Glen wrote:
A friend of mine voted for Stein (again). When we discussed my choice to jump
ship and vote for Clinton (and his wife's choice to vote for Clinton), his
argument was that, fundamentally, Clinton is cut from the same cloth as
Clinton1 and Bush2. Sure, there are various overtones. E.g. Clinton2 seems to
me like she's a _serious_ public servant. But at the core, she's a neoliberal,
a globalist. This ability/preference to look at the horizon and consider what
lies beyond is critical to competence in any domain, I think.
I never doubted Clinton2's credentials or preparation for the office.
Who has EVER had more preparation than her? And I would have preferred
her over Trump1 by an indescribable factor. Mainly because of HIS
failings, not just his LACK of preparation for the role, but much of his
anti-preparation as a uber-businessman... and of course the
racist/misogynist/bigotry on top of all of that.
I voted for Jill as a vote for the third party concept. I gave her my
"put a woman in the whitehouse" vote that Hillary could have had. I
gave her the "put someone who wasn't self-selected and trained as a
lawyer" vote too. I gave her PARTY my "save the planet soon" vote,
and I gave them my "humanist" vote as well. I don't think there is
much if any evidence that Greens/Jill pulled a spoiler, and if anything
it seems as if Gary/Libs came closer to gumming up Trump's gears.
Like many Trump voters, I'm ready to break our pattern of "business as
usual"... but definitely not ready to let a loose cannon like him into
the White House. I'm pretty sure we are about to be in for a wild ride.
I don't know for sure what either your nor Marcus' working definition of
"Parochial" might be in this case.... it seems (to me) to cover a LOT
of territory. I tend to use it in as literal (narrow/limited view) as
possible without the attachments to conservatism or judgements about
intolerant/etc. I personally came from very parochial environments, up
to and including my decades at LANL. For as educated and worldly as
many folks there can be, there was a certain parochialism that comes,
perhaps, with the chosen education/professions of hard science and
engineering.
Similarly, I often feel that Santa Fe is guilty of
multi-parochialism... an ensemble of fairly limited, narrow views of
the world. The trust fund babies, the spiritual-noveau crowd, the
native community(ies), the Sons/Daughters of Onate/DeVargas, and surely
*our* crowd as well. There are MYRIAD exceptions to this seemingly
dismissive judgement and I revel in the range of people and perspectives
that I encounter here. Perhaps THIS is of which Glen speaks... maybe
this is as "good as it gets"? I DO have lots of experiences that tell
me that VERY FEW people's parochialism actually matches my preconceived
stereotypes of them.
I don't know if there is much percentage in looking for
(anti)correlations between presumed parochialism and economic vigor.
Perhaps I just don't value economic vigor enough to want to validate it
as a measure of intellectual/spiritual breadth/vigor?
Your numbers below may provide some justification for a (slightly) increased
performance for those who consider a larger space of possibilities. But there
are confounding factors that can't all be chalked up to that core
ability/preference. For example, we could argue (as Haidt does) that we're all
parochial, but some of us (simply) stumble into or are born into different
influences. E.g. someone born near a large city with cheap flights overseas
will be much more likely to travel widely. So, they're still parochial, just
with a different set of impinging influence. The same could be said of people
born in a place like Wyoming. We could say that none of us _are_ parochial in
any sense; we just seem that way because of our history/ontogeny.
On 11/16/2016 09:40 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Let us pretend it is easier to build social capital in groups where there is
low variance of various individual attributes amongst members of the group,
e.g. they are white, or share some particular history. What is the
quantitative economic benefit of the social capital?
Ok, let's look at 2015 GDPs by state, and the also estimated GDPs for 2017.
Data is from U.S. Census Bureau State and Local Government Finance.
(I added an election result flag from CNN, treating Michigan as a NA where "1"
means the state was called for Hillary Clinton.)
States called for Clinton had higher mean and median growth rates
Clinton meanGrowth
0 2.346667
1 2.495000
Clinton medianGrowth
0 2.40
1 2.45
Further, the total GDP by State was higher in total for Clinton states (2015
and est. 2017, respectively).
2015 Gross State Product:
Clinton Billions$
0 8571.3
1 8792.1
Estimated 2017 Gross State Product:
Clinton Billions$
0 9143.2
1 9554.6
If the hypothesis is that social capital (of the sort that Trump states value),
leads to economic benefits, then this does not support that hypothesis.
Parochialism loses.
I posit parochialism is preferred by individuals that fail to imagine anything
bigger -- the *ideas* that we all can share, even if we don't know one another.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
