Gyroscopic Investing

Pointedstick wrote: TennPaGa hit the nail on the head: she gives off poor vibes. It's hard to articulate just what this means but it's definitely a thing. I don't hate Hillary Clinton by any stretch of the imagination, but I absolutely feel "bad vibes" when I see her speaking in video form. Everything about her just rubs me wrong. She seems tense, nervous, worried, but papered over with a thin veneer of joviality that seems totally out of place. Always calculating in a too-obvious way. Trying too hard to act out a persona that doesn't fit her. Trying awkwardly to be everything to everybody but clearly meaning none of it. Visibly ill, damaged, falling apart, but trying (badly) to conceal it.

I dunno, she just feels almost like a fake person to me. Like a space alien in a human suit trying to convince people that it's one of them. It's like she's permanently stuck in the uncanny valley or something.

Honestly I probably agree with 40% or more of her platform but every neuron in my brain tells me not to vote for the insecure space alien in a malfunctioning human suit.

I nominate "Hillary - insecure space alien in a malfunctioning human suit" for THE quote of this political season.

... Mountaineer

Pointedstick wrote: TennPaGa hit the nail on the head: she gives off poor vibes. It's hard to articulate just what this means but it's definitely a thing. I don't hate Hillary Clinton by any stretch of the imagination, but I absolutely feel "bad vibes" when I see her speaking in video form. Everything about her just rubs me wrong. She seems tense, nervous, worried, but papered over with a thin veneer of joviality that seems totally out of place. Always calculating in a too-obvious way. Trying too hard to act out a persona that doesn't fit her. Trying awkwardly to be everything to everybody but clearly meaning none of it. Visibly ill, damaged, falling apart, but trying (badly) to conceal it.

I dunno, she just feels almost like a fake person to me. Like a space alien in a human suit trying to convince people that it's one of them. It's like she's permanently stuck in the uncanny valley or something.

Honestly I probably agree with 40% or more of her platform but every neuron in my brain tells me not to vote for the insecure space alien in a malfunctioning human suit.

That's a tremendously insightful post.

Ok - I get that.  She doesn't have good vibes.

But, this from a guy that likes Trump???  What kind of vibes does he give off?

Trump gives me the everyman vibes.  I know he's a billionaire and lives in a completely different world from me, but when he's up there talking, man, it is like remembering listening to my old male neighbor who may have never had anything good to say about anyone or anything, but he liked ME. 

As for Hillary, PS's comments are spot on.  She just doesn't seem real.  Like some alien is eventually going to pop out of the Hillary shell and say they are here to conquer us.  Something about the smile is Joker-like. 

But then I just googled images of Hillary smiling and I realize it is a lot just built up in my mind for whatever reason.  She's probably a very nice lady.

Me too. He projects confidence and power. It just naturally radiates off him. It doesn't seem staged or calculated at all. He seems like the kinda guy who will fight for his friends no matter what. It makes my lizard brain want to be his friend.

A lot of people don't like his confidence and power, I think. They see it as arrogance, bullying, or danger. They identify themselves as his enemy, and in an acknowledgement of his power, they worry that they'll be a target of his efforts to fight for his friends by hurting their enemies. People are just wired differently. I'm sure there are some people out there--probably not a lot, but some--who feel waves of maternal warmth, compassion, and protectiveness coming off Hillary Clinton.

None of this is rational, of course. None of it concerns Trump or Hillary's nonsensical tax policies. Let's face it: nobody cares. This election will be decided by the vibes, not the issues. Just like they all are.

Pointedstick wrote: This election will be decides by the vibes, not the issues. Just like they all are.

+ 1.

FRom what I've read, all the people who work for Trump say they are treated well, he has his chef send food to the secret service agents covering him.  Vs Hillary who it sounds like treats the secret service agents badly e.g.

“Good morning, ma’am,” a member of the uniformed Secret Service once greeted Hillary Clinton.

“F*** off,” she replied.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/secr ... says-good/

Well, then as a nation we'll get what we want, I suppose - or at least what the majority of those who vote want.

