[TDoS]

You admitted it's personal, which explains the focus on Berman's speaking style instead of the math.

Berman didn't do math. None. As I said...he only did argument, and appeared to change the severity of his argued claimed from the beginning of the article to the end.

If he tried, well, the last time I recall he got a petroleum engineer to help him out to make a Barnett argument. I forget the argument, only that he needed help to do decline curve analysis 101. DId that as an intern in college, extremely difficult. <giggle giggle>

Yes....Art....math.....things that make you want to go......hmmmmmm....

[RE]

<giggle giggle>

Really?   Behaving like a Jr High girl is going to enhance your credibility? 🙄

RE

[K-Dog]

he needed help to do decline curve analysis 101

You would know that how ?

[TDoS]

But did Trump ever read Heinlein?
When he could read.[/color]

I thought it was common knowledge that Trump doesn't read, so the most likely answer is, even though he can, he doesn't in general.

But such designed ignorance isn't a surprise, recently we discussed folks with PhDs who can certainly read, and do, but then demonstrate they can't think their way out of a wet paper bag.

Some can read, some can't. Either of these skills don't preclude someone from being able to think, critically, with purpose, to solve a problem or find a correct solution. 

[K-Dog]

Trump does not think critically, and considering he is the president of the US, and has functional illiteracy he can't understand what he needs to for the job.
If a president can't do more than understand 'See Jane Run" that means he can't read.

Your wording suggests that because he can't read he can think critically.  That makes no sense, and in fact reading enhances one's ability to think critically.  In general readers have larger intellectual worlds than non-readers.  There is a relationship.


Saying "some can read, some can't, but either can think critically" is misleading, because the ability to comprehend complex written material is prerequisite for most forms of informed, analytical thought.  Especially in areas like policy, law, international affairs, and being chief executive of the United States.

Someone who can only read "See Jane Run" has extremely limited cognitive inputs for decision-making at the presidential level.  Just being able to read Heinlein does not cut it at the presidential level, and I doubt Trump can even read Heinlein.  If he ever could, those days are behind him.

[TDoS]

Trump does not think critically, and considering he is the president of the US, and has functional illiteracy he can't understand what he needs to for the job.

Seems to me to be a given demonstrably seen in his behavior for awhile now. Like Biden there towards the end, but worse in weirder ways.

Your wording suggests that because he can't read he can think critically. 

I had to leave that presumption in, yes. But not necessarily for HIM of course. Critcal thinking is a tricky thing, I'm working with someone right now who is probably near genius at coding and whatnot, mathematics, and can't for a second check their own work to realize that second order effects visible in her answers could be spotted by a first year engineering student. 3 Masters degrees this one has for crying out loud. The computer folks say her code is great...and creates 2+2=5 issues all over the place. Refuses to see it even after a 6 page memo with charts and examples. Weird.

That makes no sense, and in fact reading enhances one's ability to think critically.

All the reading necessary to get 3 Masters Degree's hasn't done it for my coworker, so I'll stick with my original implication. That and extensive experience studying the PhD's who "studied" peak oil.

In general readers have larger intellectual worlds than non-readers.  There is a relationship.

I can agree there would be a correlation. But that correlation certainly isn't 1.