January 19, 2018

Wildlife Management: Scientism, Abstraction, Encapsulation, Interface

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Today, I was reading Wretchard’s “The Case of the Missing Catastrophe,” over and over several times, as it contains some pretty heady stuff. As invigorating as the words may be, or perhaps mind-blowing, depending on one’s perspective and mental prowess, I believe it to be worthy of additional, relevant, thoughts, perhaps knocked down a peg or two into more understandable terms for common brains like mine.

What Fernandez is describing can be broken down into two distinct realities – deliberate manipulation and the exploits of useful idiots. Maybe I can make a bit more sense out of this.

Although Wretchard is discussing the predictions made by most media that we’re all gonna die because Donald Trump first became president and then endorsed recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the GOP is planning a tax reduction. Because prophecied catastrophes have failed to meet the cries of the media, and others, Fernandez suggests that the “models” which drive the predictions of death and destruction at the hands of liberals are being found out to be failures of the biggest kind. Some, not many, can actually recognize these failed predictions, based on “modeling,” and it is growing tiresome. Others lay claim that this is the reason “outsiders,” like Trump, got elected and why most people barely lifted a match, club or rock in protest of the Jerusalem capital decision. I think it safe to say that modeling, designed for outcome-based results, plays a vital part in our everyday lives.

Hidden behind intellectual topics of centralization, globalization, “integration with nature and society,” and such things as evolution and “intertemporal coordination,” what is being discussed is ideology. Idealism always begins with an idea. Where once “models” were the ideas of man to manipulate society, in today’s power and control institutions that more closely resemble technocracies than democracies, employment of computers to sort over ideas and information, hiding what is not wanted and fronting that which fits a narrative, is commonplace. Are we to now understand that somehow a person is exempt from a dishonest promotion of idealism because the “computer modeling” made them do it?

The intentions of modelers remain the same. Because of our love affair with technology and how it has been sold to the public, mentally programs us to believe the computer modeling is a better result than simply the ideas of a man. Strange isn’t it? The stage is set.

Computer modeling is common practice these days. It also works as a major tool of destruction in the ripping apart of society and politics (they go hand in hand as has been designed). The dishonest practice has caused major failures in the scientific world, even though those failures are the means to justify social and political perversion, to achieve agendas. It is a contributor to the injection of anger and hatred into our society as well.

For several years I studied computers and programming. I know enough to be dangerous. I do know how programming works – called coding today. I know how to hide and manipulate data to achieve desired results. That was one of the most basic instruments to learn in programming. Coding today requires knowledge of what end result one desires and writing a program to accomplish that. Imagine when this is placed in the hands of corrupt individuals, groups, corporations, 501 C3 Non Profits, etc. with something other than completely honest dissemination in mind.

I have often said that we live in a Post-Normal world today – up is down, right is left, right is wrong, black is white, etc. With enough money, anyone can pay a computer-literate technician to model anything. It has worked so well government agencies, along with our court system, eagerly rely on faulty and dishonest computer modeling in rendering decisions and crafting legislation.

In the case referenced in the linked-to article, the masses rely so heavily on a heavily manipulated Media, they are unaware that they are being propagandized by only those things they want you to know.

This same process is at play pertaining t0 wildlife management at every level in this country.

In the article referenced, I was taken by and it was pointed out to me, a quote that came from someone commenting on how computer programmers/modelers dealt with complex issues. “Encapsulation enables programmers to avoid conflicts … the code of each object still manipulates data, but the data it manipulates is now private to that object. … This discipline enables programmers to create systems in which a massive number of plans can make use of a massive number of resources without needing to resolve a massive number of conflicting assumptions. Each object is responsible for performing a specialized job; the data required to perform the job is encapsulated within the object

“Abstraction provides stable points of connection while accommodating a wide-range of change on either side of the abstraction boundary. … The abstract purpose is represented by an interface … multiple concrete providers can implement the same abstract service in different concrete ways.”

This is a pretty fancy way of stating that programmers can and are conning the rest of the world with their false manipulation of twisted and perverted data to achieve whatever they or anybody wants.

I have serious doubts that complexity is the issue when it comes to computer modeling. When the modeling is driven by corruption, for corrupt purposes, complexity is irrelevant only to the extent of the desired outcome and perhaps the need to present some kind of distraction or coverup by creating a fake controversy.

