Adam Curtis' The Trap - A Synopsis - Part 1
This is a follow-up of Quarsan's post about Adam Curtis' new documentary, "The Trap – What Happened To Our Dream Of Freedom?", the first part of which screens on BBC 2 this Sunday (March 11) at 21:00. I strongly urge readers of Blairwatch not to miss this series if possible as it is relevant to the topics we discuss. Adam Curtis has generously agreed to do an interview with us next week. In order to prepare for it, I managed to get the first two installments of this three part series and I was blown away by what I saw. I'm posting a synopsis of the first two episodes here for those who will be unable to catch the program. This is the first part.
So, what is it about? Well, I'd say it is about freedom and how the concept of freedom seems to have changed since the Cold War and how that change came about. As Britain and America go around the world 'liberating' oppressed people, and as they try to 'liberate' us from the old bureaucracies of the past, they replace what was there before with a strange kind of freedom which bears little resemblance to the freedom we knew before. This series examines how this came to happen and looks at the mechanisms behind this paradox which is, in effect, the losing of our freedom in the name of freedom, replacing it with a new form of social control which entraps us all.
The first part of the series goes back to the origins of this phenomenon and that is the paranoid environment of the Cold War. After World War II, the bureaucracies that existed to regulate unrestrained capitalism started to be challenged. The free-market economist Friedrich von Hayek (an inspiration for Thatcher) argued that the use of politics to plan society was more dangerous than capitalism and led to tyranny, using the Soviet Union as an example. He advocated a system where individuals followed their own self interest and government played little part. The Market was everything, what he called a "self-directing automatic system" where everyone persued their own gain and there was no room for altruism.
Hayek was largely ignored until scientists looking for ways to win the Cold War developed strategies based on "Game Theory", which was pioneered by the schizophrenic mathematician John Nash at the Rand corporation. Game Theory applied as military strategy kept a balance of power as the Soviet Union would not attack the USA out of fear and self-interest knowing that if they did, they too would be devastated. Game Theory, however, produced a dark vision of humanity where everyone was mistrustful of one another. John Nash demonstrated that it was possible to create stability through suspicion and self-interest in the whole of society rather than just Cold War strategy. Nash developed a game called "Fuck You Buddy" in which the only way to win was to betray your partners. By applying Game Theory to all forms of human interaction, he proved that a society based on mutual suspicion didn't necessarily lead to chaos, but he made the assumption that humans were naturally calculating and always seeking an advantage over their fellows and this led to an equilibrium. This system could only work if everyone behaved selfishly. As soon as people started co-operating together, instability ensued and this proved to be the case when the system was tested - participants co-operated with each other.
Nash's ideas were spread into the wider society when the psychiatrist R D Laing challenged conventional ideas of love and trust in his dealings with people suffering from schizophrenia. He observed that the medical staff in mental hospitals rarely spoke to the patients. As an experiment he selected twelve patients and spoke to them about their problems and encouraged them to speak also. They were soon well enough to leave the hospital but soon had to be re-admitted. This led Laing to think that their problems were caused by their environment, particularly in family life where power and control were exercised. He used Game Theory to examine this idea so the problems could be quantified using questionnaires, the answers to which were fed into a computer. He concluded that acts of love and kindness were actually weapons used to exert power and control - domination games as found in the outside world of international relations. he spread the idea that none of the state institutions of the post war world could be trusted and that public duty was an illusion which was, in fact, a means of mind control. The lack of trust spread as Britain's institutions were torn down in the name of freedom.
At this point some American right-wing economists inspired by Friedrich von Hayek, many of whom had also worked for the Rand Corporation, came onto scene. They set out to prove, using the science of Game Theory, that public duty which had under-pinned British public life for generations, was a sham and a corrupt hypocrisy, and their ideas were to start the process of the demolition of the old ideas of the British state. They also introduced to Britain the paranoid outlook of the Cold War strategies. The collapse of British government bureaucracies in the 1970s was blamed on the economy, but there was more to it than this. They seemed to have turned against the people they were supposed to serve. The group of American right-wing economists explained this by stating the philosophies based on the techniques of Game Theory - that everyone was strategising against each other in an effort to win some advantage. The idea of politicians working for the public good, they said, was a complete fantasy because it assumed that there were shared goals based on self-sacrifice and altruism when actually everyone was self-seeking. From this came the theory of "Public Choice" which was meant to destroy the idea of working for the public interest. They were led by Professor James Buchanan. Buchanan had a strong influence on Margaret Thatcher when she became leader of the Conservative party in 1975. When he came to London, he explained that the British institutions were full of self-serving bureaucrats rather than people working for the public good. Thatcher set out to attack these bureaucracies and at the same time the writer Sir Anthony Jay created a successful propaganda TV program to push the idea of public choice. It was called "Yes Minister".
