Chaos (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Even though I often try to predict what’s going to happen in politics (often wrongly) my general belief is that the “chaos” factor is much larger than most people want to accept. There is far less order to events than we think there is, and that often the best and only explanation  to any particular occurrence is “he got lucky” or “somebody screwed up”. 

Curious if people tend to agree with this? 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is a very broad question. What kind of occurrence? Like the multiple random choices that went into Archduke Ferdinand being assassinated one day? Or more like the situation where say Perot ran for president and a straight line runs from that to a whole bunch of key US events stemming from that?

 

[MAC_32]

Regarding a national perspective, I think people that consume politics at a higher volume often get things wrong because they don't account for the vantage point of the average voter. The average voter pays very little attention to any of this on a week-to-week, let alone day-to-day basis. They're most heavily influenced by whatever events just happened and their own unique priorities.

I think what just happened in New Hampshire is a great example of this - half of that state's primary voters hadn't made a decision a week before the primary. Maybe that number is higher than usual, maybe it's not. But I think it well represents the average voter. They will make a decision when they need to make a decision. Everything prior? The data compiled and discussed subject matter is generally tilted towards those who consume politics at a higher rate than the average.

 

[timschochet]

This is a very broad question. What kind of occurrence? Like the multiple random choices that went into Archduke Ferdinand being assassinated one day? Or more like the situation where say Perot ran for president and a straight line runs from that to a whole bunch of key US events stemming from that?

Why not both? Anything and everything. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Even though I often try to predict what’s going to happen in politics (often wrongly) my general belief is that the “chaos” factor is much larger than most people want to accept. There is far less order to events than we think there is, and that often the best and only explanation  to any particular occurrence is “he got lucky” or “somebody screwed up”. 

Curious if people tend to agree with this? 

Trump is president because a congressman from New York sent a #### pic to an underage girl.  I think that strongly supports your hypothesis.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding a national perspective, I think people that consume politics at a higher volume often get things wrong because they don't account for the vantage point of the average voter. The average voter pays very little attention to any of this on a week-to-week, let alone day-to-day basis. They're most heavily influenced by whatever events just happened and their own unique priorities.

I think what just happened in New Hampshire is a great example of this - half of that state's primary voters hadn't made a decision a week before the primary. Maybe that number is higher than usual, maybe it's not. But I think it well represents the average voter. They will make a decision when they need to make a decision. Everything prior? The data compiled and discussed subject matter is generally tilted towards those who consume politics at a higher rate than the average.

I think this is absolutely true. 

But let me go further: what if there is no “vantage point” for voters beyond the spur of the moment? 

Say you have a guy in New Hampshire, he thinks he’ll vote for Biden, (he’s heard of him) and then right before he goes to vote he turns on the TV and sees a commercial in which Bernie promises to raise the minimum wage to $15. “I like that” this guy thinks; maybe he’s making $12  an hour right now. So he goes and votes for Bernie. 

This guy isn’t a centrist, or a leftist. He has no consistent point of view. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why not both? Anything and everything. 

Hm well I see chance in a lot of history. Just as an example if Marina Oswald hadn’t thrown her husband out Kennedy may never have been assassinated.

Likewise maybe if Trump’s grandfather had stayed in Karlsruhe or Canada, or gotten an excusal from the Reich, maybe we don’t have this situation. Maybe if Obama hadn’t riffed on Trump that night (at Al Smith dinner?) maybe he doesn’t run. Etc.

 

[Ilov80s]

Entropy 

 

[dgreen]

I think this is absolutely true. 

But let me go further: what if there is no “vantage point” for voters beyond the spur of the moment? 

Say you have a guy in New Hampshire, he thinks he’ll vote for Biden, (he’s heard of him) and then right before he goes to vote he turns on the TV and sees a commercial in which Bernie promises to raise the minimum wage to $15. “I like that” this guy thinks; maybe he’s making $12  an hour right now. So he goes and votes for Bernie. 

