Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

The answer of course is something like: "I have the right to carry arms and intend to exercise that right". The Charlton Heston argument. He believes he is "protecting himself" the truth is closer to "toys for the boys".

When one of his kids finds the guns, kills himself, his friend or the local schoolteacher he might understand the stupidity of what he does. Until then body counts and mall-shootings are only things that exist on CNN. The fact that Canada has similar gun laws, and a similar level of gun ownership, yet each year less people die from gunshot wounds in the entire country than in 1 New York day pretty much says everything about the troubled psyche of his nation.

Expect some sort of denial or attack on Canada, in response.

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

As a "minority" I have every right to ask that such articles be written in a style that reflects the international community, my request is entirely reasonable. I am also suprised that this is not SOP, as it must be apparent that there are a lot of non-USA readers.


lol

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

Well this has certainly gone on too far and is distracting from a discussion of Al's article. So I agree that I should stop posting. Thank you for all your interesting responses.

God Bless America.

-Zeno

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

Alan wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
It appears that I was not clear enough. I wrote: "we are losing the world's most important competition." I was referring ONLY to international trade. If we don't win that competition, it is literally impossible for us to preserve our international position and standard of living. You, I, and our economy as a whole must either earn more than we spend or pay severe consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

You replied with:

[ QUOTE ]
So, whenever anyone on the Forum or Magazine refers to "we" they are not referring to Canadians, Europeans or other members of the world commnity, they are refrring to the "USA".

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you conclude that this is necessarily the case? I wouldn't have a hard time imagaining that Alan would write something that contained "we poker players" which would include as you put it the "international community" of poker players and at the same time stating something like he did that pertains to U.S. citizens. People belong to more than one group. Methinks that your complaint probably isn't about how Alan used the word "we" but rather that Alan made a political statement that you didn't care for.

[ QUOTE ]
I thought the one of the big advantages of an internet magazine and forum, in line with poker rooms, is to create an international community?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how Alan comprimised this idea.

[ QUOTE ]
This article, while I accept that the larger portion of players and forum users are from the USA, is in a style, and uses examples, that refer to USA citizens only.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok he's guilty as charged.

[ QUOTE ]
Quoting american companies (who the hell are "Fidelity"?) and other American examples does not help, talking about the article in terms of what it can do for the USA economy does not help.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does not help what? Does not help make his point about competition?

[ QUOTE ]
I would suggest that if the USA wants to become competitive again, it needs to start recognising the existence and validity of the rest of the world (i.e. the countries that are not the USA) and communicate accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alan certainly recognized the existence and validity of the rest of the world wouldn't you agree?

[ QUOTE ]
The rest of the world is not "just like" the USA, just because they have a MacDonalds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did Alan say that is was?

[ QUOTE ]
Articles in this magazine should go beyond national identities and boundaries, and I struggle to understand how this article was published with such a distorted viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the distorted viewpoint you're referring to?

[ QUOTE ]
Has the situation in the USA really got that bad? that you feel it is not worth talking about issues outside the USA?

[/ QUOTE ]

From Alan's article and responses you make the conclusion that the situation in the USA is such that people in the USA feel it's not worth talking about issues outside the USA?

[ QUOTE ]
If I had penned an article making references to "Tony Benn" and the "Rover Plant outside Dagenham" would anyone outside the UK have a clue what I was talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't.

Honestly I'm not sure how to perceive your post. It seems like you may have an axe to grind about how narrow minded and provincial U.S. citizens are and are trying to fit Alan's article and posts into that viewpoint. If so, I don't think Alan's article fits all that well into that viewpoint (U.S. citizens being narrow minded and provincial).

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

One theme that appears regularly in my posts and articles is that we should all understand and work within our own limitations. For example, if you look at my profile here, you'll see that I don't comment on how to play hands because other people can do it better.

I am an American, and I don't claim to know a great deal about other countries (although I have worked in 28 countries and have lived in yours). I was referring ONLY to America's competitiveness. I have no ability to "create an international community," nor am I trying to do so.

I'm just suggesting that poker has some social value because it teaches certain lessons.

One of my goals has been to stimulate discussion about a broader range of isses than are usually discussed. It seems that I've succeeded.

Thank you for your comments. Thanks also to the others who have commented.

