The point is not that Kitty did anything wrong. Kitty was entitled to
engage Aaron in the manner that she did. The point rather is that the
method used did not succeed in encouraging Aaron to modify his
viewpoint. Rather, the method solidified Aaron's current viewpoint.
Furthermore, my approach also failed. My effort to point out an
undesired outcome was interpreted as hostile even though it was
intended to be instructive. Like Kitty I was well within the bounds
of non-coercive human interaction, yet I was misinterpreted. I saw
myself as the person with the flashlight pointing the way, but Paul
saw me as a person pointing a flashlight in his face.

[Meta
Chad, I removed your attempted "meta" enclosures of the above text
because that text is a preliminary general comment about the
discussion to date (ie it does not directly address any specific
previous text), rather than a comment about the format, structure,
syntax or other non-semantic content of the discussion.

In addition, if you will examine past messages on this group you will
realize that the usage of square brackets "[]" with a name before the
last closing bracket is reserved to signify text inserted by one of
the group's moderator before the message is released from the
pre-posting queue. This is something that I invented and used in the
LEF Forums (of which I was the creator and initial moderator for
several years), for the purpose of preventing possibly harmful health
information from being acted upon before anyone had a chance to
correct it. Moderators (now only I and Kitty) used to make actual
comments to message content before posting the message, but we stopped
doing that (except very rarely where some urgency is required to
prevent harm) some time ago. /Meta --Paul]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> On 06/17/2009 07:03 PM, freechad480 wrote:
> > Disclaimer: The following review is highly critical of the example of
> > Social Preferencing provided on the site. The intention is not to
> > insult, but to inform the reader. It should also be noted that I am
> > not using an incremental approach, in that, I believe that Kitty and
> > Paul Wakfer are mature enough to be able to handle what is intended to
> > be constructive criticism.
> >
> > The indiscriminate use of strong Social Preferencing results in the
> > alienation of individuals that may have otherwise been receptive to
> > your ideas.
>
> It appears that you have totally misunderstood that Kitty's examples
> (and most all her writings on SelfSIP.org do not relate to the methods
> of operation of the Freeman Society, which is the subject of my
> writings (apart from some critiques of founding documents and the
> writings of others. In other words, you are confusing the presentation
> of the theory and operation of the future Freeman Society with the use
> of some of those operational methods within current societies.
>
> Kitty's examples of social preferencing are in no manner examples of
> that method of operation in the Freeman Society and any problems with
> the operation of her methods are solely related to the vast and rampant
> irrationalism of people in the current society.

Shouldn't a method designed to increase ones' lifetime happiness
account for the "rampant irrationalism of people in the current
society"?

> But you have also greatly misused the word "indiscriminate" both above
> and in the subject line.
> 1) "Indiscriminate" means:
> 1 a (1) : not marked by discrimination : not marked by careful
> distinction : not evidencing discernment </indiscriminate/ reading
> habits> </indiscriminate/ viewing of television programs> <launched
> /indiscriminate/ destruction>
> (2) : HAPHAZARD, RANDOM, HIT-AND-MISS, SWEEPING - </indiscriminate/
> application of a law> </indiscriminate/ censure>
> (3) : UNRESTRAINED, PROMISCUOUS - </indiscriminate/ sexual intercourse>
> b (1) : not separated into distinct parts : JUMBLED, CONFUSED - <the
> babble of the crowd was an /indiscriminate/ mixture of several languages>
> (2) : MOTLEY. HETEROGENEOUS - <a book filled with an /indiscriminate/
> assortment of pictures>
> 2 : not exercising discrimination or discernment : not making careful
> distinctions : not carefully choosing :
> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/ .
> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (18 Jun. 2009).
>
> Neither I nor Kitty have ever before been accused of being
> indiscriminate (except perhaps for Kitty when she was in mania). If
> anything we have both been accused of being far too discriminating and
> not tolerant and accepting enough of the diverse irrational and even
> harmful actions of others.

The failure to discriminate comes in the form of the context. One
must be discriminating as to which level of social preferencing is
applied based on the individual being considered. On second thought I
should have used to the term "ineffective". Since the approach was
"ineffective", in that, Aaron's current viewpoint was strengthened not
weakened as one might hope. Change for the better did not occur.

> 2) I thought that I had made it clear that by social preferencing I mean
> actions that either positively or negatively affect personal interaction
> with another person (eg you *do* talk to this person again or you do
> *not* continue to talk to hir). I would then classify social
> preferencing into three degrees of strength.
> a) weak social preferencing is where you simply process the interaction
> decision without giving any reasons for it.
> b) Medium social preferencing (or just social preferencing) is where you
> give reasons for your action to the person or organization which you
> are socially preferencing.
> c) Strong social preferencing is where you make public the reasons for
> your decision. Strong social preferencing will be crucial for the
> operation of a Freeman Society, but it can also be extremely beneficial
> right now in starting people to think in the right direction.
>
> Note that none of these expressions concerning the strength of social
> preferencing have any relationship to its *direction* - whether it is
> positive (promotional of the person) or negative (demotional of the person).

Agreed. There are different strengths.

> 3) Whether or not any person is alienated by whatever I have to say is
> up to them. Alienation is in the mind of the alienated - the recipient
> of the negative social preferencing - and it is not something that I
> can directly induce in that mind. If I speak the truth and someone is
> offended, then any alienation is hir psychological problem not mine.
> Such alienation (and presumably return weak social preferencing against
> me) simply means that I have filtered out one more person who is highly
> likely to be not ultimately receptive to my ideas anyway and leaves me
> free to proceed to find and spend more time with others who are more
> likely to be receptive.

This approach does not seem to accommodate the human requirement that
change (in most cases) must be incremental. This approach also tends
to increase resistance from the party that feels alienated (whether
warranted on not). The feeling of alienation or persecution tends to
produce resentfulness and a desire to protect long held positions.

> > It is true that an individual should not condone or
> > heavily support others that hold antithetical viewpoint.
>
> The problem here (specifically with Kitty's nephew) is not that he holds
> an antithetical viewpoint (he actually never expressed any viewpoint at
> all), but rather that he is aiding and abetting mass murder by the US
> armed forces. I and Kitty have many people with whom we associate in
> various narrow areas, who hold highly antithetical views to ours, but,
> as far as we know, are not directly supporting the infliction of
> violence on others.

An incremental approach would be to first develop an understanding of
the other individuals viewpoint. A person view of their own
occupation is often positive. A person that joins the military does
not view the activity as "aiding and abetting mass murder". It may be
better to start with a short email. Something like:
---
Hi Aaron,

How are you doing? Paul and I haven't had a chance to see you in a
while. How is military life treating you?

Paul and I spent the weekend chopping wood. See the attached photo.

Kitty
---
> > However,
> > this does not imply that one should assume an offensive stance with
> > individuals that hold a differing viewpoint.
>
> You continue to misuse words. Nothing that we are doing can be
> classified as "offensive":
> 1 : making attack : relating to or characterized by attack :
> AGGRESSIVE : fitted for or used in attacking </offensive/ weapons>
> </offensive/ maneuver> </offensive/ strength> -- opposed to /defensive/
> (ibid)

An individual that does not invite conversation on a topic may "feel"
that they are being attacked. The claim that the word "offensive" is
being misused is not justified. The sentence was not directed at
anyone. Rather, this sentence is being taken out of context. I am
merely stating my view. No judgment was passed. Nowhere did I state
that Kitty took an offensive stance. Please read the post carefully.

> There is also the more recent meaning (a distortion of the root
> meaning):
> 3 : causing displeasure or resentment : giving offense : INSULTING,
> AFFRONTING <loud, /offensive/ behavior> </offensive/ advertising>
> <it's /offensive/ to a gentleman's feelings when his word isn't
> believed -- Dorothy Sayers>
> (ibid)
>
> However, that is a total distortion precisely because the sender of
> words cannot physically *cause* displeasure or resentment in the
> receiver of the words. I and Kitty simply state what we are convinced
> is true. Any "offense" is totally the result of the mental workings of
> the receiver of our words.
>
> Actually this reminds me of a person about whom I have thought for
> the two decades that I have known him that we ought to be very close
> friends based on the wealth of interests that we hold in common to be
> highly important (cryonics, life-extension and libertarianism to name
> just 3), but with whom I nevertheless never seem to have anything but
> a very contentious relationship. Here is the latest example early this
> year - http://cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=31317 In fact, if you go
> to http://cryonet.org and search with "Ben Best attack", you will find
> that poor Ben is always getting "attacked" by others even though all
> they are doing is using words!!

See the response above.

> > After all, the objective
> > is not to castigate them, but convert or at least neutralize them.
>
> "Castigate": Etymology: Latin /castigatus, /past participle of
> /castigare /to correct, punish -- more at CHASTEN
> 1 a : to punish or subdue by punishment </castigate/ thy pride --
> Shakespeare>
> b : to reprove for error or criticize with drastic severity <those
> poems in which he /castigate//s /man's general inhumanity and lack of
> sincerity -- J.G.Southworth> <not even the ablest critic can /castigate/
> an artless generation into repentance and creative vigor -- A.J.Barnouw>
> *synonym* see PUNISH
>
> I presume you mean 1b even though once again that is not the root
> meaning of the word nor the most accepted meaning (punish). It should
> be clear from our insistence on restitution as the *only* rational
> response to effectively caused harm, that neither I nor Kitty think
> that punishment is ever rational. Except to each other and to
> ourselves, we also rarely ever "reprove for error or criticize with
> drastic severity". However, the person in contention was not making an
> "error" (is aiding and abetting mass murder now to be called merely an
> error?). There are major differences in kind between errors and gross
> physical harms. Even so, Kitty's intention was to strongly make a
> clear statement to her nephew about the effect of his actions and to
> enter into a dialog about those actions. It was he who reacted to
> break off any further contact.

Again see the response above. You are interpreting my viewpoint as
condemnation.

> > The dissimilar individual should not walk away angry at you.
>
> If speaking the truth causes that to happen then so be it. It is the
> best thing to happen for many reasons including those already given.
> Once again, your use of "dissimilar" is totally misplaced. The
> situation here did not relate merely to a matter of taste or
> convention (as with wearing a bathing suit to a wedding) but rather
> entailed fundamental ethics.

Modification to an ideology takes years (decades in some cases). It
is unreasonable to expect to convert someone by immediately exposing
them to a "seemingly" radical ideology. One must become acclimated to
ideas just like one must become acclimated to cold water.

> > One of
> > the more important issues to keep in mind when developing methods
> > for dealing with other individuals is the context.
>
> You are pointing out the obvious, which I and Kitty know very well.

I am pointing out my view. If my view is obvious, then we are in
agreement.

> > Are the actors "operating in a Freeman Society", or not? [2]
>
> This has no relevance to the use of social preferencing in the current
> society as an important tool of social behavior modification.

Here we are in disagreement. This is 100% relevant. Social
preferencing used in the manner demonstrated in the email in question
resulted in Aaron feeling persecuted. The question I would pose is
was persecution the objective? If not, then what was the objective?
If the true objective is not achieved, then the method implemented was
flawed. A better method must be devised.

> > If the actors are
> > operating outside of a Freeman Society, then the methods and rules
> > of interaction should change based on the context (swimming suits
> > are not appropriate for weddings).
>
> Speaking the truth is always a correct and appropriate method of
> interaction. Your metaphor about wearing bathing suits is totally
> inappropriate.

Disagree. Speaking the Truth is a tool. Lying to someone who is
trying to steal from you is perfectly acceptable.

> Strong negative Social Preferencing - the non-sanction
> or non-association and the public expression of the reasons for such
> actions, is a major way to stop many of the harms of the current
> society and get people to think like being in a Freeman Society. Yes,
> it will not likely be immediately effective to alter the behavior of
> those who are being socially preferenced against. It will more likely
> first promote change in others who see the example, are informed by
> the method and are encouraged to use such methods. However, ultimately
> the person being preferenced against will reconsider hir actions,
> particularly when and if sufficient numbers take the same kinds of
> negative preferencing actions with hir while s/he continues to act
> similarly.
>
> It should be noted that strong negative social preferencing is simply
> the logical counterpart of the widely accepted practice of strong
> positive social preferencing - the public praise, accolades,
> recommendations and testimonials for individuals, and organizations of
> various types, which are so often freely forthcoming from others. What
> possible logic can there be for such non-acceptance of the negative
> method, while the positive method is so fully accepted and used? It
> appears that the adage "if you can't say anything nice then don't say
> anything at all" reigns supreme in the minds of the vast majority in
> current society.
>
> Note also that virtually everyone fully accepts both strong positive
> and strong negative preferencing with respect to all kinds of commercial
> products and services. Again there is no logical distinction between
> such methods and similar strong social preferencing relating to all
> manner of attributes of individual persons. I and Kitty have made this
> point before in other places, but you may not have read them yet.

Do not infer disagreement. No where in my review was an assertion
made that negative social preferencing was correct and that positive
social preferencing was incorrect or vice ver se. I understand the
difference. This is analogous to the carrot and stick method.

> > The other important consideration is the
> > intellectual level of the individual.
>
> I and Kitty socially preference, effectively on a continuous basis,
> with respect to everyone whatever their intellectual level and in all
> aspects of our lives. We do this by continuously evaluating everything
> and everyone around us and altering our interfacing with such things
> and persons as appropriate to the current evaluation. No one has time
> to do such continuous evaluation consciously, so much of it is done
> subconsciously by means of habits having been formed for that purpose.
> I cannot conceive of any other way to act and still be honest with and
> to oneself. To act otherwise is to live a lie and to be hypocritical
> which cannot possibly optimally increase one's lifetime happiness.
>
> For each of us our closest relationships are with persons with whom we
> agree on the essentials - the very closest for each of us is the
> other, as stated earlier. Specifically in regard to our philosophical
> ideas and processes, we seek first only those people who are at a
> sufficient intellectual level to understand and promote them. We fully
> realize that most people will only join in when they see that it works
> for others. They are the type of people to whom the adage "I will
> believe it when I see it" applies.

As far as Aaron was concerned, was the objective to determine whether
he was a candidate for a close relationship; or was it that he was a
candidate for incremental conversion? It seems like there is an all
or nothing approach being taken. How can one grow if the expectation
is that other humans must "jump to my level of awareness" or "get out
of my life"? Requiring an instantaneous response is not practical.

> > These comments tie in to four
> > different writings discovered on your site. Consider the following:
> >
> > "The strong Identification methods described and promoted on this page
> > are assumed to be operating in a Freeman Society where the vast
> > majority of InterActing individuals are Freemen or dependents of
> > Freemen and the purpose of this Identification is both to prevent such
> > Violations by ensuring that they are fully Restituted and to bring the
> > discriminatory pressure of Social Preferencing to bear on other types
> > of behavior that is not conducive to optimally increasing the Lifetime
> > Happiness of all Freemen together." [2]
>
> The quotation above has effectively been taken "out of context". It is
> the last part of a section right at the start of the page explaining
> its purpose, whose prior text reads:
>
> "The creators of the Self-Sovereign Individual Project (Paul and Kitty
> Antonik Wakfer) are well aware that some of the strong Identification
> Required by the NSC and the additional Personal openness described and
> promoted in this page might be unadvisable and perhaps even personally
> dangerous to implement in the current social context of rampant
> Violational activities particularly, and worst of all, including those
> of all governments." (hyperlinks removed for text readability)
>
> That prior text shows that the total situation, particularly including
> *full personal openness*, is what I am describing as being essential
> for a Freeman Society. Nothing in the text suggests that strong negative
> social preferencing should not be practiced, and cannot also be highly
> effective, in the current society, even though some degree of
> non-openness may well be important to protect oneself from the State
> and others violence perpetrators who are effectively spawned by the
> State, and for that reason will be fully acceptable (ie not negatively
> socially preferenced) in the current society.

I agree that this quote was taken out of context my apologies. In
this case I disagree with using strong social preferencing outside of
the context of a "Freeman Society". Strong social preferencing
reduces the desire for openness.

