top of page

The Conflux 2019: Part 3

Previously: Part 1, Part 2


Hello everyone! We're back with the third and last part of the Conflux series. For some reason, I've really been dreading writing these. But I do think they're a very useful tool for reflecting on and reexamining my posts from the year, so I suggest you dive in.


In other news, this is my 50th post! Test your memory of Chromatic Conflux on this Sporcle quiz I made, if that's your kind of thing. I scored 48/50 on my last try.


Four stars.
So I think that my dad conflated what he wanted–that since Clinton and Biden were both moderate and experienced politicians, they deserved to be president–with what was likely to happen–that Clinton would retire, never to run for president again, due to her unpopularity and perceived unelectability.

This post goes through how people often lump together what they want and what they think. I'm annoyed I couldn't think of a good name for it, though–Want-Think Fallacy is horribly dry. By the way, Hillary Clinton still hasn't declared for president, and she's now sitting at 3% on PredictIt.


Five stars.
What this shows is that, as president, [Sanders] would likely suffer in gridlock, whereas people like Klobuchar and Warren could work together to overcome that gridlock.

This post was super effective! It synthesizes data about the presidential candidates' ability to pass laws. (Those in Congress, at least–I'd be more worried than impressed if Joe Biden was passing laws as he's no longer in an office.) Amy Klobuchar performs great on this, though she's essentially eliminated from contention. Elizabeth Warren is best among the candidates who have a decent chance at winning, showing that despite her liberalism, she has the ability to work together to enact laws. Enacting laws makes the world better (or one would hope so) so this suggests she would be an effective commander-in-chief.


This isn't related to the post, but I wanted to share two quotes from Klobuchar's memoir Senator Next Door:


"Minnesotans are famously polite–we like to call it Minnesota Nice–and many of them won't call an elected official to complain."

–page 200


"My other advantage [as a senator]? I had constituents who were never shy to tell me when things were messed up."

–page 245


Clearly, they can't both be true–so this would imply some duplicitous tendencies from Klobuchar. Whether Minnesotans like to complain to their senators this isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but the quotes did make me wonder.


you ate one Meat– you don't think you can call yourself a Vegetarian.

I'm hesitant to review my poems, since the purpose was never to share them. The purpose was to vent and let my feelings out. In that sense, they're five stars. Should you look them over? If you want. That was never the goal, and if could snap my fingers and change this post to something else, would I? (I wouldn't do something like that now.) Maybe. In that sense, perhaps zero stars. I have strongly mixed feelings on these poems. I feel like you're all going to click now that I've been so blasé, but so be it I guess.


One star.
This is because such proposals virtually always pass, and it’s a waste of time to wait until the end of the voting period for a foregone conclusion.

This post was fine for the server it was meant for, but as a blog post for a broader argument, it just reads as really jargony. The point is that you should look at the real world instead of an abstraction that doesn't happen in real life.


Three stars.
Even if you believe that these ends aren't "ethical," they're straight-up ethical, you shouldn't. That's because, in an alternate universe, you believe that these ends are unethical.

The point of this post is that the ends don't, in fact, justify the means, since that same justification can justify awful means for ends that aren't so great if you happen to believe the ends are great. The only reason I give it three stars instead of four or five is that you get the same gist from reading these two articles and put it together. I suppose reading the post will put it together as well, but still, could be more original.


Three stars.
You've established that you can't help. So there's no reason to feel guilty.

I'm somewhat conflicted regarding the thesis of this post. It makes a good point, though I do wonder if it makes logical sense to judge these sorts of things in a vacuum. For example, extending the post's idea would imply that voting in elections is stupid since you can't change much. In terms of expected happiness, the happiness you would get from electing your chosen president multiplied by the tiny probability of your vote mattering is much less than the happiness you would get from using the time elsewhere. But it's important to take a stand, in some ways. That's also why I will continue to abstain from feasting upon corpses: because you should too.*


Two stars.
Zebras have an average of 11 black stripes but only 10 white.

This compiles some of my best work from The Helios Herald, a newspaper I did in fifth grade. Some of it is nice; there's a lot of context embedded within. I'm not sure if it measures up to the standards I hold myself to today, but it's not horrific.


Five stars.
My goal is for you to decide for yourself which argument you agree with and use that to inform your thoughts.

This post captures a, perhaps the fundamental philosophical debate regarding politics: do you represent the people who elected you or the best interests of the world? (Whether the ends justify the means is another big one.) Unlike many debates, both sides have respectable contentions. It can transcend party alignment and it truly comes down to who you are. While I lean towards the second one, I believe this post covers both sides well.


Two stars.
Bucketing doesn't just change the data–it is the data.

Statistician and FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver wrote a book titled The Signal and the Noise, about the struggle to separate signal–meaningful information–from noise–irrelevant symptoms of the data collection methods. But in my quest to determine the most popular Halloween costumes in my area, I learned an important lesson–sometimes the noise is the signal. That said, most of the post is me going through several different conclusions of the data, presenting them as facts, so you can skip that part. Actually, this paragraph right here will do, so you don't need to read the post unless you're curious about the specifics.


Four stars.
Rube Goldberg machines: perhaps one of the defining features of modern recreational science.

For school I had to make a Rube Goldberg machine, with an accompanying explanatory video. Well, I did the video like a science documentary, and I'm proud of my work. It's funnier in context, but it's not unfunny, and I'd be happy if you watched it.


Four stars.
But the point stands, Sen. Harris, that we should value others' opinions, even when we disagree.

The idea with this post was that it was an argument for free speech and the merits of listening to other people. I did a good job with it. The framing device was me being against then-presidential candidate and current Senator Kamala Harris's call to ban Trump from Twitter. A side gimmick was that each of the Wix quote things in that post was a quote from someone else. Listen–it was four stars.


This post was a collection of three shorter posts with no cohesive thread. I'll describe and rate each of them separately, but they're all part of the same post.


Lens 1: An I for an i [Philosophy]

Two stars.
So every nudge, every subliminal desire or want or unconscious thought: that's me. But that's not Me.

This lens is about how each person's decisions really come from two bodies of thought, which this post refers to as I and i. It's a bit weird to read but I like where it's going.


Lens 2: Yang Has a Malleability Problem [Politics]

Three stars.
In summary, more people = rigid. Fewer people = malleable.

This is about the ideas of malleability and rigidity in politics, and how Andrew Yang needs to be more rigid to stand out. He somewhat did, and didn't really stand out. Welp.


Lens 3: Title Roles [Misc]

Three stars.
All Titles Are One Of These Four Types (#4 Will Shock You)

It's a bit fluffy. Not bad per se, just fluffy. In fact, it's a fun fluffy. It's about the four types of titles–not all that illustrative, but a nice lens to think about titles through, true to its name.


Four stars.
Despite the conventional wisdom, not a single player bid their entire budget on the diamond.

It seems each part in the Conflux series reviews around three or four months. Each part also has exactly one post in the Avocado vs. Cucumber family. (And in fact, next week will likely also be in that vein.) It's basically me writing about a new game, Secret Auction, and announcing the retirement of Avocado vs. Cucumber. (By the way, I don't think that retirement will be permanent. Stay tuned, Avocado vs. Cucumber fans.) If you liked "The Avocado vs. Cucumber Game" you'll probably appreciate this post as well.


Three stars.
Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand weren't tried-and-true. They just looked good in the moment America was having in 2018.

It's easy to get lost in the narrative of the moment, that a certain thing is rising or falling in popularity, or an enrapturing scandal. That's what happened to ex-candidate Sens. Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand, and to a lesser extent Beto O'Rourke. This post is nice, and it's a great review of the dynamics at the moment (and it's not inaccurate now.) This sort of post is a staple of Chromatic Conflux, and the execution is good too. On the high end of three stars overall.


Five stars.
So the first player's essential goal is to divide the board into two gardens, whereas the second player is attempting to prevent this.

This post illuminates the never-before-seen strategy to Sprouts, a mathematical game, but you can read it even if you don't speak math. This isn't echoing, people! I came up with this! That makes me want the whole world to read this post, you know? That said, as I was rereading "Conquering Sprouts," I noticed two sentences that made no sense because I made a critical typo. Fixed both. Probably four stars with the weird sentences, and now it's five.


Four stars.
On the other hand, the paralysis victims were still down the use of a limb. Net decrease to quality of life. Happiness equal.

This is the meta-message that emanates throughout everything I write, and I'm happy I ended 2019 on this note. It's about how truly to be happy–through genuine connections with other human people. The writing is good but not perfect, so I have to give this four stars. Also–and I just realized this–I forgot to use the Wix quote things that have become, and were at the time, a mainstay of my blog. That said, the message is critically important.


That's a wrap–better things to come in 2020!**

–beautifulthorns


*It's not horrific if you do, the argument for you is covered in the post. It's just, you know, I don't know. (Not editing that sentence.)


**Or maybe not. No idea.

56 views

Related Posts

See All
bottom of page