Re: Trump - Clown Genius
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:06 pm
@brute - Yes, I knew you were trolling. I left a memo with a friend as I was responding pointing that out for later just in case I know your proclivities when you get bored. In any case, we're (also Riggerjack and Campitor) really talking about two different things/trying to make separate and not necessarily mutually exclusive points. I grok that Trump was very very good at getting elected for all the reasons pointed out by you guys. He too still likes to point out how good he was at getting elected from time to time even half a year later even if winning the election no longer is relevant to actually being President, because successfully getting elected and successfully being president are two different things. That's MY point.
I will also admit that I was quite surprised Trump won, mostly because I trusted the polls which were quite unequivocal. However, it this is not the first time this "I'm a soccer-mom and my candidate is a hockey-mom and based on our common experience of driving kids around in a van and taking care of a family, we therefore both understand all complexities up to and including the entire geopolitical system, at least when it comes to shouting it out from the corner of the local bar but that's also good enough for being in office"-way of folksy thinking strategy has been pursued successfully because some smart people realized that this is how very many voters ultimately think .. or alternatively don't-think. See Palin for VP2008. Very similar! (And I got more egghead theory on top of this, but lets stay simple ... ).
What surprised me was that this strategy actually/finally worked all the way through the entire process eight years later. Mea Culpa!
My point (in my response to brute) was that the way the voters' cognitive process that picks their politicians is apparently different from the process that picks their surgeons, pilots, actors, and everything else in life... all the way up the to [D/R]NCs and the electoral college (which I understand is pretty much tied by hands and feet anyway). Hence cognitive dissonance ... even if I don't think there's much dissonance going on ... I think a combination of partisan tribalism and the Dunning-Kruger effect hides most such dissonance from the particular individuals who would otherwise change their minds. Just consider the change in attitude wrt bombing Syria depending on whether a Democrat or a a Republican is bombing random airfields for exactly the same reason (use of chemical weapons on civilians) combined with the fact that most can't find Syria on a map. Sorry, but I don't think party-affiliation should be the primary variable that determines geopolitical strategy ... but I do realize that most people/voters are acting as if it should be.
I think that this tribalist tendency is a weakness of democracy, not a strength. This is also why the US was [designed as] a republic and not a technical democracy thus being subject to various constraints (the constitution most importantly) and not based on simple majority or even "winner's authority".
PS: I always feel like I'm treading a fine line between arrogant Captain Obvious and conceited Colonel Condescending respectively whenever I bring original principles into it. However, it's been my experience that the random person either disagrees with their interpretation or they have no clue about them in the first place. However, being of a philosophical bent, I kinda think they're important though and I like the original version rather than the "living" version.
@Isabel - I call "red herring" on that Soviet argument. The first country in recent history/modern times be founded based on an ab initio [here enlightenment ideals] philosophy (not many scientists around back then but Franklin does have some original scientific discoveries and inventions to his name---it was still an amateur pursuit back then) was the United States in 1776. France followed on very similar principles in 1789. Then the Soviet Union followed Marxist principles in 1922, and finally Nazi Germany followed fascist/nationalist principles in the 1930s although the latter happened slowly in a long organic slide unlike the others which followed from revolutions (Hitler was democratically elected by the previous system.). All three were copied in various parts of the world and that's what WWII and the Cold War was all about. But today, there's pretty much just the US/French version left e.g. "checks and balances" and respect/concern for the individual as the primary two principles (=constitution in most countries) even if the other two ideas still exist on the far left and far right respectively. All other countries at least until 1950 derive from those 3 ideas tacking it onto previous beliefs: Mostly monarchist systems which either became more constitutional (thanks US/France) or just kinda gave it up eventually (thanks post-WWII social democracy, not to be confused with socialism) or a combination thereof.
And ... now there's a fourth style, namely modern China coming along that's crucial to understand in order to make 21st policy ... but I really wonder how many really have an idea of that particular philosophy... maybe by 2050?
Most of the Founding Fathers where either formally educated from the top-tier (Princeton, Harvard, and Columbia) at a time when that meant a lot more than it does today except Washington who was the leader of the Continental army (military and executive experience, confirmed!!) and Franklin who was a multidisciplinary genius---and despite Franklin's lack of formal degrees, I would say he had plenty of "sophisticated, educated intelligence". I never make the mistake of confusing institutional credentials with a combination of education, sophistication, or intelligence.
Most of these guys also had plenty of skin in the game (being in the Continental Congress and essentially being traitors to the British rule). I hope we don't have to argue whether the bar is lower today? If we have to argue that too for the sake of argument, I'm forever out of this thread
Note (also Riggerjack and iDave) that I'm not proposing that the optimal pick for world leader is the nerd who spent the most years adding letters after their name in various institutional programs leading to a preference for too much thinking and to little doing. What I'm saying is that leading the world requires a certain level of sophistication, because problems are complicated. Several Founding Fathers had international education or travel experience. The un-credentialed Franklin in particular. Also needed is a certain level of education, because education prevents one from being myopic or lacking nuance. And a certain level of intelligence; in which case here 125 IQ points is probably optimal because it allows one to connect with the most people without requiring too many levels of spokespersons. And those need to be the kind of IQ points to grok which people to hire and fire and direct. 125 IQ points of Egyptian Calculus skills is not what I want ... I had hoped that was obvious.
I will also admit that I was quite surprised Trump won, mostly because I trusted the polls which were quite unequivocal. However, it this is not the first time this "I'm a soccer-mom and my candidate is a hockey-mom and based on our common experience of driving kids around in a van and taking care of a family, we therefore both understand all complexities up to and including the entire geopolitical system, at least when it comes to shouting it out from the corner of the local bar but that's also good enough for being in office"-way of folksy thinking strategy has been pursued successfully because some smart people realized that this is how very many voters ultimately think .. or alternatively don't-think. See Palin for VP2008. Very similar! (And I got more egghead theory on top of this, but lets stay simple ... ).
What surprised me was that this strategy actually/finally worked all the way through the entire process eight years later. Mea Culpa!
My point (in my response to brute) was that the way the voters' cognitive process that picks their politicians is apparently different from the process that picks their surgeons, pilots, actors, and everything else in life... all the way up the to [D/R]NCs and the electoral college (which I understand is pretty much tied by hands and feet anyway). Hence cognitive dissonance ... even if I don't think there's much dissonance going on ... I think a combination of partisan tribalism and the Dunning-Kruger effect hides most such dissonance from the particular individuals who would otherwise change their minds. Just consider the change in attitude wrt bombing Syria depending on whether a Democrat or a a Republican is bombing random airfields for exactly the same reason (use of chemical weapons on civilians) combined with the fact that most can't find Syria on a map. Sorry, but I don't think party-affiliation should be the primary variable that determines geopolitical strategy ... but I do realize that most people/voters are acting as if it should be.
I think that this tribalist tendency is a weakness of democracy, not a strength. This is also why the US was [designed as] a republic and not a technical democracy thus being subject to various constraints (the constitution most importantly) and not based on simple majority or even "winner's authority".
PS: I always feel like I'm treading a fine line between arrogant Captain Obvious and conceited Colonel Condescending respectively whenever I bring original principles into it. However, it's been my experience that the random person either disagrees with their interpretation or they have no clue about them in the first place. However, being of a philosophical bent, I kinda think they're important though and I like the original version rather than the "living" version.
@Isabel - I call "red herring" on that Soviet argument. The first country in recent history/modern times be founded based on an ab initio [here enlightenment ideals] philosophy (not many scientists around back then but Franklin does have some original scientific discoveries and inventions to his name---it was still an amateur pursuit back then) was the United States in 1776. France followed on very similar principles in 1789. Then the Soviet Union followed Marxist principles in 1922, and finally Nazi Germany followed fascist/nationalist principles in the 1930s although the latter happened slowly in a long organic slide unlike the others which followed from revolutions (Hitler was democratically elected by the previous system.). All three were copied in various parts of the world and that's what WWII and the Cold War was all about. But today, there's pretty much just the US/French version left e.g. "checks and balances" and respect/concern for the individual as the primary two principles (=constitution in most countries) even if the other two ideas still exist on the far left and far right respectively. All other countries at least until 1950 derive from those 3 ideas tacking it onto previous beliefs: Mostly monarchist systems which either became more constitutional (thanks US/France) or just kinda gave it up eventually (thanks post-WWII social democracy, not to be confused with socialism) or a combination thereof.
And ... now there's a fourth style, namely modern China coming along that's crucial to understand in order to make 21st policy ... but I really wonder how many really have an idea of that particular philosophy... maybe by 2050?
Most of the Founding Fathers where either formally educated from the top-tier (Princeton, Harvard, and Columbia) at a time when that meant a lot more than it does today except Washington who was the leader of the Continental army (military and executive experience, confirmed!!) and Franklin who was a multidisciplinary genius---and despite Franklin's lack of formal degrees, I would say he had plenty of "sophisticated, educated intelligence". I never make the mistake of confusing institutional credentials with a combination of education, sophistication, or intelligence.
Most of these guys also had plenty of skin in the game (being in the Continental Congress and essentially being traitors to the British rule). I hope we don't have to argue whether the bar is lower today? If we have to argue that too for the sake of argument, I'm forever out of this thread
Note (also Riggerjack and iDave) that I'm not proposing that the optimal pick for world leader is the nerd who spent the most years adding letters after their name in various institutional programs leading to a preference for too much thinking and to little doing. What I'm saying is that leading the world requires a certain level of sophistication, because problems are complicated. Several Founding Fathers had international education or travel experience. The un-credentialed Franklin in particular. Also needed is a certain level of education, because education prevents one from being myopic or lacking nuance. And a certain level of intelligence; in which case here 125 IQ points is probably optimal because it allows one to connect with the most people without requiring too many levels of spokespersons. And those need to be the kind of IQ points to grok which people to hire and fire and direct. 125 IQ points of Egyptian Calculus skills is not what I want ... I had hoped that was obvious.