Imagine a not-beloved grade school teacher who seemed emotionally weak to his students, and was fastidious about where exactly everything was on his desk and in his classroom. If the students moved things around when the teacher wasn’t looking, this teacher would seem disrupted and give long boring lectures against such behavior. This sort of reaction might well encourage students to move things, just to get a rise out of the teacher.
Really? I'll go with Sam Wang - >.99 for Clinton. The Rs lost when they nominated Trump. All the rest is hoopla. [Disclaimer: This is based entirely on impressions; I've made no attempt to understand Wang's methodology.]
1. He took a week off from campaigning, unheard of in a contested presidential primary season. (He calls himself a "patriot," but he's not going to endure any sacrifices for his country, whether comfort or finances.)
2. His campaign manager was arrested for doing something very stupid, belying Trump's claim that he always hires "the best people."
3. His illogical position on abortion - murder on the doctor's part but innocent on the mother's - has alienated part of his base because it panders to feminism (while, less importantly, the opposite position, which he first asserted, alienated the conventional anti-abortionists). [Criminalizing the abortionist but not the mother means abortions will take place, but only for the rich.]
I think all you guys with your signaling theories are signaling that you are lofty and brilliant and above it all.My support for that is what utter bullcrap your theories are and how out of touch you are with people's actual motivations ... motivations that can be discerned by reading their intra-group communications.
So, you're still convinced that the Republican establishment is strongly committed to stopping Trump? You're convinced, based an Republican intra-group communication that the Republican elites want to stop Trump (rather than signal their disaffection to avoid association with low-status violence and save the Republicans from electoral disaster)?
I actually don't have great confidence in my reading behavior as signaling - except when I'm more knowledgeable about the context than I am about mainstream politics. Part of the reason I don't think their opposition is deep has to do with their lack of sensitivity to the issues they would be reacting to were that opposition deep. (The analysis Hanson provides is for me supportive rather than definitive.) For instance, why did Cruz get endorsements right after he did worse (politec occupation of Muslim communities) than agree with Trump on U.S. Muslims? I think the motivation to save the ramshackle Republican Party is almost bound to be of a signaling variety. You haven't commented on what you take the establishment motivation to be. I'd be interested.]
TGGP wrote "What would be an effective response inthese sorts of situations?" ... you quoted that and said somethingabout it, and I responded to what you wrote.
My response to TGGP, for the record, wasn't intended to endorse the assumption that there had to be an effective response to diagnose signaling.
And I pointed out that his definition pretty much included everyone. Good use of language is that which contrasts between differences and compares between similarities. A term which encompasses everything is useless because it does not meet that criterion for meaningful language.
" Your "rhetorical" mode, which is clearly the only one you have"
In a limited sense that is correct. I regard anyone using the term "racist" as a poo-flinging monkey. One does not respond to a poo-flinging monkey with reason but my flinging poo back at them harder and faster.
One responds to pure rhetoric with pure rhetoric so anyone using the term "racist" does not deserve a reasoned response. I respond in a similar manner to anyone using the term "nigger" - it is a term of pure rhetoric and does not deserve a reasoned response. Yes, I am directly equating the terms "racist" and "nigger".
Originally, metaphysics was simply what was beyond physics. Unless, the goal is to reduce an argument to physical cause and effect then it is metaphysics.
Pretty simple. I'm guessing we just disagree on what metaphysics means. For example, I regard Keynesian economics as metaphysics. Amusingly, I have explicitly called Keynesian economics a cargo cult on numerous occasions.
You're going to have to be more specific about what was wrong from that passage at American Thinker. Seems spot-on to me. The people protesting Trump are certainly not non-violent. If I physically block you from walking down a street because I don't like you that is a violent act.
No, the anti-Trump protesters are very much violent.
Nice circular reasoning. But their support for people who stopped Trump's rally isn't unlikely if their goal is genuinely to stop Trump.
I think all you guys with your signaling theories are signaling that you are lofty and brilliant and above it all. My support for that is what utter bullcrap your theories are and how out of touch you are with people's actual motivations ... motivations that can be discerned by reading their intra-group communications.
"You say Hanson intended to address the question of what should the anti-Trump forces do now that they've already screwed up. That was your idea, not his. "
What are you smoking? TGGP wrote "What would be an effective response in these sorts of situations?" ... you quoted that and said something about it, and I responded to what you wrote.
"I showed you why Hanson's conlusion that the Romney-led response was mere signaling does not depend on there being an effective way to stop Trump now."
Too late! Sam Wang has revised to .91 - .93.
I will be happy to send you $10 if Clinton wins, if you agree to send me $500 if Trump wins.
(Also, you said >.99, which would mean that you should profit in expectation even on the first bet.)
