THE "WHAT IF" - AROUND THE CORNER

The other day I was perusing the Money section of  USA Today and I found an article that provided confirmation of something I've previously shared with my patient readers.

Now, for those of you who really know me and wondered "what the hell is he doing reading the Money section?", I'll explain.  First of all it wasn't a "bad news" article like so many that I refer to. 

Actually, it was an article that promoted the idea:"We might just be turning the 'corner' in the field of education". 

A bloke, from Scotland named Angus Deaton - whom I've never met - and whose 2010  publication I'll probably not get around to reading any time soon - won the most recent Nobel Prize in Economics. 

It's not the fact that he won. It's that, until he found out from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science why he won - he wasn't quite sure what he did to win because, as he put it: "I've never really had a field"

Upon hearing their explanation his thoughtful response was, "Oh, that's what I have been doing!"

You gotta love this guy.

Angus is 69, an Economics  Professor at Princeton, who, obtained his Bachelors, Masters, and Doctorate degrees from The University Of Cambridge and was a professor of econometrics at the University of Bristol before  joining Princeton in 1983. 

I can't believe I never ran into him!

So, besides the all expense paid trip to Sweden and the increased cash flow - what else makes our Angus so unique?

Happy to explain. You see what caught my eye and that of the RSAOS  was that he dared to think out of the box.

A mathemetician at the start, he claims he sort of drifted into the field of Economics. "It shows" due to his unusual approach to statistical studies and economic theory.

Most treatises on the study and predictions of economics involve either the classical theory or the Keynesian.

 The latter is  better known to us now as 'trickle up" economics as opposed to the "trickle down" theories of the "one percenters" - which has become very popular as well as worthless in today's economy.

But, this is not about either subject, nor politics - both of which leave much to be desired if you're a statistical purist. 

In addition, I should confess, what I recall about economic theory from the three or four Economics courses I took, so far - could probably be jammed into the open end of the classic thimble.

No, what August Deaton did was to link his study of macroeconomics with a study of detailed individual choices

In addition to all of the theories out there, Deaton wanted to frame those economic models with human behavior, ie, how consumers distribute their spending, how much is saved vs spent, and ways to measure both welfare and poverty.

He insisted that the "big picture can't be framed without first understanding individual behavior and the differences among people." To do this he developed detailed surveys to compile data on households, including  poverty-stricken sections of India.

He arrived at some fascinating conclusions such as in 2010 when he determined  "Americans need a salary of $75,000 a year to be happy, but amounts above that do nothing to improve well being."

He also concluded that taller people are happier - but the excellent USA Today article by Paul Davidson did not indicate if August was just referring to the NBA players who may have even been able to track that $75,000 threshold clear back to their college days; when supposedly the dreams of sugar plumbs first danced in their heads.

Deaton also did a study on the relationship between income and calorie consumption, which, while it may have been connected in some way to the perceived smaller bags and increased price for a bag of Fritos we currently confront in our local grocery, the article unfortunately did not go into more detail. 

To wrap this up, and as has been stated many times in previous blogs, the statistical studies and their conclusions we are being expected to blindly abide by - quite often fail to go that extra mile - and validate the results using the habits of real people - not computer generated projections that are also often seduced by inductive logic - not deductive.

I have long been convinced - and have also welcomed the confirmation of a teacher whom I much respect - that the question which should be asked most often of our students - from grade school up through graduate studies - is the simple: "What If?"

Trust me, that will draw out more different thought provoking discussions and tools for life than the Romantic Lit professor's class requested spoken interpretation of the poems of  Keats, Shelly, and Lord Byron. Unfortunately, "W.I.?" has often been discouraged by the limitations of a lesson plan and syllabus which can be audited at will.

I believe that simple "WHAT IF?" is what led August Deaton to capture the Nobel prize for Economics.

Now, let's see just how big that "corner" really is.

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP!

The ink was hardly dry on my last blog when another media source, AOL News, enlightened me with a no doubt well researched political story.

Hillary Clinton , presumed by many to be able to overcome her email problems * and become the leading democratic candidate for President, has per AOL ,"recently joined the long list of people that have been targeted by Donald Trump, and she's finally firing back."

In a preview of an interview with MSNBC to be released on Sunday, Secretary Clinton was asked to give her thoughts on GOP presidential rival Trump.

Again, per AOL "She didn't hold back." 

She said to the interviewer, "You know, he has been stoking prejudice and paranoia (after making a noise of disgust).

He's been really appealing to the worst instincts of human nature. I think it is dangerous, his demagoguery is no longer amusing."

The interviewer then allegedly "stoked the fire" by reminding  Clinton, that Trump had previously called her "shrill", to which Hillary responded, "He's called me a lot of things now that he's running against me"

"Before, he called me a great Senator and a great Secretary of State. That's what a demagogue does. They say whatever they need to say in order to stir up the passions of the people."

In Trump's (questionable) defense, one cannot help but wonder whether or not Trump had experienced yet another epiphany, this time about  Hillary's qualifications as the Democratic candidate. 

This would be as opposed to the one he had that occurred when he revealed to us during the second Republican debate he was now pronouncing Carla Fiorina as  "beautiful."

Regardless, I did not take the time to preview the actual video of the instant interview, but one presumes that her MSNBC interviewer, the Reverend Al Sharpton  (who she referred to as Reverend Al) completely understood and was most empathetic of Clinton's complaint. 

