You are making an error in equating all lollerskates.
But in the spirit of fair warning I will disclose upfront that I’m not taking this subthread seriously and that I’m going to snort and giggle, make indecent gestures and bad jokes (example: do you know what the mascot of the Democrats is? It’s an ass! That would be so appropriate for Bey’s presidential bid!)
What sort of skills do you think this involves?
Do you know any competent managers? What kind of skills do they have?
Beyonce, Ellen, Justin Timberlake—someone who has displayed intelligence and charisma.
Ahem. You know they all min-maxed for charisma and treated int as the dump stat, right?
It’s about the a) .. b) .. c) .. d)
Well, you’ve figured out the US elections. Do you think you have a bright future as a political consultant? If not, why not?
The question is more about celebrity and social media having the ability to get people elected regardless of that person’s actual credentials to be the CEO of America.
You seem to be getting hung up on the particular names of the celebrities I am mentioning. Why?
Ronald Reagan was a shitty actor before his gov’t career; Arnold Schwarzenegger was the same; Jesse Ventura was a wrestler/actor.
Trump seems to me to be more a result of the phenomenon whereby a celebrity uses their profile and name recognition as the overwhelming means for getting elected *, rather than displaying any “managerial competencies”.
In the last two decades, the internet + millennials, yada, yada. Therefore, I’m asking about how much this phenomenon may have been accelerated...to the point where a pure mega celeb could win a November popularity/beauty contest in which there is no requisite IQ/current events awareness test given at the polls.
Again, we just elected Trump in the U.S. when such a thing had been considered virtually impossible according to most credible experts.
You’re saying Trump’s win was possible where other celebs’ wins are not because manager skills.
And also because he wears suits, I presume?
Edit - * Along with a two party system that makes a roughly even split of the vote likely.
such a thing had been considered virtually impossible according to most credible experts.
Some credible experts had given him about 1% chance of winning, but IIRC most of them gave him chances of the order of 20%, which hardly counts as “virtually impossible” IMO.
Trump seems to me to be more a result of the phenomenon whereby a celebrity uses their profile and name recognition as the overwhelming means for getting elected *, rather than displaying any “managerial competencies”.
“Managerial competencies” aren’t visible on TV but they affect a lot of decisions that have to be made while running a campaign. Decisions that can be good or bad and given that the margin by which he won wasn’t that big making slightly worse decisions might have cost him the election.
The question is more about celebrity and social media having the ability to get people elected regardless of that person’s actual credentials to be the CEO of America.
First point: a president is not a CEO. The distinction matters.
Second point: the electorate does not care about “actual credentials” and has not been caring for many decades by now. I’m not sure what credentials would those be, anyway.
Third point: social media has NOT demonstrated its ability to elect a president. Trump was not elected on the strength of his social media game.
Ronald Reagan was a shitty actor before his gov’t career; Arnold Schwarzenegger was the same; Jesse Ventura was a wrestler/actor.
So draw the conclusion: your success as an actor/celebrity/etc. is not really relevant to your chances at getting elected to a political office. Being a celebrity is useful, but it’s about as useful as, say, being tall.
whereby a celebrity uses their profile and name recognition as the overwhelming means for getting elected
Citation needed. I do not think this is the case with Trump.
a thing had been considered virtually impossible according to most credible experts
So draw the conclusion: these were not experts and their words are not credible.
And also because he wears suits, I presume?
Nah. Hillary was famous for her pantsuits. Didn’t help :-P
Second point: the electorate does not care about “actual credentials” and has not been caring for many decades by now. I’m not sure what credentials would those be, anyway.
Well, you suggested having manager skills...
But we seem to agree that skills relevant to doing the job of POTUS aren’t necessarily of primary importance in regard to being elected. Is this an accurate statement of your view?
Third point: social media has NOT demonstrated its ability to elect a president. Trump was not elected on the strength of his social media game.
It seems to be fairly non-controversial that Trump employed social media effectively and this helped him win… Can you elaborate on what you mean?
Being a celebrity is useful, but it’s about as useful as, say, being tall.
This seems obviously false for lots of reasons and I assume you’re kidding.
Citation needed. I do not think this is the case with Trump.
Admittedly tough to quantify.
these were not experts and their words are not credible.
Or, they were basing their predictions on outdated maps of the territory.
Manager skills are like instrumental rationality: they are not a signal to the electorare, they are for you to achieve what you want to achieve.
skills relevant to doing the job of POTUS aren’t necessarily of primary importance in regard to being elected
Yes, that is an accurate statement of my view.
By the way, I think you lack proper appreciation for point one :-)
Trump employed social media effectively and this helped him win
Trump also employed his money effectively and this helped him win. Trump also employed his campaign staff effectively and this helped him win. Trump also employed public statements effectively and this helped him win. Trump also...
This seems obviously false for lots of reasons
Surely you will be able to produce tons and tons of evidence in support of your position, then.
they were basing their predictions on outdated maps of the territory
Still not experts :-D Maybe experts-at-looking-in-the-rearview-mirror but those don’t seem to be terribly useful.
I dunno :-) I still like Captain Jack Sparrow best.
If I can’t have him, I’ll take Rocket Raccoon. He can deal with the Middle East and Captain Jack Sparrow can be appointed to be the US representative in the trade negotiations with China.
You know what the greatest strength of the American democracy is? Anyone can become President :-P
Jack understands the game-theoretic implications of negotiating with someone slightly insane very well. Probably better than a Chinese civil-service mandarin whose experience with slightly insane people is, I suspect, limited.
As to Rocket, well… I think his typical approach would be just right for the Middle East.
You are making an error in equating all lollerskates.
But in the spirit of fair warning I will disclose upfront that I’m not taking this subthread seriously and that I’m going to snort and giggle, make indecent gestures and bad jokes (example: do you know what the mascot of the Democrats is? It’s an ass! That would be so appropriate for Bey’s presidential bid!)
Do you know any competent managers? What kind of skills do they have?
Ahem. You know they all min-maxed for charisma and treated int as the dump stat, right?
Well, you’ve figured out the US elections. Do you think you have a bright future as a political consultant? If not, why not?
Thank you for the fair warning.
The question is more about celebrity and social media having the ability to get people elected regardless of that person’s actual credentials to be the CEO of America.
You seem to be getting hung up on the particular names of the celebrities I am mentioning. Why?
Ronald Reagan was a shitty actor before his gov’t career; Arnold Schwarzenegger was the same; Jesse Ventura was a wrestler/actor.
Trump seems to me to be more a result of the phenomenon whereby a celebrity uses their profile and name recognition as the overwhelming means for getting elected *, rather than displaying any “managerial competencies”.
In the last two decades, the internet + millennials, yada, yada. Therefore, I’m asking about how much this phenomenon may have been accelerated...to the point where a pure mega celeb could win a November popularity/beauty contest in which there is no requisite IQ/current events awareness test given at the polls.
Again, we just elected Trump in the U.S. when such a thing had been considered virtually impossible according to most credible experts.
You’re saying Trump’s win was possible where other celebs’ wins are not because manager skills.
And also because he wears suits, I presume?
Edit - * Along with a two party system that makes a roughly even split of the vote likely.
Some credible experts had given him about 1% chance of winning, but IIRC most of them gave him chances of the order of 20%, which hardly counts as “virtually impossible” IMO.
Well, timeframe & circumstances are important to note here.
In, say...2012, I think a 1% probability of Donald Trump being POTUS (elect) in Nov 2016 would have seemed far too high to most.
By Nov 1 of 2016, 20% seemed more reasonable.
The probability spikes dramatically after the candidate wins their party’s nomination.
“Managerial competencies” aren’t visible on TV but they affect a lot of decisions that have to be made while running a campaign. Decisions that can be good or bad and given that the margin by which he won wasn’t that big making slightly worse decisions might have cost him the election.
First point: a president is not a CEO. The distinction matters.
Second point: the electorate does not care about “actual credentials” and has not been caring for many decades by now. I’m not sure what credentials would those be, anyway.
Third point: social media has NOT demonstrated its ability to elect a president. Trump was not elected on the strength of his social media game.
So draw the conclusion: your success as an actor/celebrity/etc. is not really relevant to your chances at getting elected to a political office. Being a celebrity is useful, but it’s about as useful as, say, being tall.
Citation needed. I do not think this is the case with Trump.
So draw the conclusion: these were not experts and their words are not credible.
Nah. Hillary was famous for her pantsuits. Didn’t help :-P
Well, you suggested having manager skills...
But we seem to agree that skills relevant to doing the job of POTUS aren’t necessarily of primary importance in regard to being elected. Is this an accurate statement of your view?
It seems to be fairly non-controversial that Trump employed social media effectively and this helped him win… Can you elaborate on what you mean?
This seems obviously false for lots of reasons and I assume you’re kidding.
Admittedly tough to quantify.
Or, they were basing their predictions on outdated maps of the territory.
Manager skills are like instrumental rationality: they are not a signal to the electorare, they are for you to achieve what you want to achieve.
Yes, that is an accurate statement of my view.
By the way, I think you lack proper appreciation for point one :-)
Trump also employed his money effectively and this helped him win. Trump also employed his campaign staff effectively and this helped him win. Trump also employed public statements effectively and this helped him win. Trump also...
Surely you will be able to produce tons and tons of evidence in support of your position, then.
Still not experts :-D Maybe experts-at-looking-in-the-rearview-mirror but those don’t seem to be terribly useful.
I think you got hung up on the name Beyonce. Don’t.
Agreed. :)
LOL
Are my alternatives Ellen Degeneres and Justin Timberlake? X-D No Bieber? Are you sure you don’t want Lena Dunham to run as the Democratic candidate?
I understand Beyonce has advantages, though...
He is neither a US citizen nor at least 35 years old. :-)
Curses, foiled again!
He can age.
He won’t be 35 until 2029, and even then there’s the whole “not a US citizen at birth” thing.
How about Tom Hanks? Oprah? Mark Zuckerberg? George Clooney?
I dunno :-) I still like Captain Jack Sparrow best.
If I can’t have him, I’ll take Rocket Raccoon. He can deal with the Middle East and Captain Jack Sparrow can be appointed to be the US representative in the trade negotiations with China.
You know what the greatest strength of the American democracy is? Anyone can become President :-P
I don’t get it.
Democracy allows anyone, even a simpleton from humble background, be elected leader.
Democracy allows anyone, even a simpleton from humble background, be elected leader.
Or let me put in an LW way: if you are sampling from the whole distribution, you will eventually get some values from deep in the left tail :-D
Ha. No.
I got that part.
The jokes, bro. I didn’t get the jokes. You’re typically kinda funny.
I guess probability says you’re bound to miss the mark occasionally.
Jack understands the game-theoretic implications of negotiating with someone slightly insane very well. Probably better than a Chinese civil-service mandarin whose experience with slightly insane people is, I suspect, limited.
As to Rocket, well… I think his typical approach would be just right for the Middle East.