[Meta
Note 1: This message has become so long that we decided to split in
the middle. The subject now indicates that this is part 1.

Note 2: Both I and Kitty think that it is a poor use of time for us
and for readers to carry on anymore with discussion of the email
correspondence with her nephew. Therefore, we will accept one more
response on that subject and then our response remarks to that will be
the last allowed, unless someone not in the discussion yet has
something novel to say about that subject.
/Meta --Paul]

This reply is a consolidated message in which I address items from
Chad's first message with this title, and his subsequent one to Paul's
reply to that message. I was not ready to respond to Chad immediately
but wanted some time to let things "percolate" in my mind. This message
also contains additional comments by Paul within "[]" as is our usual
method when doing joint replies to the group.

On 06/23/2009 02:55 AM, freechad480 wrote:
> The point is not that Kitty did anything wrong. Kitty was entitled
> to engage Aaron in the manner that she did.

[You are misunderstanding the word "wrong" (as do most people in the
current society). In reality there is no difference between a
morally/ethically "wrong" action and a factually/methodologically
"wrong" action, the latter of which is incorrect simply because it led
to a different result than the desired/planned one. It is only that
certain types of incorrect actions in society have been promoted to
the status of moral/ethical wrongs, mainly in order to emphasize to
people that they invariably have a very negative effect on the
lifetime happiness of all parties. But in fact, most such
moral/ethical wrongs, eg don't kill, don't lie, honor your mother and
father, etc are never absolute either. --Paul]

> The point rather is that the
> method used did not succeed in encouraging Aaron to modify his
> viewpoint.

Chad, please note below where I am responding to your initial comments
as to what was the purpose of my *email to Aaron*, as opposed to the
purpose of the *article* for which it was merely an example of my own
non-violent social change activism.

> 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.

[I did not interpret your text as "hostile". I try never to impute
intention to anyone without very clear proof (generally requiring the
admittance of the person). However, I did view your text as a very
selective, and totally unfair portrayal of both Kitty herself and what
she was trying to accomplish with her article and her previous email
to Aaron. Again this view of mine was independent of any possible
intention on your part.

Chad, if you ever get around to fully reading the NSC you will clearly
see that I do not make any distinction in harm caused to a person
between whether an action was intended or was merely the result of
accident or incompetence. This is an example of so many things about the
thinking of me and Kitty that you do not yet know, which is why
you really ought not to be so strongly criticizing our work, but rather
questioning to find out more information before you make decisions and
come to conclusions about us. --Paul]

> 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.

Your "flashlight" was not pointed at the purpose of the article, but
rather at the way *I* had chosen to implement negative social
preferencing in this one case, and to use it strongly (letting others
know). And it was as if you had never even read the article, but merely
the copy of an email I had sent to a relative in the military with the
US engaged in invasion and occupation of a foreign country.

[Yes, it was so much as if there was nothing online except the email
(and I stupidly did not reprise the article) that until Kitty's reply
here, I did not remember that the email was merely an example to a
substantive article describing the practical application of negative
social preferencing in the current society. Your totally unbalanced
"review" likely also caused many others who did not bother to read the
original, to think the same. --Paul]

> [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.

It was indeed surprising that in supposedly reviewing an article I wrote
(in Sept 2005) with the title, "Social Preferencing - Evaluation and
Choice of Association; A Method for Influence
<http://selfsip.org/focus/preferencing.html>", you made no reference
to one of the major sentences in the first paragraph which sentence
contrasts the usage of social preferencing in the goal society where
there is no government with its the potential value in the current
society with the harm-production by government:

<<In the society that is the goal of the Self-Sovereign Individual
Project, with its basis in the principles of the Theory of Social
Meta-Needs <http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html>,
there is no government - social preferencing is the major method for
influencing others. However, even currently when governments are
everywhere, the tool of social preferencing can be used against those
who actually do the harm in the name of governments, and if practiced
by enough people would be highly effective.<<

This failure to quote highly relevant text (and others) greatly reduces
my estimation of the value of your post as an article review. A review
makes heavy use of paraphrased summaries and quotes of portions of the
entire piece, unless the reviewer has specifically stated that s/he is
addressing only part of a long work. I look at your message as merely
comments regarding those portions of the relatively short article with
which you took exception - entirely the included email to Aaron, which
was done purely to show that I act in concert with my stated values,
rather than simply just give out recommendations. The article could
very easily have ended at the conclusion of the paragraph:

<<Rather than "support our troops" - which means in essence to support
the enforcers and their direct physical supporters - I urge those who
have concluded that the US and its allies are wrong and unjustified in
their military action in Iraq (and Afghanistan and everywhere else) to
instead "influence the troops" via social preferencing, to cease their
actions, resign their positions and openly announce their objections.
Reduce association with individuals in the military and let them know
why. Make it clear that when the enforcers of government harm (all of it
actually is such) refuse to continue to act, governments are impotent to
do harm. Offer to provide support emotionally and physically towards an
enforcer who becomes an ex-enforcer, but shun anyone continuing in that
role. Support individuals who make decisions that maximize the lifetime
happiness of everyone (and not merely US citizens) using the widest view
and longest range thinking, and discriminate against those who do not.
Act in your own best interest using that same criteria.<<

The purpose of the email to Aaron was different - it was as it stated,
first and foremost a frank and forthright explanation to Aaron as to
*why* I and Paul had not visited and would not be doing so while he
remained in the Air Force with no expressed intentions to leave ASAP.

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

Yes, it should. And negative social preferencing (at all strengths) in
regard to those who are *significantly and stubbornly irrational* is the
most reasonable method of enacting social change. It is a non-violent
approach in all aspects. It doesn't even make use of tax money
(government extortion) to alter the thinking or practices of individuals
(such as those who are categorized by governments as - "mentally ill",
"drug abusers", "sex offenders", overeaters, alcoholics, eating
disordered, "repeat offenders", "juvenile delinquents", etc.) via any
number of persuasive, educational or regulatory programs enacted by
governments at all levels.

Once again I suggest that you (and others) familiarize yourself with the
writings of Gene Sharp, probably the most well known living non-violence
theoretician. I only began reading his works within the past year and
came to know how greatly negative social preferencing (although known by
other names) has been used throughout (at least fairly recent) history
in attempts to effect social change. Five of the 198 methods he includes
in _The Methods of Nonviolent Action_ (Vol 2 of 3 vol set) are ones that
he classifies as "Ostracism of Persons" in the Chapter, "The Methods
of Social Noncooperation". (Paul has owned Sharp's 3 volume set, _The
Politics of Nonviolent Action_for probably 25 years and read portions
of it after first acquiring it.) I am currently in the first chapter
of the 3rd volume - _The Dynamics of Nonviolent Action_ (this chapter
is actually listed as Ch 9 of the set).

It is important to emphasize that the purpose of nonviolent action is
to get the opponent to stop hir harm-causing action by using only
nonviolent methods. In the case of government, the enforcers are the
only ones doing the actual harm. The purpose of my article was to
encourage others who agreed that the harm-causing action (killing,
injuring and destroying of property in Iraq and Afghanistan by US
troops) was just that to use a specific type nonviolent method as an
attempt to influence the harm causers (government enforcers in the
military) to cease their participation in the harm. If the enforcers
ceased because they came to agree with their friends'
views/arguments/persuasion, that would be great.
If however, enforcers ceased their participation *only* because they
didn't like being spurned by their friends/relatives/acquaintances,
that would still be fine *because* they would no longer be
participating in the harm. And as the numbers of ex-enforcers grew the
amount of harm being done would correspondingly decrease as long as
they were not replaced by new enforcers. And the article included the
same type of nonviolent action to discourage anyone joining the ranks
of the military - the enforcers, the harm-doers.

[The origin of Social Preferencing in our thinking is as the ultimate
effector of self-ordering feedback in the Freeman Society where there
will not be any "rampant irrationalism of people in the current society"
(or else the Freeman Society, the then current one, would not yet have
come to exist). Yes, the use of any means of bettering anything in any
society has to take into account the extant social conditions of that
society. Is that not obvious? If you don't use a tool with full
knowledge of what you are working it upon, then you are not going to
succeed in whatever goal for which you are using the tool. --Paul]

>> 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.

Your use of the word "indiscriminate" was actually my first surprise
from your message since it is the first word of the post title you
created. As Paul has pointed out, the word is totally without logical
connection to the purpose or content of the article or the email to
Aaron that was contained within that article.

> 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.

Even with a change of wording from "indiscriminate" to "ineffective",
your criticism actually is only appropriate to *my* usage in a
particular case of strong negative social preferencing. "Change for the
better" did not occur, nor even the start of a reasonable discussion.
Much of that I attribute to the fact that Aaron is, to my belated
knowledge, a strong religionist. Whether my revised email, sent as the
initial overture to him, would have elicited discussion with him on his
continued military participation, one can only conjecture. Since then
I have thought of other information/recollections that could
have been included in an initial email to him. Communication is fraught
with problems and many (?most?) people do not assume that others are
being honest and caring in what they write/say - and that is because
many (?most?) are often evasive, leave much unsaid and are "taking
out" their own problems on others.

[Chad also appears to forget all the purposes of Social Preferencing, an
important one of which is to directly increase the lifetime happiness of
the person doing the social preferencing. This did succeed in as much as
neither I nor Kitty are wasting any of our precious time resources on
interaction with Aaron. That was of course already a success from the
initial decisions and action not to visit, but it became more successful
as a result of Aaron's strong negative reply and total break of the
connection. Even so, if Aaron should come forth with any indication that
he has done some thinking on the issues and wishes to discuss them, then
we would be happy to interact with him. This is always true for anyone
with whom we have decided to not associate or have merely reduced such
association. As Kitty just said to me, another way to describe our
approach to people is to say that we are not "evangelists" for
libertarianism. --Paul]

>> 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.

[It is clear from that remark that you did not understand my usage of
"Weak", "Medium" and "Strong" as being technical terms (look up the
meaning of that phrase) for naming the three defined categories of
Social Preferencing rather than as variations of the English word
strength. To avoid this misunderstanding in future, I will rename
those three categories as Silent Social Preferencing, Private Social
Preferencing and Public Social Preferencing - each of course both
negative and positive. Each of these categories can have variations of
strength. The association part of Social Preferencing can go from
constantly seeking out the company of the other person, to mild
enjoyment of being together, to refusing to talk about one or more
particular subjects, to total ostracism. The communication part of
both positive and negative Social Preferencing can also be at various
levels between detailing ever virtue that you can possibly state about
a person, to not saying much at all, to detailing every possible
negativity of hir character and behavior. --Paul]

>> 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.

The fact that you conclude that negative social preferencing does "not
seem to accommodate the human requirement that change (in most cases)
must be incremental", shows me that you have not studied it. It appears
to me that you became fixated on the email example of (one of) my
usage(s) - intended for the purpose stated above - and have chosen to
criticize negative social preferencing as a whole method based on the
fact that my nephew did not respond favorably. You have made a strong
general negative assumption based on a single usage example. Gene Sharp
- and Gandhi too - would not and does not recommend such a conclusion
from single instances of nonviolent action methods, including ostracism
of persons.

>>> It is true that an individual should not condone or
>>> heavily support others that hold antithetical viewpoint.

Chad, here again you appear to have lost - or are ignoring - the purpose
of the article I wrote which was and still is to - encourage *others* to
do something constructive rather than to merely verbally wring their
hands online. Blogs and website comments have been filled with useless
messages moaning about how Congress or the President should, in this
case of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, "bring the troops home".
Actions for influencing the troops themselves to cease being enforcers
(paid killers in fact for many of them) - or physical supporters of them
(in the case of my support pilot nephew) - is something that each and
every person who disagrees with the US government's military presence
in Iraq and Afghanistan (and any other similar action) can do.

>> 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".

[I wish to note that Kitty never wrote anything remotely that strong to
Aaron. Those words were merely my description to Chad that such action
was not comparable to an "error". --Paul]

> 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
> ---

This is *not* something I would ever write under the circumstances for
which I wrote the original.
I never use this generally meaningless opening that I hear uttered by so
many, "How are you doing?" I do not ask a question for which I am not
*really* interested in the response. When I *do* ask a question of this
type I *really do* want to know how that person is physically and how
s/he has been spending hir time since we last communicated, and I
include enough specificity in my words to make that desire very clear.
I would *never* write the second sentence since it is a complete
falsehood. I and Paul had (and continue to have if Aaron is still in the
St. Louis area) plenty of opportunities to see him - each time we drive
on our trips between Ontario and Arizona (as long as we continue to take
the same route). To say that we "haven't had a chance to see you in a
while" would be absolutely false - I do not operate that way when the
person I am communicating with has no intention to do me physical harm.
In communication with non-harm intending individuals I may refrain from
saying a particular thing or may use one phrasing rather than another,
but I would not resort to the approach that you are recommending. And I
would never encourage others to do this either. [You can't find truth
starting with lies. --Paul]
The 3rd sentence is example of a question in which I am not interested
under the circumstances. However a question about his wife and daughters
would be appropriate.
And finally, I do not send out short chatty emails of this nature at all
to people - including relatives - with whom I am not in at least fairly
regular communication. I have OTOH responded with short messages to an
announcement of a specific event, for instance to ones regarding the
birth of a great niece/nephew or a graduation. But to out of the blue be
chatty as you have suggested with a subsequent message already in mind
is not straightforward, but rather underhanded IMO.