This guy isn’t a centrist, or a leftist. He has no consistent point of view. 

Are you saying that's an example of "chaos"?

 

[wikkidpissah]

it's lining up to be fascists v commies all over again, timmy. that level of polarity's going to be the alignment every time humanity loses its moral order and why i've not been so much alarmed by who's in the White House as why. the chaos is yet to come.

and we only listen to your predictions anymore because we're still rooting for you to get one right....

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

God may or may not paly dice with the universe, but in my experience I find God to be a female cat and I am just a chew toy filed with catnip.

 

[rockaction]

it's lining up to be fascists v commies all over again, timmy. that level of polarity's going to be the alignment every time humanity loses its moral order and why i've not been so much alarmed by who's in the White House as why. the chaos is yet to come

This is also my greatest fear. As for the bolded, I hope that the collective hive has just lost its bat#### mind because of the beating it took against the media and academia-driven political correctness movements, which pummeled the Average Joe into all sorts of public submission since '89.

 

[rockaction]

God may or may not paly dice with the universe, but in my experience I find God to be a female cat and I am just a chew toy filed with catnip.

Or you're just a female cat. (I've heard that upon ejaculation, male cats get spike-like things on their shafts.)

That's a rub. 

 

[rockaction]

As for the OP, I also feel like a great deal of chaos exists in the universe and those that are able to harness and use that chaotic energy are truly successful and happy. Take the traditional notion of capitalism as dynamic and ever-changing yet prosperous and secure in its own way.

As for chaos now, I don't particularly like where we're headed. We seem to be devolving to wikkid's lament more than anything. The greatest chaotic threat, though IMO, is attacks from foreign countries either on power grids, computation, or infrastructure. And we're dangerously close to having that happen on a grand scale.

 

[tonydead]

I think this is absolutely true. 

But let me go further: what if there is no “vantage point” for voters beyond the spur of the moment? 

Say you have a guy in New Hampshire, he thinks he’ll vote for Biden, (he’s heard of him) and then right before he goes to vote he turns on the TV and sees a commercial in which Bernie promises to raise the minimum wage to $15. “I like that” this guy thinks; maybe he’s making $12  an hour right now. So he goes and votes for Bernie. 

This guy isn’t a centrist, or a leftist. He has no consistent point of view. 

That's random and for every occurance like that there is a likely a similar occurrence the other direction.  If you're looking for answers to why your predictions aren't coming true, as compared to someone who gets it right more often, it's probably because you're affected more by bias and not getting as clear picture of reality.  No offense.  

I think it's a lot less chaotic than most people think.  People portray Trump is a bumbling idiot and I think he's actually a lot more calculated with this stuff than most people give him credit for.  The DNC probably has a lot of stuff going on right now that is calculated that we don't even know about.

 

[wikkidpissah]

This is also my greatest fear. As for the bolded, I hope that the collective hive has just lost its bat#### mind because of the beating it took against the media and academia-driven political correctness movements, which pummeled the Average Joe into all sorts of public submission since '89.

no, this is all killing-God stuff - the modern equivalent to what the Egyptian Fugees did while Moses was up the mountain. the question is whether he comes back down with commandments or stormtroopers...

if my peripatetic life has taught me anything, it's that everything is indeed moral

 

[rockaction]

no, this is all killing-God stuff - the modern equivalent to what the Egyptian Fugees did while Moses was up the mountain. the question is whether he comes back down with commandments or stormtroopers...

if my peripatetic life has taught me anything, it's that everything is indeed moral

Mmm. The God-killing was straw that stirred the drink, perhaps the weak structures/strictures that couldn't hold civility in the form of P.C. was the straw that broke liberal democracy's back here. 

 

[Da Guru]

Regarding a national perspective, I think people that consume politics at a higher volume often get things wrong because they don't account for the vantage point of the average voter. The average voter pays very little attention to any of this on a week-to-week, let alone day-to-day basis. They're most heavily influenced by whatever events just happened and their own unique priorities.

I think what just happened in New Hampshire is a great example of this - half of that state's primary voters hadn't made a decision a week before the primary. Maybe that number is higher than usual, maybe it's not. But I think it well represents the average voter. They will make a decision when they need to make a decision. Everything prior? The data compiled and discussed subject matter is generally tilted towards those who consume politics at a higher rate than the average.

Agree, I don`t think half the people in the USA even knew there was an impeachment trial going on.  Other than here I never heard anyone ever mention it or talk about it.    And even here there is only maybe about 20-25 people who talk about it.

Most people are just working hard and doing the best for their families and have little concern about the day to day political stuff.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Mmm. The God-killing was straw that stirred the drink, perhaps the weak structures/strictures that couldn't hold civility in the form of P.C. was the straw that broke liberal democracy's back here. 

you're over-rating the power of PC if you rank it any higher than a post-modern Puritan manners purge.

we broke the societal chain of command (family-neighborhood-parish-town-state-State) as a necessary part of achieving personal liberty for all and unwittingly left ourselves out in the cold without the much of the structure by which we reorganize after revolutions (old-fashioned definition). Pushing away from God and re-purposing notions of family left us to rebuild without blueprints and at least two load-bearing pillars and invited the unsoundness timmy characterizes as chaos. we are now re-ordering along lines dictated by commerce rather than morality and that is a way of woe, as the extremes to which our structures are aligning illustrate

 

[rockaction]

you're over-rating the power of PC if you rank it any higher than a post-modern Puritan manners purge.

we broke the societal chain of command (family-neighborhood-parish-town-state-State) as a necessary part of achieving personal liberty for all and unwittingly left ourselves out in the cold without the much of the structure by which we reorganize after revolutions (old-fashioned definition). Pushing away from God and re-purposing notions of family left us to rebuild without blueprints and at least two load-bearing pillars and invited the unsoundness timmy characterizes as chaos. we are now re-ordering along lines dictated by commerce rather than morality and that is a way of woe, as the extremes to which our structures are aligning illustrate

I couldn't agree more about almost all of it, actually; I just think that PC is higher as a moral diktat.

But the second paragraph I couldn't agree with more. That said, it could be said the original American experiment died with the Constitution when they decided to steep commerce in to the heart of the document itself.  At least George Will has argued that at length. (Never read it.)

 

[wikkidpissah]

I couldn't agree more about almost all of it, actually; I just think that PC is higher as a moral diktat.

But the second paragraph I couldn't agree with more. That said, it could be said the original American experiment died with the Constitution when they decided to steep commerce in to the heart of the document itself.  At least George Will has argued that at length. (Never read it.)

Will is one of my favorite Tories but he, and most conservatives, fail to properly consider the necessity of freedom (and the stranglehold upon it by ruling structures), in their picture of the progress of American history

 

[rockaction]

Will is one of my favorite Tories but he, and most conservatives, fail to properly consider the necessity of freedom (and the stranglehold upon it by ruling structures), in their picture of the progress of American history

Hmm...interesting. I guess this is where being steeped in libertarian/classical liberal thought leaves me myopic vis a vis true conservatism. Now that I think about it, the history of the conservative movement and the GOP would certainly back you up.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Hmm...interesting. I guess this is where being steeped in libertarian/classical liberal thought leaves me myopic vis a vis true conservatism. Now that I think about it, the history of the conservative movement and the GOP would certainly back you up.

you funny guy

 

[huthut]

Regarding a national perspective, I think people that consume politics at a higher volume often get things wrong because they don't account for the vantage point of the average voter. The average voter pays very little attention to any of this on a week-to-week, let alone day-to-day basis. They're most heavily influenced by whatever events just happened and their own unique priorities.

I think what just happened in New Hampshire is a great example of this - half of that state's primary voters hadn't made a decision a week before the primary. Maybe that number is higher than usual, maybe it's not. But I think it well represents the average voter. They will make a decision when they need to make a decision. Everything prior? The data compiled and discussed subject matter is generally tilted towards those who consume politics at a higher rate than the average.

