Re: Fwd: TED talk

Posted by gepr on Nov 18, 2016; 3:03pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Fwd-TED-talk-tp7588295p7588306.html


A friend of mine voted for Stein (again).  When we discussed my choice to jump ship and vote for Clinton (and his wife's choice to vote for Clinton), his argument was that, fundamentally, Clinton is cut from the same cloth as Clinton1 and Bush2.  Sure, there are various overtones.  E.g. Clinton2 seems to me like she's a _serious_ public servant.  But at the core, she's a neoliberal, a globalist.  This ability/preference to look at the horizon and consider what lies beyond is critical to competence in any domain, I think.

Your numbers below may provide some justification for a (slightly) increased performance for those who consider a larger space of possibilities.  But there are confounding factors that can't all be chalked up to that core ability/preference.  For example, we could argue (as Haidt does) that we're all parochial, but some of us (simply) stumble into or are born into different influences.  E.g. someone born near a large city with cheap flights overseas will be much more likely to travel widely.  So, they're still parochial, just with a different set of impinging influence.  The same could be said of people born in a place like Wyoming.  We could say that none of us _are_ parochial in any sense; we just seem that way because of our history/ontogeny.



On 11/16/2016 09:40 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> Let us pretend it is easier to build social capital in groups where there is low variance of various individual attributes amongst members of the group, e.g. they are white, or share some particular history.   What is the quantitative economic benefit of the social capital?
>
>
> Ok, let's look at 2015 GDPs by state, and the also estimated GDPs for 2017.
>
> Data is from U.S. Census Bureau State and Local Government Finance.
>
> (I added an election result flag from CNN, treating Michigan as a NA where "1" means the state was called for Hillary Clinton.)
>
>
> States called for Clinton had higher mean and median growth rates
>
>
>   Clinton        meanGrowth
>      0   2.346667
>      1   2.495000
>
>   Clinton    medianGrowth
>       0   2.40
>       1   2.45
>
> Further, the total GDP by State was higher in total for Clinton states (2015 and est. 2017, respectively).  
>
> 2015 Gross State Product:
>   Clinton      Billions$
>      0    8571.3
>      1    8792.1
>
> Estimated 2017 Gross State Product:
>   Clinton      Billions$
>     0   9143.2
>     1   9554.6
>
> If the hypothesis is that social capital (of the sort that Trump states value), leads to economic benefits, then this does not support that hypothesis.   Parochialism loses.  
>
> I posit parochialism is preferred by individuals that fail to imagine anything bigger -- the *ideas* that we all can share, even if we don't know one another.

--
␦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