I kind of agree with him, the GOP is just one well timed recession away from controlling the government in a way that no party has since the 1930s.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9565119/democrats-in-deep-trouble
Quote
Democrats are in denial. Their party is actually in deep trouble.
Updated by Matthew Yglesias on October 19, 2015, 7:00 a.m. ET @mattyglesias [email protected]
The Democratic Party is in much greater peril than its leaders or supporters recognize, and it has no plan to save itself.
Yes, Barack Obama is taking a victory lap in his seventh year in office. Yes, Republicans can't find a credible candidate to so much as run for speaker of the House. Yes, the GOP presidential field is led by a megalomaniacal reality TV star. All this is true — but rather than lay the foundation for enduring Democratic success, all it's done is breed a wrongheaded atmosphere of complacence.
The presidency is extremely important, of course. But there are also thousands of critically important offices all the way down the ballot. And the vast majority — 70 percent of state legislatures, more than 60 percent of governors, 55 percent of attorneys general and secretaries of state — are in Republicans hands. And, of course, Republicans control both chambers of Congress. Indeed, even the House infighting reflects, in some ways, the health of the GOP coalition. Republicans are confident they won't lose power in the House and are hungry for a vigorous argument about how best to use the power they have.
Not only have Republicans won most elections, but they have a perfectly reasonable plan for trying to recapture the White House. But Democrats have nothing at all in the works to redress their crippling weakness down the ballot. Democrats aren't even talking about how to improve on their weak points, because by and large they don't even admit that they exist.
Instead, the party is focused on a competition between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton over whether they should go a little bit to Obama's left or a lot to his left, options that are unlikely to help Democrats down-ballot in the face of an unfriendly House map and a more conservative midterm electorate. The GOP might be in chaos, but Democrats are in a torpor.
Democrats have been obliterated at the state level
The worst part of the problem for the Democratic Party is in races that are, collectively, the most important: state government.
Elections for state legislature rarely make the national news, but they are the fundamental building blocks of American politics. Since they run the redistricting process for the US House of Representatives and for themselves, they are where the greatest level of electoral entrenchment is possible.
And in the wake of the 2014 midterms, Republicans have overwhelming dominance of America's state legislatures.
In what Democrats should take as a further bleak sign, four of the 11 states where they control both houses of the state legislature — Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Illinois — have a Republican governor. This leaves just seven states under unified Democratic Party control.
Republicans have unified control of 25 states. Along with the usual set of tax cuts for high-income individuals and business-friendly regulations, the result has been:
An unprecedented wave of restrictions on abortion rights
The spread of union-hostile "right to work" laws into the Great Lakes states
New curbs on voting rights, to further tilt the electorate in a richer, whiter, older direction
Large-scale layoffs of teachers and other public sector workers who are likely to support Democrats
Admittedly, one of the Democrats' seven states is California, which contains more than 10 percent of the nation's total population. But Texas and Florida combine for more people than the Golden State, and the GOP also dominates Ohio, Georgia, and North Carolina — all of which are among the 10 largest states by population. Democrats' largest non-California bastion of unified control is Oregon, home to only about one percent of the American people.*
As of 2012 or so, Democrats thought they had a solution to this. Hard-right GOP governors in places like Wisconsin and Florida had become unpopular and were clearly overreaching — reading a wave driven by the poor economy in 2010 as an ideological mandate for sweeping conservative policy change. And that worked in Pennsylvania's 2014 gubernatorial election — Tom Wolf rode a backlash against then-Gov. Tom Corbett's hard-right policies to victory. But Scott Walker, Rick Scott, Rick Snyder, and even Maine's Paul LePage were all reelected. And while the old plan didn't pan out, no new one has risen to take its place.
The GOP is flexible
Liberals accustomed to chuckling over the ideological rigor of the House GOP caucus won't want to hear this, but one of the foundations of the GOP's broad national success is a reasonable degree of ideological flexibility.
Essentially every state on the map contains overlapping circles of rich people who don't want to pay taxes and business owners who don't want to comply with labor, public health, and environmental regulations. In states like Texas or South Carolina, where this agenda nicely complements a robust social conservatism, the GOP offers that up and wins with it. But in a Maryland or a New Jersey, the party of business manages to throw up candidates who either lack hard-edged socially conservative views or else successfully downplay them as irrelevant in the context of blue-state governance.
Democrats, of course, are conceptually aware of the possibility of nominating unusually conservative candidates to run in unusually conservative states. But there is a fundamental mismatch. No US state is so left-wing as to have created an environment in which business interests are economically or politically irrelevant. Vermont is not North Korea, in other words.
But there are many states in which labor unions are neither large nor powerful and non-labor national progressive donor networks are inherently populated by relatively affluent people who tend to be emotionally driven by progressive commitments on social or environmental issues. This is why an impassioned defense of the legality of late-term abortions could make Wendy Davis a viral sensation, a national media star, and someone capable of activating the kind of donor and volunteer networks needed to mount a statewide campaign. Unfortunately for Democrats, however, this is precisely the wrong issue profile to try to win statewide elections in conservative states.
Republicans have a plan
Any serious article about the prospects for Democratic Party policymaking in 2017 starts with the premise that Republicans will continue to hold a majority in the US House of Representatives. This presumption is built on four premises:
1The natural distribution of population in the United States tends to lead the average House district to be more GOP-friendly than the overall population.
2GOP control of most state legislatures lets Republicans draw boundaries in a way that is even more GOP-friendly than the natural population distribution would suggest.
3Incumbents have large advantages in House elections, and most incumbents are Republicans.
4So-called "wave" elections in which tons of incumbents lose are typically driven by a backlash against the incumbent president. Since the incumbent president is a Democrat, Democrats have no way to set up a wave.
One striking fact about this is that the presumption of continued GOP control is so solid that you don't even get pushback from House Democratic leaders when you write it down. Privately, some backbench Democrats express frustration that the leadership has no plan to try to recapture the majority. In their defense, it's not like anyone outside the leadership has a great plan either.
But this isn't just a parochial issue for the House Democratic caucus. It means that the party's legislative agenda is entirely dead on arrival at the federal level. And it's particularly striking that this stronghold of conservatism comes from the exact institution that so frequently generates embarrassing headlines for the GOP. House Republicans act extreme in part because they know they can get away with it.
The GOP, by contrast, has basically two perfectly plausible plans for moving its agenda forward. One is to basically change nothing and just hope for slightly better luck from the economic fundamentals or in terms of Democratic Party scandals. The other is to shift left on immigration and gain some Latino votes while retaining the core of the party's commitments. Neither of these plans is exactly brilliant, innovative, or foolproof. But neither one is crazy. Even if you believe that Democrats have obtained a structural advantage in presidential elections, it's clearly not an enormous one. The 51 percent of the vote obtained by Barack Obama in 2012 was hardly a landslide, early head-to-head polling of 2016 indicates a close race, and there's always a chance that unexpected bad news will hit the US economy or impair our national security.
Winning a presidential election would give Republicans the overwhelming preponderance of political power in the United States — a level of dominance not achieved since the Democrats during the Great Depression, but with a much more ideologically coherent coalition. Nothing lasts forever in American politics, but a hyper-empowered conservative movement would have a significant ability to entrench its position by passing a national right-to-work law and further altering campaign finance rules beyond the Citizens United status quo.
VIDEO: Democrats on the biggest threat to national security
The first step for Democrats is admitting they have a problem
In some ways, the Democrats' biggest disadvantage is simply their current smugness. A party that controls such a small share of elected offices around the country is a party that should be engaged in vigorous debate about how to improve its fortunes. Much of the current Republican infighting — embarrassing and counterproductive though it may be at times — reflects the healthy impulse to recognize that the party lacks the full measure of power that it desires, and needs to argue about optimal strategies for obtaining it.
On the Democratic side, the personal political success of Barack Obama has created an atmosphere of complacency and overconfidence. If a black guy with the middle name Hussein can win the White House, the thinking seems to be, then anything is possible. Consequently, the party is marching steadily to the left on its issue positions — embracing same-sex marriage, rediscovering enthusiasm for gun control, rejecting the January 2013 income tax rate settlement as inadequate, raising its minimum wage aspirations to the $12-to-$15 range, abandoning the quest for a grand bargain on balancing the budget while proposing new entitlements for child care and parental leave — even though existing issue positions seem incompatible with a House majority or any meaningful degree of success in state politics.
Whatever you make of this agenda substantively, there's no way to actually enact it without first achieving a considerably higher level of down-ballot electoral success than Democrats currently enjoy.
But instead of a dialogue about how to obtain that success, Democrats are currently engaged in a slightly bizarre bidding war between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to see whether Congress in 2017 will reject a legislative agenda that is somewhat to the left of Obama's or drastically to its left. The differences between them are real, of course, and at least somewhat important.
But the much more significant question facing the party isn't about the White House — it's about all the other offices in the land. The problem is that control of the presidency seems to have blinded progressive activists to the possibility of even having an argument about what to do about all of them. That will change if and when the GOP seizes the White House, too, and Democrats bottom out. But the truly striking thing is how close to bottom the party is already and how blind it seems to be to that fact.
* Correction: Earlier versions of this article said that Minnesota or Washington was the biggest non-California Democratic-controlled state, but in fact the Republicans control one legislative house in both of those states.
Democrats may be in trouble, but not of their own making. Their biggest misdeed was letting the insurgent conservative movement go from one propaganda victory to another, infecting a large portion of electorate with a notion of reality that bears no connection to reality.
If the economy does not crash by late next year, the Democrats should do fine.
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2015, 10:33:43 PM
Democrats may be in trouble, but not of their own making. Their biggest misdeed was letting the insurgent conservative movement go from one propaganda victory to another, infecting a large portion of electorate with a notion of reality that bears no connection to reality.
You haven't lived in Texas. Trust me, the party is very very guilty of ceding ground in many many places. It's not about propaganda victories. It's about sheer incompetence. Repeatedly ask voters in Houston to vote for either a batshit insane kook or a reasonably normal Republican for a couple straight decades and see what happens to the electorate. Eat your peas or eat a turd, because there's no bacon on the menu.
Well I live in Austin and Demoncrats remain strong here but I do note the Republicans fight back hard. They do not concede ground and always have a base of support. In Republican strongholds in Texas the Democrats are simply non-existent. It is like the Democrats can only compete where circumstances favor them instead of everywhere.
I am not sure what there is to be done about it. It is not like the Democrats do not triangulate like hell.
But on the other hand the constant blathering on about how impossible it is for the Democrats to ever win the House is kind of ridiculous. They just controlled it five years ago. If the Republicans win the Presidency again there will be another blue tide. I heard the same about the inviolable and eternal rule of the Republicans in 2004 and it evaporated almost immediately. Nothing has changed since then, this article could have been written 20 years ago actually.
In the last 20 years the GOP has controlled the House for 16 years. It's simply a fact that even disregarding gerrymandering, democratic voters are highly concentrated in densely populated areas and republican ones are less concentrated and spread out over the suburban and rural districts, giving them an advantage.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 20, 2015, 06:37:16 AM
In the last 20 years the GOP has controlled the House for 16 years. It's simply a fact that even disregarding gerrymandering, democratic voters are highly concentrated in densely populated areas and republican ones are less concentrated and spread out over the suburban and rural districts, giving them an advantage.
Yes? Your answer to my assertion that nothing has changed for 20 years is to say 'No Valmy! You are totally wrong here! Nothing has changed for 20 years!' :huh:
Further why would that be an issue disregarding gerrymandering? You could easily use gerrymandering to turn that into an advantage. Just have each district take just enough of an urban area to win each one with 50.1% of the vote. That is what the Republicans do with the suburbs. So instead of the Democrats winning 49.9% just slightly move it around. Boom.
