Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

[Russ Abbott]

It's based on BetFair a betting site in the UK. US citizens can't use it.

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 5:19 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

This is updated every 10 minutes so it reflects some reaction to today's new FBI letter to Congress:

https://electionbettingodds.com/

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone <a href="tel:(505)%20670-9918" value="[phone]" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">[phone]

On Nov 6, 2016 6:15 PM, "Prof David West" <[hidden email]> wrote:

If Trump were to win this election, the number one reason is the insistence of democrats and liberals to demonize and marginalize the populace supporting Trump.

If the only people that support him are "angry" racist" "xenophobic" "out-of-work-white-men" "could-not-graduate-from-college-because-of-low-IQ" etc. etc. he could not possibly command more than 10% of the vote.

Trump is a terrible person — but NOT atypical of the population in general. Projecting his worst qualities onto the masses that support him is a huge, hopefully fatal, strategic mistake on the part of the Clinton campaign. But it would be simply a continuation of a fifty year trend: a small elite that firmly believe they are the only ones capable of and deserving of running the government and that anyone that opposes them is ignorant and dangerous.

davew

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016, at 12:12 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

My opinion: scorn is a very powerful position; you can be scornful of God.  People who feel powerless and left out find Trump appealing because they identify with the power implied by his scorn of the elite, the establishment, etc.  Remember Spiro Agnew calling the educated "pointy headed intellectuals"?

In the meantime I'm very concerned with who's going to win the election.

Frank

Frank Wimberly

Phone <a href="tel:%28505%29%20670-9918" value="[phone]" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">[phone]

On Nov 5, 2016 12:59 PM, "Owen Densmore" <[hidden email]> wrote:

A quote from the article is pretty telling:

In America today, compared with 50 years ago, three times as many working-age men are completely outside the work force. This pattern is occurring throughout the developed world — and the consequences are not merely economic. Feeling superfluous is a blow to the human spirit. It leads to social isolation and emotional pain, and creates the conditions for negative emotions to take root.

If I were one of them, I'd surely vote Trump.

We do need to get over "who's going to win?" and ask "why has Trump got such a *huge* following?"

   -- Owen

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

I found the article from the Dalai Lama in the NYT today fairly plausible explanation of why we have the current problem.    But, I would say, no, there will be no brotherhood with the Bundy's.   The redistributionist approach (that Brooks -- libertarian -- objects to elsewhere) arises in order to give the possibility of free enterprise, not to preserve it for those that haven't realized they've simply failed to be sufficiently enterprising.

I just took a look at the article, and it certainly is interesting and puts into perspective why wealthy countries have a "The Sky Is Falling" syndrome.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/opinion/dalai-lama-behind-our-anxiety-the-fear-of-being-unneeded.html 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

"Projecting his worst qualities onto the masses that support him is a huge, hopefully fatal, strategic mistake on the part of the Clinton campaign."

Personally, I already had decided what I thought of them 30 years before Donald found a way to work them up.   And it wouldn't matter one bit to me whether they represent 10% or 90% of the population.   I've experienced living in rural community where it was effectively the latter.  

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Prof David West <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 6:15:20 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

 

If Trump were to win this election, the number one reason is the insistence of democrats and liberals to demonize and marginalize the populace supporting Trump.

If the only people that support him are "angry" racist" "xenophobic" "out-of-work-white-men" "could-not-graduate-from-college-because-of-low-IQ" etc. etc. he could not possibly command more than 10% of the vote.

Trump is a terrible person — but NOT atypical of the population in general. Projecting his worst qualities onto the masses that support him is a huge, hopefully fatal, strategic mistake on the part of the Clinton campaign. But it would be simply a continuation of a fifty year trend: a small elite that firmly believe they are the only ones capable of and deserving of running the government and that anyone that opposes them is ignorant and dangerous.

davew

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016, at 12:12 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

My opinion: scorn is a very powerful position; you can be scornful of God.  People who feel powerless and left out find Trump appealing because they identify with the power implied by his scorn of the elite, the establishment, etc.  Remember Spiro Agnew calling the educated "pointy headed intellectuals"?

In the meantime I'm very concerned with who's going to win the election.

Frank

Frank Wimberly

Phone [phone]

On Nov 5, 2016 12:59 PM, "Owen Densmore" <[hidden email]> wrote:

A quote from the article is pretty telling:

In America today, compared with 50 years ago, three times as many working-age men are completely outside the work force. This pattern is occurring throughout the developed world — and the consequences are not merely economic. Feeling superfluous is a blow to the human spirit. It leads to social isolation and emotional pain, and creates the conditions for negative emotions to take root.

If I were one of them, I'd surely vote Trump.

We do need to get over "who's going to win?" and ask "why has Trump got such a *huge* following?"

   -- Owen

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

I found the article from the Dalai Lama in the NYT today fairly plausible explanation of why we have the current problem.    But, I would say, no, there will be no brotherhood with the Bundy's.   The redistributionist approach (that Brooks -- libertarian -- objects to elsewhere) arises in order to give the possibility of free enterprise, not to preserve it for those that haven't realized they've simply failed to be sufficiently enterprising.

I just took a look at the article, and it certainly is interesting and puts into perspective why wealthy countries have a "The Sky Is Falling" syndrome.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/opinion/dalai-lama-behind-our-anxiety-the-fear-of-being-unneeded.html 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Nick Thompson]

Dave,

 

I think you are dead on concerning our attitude toward “the deplorables” .  We need to know more about them and be prepared to find common ground.

 

Without taking anything away from that agreement, I want to question your last sentences about the “elites.”  As a term of contempt, it’s a little like “the deplorables”.  Who exactly are these Folks.  Do I know any of them?

 

But let’s stipulate to the existence of such elites.  Let’s assume for the moment that that the people arrayed against trump are the most experienced, well trained, members of our society.  Would it be wrong for them to have undo influence on the train of events?  What IS your position on expertise?  Do you value it?  How do we non-experts tell when an expert is making a mistake? 

 

Or, do you think that elites have their place, but they are making decisions beyond their competence.  The elites might tell us the consequences of our folly, but it is not their role to manipulate us into avoiding.  Perhaps we are all dionysians.  Perhaps we want to go down in a fiery (nuclear war) or watery (global warming) end.  Don’t we get to choose our own fate? 

