I was busy all day yesterday, so didn't have a chance to check this one earlier. I was wondering how science applies to planning parties, as in entertaining. Apparently that's not what it's about. Oh, well.
My husband just found the rechargeable battery for the weed whacker. F was insisting it was gone forever. Took less than 5 minutes of a person actually looking for it.
I lost my shoes the other day and discovered them on my feet. Seriously. It was a brief moment, a few seconds, but I actually didn't know where my shoes were.
I got in trouble for this of course, but I took a picture of Katie. She was wearing a v-neck shirt, with her glasses tucked into the v, on the outside of the shirt. She spent 20 minutes looking for her glasses before she asked me to help her find them. I came in the room, grinning.
"What are you looking at"? (with a hint of an accusation)
"Your glasses"
"What? Oh".
"Okay, and your boobs too, but to be fair, you did ask me to help you find your glasses".
Some breaking news... WeChat, Weibo, and Bili Bili are blowing up with hilarious disparaging video shorts of Trump and Vance. Hundreds. Maybe thousands. Vance in drag talking smack, Trump in diapers whining, etc.
Drudge Report taunted Trump, Vance, and Musk with AI images for days. Lots of them showed the three working at sweatshop sewing machines.
Drudge used to line up reliably with the GOP, but he broke from following the MAGA fans and has been much more skeptical for some time now. I recommend Drudge to anyone who wants a headline bundler from mainly mainstream sources—so long as your ad blocker is turned on.
It was some response to the “new” Abundance agenda where he was on the wrong side of the larger opinion instead of being the thought leader. I’ve already misplaced it and moved on. There were a couple of snarky comments at him, he did an obvious about face and kinda bumbled his way through some comments. It wasn’t a sonic boom but he’s been in the vanguard for a while, he stumbled, and a few people noticed.
Scholars write for their audience, although they are hard pressed to admit to that. On my DEI rollback paper, there was a journal where it would topically fit perfectly, they even had an article on the "woke backlash". The issue was the journal's biases are fairly evident, and evidence that didn't support their hypotheses would not be viewed favorably. We've added text to ensure we're not being perceived as favorable to our results.
This happens more than we care to admit. I saw it happen in a submission 22 years ago where the reviewer made derogatory comments about the subjects in the submission. In January I had a submission rejected because I was too supportive of Elon Musk (he filed a lawsuit, which was the basis for the manuscript).
Realistically, this is nothing new. If you go back to the 19th Century, most major cities had several newspapers. At least one was a "fiercely independent" Conservative newspaper while at least one other was a "fiercely independent" Liberal newspaper ("Conservative" and "Liberal" used as placeholders for the prevailing political poles at the time).
Ultimately, media is a consumer product and, just like any other consumer product, the purveyors of that product are trying to reach the largest possible audience.
The chart is of limited value IMO, mostly confirming that there is a Red-Blue divide on what each side considers to be the most important issues. But at the same time, by being limited to only 5 issues on a side, it’s deceptive. Plenty of liberals are concerned about guns, while “LGBT” is definitely a concern on the Right (as demonstrated by the effective “She’s for they/them” Trump campaign ad).
I guess the arguable utility of the survey is in trying to discover what average citizens perceive of each party’s “brand”, as it were. To me it seems the perception of the Dem party brand has a greater potential to be alienating to your average voter than to hold out the promise of being relatable.
Relatedly, Arnold Kling has said several times that he believes most people decide first *whom* to believe before deciding *what* to believe. I’m not sure if I’m 100-percent in agreement with that view, but I can certainly see some merits to it. There are a lot of issues, for instance, where I might be ambivalent or unsure, but if I find a political celebrity that I already like has a point of view on it, I’ll feel like his/her stance is good enough for me to share.
Deciding "whom to believe " first is common sense - if done right. Believe people who demonstrate the holes they have tried to pick in their own arguments.
I think there's a lot to the "whom to believe" idea. it seems that a big part of Donald Trump's success was that, prior to his coming down the escalator in 2015, he already had an image that was much more favorable and believable (in the minds of many), than most politicians. And his "not a politicians" brand has only reinforced that image.
Trump is a good salesman. My youngest plays golf and is a fan of Bryson DeChambrough (sic). Bryson and Trump played a round of "best ball" golf in hopes of breaking 50 (par would be 72, so better than a birdie every hole). Bryson donates money to charity for every stroke under 72. They had a 51 (21 under).
Trump comes off very personable and friendly. Bryson is very likable, and also a great golfer (a top 10 finish at the Masters is nothing to be ashamed of). Watching their chemistry was enjoyable, my son loved it.
Watching him at sporting events, he works the crowd in a very charming way. And apparently does so one-on-one as well. Bill Maher had a meal with him, getting him to autograph a sheet of paper with his insults on it. Maher said he was very good one-on-one.
I didn't vote for him, but I see him playing to the crowds, and it appears to work.
Trump is a chameleon-like entertainer. Whether being a pleasant dinner guest, glad handing at a golf tournament, or in front of a camera, he wants affection so exudes pleasant and warm. At his rallies, he wants a response and palpable adoration. My father was one—also a salesman who golfed a lot. They lovely to spend limited amounts of time with, when you keep to certain topics with the correct attitude.
I think this is universally true, but like all bias, it’s critical to be aware of the pitfalls for us. If I like and respect someone, I should be more skeptical. If I dislike them, I should be more open. Very hard stuff for humans whose emotions often masquerade as reason.
"people decide first *whom* to believe before deciding *what* to believe"
I think that's clearly the case for some people. It can be observed when people change their opinions based on what the person they have chosen as an authority says. (ETA: That is to say, for example, today Trump says "this," and followers firmly believe "this" is accurate. Tomorrow, Trump says "opposite of this," and followers switch their belief to the "opposite of this" solely on that basis.)
Whether it's "most people" is a different question. That almost sounds like snobbery from a person in the "knowledge" industry. "Most people just aren't as smart or rational as Marvelous Me!" which often leads to the conclusion, "and therefore, I should make decisions for them."
Yes. It has the welcome potential for use in rating *those people over there* with whom I disagree. Our minds are self-flattering when they’re functioning properly, it seems to me. To second guess and doubt ourselves to a realistic degree is too paralyzing and depressing for us to survive it.
Good morning. 50 degrees, with a predicted high in the 70s on a cloudy day.
The FP asks “Is Apple too big to fail?” The story refers specifically to Apple’s operations in PR China. Meanwhile the mothership reports on that trade war brewing between the US and the PRC, with one comment in the story opining that Trump’s actions have the desirable (and to him, unintended) side effect) of forcing American supply chains to disentangle.
Much has been posted here recently about China’s unique, non-Western culture that is both reflected in the society and government of PR China, and is not easily describable to Western minds without a great deal of study. Be that as it may, the totality of China is not limited to the People’s Republic. There is a thriving, Western style Chinese democracy across the Taiwan straits.
The other FP article - by Tyler Cowen - was thought provoking. A few quotes:
"So while others focus on the rate of tariffs—admittedly an important issue—far more important is the ongoing explosion of intelligence in our world and how it will reshape our institutions and our nations."
"The bottom line is that the smartest entities in the world—the top AI programs—will not just be Western but likely even American in their intellectual and ideological orientations for some while to come."
"In other words, the entire Chinese service sector, over time, may be built upon Western modes of thought and Western ideology. That includes the Chinese government and of course, the CCP itself. The point is that, over time, everyone’s thoughts and decisions and mental frameworks will be nudged in Western and American directions."
Morning! Forty-five here. Spent yesterday mainly on lawn mowing. Today I need to apply the string trimmer to a lot of edging…maybe run the tractor to blow apart some clumps of clippings from yesterday once the dew has dried up in the early afternoon. We look set to have a good week for getting things done outdoors. At our elevation, the trees are only starting to sprout, and some of the low-tier shrubbery is getting close to leafed out.
China/PRC is an endlessly fascinating topic—and a very complex one. When it comes to discussing the mainland government, it doesn’t help that it is a one-party dictatorship that is (for all intents) intentionally opaque as to its structure and motives.
The Economist’s biographical podcast series “The Prince” about Bid Daddy was quite impressive because it fleshed out the influences of current leadership. That was published in 2022, so is not up to the present. The series attempts to be objective and analytical in describing what is publicly available rather than arguing for a viewpoint.
I used to think The Economist was worthwhile. Its Drum Tower section on Fridays is often informative and interesting.
"The Prince"...right now anyway...is way outdated. The tea leaves have very subtly changed over the last 2-3 years. No one is taking direct shots at Big Daddy, of course, but what's vanished entirely are his signature policies of just a couple years ago. BD is the mouthpiece and is still ascribed Emperor deference, but things have noticeably changed. All that stuff about everyone being required to study Xi Jinping Thought, is the private joke of few hundred millions. All those books that the cadres and universities were supposed to direct their charges to study and expect a quiz...are piled up in warehouses still in their wrappers.
There has been a non-stop blitz of policy papers from the highest levels of academia, think tanks, and even the Party School, all pointing in the opposite direction that BD was pointing at just a couple years ago, with the repeating refrain of "reform and opening up". The non-stop recitations of following the Marxist-Leninist path only gets moderate to wispy lip service and no one pays attention. Party friends that attend the meetings have all alluded to "a lot of arguing going on behind closed doors" and when the doors open, there's new policies all pointing at reform and opening up.
What's not visible is informative. The Wolf Warrior guys, vanished. The lunatic on late night TV every night wearing the camo gear and gesticulating and exhorting nationalist lunacy...gone. Reform, opening, new productive directions, and generally liberalizing statements are sneaking into the narratives.
People...highly placed people like Zi Zhongjun, a proud CPC member...have written essays saying damning things about the Party out loud that everyone says in private. Zhang Weiying, the silver haired highly accredited economist and think tanker has said flat out and in a series of essays what no one would say just a couple years ago, in effect pointing in the opposite direction from Xi. Recently policy initiatives indicate someone is listening to Mr. Zhang.