I think this is something to keep in mind. This forum is highly biased toward politics junkies who know all of the bit players and all of the minute drama. Most people pay very little attention to day to day events, and something that is seen as a campaign ending mistake will be completely unknown to 95% of the population. 

 

[joffer]

Entropy 

fractal geometry

 

[zftcg]

In the 1991 Super Bowl, the Bills came in with one of the highest-powered offenses in league history, but Bill Belichick's defense made the WRs pay for coming over the middle, took control and led the Giants to the title, showing that's how you win championships in the National Football League ...

... except, as many of you know, that's not really what happened. The Bills were in position to win the game, but Scott Norwood's FG went wide. And with the benefit of 30 years of hindsight, it was the Bills' offense that clearly represented the future in that game.

OK, now back to the 2016 election. As others have pointed out, Trump basically ran an inside straight to take it, with tons of late factors big and small nudging hm over the top. On the other hand, the polls all said from the beginning of the race that he was the favorite to win the GOP nomination, and we just all assumed they were wrong. Meanwhile, all the fundamentals suggested a very close general election race, but again, many people (myself included) assumed that Trump was such a uniquely terrible candidate that he would underperform a generic Republican. (It's also worth pointing out that the polls weren't really "wrong" by historical standards; in fact, the polling error was less than it had been in 2012; it just happened to get it wrong in a way that was decisive, and concentrated in the most important swing states.

So what's more decisive? Chaos? Predictability? Both? Neither? Or maybe it's all just too small a sample size to say anything for certain.

 

[ren hoek]

Trump is president because a congressman from New York sent a #### pic to an underage girl.  I think that strongly supports your hypothesis.

Also, because Gwen Stefani got a bigger contract on The Voice than Trump did on The Apprentice.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Even though I often try to predict what’s going to happen in politics (often wrongly) my general belief is that the “chaos” factor is much larger than most people want to accept. There is far less order to events than we think there is, and that often the best and only explanation  to any particular occurrence is “he got lucky” or “somebody screwed up”. 

Curious if people tend to agree with this? 

I kind of disagree that that's your belief. You seem, more than most people, to overestimate the odds of then-current favorites to and underestimate the odds of then-current underdogs at any given time. Which is the opposite of believing the bold.

 

[timschochet]

I kind of disagree that that's your belief. You seem, more than most people, to overestimate the odds of then-current favorites to and underestimate the odds of then-current underdogs at any given time. Which is the opposite of believing the bold.

It’s true that I do this, but it’s because I also believe that the closer we actually get to a moment of decision, the more difficult it becomes to change the trends already in place. But what created those trends in the first place? Chaos as much as anything else. So these are not contradictory. 

Let me offer an example: most of my predictions about the Democratic primaries have been rooted in the startling fact that black voters dominate the southern Democratic vote despite being a minority in each of the southern states, and that while their influence in these states is almost nil in November, it is vast in the primaries that are about to occur. That’s a fact, it’s not going away, and therefore I think that fact can be used to make certain assumptions about what might happen. 

But what created that fact in the first place? Why is, for example, the South Carolina Democratic primary 60% African American when the total black vote percentage in South Carolina not even close to that number? The answer is that a whole bunch of weird, unrepeatable historical flukes led to this situation: a whole lot of chaos. Nonetheless here we are. 

 

[TheMagus]

Hm well I see chance in a lot of history. Just as an example if Marina Oswald hadn’t thrown her husband out Kennedy may never have been assassinated.

Likewise maybe if Trump’s grandfather had stayed in Karlsruhe or Canada, or gotten an excusal from the Reich, maybe we don’t have this situation. Maybe if Obama hadn’t riffed on Trump that night (at Al Smith dinner?) maybe he doesn’t run. Etc.

