The Strange Politics of Peter Thiel, Trump’s Most Unlikely Supporter

Have you tried Googling? Here are some interesting results (keep in mind science is almost never a home run; that is, you're not going to ever find a study that's like, "We definitively solve this problem for all time and for all mankind"):

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stephen_Tallman/publication/228123261_Effects_of_International_Diversity_and_Product_Diversity_on_the_Performance_of_Multinational_Firms/links/00b7d5267dc1adc6d2000000.pdf

    http://asq.sagepub.com/content/44/1/1.short

    https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/diversity-work-group-performance

    http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/why-diversity-matters

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/

    http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/why-does-lack-of-gender-diversity-hurt-performance

    http://enewsline.aacsb.edu/diversity-in-groups-can-improve-innovation-and-performance.asp

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053482209000795

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212567114001786

You have to remember that Theil doesn't want the same thing you want. Just because you want something doesn't mean Theil want the same thing, or has the same goal.

Theil knows exactly what he wants, that is why he supports Trump. It seems to be you who does not understand what Theil wants. Because if he wants the same thing you wants, he would have supported what you supported.

> You have no idea how he got to his position

False. I cannot prove how. The objection is pure sophistry. Were I to ask him, "how did you arrive at this position", his answer could be a lie. Would you commit the fundamental attribution error and assume that he would tell the truth? Perhaps he secretly doesn't even believe what he claimed to believe!

I doubt very much that you live your life doubting all things beyond your own thoughts. Trotting out a single fallacy mode and applying it in a scope carefully limited to bolster your argument is a rhetorical method for scoring debate points, not sound logic.

You are attempting to use "intellectual honesty" as a cudgel. Who wouldn't want to be intellectually honest?! Of course, you'll be the judge of when someone has met the criteria for honesty, and that will depend on whether they agree with you or not.

I am under no misunderstanding as to what I can and cannot know. I am completely comfortable with using mental shorthand to navigate the world. I do not need to stop and listen to every individual born-again christian to discover if they are the one that holds the key to my finally knowing the truth.

I do, in fact, have a very good idea as to how Thiel arrived at his position. I have a very good idea about why Strom Thurmond opposed the civil rights act of 1964. I have a very good idea that the sun will rise tomorrow.

> you go on this big rant that places you above him in terms of virtue

Yes, precisely. We all hold values. I find his to be in conflict with mine.

I still don't see the outcome you predict.

TLDR; power consolidation is a risk factor that leads to actual bad policy, not something with actual, palpable negative value in and of itself. E.g. the power of the federal government to end slavery is a win in my book.

* * * *

Let's map "objectionability" onto a number line.

A neutral policy is zero. An objectionable one is on the negative side, a non-objectionable one is on the positive side. The magnitude of the objectionability or virtue yields the magnitude of the number.

I'll go with your presumption that both Clinton and Trump's policies are only found on the negative side of that line. And we'll deal with their policies in aggregate. We'll also assume that current policy is perfectly neutral, at zero:

T = Trump APV (avg policy value)

C = Clinton APV

0 = CPV (current policy value)

Let's map effectiveness to a float between 0 and 1. Simple. If Trump's policies are twice as bad as Clinton's, he has to be half as effective as she for them to equal out. Here's a little table:

APV, Effect, Total value, Who, Worse

-20, .05, -1, Trump, O

-2, .95, -1.9, Clinton, X

-20, .1, -2, Trump, X

-2, .9, -1.8, Clinton, O

-10, .05, -0.5, Trump, O

-2, .95, -1.9, Clinton, X

-10, .2, -2, Trump, X

-2, .8, -1.6, Clinton, O

The problem with that simplification is the assumption that CPV is at neutral, zero. And mapping effectiveness to a scalar factor of APV is also incorrect -- instead, it has to be understood as a normalization factor, attempting to return CPV to APV. The greater the effectiveness, the more quickly CPV achieves APV.

Should any factor bring CPV further negative than Clinton's APV, her effectiveness would become a force that lifts CPV. Meanwhile, Trump's is always attempting to pull CPV further negative towards his abysmal APV.