> > Attention should be called to the assertion that within the context
> > of a Freeman Society, "the discriminatory pressure of Social
> > Preferencing" [2] should be brought to bear on certain types of
> > behavior. This discriminatory pressure should be used very carefully
> > outside of the context of a Freeman Society.
>
> Remember that the first purpose of the current text on SelfSIP.org is
> to theoretically found and describe the operation of the Freeman
> Society. It is only Kitty's writings which are the beginning first
> small steps of using some of the Freemen Society methods within the
> current society in order to get people to begin thinking more
> correctly and make some headway towards the achievement of the Freeman
> Society - ie the "getting from here to there" part of the project. I
> myself have not yet begun that portion because I have not yet had
> adequate vetting of the Freeman Society theory and structure.
> Nevertheless even I am tired of waiting and am working to implement
> the concept of value for value, which we initially did not think was
> as essential for the Freeman Society optimal operation as we now do,
> and which I think can be used fruitfully within the current society to
> start people thinking and acting responsibly in the right direction.
>
> Moreover, please remember that apart from Kitty's examples of negative
> social preferencing in the current society, *all* other writing about
> social preferencing (both negative and positive) on SelfSIP applies to
> the Freeman Society. You are mixing the two! The fact that social
> preferencing has problems with its negative usage in the current
> society bears no relationship to its usage in the Freeman Society
> which is where it needs to be first considered in order to determine
> whether and to what extent it is the crucial and practical effector of
> the social order.
>
> Moreover, I must ask you, if some form of strong negative social
> preferencing is not to be used, then just how do you propose that
> people be influenced sufficiently to change their thinking towards
> that needed for a Freeman Society? Calmly talking to and writing for
> people is simply not sufficient for most people to cause such major
> changes in thinking. Strong non-violent action of all possible forms
> will be absolutely necessary in many situations in order to promote
> such change. Once again, I strongly urge you to read the writings of
> the non-violent theoretician Gene Sharp, specifically his book series:
> _The politics of Nonviolent Action_ and also the review of all such
> actions in the 20th century _A Force More Powerful_ by Peter Ackerman
> and Jack Duvall.

"Meeting a person where they are" is a more effective than the
technique of negative social preferencing with little negligible
incrementalism.

> However I thank you for bringing to my attention an error of
> expression on my part remaining from my previous habits of word usage.
> This is the mixing up of physical force (pressure) with psychology
> (the inner workings of the mind). There is no such thing as
> "discriminatory *pressure*" (at least not by means of words alone).
> There are only the actions of others and the voluntary choices and
> actions of a person in response to those actions. I try not to use and
> will not accept from others these kinds of logically invalid
> expressions, and I have changed my text above, replacing "pressure"
> with "influence". And of course all influence must be accompanied by
> cogent clearly presented reasons or it will not be influencing. It is
> only in the current society of vast numbers of other-oriented people
> that the (non physically harmful) actions of others may influence one
> without one knowing any reasons for them. Any rational person would,
> rightly so, not be influenced without such cogent reasons no matter
> how many people took the action. Although if sufficient numbers of
> apparently reasonable people react in some manner, then such weight of
> numbers should at least influence one to fully rethink one's action
> which those many others are convinced is wrong. In addition, if large
> numbers of others will simply not deal with a person because of some
> behavior, then that person must reasonably reconsider hir reasons and
> whether or not continuing to behave contrary to the desires of the
> others will promote hir lifetime happiness.

Agreed.

> Meta
> Kitty will respond separately to some of the below when she feels like
> doing so. Chad, your comments appear to portray Kitty as some kind of
> unfeeling, brazen vixen, when, in fact, nothing could be further from
> the truth. She is the kindest, most concerned human being that I have
> ever encountered. She is also the most open, honest and unwaveringly
> principled person that I have ever encountered.

It concerns me that self-defense is being implemented here. What is
being defended against? Did I launch an attack? Is it aggressive to
mention the names of the actors in open communication to them about
their actions? What is being employed here is honesty. At no point
were the words "unfeeling, brazen vixen" used. Please do not
manufacture words that were not and will not be written about Kitty.
Her email to Aaron struck me as meticulously thought out and deeply
sincere.