None of that is to say that BD is on the outs; that's not at all realistic. What it does say is he's either listening to his advisers, or the cliques and embedded polycentric power brokers that are the obscure structural government of China are getting some heft. The recent rapprochement between Xi and the Tech elite was a mind blower, reversing a decade of animosity between Xi and the China tech business folks.
Out in the countryside, there's obvious examples of something going on if one knows where to look. In the countryside, all the farmers have their little Mao shrine in the front entry area "LR" that's common in all the rural houses. There's the picture of Mao, sometimes the poster with the Revolutionary Heroes and Martyrs On Horseback..that sort of thing. In 2012-ish through about 2020, there was always a picture of Big Daddy to the right of Mao...never on the Left, of course, always on the right. Sometimes BD's wife was in the photo. Sometimes a commemorative plate with Xi's smiling face, similar to the commemorative type kitsch you see in the West.
The Mao shrines are still there, the generals are still there, but noticeably absent are the photos and the commemorative plates of BD. Gone. I've not seen any. I've even seen a couple calendars at my Auntie's house where BD's picture is torn off an Auntie made a disparaging remark about the guy. Word has it that the farmers all hate the guy. That's a very big deal. For a country that still has deep agricultural roots, when you've lost the farmers, that's a big deal.
Make of this what you might. Something happened. Pay close attention to policy stuff related to our moron's tariffs. The Party knows they've been handed an incredible gift from our maggot brained POTUS. It'll be very interesting to see what they do with it.
The grass hasn’t grown long enough yet for cutting. We could use rain. We have an abundance of wind this spring. Off to the cabin today after I make a stop at my daughter’s house to finish painting her basement stairwell. She’s in Jersey visiting the in-laws. My forearm is screaming at me, “enough with the painting!”
I've mowed twice now. April 1st (the day before 5 days of rain), and yesterday evening.
I may mow again Friday or Saturday, depending on the weather.
Good news: A long line of bulbs I planted last fall have sprouted! I was afraid they were eaten at "Squirrel Thanksgiving". Over 2/3rds of the bulbs have sprouted! 😀 I plan to take a picture and map them, so next fall i can fill in bare spots.
I even use a small one in close quarters where a long one won’t work. It prevents a lot of hand/arm fatigue. I’ll use mini-rollers on small stuff, too, if it ends up being more efficient than brushwork, or when brushwork isn’t required.
The small ones for sure; I'd never use a roller without at least a small one. Mini rollers are the gift from heaven. If I'm in a hurry and no one's looking real close, I even roll the woodwork and tip it smooth with a brush. Only a pro would know the difference. My friends know not to comment on my personal work; I'll throw them out.
The chart is very interesting. Some thoughts about the survey design: I think "the economy" and "taxes" are not really two different things. Both labels, at the level of "issues for themselves," are about your individual perception of your present prosperity and future opportunities.
"State of democracy" as an issue is nebulous, basically a vibe. My impression of "democracy" concerns is that they are largely a concern that people are voting differently from the way the person concerned about "democracy" thinks they should.
And good morning, everyone. The weathers here is 50-ish right now and expected to be 84 this afternoon. We are not doing dog-and-cat for the neighbor today, unless he texts me later with a request. Sometimes he gets held up at work, or his teenage son isn't available, and he will ask us to take the dog out at midday.
It seems to me that taxes should be considered a different thing from the economy. The economy is that large beast in which we buy and sell and produce and consume, collectively and individually. Even those who don't pay taxes still participate in the economy.
Theoretically (if not practically), taxes are the sums that we contribute to pay for someone to do something for us collectively that we can't do individually: Build roads, bridges, sewer and water systems; hire teachers, police, sanitation workers, etc.
The intersection of the two may now be occurring because we have developed governments that do far more than just the things that our world needs us to do collectively. The result is that the taxes we pay into that government now represent the largest expense (by far) that many of us have. That then determines what we have left to buy, sell, produce, or consume.
At least it seems that way to me at this hour. That may be the limit of my profundity for the day.
It's early here. I need to decide whether to have a coffee or go back to bed.
"It seems to me that taxes should be considered a different thing from the economy."
I agree that this is objectively accurate. However, at the level of individual perception, taxes - which everyone pays in a country with a sales tax, VAT, gasoline tax, etc. - are an expense. Groceries are an expense, rent is an expense, auto repairs are an expense.
Hence my point about the purpose and use of those taxes. The city I live in collects taxes from me to pay for all of the things I mentioned. I'm OK with that, because I benefit directly from those things and society needs them to function. However, my city also now takes money from me to give to developers to convert downtown office buildings to residences and to provide grants to every special interest group that comes along. That expense category is one that I can't control and has been growing faster than any other expense that I have.
Meanwhile, I rely on a healthy economy to generate the income and investment returns that I need to fund this ever-growing expense.
I've seen that my taxes go to the public schools making children incapable of reading a book and to our city council mopes that, in studying the housing crisis in Evanston, have determined that there is a crisis because...and this, after spending millions of dollars to experts and consultants to get to the bottom of the mystery...we don't have enough houses.
In so many ways, this is illustrative more of the problem with “issues polling” than anything else. The categories are broad enough, and the terms loaded enough, as to be virtually meaningless. It’s more a matter of the chosen words having warm-fuzzy connotations to the individual survey participant.
When people say they’re concerned with “the economy”, do they have anything in particular in mind? Do they mean they aren’t sure about their own jobs, the jobs of close friends and relatives? Are they worried about grocery inflation? High tuition rates? High mortgages? Who knows?
What is the state of democracy? Isn’t it bad or dubious if I don’t get my way in an election? What is democracy anyway? Stuff I care about in elective government? Feeling good about elected government officials?
Sarah Isgur had mentioned in podcasts that she hated issue polling, and I completely take her point. When you look at the specifics, it’s all so vague as to raise more questions than are answered.
I’m not very good at Lippmann. What I’ve read of him is very limited and long ago. I usually found the little bits of what I’ve read I could follow so far before he continued on to conclusions I couldn’t see at all—as near as I could tell.
Later I read elsewhere that his attitudes were cynical, which could account for my objections. I don’t find cynical or sarcastic arguments to be very persuasive or instructive—but they can be humorous and entertaining.
A: He argued that people, including journalists, are more apt to believe "the pictures in their heads" than to come to judgment by critical thinking. Humans condense ideas into symbols, he wrote, and journalism, a force quickly becoming the mass media, is an ineffective method of educating the public.
To be fair to ordinary people, newspapers developed the idea of objective reporting long after people came to expect "their" paper to support "their" team. It was mass media, raised its standards and then shriveled into more mass-ier media.
Declining language arts standards made it much less likely readers could pick out the reliable parts from the assumptions, neutral or not.
Research that is biased toward X is no more trustworthy than research biased toward Y. Ideally, research would not be biased at all, but would have not investment in the outcome of the research: "We're going to study (topic), and we don't hope to get any particular result, just learn more information."
This is not reasonably to be expected, unfortunately. The scientific method starts with a hypothesis, and the very act of deciding, "This subject is worth investigating," and "This is the hypothesis about the subject which we will try to disprove," is subjective or "biased." Nonetheless, these steps could be done much better, and so could experimental design and results analysis, if the researchers were not determined to get a particular result.
"... but that it should not be used to promote a specific agenda."
Again, even minor improvements would be good. For example, researchers could publish their results even if the outcome is not what they want, rather than withholding results and the data that were collected. Also, publishers - universities and professional journals - could present information whether they like the information or not.
In giving talks to doctoral students I often joke I "only believe a 1/3rd of the research that is published, less if it is my own". The point is I know the flaws in my research. And some of them cannot be avoided, but I can see them. I know how sensitive is my data to influential data points, stuff you cannot glean from reading the published article. It also reminds me to have some humility with my research: I could be wrong.
I have always hated the possibility of being wrong and so work hard to poke holes in my own arguments. I expect professional researchers to kick that up at least a notch.
All of that is true—and even more so in touchy-feely areas of the psychological and human sciences.
In some ways it resembles journalism. The editorial decision of topic selection (what to cover) says as much or more about the publication’s biases than the individual stories.
If I'm thinking when I look at a modern media product, I notice at least half of the ledes are announcements into the ether. While not applauding some random tragedy on the other side of the country...or globe...I do notice it has absolutely nothing to do with me or any sphere of operation which might affect me. Just the amount of celebrity "news" is brain numbing.
I was busy all day yesterday, so didn't have a chance to check this one earlier. I was wondering how science applies to planning parties, as in entertaining. Apparently that's not what it's about. Oh, well.
My husband just found the rechargeable battery for the weed whacker. F was insisting it was gone forever. Took less than 5 minutes of a person actually looking for it.
Lemme guess: It was in the garage where the tools are stored? 🤔
I lost my shoes the other day and discovered them on my feet. Seriously. It was a brief moment, a few seconds, but I actually didn't know where my shoes were.
Glasses? On my head, of course.
I got in trouble for this of course, but I took a picture of Katie. She was wearing a v-neck shirt, with her glasses tucked into the v, on the outside of the shirt. She spent 20 minutes looking for her glasses before she asked me to help her find them. I came in the room, grinning.
"What are you looking at"? (with a hint of an accusation)
"Your glasses"
"What? Oh".
"Okay, and your boobs too, but to be fair, you did ask me to help you find your glasses".
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
She did let me take the picture.
:-)
I have been know to lose my phone and express my frustration to the person I am talking to - wait for it - on my phone.
To be fair, I was inder acgreat deal of stress.
You win first prize. That made me laugh.
What is the least used app on my phone? Phone.
And that made me smile - I needed that.
My least used app, too.
I momentarily lose things and find them several times a day. 🙂
Got it in one.
Some breaking news... WeChat, Weibo, and Bili Bili are blowing up with hilarious disparaging video shorts of Trump and Vance. Hundreds. Maybe thousands. Vance in drag talking smack, Trump in diapers whining, etc.
Drudge Report taunted Trump, Vance, and Musk with AI images for days. Lots of them showed the three working at sweatshop sewing machines.
Drudge used to line up reliably with the GOP, but he broke from following the MAGA fans and has been much more skeptical for some time now. I recommend Drudge to anyone who wants a headline bundler from mainly mainstream sources—so long as your ad blocker is turned on.
Good morning. This is all pretty heavy for a Monday morning, particularly after starting with Matt Yglesias' piece on Hitler revisionism.
84 F and sun! is forecast here as well.
Matt has become a good example of the Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin quote... "There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader."
He was riding high, but recent events kinda tarnished his brand.
I think that quip sometimes applies to Trump himself.
Yeah, I can see that. He sees momentum and places himself in front of it.
Although lately, I'm thinking more he's the old guy that's lost it and thinks he's actually the leader.
Those 2 explanations are not mutually exclusive.
Good point.
What particularly got your attention? I have only skimmed a lot of his stuff recently. (Only skimmed a lot of most stuff recently - except CSLF!)
It was some response to the “new” Abundance agenda where he was on the wrong side of the larger opinion instead of being the thought leader. I’ve already misplaced it and moved on. There were a couple of snarky comments at him, he did an obvious about face and kinda bumbled his way through some comments. It wasn’t a sonic boom but he’s been in the vanguard for a while, he stumbled, and a few people noticed.
Scholars write for their audience, although they are hard pressed to admit to that. On my DEI rollback paper, there was a journal where it would topically fit perfectly, they even had an article on the "woke backlash". The issue was the journal's biases are fairly evident, and evidence that didn't support their hypotheses would not be viewed favorably. We've added text to ensure we're not being perceived as favorable to our results.
This happens more than we care to admit. I saw it happen in a submission 22 years ago where the reviewer made derogatory comments about the subjects in the submission. In January I had a submission rejected because I was too supportive of Elon Musk (he filed a lawsuit, which was the basis for the manuscript).
That's the world we live in.
"Writing for their audience..." It's epidemic and it's not limited to the academy.
Realistically, this is nothing new. If you go back to the 19th Century, most major cities had several newspapers. At least one was a "fiercely independent" Conservative newspaper while at least one other was a "fiercely independent" Liberal newspaper ("Conservative" and "Liberal" used as placeholders for the prevailing political poles at the time).
Ultimately, media is a consumer product and, just like any other consumer product, the purveyors of that product are trying to reach the largest possible audience.
The chart is of limited value IMO, mostly confirming that there is a Red-Blue divide on what each side considers to be the most important issues. But at the same time, by being limited to only 5 issues on a side, it’s deceptive. Plenty of liberals are concerned about guns, while “LGBT” is definitely a concern on the Right (as demonstrated by the effective “She’s for they/them” Trump campaign ad).
I guess the arguable utility of the survey is in trying to discover what average citizens perceive of each party’s “brand”, as it were. To me it seems the perception of the Dem party brand has a greater potential to be alienating to your average voter than to hold out the promise of being relatable.
Relatedly, Arnold Kling has said several times that he believes most people decide first *whom* to believe before deciding *what* to believe. I’m not sure if I’m 100-percent in agreement with that view, but I can certainly see some merits to it. There are a lot of issues, for instance, where I might be ambivalent or unsure, but if I find a political celebrity that I already like has a point of view on it, I’ll feel like his/her stance is good enough for me to share.
Deciding "whom to believe " first is common sense - if done right. Believe people who demonstrate the holes they have tried to pick in their own arguments.
And help them find the ones they missed.
I think there's a lot to the "whom to believe" idea. it seems that a big part of Donald Trump's success was that, prior to his coming down the escalator in 2015, he already had an image that was much more favorable and believable (in the minds of many), than most politicians. And his "not a politicians" brand has only reinforced that image.
Trump is a good salesman. My youngest plays golf and is a fan of Bryson DeChambrough (sic). Bryson and Trump played a round of "best ball" golf in hopes of breaking 50 (par would be 72, so better than a birdie every hole). Bryson donates money to charity for every stroke under 72. They had a 51 (21 under).
Trump comes off very personable and friendly. Bryson is very likable, and also a great golfer (a top 10 finish at the Masters is nothing to be ashamed of). Watching their chemistry was enjoyable, my son loved it.
Watching him at sporting events, he works the crowd in a very charming way. And apparently does so one-on-one as well. Bill Maher had a meal with him, getting him to autograph a sheet of paper with his insults on it. Maher said he was very good one-on-one.
I didn't vote for him, but I see him playing to the crowds, and it appears to work.
Trump is a chameleon-like entertainer. Whether being a pleasant dinner guest, glad handing at a golf tournament, or in front of a camera, he wants affection so exudes pleasant and warm. At his rallies, he wants a response and palpable adoration. My father was one—also a salesman who golfed a lot. They lovely to spend limited amounts of time with, when you keep to certain topics with the correct attitude.
I think this is universally true, but like all bias, it’s critical to be aware of the pitfalls for us. If I like and respect someone, I should be more skeptical. If I dislike them, I should be more open. Very hard stuff for humans whose emotions often masquerade as reason.
Counterintuitive and absolutely true.
I have no idea of percentages...I'll stick with "most"...but I definitely agree with Kling on the who vs. what thing.
"people decide first *whom* to believe before deciding *what* to believe"
I think that's clearly the case for some people. It can be observed when people change their opinions based on what the person they have chosen as an authority says. (ETA: That is to say, for example, today Trump says "this," and followers firmly believe "this" is accurate. Tomorrow, Trump says "opposite of this," and followers switch their belief to the "opposite of this" solely on that basis.)
Whether it's "most people" is a different question. That almost sounds like snobbery from a person in the "knowledge" industry. "Most people just aren't as smart or rational as Marvelous Me!" which often leads to the conclusion, "and therefore, I should make decisions for them."
Yes. It has the welcome potential for use in rating *those people over there* with whom I disagree. Our minds are self-flattering when they’re functioning properly, it seems to me. To second guess and doubt ourselves to a realistic degree is too paralyzing and depressing for us to survive it.
Good morning. 50 degrees, with a predicted high in the 70s on a cloudy day.
The FP asks “Is Apple too big to fail?” The story refers specifically to Apple’s operations in PR China. Meanwhile the mothership reports on that trade war brewing between the US and the PRC, with one comment in the story opining that Trump’s actions have the desirable (and to him, unintended) side effect) of forcing American supply chains to disentangle.
Much has been posted here recently about China’s unique, non-Western culture that is both reflected in the society and government of PR China, and is not easily describable to Western minds without a great deal of study. Be that as it may, the totality of China is not limited to the People’s Republic. There is a thriving, Western style Chinese democracy across the Taiwan straits.
Good morning Phil.
The other FP article - by Tyler Cowen - was thought provoking. A few quotes:
"So while others focus on the rate of tariffs—admittedly an important issue—far more important is the ongoing explosion of intelligence in our world and how it will reshape our institutions and our nations."
"The bottom line is that the smartest entities in the world—the top AI programs—will not just be Western but likely even American in their intellectual and ideological orientations for some while to come."
"In other words, the entire Chinese service sector, over time, may be built upon Western modes of thought and Western ideology. That includes the Chinese government and of course, the CCP itself. The point is that, over time, everyone’s thoughts and decisions and mental frameworks will be nudged in Western and American directions."
I'll have to dig into that article -- the one about AI.
I think so. Walk around here and it's wildly obvious which direction the culture has gone...our way.
Morning! Forty-five here. Spent yesterday mainly on lawn mowing. Today I need to apply the string trimmer to a lot of edging…maybe run the tractor to blow apart some clumps of clippings from yesterday once the dew has dried up in the early afternoon. We look set to have a good week for getting things done outdoors. At our elevation, the trees are only starting to sprout, and some of the low-tier shrubbery is getting close to leafed out.
China/PRC is an endlessly fascinating topic—and a very complex one. When it comes to discussing the mainland government, it doesn’t help that it is a one-party dictatorship that is (for all intents) intentionally opaque as to its structure and motives.
The Economist’s biographical podcast series “The Prince” about Bid Daddy was quite impressive because it fleshed out the influences of current leadership. That was published in 2022, so is not up to the present. The series attempts to be objective and analytical in describing what is publicly available rather than arguing for a viewpoint.
I used to think The Economist was worthwhile. Its Drum Tower section on Fridays is often informative and interesting.
"The Prince"...right now anyway...is way outdated. The tea leaves have very subtly changed over the last 2-3 years. No one is taking direct shots at Big Daddy, of course, but what's vanished entirely are his signature policies of just a couple years ago. BD is the mouthpiece and is still ascribed Emperor deference, but things have noticeably changed. All that stuff about everyone being required to study Xi Jinping Thought, is the private joke of few hundred millions. All those books that the cadres and universities were supposed to direct their charges to study and expect a quiz...are piled up in warehouses still in their wrappers.
There has been a non-stop blitz of policy papers from the highest levels of academia, think tanks, and even the Party School, all pointing in the opposite direction that BD was pointing at just a couple years ago, with the repeating refrain of "reform and opening up". The non-stop recitations of following the Marxist-Leninist path only gets moderate to wispy lip service and no one pays attention. Party friends that attend the meetings have all alluded to "a lot of arguing going on behind closed doors" and when the doors open, there's new policies all pointing at reform and opening up.
What's not visible is informative. The Wolf Warrior guys, vanished. The lunatic on late night TV every night wearing the camo gear and gesticulating and exhorting nationalist lunacy...gone. Reform, opening, new productive directions, and generally liberalizing statements are sneaking into the narratives.
People...highly placed people like Zi Zhongjun, a proud CPC member...have written essays saying damning things about the Party out loud that everyone says in private. Zhang Weiying, the silver haired highly accredited economist and think tanker has said flat out and in a series of essays what no one would say just a couple years ago, in effect pointing in the opposite direction from Xi. Recently policy initiatives indicate someone is listening to Mr. Zhang.
None of that is to say that BD is on the outs; that's not at all realistic. What it does say is he's either listening to his advisers, or the cliques and embedded polycentric power brokers that are the obscure structural government of China are getting some heft. The recent rapprochement between Xi and the Tech elite was a mind blower, reversing a decade of animosity between Xi and the China tech business folks.
Out in the countryside, there's obvious examples of something going on if one knows where to look. In the countryside, all the farmers have their little Mao shrine in the front entry area "LR" that's common in all the rural houses. There's the picture of Mao, sometimes the poster with the Revolutionary Heroes and Martyrs On Horseback..that sort of thing. In 2012-ish through about 2020, there was always a picture of Big Daddy to the right of Mao...never on the Left, of course, always on the right. Sometimes BD's wife was in the photo. Sometimes a commemorative plate with Xi's smiling face, similar to the commemorative type kitsch you see in the West.
The Mao shrines are still there, the generals are still there, but noticeably absent are the photos and the commemorative plates of BD. Gone. I've not seen any. I've even seen a couple calendars at my Auntie's house where BD's picture is torn off an Auntie made a disparaging remark about the guy. Word has it that the farmers all hate the guy. That's a very big deal. For a country that still has deep agricultural roots, when you've lost the farmers, that's a big deal.
Make of this what you might. Something happened. Pay close attention to policy stuff related to our moron's tariffs. The Party knows they've been handed an incredible gift from our maggot brained POTUS. It'll be very interesting to see what they do with it.
You think BD has it bad? Recent polling in Russia shows Putin's approval ratings have slipped to an all-time low of 107%! 😱
Very interesting developments! You’ve got a great vantage point to observe the evolution.
No predictions...there's evidence for everything and it could all go sideways, but something happened or is happening.
The grass hasn’t grown long enough yet for cutting. We could use rain. We have an abundance of wind this spring. Off to the cabin today after I make a stop at my daughter’s house to finish painting her basement stairwell. She’s in Jersey visiting the in-laws. My forearm is screaming at me, “enough with the painting!”
I've mowed twice now. April 1st (the day before 5 days of rain), and yesterday evening.
I may mow again Friday or Saturday, depending on the weather.
Good news: A long line of bulbs I planted last fall have sprouted! I was afraid they were eaten at "Squirrel Thanksgiving". Over 2/3rds of the bulbs have sprouted! 😀 I plan to take a picture and map them, so next fall i can fill in bare spots.
A roller on a stick saves a lot of forearm fatigue wherever conditions permit.
We got several rounds of copious rain ahead of a couple warm, sunny days. That’s about all it takes to knock the greenery out of its slumber.
For sure the extension roller. Get a big one.
I even use a small one in close quarters where a long one won’t work. It prevents a lot of hand/arm fatigue. I’ll use mini-rollers on small stuff, too, if it ends up being more efficient than brushwork, or when brushwork isn’t required.
The small ones for sure; I'd never use a roller without at least a small one. Mini rollers are the gift from heaven. If I'm in a hurry and no one's looking real close, I even roll the woodwork and tip it smooth with a brush. Only a pro would know the difference. My friends know not to comment on my personal work; I'll throw them out.
Good morning, Phil!
The chart is very interesting. Some thoughts about the survey design: I think "the economy" and "taxes" are not really two different things. Both labels, at the level of "issues for themselves," are about your individual perception of your present prosperity and future opportunities.
"State of democracy" as an issue is nebulous, basically a vibe. My impression of "democracy" concerns is that they are largely a concern that people are voting differently from the way the person concerned about "democracy" thinks they should.
And good morning, everyone. The weathers here is 50-ish right now and expected to be 84 this afternoon. We are not doing dog-and-cat for the neighbor today, unless he texts me later with a request. Sometimes he gets held up at work, or his teenage son isn't available, and he will ask us to take the dog out at midday.
It seems to me that taxes should be considered a different thing from the economy. The economy is that large beast in which we buy and sell and produce and consume, collectively and individually. Even those who don't pay taxes still participate in the economy.
Theoretically (if not practically), taxes are the sums that we contribute to pay for someone to do something for us collectively that we can't do individually: Build roads, bridges, sewer and water systems; hire teachers, police, sanitation workers, etc.
The intersection of the two may now be occurring because we have developed governments that do far more than just the things that our world needs us to do collectively. The result is that the taxes we pay into that government now represent the largest expense (by far) that many of us have. That then determines what we have left to buy, sell, produce, or consume.
At least it seems that way to me at this hour. That may be the limit of my profundity for the day.
It's early here. I need to decide whether to have a coffee or go back to bed.
"It seems to me that taxes should be considered a different thing from the economy."
I agree that this is objectively accurate. However, at the level of individual perception, taxes - which everyone pays in a country with a sales tax, VAT, gasoline tax, etc. - are an expense. Groceries are an expense, rent is an expense, auto repairs are an expense.