Meanwhile, R D Laing went on to challenge the authority of the American psychiatric establishment with the aim of liberating people but instead what happened was a new form of control was developed using numbers. Laing said psychiatry was a fake science used to shore up a collapsing society and that madness was a label used to lock up those who wanted to break free. One of the psychologist who attended Laing's talks, David Rosenhan, devised an experiment that discredited the psychiatric establishment by showing that they locked up sane people and couldn't tell the difference between sane and insane. As a result of this a system was developed which just measured the surface behavior of people to remove human judgment. New categories were invented and new disorders like Attention Deficit Disorder or Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. The diagnosis was done by computer. Studies were done on people and it was found with this system that more than 50 percent of Americans had some sort of mental disorder. An unforeseen consequence was that people started to self-diagnose themselves and ask their doctors for medication to make them 'normal'. This led to a new form of control done by people themselves in order to conform.
When Thatcher came to Power in 1979, she espoused this philosophy of 'freedom' but in order to exert some control she used similar systems based on numbers. She wanted to privatise as much of the state as possible, but realising that some institutions would have to remain in state control, she tried to change them by scrapping the idea of public duty and introducing a system of incentives based on self-interest - public choice. In 1986 she attacked the NHS. To do this she enlisted the help of Alain Enthoven, a nuclear strategist from the Rand Corporation who had devised mathematical models for nuclear war to incentivise the other side. He developed a technique called "Systems Analysis" which could be applied to any human organisation. Its aim was to remove any emotional and subjective baggage that could confuse the system and replace them with mathematically defined targets and incentives. He first used this idea in the 1960s to change the way the Pentagon was run under Robert McNamara. Patriotism was replaced by rational incentives and targets against the wishes of the military. However, when McNamara tried to run the Vietnam War this way, it was a disaster. Performance targets were met by killing civilians.
In the British NHS, Alain Enthoven employed the same system. He called it the "Internal Market". It mimicked the free market by introducing competition and incentives, opening the door for corruption. This created the self-interested kind of people John Nash envisaged in his Game Theory, only now in the NHS. As the Cold War ended, the paranoia that was prevalent in fighting it was now firmly rooted in our society.
'Yes Minister' as propaganda
'Yes Minister' as propaganda ????
A bit OTT that don't you think? Over 20 years old but as funny and 'on the button' as it ever was.
IMHO it still encapsulates the relationship between elected politician and bureaucrat to perfection. The fragile, insecure, self-serving, publicity-seeking of the former - always on the look0out for the next 'eye-catching initiative'. The determination to protect the power, privilage and influence on government of the latter. NULAB has altered the relationship somewhat with its SPADS, but only at the expense of alienating the bureaucrats , centralising power further and becoming ever more paranoid about both real and imagined enemies.
I'll be sure to watch it though
Sabretache Blog
Yes Propaganda - and here's
Yes Propaganda - and here's the script written by Margret Thatcher and performed for Mary Whitehouse and the National Viewers and Listeners Association.
Although it is very funny indeed, when it appeared many of the Thatcherite right came out and said how true to life it was, and that is how the public perceived it. And it did help provide some contect for Thatcherism's battle against the Establishment. In the early days she was nearly brought down by the One Nation Tories and Civil Service, but this did help portray her as battling against outdated ways of governing.
Speaking of Robert McNamara,
Speaking of Robert McNamara, there is an excellent Sony Pictures Classics documentary, 'The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara'.
www.sonyclassics.com/fogofwar/
Occasionally, he looks back through rose-tinted glass, but interesting nonetheless.
Indeed Dick, fog of War is a
Indeed Dick, fog of War is a frequent play on the Quarsan Towers DVD
I'm looking forward to
I'm looking forward to watching "The Trap"; thanks for your extensive and interesting preview. Just one nit: you wrote "The group of American right-wing economists explained this by stating the philosophies of Game Theory - that everyone was strategising against each other in an effort to win some advantage".
Of course, game theory is just a set of mathematical techniques, based on axioms in the familiar way. Like all mathematics, it has no necessary bearing on the real world - especially the psychological world of emotions and strivings. The connection is that people have tried to enlist game theory to help explain how people behave - but whereas game theory itself is neither true nor untrue, but simply self-consistent, the psychological implications drawn from it are profoundly dubious.
The situation is much the same as with the imbecilic doctrine of "social Darwinism". Species in a state of nature fight for survival, and the "fittest" survive (where "fitness" is more or less defined as surviving). That says absolutely nothing about the behaviour of individual human beings living in a highly artificial society.
It's a pity our society has become so wealthy that it can afford a huge class of chatterati, who pick up a little of this and a misunderstood smidgen of that, and then set themselves up as authorities on matters that no one has ever understood. Unfortunately, because our brains seem to be wired to favour those who talk a good story, these charlatans often attract huge enthusiastic followings.
Thanks for that Tom, It is
Thanks for that Tom,
It is quite possible that I phrased that little bit badly. In writing the synopsis I tried to paraphrase Adam Curtis as closely as possible in order to avoid such errors, but "philosophies" may well have been the wrong word to use. As you say, Game Theory is just a set of mathematical techniques, but it was applied to so many aspects of society (economy, politics, psychiatry, even genetics) that it was claimed to be a valuable tool in "proving" the selfish nature of people (this is how I understand it at present). In the second episode, the conclusions drawn from Game Theory are comprehensively debunked (I'll post that synopsis after the first episode has been screened). Perhaps it would be more accurate if I changed "philosophies" for "techniques". What do you think?
well, thats this blog off my
well, thats this blog off my blog list of daily visits. Its a shame, but if i want paranoid conspiracy rantings, from old lefties, who cant quite work out that the harms of this world have been carried out by and on behalf of the state, not by free market capitalism, then really not much point hanging around.
[quote]Game Theory is just a
[quote]Game Theory is just a set of mathematical techniques, but it was applied to so many aspects of society (economy, politics, psychiatry, even genetics) that it was claimed to be a valuable tool in "proving" the selfish nature of people[/quote]
Err, not logical captain.
Game Theory is indeed a part of mathematics, but applying it in many fields does not prove anything - new knowledge in economics for example depends on facts or assumptions. For me the most interesting aspect of game theory is that it can be demonstrated that under a wide set of assumptions, cooperation pays off {this is the topic of an ineresting bool 'Non-Zero' by Robert Wright}, so that the free market is better characterised not by dog eating dog but by apes happily scratching each others backs. Hence we continue to get richer as the economic value of our work is increased by stronger cooperation which allows a deeper division of labour.
Pubic Choice theory simply posits that government employees are economic actors who make choices, just like everyone else, rather than being outside the hurly-burly, as socialists assume. To what extent the choices that governement employees make are venal or angelic is something to be established by observation, which of course could not happen until the realisation that they were indeed 'in the game' rather than outside it
Antway thank you for posting the synopsis, I'll certainly watch the show
Steve, I'm not stating that
Steve, I'm not stating that Game Theory proves anything (hence the quotation marks and the word "claim"). I'm merely paraphrasing Adam Curtis who quotes, and has clips of interviews with, people like John Nash and James Buchanan etc. I haven't read 'Non-Zero' by Robert Wright but I'll add it to my 'must get round to reading' list.
According to The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, Public Choice Theory *does* seem to be based on self-interest.
As I'm not an economist or mathematician I can't make definitive statements on Game Theory or Pubic Choice Theory other than from what I read and watch, but it is interesting to hear different perspectives on this and hopefully the show will provoke an interesting discussion.
"Public Choice" at Wiki
"Public Choice" at Wiki ---
No time right now to thoroughly re-visit the subject after some 35 years' away, but fascinating.
I do note that Sen and some others have gone far beyond that simple example---- with contrary conclusions. .
I have known a number of senior civil servants, headmasters, businessmen even, !, who did avoid acting purely to maximise their own comfort zone and economic interests, but that was a product of a culture.
Youtube or whatever links to the programmes will be welcome .
Another brilliant Curtis
Another brilliant Curtis exposure and demolition of the corrupt concepts shaping our lives. But I think I missed a link in the chain of argument. I understood his commentary to state that public services in the early 70s actually were in a state of breakdown, thus appearing to justify the accusation of public choice being at work. If they were breaking down, and if public choice is regarded as a suspect diagnosis, what was the alternative explanation? Or was that my misinterpretation of what was said?
The link you may have missed
The link you may have missed regarding the breakdown of public services, was the growing mistrust of public institutions, an idea spread by people like the psychiatrist R D Laing after he introduced Game Theory into his research.
Thanks! Yes, that makes
Thanks! Yes, that makes sense. So it was the perception that changed, not the service?
I should mention also that
I should mention also that there were huge economic strains on the public services in the 1970s which played a large part in their perceived breakdown. The 1973 oil crisis and the industrial action which followed both played a part too.
I ought to remember that,
I ought to remember that, but at the time I was just starting my working life and totally absorbed in trying not to be overwhelmed. Oliver Burkeman's write up of The Trap last week also reports Adam Curtis as, "conceding the old civil service did need replacing...It's not that our old ideas of how to run society were any good; it's that our new ideas didn't work out as planned." However, I found the tone of Burkeman's article rather unsympathetic (or coolly aloof in order to demonstrate his critical distance) - and the comment he confers on Mr Curtis there strikes me as possibly closer to his own view than to the view implied by The Trap, which never seems to regard the new ideas as in the least bit likely to be an improvement. Quite the contrary, since they are shown to have been predicated on a singularly dark opinion of human nature.
I was greatly disappointed
I was greatly disappointed by the first episode of this, after the excellent 'Power of Nightmares'.
In fact, I thought it was awful. All the stuff about RD Laing and the psychiatric profession is a complete red herring. The political thread gets lost.
Adam Curtis is the most
Adam Curtis is the most important documentary film-maker we've got and has been ever since his series PANDORA'S BOX. THE TRAP is heartwarming in demythologising the spin and ideologies that have made this country villainous and disgusting.
His narrative style is artful and intriguing, the video archive material is wonderful, and the connections he makes in his political and cultural analyses are revelatory. Whether the programmes will make a difference to the obscene political course we are on, I dare not say, but they make a difference to the peace of mind of sane and intelligent and caring people, I'm sure.
I missed the start of the
I missed the start of the programme and need to watch through the whole episode properly. So far, so good.
As to Game Theory: I see it as a scientific model of social interactions in very particular circumstances. You can apply it to simple games like poker with some degree of success (as John von Neumann did), but it is far too simplistic a model to predict most human interaction. The problem is that disparate social groups embraced Game Theory for their own ends and applied it to situations to which it was totally unsuited.
"For me the most interesting
"For me the most interesting aspect of game theory is that it can be demonstrated that under a wide set of assumptions, cooperation pays off {this is the topic of an ineresting bool 'Non-Zero' by Robert Wright}, so that the free market is better characterised not by dog eating dog but by apes happily scratching each others backs."
Exactly!
This is what bothered me about tonight's episode.
Some people will have been left with the impression that gametheory/freemarket/capitalism is 'bad'.
When actually these things are not 'good' or 'bad'. They are more like tools that can be used to 'free/benefit' people or 'enslave/control' them.
It all depends whether they are being used with the presumption that humans are inherently 'good' and will 'do the right thing' or are being used with the assumption that humans are inherently 'bad' and need to be protected from themselves and each other and to that end that any action is justified.
This 'end justifies the means' thinking is employed by today's leaders such as Blair and the 'means/controls/incentives' they use causes the public to adopt the same 'end justifies the means' thinking, as we see with doctors taking wheels off trolleys to create more beds and teachers helping children to pass exams by cheating and parents lying to get their kids into a better school. The extreme example used in tonight's episode was soldiers in Vietnam killling civillians to meet quotas.
But again, this makes me feel that people will think 'game theory = dead civillians' when it was actually the use of targets and quotas and 'people are inherently selfish in a bad way' thinking, essentially using game theory in a bad way, that caused the negative results.
Game theory can be great if you have faith in people and believe that a positive future/result can be born, rather organically, out of trusting people to do the right thing in the present.
But if you intrinsically don't trust your fellow humans and are a control freak that doesn't believe that anything (i.e. a future/destiny/utopia that you have already predetermined in your mind and believe that any action, no matter how immoral, is justified in seeking to manufacture it) should be left to chance then you will use game theory in a way that creates a self perpetuating control mechanism, a choke-collar if you like, that only becomes worse, strangling ever more tightly, the more that a person resists (i.e. the more human you are). I guess you could say that this is the 'trap' that Adam Curtis is outlining.
Which of those two outlooks on our fellow humans do you think the average politician, or indeed psychiatrist, possesses?
I guess it all comes down to whether you see 'selfishness' as a 'good' or 'bad' thing.
That's why many people have a problem with Richard Dawkins, because they believe that his assertion that we are all inherently selfish must mean that he thinks we are all bad.
But this selfishness is the spur for good just as it can be the spur for bad.
Back to my original point/concern................
I can't shake the feeling that Adam Curtis feels that game theory is flawed or 'bad' because it is based on the premise that humans are all inherently selfish and that this is a 'bad' or anti-humanistic way to think of people.
That was the impression I received whilst watching tonight's episode.
Davide, if you do get the chance to interview Adam Curtis I would greatly appreciate if you could raise this with him.
If you could cut/paste or print out my post and let me him read it, either physically or electronically, that would be great but if my post were a simple question I guess it would be "do you believe that game theory is a 'good' or 'bad' thing?".
Thanks in advance if you do!
Passingthru, I will ask your
Passingthru,
I will ask your question, I've added it to my list. I'm not sure if I'll get the chance to show your whole comment to Adam Curtis but I'll print it out and bring it. I suspect that like you and other commenters he'll say that a mathematical technique can't be either "good" or "bad" but it's the application of it that counts. That is the impression I got from the film. When Game Theory is used for poker then there is no problem, but when it is applied to human interactions and economics (particularly when developed further by a paranoid schizophrenic) then problems will inevitably follow. Humans are just too complicated to predict in that way.
In response to your post
In response to your post about "The Trap", freedom, culture and mental illness I want to post a part from my article hich examines the impact of industrialization/ consumerism on our minds and environment.
The link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues.
The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.
Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking.
If there are no gaps there is no emotion.
Today people are thinking all the time and are mistaking thought (words/ language) for emotion.
When society switches-over from physical work (agriculture) to mental work (scientific/ industrial/ financial/ fast visuals/ fast words ) the speed of thinking keeps on accelerating and the gaps between thinking go on decreasing.
There comes a time when there are almost no gaps.
People become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps.
Emotion ends.
Man becomes machine.
A society that speeds up mentally experiences every mental slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A ( travelling )society that speeds up physically experiences every physical slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A society that entertains itself daily experiences every non-entertaining moment as Depression / Anxiety.
Fast visuals/ words make slow emotions extinct.
Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys emotional circuits.
A fast (large) society cannot feel pain / remorse / empathy.
A fast (large) society will always be cruel to Animals/ Trees/ Air/ Water/ Land and to Itself.
To read the complete article please follow either of these links :
http://www.planetsave.com/ps_mambo/index.php?option=com_simpleboard&Itemid=75&func=view&id=68&catid=6
http://www.theholisticwheel.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=324
sushil_yadav
Does anyone have a recording
Does anyone have a recording of the first episode that they wouldn't mind sharing? or failing that any information on when / whether it will be repeated? I missed the first half of the programme thanks to Silverlink trains, and as I have been awaiting this series for a long time, and have slavishly recorded all of Curtis's last two series, I was absolutely gutted to miss it!
I will of course compensate anyone who can help me for their trouble.
Please help! Paul.
Cautionary note: Some may
Cautionary note: Some may take the stated Vietnam/America "Disaster" to mean, or to be in the context of anAmerica
But the fact is, that theUS lost the war primarily because of the actions of the peoples army of Vietnam US
On occasions, Adam puts too much weight on a single strand of a many stranded thread. But his analysis and style is always fascinating and usually, very strong.
Slightly off-topic but the
Slightly off-topic but the music used last night was great. Am trying to find out what tracks were used: I heard New Order's 'Age Of Consent' and some other things. The two things I want to find out the name of are 1) a gorgeous, lush, Velvet Underground type track 2) a Kraftwerk-y bleeping 80s type track. Both of them came around at least twice. Have googled, but no luck.
Any clues welcome. Keep up the good work.
Yes, I would agree with most
Yes, I would agree with most posters that the 1st part was excellent - I certainly learned things I never knew, especially the way various dots are connected by specific people, like Enthoven and Thatch.
This whole thing about game theory got me thinking about the uncertainty principle, the idea that the very act of observation can alter the data you`re trying to measure. And I think that carries over to the use of pseudo-quantifiable theories in analysing and managing society: if the theory has flawed foundations then the data gathered and the analysis produced will likewise be flawed, leading to real harm when policies are carried out based on such flawed, rigid analyses (which, by the way, is a concise summation of Marxism). What I`m saying is that I`m reminded of some of the things Adam Curtis mentioned in a previous documentary, the Power of Nightmares, which looked at the psychological origins of marketing and PR - the world around us, as seen through popular, ad-drenched media, seems to be filled with either the fulfillment (or its lack) of the desire for commodities, and it seems to me that this has come about because of the view of human society held by the advertising industry. That we are selfish, self-centred creatures whose innate savagery can only be assuaged by the buying of commodities, by the ageing of those new possessions, and the buying of new ones. So that there is always desire for some kind of transcendence which can only be acheived by buying stuff, but which turns out to be a transient delight leading to more desire and so on.
That, I believe, is how the advertising industry sees us. I can never sit at peace while ads are playing, on TV or at the cinema; I can almost feel the propagandistic intention of the minds behind them.
So it seems to me that this is a strong parallel to what I`ve seen so far in the Freedom Trap.
Public Choice is in some
Public Choice is in some ways, a forefarther of spin. It (overly) simply portrays a known phenonemon/institution like the civil service or a workforce in some Nulight, and has a heap load of crap thrown at it to see if there is any mileage in it.
Most humans have the same needs, and culture/society sets out the rules by which those needs are controlled and catered for. This was understood by many, yet the wielders of this new hocus-pocus suddenly find power in their hands (like monetarism) as politicians find their theoried highly earworthy because of the seductive idea that the 'system' can be plucked and tooted at will. The fact it, like spin, is worthy of the dustbin hasn't seem to have sunk in yet.
Cap'n A few days ago, a
Cap'n
A few days ago, a trusted friend advised me to read the following two books by Ayn Rand. You might be interested.
They are called "Atlas Shrugged." and "Unintended Consequences". Happy reading.
johnnysilver, I recognised
johnnysilver,
I recognised the theme from 'The Godfather' if that helps.
Excellent discussion. I am
Excellent discussion. I am apreciating it all the more having got caught out by C4's docu on Global Warming. I will believe nothing I read or see in future without checking the blogs first.
Anyway, I am struck by the assumption that (I am detecting) that all humanity responds to the applications of these theories in some kind of uniform way. While Thatcher or Blair or any Head of Government has the power to implement government policy informed by a particular theory, whether it succeeds or not might well depend on the individual attitudes of those charged with it's implementation. It may well be that money is channelled in particular directions but I suspect it will not really stick unless the surface is right for it. I would also be of the opinion that we get the politics we deserve. Most voters vote in what they believe to be in their own self interest and tend to believe that their self-interest corresponds to the self-interest of society as a whole. I mean, given the truely complex nature of any modern western society, voting for one individual or party is a very blunt instrument indeed.
Looking forward to the next programme and your collective response.
The first track was from
The first track was from Brian Eno's first album, 'Here Come the Warm Jets", I think it was the track "On Some Faraway Beach".
I hope I can find copies of the documentary as I'll be out of the country for the rest. Bugger!
The "VU type" track is by
The "VU type" track is by Brian Eno - On Some Far Away Beach
An excellent start to the series last night, sometimes though I found my concentration on Curtis' dialogue distracted by the excellent combination of archive footage and soundtrack - sensory overload. This is a good thing as repeated viewing is a pleasure.
A fascinating programme and
A fascinating programme and I just wished I'd recorded it so I could watch it again. I'll be recording the rest of the series and would be happy to do a copy in return for a copy of the first part.
Mick
Greetings, Glapagus - hmm,
Greetings, Glapagus - hmm, Ayn Rand, eh? The woman who was heavily into objectivism, stuff like "Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others", and the belief that the individual "must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."
She was also a fundamentalist laissez-faire capitalist, and in an address given at the West Point military academy said - "I can say - not as a patriotic bromide, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and aesthetic roots - that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world." This is a strange declaration since Rand was a fierce critic of mysticism and religion, yet her paean to the USA is clearly couched in the absolutist language of priestly cant.
So, Glapagus ol` chum, although I confess to not having read Atlas Shrugged, I do have a more than passing acquaintance with the salient points of her system of thought. Which, in all honesty, engenders in me a gargantuan, nay, jaw-breaking yawn. Why, I hear you cry? - for the simple reason that I`ve spent most - no wait - ALL of my adult life being harangued by one brand of politico or another zealously eager to convince me and my countrymen and women of the worth of this plainly flatout stupid monomania.
Rather than harangue you back, my good and dear correspondent, allow me to recommend a few books for you to read; 'The Open Society and Its Enemies' by Karl Popper; Z'en and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' by Robert Pirsig; 'Games People Play' by Eric Berne; and for a little perspective, `Extraterrestrial Civilisations' by Isaac Asimov.
Awrabest, laddie!
The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen...and stupidity.
Did anybody recorded this
Did anybody recorded this program? I missed it. There's a torrent here, but it's not working here. http://www.torrentportal.com/details/978861/Trap-What+happened+to+our+dream+of+freedom.mpg.html
I recorded this and am happy
I recorded this and am happy to share. I watched it last night and it's about as essential as TV gets. This discussion has also enriched the experience, thanks all. Looking forward to the next two and the interview on here.
Drop me an e-mail if you want a copy of episode 1. (Paulbrownie69@hotmail.com).
There is a torrent that
There is a torrent that appears to be active here
Cap'n Seems like you've done
Cap'n
Seems like you've done a bit of checking. I admit I hadn't heard of her until my reccommended her to me, and you know what? I came across the Industrialite part of her character too and wondering why the heck my friend would recommend it to me? I put that to him and he said 'trust me', which I do and because I haven't read Rand but he has, I can only summise there are some very thought provoking aspects in those two books, which probably related to her reported strong strak of individualism. As to how her belief that America is the greatest in terms of its original founding principles is very hard to refute, but of course todays America isn't simply becasue it dosen't even bother to pretend to follow them.
Re: Yawn, well, understandable perhaps, but I'm not trying to convince anyone, merely expand their horizons to bolster the most sound holistic view of looking at life.
Noted are your reccommendations. Thanks.
Kraftwerk-y bleeping 80s
Kraftwerk-y bleeping 80s type track
Probably the theme from assault on precinct 13 - john carpenter, top film, top track
Also made heavy use of ennio morricone's theme from carpenters version of the thing
I found a torrent.
I found a torrent. :)
http://www.torrentportal.com/details/980679/BBC.The.Trap.What.Happened.to.Our.Dreams.of.Freedom.1of3.F.You.Buddy.DVB.XviD.MP3.www.mvgroup.org.avi.torrent.html
What both economics and game
Download Adam Curtis': The
Download Adam Curtis': The trap.
For those who missed it, Indybay has it on real media format. About 30Mb.
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/03/11/1_fuck_you_buddy.rm
 galupadulupalus, Yawn.
galupadulupalus,
Yawn. While expanding others' horizons, you would do well to look at your own.
Go away and read "Atlas Shrugged" and come back with your reactions, or at least check the Amazon reviews.
holistically yours, frog
Am constantly trying to
Am constantly trying to expanding my horizons. if you see any way in which you could assist me on that front, I'd welcome the suggestion. I say this because although a powerful documentary, I think 'The trap' could have benefited from adopting a broader scope in addition to what is meant by individualism is, along with its associated varieties, and how or if can be realised. In regard to the documentaries possible narrowness, I see others have picked up on this too.
"the harms of this world
"the harms of this world have not been carried out by free market capitalism"
!!
Free market capitalism does not care about the old or the young or the unsafe or the polluting.
It only cares about itself. By definition. So it HAS to be given rules, boundaries.
By whom if not the state - us?
The music is by John
The music is by John Carpenter from his first film "Dark Star" made in 1974 with Dan ("Alien") O'Bannon. Some of the music is on the trailer at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOl3ta-img
One of my favourite films ever made, do yourself a favour if you haven't seen it - deep and hilarious!
In part 2 I also caught
In part 2 I also caught music from John Carpenter's "Halloween" series.
So I gather Curtis is on a roll...
Not that that's a bad thing, in the 80s and 90s if it wasn't Jason it was Mike Myers putting the fear in all us yanks.
 I am willing to bow to
I am willing to bow to your greater knowledge of John Carpenters' music,but ,surely,as somebody already suggested,the most used piece is from "Assault on Precinct 13"... ( always reminds me of the bassline to "New Years Day" by U2)..
. I would just like to say ,that, quite apart from all the political and societal exposition,contained in this beautifully controlled collage ...it's just a great piece of television..a sweet synthesis of found music,found video and film,chiming with and against each other,the calmly authoritative commentary,underscoring both..ebbing and flowing ,chiming with ones' own knowledge,then counterposing it maybe.. by turns affirming and challenging..ultimately i'm left wondering wether it's "negative" or "positive" Liberty (the internet being largely a product of the "Cold War"?)..that has led us to the discussions here ,of this superb piece of work.
Cheers Chris Morrell
First up, game theory is not
First up, game theory is not used as a 'proof' of self interest.
self interest is a fundamental assumption of 'homo economus'.
Homo economus is a self interested, rational, well defined individual with perfectly defined prferences.
Game theory is a study of how homo economus should behave given certain circumstances.
this assumes that the players are both rational, have perfect information (i.e. they communicate perfectly with each other) and know what they want and how to get it.
The prisoners dilemma is a study of trust of what information is given.
Economic theory goes WELL beyond anything mentioned in these video's, but they do do a reasonable job of introducing the topics even if they miss the detail.
As always the 'devil is in the detail' These theories are tested, refined and moderated, when we eventually get a perfectly transparent government, we may eventually get a government that acts rationally.
What is a much more important aspect is the 'social welfare function' Arrows paper prooving such a function is theoretically impossible (without a dictatorship) and the forecoming strategies to change the balance of utilities when presented with a prisoners dilemma.
Actually, this dreadful
Actually, this dreadful mockumentary gets everything wrong. John von Neumann was very much more associated with game theory development than John Nash.
The main contribution of Nash was the finding of Nash equilibriums. The fact that you could establish "pretty good" equilibrium points with minimal information was used in "free" market economics to shore it up against criticisms that markets were imperfect, especially as regards the information of participants.
That's not saying as much as perhaps it would be in the 1950s. A "socialist" government planner could come up with a better price for a commodity using a computer and linear programming now than a Nash equlibrium calculated from too-minimal information. Von Mises' spurious objection to government (other than elite-promoting cops, courts and soldiers, of course) that it cannot handle information lost its last figleaf decades ago.
Nash equilibriums as a concept are used in many mathematical and scientific areas. The notion of an equlibrium is indeed a fundamental of game theory, but so is the linear algebra of matrices. The basic equilibrium called a saddle point for instance is a mathematical construct that certain matrices have. Assigning a moral value to it is fairly insane.
The Prisoner's Dilemma is used exactly the opposite way from what Curtis claimed - to point out that even if a market is perfect (accounting instantly for all inputs with outputs, no losses or inefficiencies), even if the information is perfect ON ALL SIDES, you can still have market failures. Amusingly, neoliberals, conservatives and market fundamentalists have all noted this about "The Trap", but the "liberals" are clueless.
information problems exist in planned (so-called) and market (so-called) economies about equally - and less than in the past. Prisoner's dilemmas such as free riders or externalities plague collective farms and dot-com startups. Without a double standard, you are left with the fact that elite-promoting market fundamentalism has spent a fortune promoting itself.
The idea that the elites in Britain or America are trying to promote fairness and freedom speaks for itself, really.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I agree wholeheartedly. This documentary cleverly injects key New World Order propaganda at every turn. The truth is - free market capitalism hasn't existed for quite some time. We will never be free until the complete abolishment of fiat currencies, central banking, world government (EU, NAU, etc.), corporate welfare, and the unmitigated return to the gold/silver standard and true unrestrained free market.
Whatever labels you want to put on things, I see two opposing forces - liberty and tyranny. Wherever there is freedom, I want more of it. But increasingly, what we receive in the UK and USA is more and more tyranny, the anathema to a free society.
The Trap is bogus big brother propaganda. Sure you learn some historical facts (game theory, political history, etc.), but are eventually mislead to believe true freedom has the same result as chaos and communism. The most effective propaganda is delivered juxtaposed with undisputed facts and The Trap is no exception. Viewer beware or avoid at all costs if you cannot spot manipulation very well.