Dualism of Control and Information

The crucial point in fauceir theory is the abstraction of control and information into one entity namely the term fauceir.

How the terms information and control are rather subjective criteria depending on the point of view can be neatly demonstrated by recent political events.

The extend of the PRISM project. This picture is from guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 11 June 2013 14.00 BST.

  1. The first incidence to analyze in that respect is the plane of the Bolivian president Morales was forced to land in Vienna. From the American site it looked as if American intelligence received INFORMATION and CONTROLLED the European airspace. From the other side it looks the other way around. By some false rumor the Americans were CONTROLLED to behave silly, and closing the European airspace for Morales’s airplane is just an other piece of INFORMATION how America behaves hegemonistically.
  2. The PRISM project itself is an other instance that shows such dualism. From the American perspective, this huge collection of data is meant to CONTROL the world. From the other side’s perspective this exuberant data collection is INFORMATION to dismiss American politics.

The dualism of information and control entails that the same instance from a receiver perceived as information is delivered by the sender to control. The fauceir term allows abstraction from that subjectivism which is essential to scientifically and dispassionately describe evolutionary processes.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

You are like what you can understand

This is a rather approximate translation of a phrase from Goethe’s Faust: „Thou’rt like the spirit thou canst comprehend“. An even wider interpretation of that phrase is „You can only understand what the spirit that created you allows you to understand.“ That means in fauceir terminology „The fauceirs of your thinking, are caged by the fauceirs that enslave it, which are social fauceirs.“


Earth-bound spirit in Goethe's Faust

This illustration by Goethe himself shows the earthly or earth-bound spirit who declares in his Faust tragedy part 1 “Thou’rt like the spirit thou canst comprehend, not me.” and vanishes.


Goethe was not only a gifted play-writer and poet but also a naturalist. His scientific work includes the theory of colors. Characteristic of his life and probably his epoch in general is amalgamation of scientific and artistic endeavor. That is nothing unusual, rather comes naturally as both arise from the same spirit and creativity. Not surprising then that his Faust is not only a stage play about an antsy scientists but also lays the philosophical foundation of evolutionary theory, social evolutionary theory in particular.

The phrase quoted above for instance found its repercussion in Marx’ famous thesis “Existence determines consciousness”.

I remembered these phrases when noticing the recent flare of discussions about peer review in scientific publications (Robertson 2013) which states only consequences drawn from discussions several years before (Ploegh 2011), (Rosenbaum 2008).

The measures now taken to improve fairness in peer review don’t touch the core of the problem, which is the reviewer’s subjective understanding. The improvements now implemented merely reduce sheer fraud. If for instance researcher A wants to publish a new idea, but researcher B, the reviewer in this case, is a strong competitor and wants to publish first; then researcher B may delay publication by putting big hurdles in the way. The hurdles might even become so difficult that publication becomes impossible at all. I didn’t believe that this is even possible, but obviously it is. It even has a long tradition. It looks like the Darwin Conspiracy (Davies 2008). We even may go so far to claim that peer review is the product of a social evolution process from Darwin’s more unique conspiracy to a systematic suppression of outstanding research. In a social context even crime may evolve.

Now the new opt-out policy introduced by BMC Biology offers some relieve as researcher A is allowed to immediately try to publish elsewhere. Couldn’t believe that this was forbidden before, but it was. In fact, according to the peer review policy maintained by many prestigious journals, it is not allowed to try publishing elsewhere as long as the paper is in the review process. This is outright monopolizing science. This is equivalent to buying a patent to prevent its application. I can’t believe that enlightened and devoted to scientific progress scientists ever accepted that. The only explanation I can find for the fact that such a policy holds sway over almost all scientific publishing is that the bulk of scientists is mediocre and mean.

Though opt-out policy is a tiny little step to reduce reviewer’s fraud, by far it would not eliminate it completely as everyone can imagine if journal A declines a paper because of reviewer A, the same can happen with journal B and reviewer B. Maybe B is a good friend of A or even the same person. But even if A and B are competitors themselves they share a common interest in fighting a new competitive paper that challenges their both reputation. Moreover taking aside this obvious fraud which might be effectively controlled sometimes as society becomes increasingly aware of it, there is an even greater problem behind. The subconscious aversion of all research that challenges the social environment. Everybody, and every scientist in particular, is caged in a social fauceir that controls almost all thinking. For instance, an academically employed scientists would never accept a social evolutionary concept that declares academic research out-of-date and disposable. But that is what really is at stage.

Humans inability to make proper judgments about entities outside the private cage is the real thread of humanity. As Goethe concludes the second part of his famous Faust

Ein Sumpf zieht am Gebirge hin,
Verpestet alles schon Errungene;
Den faulen Pfuhl auch abzuziehn,
Das Letzte wär’ das Höchsterrungene.

Unfortunately I did not find an authorized translation, so I give my own rather free translation. “A swamp is spreading into the mountains, contaminating all human achievements. Draining that swamp is an heroic task of first and foremost importance.


Davies, Roy. 2008. The Darwin Conspiracy – Origins of a Scientific Crime. First. Golden Square Books.

Ploegh, Hidde. 2011. „End the Wasteful Tyranny of Reviewer Experiments“. Nature News 472 (7344) (April 27): 391–391. doi:10.1038/472391a.

Robertson, Miranda. 2013. „Q&A: Re-review Opt-out and Painless Publishing“. BMC Biology 11 (1) (Februar 28): 18. doi:10.1186/1741-7007-11-18.

Rosenbaum, Joel L. 2008. „High-Profile Journals Not Worth the Trouble“. Science 321 (5892) (August 22): 1039–1039. doi:10.1126/science.321.5892.1039b.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Never ask a parasite

Never ask a parasite how to fight parasitism. You certainly would get the wrong answer.

The interpretation of advantage, advancement, and even progress is relative. It depends on the observer’s position. The same is true for social parasites.

  • Ask a mafiosi and he will probably suggest that he should take over police control to reduce crime.
  • Ask a beggar and he would probably suggest giving more to charity.
  • Ask an academic and she would probably suggest raising taxes.
  • Ask a politician and she would probably suggest a reduction in people’s freedom.
  • Ask a bureaucrat and she would probably disapprove bureaucracy in other departments.

Therefore, never judge a political opinion without analyzing the social background it derives from.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Fauceir thoughts on China’s one-child policy

The economist drew my attention to the following story. The article vividly describes a picture that can easily be found on the Internet. The graphic picture and the stirring story behind it offer an opportunity for Western mass media to disparage Chinese one-child policy. I did not replicate it here as I realized that all mass media don’t show the photo and I’m even not sure whether it is a falsification. By clicking the image above you may find it. Also depending on your location you may use the google search string.

I won’t go on to participate in the debate about China’s policy. This is a mere ideological questions, and may the combatants in each camp gain satisfaction in attacking each other. Unfortunately such a squabble over ideology rarely helps the victims.

The question to be looked into here is what are the implications about fauceir theory. Well one point has already touched above, that is the struggle between big social fauceirs (empires) which is mirrored in this ideological struggle. The other point is to illustrate differences in the way that social fauceir (the government in China and the culture in the West) controls the behavior of sub-fauceirs, the families in this case. In European countries as in China we have a low, socially controlled, birth rates. While in China this is rather simply accomplished by governmental pressure in Western countries this as rather fulfilled by economic incentives. This is consistent with the fertility regulation discussed before in this blog.

Next this finding demonstrate the fauceir inheritance rule. While the fauceir evolutionary history in the in West favored a social birth control through economic pressure, luring the population into satisfaction by buying products, Chinas economy at the time when the one-child policy was introduced had not such a developed economy and first of all not such fervent consumers yet to exert birth control through economic incentives. But as China’s economy changes the method of control will change too, so we already witness the effect that Chinese people who inhabit big cities refuse to have children at all even though birth control policy is no more such restrictive there.

Finally social birth control regardless of its method of accomplishment illustrates the reason for the Malthus Paradox. Human birth control was essential to take place otherwise as Malthus predicted famine and social unrest would ensue. We can witness such social instability everywhere on the planet where social birth control is not effective.

What are the projections about the development of social birth control. One may conclude, that according to fauceir evolution rules, social birth control will be fine tuned in the future. So far in all societies that exert such a control there is an off-switch only. The challenge will be to evolve an on-switch too, and to turn on reproduction of specific people. To my knowledge this is only possible by test tube babies. Not a very popular idea at the moment, but sooner or later social leaders will come up with it. I’m sure.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Imprecise emotions allow to trick your sweetheart

A recent study [1] discussed on this blog page found a relationship between awe inspiring experiences and decision making. That is not absolute new, however. A similar study in the seventies similarly found an association between sexual desire and feelings of anxiety [2]. On a bridge, probably not as much anxiety arousing as this one in the picture, but height enough to feel uncomfortable, men were interviewed by an attractive women following a typical psychological questionnaire. At the end of the interview the women gave her telephone number to the male test person. Significantly more callbacks were counted from those who were asked at the height bridge compared to an ordinary bridge. Obviously the anxiety emotion, the raised heart beat for instance, caused by the bridge was interpreted as sexual attractiveness and some of the men felt it worthwhile to re-experience that emotion.

 That is good news for all those who want someone to fall in love. Simply choose a bridge or something else awe inspiring enough to arouse your sweetheart’s emotions, put on a lovely smile, and your sweetheart is likely to believe he or she is in love with you. I recall that Niagara Falls are a preferred honeymoon destination. Probably for the same reason.

 The question is what all this has to do with fauceir theory. The answer: it is a typical example of imprecision. Emotions are psychological fauceirs that are slaves to our rationality fauceirs. As such, they are likely to do things that are from the outset adapted to the most common situations of our animal or primeval ancestors, that we would not always sanction rationally.