It's a shame to me that substantive issues and policies aren't important anymore, since those are what's important in reality.

I strongly encourage people to vote based on those rather than on vibes.

jafs wrote: Well, then as a nation we'll get what we want, I suppose - or at least what the majority of those who vote want.

It's a shame to me that substantive issues and policies aren't important anymore, since those are what's important in reality.

I strongly encourage people to vote based on those rather than on vibes.

What you are lamenting is a feature of democracy with a wider franchise. It's not a new lament, of course. But most people in the past with similar opinions rightly understood that the only way to address them was limiting the political franchise to a smaller population by introducing elitist elements into the system to fight or counterbalance the power of direct democracy, ranging from "soft" approaches like our own representative republican system to "hard" approaches such as absolute monarchy.

The universal public education system was envisioned as, among other things, a progressive way of civilizing and taming the masses, making them more politically responsible and more "safe" for democracy.

Over the past 150 years or so, I think we can safely conclude that the project was a failure.

I think I'm lamenting the low level of political discussion/analysis.

We could certainly have wide participation and a higher level of that, couldn't we?  And, actually, we have very low turnouts now, when "high turnouts" are in the 50-60% of eligible voter range.

Education is clearly an important factor here.  If more people knew/understood the basics of how our system works, or is supposed to work, that would help a lot.  Critical thinking skills would also help.

jafs wrote: I think I'm lamenting the low level of political discussion/analysis.

We could certainly have wide participation and a higher level of that, couldn't we?  And, actually, we have very low turnouts now, when "high turnouts" are in the 50-60% of eligible voter range.

Education is clearly an important factor here.  If more people knew/understood the basics of how our system works, or is supposed to work, that would help a lot.  Critical thinking skills would also help.

As I said (and you appear to have ignored), that was one of the explicit goals of the public education system. It was a progressive plan to civilize the rough masses and make them safe for democracy. Clearly it didn't work, because the very things you're lamenting now were lamented by progressives a century and a half ago who observed how politically manipulable most ordinary people were. And that was in the day before women's suffrage and widespread voting for black people! The supposedly politically superior propertied white men did a pretty terrible job on their own, according to the progressives of the era.

In a lot of ways this is one of the basic quandaries of democracy. How do you reconcile the ideal of the system with the reality that most people are politically ignorant and manipulable, and more interested in emotional appeals than substantive policy discussions? One way is to limit the vote or political power to "the right people"--a set of elites deemed capable of wielding power. Another way is to try to raise the level of political education, knowledge, and maturity of the voters. We've tried the latter for the past 150 years; it didn't work. But humanity has also tried to the former, and it failed too, resulting in revolutions against monarchy and dictatorship, and a push towards an ever broader franchise worldwide.

So if you can't limit political power to the elites, and you can't politically civilize the masses, what's to be done to avoid politics turning into the kind of reality TV popularity contest that Trump has turned this election cycle into?

Simonjester wrote: but have we really tried to try to raise the level of political education, knowledge, and maturity of the voters? we talk a good game about teaching kids to think, but we continually move further from it, and the entire school structure is authoritarian, anti thinking (group of fish blindly following the one in front) and on top of that they have gradually eliminated civics to the point where it is barely taught at all, A friend of mine picked up a 1930s civics text book at a library sale, and i got to skim through it, ..it was truly impressive.. there is no modern text book that is anything like it...

Like I said, it didn't work. The universal public school system had a lot of goals--literacy, conditioning people to become accustomed to urban environments and factory work, promoting civics education. It seems to attract social engineer types who want to change society through its children. Some of the plans work, some don't, and they continually change over time, too. Today promoting greater achievement for disadvantaged children is a major one that wasn't present at the system's founding.

Simonjester wrote: maybe my tinfoil hat is too tight but it seems to me if your goal is thinking then you do the opposite of an authoritarian structure, i will loosen it up and wont ascribe malice to a situation incompetence can explain, also the urban environments and factory workers are a big factor in wanting to raise generations of fish.. this was probably the modern school systems biggest success out of those goals.

Pointedstick wrote:

jafs wrote: I think I'm lamenting the low level of political discussion/analysis.

We could certainly have wide participation and a higher level of that, couldn't we?  And, actually, we have very low turnouts now, when "high turnouts" are in the 50-60% of eligible voter range.

Education is clearly an important factor here.  If more people knew/understood the basics of how our system works, or is supposed to work, that would help a lot.  Critical thinking skills would also help.

As I said (and you appear to have ignored), that was one of the explicit goals of the public education system. It was a progressive plan to civilize the rough masses and make them safe for democracy. Clearly it didn't work, because the very things you're lamenting now were lamented by progressives a century and a half ago who observed how politically manipulable most ordinary people were. And that was in the day before women's suffrage and widespread voting for black people! The supposedly politically superior propertied white men did a pretty terrible job on their own, according to the progressives of the era.

In a lot of ways this is one of the basic quandaries of democracy. How do you reconcile the ideal of the system with the reality that most people are politically ignorant and manipulable, and more interested in emotional appeals than substantive policy discussions? One way is to limit the vote or political power to "the right people"--a set of elites deemed capable of wielding power. Another way is to try to raise the level of political education, knowledge, and maturity of the voters. We've tried the latter for the past 150 years; it didn't work. But humanity has also tried to the former, and it failed too, resulting in revolutions against monarchy and dictatorship, and a push towards an ever broader franchise worldwide.

So if you can't limit political power to the elites, and you can't politically civilize the masses, what's to be done to avoid politics turning into the kind of reality TV popularity contest that Trump has turned this election cycle into?

The what:  All I can say is the people in my church are far better behaved and care about each other than the "average joe or susie" that plagues the TV and movie screens - and for that matter, the shopping malls and grocery stores, especially the parking lots.  How to put a culture of caring about neighbor as much as caring about self is another matter.  Perhaps it is just a matter of entropy we are observing with the current election cycle - we are seeing the results of a thrust for the lowest common denominator (a focus on equality of results, not equality of opportunity). 

... M

Mountaineer wrote: The what:  All I can say is the people in my church are far better behaved and care about each other than the "average joe or susie" that plagues the TV and movie screens - and for that matter, the shopping malls and grocery stores, especially the parking lots.  How to put a culture of caring about neighbor as much as caring about self is another matter.  Perhaps it is just a matter of entropy we are observing with the current election cycle - we are seeing the results of a thrust for the lowest common denominator (a focus on equality of results, not equality of opportunity). 

... M

Trump is winning among evangelicals nationwide, though. According to your premise, shouldn't they be clamoring for someone with more substance, more seriousness, and less… well, less vice? Dude's been married three times, insults almost everyone, has next to know understanding of the Bible and Christianity, and lives a life that is probably as anti-Christian as any I can imagine. He's the rich man who would be less likely to get into heaven than a camel passing through the eye of the needle. So why is he winning big among evangelicals like you and the members of your church?

This is meant as an honest question; I don't feel like I really understand it myself.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that public education has been a failure.

I went to three different public schools when I was growing up, and they were significantly different from each other.  The first was a little neighborhood school, very pleasant for the most part, with decent but not outstanding teachers.  The second was in a bad neighborhood, with gangs and a bad atmosphere, but had good teachers.  And the third was a "magnet" high school, which was excellent all around.  In fact, it was so good that I was disappointed when I went to college!

The movie "Brooklyn Castle" is about an inner city high school with about 80% of the families under the poverty line, but with a great chess team that has been winning for years, and kids in the chess team that are getting scholarships to good colleges.

You may notice that I didn't say that public education has been a failure. I said that it has failed to improve the level of civic and political knowledge and interest in the general population, as evidenced by your own lamentations at the poor state of these qualities in most people today, more than 100 years after the universal public education movement was completed.

FWIW, I went to a public school that was basically destroyed by school bussing such that my liberal parents had to admit the problem and briefly put me in a private school, but that's another story.

Well, we'd have to compare those with people at the time.

And, there have been a lot of changes in public education over that time as well.  Certainly unfunded mandates don't help, as well as expecting teachers to do more and more while not paying them well and treating them badly.

My guess is that if we looked at it carefully, we'd find that public education has worked better when well funded, and teachers were treated well and paid decently.

There are other factors, of course, like parental involvement/support, nutrition, etc.

The smart thing to do would be to look at the schools that are doing well, and learn how they're doing that, and apply it to schools that aren't doing as well, I would think.

jafs wrote: The smart thing to do would be to look at the schools that are doing well, and learn how they're doing that, and apply it to schools that aren't doing as well, I would think.

Sounds easy, but you'd also have to take it a step further and figure out how to avoid or remove the entrenched special interests for whom providing a high-quality education is not necessarily the highest priority.  That's where the work really begins.

Funding is not the problem.  To the extent that funding has an effect on the quality of education, at least past a certain point, it's negatively correlated if anything.

Also, if I remember rightly, kids are only required to go to school through something like the 8th grade.

Seems to me that in our modern era, it might make more sense to require all kids attend high school - there's really not much you can do with an 8th grade education these days.

And, other posters have mentioned this - our system is in some ways designed to create compliant citizens who obey authority, rather than independent people who think critically, and that's a shame.

Xan wrote: Funding is not the problem.  To the extent that funding has an effect on the quality of education, at least past a certain point, it's negatively correlated if anything.

The studies I've seen showed a clear connection between adequate funding and outcomes.

A quick google search finds a pretty recent one, from 2014, that concludes that kids from poor neighborhoods were significantly more likely to graduate from high school, earn livable wages, and avoid poverty as adults in districts that were required to increase funding by courts.

Do you have any sources for your claim?

jafs wrote:

Xan wrote: Funding is not the problem.  To the extent that funding has an effect on the quality of education, at least past a certain point, it's negatively correlated if anything.

The studies I've seen showed a clear connection between adequate funding and outcomes.

A quick google search finds a pretty recent one, from 2014, that concludes that kids from poor neighborhoods were significantly more likely to graduate from high school, earn livable wages, and avoid poverty as adults in districts that were required to increase funding by courts.

Do you have any sources for your claim?

Baltimore's school system is rolling in dough, and terrible.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-ba ... le/2564013

Zuckerberg’s $100 Million Lesson

The Facebook CEO would have been better off funding scholarships than pouring money into bad schools.

By James Piereson And Naomi Schaefer Riley

Oct. 5, 2015 7:17 p.m. ET

‘What happened with the $100 million that Newark’s schools got from Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg?” asks a recent headline. “Not much”...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/zuckerbergs ... 1444087064

As far as elevating the level of political discourse, the only thing I think that individuals can do is try to set a good example of thoughtful and civil political discourse using the communication tools that are available to them.

What would be cool would be if there were an Internet forum where people could talk about politics without being shouted down by those who disagree with them, but it would also need to be a forum that attracted thoughtful people with a variety of political views.  Perhaps most importantly, such a forum would need moderators who could somehow allow free and open discourse while making sure that it didn't get completely out of control with people talking crazy and insulting each other.

I know, I know...good luck finding a place like that.

I'd have to look into Baltimore to understand what's happening there.

But, one example isn't enough to disprove a general relationship.  For example, we know there's a general connection between smoking and lung cancer.  The fact that some people may get lung cancer without smoking, or that some people who smoke won't get lung cancer doesn't negate that relationship.

That's why studies are useful.

I had hoped you had some studies that countered the ones I'd seen.

I couldn't read the wsj article, because I'm not a subscriber.  But a quick search showed that the problem in Newark is that many kids lived in extreme poverty and witnessed extreme violence - clearly there are issues like that that affect school performance that can't be solved just by education funding.

Also, charter schools were expanded with the money, which isn't a good way to improve public education in my view.  They get public money without having to abide by public standards.