CDZ We do love to extrapolate!

[impuretrash]

However, to paraphrase an old song; if you do not chose, you still have made a choice.

Rush, "Freewill"!


.

RUSH IS NOT METAL

They're kind of their own genre, but no, they're not metal.
.

Progressive hard rock is the genre.

Officially, sure. But Geddy! But Peart! They're so cool!
.

Why do centrists love Rush so much? LOL

 

[rightwinger]

So I was watching a video from my favorite technical analysis investment guys, and he made a small, simple, off-hand comment that ended up completely blowing my mind after I thought about it.

When cautioning the viewer to not make simplistic assumptions on future stock market movements just by looking at present-day charts, he said something like, "...we humans do have a bad tendency to make extrapolations..."

Holy cow, I thought. Yeah. Stuff happens in between "here" and "there". That pretty much applies in all parts of life. We tend to just assume that, because of THIS, then THAT will certainly happen.

We all sure do this in politics and legislation, don't we? We assume that something significant, good or bad, will happen simply because of present conditions. There must be a zillion or so examples of us doing that, and no more so in politics.

How much more sensible and decent would our political discourse be if we learned not to make simplistic extrapolations?
.

Slippery slope

 

[william the wie]

Shooting the house whip is not violence? I must ask how possibly ignorant partisan lies are considered CDZ compliant since it obvious trolling and baiting?

 

[PredFan]

The current phase of tribalism is ending because Ds went on autopilot years ago. The foundation of D power includes unlimited SALT deductions and PSUs providing campaigners, both of which are now gone. The MSM and control of the courts are other parts of the D foundation and they are crumbling. Given the reaction of the MSM to last night's nomination a menu of bad outcomes is all the Ds have now.

I think there are plenty of forces on the Right contributing to tribalism.

Since it's coming from both ends like water from a fire hose, which side is "worse" is irrelevant. Both sides should clean their own house first.
.

If “cleaning one’s own house” involves party infighting, that’s dangerous.

I’ll admit it, I’m partisan enough to want Democrats to stand united against the Trump administration. Do I want them to do it with integrity? Absolutely. Would I impede my own party if they were obstructing the current administration in a less-than-honest way? It would have to be pretty egregious malfeasance. Because what I see is some pretty awful malfeasance in this administration, and I want it to end.

Commence ripping me to shreds for having a preference.

Well, "infighting" is a choice. This country needs these parties to get their act together. Not just one of them (although yeah, I'd sure like to see the Democrats go first), but both. To me, what's needed is that each party has to raise their standards for behavior and rhetoric.

But there's simply no motivation to. Trump won by playing to his base, and any success he has will be by playing to his base. The Dems are doing the same thing. That's not only leaving a gaping and growing hole in the middle, it also means that fewer and fewer people are truly being served.

I wish I had some kind of answer.
.

At the risk of simplistic extrapolation, infighting is a predictable consequence of politicians cleaning their own house. There are going to be those who resist.

I wish I had a good answer. Democracy is messy, huh?

So I was watching a video from my favorite technical analysis investment guys, and he made a small, simple, off-hand comment that ended up completely blowing my mind after I thought about it.

When cautioning the viewer to not make simplistic assumptions on future stock market movements just by looking at present-day charts, he said something like, "...we humans do have a bad tendency to make extrapolations..."

Holy cow, I thought. Yeah. Stuff happens in between "here" and "there". That pretty much applies in all parts of life. We tend to just assume that, because of THIS, then THAT will certainly happen.

We all sure do this in politics and legislation, don't we? We assume that something significant, good or bad, will happen simply because of present conditions. There must be a zillion or so examples of us doing that, and no more so in politics.

How much more sensible and decent would our political discourse be if we learned not to make simplistic extrapolations?
.

Why do you waste your time trying to bring the two sides together? It's time to get off the fence dude.

