This began as an article of reflection with a clearer purpose but I stopped writing it to work on a more comprehensive version of Liberty as the Basis. After reworking LBOM (Liberty as the Basis for Objective Morality, and Explanations of Moral Functions) this doccument lost the purposes I began writing it with. This is primarily the reiteration of points made other places and efforts to vent my general discontent.
I was recreating sequencing and comparison, which largely consisted of adding new insights, modifying the way components were expressed for clarification, and leaving out the application portion to present only the base components of SeqComp, which is now Seq Comp A. Seq Comp A stands for Sequencing, Comparison, and Assignment, which acknowledges that the purpose of comparing details is to assign those details the following distinctions. A detail depending on context is a cause or an effect, it has value relative to all other details (feelings +/-), it is true or false (consistency or contradiction), and it is moral or immoral (imposing or unimposing). I was planning on submitting it to psychology journals and I realized no one is going to understand this. I can teach it if I have interested people, but it isn’t something people can pick up, read, and understand.
To confirm these feelings I looked at some of the articles being published by one of the journals I was considering submitting to. Worthless experiments that contribute nothing to advancing human understanding of functioning. One of the abstracts I read was asserting androcentrism, an effort to measure male dominance in thinking. The evidence was a tendency to associate males with generic terms like person, whereas people tended to refer to women in more gender specific terms like woman. Complete garbage. The tendency to associate men with generic terms and women with gender specific terms doesn’t have any meaningful consequence. It’s no indication of women’s opportunities, and could reflect a reverence for the gender in general. The tendency to refer to women by using gender defining words is just as likely to mean that women are considered as being more than men as it is to mean they mean less than men by the tendency not to describe them generically. Either way, the tendency in language doesn’t mean much, the distinction is symbolic (tendencies in language) and has no impact on the value the individual has of either gender.
It’s research like this that serves as the basis for the retarded behavior we see. Some delluded feminist activist may see a summary of this research and decide she is offended when someone refers to her by her gender instead of the generic, because it reinforces the androcentric mentality prevalent in our society that produces gender disadvantages for women. There is a great deal of meaningless research that is produced for that purpose. If your research reinforces a bias of political importance it is easier to get funding for future projects and it creates demand for your work. Whereas research that challenges bias will be shut out from popular consciousness and remain confined to the field.
Another article was titled reactions to deception. The study is a confirmation of the social norms model. Social norms theory states that people’s behavior is influenced by how they perceive other people’s behavior. More specifically problematic behavior, and the correction of individual behavior is approached by convincing the person that such behavior is not common or normal. The abstract states the researchers asked 116 participants about lies they’ve told and been told, those which were innocent and those they perceived as being of consequence. Presumably (I don’t have access to the full article), there was commonality in the responses where the variety of lies told that were perceived as innocent and those of consequence were fairly consistent, since the abstract concludes that the study reinforces the Social Norms Model.
What problem does this research attempt to solve and what benefit is the reinforcement of the social norms model? I understand why the social norms model is true through sequencing and comparison. Below is an excerpt from an older SeqComp article.
Social Influence on Value
An individual’s value of subjects is influenced by the values of groups he belongs to, as common values are the bonding element of the group, and the value of new subjects will be influenced by the majority value of the group. An individual’s value of a subject may increase or decrease when a person is in the presence of the group, and he may adopt the group’s common value of the subject irrespective of being in the group’s presence. The value of the group consists of the sensations associated with interaction with the group.
The influence of a value is also subject to change through groups beyond an individual’s immediate belonging. The values of the broader population, neighborhood, city, state, or nation can influence the value of subjects. Much of this is identity based associative value, but also valued social purposes. An individual gains inclusion in a group by adopting the group’s values.
To better illustrate the function, a majority of human behavior is motivated by image promotion. Most easily observable in the death of celebrities. There is no loss, but people feign concern and induce mourning because expressing grief over a popular death is viewed by most as being compassionate, which is a popularly valued quality. Their mourning is not a typical response to death in general, otherwise since people die everyday they’d be in a constant state of mourning. The death of Kobe Bryant is a good example since he was retired, where his death doesn’t even result in a loss of entertainment, which of course has actual value in the feelings it produces, and people’s lives are unchanged whether Kobe is alive or dead. What are they mourning? More importantly, why are they mourning? People take advantage of opportunities to promote their image before others, to raise their value to other people, which contributes to their value of themselves. The act itself is inherently satisfying, because they perceive themselves as being good for having felt bad for someone. This isn’t only something that occurs through celebrity deaths, it is a constant subconscious objective. The Social Norms Theory is a product image promoting behavior, which serves multiple valued purposes, or there are multiple points where good feelings are produced that motivates the behavior.
Social Norms Theory isn’t something that should be a celebrated discovery in it’s utility to change individual behavior by changing an individual’s perception of normal behavior. It is the identification of an issue within human behavior, where the perception of social norms determines the limits of behavior instead of an objective conception of morality as the governor of behavior. The high value placed on image promoting behavior that produces Social Norms, obviously has many other implications for human intelligence and other functions. The point being is people who are engaged in garbage research to maintain their positions as university faculty or maintain their careers in some other way are not going to pay attention to, and may not be able to understand SeqCompA. I’m introducing the functions of the subconscious mind which is something they have no context for.
After coming to this realization concerning SeqCompA and academic psychology journals, I sent a message to the Veterans Law Group, who has filed several lawsuits concerning Covid-19. The following is the message I sent.
Why hasn’t anyone filed a lawsuit to challenge all restrictions on the basis of Covid-19 not being a threat to public safety, since the justification of using police powers to impose restrictions is based on the community having “the right to defend itself from an epidemic of disease that threatens the safety of its members”? (Jacobson v. Massachusetts)?
By distinguishing between healthy and sick people through the data collected in multiple countries only about 1.3% of the population could potentially die if infected. In the Covid-19 Media project (http://orioncs.net/covid-19-media-project/) I draw from a CDC sample that shows 94% deaths in that sample were people with underlying medical conditions. In Italy there are data summaries that show 99% of people who died have underlying conditions. In Oregon 100% of people who died up until the end of April (possibly longer that was the date of the report from the health department) had underlying medical conditions. The CDC report I cite also states that 94% (which is likely low) is consistent with data from China. More importantly there is no sample of comparable size or greater where underlying medical conditions are known that contradicts this sample.
When we’re talking about underlying conditions we’re primarily talking about diabetes, heart disease, and COPD, which represents less than 18% of the population. If we round it to 20 to incorporate less prevalent diseases that create complications like HIV, and other organ diseases, and use the mortality rate of people with underlying conditions from the same CDC sample which is 6.5%, this means of the 20% of the population who has underlying medical conditions that create the prospect for complications, only 1.3% (as a total of the general population) would die.
The general mortality rate according to serology studies is .1 to .2%, and the high end estimate comparing population size, deaths, and probable infection rates is .8%. Since 94% of deaths are people with medical conditions this means 6% of .8% is the rate in which seemingly healthy people die of the virus which is .048% or 48 out of 100,000 people, roughly 1 out of 2000. We can quantifiably show that the virus is not a threat to the safety of 98.652% of the population. This only represents one data set from a substantial sample size of 7700 people, 5200 with underlying medical conditions, and about 200 deaths. (This sample was confirmed as representative of Covid as the data for all Covid deaths showed that 94% of deaths were people with underlying medical conditions with an average of 2.5 conditions present per fatality. The data wasn’t available when I wrote this) However, there are no other data sets that yield a significantly different trend when underlying medical conditions are known. Uros Seljak, a UC Berkeley professor of physics who has studied a broad range of data concluded “If you want to know what are the chances of dying from COVID-19 if you get infected, we observed that a very simple answer seems to fit a lot of data: It is the same as the chance of you dying over the next 12 months from normal causes”.
Anyone who has studied the data knows this and can provide expert testimony explaining how the different samples support this conclusion. In the first element of showing Covid-19 is not a threat to public safety we can quantifiably show that the risk of being infected with Covid-19 for over 98.6% of the population is sickness and recovery, meaning Covid-19 does not pose a risk to safety but a risk to comfort for roughly 98.6% of the population. Of the 1.3% who have a risk of death if infected, their risk of being infected if they quarantine is not increased no matter what the infection rate of the general population who they are not interacting with. In fact sick people’s risk is greater with restrictions. Restrictions prevent the healthy population whose risk is sickness and recovery from being infected and developing immunity which will rid us of the virus as the virus runs out of hosts. Restrictions allow for continued availability of new hosts which prolongs the duration of the virus. The longer the virus exists, the greater likelihood that people who are at risk for death will become infected and die.
The second element of showing the virus is not a threat to public safety is by showing the amount of healthy people who die is comparable to the amount of healthy people who die from the flu, where the flu has never been considered a threat to public safety to impose restrictions, and a virus that produces the same symptoms and threatens the safety of the same people (people with about a year left to live and anomalous people without underlying medical conditions) cannot be considered a threat to public safety to justify restrictions.
The data and explanation from experts exist. So why are all these lawsuits based on law that is built to protect public safety, when the virus itself can be quantifiably shown to not be a threat to public safety? I’ve written articles that contain the sources for the assertions in this message. available at orioncs.net the articles are Covid-19 Media Project. How Covid-19 Restrictions Produce More Deaths, and the Great Covid Misconception. I mention the articles because they explain risk and how we’ve arrived at this point, but the purpose of this message is to understand why Covid-19 is not being challenged on the basis that it doesn’t qualify as a threat to public safety.
This law group has filed various lawsuits on behalf of businesses concerning Covid-19 restrictions, and I’m pretty sure none of them have yielded any meaningful results. I was under the impression that this law group was opposed to restrictions because their page was promoted as activism. I sent the message intent on working with the group to create a law suit to challenge Covid-19 restrictions on the basis of Covid not qualifying as a threat to safety. They’re efforts are more business oriented and marketing focused, not activist, and I do not have the funds to hire them to work on a lawsuit to challenge Covid-19’s status as a threat to the safety of the public.
In 2019 I wrote about most popular subjects, and typically early on I would establish the points and the misconceptions that were created around the issue. Things have become very stale with Covid-19. Every issue with this virus is a product of the virus not qualifying as a threat to public safety, and after establishing that you cannot follow developments, because it just becomes restating the same things over and over again. It is the culmination of American ignorance and is a revelation of just how depraved this nation is. The media has profited greatly in ratings during the virus versus prior to the virus. Politicians were eager to capitalize on creating an advantage for themselves through the exaggeration of the danger, and the general public accepts opinion as fact as it reinforces their biases.
Those who are opposed to restrictions serve the interests of the blind followers because they don’t understand the legitimate basis of their cause. They insert conspiracy theory that exaggerates the rate of false positives while failing to understand how an increase in positive tests and a decrease in hospitalizations and deaths, supports the position that the virus is not a threat to public safety. It also supports the evidence that for the first few months people with Covid-19 symptoms who were not in at risk groups were not tested. Now testing has increased and healthy people with symptoms, and those who probably otherwise had symptoms too mild to go to the hospital are being tested. This increases the positive results and is more representative of the danger of the virus.
In my Facebook feed I saw a WSJ article headline that read researchers are getting close to understanding how dangerous the virus is. We’ve had millions of cases across multiple countries over the span of 8 months, including serology studies, and even in March there was enough data available to understand that the virus was not a threat to public safety. It is bizarre to live on a planet where the reality of so many is manufactured. People lack the ability even with time to understand the basic functions of a virus and their immune system and the data available to them to reach obvious conclusions about the danger of the virus. They are willing to make behavioral changes without understanding why they’re making behavioral changes.
You cannot communicate with people. As soon as you as you show them things they don’t want to be true they shut you out. It is hell to understand the functions of a species and not be able to communicate objectively with that species because of these functions.
I just finished a very clear and illustrative version of Liberty as the Basis for Objective Morality, Explanations of Moral Functions that I’ve submitted to a moral philosophy journal. I don’t know if it is appropriate for the journal. The Liberty as the Basis article on the website contains concepts but isn’t comprehensive concerning the functions. As I mentioned, I began working on SeqCompA but without drawing attention through the publication and understanding of LBOM, it may be very difficult for people to read it and understand it. I believe I can teach it and have considered some exercises for it. If I can get some kind of funding I can teach and proliferate it, which will begin to correct our problems and pave the way for communication and a more intelligent public. It will also facilitate an interest in understanding systemic function to begin correcting problems that produce trapping circumstances. My circumstances make these things very difficult to accomplish.
You can critique anything you want but people can choose not to express interest. They will not express interest unless the information reinforces the reality they prefer. The consequences of such a mode of function have produced undesirable results for most people at all times and in all civilizations.