I see nothing wrong with being frank in the opening of an (unsolicited)
email like my improved email - "I've been doing a lot of thinking about
you lately and am deeply concerned." That is where I would start and
actually recommend others to do similarly, if they are communicating
with someone whose wellbeing they truly want to encourage but whose
behavior is evaluated as not conducive to being so in all respects.

>>> 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.

I have read your post carefully Chad. You appear in it to be
*instructing* the readers of your message to this group on how
"indiscriminate use of strong Social Preferencing results in the
alienation of individuals that[sic] may have otherwise been receptive to
your ideas". You immediately proceed on: "It is true that an individual
should not condone or heavily support others that hold antithetical
viewpoint. However, this does not imply that one should assume an
offensive stance with individuals that hold a differing viewpoint. After
all, the objective is not to castigate them, but convert or at least
neutralize them." After more text from you, some of it quotes from other
items on the SelfSIP website regarding social preferencing but without
accurate differentiation between the goal society and use of the method
in current society, you include the first paragraph of the email to my
nephew I used as an example of my own usage of the practice - but *after*
quoting the initial highly offended response I received from Aaron. You
were highly critical of the email I wrote - and I had already expressed
doubts about the wording I'd used initially when making public the
revised email. So it is quite reasonable for me and Paul (and anyone
else) to conclude that you were using my email as an example of an
"offensive stance with individuals that hold a differing viewpoint". Now
I do not "feel" I was "being attacked"; though I do think you were/are
making strong criticisms of (some would use the word "attack") certain
ideas and even actions of mine. Specifically, I do think that you
were/are making a poor case for not using strong negative social
preferencing with people who are participants in government initiated
harm-intending actions by way of two email examples of mine - the one
I actually sent and the revised one I composed 18 months later.

[Once again, both "offensive" and "attack" are the wrong words because
there was no possibility of the use of physical force. To use them that
way is distorting and confusing the thinking of all involved. --Paul]

>> 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.

[Which is not a sufficient response to the details I have written above
but rather an evasion of them (again, whether intended or not). --Paul]

>>> 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.

I do not at all think it a stretch of the imagination to say that you
were/are condemning *the email* I originally sent to Aaron and even the
revised one I composed - you even interpreted them as a castigation of
him. Since you are strongly opposed to the wording I used and even the
initial frankness of both compositions, the the use of the word
condemnation would not be out of place. However I have not interpreted
your words as a condemnation of me as a person. And neither has Paul.
If that is what you meant by your last sentence immediately above, you
are misinterpreting.

[As I have written multiple places, I never make a whole person
evaluation, but rather I make evaluations of individual characteristics,
weight them according to my intended dealings with that person and sum
up the total to arrive at an interaction decision.

I also note that you have ignored/evaded most of my points within the
above paragraph (again, whether or not intended). --Paul]

>>> 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.

Please keep in mind the purpose of my email to Aaron as compared to the
purpose of the article in which it was an example, almost as an addendum
- explained above. We are well aware that a paradigm shift requires for
many (?most?) people a considerable amount of time. You are not
informing us of something we are not already well aware.

[And once again you evaded my point about your euphemistic word
"dissimilar" and the huge difference between fundamental ethics (murder)
and convention (wearing a bathing suit to a wedding) - again, whether
intended or not. --Paul]

>>> 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.

It is obvious and something we have been well aware of for *many* years.

>>> 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.

The email of mine on which this thread appears to be entirely based was
an example by me of "medium (Private) negative social preferencing", not
simply "social preferencing". Even in the end, after I published the
email correspondence it was not fully Public Social Preferencing because
I did not give out his full name, which I would have done if my purpose
had been to rally others to negatively socially preference him.

The primary objective for that email in Sept 2005 was - as is stated far
above by me - to inform Aaron of why we had not been visiting him and
might continue not to do so. If he was of a mind to actually discuss the
reasons I had given for this action, I was quite ready and even anxious
to have a substantive exchange with him. The primary objective was
achieved - he knows *exactly* why we had not made use of the many
opportunities when driving through his area to arrange for a visit with
him and his family. He also has been informed of my interest in his
wellbeing, initially and in the few subsequent emails, right down to the
ending of the last one from me: "I will not "dispose" of you, concluding
that you will forever make your choices/decisions for ideas held and
actions taken based on your current methods. Humans are not leopards
(that cannot change their spots); humans *can* choose how and what to
think."

Perhaps you did not read the comments I made at the bottom of the
email exchange webpage. The first 2/3 of the first paragraph:

<<When I sent the original email to Aaron, I did not expect initial
agreement with my thinking, otherwise he would already have resigned his
Air Force commission or be in the process of doing so. I expected to
likely receive some of the well used excuses for the US military
presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. To his credit, Aaron did not parrot
any of these, possibly because I made it quite clear in that initial
message that I had made a thorough examination of the underlying factors
and evidently would not be swayed by the current US administration and
news media line of "fighting terrorism". But what did surprise me was an
inability and/or unwillingness to express his ideas, beyond stating that
they are "rooted in [his] faith in God" - which is in essence saying
that he does not use logical thought based on facts (except of course in
regards to piloting a plane and possibly in other technical areas). If
Aaron does not agree with the US military action in Iraq and
Afghanistan, then he should resign, otherwise he is not "doing the right
things despite pressure or temptations to the contrary" as the Air Force
Academy describes a person with character
<http://selfsip.org/dialogues/misc/preferencing_at.html>.<<

As I stated above, I was not aware of the fact that Aaron was an ardent
religionist. My interactions with him had been few over his lifetime,
since I lived in AZ and he with his parents in West Virgina, until his
4 years at the Air Force Academy, graduating in June 1998. Had I known
this, an email along the lines of my revised one would have been the one
I sent.

[Note that the method which you have characterized as "flawed", might
well have worked (for the only purpose you think it was intended, even)
if sufficient numbers of people who had formerly associated with Aaron
had followed Kitty's lead. --Paul]

>>> 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.

"[S]omeone who is trying to steal from you" is already *not*
appropriately interacting. Speaking the truth to those who are not
intending harm *is* the appropriate method of interaction.

Both I and Paul have long - well before we ever met and, at least for
me, probably for longer than your 29 years - held the view that lying
to those who intend you harm is an acceptable method of action. It is
up to the individual to decide whether, under particular
circumstances, truth or an evasion of it (or even an outright lie)
will better serve the purpose of optimizing hir lifetime happiness.

[I did not include that exception above simply because the situation
with which I was dealing did not include anyone who would intend to
violate me. Just as with Kitty, I have, for probably more than 50 years,
been fully convinced that lying to those who would violate one is the
right action to take if it helps avoid/avert the coercion. --Paul]

>> 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.

[Once again you did not respond to the above, specifically you did not
answer my pointed question. --Paul]

>> 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.

Your claimed "review" in no way made it clear that you understood and
agreed with the value of strong negative social preferencing for those
"who actually do the harm in the name of governments" (quote from the
beginning of the article closing with the email to Aaron. Your repeated
criticisms of my example usage of it with that email have reasonably been
interpreted by me and Paul as a criticism of strong negative social
preferencing in general. You have made no statements - not even directly
above - that you agree with the appropriate usage of this method of
nonviolent action for social change.

[Once again you choose a really bad analogy that is not related in
essentials. Positive Social Preferencing is as much a benefit to the
person doing the Social Preferencing as it is to the other person, it
is not an altruistic gift (carrot) to a mindless animal but rather an
exchange of value - a reward to the person for some admirable qualities
that s/he has shown and a continuation of association so that more
benefit from such qualities will be forthcoming to the person doing the
Social Preferencing. Negative Social Preferencing is most certainly not
like a stick since it has no element of violation whatever attached to
it. Negative Social Preferencing is again of direct benefit to the
person doing it or else it would and should not be done (using a stick
on an animal is not). The direct benefit is, as described before, the
non-association with a person in a manner and to the extent to which
such association would not benefit one. The effects on the other person
are important, but secondary and will be minimal if only one person is
doing such Social Preferencing. This is why the "Public" aspect of
Social Preferencing is important. For Positive Social Preferencing
making it public will more likely greatly increase the reward the the
admirable person receives (and give hir incentive to do more such
admirable things) and for Negative Social Preferencing it will more
likely greatly increase the censure that the disreputable person
receives (and give hir incentive to stop doing such unfavorable things,
so that s/he will have more people with whom to interact beneficially
to hirself). --Paul]

>>> 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.

[Again no response was made to the above important description of
behavior. --Paul]

To be continued in pt 2.