3 ms·

I really wonder whether any of the political establishment even has a clue as to the political makeup of the Independents. The two-party system keeps dominatin

I really wonder whether any of the political establishment even has a clue as to the political makeup of the Independents. The two-party system keeps dominating all the news cycles, so it’s got to be pretty difficult for all of the marketing analytics companies to keep up with the noise.

dredmorbius 5y ago
Seeing like a state ... turns out to be difficult. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  If you’ve read the book, thoughts on this criticism of the book listed in the Wikipedia article? > Stanford University political scientist David D. Laitin described it as "a magisterial book." But he said there were flaws in the methodology of the book, saying the book "is a product of undisciplined history. For one, Scott’s evidence is selective and eclectic, with only minimal attempts to weigh disconfirming evidence... It is all too easy to select confirming evidence if the author can choose from the entire historical record and use material from all countries of the world."
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    Any synoptic work can be criticised on the basis that its author strays from areas of specific expertise and selects from available evidence or narratives. That criticism is akin to critiquing water for being wet. The question is whether or not the book provides useful insights. And to that extent, I believe James C. Scott accomplishes his task. He needn't be correct in all his diagnoses or prescriptions for this to be true. Appropriate consideration of disconfirming evidence is a valid concern, though I'd have to see what Laitin is proposing in that regard to see if that critque has merits. What's all the more amusing is that the criticism is fundamentally grounded in the same fundamental paradox that states face, per Scott: that a complex domain cannot be accurately modeled or understood, that all attempts to do so are at best compromises and in error, and that any model will prove insufficient and unequal to the task.
    - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
      > per Scott: that a complex domain cannot be accurately modeled or understood, that all attempts to do so are at best compromises and in error, and that any model will prove insufficient and unequal to the task. Ahh, interesting. I believe that most modern scientists would reject that proposition, a priori. Millennia of scientific advancements have shown that complex systems can indeed be modeled. Recent advancements in mathematics have shown that self-correcting simulations are certainly possible (deep learning, for example). Science itself could be simply described as a “self-correcting model with built-in error checking”.
      - dredmorbius 5y ago
        His argument is more nuanced, and ... includes examples. I've only managed about 3 chapters of the book so far. It has proved quite illuminating. There are examples of systems that do model well and those that don't. Depending on your physics, the 3, 2, 1, or null-body problems. The double pendulum. Etc. And those are only at the very simplest level. The fact that some systems can be effectively modelled doesn't mean that all can be. And in the case of complex systems (e.g., the German "rational forestry" method described early in Scott's book), initial success may preceed subsequent catastrophe.
        9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
        > The fact that some systems can be effectively modelled doesn't mean that all can be. Based on my understanding, the leading-edge of scientific research shows that “if the human mind can comprehend it, then there is a mathematical function for it” Are you positing, then, that there simply are limits to what humans can understand? Or, rather, that some systems are just too complex to document properly?
        dredmorbius 5y ago
        1. No. 2. Yes, yes.
tharne 5y ago
> I really wonder whether any of the political establishment even has a clue as to the political makeup of the Independents. The do. The article is incredibly misleading. The drop in party affiliation does not mean that people are not partisan, are less partisan, or that someone who is not affiliated with party is open to voting for a candidate from either party. One of the major strategic breakthroughs of the Bush campaign on '04 and the Obama campaign in '08 was the ability to identity partisans who were not registered with one party or the other. Most people who are independents consistently will still vote for the same party regularly from one election to the next. Since at least 2000, most swings in voting patterns from one election to the next have more to do with turnout among various groups than with individuals voting differently than they had in the past. In 2010 for example, the Democrats suffered one of the worst midterm defeats in modern history. It was portrayed in the media as voters turning against Obama and the Democratic party. In fact, it was about turnout. Had turnout in 2010 looked like it had just two years earlier, the Democrats would not have suffered that kind of midterm "shellacking", as Obama called it. The real, and far less click-baity, story was that Obama was an incredibly charismatic and effective campaigner. When he wasn't on the ballet, a lot of democratic-leaning voters stayed home.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  > The do. The article is incredibly misleading. I’m reading a lot of talk from you about the Democrats and Republicans, but what are the Independents thinking?
  - tharne 5y ago
    What I'm saying is that the parties understand the makeup of independents insofar as they know there are so few true independents, that it doesn't really matter what they think. In today's era, you get much more bang for your buck by convincing your own partisans to make it to the polls. My broader point is that contrary to what the article implies, "Unaffiliated Voter != A voter who is open to voting for either party"
    - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago

dredmorbius 5y ago

Seeing like a state ... turns out to be difficult. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State

9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
If you’ve read the book, thoughts on this criticism of the book listed in the Wikipedia article? > Stanford University political scientist David D. Laitin described it as "a magisterial book." But he said there were flaws in the methodology of the book, saying the book "is a product of undisciplined history. For one, Scott’s evidence is selective and eclectic, with only minimal attempts to weigh disconfirming evidence... It is all too easy to select confirming evidence if the author can choose from the entire historical record and use material from all countries of the world."
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Any synoptic work can be criticised on the basis that its author strays from areas of specific expertise and selects from available evidence or narratives. That criticism is akin to critiquing water for being wet. The question is whether or not the book provides useful insights. And to that extent, I believe James C. Scott accomplishes his task. He needn't be correct in all his diagnoses or prescriptions for this to be true. Appropriate consideration of disconfirming evidence is a valid concern, though I'd have to see what Laitin is proposing in that regard to see if that critque has merits. What's all the more amusing is that the criticism is fundamentally grounded in the same fundamental paradox that states face, per Scott: that a complex domain cannot be accurately modeled or understood, that all attempts to do so are at best compromises and in error, and that any model will prove insufficient and unequal to the task.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
    > per Scott: that a complex domain cannot be accurately modeled or understood, that all attempts to do so are at best compromises and in error, and that any model will prove insufficient and unequal to the task. Ahh, interesting. I believe that most modern scientists would reject that proposition, a priori. Millennia of scientific advancements have shown that complex systems can indeed be modeled. Recent advancements in mathematics have shown that self-correcting simulations are certainly possible (deep learning, for example). Science itself could be simply described as a “self-correcting model with built-in error checking”.
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      His argument is more nuanced, and ... includes examples. I've only managed about 3 chapters of the book so far. It has proved quite illuminating. There are examples of systems that do model well and those that don't. Depending on your physics, the 3, 2, 1, or null-body problems. The double pendulum. Etc. And those are only at the very simplest level. The fact that some systems can be effectively modelled doesn't mean that all can be. And in the case of complex systems (e.g., the German "rational forestry" method described early in Scott's book), initial success may preceed subsequent catastrophe.
      - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
        > The fact that some systems can be effectively modelled doesn't mean that all can be. Based on my understanding, the leading-edge of scientific research shows that “if the human mind can comprehend it, then there is a mathematical function for it” Are you positing, then, that there simply are limits to what humans can understand? Or, rather, that some systems are just too complex to document properly?
        dredmorbius 5y ago
        1. No. 2. Yes, yes.

tharne 5y ago

> I really wonder whether any of the political establishment even has a clue as to the political makeup of the Independents. The do. The article is incredibly misleading. The drop in party affiliation does not mean that people are not partisan, are less partisan, or that someone who is not affiliated with party is open to voting for a candidate from either party. One of the major strategic breakthroughs of the Bush campaign on '04 and the Obama campaign in '08 was the ability to identity partisans who were not registered with one party or the other. Most people who are independents consistently will still vote for the same party regularly from one election to the next. Since at least 2000, most swings in voting patterns from one election to the next have more to do with turnout among various groups than with individuals voting differently than they had in the past. In 2010 for example, the Democrats suffered one of the worst midterm defeats in modern history. It was portrayed in the media as voters turning against Obama and the Democratic party. In fact, it was about turnout. Had turnout in 2010 looked like it had just two years earlier, the Democrats would not have suffered that kind of midterm "shellacking", as Obama called it. The real, and far less click-baity, story was that Obama was an incredibly charismatic and effective campaigner. When he wasn't on the ballet, a lot of democratic-leaning voters stayed home.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
> The do. The article is incredibly misleading. I’m reading a lot of talk from you about the Democrats and Republicans, but what are the Independents thinking?
- tharne 5y ago
  What I'm saying is that the parties understand the makeup of independents insofar as they know there are so few true independents, that it doesn't really matter what they think. In today's era, you get much more bang for your buck by convincing your own partisans to make it to the polls. My broader point is that contrary to what the article implies, "Unaffiliated Voter != A voter who is open to voting for either party"
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago