Jason Keisling

Precedent for Trump

Category : politics · No Comments · by Nov 10th, 2016

There’s a lot of things about a Trump presidency that are concerning. His personality, which is characterized by misogyny, racism, sexism and hatred, is manifested in many of his policies. He has stated the desire to deport millions of illegal immigrants and their children (who are legal citizens). He supports torture and has advocated forms that are even more extreme than waterboarding. He’s even called for killing families of terrorists. He’s proposed barriers to trade. He wants to reduce libel laws so that he can sue media that writes anything negative about him–a serious affront to free speech. He wants to build a wall on the border, which is both expensive and ineffective. Most of these plans are expensive, unconstitutional, and require a totalitarian government for enforcement. And unfortunately, former presidents have set some egregious precedents, constructing an ideal framework for such an administration. This is a startling reminder of why it is important to limit executive power.

The executive branch grew significantly under Bush and Obama. A president now has the power to kill any person, even an American citizen, without due process. A president can detain prisoners indefinitely without charges or trial. Precedents have been set for racial profiling and spying on U.S. citizens, even when they are not accused of any wrongdoing. Precedents have also been set for torture and unconstitutional wars. This is unsettling given many of Trump’s ambitions listed above.

Even if people were confident that Bush or Obama could be trusted with these powers, which is itself generous, it’s still worth considering that these people won’t always be the president who has access to these powers. When considering executive powers, it’s important to consider what that power would be like in the hands of an oppressor. Even if you’re one of the 47% of voters that support Trump, and you trust him with these capabilities, consider that he won’t always be president. Ask yourself if you’d want Hillary to have the powers that he will now yield. Think of the worst candidate possible, and imagine that person winning office in 2020. THAT is why it’s crucial to limit executive power. It’s not about disliking Bush or Obama, or even Trump. No person should have the types of powers that the U.S. president currently has. In the words of Penn Jillette: “The president should have so little power that it doens’t matter who they are…instead of having so much power that it doesn’t matter who they are.” If the executive branch hadn’t been expanded so much during previous administrations, we could be more optimistic that Trump’s policies would end up being more bark than bite. Instead, we have a president elect who has voiced repugnant views toward many groups of people and now has the authority to kill them without charges or a trial.

A Quick Puzzle to Test Your Problem Solving (via NYT)

Category : politics, problem solving · No Comments · by Oct 3rd, 2016

This fantastic test was posted by the New York Times over a year ago:

Here’s how it works:

We’ve chosen a rule that some sequences of three numbers obey — and some do not. Your job is to guess what the rule is. We’ll start by telling you that the sequence 2, 4, 8 obeys the rule:

Now it’s your turn. Enter a number sequence in the boxes below, and we’ll tell you whether it satisfies the rule or not. You can test as many sequences as you want.

[click here to go to the NYT link and test your answer]


The answer was extremely basic. The rule was simply: Each number must be larger than the one before it. 5, 10, 20 satisfies the rule, as does 1, 2, 3 and -17, 14.6, 845. Children in kindergarten can understand this rule.

But most people start off with the incorrect assumption that if we’re asking them to solve a problem, it must be a somewhat tricky problem. They come up with a theory for what the answer is, like: Each number is double the previous number. And then they make a classic psychological mistake.

They don’t want to hear the answer “no.” In fact, it may not occur to them to ask a question that may yield a no.

Remarkably, 77 percent of people who have played this game so far have guessed the answer without first hearing a single no. A mere 9 percent heard at least three nos — even though there is no penalty or cost for being told no, save the small disappointment that every human being feels when hearing “no.”

It’s a lot more pleasant to hear “yes.” That, in a nutshell, is why so many people struggle with this problem.

Confirmation Bias

This disappointment is a version of what psychologists and economists call confirmation bias. Not only are people more likely to believe information that fits their pre-existing beliefs, but they’re also more likely to go looking for such information. This experiment is a version of one that the English psychologist Peter Cathcart Wason used ina seminal 1960 paper on confirmation bias. (He used the even simpler 2, 4 and 6, rather than our 2, 4 and 8.)

Most of us can quickly come up with other forms of confirmation bias — and yet the examples we prefer tend to be, themselves, examples of confirmation bias. If you’re politically liberal, maybe you’re thinking of the way that many conservatives ignore strongevidence of global warming and its consequences and instead glom onto weaker contrary evidence. Liberals are less likely to recall the many incorrect predictions over the decades, often strident and often from the left, that population growth would create widespread food shortages. It hasn’t.

This puzzle exposes a particular kind of confirmation bias that bedevils companies, governments and people every day: the internal yes-man (and yes-woman) tendency. We’re much more likely to think about positive situations than negative ones, about why something might go right than wrong and about questions to which the answer is yes, not no.

Sometimes, the reluctance to think negatively has nothing to do with political views or with a conscious fear of being told no. Often, people never even think about asking questions that would produce a negative answer when trying to solve a problem — like this one. They instead restrict the universe of possible questions to those that might potentially yield a “yes.”

Government Policy

In this exercise, the overwhelming majority of readers gravitated toward confirming their theory rather than trying to disprove it. A version of this same problem compromised the Obama administration’s and Federal Reserve’s (mostly successful) response to the financial crisis. They were too eager to find “green shoots” of economic recovery that would suggest that the answer to the big question in their minds was, just as they hoped and believed: “Yes, the crisis response is aggressive enough, and it’s working.” More damaging was the approach that President George W. Bush’s administration, and others, took toward trying to determine whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction a decade ago — and how the Iraqi people would react to an invasion. Vice President Dick Cheney predicted in 2003, “We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.”

Corporate America

Corporate America is full of more examples. Executives of Detroit’s Big Three didn’t spend enough time brainstorming in the 1970s and 1980s about how their theory of the car market might be wrong. Wall Street andthe Fed made the same mistake during the dot-com and housing bubbles. To pick an example close to home, newspapers didn’t spend enough time challenging the assumption that classified advertisements would remain plentiful for decades.

One of the best-selling business books in history — about negotiation strategy — is “Getting to Yes.” But the more important advice for us may instead be to go out of our way to get to no. When you want to test a theory, don’t just look for examples that prove it. When you’re considering a plan, think in detail about how it might go wrong.

Some businesses have made this approach a formal part of their decision-making: Imagine our strategy has failed; what are the most likely reasons it did? As Jason Zweig has written in The Wall Street Journal, “Gary Klein, a psychologist at Applied Research Associates, of Albuquerque, N.M., recommends imagining that you have looked into a crystal ball and have seen that your investment has gone bust.”

When you seek to disprove your idea, you sometimes end up proving it — and other times you can save yourself from making a big mistake. But you need to start by being willing to hear no. And even if you think that you are right, you need to make sure you’re asking questions that might actually produce an answer of no. If you still need to work on this trait, don’t worry: You’re only human.

Why I celebrate Christmas

Category : politics, religion · No Comments · by Nov 24th, 2015

I am a non-Christian who celebrates Xmas.*

There are many aspects of Christmas that I enjoy, which are not related to Christ, viz., spending time with family and friends, the lights and decorations, the festivities, the gifts, the music, etc. It’s a joyous and exciting time, and despite what many people believe, it’s mostly secular! Most of these traditions and festivities originate from pagan festivals that predate Christ’s birth by thousands of years. The actual Christian aspects of the holiday, which I don’t celebrate, were integrated with these festivals and rituals at a later time.

Contrary to the cliches you’ll see on church signs, the birth of Jesus Christ is not the reason for the season. Not only did most traditions pre-date the birth of Jesus, but biblical scholars overwhelmingly believe that Jesus was not born on December 25 or even during the winter for that matter. Most Christmas traditions contain elements of other ancient midwinter traditions. For example, the decorations and feast comes from Yule-log traditions and gift-giving comes from Saturnalia. In the past, Christians opposed these rituals. Early devout Christian sects refused to celebrate Christmas because it was not Biblical nor respectful of their faith. The bible itself even condemns them as heathen:

Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

-Jeremiah 10: 2-4

Some Christian denominations today still do not celebrate Christmas for similar reasons though by now most Christians have adopted these customs and absorbed them into their own celebration of Christ’s birth. It was Pope Julius the First who declared in the year 350 CE that December 25 was the official Christmas date. It had previously been used by the Romans to celebrate the birth of the sun. Shortly after the name Christmas was substituted.

If you’re a Christian, I do not intend to discourage you from celebrating your beliefs. There are many reasons to celebrate Christmas. Some celebrate the birth of Jesus, and that’s fine. People are free to celebrate whatever they want. But to claim that Christ is the reason for the season is just simply not accurate and it ignores the other aspects of the holiday that not only predated Christ, but were also at odds with most Christians at one time. I am simply stating why I celebrate the holidays. When I say I celebrate Christmas, I am not saying I participate in the Christian traditions. I don’t celebrate the birth or the nativity. I don’t pray (I also don’t celebrate Easter because unlike Christmas, it is mostly a Christian holiday.). I simply engage in the dinners and gift-giving and decorations. These are all customs that have nothing to do with Christ.

*Fun fact: Xmas is not a secular term or an attempt to remove Christ from Christmas. X is simply a Greek abbreviation for Christ. Likewise, holidays is derived from “holy days” and isn’t disrespectful toward Christians. And while I’m at it, there isn’t a war on Christmas (but that’s for a different post). That is, with exception of the time American Puritans tried to ban Christmas because they viewed it as pagan idolatry that had nothing to do with Christianity. Hmmm.