Forestluv

Gabor is skilled in empathic modes of being. In a SD context, this is mature, embodied Green. Those centered at Blue / Orange with resistance to Green should watch more of these video types, rather than focusing on immature greens demanding 137 personal pronouns and protesting at professors homes.

I prefer the phrase "without a college degree" over "uneducated" because it is more precise. Most people considered 'educated' have a college degree (since that is a place of intense education) - yet not all. Some educated people don't have a college degree. They are self-educated or became educated with on-the-job training and experience. Or perhaps they had three years of University education and dropped out because they wanted to move in a different direction - perhaps start their own business.

A good example of how distinctions are created, relative meaning and assumptions. Here, we create a distinction between "hatred" and "resentment" as 'not matching'. Lets look under the hood into the nuances of meaning. 'Not matching' could mean that our idea of 'hatred' and our idea of 'resentment' are in two mutually exclusive categories that do not over-lap. Or 'not matching' could be that our idea of 'hatred' and our idea of 'resentment' overlap, yet are not perfect matches. As well, the terms 'hatred' and 'resentment' have an enormous amount of relative / subjective meaning. Snags of understanding and communicating enter when one does not realize underlying nuances / complexities and assumes their relative meaning is objective and normative for all. This leads to another layer of assumptions and projections - for example "This person must be denying the resentment they feel toward XYZ". This may be true, partially true or false. A mind that assumes the relative meaning it creates is objectively true will be contracted within that construct and assume their conclusion is also true, thus missing the partial truth and false aspects of their conclusion. In other words, being immersed in content and unaware of structure.

2016 and 2020 have very different dynamics. In 2016, Clinton's lead was much smaller and Trump and Clinton went back and forth with the lead. As well, whites without college degrees were undersampled. In 2020, Biden has a much larger lead and it has been consistent. It's been the largest, most consistent lead in modern presidential elections. And the polls have increased the weighting of whites without college degrees.

Most Qanons I've encountered are simple-minded, yet I've also encountered a few exceptions. I find it interesting how a single mind can be advanced in some areas like spirituality and metaphysics. . . yet then get immersed into conspiracies like Qanon. Perhaps there is a certain lack of skepticism and open-ness that can be an asset in some contexts, yet a detriment in other contexts. A mind that is super skeptical won't fall for Q B.S., yet that same mind will likely reject spirituality and metaphysics as well. Mind structure can be quite interesting.

Good question. You've got me contemplating which I like. . . Imagine little people would view schizophrenia. A molecular geneticist focuses in on the Disc1 gene. A genomicist looks at the entire gene network. A neuroscientist looks at neural networks. A psychologist looks at subjective experiences and childhood trauma. A biochemist tries to develop pharmacological drugs. A sociologist looks at influences of social networks. A "normie" may see a schizophrenic as scary and threatening. A schizophrenic may feel like noone truly understands their condition and there is no place for them. Each of those people are contracted into their own limited view. To each of them, it is the complete view. . . . Each view is partial and has value. Someone who sees the big picture can see the inter-relationships. Yet a big picture thinker often lacks skills of details and actual implementation. Let's say I was to set up an institute of integrated research and therapy for schizophrenia. I don't have the detailed expertise in any one area, so I would need to compile a team of specialized experts. Without that, it would be a fantasy. Each sector of my integrated institute would be hollow. This is a great question of zooming in and zooming out - inter-relatedness of resolutions and what is "actual". In a practical sense, if someone is too zoomed in or too zoomed out, they may make incorrect conclusions. If I'm trying to figure out why my refrigerator is broken, zooming out to the Big Bang and infinite inter-related causation within a singularity isn't going to help fix the refrigerator. I need to zoom in and find which part has malfunctioned. When we zoom in and out, it is what it is at that resolution level and all levels are inter-connected as a whole. The human mind is very conditioned to perceive 3D space at one resolution level - not zooming in and out and seeing continuous resolution levels. For example, we could look at a tree - we could zoom in with high power microscope to view cellular proteins - that is a very different view, a different from of "actuality". We could zoom in even further to the quantum level in which physical laws no longer apply. Material is immaterial - quantum fields of entanglement. Quantum particles are spaced further apart than stars are spaces apart. At this resolution, the actuality of the tree is very different. It's pretty much empty space. I use microscopes a lot and this imagery appears for me: Imagine zooming in and out of magnification looking at a blade of grass. We can zoom from 1X to 1,00X - in and out. The zooming would be continuous. There would be no point in which the blade of grass stops being a blade of grass. There would be no point in which the actuality of the grass disappeared and a new actuality appeared.

I'd prefer a socialist/capitalist hybrid system similar to the Nordic model. This would be progress for the U.S. Yet I know the bigger picture and I'm not an expert in the details of how that system would be engineered. Other systems like Resource-Based economy has been proposed, yet I think this is too far advanced for where we are now. This is a Tier 2 level and most humans are at red-orange. For example, the majority of humans want to use technology for war and profits - not for sustainability and efficient communication in a holistic system. We need to evolve through Orange and Green first which is a socialist/capitalist hybrid system from my pov

I'm not an economist and don't know specific numbers. Yet wealth in the U.S. has become hyper-concentrated and is causing serious problems. Concentration of money is concentration of power and it becomes toxic. And unregulated toxic capitalism becomes more and more concentrated in a hyper competitive, profits first system. There is no variable in capitalism to prevent this. The exploitation and destruction of the earth's resources and societies will get worse and worse. I think having spoonfuls of capitalism is healthy and can promote progress, yet too much is toxic. Kinda like adding curry powder to a dish of tikka masala. A couple table spoons spices it up, yet adding a couple cups of curry spice to a dish would make it grotesque and inedible.

@holderofhands That is a combined effective rate on the wealthy, not a statutory rate. The combined effective rate would be more like 50%, which isn't a major increase. Trump/GOP did large tax reductions / exemptions for the wealthy. I'd be in favor of rolling back those reductions, yet it's also important were the money goes. If the increased governmental revenue goes to increasing the military budget and warmongering, I'd be against it. If the money goes to improving schools and health care, I'm for it. For example, when there is a covid vaccine to make it free for everyone. As well, I'd like to see actual tax codes enforced. Money is power and money has become so concentrated in the uber wealthy that they have so much power they are essentially writing tax policy and evading taxes without consequence. The framing of "If we increase taxes on the rich, the rich will be disincentivized and may leave the U.S." is a framing of plutocrats. We are not talking about high tax rates for someone making $100,000 or less a year. In this zone, yes, making more money is incentive to work hard and be more productive. Yet once we get into people earning and accumulating 100s of millions and billions of dollars - the dynamics changes. This form is incentive to make even more billions of dollars is toxic. It becomes extreme greed and involves exploitation of others to keep increasing profits. That is toxic capitalism.

What is perceived as a 'crime' is relative. In a polarized mindset, all 'crimes' against the other side are justified and good - especially a red/blue mindset since they lack self reflection. Trump's tax evasion and impeachment has increased his status with his base. And MAGA gleefully chants "Lock them up" against their perceived enemies for imagined 'crimes'. On the flip side, Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for his populism. His imprisonment helped elevate him to social hero status and he became a beloved president of South Africa. Yet for Trump. . . I think if he got convicted and did any prison time it would be seen as a stain by the majority of Americans (yet the 30% of MAGA would likely idolize him even more).

In terms of psychology, people don't like to be associated with losing. Imagine a city's sports team had a 90% chance of losing the game. How many fans are going to show up to the game? Not many. Yet I also don't think suggesting a blowout win for Trump is good for driving up Republican turnout. If we are fabricating data here and bullshitting our audience, I would tell them we are up a few points and need to turnout in force to help Trump win. Similar to telling our sportfans that we are slight favorites - yet we need to pack the stadium and makes lots of noise to help our team. Telling their audience Trump has a 91% chance of winning, likely calms down some jitters that Trump is a big underdog. Yet unfortunately, it plays into the narrative that Trump is a lock and the only way he could lose as by Democrat election fraud. There are a lot of Trumpers that think there is no fair way that Trump could lose. This makes it more difficult to have a smooth transition of power.

I do respect a prognosticator that comes out early as Stantic did. That is much riskier than waiting to late October. Yet is month-old prediction is already wrong: "“It is maybe early, but I can tell you that the trend we identified in advance last time is holding.” It's not holding. Biden's lead has significantly increased by 3% in the polling aggregate since Stantic released his prediction. Stantic's decisive state is Minnesota for Trump?! Really? Trump gave up on Minnesota months ago and Biden is up 9.1% in the polling aggregate. It isn't a swing state and even Trump's team has conceded it. Flipping Minnesota alone would flip Stantic's model to a Biden victory.

4 of those 6 were clear predictions by polls and relatively easy calls. How does he do in presidential elections in which his model chooses a 10pt underdog? My hunch is he is 0-0 and about to be 0-1. There are many ways to spin odds. Be careful in Vegas. . .

Last comment on this thread was over 4 years ago. Please be mindful about bumping old threads.

The possibilities in the thread were based upon extensive empirical data, so it’s not fair to call them biased - unless you consider the data from dozens of polling agencies, including republican, to all be biased in a conspiracy against Trump. The alternatives you chose are possible, yet unlikely based on empirical data and modeling.

This guy is a hack. He doesn’t include polls in his “model” because he says the polls failed in 2016 and that 2020 is a carbon copy. This is willfully ignorant - the 2020 polling dynamics are very different than in 2016. In 2016, Hilary and Trump went back and forth over the campaign. On Election Day, Hilary had a slight lead and some forecasters like 538 showed considerable chances of a Trump win. In 2020 Biden has the largest, most consistent lead in modern presidential elections. Clinton wasn’t even close.

AOC doesn’t like Trudeau. AOC likes Singh. You seem to want to place AOC and Biden close together. The left isn’t a monolithic group. The left is a spectrum with a range of different groups: anarchist communes, socialists, democratic socialists, neoliberals etc. There is a reason AOC won’t endorse Biden - because he is very far away from her ideologically. And you are listing right-wing gaffes of AOC. That is not the measure of intelligence. Have you watched any of her extended 30min+ interviews or congressional hearings? Those go deeper and are a better measure of intellect. And it is totally normal for a green level politician to say no to a blue level pundit. She is TWO conscious levels higher than Ben and she has a higher platform. It makes no sense for her to compromise her integrity. Just like it’s totally reasonable to say no to a QAnon spokesperson or a flat-earther. And Ben would not “embarrass her”. Stage blue does not embarrass a solid stage green. That would be like saying an algebra student would embarrass a calculus professor. The only people who would think AOC got embarrassed would be stage blue people.

Trump often thinks out loud, so he may be thinking about leaving. Or it may have just popped in his head in that moment. Kinda like him talking about injecting disinfectant. Hard to tell how serious he is.

Have you watched extended interviews and court hearings of AOC? She has an intellect. She is sharp. Biden and AOC are very far apart. They would be in different parties in countries with multi-party systems. For example, AOC is much closer aligned to the NDP in Canada. She is would be in the same NDP as Singh. Biden would be more aligned with Trudeau, although Biden is still further right. A recent poll showed a strong majority of those in the canadien Conservative party would choose Biden over Trump. So Biden is a 1.5 parties away from AOC in Canada. In terms of SD, AOC is solid Green and Biden is Orange (with some sympathy for Green). AOC even refuses to endorse Biden.

Needing to flip a one close state with a recount is a very different dynamic than needing to flip multiple close states. Al Gore refused to concede because he just needed Florida to win. Imagine Hilary refusing to concede because she wants to contest Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan AND Wisconsin ftw. Trump may try it, yet it’s very different than only needing to flip one state. That’s likely why he is trying to establish a narrative of widespread mail in fraud. He could say that there was mail in fraud in all five states he needs to flip, yet its still a stretch.

I’m referring to Trump, not the GOP. I doubt Trump was not involved with the complexities and nuances of tax proposal planning. Of course conservatives won’t like it and they are very good at fighting back. Biden isn’t a socialist, he much more oriented toward capitalism. AOC is a democratic socialist and very far from Biden on the political spectrum. In Canada or European countries, AOC and Biden would be in two different parties.

Given this lead by who? Dozens of independent polling agencies all have Biden up big. You think all polling agencies are in a conspiracy against Trump? That’s a stretch imo. Have you been watching Trump? He has been promising a health care plan “in two weeks” for 4 years! He himself has said he doesn’t plan and likes to play it by instinct in the moment.

Keep in mind that predictive modeling is not binary. It is possibilities. Currently the polls do NOT predict Biden will win. They now predict he has about a 90% chance of winning. This is what a 91% chance looks like. There are still Trump win scenarios in the predictive models. Imagine throwing a dart at this board. Would you be 100% confident in hitting a blue square?

The 2016 and 2020 dynamics are totally different. Trump and Clinton went back and forth with poll leads and on Election Day, the polls were very close on Clinton’s margin of victory in the popular vote. Within tenths of a percent. The main issue in 2016 polls was uneducated white voters and that has been corrected for in 2020. Biden’s lead is much larger than Clinton’s. Biden has the largest and most consistent lead in the modern history of presidential elections. Trump has never once even gotten close to Biden. If Trump wins, it would most likely be due to massive voter suppression and ballot tampering. If Trump wins fair and square, it would be by far the most inaccurate polls in the history of the U.S. This would indicate that polling is is fundamentally inaccurate or that there was a conspiracy in the polling industry to take down Trump. This is highly unlikely. Dozens of independent polls all have Biden up big, including pollsters connected to republicans such as Rasmussen and FoxNews. These polling firms are all competing with each other to be the most accurate, best polling firm. They have an incentive to be accurate - to survive. It’s highly unlikely that all these independent polling firms are fabricating bullshit data to take down Trump - especially republican oriented firms that want Trump to win. That would go into conspiracy theory territory. As well, the polls show Biden up big, yet that does not mean the polls say Trump can’t win. The polls give Trump about an 11% chance of winning. That is a decent chance of winning. There is no energy to vote for Biden - there is massive energy to vote against Trump. I wouldn’t walk across the street to vote for Biden, yet I’d walk across broken glass to vote against Trump. Trump won’t give in easily - yet Trump doesn’t prepare or plan. He makes things up as he goes along.