Thread: Politics - this would be counterintuitive for many

The speaker nearly lost me by saying "factoid" with a straight face , but I stuck with it.

His method seems mostly reasonable, it's not as controversial as it might appear. It requires that you have some understanding of the people you are modelling, so it cannot draw conclusions from thin air.

The only dubious part was where he seemed to arbitrarily assign a range of numbers to a set of possible results for some graphs (e.g. 115=develop enough WGF for tests.) Pretty meaningless in the absence of some explanation.

Yeah, the vertical axis seemed overly technical, but i think he did a good job explaining what the meaning of it is, i.e. this level here corresponds to this scenario, and that level there corresponds to that scenario.

The modeling basics were pretty good I thought, he assumes great extent of rationality, which seems to be true. I mean people are not fully rational, but their irrationality can also be quantified and used in a predictable manner. Game theory formalizes the treatment of various interactions, it's pretty interesting stuff.

There are a lot of things that are straightforward to predict. For example even if there was an absolute certainty that his model describes things correctly, the US will still choose the expensive route of exerting pressure on Iran. The cost to benefit analysis on the American side is trivial and doesn't require computers to predict the outcome of that decision.

At least that's how I see it right now.

Originally Posted by gugi

Here's a bit of a sensationalist, but still pretty relevant illustration that may change your views on politics and policy:

Originally Posted by gugi

no reason to assume, he did. i don't see the point you are trying to make.

it's just another tool to the currently available ones, e.g. 'analyses by expert'. and as any tool it's been tested and continues to be tested against the others. i don't think it's the ultimate tool, but in the majority of tests it has performed at least as well, or better as the alternatives. your objections applied to the alternative approaches are even stronger.

to repeat my point, it seems that this is performing sufficiently well that it's already getting attention from those who can use it. i think it should be pretty clear that we're just observers to the process and the policy makers are the ones who make policy based on whatever they think it should be based on.

i'm most certainly a fan of having more good tools than fewer.
(and i'd still prefer accounting done by an accountant instead of an expert with an opinion on what the numbers should be.)

In your original post you were talking about changing my views on politics and policy, now you are talking about having more good tools than fewer.

My point was that, in fact, in the case of the invasion of Iraq, his predictions had no influence on politics or policy and they probably won't on Iran either. The policy makers didn't want to use the information because it conflicted with what they wanted to do. In fact, there were other good sources of information that said the same thing so, good tool or bad, if it is ignored it serves no purpose.

My second objection is that this method claims to be "scientific" but it is nothing of the kind. It's a good example of "garbage in/garbage out" in the sense that the results of the model depend on the accuracy of the input and the input is not "scientific". For example, in his Iran model, he assumes that Ahmadinejad wants an atomic bomb. Where does that come from? I understand that that's the fear, but he has always denied it.

So, in regard to your original post, I don't see where this method affects politics or policy. What am I missing?

well, policy making is usually a bit less straightforward than what most people seem to believe. it's a result of some complex interactions between various entities.

of course, eventually the person who is in charge of making a decision still makes it, but this person's deliberation process is influenced by a lot of factors. i don't think this is something new to anybody here, but seems worth noting. i don't think bush and cheney one day decided to invade iraq out of the blue.

garbage-in/garbage-out is an interesting way to dismiss something, but this is a faulty logic. nobody is interested in the conversion garbage-in/garbage-out but on the valuable-in/valuable-out, and most certainly avoiding valuable-in/garbage-out. i suspect that garbage-in/valuable-out is a scenario most people don't consider very realistic.
i also do not believe you understand the meaning of 'scientific', but this is probably a completely different topic.

anyways, somebody clearly thought his tool is significant enough to run an evaluation of it. to me this says a lot about policy making and directly contradicts the picture you seem to believe. as far as whether this approach has had any influence on the war in iraq, i think it's more likely that it has had than hadn't. not on starting it but on conducting it. of course, i don't have any evidence for this, it's just based on following the logic.

Originally Posted by gugi

well, policy making is usually a bit less straightforward than what most people seem to believe. it's a result of some complex interactions between various entities.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by gugi

i don't think bush and cheney one day decided to invade iraq out of the blue.

I didn't say that. But they did say that we were invading Iraq because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't true, they knew it wasn't true, ergo, they lied. We assume they had a reason but we don't still don't know what it was or whether or not it was in the public interest. In this context, what analysis tools they used or didn't use is besides the point and a student of politics or policy learns nothing from it.

Originally Posted by gugi

garbage-in/garbage-out is an interesting way to dismiss something, but this is a faulty logic. nobody is interested in the conversion garbage-in/garbage-out but on the valuable-in/valuable-out, and most certainly avoiding valuable-in/garbage-out. i suspect that garbage-in/valuable-out is a scenario most people don't consider very realistic.
i also do not believe you understand the meaning of 'scientific', but this is probably a completely different topic.

You're talking down to me. As I said, according to his Iraq model, Ahmadinejad wants an atomic bomb. I read almost everything there is on this subject and I've never seen him quoted as saying he wants a bomb, so where did this come from? This model is only as good as the information that goes into it and where the information comes from, and its reliability, is key. I can make any model say what I want it to say if I pick the input. I said the model wasn't scientific because the input is not verifiable data. Temperature measurements with a calibrated thermometer are scientific input, seat of the pants speculation about someone's intentions are not.

Originally Posted by gugi

anyways, somebody clearly thought his tool is significant enough to run an evaluation of it. to me this says a lot about policy making and directly contradicts the picture you seem to believe.

This is non sequiter. In my experience politicians don't like models because they give the right answer, but because they give the answer they want. The more "scientific" it looks, the easier it is to sell the answer.

Originally Posted by gugi

as far as whether this approach has had any influence on the war in iraq, i think it's more likely that it has had than hadn't. not on starting it but on conducting it. of course, i don't have any evidence for this, it's just based on following the logic.

Logic in conducting the war in Iraq?? There's you're problem right there. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are disasters as is American foreign policy in general. If this is a good policy-making tool, I can guarantee you it isn't being used.

*DING DING*

End of round one Gentlemen. Please return to your corners and allow the scantily clad lady to cross the thread with 'Round 2' on her sign before bickering commences.

Originally Posted by sidneykidney

*DING DING*

End of round one Gentlemen. Please return to your corners and allow the scantily clad lady to cross the thread with 'Round 2' on her sign before bickering commences.

Thanks for the comic relief!

I mean (after being active in a party for a couple of years) that any kind of politics could be a lot better if not two third of one's energy would be needed for sharpening elbows, improving school bully abilities or otherwise required activities to preserve or climb your position.
Maybe after a good cleanup I could start to believe in it again.

Originally Posted by sidneykidney

Please return to your corners and allow the scantily clad lady to cross the thread with 'Round 2' on her sign before bickering commences.

I think I've been in my corner for about a day, but I didn't pay attention on Olivia's clothing, so I'll assume she was indeed the one carrying the sign.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

You're talking down to me.

Yeah, this is true, I do get carried away fairly often and forget to be civil. Sorry about this, I'll be mindful of it.

I think the definition from 'Wikipedia' is a pretty good one

Originally Posted by wikipedia

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.^[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.^[2]

His approach absolutely fits into it. He defined the input very clearly, and assigning numeric values on all variables is reasonable and straightforward. Yes, it may not be precise to the same precision 10^(-20), or even 1%, may be these are correct to within 30% only, but this margin of error is also quantifiable, thus under control. He explained how these are 'measured'. There is perhaps more subjectivity in the process, than sticking a thermometer in a cup of tea, but (1) the subjectivity can be accounted for and (2) a temperature measurement by a thermometer is very ambiguous as well - I'll just point out the spatial and temporal fluctuations and won't bother with the 'definition' of temperature itself.

This model is only as good as the information that goes into it and where the information comes from, and its reliability, is key.

Actually this is not correct, the validity of any model is measured by its ability to predict the correct evolution of an initial state. Whether the initial state is correct is a completely different issue.
The 'factoid' is indeed rather troublesome. I would like to see the real evaluation numbers and I saw some, but haven't yet spent the time to look and read the original report.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

seat of the pants speculation about someone's intentions are not.

And that is why this is not an input to the model. The imput is not what somebody's intentions are, but what their stated position is (I suppose implied position is treated in a similar way as explicitly stated one). People in charge of policy choose their positions carefully, and this is important to keep in mind. Their reasons for this are not important for this type of treatment, at least not directly, they may play a role in estimating their 'flexibility' on a position which is another input variable.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

This is non sequiter. In my experience politicians don't like models because they give the right answer, but because they give the answer they want. The more "scientific" it looks, the easier it is to sell the answer.

Uhm, a direct evidence of something being taken seriously is a non-sequitur to my point that something is being taken seriously? I'm getting a bit lost. Is the nuclear bomb non-scientific because politicians choose to use its existence or non-existence in certain ways? What about the doomsday device?

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Logic in conducting the war in Iraq??

Yes, this is what I said. There have been a lot of terrible mistakes and mismanagement, but there have been a lot of absolutely proper decisions and actions as well. I could give you examples of both, but I'm not sure it'll make any difference if you have already made up your mind that every single thing has been an error.

Originally Posted by 0livia

I mean (after being active in a party for a couple of years) that any kind of politics could be a lot better if not two third of one's energy would be needed for sharpening elbows, improving school bully abilities or otherwise required activities to preserve or climb your position.
Maybe after a good cleanup I could start to believe in it again.

This would be counterintuitive for many