For all the negative things one might think about Trump....

Discussion in 'Politics' started by usmbguest5318, Oct 1, 2017.

  1. gipper

    gipper Libertarian/Anarchist

    Jan 8, 2011
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Obama for the win.
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  2. usmbguest5318

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Jan 1, 2017
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    That's not exactly what "real" leaders do; it is what strong analysts do. Strong leaders need not be the one to perform the in-depth analysis, but if they aren't the person who does, they must have the perspicacity to accurately evaluate the work of those who do. Having the requisite acumen to do that is discipline-/topic-specific, or multidisciplinary, for the matters on which a POTUS must make decisions.

    For example:
    What makes the second example simpler? Mainly the fact that anyone who's taken algebra already knows the proof and use of the PT; thus one can assume one's audience knows the "complexity" that underlies the assertion I made, and those who don't know it simply are not among the intended audience for the statement/conversation.
    That distinction aside, what strong analysts do is not simplify the problem, but rather the solution to it, most often by, after having come to understand the full nature of the problem, developing tactical elements of the "to-be" solution that eliminate varying aspects of the complexity in the "as-is" situation that is the problem. Truly, at the POTUS-level, there are very few, if any, problems that are simple.

    1. in 1900 the ubiquitous Henri Poincaré stated that if one required that the momentum of any particles present in an electromagnetic field plus the momentum of the field itself be conserved together, then Poynting’s theorem predicted that the field acts as a “fictitious fluid” with mass such that E = mc2. Poincaré, however, failed to connect E with the mass of any real body. (Source)
    2. Given modern society's disdain for complexity, most people even considering anything longer than a tweet "too much trouble," I cannot imagine that anyone can do justice to any national problem in the amount of space it'd take to prove E=mc^2, which isn't at all a complex proof.
    3. It's probably worth noting that a teacher's job is to make the complicated be readily, if not easily, understood, but politician's isn't to teach, it's to explain. I know the distinction is subtle, but it's nonetheless there -- teaching necessarily include explaining, but explaining need not include teaching. On need only read any of the papers I linked above, with possible exception of Born's. Their authors explained plenty, but they had no explicitly didactic aims in publishing their ideas; the rhetorical purpose was to say "Hey. Look at what I've discovered. Given what I've found, we can be confident that "such and such" is so and, accordingly conclude/predict "thus and such...."
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017

Share This Page