Regards,

Al

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

you are like me. but smart.
that kind of pisses me off, but i have the smiley thing.

how come i never heard of you and you are a carpal? you must make poker posts or something to pad that count.

anyhoo, nice post.

i'm granny, nice to meet you.

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/_950/friendship.gif

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

Yes, you did indeed succeed in stimulating discussion though perhaps not in the way intended. I liked your article because it took an interesting turn on a debate that has been rumbling in the background for some time, maybe not even the background for a lot of people... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

As I said previously, for a short article you got in a lot of thought-provoking points and overall set the tone for a good discussion. However, I do feel that perhap the title of your article should clearly identify this was an article about the USA, and not an article about social usefulness per se. One thing that bugs at lot of "continentals" (for want of a better word) is the notion that somehow what goes for the USA goes for everyone else. I often read news articles where people talk of, say the citizens of Iraq, as if they were fundamentally no different to citizens of the USA. They are, fundamentally (not in the religious sense) different in their view of life, their values etc. Sadly, Britain is not much better than this. Typically, and rather comically, the response of the British to "foreigners" (non-English speaking) has been to talk more slowly and more loudly, as if they were just stupid. No, they don't understand English... [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

If you wish to write an article that speaks generally about social effects of poker, then it needs to avoid speciifc references, unless these highlight a particular point and their relevance can be easily determined. In this case it looks like it was your intention to write about poker in the USA, and this should have been made clear by a better choice of title and perhaps a clearer opening passage. Otherwise it just reads like "this is the USA, and that is all that is important". I do not know of the references you speak of, which would be considerably improved by a few words of explanation. I appreciate the limitations on the length of any article, and that you cannot please everyone, but whether people wish to deny the existence of an "international community" or not the fact is, it exists. Perhaps "international readership" is a better label for our purposes. I am sure the vast majority of readers, myself included, respect your input and your views on this and other psychological aspects of poker should be able to stimulate and entertain, even when we disagree. Without getting too PC about it, my work involves communicating to new citizens in the UK (migrant workers, new communities etc.) and I am very aware of how writing for what we may consider to be "our market" (in this case the majority readership, USA citizens) can appear to actively exclude people from the discussion, which can be both very divisive and demoralising. Far from this being an attack on American values, or a reflection of some kind of jealousy of the USA (which is just a denial-response from those who mistakenly believe that America represents everything that is good and desirable in the world and any criticism is an all-out attack on America) it was merely a reflection of what I felt a lot of your readership (the non-USA contingent) may see as a refusal to engage.

Titles and introductions are very important, if I penned an article entitled "Avoiding Tilt" and then talked for 1,000 words about the horrible bad beats I have taken over the last month, I would expect to be criticised, not just for moaning but for misleading the readership.

I know you won't take what I say personally Al, and look forward to more articles from you in future. I imagine you will have a piece for every month?

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

Why would he bless America? While the world reels under the shock of an unprecedented (in recent history) natural disaster, your President is rapidly building a pile of corpses in the desert that may well exceed the death toll from the Tsunami, by the time you realise what a mess you have made and get out.

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

Taking individual lines from a series of posts, then attempting to extrapolate meaning from them is isolation, is an exercise in futility. It is a clear indication that you wish to distort rather than discuss, and is frankly, shameful. It is also transparent and fake, nice work.

If you read my response to Al below you may understand the point I am making, which appears to be lost to the "defence of the USA" posters. This is not about attacking the USA, it is about how such articles may be percieved by non-USA citizens. You need to go beyond your pre-conceived ideas of how the rest of the world views the USA. It is understandable though, as you are only following the lead provided by your Government (and Tony Blair also has much to answer for) which continues to act in defiance of world opinion and is utterly dismissive of the need for any co-operation outside its own terms (the ultra-primitive "you are either with us or against us"). It is therefore no surprise that large chunks of your population will see this as an acceptable way to engage.

This has nothing to do with Alan making political statements, and I have never said so, nor do I beleive that was his intention. Nothing I have said indicates this, it is entirely a concoction of yours. Presumably this is another feeble attempt to discredit my argument, an argument it seems, you have yet to comprehend.

If you cannot see how an article that only talks about the USA, yet is entitled as a generic "social values" discussion, excludes non-USA citizens by its content, then perhaps you have no experience that helps you in this matter, in which case it is unlikely that anything I say will change your mind as you simply cannot comprehend the argument.

