Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (4781)	7/13/2001 1:40:48 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

I think of liberalism as preferring a negative feedback cycle to a positive feedback cycle. Translate that into English. You can use equations and big words. I'm an engineer too.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (4781)	7/13/2001 3:14:37 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 93284

As an engineer I think of liberalism as preferring a negative feedback cycle to a positive feedback cycle. IMO, both sides ascribe to a negative feedback cycle. Each subsystem has primary characteristic of left or right; but also will possess left and right components. When the output of a subsystem is not desirable, a failed component is declared, selected on ideology. Change the component to one that is based on ideology. On occasion, a subsystem failure is declared, e.g., Social Security, and a subsytem replacement may be offered, selected on ideology...containing components that are left and right. Little attention is paid to other subsystems [perhaps found in other systems] that might actually have a more desirable output. Subsystems found in other systems are ignored; by default, the logic goes, they must be inferior because if they were superior they would already be contained in our system, QED. In selling the new subsystem or component it is important to assert, as fact [no proof required], that the other dude's component [or subsystem] was the one at fault. Which is proof that if we were to accept the other dude's component or subsystem, that too would fail. It's possible to be stable. In society, the only thing that is constant is change. jttmab