Big Data + Donald Trump the game theorist

[C C]

Big Data
https://plus.maths.org/content/big-data

EXCERPT: We live in the information age. Most of what we do is hugely influenced by our access to massive amounts of data — whether this is through the Internet, on our computers, or on our mobile phones. The buzz word to describe this deluge of information is Big Data. In 2012 the UK government identified Big Data as one of the eight great technologies of the future. So what does the challenge of Big Data entail and how can we meet it?...

---

Donald Trump, game theorist
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/justin-timberl...ck-culture

EXCERPT: Like or hate Donald Trump, the presumptive U.S. Republican Party nominee for president, his positions are consistent with two principles of game theory. The first is to be unpredictable, leaving an opponent guessing about what one might do. [...] Paralleling this strategy is Richard Nixon's "madman theory": By credibly appearing to be mad, you strike fear in the heart of an opponent that you might do something dreadful, even at your own expense [...] This strategy reflects another principle of game theory. In some games, it is optimal to be anything but ambiguous. Instead, one should take an unequivocal position and force an opponent to respond to it. [...] It will not happen, even if Trump is elected president. So what purpose does it serve? It forces people to respond, some with delight and some with outrage. It demonstrates to his supporters his strength, his willingness to take a provocative position, even if it alienates others. [...] In effect, Trump is playing a game of chicken, daring those who oppose him to battle him on these issues. Marco Rubio was a candidate who stooped to Trump's level in exchanging sexual taunts and lost badly by undermining his image as an upright moderate....

[Magical Realist]

If only winning an election for the most powerful man in the world were as simple as winning a game of chess. Strategies that may intimidate and work against opponents reveal qualities that may not win over the populace. Petty games of insults and outright lying about the things you said, walking back positions you just claimed the day before, and exposing one's ignorance on almost all issues, may frustrate a competitor in a campaign or debate, but it's not really the traits one looks for in a President. People are looking for more than a winner of games. They are looking for a good and principled man/woman with intelligence and the power to persuade not bully. That's why Trump will lose miserably in November. Being President is not a game. It's not about branding yourself in a well-financed PR campaign. It's a dead serious responsibility that can't be allowed to fall into the hands of a juvenile and narcisstic powermonger. The world is watching us hoping we will do the right thing. The future of America depends on it.

[C C]

[...] People are looking for more than a winner of games. They are looking for a good and principled man/woman with intelligence and the power to persuade not bully. That's why Trump will lose miserably in November. Being President is not a game. It's not about branding yourself in a well-financed PR campaign. It's a dead serious responsibility that can't be allowed to fall into the hands of a juvenile and narcisstic powermonger. The world is watching us hoping we will do the right thing. The future of America depends on it.

A year ago I would have considered it like a flying saucer landing in Washington, D.C. just for Trump to be where he is now. Much less reflecting back on how outlandish it once seemed that he had any chance of winning the presidential race. This is one of those crazy years where events like Leicester seizing the Premier League title happen. But the scary political sports (depending on personal perspective) goes hand in hand with the underdog thrills in the stadiums. It's as if the omens of and coincidental essentials for a "perfect storm" are threatening to converge together to make a "Day The Earth Stood Still" outcome appear less insane or less impossible for Trump.

Not helping that Hilary's email flak hit the fan again with the recent State Department audit, and Sanders keeps futilely hanging around like a pit bull attached to somebody's body in a grisly evening news story.

In response to the former (they especially appeared fixated with "the report discloses that she declined to cooperate with the State Department inquiry — along with at least eight of her top State Department advisers"), it was a bit surreal to see the negative and pessimistic interviews and discussions taking place this week on the Charlie Rose Show, PBS NewsHour, and Washington Week In Review. Like even they were suddenly sticking a fork in Hilary for a variety of reasons, whether she won the race or not come November.