[FRIAM] Trump, truth, and politics: Why do we still think Trump is acting with respect to the truth?

[glen ☣]

On 01/04/2017 10:15 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
> Sure... the situation would be improved, and we would call it a win, if we could send Putin to the principles office... Part of my point was exactly that it seems unlikely a public accusation by Trump would do anything towards getting Putin to "learn there are consequences to things and stop doing those things." Does anyone think Obama's sending home a handful of diplomats did that?

Not to pile on ... but it seems we know that tit-for-tat isn't necessarily always the best strategy in games.  But since there is no free lunch, we also know that it's a decent default.  No, Putin won't change his ways just because we titted after he tatted.  But _not_ titting requires some longer term strategy.  Not only that, we have a long history of tit-for-tat in our spycraft.

So, I'll answer your question with another one.  Do we really think Trump has a long-term strategy for playing any type of game with Putin?


On 01/04/2017 08:25 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> The media should integrate a lot of sources of context into a coherent picture of this man, and not just fire off these fact on-offs that come across like cheap shots to his sympathizers.   What, if any, long-term motives does he have, and how are his current and historical actions and statements consistent with those motives?  Not what it is, but what it means.   Doing this with evidence and repeated examples is what makes this reporting and not just editorializing. 

I believe our incoming Cheeto-in-Chief is purely reactive.  Any memory he might have is occupied by logging all his "enemies" who have "slighted" him in one way or another, leaving no memory for strategy.  It'll take a lot of work to demonstrate (to me) that he has an understanding of strategy at all.  (Tactics are another matter, of course.  Anyone who lives to 70 has demonstrated some understanding of tactics.)

However, as long as he surrounds himself with actual strategists, they (and the "deep state") provide a good chance that no matter what nonsense goes on inside Trump's head, post-hoc analysis will show a relatively stable system.  If he _reacts_ in a singularly biased way (e.g. listening to Bannon more than Tillerson, say), then we'll see significant instability.  None of that will imply Trump has any kind of strategy at all, though.  He'll just jump up and tweet about any factoid that goes his way and claim it as part of his plan.  Any factoid that doesn't fit the narrative will be "rigged" or simply ignored.

This raises, yet again, the logical possibility of philosophical zombies ... and challenges the behaviorist model.  If Trump _appears_ for all intents and purposes to have a strategy, does he actually have a strategy?  >8^D  Is the holographic principle reliable?

-- 
☣ glen