|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 01/09/2008 : 22:19:51 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| See? This is what beskeptigal did, over and over again: she took what should have been seen as a simple question, and turned it into a strawman position statement. A position which, as should have been obvious from my posts already, I do not maintain, nor do I ever intend to make "official." |
Fine. Remove politics from this entirely.
My position is simple. A person's past actions and statements can be used to make generally accurate predictions about what they will do in the future. Not to predict specific actions, but to predict general behaviors.
This is, as far as I am aware, common knowledge and practice. Human behavior is pretty far outside my area of study.
I'll get you some input from a congnitive psychologist as soon as he gets back to me, maybe some references even.
What you seem to be claiming is that past behavior and statements are not a predictor of future actions and behavior. So leave the politics out of it and please clarify your position, so I know what I'm arguing against.
| See? This is what beskeptigal did |
I may provide an example of past behavior being a predictor of future behavior if you keep pressing me with this kind of sly insult Dave. Even if you were right (which you aren't), you know very well that I'd not react kindly to comparison with beskeptigal.
It also, really, is nothing but informal fallacy when you continue to cite that specific person in comparison to me. It isn't really relavent to any point you can make to support your contention that I'm incorrect or using strawmen myself. If I were using strawmen arguments you should be able to illutrate them simply and without insulting comparisons.
But hey, you know that already. I know you do. So the remaining conclusion is that you are being deliberately provacative, almost trollish even.
Should you be setting such an example when you and Kil have made so many pleas for civility on these boards Dave?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2008 : 23:25:08 [Permalink]
|
It shouldn't even be a question that politicians don't always fulfill their campaign promises. "Read my lips: 'No new taxes.'" What could possible be controversial about such a plain observation?
No, the real question is how can voters tell which promises politicians on the campaign trail intend to keep? And to that, there doesn't seem to be any easy answers. Snooping around a bit, it seems NPR ran a story on this topic: A Long History of Broken Campaign Promises. I haven't listened to it yet, but it's an interview with history professor Joseph Ellis, who wrote an article titled A Promise of Unpredictability about the historical unreliability of campaign promises. He writes:
| If you look at this pattern squarely, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, as often as not, what presidential candidates say to get elected has absolutely no predictive power about what they will actually do as president. If you push the pattern to its outer limits, it suggests that presidential policies often end up contradicting campaign promises. And if you apply this logic to the current presidential campaigns, voters who regard American withdrawal from Iraq as their highest priority should not vote for any of the three leading Democratic candidates -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards -- but instead for Republican John McCain. |
Tongue-in-cheek, to be sure. Yet, he insists, the fact remains that campaign promises are poor predictors of what politicians will actually do when they get into power.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/09/2008 23:32:13 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2008 : 23:41:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
What you seem to be claiming is that past behavior and statements are not a predictor of future actions and behavior. |
That's not what Dave said. He said behavior and statements made on the campaign trail are poor predictors of future actions and behavior. See, people act differently when they know they're being observed. Especially if they need people to vote for them. They might even say what they think other people want to hear. Is any of this really that controversial, Dude? Is the fact that politicians lie really that radical a revelation?
| So leave the politics out of it and please clarify your position, so I know what I'm arguing against. |
Except by leaving politics out of it, you're no longer discussing Dave's statement. In fact, you cannot extrapolate his observation beyond politics without straw-manning the shit out of what he said, which is why I for one am wondering why you're doing it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/09/2008 23:46:11 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 01:09:09 [Permalink]
|
Jeeze Dave, I thought you didn't care enough to pursue this any further! The invisible man materializes!
| bngbuck, your attempts to escalate this disagreement are themselves disagreeable. |
Well, excuse my disagreeability, as you never present yourself that way, but all I see is you using circumlocution to cover your refusal to answer Dude's questions. This is my view:
What we need are many, many more real fence-sitters, who question both the nay-sayers and the yea-sayers before arriving at a tentative conclusion, and keep asking more questions afterwards. A big bunch of folks whose rallying cry is “show me the evidence,” both for and against a proposition. That's skepticism, and we need more of it. Dude's questions surely fit that definition!
Dude says: "You, Dave, are the one making an extraordinary claim here. If past behavior and statements are not a predictor of future behavior any longer, then you are the one who is going to have to pony up to the logic and evidence table here."
So sorry to be an advocate for "escalation", but I kind of think he is right!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 02:30:09 [Permalink]
|
H.H. said:
| That's not what Dave said. He said behavior and statements made on the campaign trail are poor predictors of future actions and behavior. |
This conversation isn't about campaign promises exclusively.(edited to add: If you had actually read this thread, you'd be aware of that, but thanks for participating even though you have failed to understand what the conversation is about before jumping in.) Its about why Huckabee and Romney are not fit to hold the office of president. Its about looking at the candidate's past statements and actions, their current statements and actions, and using that data to make general predictions about their future actions.
As for campaign promises, do you have any data to show that the majority of such are broken? What tends to stick in people's minds more, a kept promise or a broken one? I certainly have no data to support this, but I suspect that most political candidates at least try to follow through on promises they make on the campaign. I also suspect that the number of kept promises is bigger than the broken ones.
Do you doubt RudyMcHuckNy when they say they will keep GITMO open, keep us in Iraq indefinitely, or that they will try to implement whatever immigration "solution" they advocate? I don't doubt that they will make every attempt to do those things when in office, if elected.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 01/10/2008 02:36:17 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 02:40:18 [Permalink]
|
H.H. said:
Except by leaving politics out of it, you're no longer discussing Dave's statement. In fact, you cannot extrapolate his observation beyond politics without straw-manning the shit out of what he said, which is why I for one am wondering why you're doing it.
|
Go back to page three, read from there at least before you make such accusations.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 08:22:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Jeeze Dave, I thought you didn't care enough to pursue this any further! |
You are having pronoun trouble.| The invisible man materializes! |
Hardly.| Well, excuse my disagreeability, as you never present yourself that way, but all I see is you using circumlocution to cover your refusal to answer Dude's questions. |
Your inability to see that I've answered Dude's question twice already is noted without much surprise.This is my view:
What we need are many, many more real fence-sitters, who question both the nay-sayers and the yea-sayers before arriving at a tentative conclusion, and keep asking more questions afterwards. A big bunch of folks whose rallying cry is “show me the evidence,” both for and against a proposition. That's skepticism, and we need more of it. Dude's questions surely fit that definition! |
I'm the one asking the question. Dude has taken that question, twisted it into its most-extreme form, and asked me if I support the strawman he's built. When I pointed this out, he asked me again to support that position which I do not hold. It's quite ridiculous.Dude says: "You, Dave, are the one making an extraordinary claim here. If past behavior and statements are not a predictor of future behavior any longer, then you are the one who is going to have to pony up to the logic and evidence table here."
So sorry to be an advocate for "escalation", but I kind of think he is right! |
I said that I thought it was time for a re-evaluation of how well past behaviour is a predictor of performance in office. Dude's mangling of my statements into "past behaviour is not a predictor of future performance" is a ludicrous caricature of what I said. The fact that he refuses to acknowledge that he might be wrong about what I've been saying shows that he's certainly no fence-sitter. The fact that he refuses to pony up actual scientific evidence for what he claims is a science (in response to my question) shows that he's being dogmatic. The fact that he refuses to take his own advice shows his hypocrisy.
You're absolutely correct that we need more skepticism. I'm trying to get Dude to see that, too, but "slapping the shit" out of him as he suggested isn't working. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/10/2008 : 08:54:44 [Permalink]
|
This has been all very interesting; I've enjoyed lurking the conversation. 
But I've got a question: What if Mike Bloomberg, as has and is being rather loudly rumored, runs as a 3rd party candidate? How well will he do and how might that effect the outcome?
Also, what's become of Beskeptigal? Haven't seem her in quite a while...
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 08:57:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Fine. Remove politics from this entirely. |
Can't do that. I cannot assume that when given power and limitations on that power, a person's priorities will not change from when they were just dreaming about having that power. In fact, that change in context is exactly what this discussion was about, so stripping politics out of it would have been absurd. But I withdrew my question, anyway.| What you seem to be claiming is that past behavior and statements are not a predictor of future actions and behavior. So leave the politics out of it and please clarify your position, so I know what I'm arguing against. |
My question was how well past behavior predicts future performance in politics. For the third time, I was making no claim. And now that I realize my question was unimportant, I am certainly making no claim.| I may provide an example of past behavior being a predictor of future behavior if you keep pressing me with this kind of sly insult Dave. Even if you were right (which you aren't), you know very well that I'd not react kindly to comparison with beskeptigal. |
Yes, it was a purposeful slap-in-the-face to attempt to wake you up to your being unreasonable. Because it didn't work, I apologize for it.| It also, really, is nothing but informal fallacy when you continue to cite that specific person in comparison to me. It isn't really relavent to any point you can make to support your contention that I'm incorrect or using strawmen myself. If I were using strawmen arguments you should be able to illutrate them simply and without insulting comparisons. |
I did illustrate it simply, and you ignored me.| But hey, you know that already. I know you do. So the remaining conclusion is that you are being deliberately provacative, almost trollish even. |
Just trying to see if you'll take your own statements to heart. Apparently, like many other people, when something shocking is said to you in an attempt to get you to snap out of your rut, you instead become further entrenched and defensive. In other words, instead of you taking a step back and asking "what do you mean?" you instead huffed up your chest and declared, "am not!" That's not reason or critical thought at work, there.| Should you be setting such an example when you and Kil have made so many pleas for civility on these boards Dave? |
Should you have been refusing to question your own conclusions about what I've said, especially in light of the fact that I was telling you that your conclusions about what I'd said were wrong? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 09:05:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
That's not what Dave said. He said behavior and statements made on the campaign trail are poor predictors of future actions and behavior. |
And beforehand. Dude's right that the question wasn't (and can't be) confined to the campaign trail. Ron Paul's newsletters are certainly relevant to the question of how well one might think he would govern as President, for example. Plus, utterances from long ago - perhaps when a person had no intention of seeking public office - might be more "honest" than more-recent ones, and offer better insight into what that person is like. But it doesn't much matter because even if the past were a poor predictor, we don't have access to a better predictor. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 09:50:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
H.H. said:
| That's not what Dave said. He said behavior and statements made on the campaign trail are poor predictors of future actions and behavior. |
This conversation isn't about campaign promises exclusively.(edited to add: If you had actually read this thread, you'd be aware of that, but thanks for participating even though you have failed to understand what the conversation is about before jumping in.) Its about why Huckabee and Romney are not fit to hold the office of president. Its about looking at the candidate's past statements and actions, their current statements and actions, and using that data to make general predictions about their future actions. |
The point is that Dave was discussing this behavior-as-predictor strictly in regard to politicians, and you twisted his statements to apply to all people. Will you admit to doing this?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 12:40:44 [Permalink]
|
Filthy.....
I think Bloomberg (who is a donkey in an elephant suit, when he's not being an elephant in a donkey suit - damn poor fit either way) is a ego-bloated opportunist who is looking for the "Gore Moment" to arrive. This would be when Hillary and Obama are really locked up, a point or two apart, and the convention is nigh! If Gore does not arrive on a white charger, lance aloft, Bloomberg might well storm the bastions hoping that the Dem's devisiveness can be employed as the first half of Divde et impera! If Gore should show up (unlikely), Bloomberg won't even try!
I don't think he would have a devastating affect on the Democratic politic, but he might confuse a hell of a lot of Red Ryders who have thought of him as one of their own. Hell, the Republicans couldn't get MUCH more fucked up than they are already, what with Huckabee running away with the fundies, Romney getting thrashed everywhere, Rudy looking less and less like a player every day, and Thompson coming down with Encephalitus Lethargica every time he sees a TV camera. A lot of those red state folks might vote for Bloomberg, I really hope they do! I don't think he would be much of a threat to genuinely impress the true independents! He could steal votes from McCain, not many from Obama! Hillary, maybe! |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 13:22:17 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
The emerging pyschocybernetic science of Predictive Analytics certainly bears out your contention that future behavior can be generally predicted from past behavior. I am currently searching several sources in the psychological literature to see if there have been recent applications of these concepts to Political Science; specifically prediction of what a candidate may be expected to do if elected, based on his statements and past political behaviour and actions.
Read up on it in this wiki article! Pay particular attention to the use of the Linear Regression Model, which has been used extensively in the social sciences for many years. I had a brief fling with Management Consulting a few years back (one of the few times I ever applied my expensive education to real world problems) and I can tell you the LRM is God in the management consulting world! We used to beat that puppy to death!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 13:49:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dude.....
The emerging pyschocybernetic science of Predictive Analytics certainly bears out your contention that future behavior can be generally predicted from past behavior. I am currently searching several sources in the psychological literature to see if there have been recent applications of these concepts to Political Science; specifically prediction of what a candidate may be expected to do if elected, based on his statements and past political behaviour and actions.
Read up on it in this wiki article! Pay particular attention to the use of the Linear Regression Model, which has been used extensively in the social sciences for many years. I had a brief fling with Management Consulting a few years back (one of the few times I ever applied my expensive education to real world problems) and I can tell you the LRM is God in the management consulting world! We used to beat that puppy to death!
|
Agree. I don't think that he could even carry NY or siphon off very many votes from either party.
Here's a little more on Huckabee. Hell, he's just another stoner -- that is, he'd like to go upside your heretic's head with a stone! Is former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee a closeted stoner? This is the question that many people are asking, while the mainstream media has looked the other way.
Of course, what I am talking about has nothing to do with drugs, but is potentially more dangerous. Unfortunately, one needs a headline that includes drugs, sex or Britney Spears to get anyone to pay attention. Simply being a leading presidential candidate with ties to religious extremists that would stone homosexuals, adulterers and people who lie about their virginity is not newsworthy, I suppose.
|
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 01/10/2008 13:51:45 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 13:55:07 [Permalink]
|
Senile dementia creeps ever closer -- I quoted the wrong post!
Oh well, whadda hell; it all amounts to the same damned thing...
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Buck on Huck
