|
The result of the November 8th
2016 US Presidential Election surprised the pollsters when Donald
Trump was declared the winner. The question as to where the greatest
nuclear threat to the planet comes from, suddenly shifted:
|
Trump Psychology and Nuclear Weapons
Apart from their regular training, for obvious reasons those
intending to serve on US nuclear submarines and land-based
nuclear missile launchers are subject to extreme testing
regarding their psychological stability. This is designed to
ensure that they launch missiles if, and only if, they receive
Presidential authorization to do so. Thankfully, this terrible
option has so far been beyond rational consideration and there
has never been any question concerning the psychological
stability of the President himself.
However, it became evident to all during the 2016 election
campaign that candidate Donald Trump would say anything that
came into his head -- a characteristic politely referred to as
"unsuitable temperament" by those opposing him. It was only
when he learned to closely follow the words of his
speech-writers on teleprompters that concerns on his
psychological stability diminished.
Albeit losing the popular vote, his winning the plurality of
electoral college votes was hailed by his campaign manager as
demonstrating strategic genius. To Trump the control of the
nuclear umbrella could be safely entrusted. A more plausible
explanation is that his personal inborn characteristics (soft
voice, showmanship, non-aversion to lying, brash disrespect
for common civilities, lack of understanding of issue
subtleties) made him appear best able to meet the discontents
of that ever-present sector of the voting public that can be
readily swayed to vote against its own interest.
Furthermore, the democratic process requires that voters are
correctly informed. More than any previous, the 2016 election
was full of lies -- such as that the Pope supported Trump --
that went viral on multiple media outlets. The fact-checkers
were outflanked by wave upon wave of lies, emanating either
directly from the Trump camp or their supporters, which
divided the electorate. Experienced politicians, appreciating
the future post-election need for unification, could never
contemplate countering in kind. Thus, the "high road" taken by
"lying Hillary" led to someone supremely qualified to be
President fighting with one hand tied behind her back against
someone supremely unqualified.
In summary, the 2016 election was an
undemocratic farce. The Trump leopard has his own simplistic
agenda that is neither Democratic nor Republican. He is
unlikely to be tamed or to change his spots. He is likely to
manifest far more psychological instability than the many
thousands of carefully evaluated personnel who operate the US
nuclear response system. The danger of unwitting nuclear
escalation has never been so great.
D. R. Forsdyke 20th November 2016
This was published as a comment in the review section of
The Chronicle of Higher Education
(21st Nov. 2016) on
an article by Roland Murello: "What Liberal Academics Don't
Get."
(Click Here)
The point was repeated in the
NYT
on Jan 17 2018 in an article written by a psychiatrist who had
been responsible for ascertaining the stability of air-force
staff responsible for missile launches: "Would the
Airforce let Airman Trump near a Nuclear Weapon?" by
Steven Buser. The answer, of course, was no! Buser cited
the Department of Defense Directive 5210.42 states: "Only
those personnel who have demonstrated the highest degree of
individual reliability for allegiance, trustworthiness,
conduct, behavior, and responsibility shall be allowed to
perform duties associated with nuclear weapons, and they shall
be continuously evaluated for adherence to P.R.P. standards."
|
|
If you thought Donald Trump was the face
of America's anti-establishment movement, hold on to your
chapeaus: A wild wind is rising.
Want to know what's more
anti-establishment than a president-elect who refuses to play by
the rules? How about similarly spirited electors going AWOL and
sending someone else to the Oval Office?
Could it happen? Might.
A movement headed by a mostly
Democratic group calling itself Hamilton Electors
is trying to persuade Republican electors to defect -- not to cede
the election to Hillary Clinton but to join with Democrats in
selecting a compromise candidate, such as Mitt Romney or John
Kasich. It wouldn't be that hard to do.
Mathematically, only 37 of Trump's 306
electors are needed to bring his number down to 269, one less than
the 270 needed to secure the presidency.
On the Hamilton Electors' Facebook
page, elector Bret Chiafalo,
a Democrat from Washington,
explains the purpose of the electoral college. If you haven't
previously been a fan of the electoral system, you might become
one.
Bottom line: The Founding Fathers didn't
fully trust democracy, fearing mob rule, and so created a
republic. They correctly worried that a pure democracy could
result in the election of a demagogue (ahem), or a charismatic
autocrat (ahem), or someone under foreign influence (ditto), hence
the rule that a president must have been born in the United
States. We know how seriously Trump takes the latter.
Most important among the founders'
criteria for a president was that he (or now she) be qualified.
Thus, the electoral college was created as a braking system that
would, if necessary, save the country from an individual such as,
frankly, Trump.
It is worth noting that 50
former Republican national security officials and foreign policy
experts co-signed a letter saying that Trump would be a "dangerous
president." Do we simply ignore them?
At least one Republican elector,
Christopher Suprun, has decided to pay heed.
In an op-ed in Tuesday's New York
Times, Suprun, a paramedic in Texas, outlined all his reasons for
not rubber-stamping Trump, saying he owes a debt not to his party
but to his children. He urged others to join him. This, apparently, they can do, though
some states may impose penalties. Hamilton Electors are raising
funds to pay any such costs that may accrue. Alexander
Hamilton, suddenly a star on both Broadway and Main Street, wrote
that the electoral college "affords a moral certainty that the
office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is
not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite
qualifications."
Electors would prevent the "tumult and
disorder" that would result from the candidate's exploiting
"talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity."
Speaking of Trump. How wise our founders were. And how unwise are
we to pay so little attention to their far keener insights.
It is, perhaps, a sign of these
upside-down times that Democrats, usually preferring the popular
vote, are suddenly genuflecting to the electoral college and
Republicans, who so often defer to the founders' original intent,
shift principle so swiftly, presumably in hopes of taking the
ultimate escalator ride in the golden palace of King Trump.
Tut-tut.
Meanwhile, those on both sides who remain
opposed to Trump are dismissed as either sorry losers or as dining
on crow and sour grapes. But the stakes are too high -- and the
evidence of Trump's presidential aptitude deficit too severe -- for
such trivializing designations. His demonstrated lack of judgment
and impulse control should send shivers down the spines of all
Americans in consideration of the nuclear arsenal he is poised to
have at his fingertips.
That's not all of it, but it's enough.
Without consulting advisers or "sleeping on it," for which he is
not known, Trump can authorize a nuke upon the slightest
provocation -- or none. All previous modern-day presidents have had
the same authority, of course, but all have also been experienced
statesmen, nary a reality-show celebrity (nor snake-oil salesman)
among them.
Trump's friends have told me they're
confident he'll solemnly respect the burden of such power, but
nothing thus far justifies their faith. After his election
victory, Trump hasn't much bothered himself with intelligence
briefings. He ignored 37 years
of diplomatic precedent by chatting with the president of Taiwan,
upsetting China. He spoke like an inarticulate ninth-grader with
Pakistan's prime minister, according to that country's readout.
Trump apparently told the prime minister that he's a "terrific
guy" doing "amazing work" and that Trump is "ready and willing to
play any role that you want me to play to address and find
solutions to the outstanding problems." Oh, really? Which ones?
Electors are scheduled to meet Dec. 19 in
their respective states to cast their final ballots. If there are
37 Republicans among them with the courage to perform their moral
duty and protect the nation from a talented but dangerous
president-elect, a new history of heroism will have to be written.
Please, be brave.
|
|
End Note 8th Dec. 2016 We, the Electoral College 538
We, the Electoral College
Before 'twas
lonely rhetoric,
Ensured succession weapon-free.
Voters
candidates did pick,
Without rules or referee.
For final
Presidential ramp,
We accord our rubber stamp.
But
rules unwritten surely are,
And rhetoric can go too far.
Shouldn't Electors, five, three, eight,
Think on this 'fore
sealing fate?
If candidate doth lie, lie, lie,
Is time
ripe for bye, bye, bye?
Even in hour of victory,
Claims millions vote illegally.
Wave on wave an endless
stream
Outflanks checkers, team by team.
Opponents
counter not in kind,
One hand behind back do bind.
These, who this low fight decry,
Are seen by kids to fight
on high.
What to tell them, our kin,
When post-truth
strategy doth win?
Referee, umpire and linesmen all,
The games kids play, they oversee.
Call foul a foul, and
all agree,
In life's journey you walk tall.
So
Electors must seek high goal,
Before stamp, need ref'ree
role.
For those who seek Pres'dential fame,
What counts
is how they play the game.
(Posted to various blogs and submitted
to various newspapers)
|
Needless the say, the Electors were not "brave." Despite her
exemplary performance, some democratics supporters even came to
believe that Clinton had "lost" the election, rather than that Trump
had won by foul play. In sport, one is disqualified for hitting "below
the belt." Not so in US elections where the ratings-driven media were
obliged to give coverage to flashy contenders who would attract the
largest audience - an audience containing many who had little
understanding of the responsibilities of citizenship in a democracy.
Was the USA to become a "failed state"?
Items from Blogs "Credulity genes, etc. ...
."
|
PubMed Commons
Nov 09 2016
|
Marketing in science
In it ironic that Vincent Detours
insightful analysis of the "managers" who outdo the
"competent" comes at a time when the triumph of marketing over
ability is so evident on the political scene. For any who
might think this could not happen in science, two accounts of
the career of Niels Jerne will perhaps provide helpful reading
(1, 2). See also the update (3).
1.Soderqvist T (2003)
Science as Autobiograph: the
Troubled Life of Niels Jerne
(Yale Univ. Press, New Haven).
2.Eichmann K (2008)
The Network Collective: Rise and
Fall of a Scientific Paradigm
(Birkhauser, Berlin).
3. Updated Forsdyke DR
(2022) Speciation,
natural selection, and networks: three historians versus
theoretical population geneticists. Social Sciences Research
Network preprint:
Click Here
|
|
Scholarly Kitchen
Nov 2016
|
CELEBRITY SCIENCE?
The Director of the National Center for Science Education
recently declared that "the election of someone who thinks
climate change is a hoax and whose running mate once denounced
evolution from the floor of the House of Representatives, is
frightening and deeply depressing. It is more than possible
that the sweeping Republican triumph at the national level may
embolden local efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution
and climate change."
There has long been strong linkage between the media
(entertainment industry) and election politics. The
Republicans used this to their advantage in using
"celebrities" such as Reagan (President) and Schwartzenegger
(Governor). A gamble that seemed to work. The Democrats link
up with celebrities, but seldom put them forward for high
office. This time the Republicans went too far, and many, but
not enough, of them, disavowed Trump at an early stage (e.g.
Romney). So first blame goes to the Republicans. Second blame
goes to the [ratings-driven] media which allowed Trump to put Hillary in the same
class as Edward Snowdon.
What scholarly media folk may not appreciate is that there is
a similar dynamic in academia and sorting out the gold from
the dross is something they have a hand in. For any who might
think Trumpism does not happen in science, two accounts of the
career of Niels Jerne will perhaps provide helpful reading (1,
2).
1.Soderqvist T (2003) Science as Autobiography: the Troubled
Life of Niels Jerne (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven).
2.Eichmann K (2008)
The Network Collective: Rise and Fall of a Scientific Paradigm
(Birkhauser, Berlin). |
|
We watched our TV screens in amazement. We
thought he would last no more than a week or two. But it went on, and
on, and on, and on, and on. ... . Some speculated on how the eventual
topplement might come about before he blew us all up. Others commented
on the underlying basis of the psychopathy. DRF March 2018.
Mind You
Mar 19 2018
|
A porn-star may be our last
hope David L. Dawson
DRF Response
Yes, Stormy might, but
"follow the money" is probably the best advice.
In ancient
Greece, rather than kill a miscreant, the people would vote,
by marking pieces of broken pottery (ostraca), whether to
exile him (always a him in those days). The ostracism was
usually for a fixed time period in a foreign land, and then he
could return. Some used their time away to get the local
powers to lend them an army. Then they would return and invade
their homeland.
The modern equivalent
might be "economic exile." In the 1990s Trump and
his like were unable to get loans from within the USA. So they
went far afield for them. Years late they returned to invade
the homeland.
|
|
Pub Peer (Post-publication
review) Mar 19 2018
|
The Hunch Effect
A figure from this
1999 paper (1) was reproduced in the Sandwalk Blog
(March 7, 2018). Here there was discussion of the frustration
of an imaginary "expert on international trade, the global
economy, and macroeconomics," who had tried to teach a wealthy
businessman about these subjects. The expert had difficulty
because the businessman was "extremely confident" that he knew
everything there is to know about these subjects. It was
concluded that he suffered both from "the Dunning-Kruger
effect" and "fantastic, self-centered, delusions." The
relevance to current political turmoil was not lost on those
who commented (2).
The displayed figure (1, 2) was remarkably like one I had
published in 1978 (3). Here student performances in multiple
choice examinations (Y-axes), where there was scope for cuing
with subconscious "hunches," were contrasted with their
written responses to questions that were marked by examiners
(X-axes). In this case the requirement for logical reasoning
and sentence construction would seem to have left fewer
opportunities for "hunches."
Having no particular expertise in the area, my data
"interpretation must ultimately remain the task of the
educational psychologist" (3). However, my interpretation of
my data was different from, but may be relevant to, the
interpretations offered by Dunning and Kluger for their data
(1). Since both studies involved university students, it is
important to distinguish levels of competence regarding the
multiple-choice tests that are employed. There are three
groups to consider. 1. Those so incapable that they cannot be
cued towards a correct answer. 2. Those less capable, but able
to be cued. 3. Those, so capable that cues play less of a
role. Generally only groups 2 and 3, with gradations in
between, served as subjects for our enquiries.
To test for cuing, my students were given 1-of-5 type
multiple choice examinations. As in the Dunning-Kruger figure,
Group 2 were found to do better than expected. This was
interpreted as revealing that here there was more scope for
subconscious cuing. The most capable members of Group 3 (some
perhaps even smarter than the professors who had set the
examination) did not do as well as expected. This was
interpreted as revealing, both that there was less scope for
subconscious cuing, and that they saw more subtleties in the
question than the examiners had envisaged. Thus, they had to
determine, not what was the best answer, but what the
examiners thought was the best answer.
The possible implication of this for the Denning-Kruger
study (1), and perhaps for the hubristic "wealthy businessman"
of the Sandwalk blog (2), is that the group 2 people had
found, over the years, that they could often wing-it in tests,
be these formal examinations, or problematic real-life
challenges. While these are people "who do not know that they
know the answer" (3), their hunches are more often right than
wrong, so they have grown overconfident about their own
ability. By the same token, the group 3 people, knowing that
they are being tested on their ability to tune in to
examiners' foibles, are less confident. This may explain why
the regression lines I obtained (3) match those of Denning and
Kruger (1). Interestingly, whereas (1) has been cited 1435
times over two decades, (3) has been cited 5 times over 4
decades.
(1) Dunning D, Kruger J (1999) Unskilled and unaware of it:
how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to
inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 77:1121-1134.
(2) Sandwalk
Link
(3) Forsdyke DR (1978) A comparison of short and multiple
choice questions in the evaluation of students of
biochemistry. Medical Education 12:351-356.
|
|
Gullibility Genes
Thank you, David. I look forward to your 2024 hypotheses and more! Here, your basic point is that we should seek to understand human behaviors using evolutionary terms such as "gene pools" and "survival of the fittest." Over the millennia, ruthless alpha-male tyrants have, by virtue of their ruthlessness, survived to donate their genes to future generations. So, alpha-male genes (some of which would be likely to influence present behaviors) should now be liberally spread among their descendants in modern populations (see Richard Dawkins for more.)
By the same token, those who have visibly stuck up as opposing the alpha-males would have been targeted for destruction (see the ancient Greek "Thrasybulus anecdote"). Typically targeted were, not only those who opposed the alpha-males, but also their relatives (who would share genes with the prime target; e.g., see Phillip Short's Mao. A Life, 1999). Thus, the abilities of opponents to transfer genes to future generations would have been greatly diminished. Their genes would remain scarce to this day, perhaps more in some social groupings than others.
Beyond the alpha-males (and their sycophants), the winners in all this would have included folk enriched for genes promoting gullibility and reticence in speaking out (dare one say "courage"). Thus, the genes for gullibility would have great survival value (as would the genes for sycophantic behaviors). Over the millennia tyrant genes, gullibility genes and sycophant genes would have mutually supported each other. Tyrants more skilled at conning the gullible (e.g., spinning religious tales) would fare better than those less skilled. And the more gullible one was, the better one's chances of survival (so being able to reproduce one's kind; see more in my contribution to your blog circa July 2017). From all this we can perhaps understand the stability of some dictatorships and the fragility of some democracies.
[The New Three R's. Thankfully, apart from our genes, there are environmental factors that contribute to our behaviour. Dawson's blog is one of them. But, while we can argue about relative percentage influences, the genic percentage remains likely to be significant. The intransigence of a would-be tyrant's adult "base" is not easily contested. Rather it is the childhood environment, which engrained such behaviour, that we must take more seriously.
Perhaps we should rething the traditional "three R's" -- Reading, (w)Riting and (a)Rithmatic. Historically, they moulded future contributors to the economy to be able to read the label on the package, write a list of items to purchase, and totalize the cost. All very valuable skills in the pre-computer age.
These days we need primary teachers to continue what, hopefully, parents have already begun -- Reasoning, Respect and Racial biology. The traditional fairy tales - Wizard of Oz, Brer Rabbit, Huck Finn, etc., were insufficient. Even the exposure of Santa Clause did not suffice.]