Hi Steve,
Oh Goody. An ARGUMENT! So. Operationally speaking, assuming that we agree that an Elitocracy is bad and a Meritocracy is good, how do we distinguish between them? And, by the way, just to be snippy: From what central office did the word go out to start using the elite in the plural? According to your very clear definition, the term should be used in the singular. I cannot figure out what it is, but there is some decision to not think clearly that immediately precedes uses of the term elites. It rings some bell. The Jewish Conspiracy, perhaps? What was that thing? The Cosmopolitan Club? The New World Order? Ok, instead of hectoring you, lets me try and find this key on my own piano. I do think that wall-street bankers form a subculture that (1) confuses their own self-interest with mine and (2) has way too much power to determine events. They are good bankers, perhaps, but their range of authority has come to exceed their domain of competence. Its the Peter Principle, operating at a group level, I suppose. Ok, so I guess this corresponds to what you are calling an elite. But, again, operationally speaking, how does one rationally come to such a judgement. I guess I read Paul Krugman, and Barney Frank, etc and decide that these elites are right and them other elites are wrong? How am I doing that? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2016 10:12 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight Nick - I believe one way to address your question(s) about the elites is to decide on what we mean by elite. Quoted from Wikipedia: Elite (from late 18th century French élite), is a term that originates from Latin <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin> eligere (to choose, elect). In political <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_theory> and sociological <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology> theory for a small group of powerful people that controls a disproportionate amount of wealth <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality> , privilege <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28social_inequality%29> or political power <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power> in a society. If the term disproportionate says it all? By this definition, we absolutely *don't* want the elites to have undue influence. I think what you might really be asking is whether there is room for a (partial?) meritocracy? Can we ever trust a minority subset of the population to make decisions for the majority population? I would claim that representative democracies such as ours work (when and to the extent that they do) *because* we presumably select from a pool of dedicated, talented and informed individuals to form a constantly morphing meritocracy (our representatives) to make decisions in our collective best interests. In the rhetoric I *think* you are referencing, it is more a question of populism as defined also in Wikipedia. Populism is a political ideology that holds that virtuous citizens are mistreated by a small circle of elites, who can be overthrown if the people recognize the danger and work together. Populism depicts elites as trampling on the rights, values, and voice of the legitimate people.[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#cite_note-1> Populist movements are found in many democratic nations. Cas Mudde <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cas_Mudde> says, "Many observers have noted that populism is inherent to representative democracy; after all, do populists not juxtapose 'the pure people' against 'the corrupt elite'?"[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#cite_note-Cas_Mudde_2004_p_560-2> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#cite_note-Cas_Mudde_2004_p_560-2> The current low popularity and distrust of our two major candidates suggests that generally we are failing at this model of meritocracy. Those elites who have disproportionate influence in our culture ARE the Trumps and the Clintons, and most of us simply don't trust them. They have wedged us into a situation where we are challenged to trust *one of them* to protect our interests from the corruptions of *the other one*. Trump supporters seem to almost unilaterally not trust *any* politicians... they tossed all of the *other* Republicans who were standard politicians to put Trump into the election and now they are rallying to put him in to displace the most experienced, most well prepared politician of all time to become President. It is Hillary's very strong qualifications for the role that make her so threatening to them (and some of the rest of us). I think the recently reference Dalai Lama article in the NYT provides *some* basis for compassion for those who would use Trump as their "Molotov Cocktail" (to reference Michael Moore)... - Steve On 11/6/16 9:37 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: Dave, I think you are dead on concerning our attitude toward the deplorables . We need to know more about them and be prepared to find common ground. Without taking anything away from that agreement, I want to question your last sentences about the elites. As a term of contempt, its a little like the deplorables. Who exactly are these Folks. Do I know any of them? But lets stipulate to the existence of such elites. Lets assume for the moment that that the people arrayed against trump are the most experienced, well trained, members of our society. Would it be wrong for them to have undo influence on the train of events? What IS your position on expertise? Do you value it? How do we non-experts tell when an expert is making a mistake? Or, do you think that elites have their place, but they are making decisions beyond their competence. The elites might tell us the consequences of our folly, but it is not their role to manipulate us into avoiding. Perhaps we are all dionysians. Perhaps we want to go down in a fiery (nuclear war) or watery (global warming) end. Dont we get to choose our own fate? All the best, Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2016 6:15 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight If Trump were to win this election, the number one reason is the insistence of democrats and liberals to demonize and marginalize the populace supporting Trump. If the only people that support him are "angry" racist" "xenophobic" "out-of-work-white-men" "could-not-graduate-from-college-because-of-low-IQ" etc. etc. he could not possibly command more than 10% of the vote. Trump is a terrible person but NOT atypical of the population in general. Projecting his worst qualities onto the masses that support him is a huge, hopefully fatal, strategic mistake on the part of the Clinton campaign. But it would be simply a continuation of a fifty year trend: a small elite that firmly believe they are the only ones capable of and deserving of running the government and that anyone that opposes them is ignorant and dangerous. davew On Sat, Nov 5, 2016, at 12:12 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: My opinion: scorn is a very powerful position; you can be scornful of God. People who feel powerless and left out find Trump appealing because they identify with the power implied by his scorn of the elite, the establishment, etc. Remember Spiro Agnew calling the educated "pointy headed intellectuals"? In the meantime I'm very concerned with who's going to win the election. Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Nov 5, 2016 12:59 PM, "Owen Densmore" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: A quote from the article is pretty telling: In America today, compared with 50 years ago, three times as many working-age men are completely outside the work force. This pattern is occurring throughout the developed world and the consequences are not merely economic. Feeling superfluous is a blow to the human spirit. It leads to social isolation and emotional pain, and creates the conditions for negative emotions to take root. If I were one of them, I'd surely vote Trump. We do need to get over "who's going to win?" and ask "why has Trump got such a *huge* following?" -- Owen On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Owen Densmore <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Marcus Daniels <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: I found the article from the Dalai Lama in the NYT today fairly plausible explanation of why we have the current problem. But, I would say, no, there will be no brotherhood with the Bundy's. The redistributionist approach (that Brooks -- libertarian -- objects to elsewhere) arises in order to give the possibility of free enterprise, not to preserve it for those that haven't realized they've simply failed to be sufficiently enterprising. I just took a look at the article, and it certainly is interesting and puts into perspective why wealthy countries have a "The Sky Is Falling" syndrome. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/opinion/dalai-lama-behind-our-anxiety-the- fear-of-being-unneeded.html ============================================================ 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-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 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 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
