The Great Debate
- Thread starter patrick jane
- Start date
Caledvwlch
New member
Kinky haired? Whatever could you be getting at?
The Democratic debate is tomorrow. I'm taking guesses as to how many times they say Benghazi and emails
Tuesday in Primetime on CNN only - the Democratic Debate in Las Vegas
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Babe alert?
BABE ALERT !!!!!!
The Democratic Debate is on tonight in about an hour
We'll get to see Hilary !!!!
The Democratic Debate is on tonight in about an hour
We'll get to see Hilary !!!!
Bernie Sanders and Hilary seem to be the leading candidates. Who else is on the radar for Democrats.
Bernie is a Socialist Democrat ?
Bernie is a Socialist Democrat ?
Hilary looked beautiful tonight -
lukecash12
New member
This is my opinion in a nutshell on political discussions and political thinking:
http://www.owl232.net/irrationality.htm
The debate then and the debate on CNN today verify this conclusion pretty well.
Based on the level of disagreement, human beings are highly unreliable at identifying correct political claims. This is extremely unfortunate, since it means that we have little chance of solving social problems and a good chance of creating or exacerbating them.
The best explanation lies in the theory of Rational Irrationality: individuals derive psychological rewards from holding certain political beliefs, and since each individual suffers almost none of the harm caused by his own false political beliefs, it often makes sense (it gives him what he wants) to adopt those beliefs regardless of whether they are true or well-supported.
The beliefs that people want to hold are often determined by their self-interest, the social group they want to fit into, the self-image they want to maintain, and the desire to remain coherent with their past beliefs. People can deploy various mechanisms to enable them to adopt and maintain their preferred beliefs, including giving a biased weighting of evidence; focusing their attention and energy on the arguments supporting their favored beliefs; collecting evidence only from sources they already agree with; and relying on subjective, speculative, and anecdotal claims as evidence for political theories.
The irrationality hypothesis is superior to alternative explanations of political disagreement in its ability to account for several features of political beliefs and arguments: the fact that people hold their political beliefs with a high degree of confidence; the fact that discussion rarely changes political beliefs; the fact that political beliefs are correlated with race, sex, occupation, and other cognitively irrelevant traits; and the fact that numerous logically unrelated political beliefs—and even, in some cases, beliefs that rationally undermine each other—tend to go together. These features of political beliefs are not explained by the hypotheses that political issues are merely very difficult, that we just haven’t yet collected enough information regarding them, or that political disputes are primarily caused by people’s differing fundamental value systems.
It may be possible to combat political irrationality, first, by recognizing one’s own susceptibility to bias. One should recognize the cases in which one is most likely to be biased (such as issues about which one feels strongly), and one should consciously try to avoid using the mechanisms discussed above for maintaining irrational beliefs. In the light of widespread biases, one should also take a skeptical attitude towards evidence presented to one by others, recognizing that the evidence has probably been screened and otherwise distorted.
Lastly, one may be able to combat others’ irrationality by identifying the sort of empirical evidence that would be required to test their claims, and by taking a fair-minded and cooperative, rather than combative, approach towards discussion. It remains a matter of speculation whether these measures will significantly alleviate the problem of political irrationality.
References
Caplan, Bryan. 2003. “The Logic of Collective Belief,” Rationality and Society 15: 218-42.
Caplan, Bryan. 2007. The Myth of the Rational Voter. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Cialdini, Robert B. 1993. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: William Morrow & Company.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
Feynman, Richard. 1974. “Cargo Cult Science,” commencement address at Caltech. Reprinted in Richard Feynman, Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman (New York: Bantam Books, 1989).
Friedman, David. 1989. The Machinery of Freedom. LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court.
Gilovich, Thomas. 1991. How We Know What Isn’t So. New York: Free Press.
Hanson, Robin and Tyler Cowen. 2003. “Are Disagreements Honest?” Unpublished ms.,
Huemer, Michael. 2005. Ethical Intuitionism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hume, David. 1975. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding in Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, edited by L.A. Selby-Bigge. Oxford: Clarendon.
Kornblith, Hilary. 1999. “Distrusting Reason,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 23: 181-96.
Owens, David. 2000. Reason without Freedom: The Problem of Epistemic Normativity. London: Routledge.
