Author Topic: Trump Derangement Syndrome  (Read 23585 times)

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2325
Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
« Reply #100 on: March 12, 2018, 01:50:09 PM »
Quote
Much more credible would be a liberal, heavily inclined to be anti-Trump from the beginning, coming to the conclusion that the Russia thing is a big nothing.  That person's assessment of the data feels more objective because it goes against their own bias.  Like Van Jones of CNN, or Alan Dershowitz, among many others.

Can anyone think of a pro-Trump pundit (specifically, not a conservative Republican anti-Trumper, of whom there are many) who says Trump is guilty?

I'm just chiming in here, but speaking of cognitive biases, your post suggests that simply changing one's mind is enough to indicate credibility, implying a level of logical reasoning. I don't think that's true at all.

The only thing that is actually credible is a rational assessment of the available facts.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2018, 01:54:33 PM by LC »
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | cash


Schwab711

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1217
Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
« Reply #101 on: March 12, 2018, 03:00:40 PM »
@cobafdek: Chris Wallace, Shepard Smith, a couple other folks on Fox News whose names I can't recall have been very factual about everything imo, Sam Nunberg, Felix Sater, David French, and various former GW Bush appointees. I'm not sure if you'd count Senators Flake, Gowdy, Burr, Sasse, and the indicted folks that have decided to cooperate with Mueller. It's a hard question because there's just not enough that is publicly known yet relative to what would be required to say guilty/not guilty.

Out of curiosity, who do you think would have the biggest impact on Trump supporters' opinion if they changed their mind?

cobafdek

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
« Reply #102 on: March 12, 2018, 03:38:11 PM »
Quote
Much more credible would be a liberal, heavily inclined to be anti-Trump from the beginning, coming to the conclusion that the Russia thing is a big nothing.  That person's assessment of the data feels more objective because it goes against their own bias.  Like Van Jones of CNN, or Alan Dershowitz, among many others.

Can anyone think of a pro-Trump pundit (specifically, not a conservative Republican anti-Trumper, of whom there are many) who says Trump is guilty?

I'm just chiming in here, but speaking of cognitive biases, your post suggests that simply changing one's mind is enough to indicate credibility, implying a level of logical reasoning. I don't think that's true at all.

There was nothing in my post about "changing one's mind."  I'm only commenting on relative credibility, keeping in mind that credibility and truth value are not necessarily the same thing. 

Schwab711's assessment may be completely true, and it is credible to some extent.  But it would not be as credible if, say, Sean Hannity were to say Trump and Russia were collaborating to a criminal/impeachable extent.

Conversely, Van Jones and Alan Dershowitz may be more credible to me and other pro-Trumpers, but eventually may be proved to be wrong. 

The only thing that is actually credible is a rational assessment of the available facts.

We think this is true, but cognitive science tells us that in emotionally-charged issues in complex arenas of life, we humans can't agree on what's rational and what are the facts.  It's a little bit easier to say what is more credible (which, again, does not mean it's true), but not by much.



cobafdek

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
« Reply #103 on: March 12, 2018, 03:45:38 PM »
@cobafdek: Chris Wallace, Shepard Smith, a couple other folks on Fox News whose names I can't recall have been very factual about everything imo, Sam Nunberg, Felix Sater, David French, and various former GW Bush appointees. I'm not sure if you'd count Senators Flake, Gowdy, Burr, Sasse, and the indicted folks that have decided to cooperate with Mueller. It's a hard question because there's just not enough that is publicly known yet relative to what would be required to say guilty/not guilty.

Out of curiosity, who do you think would have the biggest impact on Trump supporters' opinion if they changed their mind?

I'm not sure any of those names are avid pro-Trumpers.  They may seem more "factual," but none are really saying Trump is suspect.  Nunberg is on record saying that Trump royally screwed him, and sounds like Nunberg hates him on a personal level.  GW Bushies are generally anti-Trump.  Flake is avowedly anti-Trump.

It may have to be at the top level of pro-Trumpness for there to be any meaningful dent in Trump's base support:  Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Tucker Carlson, Ivanka Trump, etc.

Schwab711

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1217
Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
« Reply #104 on: March 12, 2018, 07:20:30 PM »
@cobafdek: Fair enough. I do appreciate that you are strict with your purpose in that you are interested in how the folks process this issue (which is not the same as LC ascribing those opinions to you - even if you coincidentally share these opinions).

Always good debating these ideas with you. It helps me a lot. Definitely similar thinking but different perspective, which is awesome from my POV.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 05:37:04 AM by Schwab711 »

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2325
Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
« Reply #105 on: March 13, 2018, 11:27:45 AM »
Idk...we can disagree on the impact of biases and/or whether objective reality exists. Personally I think everyone reads these Charlie Munger/behavioral psychology things and goes overboard.

I think time is better spent creating metrics which are important to you and measuring performance against those.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | cash

cobafdek

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
« Reply #106 on: March 13, 2018, 12:10:53 PM »
Idk...we can disagree on the impact of biases and/or whether objective reality exists. Personally I think everyone reads these Charlie Munger/behavioral psychology things and goes overboard.

I think time is better spent creating metrics which are important to you and measuring performance against those.

Is that how you picked your wife?  :) ;) :(

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2325
Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
« Reply #107 on: March 13, 2018, 12:35:15 PM »
Yes but I will not disclose the metrics I used  ;)
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | cash

rkbabang

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3697
Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
« Reply #108 on: March 13, 2018, 02:23:03 PM »
Yes but I will not disclose the metrics I used  ;)

+1, if you did pick your wife (some cultures this doesn't happen) how else would you?  Randomly?

rb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
« Reply #109 on: March 13, 2018, 03:26:57 PM »
Yes but I will not disclose the metrics I used  ;)

+1, if you did pick your wife (some cultures this doesn't happen) how else would you?  Randomly?
Crazy though: Who knows? Given that the divorce rate is around 50% random selection may very well be a better method.