Presumably,  he no doubt was shaking his head in agreement with her perspicacity as the interview progressed.

Like, I said. . . . .

* The piece on the interview also contained this allegation: "2 Hillary emails confirmed to be top secret"

MEDIA MISHAPS/ STARTING FROM SCRATCH

I took a "logic"class in college one day back in the late 50s and the professor was defining what a "faulty syllogism" was. Until that day I might have concluded the term had something to do with the incomplete expulsion of flatus.

 But, his example was fascinating:

 Joesph Stalin is a high ranking politician.
 Winston Churchill is a high ranking politician.
 Joseph Stalin smokes cigars
 Winston Churchill smokes cigars
 Joseph Stalin is a Communist.
 Therefore, Winston Churchill must be a Communist.

 I thought about this recently when witnessing the latest "Media Mishap". And yes, I know I'm repeating myself . As I grow older - and obviously much more profound - I liken my thinking to an overplayed  Ginny Sims 78 rpm record - with much too many scratches.

 So, let's start this "scratch" with the latest media "discussion" involving  Dr.Ben Carson, the Republican candidate.

 "Poor Ben's Almanac"  reveals in  the media's latest  accounting of same  - Ben  committed the unthinkable political faux pas of responding to a interviewer's question by simply replying, "I don't know."

 What? Is he nuts?

Apparently, that's not just unthinkable but possibly was perceived by this reporter as being comparatively worse than receiving an "incomplete" grade in college.- when your parents are paying  tuition plus room and board.

Remember the kids Sunday School  song that included the tagline : "The Bible Told Me So". Well,. it appears we've replaced that line with one that now goes;  "How do I know?  -The Media told me so" - and we appear to have bought into it.

 But not Ben - nor Donald . However, Carly still requires more study. She is showing some promise by refusing to allow the interviewer   to "over talk" her response to a question when they feel they may not like where it's heading..

The Ben question was weather related: "If you were President what would you do if a hurricane like the current anticipated one was scheduled to hit the mainland?" (this apparently was as opposed to, "What do you really think of Kim Kardashian? - or, "Do you prefer boxers to tighty whiteys?}

Following his response - or lack of same -the reporter then quickly ran back home to Daddy - David Muir..

Upon appearing in the ABC 6:30 newscast the reporter pointed out to the ABC 6:30 news host  David,, that he had asked the same question of Jeb Bush and Bush immediately provided him with a detailed procedural analysis.

To his credit, the reporter was kind enough to add that during Bush's terms in office as Governor of Florida about 5 or 6 of these "suckers" threatened the Florida population - so as to give him some possible insight

 Question: "If he knew this, why was he so upset with "Brother Ben" and his "I don't know" response?"

Instead, his apparent  outrage was based on the fact  that Carson, who appeared to be in a hurry, was not sufficiently gracious or obsequious  to explain his response.  Perhaps, if Carson had issued as his follow- up: "I'd like to talk more this pertinent inquiry but I really have to take a whiz",  that would have been more acceptable to both the reporter and ABC.

Look, all that I'm seeking here is a level playing field,. My concern is that if we're going to do the same thing with political analysis as we do with our personal communication - and interpret "sound bites" as truly informative in the information gathering process, we've got a real problem going into these remaining 14 pre-election months..

Why is it so difficult for some of the media to wrap their arms around the fact that, when they want and expect  the non- office holder candidates to respond with all the same rote replies of previous election campaigns, it may not happen?

And, the people all said  -"Amen!"

Apparently, the Trumps, Fiorinas, and Carsons of this 2016 election cycle don't want to play the: "Have you stopped beating your Mother?" usual question and answer  game that the "4th  estate" (nee 5th estate) is so fond of..

 My sarcastic thought was that "Dr. Ben" probably should have taken the Bush 9/11 protocol approach and announced to the reporter he'd climb on Air Force One" and get the hell out of there., - but, then again, the reporter probably would have insisted on "ride along" privileges..

 I have become a real fan of these so-called political polls , much like night time comedians, Fallon & Myers, and possibly for the same reason. These polls occasionally appear to be an off -broadway revival of Dante''s "The Divine Comedy'" - without all the needless Italian reasoning contained therein..

Anyway, a recent "scientific" poll  suggested that about 48% of those polled claim they could live with a Muslim President,

As luck would have it, the poll failed to go into any depth and therefore did not delineate that, contained within the 52% complement, there are apparently many who have the same reservations as did Dr. Carson, when he also was asked this question.

Carson later clarified his response to "he might be able to support one who denounced sharia and agreed to preside as per the Constitution - of our country".However, that clarification was apparently not as popular with the media. - nor his impressionistic political opponents.

One might also presume from the lack of specificity that some of the liberal 48% (above)  - may have been thinking they could support the male or female Muslim only if the title was "President of New Jersey" - with either New York or Rhode Island a close second. - anything but a state west of the Mississippi..

Now, if the reporter had thought of asking Dr, Carson whether or not he thought it was a good idea to share hypodermic syringes, something with which his training and experience may have made a contribution to his response, one assumes the producer or editor would have shot that one down in the pre-release meeting room.

Clearly, Carson has to get his game face on .

And maybe, so do we.