[Meta
Note that I put your comment to my meta comments within my original
meta tags and this meta comment about that situation within additional
meta tags.
/Meta --Paul]

> /Meta

> > The reason for this is demonstrated on another page that records
> > email communication between Kitty and her Nephew.
> > During the email communication "discriminatory
> > pressure" [2] is applied outside of the context of a Freeman Society
> > and the results are disappointing. Consider the following excerpt
> > from Aaron's response, "If not seeing or contacting me is some form of
> > protest then you are welcome to do it. But to write such a hateful
> > email out of the blue is completely uncalled for." [5] Aaron does not
> > know what hit him because he is at a different level of awareness than
> > Kitty and Paul. What hit Aaron? This message from Kitty Antonik
> > Wakfer,
> >
> > "Aaron, you may have been wondering why I (and Paul) have not stopped
> > in to see you since your move to St. Louis since we drive through it
> > at least 4 times yearly. It has not been an oversight or because we
> > are lazy. I have purposely avoided opportunities to visit with you
> > since Madison's christening in New Jersey in September 2002. Had Paul
> > and I been successful in timing our drive through St. Louis for Mary's
> > arrival at the airport in July, we would have unavoidably been in your
> > company for that time. However it was our intention not to visit her
> > in your home." [4]
>
> It makes no sense to term any of the above as the application of
> "discriminatory pressure". Kitty's word are nothing but a purely
> honest and open attempt to make all intentions very clear and to be
> certain that nothing is misunderstood (as is so often the case in most
> relationships). The rest of the message, which you do not quote, was a
> patient and reasoned attempt to explain to Aaron the reasons for these
> intentions. That Aaron considered the message to be "hateful" is
> simply the irrational workings of his mind. Perhaps you think that
> there was some close relationship between Kitty and Aaron which Kitty
> was peremptorily severing without any warning. However, the truth is
> that the relationship was merely the standard casual one of relatives
> wherein very little of substance is ever discussed.

Why did Aaron consider the email hateful even though Kitty's
intentions were pure? One may intend to do one thing and end up with
an undesired result. Feedback is the key to improvement. If you do
not get the results you want, then it is important to determine why
and modify the inputs. Sometimes my wife starts an argument with me.
Now I could sit there and say my wife always likes to start arguments,
or I could ask what can I do to decrease the likelihood that my wife
will start an argument with me?

> > The reviewer read the email message and found himself in agreement
>
> Meta
> I consider it to be an avoidance of personal responsibility technique,
> and perhaps even arrogant, to refer to yourself in the third person as
> "the reviewer" and I do not sanction such behavior. In future, please
> use "I" when you are describing your own actions. --Paul]
> /Meta

Interpret it how you will. I (Chad Nelson) am the reviewer. I am
just being honest. Some people interpret the use of the word `I' the
same way.

> > with Kitty Antonik Wakfer's views on participation in offensive wars.
>
> In addition, please do not use full names. Everyone here knows who
> Kitty is and also who Paul is within the context of the usage. Using a
> full name smacks of unfriendliness, at the least, and is inconsistent
> with your previous use of first names as identifiers.

Now I am confused. The sentence in question is one of agreement. How
can it be interpreted as unfriendly? Again I am clearly doing
something wrong since I intended no offense whatsoever.

> > However, the review disagrees with the apparent lack of escalation.
>
> The escalation of what?

Answer: Escalation of ideological engagement

If a person does not agree with or understand the concept of velocity,
then how can they begin to understand the concept of acceleration?
Concepts build on one another. Simply telling someone that you
understand and embrace the concept of acceleration is one thing.
Stating, "If you do not understand or embrace the concept of
acceleration, then I will not associate with you" is another matter
entirely. Does the person even understand velocity? The final
question is: "Will refusal to associate with a person that does not
understand acceleration cause that person to understand acceleration?"

> > This message effectively presents your nephew with an ultimatum.
> > Choose me and my ideas or continue in the military. Yikes!
>
> Nonsense! The message that you have not quoted presents thoughts about
> why being in the military is effectively aiding and abetting mass
> murder (but purposefully does not use such strongly language) and
> states that I and Kitty will not associate with anyone doing so.

Aaron feels that he is being presented with an ultimatum.

> > This form
> > Social Preferencing is on its' face not palatable for most humans.
>
> Even though given that just as strong positive forms of social
> preferencing are fully accepted by most humans, it is totally
> illogical not to also accept strong negative social preferencing, we
> have never said that any form of negative social preferencing is
> currently "palatable for most humans". That it is not is also one of
> the major problems with the thinking of most humans which needs to be
> changed. We have also pointed out that everyone is, in fact,
> negatively socially preferencing whether or not they realize it.
> Kitty's nephew negatively socially preferenced Kitty by wanting
> nothing more to do with her. I have been so negatively socially
> preferenced dozens of times in my life. Strangely enough most of that
> negative social preferencing by others came about when I forthrightly
> described to them my method of continuously evaluating everyone with
> respect to our relationship and acting on that evaluation with respect
> to the degree and type of association - ie when I described the
> actions of socially preferencing to them. Their reaction was so
> negative and distasteful of the whole idea that they usually did
> something punishing to me as well as exercising social preferencing
> against me (totally inconsistent with their distaste for it). In fact,
> I have come to use it as a kind of filter to quickly eliminate those
> people who are not capable of facing the truths of their own lives and
> of acting consistently.

There is nothing wrong with negative social preferencing it is a tool.
The usage of that tool is matter in question. Why not try to convert
others as opposed to filtering them? The filter you are applying is
very narrow/fine. What if a person can almost be accommodated by the
filter? Should they be treated like someone who will never fit
through the filter?

> > One must establish a foundation and build some scaffolding before
> > declaring jump to my level. How can Aaron reach you? You have not
> > provided any assistance along the way. It took you years to reach
> > your level of awareness. How can Aaron be expected to instantaneously
> > adopt a worldview that is diametrically opposed to his current one?
> > Has he actually had time to consider these ideas? Withdrawal of
> > support should be one of the LAST steps in the escalation process.
>
> Chad, I think you are way out of place here in your comments since you
> have no knowledge of the depth or shallowness of the relationship
> between Kitty and her nephew. Neither Kitty nor I have any close ties
> to any remaining family. I, in particular, have always felt estranged
> from all of my relatives except my mother, who unfortunately died far
> too young and was too strongly influenced by my father with whom I did
> not agree much, and my biological daughter for awhile until I realized
> that she had been effectively deceiving me about her respect for me
> for about 20 years.

I am not out of line in that anyone who according to Aaron, "writes
a[n] <interpretational word deleted> email out of the blue" is not
close to that person. Also, anyone who actively avoids another person
for 3 years [September 2002 ("Madison's christening") to September
2005 (timestamp on email)] is not close to that person. Evidence for
active avoidance is provided by Kitty, "Aaron, you may have been
wondering why I (and Paul) have not stopped in to see you since your
move to St. Louis since we drive through it at least 4 times yearly.
It has not been an oversight or because we are lazy. I have purposely
avoided opportunities to visit with you since Madison's christening in
New Jersey in September 2002. Had Paul and I been successful in timing
our drive through St. Louis for Mary's arrival at the airport in July,
we would have unavoidably been in your company for that time. However
it was our intention not to visit her in your home."

I am well within my place to make a judgment based on clear evidence.
Your response further confirms my inference. If I am wrong, then
prove it. Do not just say I am out of place.

> I leave the rest for necessary comments by Kitty in another response.
>
> > Admittedly, Kitty Antonik Wakfer came to the conclusion that the
> > initial email was inappropriate and devised "A Better Method for
> > Effecting Change". [6] The first paragraph includes the sentence,
> > "I've done some thinking about how my approach to my nephew Aaron, a
> > pilot in the Air Force, might have been better worded and thereby
> > possibly have elicited a more favorable response from him." [6]
> >
> > Before this sentence, however, is a more interesting statement; "At
> > this time and prompted a few weeks ago by a comment from an individual
> > whose opinions I (Kitty Antonik Wakfer) listen to…" [6] This is an
> > excellent point. It is worth asking this question about the
> > relationship between you and your nephew as well. Are you someone
> > that your nephew listens to and respects? If not, then it is
> > important to start there. If the person does not know or respect you
> > in the first place, then what motivation would he have to change based
> > on what you say? Furthermore, what does he have to lose if he does
> > not know the Kitty very well in the first place?
> >
> > Unfortunately, the "Incremental Approach" misses the mark much like
> > the first email. The problem begins in paragraph one:
> >
> > "I've been doing a lot of thinking about you lately and am deeply
> > concerned. At the time you graduated from the Air Force Academy
> > (1998), I considered the military only 1 of 3 valid functions of
> > government, an entity I thought was necessary to a free and orderly
> > society. Since then, all after meeting Paul and having many detailed
> > discussions with him - concurrent with the reading of various
> > anti-statist writers of the past and present - I came to the
> > conclusion that governments are the cause of most of the problems of
> > society. The progress that occurs and the happiness that individuals
> > achieve are mainly in spite of government rules and regulations rather
> > than as a result of them. The fact that most people do not recognize
> > this is because they have not seriously considered how a society could
> > be free and orderly without coercive law-creating entities -
> > governments." [6]
> >
> > This paragraph alone is already too much. Many people will reject
> > this approach. The recipient of such an unsolicited email is most
> > likely not going to receive this well. Their mind is not ready. Ask
> > yourself the following question, what would happen if the coordinator
> > for the Italian Olympics Swimming team kidnapped you in the middle of
> > the night and you were told that you would be competing in the 100
> > meter diving competition tomorrow OR that you could go back home and
> > continue living your normal life. Which of these options are you most
> > prepared to accomplish? The excerpt above drops your nephew in the
> > deep-end.
> >
> > Adopting an incremental approach is wise, but this approach is not
> > incremental enough.
>
> The authorship that you have given directly below is incorrect. All
> writing at SelfSIP.org that is not specifically stated as written by
> someone else is authored by me alone (everything that I write has
> undergone suggestions, critique and editing by Kitty and vice-versa.)
> See the "Authorship" section on the project entry page http://selfsip.org
> where this is clearly stated. I am the theorist. Kitty writes mainly
> examples which are never to be taken as replacing or being contrary to
> the theory (on which we both agree). If you think that any is contrary
> then please state exactly which text is contrary and give reason why
> you think so.
>
> > [2] Self-Sovereignty Solutions Social Preferencing, Author: Paul and
> > Kitty Antonik Wakfer, http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html
> >
> > [4] Social Preferencing – Evaluation and Choice of Association; A
> > Method for Influence, Author: Kitty Antonik Wakfer,
http://selfsip.org/focus/preferencing.html
> >
> > [5] Exchange Regarding Social Preferencing and Participation in
> > Offensive Military Action, Author: Kitty Antonik Wakfer,
> > http://selfsip.org/dialogues/misc/preferencing_at.html
> >
> > [6] Incremental Approach – A Better Method for Effecting Change,
> > Author: Kitty Antonik Wakfer, http://selfsip.org/focus/smallsteps.html
> >
> > Reviewer, Chad Nelson
>
> Chad, you have no "position" or "authority" as reviewer. Please do not
> try to aggrandize your personal comments into anything more than they
> are.

Reviewer
1. a person who reviews
2. a person who reviews books, plays, etc.

Review
–verb (used with object)
12. to go over (lessons, studies, work, etc.) in review
13. to view, look at, or look over again.
14. to inspect, esp. formally or officially: to review the troops.
15. to survey mentally; take a survey of: to review the situation
16. to discuss (a book, play, etc.) in a critical review; write a critical
report upon.
17. to look back upon; view retrospectively.
18. to present a survey of in speech or writing.
19. Law. To reexamine judicially: a decision to review the case

Placing a title on oneself conveys no position or authority. It
merely states a fact. If what I am doing does not fall under the
category of review, then I do not understand the definition of review.
I shall persist in all sincerity to continue to refer to myself as a
Reviewer of your work.

> --Paul
>

Reviewer, Chad Nelson

[Disclaimer: Chad Nelson has no position or authority as a "Reviewer"
of any material on this group. He is merely a reviewer in the same
manner and has precisely the same commenting status as anyone else
posting here. --Paul]