New scenes... old problems...

As the Doha Round of the WTO negotiations wends its way toward extinction, there is a lonely and vaguely familiar voice out there in the wilderness.

That voice is none other than Paul Wolfowitz, now leader of World Bank.

At the time of writing (7/10/06 1800 EST) I can find very few US publications reporting his letter to the G8 Summit. NYT is there (typically as some might say), Reuters has an article out that should get published over the next 12 hours, All Headline News copies on it, as does NZ Herald and ABC.

Why is this worth posting then?

Simple!

What kicked me off on this slight addiction of reading international affairs seriously was the influence that other nations have on NZ's ability to trade. Always in the background to the debates, the negotiations, and the rhetoric has been the subsidies paid by "wealthy countries", the barriers both legal and illegal to market access.

This is how stupid it gets.

In Fiji, there are cane sugar growers who have abandoned their land and have diversified into other crops. In Australia, Northern Queensland, the area in cane sugar three years ago when I was last there was only 15% of what it had been 20 years before. The last remaining mill was enough to supply NZ and Australia.

The reason? EU states who subsidise over 70% of the cost of production for their farmers to grow sugar beet. Think about that; the total cost of sugar in Germany could be about 1/3rd of its present cost (if you include potential tax savings).

The only market that keeps the Australians in large scale wheat production is Iraq. They are on the cusp of losing that (news-google Australian Wheat Board to find out why). It is possible that their wheat would be considerably cheaper than that produced in US and Canada and heavily subsidised by the respective governments.

France pays farmers to keep as few as two milk cows in production. By paying those subsidies, they can block access of imported product to both French and EU markets.

But then consider this.

I mentioned Fiji as an opener to the sugar example. In fact, Fiji could land raw sugar in NZ at 2/3rds of the price of Australian and could produce enough to supply both NZ and Australia. That competition for the Australians is the next step.

Afghanistan could grow almost enough wheat to supply Europe. The false markets created by subsidies makes their entry to the market impossible.

Some 90% of Zimbabwe's production of fresh vegetables and fruit went to Europe. Well, it did before Mugabe went mad.

The list is not endless, but there is an important principle at hand. It has its impact upon NZ, not least because it is going to increase the level of competition against us.

If the US wants to make a success of Afghanistan, or Iraq for that matter, then ONE way to help would be to give the people, the farmers, the land and opportunity to produce AND ACCESS TO THE MARKETS necessary to provide economic return.

That is the fundamental that lies behind the Doha round. The reality is that no French government has ever won power without the support of the farming sector; I suspect that no state or federal government in Canada would survive without agriculture support; the US?

"With time running out, our collective efforts can make the difference," he said in a letter to leaders of the Group of Eight industrialised countries and five major developing economies, due to start meeting in Russia on Saturday.

The meeting of leaders from the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Russia comes two weeks after trade ministers met in Geneva but failed to resolve differences over farm and industrial goods which, with services, make up the three pillars of the talks.

"We can work to lift millions from poverty, boost developing country income, improve global market access and reduce taxpayer and consumer costs for all, or allow the whole effort to collapse, with harm to everyone," Wolfowitz said.

The really BIG problem Wolfie, is the harm that would be done to electoral prospects of the leaders of the G8 if the Doha round were to succeed.

Confirmation bias - 2

I have written before about confirmation bias. I confessed then that I yield to it more often that I would hope. What brought me back to the topic? It was a comment by the old wasp that he had instilled in his children “...well built BS meters...” which, on the surface sounds like a pretty danged number one good idea. But then the settling little thought of “Where is the zero BS mark” came sneaking back into the paradigm.

[sheepish grin] I have often noted that "thrill of the chase" feeling when you find an apt and strong support for a comment, or thought. So, a brief google, and the application of some personal confirmation bias later, and I had an interesting selection of reading matter to wade my way through.

Now there is a scientific basis for the “syndrome”.

