Democrats are in denial. Their party is actually in deep trouble.

[frunk]

Poker levels are different.  It's basically about how much you think about what other people think, with the aim of being one step ahead of them (and exactly one, it's easy to make a wrong move by overestimating an inferior opponent).  Just because you're capable of thinking at level 5 doesn't mean you should always play at that level.  The point is that you have an oscillating phenomenon, where sometimes a less thought out decisions is better than a more thought-out decisions.

I don't think the Poker analogy works.  Poker is a competitive game, where the goal is to take the other guy's chips.  Politics is a process where groups of people reach consensus on actions to be taken.  It's possible for it to be competitive in the "be a step ahead of the other candidate" sense, but in those situations voters (which are the supporters of political parties) are the chips not the players.

[Berkut]

Poker levels are different.  It's basically about how much you think about what other people think, with the aim of being one step ahead of them (and exactly one, it's easy to make a wrong move by overestimating an inferior opponent).  Just because you're capable of thinking at level 5 doesn't mean you should always play at that level.  The point is that you have an oscillating phenomenon, where sometimes a less thought out decisions is better than a more thought-out decisions.

I don't think the Poker analogy works.  Poker is a competitive game, where the goal is to take the other guy's chips.  Politics is a process where groups of people reach consensus on actions to be taken.  It's possible for it to be competitive in the "be a step ahead of the other candidate" sense, but in those situations voters (which are the supporters of political parties) are the chips not the players.

Clearly you are only a level 2 political thinker.

See, level 2's cannot understand level 3's - it is like a monkey trying to understand Newton's theory of gravity. You are the monkey, DG is Newton - the fact that you do not understand him is in fact evidence that you simply don't think at his level.

[DGuller]

Poker levels are different.  It's basically about how much you think about what other people think, with the aim of being one step ahead of them (and exactly one, it's easy to make a wrong move by overestimating an inferior opponent).  Just because you're capable of thinking at level 5 doesn't mean you should always play at that level.  The point is that you have an oscillating phenomenon, where sometimes a less thought out decisions is better than a more thought-out decisions.

I don't think the Poker analogy works.  Poker is a competitive game, where the goal is to take the other guy's chips.  Politics is a process where groups of people reach consensus on actions to be taken.  It's possible for it to be competitive in the "be a step ahead of the other candidate" sense, but in those situations voters (which are the supporters of political parties) are the chips not the players.

In hindsight, I agree that I could've come up with a less strained analogy.  The point I was getting at is that sometimes the same conclusion can be a reached by a process that is more thoughtful than yours and a process than it less thoughtful than yours.

[grumbler]

Anyway, to go from poker to politics, here is what I was thinking of when I was thinking of levels.  It wasn't really related to intelligence, more like thoughtfulness.

Level 1:  Political parties are like sports teams.  Your party is almost always right, and the other party is almost always wrong.  If you disagree with your party on some issues, you either come around it and agree with it, have a cognitive dissonance, or make that rare personal exception and continue disagreeing with the party.

Level 2:  Politics aren't sports.  Blind devotion to parties is stupid, and people who do that do it out of some stupid tribal instincts.  People have a lot of difference opinions on a lot of different issues, they can't all consistently fall on one party's side or another.  If they do fall consistently on one side or the other, they're not rationally thinking about the issues, they're blind devotees.  In fact, we would be better off without parties, and just vote for best people.

Level 3:  People's stances on issues aren't randomly and independently distributed.  The stem from some fundamental values or ideologies, and tend to cluster.  Parties likewise appeal to some of those clusters.  If you happen to be close to the cluster that one party is representing, in our political system it is perfectly rational to identify closely with that party.  A party is a coalition of like-minded voters, and coalitions achieve further the interests of its members more than they all could individually achieve.  This is also true for the negative issues:  if some party clusters around issues that you really don't want advanced, it's perfectly rational to be opposed to that party as well.

Level 4:  If it exists, I haven't reached it yet.  I'll wait and see.

Where do I fall?  Level 3, as I said before.  I don't identify myself that strongly with the Democratic party.  They're too liberal on some things and at best pay lip service to things I consider important.  I definitely identify myself against the Republican party.  They seem to be for way too many things that I am vehemently against.

  Man, this is great stuff.  The Onion couldn't do better.  Of note is the absurd contention that your "level 3" thinkers are more advanced than your "level 1" and "level 2" thinkers, when that is clearly a self-serving fantasy.

[Berkut]

In hindsight, I agree that I could've come up with a less strained analogy.  The point I was getting at is that sometimes the same conclusion can be a reached by a process that is more thoughtful than yours and a process than it less thoughtful than yours. I am so much smarter than others that they cannot even comprehend my thought processes.

FYP.

[Eddie Teach]

Okay, here is a simpler example, it's just probability and statistics.  You flip a coin 10 times, and it comes up heads 6 times and tails 4 times.  Is this coin biased?

Level 1:  Sometimes you get heads, sometimes you get tails.  It's fair.
Level 2:  Fair coin gives you heads 50% of the time.  This coin did it 60% of the time.  It's biased.
Level 3:  There is not enough evidence to reject the hypothesis that the coin is fair.
Level 4:  After seeing these 10 results, I think it's more likely that the coin is biased.

Level 2 and Level 4 sound like idiots.

[DGuller]

Okay, here is a simpler example, it's just probability and statistics.  You flip a coin 10 times, and it comes up heads 6 times and tails 4 times.  Is this coin biased?

Level 1:  Sometimes you get heads, sometimes you get tails.  It's fair.
Level 2:  Fair coin gives you heads 50% of the time.  This coin did it 60% of the time.  It's biased.
Level 3:  There is not enough evidence to reject the hypothesis that the coin is fair.
Level 4:  After seeing these 10 results, I think it's more likely that the coin is biased.

Level 2 and Level 4 sound like idiots.

Level 4 is actually the most complete answer.  But if you're at level 3, it sounds dumb to you.

[Berkut]

Anyway, to go from poker to politics, here is what I was thinking of when I was thinking of levels.  It wasn't really related to intelligence, more like thoughtfulness.

Level 1:  Political parties are like sports teams.  Your party is almost always right, and the other party is almost always wrong.  If you disagree with your party on some issues, you either come around it and agree with it, have a cognitive dissonance, or make that rare personal exception and continue disagreeing with the party.

Level 2:  Politics aren't sports.  Blind devotion to parties is stupid, and people who do that do it out of some stupid tribal instincts.  People have a lot of difference opinions on a lot of different issues, they can't all consistently fall on one party's side or another.  If they do fall consistently on one side or the other, they're not rationally thinking about the issues, they're blind devotees.  In fact, we would be better off without parties, and just vote for best people.

Level 3:  People's stances on issues aren't randomly and independently distributed.  The stem from some fundamental values or ideologies, and tend to cluster.  Parties likewise appeal to some of those clusters.  If you happen to be close to the cluster that one party is representing, in our political system it is perfectly rational to identify closely with that party.  A party is a coalition of like-minded voters, and coalitions achieve further the interests of its members more than they all could individually achieve.  This is also true for the negative issues:  if some party clusters around issues that you really don't want advanced, it's perfectly rational to be opposed to that party as well.

Level 4:  If it exists, I haven't reached it yet.  I'll wait and see.

Where do I fall?  Level 3, as I said before.  I don't identify myself that strongly with the Democratic party.  They're too liberal on some things and at best pay lip service to things I consider important.  I definitely identify myself against the Republican party.  They seem to be for way too many things that I am vehemently against.

  Man, this is great stuff.  The Onion couldn't do better.  Of note is the absurd contention that your "level 3" thinkers are more advanced than your "level 1" and "level 2" thinkers, when that is clearly a self-serving fantasy.

The best part is the implied hubris of the "Level 3 thinker"

Example:

Level 3:  People's stances on issues aren't randomly and independently distributed.

The obvious implication here is that the non-level three thinker must think that peoples stances on issues are in fact randomly distriubuted, and have no correlation to underlying principles or ideologies. And what is more, the level 2 thinker believes that but doesn't actually even know that they believe that!

It takes the advanced level 3 thinker to even conceptualize such lofty concepts. And of course, DG is a level 3 thinker, so he can sit up there with his burning bush and look down on us simpletons thrashing around not even realizing how primitive our thought process are...

Of course, according to his classification, he is sitting up there with the Tea Party whackjobs right next to him...

[Eddie Teach]

No, it's far more likely the coin is fair. At least as far as human standards go. Most coins are.

[DGuller]

No, it's far more likely the coin is fair. At least as far as human standards go. Most coins are.

Level 4 is not saying that the coin is more likely biased than fair.  It's saying that it's more like to be biased now than before you saw these 10 outcomes.

[DGuller]

In hindsight, I agree that I could've come up with a less strained analogy.  The point I was getting at is that sometimes the same conclusion can be a reached by a process that is more thoughtful than yours and a process than it less thoughtful than yours. I am so much smarter than others that they cannot even comprehend my thought processes.

FYP.

No, I had it right the first time.

[Berkut]

No, it's far more likely the coin is fair. At least as far as human standards go. Most coins are.

Level 4 is not saying that the coin is more likely biased than fair.  It's saying that it's more like to be biased now than before you saw these 10 outcomes.

That is trivially obvious.

[Jacob]

No, it's far more likely the coin is fair. At least as far as human standards go. Most coins are.

Level 4 is not saying that the coin is more likely biased than fair.  It's saying that it's more like to be biased now than before you saw these 10 outcomes.

That is trivially obvious.

* Ding! *

Gratz on level 4

[frunk]

Level 4 is actually the most complete answer.  But if you're at level 3, it sounds dumb to you.

You are missing Level 5:

It may or may not be biased, but I can guarantee some idiot is going to attach far too much significance to the predictive power of 10 flips of a coin.

[Berkut]

No, it's far more likely the coin is fair. At least as far as human standards go. Most coins are.

Level 4 is not saying that the coin is more likely biased than fair.  It's saying that it's more like to be biased now than before you saw these 10 outcomes.

That is trivially obvious.

* Ding! *

Gratz on level 4