 

All the best,

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2016 6:15 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

 

If Trump were to win this election, the number one reason is the insistence of democrats and liberals to demonize and marginalize the populace supporting Trump.

 

If the only people that support him are "angry" racist" "xenophobic" "out-of-work-white-men" "could-not-graduate-from-college-because-of-low-IQ" etc. etc. he could not possibly command more than 10% of the vote.

 

Trump is a terrible person — but NOT atypical of the population in general. Projecting his worst qualities onto the masses that support him is a huge, hopefully fatal, strategic mistake on the part of the Clinton campaign. But it would be simply a continuation of a fifty year trend: a small elite that firmly believe they are the only ones capable of and deserving of running the government and that anyone that opposes them is ignorant and dangerous.

 

davew

 

 

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016, at 12:12 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

My opinion: scorn is a very powerful position; you can be scornful of God.  People who feel powerless and left out find Trump appealing because they identify with the power implied by his scorn of the elite, the establishment, etc.  Remember Spiro Agnew calling the educated "pointy headed intellectuals"?

In the meantime I'm very concerned with who's going to win the election.

Frank

 

Frank Wimberly

Phone [phone]

 

 

On Nov 5, 2016 12:59 PM, "Owen Densmore" <[hidden email]> wrote:

A quote from the article is pretty telling:

 

In America today, compared with 50 years ago, three times as many working-age men are completely outside the work force. This pattern is occurring throughout the developed world — and the consequences are not merely economic. Feeling superfluous is a blow to the human spirit. It leads to social isolation and emotional pain, and creates the conditions for negative emotions to take root.

 

If I were one of them, I'd surely vote Trump.

 

We do need to get over "who's going to win?" and ask "why has Trump got such a *huge* following?"

 

   -- Owen

 

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

 

I found the article from the Dalai Lama in the NYT today fairly plausible explanation of why we have the current problem.    But, I would say, no, there will be no brotherhood with the Bundy's.   The redistributionist approach (that Brooks -- libertarian -- objects to elsewhere) arises in order to give the possibility of free enterprise, not to preserve it for those that haven't realized they've simply failed to be sufficiently enterprising.

 

 

I just took a look at the article, and it certainly is interesting and puts into perspective why wealthy countries have a "The Sky Is Falling" syndrome.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/opinion/dalai-lama-behind-our-anxiety-the-fear-of-being-unneeded.html 

 

 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Steve Smith]

Nick -

I believe one way to address your question(s) about the elites is to decide on what we mean by elite.

Quoted from Wikipedia:

Elite (from late 18th century French élite), is a term that originates from Latin eligere (“to choose, elect”). In political and sociological theory for a small group of powerful people that controls a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege or political power in a society.

If the term disproportionate says it all?  By this definition, we absolutely *don't* want the elites to have undue influence.

I think what you might really be asking is whether there is room for a (partial?) meritocracy?   Can we ever trust a minority subset of the population to make decisions for the majority population?

I would claim that representative democracies such as ours work (when and to the extent that they do) *because* we presumably select from a pool of dedicated, talented and informed individuals to form a constantly morphing meritocracy (our representatives) to make decisions in our collective best interests.

In the rhetoric I *think* you are referencing, it is more a question of populism as defined also in Wikipedia.

Populism is a political ideology that holds that virtuous citizens are mistreated by a small circle of elites, who can be overthrown if the people recognize the danger and work together. Populism depicts elites as trampling on the rights, values, and voice of the legitimate people.^[1]

Populist movements are found in many democratic nations. Cas Mudde says, "Many observers have noted that populism is inherent to representative democracy; after all, do populists not juxtapose 'the pure people' against 'the corrupt elite'?"^[2]

The current low popularity and distrust of our two major candidates suggests that generally we are failing at this model of meritocracy.  Those elites who have disproportionate influence in our culture ARE the Trumps and the Clintons, and most of us simply don't trust them.   They have wedged us into a situation where we are challenged to trust *one of them* to protect our interests from the corruptions of *the other one*.

Trump supporters seem to almost unilaterally not trust *any* politicians... they tossed all of the *other* Republicans who were standard politicians to put Trump into the election and now they are rallying to put him in to displace the most experienced, most well prepared politician of all time to become President.   It is Hillary's very strong qualifications for the role that make her so threatening to them (and some of the rest of us).

I think the recently reference Dalai Lama article in the NYT provides *some* basis for compassion for those who would use Trump as their "Molotov Cocktail" (to reference Michael Moore)...

- Steve 

On 11/6/16 9:37 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Dave,

 

I think you are dead on concerning our attitude toward “the deplorables” .  We need to know more about them and be prepared to find common ground.

 

Without taking anything away from that agreement, I want to question your last sentences about the “elites.”  As a term of contempt, it’s a little like “the deplorables”.  Who exactly are these Folks.  Do I know any of them?

 

But let’s stipulate to the existence of such elites.  Let’s assume for the moment that that the people arrayed against trump are the most experienced, well trained, members of our society.  Would it be wrong for them to have undo influence on the train of events?  What IS your position on expertise?  Do you value it?  How do we non-experts tell when an expert is making a mistake? 

 

Or, do you think that elites have their place, but they are making decisions beyond their competence.  The elites might tell us the consequences of our folly, but it is not their role to manipulate us into avoiding.  Perhaps we are all dionysians.  Perhaps we want to go down in a fiery (nuclear war) or watery (global warming) end.  Don’t we get to choose our own fate? 

 

All the best,

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2016 6:15 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

 

If Trump were to win this election, the number one reason is the insistence of democrats and liberals to demonize and marginalize the populace supporting Trump.

 

If the only people that support him are "angry" racist" "xenophobic" "out-of-work-white-men" "could-not-graduate-from-college-because-of-low-IQ" etc. etc. he could not possibly command more than 10% of the vote.

 

Trump is a terrible person — but NOT atypical of the population in general. Projecting his worst qualities onto the masses that support him is a huge, hopefully fatal, strategic mistake on the part of the Clinton campaign. But it would be simply a continuation of a fifty year trend: a small elite that firmly believe they are the only ones capable of and deserving of running the government and that anyone that opposes them is ignorant and dangerous.

 

davew

 

 

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016, at 12:12 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

My opinion: scorn is a very powerful position; you can be scornful of God.  People who feel powerless and left out find Trump appealing because they identify with the power implied by his scorn of the elite, the establishment, etc.  Remember Spiro Agnew calling the educated "pointy headed intellectuals"?

In the meantime I'm very concerned with who's going to win the election.

Frank

 

Frank Wimberly

Phone [phone]

 

 

On Nov 5, 2016 12:59 PM, "Owen Densmore" <[hidden email]> wrote:

A quote from the article is pretty telling:

 

In America today, compared with 50 years ago, three times as many working-age men are completely outside the work force. This pattern is occurring throughout the developed world — and the consequences are not merely economic. Feeling superfluous is a blow to the human spirit. It leads to social isolation and emotional pain, and creates the conditions for negative emotions to take root.

 

If I were one of them, I'd surely vote Trump.

 

We do need to get over "who's going to win?" and ask "why has Trump got such a *huge* following?"

 

   -- Owen

 

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

 

I found the article from the Dalai Lama in the NYT today fairly plausible explanation of why we have the current problem.    But, I would say, no, there will be no brotherhood with the Bundy's.   The redistributionist approach (that Brooks -- libertarian -- objects to elsewhere) arises in order to give the possibility of free enterprise, not to preserve it for those that haven't realized they've simply failed to be sufficiently enterprising.

 

 

I just took a look at the article, and it certainly is interesting and puts into perspective why wealthy countries have a "The Sky Is Falling" syndrome.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/opinion/dalai-lama-behind-our-anxiety-the-fear-of-being-unneeded.html 

 

 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

It is not inconsistent with the free market to observe that while you often cannot change people, you can (ex)change people.   Like with those that are eager to become citizens.   Surely conservatives would not argue against free markets!

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 6, 2016, at 9:37 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave,

 

I think you are dead on concerning our attitude toward “the deplorables” .  We need to know more about them and be prepared to find common ground.

 

Without taking anything away from that agreement, I want to question your last sentences about the “elites.”  As a term of contempt, it’s a little like “the deplorables”.  Who exactly are these Folks.  Do I know any of them?

 

But let’s stipulate to the existence of such elites.  Let’s assume for the moment that that the people arrayed against trump are the most experienced, well trained, members of our society.  Would it be wrong for them to have undo influence on the train of events?  What IS your position on expertise?  Do you value it?  How do we non-experts tell when an expert is making a mistake? 

 

Or, do you think that elites have their place, but they are making decisions beyond their competence.  The elites might tell us the consequences of our folly, but it is not their role to manipulate us into avoiding.  Perhaps we are all dionysians.  Perhaps we want to go down in a fiery (nuclear war) or watery (global warming) end.  Don’t we get to choose our own fate? 

 

All the best,

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2016 6:15 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

 

If Trump were to win this election, the number one reason is the insistence of democrats and liberals to demonize and marginalize the populace supporting Trump.

 

If the only people that support him are "angry" racist" "xenophobic" "out-of-work-white-men" "could-not-graduate-from-college-because-of-low-IQ" etc. etc. he could not possibly command more than 10% of the vote.

 

Trump is a terrible person — but NOT atypical of the population in general. Projecting his worst qualities onto the masses that support him is a huge, hopefully fatal, strategic mistake on the part of the Clinton campaign. But it would be simply a continuation of a fifty year trend: a small elite that firmly believe they are the only ones capable of and deserving of running the government and that anyone that opposes them is ignorant and dangerous.

 

davew

 

 

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016, at 12:12 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

My opinion: scorn is a very powerful position; you can be scornful of God.  People who feel powerless and left out find Trump appealing because they identify with the power implied by his scorn of the elite, the establishment, etc.  Remember Spiro Agnew calling the educated "pointy headed intellectuals"?

In the meantime I'm very concerned with who's going to win the election.

Frank

 

Frank Wimberly

Phone [phone]

 

 

On Nov 5, 2016 12:59 PM, "Owen Densmore" <[hidden email]> wrote:

A quote from the article is pretty telling:

 

In America today, compared with 50 years ago, three times as many working-age men are completely outside the work force. This pattern is occurring throughout the developed world — and the consequences are not merely economic. Feeling superfluous is a blow to the human spirit. It leads to social isolation and emotional pain, and creates the conditions for negative emotions to take root.

 

If I were one of them, I'd surely vote Trump.

 

We do need to get over "who's going to win?" and ask "why has Trump got such a *huge* following?"

 

   -- Owen

 

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

 

I found the article from the Dalai Lama in the NYT today fairly plausible explanation of why we have the current problem.    But, I would say, no, there will be no brotherhood with the Bundy's.   The redistributionist approach (that Brooks -- libertarian -- objects to elsewhere) arises in order to give the possibility of free enterprise, not to preserve it for those that haven't realized they've simply failed to be sufficiently enterprising.

 

 

I just took a look at the article, and it certainly is interesting and puts into perspective why wealthy countries have a "The Sky Is Falling" syndrome.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/opinion/dalai-lama-behind-our-anxiety-the-fear-of-being-unneeded.html 

 

 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Nick Thompson]

What are you talking about, Marcus.  Conservatives argue against the free market all the time!  No?

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2016 10:13 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

 

It is not inconsistent with the free market to observe that while you often cannot change people, you can (ex)change people.   Like with those that are eager to become citizens.   Surely conservatives would not argue against free markets!

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 6, 2016, at 9:37 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave,

 

I think you are dead on concerning our attitude toward “the deplorables” .  We need to know more about them and be prepared to find common ground.

 

Without taking anything away from that agreement, I want to question your last sentences about the “elites.”  As a term of contempt, it’s a little like “the deplorables”.  Who exactly are these Folks.  Do I know any of them?

 

But let’s stipulate to the existence of such elites.  Let’s assume for the moment that that the people arrayed against trump are the most experienced, well trained, members of our society.  Would it be wrong for them to have undo influence on the train of events?  What IS your position on expertise?  Do you value it?  How do we non-experts tell when an expert is making a mistake? 

 

Or, do you think that elites have their place, but they are making decisions beyond their competence.  The elites might tell us the consequences of our folly, but it is not their role to manipulate us into avoiding.  Perhaps we are all dionysians.  Perhaps we want to go down in a fiery (nuclear war) or watery (global warming) end.  Don’t we get to choose our own fate? 

 

All the best,

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2016 6:15 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

 

If Trump were to win this election, the number one reason is the insistence of democrats and liberals to demonize and marginalize the populace supporting Trump.

 

If the only people that support him are "angry" racist" "xenophobic" "out-of-work-white-men" "could-not-graduate-from-college-because-of-low-IQ" etc. etc. he could not possibly command more than 10% of the vote.

 

Trump is a terrible person — but NOT atypical of the population in general. Projecting his worst qualities onto the masses that support him is a huge, hopefully fatal, strategic mistake on the part of the Clinton campaign. But it would be simply a continuation of a fifty year trend: a small elite that firmly believe they are the only ones capable of and deserving of running the government and that anyone that opposes them is ignorant and dangerous.

 

davew

 

 

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016, at 12:12 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

My opinion: scorn is a very powerful position; you can be scornful of God.  People who feel powerless and left out find Trump appealing because they identify with the power implied by his scorn of the elite, the establishment, etc.  Remember Spiro Agnew calling the educated "pointy headed intellectuals"?

In the meantime I'm very concerned with who's going to win the election.

Frank

 

Frank Wimberly

Phone [phone]

 

 

On Nov 5, 2016 12:59 PM, "Owen Densmore" <[hidden email]> wrote:

A quote from the article is pretty telling:

 

In America today, compared with 50 years ago, three times as many working-age men are completely outside the work force. This pattern is occurring throughout the developed world — and the consequences are not merely economic. Feeling superfluous is a blow to the human spirit. It leads to social isolation and emotional pain, and creates the conditions for negative emotions to take root.

 

If I were one of them, I'd surely vote Trump.

 

We do need to get over "who's going to win?" and ask "why has Trump got such a *huge* following?"

 

   -- Owen

 

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

 

I found the article from the Dalai Lama in the NYT today fairly plausible explanation of why we have the current problem.    But, I would say, no, there will be no brotherhood with the Bundy's.   The redistributionist approach (that Brooks -- libertarian -- objects to elsewhere) arises in order to give the possibility of free enterprise, not to preserve it for those that haven't realized they've simply failed to be sufficiently enterprising.

 

 

I just took a look at the article, and it certainly is interesting and puts into perspective why wealthy countries have a "The Sky Is Falling" syndrome.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/opinion/dalai-lama-behind-our-anxiety-the-fear-of-being-unneeded.html 

 

 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Nick Thompson]

Hi Steve,

 

Oh Goody.  An ARGUMENT!

 

So.  Operationally speaking, assuming that we agree that an Elitocracy is bad and a Meritocracy is good, how do we distinguish between them?   

 

And, by the way, just to be snippy:  From what central office did the word go out to start using the “elite” in the plural?  According to your very clear definition, the term should be used in the singular.  I cannot figure out what it is, but there is some decision to not think clearly that immediately precedes uses of the term “elites”.  It rings some bell.  The Jewish Conspiracy, perhaps?  What was that thing?  The Cosmopolitan Club?  The New World Order? 

 

Ok, instead of hectoring you, let’s me try and find this key on my own piano.  I do think that wall-street bankers form a subculture that (1) confuses their own self-interest with mine and (2) has way too much power to determine events.  They are good bankers, perhaps, but their range of authority has come to exceed their domain of competence.  It’s the Peter Principle, operating at a group level, I suppose.  Ok, so I guess this corresponds to what you are calling an “elite”.  But, again, operationally speaking, how does one rationally come to such a judgement.  I guess I read Paul Krugman, and Barney Frank, etc and decide that these elites are right and them other elites are wrong?  How am I doing that? 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2016 10:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

 

Nick -

I believe one way to address your question(s) about the elites is to decide on what we mean by elite.

Quoted from Wikipedia:

Elite (from late 18th century French élite), is a term that originates from Latin eligere (“to choose, elect”). In political and sociological theory for a small group of powerful people that controls a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege or political power in a society.

If the term disproportionate says it all?  By this definition, we absolutely *don't* want the elites to have undue influence.

I think what you might really be asking is whether there is room for a (partial?) meritocracy?   Can we ever trust a minority subset of the population to make decisions for the majority population?

I would claim that representative democracies such as ours work (when and to the extent that they do) *because* we presumably select from a pool of dedicated, talented and informed individuals to form a constantly morphing meritocracy (our representatives) to make decisions in our collective best interests.

In the rhetoric I *think* you are referencing, it is more a question of populism as defined also in Wikipedia.

Populism is a political ideology that holds that virtuous citizens are mistreated by a small circle of elites, who can be overthrown if the people recognize the danger and work together. Populism depicts elites as trampling on the rights, values, and voice of the legitimate people.^[1]

Populist movements are found in many democratic nations. Cas Mudde says, "Many observers have noted that populism is inherent to representative democracy; after all, do populists not juxtapose 'the pure people' against 'the corrupt elite'?"^[2]

The current low popularity and distrust of our two major candidates suggests that generally we are failing at this model of meritocracy.  Those elites who have disproportionate influence in our culture ARE the Trumps and the Clintons, and most of us simply don't trust them.   They have wedged us into a situation where we are challenged to trust *one of them* to protect our interests from the corruptions of *the other one*.

Trump supporters seem to almost unilaterally not trust *any* politicians... they tossed all of the *other* Republicans who were standard politicians to put Trump into the election and now they are rallying to put him in to displace the most experienced, most well prepared politician of all time to become President.   It is Hillary's very strong qualifications for the role that make her so threatening to them (and some of the rest of us).

I think the recently reference Dalai Lama article in the NYT provides *some* basis for compassion for those who would use Trump as their "Molotov Cocktail" (to reference Michael Moore)...

- Steve 

On 11/6/16 9:37 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Dave,

 

I think you are dead on concerning our attitude toward “the deplorables” .  We need to know more about them and be prepared to find common ground.

 

Without taking anything away from that agreement, I want to question your last sentences about the “elites.”  As a term of contempt, it’s a little like “the deplorables”.  Who exactly are these Folks.  Do I know any of them?

 

But let’s stipulate to the existence of such elites.  Let’s assume for the moment that that the people arrayed against trump are the most experienced, well trained, members of our society.  Would it be wrong for them to have undo influence on the train of events?  What IS your position on expertise?  Do you value it?  How do we non-experts tell when an expert is making a mistake? 

 

Or, do you think that elites have their place, but they are making decisions beyond their competence.  The elites might tell us the consequences of our folly, but it is not their role to manipulate us into avoiding.  Perhaps we are all dionysians.  Perhaps we want to go down in a fiery (nuclear war) or watery (global warming) end.  Don’t we get to choose our own fate? 

 

All the best,

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2016 6:15 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

 

If Trump were to win this election, the number one reason is the insistence of democrats and liberals to demonize and marginalize the populace supporting Trump.

 

If the only people that support him are "angry" racist" "xenophobic" "out-of-work-white-men" "could-not-graduate-from-college-because-of-low-IQ" etc. etc. he could not possibly command more than 10% of the vote.

 

Trump is a terrible person — but NOT atypical of the population in general. Projecting his worst qualities onto the masses that support him is a huge, hopefully fatal, strategic mistake on the part of the Clinton campaign. But it would be simply a continuation of a fifty year trend: a small elite that firmly believe they are the only ones capable of and deserving of running the government and that anyone that opposes them is ignorant and dangerous.

 

davew

 

 

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016, at 12:12 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

My opinion: scorn is a very powerful position; you can be scornful of God.  People who feel powerless and left out find Trump appealing because they identify with the power implied by his scorn of the elite, the establishment, etc.  Remember Spiro Agnew calling the educated "pointy headed intellectuals"?

In the meantime I'm very concerned with who's going to win the election.

Frank

 

Frank Wimberly

Phone [phone]

 

 

On Nov 5, 2016 12:59 PM, "Owen Densmore" <[hidden email]> wrote:

A quote from the article is pretty telling:

 

In America today, compared with 50 years ago, three times as many working-age men are completely outside the work force. This pattern is occurring throughout the developed world — and the consequences are not merely economic. Feeling superfluous is a blow to the human spirit. It leads to social isolation and emotional pain, and creates the conditions for negative emotions to take root.

 

If I were one of them, I'd surely vote Trump.

 

We do need to get over "who's going to win?" and ask "why has Trump got such a *huge* following?"

 

   -- Owen

 

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

 

I found the article from the Dalai Lama in the NYT today fairly plausible explanation of why we have the current problem.    But, I would say, no, there will be no brotherhood with the Bundy's.   The redistributionist approach (that Brooks -- libertarian -- objects to elsewhere) arises in order to give the possibility of free enterprise, not to preserve it for those that haven't realized they've simply failed to be sufficiently enterprising.

 

 

I just took a look at the article, and it certainly is interesting and puts into perspective why wealthy countries have a "The Sky Is Falling" syndrome.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/opinion/dalai-lama-behind-our-anxiety-the-fear-of-being-unneeded.html 

 

 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Steve Smith]

Thompson!


Oh boy an ARGUMENT!   But about what?  I'm not sure... but that shan't
slow me down!

As a matter of practice, I think *anyone* who thinks they are uniquely
qualified to make decisions for others is "elite" or a member of "an
elite" (or more acutely "the elite").   This includes Billionaires (faux
or real) and Career Politicians (and Wall Street bankers, and Captains
of Industry and ...) .

They, of course, would claim that they achieved their status through
their own merits.   Trump "earned" his money and Hillary "worked her way
up through the trenches" and they both believe that they are uniquely
qualified to have undue sway over our collective futures. I contend that
THEY both believe themselves to be at the pinnacle of a meritocracy...
one measured in $$ and the other in political success.  "I am rich (or
powerful) because I am *good*!"

Many of the rest of us question this.  We suspect them *both* of
achieving their respective successes by "gaming the  system", and some
of us might even suggest that the financial system as well as our
political system can ONLY be succeeded in through gaming at some level.  
Especially in the extreme?

What do we do with the likes of Bernie?  Is he just another "elite"?  Or
is there another class of people who really do work for and earn their
successes and leave the "gaming of the system" to others?  I want to see
Bernie as a Career Statesman rather than a Politician...but that might
just be my Polyanna showing through. I'm also more willing to see Gary
Johnson as a "Successful Businessman" than Donald Trump, despite the
many orders of magnitude difference in (presumed?) net worth.   Gary
might have obtained much of his own (relative) wealth/success through
various forms of gaming the system, but not as blatantly or egregiously
as "the Donald" seems to have.

I believe your hair splitting regarding the singular or plural use of
the term "elite" is apt.   I believe that when it is used singularly:
"Donald Trump believes he is elite"; it's meaning is pretty obvious and
straightforward.  He believes that he has (and deserves) to have an
inordinate amount of influence on other's lives (You're FIRED!).   When
it is used in the collective "Hillary is a member of 'the elite' " we
are probably using it as a code-word for "those people" which, depending
on your biases could mean a lot of things.   The wealthy, the
politically powerful, the influential, the educated, are all probably
referred to as "the elite" by some group, most likely those without
wealth, political power, influence or education.

As somewhat of a libertarian (not Glen's dreaded "Libertarian") or
anarchist, I defeat this by ignoring it (for the most part).   I believe
that  the power of "the elites" can be taken from them simply by
ignoring them.  There are some people who would not work for Donald
Trump at ANY PRICE, as there are others who would not defer to Hillary
under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.   I might be one of those people, there may be a
number of others on this list as well.

What are we arguing about again?

- Smith

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Eric Charles-2]

I cannot find a link at the moment, but this reminds me of an excellent rant by Jon Stewart from a few years back about the use of "elite" as an insult against Obama. Jon's point was that while it makes sense to criticize a President if he is being "an elitist", it is pretty safe to say that we want our president to be "elite". Presumably this invocation is in the sense of an "elite athlete" or other person at the top of their game.

So, add into the mix of terms for this discussion: "elitist" and "elitism" ( with "elite" and "the elite" already on the table).

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thompson!


Oh boy an ARGUMENT!   But about what?  I'm not sure... but that shan't slow me down!