In computer modeling – bearing in mind that wildlife management today relies heavily on modeling whether they do it themselves or utilize someone else’s work – it is pointed out above that programmers deal with issues such as “encapsulation,” “abstraction,” and “interface,” to name a few. Combine these headings with corruption and we have new-science Scientism, i.e. “excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge [real of false] and techniques [for corrupt reasons].”

First, a “programmer” (I placed programmer in quotes because that group or individual could vary from one lone programmer to accomplices of varying numbers.) collects data (what begins as useless information until placed in the desired order) and enters it into the computer. Then, someone must decide what data is useful, for what purposes it is useful and how to “encapsulate” that information, i.e. hiding information or using it to drive the outcome.

Encapsulating data is necessary for achieving desired results while hiding information that may cause conflicts or controversy. Politicians are masters at encapsulating information. That’s why they never answer the questions asked them. They hide what they don’t want you to know and sell you on what they do.

In today’s computer modeling, “abstraction” may be the single biggest mode of corruption, especially depending upon the chosen “interface.”

Abstraction, “the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events,” is where the real scientific process gets deliberately lost. Abstraction is necessary to promote ideas (idealism/environmentalism) rather than actual and honest scientific data. Several ideas/events can be contained within “boundaries,” including hidden data, and meted out through “interfaces” to only those listed (concrete providers) as in need (who are paying the money) of the results.

There is a common, tire-kicker expression used to describe the worthless computer-generated outcomes – “garbage in and garbage out.” In many of these cases that is precisely what is taking place. To some of us, the outcome is garbage because the input is garbage. It spells lots of dollars and cents to those dishonest people manipulating the truth. They are gaming the system for political or monetary gain.

Early on I said there were two distinct realities we are dealing with here; deliberate manipulation and the exploits of useful idiots. I would suppose that there is some overlap at varying degrees.

We must first understand that modeling and the effects of this method do not happen only inside a computer. Know that the “modeling” began in someone’s brain. It’s a process and yes, it can be a deceitful one as well. While the computer models yield results, often sought after results, the mind process is taught and carried down through many avenues of brainwashing and propagandizing. In short, we become programmed to think and operate as a computer modeling program in order to reach the desired end.

I have attended seminars in which the goal of the administrators is to manipulate attendees into becoming “change agents.” In other words, they want to brainwash (I know people don’t like that expression, however…) you to accept their propaganda (false modeling) and then go back to where you came from and change everyone’s thoughts to be like theirs. This is all a part of the “modeling” enterprise ruling our world.

Computer modeling is not always bad when used within the context of how it is achieved. It is almost never done that way and that is why my focus seems to be on the criminal aspect of deliberate and dishonest manipulation of the truth. The deliberate manipulators are those whose bent it is to deceive for monetary or political gain. We see computer modeling with such open-to-the-public exchanges involving climate change and wildlife management. Applying the methods I’ve described above, it is easy to see that dishonest encapsulation, abstraction, and interfacing can reap huge monetary windfalls as well as political gain and control.

Dishonest environmental and animal rights groups and there are thousands of them, pay lots of money to get computer models to promote their agendas. With an ignorant populace, who themselves rely upon computer modeled propaganda from multiple media sources, are quick to accept a model presented as a scientific finding. It is a part of our rigged system.

A book could be written citing all the cases where modeling is used as scientific fact for all the wrong reasons. The act is criminal, carried out by criminals.

And so, with those powerful enough to control the way wildlife management is discussed employing modeling as the foundation, is it any wonder that our fish and wildlife employees are nothing more than propagandized automatons, spoon-fed computer modeling as useful scientific data? These become the “useful idiots” who empower those corrupt purveyors of dishonest modeling as science.

When you combine the actual computer modeling with the “education” of the mental version of modeling, together, as change agents, we march into a dishonest world fraught with false knowledge and deception. Many within our fish and wildlife agencies across this land have been reared on modeling and taught the process resulting in a way of thinking that accomplishes the same thing.

Can this be reversed?

  • RattlerRider

    Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System

    Michael J. Mahoney

    Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1977, PP. 161-1 75

    Confirmatory bias is the tendency to emphasize and believe
    experiences that support one’s views and to ignore or discredit those
    that do not. The effects of this tendency have been repeatedly
    documented in clinical research. However, its ramifications for the
    behavior of scientists have yet to be adequately explored. For example,
    although publication is a critical element in determining the
    contribution and impact of scientific findings, little research
    attention has been devoted to the variables operative in journal review
    policies. In the present study, 7S journal reviewers were asked to
    referee manuscripts that described identical experimental procedures but
    which reported positive, negative, mixed, or no results. In addition to
    showing poor interrater agreement, reviewers were strongly biased
    against manuscripts that reported results contrary to their theoretical
    perspective. The implications of these findings for epistemology and the
    peer review system are briefly addressed.

    Cognitive psychologists have extensively documented the pervasiveness
    of error and distortion in human information processing (e.g., Neisser,
    1967; Adams, 1967; Norman, 1969; Kintsch, 1970). Cognitively oriented
    clinical psychologists have also begun to note these fallibilities in a
    variety of dysfunctional patterns. Indeed, one of the major features of
    the more recent cognitive therapies has been the contention that many
    maladaptive behavior patterns are causally related to errors of thought
    and perception (e.g., Mahoney, 1974; Raimy, 1975; Beck, 1976). One
    particularly salient aspect of these erroneous cognitive processes might
    be termed confirmatory bias. This refers to the tendency for humans to
    seek out, attend to, and sometimes embellish experiences that support or
    “confirm” their beliefs. Confirmatory experiences are selectively
    welcomed and granted easy credibility. Disconfirmatory experiences, on
    the other hand, are often ignored, discredited, or treated with obvious
    defensiveness. A depressed client who thinks he is helpless may thus pay
    more attention to his failures and shortcomings. Instances of
    responsible control and success may be subjectively disregarded as
    unrepresentative or attributable to other forces. Similar examples could
    be offered for a wide range of clinical disorders (cf. Beck, 1976). The
    consequences of confirmatory bias are often tragic. By selectively
    “confirming” a maladaptive belief, the individual may lock himself into a
    vicious spiral of perception and performance. As the belief of
    helplessness gains support, for example, a client may initiate fewer
    attempts to control his own life-which leads to further opportunities
    for detecting helplessness and strengthening the belief.

    The tragic effects of confirmatory bias are not, however, restricted
    to clinical disorders. In fact, as has been argued elsewhere (Mahoney,
    1976), the most costly expression of this tendency may well be among
    scientists themselves. To the extent that researchers display this bias,
    our adequate understanding of the processes and parameters of human
    adaptation may be seriously jeopardized. If we selectively “find” or
    communicate only those data that support a given model of behavior, then
    our inquiry efforts will hardly be optimally effective. Despite the
    fact that confirmatory bias in scientists was first noted by Francis
    Bacon (1621/1960) over three centuries ago, precious little research has
    been devoted to the topic and the few extant studies have hardly
    challenged Bacon’s observations. One study found that the vast majority
    of scientists drawn from a national sample showed a strong preference
    for “confirmatory” experiments (Mahoney & Kimper, 1976). Over half
    of these scientists did not even recognize disconfirmation (modus
    tollens) as a valid reasoning form! In another study the logical
    reasoning skills of 30 scientists were compared to those of 15
    relatively uneducated Protestant ministers (Mahoney & DeMonbreun,
    1977). Where there were performance differences, they tended to favor
    the ministers. Confirmatory bias was prevalent in both groups, but the
    ministers used disconfirmatory logic almost twice as often as the
    scientists did.

    The costs of this cognitive bias are perhaps nowhere as serious as in
    the area of scientific publication. The valuable contributions of a
    piece of research may be seriously threatened by a single act of human
    decision-making-namely, the judgment of a journal editor. There is
    substantial consensus among sociologists of science that the publication
    process is an integral part of contemporary science (Hagstrom, 1965;
    Ziman, 1968; Zuckerman & Merton, 1971; Cole & Cole, 1973).
    Unless his or her research is published, a scientist can have little
    hope of either personal advancement or recognized professional
    contribution. As documented in the research of Merton, Zuckerman, and
    others, journal publication has become the sine qua non of scientific
    achievement. In the absence of the public dissemination afforded by
    professional journals, a piece of research is often doomed to both
    obscurity and impotence in the growth of knowledge. Moreover,
    particularly in academic settings, lack of publication may seriously
    jeopardize the researcher’s job security and continued research
    opportunities (Caplow & McGee, 1958; Dixon, 1973).


    Modus tollens; the rule of logic stating that if a conditional
    statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the consequent does not hold
    ( not-q ), then the negation of the antecedent ( not-p ) can be

    an argument using modus tollens.


    • TRemington

      Good stuff! Thanks!!