Two Scenes from Election Night

I got to see two sides of Portland yesterday on Election Night.

The first was a Multnomah County Republican gathering at the Grand Central Bowl, an upscale bowling alley and restaurant. We took over the upstairs and actually filled it with over 100 Republicans. Who knew we had those numbers?

What struck me was the mood - reflective and even up-beat. There was the usual ain't-it-awful complaints that I've heard so often before. Perhaps it's denial. Or maybe it's a corner being turned - maybe we're ready to start doing the things we need to do to start winning. Like stand for something worthwhile.

The second was the tail end of the Sam Adams victory party, in a tent behind a hotel near 9th and E. Burnside. It was the usual mix of donors, volunteers, activists, and interest group reps common at victory parties, and they all reveled in the cheer of a winning race.

I had to wear my "Tom Cox - Republican" name tag on my dark double-breasted suit. You know - fly the flag, smile, see how I got treated.

Alas, not much happened. Everybody was talking with their friends in little groups, the light was low, and few cared to look at name tags. Of those who did, a few opened their eyes wide, one looked at me and asked "Really?" (Yes, I said, and got a nod in return) and one big smile from a spouse who leaned in close to say "I thought I was the only one here."

That alone made it worth while.

The mood there, at least for the little while I was there, was upbeat yet a little odd. I got no sense that there was an agenda or a mandate - it was more personality driven. What does Sam Adams now have a mandate to do? I have no clue. Maybe he does.

Maybe the funniest thing about Sam Adams as mayor is that he's a little less wacky leftist than the average Portland voter. He actually once voted to lower business taxes. It may be the most unpopular thing he's done, in their minds.

On negotiating - Conservatives get it right

Experimenters discover that empathy isn't as useful as understanding - at least if you're trying to achieve a win-win outcome.

Subjects were instructed to take one of three approaches:

• Get inside the other person's head - try to understand what the other party is thinking; what is his interest and purpose?
  
• Get inside the other person's emotions - try to understand what the other party might be feeling; what emotion is he likely experiencing?
  
• No guidance (the control group)

To the surprise of few conservatives and the likely bafflement of most squishy elite liberals, the thinking (or "perspective-taking") strategy outperformed the feeling (or "empathy") strategy.

In an experiment between a buyer and seller of a business, the perspective-takers were half-again more likely (76% vs 54%) than the empathizers to reach a deal.

In a further experiment between a job-seeker and a recruiter, the perspective-takers were twice as likely (40% vs 22%) than the empathizers to reach a win-win deal.

Worse, the empathizers actually under-performed even the control group when it came to protecting their own interests.

...[I]n terms of an individual gain, the perspective-taking recruiters did far better—pushing the empathetic recruiters into last place.

What this shows is that even with one negotiator having perspective-taking abilities it can produce a better overall outcome for both sides. "You want to understand what the other side's interests are, but you do not want to sacrifice your own interests," says Dr Adam Galinksy of Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, Illinois. "A large amount of empathy can actually impair the ability of people to reach a creative deal."

I believe that's a continuing problem for liberal-socialist, empathy based approaches to public policy - especially foreign policy. Those who take an emotion-based approach - even those who aren't blame-America-first types - still risk sacrificing America's interests.

Nothing is Certain

From the Wall Street Journal's Science column:

Not everything in the solar system adds up, of course. The moon's actual orbit is off its calculated course by about six millimeters a year. No one knows why. The standard yardstick for length on an interplanetary scale, the Astronomical Unit, grows by about seven centimeters a year. Scientists have yet to agree on an explanation.

I'm not sure which surprises and pleases me the most -

1. Scientists can measure the moon's actual orbit to a precision of six millimeters
   
2. Scientists can measure that and still not know why
   
3. Scientists are willing to admit freely that they have observed something they can't explain

I really like the honesty of having an observation and saying "we don't have a clue why this is" - it's refreshing. Why can't politicians do that?

Quotas Suck

I've been active in the City Club of Portland (CCOP) for a few years and just got recommended as a possible member of the Board of Governors. This is the text of my reply to a friend, regarding whether the Club should use quotas as part of any "diversity" effort for either Club membership or Board membership:

I'm actually in favor of both outreach and metrics. I'm sour on quotas in part because they've often been accompanies by lowering criteria (far more minority law students fail law school when admitted under "affirmative action" criteria that include lowering admissions standards), as well as other ways of gaming numerical systems.

I think the way to get (say) more black members is to go find groups of black people and invite their members to join, and do it in a way that makes clear how the CCOP addresses the things they already care about.

Jaime Escalante managed to get a record high number of poor and minority students to pass AP Calculus by starting with elementary school teachers to build a pipeline of students who would be ready for harder math by the time they hit high school. It was an eight year process. (The movie "Stand and Deliver" completely ignores this part of the story.)

There was no lowering of the bar, no "affirmative action" of the quota type. This was real engagement addressing real root causes - my kind of change.

I cringe at the idea of CCOP setting a numeric quota, then looking superficially at the "usual suspects" for dark skin (or whatever attribute we're looking for) and stopping as soon as the number is reached - no true outreach, no true attempt to make CCOP relevant to groups who may currently be detached or alienated from us, no long term attempt to bridge any gaps we find.

Quotas suck.

Having said all that, it may be that CCOP is naturally going to be attractive to (say) rich intellectuals with time on their hands and pretensions of good citizenship. And that group may demographically (around here) be disproportionately white liberals. And if that's the case, we should continue the outreach while accepting something other than numerically precise demographic balance.

I'm very clear on the fact that I'm being proposed for the Board because I'm a wacky libertarian, and there's a quota for wacky libertarians. If there were great riches associated with Board membership, I'd be suitably chastened. Quotas still suck.