Jump to content

Trump Derangement Syndrome


cobafdek
 Share

Recommended Posts

The topic on First Charges Filed in Mueller Case is a clinic on various manifestations of Trump Derangement Syndrome.  Paraphrasing writser's inscription:  when you are hallucinating, you do not know you are hallucinating.  It's only difficult and painful for others.

 

Case #1:

As stupid as Trump is, he's street smart enough like a mafia Don to insulate himself.

This is cognitive dissonance.

 

Case #2:

That's what will undo him eventually. He requires total loyalty, even to the point of claiming the sky is green and 2+2=5 (yes, his inauguration crowd was millions of people, the biggest ever!), but he has no loyalty for his people as soon as they aren't useful to him anymore. Almost everyone who was close to him except direct family has been dumped, or is even now getting attacked on Twitter.

This is magical thinking about loyalty.

 

Case #3:

Again, we just see a dead man walking - relying on the rules for rulers.

 

According to the pundits this is the best it gets for the republicans; 2018 is supposedly looking like a disaster, with 2019 and beyond even worse. Impeachment takes a long time, and the results are uncertain. However should the chump become a martyr? an awful lot of problems drop away; & the man has already prepared the ground by releasing the JFK files. The liability becomes an asset, the twitter feed finally goes silent, the 'family' establishes a lock on rulership. And 5 years on, maybe the first FEMALE US President ends up being a Trump? 

 

Enron, became Enron - in part because Ken Lay (Chairman) knew he was dying. When Enron finally blew he would either be gone, or close to it; others would be taking the fall, and he wouldn't be explaining anything. One has to wonder whether a version of the same thing isn't happening here - as almost all Dons know they will not be shuffling off as a result of old age.

 

Sadly it's also America, and this kind of solution has a long history.

 

SD

This is incoherence bordering on psychosis.

 

These are not examples of abnormal brains.  These are completely NORMAL cognitive behaviors, in otherwise highly intelligent people.

 

These examples support the thinking of evolutionary psychologists, who say the the human brain did not evolve to perceive objective reality.  We perceive according to patterns, according to bizarre frames of reference.  Our political and religious thinking do not prevent these guys and all of us from reproducing, becoming skillful and insightful investors, and otherwise succeeding in life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 494
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

What is objective reality? Please do tell us as soon as you're done saying nothing (aside from badly parroting Scott Adams talking points) in the most condescending way possible.

 

No wait, your schtick is to say "people say conflicting things, how can we know? People who hate Trump are obviously hallucinating it all and the others are correct", right? This is the "different people see different movies playing" narrative, right? Or are you going a bit further into the "there's not objective reality! There are no facts, it's impossible to know anything, what does it matter, my beliefs are just as good as any, etc.."?

 

It's not like you could be the one rationalizing it all away with these rhetorical devices, right? I'm sure it's normal for presidents to have like 10+ of their close people leave in less than a year, a few for bumbling incompetence (Scaramuchi), many because they lied on security forms about meeting foreign agents offering dirt on political adversaries to try to change the course of an election (including their son and son in law, and now Papadopoulos who pled guilty)? I'm sure it's normal to be caught on tape bragging about sexual assault and have 16 women come out and confirm it. I'm sure it's normal to be on the record lying or saying things without evidence over and over again (he'll definitely release his tax returns, right? Obama tapped Trump tower, right? His businesses will be in a blind trust, right? The crowds at the inauguration were bigger than Obama's, right?), to fire the FBI chief after asking for a loyalty pledge when you learn he's investigating people around you, etc. It's also totally normal to have a US president jump to the defense of a foreign despot when someone says he's a killer by immediately putting down the US, around the same time he's calling NATO obsolete, or to basically be the only one to come to the defense of a Nazi/KKK rally where murder took place by pointing out that there were violent people on both sides (technically true, just like in WWII, but the message in context is clear), or to try to ban people from entering the country based on their religion, or to make pro-torture statements based on myths (general Pershing), or to publicly undermine their secretaries of state and call for IQ tests, or to have many staff get caught using private email servers after calling for an opponent to be jailed for doing so, I'm sure it's also normal for presidents to seem to get a large portion of their intelligence from cable news talk shows (he often parrots it back right after it airs), etc.

 

Anyway, enjoy your president, I'm sure you wish your level of humility, intelligence and integrity matched his. Exactly the kind of man you'd like to have your daughter marry, to paraphrase Buffett.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

 

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/?list=speaker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, these are all examples of not playing the game.

The game setter is only useful as long as the game benefits enough of the 'right' people. Comes the day it doesn't, it's either time for a new game - or a new game master. New calculation.

 

Travel the world long enough, and you'll quickly observe that this is also the 'norm' - not the exception.

Ask any Russian.

 

SD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, these are all examples of not playing the game.

The game setter is only useful as long as the game benefits enough of the 'right' people (ie: French and Russian Revolutions). Comes the day it doesn't, it's either time for a new game - or a new game master. New calculation.

 

Travel the world long enough, and you'll quickly observe that this is also the 'norm' - not the exception.

Ask any Russian.

 

SD

 

The game? These are examples of being a low quality individual.

 

What's your point? This doesn't make any of it any better. Are you preaching moral relativism?

 

Lying, even if common, is bad. Corruption, even if common, is bad. Sexual harassment, even if common, is bad. Tyranny, even if common, is bad. Torture, even if common, is bad. Racism, even if common, is bad.

 

The fact that we had slavery and genocide since forever doesn't make these things any more good or desirable. We should strive to do better (and we have, in the arc of time -- Violence and has been going down, democracy and freedom going up, poverty down, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Case #4:

What is objective reality? Please do tell us as soon as you're done saying nothing (aside from badly parroting Scott Adams talking points) in the most condescending way possible.

 

No wait, your schtick is to say "people say conflicting things, how can we know? People who hate Trump are obviously hallucinating it all and the others are correct", right? This is the "different people see different movies playing" narrative, right? Or are you going a bit further into the "there's not objective reality! There are no facts, it's impossible to know anything, what does it matter, my beliefs are just as good as any, etc.."?

 

It's not like you could be the one rationalizing it all away with these rhetorical devices, right? I'm sure it's normal for presidents to have like 10+ members of their close people leave in less than a year, a few for bumbling incompetence (Scaramuchi), many because they lied on security forms about meeting foreign agents offering dirt on political adversaries to try to change the course of an election (including their son and son in law, and now Papadopoulos who pled guilty)? I'm sure it's normal to be caught on tape bragging about sexual assault and have 16 women come out and confirm it. I'm sure it's normal to be on the record lying or saying things without evidence over and over again (he'll definitely release his tax returns, right? Obama tapped Trump tower, right? His businesses will be in a blind trust, right?), to fire the FBI chief after asking for a loyalty pledge when you learn he's investigating people around you, etc. It's also totally normal to have a US president jump to the defense of a foreign despot when someone says he's a killer by immediately putting down the US, around the same time he's calling NATO obsolete, or to basically be the only one to come to the defense of a Nazi/KKK rally by pointing out that there were violent people on both sides (technically true, just like in WWII, but the message in context is clear), or to try to ban people form entering the country based on their religion, or to make pro-torture statements based on myths (general Pershing), or to publicly undermine their secretaries of state and call for IQ tests, or to have many staff get caught using private email servers after calling for an opponent to be jailed for doing so, I'm sure it's also normal for presidents to seem to get a large portion of their intelligence from cable news talk shows (he often parrots it back right after it airs), etc.

 

Anyway, enjoy your president, I'm sure you wish your level of humility, intelligence and integrity matched his. Exactly the kind of man you'd like to have your daughter marry, to paraphrase Buffett.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

 

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/?list=speaker

Triggered.  And doubling down.  Thanks for the additional example.

 

Also, confirmation bias working overtime.  Scott Adams?  I was channeling Rory Sutherland, and, I admit, badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Case #4:

 

Triggered.  And doubling down.  Thanks for the additional example.

 

Also, confirmation bias working overtime.  Scott Adams?  I was channeling Rory Sutherland, and, I admit, badly.

 

More nothing. Zero substance, just rhetorical tricks ("if I act like I've won, some people will believe I'm smart and I've won" and "if I throw around words like triggered and cognitive bias and cognitive dissonance, surely people will read into it that I'm saying something clever").

 

Kind of like a con artist. Seems familiar these days...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is this going?

 

Since Dostoievsky is mentioned, this thread reminds me of the plot in the play: Six characters in search of an author by Pirandello. Read that in 1985.

It's a play that you may like cobafdek, because it exploits the blur between illusion and reality.

 

Potential relevance to an investment thread discussion style and the present polarized environment:

 

One of the unique aspects of the play is that each participant fails to try to listen and understand others.

 

From a review:

 

"The play discusses the tragedy of modern man's failure to communicate. The real problem faced by the modern people is the lack of communication amidst them. In modern society each person has his or her solipsistic world within himself/herself."

 

We are all deranged to some degree, perhaps some more than others.

 

Can we, at least, give it a try?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, these are all examples of not playing the game.

The game setter is only useful as long as the game benefits enough of the 'right' people (ie: French and Russian Revolutions). Comes the day it doesn't, it's either time for a new game - or a new game master. New calculation.

 

Travel the world long enough, and you'll quickly observe that this is also the 'norm' - not the exception.

Ask any Russian.

 

SD

 

The game? These are examples of being a low quality individual.

 

What's your point? This doesn't make any of it any better. Are you preaching moral relativism?

 

Lying, even if common, is bad. Corruption, even if common, is bad. Sexual harassment, even if common, is bad. Tyranny, even if common, is bad. Torture, even if common, is bad. Racism, even if common, is bad.

 

The fact that we had slavery and genocide since forever doesn't make these things any more good or desirable. We should strive to do better (and we have, in the arc of time -- Violence and has been going down, democracy and freedom going up, poverty down, etc).

 

For the top 1-2% to get richer, the bottom 90% have to contribute.

The 'game' is just the systematic way of getting the 90% to contribute without argument, and it's typically the top 1-2% who set it. It has nothing to do with good or bad - it's purely about getting the contributions in the most business like manner. When the flows are disrupted, or no longer what they were, it's time for a change - a key message of the rules for rulers.

 

SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you provide some more explanation? I'm too dense to understand how you came to your individual conclusions in the original post.

 

1.  The writer firmly believes Trump is an absolute idiot.  Some events occur that indicate Trump may actually be savvy.  Cognitive dissonance is experiencing the tension between his beliefs and the new facts.  The easiest way out is to deny or minimize the new fact, because it is only one fact.  Longstanding beliefs are harder to give up.  But trying to minimize the new facts results in something crazy:  he's just "street" smart, which he believes is not really intelligence, but it is. 

 

2.  The writer presents a caricature of the virtue of loyalty.  Loyalty is imagined as an absolute.  But nobody in real life demands loyalty for loyalty's sake.  Even a mafia don wants effectiveness:  a loyal but ineffective capo gets whacked or demoted.  Trump is all about results (to a fault).  All of the people he's fired was because of lack of effectiveness, and each one knows it.  It was not because of refusing to kiss his ring.  (The technical explanation is that Trump's ethics are consequentialist.  The writer depicts loyalty in a non-consequentialist frame.  Many cognitive social scientists call this "everyday Kantianism," meaning loyalty is a categorical imperative, which they consider magical thinking.

 

3.  I'm having second thoughts about this one.  Sometimes psychosis and insight look exactly the same!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2.  The writer presents a caricature of the virtue of loyalty.  Loyalty is imagined as an absolute.  But nobody in real life demands loyalty for loyalty's sake.  Even a mafia don wants effectiveness:  a loyal but ineffective capo gets whacked or demoted.  Trump is all about results (to a fault).  All of the people he's fired was because of lack of effectiveness, and each one knows it.  It was not because of refusing to kiss his ring.  (The technical explanation is that Trump's ethics are consequentialist.  The writer depicts loyalty in a non-consequentialist frame.  Many cognitive social scientists call this "everyday Kantianism," meaning loyalty is a categorical imperative, which they consider magical thinking.

 

Who's caricaturing now? That's not my position.

 

My position is that Trump makes a big deal of demanding absolute personal loyalty and punishing people who don't show it, but he himself has relatively little for others, and in return, I don't think most others have very deep loyalty for him (it's more opportunistic, to get a job or access to power). So when his guys end up sitting across from FBI agents in a prisoner's dilemma kind of situation, chances are that they'll think twice about sacrificing themselves to save a guy who's probably tweeting about how he didn't know them and they never mattered anyway, and will take the deal. This might be happening as we speak.

 

"Trump is all about results (to a fault)."

 

Trump is all about himself. I suspect a narcissistic personality type. It would explain the constant bragging, self-aggrandizing, habitual lying, and need for attention (narcissistic supply feeds these people, either positive or negative), and the constant blaming of everyone else and never admitting any wrongs. His lack of shame has helped him greatly, because most people who find themselves in the situations he's put himself in tend to recuse themselves.

 

Personally, I don't think Trump is an idiot. Probably around average intelligence, maybe a bit more. But I think his integrity is way below average and his ego off the charts. His curiosity seems very low, leading to poor general knowledge of things that aren't on TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Schwab711

Cobafdek:

You posted this table last year before the election. Within context, you implied this was a rational way to view the candidates. Obviously we can't judge Hillary, but we can judge Trump. Lets see how Dear Leader is doing against expectations.

 

Lobbyists: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/21/president-donald-trump-lobbyists-hired/416749001/

 

Banks: He is pushing to repeal Dodd-Frank

 

Saudi: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/29/politics/kushner-saudi-arabia-trip/index.html

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-did-not-stop-war-gulf-between-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-668987

 

Tax Policy: Current proposal is expected to be tax hikes for middle and lower class; tax cuts for wealthy

 

Taxing Rich: This was so transparent. See above

 

Russia: LOLOLOLOL! I'll never understand the rationalization of this shit.

 

China: He killed TPP; the US answer to Chinese exports. It was Trump "being tough on China" and definitely had nothing to do with Cronyism:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-13/kushners-set-to-get-400-million-from-chinese-on-marquee-tower

 

Cronyism: Emoluments, friends in cabinet, and his daughter and son-in-law are non-confirmed "advisers". I can keep going for a long time on this one.

 

TTIP: This is true. Trump does want to kill trade relations with our allies. No argument here.

 

Israel-Palestine: Complicated topic, lets skip for the moment.

 

Iran: Still on-going. However, the Libyan War was cited just a few months ago as the reason North Korea is a problem today (by Fox News and the like). Yet this table is asserting that Trump will (and presumably should?) do exactly that mistake? He is definitely trying to bully Iran and [potentially?] back out of a signed nuclear deal. "Bold move Cotton. Lets see how this plays out."

 

 

Trump's "Effective to a fault." Your posts are the TDS. It's poetic irony.

Cih9KUNXIAElouH.jpg-large

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm shocked (shocked!) and disappointed when politicians don't live up to expectations.

 

The only results that count are MAGA and that the Forgotten Men and Women Are Forgotten No Longer.  Then most is forgiven. 

 

We have 3 (or 7) years to go.  It's not over yet.

 

By the way, you should send your post to Taleb for comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some events occur that indicate Trump may actually be savvy. 

 

 

Trump is all about results (to a fault).  All of the people he's fired was because of lack of effectiveness, and each one knows it.

 

 

I'm shocked (shocked!) and disappointed when politicians don't live up to expectations.

 

 

We have 3 (or 7) years to go.  It's not over yet.

____

I guess where I was confused is because to me, you are exhibiting the same cognitive biases.

 

So you claim Trump is savvy. Trump is all about results.

 

But you acknowledge he is a disappointment (because he has not produced results?)

 

And then you move the yardstick to X years down the line?

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the criteria that define the "forgotten man/woman"?

Why are "forgotten" ones inspired by Mr. Trump?

 

Want to learn.

 

No objective criteria.  I think it's a subjective state of mind, but JD Vance's book Hillbilly Elegy may point the way.  The same for Making America Great Again.  How will we know when it is great again?  Only if it feels that way.

 

The genius (or idiocy, depending on your point of view) of Trump's rhetoric is that the terms are open-ended and non-partisan.  It's up to each person to decide what they mean, and whether he belongs in that category.  Enough voters felt qualified to be included in that category to make him President.

 

By this logic, if he is removed from office (losing election, or impeachment), you might conclude the forgotten men and women still felt forgotten.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess where I was confused is because to me, you are exhibiting the same cognitive biases.

 

You're not confused.  My brain is only human, and I am subject to the same cognitive biases.  For example, I think I experience cognitive dissonance when I read Parsad's, Liberty's, and other's opinions on Trump, because I find their investment stuff worthwhile to read.  Starting this thread could be seen as my way of reducing my discomfort.  I could be completely off base, as I might have been with Case #3:  you see how I relented somewhat to SharperDingaan's view.

 

I'm shocked (shocked!) and disappointed when politicians don't live up to expectations.

 

Irony fail:  I guess I'm not very good impersonating Captain Renault in Casablanca.  Too early to conclude Trump is a failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Case #4:

 

Triggered.  And doubling down.  Thanks for the additional example.

 

Also, confirmation bias working overtime.  Scott Adams?  I was channeling Rory Sutherland, and, I admit, badly.

 

More nothing. Zero substance, just rhetorical tricks ("if I act like I've won, some people will believe I'm smart and I've won" and "if I throw around words like triggered and cognitive bias and cognitive dissonance, surely people will read into it that I'm saying something clever").

 

Kind of like a con artist. Seems familiar these days...

 

+1!  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are the problems which create the cognitive biases you are complaining about.

 

Real progress is measurable.

 

Correct that the emotion brain is involved with the cognitive biases, but I'm not complaining about them, and didn't want to come across as complaining.  I'm just making note of them.

 

Feelings/emotions/subjective states aren't real?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprised at all by this. I've called it out plenty of times.

 

I myself voted for Trump. He is not my favorite candidate ever. He is not even what I'd classify as a great person or a role model of any sorts. He is what he is and for many reasons, to me, I decided he was a better option than sticking with Hillary and the status quo.

 

But what is highly amusing are the type of things highlighted here. The complete insanity his critics seem to display grasping at every little bit of anything to try to prove to themselves that he is what they want him to be.

 

I've seen so many laughable headlines critiquing things ranging from how much his wife's clothing cost(even though Hillary regularly wore $15,000 Hermes shirts) to the fact that his wife wore a certain outfit to such and such event(while Michelle Obama was a fashionista for doing the same), calling him racist/fascist/whatever for not explicitly singling out a group of white extremists(even though Barry O never heard a peep about refusing to denounce radical Islam), complaining about the corruption among his inner circle(even though politicians across the board are largely corrupt and the Clintons were quite possible the most corrupt of any politicians to even step foot in Washington), to calling him an idiot/crook/whatever for bankrupting companies and dodging taxes(these same people idolize fellows like Buffett and Lampert for doing the same). It's hilarious. Almost as hilarious as all the Hollywood heroes/women's/human rights activists/major liberals getting exposed by the Harvey Weinstein scandal. There are a lot of Ben Affleck's and George Clooney's here...

 

There's so much turnover in his cabinet OMG. It must be because it's in chaos and he's an idiot. Or maybe unlike previous politicians he doesn't fill it with his friends to let them chill for 4-8 years and rather runs it the same way he did his own businesses; firing someone if they arent doing the job right or if a better candidate comes along. Anyway, I'll just see what I want to see.

 

Edit, also have to throw in the Comey hilariousness. "Comey should be fired for what he did to Hillary before the election and how he handled that"...Trump fires Comey..."Obstruction of justice! How dare Comey get fired"... LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...