Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

A Book Review of Trump's /Art of the Deal/

Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2016 5:53:01 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
http://slatestarcodex.com...

Slate Star Codex is run and authored by Scott Alexander, who's reasonably prominent in the rationalist community and an incredible writer to boot. He's smart, credentialed, and has a history of having really good stuff to say about stuff.

Up to now, I've been in line with the Sam Harris-style view emphasizing Trump's intellectual bankruptcy--specifically, that there's not some kind of Machiavellian hyperintelligence obscured by the veneer of shallow egotism--it's actually just vacuousness all the way down.

But Scott seems to take a different tack with Trump's stated history (and admittedly great ghostwriter in Tony Schwartz), particularly as articulated in The Art of the Deal. There was one particular broad-strokes paragraph that sort of struck off my view at an odd angle--not in a "alright, ready to root for Trump" kind of way (because I'm plainly not ready to do that), but in a way that wraps a new interpretive lens around at minimum the media spectacle that's constituted Trump's campaign this season:

"But there's still something alien about Trump here, even moreso than with the populist demagogue of the campaign trail. Trump the demagogue is attacked as anti-intellectual. I get anti-intellectualism because -- like all isms -- it's an intellectual idea, and I tend to think in those terms. But Trump of the book is more a-intellectual, in the same way some people are amoral or asexual. The world is taken as a given. It contains deals. Some people make the deals well, and they are winners. Other people make the deals poorly, and they are losers. Trump does not need more than this. There will be no civilization of philosopher-Trumps asking where the first deal came from, or whether a deal is a deal only by virtue of its participation in some primordial deal beyond material existence. Trump"s world is so narrow it's hard to fit your head inside it, so narrow that on contact with any wider world it seems strange and attenuated, a broken record of deals and connections and hirings expanding to fill the space available."

I haven't had a chance to read the book, and, as Scott notes, most of it is evidently comprised of measured braggadocio over the lurid details of various deals he's made. But, for those who have read it, what kind of picture does it paint of the man in your mind, particularly in relation to Candidate Trump?
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 10:37:20 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/28/2016 5:53:01 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
http://slatestarcodex.com...

Slate Star Codex is run and authored by Scott Alexander, who's reasonably prominent in the rationalist community and an incredible writer to boot. He's smart, credentialed, and has a history of having really good stuff to say about stuff.

Up to now, I've been in line with the Sam Harris-style view emphasizing Trump's intellectual bankruptcy--specifically, that there's not some kind of Machiavellian hyperintelligence obscured by the veneer of shallow egotism--it's actually just vacuousness all the way down.

But Scott seems to take a different tack with Trump's stated history (and admittedly great ghostwriter in Tony Schwartz), particularly as articulated in The Art of the Deal. There was one particular broad-strokes paragraph that sort of struck off my view at an odd angle--not in a "alright, ready to root for Trump" kind of way (because I'm plainly not ready to do that), but in a way that wraps a new interpretive lens around at minimum the media spectacle that's constituted Trump's campaign this season:

"But there's still something alien about Trump here, even moreso than with the populist demagogue of the campaign trail. Trump the demagogue is attacked as anti-intellectual. I get anti-intellectualism because -- like all isms -- it's an intellectual idea, and I tend to think in those terms. But Trump of the book is more a-intellectual, in the same way some people are amoral or asexual. The world is taken as a given. It contains deals. Some people make the deals well, and they are winners. Other people make the deals poorly, and they are losers. Trump does not need more than this. There will be no civilization of philosopher-Trumps asking where the first deal came from, or whether a deal is a deal only by virtue of its participation in some primordial deal beyond material existence. Trump"s world is so narrow it's hard to fit your head inside it, so narrow that on contact with any wider world it seems strange and attenuated, a broken record of deals and connections and hirings expanding to fill the space available."

I haven't had a chance to read the book, and, as Scott notes, most of it is evidently comprised of measured braggadocio over the lurid details of various deals he's made. But, for those who have read it, what kind of picture does it paint of the man in your mind, particularly in relation to Candidate Trump?

It's the power of self belief. You keep slamming the hammer down continually. The weak cave, do not get the desired result, and do not win. In contrast, the winner keeps bringing it until they achieve the desired objective, do not easily accept failure, and are looked at in wonder as they continue to win, kick as*, and take the world by the horns.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 12:23:36 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 10:37:20 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/28/2016 5:53:01 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
http://slatestarcodex.com...

Slate Star Codex is run and authored by Scott Alexander, who's reasonably prominent in the rationalist community and an incredible writer to boot. He's smart, credentialed, and has a history of having really good stuff to say about stuff.

Up to now, I've been in line with the Sam Harris-style view emphasizing Trump's intellectual bankruptcy--specifically, that there's not some kind of Machiavellian hyperintelligence obscured by the veneer of shallow egotism--it's actually just vacuousness all the way down.

But Scott seems to take a different tack with Trump's stated history (and admittedly great ghostwriter in Tony Schwartz), particularly as articulated in The Art of the Deal. There was one particular broad-strokes paragraph that sort of struck off my view at an odd angle--not in a "alright, ready to root for Trump" kind of way (because I'm plainly not ready to do that), but in a way that wraps a new interpretive lens around at minimum the media spectacle that's constituted Trump's campaign this season:

"But there's still something alien about Trump here, even moreso than with the populist demagogue of the campaign trail. Trump the demagogue is attacked as anti-intellectual. I get anti-intellectualism because -- like all isms -- it's an intellectual idea, and I tend to think in those terms. But Trump of the book is more a-intellectual, in the same way some people are amoral or asexual. The world is taken as a given. It contains deals. Some people make the deals well, and they are winners. Other people make the deals poorly, and they are losers. Trump does not need more than this. There will be no civilization of philosopher-Trumps asking where the first deal came from, or whether a deal is a deal only by virtue of its participation in some primordial deal beyond material existence. Trump"s world is so narrow it's hard to fit your head inside it, so narrow that on contact with any wider world it seems strange and attenuated, a broken record of deals and connections and hirings expanding to fill the space available."

I haven't had a chance to read the book, and, as Scott notes, most of it is evidently comprised of measured braggadocio over the lurid details of various deals he's made. But, for those who have read it, what kind of picture does it paint of the man in your mind, particularly in relation to Candidate Trump?

It's the power of self belief. You keep slamming the hammer down continually. The weak cave, do not get the desired result, and do not win. In contrast, the winner keeps bringing it until they achieve the desired objective, do not easily accept failure, and are looked at in wonder as they continue to win, kick as*, and take the world by the horns.

When my wife does that, I call it nagging. Deferring to a harpy isn't "winning" Bronto. Its like saying a child whom gets a toy (eventually) crafted some sort of deal. Deference when can be afforded.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 12:45:01 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 12:23:36 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:37:20 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/28/2016 5:53:01 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
http://slatestarcodex.com...

Slate Star Codex is run and authored by Scott Alexander, who's reasonably prominent in the rationalist community and an incredible writer to boot. He's smart, credentialed, and has a history of having really good stuff to say about stuff.

Up to now, I've been in line with the Sam Harris-style view emphasizing Trump's intellectual bankruptcy--specifically, that there's not some kind of Machiavellian hyperintelligence obscured by the veneer of shallow egotism--it's actually just vacuousness all the way down.

But Scott seems to take a different tack with Trump's stated history (and admittedly great ghostwriter in Tony Schwartz), particularly as articulated in The Art of the Deal. There was one particular broad-strokes paragraph that sort of struck off my view at an odd angle--not in a "alright, ready to root for Trump" kind of way (because I'm plainly not ready to do that), but in a way that wraps a new interpretive lens around at minimum the media spectacle that's constituted Trump's campaign this season:

"But there's still something alien about Trump here, even moreso than with the populist demagogue of the campaign trail. Trump the demagogue is attacked as anti-intellectual. I get anti-intellectualism because -- like all isms -- it's an intellectual idea, and I tend to think in those terms. But Trump of the book is more a-intellectual, in the same way some people are amoral or asexual. The world is taken as a given. It contains deals. Some people make the deals well, and they are winners. Other people make the deals poorly, and they are losers. Trump does not need more than this. There will be no civilization of philosopher-Trumps asking where the first deal came from, or whether a deal is a deal only by virtue of its participation in some primordial deal beyond material existence. Trump"s world is so narrow it's hard to fit your head inside it, so narrow that on contact with any wider world it seems strange and attenuated, a broken record of deals and connections and hirings expanding to fill the space available."

I haven't had a chance to read the book, and, as Scott notes, most of it is evidently comprised of measured braggadocio over the lurid details of various deals he's made. But, for those who have read it, what kind of picture does it paint of the man in your mind, particularly in relation to Candidate Trump?

It's the power of self belief. You keep slamming the hammer down continually. The weak cave, do not get the desired result, and do not win. In contrast, the winner keeps bringing it until they achieve the desired objective, do not easily accept failure, and are looked at in wonder as they continue to win, kick as*, and take the world by the horns.

When my wife does that, I call it nagging. Deferring to a harpy isn't "winning" Bronto. Its like saying a child whom gets a toy (eventually) crafted some sort of deal. Deference when can be afforded.

So the child got the toy...child won.

My father would have spanked my bottom. He won.

Art of the deal. Who's will is stronger
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 12:50:01 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 12:23:36 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:37:20 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/28/2016 5:53:01 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
http://slatestarcodex.com...

Slate Star Codex is run and authored by Scott Alexander, who's reasonably prominent in the rationalist community and an incredible writer to boot. He's smart, credentialed, and has a history of having really good stuff to say about stuff.

Up to now, I've been in line with the Sam Harris-style view emphasizing Trump's intellectual bankruptcy--specifically, that there's not some kind of Machiavellian hyperintelligence obscured by the veneer of shallow egotism--it's actually just vacuousness all the way down.

But Scott seems to take a different tack with Trump's stated history (and admittedly great ghostwriter in Tony Schwartz), particularly as articulated in The Art of the Deal. There was one particular broad-strokes paragraph that sort of struck off my view at an odd angle--not in a "alright, ready to root for Trump" kind of way (because I'm plainly not ready to do that), but in a way that wraps a new interpretive lens around at minimum the media spectacle that's constituted Trump's campaign this season:

"But there's still something alien about Trump here, even moreso than with the populist demagogue of the campaign trail. Trump the demagogue is attacked as anti-intellectual. I get anti-intellectualism because -- like all isms -- it's an intellectual idea, and I tend to think in those terms. But Trump of the book is more a-intellectual, in the same way some people are amoral or asexual. The world is taken as a given. It contains deals. Some people make the deals well, and they are winners. Other people make the deals poorly, and they are losers. Trump does not need more than this. There will be no civilization of philosopher-Trumps asking where the first deal came from, or whether a deal is a deal only by virtue of its participation in some primordial deal beyond material existence. Trump"s world is so narrow it's hard to fit your head inside it, so narrow that on contact with any wider world it seems strange and attenuated, a broken record of deals and connections and hirings expanding to fill the space available."

I haven't had a chance to read the book, and, as Scott notes, most of it is evidently comprised of measured braggadocio over the lurid details of various deals he's made. But, for those who have read it, what kind of picture does it paint of the man in your mind, particularly in relation to Candidate Trump?

It's the power of self belief. You keep slamming the hammer down continually. The weak cave, do not get the desired result, and do not win. In contrast, the winner keeps bringing it until they achieve the desired objective, do not easily accept failure, and are looked at in wonder as they continue to win, kick as*, and take the world by the horns.

When my wife does that, I call it nagging. Deferring to a harpy isn't "winning" Bronto. Its like saying a child whom gets a toy (eventually) crafted some sort of deal. Deference when can be afforded.

Islam has been doing Muhammed's version of art of the deal on the West. Guess what? They'll soon out number atypical Europeans in their own countries, hence influencing laws, changing laws, etc. He who screams loudest...and longest...

Hillary has executed her version of art of the deal. "I'm awoman!"

Oppose her?

You're a sexist!

Well...I just scream back, "No! You aren't a woman! You are a two horned, pointy tailed, signature red tights wearing, scandal pletherizing clown!"

Bronto version of art of the deal.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 1:10:15 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 12:45:01 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:23:36 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:37:20 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/28/2016 5:53:01 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
http://slatestarcodex.com...

Slate Star Codex is run and authored by Scott Alexander, who's reasonably prominent in the rationalist community and an incredible writer to boot. He's smart, credentialed, and has a history of having really good stuff to say about stuff.

Up to now, I've been in line with the Sam Harris-style view emphasizing Trump's intellectual bankruptcy--specifically, that there's not some kind of Machiavellian hyperintelligence obscured by the veneer of shallow egotism--it's actually just vacuousness all the way down.

But Scott seems to take a different tack with Trump's stated history (and admittedly great ghostwriter in Tony Schwartz), particularly as articulated in The Art of the Deal. There was one particular broad-strokes paragraph that sort of struck off my view at an odd angle--not in a "alright, ready to root for Trump" kind of way (because I'm plainly not ready to do that), but in a way that wraps a new interpretive lens around at minimum the media spectacle that's constituted Trump's campaign this season:

"But there's still something alien about Trump here, even moreso than with the populist demagogue of the campaign trail. Trump the demagogue is attacked as anti-intellectual. I get anti-intellectualism because -- like all isms -- it's an intellectual idea, and I tend to think in those terms. But Trump of the book is more a-intellectual, in the same way some people are amoral or asexual. The world is taken as a given. It contains deals. Some people make the deals well, and they are winners. Other people make the deals poorly, and they are losers. Trump does not need more than this. There will be no civilization of philosopher-Trumps asking where the first deal came from, or whether a deal is a deal only by virtue of its participation in some primordial deal beyond material existence. Trump"s world is so narrow it's hard to fit your head inside it, so narrow that on contact with any wider world it seems strange and attenuated, a broken record of deals and connections and hirings expanding to fill the space available."

I haven't had a chance to read the book, and, as Scott notes, most of it is evidently comprised of measured braggadocio over the lurid details of various deals he's made. But, for those who have read it, what kind of picture does it paint of the man in your mind, particularly in relation to Candidate Trump?

It's the power of self belief. You keep slamming the hammer down continually. The weak cave, do not get the desired result, and do not win. In contrast, the winner keeps bringing it until they achieve the desired objective, do not easily accept failure, and are looked at in wonder as they continue to win, kick as*, and take the world by the horns.

When my wife does that, I call it nagging. Deferring to a harpy isn't "winning" Bronto. Its like saying a child whom gets a toy (eventually) crafted some sort of deal. Deference when can be afforded.

So the child got the toy...child won.

My father would have spanked my bottom. He won.


Would your father have thrown a right cross across your mom's jaw?

"Deference when can be afforded".

-Art of the Reading Comprehension
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 1:12:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 12:50:01 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:23:36 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:37:20 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/28/2016 5:53:01 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
http://slatestarcodex.com...

Slate Star Codex is run and authored by Scott Alexander, who's reasonably prominent in the rationalist community and an incredible writer to boot. He's smart, credentialed, and has a history of having really good stuff to say about stuff.

Up to now, I've been in line with the Sam Harris-style view emphasizing Trump's intellectual bankruptcy--specifically, that there's not some kind of Machiavellian hyperintelligence obscured by the veneer of shallow egotism--it's actually just vacuousness all the way down.

But Scott seems to take a different tack with Trump's stated history (and admittedly great ghostwriter in Tony Schwartz), particularly as articulated in The Art of the Deal. There was one particular broad-strokes paragraph that sort of struck off my view at an odd angle--not in a "alright, ready to root for Trump" kind of way (because I'm plainly not ready to do that), but in a way that wraps a new interpretive lens around at minimum the media spectacle that's constituted Trump's campaign this season:

"But there's still something alien about Trump here, even moreso than with the populist demagogue of the campaign trail. Trump the demagogue is attacked as anti-intellectual. I get anti-intellectualism because -- like all isms -- it's an intellectual idea, and I tend to think in those terms. But Trump of the book is more a-intellectual, in the same way some people are amoral or asexual. The world is taken as a given. It contains deals. Some people make the deals well, and they are winners. Other people make the deals poorly, and they are losers. Trump does not need more than this. There will be no civilization of philosopher-Trumps asking where the first deal came from, or whether a deal is a deal only by virtue of its participation in some primordial deal beyond material existence. Trump"s world is so narrow it's hard to fit your head inside it, so narrow that on contact with any wider world it seems strange and attenuated, a broken record of deals and connections and hirings expanding to fill the space available."

I haven't had a chance to read the book, and, as Scott notes, most of it is evidently comprised of measured braggadocio over the lurid details of various deals he's made. But, for those who have read it, what kind of picture does it paint of the man in your mind, particularly in relation to Candidate Trump?

It's the power of self belief. You keep slamming the hammer down continually. The weak cave, do not get the desired result, and do not win. In contrast, the winner keeps bringing it until they achieve the desired objective, do not easily accept failure, and are looked at in wonder as they continue to win, kick as*, and take the world by the horns.

When my wife does that, I call it nagging. Deferring to a harpy isn't "winning" Bronto. Its like saying a child whom gets a toy (eventually) crafted some sort of deal. Deference when can be afforded.

Islam has been doing Muhammed's version of art of the deal on the West. Guess what? They'll soon out number atypical Europeans in their own countries, hence influencing laws, changing laws, etc. He who screams loudest...and longest...

He who screams loudest and longest is still screaming loud and long.

Is the "art of the deal" screaming loud and long till you get your way?

Since you seem to be drawing comparisons to Islam and Trump, I am going to assume you admire both for screaming loudly and longly.

Now, what does that have to do with qualification?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 1:52:26 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 1:10:15 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:45:01 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:23:36 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:37:20 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/28/2016 5:53:01 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
http://slatestarcodex.com...

Slate Star Codex is run and authored by Scott Alexander, who's reasonably prominent in the rationalist community and an incredible writer to boot. He's smart, credentialed, and has a history of having really good stuff to say about stuff.

Up to now, I've been in line with the Sam Harris-style view emphasizing Trump's intellectual bankruptcy--specifically, that there's not some kind of Machiavellian hyperintelligence obscured by the veneer of shallow egotism--it's actually just vacuousness all the way down.

But Scott seems to take a different tack with Trump's stated history (and admittedly great ghostwriter in Tony Schwartz), particularly as articulated in The Art of the Deal. There was one particular broad-strokes paragraph that sort of struck off my view at an odd angle--not in a "alright, ready to root for Trump" kind of way (because I'm plainly not ready to do that), but in a way that wraps a new interpretive lens around at minimum the media spectacle that's constituted Trump's campaign this season:

"But there's still something alien about Trump here, even moreso than with the populist demagogue of the campaign trail. Trump the demagogue is attacked as anti-intellectual. I get anti-intellectualism because -- like all isms -- it's an intellectual idea, and I tend to think in those terms. But Trump of the book is more a-intellectual, in the same way some people are amoral or asexual. The world is taken as a given. It contains deals. Some people make the deals well, and they are winners. Other people make the deals poorly, and they are losers. Trump does not need more than this. There will be no civilization of philosopher-Trumps asking where the first deal came from, or whether a deal is a deal only by virtue of its participation in some primordial deal beyond material existence. Trump"s world is so narrow it's hard to fit your head inside it, so narrow that on contact with any wider world it seems strange and attenuated, a broken record of deals and connections and hirings expanding to fill the space available."

I haven't had a chance to read the book, and, as Scott notes, most of it is evidently comprised of measured braggadocio over the lurid details of various deals he's made. But, for those who have read it, what kind of picture does it paint of the man in your mind, particularly in relation to Candidate Trump?

It's the power of self belief. You keep slamming the hammer down continually. The weak cave, do not get the desired result, and do not win. In contrast, the winner keeps bringing it until they achieve the desired objective, do not easily accept failure, and are looked at in wonder as they continue to win, kick as*, and take the world by the horns.

When my wife does that, I call it nagging. Deferring to a harpy isn't "winning" Bronto. Its like saying a child whom gets a toy (eventually) crafted some sort of deal. Deference when can be afforded.

So the child got the toy...child won.

My father would have spanked my bottom. He won.


Would your father have thrown a right cross across your mom's jaw?

"Deference when can be afforded".

-Art of the Reading Comprehension

Oh he did much worse than that. Art of the deal has nothing to do with physical force but persuasion by persistance.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 1:53:21 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 1:52:26 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 1:10:15 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:45:01 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:23:36 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:37:20 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/28/2016 5:53:01 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
http://slatestarcodex.com...

Slate Star Codex is run and authored by Scott Alexander, who's reasonably prominent in the rationalist community and an incredible writer to boot. He's smart, credentialed, and has a history of having really good stuff to say about stuff.

Up to now, I've been in line with the Sam Harris-style view emphasizing Trump's intellectual bankruptcy--specifically, that there's not some kind of Machiavellian hyperintelligence obscured by the veneer of shallow egotism--it's actually just vacuousness all the way down.

But Scott seems to take a different tack with Trump's stated history (and admittedly great ghostwriter in Tony Schwartz), particularly as articulated in The Art of the Deal. There was one particular broad-strokes paragraph that sort of struck off my view at an odd angle--not in a "alright, ready to root for Trump" kind of way (because I'm plainly not ready to do that), but in a way that wraps a new interpretive lens around at minimum the media spectacle that's constituted Trump's campaign this season:

"But there's still something alien about Trump here, even moreso than with the populist demagogue of the campaign trail. Trump the demagogue is attacked as anti-intellectual. I get anti-intellectualism because -- like all isms -- it's an intellectual idea, and I tend to think in those terms. But Trump of the book is more a-intellectual, in the same way some people are amoral or asexual. The world is taken as a given. It contains deals. Some people make the deals well, and they are winners. Other people make the deals poorly, and they are losers. Trump does not need more than this. There will be no civilization of philosopher-Trumps asking where the first deal came from, or whether a deal is a deal only by virtue of its participation in some primordial deal beyond material existence. Trump"s world is so narrow it's hard to fit your head inside it, so narrow that on contact with any wider world it seems strange and attenuated, a broken record of deals and connections and hirings expanding to fill the space available."

I haven't had a chance to read the book, and, as Scott notes, most of it is evidently comprised of measured braggadocio over the lurid details of various deals he's made. But, for those who have read it, what kind of picture does it paint of the man in your mind, particularly in relation to Candidate Trump?

It's the power of self belief. You keep slamming the hammer down continually. The weak cave, do not get the desired result, and do not win. In contrast, the winner keeps bringing it until they achieve the desired objective, do not easily accept failure, and are looked at in wonder as they continue to win, kick as*, and take the world by the horns.

When my wife does that, I call it nagging. Deferring to a harpy isn't "winning" Bronto. Its like saying a child whom gets a toy (eventually) crafted some sort of deal. Deference when can be afforded.

So the child got the toy...child won.

My father would have spanked my bottom. He won.


Would your father have thrown a right cross across your mom's jaw?

"Deference when can be afforded".

-Art of the Reading Comprehension

Oh he did much worse than that. Art of the deal has nothing to do with physical force but persuasion by persistance.

AKA "nagging".

Art of the Nag.

Awesome.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 1:55:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 1:12:02 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:50:01 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:23:36 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:37:20 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/28/2016 5:53:01 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
http://slatestarcodex.com...

Slate Star Codex is run and authored by Scott Alexander, who's reasonably prominent in the rationalist community and an incredible writer to boot. He's smart, credentialed, and has a history of having really good stuff to say about stuff.

Up to now, I've been in line with the Sam Harris-style view emphasizing Trump's intellectual bankruptcy--specifically, that there's not some kind of Machiavellian hyperintelligence obscured by the veneer of shallow egotism--it's actually just vacuousness all the way down.

But Scott seems to take a different tack with Trump's stated history (and admittedly great ghostwriter in Tony Schwartz), particularly as articulated in The Art of the Deal. There was one particular broad-strokes paragraph that sort of struck off my view at an odd angle--not in a "alright, ready to root for Trump" kind of way (because I'm plainly not ready to do that), but in a way that wraps a new interpretive lens around at minimum the media spectacle that's constituted Trump's campaign this season:

"But there's still something alien about Trump here, even moreso than with the populist demagogue of the campaign trail. Trump the demagogue is attacked as anti-intellectual. I get anti-intellectualism because -- like all isms -- it's an intellectual idea, and I tend to think in those terms. But Trump of the book is more a-intellectual, in the same way some people are amoral or asexual. The world is taken as a given. It contains deals. Some people make the deals well, and they are winners. Other people make the deals poorly, and they are losers. Trump does not need more than this. There will be no civilization of philosopher-Trumps asking where the first deal came from, or whether a deal is a deal only by virtue of its participation in some primordial deal beyond material existence. Trump"s world is so narrow it's hard to fit your head inside it, so narrow that on contact with any wider world it seems strange and attenuated, a broken record of deals and connections and hirings expanding to fill the space available."

I haven't had a chance to read the book, and, as Scott notes, most of it is evidently comprised of measured braggadocio over the lurid details of various deals he's made. But, for those who have read it, what kind of picture does it paint of the man in your mind, particularly in relation to Candidate Trump?

It's the power of self belief. You keep slamming the hammer down continually. The weak cave, do not get the desired result, and do not win. In contrast, the winner keeps bringing it until they achieve the desired objective, do not easily accept failure, and are looked at in wonder as they continue to win, kick as*, and take the world by the horns.

When my wife does that, I call it nagging. Deferring to a harpy isn't "winning" Bronto. Its like saying a child whom gets a toy (eventually) crafted some sort of deal. Deference when can be afforded.

Islam has been doing Muhammed's version of art of the deal on the West. Guess what? They'll soon out number atypical Europeans in their own countries, hence influencing laws, changing laws, etc. He who screams loudest...and longest...

He who screams loudest and longest is still screaming loud and long.

Is the "art of the deal" screaming loud and long till you get your way?

Since you seem to be drawing comparisons to Islam and Trump, I am going to assume you admire both for screaming loudly and longly.

Now, what does that have to do with qualification?

I also used Hillary in said example, thus you have used a dishonest rebuttle. I simply call said dishonest rebuttle liberalism. If lies, distortion of facts, exclusion of facts, and fabrication/exageration are not involved, it's not especially liberal in tenor.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 1:59:50 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 1:55:08 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 1:12:02 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:50:01 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:23:36 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:37:20 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/28/2016 5:53:01 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
http://slatestarcodex.com...

Slate Star Codex is run and authored by Scott Alexander, who's reasonably prominent in the rationalist community and an incredible writer to boot. He's smart, credentialed, and has a history of having really good stuff to say about stuff.

Up to now, I've been in line with the Sam Harris-style view emphasizing Trump's intellectual bankruptcy--specifically, that there's not some kind of Machiavellian hyperintelligence obscured by the veneer of shallow egotism--it's actually just vacuousness all the way down.

But Scott seems to take a different tack with Trump's stated history (and admittedly great ghostwriter in Tony Schwartz), particularly as articulated in The Art of the Deal. There was one particular broad-strokes paragraph that sort of struck off my view at an odd angle--not in a "alright, ready to root for Trump" kind of way (because I'm plainly not ready to do that), but in a way that wraps a new interpretive lens around at minimum the media spectacle that's constituted Trump's campaign this season:

"But there's still something alien about Trump here, even moreso than with the populist demagogue of the campaign trail. Trump the demagogue is attacked as anti-intellectual. I get anti-intellectualism because -- like all isms -- it's an intellectual idea, and I tend to think in those terms. But Trump of the book is more a-intellectual, in the same way some people are amoral or asexual. The world is taken as a given. It contains deals. Some people make the deals well, and they are winners. Other people make the deals poorly, and they are losers. Trump does not need more than this. There will be no civilization of philosopher-Trumps asking where the first deal came from, or whether a deal is a deal only by virtue of its participation in some primordial deal beyond material existence. Trump"s world is so narrow it's hard to fit your head inside it, so narrow that on contact with any wider world it seems strange and attenuated, a broken record of deals and connections and hirings expanding to fill the space available."

I haven't had a chance to read the book, and, as Scott notes, most of it is evidently comprised of measured braggadocio over the lurid details of various deals he's made. But, for those who have read it, what kind of picture does it paint of the man in your mind, particularly in relation to Candidate Trump?

It's the power of self belief. You keep slamming the hammer down continually. The weak cave, do not get the desired result, and do not win. In contrast, the winner keeps bringing it until they achieve the desired objective, do not easily accept failure, and are looked at in wonder as they continue to win, kick as*, and take the world by the horns.