During the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, while undergoing an fMRI bran scan, 30 men--half self-described as "strong" Republicans and half as "strong" Democrats--were tasked with assessing statements by both George W. Bush and John Kerry in which the candidates clearly contradicted themselves. Not surprisingly, in their assessments Republican subjects were as critical of Kerry as Democratic subjects were of Bush, yet both let their own candidate off the hook.
The neuroimaging results, however, revealed that the part of the brain most associated with reasoning--the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex--was quiescent. Most active were the orbital frontal cortex, which is involved in the processing of emotions; the anterior cingulate, which is associated with conflict resolution; the posterior cingulate, which is concerned with making judgments about moral accountability; and--once subjects had arrived at a conclusion that made them emotionally comfortable--the ventral striatum, which is related to reward and pleasure.

To me, that sounds as though so very old, primitive, structures and responses are involved. I needed this picture here to try and envisage just which parts of the brain the article was talking about. Hopefully it wil appear below as well.



Now, my interpretation of all that is probably wrong, open to further interpretation, and oversimplified. So I will set the next paragraph in place...

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," Westen is quoted as saying in an Emory University press release. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."

Hmm, conflicts? Between emotion and what?

Interestingly, neural circuits engaged in rewarding selective behaviors were activated. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones," Westen said.

So, is this the process of rationalisation of perception and emotion that I suspected? Perhaps so.

What I do know is that it always feels “good” to find something that is (to me at least) cogent, logical, and which supports the line of thinking that I believe is “truth”. It is a “profound feeling” that comes from very deep in my mind.

That is one reason why I have steered clear of topics such as Israel and Iraq on thse pages in recent times; not that I have been silent in contributing to comment debates.

The power of confirmation bias at the emotive level - the feel-good factor, the power and fluidity of communication created by having support for a contentious argument – is a dangerous point from which to start.

But that is not the worst of it...

The implications of the findings reach far beyond politics. A jury assessing evidence against a defendant, a CEO evaluating information about a company or a scientist weighing data in favor of a theory will undergo the same cognitive process. What can we do about it?

In science we have built-in self-correcting machinery. Strict double-blind controls are required in experiments, in which neither the subjects nor the experimenters know the experimental conditions during the data-collection phase. Results are vetted at professional conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. Research must be replicated in other laboratories unaffiliated with the original researcher.

Disconfirmatory evidence, as well as contradictory interpretations of the data, must be included in the paper. Colleagues are rewarded for being skeptical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I have never served on a jury. I shall probably not escape for all that much longer. There will be all manner of personal attitudes that could be challenged by the experience; not the least of which would be my ability to objectively assess evidence and the way in which it is presented.

So, where does my BS meter point to at its apparent zero point? Unlike the old wasp, my parents did not “teach” the differences between “good” and “bad” politics, or religion, or even personal relationships for that matter. There was strong emphasis on personal morality, and the need to observe the societal norms. But that does not of itself constitute a "BS measurement".

That is quite unlike the grounding my wife got in the precepts and foundations of the Labour Party. I swam around in the nether regions of the Communists, National, Labour and eventually the realisation that there was no fundamental difference between Andersen and Muldoon, between Nash, Brash, and Peters. (Is it any surprise that we do not discuss politics at length?) At the very base of each of these people are two things –

The unquenchable belief that they are right and every one else is wrong.

The desire to leverage, extract and maintain every last morsel of fame, wealth and power possible from their respective party followings.

So, in terms of “centering the BS meter”, I guess that there is really very little difference between the KKK member who teaches his kids that all blacks are inferior and should be kept only as pets; the Unionist shop steward who teaches his kids that Savage was a god, and that Kirk sat at his right hand; the businessman who teaches his kids to support National because Brash and Keys will return to them all of the taxes that “those other politicians take to give to the unworthy and poor”.

It all comes down to where the zero point is on the BS meter.

To that extent, the old wasp had it wrong. What I suspect he really meant was that he had given his kids a good grounding in where their truth meter was pointed. It is just the inverse of what he was saying, and it operates in exactly the same manner...

For myself, I will stick with the closure of the SciAm article that I started with –

Skepticism is the antidote for the confirmation bias

I might add the word ONLY in there, just before "antidote".

