to why the missile status quo will remain ... how can this chain of
NONcommonNonSense be broken?"
This seems clear to me - FACTS have to be determined. That will take
staff work. Luckily, many key information sources that are now widely
available on the internet.
It may be that, for now, the US government will abstain from
participating in any effort ot determine those facts - as it has sometimes
vetoed the will of everyone else on the Security Council, or even the
whole UN.
If the current US government "declines to participate" would that
vitiate the exercise?
rshowalter - 09:15pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1147
No. Because the government position crumbles when it can be shown to be
based on lies and gross misjudgements. Our government may sometimes be
skilled at evading facts, and much of our press may be motivated to "keep
people happy"-- and maybe keep its owners happy, by ignoring unpleasant
facts. But the evasions have their limits. And when the tide turns, it can
turn forcefully. Newspapers don't like to miss the truth, it enough of
their customers notice. Reporters are sometimes proud people, and they can
have power as well. With the internet, information is hard to suppress.
And there are MANY Americans interested in getting the facts.
Could the US government just ignore this -- American society would not,
and politicians, who care about votes as well as payoffs, couldn't either.
Berle's rules of power are important here -- when the ideas behind an
institution lose legitimacy, that institution's days are numbered. See
especially rules #3 and #5 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/826
This pattern makes for some non-confrontational and smooth social
conventions, and may be efficient for that reason, even in some cases
where it happens to be wrong. The pattern may also very often fit
reality. Even so, this pattern, as a doctrine, makes a social group
vulnerable to real conspiracies, especially conspiricies involving
things not to be discussed. . . . . . . .
In Russia, and in Marxism
in general, the idea has been standard that economic activity was based on
decisions of people - and that these people, exercising social and
technical power, determined outcomes.
This pattern institutionalizes certain inherent tensions between the
better off and the worse off, and may be inefficient because of these
tensions, under some circumstances, even in cases where it happens to be
true. But the pattern may very often fit reality, and give good
guidance, as well. Even so, this pattern, as a doctrine, makes a social
group vulnerable to misjudgements, when social interactions do not have
conspiratorial explanations, as often happens.
rshowalter - 09:56pm Mar
17, 2001 EST (#1149
I believe that this expository poem sets out a high, but also very
practical, ideal. Working social systems make thousands of little
"redemptive solutions" every day. We need a bigger one, but it seems to me
that it ought to be obtainable. Russia needs it. The world needs it. The
US needs it.
SECULAR REDEMPTION
I'm dreaming of redemption,
Redemption for all concerned,
I'm dreaming of redemption,
I'm dreaming of redemption,
And I'm dreaming of redemption for others,
There is too much good here,
Too much to hope for the world, too,
No checkmate. No closing off of hope,
No checkmate. I'm dreaming of redemption,
rshowalter - 09:57pm Mar
17, 2001 EST (#1150
Can anybody tell me what looks hard, or unreasonable, about the
proposal I set out in #266-269 ? rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/2008
Granting that it would be hard, are people clear on why?
Maybe there is something much better.
But this pattern, which seems workable in many ways, might be
considered as an idea that might suggest others.
Here's one thing, that I've come to feel is very important.
I'm signing off for tonight.
almarst_2001 , I think the amount of good will that is latent,
close to the surface, wanting to come out, in American and Europe is very
great. Many -- and this is perhaps most true of people in the more
literary parts of our culture, would LOVE to see a prosperous, happy,
vibrant, RUSSIAN Russia - - not an imitation of the US - but a
different cuture - doing well, and interfacing with other cultures.
I believe that many people would WANT to see Russia as a success story
- and on Russian terms.
Putin is doing some of the right things -- reports of his achievements
at the European Summit look very professional and very good -- and it
seems to me that people are looking for "ways of doing business."