But the fact that the Democrats controlled it for four years sort of puts a lie to the notion that the Republicans in the House are unassailable. And also points to the fact that nothing has changed on this front in 20 years. The idea that the Democrats are in serious trouble and the Republicans are going to seize power forever has been said constantly for 20 years and it has yet to happen.
The problem is that the Democrats way of dealing with this has been to move economically to the right and sell out to big business. Well they have sold out so much that it would be pretty much impossible for them to sell out anymore and the polarized political landscape is unchanged. The Republicans can pretty much go as radical as they like and the political calculus remains unchanged.
The incentive for the Democrats, under these circumstances, to not go all radical in the other direction to grab all the conspiracy minded nutjobs who seem to populate much of the voter base is just not there. I think this Bernie Sanders stuff is just the beginning. Radicalism is the flavor of the day and God help us all.
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2015, 10:33:43 PM
Democrats may be in trouble, but not of their own making.
As a die hard Democrat, you could not have come up with a response that would more perfectly align with exactly the point the author is trying to make. It is like he wrote it himself.
I do find it sort of funny that according to the Democratic faithful the only people who support the Republicans are old white men. Damn there are a lot of old white men then. Amazing that they can have the support of every single woman, young person, and melanin blessed person and still get whipped so often.
Quote from: Valmy on October 20, 2015, 07:44:46 AM
I do find it sort of funny that according to the Democratic faithful the only people who support the Republicans are old white men. Damn there are a lot of old white men then. Amazing that they can have the support of every single woman, young person, and melanin blessed person and still get whipped so often.
"The problem with liberals is that they lose so goddamn much!"
I dunno, there's some trends that should be increasingly troublesome for Republicans.
1 Shrinking middle class
2 Immigration + nativism = socially conservative hispanics voting Democrat
3 Gay marriage- loser with young voters, but not something they're ready to give up on
The article does bring up a good point that "progressives" are completely out of touch with the heartland, and that doesn't seem to bother them a bit.
QuoteThe article does bring up a good point that "progressives" are completely out of touch with the heartland, and that doesn't seem to bother them a bit.
Right wingers tend to do better in rural areas everywhere...except in Canada where the NDP and Liberals do surprisingly well in lightly populated wastelands. Probably due to the 'First Nations' or whatever we are supposed to call the Native Americans these days.
Quote from: Berkut on October 20, 2015, 07:42:29 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2015, 10:33:43 PM
Democrats may be in trouble, but not of their own making.
As a die hard Democrat, you could not have come up with a response that would more perfectly align with exactly the point the author is trying to make. It is like he wrote it himself.
I hate to have another go at this, but I'm not a die hard Democrat. You can fart around all you want about this, but repeating it more times won't make it any more true.
The problem is with the electorate getting crazy, not anything unusually incompetent or nefarious that Democrats did. I don't think going half-crazy to try to capture some of the indoctrinated crazies is the way to go.
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2015, 09:11:54 AM
The problem is with the electorate getting crazy, not anything unusually incompetent or nefarious that Democrats did. I don't think going half-crazy to try to capture some of the indoctrinated crazies is the way to go.
Feel the Bern?
I think the Democratic strategy right now is to wait for demographic change. They have neglected their ground game since 2010, which isn't good, but simply waiting for the boomers to die is a viable strategy.
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2015, 09:11:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 20, 2015, 07:42:29 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2015, 10:33:43 PM
Democrats may be in trouble, but not of their own making.
As a die hard Democrat, you could not have come up with a response that would more perfectly align with exactly the point the author is trying to make. It is like he wrote it himself.
I hate to have another go at this, but I'm not a die hard Democrat. You can fart around all you want about this, but repeating it more times won't make it any more true.
I don't think going around about it is even interesting. You are a die hard Dem, and there really isn't even anything wrong with that. When I read this article, the first thing that popped into my head is curiosity on how the typical die hard Dem would react to it, and I figured denial of the denial would be the standard die hard response.
You, of course, were kind enough to fit the predicted behavior perfectly.
But again, you are right - there is no point in you denying at (again), because your denials don't move my evaluation an iota, and I am sure my arguing it doesn't change your denial a bit either.
But that doesn't mean that your opinion is not of interest - I do like to see how the die hards react to things like this.
Quote
The problem is with the electorate getting crazy, not anything unusually incompetent or nefarious that Democrats did. I don't think going half-crazy to try to capture some of the indoctrinated crazies is the way to go.
Yeah, that is just a useless response. "The electorate is crazy, so we should not do anything at all" is a excuse to do nothing, not a tactical or strategic response to shifting political terrain. "The electorate" is not some external object that the Democrats have no control over or association with - they are, in fact, part of the electorate after all.
This is pure ostrich strategy.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 20, 2015, 09:17:24 AM
I think the Democratic strategy right now is to wait for demographic change. They have neglected their ground game since 2010, which isn't good, but simply waiting for the boomers to die is a viable strategy.
Oh they have tried to push their ground game, their 50 state strategy and everything. It just has not worked very well. But failure is not the same thing as neglect. They have just not found an issue to mobilize paranoid people as well as the anti-Government stuff the Republicans have been trotting out there. Bernie Sanders and his anti-Corporate stuff is what they need to rally the crazies. Everybody wants a boogie man for all of their problems.
Quote from: Valmy on October 20, 2015, 09:20:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 20, 2015, 09:17:24 AM
I think the Democratic strategy right now is to wait for demographic change. They have neglected their ground game since 2010, which isn't good, but simply waiting for the boomers to die is a viable strategy.
Oh they have tried to push their ground game, their 50 state strategy and everything. It just has not worked very well. But failure is not the same thing as neglect. They have just not found an issue to mobilize paranoid people as well as the anti-Government stuff the Republicans have been trotting out there. Bernie Sanders and his anti-Corporate stuff is what they need to rally the crazies. Everybody wants a boogie man for all of their problems.
The problem here is that it isn't working - there are apparently some non-old white people who are keeping the Republicans in power despite the supposed demographic changes that are dooming them in the long run.
The long run seems to be getting longer and longer all the time.
His big point is that the GOP is doing well at the state government level because of ideological flexibility. OK that may be true but so what? I'm a Democrat but not because I have a thing for donkeys or because Nancy Pelosi's career is important me. It's because I tend to agree more with their policy positions on average than I do with GOP ones. If a Mitt Romney-type wants to moderate his social positions and support universal healthcare to get elected in Mass, good for him. Yes it's a "Republican" victory, but so what? I agree that from a party perspective, the Democrats would be advised to encourage more flexible ideological candidates in challenging states, but at the end of the day I don't really care who gets elected governor in Mississippi.
State governments matter on the national level because they do congressional redistricting.
Which is why I would favor candidates of any party that favor non-partisan re-districting.
I get the issue but logical conclusion of that mental process is voting for whatever corrupt party hack in play just so that the "wrong" party isn't in command when the census comes around.
Quote from: Berkut on October 20, 2015, 09:18:30 AM
I don't think going around about it is even interesting. You are a die hard Dem, and there really isn't even anything wrong with that. When I read this article, the first thing that popped into my head is curiosity on how the typical die hard Dem would react to it, and I figured denial of the denial would be the standard die hard response.
You, of course, were kind enough to fit the predicted behavior perfectly.
But again, you are right - there is no point in you denying at (again), because your denials don't move my evaluation an iota, and I am sure my arguing it doesn't change your denial a bit either.
But that doesn't mean that your opinion is not of interest - I do like to see how the die hards react to things like this.
I think what we have here is a difference in levels of thinking. Someone who played poker a lot with deep understanding will understand what I'm talking about.
Different players think at different levels, and better players think at higher levels, but on any given hand, players of vastly different levels will make the same decision. If you're level 1, level 3, or level 5 player, you'll call, and if you're level 2 or level 4 player, you'll fold. If you're a level 2 player, you're incapable of conceiving of thinking above level 2. So if you see a level 5 player call, you'll assume that he's a level 1 player, and think that you're better than him. Of course, this doesn't hold true for every hand, otherwise there would be no difference between level 1 and level 5 players, but this situation comes up often, and this is one reason why losing players can so easily get deluded about how their skills stack up.
So coming back to here, you see me reach the same conclusion that a die-hard Democrat would reach, and since you're one and only one level higher in the sophistication of thinking compared to die-hard partisans, you conclude that I am a die-hard partisan as well. You cannot conceive of a situation where someone could be thinking on a level one higher than yourself, and that he would just happen to reach the same conclusion that someone one level lower than yourself would reach in this particular case.
Am I claiming that I think about politics on a level one higher than you? Yes, yes I do, not that it's that great of an accomplishment. Will I be able to convince you of this fact? No, I'm not under any delusion about that, not until you mature some more intellectually.
This is gonna get good.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 20, 2015, 09:46:45 AM
This is gonna get good.
It has potential, yet so have many Guller/Berkut clashes in the past that fizzled out. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 20, 2015, 09:49:32 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 20, 2015, 09:46:45 AM
This is gonna get good.
It has potential, yet so have many Guller/Berkut clashes in the past that fizzled out. :hmm:
I don't remember DorseyKGB being that puffed up before.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 20, 2015, 09:49:32 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 20, 2015, 09:46:45 AM
This is gonna get good.
It has potential, yet so have many Guller/Berkut clashes in the past that fizzled out. :hmm:
Oh, you can be sure that this is a pure fizzle. What possible response is there to the level of arrogance displayed above?
This is "I was on the car club in college, so I know all about professional racing" level of hilarity.
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2015, 09:41:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 20, 2015, 09:18:30 AM
I don't think going around about it is even interesting. You are a die hard Dem, and there really isn't even anything wrong with that. When I read this article, the first thing that popped into my head is curiosity on how the typical die hard Dem would react to it, and I figured denial of the denial would be the standard die hard response.
You, of course, were kind enough to fit the predicted behavior perfectly.
But again, you are right - there is no point in you denying at (again), because your denials don't move my evaluation an iota, and I am sure my arguing it doesn't change your denial a bit either.
But that doesn't mean that your opinion is not of interest - I do like to see how the die hards react to things like this.
I think what we have here is a difference in levels of thinking. Someone who played poker a lot with deep understanding will understand what I'm talking about.
Different players think at different levels, and better players think at higher levels, but on any given hand, players of vastly different levels will make the same decision. If you're level 1, level 3, or level 5 player, you'll call, and if you're level 2 or level 4 player, you'll fold. If you're a level 2 player, you're incapable of conceiving of thinking above level 2. So if you see a level 5 player call, you'll assume that he's a level 1 player, and think that you're better than him. Of course, this doesn't hold true for every hand, otherwise there would be no difference between level 1 and level 5 players, but this situation comes up often, and this is one reason why losing players can so easily get deluded about how their skills stack up.
So coming back to here, you see me reach the same conclusion that a die-hard Democrat would reach, and since you're one and only one level higher in the sophistication of thinking compared to die-hard partisans, you conclude that I am a die-hard partisan as well. You cannot conceive of a situation where someone could be thinking on a level one higher than yourself, and that he would just happen to reach the same conclusion that someone one level lower than yourself would reach in this particular case.
Am I claiming that I think about politics on a level one higher than you? Yes, yes I do, not that it's that great of an accomplishment. Will I be able to convince you of this fact? No, I'm not under any delusion about that, not until you mature some more intellectually.
Just to save for posterity...
Quote from: Berkut on October 20, 2015, 10:12:53 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 20, 2015, 09:49:32 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 20, 2015, 09:46:45 AM
This is gonna get good.
It has potential, yet so have many Guller/Berkut clashes in the past that fizzled out. :hmm:
Oh, you can be sure that this is a pure fizzle. What possible response is there to the level of arrogance displayed above?
This is "I was on the car club in college, so I know all about professional racing" level of hilarity.
Okay, I'm glad that over. Once the tension dies down, let's get together so that I could learn some humility from you.
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2015, 10:21:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 20, 2015, 10:12:53 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 20, 2015, 09:49:32 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 20, 2015, 09:46:45 AM
This is gonna get good.
It has potential, yet so have many Guller/Berkut clashes in the past that fizzled out. :hmm:
Oh, you can be sure that this is a pure fizzle. What possible response is there to the level of arrogance displayed above?
This is "I was on the car club in college, so I know all about professional racing" level of hilarity.
Okay, I'm glad that over. Once the tension dies down, let's get together so that I could learn some humility from you.
I make no claims to humility.
So.
Is Berkut level 2 or level 4?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2015, 10:31:44 AM
So.
Is Berkut level 2 or level 4?
The critical idea is that I am level (DGuller - 1) at the very most.
Of course, I am too simple to even understand this, so who can really say?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2015, 10:31:44 AM
So.
Is Berkut level 2 or level 4?
I don't think there are levels above 3 when it comes to politics. Well, I think I'm at level 3, so I would think that, won't I? :hmm: In theory he could be level 20, but I guess everyone at some point has to take it on faith that they're at the highest level there is.
:hmm: Well, that's not very reassuring.
Quote from: Valmy on October 20, 2015, 08:07:38 AM
except in Canada where the NDP and Liberals do surprisingly well in lightly populated wastelands. Probably due to the 'First Nations' or whatever we are supposed to call the Native Americans these days.
not really, but it's the way the ridings are designed. See for Quebec, if you look closely at the voting results, you will see in a particular riding that the Conservatives are very strong in the very rural part where there's not many people, while the Libs and NDP are stronger in cities. But city people are more numerous, so they tend to cancel the conservative vote.
Am I stupid or just very intelligent?
Quote from: The Brain on October 20, 2015, 11:44:24 AM
Am I stupid or just very intelligent?
Is there is level 5 out there, you're definitely on it. :hug:
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2015, 11:53:39 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 20, 2015, 11:44:24 AM
Am I stupid or just very intelligent?
Is there is level 5 out there, you're definitely on it. :hug:
IQ 5! :w00t: :cheers:
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2015, 09:41:04 AM
I think what we have here is a difference in levels of thinking. Someone who played poker a lot with deep understanding will understand what I'm talking about.
Different players think at different levels, and better players think at higher levels, but on any given hand, players of vastly different levels will make the same decision. If you're level 1, level 3, or level 5 player, you'll call, and if you're level 2 or level 4 player, you'll fold. If you're a level 2 player, you're incapable of conceiving of thinking above level 2. So if you see a level 5 player call, you'll assume that he's a level 1 player, and think that you're better than him. Of course, this doesn't hold true for every hand, otherwise there would be no difference between level 1 and level 5 players, but this situation comes up often, and this is one reason why losing players can so easily get deluded about how their skills stack up.
So coming back to here, you see me reach the same conclusion that a die-hard Democrat would reach, and since you're one and only one level higher in the sophistication of thinking compared to die-hard partisans, you conclude that I am a die-hard partisan as well. You cannot conceive of a situation where someone could be thinking on a level one higher than yourself, and that he would just happen to reach the same conclusion that someone one level lower than yourself would reach in this particular case.
Am I claiming that I think about politics on a level one higher than you? Yes, yes I do, not that it's that great of an accomplishment. Will I be able to convince you of this fact? No, I'm not under any delusion about that, not until you mature some more intellectually.
Nothing funnier than watching level 1 thinkers delude themselves into thinking that they secretly are level 5 thinkers who just
look and act like level 1 thinkers.
Quote from: Valmy on October 20, 2015, 09:20:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 20, 2015, 09:17:24 AM
I think the Democratic strategy right now is to wait for demographic change. They have neglected their ground game since 2010, which isn't good, but simply waiting for the boomers to die is a viable strategy.
Oh they have tried to push their ground game, their 50 state strategy and everything. It just has not worked very well. But failure is not the same thing as neglect. They have just not found an issue to mobilize paranoid people as well as the anti-Government stuff the Republicans have been trotting out there. Bernie Sanders and his anti-Corporate stuff is what they need to rally the crazies. Everybody wants a boogie man for all of their problems.
They did okay in 2006 when Howard Dean was in charge.
Okay, can we stop talking about our D&D characters?
Quote from: grumbler on October 20, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
Nothing funnier than watching level 1 thinkers delude themselves into thinking that they secretly are level 5 thinkers who just look and act like level 1 thinkers.
Well, one of us is deluded, isn't it? You can never be 100% that you're not the one, but I'm sure enough to be willing to put money on the line whenever a thought process is testable. I'll always wager against you or Berkut if we're on opposite sides of the betting line, without too much of a nagging doubt that I'm being made a sucker.
Oh, I'd bet Grumbler is 100% sure of everything he says.
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2015, 01:56:21 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 20, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
Nothing funnier than watching level 1 thinkers delude themselves into thinking that they secretly are level 5 thinkers who just look and act like level 1 thinkers.
Well, one of us is deluded, isn't it? You can never be 100% that you're not the one, but I'm sure enough to be willing to put money on the line whenever a thought process is testable. I'll always wager against you or Berkut if we're on opposite sides of the betting line, without too much of a nagging doubt that I'm being made a sucker.
The difference between me and you is that I am not nearly as sure that I am every so much smarter than everyone who disagrees with me. I would in fact wonder if perhaps you are thinking more clearly than I am - although posts like this go a long way towards re-assuring me that it is not terribly likely. Overweening arrogance (and the seemingly compulsive need to tell everyone over and over and over again how truly brilliant they are) is one of many strong indicators that the person is not nearly as bright as they imagine themselves to be...
Quote from: Berkut on October 20, 2015, 02:05:00 PM
The difference between me and you is that I am not nearly as sure that I am every so much smarter than everyone who disagrees with me.
I can believe that. Now replace "smarter" with "more objective and rational", and I call bullshit.
QuoteI would in fact wonder if perhaps you are thinking more clearly than I am - although posts like this go a long way towards re-assuring me that it is not terribly likely.
That I have a hard time believing. You always act as if you're in position to deliver definitive judgment on whether my thinking is clear or partisan, so that's not really consistent with what you're trying to sell here.
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2015, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2015, 10:31:44 AM
So.
Is Berkut level 2 or level 4?
I don't think there are levels above 3 when it comes to politics. Well, I think I'm at level 3, so I would think that, won't I? :hmm: In theory he could be level 20, but I guess everyone at some point has to take it on faith that they're at the highest level there is.
:hmm: Well, that's not very reassuring.
Fools often tend to think they're the smartest people around. Smart people tend to realize that there's always someone smarter then them out there somewhere.
I consider myself a pretty smart guy. IRL, I've know several people who are smarter than me. Here on Languish, there are several posters I figure are roughly as smart as I am, and some that may be smarter. You're not one of 'em.
FWIW I think y'all are a bunch of bona fide genuises.
I like to think I'm smart enough not to get into arguments about how smart I am. :smarty:
I'm at least a level 4 rogue.
Y'all a bunch of morans.
Quote from: dps on October 20, 2015, 04:38:26 PM
I consider myself a pretty smart guy. IRL, I've know several people who are smarter than me. Here on Languish, there are several posters I figure are roughly as smart as I am, and some that may be smarter. You're not one of 'em.
Good to know, thanks.
I am smart enough to know y'all a bunch of morons (I can even spell it right).
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 20, 2015, 05:17:12 PM
(I can even spell it right).
Not Kat's fault, he was home schooled.
I would say you are all a bunch of moraines, but that would be an insult to glaciers. :P
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 20, 2015, 05:17:12 PM
I am smart enough to know y'all a bunch of morons (I can even spell it right).
No one likes an Einstein.
Not a comment on you DG, but I think we're a unusual subsection* of the population with a high to extremely unlikely opinion of our own intelligences.
For myself, I know there are plenty, plenty of people here brighter than me and I've also encountered many in real life. Of course, this might just be a conceit on my part, that I some how know my own measure and am in fact dumber still than I think. :D
* a 'community' founded by a group of people who flounced off in a huff, after some words were censored in an internet debate/discussion.
Quote from: Malthus on October 20, 2015, 05:20:58 PM
I would say you are all a bunch of moraines, but that would be an insult to glaciers. :P
Tarn it!
Quote from: mongers on October 20, 2015, 05:22:01 PM
Not a comment on you DG, but I think we're a unusual subsection* of the population with a high to extremely unlikely opinion of our own intelligences.
For myself, I know there are plenty, plenty of people here brighter than me and I've also encountered many in real life. Of course, this might just be a conceit on my part, that I some how know my own measure and am in fact dumber still than I think. :D
* a 'community' founded by a group of people who flounced off in a huff, after some words were censored in an internet debate/discussion.
I think we are a subsection of population with an unusually high intelligence, way higher than average. Bullshitting pointlessly about all sorts of esoteric subjects is typically not an activity enjoyed by the less gifted among us. That doesn't mean that we're all equally thoughtful (which is not exactly the same thing as intelligent, by the way).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 20, 2015, 05:22:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 20, 2015, 05:20:58 PM
I would say you are all a bunch of moraines, but that would be an insult to glaciers. :P
Tarn it!
You guys are on arroyo.
Are we done talking about how high level our wizards are now?
I have a level 90 mage. That's pretty close to being a wizard.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 20, 2015, 05:46:30 PM
Are we done talking about how high level our wizards are now?
I hope not. We were about to reach a breakthrough in developing a self-perception based IQ test.
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2015, 05:13:11 PM
Quote from: dps on October 20, 2015, 04:38:26 PM
I consider myself a pretty smart guy. IRL, I've know several people who are smarter than me. Here on Languish, there are several posters I figure are roughly as smart as I am, and some that may be smarter. You're not one of 'em.
Good to know, thanks.
That came out meaner than I intended. Sorry.
FWIW, I agree with you that as a group, posters here have an unusually high level of intelligence.
Quote from: dps on October 20, 2015, 04:38:26 PM
Fools often tend to think they're the smartest people around. Smart people tend to realize that there's always someone smarter then them out there somewhere.
I consider myself a pretty smart guy. IRL, I've know several people who are smarter than me. Here on Languish, there are several posters I figure are roughly as smart as I am, and some that may be smarter. You're not one of 'em.
"Smart" is probably not the right term for DGuller; a smart person would have learned to ignore Berkut's gibes some time ago. He does come across as intelligent at least to me; (though consider the source.)
The big problem that the Dems are having is a complete lack of new political talent. From the democratic debate to Congress all the democratic politicians look like they should be living in an assisted living community in Florida playing bingo. There doesn't seem to be any high profile democrat who doesn't already collect a social security check.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 20, 2015, 06:14:38 PM
The big problem that the Dems are having is a complete lack of new political talent. From the democratic debate to Congress all the democratic politicians look like they should be living in an assisted living community in Florida playing bingo. There doesn't seem to be any high profile democrat who doesn't already collect a social security check.
The Castro brothers?
Quote from: Savonarola on October 20, 2015, 06:14:34 PM
"Smart" is probably not the right term for DGuller; a smart person would have learned to ignore Berkut's gibes some time ago. He does come across as intelligent at least to me; (though consider the source.)
:hug: You're clearly a very smart man.
Quote from: citizen k on October 20, 2015, 06:17:58 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 20, 2015, 06:14:38 PM
The big problem that the Dems are having is a complete lack of new political talent. From the democratic debate to Congress all the democratic politicians look like they should be living in an assisted living community in Florida playing bingo. There doesn't seem to be any high profile democrat who doesn't already collect a social security check.
The Castro brothers?
An unaccomplished mayor in a deep red state? The reason he has drawn so much attention is because that is the best they can do at this time. He could very well be the VP nominee just because he is the only Hispanic politician of any prominence in the Democratic Party.
The GOP has two high profile Hispanic candidates for president right now and a deep bench of prominent Hispanic politicians with potential national roles. It's funny since the democrats are supposed to be the party of Hispanics, probably one reason for their increasingly hysterical Republicans are TEH RASIST cries.
There are no prominent democratic governors or members of Congress at all that aren't geriatric. In 2017 the democrats will have to rebuild their talent pool from scratch.
Cuomo
I've also read good things about that Rhode Island treasurer, or maybe Lt. governor, the one that fixed their pension problem.
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2015, 06:27:42 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on October 20, 2015, 06:14:34 PM
"Smart" is probably not the right term for DGuller; a smart person would have learned to ignore Berkut's gibes some time ago. He does come across as intelligent at least to me; (though consider the source.)
:hug: You're clearly a very smart man.
I'm a 12th level intellect:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickeringmyth.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F09%2Fbrainiac.jpg&hash=c0cb1e800cf640c4f6b3602b822763339f5aca29)
Quote from: The Brain on October 20, 2015, 04:39:52 PM
FWIW I think y'all are a bunch of bona fide genuises.
Oh yeah, a real gang of regular brainiacs here on languish. No doubt.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2015, 06:36:09 PM
Cuomo
I've also read good things about that Rhode Island treasurer, or maybe Lt. governor, the one that fixed their pension problem.
That would be the guy who came under investigation by his own anti-corruption task force and then had them fired? Yeah, he doesn't have a political future.
I haven't followed New York politics for about a decade, but from what I'm hearing, Cuomo is quite a piece of work. These types tend to have skeletons lying around in the closet.
Andrew Cuomo ain't going anywhere. He's to much of a back-biting asshole.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 20, 2015, 06:42:50 PM
That would be the guy who came under investigation by his own anti-corruption task force and then had them fired? Yeah, he doesn't have a political future.
Would that make him either unknown or geriatric? Don't move the goal posts on me you square headed deserter.
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2015, 06:44:31 PM
I haven't followed New York politics for about a decade, but from what I'm hearing, Cuomo is quite a piece of work. These types tend to have skeletons lying around in the closet.
Plus his squeeze is the chick that made that kwanza cake.
I'll wait while you look that up on YouTube.
My first experience with a failure of Google: I tried "Andrew Cuomo's squeeze" and got some pictures of him making speeches.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2015, 06:49:18 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 20, 2015, 06:42:50 PM
That would be the guy who came under investigation by his own anti-corruption task force and then had them fired? Yeah, he doesn't have a political future.
Would that make him either unknown or geriatric? Don't move the goal posts on me you square headed deserter.
:lol: he is someone without a future, just like the rest of the Democratic Party leadership.
Part of the problem is that the democrats, unlike the GOP, assign leadership positions still mainly based on seniority. The other problem is that the Dems, unlike the GOP, have closed primaries that make it difficult for new talent to enter.
Of course the open primary system is giving the GOP Donald Trump, so it is a two edged sword.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2015, 07:02:00 PM
My first experience with a failure of Google: I tried "Andrew Cuomo's squeeze" and got some pictures of him making speeches.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2iWTJqo98
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 20, 2015, 07:03:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2015, 07:02:00 PM
My first experience with a failure of Google: I tried "Andrew Cuomo's squeeze" and got some pictures of him making speeches.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2iWTJqo98
:huh: Am I missing something?
Quote from: dps on October 20, 2015, 04:38:26 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2015, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2015, 10:31:44 AM
So.
Is Berkut level 2 or level 4?
I don't think there are levels above 3 when it comes to politics. Well, I think I'm at level 3, so I would think that, won't I? :hmm: In theory he could be level 20, but I guess everyone at some point has to take it on faith that they're at the highest level there is.
:hmm: Well, that's not very reassuring.
Fools often tend to think they're the smartest people around. Smart people tend to realize that there's always someone smarter then them out there somewhere.
I consider myself a pretty smart guy. IRL, I've know several people who are smarter than me. Here on Languish, there are several posters I figure are roughly as smart as I am, and some that may be smarter. You're not one of 'em.
You hide it well.
Quote from: sbr on October 20, 2015, 07:47:58 PM
Quote from: dps on October 20, 2015, 04:38:26 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2015, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2015, 10:31:44 AM
So.
Is Berkut level 2 or level 4?
I don't think there are levels above 3 when it comes to politics. Well, I think I'm at level 3, so I would think that, won't I? :hmm: In theory he could be level 20, but I guess everyone at some point has to take it on faith that they're at the highest level there is.
:hmm: Well, that's not very reassuring.
Fools often tend to think they're the smartest people around. Smart people tend to realize that there's always someone smarter then them out there somewhere.
I consider myself a pretty smart guy. IRL, I've know several people who are smarter than me. Here on Languish, there are several posters I figure are roughly as smart as I am, and some that may be smarter. You're not one of 'em.
You hide it well.
Hubris gets everyone in the end, except me.
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2015, 01:56:21 PM
Well, one of us is deluded, isn't it? You can never be 100% that you're not the one, but I'm sure enough to be willing to put money on the line whenever a thought process is testable. I'll always wager against you or Berkut if we're on opposite sides of the betting line, without too much of a nagging doubt that I'm being made a sucker.
I am making no claims about how smart I am. You are. Smart people don't make such claims.
Quote from: Jacob on October 20, 2015, 06:39:57 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 20, 2015, 04:39:52 PM
FWIW I think y'all are a bunch of bona fide genuises.
Oh yeah, a real gang of regular brainiacs here on languish. No doubt.
Well, we ain't exactly a chapter of Mensa here.
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2015, 07:18:48 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 20, 2015, 07:03:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2015, 07:02:00 PM
My first experience with a failure of Google: I tried "Andrew Cuomo's squeeze" and got some pictures of him making speeches.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2iWTJqo98
:huh: Am I missing something?
Srsly?
Quote from: grumbler on October 20, 2015, 08:06:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2015, 01:56:21 PM
Well, one of us is deluded, isn't it? You can never be 100% that you're not the one, but I'm sure enough to be willing to put money on the line whenever a thought process is testable. I'll always wager against you or Berkut if we're on opposite sides of the betting line, without too much of a nagging doubt that I'm being made a sucker.
I am making no claims about how smart I am. You are. Smart people don't make such claims.
:hmm: I think you're making an awful lot of assumptions and generalizations about how smart people behave.
It may shock a lot of psychologists here, but sometimes truly smart people really do assert their intellectually superiority rather directly. Especially when their willingness to suffer fools gladly dips temporarily. It may not make them the most likable of people, but it doesn't make them not smart.
I think way too many people here have read too much into Dunning-Kruger effect. Just because the tendency identified by them does exist doesn't mean that every person's competency is the inverse of their perceived competency. It is in fact possible to be simultaneously aware of both your competencies and your limitations.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 20, 2015, 06:14:38 PM
The big problem that the Dems are having is a complete lack of new political talent. From the democratic debate to Congress all the democratic politicians look like they should be living in an assisted living community in Florida playing bingo. There doesn't seem to be any high profile democrat who doesn't already collect a social security check.
Boy you got that right. The biggest star the Democrats have created in this state recently was abortion barbie. Ten years ago they would at least have some big city mayor on the way up.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 20, 2015, 08:13:19 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 20, 2015, 06:39:57 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 20, 2015, 04:39:52 PM
FWIW I think y'all are a bunch of bona fide genuises.
Oh yeah, a real gang of regular brainiacs here on languish. No doubt.
Well, we ain't exactly a chapter of Mensa here.
Half the posters here are non-Polish lawyers. You need to be pretty bright to make it in that field.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 20, 2015, 06:42:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2015, 06:36:09 PM
Cuomo
I've also read good things about that Rhode Island treasurer, or maybe Lt. governor, the one that fixed their pension problem.
That would be the guy who came under investigation by his own anti-corruption task force and then had them fired?
He wasn't even under investigation, one of his bag men got implicated and that was enough to get him to pull the plug.
Of course the party types rallied around him, mostly out of sheer cravenness.
Then he brought 3 court cases to try to get his primary challenger knocked off the ballot (all failed). After finally winning the primary, he thanked her for running and giving New Yorker a choice. :lol:
The guy has chutzpah even by NY standards, and not in a good way.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 20, 2015, 06:14:38 PM
The big problem that the Dems are having is a complete lack of new political talent.
That's true but generally true of both parties. Talented people don't get into politics anymore. The difference is the GOP either doesn't realize it or doesn't care and tries to pass off empty suits like Ryan or various puffed-off buffoons as "talent". It's pretty telling in a wide open primary year the three top polling candidates have virtually no connection to the party. The rest of the field isn't very heartening - Rand Paul is a fruitcake running against half the platform, Huckabee is building ratings for his TV show, there's the droop-eyed Bush brother who hasn't run as much as town meeting in years, Kasich the Gingrich era retread remade as ersatz RINO, etc. Rubio is the only one worth a damn; too bad for him he has to pitch to a nativist electorate.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2015, 11:31:31 PM
Rubio is the only one worth a damn; too bad for him he has to pitch to a nativist electorate.
And engage in a bidding war on who can cut the taxes closest to 0%, while doubling/tripling/quadrupling/quintupling the historical GDP growth rate with all the pent up economic activity being unpent.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2015, 11:31:31 PM
That's true but generally true of both parties. Talented people don't get into politics anymore.
There's a lot to that, but Texas is an outlier even in that regard. Non-crazy democrats leave that state and don't come back.
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2015, 08:56:22 PM
:hmm: I think you're making an awful lot of assumptions and generalizations about how smart people behave.
It may shock a lot of psychologists here, but sometimes truly smart people really do assert their intellectually superiority rather directly. Especially when their willingness to suffer fools gladly dips temporarily. It may not make them the most likable of people, but it doesn't make them not smart.
I think way too many people here have read too much into Dunning-Kruger effect. Just because the tendency identified by them does exist doesn't mean that every person's competency is the inverse of their perceived competency. It is in fact possible to be simultaneously aware of both your competencies and your limitations.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
I think it's just right, personally.
You have to admire how convenient his arrogance is - not only is he right, he is actually incapable of being wrong relative to the rest of us not operating on his level (and of course you will find a perfect correlation between the set of people he *might* acknowledge as being on his level and those who agree with his political views. You know, by coincidence.). Any perception that he might be wrong is simply the inability of those who do not agree with him to think on a level that they cannot even perceive exists.
This divorces him from any need to even consider whether someone who does not agree with him might have any kind of point. Even if they appear to have a point, it is only chance - and even if it appears that he is wrong, it is only because he is operating at a higher level of thought such that you cannot even understand the rules under which his thinking works.
Broadly speaking, nearly everyone on the forum agrees with his political views.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 21, 2015, 08:35:12 AM
Broadly speaking, nearly everyone on the forum agrees with his political views.
Most may agree with progressive policies, but I think that the majority of us disagree with his proposed tactics, as well as his evaluation of the other side.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 21, 2015, 08:38:29 AM
Most may agree with progressive policies, but I think that the majority of us disagree with his proposed tactics, as well as his evaluation of the other side.
I don't know what tactics you're talking about, but Guller's opinion on the Republican party is very much in the majority on the forum.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 21, 2015, 08:35:12 AM
Broadly speaking, nearly everyone on the forum agrees with his political views.
That is because level 1 thinkers sometimes call or bet correctly, even though they are not doing so for the "correct" reasons that the truly enlightened understand.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 21, 2015, 08:42:42 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 21, 2015, 08:38:29 AM
Most may agree with progressive policies, but I think that the majority of us disagree with his proposed tactics, as well as his evaluation of the other side.
I don't know what tactics you're talking about, but Guller's opinion on the Republican party is very much in the majority on the forum.
However, his opinions on the Democratic Party are not so universally shared. Look at his initial response to the article, where he is basically saying the Dems are completely right, and any problems they have is because of terrible voters.
QuoteDemocrats may be in trouble, but not of their own making.
QuoteThe problem is with the electorate getting crazy, not anything unusually incompetent or nefarious that Democrats did.
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2015, 08:50:09 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 21, 2015, 08:42:42 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 21, 2015, 08:38:29 AM
Most may agree with progressive policies, but I think that the majority of us disagree with his proposed tactics, as well as his evaluation of the other side.
I don't know what tactics you're talking about, but Guller's opinion on the Republican party is very much in the majority on the forum.
However, his opinions on the Democratic Party are not so universally shared. Look at his initial response to the article, where he is basically saying the Dems are completely right, and any problems they have is because of terrible voters.
QuoteDemocrats may be in trouble, but not of their own making.
QuoteThe problem is with the electorate getting crazy, not anything unusually incompetent or nefarious that Democrats did.
So I said that Democrats are not "unusually incompetent or nefarious", and you read it as saying that they're completely right? How do you even hold discussions with a person who is unwilling or unable to properly comprehend what you write? This isn't the result of level 2 thinking now, this is just the result of having a go at me for the sake of having a go at me, what with to be determined as we go along.
Quote from: DGuller on October 20, 2015, 09:01:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 20, 2015, 08:13:19 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 20, 2015, 06:39:57 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 20, 2015, 04:39:52 PM
FWIW I think y'all are a bunch of bona fide genuises.
Oh yeah, a real gang of regular brainiacs here on languish. No doubt.
Well, we ain't exactly a chapter of Mensa here.
Half the posters here are non-Polish lawyers. You need to be pretty bright to make it in that field.
:rolleyes:
I comprehend what you are saying just fine - that the article is wrong, and the problem being described has nothing to do with the Democrats, it is just that the voters are "crazy".
You can back peddle from that now if you want, but if you paused for a second from telling yourself how much smarter than everyone else you are, you might understand why you come across very differently from your own perception of what you say.
Your entire response to the article can be summed up as "The Dems are fine, they should change nothing, it is the stupid voters who are the problem". If you don't see how problematic that position is for people who actually believe that the success of the Democratic Party is important (especially now), then you cannot be helped - it is the textbook response of the ideological purist.
Which is, after all, very consistent with your position over time - you are the person who said that Blue Dog Dems should be excised from the party for example.
You are the Tea Party of the left.
I'm not backpeddling from anything, you're a lunatic who can't read. And can't remember much either, since I never said that Blue Dogs should be excised. Really, you're a walking example of a confirmation bias.
Well, certainly the resort to personal attacks is consistent as well. Yes, I am not only a "level 1 thinker" compared to your level 3, I am a "lunatic" as well.
All because I don't agree with you that the Dems are fine, and the problem with them losing all the time is "crazy" voters. The best possible evidence of lunacy and poor thinking skills, I am sure.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 09:16:33 AM
I'm not backpeddling from anything, you're a lunatic who can't read. And can't remember much either, since I never said that Blue Dogs should be excised. Really, you're a walking example of a confirmation bias.
Hey, I can read!
Getting back to the actual article, which I found pretty interesting, what SHOULD the Dems do, other than wait around for the crazy to pass from the electorate?
I think there is a bad failure in messaging to those not already in the fold. When I talk to friends who are obvious liberals, there is this attitude that they are obviously right, and if someone doesn't see that, then they are probably hopeless.
So that leaves a lot of people who are not Tea Party crazies who are also not really true liberals who basically get no pitch from the Dems at all when it comes to anything not Presidential. The Republicans, IMO, win not just because they've managed to gerrymander the districts so well, but because there isn't really anyone really running against them beyond the Dem candidate being there, and just assuming they will get the true liberal Dem votes, and if there are enough, great, and if not...oh well.
The problem, IMO, is not that the entire non-solidly liberal world went crazy and dove far right, it is that the moderates are seen as "everyone not of the left" by the left and not even pitched to ("they are all crazy anyway"), and hence they stay home and don't bother, leaving just the radicals on both sides to vote and decide - and THAT is where the gerrymandering really works - when the moderates stay home.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2015, 09:47:44 AM
Getting back to the actual article, which I found pretty interesting, what SHOULD the Dems do, other than wait around for the crazy to pass from the electorate?
I think there is a bad failure in messaging to those not already in the fold. When I talk to friends who are obvious liberals, there is this attitude that they are obviously right, and if someone doesn't see that, then they are probably hopeless.
So that leaves a lot of people who are not Tea Party crazies who are also not really true liberals who basically get no pitch from the Dems at all when it comes to anything not Presidential. The Republicans, IMO, win not just because they've managed to gerrymander the districts so well, but because there isn't really anyone really running against them beyond the Dem candidate being there, and just assuming they will get the true liberal Dem votes, and if there are enough, great, and if not...oh well.
The problem, IMO, is not that the entire non-solidly liberal world went crazy and dove far right, it is that the moderates are seen as "everyone not of the left" by the left and not even pitched to ("they are all crazy anyway"), and hence they stay home and don't bother, leaving just the radicals on both sides to vote and decide - and THAT is where the gerrymandering really works - when the moderates stay home.
Eh, the thing is there really aren't that many moderates. There are people who like to think of themselves as moderates, but when it comes down to brass tacks, will almost always vote one way or another. I'll take you for example, Berkut. When is the last time you voted for a Republican for President? 15 years ago? 20? Ever? The idea that most Americans are "moderates" or "independents" is a myth. A phantom created from poorly used polling data.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 09:49:51 AM
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.
Level 5. The the ability to stop digging when you are in a hole
Yes, when it comes down to actual voting, those who vote do in fact vote one way or the other, since I have yet to see "Moderate - 1/2 vote for each" on the ballot.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 09:58:07 AM
Eh, the thing is there really aren't that many moderates. There are people who like to think of themselves as moderates, but when it comes down to brass tacks, will almost always vote one way or another. I'll take you for example, Berkut. When is the last time you voted for a Republican for President? 15 years ago? 20? Ever? The idea that most Americans are "moderates" or "independents" is a myth. A phantom created from poorly used polling data.
Maybe I do not understand the definition of 'moderate' here. There is such a thing as a moderate Democrat or a moderate Republican so the idea that it requires you vote for both parties in equal amounts or be proven to be a fraud strikes me as a made up criteria.
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2015, 10:01:11 AM
Yes, when it comes down to actual voting, those who vote do in fact vote one way or the other, since I have yet to see "Moderate - 1/2 vote for each" on the ballot.
Man that would be great. You get a half vote! You get a half vote! Everybody gets a half vote!
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 09:58:07 AM
Eh, the thing is there really aren't that many moderates. There are people who like to think of themselves as moderates, but when it comes down to brass tacks, will almost always vote one way or another.
The last time I was over my sister's, we got into a discussion on that. I said something like "Yeah, everyone fancies themselves a moderate, calm and deliberate, no one is an extremist". My sister, obviously not detecting my sarcasm, said "Yeah, like me". Then one minute later she said that de Blasio was a communist.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 09:58:07 AM
Eh, the thing is there really aren't that many moderates. There are people who like to think of themselves as moderates, but when it comes down to brass tacks, will almost always vote one way or another. I'll take you for example, Berkut. When is the last time you voted for a Republican for President? 15 years ago? 20? Ever? The idea that most Americans are "moderates" or "independents" is a myth. A phantom created from poorly used polling data.
Well, duh, if the parties keep offering up the same choice, the voter will keep choosing the same option. That doesn't mean they closely identify with that candidate or party.
Candidates who might make the other party's voters stop and rethink, such as Christie, Paul, Liebermann or Webb, don't get the nomination.
I've never called myself a moderate. I'm in the Goldwater camp when it comes to moderation in politics.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 10:11:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 09:58:07 AM
Eh, the thing is there really aren't that many moderates. There are people who like to think of themselves as moderates, but when it comes down to brass tacks, will almost always vote one way or another.
The last time I was over my sister's, we got into a discussion on that. I said something like "Yeah, everyone fancies themselves a moderate, calm and deliberate, no one is an extremist". My sister, obviously not detecting my sarcasm, said "Yeah, like me". Then one minute later she said that de Blasio was a communist.
Indeed - just like nobody thinks they are in your "Level 1" group.
There are tells though - like when someone says something like "The problems with Party X are that all the people who vote are crazy". That is a good sign that they are probably ideological purists. Or accuse moderates in their own party of not actually being part of the party at all.
Or when they support letting the government default rather than even give an inch on some trivial ideological niche issue like Planned Parenthood.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 10:11:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 09:58:07 AM
Eh, the thing is there really aren't that many moderates. There are people who like to think of themselves as moderates, but when it comes down to brass tacks, will almost always vote one way or another.
The last time I was over my sister's, we got into a discussion on that. I said something like "Yeah, everyone fancies themselves a moderate, calm and deliberate, no one is an extremist". My sister, obviously not detecting my sarcasm, said "Yeah, like me". Then one minute later she said that de Blasio was a communist.
I have met many self-described partisans and political radicals. So your premise is false.
Quote from: Barrister on October 21, 2015, 10:14:37 AM
I've never called myself a moderate. I'm in the Goldwater camp when it comes to moderation in politics.
I don't think that applies to how we use "moderate" in regards to political positions though. At least, it certainly does not apply to myself when I describe myself as "moderate" in relation to the Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative divide.
Goldwater's quote is talking about how vigorously you defend what you see as "right", not how you decide what is "right" to begin with.
I do have to say I have voted for the Republicans in state and local elections over the past 20 years many times. And I have yet to not regret it later. Which is why I have basically decided there are only so many times I can get burned before I learn. I guess that makes me a fake moderate or independent or something. Should I just keep making the same mistake to prove my cred or do what I think is right for the country?
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2015, 10:15:51 AM
Or accuse moderates in their own party of not actually being part of the party at all.
First thing first. I never said that Blue Dogs should be kicked out of the party.
Now, on to a philosophical discussion. Here is another place where we just think differently, and I would say that my thinking is more robust. Party purity is absolutely a valid concept to think about. Like with all useful concepts, you can take it too far, and even way too far, but the fact that some concept can be abused doesn't invalidate it altogether.
As I previously wrote, parties cover clusters. If you try to cover too many clusters, you're not covering any clusters. He who defends everything defends nothing. There is a balance to be struck here between the size of your tent and its homogeneity. It's somewhere in the middle. Go too far in one direction or another and your party becomes irrelevant as a political unit.
Quote from: Valmy on October 21, 2015, 10:22:25 AM
I do have to say I have voted for the Republicans in state and local elections over the past 20 years many times. And I have yet to not regret it later. Which is why I have basically decided there are only so many times I can get burned before I learn. I guess that makes me a fake moderate or independent or something. Should I just keep making the same mistake to prove my cred or do what I think is right for the country?
I voted for Christie. :( I'm sorry.
LOL that is nothing. I voted for Ted Cruz.
Quote from: Valmy on October 21, 2015, 10:27:23 AM
LOL that is nothing. I voted for Ted Cruz.
:hmm: Agreed.
Quote from: Valmy on October 21, 2015, 10:04:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 09:58:07 AM
Eh, the thing is there really aren't that many moderates. There are people who like to think of themselves as moderates, but when it comes down to brass tacks, will almost always vote one way or another. I'll take you for example, Berkut. When is the last time you voted for a Republican for President? 15 years ago? 20? Ever? The idea that most Americans are "moderates" or "independents" is a myth. A phantom created from poorly used polling data.
Maybe I do not understand the definition of 'moderate' here. There is such a thing as a moderate Democrat or a moderate Republican so the idea that it requires you vote for both parties in equal amounts or be proven to be a fraud strikes me as a made up criteria.
"Moderate" and "independent" get mixed together. I'm focusing more on the "independent" aspect. How can someone be an "independent", if they vote the same way a Democrat does every election? How are they materially different then a Democrat? What actually makes them "independent"?
