<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for leftfielder.org</title>
	<atom:link href="http://leftfielder.org/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://leftfielder.org</link>
	<description>Because great ideas come out of left field.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 16:26:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How the Middle&#8217;s Bias Gave Obama Political Cover to Support Gay Marriage by Mike</title>
		<link>http://leftfielder.org/2012/05/10/how-the-middles-bias-gave-obama-political-cover-to-support-gay-marriage/#comment-210840</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 16:26:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leftfielder.org/?p=1419#comment-210840</guid>
		<description>Not in this election.  The GOP has been trying to use social issues as an in-road into the Hispanic and African American communities for years, but have always been hampered by the xenophobic elements of their own party, and as the immigration and Trayvon Martin debates demonstrated, those elements aren&#039;t going away anytime soon.

And I don&#039;t buy that there is a significant number of conservatives who are up in arms about this who weren&#039;t already up in arms about the Obama presidency.  In fact, part of what I was trying to say is that most of the people who are up in arms about gay marriage thought that Obama had already come out in favor of it--and therefore the announcement wasn&#039;t actually news to them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not in this election.  The GOP has been trying to use social issues as an in-road into the Hispanic and African American communities for years, but have always been hampered by the xenophobic elements of their own party, and as the immigration and Trayvon Martin debates demonstrated, those elements aren&#8217;t going away anytime soon.</p>
<p>And I don&#8217;t buy that there is a significant number of conservatives who are up in arms about this who weren&#8217;t already up in arms about the Obama presidency.  In fact, part of what I was trying to say is that most of the people who are up in arms about gay marriage thought that Obama had already come out in favor of it&#8211;and therefore the announcement wasn&#8217;t actually news to them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How the Middle&#8217;s Bias Gave Obama Political Cover to Support Gay Marriage by Doc Opp</title>
		<link>http://leftfielder.org/2012/05/10/how-the-middles-bias-gave-obama-political-cover-to-support-gay-marriage/#comment-210601</link>
		<dc:creator>Doc Opp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 13:53:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leftfielder.org/?p=1419#comment-210601</guid>
		<description>While this announcement might not change who people vote for, it might affect who actually shows up to vote.  There are some pundits suggesting that this might lead some folks on the right who are less than enthusiastic about Romney, and might otherwise not have shown up at the polls, to actually show up.  Similarly, the pundits suggest that this might make some members of Obama&#039;s coalition - particularly from  socially conservative minority groups - less likely to vote.  Do you have any thoughts on this?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While this announcement might not change who people vote for, it might affect who actually shows up to vote.  There are some pundits suggesting that this might lead some folks on the right who are less than enthusiastic about Romney, and might otherwise not have shown up at the polls, to actually show up.  Similarly, the pundits suggest that this might make some members of Obama&#8217;s coalition &#8211; particularly from  socially conservative minority groups &#8211; less likely to vote.  Do you have any thoughts on this?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on I Don&#8217;t Think That Word Means What You Think It Means&#8230; by Mike</title>
		<link>http://leftfielder.org/2012/04/13/i-dont-think-that-word-means-what-you-think-it-means/#comment-210015</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 17:18:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leftfielder.org/?p=1413#comment-210015</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t disagree with you that there are plenty of irrational factors driving state behavior.  But I think that affects my point.  Politicians use &quot;embolden&quot; like it is universally a bad thing.  In fact, if one were actually &quot;emboldening&quot; ones enemies, that is just as likely to cause them to make a strategic error as it is to cause them to make a strategically wise decision. That is true whether or not the actors involved are rational, nor even require that the game be zero-sum.

If a politician wanted to say &quot;action X will likely embolden North Korea to act in such-and-such of way, which would be bad for American interests&quot;; that would be a solid argument.  But to simply assert, off hand, that emboldening one&#039;s enemies is inherently bad for American interests is wrong.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t disagree with you that there are plenty of irrational factors driving state behavior.  But I think that affects my point.  Politicians use &#8220;embolden&#8221; like it is universally a bad thing.  In fact, if one were actually &#8220;emboldening&#8221; ones enemies, that is just as likely to cause them to make a strategic error as it is to cause them to make a strategically wise decision. That is true whether or not the actors involved are rational, nor even require that the game be zero-sum.</p>
<p>If a politician wanted to say &#8220;action X will likely embolden North Korea to act in such-and-such of way, which would be bad for American interests&#8221;; that would be a solid argument.  But to simply assert, off hand, that emboldening one&#8217;s enemies is inherently bad for American interests is wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on I Don&#8217;t Think That Word Means What You Think It Means&#8230; by Doc Opp</title>
		<link>http://leftfielder.org/2012/04/13/i-dont-think-that-word-means-what-you-think-it-means/#comment-208573</link>
		<dc:creator>Doc Opp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:50:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leftfielder.org/?p=1413#comment-208573</guid>
		<description>I have two problems with this post.  First, sticking within your framework, chess isn&#039;t a great analogy because all the pieces are visible.  Think instead about hearts.  In this case, your opponent doesn&#039;t know what your cards are.  Depending on your cards, some moves are better moves than others.  So, depending on which cards your opponent thinks you have, the set of strategies will differ.  Your behaviors will signal the type of cards that you have.  If your signalling gives the wrong impression, the opponent could make a bad move - importantly, that move could be bad for both you and your opponent.  It might be worse for your opponent but the game isn&#039;t necessarily zero sum.  If North Korea misreads Obama&#039;s conciliatory behavior as a sign that the US doesn&#039;t have the military force to get involved in armed conflict, they may be more aggressive, forcing our hand towards military action.  That would be catastrophic for North Korea, but would also be fairly bad for us.  

But the bigger issue here is that you&#039;re treating states as though they&#039;re rational actors, which works great in game theoretic simulations, but hardly describes real world leaders.  Real world leaders can be emotional, unstable, irrational, and in general human.  They can get biased by sunk costs, entrapment, groupthink, or overconfidence.  In the real world people are afraid to back down because they&#039;ll lose face, even though the costs can be tremendous.  Some people commit suicide to avoid the embarrassment of admitting failure, which is about as game theoretically non-strategic as one can get.  

I don&#039;t think Obama&#039;s recent behavior will embolden North Korea, but at the same time,  I think it&#039;s even less plausible that North Korea is operating within the sort of strategic framework that you&#039;ve mapped out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have two problems with this post.  First, sticking within your framework, chess isn&#8217;t a great analogy because all the pieces are visible.  Think instead about hearts.  In this case, your opponent doesn&#8217;t know what your cards are.  Depending on your cards, some moves are better moves than others.  So, depending on which cards your opponent thinks you have, the set of strategies will differ.  Your behaviors will signal the type of cards that you have.  If your signalling gives the wrong impression, the opponent could make a bad move &#8211; importantly, that move could be bad for both you and your opponent.  It might be worse for your opponent but the game isn&#8217;t necessarily zero sum.  If North Korea misreads Obama&#8217;s conciliatory behavior as a sign that the US doesn&#8217;t have the military force to get involved in armed conflict, they may be more aggressive, forcing our hand towards military action.  That would be catastrophic for North Korea, but would also be fairly bad for us.  </p>
<p>But the bigger issue here is that you&#8217;re treating states as though they&#8217;re rational actors, which works great in game theoretic simulations, but hardly describes real world leaders.  Real world leaders can be emotional, unstable, irrational, and in general human.  They can get biased by sunk costs, entrapment, groupthink, or overconfidence.  In the real world people are afraid to back down because they&#8217;ll lose face, even though the costs can be tremendous.  Some people commit suicide to avoid the embarrassment of admitting failure, which is about as game theoretically non-strategic as one can get.  </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think Obama&#8217;s recent behavior will embolden North Korea, but at the same time,  I think it&#8217;s even less plausible that North Korea is operating within the sort of strategic framework that you&#8217;ve mapped out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How to Chose a Running Mate by Matt</title>
		<link>http://leftfielder.org/2012/03/30/1399/#comment-208013</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:15:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leftfielder.org/?p=1399#comment-208013</guid>
		<description>Nice post, but Marco Rubio is from Miami ... not a Southern City in any cultural sense. Rubio may be a great pick for vice president, but he doesn&#039;t talk like Southerner or act like a Southerner. I think there are a lot of Republicans who connect better with Southerners than Rubio does.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice post, but Marco Rubio is from Miami &#8230; not a Southern City in any cultural sense. Rubio may be a great pick for vice president, but he doesn&#8217;t talk like Southerner or act like a Southerner. I think there are a lot of Republicans who connect better with Southerners than Rubio does.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How to Chose a Running Mate by Mike</title>
		<link>http://leftfielder.org/2012/03/30/1399/#comment-207957</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:19:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leftfielder.org/?p=1399#comment-207957</guid>
		<description>Which is to say that voters might vote against a candidate because of their choice of running mate; although, hypothetically speaking, were those people likely to vote for McCain anyway?  Just curious.

Also, I doubt that the opposite is true: did people actually vote for McCain on the hopes that he would perish and allow Palin to become president?  Again, I think the basic point that independent voters aren&#039;t going to choose a candidate because they liked his VP pick still holds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Which is to say that voters might vote against a candidate because of their choice of running mate; although, hypothetically speaking, were those people likely to vote for McCain anyway?  Just curious.</p>
<p>Also, I doubt that the opposite is true: did people actually vote for McCain on the hopes that he would perish and allow Palin to become president?  Again, I think the basic point that independent voters aren&#8217;t going to choose a candidate because they liked his VP pick still holds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How to Chose a Running Mate by Doc Opp</title>
		<link>http://leftfielder.org/2012/03/30/1399/#comment-207784</link>
		<dc:creator>Doc Opp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:23:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leftfielder.org/?p=1399#comment-207784</guid>
		<description>A nice analysis but:

&quot;but at the end of the day voters were voting for (or against) McCain, not Palin.&quot;

I&#039;m not sure I agree with you on this.  I know a lot of people who were strongly considering voting for McCain but decided against it based on Palin as a VP - after all, McCain was no spring chicken, and the thought of Palin in the White House terrified a lot of people.  I heard the phrase &quot;one heart attack away from disaster&quot; bandied about.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A nice analysis but:</p>
<p>&#8220;but at the end of the day voters were voting for (or against) McCain, not Palin.&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not sure I agree with you on this.  I know a lot of people who were strongly considering voting for McCain but decided against it based on Palin as a VP &#8211; after all, McCain was no spring chicken, and the thought of Palin in the White House terrified a lot of people.  I heard the phrase &#8220;one heart attack away from disaster&#8221; bandied about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Democracy Despite Itself on US News &amp; World Report by &#187; World Changing Ideas Video Contest</title>
		<link>http://leftfielder.org/2012/02/13/democracy-despite-itself-on-us-news-world-report/#comment-206380</link>
		<dc:creator>&#187; World Changing Ideas Video Contest</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:09:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leftfielder.org/?p=1360#comment-206380</guid>
		<description>[...] business idea(s), business consulting and management consulting services, Hyderabad, India EPM Worldleftfielder.org   [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] business idea(s), business consulting and management consulting services, Hyderabad, India EPM Worldleftfielder.org   [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Check out Fox and Friends Sunday by Mike</title>
		<link>http://leftfielder.org/2012/02/09/check-out-fox-and-friends-sunday/#comment-204308</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:04:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leftfielder.org/?p=1358#comment-204308</guid>
		<description>The show went well, from my perspective, although he was on only very briefly.  If anyone finds a link to the segment online, could you please post a link?  Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The show went well, from my perspective, although he was on only very briefly.  If anyone finds a link to the segment online, could you please post a link?  Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on An Extraordinary Interview by Sarah</title>
		<link>http://leftfielder.org/2011/11/16/an-extraordinary-interview/#comment-197455</link>
		<dc:creator>Sarah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:00:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leftfielder.org/?p=1322#comment-197455</guid>
		<description>Is Daily Show the best journalism or the best news commentary?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is Daily Show the best journalism or the best news commentary?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