As a matter of practice, I think *anyone* who thinks they are uniquely qualified to make decisions for others is "elite" or a member of "an elite" (or more acutely "the elite").   This includes Billionaires (faux or real) and Career Politicians (and Wall Street bankers, and Captains of Industry and ...) .

They, of course, would claim that they achieved their status through their own merits.   Trump "earned" his money and Hillary "worked her way up through the trenches" and they both believe that they are uniquely qualified to have undue sway over our collective futures. I contend that THEY both believe themselves to be at the pinnacle of a meritocracy... one measured in $$ and the other in political success.  "I am rich (or powerful) because I am *good*!"

Many of the rest of us question this.  We suspect them *both* of achieving their respective successes by "gaming the  system", and some of us might even suggest that the financial system as well as our political system can ONLY be succeeded in through gaming at some level.  Especially in the extreme?

What do we do with the likes of Bernie?  Is he just another "elite"?  Or is there another class of people who really do work for and earn their successes and leave the "gaming of the system" to others?  I want to see Bernie as a Career Statesman rather than a Politician...but that might just be my Polyanna showing through. I'm also more willing to see Gary Johnson as a "Successful Businessman" than Donald Trump, despite the many orders of magnitude difference in (presumed?) net worth.   Gary might have obtained much of his own (relative) wealth/success through various forms of gaming the system, but not as blatantly or egregiously as "the Donald" seems to have.

I believe your hair splitting regarding the singular or plural use of the term "elite" is apt.   I believe that when it is used singularly: "Donald Trump believes he is elite"; it's meaning is pretty obvious and straightforward.  He believes that he has (and deserves) to have an inordinate amount of influence on other's lives (You're FIRED!).   When it is used in the collective "Hillary is a member of 'the elite' " we are probably using it as a code-word for "those people" which, depending on your biases could mean a lot of things.   The wealthy, the politically powerful, the influential, the educated, are all probably referred to as "the elite" by some group, most likely those without wealth, political power, influence or education.

As somewhat of a libertarian (not Glen's dreaded "Libertarian") or anarchist, I defeat this by ignoring it (for the most part).   I believe that  the power of "the elites" can be taken from them simply by ignoring them.  There are some people who would not work for Donald Trump at ANY PRICE, as there are others who would not defer to Hillary under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.   I might be one of those people, there may be a number of others on this list as well.

What are we arguing about again?

- Smith

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

On 11/05/2016 11:59 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> We do need to get over "who's going to win?​" and ask "why has Trump got such a *huge* following?"

The Anti-Democratic Heart of Populism
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/anti-democratic-politics-of-populism-by-andres-velasco-2016-10

"Populism rests on a toxic triad: denial of complexity, anti-pluralism, and a crooked version of representation."

Perhaps we, here in an applied complexity clique, are at least partially to blame for allowing people to deny complexity?  Of course, I suppose I could be pissing in the wind, here, because at least half of the people who study complexity are crypto-reductionists who believe that all complex phenomena arise from simple rules (with particular characteristics).  If we just dig deep enough, think hard enough, compute fast and large enough, everything is, deep down, essentially, foundationally, simple.  But even were that true, practical, near-term solutions to complex problems will be complex.

--
␦glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

"Of course, I suppose I could be pissing in the wind, here, because at least half of the people who study complexity are crypto-reductionists who believe that all complex phenomena arise from simple rules (with particular characteristics).  If we just dig deep enough, think hard enough, compute fast and large enough, everything is, deep down, essentially, foundationally, simple.  But even were that true, practical, near-term solutions to complex problems will be complex."

Reductionism is a null hypothesis:   First make sure something doesn't yield to decomposition.  

Marcus    
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

On 11/07/2016 08:01 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Reductionism is a null hypothesis:   First make sure something doesn't yield to decomposition.  

But there's rarely time or political capital to do that _first_.  Obamacare is a great example.  Had we focused on an essentialist solution, nothing would have been done ... perhaps nothing would ever be done.  So, I would say commit to iterative solutions, which implies the _first_ one won't be fully decomposed.

And that's alongside the fundamental (complex systems) point that because we don't/can't measure all the externalities, the interventionist conception of mechanism requires that we _first_ put in place a solution ... any Rube Goldberg attempt at a solution, then measure its impact and respond.

--
␦glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 11/07/2016 08:01 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Reductionism is a null hypothesis:   First make sure something doesn't yield to decomposition.  

Glen writes:

"But there's rarely time or political capital to do that _first_.  Obamacare is a great example.  Had we focused on an essentialist solution, nothing would have been done ... perhaps nothing would ever be done.  So, I would say commit to iterative solutions, which implies the _first_ one won't be fully decomposed."

I agree with that too.   The example that comes to mind is the use of statistical inference where direct measurement is possible but is more expensive.   If strong inferences can't be made and cross validated, just take the best ones and go back to experiment ASAP.   In the very complex social and biological sciences, just do _something_ and learn from the consequences (e.g. Affordable Care Act, immunotherapy, genetic engineering), because you'll never _really_ know what you are talking about unless you perturb the system in a lot of ways.

But, after a lot of experience, a decomposition may become evident.   As opposed to the situation of having N variables all coupled to each other in some non-linear, non-convex way.  

Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Owen Densmore]

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

If Trump were to win this election, the number one reason is the insistence of democrats and liberals to demonize and marginalize the populace supporting Trump.

If the only people that support him are "angry" racist" "xenophobic" "out-of-work-white-men" "could-not-graduate-from-college-because-of-low-IQ" etc. etc. he could not possibly command more than 10% of the vote.

Trump is a terrible person — but NOT atypical of the population in general. Projecting his worst qualities onto the masses that support him is a huge, hopefully fatal, strategic mistake on the part of the Clinton campaign. But it would be simply a continuation of a fifty year trend: a small elite that firmly believe they are the only ones capable of and deserving of running the government and that anyone that opposes them is ignorant and dangerous.

davew

Thank God some of us are taking seriously the "But Why?" question re: Trump's popularity. Thank you!

We simply must take seriously the fact that nearly half of the US is going to vote for Trump, and ask yourself "Why?".

   -- Owen

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016, at 12:12 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

My opinion: scorn is a very powerful position; you can be scornful of God.  People who feel powerless and left out find Trump appealing because they identify with the power implied by his scorn of the elite, the establishment, etc.  Remember Spiro Agnew calling the educated "pointy headed intellectuals"?