As for the rest of your "points" go, all of which were out of context and poorly considered: Alan did not make the point ("say") the world was the same as the USA but failing to acknowledge differences is the reverse side of the same coin, the MacDonalds reference was an attempt to draw a comparison, not an accusation, the distorted viewpoint was an interpretation based on the notion that "what is seen in the USA" must (by implication) apply elsewhere. I know this is how a lot of people see things, and not just in the USA, cultural integration is a huge problem globally and perhaps if you find this topic too hard to digest, you should speak to some the many international companies who employ "cultural integration consultants" specifically for the purpose of helping (i) migrant workers, and (ii) their sales team understand foreign markets and their competitors.

You don't know who Tony Benn is? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]. If I penned an article making such specific references to the UK economy and attempted to pass it off as applying equally to your economy do you seriously doubt I would not be criticised for it's "irrelevance" to the majority of the poker community reading these boards? There can be no doubt about it. Just because I represent a "minority" view, does not invalidate that view. Just as Al's article is not "invalid" because it is specific to the USA economy. My point is, the article was misleading as it at no point conveyed the notion that it was written for the USA economy only, nor did he use references that were easily applicable to citizens outside the USA. Are you getting there yet?

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly I'm not sure how to perceive your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is clear, yet is has not stopped you quoting me out of context and criticising points you clearly do not understand. You appear to have completely missed the main premise of the argument and, far from this being what you percieve as an Attack on Al or the USA, it is actually a request for more inclusive writing.

3/10 must try harder.

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

Naphand,

2+2, in its modest attempt to be all-inclusive, does have a politics forum. You would be most welcome to post your political viewpoints there. A much more appropriate place for such discussions.

-Zeno

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

Thank you for all of your comments in this thread. I do not take them personally, and I agree that I have the common American tendency to focus too much on my own country.

I think you'll like the next one much more. It deals with a much more general lesson from poker: Don't oversimplify.

Alas, I must admit that I am often guilty of oversimplifying. Why? Because I'm human, and ALL humans make mistakes, including ones they fully understand.

I'm delighted to see you and others getting involved in this discussion, and I hope future discussions are this lively.

Respectfully,

Al

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The purpose of my post was not to discuss Al's article.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations, you confirm that you are, indeed, a hypocrite.

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

It was not hypocritical to response to Your post and its contents, and not specifically to Al's. In addition, when it was obvious that things were getting too far afield I agreed to stop posting, and did so except to invite you to join the politics forum.

Again, I invite you to post in the politics forum, there are a lively group that post reguarly there that would enjoy your input.

-Zeno

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wrote: "we are losing the world's most important competition." I was referring ONLY to international trade. If we don't win that competition, it is literally impossible for us to preserve our international position and standard of living.

[/ QUOTE ]

International trade is not a competition. See Ricardo, David.

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Taking individual lines from a series of posts, then attempting to extrapolate meaning from them is isolation, is an exercise in futility. It is a clear indication that you wish to distort rather than discuss, and is frankly, shameful. It is also transparent and fake, nice work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shameful? That's totally ridiculous and funny. You make a lot of statements in your post that are unsupported and/or unclear that you need to clear up. That's all I asked you to do as I took nothing out of context nor did I distort anything you stated. For instance you make statements like this:

As for the rest of your "points" go, all of which were out of context and poorly considered: Alan did not make the point ("say") the world was the same as the USA but failing to acknowledge differences is the reverse side of the same coin,

What does this have to do with the validity of the points Alan made about competition?

Show me one place where I actually did take something out of context. You haven't made a logical argument which apparently you won't do. Making false assertions lead one to any conclusion they want to make and your posts are full of conclusions. Asking you to clarify the assertions that your conclusions are made from is the only way I know of to see if one's argument actually holds together logically. I can see that you're not all interested in convincing anyone that your argument is logical. Also show me one place where I made a "defence of Americans" or where I actually attacked what you stated.

As to the rest of your "reply" to my post, you do more ranting and fail to respond to any points I made or any questions I asked. I'll just accept your post as a long troll and be done with it.

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

Nice to meet you Granny and thanks for the input [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

Do you know what a hydra is?

[ QUOTE ]
Alan certainly recognized the existence and validity of the rest of the world wouldn't you agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

No he has not, you are still missing the core point. I can only assume that you have never worked with minorities, or people new to a country and have no concept of the kind of issues that they face. It is very easy to "exclude" people from conversations or debate, simply because they are not familiar enough with what you are talking about, this does not have to be deliberate. This article is exclusive by the very nature of its focus on issues specific to the USA (particularly its educational system). You would not understand an article penned by someone from the UK using such speicfic references, as you admit. If you cannot grasp this point then we are going nowhere. Picking bits and pieces from a long series of posts, it is not surprising that they might seem contradictory, this is what quoting out of contrext means. You do it in the very first part of your post, you pick a line from Als article, then pick one line from mine and try to make a case. You even try to convey the notion that I was "replying" to that one line (from the Article) with the quote you use. Frankly, that is underhand and you know it. The question is, what are you trying to say. I have re-emphasised that my core point is that the article is written ina style that is exclusive to debate by non-USA citizens. This is fair enough for an article that is written for that audience alone, but nowhere is this stated. As for the rest, I am sure you can find plenty to pick and jumble with. I have made my point, and Al has responded and I am sure will take to heart the points that everyone raises. I am satisfied with this, and have no reason to continue the debate endlessly, it is not +EV. If you do not understand my arguments, or refuse to accept my premise, fine. I doubt very much I have the ability or energy to try and convince everyone I am "right" (whatever that may mean). I made my point, I think it is a valid one. Arguments to the contrary from USA citizens saying that it is not the case are moot anyway, particularly in the light of what Al says himself.

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alan certainly recognized the existence and validity of the rest of the world wouldn't you agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

No he has not, you are still missing the core point.

[/ QUOTE ]

When Alan writes:

[ QUOTE ]
The trade deficit is caused by our buying more from foreign sources than we sell in foreign markets. It is many billions of dollars per month. We simply can't compete in many markets.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is most certainly recognizing the existence and validity of the rest of the world in their ability to compete favorably against the U.S. in markets. Other countries can build higher quality, cheaper products than the U.S. can.

[ QUOTE ]
I can only assume that you have never worked with minorities, or people new to a country and have no concept of the kind of issues that they face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually you don't have assume anything but I digress.

[ QUOTE ]
It is very easy to "exclude" people from conversations or debate, simply because they are not familiar enough with what you are talking about, this does not have to be deliberate.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying Alan's examples excluded a portion of his reading audience and I would surmise that that excluded portion will not grasp the points he's making. Ok I see where this could be the case.

[ QUOTE ]
This article is exclusive by the very nature of its focus on issues specific to the USA (particularly its educational system). You would not understand an article penned by someone from the UK using such speicfic references, as you admit. If you cannot grasp this point then we are going nowhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your point now but I don't agree that Alan has "excluded" non USA readers.

[ QUOTE ]
Picking bits and pieces from a long series of posts, it is not surprising that they might seem contradictory, this is what quoting out of contrext means. You do it in the very first part of your post, you pick a line from Als article, then pick one line from mine and try to make a case.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're assuming that I'm trying to make a case. That's wrong I'm trying to understand that problems you had with Alan's article. Perhaps it's me but it wasn't clear to me in your post what you were driving at. I'm fairly certain I'm not the only one would encountered this.

[ QUOTE ]
You even try to convey the notion that I was "replying" to that one line (from the Article) with the quote you use.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I wasn't doing that. I simply pointed out where Alan used the word we and what I thought you were responding to.

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, that is underhand and you know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I didn't do anything underhanded.

[ QUOTE ]
The question is, what are you trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I found your post to be poorly written, making a lot of unsupported conclusions and wasn't quite sure the point you were trying to make. Like take this in my first reply to your post:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought the one of the big advantages of an internet magazine and forum, in line with poker rooms, is to create an international community?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how Alan comprimised this idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically you've explained how you felt Alan did comprimise that idea in my mind. Something you didn't do in your first reply to my post. Perhaps I should have asked you to explain how he comprimised that idea.


[ QUOTE ]
I have re-emphasised that my core point is that the article is written ina style that is exclusive to debate by non-USA citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I get your point but I don't agree with you that Alan "excluded" non USA posters on this forum nor do I think you've made that case. All you've done is make the case that it is possible to exclude people. I don't think many would find that remarkable.

