Generational Dynamics World View

[pbrower2a]

OK. Here's how I thought the Presidential election of 2020 would go based upon the most recent polls and the likelihood of a win by Biden or Trump. One week before the election. I will expose also how off either I, that system, or my interpretation could be:


Quinnipiac, Ohio: Biden up 5

No further updates here despite a flood of polls.  Note well: what Trump did not do in the last six months he cannot do in fewer than four days.

L  %W
0    50
1    60
2    67   
3    76   
4    85   
5    89
6    92   
7    94   
8    96  
9    97
10  98

Directly from Nate Silver's probabilities of wins in Senate races with one week left in the race; others interpolated

Numbers on states indicate chances of a Biden win; subtract from 100 for the chance of a Trump win.


 

Except that I do not have an extremely-recent number for Arizona,  Iowa, Ohio, ME-02, or NE-02, this is all that you need to know at this point. 

...........................................................

This is my handicap based upon the likelihood of a politician winning a certain race in a state based on his lead at the time. This method does not predict the magnitude of a win, so it does not distinguish between a win by 0.1% or by 15%; it is still the same. There isn;t much that a politician can usually do in the last week of the race that he could not achieve earlier.

In another post I spoke of President Trump's chance of winning the state going into a black hole as a certain and unredeemable loss, as in Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia, where Biden's chances of winning were above 99%. Results in Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia were like that. Kentucky, one of the few states on this map that had recently been polled that was a sure thing for Trump, could have been similarly described as in the "black hole zone" for Biden chances. 

The numbers, where shown, suggest what the system showed as a chance of a Biden victory. I saw Biden having a 67% chance of winning both Arizona and Florida, separately. The states are very different in their politics, and they split. The chance that Trump would win one of those state4s but not the other was 4/9, which is just over half. Probabilities of independent events are multiplicative; the chance that Biden would win both was only 4/9, which is slightly less than half. I saw both Michigan and Pennsylvania nearly out of reach, which doesn't look like a good prediction. It still ended up right. I would expect that a state with a 99% chance of going against the President to not go against him by a razor-thin margin than showed in historical reality. All three states did go for Biden. 

Late polls suggested that Trump was losing both Iowa and Ohio... based on the polls in question I would have given Trump a 2.25% chance of winning both... and somehow he did. I was surprised to see both Georgia and North Carolina as likely wins for Biden, but Biden won Georgia but not North Carolina. Go figure.  The subtle difference between an 89% chance and an 85% difference was the difference between the two states. Finally, Texas was a genuine toss-up in the system and it could not have been predicted either way. 

....................................................

So what went wrong with my prediction of a Biden landslide? My assumption, along with that of the statistician Nate Silver, that a candidate can do practically nothing to win in the last week that he did not do in the previous six months. Biden was hiding from COVID-19, and Trump was holding rallies in which people got away with not wearing masks. Damn the virus! Full speed ahead! Trump showed physical courage that Biden thought more likely to do harm than good. Democrats did not canvas for votes late in the campaign because such seemed pointless... and too dangerous. 

Trump had some late ads. One in Florida tried to equate Joe Biden and Kamala Harris politically with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, anathemas among the large Cuban-American population of southern Florida. Trump got big gains because Democrats lacked a swift and effective response to such messaging.   

I remember this one in Michigan. With a female voiceover (it is not an exact quote):

Let's look at the Democrats. They'll raise taxes. I can't afford that. Biden will take away the Trump tax cuts. My husband is out of work, and it will be harder for him to get a job. 

Well, that's simple. I'm voting Republican"

In essence, no matter how much one despises Donald Trump and the interests for which he stands, if you know what is best for you you will still vote for him. Life is all about money, and never forget that -- peon! Remember to suffer in This World on behalf of cruel and rapacious plutocrats and executives so that you can deserve pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die.. and give suffer in great cheer in This World to your Divinely-appointed masters because hardship in This World is preferable to ending up with muggers, rapists, Commies, and Nazis in the Next World.  That may not be your religious heritage, but it is what many that I know were brought up with. Many of those still believe it and more have come to believe it. That's the equivalent of the Stockholm syndrome for people who see themselves just one slip-up from hunger and homelessness. 

That ad may have worked. Trump had won over perhaps a couple million votes and had sealed victories for his right-wing Senate allies other than McSalley (R-AZ, and wholly inadequate) and Gardner (R-CO, and in a state spiraling away from the GOP), and the two Senators from Georgia (much too early to decide the run-off elections for their Senate seats). 

Either the system is wrong, the polling is wrong a week before the election, or the 2020 election is not normal. 

This little fellow



makes the 2020 election unique. It is a genocidal killer. 

Oh, yes -- small late changes in the margin of a lead make all the difference in the world in that model. Those are rare in normal elections.

[mamabug]

(01-13-2021, 03:25 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Either the system is wrong, the polling is wrong a week before the election, or the 2020 election is not normal. 

Can I go with all of the above?

A) The system of polling is broken and has been for awhile.  It has to do with failures of traditional polling models in a tight race to create an accurate representative model of the electorate and reach enough representative members of it to take an accurate survey.  Also, the way the media uses polls to craft a narrative means that a pollster is less likely to get paid in future if it doesn't return results the people footing the bills want to see.  Almost anyone working in polling was aware something was seriously off with the Biden landslide narrative from the start.

B) The election of 2020 was not normal.  Process changes were made in most states and one side was quick to take advantage of the new rules while the other kept playing the game the old way.  A bit of the inverse of the 2016 election where Hilary went for an overwhelming majority popular vote and neglected to pay attention to the electoral wins she needed.  The process changes meant that any previous models of the probable election were wildly off since voter turnout was insane.

A+B = C) the polling was bound to be wrong a week before the election.

[David Horn]

(01-13-2021, 03:58 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-13-2021, 03:25 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Either the system is wrong, the polling is wrong a week before the election, or the 2020 election is not normal. 

Can I go with all of the above?

A) The system of polling is broken and has been for awhile.  It has to do with failures of traditional polling models in a tight race to create an accurate representative model of the electorate and reach enough representative members of it to take an accurate survey.  Also, the way the media uses polls to craft a narrative means that a pollster is less likely to get paid in future if it doesn't return results the people footing the bills want to see.  Almost anyone working in polling was aware something was seriously off with the Biden landslide narrative from the start.

B) The election of 2020 was not normal.  Process changes were made in most states and one side was quick to take advantage of the new rules while the other kept playing the game the old way.  A bit of the inverse of the 2016 election where Hilary went for an overwhelming majority popular vote and neglected to pay attention to the electoral wins she needed.  The process changes meant that any previous models of the probable election were wildly off since voter turnout was insane.

A+B = C) the polling was bound to be wrong a week before the election.

A bit off topic, but the art of prediction is getting rusty on many fronts.  Economic models don't work any more either. The sainted Phillips Curve is all but totally worthless, yet is was the primary tool used by economists as recently as 10 years ago.  Modernity has finally changed the rules ... all of them.

[mamabug]

(01-13-2021, 04:09 PM)David Horn Wrote: A bit off topic, but the art of prediction is getting rusty on many fronts.  Economic models don't work any more either. The sainted Phillips Curve is all but totally worthless, yet is was the primary tool used by economists as recently as 10 years ago.  Modernity has finally changed the rules ... all of them.

As we STEM graduates like to point out - social science is 90% the first and 10% the other.  Many models are only as good as the assumptions put into them and the data set they are mining.  What works in explaining past behavior can seem perfectly true and logical right up until you hit actual behavior.  Yeah, I am aware there is an irony to saying that on this particular forum.

Thing is, about 2004ish I actually started thinking the Strauss-Howe model didn't work because the generations didn't look like what they were supposed to. I totally missed that the collective and increasingly intolerant nature of Millenials would be played out online because I never got involved in social media.

[David Horn]

(01-13-2021, 04:16 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-13-2021, 04:09 PM)David Horn Wrote: A bit off topic, but the art of prediction is getting rusty on many fronts.  Economic models don't work any more either. The sainted Phillips Curve is all but totally worthless, yet is was the primary tool used by economists as recently as 10 years ago.  Modernity has finally changed the rules ... all of them.

