Sam Harris tells us why Trump won

[BaalChatzaf]

In the following short video  Sam Harris  gives a clear-minded,  plausible and logical explanation of why Trump won and Hillary lost.  Harris is truly one of the most reasonable people currently dwelling on our planet.

Please do see:

Harris  goes on to analyze  Trump's "dizzy nihilism"   

 

In particular listen to the last minute of this video and  let a frisson of fear  waft over your goose-pimples....

Sam Harris is one of my favorite people....

[anthony]

Reasonable yes, and logical. Not quite a philosopher, in my opinion. The first one is very good, if rather obvious. In the other, it seems his main argument is that the president doesn't lie the way that is acceptable to people of the way politicians are *supposed* to lie! News for him, Trump isn't a politician. (In the recognized mold of pols, anyway). So his lies are kinda petty, and easily shown up, but Harris misses the point: President Trump has a goal in mind, and a game-play method which he believes is worth more than his simple falsehoods, or looking silly and bombastic(I think). Too much psychologizing as well. It is too easy to criticize Trump for what is little more than perceived shortcomings of style (which is mostly what I personally hear, when one gets down to it) and falling into the old error in our Hollywood times, that therefore he hasn't any substance. Of about every American leader I've 'seen' - I stand to be corrected - this president could be least in a "narcissistic" craving for attention and a love of power - which every politician has had, to a greater or lesser degree. His power is only the means to an end he identified, I think. He's genuinely driven for the good of an American revival.

[BaalChatzaf]

9 minutes ago, anthony said:

Reasonable yes, and logical. Not quite a philosopher, in my opinion. The first one is very good, if rather obvious. In the other, it seems his main argument is that the president doesn't lie the way that is acceptable to people of the way politicians are *supposed* to lie! News for him, Trump isn't a politician. So his lies are kinda petty, and easily shown up, but Harris misses the point: President Trump has a goal in mind, and a game-play method which he believes is worth more than his simple falsehoods and bombast(I think). Too much psychologizing as well. It is too easy to criticize Trump for what is little more than lack of style (which is mostly what I personally hear) and falling into the old error in our Hollywood times , that therefore he hasn't any substance. Of about every American leader I've 'seen' - I stand to be corrected - this president could be the least in a "narcissistic" love of power - which every politician has had to a greater or lesser degree. His power is only the means to an end he identified, I think. It's genuinely driven to the good of an American revival.

In another pod-cast Harris  says that many of the people who voted for Trump were so disgusted with the Democrats that  they just wanted  to jam a stick into the gears of government.  I applauded at that.  That is exactly why I voted for Trump.  He is my improvised explosive device (IED) in the political sense.  You are well told that I want to jam a blue steel crowbar into the works and witch the teeth on the gears break. 

Sam is not only a spokes person for  (neo)atheism,  he has a PhD in neurophysiology.  He has a notion that  morality can be based on part on scientific principles. On that point I am in disagreement with him.  Even so,  I admire Sam Harris for his level-headedness and lack of cant.  He is NOT an ideologue and for that I give him credit. 

[anthony]

10 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

. 

Sam is not only a spokes person for  (neo)atheism,  he has a PhD in neurophysiology.  He has a notion that  morality can be based on part on scientific principles. On that point I am in disagreement with him.  Even so,  I admire Sam Harris for his level-headedness and lack of cant.  He is NOT an ideologue and for that I give him credit. 

I was trying to work out if Harris was using the "falsification" methodology in his argument. "Ask yourself how it would look if Trump *were* a narcissist and a pathological liar ..." and so on. Mmm, a suspect epistemology at any rate.

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

I was trying to work out if Harris was using the "falsification" methodology in his argument. "Ask yourself how it would look if Trump *were* a narcissist and a pathological liar ..." and so on. Mmm, a suspect epistemology at any rate.

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

I was trying to work out if Harris was using the "falsification" methodology in his argument. "Ask yourself how it would look if Trump *were* a narcissist and a pathological liar ..." and so on. Mmm, a suspect epistemology at any rate.

Falsification is standard procedure for people in science.  One can NEVER prove a theory or hypothesis is correct no matter how many experiments corroborate the theory or hypothesis.  The only thing that can be done for sure  is to falsify a theory or hypothesis.  If a prediction is wrong (assuming that the experiment that showed the prediction is wrong, is valid)  then the underlying theory or hypothesis is wrong,  which means one of its component assumptions is wrong. 

A true premise can NEVER logically  imply a false conclusion.  Or equivalently,  if a premise implies a conclusion and the conclusion is false then the premise must be false. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

15 hours ago, anthony said:

Of about every American leader I've 'seen' - I stand to be corrected - this president could be least in a "narcissistic" craving for attention and a love of power - which every politician has had, to a greater or lesser degree. His power is only the means to an end he identified, I think. He's genuinely driven for the good of an American revival.

Tony,

You get it and there is nothing to correct.

As to Harris, I will watch the videos later, but, from the comments and my previous familiarity with Harris, this sounds to me like one more elitist intellectualoid trying to explain why he crapped all over himself before about Trump and why, despite many efforts, he still hasn't managed to get it right.

In baseball, you get three strikes and you're out. In elitist intellectual ball on the Internet, you get to keep swinging until you look like Monty Python's Black Knight, and still swing and miss some more.

These dudes, poor things, never quit.

Michael

[anthony]

Michael,

I have empathy with Americans who back their president's goals and are following his progress day to day from your destructive media's coverage, I'd likely have minor heart tremors each week if I were there! It's the long term objective I think has to be never forgotten, to put the momentary 'blips' by the president into perspective.

I put forward a speculation during his campaign run (in that mega-thread), that I wouldn't like to play poker with Donald Trump. I'm more certain of it now. He is a tricky opponent. There's a strategy (not for the faint of heart) of giving to the other players at the table the impression that you are easy meat and ripe for the picking, by dumb plays, performance antics and making ludicrous bluffs you know are going to be called, so everyone gets to see how weak the cards you play are . You lose some or much of your chip stack in the process, but you succeed in cultivating a 'loose table-image' which has all the players greedily chasing you in every hand. They may pity your artless naivete a little.

Poor lambs, once they believe they've got you stone-cold, they are too fixed to change their superior, first perception, and can't figure it out when slowly but surely you switch your strategy and are starting to play with only strong hands and betting big. Before they know it, you're on a roll ("fools luck", they think) and are reeling in pots. If all goes well, you finish up with every chip on the table, and those unimaginative players won't ever figure out how it happened...they were knocked out of the game by an apparent sucker.

(This is the psychological poker equivalent of the "Queen sacrifice" - which isn't a true sacrifice, we know - which a chess player may make. He too is anticipating only the main prize).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

LOL...

I love your metaphors.

But what could be expect from a man who owns casinos? That he doesn't know how to play poker?

The ideologues are still trying to understand something as simple as that. 

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

6 hours ago, anthony said:

Michael,

I have empathy with Americans who back their president's goals and are following his progress day to day from your destructive media's coverage, I'd likely have minor heart tremors each week if I were there! It's the long term objective I think has to be never forgotten, to put the momentary 'blips' by the president into perspective.

I put forward a speculation during his campaign run (in that mega-thread), that I wouldn't like to play poker with Donald Trump. I'm more certain of it now. He is a tricky opponent. There's a strategy (not for the faint of heart) of giving to the other players at the table the impression that you are easy meat and ripe for the picking, by dumb plays, performance antics and making ludicrous bluffs you know are going to be called, so everyone gets to see how weak the cards you play are . You lose some or much of your chip stack in the process, but you succeed in cultivating a 'loose table-image' which has all the players greedily chasing you in every hand. They may pity your artless naivete a little.

Poor lambs, once they believe they've got you stone-cold, they are too fixed to change their superior, first perception, and can't figure it out when slowly but surely you switch your strategy and are starting to play with only strong hands and betting big. Before they know it, you're on a roll (from luck, they think) and are reeling in pots. If all goes well, you finish up with every chip on the table and those unimaginative players won't ever figure out how it happened...they were knocked out of the game by an apparent sucker.

(This is the psychological poker equivalent of the "Queen sacrifice" - which isn't a true sacrifice, we know - which a chess player may make. He too is anticipating only the main prize).

It is possible that Trump is as unsmart  as he seems.  I am counting on it.  I voted to  put a bull in the china shop.  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

12 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It is possible that Trump is as unsmart  as he seems.

Bob,

It's also possible that unicorns exist.

Michael