Marcus -
Thanks for that deep dive into the (lack of) structure of Trump's
bombast. I'm not sure that the 39% (number varies) of his base are
simply deplorable breadth-never parsers, though it would seem they would
have to be to not trip over his rhetoric. Some (maybe even members of
this list?) may support him as "the Great Disruptor" while seeing
entirely through his very poorly crafted rhetoric?
More importantly to me, is the effect it has on the larger population,
on the norms and expectations of voters/citizens and other political
operators. I'd like to think of Trump as one big fat ugly dose of
live-vaccine which has put the country into a harsh reaction which will
ultimately leave it with some immunity to his particular style of
whackadoodlery. On the other hand, we may sustain systemic damage that
leaves this country lamed until our eventual and inevitable demise (as a
country/culture/???).
- Steve
PS does anyone know what this rough 39% figure is *of*? Is it 39% of
citizens, eligible voters, voters in the last election, poll
subjects(whose?)? I'm not even sure where I get the number, it seems
to be the most common number thrown around in many situations....
Sometimes it is a round 40% and I think sometimes more like 37%... but
it doesn't seem to have varied much for quite a while. Seems like it
may be more apocryphal than real?
On 1/9/19 12:49 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Steve writes:
< I think this is the "genius" of Trump's campaign and tenure... he
operates from his own (and often ad-hoc) Lexicon and that reported 39%
stable base of his seems happy to just rewrite their own dictionary to
match his. It has been noted that Trump's presidency has been most
significant for helping us understand how much of our government
operates on norms and a shared vocabulary. He de(re?)constructs
those with virtually every tweet. >
Deconstructing a complex predicate involves taking out sub-predicates
and sub-sub predicates and examining all of the facts that cause each
predicate to hold or not. Trump’s `leadership’ involves ripping out
the top level predicates and simply defining sub-predicates to hold or
not depending on his impulses at that minute of the day. Yes, it is
his correct recognition that humans, especially the deplorables,
aren’t very good with depth first search. He’s got a depth cutoff of
about 1, as do they.
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
