Coup d’état

There is a coup d’état in progress which took years to prepare. It’s execution commenced 15th June 2012 and has entered a decisive phase as I write this, the night of 22/23rd June 2012.

There is still a news blackout in US and Europe and the bit that is reported is a distortion of facts that belittles the significance of the event. When it is finally presented in an orchestrated media exercise you will decide what to believe or if it’s worth taking notice of it at all.

How do you make this decision?

For a start let’s look at decision making processes System 1 and 2 as defined by:

Daniel Kahneman, 78, is an Israeli-American psychologist specializing in the psychology of judgment and decision-making as well as behavioral economics. He is currently a senior scholar and emeritus professor at Princeton University. In 2002, Kahneman was awarded the Nobel prize in economics for his work on prospect theory, which helps explain the role biases play in decision-making. In 2011, he published a summary of much of his research in “Thinking, Fast and Slow,”. Below are extracts of an interview that took place in May 2012.

“Psychologists distinguish between a “System 1” and a “System 2,” which control our actions. System 1 represents what we may call intuition. It tirelessly provides us with quick impressions, intentions and feelings. System 2, on the other hand, represents reason, self-control and intelligence.

System 2 is the one who believes that it’s making the decisions. But in reality, most of the time, System 1 is acting on its own, without your being aware of it. It’s System 1 that decides whether you like a person, which thoughts or associations come to mind, and what you feel about something. All of this happens automatically. You can’t help it, and yet you often base your decisions on it.

System 1 can never be switched off. You can’t stop it from doing its thing. System 2, on the other hand, is lazy and only becomes active when necessary. Slow, deliberate thinking is hard work. It consumes chemical resources in the brain, and people usually don’t like that. It’s accompanied by physical arousal, increasing heart rate and blood pressure, activated sweat glands and dilated pupils.

The pupil normally fluctuates in size, mostly depending on incoming light. But, when you give someone a mental task, it widens and remains surprisingly stable — a strange circumstance that proved to be very useful to us. In fact, the pupils reflect the extent of mental effort in an incredibly precise way. I have never done any work in which the measurement is so precise.

Our intuition works very well for the most part. But it’s interesting to examine where it fails.

It depends on the field. In the stock market, for example, the predictions of experts are practically worthless. Anyone who wants to invest money is better off choosing index funds, which simply follow a certain stock index without any intervention of gifted stock pickers. Year after year, they perform better than 80 percent of the investment funds managed by highly paid specialists. Nevertheless, intuitively, we want to invest our money with somebody who appears to understand, even though the statistical evidence is plain that they are very unlikely to do so. Of course, there are fields in which expertise exists. This depends on two things: whether the domain is inherently predictable, and whether the expert has had sufficient experience to learn the regularities. The world of stock is inherently unpredictable.

A computer will be just as unreliable at predicting stock prices as a human being. And the political situation in 20 years is probably completely unpredictable; the world is simply too complex. However, computer models are good where things are relatively regular. Human judgment is easily influenced by circumstances and moods: Give a radiologist the same X-ray twice, and he’ll often interpret it differently the second time. But with an algorithm, if you give it the same information twice, it will turn out the same answer twice.

The entertainment industry wastes a lot of money on films that don’t work. It shouldn’t be that difficult to develop a program that at least doesn’t do any worse than the intuitive judgments that govern these decisions now.

So-called “evidence-based medicine” is making progress, and it’s based on clear, replicable algorithms. Or take the oil industry. There are strict procedures on deciding whether or not to drill in a specific location. They have a set of questions that they ask, and then they measure. Relying on intuition would be far too error-prone. After all, the risks are high, and there is a lot of money at stake”.

Now you may test your decision making process. This is a summary of a news report taken from my book “2012/20 Capitalism Endgame”:

ITV and BBC report identically: “G4B announced today that one of their drones has executed a surgically clean strike on an Undesirable Element in Aberystwyth, Wales”

You already know that G4B stands for Great for Britain, the world’s largest socio-polit-eco-entity that employs over half the British working population. G4B provides global security in over 150 countries and British-associated territories,
it’s polit devision provides competent ministers, electable parliamentarians and educated voters, it’s financial devision currency and banking systems, – also legal, social and medical systems, – whatever a democracy needs, G4B is the world leading provider.

An independent journalist investigates the Aberystwyth event. He finds that the Undesirable Element, UE, was part of a wedding party of a hundred people or so that also got killed.

The spokes person for G4B points out that the drone surveillance and strike system is driven by impeccable software that identifies UEs and eliminates them at very low cost, a huge saving to the tax payer. One wedding party is an acceptable mortality rate in over 10,000 drone operations per year, far less casualties than caused by traffic accidents, medical malpractice, child starvation and other systems not operated by G4B.

The Prime Minister, nevertheless, orders a parliamentary enquiry as further evidence indicates that there were possibly more UEs and sympathisers in the party in question. The G4B incidence investigation unit is to examine the event, the G4B court to judge, and the G4B appointed chair of the pe to announce the verdict. As the event took place in Wales a Quango has to be formed consisting of no more than fifty members whose remunerations shall be limited to no more than three times a prime minister’s salary. The usual friends and family members of ministers shall be appointed to the Quango.

So how do you react to this piece of news?
Do you apply System 1 or 2?

Is it a matter of collective consciousness that makes us react in the same way – not all of us, but many or most?

Do you really want to know what coup d’état against what democratically elected government is going on at the moment, and which of the democratic state or states you are living in is staging it in your name?

If your answer is yes send me an email to wihaceha at yahoo dot com and I’ll provide you with details not found in any media.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.