Why? Why must one "pick a side"? Can one not simply want people to stop being so tribal? Can one not just want civil discourse, instead of "civil" unrest? Is one no longer allowed to only want people to discuss things rationally, and leave their "tribe" label at the door? Is that too much to ask? Maybe you believe we are beyond that. If so, I ask you, what makes you think that?

Have you not been watching the news? Have you not seen how the left is acting. You cannot have a civil discussion with them. They will except nothing less than COMPLETE capitulation of their positions, policies, and demands AND complete disavowing of everything conservative.

It’s a quaint and still admirable quality to ask that question, but that time as long past. The reality is that they are too far gone.

 

[oldsoul]

I think there are plenty of forces on the Right contributing to tribalism.

Since it's coming from both ends like water from a fire hose, which side is "worse" is irrelevant. Both sides should clean their own house first.
.

If “cleaning one’s own house” involves party infighting, that’s dangerous.

I’ll admit it, I’m partisan enough to want Democrats to stand united against the Trump administration. Do I want them to do it with integrity? Absolutely. Would I impede my own party if they were obstructing the current administration in a less-than-honest way? It would have to be pretty egregious malfeasance. Because what I see is some pretty awful malfeasance in this administration, and I want it to end.

Commence ripping me to shreds for having a preference.

Well, "infighting" is a choice. This country needs these parties to get their act together. Not just one of them (although yeah, I'd sure like to see the Democrats go first), but both. To me, what's needed is that each party has to raise their standards for behavior and rhetoric.

But there's simply no motivation to. Trump won by playing to his base, and any success he has will be by playing to his base. The Dems are doing the same thing. That's not only leaving a gaping and growing hole in the middle, it also means that fewer and fewer people are truly being served.

I wish I had some kind of answer.
.

At the risk of simplistic extrapolation, infighting is a predictable consequence of politicians cleaning their own house. There are going to be those who resist.

I wish I had a good answer. Democracy is messy, huh?

So I was watching a video from my favorite technical analysis investment guys, and he made a small, simple, off-hand comment that ended up completely blowing my mind after I thought about it.

When cautioning the viewer to not make simplistic assumptions on future stock market movements just by looking at present-day charts, he said something like, "...we humans do have a bad tendency to make extrapolations..."

Holy cow, I thought. Yeah. Stuff happens in between "here" and "there". That pretty much applies in all parts of life. We tend to just assume that, because of THIS, then THAT will certainly happen.

We all sure do this in politics and legislation, don't we? We assume that something significant, good or bad, will happen simply because of present conditions. There must be a zillion or so examples of us doing that, and no more so in politics.

How much more sensible and decent would our political discourse be if we learned not to make simplistic extrapolations?
.

Why do you waste your time trying to bring the two sides together? It's time to get off the fence dude.

Why? Why must one "pick a side"? Can one not simply want people to stop being so tribal? Can one not just want civil discourse, instead of "civil" unrest? Is one no longer allowed to only want people to discuss things rationally, and leave their "tribe" label at the door? Is that too much to ask? Maybe you believe we are beyond that. If so, I ask you, what makes you think that?

Have you not been watching the news? Have you not seen how the left is acting. You cannot have a civil discussion with them. They will except nothing less than COMPLETE capitulation of their positions, policies, and demands AND complete disavowing of everything conservative.

It’s a quaint and still admirable quality to ask that question, but that time as long past. The reality is that they are too far gone.

If you believe that the MSM is giving you a realistic depiction of mainstream Americans, you are sadly mistaken. I talk to my neighbors, business associates, etc. and find a VERY different story of what the "real" Americans think. Every single person I have talked to sees the despicable behaviour of those on BOTH extremes to be just that. The behaviour of the fringe extremists, not the mainstream people of this great nation. I suggest you get up from your computer, turn off the TV and actually talk to people to see what the rest of America thinks. What is being shown and written about in the media, is designed to make you think there is more polarization and less agreement than there is. Outlets on BOTH sides of the political aisle are guilty of this, and you believing it, is part of the problem. It ties right in with the premise of this thread, actually. Your post tells me that you are over-extrapolating. The media is only showing the extremists, therefore, everyone, or at least most people, must be extremists. Fortunately, this is wrong.

 

[ding]

So I was watching a video from my favorite technical analysis investment guys, and he made a small, simple, off-hand comment that ended up completely blowing my mind after I thought about it.

When cautioning the viewer to not make simplistic assumptions on future stock market movements just by looking at present-day charts, he said something like, "...we humans do have a bad tendency to make extrapolations..."

Holy cow, I thought. Yeah. Stuff happens in between "here" and "there". That pretty much applies in all parts of life. We tend to just assume that, because of THIS, then THAT will certainly happen.

We all sure do this in politics and legislation, don't we? We assume that something significant, good or bad, will happen simply because of present conditions. There must be a zillion or so examples of us doing that, and no more so in politics.

How much more sensible and decent would our political discourse be if we learned not to make simplistic extrapolations?
.

I don't believe that is the root cause of the problem. I believe our problems are that we have lowered our standard of conduct, have become too materialistic, have lost all sense of accountability and are incapable of being objective because we have a preference for an outcome.

The problem is not our "public servants" per se. It is we the people ourselves. We get the "public servants" we deserve. They are a reflection of our deteriorating society.

We make simplistic extrapolations because that is what is necessary for us to stay blind to the reality of our deteriorating society. The signs are all around us but we chose to ignore them.

 

[PredFan]

If “cleaning one’s own house” involves party infighting, that’s dangerous.

I’ll admit it, I’m partisan enough to want Democrats to stand united against the Trump administration. Do I want them to do it with integrity? Absolutely. Would I impede my own party if they were obstructing the current administration in a less-than-honest way? It would have to be pretty egregious malfeasance. Because what I see is some pretty awful malfeasance in this administration, and I want it to end.

Commence ripping me to shreds for having a preference.

Well, "infighting" is a choice. This country needs these parties to get their act together. Not just one of them (although yeah, I'd sure like to see the Democrats go first), but both. To me, what's needed is that each party has to raise their standards for behavior and rhetoric.

But there's simply no motivation to. Trump won by playing to his base, and any success he has will be by playing to his base. The Dems are doing the same thing. That's not only leaving a gaping and growing hole in the middle, it also means that fewer and fewer people are truly being served.

I wish I had some kind of answer.
.

At the risk of simplistic extrapolation, infighting is a predictable consequence of politicians cleaning their own house. There are going to be those who resist.

I wish I had a good answer. Democracy is messy, huh?

So I was watching a video from my favorite technical analysis investment guys, and he made a small, simple, off-hand comment that ended up completely blowing my mind after I thought about it.

When cautioning the viewer to not make simplistic assumptions on future stock market movements just by looking at present-day charts, he said something like, "...we humans do have a bad tendency to make extrapolations..."

Holy cow, I thought. Yeah. Stuff happens in between "here" and "there". That pretty much applies in all parts of life. We tend to just assume that, because of THIS, then THAT will certainly happen.

We all sure do this in politics and legislation, don't we? We assume that something significant, good or bad, will happen simply because of present conditions. There must be a zillion or so examples of us doing that, and no more so in politics.

How much more sensible and decent would our political discourse be if we learned not to make simplistic extrapolations?
.

Why do you waste your time trying to bring the two sides together? It's time to get off the fence dude.

Why? Why must one "pick a side"? Can one not simply want people to stop being so tribal? Can one not just want civil discourse, instead of "civil" unrest? Is one no longer allowed to only want people to discuss things rationally, and leave their "tribe" label at the door? Is that too much to ask? Maybe you believe we are beyond that. If so, I ask you, what makes you think that?

Have you not been watching the news? Have you not seen how the left is acting. You cannot have a civil discussion with them. They will except nothing less than COMPLETE capitulation of their positions, policies, and demands AND complete disavowing of everything conservative.

It’s a quaint and still admirable quality to ask that question, but that time as long past. The reality is that they are too far gone.

If you believe that the MSM is giving you a realistic depiction of mainstream Americans, you are sadly mistaken. I talk to my neighbors, business associates, etc. and find a VERY different story of what the "real" Americans think. Every single person I have talked to sees the despicable behaviour of those on BOTH extremes to be just that. The behaviour of the fringe extremists, not the mainstream people of this great nation. I suggest you get up from your computer, turn off the TV and actually talk to people to see what the rest of America thinks. What is being shown and written about in the media, is designed to make you think there is more polarization and less agreement than there is. Outlets on BOTH sides of the political aisle are guilty of this, and you believing it, is part of the problem. It ties right in with the premise of this thread, actually. Your post tells me that you are over-extrapolating. The media is only showing the extremists, therefore, everyone, or at least most people, must be extremists. Fortunately, this is wrong.

I don't watch the MSM at all. Every single person I know sees the childish antics of the left as what they are; foolish, intolerant, violent, and immature. You should get out of your little cadre of pot heads, sober up and meet some other sober people.

 

[ding]

So don't try to make any predictions about future events......ever.

So that's what you got out of that?

Okie doke!
.

Definition of extrapolate

a : to predict by projecting past experience or known data

• extrapolate public sentiment on one issue from known public reaction on others

Definition of EXTRAPOLATE

Yeah, weird, eh?

What else were you supposed to deduce from the OP?

I made the mistake of assuming that most people realize that life is complicated and nuanced, and not binary.

So to you and to him, my apologies.
.

Life is only complicated when one tries to rationalize away their poor behavior. Otherwise, life is pretty simple. Treat others as you would have them treat you or someone you care about. It doesn't get any more simple than that.

 

[candycorn]

So I was watching a video from my favorite technical analysis investment guys, and he made a small, simple, off-hand comment that ended up completely blowing my mind after I thought about it.

When cautioning the viewer to not make simplistic assumptions on future stock market movements just by looking at present-day charts, he said something like, "...we humans do have a bad tendency to make extrapolations..."

Holy cow, I thought. Yeah. Stuff happens in between "here" and "there". That pretty much applies in all parts of life. We tend to just assume that, because of THIS, then THAT will certainly happen.

We all sure do this in politics and legislation, don't we? We assume that something significant, good or bad, will happen simply because of present conditions. There must be a zillion or so examples of us doing that, and no more so in politics.

How much more sensible and decent would our political discourse be if we learned not to make simplistic extrapolations?
.

I don't believe that is the root cause of the problem. I believe our problems are that we have lowered our standard of conduct, have become too materialistic, have lost all sense of accountability and are incapable of being objective because we have a preference for an outcome.

The problem is not our "public servants" per se. It is we the people ourselves. We get the "public servants" we deserve. They are a reflection of our deteriorating society.

We make simplistic extrapolations because that is what is necessary for us to stay blind to the reality of our deteriorating society. The signs are all around us but we chose to ignore them.

Sometimes its the people. Sometimes it's the elected officials who are making illegitimate (i.e. extrapolations) claims to arouse a voting block. Of course we the people elect those officials.

 

[ding]

So I was watching a video from my favorite technical analysis investment guys, and he made a small, simple, off-hand comment that ended up completely blowing my mind after I thought about it.

When cautioning the viewer to not make simplistic assumptions on future stock market movements just by looking at present-day charts, he said something like, "...we humans do have a bad tendency to make extrapolations..."

Holy cow, I thought. Yeah. Stuff happens in between "here" and "there". That pretty much applies in all parts of life. We tend to just assume that, because of THIS, then THAT will certainly happen.

We all sure do this in politics and legislation, don't we? We assume that something significant, good or bad, will happen simply because of present conditions. There must be a zillion or so examples of us doing that, and no more so in politics.

How much more sensible and decent would our political discourse be if we learned not to make simplistic extrapolations?
.

You mean like when people defend the vast majority of Muslims against the charge that they are all America hating, violent jihadis and some asshat extrapolates that to mean that they are defenders of terrorism and haters of Christians?

Yes, that would be an example.

But really, this thread is more about extrapolating over time.

But thanks for trying to make this thread absolutely as partisan as possible.
.

It is possible to extrapolate but not in a linear fashion. It is cyclical because we keep repeating our mistakes. History repeats for good reason. One might argue that the cycle is natural. It is only natural in the sense that failed behaviors naturally lead to failure and successful behaviors naturally lead to success. Individuals and societies can break the cycle but they must remain virtuous to do so. Something we - as a rule - have not shown the ability to do. So the cycle continues. Winter, spring, summer, fall. Rinse and repeat.

 

[ding]

So I was watching a video from my favorite technical analysis investment guys, and he made a small, simple, off-hand comment that ended up completely blowing my mind after I thought about it.

When cautioning the viewer to not make simplistic assumptions on future stock market movements just by looking at present-day charts, he said something like, "...we humans do have a bad tendency to make extrapolations..."

Holy cow, I thought. Yeah. Stuff happens in between "here" and "there". That pretty much applies in all parts of life. We tend to just assume that, because of THIS, then THAT will certainly happen.

We all sure do this in politics and legislation, don't we? We assume that something significant, good or bad, will happen simply because of present conditions. There must be a zillion or so examples of us doing that, and no more so in politics.

How much more sensible and decent would our political discourse be if we learned not to make simplistic extrapolations?
.

I don't believe that is the root cause of the problem. I believe our problems are that we have lowered our standard of conduct, have become too materialistic, have lost all sense of accountability and are incapable of being objective because we have a preference for an outcome.

The problem is not our "public servants" per se. It is we the people ourselves. We get the "public servants" we deserve. They are a reflection of our deteriorating society.

We make simplistic extrapolations because that is what is necessary for us to stay blind to the reality of our deteriorating society. The signs are all around us but we chose to ignore them.

Sometimes its the people. Sometimes it's the elected officials who are making illegitimate (i.e. extrapolations) claims to arouse a voting block. Of course we the people elect those officials.

It goes hand in hand. If the people had virtue they would vote out the bad "public servants" and correct their errors. Instead we are caught up in a football team mentality where we look the other way for "our" guys and unfairly criticize "their" guys.

You don't get what you expect. You only get what you inspect.

 

[ding]

How much more sensible and decent would our political discourse be if we learned not to make simplistic extrapolations?

It would be more like what I envision a debate club meeting would be like. Everyone fights like cats and dogs (with words and ideas), yet attacks no one. Then everyone sits down and has a beer (or wine) together and have a good laugh about who screwed up, and who made you really THINK. Man, that would be wonderful, unfortunately, it is against human nature to do that. Even the most "enlightened" have had trouble with that. From today's "leaders" to the Founding Fathers, to Aristotle, to Cane and Able. The list is endless, the exceptions... few and far between. I wish this were not true, but it is. What my greatest hope is, is that someday we (as humans) can get to a point where the majority of people at least try to remain level-headed, and civil.

One must have dreams....

It is possible for honest men to have honest differences of opinion without fear of speaking what they believe or acting like jerks. Growth filled communities explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. Objective truth is arrived at through a conflict and confusion process. Diversity of thought is critical to the process. History shows that bad things happen when thoughts become homogenized.

It is possible for men to hold honest debate as long as no one involved has a preference for an outcome. It is possible to be objective. The difference between objective and subjective is bias. Remove bias and remove preference for an outcome and you will have an open mind. But to do so you must die to self.

 

[ding]

Funny. The OP is decidedly non-partisan, yet it took less than a page of posts to turn this into a partisan fight. "The D's this, and the R's that." Get a grip people. This was, in my opinion, designed to make you THINK, yet all we get is knee-jerk partisan hackery. Not one poet so far has actually addressed the subject matter. Unless, of course, it was in an attempt to turn this into a political shooting gallery, where there are no winners, just losers. There are no "targets", just the opposition. For God's sake, pull your heads out of your... Shoot, nevermind, if you don't get it by now, I could post anything and it wouldn't even matter.
Let's try that and see what happens... Ghandi was a God. Anyone want to tell me I'm wrong? I am, he was a MAN, but anyone still reading with a clear head realises that, so It doesn't matter...

Yup. And of course, the point is about far more than politics.
.

Politics are but a blip on the radar of this topic. It's more philosophical in nature, to me at least.

Yes and to add to that it is more human nature than philosophical in nature. When man becomes satisfied he becomes proud, when he becomes proud he becomes complacent and forgets the behaviors which led to his success. Then he begins his descent which ultimately leads to his failure and suffering. It is his suffering which jars his return to successful behaviors and success. And the cycle starts all over again. In other words, the phoenix rises from the ashes.

It is both a self correcting and self fulfilling process.

 

[ding]

So I was watching a video from my favorite technical analysis investment guys, and he made a small, simple, off-hand comment that ended up completely blowing my mind after I thought about it.

When cautioning the viewer to not make simplistic assumptions on future stock market movements just by looking at present-day charts, he said something like, "...we humans do have a bad tendency to make extrapolations..."

Holy cow, I thought. Yeah. Stuff happens in between "here" and "there". That pretty much applies in all parts of life. We tend to just assume that, because of THIS, then THAT will certainly happen.

We all sure do this in politics and legislation, don't we? We assume that something significant, good or bad, will happen simply because of present conditions. There must be a zillion or so examples of us doing that, and no more so in politics.

How much more sensible and decent would our political discourse be if we learned not to make simplistic extrapolations?
.

I am struggling with that very issue during this administration. Will 45 really cause long-lasting effect (for good or ill) or are his policies really not that significant for the majority of people?

I hope there are no long-term damages, but then you read those analyses that forecast we are having the second coming of Nazi Germany.

I’m not being hyperbolic or facetious. I truly wrestle with this.

My best defense are eyes open, but not in panic.

Yeah, same here, exactly.

When I get worried, I just try to remember the various potential mitigating factors. Stuff happens, people change their mind, people don't always stay true to form, on and on.
.

I am reminded of a quote of Winston Churchill. It may not be exact, but:
"Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, after ALL other options are exhausted."

Because history shows the British were so good at doing the right thing the first time.

I do admire Winston though. He was the courageous leader his people needed at that time. Even if they did kick him to the curb after he piloted them through the dangers.

 

[ding]

The real question, to me is:

How do we get other people to realise that over extrapolating is not only dangerous, but down right divisive (if not destructive)?

Maybe when it becomes clear what’s at stake, and unfortunately, I think that means we have to have a catastrophe that affects so many Americans, we can all unite against a common problem or enemy.

I think it runs deeper than that. It would seem that it is intrinsic in the cultural fabric. Let me explain. On 9/11 we had such a catastrophe, how long did it take for us to go right back to the same old way of life? For some it was days, for most it was weeks, maybe months. Sadly, most, if not all, of us went back. Sure there are some things that have changed long term (DHS, Airport screenings, etc.), but what has really changed about the way we look at the world? Not much really. It will take something far more meaningful, something that changes the way we, as humans, look at the world (universe?) around us. The discovery of intelligent life off our planet maybe? Especially if they are far more technologically advanced that we are. The discovery of some truth that we, as yet, do not know/accept? I don't know what it will take. I believe it will be something as transformative as fire was to ancient man. It changed everything.

I thought about 9/11 when I wrote that. It didn’t TRULY affect enough Americans to make us cohesive as a country. We all came together superficially, but you’re right, not for long.

That's because, as a whole, we are a superficial and materialistic people.

 

[candycorn]

So I was watching a video from my favorite technical analysis investment guys, and he made a small, simple, off-hand comment that ended up completely blowing my mind after I thought about it.

When cautioning the viewer to not make simplistic assumptions on future stock market movements just by looking at present-day charts, he said something like, "...we humans do have a bad tendency to make extrapolations..."

Holy cow, I thought. Yeah. Stuff happens in between "here" and "there". That pretty much applies in all parts of life. We tend to just assume that, because of THIS, then THAT will certainly happen.

We all sure do this in politics and legislation, don't we? We assume that something significant, good or bad, will happen simply because of present conditions. There must be a zillion or so examples of us doing that, and no more so in politics.

How much more sensible and decent would our political discourse be if we learned not to make simplistic extrapolations?
.

I don't believe that is the root cause of the problem. I believe our problems are that we have lowered our standard of conduct, have become too materialistic, have lost all sense of accountability and are incapable of being objective because we have a preference for an outcome.

The problem is not our "public servants" per se. It is we the people ourselves. We get the "public servants" we deserve. They are a reflection of our deteriorating society.

We make simplistic extrapolations because that is what is necessary for us to stay blind to the reality of our deteriorating society. The signs are all around us but we chose to ignore them.

Sometimes its the people. Sometimes it's the elected officials who are making illegitimate (i.e. extrapolations) claims to arouse a voting block. Of course we the people elect those officials.

It goes hand in hand. If the people had virtue they would vote out the bad "public servants" and correct their errors. Instead we are caught up in a football team mentality where we look the other way for "our" guys and unfairly criticize "their" guys.

You don't get what you expect. You only get what you inspect.

Well, okay…but isn’t it possible to have a good public servant or one you consider “good” who gets into what I call “election mode” and goes down the road of making claims to fire up her/his base? I think it would be unreasonable to expect zero partisanship around election time.

 

[ding]

So I was watching a video from my favorite technical analysis investment guys, and he made a small, simple, off-hand comment that ended up completely blowing my mind after I thought about it.

When cautioning the viewer to not make simplistic assumptions on future stock market movements just by looking at present-day charts, he said something like, "...we humans do have a bad tendency to make extrapolations..."

Holy cow, I thought. Yeah. Stuff happens in between "here" and "there". That pretty much applies in all parts of life. We tend to just assume that, because of THIS, then THAT will certainly happen.

We all sure do this in politics and legislation, don't we? We assume that something significant, good or bad, will happen simply because of present conditions. There must be a zillion or so examples of us doing that, and no more so in politics.

How much more sensible and decent would our political discourse be if we learned not to make simplistic extrapolations?
.

I don't believe that is the root cause of the problem. I believe our problems are that we have lowered our standard of conduct, have become too materialistic, have lost all sense of accountability and are incapable of being objective because we have a preference for an outcome.

The problem is not our "public servants" per se. It is we the people ourselves. We get the "public servants" we deserve. They are a reflection of our deteriorating society.

We make simplistic extrapolations because that is what is necessary for us to stay blind to the reality of our deteriorating society. The signs are all around us but we chose to ignore them.

Sometimes its the people. Sometimes it's the elected officials who are making illegitimate (i.e. extrapolations) claims to arouse a voting block. Of course we the people elect those officials.

It goes hand in hand. If the people had virtue they would vote out the bad "public servants" and correct their errors. Instead we are caught up in a football team mentality where we look the other way for "our" guys and unfairly criticize "their" guys.

You don't get what you expect. You only get what you inspect.

Well, okay…but isn’t it possible to have a good public servant or one you consider “good” who gets into what I call “election mode” and goes down the road of making claims to fire up her/his base? I think it would be unreasonable to expect zero partisanship around election time.

If he or she did that would he or she be considered "good?"

I guess the question comes down to who do they serve? Their party or their country.

If the answer is neither, they serve their constituents, then the question becomes do they serve some of their constituents or all of their constituents?

And lastly is it possible to believe the end justifies the means?

 

[candycorn]

So I was watching a video from my favorite technical analysis investment guys, and he made a small, simple, off-hand comment that ended up completely blowing my mind after I thought about it.

When cautioning the viewer to not make simplistic assumptions on future stock market movements just by looking at present-day charts, he said something like, "...we humans do have a bad tendency to make extrapolations..."

Holy cow, I thought. Yeah. Stuff happens in between "here" and "there". That pretty much applies in all parts of life. We tend to just assume that, because of THIS, then THAT will certainly happen.

We all sure do this in politics and legislation, don't we? We assume that something significant, good or bad, will happen simply because of present conditions. There must be a zillion or so examples of us doing that, and no more so in politics.

How much more sensible and decent would our political discourse be if we learned not to make simplistic extrapolations?
.

I don't believe that is the root cause of the problem. I believe our problems are that we have lowered our standard of conduct, have become too materialistic, have lost all sense of accountability and are incapable of being objective because we have a preference for an outcome.

The problem is not our "public servants" per se. It is we the people ourselves. We get the "public servants" we deserve. They are a reflection of our deteriorating society.

We make simplistic extrapolations because that is what is necessary for us to stay blind to the reality of our deteriorating society. The signs are all around us but we chose to ignore them.

Sometimes its the people. Sometimes it's the elected officials who are making illegitimate (i.e. extrapolations) claims to arouse a voting block. Of course we the people elect those officials.

It goes hand in hand. If the people had virtue they would vote out the bad "public servants" and correct their errors. Instead we are caught up in a football team mentality where we look the other way for "our" guys and unfairly criticize "their" guys.

You don't get what you expect. You only get what you inspect.

Well, okay…but isn’t it possible to have a good public servant or one you consider “good” who gets into what I call “election mode” and goes down the road of making claims to fire up her/his base? I think it would be unreasonable to expect zero partisanship around election time.

If he or she did that would he or she be considered “good?"

For a Senator, six years is a term. If they are a responsible steward of the people’s trust for 5.5 of them and goes campaigning and “extrapolating” (LOL) the 1/2 year before the election, does that erase the other 5.5?

 

[ding]

I don't believe that is the root cause of the problem. I believe our problems are that we have lowered our standard of conduct, have become too materialistic, have lost all sense of accountability and are incapable of being objective because we have a preference for an outcome.

The problem is not our "public servants" per se. It is we the people ourselves. We get the "public servants" we deserve. They are a reflection of our deteriorating society.

We make simplistic extrapolations because that is what is necessary for us to stay blind to the reality of our deteriorating society. The signs are all around us but we chose to ignore them.

Sometimes its the people. Sometimes it's the elected officials who are making illegitimate (i.e. extrapolations) claims to arouse a voting block. Of course we the people elect those officials.

It goes hand in hand. If the people had virtue they would vote out the bad "public servants" and correct their errors. Instead we are caught up in a football team mentality where we look the other way for "our" guys and unfairly criticize "their" guys.

You don't get what you expect. You only get what you inspect.

Well, okay…but isn’t it possible to have a good public servant or one you consider “good” who gets into what I call “election mode” and goes down the road of making claims to fire up her/his base? I think it would be unreasonable to expect zero partisanship around election time.

If he or she did that would he or she be considered “good?"

For a Senator, six years is a term. If they are a responsible steward of the people’s trust for 5.5 of them and goes campaigning and “extrapolating” (LOL) the 1/2 year before the election, does that erase the other 5.5?

As with most things, it depends.

 

[candycorn]

Sometimes its the people. Sometimes it's the elected officials who are making illegitimate (i.e. extrapolations) claims to arouse a voting block. Of course we the people elect those officials.

It goes hand in hand. If the people had virtue they would vote out the bad "public servants" and correct their errors. Instead we are caught up in a football team mentality where we look the other way for "our" guys and unfairly criticize "their" guys.

You don't get what you expect. You only get what you inspect.

Well, okay…but isn’t it possible to have a good public servant or one you consider “good” who gets into what I call “election mode” and goes down the road of making claims to fire up her/his base? I think it would be unreasonable to expect zero partisanship around election time.

If he or she did that would he or she be considered “good?"

For a Senator, six years is a term. If they are a responsible steward of the people’s trust for 5.5 of them and goes campaigning and “extrapolating” (LOL) the 1/2 year before the election, does that erase the other 5.5?

As with most things, it depends.

ok…

I think the whole record should be examined.