Many seem to think the apocalypse is upon us – I hear oh so much much wailing and gnashing of teeth. But if you compare the policies, attitudes, and life histories of the US as it will be under Trump, to how they would have been under Clinton, that difference is very likely much smaller than the variation in such things around the world today, and also the variation within the US so far across its history. And all three of these differences are small compared the variation in such things across the history of human-like creatures so far, and also compared to that history yet to come.
"The thing that I see as very different between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is that I see her as surrounded by people, like Bill Clinton, who could bring her back from the edge."
-If she had listened to Bill Clinton, she would have won Pennsylvania.
"Plus, I think she has a much more comprehensive view of the world than Donald Trump, and more empathy for human suffering."
I know Trump supporters who are like those you describe: loyal middle-class Republicans, viewers of Fox news. Rural proles who support Trump are different. They often don't even vote. You don't ask them who they're voting for unless you know them pretty well.
This analysis suggests the election was tipped by late deciders, who went Trump. https://www.washingtonpost....
It seems to me these were the shy Trump voters. What better way to avoid expressing a pro-Trump opinion than not to form one until it's time to vote?
Given that I am friends with and am related to Trump voters, I never bought the shy story either.
Instead of looking for a novel explanation, I think it just comes down to team red and team blue for those who voted.
As nutty of a person Trump is, my friends and family members who voted for him completely ignored his bowl full of crazy. They aren't unemployed and they aren't closet racists. They are a bit too nationalist for my taste, but not hateful of foreigners. Mostly, they think Trump is a tough guy who can get things done and they think Hillary is a complete crook.
Likewise with the Hillary voters I know. They think she's just so smart and qualified. Yet they completely ignored her aggressive foreign policy, her chronic lying, and her cronyism. However, they ignored all that and focus on how horrifying Trump is.
In 1992 I was amazed by the candidacy of Ross Perot. People with widely varying viewpoints supported Perot, each thinking he was his guy. They saw what they wanted to see in him.
When it boils down to it, I suspect it's one of two scenarios: 1) people saw what they wanted to see in their candidates or 2) or they simply voted for the lesser of evils.
I thought one of the CNN exit polls was interesting. Of those who thought that Clinton and Trump are both horrible candidates and unqualified to be president, most of them voted for Trump. I wonder if this was enough to make a difference.
It's also interesting to note that this might be nothing new to Hillary. I've not fact checked it, but I heard a journalist mention that Hillary has blown a strong lead in every race she's been in..
I don't disagree with your presentation of the data. However, I think Trump's doing as well as Romney and even better with minorities is quite amazing (given that Trump is crazy, incompetent, unbacked by any section of the establishment, and ignored half of the political norms).
538 makes a tortured argument against the silent Trump voter: http://fivethirtyeight.com/... (Answer to the argument: prole voters may face fewer pressures because of where they live, but they are also less confident in voicing independent opinions.)
Meh, the same argument works in reverse. I am very small compared to the sweep of history, so I should kamikaze my life if it contributes the slightest nudge.
> Which candidate was trying to antagonize the Russians, and advised shooting down Russian jets over Syria?Are you saying that because there is specific no Trump-Armageddon route, there is no route? Yudkowsky's point is that IP is very unstable, and that there are always many unknown, unpredictable routes to Armageddon --you have to judge him by his ability to steer as well as his specific plans.
You know this, but perhaps aren't applying it correctly. Outputs do not scale linearly with the quality of inputs in competitive environments.
The issue isn't if America will burn. It probably won't. However, it has been a bit of a historical anomaly that 300 million people have created most of the innovation in a world of 7 billion, and a large part of that success has been that we take the bets and brightest from the rest of the world. To make things even more complicated, many of those best and brightest want to come here because we are the seat of innovation. It doesn't even take actual policy, just perceived isolationism, to disrupt that virtuous cycle.
As far as I can tell, the white rage doesn't appear to show up in the data. it looks like Trump did about as well as Romney, a little better on minority votes.
It looks like the game changer was Hillary not being able to attract her base. Imagine that. Every campaign she's ever been in she's blown her lead bigly.
If you've got a link to a thorough analysis that shows otherwise, post a link. I'd be interested.
Were they really? Obama wound down US involvement in Iraq, like he said he would, and hasn't sent "boots on the ground" anywhere. And we have a deal with Iran that keeps things under control for a while. "Not being as bad as Bush" is a pretty low bar, but I think he met it...
I think that there are three avenues by which claims of apocalypse could be made:
1. Climate change. Trump is rolling back environmental protections, and certainly won't be increasing them further.
2. Foreign policy, specifically a direct risk of nuclear war.
3. Foreign policy, specifically an indirect risk of nuclear war by damaging whatever factors exist that have led to the current era of Great Power peace.
1 seems like a highly recent problem, without a lot of relevant historical evidence for us to use to assess risks. 2 seems like a moderately recent problem, with only a few pieces of relevant historical evidence for us to use to assess risks. 3 seems like a moderately recent problem, with only a few pieces of relevant historical evidence for us to use to assess risk.
So I'm left confused what lessons we are supposed to learn from history, here. Maybe some additional specificity would be helpful.
I personally don't think we're headed towards an apocalypse, but that's because of analytical reasoning that's gone through my head, which could certainly be argued against, and not because I have empirical evidence from similar situations in the past that verifies we are safe. The current situation is highly new on the timescale of human history. It's not new on the timescale of modernity, but I don't think modernity has existed nearly long enough yet for us to not worry about the existential threats that might accompany it.
"The thing that I see as very different between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is that I see her as surrounded by people, like Bill Clinton, who could bring her back from the edge."
-If she had listened to Bill Clinton, she would have won Pennsylvania.
"Plus, I think she has a much more comprehensive view of the world than Donald Trump, and more empathy for human suffering."
-On what basis?
There will be jobs.
But will they be old and odd?
Doubtful. After all, conservatives were happy to propagate "Obama is a spineless coward" and "Obama is totalitarian despot" simultaneously
You may have read it already, but I found an interesting post by a liberal today:http://slatestarcodex.com/2...
I know Trump supporters who are like those you describe: loyal middle-class Republicans, viewers of Fox news. Rural proles who support Trump are different. They often don't even vote. You don't ask them who they're voting for unless you know them pretty well.
This analysis suggests the election was tipped by late deciders, who went Trump. https://www.washingtonpost....
It seems to me these were the shy Trump voters. What better way to avoid expressing a pro-Trump opinion than not to form one until it's time to vote?
Given that I am friends with and am related to Trump voters, I never bought the shy story either.
Instead of looking for a novel explanation, I think it just comes down to team red and team blue for those who voted.
As nutty of a person Trump is, my friends and family members who voted for him completely ignored his bowl full of crazy. They aren't unemployed and they aren't closet racists. They are a bit too nationalist for my taste, but not hateful of foreigners. Mostly, they think Trump is a tough guy who can get things done and they think Hillary is a complete crook.
Likewise with the Hillary voters I know. They think she's just so smart and qualified. Yet they completely ignored her aggressive foreign policy, her chronic lying, and her cronyism. However, they ignored all that and focus on how horrifying Trump is.
In 1992 I was amazed by the candidacy of Ross Perot. People with widely varying viewpoints supported Perot, each thinking he was his guy. They saw what they wanted to see in him.
When it boils down to it, I suspect it's one of two scenarios: 1) people saw what they wanted to see in their candidates or 2) or they simply voted for the lesser of evils.
I thought one of the CNN exit polls was interesting. Of those who thought that Clinton and Trump are both horrible candidates and unqualified to be president, most of them voted for Trump. I wonder if this was enough to make a difference.
It's also interesting to note that this might be nothing new to Hillary. I've not fact checked it, but I heard a journalist mention that Hillary has blown a strong lead in every race she's been in..
I don't disagree with your presentation of the data. However, I think Trump's doing as well as Romney and even better with minorities is quite amazing (given that Trump is crazy, incompetent, unbacked by any section of the establishment, and ignored half of the political norms).
538 makes a tortured argument against the silent Trump voter: http://fivethirtyeight.com/... (Answer to the argument: prole voters may face fewer pressures because of where they live, but they are also less confident in voicing independent opinions.)
Well, he's no Bernie Madoff.
Meh, the same argument works in reverse. I am very small compared to the sweep of history, so I should kamikaze my life if it contributes the slightest nudge.
> Which candidate was trying to antagonize the Russians, and advised shooting down Russian jets over Syria?Are you saying that because there is specific no Trump-Armageddon route, there is no route? Yudkowsky's point is that IP is very unstable, and that there are always many unknown, unpredictable routes to Armageddon --you have to judge him by his ability to steer as well as his specific plans.
No they don't. because you someone can con their way into a position they don't have the competence for. People pose as doctors, for instance.
You know this, but perhaps aren't applying it correctly. Outputs do not scale linearly with the quality of inputs in competitive environments.
The issue isn't if America will burn. It probably won't. However, it has been a bit of a historical anomaly that 300 million people have created most of the innovation in a world of 7 billion, and a large part of that success has been that we take the bets and brightest from the rest of the world. To make things even more complicated, many of those best and brightest want to come here because we are the seat of innovation. It doesn't even take actual policy, just perceived isolationism, to disrupt that virtuous cycle.
As far as I can tell, the white rage doesn't appear to show up in the data. it looks like Trump did about as well as Romney, a little better on minority votes.
It looks like the game changer was Hillary not being able to attract her base. Imagine that. Every campaign she's ever been in she's blown her lead bigly.
If you've got a link to a thorough analysis that shows otherwise, post a link. I'd be interested.
The point of Failed Utopia 4-2 isn't that it's *bad*, but that it could have been a lot better.
Were they really? Obama wound down US involvement in Iraq, like he said he would, and hasn't sent "boots on the ground" anywhere. And we have a deal with Iran that keeps things under control for a while. "Not being as bad as Bush" is a pretty low bar, but I think he met it...
I think that there are three avenues by which claims of apocalypse could be made:
1. Climate change. Trump is rolling back environmental protections, and certainly won't be increasing them further.
2. Foreign policy, specifically a direct risk of nuclear war.
3. Foreign policy, specifically an indirect risk of nuclear war by damaging whatever factors exist that have led to the current era of Great Power peace.
1 seems like a highly recent problem, without a lot of relevant historical evidence for us to use to assess risks. 2 seems like a moderately recent problem, with only a few pieces of relevant historical evidence for us to use to assess risks. 3 seems like a moderately recent problem, with only a few pieces of relevant historical evidence for us to use to assess risk.
So I'm left confused what lessons we are supposed to learn from history, here. Maybe some additional specificity would be helpful.
I personally don't think we're headed towards an apocalypse, but that's because of analytical reasoning that's gone through my head, which could certainly be argued against, and not because I have empirical evidence from similar situations in the past that verifies we are safe. The current situation is highly new on the timescale of human history. It's not new on the timescale of modernity, but I don't think modernity has existed nearly long enough yet for us to not worry about the existential threats that might accompany it.