Glen, Having followed you over the years, I don't think you know what a shallow answer is. It's just not in your blood.
I was trying to head off cheap attributions of Obama's motives. Whatever else one may say about Obama, I think he thinks hard about stuff, as does Sanders. So how do they come to disagree? In [ancient] psychology [the psychology of the 50's], there was something called Heider's Balance Theory. Basically, if I like Obama and I like Sanders, Obama and Sanders ought to like each other. So when they disagree about something as fundamental as trade policy, it creates, for me, cognitive dissonance. I appreciate your efforts to help with that. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of glen ? Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 4:25 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] TPP pro and con I don't know what "deep answers" means. But my understanding is that if we allow China to dominate trade in the region, then we (may) lose seats at lots of negotiating tables. If we lead negotiations and have an excuse to stick our noses into every negotiation, then we retain more of both non- and military influence. On 08/04/2016 11:44 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Ok. Here’s a question: putting aside dumb conspiracy theories, if TPP is so > bad, why is Obama for it. Deep answers only, please. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ 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 ============================================================ 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