To quote Sam Wang (when someone made the same offer): "Silly, that's my break even point."
I will be happy to agree to send you $10 if Clinton wins, if you agree to send me $1,000 if Trump wins.
Really? I'll go with Sam Wang - >.99 for Clinton. The Rs lost when they nominated Trump. All the rest is hoopla. [Disclaimer: This is based entirely on impressions; I've made no attempt to understand Wang's methodology.]
What happened to Trump?
1. He took a week off from campaigning, unheard of in a contested presidential primary season. (He calls himself a "patriot," but he's not going to endure any sacrifices for his country, whether comfort or finances.)
2. His campaign manager was arrested for doing something very stupid, belying Trump's claim that he always hires "the best people."
3. His illogical position on abortion - murder on the doctor's part but innocent on the mother's - has alienated part of his base because it panders to feminism (while, less importantly, the opposite position, which he first asserted, alienated the conventional anti-abortionists). [Criminalizing the abortionist but not the mother means abortions will take place, but only for the rich.]
I think all you guys with your signaling theories are signaling that you are lofty and brilliant and above it all.My support for that is what utter bullcrap your theories are and how out of touch you are with people's actual motivations ... motivations that can be discerned by reading their intra-group communications.
So, you're still convinced that the Republican establishment is strongly committed to stopping Trump? You're convinced, based an Republican intra-group communication that the Republican elites want to stop Trump (rather than signal their disaffection to avoid association with low-status violence and save the Republicans from electoral disaster)?
I actually don't have great confidence in my reading behavior as signaling - except when I'm more knowledgeable about the context than I am about mainstream politics. Part of the reason I don't think their opposition is deep has to do with their lack of sensitivity to the issues they would be reacting to were that opposition deep. (The analysis Hanson provides is for me supportive rather than definitive.) For instance, why did Cruz get endorsements right after he did worse (politec occupation of Muslim communities) than agree with Trump on U.S. Muslims? I think the motivation to save the ramshackle Republican Party is almost bound to be of a signaling variety. You haven't commented on what you take the establishment motivation to be. I'd be interested.]
What are you smoking?
You'll have to email.
TGGP wrote "What would be an effective response inthese sorts of situations?" ... you quoted that and said somethingabout it, and I responded to what you wrote.
My response to TGGP, for the record, wasn't intended to endorse the assumption that there had to be an effective response to diagnose signaling.
Originally, metaphysics referred to the books Aristotle wrote after he wrote about physics, you ignorant dolt.
"Which Stephen did in his first comment."
And I pointed out that his definition pretty much included everyone. Good use of language is that which contrasts between differences and compares between similarities. A term which encompasses everything is useless because it does not meet that criterion for meaningful language.
" Your "rhetorical" mode, which is clearly the only one you have"
In a limited sense that is correct. I regard anyone using the term "racist" as a poo-flinging monkey. One does not respond to a poo-flinging monkey with reason but my flinging poo back at them harder and faster.
One responds to pure rhetoric with pure rhetoric so anyone using the term "racist" does not deserve a reasoned response. I respond in a similar manner to anyone using the term "nigger" - it is a term of pure rhetoric and does not deserve a reasoned response. Yes, I am directly equating the terms "racist" and "nigger".
Originally, metaphysics was simply what was beyond physics. Unless, the goal is to reduce an argument to physical cause and effect then it is metaphysics.
Pretty simple. I'm guessing we just disagree on what metaphysics means. For example, I regard Keynesian economics as metaphysics. Amusingly, I have explicitly called Keynesian economics a cargo cult on numerous occasions.
You're going to have to be more specific about what was wrong from that passage at American Thinker. Seems spot-on to me. The people protesting Trump are certainly not non-violent. If I physically block you from walking down a street because I don't like you that is a violent act.
No, the anti-Trump protesters are very much violent.
That wasn't *my* point.
"Trump and his followers"
These two things are not alike.
Nice circular reasoning. But their support for people who stopped Trump's rally isn't unlikely if their goal is genuinely to stop Trump.
I think all you guys with your signaling theories are signaling that you are lofty and brilliant and above it all. My support for that is what utter bullcrap your theories are and how out of touch you are with people's actual motivations ... motivations that can be discerned by reading their intra-group communications.
"You say Hanson intended to address the question of what should the anti-Trump forces do now that they've already screwed up. That was your idea, not his. "
What are you smoking? TGGP wrote "What would be an effective response in these sorts of situations?" ... you quoted that and said something about it, and I responded to what you wrote.
"I showed you why Hanson's conlusion that the Romney-led response was mere signaling does not depend on there being an effective way to stop Trump now."
Irrelevant.