I just literally had this conversation at dinner tonight with our good friends - if Obama hadn't roasted Trump at the White House Correspondents dinner, we would have never had Trump as POTUS. Actually said if I had a time machine that would be the one thing I would go back and try to change. It may seem petty, but from a strategic perspective, given the butterfly effect, I would want to keep my time travel fairly recent with somewhat limited existential consequences to the universe. 

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I think this is absolutely true. 

But let me go further: what if there is no “vantage point” for voters beyond the spur of the moment? 

Say you have a guy in New Hampshire, he thinks he’ll vote for Biden, (he’s heard of him) and then right before he goes to vote he turns on the TV and sees a commercial in which Bernie promises to raise the minimum wage to $15. “I like that” this guy thinks; maybe he’s making $12  an hour right now. So he goes and votes for Bernie. 

This guy isn’t a centrist, or a leftist. He has no consistent point of view. 

Most people don't have a consistent point of view.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

It’s true that I do this, but it’s because I also believe that the closer we actually get to a moment of decision, the more difficult it becomes to change the trends already in place. But what created those trends in the first place? Chaos as much as anything else. So these are not contradictory. 

Let me offer an example: most of my predictions about the Democratic primaries have been rooted in the startling fact that black voters dominate the southern Democratic vote despite being a minority in each of the southern states, and that while their influence in these states is almost nil in November, it is vast in the primaries that are about to occur. That’s a fact, it’s not going away, and therefore I think that fact can be used to make certain assumptions about what might happen. 

But what created that fact in the first place? Why is, for example, the South Carolina Democratic primary 60% African American when the total black vote percentage in South Carolina not even close to that number? The answer is that a whole bunch of weird, unrepeatable historical flukes led to this situation: a whole lot of chaos. Nonetheless here we are. 

Except the example you have chosen to illustrate your point (which may not be wrong overall) is really just historical context, not chaos. That the black vote matters a lot more in the South in Democratic primaries than it does elsewhere or in the general is now utterly predictable. Things that are predictable are literally the opposite of chaos.

 

[timschochet]

Except the example you have chosen to illustrate your point (which may not be wrong overall) is really just historical context, not chaos. That the black vote matters a lot more in the South in Democratic primaries than it does elsewhere or in the general is now utterly predictable. Things that are predictable are literally the opposite of chaos.

It’s not “historical context”. It was never predictable. It’s based, as I wrote, on a wide number of flukes. Yes it’s predictable now, but that doesn’t mean that chaos wasn’t at its root. 

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

It’s not “historical context”. It was never predictable. It’s based, as I wrote, on a wide number of flukes. Yes it’s predictable now, but that doesn’t mean that chaos wasn’t at its root. 

If it is predictable now, then it is no longer chaotic.

That's pretty close to a tautology.

 

[skol asylum]

https://youtu.be/n-mpifTiPV4

 

[apalmer]

It’s true that I do this, but it’s because I also believe that the closer we actually get to a moment of decision, the more difficult it becomes to change the trends already in place. But what created those trends in the first place? Chaos as much as anything else. So these are not contradictory. 

Let me offer an example: most of my predictions about the Democratic primaries have been rooted in the startling fact that black voters dominate the southern Democratic vote despite being a minority in each of the southern states, and that while their influence in these states is almost nil in November, it is vast in the primaries that are about to occur. That’s a fact, it’s not going away, and therefore I think that fact can be used to make certain assumptions about what might happen. 

But what created that fact in the first place? Why is, for example, the South Carolina Democratic primary 60% African American when the total black vote percentage in South Carolina not even close to that number? The answer is that a whole bunch of weird, unrepeatable historical flukes led to this situation: a whole lot of chaos. Nonetheless here we are. 

Just because you don't see/understand a pattern or a relationship doesn't mean it isn't there. Your "weird, unrepeatable historical flukes" are neither weird nor flukes, they're simply extensions of prior acts and occurrences. While they may be unrepeatable, that's simply because you can't precisely recreate the conditions that caused them.