In the meantime I'm very concerned with who's going to win the election.

Frank

Frank Wimberly

Phone <a href="tel:%28505%29%20670-9918" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]

On Nov 5, 2016 12:59 PM, "Owen Densmore" <[hidden email]> wrote:

A quote from the article is pretty telling:

In America today, compared with 50 years ago, three times as many working-age men are completely outside the work force. This pattern is occurring throughout the developed world — and the consequences are not merely economic. Feeling superfluous is a blow to the human spirit. It leads to social isolation and emotional pain, and creates the conditions for negative emotions to take root.

If I were one of them, I'd surely vote Trump.

We do need to get over "who's going to win?" and ask "why has Trump got such a *huge* following?"

   -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Owen Densmore]

Re: Elites -- I think the most important part of the concept is that they aren't even aware they *are* elite. They just keep trucking. And no blame, just maybe a bit of humility and self awareness would be good for them to add to their mix.

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

If Trump were to win this election, the number one reason is the insistence of democrats and liberals to demonize and marginalize the populace supporting Trump.

If the only people that support him are "angry" racist" "xenophobic" "out-of-work-white-men" "could-not-graduate-from-college-because-of-low-IQ" etc. etc. he could not possibly command more than 10% of the vote.

Trump is a terrible person — but NOT atypical of the population in general. Projecting his worst qualities onto the masses that support him is a huge, hopefully fatal, strategic mistake on the part of the Clinton campaign. But it would be simply a continuation of a fifty year trend: a small elite that firmly believe they are the only ones capable of and deserving of running the government and that anyone that opposes them is ignorant and dangerous.

davew

Thank God some of us are taking seriously the "But Why?" question re: Trump's popularity. Thank you!

We simply must take seriously the fact that nearly half of the US is going to vote for Trump, and ask yourself "Why?".

   -- Owen

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016, at 12:12 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

My opinion: scorn is a very powerful position; you can be scornful of God.  People who feel powerless and left out find Trump appealing because they identify with the power implied by his scorn of the elite, the establishment, etc.  Remember Spiro Agnew calling the educated "pointy headed intellectuals"?

In the meantime I'm very concerned with who's going to win the election.

Frank

Frank Wimberly

Phone <a href="tel:%28505%29%20670-9918" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]

On Nov 5, 2016 12:59 PM, "Owen Densmore" <[hidden email]> wrote:

A quote from the article is pretty telling:

In America today, compared with 50 years ago, three times as many working-age men are completely outside the work force. This pattern is occurring throughout the developed world — and the consequences are not merely economic. Feeling superfluous is a blow to the human spirit. It leads to social isolation and emotional pain, and creates the conditions for negative emotions to take root.

If I were one of them, I'd surely vote Trump.

We do need to get over "who's going to win?" and ask "why has Trump got such a *huge* following?"

   -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Owen Densmore]

And to be fair, at least the Elites we're discussing, I think, are for both helping reduce poverty and providing free/affordable higher education. How so very Euro!

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Re: Elites -- I think the most important part of the concept is that they aren't even aware they *are* elite. They just keep trucking. And no blame, just maybe a bit of humility and self awareness would be good for them to add to their mix.

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

If Trump were to win this election, the number one reason is the insistence of democrats and liberals to demonize and marginalize the populace supporting Trump.

If the only people that support him are "angry" racist" "xenophobic" "out-of-work-white-men" "could-not-graduate-from-college-because-of-low-IQ" etc. etc. he could not possibly command more than 10% of the vote.

Trump is a terrible person — but NOT atypical of the population in general. Projecting his worst qualities onto the masses that support him is a huge, hopefully fatal, strategic mistake on the part of the Clinton campaign. But it would be simply a continuation of a fifty year trend: a small elite that firmly believe they are the only ones capable of and deserving of running the government and that anyone that opposes them is ignorant and dangerous.

davew

Thank God some of us are taking seriously the "But Why?" question re: Trump's popularity. Thank you!

We simply must take seriously the fact that nearly half of the US is going to vote for Trump, and ask yourself "Why?".

   -- Owen

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016, at 12:12 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

My opinion: scorn is a very powerful position; you can be scornful of God.  People who feel powerless and left out find Trump appealing because they identify with the power implied by his scorn of the elite, the establishment, etc.  Remember Spiro Agnew calling the educated "pointy headed intellectuals"?

In the meantime I'm very concerned with who's going to win the election.

Frank

Frank Wimberly

Phone <a href="tel:%28505%29%20670-9918" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]

On Nov 5, 2016 12:59 PM, "Owen Densmore" <[hidden email]> wrote:

A quote from the article is pretty telling:

In America today, compared with 50 years ago, three times as many working-age men are completely outside the work force. This pattern is occurring throughout the developed world — and the consequences are not merely economic. Feeling superfluous is a blow to the human spirit. It leads to social isolation and emotional pain, and creates the conditions for negative emotions to take root.

If I were one of them, I'd surely vote Trump.

We do need to get over "who's going to win?" and ask "why has Trump got such a *huge* following?"

   -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

<<We simply must take seriously the fact that nearly half of the US is going to vote for Trump, and ask yourself "Why?">

It is useful to study how cancers work and spread.   But right *now* what's needed is radiation to stop the tumor growth.

Marcus

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 10:04:28 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

 

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

If Trump were to win this election, the number one reason is the insistence of democrats and liberals to demonize and marginalize the populace supporting Trump.

If the only people that support him are "angry" racist" "xenophobic" "out-of-work-white-men" "could-not-graduate-from-college-because-of-low-IQ" etc. etc. he could not possibly command more than 10% of the vote.

Trump is a terrible person — but NOT atypical of the population in general. Projecting his worst qualities onto the masses that support him is a huge, hopefully fatal, strategic mistake on the part of the Clinton campaign. But it would be simply a continuation of a fifty year trend: a small elite that firmly believe they are the only ones capable of and deserving of running the government and that anyone that opposes them is ignorant and dangerous.

davew

Thank God some of us are taking seriously the "But Why?" question re: Trump's popularity. Thank you!

We simply must take seriously the fact that nearly half of the US is going to vote for Trump, and ask yourself "Why?".

   -- Owen

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016, at 12:12 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

My opinion: scorn is a very powerful position; you can be scornful of God.  People who feel powerless and left out find Trump appealing because they identify with the power implied by his scorn of the elite, the establishment, etc.  Remember Spiro Agnew calling the educated "pointy headed intellectuals"?

In the meantime I'm very concerned with who's going to win the election.

Frank

Frank Wimberly

Phone <a href="tel:%28505%29%20670-9918" value="&#43;15056709918" target="_blank"> [phone]

On Nov 5, 2016 12:59 PM, "Owen Densmore" <[hidden email]> wrote:

A quote from the article is pretty telling:

In America today, compared with 50 years ago, three times as many working-age men are completely outside the work force. This pattern is occurring throughout the developed world — and the consequences are not merely economic. Feeling superfluous is a blow to the human spirit. It leads to social isolation and emotional pain, and creates the conditions for negative emotions to take root.

If I were one of them, I'd surely vote Trump.

We do need to get over "who's going to win?" and ask "why has Trump got such a *huge* following?"

   -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

Dave's screed does not take the question seriously.  It (over)simply accuses the Clinton campaign of over-simplifying.  (Then it goes a step further and hopes Clinton's oversimplifying is fatal so that the other oversimplifier wins the election.)  But we don't want to commit tu quoqe.  Just because Dave's guilty of the same thing both Clinton and Trump are guilty of doesn't make him wrong.

What makes Dave's screed wrong is that Trump is NOT typical, not even in the slightest.  To say that Trump is not atypical of the population in general is a massive error.  To say that Trump is not atypical even of his supporters is only a major error.  Heck, even Peter Thiel (whatever repugnant political views he may hold) is so seriously different from Trump, any comparison will fail.  So, were Dave to extract his gist from its surrounding wrongness, it would be a tiny bit better: Trump is not his supporters.  He is (merely) the emergent tool (naturfact) latched onto by that demographic.

Trump's success during this campaign reflects the populism that is gaining ground all over the world.  And it's systemic (neither all good, nor all bad) to democratic systems.  And the founding fathers knew about it.  We've discussed it some on this list cf Arrow's Theorem, etc.  Ranting about elitism throws the baby out with the bathwater.


On 11/07/2016 09:04 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> Thank God some of us are taking seriously the "But Why?" question re: Trump's popularity. Thank you!
>
> We simply must take seriously the fact that nearly half of the US is going to vote for Trump, and ask yourself "Why?".


--
␦glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[cody dooderson]

It might not be too late to start the free edX course on voting fraud. https://www.edx.org/course/us-voting-access-fraud-davidsonx-davnowxvoting .

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:43 AM, ┣glen┫ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave's screed does not take the question seriously.  It (over)simply accuses the Clinton campaign of over-simplifying.  (Then it goes a step further and hopes Clinton's oversimplifying is fatal so that the other oversimplifier wins the election.)  But we don't want to commit tu quoqe.  Just because Dave's guilty of the same thing both Clinton and Trump are guilty of doesn't make him wrong.

What makes Dave's screed wrong is that Trump is NOT typical, not even in the slightest.  To say that Trump is not atypical of the population in general is a massive error.  To say that Trump is not atypical even of his supporters is only a major error.  Heck, even Peter Thiel (whatever repugnant political views he may hold) is so seriously different from Trump, any comparison will fail.  So, were Dave to extract his gist from its surrounding wrongness, it would be a tiny bit better: Trump is not his supporters.  He is (merely) the emergent tool (naturfact) latched onto by that demographic.

Trump's success during this campaign reflects the populism that is gaining ground all over the world.  And it's systemic (neither all good, nor all bad) to democratic systems.  And the founding fathers knew about it.  We've discussed it some on this list cf Arrow's Theorem, etc.  Ranting about elitism throws the baby out with the bathwater.


On 11/07/2016 09:04 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> Thank God some of us are taking seriously the "But Why?" question re: Trump's popularity. Thank you!
>
> We simply must take seriously the fact that nearly half of the US is going to vote for Trump, and ask yourself "Why?".


--
␦glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

I'm more worried about data loss (data corruption of memory sticks, software bugs in scanning votes), or voter suppression.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/11/we_looked_at_130_million_ballots_from_the_2012_election_and_found_zero_fraud.html

We Looked at 130 Million Ballots From the 2012 Election and Found Practically Zero Potential Fraud www.slate.com In the months leading up to Tuesday’s vote, Donald Trump has repeatedly asserted that there will be rampant voter fraud on Election Day, stoking fears ...

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of cody dooderson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 11:29:00 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

 

It might not be too late to start the free edX course on voting fraud. https://www.edx.org/course/us-voting-access-fraud-davidsonx-davnowxvoting .

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:43 AM, ┣glen┫ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave's screed does not take the question seriously.  It (over)simply accuses the Clinton campaign of over-simplifying.  (Then it goes a step further and hopes Clinton's oversimplifying is fatal so that the other oversimplifier wins the election.)  But we don't want to commit tu quoqe.  Just because Dave's guilty of the same thing both Clinton and Trump are guilty of doesn't make him wrong.

What makes Dave's screed wrong is that Trump is NOT typical, not even in the slightest.  To say that Trump is not atypical of the population in general is a massive error.  To say that Trump is not atypical even of his supporters is only a major error.  Heck, even Peter Thiel (whatever repugnant political views he may hold) is so seriously different from Trump, any comparison will fail.  So, were Dave to extract his gist from its surrounding wrongness, it would be a tiny bit better: Trump is not his supporters.  He is (merely) the emergent tool (naturfact) latched onto by that demographic.

Trump's success during this campaign reflects the populism that is gaining ground all over the world.  And it's systemic (neither all good, nor all bad) to democratic systems.  And the founding fathers knew about it.  We've discussed it some on this list cf Arrow's Theorem, etc.  Ranting about elitism throws the baby out with the bathwater.


On 11/07/2016 09:04 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> Thank God some of us are taking seriously the "But Why?" question re: Trump's popularity. Thank you!
>
> We simply must take seriously the fact that nearly half of the US is going to vote for Trump, and ask yourself "Why?".


--
␦glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove