Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

[gepr]

It's interesting to think about verification, validation, and optimization.  But most of that is premature if the _model_ is the cause of the behavior we want to avoid.  E.g.

   Has democracy become a threat to the planet?
   http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/has-democracy-become-a-threat-to-the-planet-1.2853289

Sure, if the electoral vote boils down to a popular vote count in one or more states, then things like voter access/fraud/suppression and tampering become important.  But if, even assuming zero popular vote error, voting leads to an unintentionally self-destructive outcome, then the model should be fixed regardless of the model's implementation.

The "mazel tov cocktail" (http://crooksandliars.com/2016/11/trump-surrogate-calls-molotov-cocktail) aspect of voting for Trump is quite clear, to me.  If it were clear to everyone that a vote for Trump is a vote for annihilation, and the majority of people vote to kill themselves, then I'm all for it.  But Trump supporters don't express that.  They express the idea that Trump would improve things (and not blow us all to hell).  That means that Trump voters don't _intend_ the bad outcome that most rational people expect, were he elected.  This means there's a flaw in the model, regardless of any VV&A problems.


On 11/07/2016 11:42 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> 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
>
> <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 <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>
> 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 .

--
☣ 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]

Because we love philosophy here (!), an excerpt from Simon Critchley's article in the NYT:

"The lesson of existentialism is that the nausea that we feel is actually the emergence of a genuine, lived sense of our freedom. Anxiety is the motor that drives the engine of freedom and that can take concrete shape in commitment and a vision of collective action in the world."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/opinion/on-election-eve-a-brexistential-dread.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ?glen?
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 10:44 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight


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

[gepr]

On 11/07/2016 12:59 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/opinion/on-election-eve-a-brexistential-dread.html

I like this quote better:
"The point is not to despair, for that is exactly the reaction that people like Trump want to induce in those who oppose him. The point is to push."

During an argument (with liberals, but over beer, so it was OK) Friday night, I was describing how robots could do lots of things we simply won't do (like read and criticize journal articles to help mitigate things like this: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/9/160384 -- or perhaps analyze 650k emails looking for classified info).  I lamented the loss of menial tasks to the robots ... like grinding and brewing coffee... which is a more pleasant experience than drinking it.  My liberal friends trotted out the idea that there is no rational argument for voting for Trump, to which I applied the molotov coctail argument.  They both accepted that it was rational, but unreasonable.

I have the same existential reaction to robots brewing coffee as I do Trump being elected.  It's not dread, at all.  It's exciting.  I can't empathize with Trump voters any more than I can empathize with vandals, MMA fighters, or the drug addicts I sporadically bump into on city streets.  But I do get excited... danger is good ... and not roller coaster "danger"... _real_ danger.  It's good for the soul to find yourself in a dangerous situation and search for ways out of it.  It's fun when you're forced to code switch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code-switching) ... which I expect I'll be doing if Trump is elected. 8^)

--
☣ 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

[Gary Schiltz-4]

"I have the same existential reaction to robots brewing coffee as I do Trump being elected.  It's not dread, at all.  It's exciting."

I guess I have less tolerance for excitement than you have. But then, living at a distance (Ecuador) from the fracus, I am somewhat insulated from the immediate effects of the election. Still, the bulk of my nest egg is in the USA, so I don't want to see the whole thing fall apart.

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:36 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 11/07/2016 12:59 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/opinion/on-election-eve-a-brexistential-dread.html

I like this quote better:
"The point is not to despair, for that is exactly the reaction that people like Trump want to induce in those who oppose him. The point is to push."

During an argument (with liberals, but over beer, so it was OK) Friday night, I was describing how robots could do lots of things we simply won't do (like read and criticize journal articles to help mitigate things like this: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/9/160384 -- or perhaps analyze 650k emails looking for classified info).  I lamented the loss of menial tasks to the robots ... like grinding and brewing coffee... which is a more pleasant experience than drinking it.  My liberal friends trotted out the idea that there is no rational argument for voting for Trump, to which I applied the molotov coctail argument.  They both accepted that it was rational, but unreasonable.

I have the same existential reaction to robots brewing coffee as I do Trump being elected.  It's not dread, at all.  It's exciting.  I can't empathize with Trump voters any more than I can empathize with vandals, MMA fighters, or the drug addicts I sporadically bump into on city streets.  But I do get excited... danger is good ... and not roller coaster "danger"... _real_ danger.  It's good for the soul to find yourself in a dangerous situation and search for ways out of it.  It's fun when you're forced to code switch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code-switching) ... which I expect I'll be doing if Trump is elected. 8^)

--
☣ 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 have the same existential reaction to robots brewing coffee as I do Trump being elected.  It's not dread, at all.  It's exciting.  I can't empathize with Trump voters any more than I can empathize with vandals, MMA fighters, or the drug addicts I sporadically bump into on city streets.  But I do get excited... danger is good ... and not roller coaster "danger"... _real_ danger.  It's good for the soul to find yourself in a dangerous situation and search for ways out of it.>>

I know what you mean, but I don't expect to experience it as personal danger, at least right away.   With some code switching, the new danger in the world could even benefit me.  (`Benefit' defined in a banal survivalist sort of way.)    The point is that at some point there is nothing worth building or protecting any more -- it just becomes a bunch of feral creatures to be ranked by how hard they might bite.   Maybe I'll get the luxury of biting back from time to time, especially if it is an orange-haired Godzilla type creature that rubs me the wrong way.   But really, why bother?  

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

[Steve Smith]

This probably reflects my naivete, but I'm not sure I understand why
either of you (Marcus or Glen) expect to need to do significantly more
"code switching" than you probably already do to bridge different
communities or aspect of your life?

Are you suggesting that there will be a new system in place that you
either feel a need (or requirement) to "game" through some form of
duplicity?

I agree with (you) Glen that it can be *heady* to have the opportunity
(and maybe compulsion?) to game a system, but maybe I'm just getting too
old to enjoy it properly?



On 11/7/16 3:58 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> <<I have the same existential reaction to robots brewing coffee as I do Trump being elected.  It's not dread, at all.  It's exciting.  I can't empathize with Trump voters any more than I can empathize with vandals, MMA fighters, or the drug addicts I sporadically bump into on city streets.  But I do get excited... danger is good ... and not roller coaster "danger"... _real_ danger.  It's good for the soul to find yourself in a dangerous situation and search for ways out of it.>>
>
> I know what you mean, but I don't expect to experience it as personal danger, at least right away.   With some code switching, the new danger in the world could even benefit me.  (`Benefit' defined in a banal survivalist sort of way.)    The point is that at some point there is nothing worth building or protecting any more -- it just becomes a bunch of feral creatures to be ranked by how hard they might bite.   Maybe I'll get the luxury of biting back from time to time, especially if it is an orange-haired Godzilla type creature that rubs me the wrong way.   But really, why bother?
>
> 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

============================================================
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]

Steve writes:

"I'm not sure I understand why 

either of you (Marcus or Glen) expect to need to do significantly more 
"code switching" than you probably already do to bridge different 
communities or aspect of your life?"

Imagine an agent-based model where there are two worlds,  D and H, each with their unique constraints.  Then there are tactics that agents G or M can execute.   These tactics are a little different for G and M's unique capabilities,  as they are for hundreds of millions of other agents.  The G and M agents will load up different tactic decks that will optimize for hazards in worlds D and H in different ways.  I can't speak for the G agent, but the M agent finds the tactics he can load to function in the H world more interesting than the ones in the D world.   But M will go ahead and load and elaborate the D tactics if push comes to shove.   M would rather not waste cycles and memory on the D deck.  

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Steven A Smith <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 6:28:27 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

 

This probably reflects my naivete, but I'm not sure I understand why
either of you (Marcus or Glen) expect to need to do significantly more
"code switching" than you probably already do to bridge different
communities or aspect of your life?

Are you suggesting that there will be a new system in place that you
either feel a need (or requirement) to "game" through some form of
duplicity?

I agree with (you) Glen that it can be *heady* to have the opportunity
(and maybe compulsion?) to game a system, but maybe I'm just getting too
old to enjoy it properly?



On 11/7/16 3:58 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> <<I have the same existential reaction to robots brewing coffee as I do Trump being elected.  It's not dread, at all.  It's exciting.  I can't empathize with Trump voters any more than I can empathize with vandals, MMA fighters, or the drug addicts I sporadically bump into on city streets.  But I do get excited... danger is good ... and not roller coaster "danger"... _real_ danger.  It's good for the soul to find yourself in a dangerous situation and search for ways out of it.>>
>
> I know what you mean, but I don't expect to experience it as personal danger, at least right away.   With some code switching, the new danger in the world could even benefit me.  (`Benefit' defined in a banal survivalist sort of way.)    The point is that at some point there is nothing worth building or protecting any more -- it just becomes a bunch of feral creatures to be ranked by how hard they might bite.   Maybe I'll get the luxury of biting back from time to time, especially if it is an orange-haired Godzilla type creature that rubs me the wrong way.   But really, why bother?
>
> 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


============================================================
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]

That's it in the abstract. But to be more concrete, if Trump wins, I'll have to talk with various people about specific consequences of whatever his administration does. Eg since Renee's a nurse and I have cancer, I have to discuss healthcare and insurance and unions in specific. With Obama and Clinton, I have little trouble engaging seriously. With Trump, I'll have to pretend to treat it seriously and discuss without calling him an idiot. I'm used to this type of code switch when I go home and talk to the right wingers in my family. But if Trump wins I expect I'll have to do it up here too.

I _could_ just be a jerk for the next 4-8 years and refuse to try. But that causes me more stress than simply switching and engage.