 Most exciting to me however was the following quote from the blog mentioned above.

 … it seems to me that atheists have a great appetite for awe-inspiring stories – in particular, stories about great scientific and engineering feats. Could this in part be a facet of life that in other circumstances could be filled by religion?

 That is sheer fauceirology. Of course, atheism is some kind of religion. Of course, it has to fill the same emotional gaps as any other religion; if not all atheists would become distressed. In some people atheism ensues more rational thinking. In those I would agree that atheism is more evolutionary advanced (in its fauceirological sense). Some atheists however seek refuge in demonism which cannot be considered as a higher level of evolution.


Rudd, M., Vohs, K. D. & Aaker, J. Awe Expands People’s Perception of Time, Alters Decision Making, and Enhances Well-Being. Psychol Sci (2012).doi:10.1177/0956797612438731


Dutton, D. G. & Aron, A. P. Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30, 510–517 (1974).

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Altruism in Social Fauceirs

Humans use to live in social compounds. They show a great deal of altruism which is enforced by the master fauceirs the various societies they live in. By contrast to its members. If any, social fauceirs itself show altruism rarely. On the contrary, successful social fauceirs adapted to forcefully suppress its members tendencies to show mercy to members of other social fauceirs.

Understanding this fundamental rule can help you grasp the framework of human history.


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Legal and Penal Systems: the Fauceir Stance

This actually is a reply to M. Pigliucci’s post on the American prison system.

By contrast, I admire the American prison system. Besides it is like the Russian system, and both countries share some features that probably make such a prison system more likely.

  1. Both are large countries. Nor primarily in the sense of a large population—China and India have even larger populations—but rather in the sense of vast and sparsely inhabited areas that make it easy for a criminal to disappear from a region where the crime was committed and reappear elsewhere to commit the next crime.
  2. And even more important. Both countries harbor a highly heterogeneous multicultural population that requires a high degree of tolerance which in turn makes it much more difficult to control potential criminals by customs such as neighbor watch.

Given these two reasons for a more severe penal system in large countries, I wonder if the present European system will change now that Europe becomes larger, easier to move home, and multicultural by significant immigrants from Asia, Africa and the Middle East. And those changes can be sensed already. Not surprisingly though, in Western Europe, Moslems are more likely to be imprisoned, same as Latinos and African Americans in the US. With the population of Moslems rapidly growing by immigration and height fecundity rate, the number of prisoners will happen to rapidly increase too.

That immigration in Europe has something to do with imprisonment can be sensed from the next chart. Switzerland and Scandinavia have a low prisoner rate as they also have greater impediments to immigration: A language difficult to learn, especially Finnish, a restrictive immigration policy, Switzerland for instance, and no former colonies that often serve as bridgeheads to immigrate to the motherland, UK is the predominant example.

It is rather naive to gauge the effectiveness of a legal system by summing up the cost of their prisoners alone. Criminals are always a burden to a society either by draining a society’s wealth when pursuing criminal acts or by consuming society’s resources during legal action or imprisonment. By contrast to the US, the Europeans legal system chose other priorities. In Europe they try to keep calm those criminal elements outside prison, but this also comes at a price. Add the costly European social systems, the various subsidies, and all kinds of social transfer payments and you get a rough estimate of that cost.

At this point, you may argue spending money for a social system is more beneficial to a society than say spending it for a penal system. That fits only partly. The way of bolstering the social system to prevent crime has serious drawbacks too.

  1. Laziness is infectious. If people learn that you can live a decent life based on social subsidies without work, it will spoil others.
  2. The increasing number of people who depend directly or indirectly on social transfer payments exerts a ripple effect on politics. Influential political parties exist that exclusively rely on such potential criminal elements. The effect of an altered constituency on the outcome of democratic election is described elsewhere by a mathematical model.

I strongly disagree over the five reasons why we want to incarcerate people. It is neither retribution, crime deterrence, rehabilitation, restitution to the victims, nor social denunciation that makes incarceration necessary as all these goals can be achieved by other probably cheaper methods. The only reason that makes practical sense is isolation to prevent people who are a burden to society from influencing the course of society.

Back to Fauceir Theory, a legal system in its capacity to isolate criminal elements is a fauceir and therefore its control function is characterized by imprecision and consumed resources. We talked about consumed resources already. Imprecision is an other issue. Imprecision not only includes those who are sentenced despite their innocence or vice versa. Imprecision also includes punishments that are either not effective to isolate criminal attributes or isolate favorable attributes as well. To give an example, a child abuser probably may become a valuable member of the society on an island where there are no children around. Same with a rapist. Put him into a coal mine and allow occasional well observed trips to a brothel and he probably will make a decent contribution to the society’s wealth.

Thus Fauceir theory does not tackle the rather ideological question why which legal system is better. Fauceir Theory asks how to evolve an existing legal system in term of improved precision and reduced resource consumption. This according fauceir rules can only be accomplished by including additional sub-fauceirs.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.