The best explanation lies in the theory of Rational Irrationality: individuals derive psychological rewards from holding certain political beliefs, and since each individual suffers almost none of the harm caused by his own false political beliefs, it often makes sense (it gives him what he wants) to adopt those beliefs regardless of whether they are true or well-supported.
The beliefs that people want to hold are often determined by their self-interest, the social group they want to fit into, the self-image they want to maintain, and the desire to remain coherent with their past beliefs. People can deploy various mechanisms to enable them to adopt and maintain their preferred beliefs, including giving a biased weighting of evidence; focusing their attention and energy on the arguments supporting their favored beliefs; collecting evidence only from sources they already agree with; and relying on subjective, speculative, and anecdotal claims as evidence for political theories.
The irrationality hypothesis is superior to alternative explanations of political disagreement in its ability to account for several features of political beliefs and arguments: the fact that people hold their political beliefs with a high degree of confidence; the fact that discussion rarely changes political beliefs; the fact that political beliefs are correlated with race, sex, occupation, and other cognitively irrelevant traits; and the fact that numerous logically unrelated political beliefs—and even, in some cases, beliefs that rationally undermine each other—tend to go together. These features of political beliefs are not explained by the hypotheses that political issues are merely very difficult, that we just haven’t yet collected enough information regarding them, or that political disputes are primarily caused by people’s differing fundamental value systems.
It may be possible to combat political irrationality, first, by recognizing one’s own susceptibility to bias. One should recognize the cases in which one is most likely to be biased (such as issues about which one feels strongly), and one should consciously try to avoid using the mechanisms discussed above for maintaining irrational beliefs. In the light of widespread biases, one should also take a skeptical attitude towards evidence presented to one by others, recognizing that the evidence has probably been screened and otherwise distorted.
Lastly, one may be able to combat others’ irrationality by identifying the sort of empirical evidence that would be required to test their claims, and by taking a fair-minded and cooperative, rather than combative, approach towards discussion. It remains a matter of speculation whether these measures will significantly alleviate the problem of political irrationality.
References
Caplan, Bryan. 2003. “The Logic of Collective Belief,” Rationality and Society 15: 218-42.
Caplan, Bryan. 2007. The Myth of the Rational Voter. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Cialdini, Robert B. 1993. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: William Morrow & Company.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
Feynman, Richard. 1974. “Cargo Cult Science,” commencement address at Caltech. Reprinted in Richard Feynman, Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman (New York: Bantam Books, 1989).
Friedman, David. 1989. The Machinery of Freedom. LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court.
Gilovich, Thomas. 1991. How We Know What Isn’t So. New York: Free Press.
Hanson, Robin and Tyler Cowen. 2003. “Are Disagreements Honest?” Unpublished ms.,
Huemer, Michael. 2005. Ethical Intuitionism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hume, David. 1975. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding in Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, edited by L.A. Selby-Bigge. Oxford: Clarendon.
Kornblith, Hilary. 1999. “Distrusting Reason,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 23: 181-96.
Owens, David. 2000. Reason without Freedom: The Problem of Epistemic Normativity. London: Routledge.
My mom found a kinky hair in a chicken pot pie from Church's Fried Chicken. Ever heard of it ? She told the story a few times and always said kinky hair, I heard it when I was 7. I had to ask what a kinky hair was.
From that day forward Churches and Chicken are no good for me. Every time I get a hair in my food I think of that story.
Well, early internet polls and CNN analysis say Bernie Sanders stole the show, but they said that about Trump too. Hilary didn't lose anything or hurt herself. Anderson Cooper did OK for a gay homo.
Bernie Sanders sounds exactly like Larry David !!!
Bernie Sanders sounds exactly like Larry David !!!
Not a chance in Hades he gets elected, but he did make a few points those in the have column had better start paying attention to if they want to keep most of it. All in all he did alright for a straight hetero.
Hillary fared well enough, which was all she really needed to do. I forget who the other guys were and imagine that's the case nationally.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Media folks say Hilary won the debate hands down, but social media favors Barry Sanders (Larry David's voice twin) :chuckle:
Oh, Trump says Hilary won and he's having a meeting in VA tonight.
Oh, Trump says Hilary won and he's having a meeting in VA tonight.
Caledvwlch
New member
You are so weird.
You know she's a handsome woman -
she's a real beauty! :thumb:
She's a two-face !!!!!!
Bad lighting and camera angle, that's all.