Trump 2024 ???

[BugI02]

You think instinct beats reason.

I take it you haven't spent much time in the ring or on the dojo floor

 

[BugI02]

And then you’re so impressed with yourself

And this is rich coming from you

 

[DadSmith]

 

[LeftyGunner]

I take it you haven't spent much time in the ring or on the dojo floor

I have spent my share of time in both, and it’s a false equivalence.

Jamil contrasts reason with instinct…a comparison that boils down to actions based on evidence, or actions based on expectations.

In the ring you strike or block based on how your opponent moves, not how you expect him to move…in other words: you take action on evidence, not on expectation.

 

[BugI02]

I would disagree. We train so that the proper block or counter is instinctive, anything else is too slow

You analyze an opponents style and tendencies, but much of what takes place at the actual moment of attack and defense is instinctive application of practiced moves

 

[LeftyGunner]

I would disagree. We train so that the proper block or counter is instinctive, anything else is too slow

You analyze an opponents style and tendencies, but much of what takes place at the actual moment of attack and defense is instinctive application of practiced moves

So…old guy fight, then?

See once and for all if my Shaky Fist Technique bests your Scolding Cloud Style?

Edit to add: Fair warning before you choose to face me…those damned kids stay off my lawn, my grump-fu is strong.

 

[Twangbanger]

I would disagree. We train so that the proper block or counter is instinctive, anything else is too slow

You analyze an opponents style and tendencies, but much of what takes place at the actual moment of attack and defense is instinctive application of practiced moves

It's painful, watching someone's go-to stuff get figured out by an opponent who knows how to take what they're given. Especially when the former doesn't have a Plan B.

And unfortunately, although Trump's wing-chun traps were effective for a while, his opponent got him figured out. I give him credit for what he did. But it took them less than two years in office to get the range on him. The Republicans haven't done well in an election since.

 

[KLB]

Denying funding didn't work so well the first time around, why would we think it would work this time?

 

[jamil]

I really like this articulation of a point I try to make often.

“Using evidence as the sole reporting standard can be misleading because, as in the Wuhan case, existing evidence may be deliberately hidden from public scrutiny. Sometimes, new evidence, such as the impact of school closings and mask mandates on children, comes to light. Concluding narratives based on insufficiently-known proof can be dangerous and lead to wrong policy choices.”

“If a reasonable person can believe a theory is probable, reporting standards demand that it should at least be subjected to the usual scrutiny of quality journalism. This would include interviewing multiple "experts" with opposing views and airing out both points of view, without bias. Let the public judge for themselves.”

The above is sorely missing from our media…

I'd like to see the "fairness doctrine" brought back. I made the point elsewhere that two partisan sides presenting their spin on things do not sum to make the truth. A fair and honest reading of both sides gets us much closer.

 

[Ingomike]

I'd like to see the "fairness doctrine" brought back. I made the point elsewhere that two partisan sides presenting their spin on things do not sum to make the truth. A fair and honest reading of both sides gets us much closer.

“Fairness doctrine“ was and is a sucker bet. There will always be someone controlling the news. But you can pine for old dWalter’s dead way, but it was anything but “fair“.

 

[jamil]

I take it you haven't spent much time in the ring or on the dojo floor

it’s a false equivalence.

Obviously.

I would disagree. We train so that the proper block or counter is instinctive, anything else is too slow

You analyze an opponents style and tendencies, but much of what takes place at the actual moment of attack and defense is instinctive application of practiced moves

In a way they're similar. But it's not making the point you want.

This relates to what I've said elsewhere about having a model vs having a side. Recap: by "model" I mean basically your worldview. Your understanding of everything. Training your instincts really amounts to updating your model with accurate information, and training your pattern recognition.

When you have a side, your instincts apply the pattern matching to the side rather than the model. When you have a side, reasoning is used to find reasons to justify the side. And don't get me wrong. We all take sides. "Sides" is really another way of saying bias. Knowing that, we might be able to recognize when biases influence our thinking and our instincts.

I think we can recognize when we have a side instead of a model by noticing that our instincts have a different outcome depending on how favorable information is to our side. If you flip positions on a given topic depending on which side it favors, your instincts aren't based on a model, they're based on a side.

The part where I think it's a false equivalence is that sense-making in politics is different from sense-making in fighting. In what you call training your instincts, the part of that that makes your instincts accurate is understanding reality accurately. Bias would play into fighting instincts far less than political sense-making.

TL;DR:
Instincts + accurate model = accurate response.
Instincts + side = side's response.

Accurate models require accurate information and reasoned sense-making of new information to continually improve the model.

 

[jamil]

Denying funding didn't work so well the first time around, why would we think it would work this time?

Decreasing funding is good. However it's hard to pull it off without opponents spinning it as mean. Right now, saving education is proably not possible. I'd say that now, just making it less toxic would be a win.

 

[jamil]

“Fairness doctrine“ was and is a sucker bet. There will always be someone controlling the news. But you can pine for old dWalter’s dead way, but it was anything but “fair“.

Nah. Walter was biased. Appeared fairer than he was in reality. I think the news was controlled a lot less then than it is now. I think for the world we occupy, competition along with applying the fairness doctrine would put us in a lot better shape than we are now. Or maybe you'd rather just hear news favorable to your own side without a fair hearing of the other. As if your side is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong.

Can you even admit that partisan sides spinning their own news don't sum to make the truth?

 

[jamil]

And this is rich coming from you

I've never claimed my biased instincts were superior to reason. You have.

 

[Ingomike]

Nah. Walter was biased. Appeared fairer than he was in reality. I think the news was controlled a lot less then than it is now. I think for the world we occupy, competition along with applying the fairness doctrine would put us in a lot better shape than we are now. Or maybe you'd rather just hear news favorable to your own side without a fair hearing of the other. As if your side is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong.

Can you even admit that partisan sides spinning their own news don't sum to make the truth?

We all have a “side”, our own selfish side. It is a total construct that any news source can be “fair”. I don’t even have a single news source I trust. And the monetization of news from big networks to bloggers has promoted click bait to the max.

And because you often insinuate this; I post articles I find interesting, usually to foster discussion and debate, just because I post it does not mean believe everything in it…

 

[jamil]

We all have a “side”, our own selfish side. It is a total construct that any news source can be “fair”. I don’t even have a single news source I trust. And the monetization of news from big networks to bloggers has promoted click bait to the max.

And because you often insinuate this; I post articles I find interesting, usually to foster discussion and debate, just because I post it does not mean believe everything in it…

I don’t trust any news sources either. And yeah. You might not believe some parts of ******** stories. It’s possible you didn’t believe all the “Kraken”, for example. I suspect you still believe a lot of it. Was there a CIA raid in Germany as reported by certain media? You believed the story.

 

[KLB]

Decreasing funding is good. However it's hard to pull it off without opponents spinning it as mean. Right now, saving education is proably not possible. I'd say that now, just making it less toxic would be a win.

It's nothing more than pandering at this point. The courts said he couldn't deny funding for "sanctuary" cities, why would they allow it for this?

 

[rhamersley]

Nah. Walter was biased. Appeared fairer than he was in reality. I think the news was controlled a lot less then than it is now. I think for the world we occupy, competition along with applying the fairness doctrine would put us in a lot better shape than we are now. Or maybe you'd rather just hear news favorable to your own side without a fair hearing of the other. As if your side is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong.

Can you even admit that partisan sides spinning their own news don't sum to make the truth?

Often horribly so, from what I've read.

The Terrible Truth About Walter Cronkite

The terrible truth is that Walter Cronkite symbolized liberal media bias and used that bias with disastrous consequences for our nation and the world.

www.aim.org

 

[manifest destiny]

And unfortunately, although Trump's wing-chun traps were effective for a while, his opponent got him figured out. I give him credit for what he did. But it took them less than two years in office to get the range on him. The Republicans haven't done well in an election since.

In fairness to Trump, his adversaries got him via lies, cheating, making **** up whole cloth. The republicans conspired with his adversaries in this process. Trump wasn't beaten fairly. Trump was cheated unjustly. Oh, and those R's that haven't done well in elections since? Well, they just recently won the majority. I realize and accept it isn't the majority some were wishing for. But stating they haven't done well isn't factually accurate. This next part isn't for you specifically: I don't care how much disdain one has for President Trump. I really don't. Maybe one sees him as antithetical to everything in known existence. But how one can accept what was done to him politically and personally is beyond me. The current potatus is a ****ing joke. He ****s his pants. Drools. Gets lost. Can't read. I don't feel our country is secure with him as Commander in Chief. He's a demonstrable fool. But under no circumstances would I accept a completely bogus bull**** impeachment of Bidot, times two, one after leaving office. In no way would I accept some lowly Vindman, with his suspect dual citizenship and allegiance, eavesdropping on Bidiot's calls for the sole purpose of impeachment. I wouldn't accept philandering FBI agents discussing an undefined "insurance plan" to remove Bidiot from office. Yet these exact same actions, and many others, are used repeatedly to demonstrate how Trump just culd't git 'er dun. Worse, anyone that points out that Trump was treated illegally, unfairly and ****ed-over-ten-ways-from-sundown are labelled a sycophant.

 

[BugI02]

But it took them less than two years in office to get the range on him. The Republicans haven't done well in an election since.

Seems to me you're saying Trump successfully took the fight to them for two years but Republicans couldn't figure out how to ride his coattails while simultaneously undermining his priorities and secretly (or not so secretly) despising him - and that is somehow Trump's fault?

When do we get to the part where you tell me how, with DeSantis, 'It will be different this time'

How much crypto DO you own