Jump to content

Trump


nipper

Recommended Posts

I'm finding a lot of the post-election analysis just as frustrating as the pre-election reporting. Here is a quote from Daniel Kahneman.

 

ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“What hindsight does is it blinds us to the uncertainty with which we live. That is, we always exaggerate how much certainty there is. Because after the fact, everything is explained. Everything is obvious. And the presence of hindsight in a way mitigates against the careful design of decision making under conditions of uncertainty.ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ÂÂÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ Daniel Kahneman, recipient of the 2002 Nobel Prize in economic sciences; emeritus professor, Princeton University

 

and here is a link to an article by Barry Ritholtz along the same lines.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/201...-of-data-mining

 

and finally, just to show how silly things are: why do people still take Mr Trump at his word? Before the election many were cheering and others were aghast as he promised to put Ms Clinton in jail if he were elected. Now he's saying that he has better things to do and anyway doing so would go against precedent, and many are aghast, some are relieved and others are saying that he is only saying that now but in fact once he is in power he will go after Ms Clinton. It gets much easier if you accept that Mr Trump is simply a bullshitter who will say whatever he thinks will benefit him at the time.

 

https://philosophynow.org/issues/53/On_Bull...Harry_Frankfurt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 292
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Though he apparently is too busy to receive daily intelligence briefings Mr Trump has found the time in setting up his administration to focus on the safety of vaccines. Righto. We obviously need that as the previous plethora of studies into vaccines and autism do leave open some room for concern. Though it is a shame he is not as motivated to look into what is happening with antibiotics and superbugs.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-11/dona...sceptic/8174560

 

and surely it is about time we had a good look at this whole fad about evolution and genetics and science ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just wait.

Good things take time. And there aren't many people sufficiently qualified to lead and conduct such investigations. They're either too busy twittering and preparing Facebook campaigns in support of issues, such as the role of women in kitchen, kindergarten, and their proper place in church; or the Science of Climate Denial; or genetic proof that melanin levels directly correlate not only to hair color, but most especially to IQ levels....

You get the drift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apropos to possibly nothing - but I just finished a cruise with a number of Americans.

Well to do. Husband an engineer - wife an accountant and home schooling their kids. Ran their own business with well over 40 employees. High tech in that they used seismologic readings to determine drill sites etc.

 

BUT they absolutely believed in creation. Earth is not over 5000 years old.

Not interested in dinosaurs, carbon dating, cosmology etc etc. Creation is it!!

 

Surprised me how embedded creationism is in American education. I always thought some rednecks from Alabama, but surely not Boston Uni educated types.

 

Seems to me the world is going down the drain hole. One bunch of fanatics in Arabia and another bunch of fanatics in America all believing in the one true God. it ain't going to end well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprised me how embedded creationism is in American education. I always thought some rednecks from Alabama, but surely not Boston Uni educated types.
Scary stuff indeed. :sadsmiley02:

Except: I wouldn't call it "education". :weirdsmiley:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Donald Trump is generating lots of chatter and outrage but I'm not sure if there are any actionable signals there (for me) or whether it is just all noise. One development from his first week that I do think may be of serious consequence is news that Mr Trump has kicked the bosses of the military and the intellegence agencies off the peak National Security Council and inserted his personal whackiness trainer, Stephen Bannon.

 

It is one thing to rattle the cages of some liberals and lawyers but it is quite another to get offside with the leaders of your military and intellegence communities. The belief that when discussing national security those leaders are only included on a as-needed basis is laughable. The very idea that Mr Trump considers the views of Stephen Bannon as more essential in matters of national security than that of the military and intellegence is a deadset worry.

 

I get the impression that there is already a reasonable chance that Donald Trump will be impeached (one British betting agency is giving that outcome even odds). Were Mr Trump to lose the unconditional backing of both the military and intellegence communities I guess that would be a major factor in whether politicans go that route (and for instance John McCain, who has close ties with the military and intellegence agencies, is already sounding concerned about some of the other antics of Donald Trump).

 

Anyway have a look at what the editor and CEO of the Foreign Policy magazine has to say on the issue. My understanding is that FP is viewed as having a strong conservative or even neocon bias. Notwithstanding that I also understand that it is still widely read in the "corridors of power".

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/29/trump-...ion-muslim-ban/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Combine that [lack of experience] with the egregious lack of character his exploits at Breitbart illustrate and his past radical statements ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ like the instance in which he characterized himself as a "Leninist" seeking to bring down the entire system of the U.S. government ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ and you have precisely the sort of person who has no business at all being at an NSC meeting. But even if you were to set aside such profound character flaws and gaps in experience, the idea that a purely political advisor should be at the table while the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence are not shows a profound lack of understanding of what the NSC has been ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ or what it should be.

mmm

 

I was reading something about Trump's key financial backer (no, he didn't spend all his money) and how Bannon ties in with all this. But then, with any 'new guy', the losers and disenfranchised always go for the sidekicks. On verra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...