On November 7, 2016 5:55:54 PM PST, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Steve writes:
>
>
>"I'm not sure I understand why
>
>either of you (Marcus or Glen) expect to need to do significantly more
>"code switching" than you probably already do to bridge different
>communities or aspect of your life?"
>
>
>Imagine an agent-based model where there are two worlds,  D and H, each
>with their unique constraints.  Then there are tactics that agents G or
>M can execute.   These tactics are a little different for G and M's
>unique capabilities,  as they are for hundreds of millions of other
>agents.  The G and M agents will load up different tactic decks that
>will optimize for hazards in worlds D and H in different ways.  I can't
>speak for the G agent, but the M agent finds the tactics he can load to
>function in the H world more interesting than the ones in the D world.
>But M will go ahead and load and elaborate the D tactics if push comes
>to shove.   M would rather not waste cycles and memory on the D deck.

--
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]

"I'm used to this type of code switch when I go home and talk to the right wingers in my family. But if Trump wins I expect I'll have to do it up here too."

An elaboration of my metaphor would be that some of the tactics run in an interpreter (D) and some are compiled (H).  The interpreter (pretending) is fine if it infrequent autopilot like holidays, but too much overhead for daily head-to-head with competing agents that have affinity for D worlds.   Having to recompile for the D is doable, but it feels like a cage and uses up time (life) in a way I find useless.   But I've done such things before.  I can tell it makes me not a nice person even when I'm doing it.    I guess I can say to myself, "Look what you made me do."

I've also benefited from Affordable Health Care Act patient protections, e.g. a property of the H world.  That these protections could just go away will decrease my productivity and could well reduce the total taxes I pay over my working life.  

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

[Nick Thompson]

“unreasonable but rational”

 

Hang on, here, folks. 

 

Did they mean, perhaps, “reasonable but their premises really suck”  “Rational” has to do with the relation between premises and conclusions.  Paranoids are sometimes entirely rational but they are operating on really weird premises.  There are two kinds of premises, factual and … er … the other kind.  “If Barack Obama was born in Kenya, he shouldn’t be president; Barack Obama was born in Kenya; Barack Obama shouldn’t be President.” Is a rational argument.  Here the fault is with the factual premise.  “A black man should not be president; Barack Obama is black; Barack Obama shouldn’t be President.”  Here the problem is with the … um … other kind of premise. 

 

Which kinds of errors are we “elites” accused of when we say, “Trump shouldn’t be President.”  Which kinds of errors are we elites accusing the Trumpers of when we they say he should.  Are they irrational?  Are they using the wrong factual premises?  Or are they using wrong premises of the other kind?

 

N

 

 

 

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 Gary Schiltz
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 3:47 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

 

"I have the same existential reaction to robots brewing coffee as I do Trump being elected.  It's not dread, at all.  It's exciting."

 

I guess I have less tolerance for excitement than you have. But then, living at a distance (Ecuador) from the fracus, I am somewhat insulated from the immediate effects of the election. Still, the bulk of my nest egg is in the USA, so I don't want to see the whole thing fall apart.

 

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:36 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 11/07/2016 12:59 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/opinion/on-election-eve-a-brexistential-dread.html

I like this quote better:
"The point is not to despair, for that is exactly the reaction that people like Trump want to induce in those who oppose him. The point is to push."

During an argument (with liberals, but over beer, so it was OK) Friday night, I was describing how robots could do lots of things we simply won't do (like read and criticize journal articles to help mitigate things like this: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/9/160384 -- or perhaps analyze 650k emails looking for classified info).  I lamented the loss of menial tasks to the robots ... like grinding and brewing coffee... which is a more pleasant experience than drinking it.  My liberal friends trotted out the idea that there is no rational argument for voting for Trump, to which I applied the molotov coctail argument.  They both accepted that it was rational, but unreasonable.

I have the same existential reaction to robots brewing coffee as I do Trump being elected.  It's not dread, at all.  It's exciting.  I can't empathize with Trump voters any more than I can empathize with vandals, MMA fighters, or the drug addicts I sporadically bump into on city streets.  But I do get excited... danger is good ... and not roller coaster "danger"... _real_ danger.  It's good for the soul to find yourself in a dangerous situation and search for ways out of it.  It's fun when you're forced to code switch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code-switching) ... which I expect I'll be doing if Trump is elected. 8^)

--
☣ 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

[Steve Smith]

I guess I already feel I have to "code switch" all the time already...  
I have to speak a pidgin of Left/Right/Green/Libertarian/Anarchist just
to communicate with my friends and colleagues on these matters.  I
understand and agree that in world D, the emergent patois will be much
less familiar/comfortable than the one I have now and that in world H,
it will be much more familiar, less abrupt of a change.  I guess I
assumed that Agent G and agent M were more like me in this regard than
maybe they are.

I fully expect to wake up Wednesday morning in world H but with a wicked
world D hangover.  The Right were vicious with their Sore/Loserman
rhetoric in 2001, Trump is going to take sore loser to a whole new level!

The fact that world H and world D are such closely adjacent possibles is
what I am savoring (in the sense of morbid fascination) for roughly the
next 24-36 hours.   I personally would MUCH prefer a world B or world JS
but neither of these are any longer (or ever were) very adjacent.

Carry on!
  - Agent S


On 11/7/16 8:26 PM, glen ep ropella wrote:

> That's it in the abstract. But to be more concrete, if Trump wins, I'll have to talk with various people about specific consequences of whatever his administration does. Eg since Renee's a nurse and I have cancer, I have to discuss healthcare and insurance and unions in specific. With Obama and Clinton, I have little trouble engaging seriously. With Trump, I'll have to pretend to treat it seriously and discuss without calling him an idiot. I'm used to this type of code switch when I go home and talk to the right wingers in my family. But if Trump wins I expect I'll have to do it up here too.
>
> I _could_ just be a jerk for the next 4-8 years and refuse to try. But that causes me more stress than simply switching and engage.
>
> On November 7, 2016 5:55:54 PM PST, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Steve writes:
>>
>>
>> "I'm not sure I understand why
>>
>> either of you (Marcus or Glen) expect to need to do significantly more
>> "code switching" than you probably already do to bridge different
>> communities or aspect of your life?"
>>
>>
>> Imagine an agent-based model where there are two worlds,  D and H, each
>> with their unique constraints.  Then there are tactics that agents G or
>> M can execute.   These tactics are a little different for G and M's
>> unique capabilities,  as they are for hundreds of millions of other
>> agents.  The G and M agents will load up different tactic decks that
>> will optimize for hazards in worlds D and H in different ways.  I can't
>> speak for the G agent, but the M agent finds the tactics he can load to
>> function in the H world more interesting than the ones in the D world.
>> But M will go ahead and load and elaborate the D tactics if push comes
>> to shove.   M would rather not waste cycles and memory on the D deck.

============================================================
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]

Well, I tend to use "rational" to mean analytic, cutting up. So when the liberals I was talking to expressed that the vote Trump as molotov cocktail was rational, I heard "if that's the way you slice up the world, then it makes sense ... it's not nonsense." But by saying it was unreasonable, they're simply pointing out that it's an extreme way to slice up the world. You don't need naive realism to grok that distinction.

On November 7, 2016 8:04:12 PM PST, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>“unreasonable but rational”

--
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]

"The fact that world H and world D are such closely adjacent possibles is what I am savoring (in the sense of morbid fascination) for roughly the next 24-36 hours. "

To first order, this isn't about the ideological aspirations of one candidate vs. the other (or the completely irrelevant others).  It's about choosing between a person who can and has managed in relevant circumstances, and a man-child that obviously needs to be managed and who obviously draws-from and amplifies the worst in people, has many indicators of an authoritarian personality, and is a likely target for blackmail and manipulation by foreign powers.   The potential upside of this non-contest  is that a thinker and policy wonk may sneak through as the winner by default.  Even stranger is that it would be historic -- and somehow that is almost a footnote.    The whole thing is surreal and even scarier than Brexit.

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

[Gary Schiltz-4]

Well put. This is not a game. 

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

"The fact that world H and world D are such closely adjacent possibles is what I am savoring (in the sense of morbid fascination) for roughly the next 24-36 hours. "

To first order, this isn't about the ideological aspirations of one candidate vs. the other (or the completely irrelevant others).  It's about choosing between a person who can and has managed in relevant circumstances, and a man-child that obviously needs to be managed and who obviously draws-from and amplifies the worst in people, has many indicators of an authoritarian personality, and is a likely target for blackmail and manipulation by foreign powers.   The potential upside of this non-contest  is that a thinker and policy wonk may sneak through as the winner by default.  Even stranger is that it would be historic -- and somehow that is almost a footnote.    The whole thing is surreal and even scarier than Brexit.

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

============================================================
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]

Right.  It's not quite right to suggest that switching codes is bimodal or bivalent.  I think it's more of a spectrum, at least in an informal sense.  If we were talking about a person trying to communicate a complex idea in a non-native language then switching to their native language, that would be more bimodal.  But I'm talking more about, eg, realizing in the middle of a conversation that you're talking to a crypto-fascist who puts up a good veneer at first, then reveals their fascism over the course of the conversation.  When I realize it, I switch, either to something that will completely alienate the person, or to language that makes me sound more like a fascist, depending on how I feel at the time.

Marcus' idea of a an interpreter vs. languages closer to the bare metal is, I think, akin to Nick's idea of imaginary vs. factual.  And the gist is solid.  There's a very high overhead interpreting through many layers of abstraction or entertaining imaginary worlds through the suspension of disbelief.  It's a luxury we can't always afford.  But both assume there exists a bare metal.  I'm a constructivist, for the most part, and believe all our languages are interpreted and there really is no such thing as a natural, close to the metal, machine code.  There are no linguistic or cognitive facts, only action facts.  And this may be closer to what you're trying to say, because that means that we are always interacting through an interpreter, albeit sometimes many layers out vs. only a few layers out.



On 11/07/2016 08:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> I guess I already feel I have to "code switch" all the time already...  I have to speak a pidgin of Left/Right/Green/Libertarian/Anarchist just to communicate with my friends and colleagues on these matters.  I understand and agree that in world D, the emergent patois will be much less familiar/comfortable than the one I have now and that in world H, it will be much more familiar, less abrupt of a change.  I guess I assumed that Agent G and agent M were more like me in this regard than maybe they are.

--
␦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

[Robert J. Cordingley]

as is this:

http://election.scholastic.com/vote/

Robert C

On 11/5/16 12:20 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

Somewhat more optimistic, from my point of view:

https://electionbettingodds.com/

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone [phone]

On Nov 5, 2016 11:42 AM, "Owen Densmore" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Interesting 538 info-graphic, which also makes the 65%-35% "chance to win" much less secure: 

   -- Owen

The winding path to 270 electoral votes

A candidate needs at least 270 electoral votes to clinch the White House. Here's where the race stands, with the states ordered by the projected margin between the candidates — Clinton’s strongest states are at the top, Trump’s at the bottom — and sized by the number of electoral votes they will award.

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

That is really good, Frank. 

 

Thanks,

 

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 Frank Wimberly
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2016 10:06 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

 

Lesser of two evils?

Posted on Facebook by Ricky Martin

Trump admitting sexual assault. Clinton emails. Trump charity fraud. Clinton emails. Trump calls for nuclear proliferation. Clinton emails. Trump calls for national stop and frisk. Clinton emails. Trump violates trade embargo with Cuba. Clinton emails. Trump sued over Trump U fraud. Clinton emails. Trump bribes DA. Clinton emails. Trump doesn't pay taxes for 20 years. Clinton emails. Trump employs campaign manager involved in illegal corruption with Russia. Clinton emails. Trump calls for ban of an entire religion from entering US. Clinton emails. Trump lied about support for Iraq War over and over in debate. Clinton emails. Trump in court for rape of a minor. Clinton emails. Trump unaware of Russia's Crimea occupation. Clinton emails. Trump unaware of situation in Syria. Clinton emails. Trump penalized for racist housing discrimination. Clinton emails. Trump files for bankruptcy 6 times. Clinton emails. Trump goes 0-3 in debates by showing scant knowledge of world politics. Clinton emails. Trump slams people for being POWs. Clinton emails. Trump calls Mexicans rapists. Clinton emails. Trump questions judge's integrity because of parent's heritage. Clinton emails. Trump deletes emails involved in casino scandal. Clinton emails. Trump commits insurance fraud after Florida hurricane. Clinton emails. Trump has dozens of assault victims and witnesses come forward with allegations of abuse. Clinton emails. Trump attacks former Ms America for being overweight. Clinton emails. Trump tweets about sex tapes at 3am. Clinton emails. Trump calls for US citizens to be sent to Gitmo. Clinton emails. Trump calls for more extreme forms of torture to be used. Clinton emails. Trump asks why cant we use our nukes if we have them. Clinton emails. Trump calls for offensive bombing attack on sovereign nations because someone gave the middle finger. Clinton emails. Trump calls to kill women and children of suspected terrorists. Clinton emails. Trump says women should be punished for having abortions. Clinton emails. Trump makes fun of disabled people. Clinton emails. Trump calls for end of freedom of the press. Clinton emails. Trump calls global warming a Chinese hoax. Clinton emails. Trump praises Putin and Kim Jong Un's strong leadership. Clinton emails. Trump openly admits to not paying his employees during debate. Clinton emails. Trump calls Obama an illegitimate non-citizen hundreds of times over 7 years. Clinton emails. Trump uses campaign donations to enrich his own businesses. Clinton emails. Trump says laziness is an inherent trait in black people. Clinton emails.

Frank Wimberly
Phone <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%28505%29%20670-9918" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]

 

On Nov 4, 2016 5:31 PM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Oh.  Ok;  I thought you meant Liberals and I could not make that work.  Thanks for the clarification.

 

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 Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 2:21 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 --

 

Just joking that Libertarians (ie libbies) should refuse to take campaign funding from the government and refuse to participate in government run elections, or they're clearly acting as LINO's (Libertarians In Name Only).  Sorry, it was an old joke the first time.

 

-- rec --

 

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Roger,

 

Perhaps my humor and imagination have been totally destroyed by this election (which somebody aptly described as a political dumpster fire), but … I didn’t understand your comment,  AND I want to.

 

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 Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 1:04 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

 

Aren't the libbies constitutionally required to disdain funding from the government?  Seems like they should disdain elections, too, hold out for victory by acclamation?

 

-- rec --

 

 

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, ┣glen┫ <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 11/04/2016 09:53 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> http://www.slate.com/features/pkremp_forecast/report.html

Very nice presentation.  Thanks, Marcus!

On 11/04/2016 10:46 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> I was going to "scoff" at this number and analysis until I checked MY favorite source and saw what people who were putting their money where their mouths are were saying:
>
> https://tippie.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/

That's only 1 market.  Predictwise (which I may have heard about on this list?) aggregates some markets:
http://predictwise.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/PredictWise_November4_ChartPres.png

But, were I to play the market(s), I'd bet on both Clinton and Trump, of course, in various amounts.  So, it's not clear whether these markets are predictive of the winner so much as they're predictive of strategies for benefiting from the winner, who[m]ever it may be.

> Is that chasm recently formed, the FBI's "October Surprise"?   There sure is a lot of volatility!

My hypothesis is that Clinton's drop in the polls is a result of the late-comers digging into the subject.  Anyone who has been paying attention to Trump and Clinton for more than a month or two, will have already formed their opinion.  More emails (or more sex harassment allegations) won't affect that.  But those who only started really paying attention last month may just now be starting to dig in and think about the extent of Clinton's and Trump's foibles and qualities.  The falsifying question would be: What % of pollees answered prematurely back before October? ... didn't answer "undecided", but were likely to change their minds once they started digging?

I'm also fond of PollyVote: https://pollyvote.com/en/ ... though I also forget where I learned about that one. [sigh]

> Gary and Jill only need 5% of the vote to get their party's funding and automatic ballot inclusion next round.

It would be great to see the Green party get the funding.  I wouldn't celebrate the Libertarians getting it, though.

--
␦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

 

============================================================
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]

A neural net trained to discriminate between nuances in one environment (H) would need to get re-trained (or I'd say untrained) to the D environment.   The signals in H type environments are higher dimensional, coupled, and non-linear compared to the D environment which is made up of many more independent and simpler hazards.    With finite resources, I expect the H-specialized M agent apparatus needs to be torn-down to make room for constant bombardment of D-world wild dogs.    Not really interpreted vs. compiled, more like a Java hotspot JIT that is constantly refining to the environment.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ?glen?
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 8:25 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

Right.  It's not quite right to suggest that switching codes is bimodal or bivalent.  I think it's more of a spectrum, at least in an informal sense.  If we were talking about a person trying to communicate a complex idea in a non-native language then switching to their native language, that would be more bimodal.  But I'm talking more about, eg, realizing in the middle of a conversation that you're talking to a crypto-fascist who puts up a good veneer at first, then reveals their fascism over the course of the conversation.  When I realize it, I switch, either to something that will completely alienate the person, or to language that makes me sound more like a fascist, depending on how I feel at the time.

Marcus' idea of a an interpreter vs. languages closer to the bare metal is, I think, akin to Nick's idea of imaginary vs. factual.  And the gist is solid.  There's a very high overhead interpreting through many layers of abstraction or entertaining imaginary worlds through the suspension of disbelief.  It's a luxury we can't always afford.  But both assume there exists a bare metal.  I'm a constructivist, for the most part, and believe all our languages are interpreted and there really is no such thing as a natural, close to the metal, machine code.  There are no linguistic or cognitive facts, only action facts.  And this may be closer to what you're trying to say, because that means that we are always interacting through an interpreter, albeit sometimes many layers out vs. only a few layers out.



On 11/07/2016 08:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> I guess I already feel I have to "code switch" all the time already...  I have to speak a pidgin of Left/Right/Green/Libertarian/Anarchist just to communicate with my friends and colleagues on these matters.  I understand and agree that in world D, the emergent patois will be much less familiar/comfortable than the one I have now and that in world H, it will be much more familiar, less abrupt of a change.  I guess I assumed that Agent G and agent M were more like me in this regard than maybe they are.

--
␦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]

In contrast to this one.

 

http://www.thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/304867-coulter-trump-would-win-if-only-people-whose-grandparents-born

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 8:34 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

 

as is this:

http://election.scholastic.com/vote/

Robert C

 

On 11/5/16 12:20 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

Somewhat more optimistic, from my point of view:

https://electionbettingodds.com/

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone [phone]

 

On Nov 5, 2016 11:42 AM, "Owen Densmore" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Interesting 538 info-graphic, which also makes the 65%-35% "chance to win" much less secure: 

 

   -- Owen

 

The winding path to 270 electoral votes

 

A candidate needs at least 270 electoral votes to clinch the White House. Here's where the race stands, with the states ordered by the projected margin between the candidates — Clinton’s strongest states are at the top, Trump’s at the bottom — and sized by the number of electoral votes they will award.

 

 

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

That is really good, Frank. 

 

Thanks,

 

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 Frank Wimberly
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2016 10:06 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

 

Lesser of two evils?

Posted on Facebook by Ricky Martin

Trump admitting sexual assault. Clinton emails. Trump charity fraud. Clinton emails. Trump calls for nuclear proliferation. Clinton emails. Trump calls for national stop and frisk. Clinton emails. Trump violates trade embargo with Cuba. Clinton emails. Trump sued over Trump U fraud. Clinton emails. Trump bribes DA. Clinton emails. Trump doesn't pay taxes for 20 years. Clinton emails. Trump employs campaign manager involved in illegal corruption with Russia. Clinton emails. Trump calls for ban of an entire religion from entering US. Clinton emails. Trump lied about support for Iraq War over and over in debate. Clinton emails. Trump in court for rape of a minor. Clinton emails. Trump unaware of Russia's Crimea occupation. Clinton emails. Trump unaware of situation in Syria. Clinton emails. Trump penalized for racist housing discrimination. Clinton emails. Trump files for bankruptcy 6 times. Clinton emails. Trump goes 0-3 in debates by showing scant knowledge of world politics. Clinton emails. Trump slams people for being POWs. Clinton emails. Trump calls Mexicans rapists. Clinton emails. Trump questions judge's integrity because of parent's heritage. Clinton emails. Trump deletes emails involved in casino scandal. Clinton emails. Trump commits insurance fraud after Florida hurricane. Clinton emails. Trump has dozens of assault victims and witnesses come forward with allegations of abuse. Clinton emails. Trump attacks former Ms America for being overweight. Clinton emails. Trump tweets about sex tapes at 3am. Clinton emails. Trump calls for US citizens to be sent to Gitmo. Clinton emails. Trump calls for more extreme forms of torture to be used. Clinton emails. Trump asks why cant we use our nukes if we have them. Clinton emails. Trump calls for offensive bombing attack on sovereign nations because someone gave the middle finger. Clinton emails. Trump calls to kill women and children of suspected terrorists. Clinton emails. Trump says women should be punished for having abortions. Clinton emails. Trump makes fun of disabled people. Clinton emails. Trump calls for end of freedom of the press. Clinton emails. Trump calls global warming a Chinese hoax. Clinton emails. Trump praises Putin and Kim Jong Un's strong leadership. Clinton emails. Trump openly admits to not paying his employees during debate. Clinton emails. Trump calls Obama an illegitimate non-citizen hundreds of times over 7 years. Clinton emails. Trump uses campaign donations to enrich his own businesses. Clinton emails. Trump says laziness is an inherent trait in black people. Clinton emails.

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

 

On Nov 4, 2016 5:31 PM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Oh.  Ok;  I thought you meant Liberals and I could not make that work.  Thanks for the clarification.

 

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 Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 2:21 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 --

 

Just joking that Libertarians (ie libbies) should refuse to take campaign funding from the government and refuse to participate in government run elections, or they're clearly acting as LINO's (Libertarians In Name Only).  Sorry, it was an old joke the first time.

 

-- rec --

 

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Roger,

 

Perhaps my humor and imagination have been totally destroyed by this election (which somebody aptly described as a political dumpster fire), but … I didn’t understand your comment,  AND I want to.

 

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 Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 1:04 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight

 

Aren't the libbies constitutionally required to disdain funding from the government?  Seems like they should disdain elections, too, hold out for victory by acclamation?

 

-- rec --

 

 

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, ┣glen┫ <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 11/04/2016 09:53 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> http://www.slate.com/features/pkremp_forecast/report.html

Very nice presentation.  Thanks, Marcus!

On 11/04/2016 10:46 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> I was going to "scoff" at this number and analysis until I checked MY favorite source and saw what people who were putting their money where their mouths are were saying:
>
> https://tippie.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/

That's only 1 market.  Predictwise (which I may have heard about on this list?) aggregates some markets:
http://predictwise.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/PredictWise_November4_ChartPres.png

But, were I to play the market(s), I'd bet on both Clinton and Trump, of course, in various amounts.  So, it's not clear whether these markets are predictive of the winner so much as they're predictive of strategies for benefiting from the winner, who[m]ever it may be.

> Is that chasm recently formed, the FBI's "October Surprise"?   There sure is a lot of volatility!

My hypothesis is that Clinton's drop in the polls is a result of the late-comers digging into the subject.  Anyone who has been paying attention to Trump and Clinton for more than a month or two, will have already formed their opinion.  More emails (or more sex harassment allegations) won't affect that.  But those who only started really paying attention last month may just now be starting to dig in and think about the extent of Clinton's and Trump's foibles and qualities.  The falsifying question would be: What % of pollees answered prematurely back before October? ... didn't answer "undecided", but were likely to change their minds once they started digging?

I'm also fond of PollyVote: https://pollyvote.com/en/ ... though I also forget where I learned about that one. [sigh]

> Gary and Jill only need 5% of the vote to get their party's funding and automatic ballot inclusion next round.

It would be great to see the Green party get the funding.  I wouldn't celebrate the Libertarians getting it, though.

--
␦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

 

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

-- 

Cirrillian 

Web Design & Development

Santa Fe, NM

http://cirrillian.com

281-989-6272 (cell)

Member Design Corps of Santa Fe

============================================================
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]

Gary -

I agree that in the sense of the stakes being *very very* high, this is not a game.  But winning the contest IS about strategy and tactics as much (or more) than it is about representing the will and interests of the citizenry.   And I find that deeply sad.  In that sense, our elections ARE a game, or maybe more aptly, a contest, when they should be an exercise in discovering "the will of the people".

Marcus -

I think it IS very much about the ideological aspirations of these two candidates supporters, however.  I contend that they (we?) are letting these two candidates (re)shape our ideologies unnecessarily and inappropriately.  The Man-Child (very apt description) has harnessed (co-opted?) the righteous anger of "populism" to obtain enough following to have a significant chance of becoming president(-elect) of the United States as early as midnight tonight.  In the process, he has managed to inject (uncover?) a strongly fascist/racist/misogynist rhetoric into the public discourse (and therefore thought?).  

Hillary is less disturbing (to me, though clearly not to the many who have been frothing at the mouth about her) in qualitative as well as quantitative ways.   But that doesn't mean she and the machine behind her are not ALSO manipulating the public discourse in unhealthy ways.

Gary and Jill (and the others) may be irrelevant in the sense that neither has a chance of "winning the contest", but I would claim that yet another presumed irrelevant (Bernie Sanders) HAS significantly shaped the discussion and possibly the shape of Hillary's platform and possibly even policy once in office.  I also believe that they are reshaping the field itself.   Jill has been promoting ranked choice voting for months now... THAT is a significant change to the playing field and one that I claim will help our elections more accurately reflect "the will of the people" rather than distort and manipulate it.

Scarier than Brexit?  Definitely to ME, but not so much to my young friends and colleagues from the UK and the EU whose future was abruptly redirected significantly by that decision.  In at least one notable (in my life) case, that historic decision has bitterly pitted children against their parents.  Anecdotally, that is widespread. At least THAT decision doesn't seem to be as final as our own presidential elections.

My point about holding this moment to be a very special one is that the ambiguity of this moment allows me (us?) to seriously consider things that will become entirely moot tomorrow.  If (when) Hillary sweeps, many of us will heave a sigh of relief and begin to try to release the cortisol in our systems and *forget* the spectre of a bigoted/misogynistic/fascist (world D) America.   Today, I get to continue to ask myself honestly relevant rather than merely speculative or academic questions about "what would it be like to live in world D?"  Tomorrow that will just become a bad taste in my mouth (or the taste of my own foot in my mouth?)

Perhaps we are all deer in the headlights... I choose to stare into them with deliberate awareness rather than in mere stark fear.   I *trust* I am standing in the correct lane to not be smeared across the grille... for what it is worth, I DID get smeared across the grille in 2000 and 2004.

Perhaps I should go back and watch the PK Dick inspired series "Man in the High Castle" again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_in_the_High_Castle_(TV_series)

- Steve

On 11/8/16 3:25 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:

Well put. This is not a game. 

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

"The fact that world H and world D are such closely adjacent possibles is what I am savoring (in the sense of morbid fascination) for roughly the next 24-36 hours. "

To first order, this isn't about the ideological aspirations of one candidate vs. the other (or the completely irrelevant others).  It's about choosing between a person who can and has managed in relevant circumstances, and a man-child that obviously needs to be managed and who obviously draws-from and amplifies the worst in people, has many indicators of an authoritarian personality, and is a likely target for blackmail and manipulation by foreign powers.   The potential upside of this non-contest  is that a thinker and policy wonk may sneak through as the winner by default.  Even stranger is that it would be historic -- and somehow that is almost a footnote.    The whole thing is surreal and even scarier than Brexit.

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

============================================================
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]

I like the ANN analogy more than the JIT one... though perhaps my understanding of either is flawed.  The JIT analogy is stronger, I think, because ANNs aren't (?) typically capable of multi-domain classification (right?).  The extent to which they can operate over a space on which they're not trained is very limited.  But the JIT, because its ultimate input (turing complete languages) and output (general purpose computers) are universally expressive, can apply across a huge number of domains.  It seems like the sizes of the fan-in and fan-out for compilers are huge compared to those for ANNs.

On 11/08/2016 07:45 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> A neural net trained to discriminate between nuances in one environment (H) would need to get re-trained (or I'd say untrained) to the D environment.   The signals in H type environments are higher dimensional, coupled, and non-linear compared to the D environment which is made up of many more independent and simpler hazards.    With finite resources, I expect the H-specialized M agent apparatus needs to be torn-down to make room for constant bombardment of D-world wild dogs.    Not really interpreted vs. compiled, more like a Java hotspot JIT that is constantly refining to the environment.  

--
␦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