Its us that didnt vote Brexit & Trump who may be deluded???


We are in an incredibly difficult situation to surmount!!

You see, say an unpleasant ex-murderer who killed an employee of his investing company, for not making large enough profits, goes for election against a vanilla politician, and the world watch. We find we don’t like him.
But its us who can and will be critical. The voters have to decide more from a perspective of what is best for the country, weighing up all factors, but weighting them differently. They will be unhappy about bits, but still may see the answer very differently from us.

Now, observers such as us and any who voted for vanilla, believe that we are morally superior, and see anyone who voted for the unpleasant candidate as unpleasant people, maybe stupid too. They didn’t see the situation as we did. If no vote had occurred, or no one voted for him, then all people are the same. It takes people to vote for him to raise us up above them. We are brighter, more moral, and that’s because there was 1 correct answer, ours, as theirs was wrong, lesser, less intelligent, less moral. We have entered a state of righteousness that is artificial. It doesn’t exist without others being judged as wrong and flawed.
We now are unwilling to consider that we may have picked differently if we were voting. We will not be able to consider that some analysed every situation, every route forward, future states and options etc. And saw that that choice was much better for the country and all of our futures, and picked him still. Our new morality is dependent on his voters being immoral and stupid.
We are on top. Why look up? no one can be there, right?
Would we find another explanation if we did look up? They shouldnt be up there. They are just deluded, perhaps?
We are stuck in our own trap!  And it applies to all,  The BBC find the objectionable people it only believes exist.  It’s all anti-immigrant.  Proud racists are easy to find,  when they want to be, and are all searched for.

Now Brexit voters  know hiding is wise, because, they will never persuade anyone they are something that destroys the moral perch of whoever interviews them.  You are pretending it’s about other matters, but its immigration really.  You are fighting  war you can’t win.   Never has news a society been in such a bubble of fiction.


Dont assume you wouldnt have voted for Trump

Candidate a: Trump
Candidate b: Clinton

Clinton:- vanilla, nothing positive that stands out much but better vanilla than worse, so a tool to prevent candidate a.
the result depends on candidate a being seen as better or worse than vanilla(no change) in some way

So, it almost becomes: vote for Trump, or vote against Trump.
We can rule Clinton out, pretty much:-


Choice: Trump, yes or no?

you have:-
group a, american voters
group b, rest of world

you have:-
group 1, those that are instantly taken with what the rest of us see as racist, sexist, or otherwise objectionable views.

group 2, the remaining majority, who see those things as objectionable, and cant consider voting that way.

Effect 1: There is a circular effect, where the media obviously interview supporters, they are seen by us as stupid, morons, as we expect from supporters of such ignorant and distasteful views from a not very bright person, and our views are reinforced, the media highlight this more and more and so on

Mode 1: judging candidates normally.
Mode 2: judging candidates to vote for.

state a: To start with and for considerably long, group a and b are both in mode 1
State b: group a start entering mode 2 as time progresses.

Effect 2: as time goes on, Americans start to ask themselves a different question to the rest of us, as they enter state b

thinking of early america timeline, and rest of world:-

what does he say that seems at all positive?
why would anyone support someone like that?

close to election:-

its the economy, stupid!?
promote business, and the economy, hopefully
down to earth, remove washington money leakages, make leaner

will his bad ideas get traction anyway?
will a wall really happen anyway?
how much damage can he do in his time anyway?
the bad stuff will be undone by his successor.
nothing really changes anyway,

do nothing, or make changes, and the successful can be kept,
failures removed. It seems better than dont ‘experiment’ at all.
Even if you dont consider him the safest business man, perhaps.

Bad Analysts Beat Good

Would you hire an analyst who predicted Brexit and Trump?chart_249x167

Or one that got it wrong, but understandably so from the polls?

How about one who didn’t make any predictions until the day before each, and then put their neck on the line and got it right?

An analyst goes with the probabilities and polls and social effects.

But the day before each, I’d like to explain why an analyst should have got it right both times.

With Brexit, the polls flipped on a daily basis before the vote.  People backed off when they felt the responsibility of their voting, and that leave may happen, playing it safe.  The day before, the polls ended on Stay.  It seemed likely that people would continue their pattern and vote leave, after realising it was unlikely again, and they did.

With Trump, there was more to it(as there was with Brexit actually), but the polls reached a point just short of 50:50, but nearer than ever, and following Brexit thinking, as there was no more campaigning to influence things, Trump could only improve upon that as people saw it as unlikely and their priorities changed in their minds from polling thinking to a state that had been improving his   ratings as the time got closer and other considerations became involved.  From a long time before, or a foreign perspective, the least controversial is always best, but you aren’t thinking about what is best for your country and that can only improve the alternatives chances, and this will rise over time and shoot up a little more come actual voting.  He could only have done better, and as he was predicted to lose by the polls, there was no pull back by anyone thinking that if they got it wrong they would be responsible, and so change is always more likely than before.

Both involved many types of voters with falling into many groups and much more complicated than this explanation.

I made a prediction for both the day before and got both correct.  I wouldn’t have before, because it wasnt possible to make the right choice before that without making the least probable choice and so being bad at your job.

Now analysts havent self corrected properly, and explain what happened incorrectly from a simplistic perspective, biased from the view that madness won out and so defied logic, as it keeps them feeling good analysts.  So they simplify the voters and make them self-destructive badly educated voters, rather than look into the various voters that interacted and their opinions and perceptions.  There are an amazing amount of interesting factors that were involved that provide a lot of insight into future election success and failure and do’s and don’t, once you understand this subject properly.

James Cook

When People Vote against their Wishes

People vote differently whenit is real from when it is not

People vote differently when the choices are more closely balanced from when more distant

People may not vote for their choice if they believe it will win

& may vote against it if they believe this.

Assumed losers are not voted for if they appear they may lose clearly

The greater the perceived differences between the choices, the more likely voting, and the more similar they seem as each other, the less likely, depending on the perceived likelihood of each winning of course.

Phrasing the question differently may change the result.  In an ideal world, people should be able to see all ways a question can be phrased, and it ultimately relies on understanding the problem better, or more deeply, or from different biases, and assumptions of the future etc.

People will vote differently if they feel their vote may change the result, ie closer to 50:50 before their vote.  More considered, but maybe more conservative and less risk averse  unless risk is not risking.  Decisions that make risks too great maybe should be broken apart.

Systems with feedback that prevents 3rd options developing can be biased badly when 3rd option is different andbecomes 2nd close option.  Then voting may occur for 2nd choice believing it wont win, where voting for option 2 is used as a tool to send a message to option 1.

Often voters can believe they are right and if they lose, it is not because of intelligent, opposition with legitimate moral concerns, but by the lowest common denominator, uneducated, and wrong for bad reasons.   – This can be dangerous as it may be seen as others as a view by a population that doesnt exist, that supports them perhaps.

When trailing slightly, this is the best state to be unless winning by a very long way.

When polls oscillate, assume the result will continue the pattern.


By Jim Cook of UK ThinkTank .com

Brexit as a moral decision

I love the U.K. and I see the E.U. as very important .

I hoped that voting leave would cause the E.U. to take a look at why.

I believed that if we had to leave to get it to fix itself then it was worth the sacrifice.

It looked like it may, but now it has turned to fear which is causing the opposite.

It makes me angry when remain voters assume that I did this because of immigration, that their reasons were somehow better or more justified than mine, because they really weren’t.  I believe we can survive and thrive out of the E.U., but not as we are going, asministers don’t quite get it.

Ibelieve that us leaving is a price worth paying to cause the E.U. to fix itself, but im afraid it hasn’t helped.

I wish the vote was seen as not one person voting leave and one stay, but as the countries unhappiness with aspects of the E.U., its reservations about the direction  of the E.U. and yet  hope for it. the countries almost unified percentages showing agreement across the whole of the U.K..

The media (i watch the BBC)  is immoral and hugely damaging  at best, and should think first a lot more.

Even Theresa May is talking of differences.

my writing is falling apart…note to self, fix….never time to as more stuff comes…arrggghh

By Jim Cook of UK ThinkTank .com