There are things that the Russians I've dealt with don't know, that the
culture needs to know -
but I believe that the number of individuals, and businessmen, who
would WANT a vibrant russia is larger than you may think. And hostility to
Russia is narrower than you may think.
rshowalter - 05:29pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1393
There are things that Russians do BETTER than Americans -- for the
money you had to spend, you ran a very impressive space program -
especially on the analytical side. Many things in Russia are fine - and
have been fine.
But there are kinds of sloppiness that one sometimes sees in Russia
that bother Americans -- and it would help if you learned what they are
(find ways to ask in such a way that you learn what you need to know, not
what you want to hear) that would, if a little changed, greatly shift the
business attractiveness, and status, of Russia upwards.
I think leadership in control and elimination of nuclear weapons, and
in the establishment of military balances, may be a great public relations
and business opportunity for Russia. Putin acts like he may think so, too.
I find myself feeling afraid as I write this -- but trying to be
helpful. " Human actions work best according to the following pattern: .
" Get scared .... take a good look ..... get organized ..... fix
it .... recount so all concerned are "reading from the same page ......
go on to other things."
I think we should do this, and we can.
For all the barriers, a few phone calls from a major leader, and the
current nuclear horror could start to fade away.
. The dialog went on, and we got onto some crucial information, I
felt, about economic efficiency, which I set out as follows:
rshowalter - 05:28pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1392
rshowalter - 05:30pm Mar
23, 2001 EST (#1394
I'll imagine that you're the great leader that the quality of your
thought and "staff work" indicates.
Suppose I take a shot, in the next hour, trying to speak of Russia as a
"statistical ensemble of businesses -- with expected rates of return
that make them unattractive" -- and discuss how you might
radically increase the attractiveness of your country from a
business point of view.
I'll speak of "expected rates of return" -- as in compound rates of
interest -- and talk about the key thing -- which is the total RISK
DISCOUNT -- make Russia more reliable, and you will RADICALLY shift its
marketability upwards.
rshowalter - 05:36pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1395
Perhaps this model is simple enough for you to use -and evaluate,
punching numbers on a hand held calculator. Sometimes the biggest effects
are easiest to see in a simple case, where relations stand out starkly.
Suppose you think of an investment,
It is worth noting, and especially worth noting for Putin, how the
value of a matters.
rshowalter - 05:38pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1396
Reliability is valuable (and unreliablility is very expensive )
from a gambler's (or investor's) point of view !
rshowalter - 05:41pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1397
the expected rate of return, r , for this lump model is
r = [ln( aP/c)]/t
In words, the effective compounded rate of return (compound interest)
is the natural logarithm of the risk discounted payoff-to-cost
ratio divided by the time between putting out the expenditure C
, and getting the payoff P .
rshowalter - 05:43pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1398
Note:
So you want the probability of payoff, a , to be JUST AS CLOSE
TO 1 AS YOU CAN GET IT.
In fact, most business people, when they see a values much less
than 1, don't keep on calculating values of investments.
They turn away, and look for another game.
That's happened to Russia. People have turned away, loked for other
"games" - - other economies to invest in - - because the overall
socio-technical reliability of Rusia is just too low.
Putin is doing many of the right things to fix this. But perhaps he
should be doing some things with more focus. Because Russians know how to
get VERY HIGH P/C ratios, when things go well - they have the potential to
enrich themselves and others -- if their work was more reliable, they'd be
"good bets." But right now, many too many times, they've been too
unreliable, a values have been too low, and now the whole country
is regarded as a "bad bet."
From where Putin sits - the question "what happens to a , in the
ordinary cases of business?" ought to be the key question he asks, every
time, about every economic policy. You can get a up without
sacrificing humanity, or Russian cultural values.
But you have to get it up, or Russia will be weak, when she should be
strong.
rshowalter - 05:53pm Mar 23 2001 EST (1400
Better ability to interface with other cultures is part of getting
a up.
Fewer lies and evasions among yourselves is a way of getting a
up.
And some standard management skills are important - you may not like
Friedman, but all the things he said about financial controls are true.
rshowalter - 5:56pm Mar 23, 2001
Americans would rather work with a really unattractive sonofabitch, who
can do his job, rather than a much more attractive human being, who can't.
You don't have to sacrifice your culture - many of us LIKE the idea of
an authentically different Russia. But you have to, in an American phrase,
"pull up your socks." where at time 0, you put in a cost, C
and after a time of
t expressed in years (which could be a fraction)
you get a Payoff, P , if you win
and the PROBABILITY OF
WINNING is a value a , between no chance ( a = 0 ) and
certainty ( a = 1 ) so that 0<= a <= 1
it isn't the "best case" payoff to cost ratio, P/C , it is
the risk discounted payoff to cost ratio (aP)/C that the
investor, if he's a rational gambler, looks at.
rshowalter -
05:51pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1399
rshowalter - 5:58pm Mar
23, 2001 EST (1402
You need SOME PEOPLE who can talk RELIABLY about complicated technical
and socio-technical matters WITH AMERICANS AND OTHER PEOPLE so they can
work with you. That ought to be high on Putin's list of national
objectives.
Now, much too often, such conversations end in fights or
misunderstandings. And that's not a problem of goodwill, from a business
point of view, nearly so much as it is a problem that shifts a
downward - disqualifying you as a business partner.
rshowalter - 06:22pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1403
You also need to be able to talk to EACH OTHER with a higher level of
social and technical reliablity than you often show.
rshowalter - 06:33pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1404
Every single negative thing that business people frequently repeat
about "Russia being a bad place to do business" you need to study
carefully, and FIX.
All the concerns are about reliability -- about problems with a
.
As a nation:
You need laws that are predictable. .
You need to pay your bills. .
You need to only say "I understand" when you do understand --- which
means you have to be better than you are at checking for
misunderstanding. .
and you need to concentrate on building on your strengths, as
everyone else has to do as well. You are Russians -- you have to be good
at figuring out how to be good Russians.
rshowalter - 06:37pm Mar
23, 2001 EST (#1405
The United States hasn't known how to make peace with you, and
settled on a policy of scaring you into collapse -- and it worked, and we
weren't honest to our own people while it was going on -- and American
initiative being what it is, a lot of stealing may have been going on, as
well.
But once you collapsed, we still didn't know how to work with you (and
maybe had forgotten how to talk to you, though we never knew how to do it
well)-- and so things have stayed a mess.
The exercise of cleaning up the terribly dangerous vestiges of the Cold
War might go a long way toward solving these problems.
(And the world may blow up if we don't do it.)
rshowalter - 06:44pm Mar
23, 2001 EST (#1406
I was talking a while back about Russian staffers talking to authors of
particular books about particular differences in view. I wasn't kidding.
It wouldn't necessarily cost much. But if Russian staffers could do THAT,
they'd know a lot more about workable business negotiation. And the
writers, likeley enough, would have good hearts, and try to sort your
skils out.
I was talking a while back about a "dry run" where Russia, and other
countries, worked through with journalists a mock nuclear
disarmament, and military balance deal - as realistically as possible, and
with as clear explanations as possible.
Russian staff would sweat bucketfulls in order to do that well -- but
if they did the work, and put out the effort - with very articulate people
of good will (and journalists are that) they'd learn a lot they need to
know in order to actually get peace.
The same things they need to know to actually get prosperity.
For one thing, the dialog would involve one status exchange after
another -- and Russians need to learn how these work, and how to do them.
lunarchick - 06:47pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1407 lunarchick@www.com
sono-fab-itch ... i'm working on this idiomatic RS!
I would have to look at inter-Trade figures before commenting on trade
into Russia .... much of which may be undisclosed and informal.
Russia straddles Eurasia. As poster commented above the European aspect
ususally preceeds the Eastern sector. Could there be any ligitimate reason
to refuse inclusion in the EC. The advantages of such would be reduced
warfare, increased trade, a continental rather than National feel. Access
to the EC does depend upon 'fitness and readiness' in terms of an economy.
rshowalter - 06:47pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1408
And if Russians actually understood - down to "atomic scale" detail,
how ONE complicated and problematic negotiation works itself out in
America, they'd learn a lot, that they don't know now, that they need
again and again.
It should be EASY for Russians to negotiate to a reliable closure with
competent people of other cultures. Now, it wrenches your guts. And it
wrenches ours.
(And for reasons like that, the world may blow up.)
A key point that should be
common ground, for all the disappointment and bitterness:
rshowalter - 07:10pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1409
Although it was a complicated circumstance in many ways, this is
true:
. . . . our two countries have been at an impasse , and scaring each
other to death (even when it was unintentional) for fifty years
and
we've just been through a decade where
there's been no reason at all not to take the weapons down
and we haven't been able to do it
and during this decade, for all the
disasters on the Russian side, it is also true that, as a class,
the "capitalist exploiters" have lost money on Russia.
It
has been a mess. It has to be sorted out.
And I suggested an
exercise in MD1410-1415
rshowalter - 07:30pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1410
I'm washed out -- I'm going to break for the night, cook my wife
dinner, and have a beer. Just before I do, I'll type out the books I
looked at yesterday morning - each problematic from a Russian point of
view. If Russian staffers could effectively discuss Russian
difficulties with these books, well enough to enlighten these
book's authors, it would be a significant test. I think a hard test for
Russian staffers to pass now. But a test they could learn to pass.
rshowalter - 07:36pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1411
The Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe
The Book of Virtues by William J. Bennett
All Over but the Shoutin' by Rick Bragg
Into the Storm by Tom Clancy (or something else by Clancy)
The Masters and Science and Government by C.P. Snow
(Snow's dead, but discussed with a competent administrator, preferably a
Dean.)
rshowalter - 07:41pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1412
News and the Culture of Lying by Paul Weaver
Spin Cycle by Howard Kurtz
Natural Obsessions by Natalie Angier
Shadow by Bob Woodward
The Lexus and the Olive Tree by Thomas L. Friedman
Dereliction of Duty by H.R. McMaster
rshowalter - 07:44pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1413
The University: An Owner's Manual by Henry Rosovsky
The Ends of Power by H.R. Haldeman
The Almanac of American Politics by Michael Barone and Grant
Ujfusa
Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman
rshowalter - 07:51pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1414
BEGINNING TO READ: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn
Jager Adams
ED SCHOOL FOLLIES: The Miseducation of America's Teachers by
Rita Kramer
INEVITABLE ILLUSIONS: How mistakes of reason rule our minds by
M. Piatelli-Palmarini
AN INCOMPLETE EDUCATION by Judy Jones and William Wilson
THE UNDISCOVERED MIND by John Horgan
WHAT IS MATHEMATICS, REALLY? by Reuben Hersh
rshowalter - 07:58pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1415
The Moral Sense by James Q. Wilson
Moralities of Everyday Life by J. Sabini and Maury Silver
I AIN'T GOT TIME TO BLEED: Reworking the Body Politic from the
Bottom Up by Jesse Ventura
All these are, by Russian standards, very strange books.
They are very un-Russian books.
I think, all very good books.
If Putin had staffers who were clear about how un-Russian these books
are, and how they are un-Russian, and if these staffers could discuss
these differences with the authors in a mutually satisfactory way (and
there are plenty of other very un-Russian books that could be discussed as
well), Russian negotiating skills would be better, interfaces in business
and other dealings would be better, and a would shift up.
The discussions would be no good, except as practice, unless they
happened for free, as status exchanges, and only then if, after the
discussion, both sides thought the discussion had been worth the trouble.
rshowalter - 07:58pm Mar 23, 2001 EST (#1416
I'm off.
I deeply appreciate the
chance to repost that briefing on the Guardian-Observer Talk .
When Dawn Riley pointed out Muddle in Moscow http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=533129
we were excited - - and did the best we could - in the hope of aiding
international understanding and peace.
It seems to me that the deletions of my record yesterday justify
reposting the briefing effort - - and I'm grateful for the chance to do
so.