Intentions

 

Please Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood

Well if I get edgy, I want you to know
I never mean to take it out on you
Life has its problems, I get more than my share
But there's one thing that I would never do
‘Cause I love you
Oh, I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood 

Intentions matter more than results! 

Results are random.  Intentions are NOT random.  A result could be a win OR a loss. Intentions can be good OR bad.  But don’t be misunderstood.  A payoff table of intentions versus results might indicate a win, but that win could come from bad intentions.  It is still a win, but your intentions were bad.  Don’t let that be misunderstood either.

A payoff matrix is shown below for results AND intentions. The certainty of the payoff matrix is the value of the whole matrix, table, which in each case  is 1.0 or 100%.  However the payoff matrix on the left is certainty with GOOD intentions and the payoff matrix on the right is certainty with BAD intentions.

This condition is unchanged  if the attributes are recharacterized from good and bad intentions to true and false. 

The payoff matrices above  are with every cell as an integer of 1.  If the cells are allowed to  be fractional values between 0 and 1, then the following payoff matrices are possible. In each case the certainty is still 100%, but the payoff matrix on the left below can be characterized as a true win while the payoff matrix on the right can be characterized as a false win.

These are not the only matrices which are possible.  If the value of any cell has to be greater than zero, which is identical to saying that x has to be greater than zero, then  the payoff matrices will still have a certainty of 100%, but they can be generalized where the matrix on the left is a transpose/mirror/reflection of the matrix on the right, i.e. false is the transpose of truth.  Normal is a statistical term that the distribution of the number of false wins is identical to, and offsets, the number of false losses. Alternatively, the SUM of false wins and false losses can be viewed as a Tie, since there are three outcomes for every contest, (Win, Loss AND Tie), while there are four cells in a payoff matrix.

IOW, to not be  misunderstood, whether you lose or win, don't be transposed, because then you will be false.

Mandate

 

Landslide

I took my love; I took it down
Climbed a mountain and I turned around
And I saw my reflection in the snow covered hills
‘til the landslide brought me down

A landslide? I thought that money voted? What do you mean it is land? Make up your mind!

Donald Trump is claiming that his election as President was a landslide and therefore he has a mandate. Huh? He received a plurality, but not a majority, of the popular vote (which is the people) but a majority of the electoral votes. A problem is how the electoral votes are awarded. A mandate is when the President is elected as the clear choice of the people AND the clear choice of the states. The popular vote is the choice of the people. The States are each awarded two electoral votes. But the electoral votes are awarded  as winner-takes-all in all but two states, instead of separately  by congressional district AND the whole state, as Nebraska does. In other words, there is no mandate if the electoral votes are combined and awarded in a winner-take-all process as if a state were a single district, unless there is a mandate according to the Nebraska method in every state. Additionally, in order for electoral voters to have a real choice, then there have to be at least three choices in each case, (win, loss, AND tie) and there were NOT three candidates in every state and congressional district. This could have been prevented if the two political parties had instead presented two slates of candidates, In this way two political parties could present four choices on a ballot. But this was also not the case.

The fact that money is better correlated with population centers, e.g., the popular vote, and NOT with land area, even if the popular vote and electoral/land vote are the same, then the popular vote is only a plurality, not a majority, And this is an indication that there is NO mandate of money, votes or states, especially not a landslide.

Politics

 

Politician

I'm a political man and I practice what I preach.
I'm a political man and I practice what I preach.
So don't deny me baby, not while you're in my reach.

So what are my politics?

If I were to characterize my political leanings it would be, as my hero Mark Twain, as a Mugwump Republican. I make this distinction because today's Republican Party seems to be only the MAGA wing and Mugwumps have been primaried out of the party. The Mugwumps of Twain's day might have opposed the corruption of the Stalwart Republicans, but at least they were still considered part of the Party.

Why am I a Republican? I am for limited government and low taxes, not NO government and NO taxes. But I am also for Truth, Justice (for the group), and the American way(inclusion). I do not think that just because something is better today, it will be always better.

Truth is eternal, not just for today.

Justice for the Group, not just for oneself, requires respecting the choices of each individual in the group. This means ALL choices (Mind your own business!). I can’t assume that my perception of Truth is correct.

The American Way (inclusion) is in keeping with N, the size of the group, approaching infinity. Actions to limit the size of the group, whether those actions are deportations, voter suppression, discrimination, Jim Crow laws, etc., are wrong.

The statement that “The  Government ( i.e. the group) IS the problem”  is wrong. The government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people” according to Abraham Lincoln, the first and greatest Republican President. Anti-trust and the elimination of monopolies were hallmarks of Republican Theodore Roosevelt (as were national parks and environmentalism). The elimination of the abomination of chattel slavery, which limits the size of the group, was the reason that the Republican Party was founded.

The people in the government may be wrong and following Lord Acton’s maxim that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, the government (which must inevitably consist of representatives of the people, who are themselves PEOPLE), is NOT wrong, but the PEOPLE in the government may be wrong. That is why there are elections. Change the government, do NOT eliminate the government. It is a lot easier and faster to destroy than to build. But it is more admirable to be a builder than a destroyer.

Groups

 

Hungry Heart

Got a wife and kids in Baltimore, Jack
I went out for a ride and I never went back
Like a river that don't know where it's flowing
I took a wrong turn and I just kept going

Everybody's got a hungry heart
Everybody's got a hungry heart
Lay down your money and you play your part
Everybody's got a h-h-hungry heart 

C’mon!!!

Brue Springsteen famously encourages the audience to sing the first verse and chorus to Hungry Heart in his concerts.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZwKijVuv5I.  

Audra McDonald encouraged the audience at the London Palladium to join in the song I Could Have Danced All Night.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3orzNvj2yfg. 

Kermit the Frog led the audience of Choir,  Choir, Choir, in singing the Rainbow Connection at the Lincoln Center. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKphuLqr1mI

In each of these the singer could have merely performed the song for the audience.  The singer led the audience in becoming the song.  The best leaders lead the group, they do not lead for the group.  Become the song, and in doing so become the group.

Election 2024 III

 

It Takes Two

One can wish upon a star
Two can make a wish come true, yeah
One can stand alone in the dark
Two can make a light shine through
It takes two, baby
It takes two, baby
Me and you
It just - takes two

Actually it takes three.

The Best of Car Talk podcast, which IMHO is the best podcast, is only reruns of the Car Talk radio show when both hosts were still alive. When it was being broadcast, it was the most popular listener supported show on NPR, however it attracted little underwriting and corporate sponsorship. In order to generate more revenue, the one break in the one hour show at the half hour mark, was expanded to two breaks within the same hour, where underwriting and station acknowledgments could be given. Tom Magliozzi, the older brother, started referring to the three parts of what was previously a two half show, as three halves of the show. What started as a running joke, reflected the brilliance of the hosts. What appears to be two halves, sides, in an election, or any contest, consists of two observable parts AND one unobservable part. There really ARE three halves.

Game Theory says that there are three outcomes to every contest: Win, Loss AND Tie. To simplify this into two outcomes, Win and Loss, Ties are divided into False Wins and False Losses. This means that a win is the sum of true wins and false wins. It also means that a loss is the sum of true losses and false losses. The sum of true wins and false wins is just x*1/3 +x*1/3+0.5*(1-y)*1/3 or 5/6, 83.3% for any value of x and y. This indicates dominance. Similarly the sum of true losses an false losses is (1-x)*1/3 +(1-x)*1/3 +0.5*y*1/3,  or 1/6, 16.7%. For any values of x, the probability of a true win,  and y, the probability of a false loss it could not be certain unless the probability of a true win was 100%, and the probability of a false win/false loss was 0%

The problem is that x and y can not be any value. They are limited to being between 0% and 100%. Additionally there is a definite relationship between x and y which is x=4*y. Given these two restrictions, the odds of a true win will not exceed 75%. To achieve a certainty of a win being 100% additional restrictions must be applied go ensure that false wins do not also exceed 25%.

·        A winner must receive more than 50% of the popular vote AND 50% of the electoral vote.

·        The electoral vote must be awarded on the basis of congressional districts AND state senatorial districts,  (the current practice in Nebraska) . In the case of DC's three electoral votes, it should be what would its congressional districts if it had them.

·        The number of congressional districts can not be fixed at 435 but must truly reflect the population. (the Wyoming rule).

·        If  there must be at least three choices, while according to  Duverger’s Law there will be a two party system given our electoral system,  then each party must present two slates of candidates at their respective nominating convections, and each voter must select their first, second and third place choices on the ballot. Three points will be awarded for first place, two points for second place and one point for third place. (podium finishes, ranked choice voting, Olympic medals, etc.), with the winner being the one with the most points, not merely the most first place votes.

In this manner certainty can be achieved from a winner, both true and false.

According to the New York Times, the popular vote winner in the 2024 presidential election only had a plurality, less than 50%, even though that same candidate achieved more than 50% of the electoral vote. This is NOT a mandate, and may NOT even be certain.

Growth

 

I’m A Loser

What have I done to deserve such a fate?
I realize I have left it too late
And so it's true pride comes before a fall
I'm telling you so that you won't lose all

I'm a loser
And I lost someone who's near to me
I'm a loser
And I'm not what I appear to be

Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was a winner.

In a zero-sum game there are always winners and losers. A winner has more than 50% of the sum and a loser has less than 50% of the sum. In a game that is more than a zero-sum game, a game which allows growth, that does NOT have to be the case. The growth can be shared by both players of the game. In that case, they can both be winners. The previous winner can have all of his previous share and a percentage of the growth. Because that player has more than what he had previously, he is a winner. The previous loser can have all of his previous share plus the remaining share of the growth. In that case the second player is better off than he was before and is no longer a loser and is also a winner. Only if the previous winner takes more than his share of the growth plus his share of the previous sum will there be a winner and loser. If each player retains his previous share and gets a fair share of the growth then both players have more than their previous amount and they are both winners.

That is a reason for being against any zero-sum game. In a game where the previous share is retained and the growth is shared among the players, there are only winners with respect to the previous value. It is only if the growth is also considered to be a zero-sum game are there winners and losers. If the previous share is applied to growth then every one is a winner.

The problem is if the game repeats and on each successive round the share of the growth is the share from the previous round, not from the initial round. Eventually all of the new growth will belong to the “winner” and none of the growth will belong to the second player and thus that player will be a loser. But it is by definition NOT a zero-sum game because there was growth. The only way to resolve this contradiction is to assume that from the start it is NOT a zero-sum game.

Branding

 

Horse in Striped Pajamas

Look there daddy, do you see?
There's a horse in striped pajamas
No, that's not what it is at all
That's an animal people call a zebra
I see, but it still looks like a
Horse in striped pajamas to me

Whether you call it a "zebra" or "a horse in striped pajamas", it  is only branding!

I just completed a business meeting as a result of the 2024 Presidential election.  It was about rebranding the work to be marketed by our firm.  What was our firm's Resiliency and Sustainability work became rebranded as Redundancy and Emergency Planning.  Same work, just a different name.  What had been our firm's DEI, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, work became rebranded as Increasing Economic Opportunity.  Again same work, just a new name.  This is nothing new. What had been End-of-life Discussions became rebranded as Death Panels.  What had been an Estate Tax became rebranded as a Death Tax.  What had been Anti-Abortion became rebranded as Pro‑Life.  And that rebranding changes the perception of the action.  Who isn’t opposed to death and in favor of life!

When I was a state official, the state had agreed to pay for transportation improvements around the then new Gillette Stadium where the New England Patriots would play. I had to keep reminding the Chief Engineer to say the state was NOT adding new through highway lanes. Those would have been prohibited by the funding source.  But if we were merely adding auxiliary lanes, that would be allowed.  So whether you call him Father Zeus, or call him Jupiter (Zeus Pater?), what is in a name? A rose by any name would smell as sweet.  A name is NOT the attribute.  A name is a just the branding of an attribute.