Hence my point about the purpose and use of those taxes. The city I live in collects taxes from me to pay for all of the things I mentioned. I'm OK with that, because I benefit directly from those things and society needs them to function. However, my city also now takes money from me to give to developers to convert downtown office buildings to residences and to provide grants to every special interest group that comes along. That expense category is one that I can't control and has been growing faster than any other expense that I have.
Meanwhile, I rely on a healthy economy to generate the income and investment returns that I need to fund this ever-growing expense.
Back to bed it is ...
I've seen that my taxes go to the public schools making children incapable of reading a book and to our city council mopes that, in studying the housing crisis in Evanston, have determined that there is a crisis because...and this, after spending millions of dollars to experts and consultants to get to the bottom of the mystery...we don't have enough houses.
This is where I was going with the separation of the two issues. Things that people are concerned about include:
Issue 1 - Taxes are too high, too broad, and too much of the money is not being spent well.
Issue 2 - The economy is cratering around our ears. Will we have jobs? Will our investments be worth anything? Etc.
In so many ways, this is illustrative more of the problem with “issues polling” than anything else. The categories are broad enough, and the terms loaded enough, as to be virtually meaningless. It’s more a matter of the chosen words having warm-fuzzy connotations to the individual survey participant.
When people say they’re concerned with “the economy”, do they have anything in particular in mind? Do they mean they aren’t sure about their own jobs, the jobs of close friends and relatives? Are they worried about grocery inflation? High tuition rates? High mortgages? Who knows?
What is the state of democracy? Isn’t it bad or dubious if I don’t get my way in an election? What is democracy anyway? Stuff I care about in elective government? Feeling good about elected government officials?
Sarah Isgur had mentioned in podcasts that she hated issue polling, and I completely take her point. When you look at the specifics, it’s all so vague as to raise more questions than are answered.
Polling is only once removed from listicle type entertainment.
Does Lippman's thesis play into this?
I’m not very good at Lippmann. What I’ve read of him is very limited and long ago. I usually found the little bits of what I’ve read I could follow so far before he continued on to conclusions I couldn’t see at all—as near as I could tell.
Later I read elsewhere that his attitudes were cynical, which could account for my objections. I don’t find cynical or sarcastic arguments to be very persuasive or instructive—but they can be humorous and entertaining.
Q: What is Walter Lippmann's theory?
A: He argued that people, including journalists, are more apt to believe "the pictures in their heads" than to come to judgment by critical thinking. Humans condense ideas into symbols, he wrote, and journalism, a force quickly becoming the mass media, is an ineffective method of educating the public.
To be fair to ordinary people, newspapers developed the idea of objective reporting long after people came to expect "their" paper to support "their" team. It was mass media, raised its standards and then shriveled into more mass-ier media.
Declining language arts standards made it much less likely readers could pick out the reliable parts from the assumptions, neutral or not.
Thanks.
"Not that research has to change its biases,"
Research that is biased toward X is no more trustworthy than research biased toward Y. Ideally, research would not be biased at all, but would have not investment in the outcome of the research: "We're going to study (topic), and we don't hope to get any particular result, just learn more information."
This is not reasonably to be expected, unfortunately. The scientific method starts with a hypothesis, and the very act of deciding, "This subject is worth investigating," and "This is the hypothesis about the subject which we will try to disprove," is subjective or "biased." Nonetheless, these steps could be done much better, and so could experimental design and results analysis, if the researchers were not determined to get a particular result.
"... but that it should not be used to promote a specific agenda."
Again, even minor improvements would be good. For example, researchers could publish their results even if the outcome is not what they want, rather than withholding results and the data that were collected. Also, publishers - universities and professional journals - could present information whether they like the information or not.
In giving talks to doctoral students I often joke I "only believe a 1/3rd of the research that is published, less if it is my own". The point is I know the flaws in my research. And some of them cannot be avoided, but I can see them. I know how sensitive is my data to influential data points, stuff you cannot glean from reading the published article. It also reminds me to have some humility with my research: I could be wrong.
I have always hated the possibility of being wrong and so work hard to poke holes in my own arguments. I expect professional researchers to kick that up at least a notch.
All of that is true—and even more so in touchy-feely areas of the psychological and human sciences.
In some ways it resembles journalism. The editorial decision of topic selection (what to cover) says as much or more about the publication’s biases than the individual stories.
"editorial decision of topic selection (what to cover) says as much or more about the publication’s biases than the individual stories."
Agree. It seems so obvious, yet to say it to fans of a particular publication usually draws dismissive comments or outright condemnation.
I was thinking the same thing about the journalistical industry. Decisions regarding what counts as "news" cannot be made completely objective.
If I'm thinking when I look at a modern media product, I notice at least half of the ledes are announcements into the ether. While not applauding some random tragedy on the other side of the country...or globe...I do notice it has absolutely nothing to do with me or any sphere of operation which might affect me. Just the amount of celebrity "news" is brain numbing.
More than half.