Would you care to give what you believe are the best evidence for his winning-ness and intelligence? I haven’t seen any anything really that compelling.
If we’re both mostly looking at the same evidence, then I think the thing we need to discuss is the interpretations / hypotheses / way we update on that evidence.
He won – OK yes update for, but it doesn’t move me that much
Why? This seems like a huge signal for competence, in part because it aggregates lots of other signals, many of which might be hidden.
For example, suppose you have an advisor that tells you X, and an advisor that tells you Y. We start off uncertain how much X or Y would help you win, but candidate A chooses to follow advice X and candidate B chooses to follow advice Y. If B eventually wins, this makes us update on Y’s goodness as advice, which makes us update on B for several related reasons (their ability to choose good advisors, their ability to choose good plans, plus whatever generic factors are relevant).
(To make that concrete, both Trump and Clinton were advised to play heavily to rust belt voters, Trump by Bannon and Hillary by Bill; Trump listened and Hillary didn’t, and you know how that turned out. I didn’t predict that specific thing in advance, but I did predict that Trump was a generically good campaigner and that Hillary was a generically bad campaigner. And before this story made the news, just knowing that Trump won told you they must have done something differently.)
Casino failure—Start-ups have shown me that business’s are complex and depends a lot on luck, so while I’ll ding him here, I don’t update a lot
I think it’s worth pointing out (for both this one and Trump University) that you should be more worried about selection effects. The question is not so much “okay, knowing the outcome, was move X a mistake?” but “how many mistakes of size X do you expect someone to make over the course of a career?”. Trump’s overall record, of what fraction of his businesses have ended in bankruptcy, is very good, and that seems more meaningful for judging overall competence. (Do you know what fraction that is, incidentally?)
2 divorces & 3rd wife – This is fair game
Are you familiar with the phrase ‘serial monogamy’? I don’t think the right model here is that Trump tried to stick with the same woman and couldn’t make it work twice in a row, but that he always wanted to be married to someone young enough to have children.
Some people think he keeps it simple on purpose. It is simple because he is simple. Else, he would have found ways to signal his intelligence to those that are looking for clues.
The last sentence seems unlikely to me. I don’t know how much attention you paid to the 2004 election, but a lot of people were of the opinion that Kerry was ‘obviously’ smarter than Bush because of their very different demeanors. But when someone went to the trouble of digging up their officer qualification test scores (both highly g-loaded tests) and converting them to comparable figures, it seems like Bush scored slightly higher than Kerry did.
Indeed, Bush had previously lost an election after his competition had attacked him for being too out of touch with the common man. One imagines he took deliberate effort to not have that happen again. Trump spent his formative years working with people in construction; one suspects that he may have made a deliberate choice to not behave in a way that would alienate people there.
He won – OK yes update for, but it doesn’t move me that much
Why? This seems like a huge signal for competence,
I do not know much about election math, so from what I can gather from “experts” the results were very close, closer than most would have thought. It seems disingenuous to me to consider a win as a huge signal of competence for either candidate because of how close the election results were. If an NBA team wins the game by 1 point at the buzzer, it would be unfair say that it was a blowout. Now if Trump had won 10 elections in a row, that would move me to update more.
Trump’s overall record, of what fraction of his businesses have ended in bankruptcy, is very good, and that seems more meaningful for judging overall competence. (Do you know what fraction that is, incidentally?)
I don’t disagree. His bankruptcies didn’t really update me much in the direction of incompetency. The major signal for me is the “University”.
What is better, a delusional psychic healer that naively believes his own bullshit, or psychic healer who is in it for the money? Hold this thought.
Here is the parallel, these types of schools definitely were scams of the education variety, targeting elderly and uneducated. Just to be clear the business failed spectacularly, these people did not become rich.
So, what is better, a delusional Trump that naively believes his own bullshit, or a Trump that who was in it for the money?
2 divorces & 3rd wife – This is fair game
Are you familiar with the phrase ‘serial monogamy’?
I was not but I am now. He could have pursued serial monogamy with out conforming to cultural and social norms of taking vows. Whatever his intentions are he is still twice divorced and went back in with a 3rd AND THEN sought out extramarital affairs. Yes to me it does imply that he has poor understanding of relationship management and his own impulses. Competent people tend not to fall for the Dunning-Kruger effect; is it fair to say he was over confident thrice?
the 2004 election, but a lot of people were of the opinion that Kerry was ‘obviously’ smarter than Bush because of their very different demeanors. But when someone went to the trouble of digging up their officer qualification test scores (both highly g-loaded tests) and converting them to comparable figures, it seems like Bush scored slightly higher than Kerry did.
I somewhat remember and I underestimated Bush based on his demeanor, and you have updated my priors a good amount on this point.
BTW if you or anyone else made it all the way down here. Just because I mostly agree with Scott’s assessment that he is incompetent, doesn’t mean I think Trump will be a disaster, or can’t be successful.
Election day taught us very little about Trump’s competence—it was close as predicted. But the year leading up to election day taught us a lot about it. Many people dismissed him as a clown. They were wrong. Being competitive in the primary and the general election is difficult. Being competitive as an outsider is more difficult.
(Edited to change “winning” to “being competitive.” It is bad to judge on binary results. Winning is only slightly harder than being competitive.)
BTW if you or anyone else made it all the way down here. Just because I mostly agree with Scott’s assessment that he is incompetent, doesn’t mean I think Trump will be a disaster, or can’t be successful.
If we’re both mostly looking at the same evidence, then I think the thing we need to discuss is the interpretations / hypotheses / way we update on that evidence.
Why? This seems like a huge signal for competence, in part because it aggregates lots of other signals, many of which might be hidden.
For example, suppose you have an advisor that tells you X, and an advisor that tells you Y. We start off uncertain how much X or Y would help you win, but candidate A chooses to follow advice X and candidate B chooses to follow advice Y. If B eventually wins, this makes us update on Y’s goodness as advice, which makes us update on B for several related reasons (their ability to choose good advisors, their ability to choose good plans, plus whatever generic factors are relevant).
(To make that concrete, both Trump and Clinton were advised to play heavily to rust belt voters, Trump by Bannon and Hillary by Bill; Trump listened and Hillary didn’t, and you know how that turned out. I didn’t predict that specific thing in advance, but I did predict that Trump was a generically good campaigner and that Hillary was a generically bad campaigner. And before this story made the news, just knowing that Trump won told you they must have done something differently.)
I think it’s worth pointing out (for both this one and Trump University) that you should be more worried about selection effects. The question is not so much “okay, knowing the outcome, was move X a mistake?” but “how many mistakes of size X do you expect someone to make over the course of a career?”. Trump’s overall record, of what fraction of his businesses have ended in bankruptcy, is very good, and that seems more meaningful for judging overall competence. (Do you know what fraction that is, incidentally?)
Are you familiar with the phrase ‘serial monogamy’? I don’t think the right model here is that Trump tried to stick with the same woman and couldn’t make it work twice in a row, but that he always wanted to be married to someone young enough to have children.
The last sentence seems unlikely to me. I don’t know how much attention you paid to the 2004 election, but a lot of people were of the opinion that Kerry was ‘obviously’ smarter than Bush because of their very different demeanors. But when someone went to the trouble of digging up their officer qualification test scores (both highly g-loaded tests) and converting them to comparable figures, it seems like Bush scored slightly higher than Kerry did.
Indeed, Bush had previously lost an election after his competition had attacked him for being too out of touch with the common man. One imagines he took deliberate effort to not have that happen again. Trump spent his formative years working with people in construction; one suspects that he may have made a deliberate choice to not behave in a way that would alienate people there.
Thanks for replying to some of the points.
I do not know much about election math, so from what I can gather from “experts” the results were very close, closer than most would have thought. It seems disingenuous to me to consider a win as a huge signal of competence for either candidate because of how close the election results were. If an NBA team wins the game by 1 point at the buzzer, it would be unfair say that it was a blowout. Now if Trump had won 10 elections in a row, that would move me to update more.
I don’t disagree. His bankruptcies didn’t really update me much in the direction of incompetency. The major signal for me is the “University”.
What is better, a delusional psychic healer that naively believes his own bullshit, or psychic healer who is in it for the money? Hold this thought.
Here is the parallel, these types of schools definitely were scams of the education variety, targeting elderly and uneducated. Just to be clear the business failed spectacularly, these people did not become rich. So, what is better, a delusional Trump that naively believes his own bullshit, or a Trump that who was in it for the money?
I was not but I am now. He could have pursued serial monogamy with out conforming to cultural and social norms of taking vows. Whatever his intentions are he is still twice divorced and went back in with a 3rd AND THEN sought out extramarital affairs. Yes to me it does imply that he has poor understanding of relationship management and his own impulses. Competent people tend not to fall for the Dunning-Kruger effect; is it fair to say he was over confident thrice?
I somewhat remember and I underestimated Bush based on his demeanor, and you have updated my priors a good amount on this point.
BTW if you or anyone else made it all the way down here. Just because I mostly agree with Scott’s assessment that he is incompetent, doesn’t mean I think Trump will be a disaster, or can’t be successful.
Election day taught us very little about Trump’s competence—it was close as predicted. But the year leading up to election day taught us a lot about it. Many people dismissed him as a clown. They were wrong. Being competitive in the primary and the general election is difficult. Being competitive as an outsider is more difficult.
(Edited to change “winning” to “being competitive.” It is bad to judge on binary results. Winning is only slightly harder than being competitive.)
BTW if you or anyone else made it all the way down here. Just because I mostly agree with Scott’s assessment that he is incompetent, doesn’t mean I think Trump will be a disaster, or can’t be successful.