As we STEM graduates like to point out - social science is 90% the first and 10% the other.  Many models are only as good as the assumptions put into them and the data set they are mining.  What works in explaining past behavior can seem perfectly true and logical right up until you hit actual behavior.  Yeah, I am aware there is an irony to saying that on this particular forum.

Thing is, about 2004ish I actually started thinking the Strauss-Howe model didn't work because the generations didn't look like what they were supposed to. I totally missed that the collective and increasingly intolerant nature of Millenials would be played out online because I never got involved in social media.

We're in a newish world -- newish because it's similar to the past, but unique in being tech-dominated.  Bob Butler is in the newish camp too. None of us see true continuity from a fractured past, because, unlike the Agricultural Age, the paradigm has changed quickly, in historical terms at least.  Does that invalidate the S&H model, or merely force us to apply it less aggressively?  I, for one, think the model is still valid: a saeculum seems to be a  reasonable separation between similar recurring events, because lived experience can never be totally replaced by other means.  That said, our ability to see into the past, through film and now digital means, is unprecedented. It must have an effect, but not one we can quantify at this early date.

Yet here we are in a faux-ACW between the rational and the irrational, and I have no idea how it plays out.

[pbrower2a]

(01-13-2021, 03:58 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-13-2021, 03:25 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Either the system is wrong, the polling is wrong a week before the election, or the 2020 election is not normal. 

Can I go with all of the above?

A) The system of polling is broken and has been for awhile.  It has to do with failures of traditional polling models in a tight race to create an accurate representative model of the electorate and reach enough representative members of it to take an accurate survey.  Also, the way the media uses polls to craft a narrative means that a pollster is less likely to get paid in future if it doesn't return results the people footing the bills want to see.  Almost anyone working in polling was aware something was seriously off with the Biden landslide narrative from the start.

Polling is highly reliable in not-to-close races (let us say for a Presidential election in Maryland or Oklahoma)... but that is not where people have questions. Not including ME-02 and NE-02, 123 electoral votes were decided by 3.35% or less and those electoral votes decided the 2020 election. The usual margin of error for polling is 4% for most states. 38 electoral votes (Texas) were decided by 5.58% of a margin. Texas is an oddity because its margin of error (size and regional divides) is perhaps 6%. 

Should the 2024 Presidential election be like the 2020 Presidential election (the case for such is that five of the last Presidential elections have been close or at least close-to-being close, with the near-landslide win of Obama in 2008 the exception, and then when people were scared of an economic meltdown), the states that were within 6% either way will be close in 2024. As for Texas -- Texas is becoming more like the USA as a whole, so it seems to be becoming a swing state. Political cultures seem to be very entrenched in most states, so that seems reasonable. On the other hand, we may be approaching the end of the Crisis of 2020, and the election of 2024 may be in a 1T. I would also be wary of the Skowronek cycle, as Donald Trump is a sick parody of Ronald Reagan. Political culture changes sharply from one Skowronek cycle to another, which itself likely reflects generational change.  

Elections of 2020 are decided. Donald Trump may not have lost in a landslide, but whatever little credibility he had outside of his cult is gone.  

Quote:B) The election of 2020 was not normal.  Process changes were made in most states and one side was quick to take advantage of the new rules while the other kept playing the game the old way.  A bit of the inverse of the 2016 election where Hilary went for an overwhelming majority popular vote and neglected to pay attention to the electoral wins she needed.  The process changes meant that any previous models of the probable election were wildly off since voter turnout was insane.

A+B = C) the polling was bound to be wrong a week before the election.

Trump did succeed in paring down the D vote and increasing the R vote in most legitimate swing states -- except in Arizona and Georgia. 

Unlike Biden, he did big campaign rallies, and he had hard-hitting ads perfectly made for hitting at the political viscera. Those were crude or dishonest, but they worked... just not well enough to win the election.

It is usually assumed that Democrats will canvass at the last minute... but they couldn't this time to seal the deal. It was just too risky for the people. who usually do so. Trump had last-week advantages that Biden did not have because he and his supporters were willing to take more risks with COVID-19.

....so, for 2024: assume that all the rules change. Watch the 2022 midterm elections because the GOP will try to win House and Senate majorities if at all possible, and GOP front groups will try to repeat what they did in 2010 and 2014, which is to spend lavishly on negative ads (the Democrat is really a Communist, Satanist, or pedophile -- truth irrelevant) while the Republican does a plain-folks campaign. People ant institutions repeat what works until it is no longer possible or until it no longer works.

So what will change?

1. We are in the transition from one Skowronek cycle to another. The plutocratic neocon cycle that began with Ronald Reagan ends with the calamity that is Donald Trump.

2. The Millennial Generation is starting to get into high political office. The first Millennial Senator, Jon Ossoff, was elected in 2021. We will be seeing more. Its secular and more egalitarian culture will increasingly supplant tired leadership by old pols.

3. COVID-19 will be gone in 2024, but its cultural impact (we have had days as deadly from COVID-19 as D-Day for the entire Allied side.

4. Trump is soiled as no previous President has been. I expect even people playing contract bridge (generally a high-intellect activity) to find some rhyme for "trump" (bump, clump, dump, hump, jump, lump, pump, rump, stump, thump) for a specific suit. Republicans will have to separate themselves from the personality at the least... and at least on COVID-19, policies... or lose.

5. The first President of the Skowronek cycle typically has advantages of a fresh agenda that works because it is fresh. All ideas and policies and investments offer diminishing returns. The returns on policy changes in the new phase of the new Skowronek cycle will be high.

[Bob Butler 54]

Lately over in the Generational Dynamics site, I have been experimenting with posts, trying to find something that would not be censored by Xenakis.  He has been moving or deleting anything and everything that violates his ideas or sensibilities.  He reminds me of the Chinese Communist Party, ready to censor anything that violates the party line.

Lately, the very red locals started going after each other.  I offered…

Quote:You sure you don’t need a nice blue to unite against?  

Nope.  Censored.

I figure if I am not allowed to express myself freely there, I ought to move things here.  It is on topic.  It reveals the real Generational Dynamics World View.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 14-Jan-2021 World View: Bob's Polyticks

(01-14-2021, 11:17 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: >   Lately over in the Generational Dynamics site, I have been
>   experimenting with posts, trying to find something that would not
>   be censored by Xenakis.  He has been moving or deleting anything
>   and everything that violates his ideas or sensibilities.  He
>   reminds me of the Chinese Communist Party, ready to censor
>   anything that violates the party line.

I actually think that the new thread you set up, "Polyticks: Bob
Butler's Perspective", is a very good idea.

One problem has been that no one has any clue what you're talking
about.  I rarely know what you're talking about.  So if you put
together a coherent explication of your perspective in your new
thread, then maybe other people will come into your thread and ask you
questions or argue with you.  But since it's you're thread, there's no
issue.

The other problem is that you constantly insult all the forum members.
You obviously agree with Joe Biden and Democrats in general that all
Trump supporters are thugs, racists, terrorists and teabaggers, and
you think all forum members are the same, so why would anyone want to
listen to you?

You refer to the members as dealing with "tribal thinking," which is
completely insulting.  We know that you consider yourself to be
enlightened, and far superior to any of us, just like the Chinese
consider themselves enlightened, and consider Americans to be
barbarians.  And yesterday you accused us of defending criminal
activity, as if all of us are criminals and you're superior to all of
us.  So why would anyone want to listen to you?

And more to the point, why are you there?  You obviously hate all of
us.  You make that clear all the time.  And you certainly aren't going
to change any minds.

Or do you just enjoy talking down to people you think are terrorists,
racists, thugs, teabaggers, criminals, white supremacists, sexists,
homophobes, xenophobes -- you name it -- and all the other people in
Hillary's Basket of Deplorables?

Once again, why are you there?

[Bob Butler 54]

Tribal thinking would be dividing people into us and them, developing xenophobic attitudes towards them, and to seek to gain advantage over them.  In the worst case violence is used to gain an advantage.  Along with the opposed WEIRD, it is one of the two modes of thinking that Joseph Henrich describes at length in The Weirdest People in the World.  

