This infuriatingly undefined question is one of the reasons I decided I don't have time to struggle with this game. I like having a reputation as a superforecaster from GJP4, but this game seems designed to teach us humility by forcing us in cases like this to forecast the organizers of this game instead of the apparent question. Instead, now I'm concentrating on the upcoming Hybrid Forecasting Competition. I hope to help design one of the competing versions of this game, but if I turn out to not be on a winning proposal team, then I'll jump at the chance to forecast on some other contractor's version of the game. http://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs/hfc
@000, Good link, and I think it confirms what many of us have thought all along. I recall @Anneinak's comment that we are looking at this question through the prism of western expectations and sensibilities, and so we really have no realistic frame of reference for forecasting it. We could try to forecast "what outcome the fixers want to show," as you describe it, and in its way that's a legitimate question. But the article refers to the Iranian "deep state;" that is, the sub rosa connections and cabals that really govern Iranian politics. By definition, none of this is open-source, and so what we are doing here is strictly guesswork, and again, guesswork informed by our own biases, assumptions, and preferences. I think the article affirms the idea that this question is too murky to answer. Its terms are undefined, and the meta-question ("the only question to be asked is what outcome the fixers want to show") is unanswerable to anyone not plugged into the Iranian deep state.
@rjfmgy, the bulk of our questions involve the Deep State, for example all US Presidential Election questions. (Who are the Koch Brothers? Who made the Clintons into millionaires? Two groups or different groups? At what level are they competing and for what agenda?)
There are islands in our Deep State and maybe (but not definitely) islands in the Iranian Deep State. I have been asking all along in threads of this question for a focus on Iranian Deep State rather than on press releases. For example, on the Iranian side the above dissenter's letter was presented on a Reformist website, kaleme.com: http://www.kaleme.com/1395/01/21/klm-240733/
Knowing it's Reformist, does that matter or is there a single Principlist/Reformist kitchen behind the site? That I don't know.
As another example, what do you know about the Mostazafan Foundation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mostazafan_Foundation It appears such foundations are part of the Iranian Deep State and hold a lot of cash.
There is no reason to stop at the line that says "Deep State" and go no further. This is the line that we should immediately cross to get started. Note, there will be many and differing interpretations of the true deep state, depending on where the viewer is coming from:
@rjfmgy: There are two ways to "solve" this question.
1) Accept that the Washington Post had some set of objective criteria that they used when they developed their original taxonomy. That is, assume that there were first-order properties that could be ascribed to each participant, and from these each participant was assigned a second-order category. This is the general approach to creating any taxonomy. The labels for each category are irrelevant if others do not follow the same scheme. This is the situation we are faced with now. Very little has been discussed of just what such ("permanent") properties might be, or how the WaPo made their assignments, but instead it's a confused mess of attempting to create second-order label equivalents on the basis of general Western understandings only. This is the (risky) approach that I am following: assume the WaPo actually had an objective first-order to second-order mapping scheme (known only to themselves) and assume they will apply the exact same scheme to this election.
2) Challenge the WaPo scheme and create your own. I still think you'd be constrained by the notion that your scheme must show a majority in the previous parliament. That the majority remain what we might call radical tyrannical crazies operating within a deep state makes no difference, if they were assigned to a category labelled "daisies" by the WaPo (I'm still gardening).
As an aside, I'm seeking to build a library on theoretical aspects of the "deep state." This term seems to me to be used most often as a description of particular instances. I'm looking for more general theoretical treatments of any informal, covert exercise of power with a formal, overt human system, at whatever scale; particularly those whose objectives run contrary to the objectives of the formal system. Any recommendations would be appreciated.
This infuriatingly undefined question is one of the reasons I decided I don't have time to struggle with this game. I like having a reputation as a superforecaster from GJP4, but this game seems designed to teach us humility by forcing us in cases like this to forecast the organizers of this game instead of the apparent question. Instead, now I'm concentrating on the upcoming Hybrid Forecasting Competition. I hope to help design one of the competing versions of this game, but if I turn out to not be on a winning proposal team, then I'll jump at the chance to forecast on some other contractor's version of the game. http://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs/hfc
Anyone who wants to follow me offline as I seek the Holy Grail of a more powerful aid to us forecasters, you can reach me at carolyn.meinel@cmeinel.com. Meanwhile I'll do my best to get OFF this game instead of being listed as inactive. So hasta vista to my followers who aren't already interacting with me outside this game: @Xsess @Dwight-Smith @thmnewman @Gil-Edgar @tmahoney @lsgold7 @Counterintelligence @Enthu @Hochstetler @Delorean @g @howard @facetious @The_Gnome @BG1 @DrStrangelove @Flyn1200 @PianoPicasso @AndersAsa @writeitdown @HW15 @tkimble @Doudtful @firemansghost @mparrault @lindsey @Dima-K @crntaylor @azivkovic @Mos @MattWard @AlexisTocqueville @luckyomari @Ermonic @Pstauble @Edwinian @Clairvoyance @ACurmudgeon @ @ts2m @M3T1tus @dada @GeneH @S1 @ConnorM @peterhansen90 @Bklyn_j @dniewood @deggen @Etsudo @praedico @Spyglass @Manfred @VoxVox @FuturoMAGE @subject1138 @MAA414 @richtyge @gkamstra @RCScheffers @Random @Spandrelbarca @Rene @gstaneff @fifty-sixty @spotter @dbealick @davidk @terobrandstaka @RobK @walt @Rectitude @malcmur @dominich @Konrad @balbec @Ioana @Raisinville @rjfmgy @Rote @TopQuark @ESR @Xu @sharms10k @Paul15 @NickLutz @Ritam @seveDB @Jean-Pierre @Bill @Agent0090 @RolandKofler @Aches @JoeG @madre @Paul_Theron @September @DariusX @AgentCarter @JeanP @tumbleweed @Reynard @SmallTown-Gal
@000 Thanks. That looks interesting. I haven't looked around on Cryptome for a while. I'm sure I'm missing some gems.
Comment deleted on Apr 13, 2016 11:40AM UTC
Comment deleted on Apr 13, 2016 11:40AM UTC
@ravel: a form of naive social network analysis. Naive only in the sense that you did it without utilizing heuristics or routines adopted from others.
@000 or you could read The Hunt for Red October. Nolan's work makes it seem that the Jack Ryan days are still with us. @Phronesis
Comment deleted on Apr 16, 2016 08:17PM UTC
A little perspective for everybody on this thread. When a guy who ran the show 9 times says the game is fixed, the only question to be asked is what outcome the fixers want to show: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/an-iranian-opposition-leader-pushes-to-be-put-on-trial
@000, Good link, and I think it confirms what many of us have thought all along. I recall @Anneinak's comment that we are looking at this question through the prism of western expectations and sensibilities, and so we really have no realistic frame of reference for forecasting it. We could try to forecast "what outcome the fixers want to show," as you describe it, and in its way that's a legitimate question. But the article refers to the Iranian "deep state;" that is, the sub rosa connections and cabals that really govern Iranian politics. By definition, none of this is open-source, and so what we are doing here is strictly guesswork, and again, guesswork informed by our own biases, assumptions, and preferences. I think the article affirms the idea that this question is too murky to answer. Its terms are undefined, and the meta-question ("the only question to be asked is what outcome the fixers want to show") is unanswerable to anyone not plugged into the Iranian deep state.
@rjfmgy, the bulk of our questions involve the Deep State, for example all US Presidential Election questions. (Who are the Koch Brothers? Who made the Clintons into millionaires? Two groups or different groups? At what level are they competing and for what agenda?)
There are islands in our Deep State and maybe (but not definitely) islands in the Iranian Deep State. I have been asking all along in threads of this question for a focus on Iranian Deep State rather than on press releases. For example, on the Iranian side the above dissenter's letter was presented on a Reformist website, kaleme.com: http://www.kaleme.com/1395/01/21/klm-240733/
How do I know it's Reformist? Only from a side-comment in a Wikipedia comment about somebody else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Ghabel
Knowing it's Reformist, does that matter or is there a single Principlist/Reformist kitchen behind the site? That I don't know.
As another example, what do you know about the Mostazafan Foundation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mostazafan_Foundation It appears such foundations are part of the Iranian Deep State and hold a lot of cash.
There is no reason to stop at the line that says "Deep State" and go no further. This is the line that we should immediately cross to get started. Note, there will be many and differing interpretations of the true deep state, depending on where the viewer is coming from:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/irans-elections-reformists-hardliners-the-%E2%80%98deep-state%E2%80%99-15212
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Interest
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7579/iran-deep-state
http://forward.com/news/318930/a-jewish-journalists-exclusive-look-inside-iran/
@rjfmgy: There are two ways to "solve" this question.
1) Accept that the Washington Post had some set of objective criteria that they used when they developed their original taxonomy. That is, assume that there were first-order properties that could be ascribed to each participant, and from these each participant was assigned a second-order category. This is the general approach to creating any taxonomy. The labels for each category are irrelevant if others do not follow the same scheme. This is the situation we are faced with now. Very little has been discussed of just what such ("permanent") properties might be, or how the WaPo made their assignments, but instead it's a confused mess of attempting to create second-order label equivalents on the basis of general Western understandings only. This is the (risky) approach that I am following: assume the WaPo actually had an objective first-order to second-order mapping scheme (known only to themselves) and assume they will apply the exact same scheme to this election.
2) Challenge the WaPo scheme and create your own. I still think you'd be constrained by the notion that your scheme must show a majority in the previous parliament. That the majority remain what we might call radical tyrannical crazies operating within a deep state makes no difference, if they were assigned to a category labelled "daisies" by the WaPo (I'm still gardening).
As an aside, I'm seeking to build a library on theoretical aspects of the "deep state." This term seems to me to be used most often as a description of particular instances. I'm looking for more general theoretical treatments of any informal, covert exercise of power with a formal, overt human system, at whatever scale; particularly those whose objectives run contrary to the objectives of the formal system. Any recommendations would be appreciated.