It's harassment now...

WHAKAPOHANI, MR X

When in "Rome"

Some while back, I read a review (can't remember who blogged it or I would give credit where due) giving a strong recommendation for "Rome".

I watched the first episode last night, so this is very much first impression.

I did not like it...

The violence I expected. It adds little, but is part of the story, (in the same way as having the graphic depiction of a Maori chief chomping off the end of a detached, raw, and bloody, penis was part of that story).

The sex, simulated or not, ranging from a casual rape to the interior of a Roman knocking shop reminded me of scenes filmed by Ingmar Bergmann running on a closed loop.

The historic detail I have to accept as being "reasonably accurate".

Entertaining? The kind of thing I might watch on Sunday evening? Errm, not.

The Maori programme?

It is called "Taonga" (Treasures). They are half hour long stories taken from Maori history. The one I referred to above was also last night. It was the story of Lucy Takiora Lord, a half-caste Maori woman who spent a good few years guiding first the British Army then later the mercenary von Tempsky in their attempts to remove the Maori from Taranaki. Lord left behind a diary which has formed the basis not only for this programme, but far more importantly for claims against the Government for breaches of the Waitaingi Treaty and for what these days would be termed "crimes against humanity".

Chilling, chilling history. Never taught in the schools in my time. There are few who would teach the whole, unadorned history even now.

Well, at least I know where I am welcome...

21/7/06

Well, this is a sad day indeed, one that I thought would never come to pass.

Originally, this post recorded a brief email exchange I had with an American gentleman (I am advised that is a sufficiently polite term for him) regarding the "rules and regulations" for posting at neo-neocon's blogsite.

Frinstance...

Extensive cutting and pasting will be grounds for deletion. Repeated violations will lead to banning. Civility and staying on topic, that is not trying to highjack threads, is the preferred discussion method. From a review of your comments, I see several cases where you dance on the edge. Blanket condemnations without precise documentation and logical fallacies as found on this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy can result in loss of commenting privileges. Trim your sails and you can still post. Go over the edge and you’re history.

I. BTW, am not a Neo-Con. I’m just an old fashioned Republican; what you would call a “Fascist” in your lexicon. I’ve met very few Kiwi’s in my extensive travel in your country who I would call friends of the US and, frankly, I don’t care what you think of us. For the nonce, and only because it suits our national interests, your country remains under our protection. Treaties are not eternal.

Now, to be fair to this gentleman, he was relatively polite in his insults. He got no worse than calling me a ponce; a term of approbation and endearment in his world I guess. At least, unlike some of the others of his ilk I have had the fortune to meet, he has stayed away from the sheep jokes.

I am removing this post, and a second, because I am not sufficiently vindictive to leave them remain.

What ever this gentleman's background, whatever his reasons, I have had a second series of emails on this same topic. They are written, quite politely, by a "security consultant" apparently engaged by Mr X.

He advises me that I stand to suffer all manner of dire consequences if I am not to remove these two posts. Well, Mr Security Consultant, your threats, and the blatant attempts at appealing to my better side - almost fawning in one instance - are a small part in this decision. Not because of the threats - I would just love to challenge them. No, you have reminded me that I am better than that.

So, to close this sorry chapter, and to all of the "security agents", IP complaint investigators, and others who seem to have been the majority of the traffic through the probligo's little world I have removed the remainder.

I suggest that your read no further, as the rest of this is intended for Mr X as a parting gift.

__________________________________________________________________

Mr X, sir.

I hope that all of your fears are realised. I hope that the causes of your paranoia and fear of life come to pass.

You, sir, are not a democrat by any stretch of the imagination.

You, sir, are not what I would call a "fascist" as you have suggested. You would have done well for yourself in the times before Magna Carta - when men were men and serfs were taken to battle for blood sports by the nobility. That is a trait that you have not lost.

Well sir, you tire me.

I leave you with the most powerful insult that I know -



WHAKAPOHANI

My full name is

Bob Renner

I live at 19 La Perouse St in Howick, Auckland.