OK, maybe. But I think that type, that can't be "persuaded" [*] based on low-dimensional similarity and familiarity, has very few members. The real problem is establishing the similarity and familiarity. H Clinton was not very good at it. B Clinton was.
And even when confronting an ideologically empowered alpha, it's trivial to establish similarity and familiarity by adopting alpha traits. You simply slap them on the back for being alpha. Tell them you're just like they are, that you will fight as a soldier or a general for what you believe because that's the way _we_ SHOULD be. Even though you're in opposite corners of the ring, you can still establish similarity and familiarity with your opponent. In fact, it's trivially easy to do with alphas. Betas are more difficult. Regardless, your right that my defined-by-indefiniteness is not adequate to cover the problem you're raising. Although concreteness is necessary for recategorizing an "elite" out of the class, it's not sufficient. You have to actively demonstrate. Perhaps this is why wonky introverts don't make good politicians, whereas back-slapping morons get elected all the time. Perhaps the more powerful defining quality of "elites" is the standoffishness, aloofness, where every smile looks like a smirk, and when you try to pat them on the back, they recoil in horror. 8^) That's personal for me because I don't like to be touched. And my dad tried to convince me that when you shake people's hand, you should _crush_ them ... unless they're female of course. [sigh] The "elite" use big words and their sentences require parsing. If that's the case, then it's also a matter of hermeneutics and the occult. The more work you have to put in to see a return, to understand what's being said/done, the more likely the author/sender is an "elite". There's a sense that "elites" wear more/thicker/plaited masks than the regular Joe. Nice. So we now have 2 properties I can understand: indefiniteness and hermeneutical. Thanks. [*] In quotes because actual persuasion to agreement isn't needed. All that's needed is to begin thinking about the person concretely, not abstractly. You don't have to agree with Clinton's ideas in order to remove her from the fictitious "elite". On 01/27/2017 11:04 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > On CNN, Van Jones has this series "The Messy Truth", where he plays (kind of > annoyingly) the liberal apologist. There's an interview with some coal > mining folks from West Virginia talking about why they voted for Trump. One > of the participants, in an earlier television appearance during the campaign, > had asked Hillary Clinton about her "We're going to put a lot of coal miners > out of business" remark. They don't show much of the original > confrontation, but it wasn't clear if she actually had a chance to answer or > took the opportunity. All that is shown is that it was awkward. Is there > any heartfelt and reasoned answer that she could have given that would be > more compelling than just eating hot dogs and drinking beer? There is type > of person that can be persuaded based on low-dimensional similarity and > feelings of familiarity. However, in my experience, there are also a few > alphas in every blue-collar community like this that are trying to show they > in charge. This guy picked a fight in that setting because that's his place > in his world, and it is important that his world stay small. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ 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
