Journal Community


Explore Group


« »
Recommend a comment by clicking the recommendation icon

    Re:he reality that a timeless all powerful intelligent being created us and the universe.Absolutely probable..................To qualify as a "scientific" hypothesis it is required that the hypothesis must make predictions which can then be tested for validity

    Very good points ,all scientific evidence all religion quotes from old bible s and new point out above points to be valid with specific proof somehow I had been getting with unusual experience.

    The nearest and quick prediction seem following addendum.What if some who died recently already lynching or awaiting to lynch (in so called returned homeplace)!To qualify as a "scientific" hypothesis it is required that the hypothesis must make predictions which can then be tested for validity Jesus second coming is one prediction given with so called coming jointly with Mahdi.

    IMAM Mahdi is a sign Al ahadith collectionof predictions By The Holy Prophet Muhammad pbuh (1)Messenger of Allah, praise and peace be upon him, said: "Yes, that is because the Torah, Staff of Moses, Tablets, and the Table of Solomon, the son of David are in its caves. (2)There is not a single cloud that comes from any direction to it that does not pour its blessing in that valley. And the days and night will not pass until a man from my musked children live in it. His name is like my name and his father's name is like my father's name; his manners are like my manners. He will fill the world with fairness and justice
    just as it had been filled by harm and transgressions." Reported by Tamin Ad-Dari, in the reference of Ibn Hibban Ad-Du'fa. Pure, Musked Children "Al Mahdi is a man from my pure, musked children. He will fight with the guidance of my Sunnah as I fought with the guidance of the Revelation
    Musked children _ smell rose ,jasmine,deer ,duck etc. orange lemon
    Jasmine is fragrant white yellow flowers.Liely there will be trial of Gold from other metal too?At the end of Time there will be a trial in which people will be sorted in a similar way to that in which gold is sorted from metal.Amazingly,some recent events had scary predictions which came true.Worst still how some are doing or giving right to die right to live in pursuit to create what is being created - These days in self amusement?

    When was Ramadan in 2011?

    Ramadan in 2011 had started on Monday, the 1st of August and will continue for 30 days until Tuesday, the 30th of August.
    Solar /lunar eclipse did happen exactly as was in one month before Ramadan
    2011 june 1 /june 15 ramadan started july 31/eid aug3/2011I

    Then the security Minister Hudaifa said, "O Messenger of Allah, praise and peace be upon him:"how do we know who is Jesus who is Mahdi"Al Mahdi is a man from my children
    his color is that of the Arab, and his body is like that of Israel. On his right cheek there is a mole like that glitters like a star." Al Mahdi will glance to the side as Jesus, the son of Mary descends with water dripping from his hair. So Al Mahdi will say to him: 'Come forward and lead the people in prayer.' But he will answer: 'The Call to Prayer has been made for you to lead.'

    There seem live universe material on going bustling with activities - seem scary enough to me knowing science of the world and universe.


  • "Your talk about fallacies, message transmissions, and explanations to a dimwit like me may be correct...and they may not." (p673)


    I've never denied the remarkable wonder of human life and thought, but at the same time I've never stopped and will likely never stop trying to understand what it is and means.  You are satisfied with the answer you've found, I am not and in all likelyhood will never be.  We know so very little and yet we have so little time to learn.


  • "You continually try to portray a false picture of history and Republicans, as well as evangelicals and conservatives in spite of the facts staring you in the face. "


    What is false about what I said? And lets deal with what I said. I said that "the old radical republican group that [held] strongly for civil rights for African Americans is gone and replaced by the southerners who were always culturally conservative, evangelical and hostile toward minorities". You have a habit of taking a specific statement that I make and dressing it as an all indemnifying statement that it wasn't. I simply proposed that Republican cultural liberals had been replaced with southern cultural conservatives. This is not news,

    In fact Democratic liberals have argued that Republican fiscal conservatives should take back their party from fringe elements that seem to be dominating their politics. How many Beltway Republican have said that Republicans need to stop talking about abortion (John McCain) or fix immigration ( Lindsey Graham). The latter issue is interpreted by Hispanics as being hostile to them. But even as these Republicans mouth the words, the Kansas legislature is busily passing get tough on illegals by forbidding dream act like access to higher education. Or Wisconsin's legislature is readying yet another womens nether regions probe as an answer to abortion.

