• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DOGE and the Doorman fallacy

Doorman fallacy in a nutshell: Hire a doorman to open the door for people. But in carrying out his door opening duties he also picks other, related tasks. Now to save money, you replace the doorman with an automatic door operator, forgetting about the many other duties the doorman also did.

Well, that's pretty basic thinking for even an average business person.

How do you see it needing to be applied to today? You only mention DOGE - how do you see the doorman fallacy applying to DOGE - specifically?
 
dmpi said:
I had to go to wiki and read about it because I can't stand 55 seconds of this pompous guy.
Click to expand...
LOL - if he's a genius, I'm Einstein.

Except, "my genius" doesn't extend to understanding why the OP thinks this applies to DOGE.
 
EdwinWillers said:
Doorman fallacy in a nutshell: Hire a doorman to open the door for people. But in carrying out his door opening duties he also picks other, related tasks. Now to save money, you replace the doorman with an automatic door operator, forgetting about the many other duties the doorman also did.

Well, that's pretty basic thinking for even an average business person.

How do you see it needing to be applied to today? You only mention DOGE - how do you see the doorman fallacy applying to DOGE - specifically?
Click to expand...
Because they are cutting before understanding
 
EdwinWillers said:
Ok, but that's anecdotal at best. What specifically are they cutting that merits the doorman fallacy application?
Click to expand...
It’s a general idea, you do realise it doesn’t have to apply specifically to a doorman ?
 
Real blank said:
So where do you fall ?
Click to expand...
As a guy who professional wrote requirements I understand the nuances and the difficultly of capturing all the functionality of even a simple task. That said I would think that AI can handle the requirements management quite well as long as it has good source material. You know... garbage in - garbage out.
 
EdwinWillers said:
LOL - if he's a genius, I'm Einstein.

Except, "my genius" doesn't extend to understanding why the OP thinks this applies to DOGE.
Click to expand...

true, it explains nothing almost.

most here don't understand Doge, Maga, and the Dark Maga's goals...........and they don't want to know.

Real blank said:
Because they are cutting before understanding
Click to expand...

Really???, the Doge absolutely understands what their function and goals are.

those that don't understand Doge, are democrats, republicans, the Left, Conservatives, christians, and Debate Politics blowing off steam.

there was only ONE person here that came close to understanding what this is all about, but he told me privately that usa will not take canada and greenland.

groan and fail.

so we have one person here that does understand; guess who. ???

come on, tell me briefly what Dark Maga is. how did Maga morph into Dark Maga for starts. ?


and yes, i will wait forever.

bye.

.
 
Essentially the 'doorman' is not a doorman, but a security apparatus of the hotel. It's the mischaracterization of the job that is the cause of the fallacy.

Someone who is unfamiliar with the workings of a business is unlikely to recognize the nuances that come with the business, and will thus make "book-cover" judgments based on over-generalized and over-simplified understanding of the business model. It happens all the time with new owners of an established business with no prior experience in said business. And often times they come out of it worse than when they first started.
 
Real blank said:
It’s a general idea, you do realise it doesn’t have to apply specifically to a doorman ?
Click to expand...
< sigh > well just that it was your analogy and your video; it was only reasonable to assume you had a reason for them.
 
EdwinWillers said:
< sigh > well just that it was your analogy and your video; it was only reasonable to assume you had a reason for them.
Click to expand...

kind of like going in with the army you have, rather than the army you don't have.

Edwin, we have to communicate with what the sheep can readily understand. they have to start at Square one before moving on to deeper waters. most of us haven't even gotten a Toe in the water yet.

basically i am checking to see if there are any Wet Toes here, before moving on.

i attended a Lecture tonight on Orange and the Technocracy...........no way can i print what i learned just tonight.

why?

whiners. ignorant sheep that will not read or think............the list goes on.

.
 
Real blank said:
The doorman fallacy is a seemingly reasonable cost-saving strategy that ultimately fails due to a disregard of the unmeasurable.

Click to expand...

Your mistake is this...

US government agencies have specific duties and powers...and that's it. They are not allowed to do "extra services". So, when they are doing those services, they are breaking the law...and DOGE, and the DOJ, should go after them because they are engaged in waste, fraud and abuse.
 
Operative13 said:
Essentially the 'doorman' is not a doorman, but a security apparatus of the hotel. It's the mischaracterization of the job that is the cause of the fallacy.

Someone who is unfamiliar with the workings of a business is unlikely to recognize the nuances that come with the business, and will thus make "book-cover" judgments based on over-generalized and over-simplified understanding of the business model. It happens all the time with new owners of an established business with no prior experience in said business. And often times they come out of it worse than when they first started.
Click to expand...
Except, the entire "fallacy" is practically not a fallacy all it's own inasmuch as you point out, the gist of the fallacy is the simplicity of its moral - complex functions aren't easily modified, and shouldn't be without understanding the entirety of the function.

I have a program I run in Excel for the NCAA brackets. I take the stats for the teams that year, apply my own arcane probabilistic shenanigans to generate "reasonable" random outputs based on team statistics for the year. And I run the program against the actual results and several manual brackets to see where my wizardry and guesswork turns out. It's fun. Been doing it for years. But this year I made one change to one aspect of my program by of improvement that completely discombobulated the entire program and it took me about 4 hours to fix.

That's the doorman fallacy in programming. It's not rocket science, but basic common sense.

Having said that, I suspect DOGE will encounter their own problems in their attempts to make government run more efficiently. In fact, I've no doubt they will.

Back to my programming analogy - our federal government is so fraught with decades of "spaghetti code" on top of "spaghetti code" that changing even one line of it threatens vast amounts. No doubts at all that'll occur.

Having said THAT, that's no excuse for NOT trying to improve things - which we must, if we're to remain even remotely solvent.
 
Real blank said:
But not adverbs, right?
Click to expand...
My God. You ask me a question. I give you an answer and I have to put up this kind of inferiority complex crap? If you failed life it wasn't because of me.
 
Mycroft said:
Your mistake is this...

US government agencies have specific duties and powers...and that's it. They are not allowed to do "extra services". So, when they are doing those services, they are breaking the law...and DOGE, and the DOJ, should go after them because they are engaged in waste, fraud and abuse.
Click to expand...
Should a policeman be fired for saving a dog from drowning ?
 
Mycroft said:
Your mistake is this...

US government agencies have specific duties and powers...and that's it. They are not allowed to do "extra services". So, when they are doing those services, they are breaking the law...and DOGE, and the DOJ, should go after them because they are engaged in waste, fraud and abuse.
Click to expand...
Even so, the core of the job is still done, and you would be technically receiving free services, as you are not paying them for that extra service anyhow.

Real waste, fraud, and abuse would be over-hiring people to do one task, and only one of those people are actually doing the work. And somehow still not get things done. With how cheap government tends to be, I find it more likely for them to chronically overwork and underpay existing employees than hire new ones. Truthfully, it would be more easier to embezzle money and claim that it's for hiring all those people instead of actually hiring them.
 
EdwinWillers said:
Ok, but that's anecdotal at best. What specifically are they cutting that merits the doorman fallacy application?
Click to expand...
You need to expand the Doorman Fallacy a little I think. For instance -
Shutting SS offices saves money at the Fed level, but pushes extra costs onto many SS recipients.
Shutting down a lot of SS phone support saves money at the Fed level, but pushes significant extra costs onto many SS recipients
Shutting down FEMA might save money at the Fed level, but potentially pushes huge extra costs onto the states

So not exactly the Doorman Fallacy, but similar concept in that a lot of what Trump/Musk are claiming as savings are just pushing costs towards the states or individuals so they are hidden and don't appear in the federal budget.
 
Ishm said:
You need to expand the Doorman Fallacy a little I think. For instance -
Shutting SS offices saves money at the Fed level, but pushes extra costs onto many SS recipients.
Shutting down a lot of SS phone support saves money at the Fed level, but pushes significant extra costs onto many SS recipients
Shutting down FEMA might save money at the Fed level, but potentially pushes huge extra costs onto the states

So not exactly the Doorman Fallacy, but similar concept in that a lot of what Trump/Musk are claiming as savings are just pushing costs towards the states or individuals so they are hidden and don't appear in the federal budget.
Click to expand...
Yeah. See my post #19 above for a programming analogy.
 
dmpi said:
My God. You ask me a question. I give you an answer and I have to put up this kind of inferiority complex crap? If you failed life it wasn't because of me.
Click to expand...
You need a comma after 'question' rather than a period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom