I have been thinking about and writing up my thoughts about events of Thursday 27 October 2018 associated with the United States Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing.

The way I have been organizing my thoughts is to construct a model of how and why the events like the historical event in question come about, how they they are remembered, and how they are handled.

Two global attributes of the model are: “The Victim” and the “The Predator”. The title of the model is: “Gender Asymmetries: Vivid Memories of Non Consensual Aggressive Contact In Humans”.

The model applies to and explains the historical event in question, and also Thursday’s judiciary committee event. The presenters content at Thursday’s event and the committee’s organization and presentation of the Thursday’s event is also explained by the model.

Writing up the details of the model is a current task.

I will share the write up of my model when I complete it. Creating such stuff is how I naturally deal with very disturbing, or thought provoking, or even just very interesting things I experience, read, or hear, or watch, or just think about, in my life.

The output of the model are the various end states that are reachable (or not) depending on the gender asymmetry that is associated with the transversal of the model.

In other words: Such Events Wind Up In Certain States Depending on Gender Asymmetry.  A state transition is characterized by behavior at and after the event and recalled memories of the event.

This post to includes screenshots of the model an explanation of the states these images as well as the model are all preliminary, incomplete, and are being used to help me mentally visualize and construct the overall model.

 

So,  this model can be considered as a joint effort between me and the folks who comment on my shared write-up process.

This blog post started out on my FB account and continues here.

Below are some (summarized) comments on the FB thread and my responses. These comments and responses help with the construction process.

  • [COMMENT] This will be an interesting model, where “the Predator” later, becomes “the Victim” (if she is mistaken or lying–and he is indeed being truthful).
    Otherwise, it seems to me that it becomes a case of a self-inflicted wound for “the Predator.”
  • [RESPONSE] Such a ‘self-inflicted’ transition is captured by entanglement of the states “Deny” and “Atone”.  There is no state for “mistaken”, since the model assumes the vivid memory of the event is shared.

 

  • [COMMENT] Are you saying that you have preconceived opinions that Dr Ford is truthful and Judge Kavanaugh was not?
    If so, then your conclusions are already finalized.
  • [RESPONSE] ABSOLUTELY NOT! My model does NOT have an output of that nature. The output of my model is various end states that are reachable (or not) depending on the gender asymmetry that is associated with the transversal of the model.
    In other words: Such Events Wind Up In Certain States Depending on Gender Asymmetry a state transition is characterized by behavior at and after the event and a vivid memory of the event.  [The model assumes the event has invoked a vivid-memory in the participants of the event]