Phil Henshaw wrote: > Well that curve is the clearest kind of complex systems inforation we > ever get. This is one beautiful and dramatic bullet of information, > and I think if we ask a hundred systems scientists what it means we'll > get a lot of opinion, much of it not based on systems theory. > > I think what's amazing about the curve is that it shows a remarkably > clear dynamic in the trust of the nation, a long period on the same path > of decay. What I read it as, and others may differ, is that out trust > in war as a response to terror actually never had a growth, climax or > stability period, only a decay period. > I think it is reasonable to posit that the lack of trust that explains these general trends. However, in this case it appears to have started before 9/11 (and before military actions in Afghanistan or Iraq). The same plots for other presidents could give a baseline for general properties of presidential popularity. There may be a common friction. One could compare the general slope for one and two term presidents with the idea that two term presidents did something right. (I would think someone has done this, but have not investigated.)
Another interpretation is that popularity decays just in the face of steady negative media coverage. That some people are sensitive to the news and some are less sensitive and that it takes a long period of exposure for some people to take a negative opinion. In this model, introducing a concept like trust is not necessary. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