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 10:11:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 09:58:07 AM
Eh, the thing is there really aren't that many moderates. There are people who like to think of themselves as moderates, but when it comes down to brass tacks, will almost always vote one way or another.
The last time I was over my sister's, we got into a discussion on that. I said something like "Yeah, everyone fancies themselves a moderate, calm and deliberate, no one is an extremist". My sister, obviously not detecting my sarcasm, said "Yeah, like me". Then one minute later she said that de Blasio was a communist.
You'd think your sister would be able to distinguish a true communist from her days in the Young Pioneers.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 11:07:06 AM
How can someone be an "independent", if they vote the same way a Democrat does every election?
They typically don't. The independent is more apt to vote for Republicans or third party candidates in some races.
The primary process means there is very little variation in one Presidential nominee's views from the previous one. That is not so for all races. Sometimes you get a choice between a Democratic gun nut and a Republican who supports abortion. Or a Communist and a RINO. Or someone who wants to leave the UN vs a Blue Dog.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 11:07:06 AM
"Moderate" and "independent" get mixed together. I'm focusing more on the "independent" aspect. How can someone be an "independent", if they vote the same way a Democrat does every election? How are they materially different then a Democrat? What actually makes them "independent"?
They are less likely to contribute cash to a Democrats campaign or volunteer for one?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 11:07:06 AM
"Moderate" and "independent" get mixed together. I'm focusing more on the "independent" aspect. How can someone be an "independent", if they vote the same way a Democrat does every election? How are they materially different then a Democrat? What actually makes them "independent"?
"Independent," I'd imagine, means they are not part of either of the parties, do not use any of their branding, do not receive any kind of funding from the party apparatus, do not use the party organization and mailing lists to run their campaigns and fund-raise.
In other words, while they may or may not vote in lockstep with one of the parties, they are not part of the party hierarchy and organizational structures.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 09:49:51 AM
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.
What is interesting about your take on this is how nicely it reinforces my views that the political radicals align a lot with religious fanatics, in that what they find most deplorable is not even their political opponents, but rather those who reject the idea of party (or religion) altogether as a useful tool for personal evaluation of views.
Note that in DG's "hierarchy" of super thinkers that the members of the Tea Party? They are all Level 3 thinkers, to a man (or woman). Just like thim...They all believe, just as fervently as he does, that their stance is based on principle and a level of faith towards the party that represents those views most closely, and dogged opposition to those who oppose those views.
So in his "hierarchy" the "deep/thoughtful thinkers" are (surprise, surprise) the most radical members of each party - and yet we all would agree that in fact the Tea Party dumbshits are NOT, by any stretch, the thoughtful, intelligent, thinking on a higher plane demographic amongst the electorate - the very people he called "crazy".
There is nothing in this "hierarchy" that has anything at all to do with intelligence, and his claim that those in "Level 2" simply cannot comprehend the advanced thinking of those in "Level 3" is completely ridiculous. I, for one, understand his argument perfectly well enough to know exactly how ridiculous it is if you think about it more for more than about 60 seconds.
Lastly, in a nod towards his analogy with poker. What is interesting about the hierarchy in relation to poker is that it is testable - you can watch poker players, and see that some consistently beat others, even though it can be hard for the losers to tell why this is happening. So to the extent that you can evidence this hierarchy, even to someone who is not a level 5 player, you can do so by pointing out that in fact someone keeps beating you, and you don't understand why, but they are...those who lack the ability to play at a higher level, and also lack the ability to even understand that there ARE higher levels, tend to do things like blame external factors they cannot control, like luck.
What is kind of funny is that the original article was about how the Dems manage to lose constantly at almost all levels. Yet Dems like DG are at a similar loss as to understanding why, and simply insist that they are doing everything right, but it is the voters who are broken...kind of ironic, really. Of course, this is HIS analogy, not mine.
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2015, 11:31:23 AM
In other words, while they may or may not vote in lockstep with one of the parties, they are not part of the party hierarchy and organizational structures.
I know you are talking about poltiicians here, rather than voters, but I think it is an interesting point, even if we tweak it a little bit to describe voters.
To the extent that I call myself independent, I think it is fair to challenge me on that on my voting record. Looking at voting record alone over the last couple decades, one would he very hard pressed to distinguish me from DGuller.
But I think there is a critical difference in our viewpoints. He thinks this is because he thinks on a higher plane than I do, but that is another argument.
He feels that the Party has a value in and of itself - an ideological value. Such that he is very comfortable demanding ideological allegiance based on individuals adherence to his own ideology. Stray too far from what he sees as "purity" and he is justified in calling the "fake" memebers, and delighting in their ejection.
I do not feel that way at all - to the extent that the Party has utility, it is purely practical. A grouping of like minded people based on some principles, and it's value only exists as long as the organization has utility to advance some agenda. So I might vote Democrat, but that is because the Republicans jumped the shark on most issues (and to be fair my own views have in fact shifted to the left as well). If the party alignments shifted, and the Dems went far left and the Republicans followed them into the center, I would have no problem spending the next 20 years voting for them, and would not feel a single bit of conflict over that.
To me, the Party's have almost no ideological utility. Indeed, in my opinion, the most pressing problems the US is facing are those that the parties helped create and are helping perpetuate, because they are problems that the Party system itself feeds on. So for me, my "allegiance" to the Dems right now is purely tactical. As long as they more closely align with my views, I will continue to support them. If they do not, I won't lament that the Party moved (or that my views moved and they did not), I will simply look for the next best alternate. It seems to me that this state won't change much though, given that the Republicans seem to be sprinting away from rationality as fast as they can.
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2015, 11:54:10 AM
Note that in DG's "hierarchy" of super thinkers that the members of the Tea Party? They are all Level 3 thinkers, to a man (or woman). Just like thim...They all believe, just as fervently as he does, that their stance is based on principle and a level of faith towards the party that represents those views most closely, and dogged opposition to those who oppose those views.
Tea Party followers are ultra-partisans of their own party within a party. They very much think about political process at level 1.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 11:07:06 AM
How are they materially different then a Democrat? What actually makes them "independent"?
The (unobservable) likelihood of voting for a different party if the party changes to some extent. Just because the other party isn't changing, or changing in the opposite direction to where you would meet it, doesn't mean that you yourself aren't an independent. The conditions to which you would react just don't ever happen to present themselves.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 12:13:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2015, 11:54:10 AM
Note that in DG's "hierarchy" of super thinkers that the members of the Tea Party? They are all Level 3 thinkers, to a man (or woman). Just like thim...They all believe, just as fervently as he does, that their stance is based on principle and a level of faith towards the party that represents those views most closely, and dogged opposition to those who oppose those views.
Tea Party followers are ultra-partisans of their own party within a party. They very much think about political process at level 1.
No, not at all.
QuoteLevel 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.
The reason they are fighting with their party is that they lack the party loyalty your fake hierarchies demand of a level 1. Rather they feel THEY are the "true" party, and the others are the ones who have betrayed the principles that they value much more than party. Hence their contentment with excising those from the party willing to compromise...much like how Blue Dogs were treated, in fact. The difference here being that the Tea Party is (for now) a minority in the Republicans, rather than the Blue Dogs being the minority.
The Tea Party is not at all "Party loyalists" in any way. They are ideological loyalists. Just like you.
If you asked them, they would all claim, just like you, to be Level 3 thinkers.
They are a de-facto different party at this point that caucuses with GOP, and that uses and abuses its power as a kingmaker to bring the rest of it to its heel. If we had a parliamentary system at his point, they would be a different party, and everyone would be better off for it.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 12:22:05 PM
They are a de-facto different party at this point that caucuses with GOP, and that uses and abuses its power as a kingmaker to bring the rest of it to its heel. If we had a parliamentary system at his point, they would be a different party, and everyone would be better off for it.
The Tea Party hasn't been around that long, clearly the members must have come from somewhere. Presumably they were formally members of another party, either the Republicans, Libertarians or independent, that decided that the Tea Party better matched their beliefs.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 12:22:05 PM
They are a de-facto different party at this point that caucuses with GOP, and that uses and abuses its power as a kingmaker to bring the rest of it to its heel. If we had a parliamentary system at his point, they would be a different party, and everyone would be better off for it.
LOL, you are really moving the goal posts. They are not at all motivated by party loyalty. Period. That is 100% clear to everyone. They are motivated by ideology, and could not care less about their "party" per se.
They are very much members of your "Level 3", and there is noting at all in your own description that would exclude them. You are trying to define them away because you know that is the case, and your silly arrogance is so much hot air, as almost all such ridiculous arrogance turns out to be...
Quote from: DGuller on Level 3People'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.
That describes the Tea Party *perfectly*, including their radical opposition to anything tainted by Obama: "if some party (
or person )clusters around issues that you really don't want advanced, (
like Obamacare and gay marriage) it's perfectly rational to be opposed to that party as well."
Quote from: frunk on October 21, 2015, 12:24:44 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 12:22:05 PM
They are a de-facto different party at this point that caucuses with GOP, and that uses and abuses its power as a kingmaker to bring the rest of it to its heel. If we had a parliamentary system at his point, they would be a different party, and everyone would be better off for it.
The Tea Party hasn't been around that long, clearly the members must have come from somewhere. Presumably they were formally members of another party, either the Republicans, Libertarians or independent, that decided that the Tea Party better matched their beliefs.
Indeed - which completely trashes the notion that they are motivated by "team loyalty". They are so NOT loyal to a team that they went and formed their own team that better aligned with their ideological extremism.
So they cannot be Level 1. They certainly are not Level 2, and they perfectly fit into the description given by DG himself for Level 3.
hoist by his own petard, I believe is the relevant phrase here.
Tea Party types adopt a lot of issues grossly against their interests. Such as being against Obamacare, or being for tax cuts to the rich. They're adopting those issues because they come with the package of the Tea Party membership, and thus aren't even thinking about them and the impact it would have on them. Intolerance is what they're really looking for; everything else they blindly believe in out of faith to their movement.
Dance, dance, dance.
Your opinion on the validity of their positions is not relevant to whether or not they fit into your levels, and which they fit into - your level 1 is defined by "team loyalty", which they very clearly DO NOT espouse, since in fact their team is in the middle of a nasty fight right now over them being willing to destroy the team rather than go along with what they see as ideological betrayal.
We all agree they are basically idiots - that is the point. Your hierarchy, which is intended to prove to all of us how much smarter you are, places the dumbest of the political "Know Nothings" right into the very group you carefully crafted for yourself.
The irony is that in fact you are inadvertently exactly right that they do in fact inhabit the same group you do, just not in the fashion you think.
And, to be completely fair, I do not at all think you are an idiot, nor would I even claim to be objectively smarter than you - I suspect we are both in the same band of "pretty damn smart compared to the average, not quite at the stupidly smart active scientists making breakthroughs level though". Probably top 2-3%, but not top 0.5%.
But one thing I have learned in the last few decades is that being smart isn't really all that important compared to having an open mind and some humility about the things you don't know, and some appreciation that people who disagree with you often do so for very good reasons other than they just aren't smart enough to ascertain the Truth with your own level of clarity.
In any case, thinking about party politics at level 3 as I outlined doesn't make you a good person, or a person with superior judgment. You can believe in genocidal fascism, and be a level 3 independent because neither party really covers your cluster. I was just explaining why Berkut time and again completely misjudges where I'm coming from when I express my opinions.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 12:47:45 PM
In any case, thinking about party politics at level 3 as I outlined doesn't make you a good person, or a person with superior judgment.
Actually that is exactly what you claimed:
QuoteAm I claiming that I think about politics on a level one higher than you? Yes, yes I do, not that it's that great of an accomplishment. Will I be able to convince you of this fact? No, I'm not under any delusion about that, not until you mature some more intellectually.
I misspoke. I meant superior judgment in what your values are
I'm the most intelligent person on Languish. Fuck all y'all if you doubt me.
DG is intelligent, BUT cannot be trusted because Telefon.
Quote from: The Brain on October 21, 2015, 12:54:48 PM
I'm the most intelligent person on Languish. Fuck all y'all if you doubt me.
Why in the world would anyone doubt that?
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 21, 2015, 12:54:48 PM
I'm the most intelligent person on Languish. Fuck all y'all if you doubt me.
Why in the world would anyone doubt that?
Oh you. :blush:
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2015, 11:31:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 11:07:06 AM
"Moderate" and "independent" get mixed together. I'm focusing more on the "independent" aspect. How can someone be an "independent", if they vote the same way a Democrat does every election? How are they materially different then a Democrat? What actually makes them "independent"?
"Independent," I'd imagine, means they are not part of either of the parties, do not use any of their branding, do not receive any kind of funding from the party apparatus, do not use the party organization and mailing lists to run their campaigns and fund-raise.
In other words, while they may or may not vote in lockstep with one of the parties, they are not part of the party hierarchy and organizational structures.
I mean voters, not politicians. Most people who self-identify with one party don't work on campaigns or give money. About 25-30 Percent of the population self-identify as a Democrat and the about the same number self Identify as a Republican. The rest identify as "independent". That makes up around 40% of the population. That would indicate that 40% of the population is up for play in an election. If that were true we would expect to see major shifts in poll numbers during elections. We don't see that. Despite self-Identifying as Independent most of them consistently support one party's candidates for another. Gallup Polls show this as people who "Lean" one way or another.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
Well, what is the material difference between people who self-Identify as Democrat and one who just leans democratic? Nothing really. I think a lot of people like to think of themselves as "independent", for whatever reason. People who don't want to be pigeonholed or want to feel as if they are above such ideological purity and better then the "sheeple" who always vote for one party despite doing the same thing themselves. The actual number of independent undecided voters is probably less then 10%, and I think it's a fallacy to assume that they are moderates. People who don't consistently vote for one party or another may very well be radicals. Nazis, or Communists, or Greens, or Libertarians. There is no big "moderate middle", in American politics.
DG, you really need to drop this "level" bullshit.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 01:21:52 PM
DG, you really need to drop this "level" bullshit.
Should he take it down a level?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 01:19:27 PM
That makes up around 40% of the population. That would indicate that 40% of the population is up for play in an election. If that were true we would expect to see major shifts in poll numbers during elections. We don't see that.
Why would we expect that? People may be independent but that does not mean their individual positions change radically from election to election. Unless you are suggesting that from election to election the two parties are radically shifting their policy positions in the expectation that independents are going to flock to them but I do not see that happening very often.
QuoteThe actual number of independent undecided voters is probably less then 10%, and I think it's a fallacy to assume that they are moderates. People who don't consistently vote for one party or another may very well be radicals. Nazis, or Communists, or Greens, or Libertarians.
Well duh Raz.
The only person I see who lumped 'independents' with 'moderates' is you. Radical independents are the ones who are powering things like the Tea Party. And, you know, FEEL THE BERN himself is an independent.
QuoteThere is no big "moderate middle", in American politics.
There may be a big moderate middle but the Venn diagram with independents may not overlap as much as you seem to think or suggest that everybody else thinks.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 01:19:27 PM
That would indicate that 40% of the population is up for play in an election. If that were true we would expect to see major shifts in poll numbers during elections. We don't see that.
Because we get candidates who agree with their party platform on every issue. Thus the decision-making calculus is always the same.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 21, 2015, 01:28:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 01:19:27 PM
That would indicate that 40% of the population is up for play in an election. If that were true we would expect to see major shifts in poll numbers during elections. We don't see that.
Because we get candidates who agree with their party platform on every issue. Thus the decision-making calculus is always the same.
Okay, if that were true, why claim to be "independent"? If you've decided before hand because nothing changes then you really aren't independent.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 01:30:29 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 21, 2015, 01:28:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 01:19:27 PM
That would indicate that 40% of the population is up for play in an election. If that were true we would expect to see major shifts in poll numbers during elections. We don't see that.
Because we get candidates who agree with their party platform on every issue. Thus the decision-making calculus is always the same.
Okay, if that were true, why claim to be "independent"? If you've decided before hand because nothing changes then you really aren't independent.
So only people who have made no political position decisions can be independent?
Quote from: Valmy on October 21, 2015, 01:27:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 01:19:27 PM
That makes up around 40% of the population. That would indicate that 40% of the population is up for play in an election. If that were true we would expect to see major shifts in poll numbers during elections. We don't see that.
Why would we expect that? People may be independent but that does not mean their individual positions change radically from election to election. Unless you are suggesting that from election to election the two parties are radically shifting their policy positions in the expectation that independents are going to flock to them but I do not see that happening very often.
QuoteThe actual number of independent undecided voters is probably less then 10%, and I think it's a fallacy to assume that they are moderates. People who don't consistently vote for one party or another may very well be radicals. Nazis, or Communists, or Greens, or Libertarians.
Well duh Raz.
The only person I see who lumped 'independents' with 'moderates' is you. Radical independents are the ones who are powering things like the Tea Party. And, you know, FEEL THE BERN himself is an independent.
QuoteThere is no big "moderate middle", in American politics.
There may be a big moderate middle but the Venn diagram with independents may not overlap as much as you seem to think or suggest that everybody else thinks.
What makes you think the Tea Party is made up of Independents? And if peoples opinions don't change and the parties don't change then why call them Independent? You already know what they are going to do.
Quote from: Valmy on October 21, 2015, 01:31:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 01:30:29 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 21, 2015, 01:28:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 01:19:27 PM
That would indicate that 40% of the population is up for play in an election. If that were true we would expect to see major shifts in poll numbers during elections. We don't see that.
Because we get candidates who agree with their party platform on every issue. Thus the decision-making calculus is always the same.
Okay, if that were true, why claim to be "independent"? If you've decided before hand because nothing changes then you really aren't independent.
So only people who have made no political position decisions can be independent?
Fairly close, yeah. Most people who show interest in politics and vote already have a set a values and consistently vote for the party that they feel best expresses those values. The rest are new voters, the chronically indecisive, and people who aren't that interested in politics to begin with. For the rest of them, I strongly suspect that they value the concept of "Independence" and would like to think of themselves as freethinkers. But when they get in the voting booth their voting patterns are indistinguishable from voters who self identify as party voters.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 01:21:52 PM
DG, you really need to drop this "level" bullshit.
I think the point I'm trying to make it very real, even if I haven't developed it well in this case.
We'd like to think that as we gain more thorough understanding, our conclusions would become more and more correct without reversals. What you got right originally you'll still get right, but you'll also get right some of the things that you previously got wrong. It unfortunately doesn't always work this way. Sometimes you start off getting things right by dumb luck, then learn enough to be dangerous and thus get wrong some of the things you previous had right.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 01:38:53 PM
Fairly close, yeah. Most people who show interest in politics and vote already have a set a values and consistently vote for the party that they feel best expresses those values. The rest are new voters, the chronically indecisive, and people who aren't that interested in politics to begin with. For the rest of them, I strongly suspect that they value the concept of "Independence" and would like to think of themselves as freethinkers. But when they get in the voting booth their voting patterns are indistinguishable from voters who self identify as party voters.
As you have already stated being 'Independent' could mean any one of hundreds of different things. For the foreseeable future my voting pattern is going to be indistinguishable from a Democrat. But that is subject to change as the facts on the ground dictate.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 01:38:53 PM
Fairly close, yeah. Most people who show interest in politics and vote already have a set a values and consistently vote for the party that they feel best expresses those values. The rest are new voters, the chronically indecisive, and people who aren't that interested in politics to begin with. For the rest of them, I strongly suspect that they value the concept of "Independence" and would like to think of themselves as freethinkers. But when they get in the voting booth their voting patterns are indistinguishable from voters who self identify as party voters.
I think you are certainly right about some independents. Some think of themselves this way only because it's cooler being an independent voter than being a dependent voter. But again, what I said before about the shifting of the parties very much explains the phenomenon. If you do different things when conditions don't change, then you're not independent, you're just fickle or erratic.
So does particiapting in this thread amount to grinding/camping/levelling up?
(excuse the confusion but I've never played a MMORG, so don't know the terminology)
grinding - repeating the same activity many times in order to level up/get other rewards
camping - occupying a specific location waiting for something to happen
leveling up - character becomes more powerful
I don't think any of us are leveling up, and the rewards for grinding are dubious at best.
Quote from: frunk on October 21, 2015, 02:02:26 PM
grinding - repeating the same activity many times in order to level up/get other rewards
Often on a dance floor.
Quote from: frunk on October 21, 2015, 02:02:26 PM
grinding - repeating the same activity many times in order to level up/get other rewards
camping - occupying a specific location waiting for something to happen
leveling up - character becomes more powerful
I don't think any of us are leveling up, and the rewards for grinding are dubious at best.
If I "camp" in this thread, "grinding" though its multiple posts, will I "level up" to become a higher-level thinker? :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on October 21, 2015, 02:05:05 PM
If I "camp" in this thread, "grinding" though its multiple posts, will I "level up" to become a higher-level thinker? :hmm:
Only in the DGuller sense, which is to say not at all.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 01:38:53 PM
But when they get in the voting booth their voting patterns are indistinguishable from voters who self identify as party voters.
I just don't think this is accurate. I think the independent voters are more likely to vote split tickets. :hmm:
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.
As you understand probability and statistics more and more, your answer tend to oscillate back and forth. It happens fairly often, unfortunately. Another annoying example is the "correlation is not causation". Yes, someone who knows this knows more than someone who doesn't. But someone who knows even more knows that it doesn't always matter.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 02:10:17 PM
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.
Quote from: frunk on October 21, 2015, 02:27:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 02:10:17 PM
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.
Quote from: frunk on October 21, 2015, 02:27:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 02:10:17 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 09:49:51 AM
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.
:lmfao: 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.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 02:31:31 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 02:25:10 PM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 21, 2015, 02:36:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 02:25:10 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2015, 02:34:06 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 09:49:51 AM
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.
:lmfao: 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:
QuoteLevel 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...
No, it's far more likely the coin is fair. At least as far as human standards go. Most coins are.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 21, 2015, 02:41:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2015, 02:34:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 02:31:31 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 02:42:48 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 21, 2015, 02:41:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2015, 02:54:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 02:42:48 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 21, 2015, 02:41:22 PM
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 :hug:
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 02:39:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on October 21, 2015, 02:59:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 21, 2015, 02:54:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 02:42:48 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 21, 2015, 02:41:22 PM
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 :hug:
:yeah:
Quote from: frunk on October 21, 2015, 02:59:59 PM
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.
:D
It would be silly to revise a prior - even minimally based on a 6-4 split a 10 flips. A 6-4 split is exactly the kind of result one would expect to see if a fair coin is flipped 10 times.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 21, 2015, 03:06:41 PM
It would be silly to revise a prior - even minimally based on a 6-4 split a 10 flips. A 6-4 split is exactly the kind of result one would expect to see if a fair coin is flipped 10 times.
In fact a 6-4 split favoring heads or tails is more likely than the perfect 5-5.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 21, 2015, 03:06:41 PM
It would be silly to revise a prior - even minimally based on a 6-4 split a 10 flips. A 6-4 split is exactly the kind of result one would expect to see if a fair coin is flipped 10 times.
It's a very likely result for a fair coin. But it's an even more likely result for a coin that is head-biased. Of course your revision of a prior would be extremely minimal (and would depend on your initial judgmental confidence in the fairness of the coin), but the prior should still be revised.
Are there negative levels btw? I'm asking for a friend.
Quote from: The Brain on October 21, 2015, 03:11:12 PM
Are there negative levels btw? I'm asking for a friend.
One guy punches the other in the face and steals the coin. That's -1. :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on October 21, 2015, 03:24:02 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 21, 2015, 03:11:12 PM
Are there negative levels btw? I'm asking for a friend.
One guy punches the other in the face and steals the coin. That's -1. :hmm:
But he would claim it was actually Level 6, and only looks like level -1 to you because you are at level 5, and how could you dispute him?
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 03:10:12 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 21, 2015, 03:06:41 PM
It would be silly to revise a prior - even minimally based on a 6-4 split a 10 flips. A 6-4 split is exactly the kind of result one would expect to see if a fair coin is flipped 10 times.
It's a very likely result for a fair coin. But it's an even more likely result for a coin that is head-biased. Of course your revision of a prior would be extremely minimal (and would depend on your initial judgmental confidence in the fairness of the coin), but the prior should still be revised.
But that's a very good example of how you can over-learn some things when getting to classical statistics stage. A lot of people learn that a small sample size with not unusual outcomes doesn't tell you anything. That's almost right. It doesn't tell you a whole lot, but it tells you more than nothing. Every single coin flip tells you something and should make you update your prior expectation.
If you flip a coin in the air it has a chance of hitting a bird 50% of the first time you flip it, especially if you're outside.
Quote from: PRC on October 21, 2015, 03:49:44 PM
If you flip a coin in the air it has a chance of hitting a bird 50% of the first time you flip it, especially if you're outside.
Depends on how informed your prior is.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 03:52:11 PM
Quote from: PRC on October 21, 2015, 03:49:44 PM
If you flip a coin in the air it has a chance of hitting a bird 50% of the first time you flip it, especially if you're outside.
Depends on how informed your prior is.
The prior knows how many birds are supposed to be there, but doesn't realize the abbot had one of them for supper last night.
Goddammit, too slow.
I hate all this levelcentrism! :(
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 03:49:19 PM
But that's a very good example of how you can over-learn some things when getting to classical statistics stage. A lot of people learn that a small sample size with not unusual outcomes doesn't tell you anything. That's almost right. It doesn't tell you a whole lot, but it tells you more than nothing. Every single coin flip tells you something and should make you update your prior expectation.
This type of micro adjustment is only meaningful if there will be no more trials available (meaning no further adjustment is possible) and there will be a really large number of outcomes that will have to be predicted. Otherwise a later adjustment of the priors will be greatly more significant or the number of outcomes to be predicted will not meaningfully show the difference between the original prior and the changed one.
I miss Executive Outcomes. :(
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 03:49:19 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 03:10:12 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 21, 2015, 03:06:41 PM
It would be silly to revise a prior - even minimally based on a 6-4 split a 10 flips. A 6-4 split is exactly the kind of result one would expect to see if a fair coin is flipped 10 times.
It's a very likely result for a fair coin. But it's an even more likely result for a coin that is head-biased. Of course your revision of a prior would be extremely minimal (and would depend on your initial judgmental confidence in the fairness of the coin), but the prior should still be revised.
But that's a very good example of how you can over-learn some things when getting to classical statistics stage. A lot of people learn that a small sample size with not unusual outcomes doesn't tell you anything. That's almost right. It doesn't tell you a whole lot, but it tells you more than nothing. Every single coin flip tells you something and should make you update your prior expectation.
I didn't say it tells you nothing. I said it was silly to revise the prior on that basis.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 21, 2015, 04:15:02 PM
I didn't say it tells you nothing. I said it was silly to revise the prior on that basis.
If it doesn't tell you nothing, then it's silly to NOT revise the prior. That's precisely the point. The concept of not changing your prior until some critical mass of contrary evidence accumulates is exactly the classical statistics viewpoint, which is reflected in level 3 thinking of my example.
Quote from: frunk on October 21, 2015, 04:06:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 03:49:19 PM
But that's a very good example of how you can over-learn some things when getting to classical statistics stage. A lot of people learn that a small sample size with not unusual outcomes doesn't tell you anything. That's almost right. It doesn't tell you a whole lot, but it tells you more than nothing. Every single coin flip tells you something and should make you update your prior expectation.
This type of micro adjustment is only meaningful if there will be no more trials available (meaning no further adjustment is possible) and there will be a really large number of outcomes that will have to be predicted. Otherwise a later adjustment of the priors will be greatly more significant or the number of outcomes to be predicted will not meaningfully show the difference between the original prior and the changed one.
You make adjustments as the information comes in. Yes, if you're making all the decisions only after observing all the 10 coin flips, and there will be no more coin flips after that, then there is no difference between doing 10 small updates or 1 bigger update. But you're not worse off.
On the other hand, if you have to place your bets continuosly in between the coin flips, then you would've been better off updating your priors continuously. Obviously all the differences are going to be on an atomic level, I made my example deliberately insignificant, but there is never a reason to act on less information rather than more, if you process it correctly.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 04:22:47 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 21, 2015, 04:15:02 PM
I didn't say it tells you nothing. I said it was silly to revise the prior on that basis.
If it doesn't tell you nothing, then it's silly to NOT revise the prior. That's precisely the point. The concept of not changing your prior until some critical mass of contrary evidence accumulates is exactly the classical statistics viewpoint, which is reflected in level 3 thinking of my example.
You've completely lost sight of the purpose of statistical tools and reasoning in the first place. It's not to make ridiculously precise calculations of probabilities based on little evidence. It's an aid to practical reasoning. In your example, the data provided is irrelevant on any practical consideration. It would be foolish to spend even a second of time revising the prior. It's like a truck at a weighing station in the fall - if a leaf falls on the truck, should you re-weigh? Yes, there is new data, but so what?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 21, 2015, 04:31:47 PM
You've completely lost sight of the purpose of statistical tools and reasoning in the first place. It's not to make ridiculously precise calculations of probabilities based on little evidence. It's an aid to practical reasoning. In your example, the data provided is irrelevant on any practical consideration. It would be foolish to spend even a second of time revising the prior. It's like a truck at a weighing station in the fall - if a leaf falls on the truck, should you re-weigh? Yes, there is new data, but so what?
I didn't say anything about the practicality of it. In my opinion, for most applications, Bayesian statistics is completely impractical, and classical statistics will serve you well enough.
But it was a thought experiment. And if you can get your thinking right for the unintuitive and impractical thought experiments like this, it will help you get a grasp of things on a more practical scale as well.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 01:41:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 01:21:52 PM
DG, you really need to drop this "level" bullshit.
I think the point I'm trying to make it very real, even if I haven't developed it well in this case.
We'd like to think that as we gain more thorough understanding, our conclusions would become more and more correct without reversals. What you got right originally you'll still get right, but you'll also get right some of the things that you previously got wrong. It unfortunately doesn't always work this way. Sometimes you start off getting things right by dumb luck, then learn enough to be dangerous and thus get wrong some of the things you previous had right.
Even if you have a point, it's not going to work for you. An argument isn't won by simply telling people that your thoughts are more important and relevant. People who harp about their own intelligence are at best a bore and more likely a laughing stock.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 05:09:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 01:41:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 01:21:52 PM
DG, you really need to drop this "level" bullshit.
I think the point I'm trying to make it very real, even if I haven't developed it well in this case.
We'd like to think that as we gain more thorough understanding, our conclusions would become more and more correct without reversals. What you got right originally you'll still get right, but you'll also get right some of the things that you previously got wrong. It unfortunately doesn't always work this way. Sometimes you start off getting things right by dumb luck, then learn enough to be dangerous and thus get wrong some of the things you previous had right.
Even if you have a point, it's not going to work for you. An argument isn't won by simply telling people that your thoughts are more important and relevant. People who harp about their own intelligence are at best a bore and more likely a laughing stock.
Of course. There is a sometimes a difference between truthful statements and convincing arguments. I wasn't trying to make a convincing argument. For a large number of reasons, there will never be an argument that will convince Berkut that I understand how I reach my conclusions better than he understands how I reach my conclusions.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 03:10:12 PM
It's a very likely result for a fair coin. But it's an even more likely result for a coin that is head-biased. Of course your revision of a prior would be extremely minimal (and would depend on your initial judgmental confidence in the fairness of the coin), but the prior should still be revised.
You are missing necessary context.
Say I have 2 coins. I tell you one is fair and one is not. I flip one of the coins 10 times, and I get 6 heads. You must now answer whether it is the fair coin I flipped.
I don't know how you make such a prediction. If the non fair coin is weighted to give 60% heads, then the answer is obvious. If it is weighted to give 90% heads, it is also obvious. In the former case, I would agree with you that you are more likely to guess the flipped coin is not fair, but in the latter case the opposite conclusion is the correct one.
What we don't know is what the universe of unfair coins looks like.
I think his reasoning is that because 5 heads out of 10 is more common than (>6 || <4) heads out of 10, the result is ever-so-slightly more erratic than expected on a fair flip.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 21, 2015, 05:37:00 PM
You are missing necessary context.
Yes and no. It's up to you to decide on how confident you are in the prior. It can range from "I have absolutely no fucking idea, could be 0% head just as likely as 100% heads or anything in-between", to "Most coins are fair, it's probably fair", even to "Absolutely, positively, absolute zero chance this coin is unfair". So, yes, there isn't enough information to say exactly whether the chance of heads is now 55%, 50.5%, 50.001%, or even 50%. But unless you have a dead-certain prior, it's higher than it was before.
It may seem awfully imprecise to introduce judgment into such a mathematical calculation, but that's life. You have to make a judgment somewhere anyway, so you're better off with a system that accounts for it explicitly.
Why are we talking about coin flips now?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 05:50:39 PM
Why are we talking about coin flips now?
We're trying to pass time while waiting for Berkut.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 05:51:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 05:50:39 PM
Why are we talking about coin flips now?
We're trying to pass time while waiting for Berkut.
We could discuss TWD spoilers instead. Carol & Eugene- who saw that coming? :perv: :wacko:
How can coin flipping be a boring subject? :mad:
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 04:36:18 PM
I didn't say anything about the practicality of it.
Right.
Silly.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 05:51:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 05:50:39 PM
Why are we talking about coin flips now?
We're trying to pass time while waiting for Berkut.
It would be more interesting, that is certain. :P
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2015, 05:51:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 05:50:39 PM
Why are we talking about coin flips now?
We're trying to pass time while waiting for Berkut.
I spent the afternoon killing wasps and drilling holes in things.
Anyway, I don't think the Democrats are in deep trouble, though I'll be damned before I vote for the goddamn Red.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 06:16:42 PM
Anyway, I don't think the Democrats are in deep trouble, though I'll be damned before I vote for the goddamn Red.
We get these articles all the time. One or other of the parties is going to be completely dominate for the next 20-50 years, and the other is going to become irrelevant. It's BS. The fact is, the 2 parties, on a nationwide level, have roughly equal amounts of voter support, with a relatively small number of swing voters determining the outcome of elections. Yeah, about a third of the electorate identifies as independent, but many of them aren't truly independent--nowhere near a third of voters are swing voters.
Quote from: dps on October 22, 2015, 04:54:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2015, 06:16:42 PM
Anyway, I don't think the Democrats are in deep trouble, though I'll be damned before I vote for the goddamn Red.
We get these articles all the time. One or other of the parties is going to be completely dominate for the next 20-50 years, and the other is going to become irrelevant. It's BS. The fact is, the 2 parties, on a nationwide level, have roughly equal amounts of voter support, with a relatively small number of swing voters determining the outcome of elections. Yeah, about a third of the electorate identifies as independent, but many of them aren't truly independent--nowhere near a third of voters are swing voters.
The GOP has dominated congress for the last 20 years (they've controlled the House for 80% of the time).
That ain't dominance. Not like the Dems controlled the House in the mid 20th century. 1949-94, 290+ members at some points.