[FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Heh.  When I was tasked with explaining agent-based modeling to some art students in Sweden, I made heavy use of the gooey colloid metaphor. There were a lot of blank stares in the audience. 8^)  But the guy who hired me was happy with the presentation.  So, who knows?

I think I agree with Marcus.  Trump is neither a good communicator nor a good persuader.  If I were going to say something positive about him, I'd call him a poet, since I view poetry as a balance act between being *just* descriptive enough to imply some thing, but vague enough to allow the audience maximum freedom to fill in whatever nonsense they want to from their own imagination.  Whether Trump trains himself in his poetry or if he was trained by his genes and rearing is irrelevant.  And all that should be read with the knowledge that I do not like poetry.  I do like *performative* poetry to some extent, though.  I'm fans of the epic rants of someone like Lewis Black, spoken-word lyrics, some rap, etc.  But if you compare a good performer (actors, comedians, rappers) to Trump, there's still something missing from his public presentations.

One speculation I like is that Trump is a small-group presenter, not a large group presenter.  The only explanation I can come up with for the loyalty his "friends" show him is that he must be a pretty good interpersonal manipulator.  One on one, perhaps Trump is respectful, flattering, etc.  And it's just when he gets into a larger audience that he flubs it.  It's difficult to manipulate a large number of people (unless they're *already* pre-adapted to the manipulation like at his rallies).

Anyway, if my speculation is close, then Trump doesn't intend or WANT to communicate or persuade, only to perform.

And the tight weave thing was definitely a compliment, and very much on the topic of speaking with language that hangs together and can communicate/persuade, even if *you* don't intend or want to. 8^)

On 1/11/19 11:43 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> As a compulsive intuitive modeler of "everything" as a network/field dual, all this resonates well.  I also like your characterization as "gooey colloid" and was reminded of JJ Thompson's Plum-Pudding model of atoms.
> 
> I also like your action/consideration dual to rights/responsibilities... sort of a verb/noun or active/passive duality?
> 
> Regarding the use of the term "effectivity".   I long ago began to rephrase statements using "good" with similar statements being "effective".   e.g. "Science is good at X" with "Science is effective for addressing the topic/problem/question of X".   The key point is to replace an absolute value judgement with a more contextualized and relative one.
> 
> If Trump claimed "A Physical Barrier like a Concrete Wall or a Beautifully Artistic Steel Slatted Fence is particularly effective in helping personnel in charge of maintaining border security stop the casual crossing of the border without appropriate inspection of cargo and entry documents" rather than the variety of simpleton dumbass claims he *does make*, he would A) put most people to sleep; B) be part of a constructive conversation toward improving the effectiveness of our southern national border.
> 
> - Steve
> 
> PS.  Thanks for the (underhanded?) complement on my "tight weave".   I started to claim that I don't *intend* to make the discourse more difficult to analyze, then I realized, that I probably DO intend to prevent the context of any given conversation from being trivialized or made degenerate for the sake of clarity over meaning.

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