[ QUOTE ]
This is fair enough for an article that is written for that audience alone, but nowhere is this stated. As for the rest, I am sure you can find plenty to pick and jumble with. I have made my point, and Al has responded and I am sure will take to heart the points that everyone raises. I am satisfied with this, and have no reason to continue the debate endlessly, it is not +EV. If you do not understand my arguments, or refuse to accept my premise, fine. I doubt very much I have the ability or energy to try and convince everyone I am "right" (whatever that may mean). I made my point, I think it is a valid one. Arguments to the contrary from USA citizens saying that it is not the case are moot anyway, particularly in the light of what Al says himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok.

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

I think "appalingly written" is an exaggeration - but my original point remains, the article fails to provide any real evidence to support the main point. It was kind of like an article suggesting that AJo should always be raised in early position without any solid reasoning or analysis of why this should be so.

This is a shame, because I normally find Alan's writing to be very good. Surely it couldn't have been too difficult to find some facts to support the position (or, as I suspect, to highlight that the position is somewhat weak). A cursory glance at OECD figures for example shows that the industrialised nations which have overtaken the US in productivity (GDP per hour worked) in recent years are Norway (131% of US productivity), Belgium (111%) the Netherlands (106%), Italy (105%), Ireland and France (103%) and Germany (101%). Japan is amongst the least productive at 72% of US productivity by the way. this could have been a good starting point for exploring differences in education systems and potential improvements to the US system. Instead, the US problems (many of which I'm sure are highly valid) were all lumped into the category of "anti-competitive bias" which serves more to obfuscate the issues than to clarify them. While the US education system may have a lot to learn from Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands, I don't think anyone who knows those systems would say that they put a stronger emphasis on competition than US schools.

By the way, I would like to point out that as a Brit, unlike naphand I didn't find the article to be insular and US-centric. Alan is an American and I find it quite natural for him to talk about the US economy and US companies when discussing competitiveness. I certainly didn't feel excluded and I doubt many others would have. I would suggest that for someone not to know who Peter Lynch, the Magellan fund and Fidelity are shows a rather more insular attitude than someone who writes about them assuming most people do.

ZB

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

One some level trade balance is of course tied to being competitive. But a lot of factors are of importance, just look what happened to the trade balance in the US after the drop in value of the dollar. You can hardly argue that the competitiveness on a microlevel has changed dramatically during this short time.

But I do think there are some basic mechanics where a wealthy people may lose competitiveness. At some sort of level they want to enjoy the wealth (which may lead to lower productivity), while those trying to catch up want to create wealth.

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

A trade deficit is not a sign of a losing economy. This is a misunderstanding possibly because of the word deficit. The US current account balance actually results from the incredible productivity of the U.S. economy. The American people vacuum the world of the good deals that other people beat each other up to offer.

That this sometimes results in the dislocation of U.S. workers is only an extension of the traditional course of development of the U.S. economy, sometimes called "creative destruction". But the benefits to the many far outweigh the costs to the few, which were usually inevitable anyway.

Japanse televisions wiped out the U.S. industry in the nineteen seventies, causing great difficulties for domestic workers, but producing a huge consumer profit for the millions of television buyers. A large part of the savings from such process (consider also, cars, watches, forklift trucks, and so on) is reinvested in the U.S. economy.

Likewise he U.S. dollars now in foreign hands is not a negative. It is actually pent up demand for U.S. goods, services, and investments. Those dollars inevitably come home. I have seen the U.S. run enormous current account deficits over the years. First the Swiss, then the Saudis, then the Japanse, now the Chinese -- and, always, the Canadians -- these bubbles have always been followed by huge booms in the U.S. economy as that money is reinvested, usually in capital accounts that increase U.S. productivity. Don't worry, buy stocks, especially capital equipment manufacturers.

Re: Is Poker Socially Useful?: Part I by Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
 

Clarkmeister is right on both matters. After reading his responses to Naphand's insults -- C. was very congenial, considering -- I'd like to add a comment on the national debt.

When a debt is built by a government consuming the people's resources to buy popularity, as Johnson did in the sixties, the results are disastrous because it lowers the rate of capital formation (reducing profitability and productivity).

However, when deficits result from reducing the rate of government involvement in the economy, usually by cutting taxes, these deficits are in the way of investments, and if the citizens are allowed to participate freely in the economy, as they were after the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts, the results are very favourable for investors, workers, consumers, and international trading partners.

Deficits caused by tax cuts are socially useful. Insulting forum participants, calling them "Rumsfelds", and so on, is not.