Support NeoGAF

[Bonen no Max'd]

People are frustrated with experts because we've delegated increasing amounts of authority to them while our life expectancy and incomes drop. Alan Greenspan was an expert. Dick Cheney was an expert. Experts told them that NAFTA would be a huge job creator in the US while certified crazy man Ross Perot said there would be a "huge sucking sound" of job loss. One of them was right about where the wealth would be going.

People feel like they have less control over their lives and less power in their democracy than they used to. Political power is increasingly consolidated into smaller and smaller groups of people while our lives are largely dictated by large corporations. As people lose agency, they're going to distrust the idea of placing more power into the same hands that got them there in the first place.

 

[Ernest]

Yeah even though I talk about Hillary's failures a lot, this election was still a moral failure of America and I don't want to downplay that.

Absolutely, and driven home by the fact that Trump won with less votes total than Romney lost with.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Absolutely, and driven home by the fact that Trump won with less votes total than Romney lost with.

That's not actually true I believe, that was the media jumping the gun on turnout.

 

[Killa Sasa]

People feel like they have less control over their lives and less power in their democracy than they used to. Political power is increasingly consolidated into smaller and smaller groups of people while our lives are largely dictated by large corporations. As people lose agency, they're going to distrust the idea of placing more power into the same hands that got them there in the first place.

I feel like this could sometimes explain why people go for the off-kilter Russian roulette pick sometimes. They feel like a scramble might be worth it and maybe they'll be better off in the next foray.

That or they're dumbasses who latch on to every little piece that assures their confirmation bias.

Probably a little bit of both!

 

[Crocodile]

People are frustrated with experts because we've delegated increasing amounts of authority to them while our life expectancy and incomes drop. Alan Greenspan was an expert. Dick Cheney was an expert. Experts told them that NAFTA would be a huge job creator in the US while certified crazy man Ross Perot said there would be a "huge sucking sound" of job loss. One of them was right about where the wealth would be going.

People feel like they have less control over their lives and less power in their democracy than they used to. Political power is increasingly consolidated into smaller and smaller groups of people while our lives are largely dictated by large corporations. As people lose agency, they're going to distrust the idea of placing more power into the same hands that got them there in the first place.

The obvious answer isn't "fuck all experts let's elect morons" but rather "fuck certain experts in particular". Of course I say this as someone who is weeks away from completing their doctorate degree (highly-educated) and as a Black person (pre-disposed to reject any ideology that scapegoats minorities of any type). It's a bit harder to put myself in the shoes of a non-college educated white person.

 

[PInk Tape]

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

I have tremendous respect for women and the many roles they serve that are vital to the fabric of our society and our economy.
6:12 AM · Mar 8, 2017

Surejan.gif

Hot steaming pile of bullshit.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

That's not actually true I believe, that was the media jumping the gun on turnout.

afaik it's true for some areas, in Wisconsin he got about 2k less votes than Romney while Hillary's number plummeted. In Michigan he outperformed Romney (amusing given Romney's history in the state) but Hillary underperformed Obama by a much wider margin.

I'm not sure how much of this is because of third party voters and how much is turnout, though. There's definitely certain areas, mostly Rust Belt, where Obama voters flipped to Trump, but she turnout also dropped for her with nonwhite youth voters.

I feel like this could sometimes explain why people go for the off-kilter Russian roulette pick sometimes. They feel like a scramble might be worth it and maybe they'll be better off in the next foray.

That or they're dumbasses who latch on to every little piece that assures their confirmation bias.

Probably a little bit of both!

Prospect theory actually explains this pretty handily if you're willing to subscribe to it. People generally are risk averse when evaluating potential gains (would you rather have $10 or a 10% chance at $100, they're the same expected outcome but most people will choose the guaranteed gain) but much more willing to gamble if they perceive that they've lost something (would you rather let 200 people die or take a 2/3 chance of 600 people dying with 1/3 chance of everyone surviving).

Of course they're also dumbasses who fell for a huckster and we shouldn't downplay that.

The obvious answer isn't "fuck all experts let's elect morons" but rather "fuck certain experts in particular". Of course I say this as someone who is weeks away from completing their doctorate degree (highly-educated) and as a Black person (pre-disposed to reject any ideology that scapegoats minorities of any type). It's a bit harder to put myself in the shoes of a non-college educated white person.

I agree, but I also think that the Democratic party needs to try and restore community agency and break up and democratize centralized power. I'm not saying that falling for a dumbass huckster like Trump isn't stupid or a bad idea, rather just trying to explain why "people are tired of experts" sentiment comes from.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Experts said that NAFTA would have almost no impact on anything in America and it had almost no impact on anything in America.

It's almost unbelievable that Trumpcare is bad for drug addicts considering how quickly many of Trump's voters are becoming heroin addicts.

Your voters are going to die of heroin overdoses if you pass this stupid plan.

 

[dramatis]

The largest association of US doctors says Trump’s health care plan will weaken our defense against disease outbreak

The American Medical Association, the largest group of physicians in the US, sent a letter to Republicans in the House of Representatives, warning them against eliminating a key fund that’s used to prevent outbreaks in America.

The Republican bill to repeal and replace Obamacare will not only make health insurance more expensive for millions of Americans, it will also cut the Public Health and Prevention Fund. That means taking a 12% bite out of the US Centers for Disease Control’s budget—the part dedicated to preventing disease outbreaks and a host of other health calamities, like childhood lead poisoning.

We going to get ebola for reals I suppose

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Experts said that NAFTA would have almost no impact on anything in America and it had almost no impact on anything in America.

It's almost unbelievable that Trumpcare is bad for drug addicts considering how quickly many of Trump's voters are becoming heroin addicts.

Your voters are going to die of heroin overdoses if you pass this stupid plan.

It's also true that if you keep babying people over their feelings on experts, we'll all be dead because of the climate change that they don't "feel" is happening.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

NAFTA's net effects on the economy were small but they restructured and redistributed wealth largely away from non-degree holding workers whose industries were protected prior to its passage to workers with college degrees.

This actually reminds me of another interesting piece I read about how the discussion of Trump's rhetoric concerning crime is off. The TL;DR is that national crime is still very low but many (but not all!) places where Trump made gains have experienced increased crime. The point is less that "actually rising crime gave birth to Trump" and more about how looking at national numbers can be misleading.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

NAFTA's net effects on the economy were small but they restructured and redistributed wealth largely away from non-degree holding workers whose industries were protected prior to its passage to workers with college degrees.

This actually reminds me of another interesting piece I read about how the discussion of Trump's rhetoric concerning crime is off. The TL;DR is that national crime is still very low but many (but not all!) places where Trump made gains have experienced increased crime. The point is less that "actually rising crime gave birth to Trump" and more about how looking at national numbers can be misleading.

This article has no controls and is legitimately terrible.

"Correlation is 40% if you drop one of the data points" isn't even that good....

This is like when people argued that "Trump's vote share went up in areas with lots of foreclosures in the housing crisis!" and then actual research was done and it turns out that losing your home in 2009 or 2008 had no impact on voting for Trump.

You can find a LOT of correlations for every election outcome.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

It's also true that if you keep babying people over their feelings on experts, we'll all be dead because of the climate change that they don't "feel" is happening.

You're right, social science and hard science are the same thing!

 

[shinra-bansho]

I think if a Democrat wins in 2020, Kander will likely get a cabinet role. Secretary of State, maybe?

Lolololol. What?

You people are coo coo for Kander.

He's an attractive young white guy who writes sick burn tweets every now and then, being unemployed after a comparatively successful but still failed Senate campaign.

 

[chadskin]

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman has been offered the job of U.S. ambassador to Russia and is in the process of submitting paperwork to accept the position, two administration sources have confirmed.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/jon-huntsman-ambassador-to-russia-235841

That's a good fucking pick right there.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

You're right, social science and hard science are the same thing!

According to every person I know in social sciences, they are. Otherwise you kinda have to grant the "STEM is better" folks ground.

And this distinction between social and hard science is a pretty vague one at best.

 

[Team Alucard]

According to every person I know in social sciences, they are. Otherwise you kinda have to grant the "STEM is better" folks ground.

And this distinction between social and hard science is a pretty vague one at best.

They're not, though. Economics definitely does not deserve the same level of respect and trust as chemistry or physics.

 

[B-Dubs]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/jon-huntsman-ambassador-to-russia-235841

That's a good fucking pick right there.

It'd be a good pick if Trump made him ambassador to China.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

According to every person I know in social sciences, they are. Otherwise you kinda have to grant the "STEM is better" folks ground.

And this distinction between social and hard science is a pretty vague one at best.

I'm in school right now for a social science and I can assure you it is not the same thing.

 

[Team Alucard]

It'd be a good pick if Trump made him ambassador to China.

Uhh, no. Branstad needs to leave my state and never come back. kthnx.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

(The impact on humans from climate change is actually a social science question)

Huntsman is a Trump ass licker so this is not a good or interesting pick.

 

[mo60]

Absolutely, and driven home by the fact that Trump won with less votes total than Romney lost with.

He beat romney by like 2 million votes, but his vote share was lower then romney's by like 1.3 percent.

 

[Hellwarden]

So Tim Kaine’s Son, Linwood Kaine, was arrested last Saturday in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Apparently he and others set off smoke and fireworks at a March 4 Trump rally.

That's probably not the best PR for my Senator.

 

[KingK]

They're not, though. Economics definitely does not deserve the same level of respect and trust as chemistry or physics.

Yeah, I have a degree in Economics and spent two years studying aerospace engineering and I agree.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

They're not, though. Economics definitely does not deserve the same level of respect and trust as chemistry or physics.

I'm in school right now for a social science and I can assure you it is not the same thing.

Again, this is contrary to the chip most social scientists I know carry about their fields. And the above is also true, climate change is a lot more than "Carbon make Earth hot."

I'm in a STEM field and I'm giving y'all more credit than you give yourselves here!

Edit: though I also think these posts get more into science worship, which I hate. Proper science involves philosophy as much as possible.

 

[kirblar]

Yeah, I have a degree in Economics and spent two years studying aerospace engineering and I agree.

Again, this is contrary to the chip most social scientists I know carry about their fields. And the above is also true, climate change is a lot more than "Carbon make Earth hot."

I'm in a STEM field and I'm giving y'all more credit than you give yourselves here!

Edit: though I also think these posts get more into science worship, which I hate. Proper science involves philosophy as much as possible.

The big issue w/ Econ is that people who don't separate out their philosophy end up polluting the whole thing. (see: Socialists, Austrian School, Lassez-Faire advocates,etc.)

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

"How many people will die from climate change" "how much immigration will be caused by climate change" "how many wars will start due to climate change" "how will food consumption change due to climate change" "how much will economic growth suffer from climate change" are all social science questions and they are the questions people care about the most regarding climate change.

I mean, an economist will have to give an estimate of "300 million excess deaths will occur due to climate change" and then soft deniers can say "I say 0 excess deaths will occur due to climate change!" and then you get into the exact same situation of experts versus know-nothings so the things are comparable.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

The big issue w/ Econ is that people who don't separate out their philosophy end up polluting the whole thing. (see: Socialists, Austrian School, Lassez-Faire advocates,etc.)

See, I disagree that their failings are in the philosophy. Rather, we just disagree with their philosophy. It's honestly not possible to be a-philosophic (whatever that means). Better to just rigorously argue your philosophy and disclose that.

Imagine a world where libertarians preface everything with "if people die because of this, it's not my problem." Probably hear a lot less about libertarians!

"How many people will die from climate change" "how much immigration will be caused by climate change" "how many wars will start due to climate change" "how will food consumption change due to climate change" "how much will economic growth suffer from climate change" are all social science questions and they are the questions people care about the most regarding climate change.

This too. I think STEM worship has gotten out of hand. Too much "I fucking love science" and not enough philosophy of science.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The big issue w/ Econ is that people who don't separate out their philosophy end up polluting the whole thing. (see: Socialists, Austrian School, Lassez-Faire advocates,etc.)

lol

 

[Team Alucard]

Edit: though I also think these posts get more into science worship, which I hate. Proper science involves philosophy as much as possible.

Its not so much science worship as it is that Economics is largely a backwards field rooted in pseudoscience, unscrutinized cultural biases, and political manipulation.

 

[kirblar]

See, I disagree that their failings are in the philosophy. Rather, we just disagree with their philosophy. It's honestly not possible to be a-philosophic (whatever that means). Better to just rigorously argue your philosophy and disclose that.

Imagine a world where libertarians preface everything with "if people die because of this, it's not my problem." Probably hear a lot less about libertarians!

It is in the philosophy. They're warping their economic views around the philosophy and preferences, much like a creationist does to their views on Dinosaurs.

Having preferences is fine! We will have different preferences on ideal trade-offs. But that shouldn't be affecting your ability to determine what those trade-offs will be.

 

[iavi]

Lolololol. What?

You people are coo coo for Kander.

He's an attractive young white guy who writes sick burn tweets every now and then, being unemployed after a comparatively successful but still failed Senate campaign.

Basically.

People are feeling like he's the safe good looking white guy for a play to get some power back, but dude failed at his bid for advancement

 

[sphagnum]

lol

Everyone else, of course

 

[kirblar]

Everyone else, of course

If you believe that socialism works, you're a trash economist.

If you believe that a Lassez-Faire system works, you're a trash economist.

We know these things don't work. Going full USSR and going full Kansas both fail miserably relative to other options. There are various workable systems inside the capitalist system, running from Social Democracy to more free-market oriented systems that work relatively well at increasing societal well-being.

We have a whole wealth of historical data that gives us enough information to know these things. To think otherwise is to be guided not by information, but by personal preferences and ideology.

 

[Vixdean]

 

[KingK]

If you believe that socialism works, you're a trash economist.

If you believe that a Lassez-Faire system works, you're a trash economist.

We know these things don't work. Going full USSR and going full Kansas both fail miserably relative to other options. There are various workable systems inside the capitalist system, running from Social Democracy to more free-market oriented systems that work relatively well at increasing societal well-being.

We have a whole wealth of historical data that gives us enough information to know these things. To think otherwise is to be guided not by information, but by personal preferences and ideology.

Part of the problem is, that wealth of historical data used to build our models cannot compare at all to data gathered from controlled tests and experiments in the hard sciences like chemistry and physics.

Basically, it's impossible to actually set up a valid, controlled experiment to test the hypothesis "socialism doesn't work," or any economic hypothesis, as opposed to a controlled experiment to test, say, the melting point of ice. You just can't set up controls and isolate factors to the degree necessary to consider it a hard science.

 

[kirblar]

Part of the problem is, that wealth of historical data used to build our models cannot compare at all to data gathered from controlled tests and experiments in the hard sciences like chemistry and physics.

Correct, it's a lot of "best guess" stuff, and it's why we're still learning and heavily re-adjusting on the fly year after year after we implement things and learn from the results.

 

[sphagnum]

If you believe that socialism works, you're a trash economist.

We know these things don't work. Going full USSR...

You know full well that the USSR is not the same thing as "socialism".

 

[AntraxSuicide]

It is in the philosophy. They're warping their economic views around the philosophy and preferences, much like a creationist does to their views on Dinosaurs.

Having preferences is fine! We will have different preferences on ideal trade-offs. But that shouldn't be affecting your ability to determine what those trade-offs will be.

Right, I agree with the part about assessing trade-offs. Your personal philosophy might misrepresent what you're saying your actions will cause, but if you get past that and just rigorously explain your position, logic kicks in and backs you up.

There's nothing wrong with Ryan's economic ideas other than him not admitting that the effects of his ideas will hurt people and he doesn't think that's his problem. Philosophically he believes in that Ayn Rand shit more than helping people. I'd have different issues with him if we as a culture just required people to preface their positions with "here are the logical conclusions of my actions and I accept them." Then we start talking philosophy.

Part of the problem is, that wealth of historical data used to build our models cannot compare at all to data gathered from controlled tests and experiments in the hard sciences like chemistry and physics.

Basically, it's impossible to actually set up a valid, controlled experiment to test the hypothesis "socialism doesn't work," or any economic hypothesis, as opposed to a controlled experiment to test, say, the melting point of ice. You just can't set up controls and isolate factors to the degree necessary to consider it a hard science.

But this isn't exactly apples to apples. You're taking a hard problem in economics and comparing it to a joke in science. I mean, you can't really set up experiments on some of the topological spaces I work with to learn things because the spaces I do research on maybe don't even exist! So I have to do what economists do; I use what I've got and a shit ton of theory to back myself up.

 

[Hooligan69]

So Tim Kaine’s Son, Linwood Kaine, was arrested last Saturday in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Apparently he and others set off smoke and fireworks at a March 4 Trump rally.

That's probably not the best PR for my Senator.

And I'm picturing Tim Kaine coming home to discipline him saying, "I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed."

 

[KingK]

Correct, it's a lot of "best guess" stuff, and it's why we're still learning and heavily re-adjusting on the fly year after year after we implement things and learn from the results.

Right. It's still a useful and necessary field, and not all viewpoints are automatically equal or anything. I just think it's important to keep in mind the distinction between the social sciences and the physical sciences, and to recognize that economics falls in the former.

But this isn't exactly apples to apples. You're taking a hard problem in economics and comparing it to a joke in science. I mean, you can't really set up experiments on some of the topological spaces I work with to learn things because the spaces I do research on maybe don't even exist! So I have to do what economists do; I use what I've got and a shit ton of theory to back myself up.

I would say the difference is that the underlying scientific theories you back yourself up with in this case are likely much more provable, testable, and valid than pretty much anything in Economics can be.

 

[kirblar]

You know full well that the USSR is not the same thing as "socialism".

It's the inevitable end result of trying to implement it.

 

[broz0rs]

After I read Animal Farm, I learned communism is essentially impossible to implement. Totalitarianism is the way to go.

 

[sphagnum]

It's the inevitable end result of trying to implement it.

Please prove it.

 

[kirblar]

Please prove it.

*literally every Communist government, ever*

Social Democracy, on the other hand? Works just fine because it's a capitalist system.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

This too. I think STEM worship has gotten out of hand. Too much "I fucking love science" and not enough philosophy of science.

I wouldn't characterize my opinions as STEM worship. I did three years of CS and math and will have a minor in both when I graduate next year so I'm not oogling some total foreign thing. I actually find hard sciences pretty boring because they're deterministic but without real answers to "why" and I love math, especially algorithms, because there's a why. But I can recognize they're fundamentally different because even if people and their behaviors are completely deterministic (a viewpoint I'm open to, even if it freaks me out a little) our understanding in that area is so incomplete that we could never have the sort of deterministic truths that come out of STEM fields. Part of that is that ethical experiments are much harder to implement when they involve people than when they don't.

I suppose there's a joke about the xkcd comic where every scientific field is just an abstracted version of another until you get to math here. I guess horseshoe theory is real, I love social sciences and math and hate all the stuff in between.

 

[sphagnum]

*literally every Communist government, ever*

Social Democracy, on the other hand? Works just fine because it's a capitalist system.

This is a bad argument and either you know it and are being disingenuous or you're surprisingly ignorant about this. The USSR turned into an authoritarian state because of specific historical events and actors combined with the particular type of socialism that the Leninists were gunning for. Trying to implement a command economy with the material conditions of the age would have required mass bureaucratization (that, yes, still didn't work anyway) and Stalin thought world revolution was impossible following the failure of the German Revolution and the collapse of society during the Russian Civil War, which is why he pushed for Socialism in One Country. And earlier, Lenin already had an authoritarian hard on even against other socialists once the Bolsheviks hijacked the anti-Tsar revolution. Being the most important and influential socialist state, the USSR then used its power to influence or set up other socialist states in its image. That does not mean that "all attempts at socialism inevitably lead to the USSR". That means Marxism-Leninism probably inevitably leads to the USSR.

There's no reason to believe that the USSR would have turned out the way it did had the Socialist Revolutionaries or the Mensheviks gotten the upper hand, which is a political rather than economic matter. And this all occurred in a time pre-computers, pre-automation, pre-AI which totally changes how socialism and capitalism function.

You're pretending socialism in Russia happened in a vacuum with perfect testing conditions and then the way that it unfolded is the way it will always unfold. This is as dumb as claiming that all republics evolve into tyrannies because of Rome, France, Germany, increasingly America, etc. The only difference is the amount of time socialism has had to provide different examples.

And that doesn't even take into account the suffering that goes into making advanced capitalist nations so cozy for their inhabitants.

 

[kirblar]

All former communist states have seen their GDP rocket skyward upon economic liberalization. That isn't an accident- it's because socialism and communism do not work. There is nothing disingenuous about pointing this out, or that using the plethora of historical anecdotes we have to come to the conclusion that pursuing these policies is to doom your populace to a life of relative poverty.

 

[Sibylus]

This is a bad argument and either you know it and are being disingenuous or you're surprisingly ignorant about this. The USSR turned into an authoritarian state because of specific historical events and actors combined with the particular type of socialism that the Leninists were gunning for. Trying to implement a command economy with the material conditions of the age would have required mass bureaucratization (that, yes, still didn't work anyway) and Stalin thought world revolution was impossible following the failure of the German Revolution and the collapse of society during the Russian Civil War, which is why he pushed for Socialism in One Country. And earlier, Lenin already had an authoritarian hard on even against other socialists once the Bolsheviks hijacked the anti-Tsar revolution. Being the most important and influential socialist state, the USSR then used its power to influence or set up other socialist states in its image. That does not mean that "all attempts at socialism inevitably lead to the USSR". That means Marxism-Leninism probably inevitably leads to the USSR.

There's no reason to believe that the USSR would have turned out the way it did had the Socialist Revolutionaries or the Mensheviks gotten the upper hand, which is a political rather than economic matter. And this all occurred in a time pre-computers, pre-automation, pre-AI which totally changes how socialism and capitalism function.

You're pretending socialism in Russia happened in a vacuum with perfect testing conditions and then the way that it unfolded is the way it will always unfold. This is as dumb as claiming that all republics evolve into tyrannies because of Rome, France, Germany, increasingly America, etc. The only difference is the amount of time socialism has had to provide different examples.

And that doesn't even take into account the suffering that goes into making advanced capitalist nations so cozy for their inhabitants.

Where do I go to sub to your newsletter?

 

[AntraxSuicide]

I wouldn't characterize my opinions as STEM worship. I did three years of CS and math and will have a minor in both when I graduate next year so I'm not oogling some total foreign thing. I actually find hard sciences pretty boring because they're deterministic but without real answers to "why" and I love math, especially algorithms, because there's a why. But I can recognize they're fundamentally different because even if people and their behaviors are completely deterministic (a viewpoint I'm open to, even if it freaks me out a little) our understanding in that area is so incomplete that we could never have the sort of deterministic truths that come out of STEM fields. Part of that is that ethical experiments are much harder to implement when they involve people than when they don't.

I suppose there's a joke about the xkcd comic where every scientific field is just an abstracted version of another until you get to math here. I guess horseshoe theory is real, I love social sciences and math and hate all the stuff in between.

I'm familiar with the comic, but it doesn't go far enough. It stops at "physics is applied math" but it needs to go one more step to "math is applied philosophy." Your time with STEM was with the worshippers; every science can and should answer the "why" and even ask whether it matters.

I mean, above we had the freezing point of water as a scientific fact. But why should we care? Why does H2O (define this) and its (define possession of a trait) freezing (define) point matter (also probably needs a definition)?

All of that is philosophy. Science is as cultural as anything else is. The entire field of graph theory exists because a genius happened to live in the same time and place as a popular local riddle for kids was around. I (as a math/engineering guy) talk up the social sciences precisely because they're no different than what I do; they're just less obtuse about how philosophical their fields are.