"You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine."
-
This seems like a good place to post this: The Dunning-Kruger Effect
The Dunning-Kruger Effect: Why Incompetence Begets Confidence
The Dunning-Kruger effect, coined by the psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999, is a cognitive bias in which poor performers greatly overestimate their abilities. Dunning and Kruger’s research shows that underperforming individuals “reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.” This incompetence, in turn, leads them to “hold inflated views of their performance and ability.”
On Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect .
-
@xenon said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
I’ve said it a bajillion times, most of the real issues that face this country need to be solved by congress and there’s too much obsession with the power of the Presidency.
The President should also embody the values we’d want in American citizens. He’s the head of a social and cultural group.
Well said. As much as Congress is t3h sux0rs, I've also often thought the same thing as you.
-
@Axtremus said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
This seems like a good place to post this: The Dunning-Kruger Effect
The Dunning-Kruger Effect: Why Incompetence Begets Confidence
The Dunning-Kruger effect, coined by the psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999, is a cognitive bias in which poor performers greatly overestimate their abilities. Dunning and Kruger’s research shows that underperforming individuals “reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.” This incompetence, in turn, leads them to “hold inflated views of their performance and ability.”
On Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect .
@Axtremus said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
This seems like a good place to post this: The Dunning-Kruger Effect
The Dunning-Kruger Effect: Why Incompetence Begets Confidence
The Dunning-Kruger effect, coined by the psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999, is a cognitive bias in which poor performers greatly overestimate their abilities. Dunning and Kruger’s research shows that underperforming individuals “reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.” This incompetence, in turn, leads them to “hold inflated views of their performance and ability.”
On Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect .
Yep, best economy in many decades. Lowest black unemployment ever. Highest stock market ever. First gains in real income in years. Embassy back in Jerusalem. Large middle-class tax cut. First Step act. Creation of the Space Force. The defeat of ISIS. Emphasis on border security. Lowest Hispanic unemployment in history. Right to Try passed. Energy independent or close to it. Keystone Pipeline. Renegotiation of NAFTA. And judges...Lots of judges.
I could go on, but not bad for a poor performer in three years, all the while battling an illegal special counsel probe and undergoing a rugged impeachment.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
I had a long discussion with Horace in the old forum board, but do you really think that the economy is strictly due to President Trump? I did not hear you saying how good President Obama did with stock market employment, etc. were pretty good during his term.
Most numerical measures at 40 months of their presidency are better for President Obama than for President Trump.
at this point in their presidents term, who had the better return at the stock market?
President Trump or President Obama?at this point in their presidents term, who had the better positive change in unemployment?
President Trump or President Obama?Now I realize that the reply will be "because Corona!!" And that is true, but............
My point is this - if a leader (President Trump, President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, etc) is going to talk about how good things are and take credit when things are going well, they also have to step up and take responsibility when things are not going well.
You cannot say - economy was great until Jan 2020. That is ONLY because of me. Economy doing bad now - that NOT because of me.
I do add the President Trump is not alone like this. Probably EVERY world leader acts the same. President Obama took too much credit when things went well and was quick to blame others when it did not go so well.
-
Politicians are basically salesmen pretending to be lawyers and acting like whores. Three of the finest professions in the world, combined.
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
Then there is no reason to elect or change leaders of any country, is it? We're all on autopilot and nothing ever makes a difference.
Let me ask you, do you think President Obama did a good job with the economy?
-
@taiwan_girl said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
@Jolly said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
Then there is no reason to elect or change leaders of any country, is it? We're all on autopilot and nothing ever makes a difference.
Let me ask you, do you think President Obama did a good job with the economy?
I think Mr. Obama did a good job trying to sink 1/7 of it.
But in your scenario, it doesn't matter...Obama has little or no effect.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
Then there is no reason to elect or change leaders of any country, is it? We're all on autopilot and nothing ever makes a difference.
The main reason to regularly change leaders is to stop them from becoming dictators. We've all seen examples of idealistic people becoming monsters, and in democracies there's a point at which you say of even the best leaders, 'Stick a fork in his ass, he's done'.
There's also a well known saying about diapers and politicians being changed for the same reason.
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
@taiwan_girl said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
I had a long discussion with Horace in the old forum board, but do you really think that the economy is strictly due to President Trump? I did not hear you saying how good President Obama did with stock market employment, etc. were pretty good during his term.
Most numerical measures at 40 months of their presidency are better for President Obama than for President Trump.
at this point in their presidents term, who had the better return at the stock market?
President Trump or President Obama?at this point in their presidents term, who had the better positive change in unemployment?
President Trump or President Obama?Now I realize that the reply will be "because Corona!!" And that is true, but............
My point is this - if a leader (President Trump, President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, etc) is going to talk about how good things are and take credit when things are going well, they also have to step up and take responsibility when things are not going well.
You cannot say - economy was great until Jan 2020. That is ONLY because of me. Economy doing bad now - that NOT because of me.
I do add the President Trump is not alone like this. Probably EVERY world leader acts the same. President Obama took too much credit when things went well and was quick to blame others when it did not go so well.
The notion that presidents don't have much influence on the economy is a fallacy that's put forth by the party that's in the White House when the economy is not doing well. It can be either party making the claim, but it's usually democrats because usually the economy isn't doing well when a Democrat is in the White House.
But it's not true. Presidents have a major impact on how the economy performs. As for the argument that they should accept blame when it's bad if they're going to take credit when it's good... it's not that simple. Good or bad depends on why. If the reason for a downturn is due to something out of his control, why should a president take the blame for it?
-
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
@Jolly said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
Then there is no reason to elect or change leaders of any country, is it? We're all on autopilot and nothing ever makes a difference.
The main reason to regularly change leaders is to stop them from becoming dictators. We've all seen examples of idealistic people becoming monsters, and in democracies there's a point at which you say of even the best leaders, 'Stick a fork in his ass, he's done'.
There's also a well known saying about diapers and politicians being changed for the same reason.
That's just the flip side of the coin from TG. In her world, national leaders make little difference. In yours, they ascend to ultimate authority and impact.
-
@xenon said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
@Larry I disagree. And also if you just look at the numbers historically - GDP growth has been higher under Democrat’s.
But I disagree with the premise.
You can disagree all you want, but it won't change reality. Tell me which Democrat president caused the economy to improve, and I'll tell you what really happened.
-
The U.S. economy does not have a man at the helm pulling levers. To the extent that Congress and the President change the country, it's based on long-term consequences of meaningful legislation and overwhelmingly driven by the energy and talents of Americans.
Sure, in time of crisis they can have outsized influence.
Fundamental things like capital formation, incentives to create new businesses, the cost and outcomes of healthcare policy - these things Presidents and Congress definitely shape - but the effects are felt in the long term.
The fundamentals of a country do not change with a new administration. Hypothetically, you couldn't rotate the government personalities of the UK, Canada and U.S. and start getting American-like economy figures coming out of Canada by putting Trump into place there.
It's like moving a lumbering ocean liner. You can change the path by a few degrees and change where the ship will end up - but your destination is way off in the future.
Doesn't it fundamentally go against conservative philosophy to think that one man in the government is in control of our economic destiny?
-
If the president has marginal effect on the economy, then why was just about everyone saying that the economy would crash if Trump were to be elected? Even the night of the election, there was teeth-gnashing about how the dow futures were down hundreds of points, and how this was just the beginning of what was about to happen.
Was anyone wrong with this prediction? /sarcasm
How many times have experts been wrong about Trump? -
I'd feel like I'd owe you an explanation if I was the opinion section of the NYT.
Plenty of real experts that factor the likely effect of government into their business decisions have continued to make gobs of money.
Also - wouldn't the left be naturally more prone to government-power worship relative to the right?
Also - isn't the fact that there was a widespread belief that Trump would tank the market upon election (but didn't), more evidence that people put too much stock into the power of the Presidency?
-
@Rainman said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
If the president has marginal effect on the economy, then why was just about everyone saying that the economy would crash if Trump were to be elected? Even the night of the election, there was teeth-gnashing about how the dow futures were down hundreds of points, and how this was just the beginning of what was about to happen.
Was anyone wrong with this prediction? /sarcasm
How many times have experts been wrong about Trump?I'm certainly no expert, but when I saw him on TV about 20 years ago, I said 'That guy's a bit of a twat, isn't he?'
I haven't seen anything to make me revise this layman's opinion, except that I'd be willing to concede that I was incorrect in using the qualifier 'a bit of'.
Incidentally, this has nothing to do with politics. You may indeed revel in having your country represented by such a man, if such be your predilection. The ends justify the means, after all.
I know, I know, we should still respect the orifice.
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
about 20 years ago, I said 'That guy's a bit of a twat, isn't he?'
That is known as occasionally impolite.