    And every time you say that Democrats "make up " controversies to "scare" African Americans, you act as though they are little children who are unable to assess and analyze what is in their own interests. That they are somehow impaired and can't figure out what voter suppression is or that African American baby boomers have no earthly idea the relationship between "states rights" and "Jim Crow". When Campbell and Putnam drew a direct line from the older Christian Right to the Tea Party and described them thusly as:



    Do you think these attitudes originated with the older establishment Republicans in the north or with the southern transplants which joined the party after 1964. There is only so much revisionism that can be tolerated. Minorities of all persuasions know these attitudes and are not scared by Democratic rhetoric but by Repubublican action. Romney didn't lose 75% of the Hispanic vote over rhetoric. And African Americans have recent reminders that Republicans would gladly repress their vote. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to equate 8 hour waits to vote based on decreased early voting days, lengthy ballots, and older malfunctioning voting machinery with poll tax and literacy tests that southerners used to employ.

    You keep shouting liberal lies but I know plenty of African Americans that have lived through both eras and they see no difference. Rather than continuing to make excuses, you need to pay attention to what I am saying. It is either that or permanently write off 25% (and growing) of the electorate.

    3 Recommendations



      Newsflash... All Americans have their civil rights and the right to vote. There's no need for the Republicans to push that issue as they did for over 100 years. The radical Republicans that existed at the time of the Civil War died out way back then as Democrats through their bully arm the KKK thwarted their efforts for equality. For you to say the radical Republicans were "replaced by the southerners who were always culturally conservative, evangelical and hostile toward minorities" is an atrocious misrepresentation of the truth. You are rewriting history and accusing innocent people of racism when you have no evidence for that charge. Your narrative is false and does not align with the truth. You have totally disregarded the timeline of events and you clearly must realize that.

      Here's the problem with what you said. The Republicans of the 1860s were not cultural liberals as you falsely identify them. They were not akin to today's Democrat liberals in any way. They were religious people who opposed slavery on the basis of morality, just as today's religious Republicans oppose abortion.

      Long after the radical Republicans were dead, the South began to progress and more and more Southerners became educated and prosperous. By the 1920's they slowly began to vote for Republicans because of their improved education and financial status. This is documented and the numbers tell the truth. The poorer, less educated Southerners continued to vote Democrat.

      You are trying to equate conservative with racists and liberal with non-racist, and that is false and misleading. The Northern States at the time of the Civil War were conservative and religious. It is these people who called for the end of slavery. What has changed dramatically over the years is the make up of the North and you cannot look at the politics of the North today and assume they are the same people they were in the 1850s. Nor can you look at the South today and assume they are the same people they were in the 1850s.

      For you to say that the educated and prosperous Southerners of the 20th century who vote Republican because of their education and prosperity have made the party racist is simply not backed by any facts or evidence.

      I'm sure Democrats would like nothing better than to see the Republican Party renounce those who stand for moral truth, the very kinds of people who once called for the end of slavery and civil rights for all men based on moral truth. I'm sure they'd like nothing better than for the party to stand solely on economic issues, issues that would never have ended slavery. Not everything is about money. Some things are more important, and the tradition of the Republican Party is to stand for what is right, not necessarily what is most lucrative.

      If you feel Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot by standing up for the unborn and the enforcement of legal immigration where all those coming to this country have a fair shot, then you should be glad and rejoice for your party will win. But beware. Minorities may become better educated and prosperous in the years to come and may wind up voting Republican just as Southerners did in the 20th century.

      3 Recommendations



        Rachel Maddow bemoans the fact that we can't debate real issues because we are constantly caught up in this cultural morass. There are lot of areas where conservatives and liberals might agree. For instance, education I acutually favor a more "consevative" approach to education. No , not teaching bible stories. But teaching basic math, English and history. I have a problem with public schools teaching "theater" and spending millions on state of the art football fields. And I am an ex-athlete.

        I would welcome a conservative approach that figures out how to provide a qualtiy education to poorer school districts. But we can't have that debate. We are kept busy debating whether this is a Chrisitan nation, deciding based on the most basic of criteria a decision that should be between a women and her doctor, and figuring out what to do about gays. a group no more good or harmful than any other human group.

        But your point about "Minorities may become better educated and prosperous in the years to come and may wind up voting Republican just as Southerners did in the 20th century" was precious. These southerners are the same people that regularly report some of the lowest standardized scores for education in the company.

        To be sure, the majority of white well educated southerners do vote Republican. The mystery is why do lower socioeconomic class whites who make up the majority of people that are on public assistance (yep they get food stamps and are regular vistiors to the emergency room for medical care) vote Republican. They vote against their own interests. If these guys ever figure out that gays, African Americans and Hispanics aren't the enemy, that day of reckoning you speak of may never come. And Center right becomes Center left.



        With regard to Greg's political positions they are motivated and put forward for reasons of political gain. Truth maters not, only perceptions matter and so it goes.

        2 Recommendations




      The better educated and prosperous Southerners, according to the numbers, are the ones voting Republican. The poorer and less educated are voting Democrat. I guess, according to your theory, that these are the Southern Democrats bringing racism into the Democrat Party since you view all Southerners as "hostile towards minorities."


      Also, "Even today, the Democratic party splits Southern districts, winning a fair share of majority white districts in the process. That level of competition is not consistent with the Benen/Kornacki argument that white Southern antipathy toward blacks motivates them to vote Republican. If it were, we would see a new Solid South, a solidly Republican South. We don’t see that."

      I too would love to see the debate in politics about substantive issues, but sadly your side wins big when it demonizes Republicans as the new Southern racists. It wins when it calls Romney a felon and a liar who doesn't pay taxes, rather than debating the issues and standing on records. It wins when it accuses the Tea Party of being all white and filled with hate, stirring up the racist views of minorities against whites as if white America were evil even though it was white America that freed the slaves and gave minorities and women the right to vote. It wins by accusing the Republicans of wanting to take away women's contraceptives when the religious right has no problem with contraceptives whatsoever. That's a Catholic issue and most Catholics vote Democrat. It wins by stirring up hatred against corporate America as if they are actually the evil entities the movies portray them as when most business men and women work long, hard hours, often foregoing their own pay to make their business work. It wins when it offers ever increasing giveaway programs the country can't afford but claims all we have to do is tax the rich. It wins by claiming Republicans hate gays because they stand for traditional marriage, but are certainly not interested in what they do in their own bedrooms.

      No one is debating whether or not we are a Christian nation. That's not even on the radar. Just turn on the TV for five minutes. If you can find a show rather than an ad, it's amazing the filth and trash that passes as humor these days. No, that's not Christian, not anymore.

      If Rachel Maddow wants to discuss issues, may be she should stop pushing the cultural morass. A Republican approach to provide quality education to poorer students was voiced by Mitt Romney in his campaign. Sadly no one heard it. They only heard he was a rich white guy who hated everyone and was a liar and a felon. But here's an article on his approach which may interest you:

      1 Recommendation

      • Nancy,

        Mitt Romney lost the Presidency because he approached winning it like it was the third line on his bucket list. Romney became a mega rich guy rolling businesses like drunks on skid row. Nothing he did was illegal but there were certainly moral questions. But he didn't lose because the Obama campaign painted him into the poor little rich guy corner. He lost because he decided to become Thurston Howell III when he was caught on camera by Jimmy Carter's grandson making his infamous 47% remarks.

        Romney lost because he went hard right promising to suspend habeas corpus on womens reproductive rights. While he gleefully promised to shut down planned parenthood, his partners in crime incensed even moderate women by passing laws requiring probes of various sorts in order to get an abortion. As thousands of women stood silently outside of the Virginia statehouse and women chanted "we will remember in November, Romney and the Republicans seemed oblivious to their revulsion. Romney lost the women's vote in Virginia by 15 points and the state by 4.

        Meanwhile twiddle dee and twiddle dum , Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin voluntarily decided to remind women that pregnancy by rape is either impossible or God's will. Maybe some Democratic operative slipped Mourdock a ,mickey but it looks like that this only assistance they got.

        Catholic Bishops decided to pick a fight with the administration over providing contraceptive as a business. But Republicans gladly jumped into the fray. Remember that Rush Limbaugh called a young female law student a prostitute. Democrats didn't gen up fear. Republicans thinking that they could score political points tried to exploit this issue , Benghazi style, to score political points.

        By the end of the September , the team that couldn't shoot straight delivered so many self inflicted gunshot wounds to the head, Dems began to light up their collective cigars as Nate Silver's analysis showed a nearly 85% probability of victory. only a sleepy performance in the first debate inconceivably gave Romney an opening.

        Two interminably long weeks between debates allowed Romney to build momentum he should have never gotten. But Obama jabbed aggressively in the next debate and then floored Romney with a hard left hook in the form of goading him into mistakenly stating that Obama did not use the phrase "act of terror". Romney held on for dear life in the next debate while Obama reminded him that we weren't fighting WWI.

        While you want to blame Dems for what was horrific campaign by an already flawed candidate. During weeks on end the Romney campaign made mistake after mistake. Until the first debate it was a real amateur hour. You can't lay this all at the feet of Democratic spinmeisters. For much of the summer and early fall, the Romney campaign was a study in incompetence.




      Your last post proves the point. It's all about cultural morass rather than pertinent issues.

      Romney wanted to suspend women's reproductive rights??? What a bunch of garbage you are spewing. Congratulations, Greg, you are the problem you complain about.

      2 Recommendations

  • Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +'re not running away from me again, are you...? ;)




    I’ll overlook the incompleteness of your last reply, and instead focus on something that bewilders me about you. Why are you so opposed to fighting? Fighting builds just as much—if not more—than it destroys.

    Our very existence as humans is a fight against nature. We fight old age and disease with medicine. We fight the elements with shelter and central heating. We fight our physical limitations with vehicles and weapons and performance enhancing supplements. We fight against our own ignorance with science and learning.

    America was built by fighting, by men who were willing to fight with both words and swords. Capitalism and free market systems are DEFINED by fighting, by competition to achieve. Most of the things you claim to advocate were forged in the fire of conflict; not just physical conflict, but also intellectual conflict and centuries upon centuries of debate (that thing you hate most of all).

    Sometimes we stop fighting amongst one group so we can become stronger in the fight against something else. But the fighting will always be there. It is a major component of human nature, responsible in part for both our dark sides and our better angels.

    This is a small fight, fought with words and ideas in the void that is the internet. But out of the flames of this fight, things are being forged. Ideas are being tested; some are found sturdy, some deeply flawed, and some linger somewhere in between. Dogmatic beliefs, if not being reconsidered, are at least being examined. Perspectives are widening, both consciously and subconsciously.

    Fighting is even part of your own model! Where do you fit in your model, I wonder? Being unable to defend your ideas, I can understand that, but not even trying? Right now, your model is just Xavier drawing himself a chart so he can personally understand how a system developed in the past. That’s nice, but without taking the next step—without making a prediction, without putting your model to the test, without FIGHTING against irrelevance—what good is your model to anyone besides yourself?

    1 Recommendation

    • Go fly a kite Zach. It is more appropriate to your age and level of understanding about how the world actually works. This comment is based on my interpretation of your understanding, based mostly on non responses, of what I wrote about my model and prediction in two parts three weeks ago and repeated in part last week in page 672. I can only do so much.

      1 Recommendation


        Xavier, Xavier. Was this one a little too big to tackle? Perhaps it might behoove you to stop spending so much time and effort trying to give Greg laughably hypocritical etiquette lessons and instead take a page out of his book when it comes to being able to coherently defend yourself. He might be wrong about some things, but at least he respects people enough to have a conversation about it with them. You can’t even meet that basic standard.

        For a man who claims to have been around the world and back, I’m surprised that you are so comfortable with irrelevance.

        1 Recommendation

    • Such is life Zach. I no longer have any patience for fights, not that I ever did. I just explore and hope to learn. Believe it or not I learn much more constructing responses to Greg and others in this blog than I do "debating" you. I have tentatively concluded that it is because they are more mature and therefore confront me with real situations that are more relevant to real life.



        Alas, I’ve been called immature by a fellow who told me to “go fly a kite”; how your words do resonate with me! ;) Well, I’m sure Greg will be pleased to know that he is more mature in your book. At least now the insults and personal criticism that you constantly direct towards him will stop, right?

        1 Recommendation


    Keith said.....
    Everett, Xavier, Zach,

    Keith, you are beginning to appear like an automation. You insist that everyone, but you and those that agree with your beliefs, are saying that everything is an accident, despite being told, over and over, that this isn't true. You are pounding on a strawman, pummeling it into bits, but accomplishing nothing except whatever it is inside you that needs soothing.

    1 Recommendation


      Well, you already said it, Everett: It’s a self-contained discussion, requiring (and indeed, welcoming) only one participant. Xavier does something similar, though in a markedly different tone. The world serves as a passive sounding board; disagreement is unwelcome, and opposing positions are predetermined to be false—regardless of new arguments or evidence presented—before the discussion even begins.

      1 Recommendation

  • Xavier,

    Never said that God was foolishness. but that it should not be used to validate or invalidate a philosophy, political idea or economics for that matter. But leave it up to you to cast whatever I say in the worst possible light. And whether I have a deep knowledge of the inner workings of Stiglitz or Krugmans should not prohibit my use of them in defense of a position especially if the use is appropriate.

    I don't have a "deep" understanding of General or Special Theories of Relativity but feel free to invoke them if someone wants to to talk about whether gravity bend light waves or faster than light space travel. In fact I just had a timing chain installed in my vehicle and though I know it is responisble for coordinating the firing sequence of the pistons in my auto engine, my knowledge of exactly how it does it is a bit sketchy.

    In fact why Devers and Finkelstein concluded that there was no conquest of the Holy Land as portrayed in the Bible is understandable and I have a cursory understanding of the techiques and time lines used by them to come to such a consensus. Does that prohibit my use of this evidence to refute scriptual references to the contrary?

    The idea that I have a basic understanding that Krugman believes (as do I) that government can create sufficient economic activity to kick start an economy or that Stiglitz (and Krugman) believe that cost of shelving millions of people either through inaction or by surrepticious action is far greater than we suspect. I suspect that they write books for guys like me to understand what they mean and why they think the way that they do. But if you are going to install Doctoral level understanding as a condition to acepting evidence then that defeats the very purpose of such evidence.

    My "demonizing" as you put it is directed at efforts to subtitute belief for evidence. Like Keith believed that Nate Silver's evidence was wrong. I get a special kick out of it when the evidence prevails which is just about every time.

    I don't think Zach removed God from what is falsifiable or not falsifiable. He simply said that it is not falsifiable as did I. Making a claim using a construct that is not falsifiable is the kind of "dirty pool" that I have railed against almost from the beginning. It's like the argument from ignorance. When you don't know what caused something attribute it to God. The claim is not falsifiable but it does not expand our body of knowledge and leads to a false sense of solution. In other words its a solution that isn't a solution. A fallacy. It is Christians use of such tactics that I am against. I have no problems with Christians that just want to follow the evidence. You seem to spend a lot of time demonizing me by saying that I demonize others. That's unfortunate.

    1 Recommendation


      Ah, Greg, you know the rules. When some generalizes atheists/progressives/Democrats, it has a “ring of truth” to it, but when someone generalizes Christians/Republicans/conservatives, it’s “demonization”. The double standard being employed here is blatant enough to make libertarians and progressives strange bedfellows indeed. I thought at first (many months ago) that these criticisms were worthy of consideration, mainly because I give most criticisms consideration (especially when they come from those who seem wise). After all, no matter how hard we try, our personal respective perspectives will always suffer limitations. The reasoned advice and observations of others are often excellent barometers by which we may gauge ourselves.

      Now I know that I was misled by those too blinded by hypocrisy to see past their own toes, but alas, I tried :)

      3 Recommendations


    Nancy said,
    Amen Nancy, I have observed that myself in more than one case of personal experience. Sons, and sometimes daughters, victimize their single mother who hasn't a man to turn to for help. A nurse friend of mine has a 30 year old drug addict that punishes her buy such acts as putting sugar in her gas tank if he does not get what he wants from her. There is more, much more, but this anecdote is typical.

    Greg simplistically likes single mothers because they vote his way. Greg would find a way to like anyone that votes his way. So it goes.

    5 Recommendations


    Re:""Your talk about fallacies". One major fallacies being flat earth.

    Language is difficult.Detail counts.In Islam when it talks earth being flat but in circles or round in motion .Looking earth with water.One side is bulk of the earth .Other side bulk of the water with broken islands.Crust is thick and can be called flat (irrespective if it is in the middle linking both sides or one side or in circle or square or shapeless but it has some kind of shield enough to hold water (either side).Even Mount everest 29K was summer capital but I was born in Calcutta and arrived in London UK.half a year later one student neighbour woke me up :''belal , get up everywhere is ice(white).I peeked it was white stuff - snow like white xmas.In fact I lost a watch.few months later when the snow really melted ,I found my watch right in front near door.Exaggeration distorts or falsification with intent to defraud.I am pondering ,technology of human two kinds.One made from earth one made from smokeless fuel.They need not be angels or Gabrial or jjin of light.Technology is that it exists and 99.99 % people do not know that it exists.Rule of thumb of quotation is to verify if quotation is given.It is evaluation or verification which determines the Truth.But when I said I saw myself with sone witness as well as I have established Technology of my thinking - my imagination cannot be left alone unchecked.As a start,past 4 decades ,I am not even in the league of educated people or in competition with extensive training and confirmable background with brand name institution - yet no name brand?This is disgusting and despicable? I magine I have two degrees ,languages with work - all for $120 .This itself is worth huge gigantic breakthrough - how to?



      Ahh, Belal, are you off your meds again?



        Israel Arabs Canada UK EU Muslim and India Sikhism Dilemma .The records showing two stories side by side on Omer.One with Omer buried in Cyprus and one buried next to Holy Prophet priveleged like wife in Tajmahal ( in Mecca) with all kinds of Theories.One specific said about his wife being daughter of his daughter Fatima Zahra (shiite) sister of murdered Hassan hussain related to ashura of karbala .Other one depicted his wife being daughter of second caliph (father of young aisha) as sunni . Mystery being creation of state of Israel bunched together with Canada UK India sikhs as main enemy of USA with debt of $18 Trillion while claiming USA #1 friend of Israel.

        100% accurate experience of mine or my friend or story of Omer in Bukhari.....

        However,Human made from Earth and human made from smokeless fuel (the way I wrote is 100% accurate).Technology is there.On the basis of shia sunni ,jewish ,christianity Islam with 50/50 basis hotch potch? In short,hereby I challenge west or east on above while it is mandatory to evaluate human and jjin (earth and smikeless fuel) Truth or Technology? Culprit being Canada UK Israel oil sheiks with sikhism anglican (protestant) hotch potch dilemma.


  • Zach,

    Okay, so I lost it.  Sorry.  Your three paragraph blurb near the top of page 675 was very reasonable and sensible.  

    No excuses but an explanation is in order.  I've made an honest effort to explain my model, not defend it but explain it.  When you come back at me with criticism it is never about any of the elements or components of the model but always about conclusions I derived only in part by using the model.  Thus far you have never addressed the model itself or any of its components, not once.  It thus sends me up the wall when you cast aspersions on something you've never given an indication of understanding.  Indeed, you have actually said you don't understand it yet you then criticize it.  

    What I see you and others do is create your own version of what somebody says or means and then criticize it.  Actually most people do that.  Because it really bothers me when others do it, when I criticize something somebody says I always ask and ask again--and maybe this format doesn't lend itself as easily to it--what the person said and meant that I don't like to make sure I understood precisely what it is that I don't like.  If you have paid attention to, for instance, my criticism of Obama, I often say that what or who I am criticizing are his advisors and then explain what I don't like and why I believe that it is wrong.  My model has never had that kind of hearing, just blanket criticism about it not being any good.  Maybe it isn't any good and I've said as much, but it really bugs me when people criticize it without giving it a fair hearing, apparently just for the sake of criticism or, as you like to put it, a good fight.

    2 Recommendations


      Apology accepted. When you put it this way, I have no choice but to participate in the “fair hearing” you so desire ;)

      Okay, here’s the deal. I actually do understand the components of your model individually. I have no problem with these components. While vague, each step is fairly logical. I’m not going to challenge them, and I’d be happy to apply them to a specific discussion.

      The problem is that I don’t understand the purpose of your model as a whole. Models generate conclusions. Some models seek to explain past events only, which is fine from an academic perspective. Other models, which I daresay are a bit more pragmatic, seek not only to explain past events but also to accurately predict future events. When you tell me that you want your model to be useful, and yet you’re not concerned with the accuracy of its conclusions/predictions, I become confused.

      Imagine building a desktop computer. You attach the motherboard to the inside of the case and insert a CPU. You plug all the peripherals, HDDs/SSDs, and various cards into the motherboard. Then you say, Zach, come take a look at this and tell me what you think. So I come and take a look, and I reply, looks like all the connections are in order, Xavier.

      In order for this computer to be useful, the next step would be to turn it on and make sure everything works properly. We’d certainly run speed tests, memory tests, maybe even see how far we could push the new hardware before the CPU temperature rose too high. This is how we would know if your connections were REALLY in order, instead of just looking at how they all were connected in a dark, motionless box.

      Right now, to me, you’re telling me that turning the computer on and seeing how well it works isn’t important to you. That baffles me, because the whole point of building a generally USEFUL computer is that it will work (and work well!).

      You constantly tell me that you are more focused on the HOW than the WHAT. The problem is, Xavier, what is the point of having a HOW if there is no WHAT? Also, as Everett puts it, what is the point of a model that offers chances no better than a coin flip—especially when they come into competition with other models that, like Nate Silver’s, are validated with repeated accurate predictions?


      • Zach, do you remember that a few times a while back I said that the motivation behind the model was to understand better what holds back societies that don't perform well?  You've travelled through Mexico and you've seen the huge gap between the haves and have nots, and that many of the latter live in abject poverty.  Everybody wants to improve their condition and premier development institutions like the World Bank spend scores of man years and plow billions into its economy but the results have been far from what was and continues to be "projected" by some very fancy development economics models.

        I've always felt that those models and efforts have been missing the real problems.  What I developed is in effect a tool to better diagnose the problems and help design better solutions. I've commented a number of times here what I see to be some of the problems in Mexico and how to fix them.  I can repeat it if you want but although I know some of those problems are now being addressed directly--with other practical problems like unions interfering--I haven't been involved myself except in the steel industry and the focus of my model is social. I once did give you an explanation of how my team did it in Tanzania.

        But let me get off those grand schemes and come down to earth to something we can both touch. You gave an example of building a computer. You have a natural bias towards physical systems because nature, machines and now electronics are the primary subject of science as we have learned it.  Yet when it comes to social systems life is not that accommodating.  If it were, all of the fancy mathematical theories developed at the World Bank for economic development would work, but they don't because the reality is that humans are primarily social beings.  

        If we were face to face I would be able to ask you simple questions about what you did with your girlfriend or relatives this past weekend and how that resulted in some conflict that you had to resolve, which if you did, you did by walking through some, although of course not necessarily all of the steps in my model.  And I could predict as we went along what happened generically, what you then had to do, and roughly how you went about doing it.  

        Thus, for instance, if you or your girlfriend decided for a change of pace to go to the movies instead of what you normally do, right away you would have some conflict.  You would actually need to agree on and decide a number of things, including for instance, which of your normal activities to give up, what film to watch, at what time, and so on.  And there might even be some tension and a laugh or some horseplay to work it off.  These are all steps in the process part of my model.  As important, while you may have a difficult time agreeing whether and which movie to do with a neighbor you don't know well, with your girlfriend there is a lot in common that you both know about each other that would help you walk through the process more easily. If after the fact you liked going to the movies and decided to do it more frequently, you may even discuss some rules about how to do it next time around more smoothly and automatically.

        I think you get the picture.  And actually much the same applies more generally to societies. It's not rocket science at all.  It is all quite simple and obvious but it's like anything else we haven't stopped to look carefully at, break down into its components, and try to figure out how it works.  If you want we can work our way through something you actually did do differently than normal (the change) with your girlfriend or a close friend or relative.  Of course the user of the model, me, needs to know a lot about you both. Obviously also the model may not be the indicated tool, but when the action involves social change of any kind, odds are that it may be at least somewhat useful.


      • PS.  You may want to try it in your role as officer next time you need to change something, or you face conflict or any of the other process steps in the model.  Remember that you would be using it at least at first only as a diagnostic tool for change or to resolve something that may not be going well.  Thus, for instance, if you want to bring about change of any kind you'll know going in, i.e. you can predict, that you will have to deal with at least three problems.  Making yourself understood. Overcoming resistance.  And getting all the people involved on the same page.  That alone will be a major challenge and can result in stress so you will have to have prepared a way to relieve that stress.  You will also have to be alert to other seemingly unconnected parts of the normal routine that may need to be modified or eliminated in order for the new procedure or whatever to work well.


« »
To add a comment please
Create an Account

Your real name is required
for commenting.

  • Clear
  • Post
Your Profile Here…

Set up your profile to connect with members of Journal Community.


Your Groups Here…

