Bayesianism, Trump and Putin

Bayesianism, inductive reasoning and level of confidence

As discussed here before, being bayesian about reality and beliefs is a very good mental habit to have, especially for complicated and messy subjects like politics. Simply put, being bayesian means changing the degree of confidence a person has when they become aware of information they were not aware of before. That includes reasoning or logic. The new information can make the bayesian person’s confidence in a belief increase, decrease or even change if it is sufficient. In essence, the bayesian person is a more or less open minded person. That trait is usually accompanied by a mindset that tends toward rationality somewhat more compared to the person’s closed minded counterpart or doppelganger.

As all of us critical thinkers know, forming beliefs about most things involve inductive thinking and some degree of uncertainty in the belief. In politics, important but inconvenient facts, truths and reasoning are often hidden, distorted or denied as lies or nonsense. When that happens, as is usually the case, it is necessary to form beliefs with out important or necessary information. Sometimes we have to make guesses about what reality is using a some variable amount of circumstantial evidence or reasoning. That makes the belief uncertain to some extent.

I sometimes express some of my beliefs in terms of level of personal confidence as a percent, e.g., 60% confident the belief is true. Certainty in belief means 100% confidence in the belief. With politics, messy as it is, sometimes certain beliefs turn out to be false. That can happen if information is hidden, not known to the person and/or the person’s reasoning is flawed. Complicating this is the fact that beliefs often are based on subjective values and there is no single correct belief, e.g., abortion is morally acceptable or it is not.

Degrees of confidence: A person’s degree of confidence in a belief or opinion varies. It can range from ‘maybe’ to ‘more likely than not’ to ‘probably true’ to ‘certainly true’ or certainty. Certainty in belief means a person is 100% confident in the belief or opinion, while maybe tends to mean some range of likelihood or degree of confidence such as ~35-49%. More likely than not means a possibility or level of confidence of at least 50%. With politics, messy as it is, sometimes certain beliefs turn out to be or are false. Sometimes ‘probably not’ type beliefs turn out to be or are true.

Trump, Putin & treason

One of the things in the 2016 election that I found deeply concerning was the possibility that the president could be working with or maybe even for Putin. There was enough circumstantial evidence for me to form a belief that maybe the president was working with or for Putin and was thus a traitor (~35-49% possibility). After all, his campaign operatives had been caught trying to set up a secret line of communication with Putin or his operatives. Why do that?

There was other circumstantial evidence as well. For example, it was also known or suspected that the president (1) laundered money for Russian mobsters and kleptocrats, (2) was a serial business failure with six bankruptcies in his resume, (3) refused to show his tax returns, falsely claiming he could not because they were under audit, (4) was immoral in his personal life (e.g., Stormy Daniels) and broke campaign finance law to hide that fact, (5) the president’s businesses did a great deal of  business with Russian mobsters, and (6) was and still is a chronic liar. I also believed the president was a tax cheat (~90% confident), which explained why he hid his tax returns.

In the 2016 election (Politifact)

After the election, various things raised my level of confidence that the president was working with or for Putin to probably doing so (~60% likelihood). For example, (1) phone calls between him and Putin were not made public and no US officials were present to hear what was being discussed (this is unprecedented), (2) the president denied that Russians attacked the US election, taking Putin’s word for it that Russia had nothing to do with the 2016 election, (3) he publicly sided with Putin against US intelligence agency findings of major Russian interference in the election, (4) he fights tooth and claw in court to keep his tax returns hidden, (5) the Mueller report clearly showed that he obstructed justice at least four or five times to try to stop the investigation of Russian interference in the election, (6) the president solidified his track record as immoral and a chronic liar (100% confidence level) and a crook (99% confidence level), (7) he expresses publicly admiration for tyranny and tyrants including Putin, (8) constant authoritarian rhetoric and behaviors, e.g., attacking the press, and (9) secret phone calls with Putin that coincided with the president taking actions that Putin was wanted ever since he took power, e.g., withdrawing US troops from Germany. We only find out about the phone calls not from the president but from Putin. There could be more phone calls we will probably never know about and we will never know what was discussed in any of them (~95% likelihood).

The following 4 minute interview with Timothy Snyder, author of the book On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century (book review here) has raised my belief that the president is a traitor (~98% confidence level). If one looks at what the president is doing from Putin’s point of view, the president is an incredibly useful operative because of his power, deep immorality and other bad personal traits.

Why would the president betray the US and its domestic and international interests? Because he is a crook and a liar, extremely thin-skinned and vindictive, deeply immoral, deeply corrupt, a tyrant wannabe, controllable, and mentally unsound to the point of being completely unfit for office, e.g., he is a self-centered narcissist. Putin has powerful tools at his disposal. Putin can bribe, blackmail and manipulate the president because he is simply not very bright. If the president owes enough money to Russians and they can call in loans and/or show evidence of tax evasion, that could bankrupt him once more and/or subject him to criminal prosecution. If there is evidence of other bad behaviors, e.g., the pee pee tape, Putin can “leak” it just like he leaked damaging evidence against Clinton in the 2016 election.

It appears to me that Putin holds the power here. It is not clear that the president can refuse what he is told to do, and apparently what he is already inclined to do.