[kenberg]

helene_t, on 2016-June-26, 12:38, said:

Maybe not acceptable for the water cooler, but: Research shows that Trump has influenced bridge playing strategies: http://www.slate.com...dacy_could.html

The authors of the paper are Jonathan Falk and Andrew Gelman. I am terrible at this who is who stuff but I seem to recall a youngster named Andy Gelman playing bridge some years back. Quite some years back.

[Winstonm]

Barry Ritholtz once again has found an interesting take on a subject - this time with the help of Wired:

Quote

Agnotology
January 21, 2009 2:30pm by Barry Ritholtz

Fascinating discussion via Wired‘s Clive Thompson, and Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor, on Agnotology:

“When it comes to many contentious subjects, our usual relationship to information is reversed: Ignorance increases.

[Proctor] has developed a word inspired by this trend: agnotology. Derived from the Greek root agnosis, it is “the study of culturally constructed ignorance.”

As Proctor argues, when society doesn’t know something, it’s often because special interests work hard to create confusion. Anti-Obama groups likely spent millions insisting he’s a Muslim; church groups have shelled out even more pushing creationism. The oil and auto industries carefully seed doubt about the causes of global warming. And when the dust settles, society knows less than it did before.

“People always assume that if someone doesn’t know something, it’s because they haven’t paid attention or haven’t yet figured it out,” Proctor says. “But ignorance also comes from people literally suppressing truth—or drowning it out—or trying to make it so confusing that people stop caring about what’s true and what’s not.” (emphasis added)
Fairly amazing, and when it comes to certain issues, its dead on.

What an awesome definition:

Agnotology: Culturally constructed ignorance, purposefully created by special interest groups working hard to create confusion and suppress the truth.

http://www.wired.com...st-thompson-14/

[barmar]

I like it -- it probably works well with Stephen Colbert's "truthiness".

[kenberg]

Following the links, I got to Proctor's homepage
http://web.stanford....PS/proctor.html
Many of his interests seem interesting. The history of expert witnessing, for example.

As to agnotology, I'll keep an open mind. Without a doubt, people get hoodwinked. I believe this applies across the ideological spectrum, so I would hope any study of this phenomenon studies all weed growth in the garden of knowledge. And knowledge changes. I forget: Are eggs good for us or bad for us? I know scientists are certain of the answer, but the answer keeps changing. I started smoking in 1954 or thereabouts. I knew it was bad for me, I did it anyway. I started drinking coffee in 1947. I was 8 and people were shocked. Now we read about all the good things coffee does for people. It made me what I am today. Well, it helped.

"What is Truth?" Someone asked that a while back. Yes I went to Sunday School so I know the source. But I am far from positive Pilate really said it. Anyway, it's a tough question.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-June-28, 07:24, said:

Following the links, I got to Proctor's homepage
http://web.stanford....PS/proctor.html
Many of his interests seem interesting. The history of expert witnessing, for example.

As to agnotology, I'll keep an open mind. Without a doubt, people get hoodwinked. I believe this applies across the ideological spectrum, so I would hope any study of this phenomenon studies all weed growth in the garden of knowledge. And knowledge changes. I forget: Are eggs good for us or bad for us? I know scientists are certain of the answer, but the answer keeps changing. I started smoking in 1954 or thereabouts. I knew it was bad for me, I did it anyway. I started drinking coffee in 1947. I was 8 and people were shocked. Now we read about all the good things coffee does for people. It made me what I am today. Well, it helped.

"What is Truth?" Someone asked that a while back. Yes I went to Sunday School so I know the source. But I am far from positive Pilate really said it. Anyway, it's a tough question.

I believe it shows a lot of intelligence that the good Ph.D. figured out a way to make a living doing something so interesting.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-June-28, 08:03, said:

I believe it shows a lot of intelligence that the good Ph.D. figured out a way to make a living doing something so interesting.

Yes. Of course it is not as interesting as five dimensional manifolds, but certainly it is interesting.

[barmar]

Today's SMBC may explain Trump: he's quirky!

[kenberg]

Yes, that explains Trump. Now we have to explain why anyone would vote for him. That's tougher.

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2016-June-28, 12:14, said:

Yes, that explains Trump. Now we have to explain why anyone would vote for him. That's tougher.

I am repeating myself, but it does become a little bit easier if you allow for the possibility that a few voters might harbour racial resentments. Or, if you prefer, that there are people who believe that "Today, discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities." (That would be 64% of registered Republicans, according to a PRRI survey.)
It does make it easier. I promise.

[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2016-June-28, 16:39, said:

I am repeating myself, but it does become a little bit easier if you allow for the possibility that a few voters might harbour racial resentments. Or, if you prefer, that there are people who believe that "Today, discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities." (That would be 64% of registered Republicans, according to a PRRI survey.)
It does make it easier. I promise.

Or it could be that a few voters get tired of unrelenting condescension Some have expressed such views. We will see how it goes.

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on 2016-June-28, 12:14, said:

Yes, that explains Trump. Now we have to explain why anyone would vote for him. That's tougher.

Easy peasy. Hil is a liar, a crook and a hypocrite. DT is just a liar and a crook.

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2016-June-28, 16:52, said:

Or it could be that a few voters get tired of unrelenting condescension.

You mean, they vote for Trump instead of Hillary because cherdano writes condescending posts on BBF about Republican primary voters? I am afraid I don't think I am that influential (and I do have a healthy ego I would have thought...)

But seriously: if you genuinely believe that discrimination against whites is a serious problem in the US, then that is something a bit frowned to say, and no politician really represents that feeling - until Trump comes along.

Let me give you a comparison. Until the refugee crisis, there wasn't really much that Angela Merkel did that I liked - I am almost on the opposite end of the traditional German political spectrum. (*) But when she speaks, I can relate - she just sounds much more normal to me than other politicians. She is clear, factual and concise. But to a large extent that feeling is completely irrational - I am used to talking to scientists (if you allow me to blur the distinction between science and maths for a moment), she used to be a scientist, and hence we speak the same language. It's completely irrational, yet it'd make me much more likely to vote for her if her political positions were just a bit closer to mine.

Don't you think that some Republican primary voters who do feel that Whites are getting a bit short-changed in the last 5-7 years can relate to Trump on a gut level for exactly that reason?


(*) That means I am about as far away from her as a slightly Clinton-leaning Democratic primary voter from a slightly Sanders-leaning Democratic primary voter. But that's another story.

[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2016-June-28, 18:04, said:

Don't you think that some Republican primary voters who do feel that Whites are getting a bit short-changed in the last 5-7 years can relate to Trump on a gut level for exactly that reason?

My sample size is small. At least my known sample size. One, in fact. Becky (my spouse) hikes with a group of women on Saturdays and sometimes they come over. It's a nice group. It's fairly energetic, given the age of the members. Becky took quite a bad spill (I am getting to the point eventually) crossing a stream, falling on some rocks. She broke her wrist and damaged her right hip enough to warrant a replacement. During the recuperation all of them came by and pitched in with various ways to help. Kay (now we are getting close) was very helpful. On these hikes and elsewhere they speak of many things, but if Kay is near they do not speak of politics, not presidential politics anyway. She is adamantly pro-trump. I like every one of the women in this hiking group, I like Kay a lot, and she likes me. I have never heard her say a word that makes her sound in the least like any sort of bigot. She is healthy, educated (not a PhD but educated), enjoys life, friendly. And pro-Trump.

So what's up? Well, I have never met her husband. Women in my age group often defer to their husbands on political matters. Hey wait, I just said something sexist. No, I didn't. I stated something that I have observed. So perhaps that is the explanation. Or not. And upon reflection I think I will withdraw that bit of idle speculation.

I suppose I know other (but unannounced) Trump supporters, I haven't polled everyone. He got a lot of votes, someone out there is doing it. I certainly know and am on good terms with quite a few Republicans. And I don't find them crazy at all.

An old joke about women deferring to men on political matters. A woman is asked who makes the decisions in her family. She replies: My husband makes all of the important decision such as whether the country should go to war, whether to support the President's policies and so on. I make the minor ones such as where we should live, how to handle the money, how to discipline the children, where the kids should go to school, that sort of thing.

I hope I don't get booted for this outrageous sexism.

[WellSpyder]

kenberg, on 2016-June-28, 19:19, said:

An old joke about women deferring to men on political matters. A woman is asked who makes the decisions in her family. She replies: My husband makes all of the important decision such as whether the country should go to war, whether to support the President's policies and so on. I make the minor ones such as where we should live, how to handle the money, how to discipline the children, where the kids should go to school, that sort of thing.

Another woman answered that they had agreed when they got married 20 years ago that he would make the big decisions and she would make the minor ones. So far they hadn't needed any big decisions......

[Winstonm]

I'm fairly confident neither of the two women mentioned above were married to Donald Trump.

[ggwhiz]

On the advise of his father a guy on his honeymoon tossed a pair of his pants to his bride and told her to try them on. Naturally she couldn't hold them up.

Him: So it's clear that I wear the pants in this family.

She tossed him a pair of her panties and told him to try them on.

Him: I Can't get into them.

[Winstonm]

Somehow it seems fitting that this thread has deteriorated into panties jokes.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-June-30, 06:20, said:

Somehow it seems fitting that this thread has deteriorated into panties jokes.

Well, I started it with my (ancient) joke about political deference. The joke you refer to is actually new to me. And I do like the punch line. I take your point, but given the current politics, a little comic relief is needed from time to time.

Anyway. Get serious. Right. Will do. Bringing to mind the old Alec Guiness movie Situation Hopeless but Not Serious. Oops, sorry. Can't help myself.

[ggwhiz]

Obama was in town yesterday and in his speech to the Canadian Parliament made a couple of veiled references to Trump but the press conference had all 3 Amigos pretty much savage him without naming him of course.

This is the first time ever that Canadian and Mexican leaders have weighed in like this in an American election year. Did anyone down there notice?

[kenberg]

ggwhiz, on 2016-June-30, 08:57, said:

Obama was in town yesterday and in his speech to the Canadian Parliament made a couple of veiled references to Trump but the press conference had all 3 Amigos pretty much savage him without naming him of course.

This is the first time ever that Canadian and Mexican leaders have weighed in like this in an American election year. Did anyone down there notice?

I am aware of widespread concern, not particularly with Canada and Mexico, but it is hardly surprising when I think about it. We must find a way to keep those sneaky Canadian hockey players from taking the jobs of real Americans. Build a wall. Or a snow fort.

It is obvious that I am joking, right?

It's a long long time from June to November. If we are going to commit national suicide, I would like to get it over with.