Sunk Costs and Groupthink

Okay, one more thought for the night.  I'm still reading The Confidence Game, and the author is talking about the disaster at the Teton Dam.  Mostly because the thought processes behind the desire to continue something once it's started are the same, whether you're talking about a con or the unwillingness to hear concerns about building a dam once you've started.  Kind of like the Sunk Costs Fallacy, except you aren't really thinking of it as sunk costs.  Just, in this case, you've already started building the thing.

Since the story of the dam reminded me of research on groupthink, I found myself wondering how closely they tie together.

That is, how much was something like the decision to launch the Challenger (and marginalizing those who disagreed, dismissing reasons to question the decision), comes from the level of investment involved in launching a shuttle. 

Biases

So Leverage inspired me to read up on con-artists.  I finally picked up The Confidence Game, which had been on my very large to-read list for a while.  It's interesting stuff, and I wanted to quote something specific:

"... when it comes to ourselves—our traits, our lives, our decisions—our personal attachment overshadows our objective knowledge.
            We systematically misevaluate evidence based on our own characteristics, and if we're given evidence that something about us poses a threat, instead of thinking about how to change our own behavior, we call the evidence itself into question."

I've seen that a lot lately, particularly when it comes to politics (and probably done it, too.)  She goes on to say:

"To put this in conning terms, if I paint a picture of a perfect mark for you, and you recognize yourself in it, you are more likely to think I’m a poor researcher than yourself a good target. Nah, you’ll say. Those aren’t actually the things that get someone conned. I bet this girl didn’t do any research and is just constructing this out of thin air."

Rage Quitting

In the Leverage episode The Gold Job, the hacking expert took a turn leading the con by making a real life video game. 

Spoiler warning - his plan (though not the con as a whole) failed when the marks got frustrated and quit.  Rage quitting.

So a little while later, I found myself wondering how many of our shooters are basically rage quitting life.

Sort of a "I can't win, this isn't fun, screw everyone" sort of thing.  I wonder if there's any research on that.

Wanted to Add...

I don't post as much about Trump because there's plenty of other people out there, saying the same things I would say.  He is deeply unpopular.  I know of a very, very few people who outright support him...

So I speak up when Hillary Clinton's name comes up because there still seems to be a large number of people who seem to think she was the best candidate in 50 years, and that the only reason she didn't become president was because of sexism, Russian interference, or the Comey investigation.

I  have heard plenty of people acknowledge the flaws in other candidates while still saying they will support them.  Heck, that's sort of how I am most of the time...you pick the candidate that seems the lesser of two evils, or the best you can get out of the choices you're given. 

Hillary Clinton had a problem with her high unfavorability from the get go.  The thing her supporters shouted the most (that she had been under the spotlight for so long that nothing new could come, that she was proven and tested) was actually the thing that hurt her the most.  That is, after decades in the spotlight almost everyone had already made up their minds about her and it would be very difficult to change that.  Especially since so many had a negative impression.

She was supposed to have 'electability', but how can you judge electability right when you totally ignore those unfavorables?

This isn't actually about Hillary Clinton herself, you see.  I don't know her well enough, she sounds like a very complicated lady, and while I have not been too impressed with her character and judgement that's just my personal opinion.

The reason I keep speaking up isn't about her, so much as the party base that is so unwilling to question her candidacy.  The one that dismisses every criticism as part of the "vast right wing conspiracy", tolerates any character questions as "that's just what politicians do.  Everyone else does it, too."  Yes, there are people on the right who rabidly hate on the Clintons.  I shuddered to think of 4-8 years of Republican witch hunts, which you know would have happend if she'd won.  But that 'vast right wing conspiracy' would have targeted Obama, too.  You could say that they did.  It's just that the whole birther thing was so ridiculously stupid that only fringe elements bought into it.  It never gained the traction of something like the Lewinsky scandal or Hillary's e-mails. 

There's a reason for that.

Hillary's supporters get really, really, really upset at the Bernie bros, or Russia, or Comey, or whoever it is they blame for Hillary's loss without ever questioning what sort of system puts two of the least liked politicians ever in a competition for the presidency.  (I keep asking myself how, in a nation of over 300 million people, we wound up with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as the leading contenders for the presidency.  I know we have better choices out there!)

A Persistent Threat

I like this article because it shows how persistent cyber threats operate.  That is, this was a sustained effort that only had to succeed once.

As an aside, I read one of the Hillary supporters trying to say this latest round of allegations are yet another nothingburger, and referred to this opensecrets site.

I have questions about the info here I don't know how to look up, since my desired search terms bring up the most recent issues.  I might try a deeper search on my computer (i.e. limit the date range).

Those questions are mostly related to a perennial problem, with Clinton scandals in particular but not exclusively.  Namely this argument that whatever-it-is is something "everyone does" and nothing to be worried about. 

Sometimes those arguments are fair.  I recall reading about the poor IT situation at the State Dept, for example, and it did explain some of what I'd consider malfeasance if done in the SCIFs I worked at.

At other times, these arguments sound like something a six year old would say.  "But everyone does it!" And I'd wonder how supposedly astute politicians try making arguments that wouldn't fly with said six year old's mother.  If you can counter the argument with "two wrongs don't make a right", or "and if 'everyone' decided to jump off a cliff would you do that too?" then maybe you shouldn't be using it as a grown adult.

And sometimes we just don't have enough information to evaluate the claim.  I looked at that opensecrets list and wondered a) when were the states given that money and b) how does the breakdown compare to similar payouts in previous years.  In total dollars as well as a percentage of it all.

It still doesn't justify or explain some of the almost willful ignorance about the agreement giving the Clinton campaign total control over strategy (of somewhat more concern to me than the finances, only because the DNC was apparently broke and it would have taken a better person than most to give the DNC a lot of money without any strings attached.  Though I'd like to see more about how/why the DNC was broke, and why so many  Democratic donors apparently chose to give a lot of money to Hillary, and not to the DNC or state orgs.  More of that 'don't know what's normal so can't really judge' type of problem.)

I saw one poster, for example, point out that some of the language in the agreement preserved DNC neutrality -
“nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC’s obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process” and that “all activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary.”

Now, the problem I have with that is that saying one thing and doing it are often different. To stick with the Clintons, saying (for example) you take "personal responsibility" for your election loss is just words when your actions show you really, really don't.  I know it doesn't feel fair, and it seems like letting others 'get away with it' or win, but there's a reason I was taught as a young cadet to say "No excuse, sir."

Even if you really do have an excuse.

It sucks, we all have the urge to defend ourselves and argue.  But something funny happens when you take ownership, full stop, and stop trying to explain or excuse.  It's like, everyone is able to move on and (more importantly, if you really are unable to accept a possible poor impression - even when you have time to correct it by performing well in other areas) you can sometimes let those explanations come to light later, where they're more likely to be understood and accepted since you weren't trying to dodge responsibility.

Anyways, saying in the agreement that the DNC would still be neutral doesn't mean it is, and it's hard to imagine how that would even be possible if they're running strategy by the Clinton campaign.

Politics Today, Part II

So I've got a calculus test today, and I'm typing this in between reviewing formulas for taking the derivative of logarithms, calculating elasticity, and evaluating interest rates (whether continuous interest or compound interest).

I'm trying to figure out what to say that won't turn into basic Clinton bashing (I am definitely not a fan, you see). 

And that's kind of the problem.  Or rather, the fact that we can't have an honest discussion about Clinton without sounding like it's Clinton-bashing is a problem.  The true believers have all their counter-arguments and defenses already lined up.  Don't like her? 

You must be a Republican.

Or too credulous, and willing to believe Republican lies.

Or sexist.

Or it was all Comey, and Russia, and you are letting them 'win' if you talk about Hillary's mistakes.

It kind of bothers me that we are almost a year past the election, and Hillary Clinton's name is still coming up all too often.  Some of that is on the Republican side - they seem to like using her as a distraction - but some of that is Clinton herself.  Who just refuses to go away.

And her true supporters laud her for that, even as the 2/3rds of the population who don't support her are sick of it.

I find myself wondering, why is she so desperate to hang on?  Like - I know that you have to believe in yourself to run for office.  That you have to convince yourself that you need to be the candidate, that nobody else can do it better.  (After all, if they could do it better you'd drop out and vote for them...right?)

But at some point you have to understand the distinction between what's best for you and what's best for the party.  And I really don't think Hillary hanging on is best for the party.  She lost to one of the most unpopular presidential candidates ever.  Some of that may be because of Russian meddling, or Comey, or any of the other excuses...but the race wouldn't have been close enough for those things to matter if she had been a better candidate in the first place. 

The true believers act as though her years of experience were a good thing, since it proved nothing the Republicans did could stick.  They were so focused on defeating the Republicans (and calling them out for all the 'lies' against their own candidates) that they didn't care at all about what the casual voter thought. 

Or how it looked, that the entire Democratic party supported a candidate who was under an FBI investigation.  After all, they all 'knew' the investigation was just Republican shenanigans, and not anything anyone should take seriously.

And now that the election is over, why, we've got better things to worry about.  Like Trump.  Or Russia.  No need to look at how and why the entire Democratic party supported such a flawed candidate.

So much of the commentary on that tweet is avoiding exactly that. 

Politics Today, Part I

This morning I saw this tweet, and decided to check out the comments.  I know, I know...people have stopped doing that.  It's ugly, negative, and you can't really tell who are bots, or paid responders, or just trolls trying to get people wound up.

Still, I like doing it for certain articles because it feels like I'm taking a pulse on an issue.  That is, the media may decide what to write about and may even slant the article a certain way, but the comments is where you get readers responses.  A sense of how they are interpreting the article.  And it's not always in the way the author expected or intended.  Plus, if there are bots or paid responders it's kind of worth knowing what sort of narrative is being pushed. 

Let me rephrase that - comments may not accurately reflect the viewpoints of the population, but it can and does reflect the strength of certain narratives (whether genuine or paid) and it's worth knowing what those narratives are and how many responders take the time to share it.

I have to admit, I was disappointed/disturbed by the narrative thus displayed, and what it says about America today.

This post is pretty much an attempt to sort through why it bothered me.

When I was a kid, I argued with one of my younger brothers a LOT.  I remember one particular argument - not the details, of course.  I remember Mom got involved, and it didn't go the way I wanted it to.  I wanted her to clearly back me up, see my brother's misdeeds and punish him.

What I do remember, however, is when she asked me "Do you think your brother thinks he won?"

Now, as a child I really didn't want to hear that, of course.  I was right, he was wrong, and it was very black and white to me.  But that question did kind of stick in my mind, because (now that I'm older) it brings up a very good point.  Namely, that just because we think someone 'got away with it', or wasn't punished appropriately doesn't mean that they feel the same way. 

I could go into a speech on human nature, on our tendency to exaggerate the hurts done us and minimize the hurt we do to others (thus making our evaluation of 'just punishment' flawed, as instead of "an eye for an eye" we feel that taking both eyes is just punishment for their taking one of ours) but I think that would take too long, so I'll skip it for now.

The point was that in a dispute we tend to focus on defeating the other, and in doing so we lose sight of the bigger picture.  So, for example, in a counterinsurgency we start focusing on killing insurgents rather than the bigger picture (i.e. killing insurgents as well as reducing their ability to recruit new insurgents through a combination of policies.  Like addressing the grievances that motivate new recruits, making it clear that there is a way out if they give up the fight (so they don't feel like they have to fight to the death), and remembering to create a safe place for neutrals and people caught in the middle.  That way there clearly IS an alternative.  You basically want to make it clear that supporting you is better than supporting the bad guys, not just morally...but also in terms of safety and your ability to protect those who support you.

On a less violent, less visceral level the same thing happens in politics.  That is, true believers (on the left and the right) focus on their opponents.  On wanting to clearly win, and make the other side clearly lose.  They get tunnel vision, and lose sight of the bigger picture.  They pander to their base, and stop caring about persuading those who aren't already true believers (like them.) 

And they want to make the other side lose.  Badly. 

So they consider any attack on their own to be lies...while any attack against their opponent is God's honest truth.  And anyone who doesn't see it their way is too stupid to know better, or misled by the lies of their opponents.  Either way, it's not worth considering.  And definitely not worth changing course - after all, that would mean their opponent won.