REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Predictive Modelling

POSTED BY: HKCAVALIER
UPDATED: Friday, August 27, 2004 14:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 809
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, August 7, 2004 5:53 PM

HKCAVALIER


Several folks on this board have claimed to be able to predict our political future and been proven right by circumstances. Going in, a lot of us had a pretty awful feeling about the war in Iraq. We were proven right, while the administration and the military have had to continually rebound from unforeseen setbacks and scandals. Though the more cynical among us could say that the administration didn't care how things went down in Iraq as long as it meant Haliburton et al would be making bank, still there are an awful lot of people who supported going to war in Iraq, for instance, who were blindsided by some of the developments over there.

Why couldn't they foresee what we knew would happen? What models do we use to predict the outcomes of these global events?

My background is in family systems theory and recovery dynamics. I know something about how the human animal reacts to long-term abuse and addiction. I've seen first hand what a person can do when she's made the choice to change. And I've lived through the devastating consequences of trying to change a person against his will.

So here's my model (some of you may recognize this model from "The Demonization of the Opposition" thread, but since no one made any comment on it over there I'm reprinting it here in the hope that it will spark some interesting discussion):

Okay. Say you live in an apartment house and right across the way lives a woman who's boyfriend beats her. You've seen the police over there more than once but you can tell that the woman refuses to press charges, so the boyfriend is never arrested. When the cops leave, he beats her all the more for calling the cops.

So you decide to be a hero. You go over there yourself and beat the living crap out of the boyfriend and tell him that if he ever comes back you'll kill him.

So right off the bat things start to get crazy. First off, this woman doesn't even thank you! I mean, you put your life on the line for her (okay, not really, you're a black belt in karate and the guy was a barely functional drunk, but still!) You could see the look of relief on her face when you first came in and pulled her brutal boyfriend off of her, but she turns around and starts screaming at you to stop hurting her boyfriend and she jumps on you and starts smacking you around the head. Then, when you rebuild her coffee table (which he broke) and put in a new window (that he punched out), she just glares at you, like you're some kind of invading army!

So you leave her alone to sort out her new life now that you've ousted her evil boyfriend.

Then what happens? First of all, her very old-fashioned family starts coming by to berate her about not having a man. Her whole community rises up against her for being some kind of faithless wife. And before you know it, she's shacked up with a new abusive boyfriend. Now is this boyfriend worse than the old one, or better? Who knows?

What you do know, is that you were a short-sighted jackass to think you could barge into her life and change it without taking into account the long term issues and cultural sources of her problem.

Or maybe you're still over there most nights, glowering at her and screening her calls and confiscating her pay checks and forcing her to read your pamphlets on how to be a good woman. How long can you keep that up? Do you really expect to teach her how to stand up for herself, to stand up to her entire family and her community with this kind of paternalistic invasion?

I'm really interested in the models people use to predict what's going on in the world. Once we've shared our models perhaps we can use them to imaginatively set a course for a more desirable future.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 7, 2004 8:21 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


For those in power, the model is money and/or military power.

For those out of power (everyday folks like you and me) the model is fear.

I'm feeling particularly bitter and pissed-off today. I can't stand people licking the boot that steps on them. I'll come back with a more complete answer tomorrow.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 8, 2004 5:36 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Okay. Say you live in an apartment house and right across the way lives a woman who's boyfriend beats her. You've seen the police over there more than once but you can tell that the woman refuses to press charges, so the boyfriend is never arrested. When the cops leave, he beats her all the more for calling the cops.

So you decide to...



...do nothing. One night he gets more violent than usual and beats her to death. In his drunken panic he sets a fire in the apartment to cover his crime, and the building burns down, killing the elderly couple upstairs and leaving 23 people homeless and destitute.

Predictive modeling might work if you go in without preconceptions or bias. But it's pretty easy to use it to prove whatever you want, just like you can find anecdotal evidence for most anything if you look hard enough.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 8, 2004 8:10 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


What you do is...

Take the boyfriend and throw his *ss in jail, then take them both, get them off drugs, and put them into serious rehab- separately.

------------------
Things I have predicted, and why;

1) Gulf War I. Months before the fact, when Bush 41 was "negotiating" with Saddam, I predicted that he was just stringing Saddam along until we had about 500,000 troops in the area. I could tell from the timing of the negotiations- Saddam's long pauses before response, Bush's very quick ones- that there was no thought whatsoever on our side to reaching a negotiated settlement. A lot of ppl now claim to have seen this coming but at the time the ppl I spoke with were a little shocked at my prediction- which happened to be true.


2)A massive terrorist attack in the USA.

OK, it took a five years for this particular prediction to come true, but looking at the attacks on the Cole, embassies and so forth, and understanding that there are people in the world who really really hate us, I was not surprised or terrified by the WTC destruction- just grateful that it wasn't worse.

3) Invasion of Afghanistan, use of indicriminate bombing, escape of bin Laden.

Again, I was predicting a few months before the fact that we were going to invade, that it was our goal to remove the Taliban not to eliminate Al Qaida, and that since we were more interested in occupying territory and not performing a "police action" we would eventually resort to indicriminate bombing (We did use daisy-cutters at the end).

It was the fact that the Administration's initial target (al Qaida) morphed more and more into the Taliban with each pronouncement that clued me in. The DIFFERENCE between the two is that the Taliban had - and still have- geographic stake Afghanistan, while al Qaida only has a connection of convenience.

4) Biological warfare.

This is the prediction that got me into the most trouble, and also the one that I was the most wrong about. Having made all the previous predictions, I later posted that it was a mistake for the USA to so conveniently put our troops into bin Laden's reach in an effort to oust the Taliban (which, I reiterate, are two separate entities with different interests and weaknesses) I predicted the use of biological warfare. What I meant was in the military theater, not in the USA, but I didn't really make that explicit. Coincidentally, a week or two later it became clear that anthrax was being mailed around. This earned me a stint of being followed by the FBI for a couple of days.

5) NO WMD

Months before we invaded Iraq, I knew that no WMD would be found. I listend to Scott Ritter (one of the USA inspectors), to Hans Blix, and I followed the Administration pronouncements and just couldn't match the two.

The situation was that Iraq and 9-11 were willfully conflated. Administration pronouncments ignored the fact that most al Qaida support- and most of the terrorist themselves- came from Saudi Arabia, that the Taliban was funded by the Pakistan InterService Intelligence, that Saddam was rabidly paranoid about religious fundamentalism gaining ground is his country.

As far as WMD, the question was not whether Iraq was producing new WMD but whether they could fully document destruction of old (pre-1995) WMD and whether thay had a delivery system that could produce a threat to the USA (NO) or to the region (YES, in limited qunatities). Knowing that WMD have a limited shelf life (the liquid anthrax produced by Iraq and nerve agents like Sarin deteriorate pretty quickly) made the hunt for WMD more of an exercise in bookkeeping.

What I noticed was that with contracts with the French and Russians inked and ready for signature the minute the sanctions were lifted, and as Blix got closer and closer to certifying that Iraq was free from WMD, the Bush administration got more and more and more frantic- even hysterical. "Ready to deploy in 45 minutes!" "We know exactly where they are!" "25,000 tons of material!"

Of course, most people were so terrified of the thought of WMD that they couldn't see how this was being ramped up.

OK, that's enough for today.








NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 8, 2004 8:32 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Okay. Say you live in an apartment house and right across the way lives a woman who's boyfriend beats her. You've seen the police over there more than once but you can tell that the woman refuses to press charges, so the boyfriend is never arrested. When the cops leave, he beats her all the more for calling the cops.

So you decide to...



...do nothing. One night he gets more violent than usual and beats her to death. In his drunken panic he sets a fire in the apartment to cover his crime, and the building burns down, killing the elderly couple upstairs and leaving 23 people homeless and destitute.



But Geezer, what I'm suggesting is that there really isn't anything you can do on a systemic level. Yes it's horrible what's been going on in Iraq, but getting rid of Saddam or beating up that woman's boyfriend are extremely shortsighted "solutions." The violent system that Iraq has lived in for centuries, the tradition of violence and despotism cannot be reversed by getting rid of one crazy dictator.

My model suggests that Iraq will not stablize. Period. As long as we are over there controlling everything that happens we can pretend that we've changed her, but as soon as we let her do as she pleases she will return to her old ways. Perhaps when we install her next boyfriend he won't turn on us like this last one.

Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Predictive modeling might work if you go in without preconceptions or bias. But it's pretty easy to use it to prove whatever you want, just like you can find anecdotal evidence for most anything if you look hard enough.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Geezer, that don't quite make sense. If your model does not predict the outcome accurately then it is a bad model. I guess what you're saying is that I can pick and choose my "outcomes" to fit my model. So I'll ignore our successes in Iraq (cf: rebuilding the coffee table and fixing the window) and say that the war was a failure 'cause it suits my bias. The only bias I see in my model is a bias toward the human cost and the human reality of interventionism--in human terms it just doesn't work. Individuals (and states) have their own lives to live and their own battles to fight. We missed our chance to help the people of Iraq revolt after the first gulf war, let Saddam kill the opposition and now we try single-handedly to force our will upon the Iraqis and it is bad, bad, bad for all the humans involved. I had this model in mind well before we went to war in Iraq and I knew perfectly well that the war would be a fiasco.

Time will tell if Iraq can become an honest democratic state any time in the next 10 years. I don't see it.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 13, 2004 12:07 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Intepreting the news....

On the one hand, the US media says that Iraqis are "fed up with" al Sadr. On the other hand, Allawi breaks off the offensive to parley. What does this mean?

If Allawi saw widespread support, he'd have the US troops go in with guns blazing. In one swoop he'd have gotten rid of a meddlesome upstart and been able to bask in acclaim. But obviously he sees a serious enough downside to risk negotiating.

al Sadr, on the other hand, has nothing to gain by negotiating. If he leaves the mosque he's given up his single tactical and political advantage and lost all credibility. Unfortunately for all concerned he seems to have painted himself into a corner where his only way out is battle.

If he's truly that committed, then one USA option is to simply surround him and starve him out. Knowing that, he would likely not sit passively but prefer to incite an attack so that the mosque WILL be damaged.

My guess is that al Sadr will try to draw US artillery or tank fire to the mosque. If he has mortars or missiles, I suspect that's what he would use.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 13, 2004 1:16 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
If Allawi saw widespread support, he'd have the US troops go in with guns blazing. In one swoop he'd have gotten rid of a meddlesome upstart and been able to bask in acclaim. But obviously he sees a serious enough downside to risk negotiating.

al Sadr, on the other hand, has nothing to gain by negotiating. If he leaves the mosque he's given up his single tactical and political advantage and lost all credibility. Unfortunately for all concerned he seems to have painted himself into a corner where his only way out is battle.



Hey Signy, is it at all possible that there are a lot of very religious people in that part of the world and that protecting the sanctity of the shrine is a real issue? Seems to me if Allawi were to go in "guns blazing" the whole Shiite world would turn against him. I think these are genuinely religious people and they really don't want to destroy what is holy to them. The whole idea goes against our coultural bias of realpolitik, but I think it's a real factor for the Shiites.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 13, 2004 2:58 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I guess my question would be: Protecting the mosque from who or what? What is it that al Sadr thinks he would do that Sistani, Allawi, or the local clerics wouldn't do? Is the mere presence of foreigners a desecration? Or maybe the person who preaches from the mosque on Friday evenings has a huge audience. Perhaps al Sadr thinks that somebody like Allawi or Sistani might in a sense desecrate a holy area by preaching accommodation with Americans from this mosque.

I'm not sure. It must make sense to at least SOME Iraqis, otherwise they would view al Sadr's maneuver as just simply holding this sute hostage, so to speak. If anyone has any insight on al Sadr's motivation, I'd be glad to hear it!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 22, 2004 5:27 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Another point- Sistani is supposedly in the UK getting "angioplasty".

HOW long does angioplasty take???

I have a friend who had open-chest surgery- sawed sternum, rib retractors, the works... HE got booted out of hospital after three days. So, does anyone still think that Sistani is really in the UK just for medical treatment?

If Chalabi was plan "A" and Allawi is plan "B", is Sistani plan "C"- to come in with clean hands if plan "B" doesn't work?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 23, 2004 5:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Damn. I hate it when I'm right.

It's watching a train wreck in slow motion. Here is a copy of a letter to the editor (which was printed) that I sent a YEAR ago.

------------------------------
Editor,

I don't particularly enjoy being able to say "I told you so" to Feinstein and other Republican-lites. So please, spare us the inevitable diplomatic and fiscal train wreck of Bush's Middle East Adventure. It is not worth spending another penny on the neocon's grandiose designs to remake the world. I don't want an accounting of "how" the money is going to be spent, I just want you to take a deep breath, wind up your courage and vote no.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 27, 2004 2:58 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I'd hypothesized a neocon- Israel connection a number of times on this board. One of the clues was the paper written by Feith, Wurmser, and Perle ("A Clean Break") for Israel PM Netenyahu, which outlined the policy of getting rid of Iraq and Iran. This paper was published in 1996- YEARS before Iraq came into Bush's official sights.

Naturally, the data was dismissed by those bent on supporting Bush. Here's the followup:

The FBI believes Israel has a spy at the very highest level of the Pentagon who may have sought to influence U.S. policy on Iran and Iraq, CBS News reported on Friday....

"The FBI has a full-fledged espionage investigation under way and is about to ... roll up someone agents believe has been spying, not for an enemy, but for Israel, from within the office of the secretary of defense (Donald Rumsfeld)," the network reported.

CBS News said the FBI believed it had solid evidence the suspected mole supplied Israel with classified material that included secret White House deliberations on Iran.

The network described the spy as "a trusted analyst" assigned to a unit within the defense department tasked with helping develop the Pentagon's Iraq policy.

It said the analyst had ties to top Pentagon officials Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, both regarded as leading architects of the war on Iraq. "


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=JTA4P2BRMR5DECRBAE
OCFFA?type=topNews&storyID=6093029

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Scientific American Claims It Is "Misinformation" That There Are Just Two Sexes
Sun, April 28, 2024 12:35 - 23 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, April 28, 2024 09:30 - 2313 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, April 28, 2024 07:40 - 6311 posts
Dangerous Rhetoric coming from our so-called President
Sun, April 28, 2024 07:30 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, April 28, 2024 02:09 - 3573 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Sun, April 28, 2024 02:03 - 1016 posts
The Thread of Court Cases Trump Is Winning
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:37 - 20 posts
Case against Sidney Powell, 2020 case lawyer, is dismissed
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:29 - 13 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:28 - 745 posts
Slate: I Changed My Mind About Kids and Phones. I Hope Everyone Else Does, Too.
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:19 - 3 posts
14 Tips To Reduce Tears and Remove Smells When Cutting Onions
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:08 - 9 posts
Russian War Crimes In Ukraine
Sat, April 27, 2024 19:27 - 15 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL