Ideas for Wiki-Debate.com / DebateSherpa.com

Further Developed Ideas for Wiki-Debate.com / DebateSherpa.com By Dan Abrams   First Draft "Executive Summary"   RAISON D'ETRE: Wiki-Debate.com / DebateSherpa.com will enable users to engage in global debates that actually connect the "echo chambers" and definitively resolve specious arguments so that those debates can be more productive.   FEATURES:   1) Anyone can establish himself/herself as a "Debate Sherpa"; this is someone who frames a given debate and provides succinct overviews of that debate's relevant points with links to credible sources.   2) Users can be introduced to the site by a Debate Sherpa they know or they can search for Debate Sherpas that have particular interests, beliefs or bona-fides.   3) Every page can be referenced and linked-to by anyone else. In this way any Debate Sherpa preaching to his choir can be effectively challenged by any other Debate Sherpa.   4) Every argument (web page) can be searched for its "back links" to supporting arguments/links AND ALSO to its counter arguments (both on the site and on other sites). In this way users can see  "what the other side is thinking" from its perspective. This is in stark contrast to current discourse vulnerable to intellectually poisoning by a disingenuously framed debate that includes straw men, misrepresents opposition and excludes valid counter-arguments.   5) Every URL/link referenced in a debate can be searched for its "back links" to supporting arguments AND ALSO to its counter arguments (both on the site and on other sites). In this way users can search the site to see if a given argument (posted elsewhere on the web) has a counter-argument.   6) By requiring undeletable pages there can be no fraudulent "rewriting of history". Rewritten pages can be featured on old (subsequently disavowed) pages but nothing is ever erased. This permanence may (hopefully) discourage the "trolls" and "flame throwers" so toxic to productive debate while simultaneously encouraging more thoughtful arguments. Let the million+ other blogs be where people spew their first drafts. Wiki-Debate.com will be where they come to craft their final drafts and seek definitive arguments from others.   7) Popular Debate Sherpas can gain followings and enable subscriptions to their debates. Popular arguments can be referenced and thus popularize effective Debate Sherpas. Even effective debaters (pundits, talk show hosts etc.) not yet on Wiki-Debate.com can still be utilized in productive debates and thus encourage further adoption by their respective fans.   8) By precluding anonymity and requiring a higher level of authentication, Wiki-Debate.com will encourage accountability and further discourage the "trolls" and "flame throwers".   9) By enabling our own "Wiki-Debate.com's Producitve Debate Code" there will be more accountability and thus necessarily more corrections and less tolerance of specious and previously discredited arguments.       First Draft "Mission Statement" / Market Need   The Problem that this Venture Seeks to Address: Productive debates are rare but should be popular.   All too often, important debates are made toxic by Machiavellian pundits, politicians and powerbrokers. They cynically win short-term political points with a facile-minded audience by using old, specious arguments (or blatant lies) that others have repeatedly, objectively disproven using unassailable evidence and logic.   Other websites have sought to address this problem with varying degrees of success. One set is the "fact-checking" sites that respond to quotes made by prominent players in a debate. They do research and come up with their evidence for why they deem a quote to be true or false. The big sites in this set include: - www.Politifact.com - www.FactCheck.org - www.MediaMatters.org - www.snopes.com - www.truthorfiction.com - (every political party and office tends to have their own "fact check" site)   But none of them provide a fair and overarching framework for debates to be organized. Another set of sites specifically seeks to address this problem. The main sites in this set include: - www.DebateMaps.com - debatepedia.idebate.org - www.createdebate.com However none is particularly intuitive or well organized. Debatepedia seems to suffer from particularly simplistic paradigms that assume there are only two sides to an argument.   The debate sites and all "fact check" sites have a fairly stark lack of "universal accountability" in that the user is supposed to just trust them. When they choose to provide sources with external links as validation this seems to work out fine. However "universal accountability" is crucial, and by that term I mean a method for inclusion of all possible counter-arguments and evidence.   Consequently, the same debates tend to happen in every corner of the internet and unfortunately these corners tend to be "echo chambers" of like-minded zealots. False information that, if true, would buttress their arguments gets easily spread which further toxifies public discourse.   There is currently no integration of the opposing sites. There is currently no consistent, reliable, efficient way to ensure all points of view are directly addressed so that bogus arguments can be more easily dismissed. Let's stop having the same B.S. debates and make some progress. Wiki-Debate.com will be that solution. Goal of this Venture: Promote "Productive Debate" of important issues.  (see acronym "OHELOALT")             Defined as:            • Open-minded                                     • Honest                                     • Evidence-based                                     • Logical                                     • Organized                                     • Accountable                                     • Lasting                                     • Thorough             There is reasoning behind that particular order of priorities which I'd be             happy to explain to you later.   Foundation:   One of the most important first steps in a productive debate is the elimination of misunderstandings. The most useless debates are those between two sides that actually agree but didn't first effectively attempt to understand each other.   It is useful, not to mention inspiring, to hold the foundational belief that, in any debate, "When each side knows everything the other side knows and both sides adhere to logic and reason then there will be the greatest chance at agreement". In so doing, the only possibilities for a lack of consensus must then be based on differing priorities. I have a consequential belief that priorities themselves can (and eventually must) be reviewed with equal rigor resulting in more commonly-accepted priorities. In that way, we may begin with as much "common ground" and agreed-upon "first principles" as possible. Then our debates will be most productive.   MUCH, MUCH MORE TO COME…

Very Skeptical of "Bloom Energy" / "Fuel Cell Technology" vs. Solar PV

I'm very skeptical of "Bloom Energy". MY BONA FIDES / CAVEAT: As many of you may know, I'm very into green technology. I took Unitek College's "Boots on the Roof" Intensive Solar course last year and continually read about assorted green technology. Currently, I'm a partner at RandyHallSolar.com (as a Solar Consultant and state-licensed salesperson in California) and I'm still developing Prontia.com (a new independent-broker system to match good candidates for solar installation with qualified installers). So here's the big caveat: I'm admittedly biased for Solar PV. With that in mind, I'm still extremely skeptical of "Bloom Energy" after seeing a puff piece about them on 60 Minutes and reading what I can about them on the web. SOURCES: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/60minutes/main6221135.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_Energy http://www.nydailynews.com/tech_guide/2010/02/22/2010-02-22_bloom_energy_inventor_kr_sridhar_makes_big_promise_with_bloom_box.html http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/411/ http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/dec2009/gb2009127_746740.htm http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/biz2/0708/gallery.next_disruptors.biz2/8.html HERE'S WHY: A lot of people seem to be framing their rosy predictions about Bloom Energy around machine/unit cost (they say "sure the units cost $700k a piece now but eventually they'll cost consumers $3k"). That's because everyone knows how much exponentially cheaper/more powerful computers have become over time and these people apply that paradigm/analogy to their understanding of Bloom Energy's expensive fuel cells. And if cost of the unit was the sole factor then I might be a cheerleader for them, too. But cost of the unit is not the only factor when it comes to "fuel cell" technology because the units need fuel. It seems so obvious but that fact was virtually entirely overlooked in the 60 Minutes segment. PROBLEMS: Every fuel... 1) Needs to be collected somehow (e.g. harvested, drilled for etc.) 2) Needs to be processed somehow (e.g. filtered, fermented, refined etc.) 3) Needs to be distributed somehow (e.g. in pipes, trucks, tankers etc.) 4) Has inherent dangers in collection,processing & distribution (e.g. spills, fires, terrorism etc.) 5) Has inherent dangers at the consumer's location (e.g. fires, explosions etc.) All of those things (that need to be done for ultimately delivering fuel to the consumer) have costs and all of those dangers need to be managed and insured against. That adds up to real money. Especially since all of those costs are on a marginal-use basis (i.e. once you've reach maximum economies-of-scale, 10 mWh of energy has twice the cost of 5 mWh). *Note that Solar PV power has none of those problematic downsides.* Solar PV uses sunlight as its fuel (conveniently delivered to consumers' roofs for free by the sun). Whereas with "Fuel Cell" technology, consumers are still paying for every marginal unit of electricity they want to use. They are still at the mercy of the "fuel providers". "60 Minutes" oddly made a big point about Bloom Energy "getting rid of the (electrical) grid" without noting the necessary increase in fuel delivery currently in the form of natural gas (which is combustible and poisonous). While I concede that Bloom Energy's fuel cell technology may indeed already or may soon become less expensive that current utility companies' fossil fuel-based systems that's nevertheless short term thinking. Solar PV already leapfrogs all of those problems. Here are other downsides to Bloom Energy (and all "fuel cell" technologies): - Fuel Cell technologies are at least somewhat mechanically based (because fuel has to be piped-in) and thus are prone to mechanical breakdown. - Fuel Cell technologies are untested long-term and so their cost per kWh is unknowable. If the units only end up lasting 8 years then their cost per kWh will be amortized to be much higher and less viable. (Now compare that to solar panels which are guaranteed to last for 25 years and actually are lasting 30-40+ years). - Fuel Cell technologies are dependent on fuel markets, which can spike or be manipulated (like any market). - NOTE: that I haven't even mentioned the environment or "climate change" (which is certainly not insignificant to the energy debate. But Bloom Energy hype can be deflated on the economics alone). so here's the biggest problem in a nutshell link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelised_energy_cost In my opinion, these kinds of problems occur with everything except Solar PV and Wind. (especially the joke that is "nuclear energy" --- just read about the "Price Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act" that has American taxpayers providing free unlimited insurance to the nuclear energy industry to give the illusion that it's economically viable). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants CONCLUSION: While the hype around Bloom Energy is white-hot right now (February 22, 2010), I wouldn't invest in it long term and if I could short it, I would. My Little Personal Pitch for Solar... The plain fact is that Solar is the most safe & reliable energy and now it's also the least expensive for consumers. The equipment costs & installation fees have dropped so much that Solar PV is economically viable right now (depending on the area of the country) without state rebates & federal tax incentives. But with those rebates and incentives the ROI for Solar PV can easily be well over 15% every year for 25+ years (compared to other investments, installing Solar PV can be better than over 99% of all mutual funds). If you own your own house be sure to run some numbers to see just how good it can be. Californians: http://gosolarcalifornia.cleanpowerestimator.com/gosolarcalifornia.htm New Yorkers: http://nyserda.cleanpowerestimator.com/nyserda.htm Change These Factors in the Calculator:  - Your electric use is probably between 600kWh - 1,500kWh ($100 - $400) per month - Escalation should be 5.0% to 6.5% per year (that's the historic average range) - PV size should be 6k to 12k depending on energy use - Cost should be $7,500 per kW-ac (or LESS => it could be as low as $6,500 if you get a great deal on a big system) And please contact me if you want my help or advice about solar. Thanks and good karma to you. www.RandyHallSolar.com www.Prontia.com

I estimate Muslims (in 2010) are 1/400th as dangerous as Germans were in WWII

Al Qaeda are not as bad as Nazis and modern Muslims are not remotely as dangerous as Germans in WWII. (I estimate it's "one quarter of 1%" as dangerous) First some stats to prove empirically that equating Al Qaeda to Nazi Germany is a false equivalency. German population in 1939 = 80 million German population in the Nazi Army (Wehrmacht Service) = over 4 million Americans Killed throughout WWII = over 0.4 million Percentage of US population killed = 0.32% Allied Soldiers & Civilians killed throughout WWII = 61 million I'm assuming 1/2 of those are by Nazi hands (the other half are Axis powers Italy & Japan. If you want to run numbers based on different assumptions, then please do.) http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties So at least 1 in 20 Germans were actively (daily) working towards killing Allied troops & civilians (not to mention Germany's own Jews, Gypsies, Gays, Handicapped etc.). OK, now compare that to our modern day (2010) fight in the Middle East and arguably/regrettably with the Muslim World... Muslim population = 1.2 billion (i.e. 1,200 million) Number of modern Muslims actively working towards killing Americans = DISPUTED I'd estimate it's well under 600,000. The number of American deaths (including 9/11 and our wars/occupations of Iraq & Afghanistan) is under 10,000 and if there were more than 600,000 active enemies of America they would/could do a lot more damage & murdering considering how vulnerable we are (see my post on the "Dog that didn't bark"). If I had to guess I'd bet it's well under 60,000 but for the purposes of this illustration let's go with the conservative number that is 10 times that. Note - Telling a poll they "agree with Bin Laden" doesn't make them actively supporting or working towards Al Qaeda's goals. BTW - check out how those polls are trending in the past few years and especially since Obama was elected - http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1338/declining-muslim-support-for-bin-laden-suicide-bombing http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=264 http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=20&mode=chart http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=19&survey=10&response=Often/sometimes%20justified&mode=table Ok, so here are my equations: Start with active killers and the damage they've done... 4 million Germans killed 0.2 million Americans and 30 million Allies. Consequently, the "average German in Wehrmacht Service" killed 0.05 Americans and 7.5 Allies. whereas... 600,000 Muslim Extremists killed 10,000 Americans. Consequently, the "average Muslim Extremist" killed 0.0166 Americans (already 1/3 as bad as Nazis). Now consider that while the group of 1.2 billion Muslims is 15 times bigger than 80 million Germans, the 600,000 trying to kill us is 1/2000th the size of the 1.2 billion person population. So you multiply the 1/3 by 15 = 5 and then divide that by 2,000 to get that modern Muslims are 1/400th as likely as WWII-era Germans to kill us. Let's look at it another way:  "1 out of 2,000 of all modern Muslims" trying to kill us is literally 1% as bad (i.e. 1/100th as bad) "1 out of 20 Germans" who were in Nazi military service trying to kill us. However since there are 15 times as many modern Muslims as there were Germans during WWII you multiply 1/100 by 15 to get that Modern Muslims are 15/100ths as bad. But since the Germans killed 20 times as many Americans as Muslim Extremists have they are 20 times worse. So you get 15/2000 which equals 1/133 but since Muslim extremists are 1/3 as effective per-extremist at killing Americans (compared to Nazis) you divide it by 3 to get to 1/400. Therefore the threat of Muslim Extremism is 1/400th as deadly(dangerous) as Nazism was in WWII. Put another way, Germans in WWII were 400 times more dangerous to Americans than modern Muslims are to Americans now. QED. *N.B. If you run the numbers including non-American Allied & Civilian deaths (which are 100 to 150 times greater than American casualties) you get that the Germans were at least 40,000 times more dangerous than modern Muslims (100 x 400). And if you also consider the percentage of the American population killed by Nazis compared to Muslim Extremists the WWII-era Germans look even worse compared to Modern Muslims.

How to Change Someone's Mind

How to Change Someone's Mind: People Prefer Conflicting Thoughts Much More Than an "Absence of a Paradigm" By Dan Abrams Contrary to a simplistic understanding of psychology's concept of "Cognitive Dissonance", I think most humans prefer to have multiple conflicting thoughts than to have an absence of a paradigm. That's why in order to change someone's mind you must first give them ideas they agree with, that they don't think conflict with their existing paradigm, and build upon them until the new paradigm is stronger than the old (which is thus discarded). Not that this should be an excuse for poor behavior, but remember that nearly everyone is a hypocrite on some level. No human is 100.00% consistent for his entire lifetime. That's because no one "gets it right" right from the start. Life is complicated and all rules have exceptions. Our understanding of the world evolves over time because we're always evaluating our beliefs relative to our interaction with the world. A baby learns one of its first "heuristics" is that when it is hungry to put food in its mouth. Its understanding of what "food" is may be based on the experience of putting anything within reach in its mouth. As its parents give it more freedom the baby learns that not everything that is within reach is necessarily food. His heuristic for satisfying hunger changes accordingly. Employing the useful analogy of a brain being like a computer, think of your environment constantly giving you input that your brain attempts to process. Information that supports or affirms existing software is saved and fortifies it against change. Falsifying evidence tends to shatter existing software but life is so complex that you can't throw out software without having something to replace it. Consider trying to do a modern financial analysis using only the first version of "Lotus 1-2-3". Sure, the current version of Microsoft Excel would be much more effective but unless/until you have it properly installed you shouldn't toss out your Lotus 1-2-3 because Photoshop won't help you do math. Similarly, the brain won't toss out previously used paradigms (regardless how objectively flawed or ineffective) unless/until it has something it regards as better. Consequently, when trying to change someone's mind: DO NOT START BY TELLING THEM ALL ABOUT HOW WRONG THEY ARE. Regardless of your evidence, it won't be as effective as another strategy I outline here: 1) Identify what they actually believe. (Don't jump to conclusions and don't make errors in understanding). 2) Articulate your existing areas of agreement. (This earns you credibility). 3) Introduce ideas/paradigms/input/software that support your position while simultaneously being acceptable to the person's mind you are attempting to change. Ideally, this new input will be so immaculately compatible that they will not only incorporate it but also attribute greater credibility to you (because they think you are fortifying their old paradigm). 4) Extend in small/slow, logical, "bullet-proof" steps the ramifications of these new ideas and how they necessarily lead to different proximate conclusions (but save that last "leap" conclusion for a little later). 5) Now, you may introduce your counter-arguments to his old paradigm. It is here where your criticisms will be most effective. (That's because now he has other, better, software installed. And the criticisms are telling him to get rid of the old/bad software.) 6) Finally, make your last "leap" from the newly established paradigms to your, better, conclusion. Now he can conclusively accept this "change of mind" and discard the old, worse, paradigm. I think all of this has a physiological/evolutionary biological basis. This person's synapses have been encoded in a certain way in the past and that persons very existence is some evidence (but not necessarily "proof") that those synapses in that architecture are, on some level, adaptive to the environment (if for no other reason than if they were completely counter-effectual the person would be dead). Until you help him build new synaptic architecture the brain won't voluntarily destroy its own architecture. But if you build up a bunch of new synapses that function more efficiently then the brain will nourish & fortify those areas while letting the less effective architecture atrophy or at least lie fallow. Anyway, many of you have heard me talk about versions of this theory for many years but if you now know it to be derivative (or worse yet, a complete ripoff/"simultaneous creation") please let me know ASAP. I pride myself on my creativity and originality but I'm realistic enough to attempt to be humble and request better information (if you have it - as I'm quite sure some must in this case). Thanks!

An advertising idea for films in lieu of using "555" phone numbers

We know that it takes audiences out of the moment when characters in films/tv give blatantly fake numbers like "555-1234" (for fear of inflicting something like Jenny-Jenny harassment to people with the number 867-5309).  My idea is for studios to get a batch of "real phone numbers" for their characters to mention in scripts but then have pre-recorded advertisements playing for those compulsively curious people who inevitably will call those numbers. The ads could be audio trailers just like Moviefone. I know that I've told a bunch of you this idea before (many years ago) and then mentioned how close the zeitgeist came when "Unbreakable" used a real phone number and just had a generic pre-recording that said "This is a studio-owned number that is not in use". But I like that I can use this blog to document my ideas and this one had not yet been time-stamped.

"Country Club Analogy" (Argument for "Fair Trade" over "Free Trade")

Let's start with the analogy and then explore how it's apropos to the debate on "Free Trade". Your father, who manufacturers golfballs, belongs to an elite Country Club that is owned by its members. Nearly everyone around the world wants to join but it's very exclusive. All "legacy" applicants (those born to existing members) are accepted but everyone else, even the very smart/talented, has to jump through a bunch of hoops over many years for just a small chance of getting in. Once you're in the Country Club there are all sorts of benefits. It's clean, secure, and overall really nice. People make deals there and the club takes a cut of every deal. Nevertheless, everyone seems to prosper. You and your dad are doing well because you're selling lots of golfballs to the members. The exclusivity of the Country Club thus prevented some smart/talented people from joining. Those people started making their own country clubs better. Historically, when it came time to attract major events, sponsors etc. there was really only one choice: your dad's Country Club. This near-monopoly had huge advantages that led to extraordinary profit-premiums for your dad's generation (he felt he was entitled to them and that they were well-earned). But over time the other country clubs got better and began to attract their own events, sponsors etc. Now the profit-margins are getting squeezed in the deals that are transacted in your Country Club. The costs of running the club keep going up (materials, personnel, equipment) and it still doesn't have some services that other country clubs offer. Consequently, your Country Club needs to raise its fees to cover its costs. But some of the older members of the club object to increased fees. They vote to reduce the amenities and allow the importation of cheaper golfballs from another country club. You and your dad are pissed at losing so much business but you're still OK because you still sell golfballs to other country clubs. This continues and your reduced profit requires you scale back. You decide to stop manufacturing near the course and instead open a cheaper plant near another country club and import them into your Country Club. Your employees, who were members of your Country Club, are now out of work and can't afford to pay yearly membership fees anymore. This further reduces the revenue of your Country Club necessitating, according to some members, further cost-cutting. Now the club wants cheaper fertilizer, seeds and sand. Your three buddies at the club who respectively sell fertilizer, seeds and sand do exactly what you did. They close their plants nearby and open plants near other country clubs. The closed plants put out of work more members of the your club which further reduces revenues. This is a vicious cycle leading to more business going to the members of other country clubs. Meanwhile, the booming businesses of the members of other other country clubs leads to their own "virtuous cycle" increasing the revenue of the members of other clubs and increasing the membership revenues. Those increased revenues enhance those country clubs to be closer and closer to the level of your elite Country Club. It's all pretty simply economics. It's even "free market" dogma that buyers will buy the cheapest products from anywhere they can. The analogy is pretty obvious and "one-for-one" about global trade. But what other options do we have? 1) "Take all the smart/talented people who apply" - This argument attempts to exploit the system by greedily taking all the best people for your Country(Club) so that the other countries are crippled by a lack of good people. Not only is this selfish and unsustainable it also DOESN'T WORK FOR THE MEMBERS OF YOUR COUNTRY. Consider this: if a better golfball manufacturer is admitted to your Country Club then you & your dad are still out of work. Yes, the club apparently doesn't suffer but the members (you & your dad) do suffer.  Thus, using Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative (which is just a fancy way of describing "The Golden Rule") the membership shouldn't agree to burning you and your dad because they wouldn't want the same thing done to themselves. Measuring the good of the Country Club by it's size, beauty & membership's gross revenue alone ignores the good/prosperity of its members. Why would the members want any policy that ostensibly helps the club but actually hurts themselves? Let's measure how good the members lives are over time and institute policy that makes their lives better. THE ALTERNATIVE... 2) For all intents and purposes - "Protectionism" to some degree. Your Country Club should encourage deals that keep its members employed. It should tax & discourage money earned in the club from funding ventures in other country clubs. It should not let in new members so as to encourage those applicants to go an make their own country clubs better. (Of course there are exceptions for moral/political reasons and protectionism need not be impractically extreme.) I'm skipping a few points here in the interest of some brevity. For those who reflexively decry protectionism in any form - What good is an "American Corporation" to America if it pays no taxes and employs no Americans? What good is a big GDP if none goes to enhancing the citizens' lives? Note - I'm deliberately trying to be provocative here. I'm not really claiming we shut down our borders entirely and attempt "Isolationist Fortress America". But I am suggesting we seriously decide what the purpose of government is.  I hope we can generally agree it's to make the lives of its citizens better (which I think is a pretty modest & benign idea though one that GOP&Libertarians generally can't stand).  Once that is settled we can define the measurements of what makes citizens' lives better. Then, necessarily, all government policies must be calibrated against those measurements. I contend that progressive, liberal and generally "Democratic" policies are better at enhancing citizens' lives. Whereas conservative, Republican policies (over time) don't even help the majority in the country club.

Why Hedge Funds Are (and want to be) “Risky”

Why Hedge Funds Are (and want to be) "Risky" --- Primer & Gambler Analogy By Daniel Lawrence Abrams   Primer:   Hedge funds have been around since 1949 and have generally functioned as high-risk/high-reward mutual funds for advanced investors.   Not bound by the laws and conventions of generic mutual funds, hedge funds are empowered to assume extreme leverage and place bets on complex financial instruments (e.g. derivatives) in order to achieve extraordinary returns on investment.   Only the best investors even attempted to start hedge funds. Those that lost money quickly disappeared. Those that made profits in excess of the market were highly prized.   If the S&P 500 earns 8% and a given hedge fund (after all fees) returns 9% then why not invest in that hedge fund? Savvy investors may be more concerned with ROI for a given level of risk but since the concept of risk is so difficult to reliably quantify for predictive power it all boils down to the bottom line: If investment option "A" earns 8% while "B" earns 9%, ceteris paribus, people would rather get 9%. Hedge funds often yield substantially greater returns than the market which is why they exist in the first place.   Why do investment professionals start hedge funds? They have more freedom to make "riskier" bets that can yield those superior returns. Making this even more attractive is their particular compensation structure.   Most hedge fund managers use a traditional 2+20 compensation structure. Every year, 2% of the money invested is taken for the hedge fund managers as a management fee (maintenance fee). Additionally, 20% of the profits are also taken for the hedge fund managers as bonus compensation "performance fee".   For example: –$100mil invested, HF yields 30% ROI = $130mil before fees –HF managers take 2% of the initial amount = $2mil –HF managers take 20% of the $30mil profit = $6mil –Total returned to investors = $122mil (i.e. 22% ROI)   So there's an obvious incentive for the hedge fund managers to make their investors a lot of money (consequently resulting in an even better bonus for the hedge fund managers).   Now consider the following… Gambler Analogy:   A wealthy gambler sees you winning at a casino. He offers to give you the traditional 2+20 HF manager compensation formula to gamble his $100k for him. He gives you one night in a particular casino that only has these 4 kinds of games:   1) There is a big game of no-limit hold'em poker where you only play with the other players (not the house) against whom you estimate you may have a 10% edge for the night. The blinds are 25-50 and betting is capped at $50,000 per hand.   2) There is single-deck blackjack where you can actually count cards and gain a legal, fair, small edge (maybe 5%) over the casino but the maximum bet is $100 per hand.   3) There is also "Betting on Fair Coin Flips" against the house, which is obviously entirely luck-based, that pays winning predictions 99 cents on a one dollar bet. This means the casino has an edge over you of 1%. Note that the maximum bet for this game is $1,000 per player per flip.   4) Finally there is "The Big Wheel" which is like a simplified roulette wheel where there are 20 spaces (19 losers and 1 winner) and pays off a winner 17 to 1.  True odds would dictate you should get 19 to 1 so you're actually giving up a 10% edge to the casino. Note that there is no limit on the amount you can bet on this game only.   So in this casino gambler analogy, where you are the equivalent of a hedge fund manager, on what games should you bet the $100k you were given to gamble?   A) If you're a great poker player against weak opponents then you should play NLHE poker because that's where you can get the greatest edge/positive EV (over 10% ideally). Consequently your 2% will get you $2k plus 20% of the $10k profit (which is $2k) totals a net profit of $4k for you and $6k for the gambler. Getting the gambler 6% ROI in one day is pretty great (it'd make a merciless mafia loan shark jealous).   B) If you're not as good as the other poker players but still smart then you can pretty safely count cards playing blackjack and hope/expect a 5% ROI on the $100k. Consequently your 2% will get you $2k plus 20% of the $5k profit (which is $1k) totals a net profit of $3k for you and $2k for the gambler.   C) If you can't play poker or count cards in blackjack then you could bet on the coin flips but you're giving up a 1% edge and so should expect to actually lose money for the gambler. Consequently your personal profit theoretically should only be the $2,000.   D) "The Big Wheel" may seem counter-intuitive for many so let's explore it in detail… You know "The Big Wheel" has a negative expectation with the worst odds for the gambler's money. But let's still explore your personal "Expected Value" (as the HF manager) if you simply bet the whole $98k on one spin of "The Big Wheel". –19 times out of 20 you would lose it all and only make $2,000 personal profit. –1 time in 20 you hit then you'd win $1,666,000 on the $100,000 investment. Consequently, your 20% would equal $333k plus your $2k equals $335k. –So in 19 spins you'd get $2k each (total = $38k) and on the 20th theoretical spin you get $335k. That's $373k over 20 spins for an "Expected Value" of $18,650. WOW! But it's terrible for the investor who's EV on the game (before the 2/20) is 90% of his $100k resulting in a $10,000 theoretical loss. After the 2/20 compensation, his expected value is less than 70% of his $100k for an over $30,000 theoretical loss.   Recap: •NLHE POKER: 10% POSITIVE / Your expected personal profit = $4,000 •BLACKJACK: 5% POSITIVE  / Your expected personal profit = $3,000 •COIN FLIPS: 1% NEGATIVE / Your expected personal profit = $2,000 •THE BIG WHEEL: 10% NEGATIVE / Your expected personal profit = $18,650   THEREFORE: Even though "The Big Wheel" has the biggest mathematically "Negative Expectation" because of the 2+20 compensation formula it is immensely attractive to the hedge fund managers who don't have an edge.   CONCLUSION: It is therefore even more important to go with a hedge fund manager who has a real edge on the competition. Don't simply pick a financial "brand name" with only a recently good ROI (especially if the management has changed during its run). Such "chasing last year's winners" is a short & hind-sighted technique that historically underperforms. Instead, select an investor with at least a decade of extraordinary returns.  BTW - if you're an "accredited investor" then you can contact me for my personal recommendations.

Fear = Hating the future you predict

Fear = Hating the future you predict ... Therefore, there are 3 ways to alleviate fear: 1) change the path you're on so as to create a different future 2) change your prediction 3) change your opinion of the future This is all especially important if you're particularly bad at predicting the future or if your hatred runs contrary to human interests (yours, your country, your world etc.).

My response to friends' response to my "Why Dennis Miller is a Republican" post

My posts to corpania.blogspot.com are automatically re-posted to my facebook page. Some of my GOP friends respond with facetious and occasionally thoughtful comments. Instead of replying to them on FB (where such debates are virtually always fleeting and are rarely substantive) I will quote from their comments and respond here. PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM EARNESTLY ATTEMPTING TO ANSWER ALL OF MY "OPPONENT'S QUESTIONS". I hope they will return the courtesy especially when I explicitly call for them to answer a specific question of mine. HERE ARE THEIR RESPONSES TO MY PREVIOUS POST ABOUT "WHY DENNIS MILLER IS A REPUBLICAN"... GOP FRIEND#1: "Regarding your view that killing doesn't lead to peace, what about the American Revolutionary War, the American Civil War, World War II, etc?" MY RESPONSE: I'm genuinely surprised the concept that "war begets war" isn't as universally accepted. I strongly urge those to revisit my previous post In not-so-short: There are 1,300,000,000+ Muslims on earth. Psychiatric studies show that as much as 1% the human population is schizophrenic. http://www.schizophrenia.com/szfacts.htm And more than 1/10,000 commit suicide. So it stands to reason there should be at the very least 1,300 schizo Muslims with a deathwish to be worried about. What if only 50 of them simultaneously shot up churches or malls around America? That would surely incite full-on WorldWar3. Clearly, if the threat was so great our enemies could coordinate some of them entering the US to wreak havoc (on our infinite vulnerabilities: like our non-hardened chemical plants, thousands of miles of Alaskan oil pipeline, water supplies, etc.). But they haven't. You know why? Because while the number of people who may superficially hate us may be in the millions or billions (substantially fewer since Obama's election) the reality is that over 99.99% ain't gonna do a thing about it because they're busy with their own lives (feeding their kids etc.). The number of people in the world who hate us so much that they're willing to leave their family and journey to our shores to kill us IS REALLY MINUSCULE! But every time we bomb someplace and there is any "collateral damage" (and there always is) then that victim's relatives become exponentially more likely to want to make that havoc-wreaking journey to our shores. War begets war. Revenge is a vicious cycle. Chilling our government into not waring is exactly what we need now. Until the geo-politics substantially changes we should be actively discouraging war (even more so than usual). GOP FRIEND#1: "As to Miller's psychology, isn't yours an argument from bad faith? Why diagnose his motives? " MY RESPONSE: No, not in my opinion. My analysis of his motives appears, to me, to be original, interesting and somewhat falsifiable. My theory may inform what may be the cause of the disconnect between left & right modes of thinking. But beyond the pedantic self-aggrandizing I'm doing, it's just plain fun for me. If you don't want to engage in my though experiments & philosophical debates then that's ok. I won't be offended. GOP FRIEND#1: Why do celebrities sound off on economic and global issues with junior-high level analyses every day of the week? Is it because they are shallow and seek to appear sophisticated? It is because they are personally monstrous people who compensate with simplistic moral preening? Is it because they don't understand business and are jealous of the power of those who do? Just following the pack?" MY RESPONSE: Your rhetorical questions have some validity, in my opinion. The nice thing about celebrities, or amateur philosophers like myself for that matter, pontificating about important issues is that, at least on the most basic level, they are citizens engaging in important debate. It's better than whatever superficial drama Spears, Lohan or Paris Hilton are up to. I'd rather have an engaged electorate as opposed to the right-wing policies that can only exist when voter turnout is low and skewed to the wealthy & elderly. Of course, that's primarily because I'm a progressive populist. GOP FRIEND#1: "Who cares? The only issue that matters is the content of their ideas. If you want to engage a serious discussion, I suggest leaving motive out of it." MY RESPONSE: While I think we can agree that the "content of their ideas" is paramount, I do think motive makes a difference (especially while diagnosing strategies). GOP FRIEND#1: "You did not qualify the statement "GWB also proved that military occupation doesn't work." So, the U.S. in Japan following WWII? MY RESPONSE: I don't want to get mired in a semantic debate but I duly stipulate that defining terms is crucial in a productive debate. So let me clarify by restating with a hedge - "Military occupation rarely works". I could have argued that an occupation after a surrender is substantially different from an occupation without a surrender. I could have also argued that the dynamics of occupation have evolved over the past 6 decades enabling fewer and fewer people to do greater and greater damage thus fundamentally changing the equation. GOP FRIEND#1: "BTW, although you frame your arguments as fundamentally discrediting Republican foreign policy doctrine, many war supporters today make similar points to argue the war implementation was tragically flawed but the strategy was sound. I don't make that argument, but some do. There's certainly a serious debate to be had on that, motives aside." MY RESPONSE: While I agree that a better implementation would necessarily have led to a better outcome it is practically ludicrous, as your disavowal implies, to claim that an outcome virtually 180 degrees different from their prediction is proof that the execution was the problem as opposed to the strategy (especially when none of those hawks were decrying the execution while it was happening. To the contrary - those very same hawks were crowing about how "flawless the execution was (in their opinion)" when Saddam didn't put up the defense they expected). GOP FRIEND#1: "Honestly, I think if we hadn't floated the dollar forty years ago we wouldn't have half the global problems we do, but that's another discussion." MY RESPONSE: That may be so but I am too uninformed about that topic to respond here now. I would need to know more about your specific arguments about that. GOP FRIEND#2: "Or... Dennis is aware of the fact that because of the blase attitude towards radical Islam by the Left -- which has led to North Korea and Iran both going nuclear -- it is now more likely than ever that militant Islam will get their hands on a nuclear device of some kind and detonate it within one of our major cities." MY RESPONSE:  Mentioning North Korea proves my argument and discredits yours. Focusing so much of our resources on "radical Islam" prevented engagement with North Korea (diplomatically and/or with military force). Nuclear proliferation is a very serious issue that I think deserves exponentially more resources. It was GOP's GWB & friends that diverted resources away from the prevention of nuclear proliferation. GOP FRIEND#2: "The fact that Obama and his AG have decided to try the 9/11 terrorists in open civilian court it just another example of how liberals just don't seem to get what's happening. Perhaps if Islamic terrorists openly supported Proposition 8 and campaigned to repeal Roe v. Wade, the Left would finally sit up and take notice...?" MY RESPONSE: What don't we "get"? Please explain the details of why upholding the rule of law is wrong and/or dangerous. "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" - Ben Franklin. Does the average GOP supporter truly understand what "liberty" is? If laws that protect the accused go out the window at the whim of the executive branch then what would happen if/when a less gracious and more militant progressive assumes office? What if Obama's more liberal successor chose to handle his critics the way Bush/Cheney handled theirs? I dare any of my GOP-supporting friends to explore this path of the debate. I will wager $100 that an impartial judge would rule that Bush/Cheney policies of oppression were way more fascist and civil liberty-crushing than those that Obama has implemented. I can't wait to ensnare my GOP-supporting friends in a GWBush vs. Obama debate. But I suspect they're too smart for that and will instead choose to move on and argue from their ideals. WHEN I PREVIOUSLY WROTE: What would be some sound policy decisions about nuclear weapons? - secure the unstable nations with nukes (like spending more on Pakistan than Iraq or Afghanistan whereas today we spend less than 5% of our Middle East War resources on the one radical islamic nation with currently viable nukes). - secure/payoff the scientists (especially from Russia etc.) so they have no economic incentive to arm our enemies. - secure the world by having fewer nuclear powerplants (which would result in less nuclear waste and fewer locations for resource-intensive enrichment facilities that could be "upgraded" to weapons) Yeah, I'm for all that. But those are Democratic policies whereas the GOP holds nearly 100% opposing views on those policies. MY GOP FRIEND#2 WROTE: Suggestions one and two are blackmail/bribes to terrorists. Not viable." MY RESPONSE: What is so inherently wrong with blackmail/bribes to terrorists? Let's look at it from a cost/benefit analysis. If bribes work then the only downside would be the possibility that the bribes themselves would encourage more terrorists. But that runs contrary to GOP assumptions that it's "Radical Islam" that is the threat. What would be the delta is enemies caused by bribing? Is that delta greater than the number of enemies created by "collateral damage"? We need to take a much more practical, holistic look and weigh all potential costs (including opportunity costs) of available options against the probability of the outcomes and their various risks & upsides. MY GOP FRIEND#2 WROTE: "Three is strange since Democrats want to get us off of oil, but no clean nuke plants like in France? Windmills won't power the world." MY RESPONSE: That implies there is such a thing as a "clean nuke plant" which is such blatant BS I'm shocked that I need to respond to it. Also, to date every single pro-nuke person I've ever encountered has been unaware of "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act". In short, we tax-payers ensure the nuclear industry over a set amount. It is universally accepted that if we were to stop assuming that risk that there would be no nuclear energy industry. The insurance premiums to cover the unlimited liability would be so high that they would erase any hope of economic viability for nuclear energy. FINALLY - Windmills alone might not power the world but other renewable energy very easily can. I just took an intensive course on Solar PV and I'd be more than happy to explain the science and economics of how. MY GOP FRIEND#3 WROTE: Wasn't your time traveler experiment essentially carried out in the 90s after the first WTC bombing? The US responded by prosecuting terrorists in a US court of law rather than "taking it to them." Would you argue that because we gave those terrorists the benefits of our justice system it deterred future terrorists? Seems the answer is very obviously no. MY RESPONSE: This is a very trenchant point which I humbly take very seriously. Unlike so many GOP-supporters who can't ever concede a single point (I suspect they view all debates like a trial where they don't want to appear weak so they avoid productive debates and primarily seek to "rhetorically score" against their opponents) - I will concede that because I would have concluded a lack-of-attacks to be evidence on my side I must take the existence of an attack as evidence, not necessarily proof, that the other side is correct. But let's drill down deeper. The motivation for the first attack was not eliminated (that is not to claim that one must always eliminate one's enemies' motivations because that might be even worse). So it is reasonable to assume that there would continue to be attacks until the motivation was eliminated. The fact that there was a legal trial merely prevented an exacerbation of motivations. Whereas GWB's torture policies (Abu Ghraib) clearly exacerbated our enemies' motivations. The most important point is weighing our options of risk & reward. GWB's "taking it to them" had predicted costs and expected outcomes. The war was supposed to "pay for itself" and instead cost us $3trillion and counting not to mention thousands of American soldiers' lives and limbs. The outcomes were nearly entirely different from the predictions. Can't we fairly conclude that the strategy was a stunning failure when the costs were so off and the outcomes were so wrong? If that isn't a failure just how bad would things have to be for that GOP-Hawk strategy to be defined as a failure? How wrong does a GOP prediction have to be for the GOP-supporters to concede that it was wrong? Are the GOP-Hawks equally undeterred by the lessons of Vietnam (even though those errors were initially made by Democrats)? Let's make some predictions about Iraq & Afghanistan going forward. If my predictions come true and yours don't will you then concede that I know better? Is there any evidence or outcome that would disprove your theories? Or is your political paradigm unfalsifiable and impervious to facts? I routinely mention that I could be wrong. Would you at least give lip service to the possibility that you could be wrong? What would have to happen to prove that? I'm all to happy to set forth my predictions and criteria for falsifiability of my philosophical/political paradigms. I want to get to the truth and abandon my ineffectual ideas. I can't wait to shed my erroneous assumptions. What about you? MY GOP FRIEND#3 WROTE:  "It's not likely anyone will ever be able to quantify the number of lives saved because of US military action - or that you would call it anything other than propaganda if the previous Administration had tried. But it seems to me we can reliably say treating terrorists like common criminals is not an effective security policy." MY RESPONSE: I agree that we can't definitively quantify the parallel universes of "what if". But I entirely disagree with your claim that "treating terrorists like common criminals is not an effective security policy." That claim is not substantiated by the evidence. I will graciously reiterate that your trenchant point about prosecuting the first WTC bombers has some validity. But your simply not at all fully calculating the options. On this branch of the "permutation tree" we spent trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. How much good will could we have bought with 1/10th of that? Here's a non-hypothetical point: your entire argument necessarily hinges upon the assumption that our very presence in the Iraq & Afghanistan does more good than harm and that we're killing more enemies than we're creating. That assumption is falsifiable and has already been disproved by the evidence. Read all the recent reports by the generals and intelligence agencies. In Afghanistan, the Taliban is resurgent and we're not gaining ground. The people don't trust the kleptocracy we installed and no one expects any lasting good resolution to come from our presence in less than 10 to 20 years. Now we can estimate what 10 to 20 more years of occupation will cost (by extrapolating what has happened in previous years). To make a wise decision we have to weigh those costs against what would happen if we pulled out immediately (like George Will described somewhat recently). Even if we concede that "our enemies would have a safe haven" who cares? Don't forget that the 9/11 attacks were conceived and executed by Al-Qaeda (from supposedly "Western-friendly" countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt & Lebanon) while they were hiding in Germany & the United States of America. Terrorist attacks can be planned from anywhere in the world. There's no way around the fact that we need human intelligence and detective work to find them. Establishing good will by magnanimous foreign policy and yes, even bribes, can elicit such valuable information. In fact, it might be militarily beneficial if our enemies indeed had a "safe haven" in a hostile country because then we can just bomb the crap out of their base from the sky instead of hunting door-to-door with our soldiers. Is that blood-lusty enough for you? Think about all of our options and their costs, benefits & risks. I'm hoping but not expecting Obama just pulls us out entirely of the occupation and lets their countries bad guys war among themselves for a while. Final point - the industry of WAR is inherently counter-productive and necessarily "shrinks the pie". But now that so many military contractors are legally based outside the US for tax reasons there is much less incidental economic benefit to Americans (compared to previous wars where we made everything in the US and had to pay Americans to do it and therefore got increased tax revenue from it). For those of you GOP-supporters who still somehow disagree that FDR's progressive policies got us out of the Great Depression you must therefore conclude that WWII alone got us out. Ramping up industry to create our tools of war was a de facto stimulus/jobs-creation plan. It put money in people's pockets by paying with our collective credit card (national deficit/debt). Ok, that's a lot of process. Think about it and respond to my specific points. If you skim and reflexively respond in such a way that proves you didn't actually consider my points then you owe me $1. Seriously, I will insist on collecting. ;-) If you want to have a productive debate then you have to actually read and consider your opponent's arguments BEFORE you respond. Thanks and good karma to you.

Why Dennis Miller is a Republican (Maslow already basically explains why)

Alternate title for this post: "Why Republicans care so much about Terrorism" I've been meaning to write this blog entry for years (and I've discussed it with some of you before) but I kept postponing the blog post because I feared I wouldn't do it justice. I still think I won't do it justice but I want to have this rough draft up online and timestamped because "I can feel the zeitgeist reaching out towards another one of 'my' ideas". First: Read about "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs My summary of it: There is generally a priority system humans have where the basic/lower level needs must be met before the higher level needs can be addressed. From Highest Need to Lowest Need: - Self-Actualization (creativity, morality, lack of prejudice/open-mindedness, acceptance of facts that run contrary to your beliefs) - Esteem (confidence, respect by others) - Love/Belonging (friendship, sexual intimacy) - Safety (security of body, employment, property) - Physiological (breathing, food, water, sleep) FACETIOUS PROOF: Few people make creativity their highest priority if they're in the middle of drowning. Ok, now how does that relate to Dennis Miller being a Republican? Before I get to that here is a... SIDE NOTE ABOUT DENNIS MILLER: See my facebook posts about seeking new words (portmanteau) for someone who erroneously claims to be smart in an area probably due to his success in another area (e.g. fraudant & assinestein). Dennis Miller didn't seem so conservative when he was up-and-coming... As people go through life they develop (or ossify) their own belief system. It's rational and intuitive to assume if they are successful they are less likely to "change a winning system". If they are less successful they are more likely to attempt to change their ways. This is not to say that unsuccessful people necessarily change their way because, obviously, it may be their insistence to stick to a losing formula that results in their continuing failure. Additionally, I'm not claiming that successful people never change or adapt (just the opposite - clearly there are successful people who are successful primarily because they change and adapt). Rather, it's the overarching belief system that solidifies more for the winners than the losers. Example: someone who credits his belief system ("it's all about hard work" or "it's all about devotion to god" or "it's all about education" or "it's all about relationships" or "it's all about looking out for number one") for his success, however he defines success, will seek to perpetuate that belief system. SEE MY RELATED POST ABOUT "RIGGING THE SYSTEM FOR WHAT YOU VALUE". Consequently, when Dennis Miller became successful his lower-level needs were clearly met and he began to progress to the higher level needs. Unfortunately, the higher-level needs themselves ran contrary to his fundamental belief system (he ignores facts such as trickledown economics' objectively worse results than progressive policies and Bush/Cheney's militarism doing more harm than good). This cognitive dissonance had to be resolved. So Dennis Miller chose to change his perception & definition of security in order to necessitate his preoccupation with that level so as to prevent him from addressing the higher level needs that ran contrary to his belief system. In short: By obsessing over extremely less-likely fears he doesn't have to challenge his belief system. (Compare the death rates of Americans and you'll see the massive disproportionality between actual causes of death and where we spend or make compromises with our money/research/resources/lives/freedom). Ok, I kinda skimmed right past some of the specifics of the argument to get to the cool conclusion (IMHO). Here are more specifics: Dennis Miller's belief system is a simplistic "eye for an eye" code of justice. Fundamentally he doesn't agree with notions of doing something good for an enemy because he only thinks that encourages them. This willfully blind "revenge begets revenge" strategy also ignores the phenomenon that I describe as "you can't punish a masochist with spankings". If terrorists want to pick a fight with you because your violent response would elicit sympathy/support and their lack of picking a fight would result in an even worse outcome for them then rationally, they should want to pick a fight and you shouldn't give it to them. QED. This line of higher-level thinking informs my opinions about Israel (they should trade land for peace in a massively, overly generous deal for the Palestinians because when fewer family members are killed fewer martyrs are created/motivated - see my post THERE IS NO EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO AMERICA - though I do concede that my premise could be flawed - specifically, I assume a deal could exist that was so generous to the Palestinians that there would, in fact, be peace). As George W. Bush's disastrous war in Iraq & Afghanistan has utterly proved - "you can't always kill your way to peace". Terrorism does exist but it's not remotely as dangerous as it would have to be to merit the resources we have already spent (let alone the incompetence with which we spent it or the amounts we have yet to spend). There will always be some small population of chemically-messed-up psychos and therefore goal of society is to prevent rational people from being led by those psychos. Kill someone's family member, even in "collateral damage", and he's more likely to be led by a psycho. GWB also proved that military occupation doesn't work. Virtually all of GWB & Cheney's premises and predictions have been definitively proven to be false (Iraq involved in 9/11, Iraq has WMD, war will "pay for itself & not cost the American taxpayer", "Last throes of the insurgency" etc.). Such incontrovertible evidence should challenge their followers' belief systems. To prevent consequential cognitive dissonance Republicans drop-down and revert to shrill scare tactics to make people afraid. By constantly scaring people they can focus on lower-level needs and thus never have to confront the flaws in their belief systems. To be a rational, practical person there has to be a price (not necessarily in money) at which you would buy or sell anything. "Life is all about trade-offs". Devoting resources to one issue means, at a minimum, opportunity costs of not being able to use those resources for something else. If, before the Iraq & Afghanistan war, a time-traveler whom you trusted told you it would eventually cost 10 trillion dollars and 1 million American lives would the most ardent Republican still have agreed to proceed? What about 500 trillion dollars and 300 million American lives? At what price would it not be worth it? To be fair, for liberals - what if a trusted time traveler told you that not going to war would result in costs of 500 trillion dollars and 300 million American lives? I can humbly say unequivocally that in such a hypothetical world I would endorse the Republican strategy. But the wonderful thing about our real world situation is that we can use the scientific method to determine who is a better predictor of the future (since, regrettably we have no time-travelers). We can all make predictions and those whose predictions consistently come true can be given more credence and THOSE WHOSE PREDICTIONS DON'T COME TRUE (beyond chance) CAN BE (SHOULD BE) IGNORED! Though those who are consistently off by 180 degrees could still be useful as a negative compass. SIDE NOTE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT (albeit unfalsifiable, unfortunately): I think the time traveler would have said that not going to war in the Middle East would have resulted in costs of much less money and fewer lives than has already been spent to date. Back to Dennis Miller: He has plenty of money and he has no credible fears in his average daily life. So he obsesses about the remote possibility that a terrorist attack would harm him or his family because then he can be scared enough to prevent a confrontation with the higher levels of needs. I'm not claiming that all Republicans are Republicans for those same reasons Dennis Miller is. Like any belief system (including Liberalism) people can become indoctrinated by many methods. It's the confrontation of one's belief system with facts that are incongruous with one's expectations that is interesting to me here. Ok, this is already too long & messy for a rough draft that is posted online. But I really enjoy having things "on the record" before the zeitgeist catches up. IF YOU'RE READING THIS ON FACEBOOK (or anywhere other than my blog) - Please post comments on my blog http://corpania.blogspot.com AND NOT ON FACEBOOK. Thank you and good karma to you.

Study the Efficacy of Consultants' Predictive Power

I've been saying for years that "if you can't predict the future then you don't understand the present". It's basically a layman's version of The Scientific Method (with big props to Karl Popper). If you don't understand the present then your only participation in the public debate should be to listen/read/gather information until you can improve your understanding to a level where you become productive to the debate. In any public policy debate there are invariably myriad researchers weighing in with not only analysis of what was or is but also with what they think will be (predictions). Predictions have the benefit of being "falsifiable". Take the 2009 Healthcare Reform Debate for example - there are numerous predictions on which the public is basing their decisions. Let me quickly mention here my personal pet peeve of debaters giving equal (or greater) weight to predictions that support their side as they do to the objectively demonstrable facts which refute their side. This blog post is meant to start a "meme" that encourages professors/researchers/PhD candidates to do a thorough study that measures the track record of consultants' predictions. This group of consultants to be studied can and should include: 1) Think Tanks (e,g, RAND, CATO, Heritage, Center for American Progress etc.) 2) Universities (e.g. Michigan, Berkeley, the Ivy League etc.)  and definitely don't forget the for-hire consultancies... 3) Management Consultants (e.g. McKinsey, Booz Allen Hamilton, Pricewaterhouse etc.). If one group, entity or person is particularly ineffective at predicting (no better than chance) or even worse if one's predictions are inversely correlated to reality then that would be useful to know for the public debate. CONCLUSION: Someone / some group should start tracking the predictive power of the players in policy debates. That way we can put more faith in those with accurate predictions and less in those who make bad calls. NOTE - Brill's Content, a great magazine around the turn of the millennium, used to have a cool feature where they tracked pundits' predictions and, as I recall, the right wing pundits had substantially worse scores than the liberals (I'd appreciate it if someone found proof that I am wrong or right about that). I'd like to see that tracking revitalized going forward somewhere online (maybe mediamatters.org politfact.com or factcheck.com?). Let me know if you find such a resource.

My "Locked Door Argument for Self-Described Agnostics" Who Don't Want to Call Themselves Atheists...

Since so many debates have well-worn terrain with established/cliche' arguments, like opening moves in a chess game, it's worthwhile to establish the basic permutations of debate in order to quickly speed through them. In so doing you can more efficiently get to the "more productive" aspects of the debate (in the virgin terrain). So I reiterate my recommendation that every debate have a "Debate Map" like a visually engaging, more-complex version of a FAQs. (as of October 9th, 2009 - the folks at http://debatemaps.com have a less-than-ideal implementation of what I have in mind). I seek to respond to RationalResponders' claim ( http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist ) that those of us self-proclaimed agnostics are actually, by their semantic technical parsing, atheists because, according to their reasoning, one can only believe in god or not believe in god (it is thus necessarily a binary proposition). And they claim that such a line of reasoning requires most self-identified agnostics to properly define themselves as atheists. I think their reasoning may indeed be correct but because it is incomplete their conclusions don't necessarily follow. Here's my first attempt to add to their productive debate... "Have you ever heard of my "Locked Door Argument for Self-Described Agnostics" (or something functionally similar)? Accept that someone can be sure he locked his door when he left his home only to return and realize he was wrong. Consequently, knowing his own human fallibility, on subsequent occasions such a person can still be quite sure he locked his door but still allow for the possibility that he is wrong. Thus, a comparable situation exists with some self-described agnostics. While they are right that someone can only either believe or disbelieve they must recognize that someone can both be on one side of belief and yet acknowledge that he could be wrong. That humility and overt recognition of fallibility is what prevents most self-described agnostics from embracing the atheist designation." So have you read some version of that argument before? If so, where?

"Giving to charity is for suckers!"

Let me be provocative... "Giving to charity is for suckers!" As succinctly as I can, it is generally true that... 1- A worthwhile charity is one that does good in society. 2- Charities are nearly entirely subsidized by good & generous people. 3- Bad people generally don't substantially subsidize charities. But bad people still reap the benefits of the "charity-enhanced" society. (e.g. More vaccines and disease-prevention means fewer communicably-sick people on the streets from which you could catch a disease.) This is the concept of the "free rider problem". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem CONSEQUENTLY - Charities are a tax on good & generous people so that bad people can reap benefits. This kind of tax makes it true that - "Giving to charity is for suckers!" QED. THEREFORE - Any "universal good" you want done in society should be done so that all who benefit should fairly contribute to its cost. This is routinely done by: progressive income taxes to pay for police who most benefit the wealthy, excise taxes to pay for the dangers of substances that you don't want to outlaw entirely, and tolls to pay for roads used by and for the benefit of a select population. SIDE NOTE: Organizations that don't provide a "universal good" should not be tax-exempt (or I might compromise and agree that maybe there could be a sliding scale depending on their societal benefit). IMHO.

Two ways I would improve Twitter/Facebook Updates

Here's a couple more of "my"(not sure if I'm first) brilliant (upon initial self-evaluation) ideas : How I would improve Twitter/Facebook Updates: THE PROBLEM: The deluge of status-updates/tweets from "too many" friends in one's feed prevents one from getting the "good ones" and bores too often with the rest. The only current option of "excluding"/"unfollowing" is too extreme. My solutions involve customization. MY FIRST SOLUTION IS "TIERS": Enable users to optionally subscribe to either: (A) Instantaneous feeds/tweets (B) Daily feeds/tweets (C) Weekly feeds/tweets ...by allowing users to have 3-tiers of "status update". Users can triage their updates/tweets and put their "good ones" in their 'Weekly' updates knowing that a friend who subscribes less often gets their "best" (not the boring). Example: Dan... (A) is caught in traffic. (B) wants to know the name of the heavy-set comedian who says "I'm bulimic. I'm just forgetful". (C)  seeks help with his documentary "Time to Impact" http://timetoimpact.com MY SECOND SOLUTION IS "USER-SET LAYOUT": Enable a user to "layout" a separate page for updates/tweets. A user can designate specific sections for different people, groups etc. Imagine it sort of like a newspaper reliably having sports on the back page, gossip on page 6 etc. You know exactly where to look to get all the updates you're interested in (in one place/on one page). Example (formatted in a 9-square Brady Bunch-esque grid): ______________________________________________________________ Mary Girlfriend...(A)       |     Dave Bestfriend.... (A)     |   John FormerBoss...(B) ------------------------------- |  ----------------------------------- | -------------------------------- AlumniGroup...(C)         |  HighSchool Buddies... (C)  |  Coworkers... (C) ------------------------------- |  ----------------------------------- | -------------------------------- FormerCoworkers...(C) |  COMMENTS ON NOTES   |  Everyone/thing else...(A) ______________________________________________________________ NOTE - Within each square previous updates can be "scrolled-through" for review and of course settings can be modified to change the placement & tier. ALSO - any friend's update with a specified "secret urgent code" could get highest placement/priority/prominence. So a group of friends could agree that any post/tweet that ends with the code "#%898" gets priority because it's urgent. A more advanced system could let users set their own code ratings and share with those they deem fit and then a complex sorting system could "re-rank" according to a given poster's priority balanced by the user's priority assessment of that poster. This all ties back to my paradigm of trust/accountability to deal with info-overload as evident in my search engine: http://www.Optevi.com So what do you think of my ideas for Twitter/Facebook? "Waste of my/your time", "Kind of interesting", or "Why hasn't the world recognized your genius, Dan?" ;-)

Defining "Good" via Descendants' Prosperity / Evolutionary Psychology Explains Racism

I'm not seriously claiming that the following "Evolutionary Psychology Theory of Racism" is original (or necessarily true). But it has been rattling around my brain lately so I thought I'd finally share it. Here is "my" idea: 1) Nearly entirely independent of a "pure meritocracy", I think most people fundamentally define "good" as that which enables their descendants to survive & prosper. 2) Consequently, people are constantly try to "rig the game" to favor their descendants. If you're smart you want to create/reinforce a society that rewards intelligence. If you're beautiful, you place value on that and de facto "punish" those you deem unattractive. Same dynamic with athletic ability, humor/charm, religion, legacy status advantage at an alma mater (or "blue blood"/genetic appreciation in general), and nearly all other tribal Balkanizations.  It's also why bellacose people want to resolve disputes with war/fighting and fear/avoid any tactic or path where they don't have an advantage. 3) Racists, at least subconsciously, know they themselves are actually inferior to the general population and thus don't want a meritocracy because it would hurt them and their descendants. Here's why:          a. - Racism is the negative prejudice/discrimination that is invalided by science/truth/facts. Only for the sake of this semantic  argument, "a prejudiced comment validated by science/truth/facts would not be racist - e.g. expecting the Bambenga Pygmie you're about to meet will be short is not racist". Consequently racism must be inherently contrary to a pure meritocracy.         b. - If you rationally assume racism exists at least somewhat then that proves that we don't have a "pure meritocracy". Even if you irrationally believe races have significant differences in potential (like those who still accept the dubious conclusions in Hernstein & Murray's "The Bell Curve") surely you still recognize that a higher percentage of affluent children reach a higher proportion of their potential, due to their advantages, than do disadvantaged children (exceptions notwithstanding).         c. - In a meritocracy advantages are only granted to those who achieve in order to maximize their achievements (you can't truly know if someone can hit a 90 mph fastball if you only let him experience 70 mph pitches).        d. - Consequently, rich racists have the most to lose in switching to a meritocracy. They would lose their advantages and thus necessarily diminish their levels of potential achievement. This is compounded by the likelihood that a previously disadvantaged person could now achieve more which, while potentially net increasing the country's wealth macroeconomically, would result in a relative decrease in those rich racists' success. 4) Consequently, seeing someone spout racist comments should signify to you his/her ignorance and frustration with losing the "rigged rules" that unduly benefited him/her which were contrary to a pure meritocracy. p.s. What would be a "pure meritocracy" and whether such a system would be desirable to humanity as a whole are very separate and worthy questions.