When my wife does that, I call it nagging. Deferring to a harpy isn't "winning" Bronto. Its like saying a child whom gets a toy (eventually) crafted some sort of deal. Deference when can be afforded.

Islam has been doing Muhammed's version of art of the deal on the West. Guess what? They'll soon out number atypical Europeans in their own countries, hence influencing laws, changing laws, etc. He who screams loudest...and longest...

He who screams loudest and longest is still screaming loud and long.

Is the "art of the deal" screaming loud and long till you get your way?

Since you seem to be drawing comparisons to Islam and Trump, I am going to assume you admire both for screaming loudly and longly.

Now, what does that have to do with qualification?

I also used Hillary in said example, thus you have used a dishonest rebuttle.

Good for you. I, however, am not advocating Hillary in this conversation. I don't care how you portray her. That is dishonest only is as much as you think that because I think Trump is an idiot, I think Hillary is awesome, and am compelled to come to her aid.

Such is not the case.

I simply call said dishonest rebuttle liberalism.

Mm. So you call your own personal interpretation of what other people must do in a conversation to be "liberalism".

If lies, distortion of facts, exclusion of facts, and fabrication/exageration are not involved, it's not especially liberal in tenor.

Keep attacking Hilary for all I care.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 2:51:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 1:59:50 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/29/2016 1:55:08 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 1:12:02 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:50:01 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:23:36 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:37:20 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/28/2016 5:53:01 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
http://slatestarcodex.com...

Slate Star Codex is run and authored by Scott Alexander, who's reasonably prominent in the rationalist community and an incredible writer to boot. He's smart, credentialed, and has a history of having really good stuff to say about stuff.

Up to now, I've been in line with the Sam Harris-style view emphasizing Trump's intellectual bankruptcy--specifically, that there's not some kind of Machiavellian hyperintelligence obscured by the veneer of shallow egotism--it's actually just vacuousness all the way down.

But Scott seems to take a different tack with Trump's stated history (and admittedly great ghostwriter in Tony Schwartz), particularly as articulated in The Art of the Deal. There was one particular broad-strokes paragraph that sort of struck off my view at an odd angle--not in a "alright, ready to root for Trump" kind of way (because I'm plainly not ready to do that), but in a way that wraps a new interpretive lens around at minimum the media spectacle that's constituted Trump's campaign this season:

"But there's still something alien about Trump here, even moreso than with the populist demagogue of the campaign trail. Trump the demagogue is attacked as anti-intellectual. I get anti-intellectualism because -- like all isms -- it's an intellectual idea, and I tend to think in those terms. But Trump of the book is more a-intellectual, in the same way some people are amoral or asexual. The world is taken as a given. It contains deals. Some people make the deals well, and they are winners. Other people make the deals poorly, and they are losers. Trump does not need more than this. There will be no civilization of philosopher-Trumps asking where the first deal came from, or whether a deal is a deal only by virtue of its participation in some primordial deal beyond material existence. Trump"s world is so narrow it's hard to fit your head inside it, so narrow that on contact with any wider world it seems strange and attenuated, a broken record of deals and connections and hirings expanding to fill the space available."

I haven't had a chance to read the book, and, as Scott notes, most of it is evidently comprised of measured braggadocio over the lurid details of various deals he's made. But, for those who have read it, what kind of picture does it paint of the man in your mind, particularly in relation to Candidate Trump?

It's the power of self belief. You keep slamming the hammer down continually. The weak cave, do not get the desired result, and do not win. In contrast, the winner keeps bringing it until they achieve the desired objective, do not easily accept failure, and are looked at in wonder as they continue to win, kick as*, and take the world by the horns.

When my wife does that, I call it nagging. Deferring to a harpy isn't "winning" Bronto. Its like saying a child whom gets a toy (eventually) crafted some sort of deal. Deference when can be afforded.

Islam has been doing Muhammed's version of art of the deal on the West. Guess what? They'll soon out number atypical Europeans in their own countries, hence influencing laws, changing laws, etc. He who screams loudest...and longest...

He who screams loudest and longest is still screaming loud and long.

Is the "art of the deal" screaming loud and long till you get your way?

Since you seem to be drawing comparisons to Islam and Trump, I am going to assume you admire both for screaming loudly and longly.

Now, what does that have to do with qualification?

I also used Hillary in said example, thus you have used a dishonest rebuttle.

Good for you. I, however, am not advocating Hillary in this conversation. I don't care how you portray her. That is dishonest only is as much as you think that because I think Trump is an idiot, I think Hillary is awesome, and am compelled to come to her aid.

Such is not the case.


I simply call said dishonest rebuttle liberalism.

Mm. So you call your own personal interpretation of what other people must do in a conversation to be "liberalism".


If lies, distortion of facts, exclusion of facts, and fabrication/exageration are not involved, it's not especially liberal in tenor.

Keep attacking Hilary for all I care.

In a mild generalization liberals tend to have a claim based on percentage facts, rarely 100% facts. Example? Trump literally says illegal immigrants come in and many commit crime and rape. That's a statistical fact. I'm an immigrant. This is not some liberally claimed "white bias". But what is the atypical liberal accusation? Trump said all Mexicans are racist. So the false victim card is played. Hillary says literally that 1/2 of Trump's supporters are a "basket of deplorables". Instead of pulling any kind of percentage truth, they quote her for exactly what she said word for word, have a good laugh, and make fun of her statement, even embracing it. No victim claim. No victim status. No claims that she is a racist, a bigot, etc etc. Simply an exact quote. This is the difference between liberals in general and conservatives in general.

Another example? A black man was killed by a white cop. It must be racism. It's a percentage truth. Nevermind that cops kill well more whites than blacks statistically.

So a black cop kills a black man. Can't play a false race card, so now liberals play the "cops are out to get blacks" card. They are always looking for a percentage truth. A white man is killed by a black cop, no liberal coverage. Look for something that looks bad and can be twisted and incite a particular group as opposed to 100% solid truth backed by statistics and reality.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 3:10:57 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Slate Star Codex is run and authored by Scott Alexander, who's reasonably prominent in the rationalist community and an incredible writer to boot. He's smart, credentialed, and has a history of having really good stuff to say about stuff.

Up to now, I've been in line with the Sam Harris-style view emphasizing Trump's intellectual bankruptcy--specifically, that there's not some kind of Machiavellian hyperintelligence obscured by the veneer of shallow egotism--it's actually just vacuousness all the way down.

But Scott seems to take a different tack with Trump's stated history (and admittedly great ghostwriter in Tony Schwartz), particularly as articulated in The Art of the Deal. There was one particular broad-strokes paragraph that sort of struck off my view at an odd angle--not in a "alright, ready to root for Trump" kind of way (because I'm plainly not ready to do that), but in a way that wraps a new interpretive lens around at minimum the media spectacle that's constituted Trump's campaign this season:

"But there's still something alien about Trump here, even moreso than with the populist demagogue of the campaign trail. Trump the demagogue is attacked as anti-intellectual. I get anti-intellectualism because -- like all isms -- it's an intellectual idea, and I tend to think in those terms. But Trump of the book is more a-intellectual, in the same way some people are amoral or asexual. The world is taken as a given. It contains deals. Some people make the deals well, and they are winners. Other people make the deals poorly, and they are losers. Trump does not need more than this. There will be no civilization of philosopher-Trumps asking where the first deal came from, or whether a deal is a deal only by virtue of its participation in some primordial deal beyond material existence. Trump"s world is so narrow it's hard to fit your head inside it, so narrow that on contact with any wider world it seems strange and attenuated, a broken record of deals and connections and hirings expanding to fill the space available."

I haven't had a chance to read the book, and, as Scott notes, most of it is evidently comprised of measured braggadocio over the lurid details of various deals he's made. But, for those who have read it, what kind of picture does it paint of the man in your mind, particularly in relation to Candidate Trump?

It's the power of self belief. You keep slamming the hammer down continually. The weak cave, do not get the desired result, and do not win. In contrast, the winner keeps bringing it until they achieve the desired objective, do not easily accept failure, and are looked at in wonder as they continue to win, kick as*, and take the world by the horns.

When my wife does that, I call it nagging. Deferring to a harpy isn't "winning" Bronto. Its like saying a child whom gets a toy (eventually) crafted some sort of deal. Deference when can be afforded.

Islam has been doing Muhammed's version of art of the deal on the West. Guess what? They'll soon out number atypical Europeans in their own countries, hence influencing laws, changing laws, etc. He who screams loudest...and longest...

He who screams loudest and longest is still screaming loud and long.

Is the "art of the deal" screaming loud and long till you get your way?

Since you seem to be drawing comparisons to Islam and Trump, I am going to assume you admire both for screaming loudly and longly.

Now, what does that have to do with qualification?

I also used Hillary in said example, thus you have used a dishonest rebuttle.

Good for you. I, however, am not advocating Hillary in this conversation. I don't care how you portray her. That is dishonest only is as much as you think that because I think Trump is an idiot, I think Hillary is awesome, and am compelled to come to her aid.

Such is not the case.


I simply call said dishonest rebuttle liberalism.

Mm. So you call your own personal interpretation of what other people must do in a conversation to be "liberalism".


If lies, distortion of facts, exclusion of facts, and fabrication/exageration are not involved, it's not especially liberal in tenor.

Keep attacking Hilary for all I care.

In a mild generalization liberals tend to have a claim based on percentage facts, rarely 100% facts. Example? Trump literally says illegal immigrants come in and many commit crime and rape. That's a statistical fact.

No, that is a statistical opinion. Some do. Whether or not that is "many" is wholly dependent upon the impression the proclaimer and viewer have. To wit what exact number is "many"?

I'm an immigrant. This is not some liberally claimed "white bias". But what is the atypical liberal accusation? Trump said all Mexicans are racist. So the false victim card is played. Hillary says literally that 1/2 of Trump's supporters are a "basket of deplorables". Instead of pulling any kind of percentage truth, they quote her for exactly what she said word for word, have a good laugh, and make fun of her statement, even embracing it. No victim claim. No victim status. No claims that she is a racist, a bigot, etc etc. Simply an exact quote. This is the difference between liberals in general and conservatives in general.

What exactly is a "deplorable" that might include a racists, bigot, etc? I can quantify what an illegal immigrant is. I can't easily ID what a deplorable is, to me it sounds like Hillary is stating half of the Trump supporters she has run into, then making a general statement from it, but that is here nor there.

... and back to Hillary. Go ahead. Attack her. Whatever.

Another example? A black man was killed by a white cop. It must be racism. It's a percentage truth. Nevermind that cops kill well more whites than blacks statistically.

But not by percentage of population. Total population of whites killed by cop is X, representing Y population of whites. Total population of blacks killed by cop is A, representing B population of blacks. Y < B.

So a black cop kills a black man. Can't play a false race card, so now liberals play the "cops are out to get blacks" card. They are always looking for a percentage truth.

Well, you just got done stating its "cops" that kill, not specifically the demographic of them, and indeed, more blacks by percentage of population are killed by whites. So, root cause of that could be what?

A white man is killed by a black cop, no liberal coverage. Look for something that looks bad and can be twisted and incite a particular group as opposed to 100% solid truth backed by statistics and reality.

Well, when a white man is killed by cops, whites typically think he might have done something to deserve, and blacks don't care as much.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 3:55:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/28/2016 5:53:01 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
http://slatestarcodex.com...

Slate Star Codex is run and authored by Scott Alexander, who's reasonably prominent in the rationalist community and an incredible writer to boot. He's smart, credentialed, and has a history of having really good stuff to say about stuff.

Up to now, I've been in line with the Sam Harris-style view emphasizing Trump's intellectual bankruptcy--specifically, that there's not some kind of Machiavellian hyperintelligence obscured by the veneer of shallow egotism--it's actually just vacuousness all the way down.

But Scott seems to take a different tack with Trump's stated history (and admittedly great ghostwriter in Tony Schwartz), particularly as articulated in The Art of the Deal. There was one particular broad-strokes paragraph that sort of struck off my view at an odd angle--not in a "alright, ready to root for Trump" kind of way (because I'm plainly not ready to do that), but in a way that wraps a new interpretive lens around at minimum the media spectacle that's constituted Trump's campaign this season:

"But there's still something alien about Trump here, even moreso than with the populist demagogue of the campaign trail. Trump the demagogue is attacked as anti-intellectual. I get anti-intellectualism because -- like all isms -- it's an intellectual idea, and I tend to think in those terms. But Trump of the book is more a-intellectual, in the same way some people are amoral or asexual. The world is taken as a given. It contains deals. Some people make the deals well, and they are winners. Other people make the deals poorly, and they are losers. Trump does not need more than this. There will be no civilization of philosopher-Trumps asking where the first deal came from, or whether a deal is a deal only by virtue of its participation in some primordial deal beyond material existence. Trump"s world is so narrow it's hard to fit your head inside it, so narrow that on contact with any wider world it seems strange and attenuated, a broken record of deals and connections and hirings expanding to fill the space available."

I haven't had a chance to read the book, and, as Scott notes, most of it is evidently comprised of measured braggadocio over the lurid details of various deals he's made. But, for those who have read it, what kind of picture does it paint of the man in your mind, particularly in relation to Candidate Trump?

I think it's all much simpler than all that. Trump has lived in his own world, and it's not the world the pointy-heads are used to. He hasn't lived in somebody else's world, he created his own. Very few people can do that. The point of this is that he has created his own style. His speech is a sort of creole, his own variation on normal English.

So all this psychobabble - nah, it's just different style. The intellectual class is getting a Leroy Gibbs dope slap from Trump, and they're not used to it.
This space for rent.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 5:48:00 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/28/2016 5:53:01 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
http://slatestarcodex.com...

Slate Star Codex is run and authored by Scott Alexander, who's reasonably prominent in the rationalist community and an incredible writer to boot. He's smart, credentialed, and has a history of having really good stuff to say about stuff.

I love his style/

Up to now, I've been in line with the Sam Harris-style view emphasizing Trump's intellectual bankruptcy--specifically, that there's not some kind of Machiavellian hyperintelligence obscured by the veneer of shallow egotism--it's actually just vacuousness all the way down.

But Scott seems to take a different tack with Trump's stated history (and admittedly great ghostwriter in Tony Schwartz), particularly as articulated in The Art of the Deal. There was one particular broad-strokes paragraph that sort of struck off my view at an odd angle--not in a "alright, ready to root for Trump" kind of way (because I'm plainly not ready to do that), but in a way that wraps a new interpretive lens around at minimum the media spectacle that's constituted Trump's campaign this season:

"But there's still something alien about Trump here, even moreso than with the populist demagogue of the campaign trail. Trump the demagogue is attacked as anti-intellectual. I get anti-intellectualism because -- like all isms -- it's an intellectual idea, and I tend to think in those terms. But Trump of the book is more a-intellectual, in the same way some people are amoral or asexual. The world is taken as a given. It contains deals. Some people make the deals well, and they are winners. Other people make the deals poorly, and they are losers. Trump does not need more than this. There will be no civilization of philosopher-Trumps asking where the first deal came from, or whether a deal is a deal only by virtue of its participation in some primordial deal beyond material existence. Trump"s world is so narrow it's hard to fit your head inside it, so narrow that on contact with any wider world it seems strange and attenuated, a broken record of deals and connections and hirings expanding to fill the space available."

I haven't had a chance to read the book, and, as Scott notes, most of it is evidently comprised of measured braggadocio over the lurid details of various deals he's made. But, for those who have read it, what kind of picture does it paint of the man in your mind, particularly in relation to Candidate Trump?

I think that The Art of the Deal was part of Trump's branding efforts, though it does offer insight into the man himself. The passages on the media are particularly revealing, and when it comes to the 'intellectual class' rejecting Trump, I can't help but notice parallels to Richard Feynman. Feynman was similarly 'a-intellectual', seeing the world as relatively easy to understand and mocking what he saw as unnecessary complications. Because of his plain, middle-class manner of speaking, his lack of respect for honors and the trappings of authority, and his cynicism about the philosophy of science, Feynman was often seen as a 'savage' by some his peers at worse, despite his brilliant insights, and as an odd bird a best. His experiences, I think, reveal a lot about the self-anointed intellectual class in the US, of which Sam Harris is typical. While they see themselves as the gatekeepers to 'intelligence', they are actually quite terrible at spotting it, and include among themselves many who lay dubious claim to the title. What they are good at spotting, as Slate Star Codex pointed out in another great blog, are the 'outgroup', the outsiders who fail to speak and act like them, who fail to bow to the proper shibboleths. http://slatestarcodex.com...

In the same way that Feynman was initially mocked for cutting the Gordian knot with his diagrams, Trump is mocked and reviled by the intellectual left for wantonly, joyfully slaughtering their sacred cows with an almost autistic disregard for convention. An example is Islamic immigration. The standard left line is that all Muslims are a potential fifth column who will be radicalized if we try to control our border security, and their solution is to continue importing more. This is prima facie absurd, though I disagree with their premises. It's like saying that if we slam this door, the gunpowder pouring through it might ignite, so we need to leave the door open forever. Trump spoke sanity on trade deals, destroying the religious belief on both the left and right the tariffs will always lead to trade war and desolation. By doing that he marked himself as an outsider and opened himself up to tribalistic mockery.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 6:17:04 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:48:00 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

I think that The Art of the Deal was part of Trump's branding efforts, though it does offer insight into the man himself. The passages on the media are particularly revealing, and when it comes to the 'intellectual class' rejecting Trump, I can't help but notice parallels to Richard Feynman. Feynman was similarly 'a-intellectual', seeing the world as relatively easy to understand and mocking what he saw as unnecessary complications. Because of his plain, middle-class manner of speaking, his lack of respect for honors and the trappings of authority, and his cynicism about the philosophy of science, Feynman was often seen as a 'savage' by some his peers at worse, despite his brilliant insights, and as an odd bird a best. His experiences, I think, reveal a lot about the self-anointed intellectual class in the US, of which Sam Harris is typical. While they see themselves as the gatekeepers to 'intelligence', they are actually quite terrible at spotting it, and include among themselves many who lay dubious claim to the title. What they are good at spotting, as Slate Star Codex pointed out in another great blog, are the 'outgroup', the outsiders who fail to speak and act like them, who fail to bow to the proper shibboleths. http://slatestarcodex.com...

In the same way that Feynman was initially mocked for cutting the Gordian knot with his diagrams, Trump is mocked and reviled by the intellectual left for wantonly, joyfully slaughtering their sacred cows with an almost autistic disregard for convention. An example is Islamic immigration. The standard left line is that all Muslims are a potential fifth column who will be radicalized if we try to control our border security, and their solution is to continue importing more. This is prima facie absurd, though I disagree with their premises. It's like saying that if we slam this door, the gunpowder pouring through it might ignite, so we need to leave the door open forever. Trump spoke sanity on trade deals, destroying the religious belief on both the left and right the tariffs will always lead to trade war and desolation. By doing that he marked himself as an outsider and opened himself up to tribalistic mockery.

Well, yours has been the only thoughtful-sounding reply so far, so I thank you for that.

I would never in a million years have thought to compare Trump to Feynman (at the risk of exposing my own allegiances, it's probably because I don't think Trump is anywhere near as worthy of veneration, or at least the respectful nod), but I think the comparison of treatments by their peers is fairly interesting. I don't actually have all that much insight into their respective biographies, though--my immediate intuition based on my limited knowledge is people at least had a potentially-begrudging-but-deeply-abiding respect for Feynman in light of the overwhelming evidence of his competence (secondhand sources actually seem to indicate he was fairly popular/well-liked as well as charismatic, if also eccentric)--my impression is even people Trump's directly done successful business with tend to be apprehensive about him being difficult and crafty (and I'd wager there have been more direct complaints about Trump than Feynman, but you could probably account for that as a vast difference between their fields--Feynman probably didn't spend much time wheeling-and-dealing with bureaucrats and other big capitalists).

I will say, to whatever extent he's serious about extreme-sounding policy proposals made over the course of the last year (and I'm increasingly inclined to believe it may be more of a negotiator's impulse on his part than a sincere policy commitment), I actually vehemently disagree. I actually take a fairly hard line, along with Sam Harris and other New Atheist types, that religion--and maybe Islam in particular, for all its sheltering by elements of the regressive left--is a worthy target of withering criticism (although I'm also cognizant of elements of the Meditations on Superweapons, linked in my signature, having to do with the occasional strategic necessity of having to mount wholesale defenses of groups on the basis of the gradual construction of general cultural counterarguments against particular groups, Muslims in this context, even when it seems sort of absurd to do so), but I don't support moratoria on immigration (I actually follow the Bryan Caplan camp in advocating for unconditional open borders), nor could I in good conscience support barriers to, or political asymmetries in, international trade (so tariffs are out--I also firmly believe acceleration of decay of economic nationalism and eventual completion of a fully-integrated global marketplace is a prime target for improving human well-being).

The point about tribalism is well-taken, though. I don't think unpopular ideas are inherently good (hence why I don't think anyone should support Trump merely or mostly on grounds he's "an outsider" or anything in that family of reasons), but I am somewhat forced to recant, despite my deep respect for Harris, the face-value position of Trump's total intellectual bankruptcy. I'm not particularly convinced he is secretly incredibly knowledgeable about e.g., international affairs (I doubt he could actually give you deep detail on Islamic orthodoxy or a rational-sounding account of terrorists' likely motivations or a measured history of the ramifications of Great Power involvement in the Middle East during the last century), but I can accept, at least provisionally, his approach to the campaign, and probably to political agency more broadly, is internally coherent but structurally alien from my view of things (like, why you'd want to approach political responsibility in any other way that pure, sober rationalism is completely inscrutable to me [which maybe indicates I'm doing something wrong if I really can't understand]).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 7:01:39 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
If I understand Scott Alexander's point, he's saying that Trump limits himself to topics that don't really call for sophisticated thinking, so that we shouldn't be surprised or concerned that upon reading his stuff we aren't taken aback by the brilliance of his insights. Assuming that's even the case, which I find rather doubtful, it leaves unaddressed a rather crucial point: Trump talks about The Art of the Deal as though it were proof of his genius and incredible intuition. It's part of his "why you should elect me" package. From this we can infer two things: (1) this is Trump's idea of what intelligence looks like, implying that he doesn't really get the concept and (2) he's unaware of the world's complexities because he is too stupid to perceive them, assuming the powers of insight demonstrated in his book are all that's needed to understand the world. If the Art of the Deal really is so narrow in its context, would any competent intellect offer it as evidence of one's ability to hold the most important position in the world?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 3:38:32 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 6:17:04 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:48:00 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

I think that The Art of the Deal was part of Trump's branding efforts, though it does offer insight into the man himself. The passages on the media are particularly revealing, and when it comes to the 'intellectual class' rejecting Trump, I can't help but notice parallels to Richard Feynman. Feynman was similarly 'a-intellectual', seeing the world as relatively easy to understand and mocking what he saw as unnecessary complications. Because of his plain, middle-class manner of speaking, his lack of respect for honors and the trappings of authority, and his cynicism about the philosophy of science, Feynman was often seen as a 'savage' by some his peers at worse, despite his brilliant insights, and as an odd bird a best. His experiences, I think, reveal a lot about the self-anointed intellectual class in the US, of which Sam Harris is typical. While they see themselves as the gatekeepers to 'intelligence', they are actually quite terrible at spotting it, and include among themselves many who lay dubious claim to the title. What they are good at spotting, as Slate Star Codex pointed out in another great blog, are the 'outgroup', the outsiders who fail to speak and act like them, who fail to bow to the proper shibboleths. http://slatestarcodex.com...

In the same way that Feynman was initially mocked for cutting the Gordian knot with his diagrams, Trump is mocked and reviled by the intellectual left for wantonly, joyfully slaughtering their sacred cows with an almost autistic disregard for convention. An example is Islamic immigration. The standard left line is that all Muslims are a potential fifth column who will be radicalized if we try to control our border security, and their solution is to continue importing more. This is prima facie absurd, though I disagree with their premises. It's like saying that if we slam this door, the gunpowder pouring through it might ignite, so we need to leave the door open forever. Trump spoke sanity on trade deals, destroying the religious belief on both the left and right the tariffs will always lead to trade war and desolation. By doing that he marked himself as an outsider and opened himself up to tribalistic mockery.

Well, yours has been the only thoughtful-sounding reply so far, so I thank you for that.

I would never in a million years have thought to compare Trump to Feynman (at the risk of exposing my own allegiances, it's probably because I don't think Trump is anywhere near as worthy of veneration, or at least the respectful nod), but I think the comparison of treatments by their peers is fairly interesting. I don't actually have all that much insight into their respective biographies, though--my immediate intuition based on my limited knowledge is people at least had a potentially-begrudging-but-deeply-abiding respect for Feynman in light of the overwhelming evidence of his competence (secondhand sources actually seem to indicate he was fairly popular/well-liked as well as charismatic, if also eccentric)--my impression is even people Trump's directly done successful business with tend to be apprehensive about him being difficult and crafty (and I'd wager there have been more direct complaints about Trump than Feynman, but you could probably account for that as a vast difference between their fields--Feynman probably didn't spend much time wheeling-and-dealing with bureaucrats and other big capitalists).

Oh yeah, I don't think that people could get away with calling Feynman stupid because he was so staggeringly intelligent in obvious ways. But people who belonged to the 'upper-crust', more pedantic circles seemed to be irked by him in some ways (Murray Gell-Mann comes to mind). Just think of how a person who shared Feynman's irreverence, bluntness, and low-brow dialect but without the staggering brilliance would have been received: he likely would have been dismissed as an 'idiot' or 'rube'. That's how I see Trump; as a Feynman stripped of his shield of almost inhuman intelligence, as a man of above-average intelligence, and vast resources, yet outside the self-appointed gatekeepers of culture and intellect.

I will say, to whatever extent he's serious about extreme-sounding policy proposals made over the course of the last year (and I'm increasingly inclined to believe it may be more of a negotiator's impulse on his part than a sincere policy commitment), I actually vehemently disagree.

Thanks, I immensely respect people who can disagree with Trump without assuming the worst.

I actually take a fairly hard line, along with Sam Harris and other New Atheist types, that religion--and maybe Islam in particular, for all its sheltering by elements of the regressive left--is a worthy target of withering criticism (although I'm also cognizant of elements of the Meditations on Superweapons, linked in my signature, having to do with the occasional strategic necessity of having to mount wholesale defenses of groups on the basis of the gradual construction of general cultural counterarguments against particular groups, Muslims in this context, even when it seems sort of absurd to do so), but I don't support moratoria on immigration (I actually follow the Bryan Caplan camp in advocating for unconditional open borders), nor could I in good conscience support barriers to, or political asymmetries in, international trade (so tariffs are out--I also firmly believe acceleration of decay of economic nationalism and eventual completion of a fully-integrated global marketplace is a prime target for improving human well-being).

Oh, yeah, in that case Trump is pushing pretty much the opposite of all of your goals, and opposition to his agenda makes complete sense.

The point about tribalism is well-taken, though. I don't think unpopular ideas are inherently good (hence why I don't think anyone should support Trump merely or mostly on grounds he's "an outsider" or anything in that family of reasons), but I am somewhat forced to recant, despite my deep respect for Harris, the face-value position of Trump's total intellectual bankruptcy. I'm not particularly convinced he is secretly incredibly knowledgeable about e.g., international affairs (I doubt he could actually give you deep detail on Islamic orthodoxy or a rational-sounding account of terrorists' likely motivations or a measured history of the ramifications of Great Power involvement in the Middle East during the last century), but I can accept, at least provisionally, his approach to the campaign, and probably to political agency more broadly, is internally coherent but structurally alien from my view of things (like, why you'd want to approach political responsibility in any other way that pure, sober rationalism is completely inscrutable to me [which maybe indicates I'm doing something wrong if I really can't understand]).

Yeah, this is pretty much exactly how I feel. From what I've read of Trump's managerial style, he tends to delegate and then leave people alone unless they're working on something absolutely crucial. He's great at negotiating, managing PR, and reaching goals by juggling many interests. So I think that a Trump presidency would involve exactly what he's said that it will involve: him having this specific vision, him finding subordinates who will be competent in implementing that vision, and then managing things from then on. Trump doesn't know the intricate geopolitics of Syria, just as he doesn't know the intricacies of property law. That's why, in his mind, he hires the best lawyer/international relations expert. I see that as a healthy attitude. What I find disturbing about Clinton is that she has absolute faith in her ability to assess these things while being completely incompetent at doing so.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -