More people, More people, More people

 The new Trump administration seems to be focused on getting immigrants out of America.  

Trump immigration crackdown: Denaturalization just a drop in the bucket

One interesting line in the article:

"While denaturalizations are unlikely to have a demographic impact by themselves, some economists fear reduced immigration could slow the broader economy."

Why is this important?  Well the US birthrate is below 2.1, what is considered the replacement number to keep a population from declining.  Right now, with the number of baby boomers living longer and with the immigrants - our population is growing.  This needs to happen to keep the economy from stagnating.

While Baby Boomers have a fair amount of money - many lost during the last recession and most are on fixed incomes - their money is tied up in their houses.  At some point this will trickle down, unless eaten up by health expenses.

So we need more young people willing to buy and borrow in order to grow the economy.

Or else we need to build and export - the problem is if we get too greedy with tariffs, then we will be subject to retaliatory tariffs.  Oops.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Blimey! This redistribution of wealth Is trickier than I thought!"  Dennis Moore - Monty Python

And now for something completely different

 If this last election proved one thing, it is challenging a person's beliefs no longer works.

I have come to the conclusion after studying conspiracy theorists that providing them with facts will not change their mind.  Besides a personal experience (if we could shoot flat earthers into space) it is now very hard to change someone's mind.

So here is a different method.

Do not criticize, belittle, or contradict.  

Just ask:        "Why"

Ask why and then ask them to defend their position.

They probably cannot.  

Then ask "What if" questions.

What if this or that part of their argument is proven false, would they change their mind.

If they say no, then there is no further use arguing with them.  They are locked in their ways.

Fortunately, there are people who might be willing to change. 

That is the only hope we have.

Well What do they say now?

 “They’ve already started cheating, 2,600 votes. Every vote was written by the same person. It must be a coincidence,” he said at a rally in Allentown, Pennsylvania, last Tuesday.

Donald Trump dances as he leaves a campaign rally in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, 30 October 30, 2024: he has his fists raised and people are holding red Make America Great Again placards behind him

Republicans preparing to reject US election result if Trump loses, warn strategists

Nationally, a key pillar of Republicans’ claims has been the falsehood that non-citizens are voting and could sway the election. Elon Musk, the billionaire who is a key Trump ally in the campaign, has played a significant role in amplifying this claim. Several studies have shown that non-citizen voting is extremely rare.

“If the fraud theme of 2020 was: ‘Covid is allowing ineligible people to vote or ballots to be manipulated,’ the 2024 theme seems to be ‘illegals are voting,’ and that fits in very much with the kind of nativist anti-immigrant language coming from the top of the Republican ticket,” Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview in October.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/04/trump-2024-election-subversion-explainer

So I guess in the end, they were lying.  Well what do they say now?

Well which is it? Man-made or not man-made?

 JULIE GREEN: This is exactly one of the things that the Lord had talked about. I have to get out which prophecy it was. I think it was the one from yesterday or Monday. He was talking about how this is the same thing as Maui. This is all on purpose. This is all done for complete devastation. And one of the things that He actually had on there and I have to — I'll look it up, of which one it was because I have several of them pulled up here again. But He said it was blatant. It was deliberate. What happened in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and those really hard areas, those areas were hit for a specific reason. And again, this is all man-made. All of the stuff, we know they can modify weather, and they're doing this on purpose. This is another form — and I hate to say this, but it's so true. This is what the Lord was saying. It's another form of election interference. This is another form to weaken people, to destroy people more, it’s more to get us to the point where we are so broken spiritually, physically, financially that we will not fight them back. This is another tactic and a strategy of war.   (2024)

"If you believe in God, then intellectually, you cannot believe in man-made global warming. You must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something he cannot create."  Rush Limbaugh 2013

There is a big difference between controlling the environment and controlling the weather.  Is sitting in a air conditioned room, controlling the weather?  Cloud seeding to create rain, assumes there are clouds holding moisture first.  You cannot create moisture where there is none.  So man has very limited effect on the weather.  So how then can man affect the climate?  Well one man cannot, 10 men cannot.  But 8 billion people working unknowingly together can give it a kick.  Give it a kick over 300 odd years and it might kick back.  Pour grease down you sink drain and not much happens.  Do this for ten years and it is time for the plumber.  

So no we cannot direct hurricanes.  One person can start a wildfire - but one started has no control over it.  An atomic bomb strategically placed, might start an earthquake, but the damage by the bomb would probably be worse.  

Ironically misinformation and disinformation can have a bigger effect on an election, and is much cheaper that trying to change the weather.  

DeSantis also seemed to equate hurricane-related conspiracy theories — which authorities say are causing real harm — with scientists pointing out that human activity drives climate change. When asked for his response to the disinformation swirling around the hurricanes, the governor joked: “Look, if I could control the weather, I would do, you know, 78 and sunny year-round.” 

Well - at least he is consistent.

---------------------------------------------

Julie Green - https://www.mediamatters.org/hurricanes/lara-and-eric-trump-backed-prophet-claims-god-told-her-hurricanes-were-man-made-and-they   (+many more)

Rush Limbaugh: https://geochristian.com/2013/10/24/rush-is-wrong/ (+ many more)

Ron Desantis - https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/ron-desantis-climate-change-hurricane-milton-florida-rcna175047

Words of Jefferson

 In 1785 Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Peter Carr, probably a protégé of Jefferson.  He was the son of Jefferson's sister.

Her wrote the following:

 It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/let31.asp

Ah, but only if the current political establishment would take this to heart.

But how do we know when a politician is lying (the old cliche not withstanding)?

First - anything that gets you upset or angry, be suspicious of.  These statements are usually exaggerations or embellishments of items which have just a slight bit of fact.

Second - be aware of projection - this is somewhat new but traces its origination way back - the pot calling the kettle black.  Someone accuses the other of a crime the first has committed.

Third - watch for amplification and spread.  A saying attributed to Mark Twain, but more probably from Johnathan Swift, is the idea that a lie spreads so fast that the truth is always lagging behind.  If everyone is sending it to you or you are being bombarded with a statement - be wary.

How to you be sure a statement is true or false?  In the past you would have to go to the library or find a person with  personal connection.  Today, you need to go to the Internet - set the search parameters BEFORE the statement was released, and do some digging.  I have found that most of the "just found out" items, have already been found and discussed and rarely rise to the level of outrage warranted.

Fact checking sites are useful, but don't just read their summaries - look at their sources. If they don't have sources and references - move on.   If something is important to you - do the research 

They still cannot count (Update)

 In the post "Lies, damn lies, and statistics", David Strom attacks those on the assumed left for promoting climate change fears.

"What percent of conversations regarding a contested issue are actually focused on assessing the evidence and determining the truth?

It’s not large. In fact, such discussions are rare as hen’s teeth."

He uses this statistic:

To claim that 2023 is below 2022.  Comparing 1/2 a year to a previous year.

And he compares days over 100, without differentiating a 100 degree day with a 119 degree day.

"But John Burn-Murdoch of the Financial Times? He is clearly trying to lie to you. He is a data analyst. He knows that he is lying with statistics."

Well David, you do not back your argument up with statistics, just that other's statistics are wrong and their methodology defective.

The problem with this argument, is that without doing proper research, your argument is just as flawed as you claim the other side.  

"That’s why it is vital to keep bringing up these failures in truth-telling made by these journalists who are really advocates. If people don’t change their minds right away, and they almost never do, it is our job to undermine the credibility of the “amen chorus” and propagandists. People will have their own “Aha!” moments.

We all get red-pilled at different moments."

Pot meet Kettle.

All this does is feed polarization - but maybe that is what your purpose is.

Update.

We are not at the end of the year, but for a year that was Ranked 113 when he did this post, it has jumped up to #3

https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/phoenix/yearly-days-of-100-degrees

I wonder if he will take down or edit his post.....

UPDATE - well I guess he is really looking bad this year:

https://www.foxweather.com/weather-news/phoenix-hits-least-100-degrees-100-days-row-shattering-record

When you only get one side of the story

 I was flipping through the radio dial when I came across the Mike Gallagher show.  The first guest was:

Edward Kovalik Joins Mike to Talk About Oil Facts And Fueling The Energy Market: The Indisputable Facts And The Irrefutable Truths To Support Them.

Edward is one of the directors of Prairie Operating Company, a company whose business claims:

Committed to Responsible Energy

Prairie places sustainable development at the heart of its projects and operations to contribute to the well-being of people and the environment. We are dedicated to developing affordable, reliable energy to meet the world’s growing demand, while continuing to protect the environment.

But it basically is a oil drilling rights company:

July 9, 2024 Prairie Operating Co. Announces the Launch of Its Development Program"

HOUSTON, Texas, July 09, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Prairie Operating Co. (Nasdaq: PROP) (the “Company” or “Prairie”) today announced plans to commence its initial drilling program in August 2024, starting with an 8-well pad on the recently acquired bolt-on acquisition, “Shelduck South”.

The have a web page:

Oil Facts.com

Which basically says - Oil Good - everything else bad.

Their entire premise on oil is that it alone has made life better in the world along with other fossil fuels.

Forgetting of course that water and wind power have been around before fossil fuels became the dominant form of energy.  Their statement that China is doubling down on fossil fuels goes against this information.

"How China Became the World’s Leader on Renewable Energy"

I thought one of the more interesting quotes from the interview is that the Biden/Harris administration was politicizing energy, and then in then next sentence said we should be producing more oil to go against Russian and Iranian oil production!  What is that, if not politics?

Oh well - as long as people sit in their echo chambers.....

What happened to "Don't trust anyone over 30", and "Trust but verify"?

My way or the low way

 In politics today, there are 4 ways of governing:

1. The Democratic Way
2. The Republican Way
3. The Bipartisan Way
4. The Trump Way

We could have had a border security plan - a bipartisan plan - but no - it would hurt Trump so it has to go.

The Fed might lower rates before the election, but already there is pressure NOT to do so, not for any reason, other than it would hurt Trump (rather than helping the average person say, be able to better afford a house?).

See the pattern here?  Only what is good for Trump is allowed.  

If he gets elected - you can be sure that the first 3 ways will go out the window, and number 3 is the one that hurts the most.....

Stop the world, I want to get off

 Just a quick one today.

Florida judge dismisses the Trump classified documents case

Judge Aileen Cannon handed down her decision on Monday in a big win for the former president.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/florida-judge-dismisses-trump-classified-documents-case-rcna161878

There are a lot of questions:

1. Why did it take so long?  Jack Smith was appointed in 2022.....

2. Judge Cannon was a Trump appointee, should they have chosen someone else?

3. How does this fit with other federal cases? (State cases should be separate)

Remember the facts in this case.  Trump left office in 2021.  He took papers with him that he shouldn't have.  He returned some of the papers (if he returned all of them, we would not be having this conversation),  Other classified papers have since been found and seized (Trump disagrees with all of this).  The question is, why did he hold on to these papers and fight so hard not to give them back?

I will go out on a line and say this is Judge Cannon's way of getting off this case.  For her it was a no win situation.  Now it will go to an appellate court and if they rule against her, she will still be safe as no one will reassign her the case.  As they say in England - she is done and dusted.

It is Spock vs T'Pring all over again.

Sorry - Official business

Well the Supreme Court has ruled.  The President is immune from prosecution for any acts done in his official capacity.  This makes sense.  If he ordered a plane shot down because a terrorist had a bomb on board and was going to blow up the Super Bowl, the families of the passengers on the plane could not sue the President.  Or if he ordered a financial plan to save the dollar or punish a rouge nation and some people lost money, they would not be able to sue for incidental damages.

But when the President says "You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."  This was a direct appeal to benefit him, not the American people.  This was done as candidate Trump, not President Trump.  It was not to root out corruption (that was not found) but rather a specific number personally requested.  

Or when he said "Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. (1) He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me. [Italics mine]   For this he was impeached.

When the President asks for or requests something that will benefit him personally, he is not acting in the interest of the country and should be subject to prosecution.   Now the Supreme Court could have defined the line, instead kicked the can down the road.......

(1) who has just been disbarred - Rudy Giuliani disbarred over false 2020 election claims

It is all in a name

 I was thinking the other day about names and titles.  We feel required to give people titles and in some cases it is helpful in organization - mostly to assign responsibilities.  Then there are honorary titles such as Mayor of the Day,  Woman of the year, Student of the Month.  In sports there are winners - Champions, but with the adder of a year to differentiate that this is not a permanent position.  Then there are elected positions from the President right down to dog catcher.  Positions chosen by the people to serve the people.  But some do not understand that.  They wear and use the title as that of privilege.  That it makes them special and people need to bow down before them.  They feel they have earned it in perpetuity.

But titles are fleeting, and it is not the title that gives you respect, it is your actions while you carry that title that is important.  Now if we only can convince people to use some humility when they are given a title.  Nah - never happen... 

So where do we go from here?

So former President Trump has been found guilty of falsifying records.  This is not the end as there will be appeals and future court cases.  Based on the type of charges, jail time is probably out of the question, although a possibility.

So were do we go from here?  Before the election of 2016, I said there was no direct collusion with the Russians.  But it was obvious that the Trump team used every dirty trick to affect the election.  He claimed the other side fixed the election while he was doing it.  While he wanted the other candidate locked up, he was guilty of many of the crimes he accused the other of, or was due to commit those during his term.

Trump the business man was guilty of many things.  Using bankruptcies to cover bad business decisions, shorting contractors and other suppliers, and cheating on taxes by using manipulated paperwork.  Almost all of his associates, Cohen, Manafort, Weisselberg, and others have spent time in jail.  His three marriages and philandering were well known before the election.  Yet he was elected.

So where do we go from here?  In a perfect world the Republicans would look for a new candidate and nominate them at their convention.  This person would have a better chance of beating Biden.  Ironically, this might just force the Democrats to do the same. But I am not holding my breath.

I am reminded of the song by The Who, "won't get fooled again", however.......

So where do we go from here?

Say that again?

 Court rules for South Carolina Republicans in dispute over congressional map

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/05/court-rules-for-south-carolina-republicans-in-dispute-over-congressional-map/

"The Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a ruling by a federal district court holding that a congressional district on the South Carolina coast was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander – that is, it sorted voters based primarily on their race. In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the justices cleared the way for the state to use the map going forward. The 6-3 decision, with the justices divided on ideological lines, means that the disputed district will remain a safe seat for Republicans, who hold a 6-1 advantage in the state’s congressional delegation. More broadly, Thursday’s decision creates a high bar for plaintiffs in future racial gerrymandering cases to meet."

"Defending the plan, the state argued that the legislature’s goal in enacting the map was to ensure that the district remained a safe seat for Republicans: Although the district had historically elected Republicans since 1980, in 2018 a Democrat, Joe Cunningham, won in an upset. Mace defeated him in 2020 by less than 1%. "

What!  If it is done along racial lines it is not acceptable, but if it is done to ensure a perpetual office to one or the other party it is acceptable?

"I am sorry your Honor - I was charged with robbing a bank, but that was just a coincidence, I really just wanted to shoot a guard...."

"Thus, Alito continued, plaintiffs in racial gerrymandering cases must first “disentangle race and politics” – that is, to show that race was the primary factor behind the legislature’s decision to move voters into or out of a district. They can do so using direct evidence, Alito wrote, or circumstantial evidence, although relying solely on circumstantial evidence makes their task “much more difficult.” This is particularly true, Alito added, when the state counters that the moves were made for partisan reasons, rather than on the basis of race."

People on the conservative side are clamoring for term limits.  South Carolina has admitted int he Supreme Court that they do it to ensure votes for the Republicans.  Is everyone up there deaf?

Be careful what you wish for

 One comment in a news story struck me as pertinent.

It said, "If Donald Trump succeeds in getting total immunity, then Joe Biden can do whatever he wants before the election."

One of the arguments that Trump's lawyers have made is that any action taken during the presidential term could be considered part of their executive responsibilities, and if they felt that a campaign opponent was corrupt, then he could deal with that:

"Presidents could be immune from prosecution even if they stage a coup or assassinate a political rival, one of Donald Trump’s lawyers argued at the US Supreme Court."  

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/04/25/president-immune-assassination-donald-trump-supreme-court/

So if Trump wins, he loses; since Joe Biden would have the right to go after Trump, even though there is no current evidence that he has.  There goes Trump's argument that the court cases are a political vendetta - in this case - so what?  Just Biden exercising his presidential duties.

Now if he loses, then Joe Biden will be subject to the same prosecution -  if the Republicans can find anything - they have not up to now.  BTW - How can he be sleepy, incompetent Joe, while at the same time be an international mastermind? Hmm?

So be careful what you wish for - you may get a surprise.  I really do not think Trump wants to win, just kick the can down the road till after the election.

My prediction - the Supreme court will come up with something fuzzy, that will allow most of the cases to continue.

The current NY case happened before Trump was elected, the case of the confidential documents mostly happened AFTER he left office.  The two biggest are the Georgia election case and the January 6 incitement case.

In these cases, the argument to be made, is the President is the enforcer of the laws, but not above the laws.  Congress is the branch that makes the laws.  The argument that the presidency is a shield for previous or future crimes, not related to his job responsibilities; is a stretch that I am not sure the Supreme Court is willing to make.  They cannot try corruption, but neither can they condone it.

David Strom is at it again

 David Strom is very good at quoting statistics and drawing bad conclusions.

I have already covered his "conclusion" on temperatures in Arizona.

But this is a good opportunity to look at what facts really are.  Webster's definition is: "something that has actual existence : a matter of objective reality."  Now you can play with semantics and say is reality only in our heads or we are living in a matrix.  But reality is a shared experience and usually something that can be scientifically or historically proven.  How gravity acts on us on Earth is a fact - until someone jumps off a house and floats to the sky.  We treat George Washington as our first President as a fact since we have a continuous paper trail historically and have not found any document that proves the story was made up.

Then why do people dispute or try to make up facts?  True, not everyone can experience space flight and I would not believe my neighbor if he said he had been to the moon.  There is no pattern around him; training, education, talent, third party documentation etc., for me to believe him.  On the other hand - if he said he had spoken at a school board meeting, then there would have been other people there and minutes if not video of the meeting, and logically it is withing the realm of possibility.  

However, conspiracy theories are not based on facts.  They may use facts to weave a conclusion that is not logical.  There was a space mission.  My neighbor was away from home during the mission.  Therefore it is possible he was on the mission.  Sorry - no dice. The conclusion is wrong.

In Science or History, facts are independent agents.  Abe Lincoln was President, He was the Commander of the Army of the North, and he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.  Those are the accepted facts.  You could not draw from those facts whether in his heart he was pro or anti-slavery.  That would take more research and investigation.  Superficial facts, as true as they might be, may not support a conclusion.

David cites a study by Harvard University that proports that says that fact checkers tend to be center or left of center.  He then draws a conclusion that because of this that all these fact checkers are biased.  He gives no proof of this.  In fact, I can come to a different conclusion.  The statistics and reality of virtually no right wing fact checkers, leads me to the hypothesis that facts don't mean much to people on the right.  Those pesky facts, like Trump has contributed more to the National Debt than he claims, and the policies he put in place (the tax cuts) may be still contributing to the deficient, in spite of Joe Biden being President.   Now this will not be a conclusion until after many years of study and evaluation.

Or maybe it is that people left of center value truth over convenience.  Maybe the phrase "The first casualty of War is Truth" is true, no matter who said it, since it seems to be a constant through many generations.  Maybe, like basketball players who are tall tend to score more that players who are short (on average);  maybe things that are false, offended people who are more liberal.  So you take the study (and of course it itself may be be 100% correct.) and now have to dig deeper to look for more facts to support your conclusion.  To be a fact you must not have information that contradicts the fact.  

*BTW  the chart shown in the X tweet does not seem to exist in the study itself.  So now we have to look where that information comes from.

So the statistic - if true - that most fact checkers are center to left, does not prove that their fact checking is wrong.  It might prove just the opposite.  But that does not occur to David Strom.

So take the time to read the actual study- it is much deeper that the casual glance.

Minimum Wage - How Much???

You might think this is a joke, but while the minimum wage in many states is around 4725 which is the Federal Minimum wage - and some states are still at $5.15 for certain jobs, a legislator in California is proposing a $50. per hour minimum wage.  

This is treating the symptom rather than treating the problem.  The argument is that the cost of living is very high in California, so we need to increase salaries.  The problem is to increase salaries will only fuel more increases in prices - a vicious circle.

The proper way is to encourage less expensive, starter homes, for people to buy less expensive automobiles, teach people how to manage they money better.  

Now the minimum wage had just been raised recently to the $15 level.  If the minimum wage had been keeping pace with inflation AND productivity - it would probably be closer to $20.00 today.

One of the real problems today is that people expect a minimum wage to be a living wage.  The minimum wage was intended to be a bottom line floor.  The issue is real wages have not kept up with productivity and money is pouring into the hands of corporations, rather than the people who are providing the value.  

As jobs become more automated and workers eliminated, this problem will just become worse.  Are we going to be able to back to the days where a one income earner can support of family of 4?  Probably not.  We need to look at the economy from top to bottom in order to figure out the road ahead.

Some ideas would be universal basic income supplements and tax breaks, redesigned cities to lower the cost of transportation, company supplied housing for their workers,  and food co-ops to feed families.  None of these ideas are without their own problems.  The question is how do you manage a capitalistic system when classical capitalism does not work?

It Ain't Bank Robbery - or is it?

One of the complaints about the recent Trump trial in NY, was that there was no victim.  I wish to disagree.  There were over 200 million victims, people who could not get away with over valuing their worth.

First, an absurd comparison.  Suppose you robbed a bank, say for 1 million dollars.  You laundered that money to invest in the stock market, bought a Ferrari,  and a nice house.  Five years later you cashed out the stock, sold the Ferrari and the house with a cool 60% profit.  You then retuned (anonymously) the million dollars to the back along with $150K worth of "interest" (3% for 5 years).  You walk away with $450,000 in cash. Was there a crime committed?

Second, a more realistic example.  You have a house worth $100K.  You go to the bank and say it is worth $200K so you can do some repairs and buy a nice car.  First - do you think the bank would let you get away with it?  No, which is why I wish the banks would be held as co-conspirators in this scheme.  They enabled people like Trump to get away with this.  Remember, these were the banks that were never punished for the home loan scandal where millions lost their homes.  And we keep letting them do this?

Third.  There is a stanza in Credence Clearwater's song "Fortunate One" :

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand 
Lord, don't they help themselves, Lord?
But when the taxman come to the door
Lord, the house lookin' like a rummage sale, yeah

So you say a home is worth $300 million, but talk the town into appraising it at $20 million.  Hmmm.

Do you think you can convince the town your house is worth only 7% of market value so you can pay less taxes?  What does that do to all the other people in the town who do not have the ability to sway local politicians?

So you see - the definition of a victimless crime, doesn't really fit here.

I recently found this quote from Johanne Goethe

“It is much easier to recognize error than to find truth; for error lies on the surface and may be overcome; but truth lies in the depths, and to search for it is not given to every one.”

― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Maxims and Reflections

It works great - Things I have learned series.

 I was lucky to have mentors who would tell stories in order to teach.  One of them was Gary Lee Gahagen, who passed away in 2020.  He was a sales rep for Arburg Plastic Injection Molding Machines.

He told the story about when he was starting out, a seasoned sales rep took him on a customer visit.   They met with the one of the principals of the company who asked "How do your machine work"  Gary launched into a complete technical talk of how we had the best hydraulic systems to drive the screw, which was designed to properly mix and plasticize the plastic pellets to insure uniform molding.  He talked about the design of the clamp which was optimized to ensure even clamping force on the mold so there would be no flashing.  He went over the pump system that was built to save energy and yet still provide the speed needed.

After they left the customer, Gary asked the other sales person how hid did.  The answer he got back was "okay - but you should have said - "It works great"  and then asked "What issues are you having".  

I have come across this many times in Sales.  The salesperson does what is called a data or features dump, without knowing what the customer really needs. This way you can focus on what you have than they need.  

And it is important to realize sometimes you may not have a solution right ten and there.  If you make something up to get a sale, you might get one, but not likely to get more.  Better to do more listening than talking.  Under promise and over deliver.

Thanks Gary

Emotional Denial - do facts help or hurt

Some people believe the election of (fill in the blank) was stolen.  Some people believe the earth is only 6000 years old.  Some people believe the earth is flat.  Some people believe the world is out to get them.

What is the difference?  In the last case, many people would classify that person as suffering from paranoia, as there is a  psychological term "paranoid personality disorder".  

When it comes to flat earth believers, there is a strong case to be made for the Dunning-Kruger effect,

Young Earthers are mostly driven by religious beliefs, that if the Bible is literally true, and it conflicts with science, then the Bible is the default.

When it comes to elections, it sometimes seems like it is a religious belief.  Despite mountains of evidence,  the people will stick to the belief that their candidate was robbed, just like after every close football game, the losing team will point to the officials saying they were the difference; not looking at either team and how they played.

Not being a psychologist or psychiatrist, (although I have stayed at a Holiday Inn at times), let me put out a idea, that we all are guilty of - emotional denial.

As human beings we have a hard time separating the logical side and the emotional side.  If we get too logical we separate ourselves emotionally and lose the sense of empathy for other people.  If we become too emotional, we cannot act rationally and therefore make decisions we might later regret.

That is why there are so many fact checking web sites on politics and science.  But do they have the expected effect?  Do they do anything to change people's minds from their original position, or just cement that position?

I am coming around to the idea that if we associate fact checking with people, that is like an ad hominin attack.  If people see the fact check associated with  a particular person, it is an attack on that person and because of our emotional denial, our position is not swayed.

So at best, whatever form the fact check is, it will have the following effects.

1. Not change those who believe (actually they will look at it as obvious)
2. Sway some of the people who are in the middle (who probably didn't care in the first place)
3. Just strengthen the people who are checked - pushing them further away.

In order to change someone's mind, who is suffering from emotional denial, I think you first have to get to the root cause of this denial.  The person has an emotional bank account, filled with experiences and things that they have been told, by people they trust or admire.  This bank account needs to be drained, or at least put in another account, in order for them to build up an account contrary to the first.

This is difficult.  Sometimes charismatic leaders can accomplish this, if they are not the persons who caused this in the first place.  So beliefs will be hard to break down, and in many cases should not be, as they might destroy the person.  However, if truth is the end goal......I don't remember anyone making a good argument that life will be easy.

Next - possible techniques.

Can we agree to disagree?

 There are several sayings that I do not like

1.  it is what it is
2.  it's not rocket science
3.  then we'll just have to agree to disagree

All of them are cop-outs

"It is what it is", just means it's not worth changing or it's not even worth thinking about.  People believe they are powerless - when they may not be.

"It's not rocket science" is a pretty much of an insult; as rocket science is actually pretty easy.  It's mostly math that's difficult, but there are well known formulas.  This phrase is is usually used in a situation where people are involved; and people are definitely not easy to deal with, as there are so many individual opinions and experiences.  The person saying this usually does not want to spend the time to understand the real reason.

But when I want to talk about today is the statement "we'll just have to agree to disagree".

 I was in a discussion with another person and the argument came to a stalemate and the person said "well we'll just have to agree to disagree".   I said I wouldn't accept that because there was no discussion of the facts in the case but it was rather an emotional argument on the other person's part.  Now of course in hindsight, what I should have asked; was, if this is your position, what would you accept that would change your mind.   If the person had said nothing will change my mind, then the argument was futile; because once a person will not give even 1% possibility that they are wrong, then it's not it's not worth to continue the discussion.  So rather the statement being we'll just have to agree to disagree,  I should have made the statement; that I can't have a discussion, if you won't at least be open to the possibility that you could be wrong.   

Neil deGrasse Tyson has a great quote when two scientists argue: "When two scientists argue, there is an implicit contract.  Either I'm right and your wrong, you're right and I am wrong, or we're both wrong."  (Now there is a 4th option - they might both be partially right - in case they really need to go out and have that beer.)

You might think, well did you offer the same deal in response?  Well let me ask you this question. If someone said the world is flat; would you even debate them? Would you even have a discussion if someone said that we never went to the Moon,  that NASA faked everything?  Would you even continue the conversation?   

Being aware of the current situation,  if someone said, that they had a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you could have a discussion once both plans were laid out.  Since nothing that has been tried before this worked. then other possibilities are open to trail and it is not so much that we agree to disagree but in this case there may be multiple options. Further discussion needs to happen before the better of the options can become apparent.  

If you were to say that evolution is not the best scientific explanation for life on Earth,  without any other alternative reason, it would be very hard to have a discussion.   Now you can have discussions of philosophy on the meaning or non-meaning of life, on the necessity or non-necessity of religion,  or consider the value of a human being,  These are discussions that are of a level above facts, above science or above mathematics, and therefore again different opinions may be valid.   But when it comes to matters of economics, the law of science or of history,  we have to be very careful in staking out a claim that we cannot back up by facts.  

So if you find yourself talking to someone who says "we will just have to agree to disagree" maybe the proper response is "We need to continue this discussion, when we have more time to lay out our positions."  If you find yourself using that saying.......You need to go back and come up with a better argument or more evidence.  Of course the other person could be in a state of emotional denial. To be covered in another post.