Tribal Thinking could be considered an insult, but more to the point it is a way of describing how people think.  If Trump causes division and fights for certain people, say the rural culture over the urban, that is tribal thinking.  Generational Dynamics does emphasize how groups divide, feel xenophobia towards their rivals and fight the war of the week.  That is tribal thinking.  It should be considered a description more than as an insult.  If you don’t want the description to apply to you, don’t divide into opposed groups, develop xenophobia, or apply various political or violent approaches to subduing other groups.  The opposite would be WEIRD principles such as the roundhead ideas of democracy, human rights, equality and rule of law rather than loyalty to a group of people.

The insults?  You can not say they did not fly the other way too.  People will defend their worldviews.  If they cannot defend them with fact and logic, they will resort to insults.  Is it my fault that you and the people on your site cannot defend their position?  If they resort to insults, is it shocking that others respond in kind?  I will certainly treat them with respect if they treat me with respect.  Judging from recent red on red flame wars on your site, this is a problem among your regulars.

Why do you present your worldview?  People do, including both of us.

Rural thinkers do include some of the deplorables.  Identifying individuals as being deplorable should not be automatic and done lightly.  Most deplorables are aware enough of society’s reaction to deplorable behavior to hide the deplorable behavior.  Some individuals such as the KKK and Neo Nazi don’t hide it, but many do.  Therefore while it is safe to point out tribal thinking exists among the rural culture, individuals should not be accused of it unless they break cover so to speak.  Most do not, in many cases because they do not feel specific xenophobic motivations.

Still, if you do show a xenophobic tendency to be unable or unwilling to understand blue thinking, well, yes.  I would rather say you practice tribal thinking than say you are deplorable.  It is more descriptive.  It is doesn’t make as much of a moral judgement.  

Tribal thinking was the dominant form of thought for much of history, and is still dominant in many places.  War was cost effective for much of human history, at least for the winners.  It is just not the only mode of thought.

But basically, you have advocated Industrial Age tribal thinking.  You have backed it up with significant research, but that does not imply you understand or credit Information Age WEIRD thought.  You cannot understand blue thinking if you do not understand and acknowledge the basic way which blues see the world.

I am reminded of Nicholson’s line from A Few Good Men.  “You can’t handle the truth!”  If your perspective were true, you could defend it.  You would not need to resort to insult and censorship.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 15-Jan-2021 World View: Tribal Thinking

Butler re-posted my last message in his "Polyticks" thread on the
GD forum.  He replied with his offensive screed about Tribal Thinking.
Here is the response that I posted there.

I can see your point about Tribal Thinking.  There are a lot of really
smart people who post in this forum.  Almost all of them are much
smarter than you are.

So to cope with this, you turn to Tribal Thinking.  They're all
smarter than you, and they all have different views that you can't
cope with, so you just treat them all like they're all part of a
Tribe.  So in your Tribal Thinking, you're the Enlightened God, and
all the other members are a Tribe that you look down on.  So you're
the Hutu and they're the tribe of Tutsis.  Or you're the Chinese, and
they're the tribe of Uighurs.  Or you're the Nazi, and they're the
tribe of Jews -- all more intelligent than you, but by Tribalizing
them, you can cope with them.

So finally I understand what you mean by Tribal Thinking.  You mean
that you're the Enlightened God, with the Mandate from Heaven, and the
rest of are are a Tribe of Barbarians.  Or, you're the farmer, and the
rest of us are a Tribe of Donkeys.

It's good that you're using this thread.  How about explaining more
about Tribal Thinking, and how you're superior to all the other
members of this forum?  Just keep it all inside this thread, though,
so you won't get "censored."  I'm sure we'll all look forward to
coming over here to this thread and read more about how inferior we
all are.

[pbrower2a]

(01-15-2021, 09:16 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 15-Jan-2021 World View: Tribal Thinking

Butler re-posted my last message in his "Polyticks" thread on the
GD forum.  He replied with his offensive screed about Tribal Thinking.
Here is the response that I posted there.

I can see your point about Tribal Thinking.  There are a lot of really
smart people who post in this forum.  Almost all of them are much
smarter than you are.

Most really-smart people recognize that they engender resentment and distrust. They often do better than not-so-smart people. They typically do better in verbal skills, which means that they can better formulate ideas into challenges to people in leadership who aren't so brilliant or are terribly amoral. If men (unless homosexual or autistic), they end up with the more desirable women because... well, the most effective tool of romance is good communication, something that the stupid as a rule do badly.

Dumb people must often make ethical compromises for survival.  They often make horrible decisions. If you look at the patterns for "executed offenders" or "persons awaiting execution" in Texas (the largest state with capital punishment) and look at the patterns of offenders, you find almost as a strict rule people of far-below-average education. Few complete K-12 education, which is far below the national or Texas average. Many have learning disabilities or problems with legitimate authority. K-12 education has its bureaucracy, but one that is more likely to cajole than to make ultimatums. If one cannot cope with the relatively mild bureaucracy of K-12 education, then just think of how difficult getting along with an employer is. Employers are far more demanding of conformity. 

It is not surprising that stupid people become the crooks. Smart people know that dealing drugs or doing robberies are poor ways to get what one wants, and that it is better to adjust one's desires to what is available. Even not-so-smart people recognize that high-stress jobs whose pay implies a certainty of poverty in a culture of dog-eat-dog competition in the workplace is a vacation from hunger and homelessness. 

America is a plutocratic society above all else. Most of us expect to suffer for people who act irresponsibly because they have power, and in many cases the power comes from inheritance, cronyism, or nepotism. American life has been less-crudely plutocratic in the past, which shows in economic results. Competition has faded between giant enterprises but intensified among workers. The only institutions (labor unions) that can look out for working people and reduce the competition (collective bargaining alone is well worth the cost of union dues) have been weakened under an anti-worker ethos which began with Reagan and culminates in Donald Trump. Big Business has been able to foist "Right-to-Work" laws upon more and more state governments. 

Yes, yes, yes... you can say "Clinton" or "Obama" who represent some mitigation in the pattern... but if they do too much to mitigate things, then out comes the Moral Majority and the Tea Party, the latter morphing easily into MAGA. Over about forty years America has been in the neoliberal era in the Skowronek Cycle. Two of those cycles typically fit a saeculum in Howe and Strauss theory. The first President in such a cycle is able to achieve much in the intended direction and get away with it because changes come at relatively low cost, and unintended consequences are yet to develop. At the end of the cycle unintended consequences are the bulk of the results. Leadership at the end of the Skowronek Cycle typically loses badly in politics because little goes well. Economic dogma after about forty years no longer works. Foreign policy fails. Social cohesion weakens, and new political coalitions (which, if one connects those to the generational theory, can be generational change. Obviously the Millennial generation was never asked whether it wanted the "Reagan Revolution"; it has been handed the reality as something that might as well be from a Founding Father. 

Some Boomers could wax enthusiastic about the Reagan Revolution and in turn the Tea Party and MAGA. If one's culture fits, and if one does not find any problems with the economic reality of mass poverty for others, such may be fine. After all, there is the pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die promise that would be perfectly acceptable in return for any earthly hardship and suffering so long as one believes it. Some people believe it. I don't, and people who offer something that isn't theirs to give and don't have The Authority (as in "the Almighty") don't seem legitimate and straightforward in offering it. The people who offer "pie in the sky" in return for poverty and harsh treatment typically do not make the deal for themselves. Maybe I would make exceptions for medical missionaries and the like, but there are too few of those, and they are rarely the obnoxious, demanding "anal sphincters" who profiteer from offering "pie in the sky" and earthly suffering on behalf of their profit, power, and privilege. X largely accepted the "trickle-down" theory of economics on the assumption that a free-wheeling economy would itself create enough opportunity for anyone who did not want to be an ill-treated working stiff. On the other hand, monopoly and vertical integration, along with further bureaucratization of Big Business, made rugged individualism moot. 

Trump is a failure as President, but he almost succeeded as Van Buren, Buchanan, Hoover, and Carter because he is more unscrupulous, more ruthless, and more dictatorial. Unlike the technical failures he could set things up so that anyone who crossed him, either through opposition or backsliding, would experience retribution. Van Buren, Buchanan, Hoover, and Carter all recognized that things were going wrong even if they couldn't fully understand why. Trump's most militant supporters did the equivalent of storming the Winter Palace.

Quote:So to cope with this, you turn to Tribal Thinking.  They're all
smarter than you, and they all have different views that you can't
cope with, so you just treat them all like they're all part of a
Tribe.  So in your Tribal Thinking, you're the Enlightened God, and
all the other members are a Tribe that you look down on.  So you're
the Hutu and they're the tribe of Tutsis.  Or you're the Chinese, and
they're the tribe of Uighurs.  Or you're the Nazi, and they're the
tribe of Jews -- all more intelligent than you, but by Tribalizing
them, you can cope with them.

The "tribal thinkers" are white, at least nominal Christians ... not all of them. By now you will surely have noticed that the people in the January 6 insurrection are remarkably monochromatic unless they painted their faces. Defense of privilege, identity and self esteem are all essential to tribal identity. Converting to a different religious tradition or marrying out is unthinkable because such is a break from the ethos of tribalism.  When there are three distinct groups, a small and successful minority can play both sides, as did German Jews. The Jews did few bad things and were often able to mitigate disputes between German Protestants and Catholics without joining either side explicitly (which would have been conversion). But once Hitler unified the Volk against anything that he considered foreign (like the Jews) the Jews were in deep trouble in Germany. An FDR-like leader in Germany would have decide that German Jews really were Germans. It was not Karl Adenauer who became the leader of Germany during its Crisis of 1940.  

German Jews were the very model of a model minority. They knew that their religion was too difficult for practically anyone not born into it to join it. They were by most accounts better defined by competence than by deviousness and ruthlessness. The difference between America in 2021 and Germany in 1933, and this saves the system, is that America has multiple "model minorities". A demagogue who starts vilifying Chinese-Americans is going to experience consternation from the  Anti-Defamation League, LULAC, and the NAACP... and don't let me start talking about Japanese-Americans and Korean-Americans who could easily see that they are "next".

Part of being a Model Minority is to not be tribal. One can have positive esteem about one's own group and say that it is not for everyone even if one is moral and capable.      

Quote:So finally I understand what you (Bob Butler) mean by Tribal Thinking.  You mean
that you're the Enlightened God, with the Mandate from Heaven, and the
rest of are are a Tribe of Barbarians.  Or, you're the farmer, and the
rest of us are a Tribe of Donkeys.

Part of Enlightenment thinking is to recognize that tribal thinking is unproductive. Identity is real... well, not even becoming President of the United States makes one "white", even if one is one of the better ones. (I know what you think of Barack Obama). The most tribal people in America are white people, especially from the Mountain and Deep South, especially those who have no connection to any high and noble culture. They see anything exotic as a menace to their identity.   

Quote:It's good that you're using this thread.  How about explaining more
about Tribal Thinking, and how you're superior to all the other
members of this forum?  Just keep it all inside this thread, though,
so you won't get "censored."  I'm sure we'll all look forward to
coming over here to this thread and read more about how inferior we
all are.

People are not inhuman or subhuman because they become losers in a merciless economic order such as the one that America now has. American plutocracy requires that the vast majority of people be losers even if they have the ability to not be losers.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-15-2021, 09:16 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Butler re-posted my last message in his "Polyticks" thread on the GD forum.  He replied with his offensive screed about Tribal Thinking. Here is the response that I posted there.

I continued the conversation there.  As here few consider the WEIRD ideas of Henrich that weird, I will not repeat it here.  People might visit Xenakis's site if they wish, or make an argument that I continue double posting if you are really interested.

[mamabug]

(01-15-2021, 12:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-15-2021, 09:16 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Butler re-posted my last message in his "Polyticks" thread on the GD forum.  He replied with his offensive screed about Tribal Thinking. Here is the response that I posted there.

I continued the conversation there.  As here few consider the WEIRD ideas of Henrich that weird, I will not repeat it here.  People might visit Xenakis's site if they wish, or make an argument that I continue double posting if you are really interested.

I put WEIRDest People in the World on my library list recently, hope to read it soon.  Have you read Haidt's The Righteous Mind? (It was in a podcast with Andrew Yang that he recommended the first book along with Klein's Why We're Polarized).  That went a long way towards helping me see why there was conflict around certain issues.

I think where I would disagree is in categorizing red as 'tribal' and blue as 'WEIRD.'   Certainly more liberal (small 'l') ideas tend to percolate among the WEIRD first, but there are also a good chunk of them in the libertarian (left and right) camp.  There is a lot of tribal thinking among the current blue side as well, as evidenced by how viciously people who belong to communities typically associated with democrats are treated if they stray from the fold.

It could be, in a 4T, the ideas from the previous WEIRD thought leaders start percolating through society, gradually becoming codified into a new Traditionalism that acts as the 'tribal' thinking for the next cycle.  I'll have to think through it more once I read the book.

[Warren Dew]

(01-12-2021, 09:00 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 12-Jan-2021 World View: Genocide Playbook generational era

(01-12-2021, 05:03 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   To me, it seems fairly obvious.  It's a strategy for elites to
>   prevent the masses from turning against them, by focusing
>   resentment against a particular disfavored group. Notice how all
>   the examples you mention are basically top down, with a small
>   group of elites denouncing the disfavored group and inciting
>   hatred against them.

>   Haven't you mentioned that dictators are quite effective at using
>   this technique to quash ethnic rebellion?  What I don't remember
>   is whether they use the technique successfully in crisis periods,
>   or only in awakening periods. That might be useful information for
>   those of us who don't necessarily buy in to the inevitability of
>   your particular vision of the coming Crisis War.

Everything is obvious once it's written down.

The Genocide Playbook pattern can be used, and is used, in any
generational era.  The early stages would be quite common in Recovery
and Awakening eras, but could then expand to full-scale genocide in
the Crisis era.  However, genocide can also occur in Recovery Eras
(Zimbabwe) or Awakening and Unraveling Eras (Syria).

Was Cambodia in a Crisis era?

[Warren Dew]

(01-13-2021, 03:58 PM)mamabug Wrote: Process changes were made in most states and one side was quick to take advantage of the new rules

With massive fraudulent ballot injection, yes.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/...emorandum/

[Warren Dew]

(01-13-2021, 04:09 PM)David Horn Wrote: The sainted Phillips Curve is all but totally worthless

The Phillips Curve blew up in the 1970s.  Anyone using it ten years ago was almost half a century out of date.  Sheesh.

[Warren Dew]

(01-15-2021, 03:36 PM)mamabug Wrote: It could be, in a 4T, the ideas from the previous WEIRD thought leaders start percolating through society, gradually becoming codified into a new Traditionalism that acts as the 'tribal' thinking for the next cycle.  I'll have to think through it more once I read the book.

What does WEIRD stand for?  Is an example of what you're talking about how the Missionary generation was truly spiritual and religious, but the GIs observed the form of the religion without the spirituality, making it into a largely secular adjunct of the Cold War?

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-15-2021, 09:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-13-2021, 04:09 PM)David Horn Wrote: The sainted Phillips Curve is all but totally worthless

The Phillips Curve blew up in the 1970s.  Anyone using it ten years ago was almost half a century out of date.  Sheesh.

Perhaps Nixon taking us off the gold standard had something to do with it? This changed how the economy behaved significantly, and introduced the stagflation that dominated the 1970s.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-15-2021, 10:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: What does WEIRD stand for?

That would be Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic.  It amounts to thinking in terms of abstract ideals and principles like democracy, human rights, equality and rule of law rather than dividing between us and them, developing xenophobic relations with them, and seeking advantage for us by means that often includes violence.

[David Horn]

(01-15-2021, 09:48 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-13-2021, 03:58 PM)mamabug Wrote: Process changes were made in most states and one side was quick to take advantage of the new rules

With massive fraudulent ballot injection, yes.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/...emorandum/

If so, that would leave an enormous paper trail, and no one is arguing that so far.  Even a little evidence should be available. So far, crickets.  Republicans have gotten so worried that even one non-eligible person may vote, that they're all-in on denying huge swaths of the legitimate electorate access to the ballot.  So, who's the fraudster here?