Cabinet reshuffle Feb 2020

[markyb_lcy]

Ridgemont said:

Ridgemont said:

First off this is not an apologia. I know nothing of the guy and his predilection for throwing stuff out there is going to be probably rewarded with the likely obvious outcome: he’ll be gone by lunchtime.

However.

Only a few hours out:

He’s gone.
https://order-order.com/2020/02/17/andrew-sabisky-...

He “hopes the media learn to stop selective quoting”

Somehow I don’t think he’s cut out for politics.

[bitchstewie]

Good.

[kev1974]

Ridgemont said:

Ridgemont said:

First off this is not an apologia. I know nothing of the guy and his predilection for throwing stuff out there is going to be probably rewarded with the likely obvious outcome: he’ll be gone by lunchtime.

However.

Only a few hours out:

He’s gone.
https://order-order.com/2020/02/17/andrew-sabisky-...

Slight irony in being hounded out in a twitter and legacy media storm today, the very day when twitter and legacy media are being criticised for hounding people like Caroline Flack. I guess the #BeKind hashtag ought to be #BeSometimesKind.

[andy_s]

kev1974 said:

Slight irony in being hounded out in a twitter and legacy media storm today, the very day when twitter and legacy media are being criticised for hounding people like Caroline Flack. I guess the #BeKind hashtag ought to be #BeSometimesKind.

I thought the same. I wonder how many actually read what he said and looked into the background before reacting. He was wrong on one major point, the rest was just Mr Spock whimsy stuff really. Good antidote to groupthink.

Best he left though I guess.

[hidetheelephants]

andy_s said:

kev1974 said:

Slight irony in being hounded out in a twitter and legacy media storm today, the very day when twitter and legacy media are being criticised for hounding people like Caroline Flack. I guess the #BeKind hashtag ought to be #BeSometimesKind.

I thought the same. I wonder how many actually read what he said and looked into the background before reacting. He was wrong on one major point, the rest was just Mr Spock whimsy stuff really. Good antidote to groupthink.

Best he left though I guess.

The race stuff is bks though. IQ measurement is sufficiently affected by cultural, educational and economic effects that interpreting it in this way is pointless, never mind that comparing historical data from the US, particularly that collected prior to the civil rights act, is doubly pointless because of rampant institutional racism. Stupid contrarian or actual racist? I don't care, either is good for a P45.

The modafinil comment, the obsession with poor people's reproduction, muslim majority in the UK, all make him sound like an attention-seeking wker with questionable judgement. The established method of reducing teen/unplanned pregnancies, education and free access to contraception, works well enough and neither are going to get anyone called a fascist or a misogynist.

[andy_s]

hidetheelephants said:

The race stuff is bks though. IQ measurement is sufficiently affected by cultural, educational and economic effects that interpreting it in this way is pointless, never mind that comparing historical data from the US, particularly that collected prior to the civil rights act, is doubly pointless because of rampant institutional racism. Stupid contrarian or actual racist? I don't care, either is good for a P45.

The modafinil comment, the obsession with poor people's reproduction, muslim majority in the UK, all make him sound like an attention-seeking wker with questionable judgement. The established method of reducing teen/unplanned pregnancies, education and free access to contraception, works well enough and neither are going to get anyone called a fascist or a misogynist.

I get it, but these weren't policy ideas. He was wrong on the genetics [as I've said on the other thread & agree with you on why] but the point of people like this was to free-think and disrupt conventional thought. I've been into it at length on the Cummings thread.
The 'questionable judgement' is a bit ironic considering his scores though; iARPA superforecasters aren't ten a penny. Perhaps we prefer thick politicians than having Mr Spock on the crew and prefer staying in a conventional mind-set to carry on making the same decisions for the same shallow reasons.

The double irony for me is that this is truly what confers diversity advantage, not skin colour [studies]; and secondly on a day the country seems to be howling at the press for harassment and lack of accuracy over a dead cleb, probably 1% actually read what he said in context before rushing to judgement. If you're not familiar with Tetlock, it's a difficult one to understand though, I get that.

[Murph7355]

andy_s said:

I get it, but these weren't policy ideas. He was wrong on the genetics [as I've said on the other thread & agree with you on why] but the point of people like this was to free-think and disrupt conventional thought. I've been into it at length on the Cummings thread.
The 'questionable judgement' is a bit ironic considering his scores though; iARPA superforecasters aren't ten a penny. Perhaps we prefer thick politicians than having Mr Spock on the crew and prefer staying in a conventional mind-set to carry on making the same decisions for the same shallow reasons.

The double irony for me is that this is truly what confers diversity advantage, not skin colour [studies]; and secondly on a day the country seems to be howling at the press for harassment and lack of accuracy over a dead cleb, probably 1% actually read what he said in context before rushing to judgement. If you're not familiar with Tetlock, it's a difficult one to understand though, I get that.

You're spot on. And it's not that difficult to understand if you allow yourself to think a little more laterally. Less literally.

[turbobloke]

Murph7355 said:

andy_s said:

I get it, but these weren't policy ideas. He was wrong on the genetics [as I've said on the other thread & agree with you on why] but the point of people like this was to free-think and disrupt conventional thought. I've been into it at length on the Cummings thread.
The 'questionable judgement' is a bit ironic considering his scores though; iARPA superforecasters aren't ten a penny. Perhaps we prefer thick politicians than having Mr Spock on the crew and prefer staying in a conventional mind-set to carry on making the same decisions for the same shallow reasons.

The double irony for me is that this is truly what confers diversity advantage, not skin colour [studies]; and secondly on a day the country seems to be howling at the press for harassment and lack of accuracy over a dead cleb, probably 1% actually read what he said in context before rushing to judgement. If you're not familiar with Tetlock, it's a difficult one to understand though, I get that.

You're spot on. And it's not that difficult to understand if you allow yourself to think a little more laterally. Less literally.

Aye but that doesn't sit well with addictive dogma, so the chances are limited and mistakes are repeated.

[anonymous-user]

andy_s said:

kev1974 said:

Slight irony in being hounded out in a twitter and legacy media storm today, the very day when twitter and legacy media are being criticised for hounding people like Caroline Flack. I guess the #BeKind hashtag ought to be #BeSometimesKind.

I thought the same. I wonder how many actually read what he said and looked into the background before reacting. He was wrong on one major point, the rest was just Mr Spock whimsy stuff really. Good antidote to groupthink.

Best he left though I guess.

Makes you wonder why Cummings (and Boris) didn’t support him. They’re in charge with a big majority, they vetted and recruited him, Cummings even said his views on IQ were reasonable but “politically untouchable”

This all after Sajid Javid’s resignation and ongoing trouble caused by Cummings other sackings of junior advisers like many of Javid’s staff.

Seems like Cummings is coming under fire even from his own party over this, as they (unlike Cummings) rely on public opinion for their jobs. Alastair Campbell talked a lot about how hard it was to get things done in government, Cummings is going to find it hard to recruit these people if they’ve been ill advaised enough to spout their “politically untouchable” views online.

Boris needed Cummings to get into number 10 and “get brexit done” I wonder if he’s going to be a distraction with his battles with elected ministers and the media and will create more problems for Boris who seems to just want the path of least resistance to power rather than follow any particular ideology that Cummings is into.

[swisstoni]

Personally I think that Cummings is a much needed reviewer of our institutions.

In a nutshell his point is that once an organisation grows above a certain size, it starts to serve itself rather than the people.

This is how we get major infrastructure projects of infinite cost, for instance.

They have quite rightly jettisoned one particular oddball associate and his eugenicist views. It’s a nasty smell that has no bearing on what Cummings is working on.

[markyb_lcy]

Kwasi Kwarteng has broken ranks to criticise the writings of this now jobless advisor. I couldn’t help but find this comment hilarious...

“ I read in the papers he’s 27 years old, I don’t know how he’s had time to write all this stuff to be honest.”

[hidetheelephants]

andy_s said:

I get it, but these weren't policy ideas. He was wrong on the genetics [as I've said on the other thread & agree with you on why] but the point of people like this was to free-think and disrupt conventional thought. I've been into it at length on the Cummings thread.
The 'questionable judgement' is a bit ironic considering his scores though; iARPA superforecasters aren't ten a penny. Perhaps we prefer thick politicians than having Mr Spock on the crew and prefer staying in a conventional mind-set to carry on making the same decisions for the same shallow reasons.

The double irony for me is that this is truly what confers diversity advantage, not skin colour [studies]; and secondly on a day the country seems to be howling at the press for harassment and lack of accuracy over a dead cleb, probably 1% actually read what he said in context before rushing to judgement. If you're not familiar with Tetlock, it's a difficult one to understand though, I get that.

What might be acceptable in a brainstorming session subject to Chatham House rules is simply stupid attention seeking when done online, even if it had basis in fact, which his brainfarts did not. I find it difficult to believe even the greatest superforcaster can tell you a damn thing worth knowing if they're basing their forecast on st data.

[Mark Benson]

turbobloke said:

Murph7355 said:

andy_s said:

I get it, but these weren't policy ideas. He was wrong on the genetics [as I've said on the other thread & agree with you on why] but the point of people like this was to free-think and disrupt conventional thought. I've been into it at length on the Cummings thread.
The 'questionable judgement' is a bit ironic considering his scores though; iARPA superforecasters aren't ten a penny. Perhaps we prefer thick politicians than having Mr Spock on the crew and prefer staying in a conventional mind-set to carry on making the same decisions for the same shallow reasons.

The double irony for me is that this is truly what confers diversity advantage, not skin colour [studies]; and secondly on a day the country seems to be howling at the press for harassment and lack of accuracy over a dead cleb, probably 1% actually read what he said in context before rushing to judgement. If you're not familiar with Tetlock, it's a difficult one to understand though, I get that.

You're spot on. And it's not that difficult to understand if you allow yourself to think a little more laterally. Less literally.

Aye but that doesn't sit well with addictive dogma, so the chances are limited and mistakes are repeated.

There's a good article here, mainly about Dawkins and his musings on eugenics, but there's a bit on Sabisky towards the end; "if we accept x, then y is possible", doesn't automatically mean they endorse it. You're either a high or low 'decoupler' as to whether that statement infers intent or not.

While it should be acknowledged that Sabisky has made some pretty nasty comments for which he ought to be taken to task, does that automatically make him unsuitable for the job he was hired to do - Superforecasting seems to be a pretty niche activity and Sabisky, on the surface does seem to have a talent for it, however objectionable he might be as a person.
However I'd say on balance, hiring someone with quite such extreme views (and a lot of what he's reported to have said appear to be his views, rather than simply tossing out ideas for debate) is not something we should endorse, though I can see the temptation given what Cummings is trying to do to reform a bloated organisation (which in general, I support).

[markyb_lcy]

Meanwhile, criticising a minister is enough to fail the vetting process if you're a drugs expert...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/19/d...

[hutchst]

Cummings certainly has style. According to Julian Smith writing in The Spectator "My suspicions were raised by Tuesday: my close protection apologised about the swap to a Skoda"

[Murph7355]

Mark Benson said:

There's a good article here, mainly about Dawkins and his musings on eugenics, but there's a bit on Sabisky towards the end; "if we accept x, then y is possible", doesn't automatically mean they endorse it. You're either a high or low 'decoupler' as to whether that statement infers intent or not.

While it should be acknowledged that Sabisky has made some pretty nasty comments for which he ought to be taken to task, does that automatically make him unsuitable for the job he was hired to do - Superforecasting seems to be a pretty niche activity and Sabisky, on the surface does seem to have a talent for it, however objectionable he might be as a person.
However I'd say on balance, hiring someone with quite such extreme views (and a lot of what he's reported to have said appear to be his views, rather than simply tossing out ideas for debate) is not something we should endorse, though I can see the temptation given what Cummings is trying to do to reform a bloated organisation (which in general, I support).

Are they his views though (you alluded to this earlier and then made the judgement).

The article I read was no evidence of that.

Probably wise that he's gone. But raises awkward questions in its own right - governance by media.

[Mark Benson]

Murph7355 said:

Mark Benson said:

There's a good article here, mainly about Dawkins and his musings on eugenics, but there's a bit on Sabisky towards the end; "if we accept x, then y is possible", doesn't automatically mean they endorse it. You're either a high or low 'decoupler' as to whether that statement infers intent or not.

While it should be acknowledged that Sabisky has made some pretty nasty comments for which he ought to be taken to task, does that automatically make him unsuitable for the job he was hired to do - Superforecasting seems to be a pretty niche activity and Sabisky, on the surface does seem to have a talent for it, however objectionable he might be as a person.
However I'd say on balance, hiring someone with quite such extreme views (and a lot of what he's reported to have said appear to be his views, rather than simply tossing out ideas for debate) is not something we should endorse, though I can see the temptation given what Cummings is trying to do to reform a bloated organisation (which in general, I support).

Are they his views though (you alluded to this earlier and then made the judgement).

The article I read was no evidence of that.

Probably wise that he's gone. But raises awkward questions in its own right - governance by media.

I could be wrong, but from what I've read some of it was spitballing, but some was given in the form of advice, which would tend to suggest that they were his views.
Whether or not he should be sacked (or should resign in this case) is difficult to decide though, as lynching by social media seems to the the norm for anyone appointed to a public position who isn't left of centre these days so it's hard to know what's geniune and what's just the screeching offence archaeologists taking quotes out of context.

[anonymous-user]

Mark Benson said:

Murph7355 said:

Mark Benson said:

There's a good article here, mainly about Dawkins and his musings on eugenics, but there's a bit on Sabisky towards the end; "if we accept x, then y is possible", doesn't automatically mean they endorse it. You're either a high or low 'decoupler' as to whether that statement infers intent or not.

While it should be acknowledged that Sabisky has made some pretty nasty comments for which he ought to be taken to task, does that automatically make him unsuitable for the job he was hired to do - Superforecasting seems to be a pretty niche activity and Sabisky, on the surface does seem to have a talent for it, however objectionable he might be as a person.
However I'd say on balance, hiring someone with quite such extreme views (and a lot of what he's reported to have said appear to be his views, rather than simply tossing out ideas for debate) is not something we should endorse, though I can see the temptation given what Cummings is trying to do to reform a bloated organisation (which in general, I support).

Are they his views though (you alluded to this earlier and then made the judgement).

The article I read was no evidence of that.

Probably wise that he's gone. But raises awkward questions in its own right - governance by media.

I could be wrong, but from what I've read some of it was spitballing, but some was given in the form of advice, which would tend to suggest that they were his views.
Whether or not he should be sacked (or should resign in this case) is difficult to decide though, as lynching by social media seems to the the norm for anyone appointed to a public position who isn't left of centre these days so it's hard to know what's geniune and what's just the screeching offence archaeologists taking quotes out of context.

It’s not just the media though, many in his own party are critical of him and the decision to recruit him.

You seem to be trying very hard to find excuses for him here tbh.

[Murph7355]

Mark Benson said:

I could be wrong, but from what I've read some of it was spitballing, but some was given in the form of advice, which would tend to suggest that they were his views.
Whether or not he should be sacked (or should resign in this case) is difficult to decide though, as lynching by social media seems to the the norm for anyone appointed to a public position who isn't left of centre these days so it's hard to know what's geniune and what's just the screeching offence archaeologists taking quotes out of context.

Agreed.

Though you'd like to think that if there weren't threads of veracity in it that strong people would actually fight back and simply note that comments were being taken out of context.

Then again, maybe he did in his resignation and the PM and his SPADs simply decided there are other battles to be fought.

Who knows, maybe it was deliberate. A willing sacrificial lamb to test how the system works or doesn't. Drain dye, disinformation.

Or maybe he is simply progeny of Mengele after all

Herein lies the issue I have with media circuses, that some posters on here validate - we'll never get to a point of actually knowing as some people must take everything literally when it supports their view.

[Mark Benson]

Murph7355 said:

Agreed.

Though you'd like to think that if there weren't threads of veracity in it that strong people would actually fight back and simply note that comments were being taken out of context.

Then again, maybe he did in his resignation and the PM and his SPADs simply decided there are other battles to be fought.

Who knows, maybe it was deliberate. A willing sacrificial lamb to test how the system works or doesn't. Drain dye, disinformation.

Or maybe he is simply progeny of Mengele after all

Herein lies the issue I have with media circuses, that some posters on here validate - we'll never get to a point of actually knowing as some people must take everything literally when it supports their view.

Happened to Toby Young, happened to Roger Scruton both of whom were appointed because of their experience, both of whom had hit-jobs by the media, followed by a Twitter-storm, followed by them standing down as support vanished from the people who appointed them.

It seems many Conservative politicians (often ones you would have expected better of) take too much notice of likes and retweets to do the right thing and fail to notice that appeasement only leads to more demands.