Thinking about it
In school we are mostly taught to take in information and then give it back in an exam. And that’s important to learn to do in order to have a backlog of knowledge and the ability to negotiate the world. But we get so used to passively taking it in and then spitting it back out that we sometimes forget to question what we learn.
Or, we question everything reflexively, sometimes from a paranoid stance that sees malignant conspiracies everywhere. But to actually look at each situation objectively and try to come to the best conclusion, minus confirmation bias? That’s hard and it’s rare. And though I believe it’s more rare on the left, I actually think it’s relatively rare on both sides of the political divide, because I think it’s rare in human beings.
I like to think I fall into that category of exceptions. Changers have some evidence about that, because at least once we shook off confirmation bias in the face of what we considered overwhelming evidence and changed our minds. But that doesn’t mean we always do it or even mostly do it.
What made me think about the question was this comment by “physicsguy” a while ago:
Just broke contact with a friend of over 50 years. Generally a good person, but since last week it’s been non-stop Trump is a felon. And all his circle of friends were piling on. I couldn’t take it anymore.
A familiar story. I responded this way:
You might try this with your erstwhile friend.
Etc.
I think it would be a good effort, but I doubt it would work. The friend would have lots of available comebacks. One would be that they were arrested by the opposition for doing noble things, not making business entries about hush money payments to porn stars. Another would be to be outraged at comparing these admired people to someone as obviously awful (to their way of thinking) as Donald Trump. Another would be to change the subject. Another would be to refuse to answer. And so forth.
If a person wants to evade actually thinking about what’s been said, there are many avenues for that. And those avenues are usually taken.
Adenauer, nicknamed (reverently) “Der Alte,” was a giant in his time, one of the greatest statesmen of his age — or any age.
The same may be said for his contemporaries, namely de Gaulle, Gaspari, and Eisenhower. Great leaders who rose to the challenge of reconstructing the postwar West, free of Soviet domination (and conquest). “There were giants in the earth in those days. . .”
I think we can credit the Democrats and their media pit bulls for sedulously spreading HATE and LIES, THREATS and INTIMIDATION non-stop, 24/7. (And boy are they ever good at it…)
– – – – – – –
WRT questioning (or not), I find myself not believing anything these days…(well that’s a bit of an exaggeration, maybe).
I’m not happy about it.
kohl was a reasonable successor, on the other end, gerhardt schmidt revealed himself to be a money grubber for gazprom, like wise their other eminence gris, who came from the left, Fischer, ended up in Burisma’s net of influence, its funny how Privat bank’s huge losses, are not noted on the balance sheet,
I wasn’t a Fed Skeptic until Greenspan and Bernanke made me one, I looked on Assange and Greenwald with suspicion, maybe some of it was warranted, but then when the Samizdat channels showed me something the corporate press was not,
one could come back this wasn’t actually a crime according the FEC, but they have removed all doubt and focus on other commonalities, like music or film,
I think that the Gandhi/Mandela argument is likely to do more harm than good. For the reasons neo set forth, however, Gandhi and Mandela committed their “crimes” in furtherance of a noble cause. Trump committed his “crime” to prevent personal embarrassment and (allegedly) to cover up his own gross behavior.
That doesn’t make Trump’s conviction any more legitimate. But it certainly does make the political argument a heck of a lot harder. Most people aren’t well-versed in the finer points of federal election law and criminal procedure. But they do know a cad when they see one.
My single vote for a Democrat was in 1964, for Johnson. I thought Goldwater was too unrealistic. I also voted against Nixon for CA Governor even though I had voted for him in 1960. The guy running against him that year just died recently. I can’t remember his name. Joe something.
1. Pat Brown
2. Think a better answer than Gandhi … would be to challenge the person to state the actual crime, provide the “victims” of the crime and the evidence that the crime actually happened.
or
Bukharin, Rykov, Kamenev, Zinoviev were also felons convicted in trials by politicized prosecutors for political purposes.
I think the transgenders in women’s federal prisons, via Biden, is a vulnerability, if the media wasn’t keeping this suppressed.
These women are being victimized by male sexual offenders because Biden thinks they have really become women.
Makes my blood boil what is happening.
We killed critical thinking during the rise of the information age. We don’t teach our youth to read the classics and analyze/discuss/apply their meaning. We .teach what to think, not how to think. We’ve homogenized information by turning to the same information sources that simply repeat or repackage the same information. We validate it by turning to our preferred internet search engines or search assistants. All of these produce faster responses but not reliably correct responses so rather than research them we let some programmer produce a good enough response. AI does it faster with no references or links. Is it any wonder people who think critically can’t communicate effectively with those who don’t.
David Foster over at Chicago Boyz once put up a large list of biases. I think I mentioned it here before as well. But I’ll repeat it, because I think it is enormously important and affects all of us.
https://www.verywellmind.com/cognitive-biases-distort-thinking-2794763
This page is frequently updated, so it is not the same as when I first encountered it. It is still decently informative.
I’m guilty of Apophenia which is a special case of Hindsight bias, I’d guess. I’ve noticed that one in stock investing efforts.
I used to be somewhat susceptible to the Availability Heuristic. I’d experience something happening a few times and think that it is extremely common. Now I always try to ask myself, “Am I looking at anything like real statistics?” That is, significantly large numbers.
Anchoring Bias. This one is maybe a stretch, but I’ve noticed that when I am figuratively “lost” and ask for opinions or advice, I often latch onto the first intelligent analysis or argument. I think I’m good at dispensing with the dumb responses, but just because something is logical or intelligent, doesn’t mean that it answers your particular situation well. Worse yet, I can elevate it to almost “holy grail” status subconsciously.
I like to think that I’m sooo independent minded, and then I catch myself doing the above. Ha!
https://www.davidwarrenonline.com/2024/07/05/goo-extraction/
layers of editors, hmm
https://freebeacon.com/media/rachel-maddow-and-her-co-stars-made-verifiably-false-statements-about-a-doctor-they-called-the-uterus-collector-now-his-30-million-lawsuit-is-headed-for-trial/
Just what I have observed of human behavior concerning peoples reaction to Trump makes me think that this country is lucky to still be a country.
TommyJay…biases & mental errors. The list mentions Confirmation Bias, which is the tendency to automatically fit evidence into one’s already-existing belief structures. Some level of this is necessary, because cognitive resources are limited (even for those of us who aren’t Joe Biden), but excessive cognitive bias is very dangerous. It is a phenomenon well-known to accident investigators.
Not mentioned on the list is Motivated Reasoning. This happens when an individual has a strong reason to *want* a belief to be true. A simple example that was used in a research project: a fake study supposedly showed that coffee had terrible health risks. People who were avid coffee-drinkers spent extra time trying to find holes in the study, those who were’t coffee fanatics did not.
If an individual’s career and friendships are dependent on aligning himself with Democratic Party values, he will have strong motivation to find reasons to believe in those values.
About 30 years ago I went back to school for a Masters. Several of the courses were on decision theory. One of the instructors used to say that “Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.” In Medicine, some of these biases are deadly. Politics too maybe.
The guy running against him that year just died recently. I can’t remember his name. Joe something.
==
His general election opponent was Pat Brown (d. 1996) and his principal primary opponent was Joseph Shell (d. 2008).
During the 2d World War, the median vintage of the political class was around 1889 and that of the common soldier around 1918. Now, the median vintage of the political and business elites is around 1962 and the median vintage of the electorate is the 1981 cohort. The secular degeneration in the quality of the adult population is dismaying.
The left’s “useful idiots” are ‘selling’ the left the metaphorical chains with which the left will enslave them. Since they refuse to even consider contrary facts and reason, they are bringing upon themselves the fate that the left intends for them.
“But they do know a cad when they see one.” – Bauxite
We’ve had several “cads” who were Presidents of the U.S. FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Bill Clinton quickly come to mind. So, Trump should be criminalized because he fits that mold?
Having an open mind is a good thing, but as Neo says, it’s a small segment of the population. If you think of it as a spectrum or bell curve with very open mindedness/curiosity/inquisitiveness at one end versus closed minded/incurious/consistent at the other end, you can visualize this basic trait of personality. One of the “Big Five.”
However, we can be open minded, but if our information sources are biassed or incorrect, we may still draw bad conclusion’s or err in judgment. We have to be careful about our sources.
I appreciate Tommy Jay’s appraisal of his biases. He is trying to be self-aware, an admirable trait.
I also appreciate David Fosters list of biases and mental errors. It’s worthwhile doing a review of our biases from time to time.
Along with being open minded, it helps to be an independent thinker – to be willing to stand up against the crowd. Independent thinkers have to have strong self-esteem, because they will be attacked and derided for not going along to get along, which can result in loss of friends, jobs, and maybe more. We can all agree that it’s not easy to be open-minded and independent.
One example I see every day of the hive mind is the MS Co-pilot algorithm. Every time I try to look something up, Co-pilot is there, wanting to do the work for me. The results have been, well, less than stellar. Co-pilot is so biased as to be laughable. And AI is the future??? That’s scary.
Does locking women up with “trans women” constitute cruel and unusual punishment?
I actually spent some effort yesterday listing the Trump successes to a small group of 80+-year olds at a small gathering…they were politely surprised that one could do so… and had that cognitive dissonance moment trying to square the circle of “BadOrangeMan” and the crap house chaos of Biden.
These are not nursing home dwellers but active vibrant very much engaged seniors. We’ll see.
I think it was a mistake to suggest physicsguy try to salvage the friendship. If the friend doesn’t respect the 50 year long relationship, why should physicsguy?
No one ever wants to admit that people pass through your life. Friendships end, and in most cases, it’s fine that they do. People change, and sometimes they change to an extent that you don’t like them anymore. Sitting next to someone in school or discovering a mutual affinity in high school isn’t a blank check offered for the rest of one’s life.
Physicsguy, well done. Cut him loose. He’s not worth your time anymore.
You might try this with your erstwhile friend.
Gandhi was a felon.
Mandela was a felon.
Don’t forget; Hunter Biden was found guilty of lying on ATF Form 4473. Lying on ATF Form 4473 is a Felony. Therefore; Hunter Biden is a Felon.
Isn’t it easier just to believe that “People believe what they want to…and that’s just how it is”—IOW “The short version”?
(Expanded version: “People—good, bad, decent, odious, brilliant, dumb, honest, lying SOBs, upright, degenerate, caring, inconsiderate, compassionate, forthright, sneaky, etc.—believe what they want to, PERIOD….”)
That’s right: Believe WHAT they wanna believe…until—UNTIL!—that “Russians-at-the-Gates-of-Berlin” moment rolls around…if it ever does…and even then one has to actually comprehend—AND admit(!)—that them Rooskies are actually at the gates…AKA “Believe their lyin’ eyes”…)
OMMV.
I too have found it problematic when friends and co-workers go on and on about Trump (as anyone here knows I am not a fan of Donald Trump’s). Nothing is beyond politics and for some it has come to the point that if you bring up an innocuous topic such as bottle caps they will use it as a platform to attack Trump.
Surely the trick is keeping in mind that ALL political judgements are provisional. This isn’t philosophy or geometry. The closest analogue I can think of is a commander in battle. You have to base your actions on certain beliefs which you presume true about the enemy, but always be ready to modify those with new info.
A related problem is the tendency to elevate what are ultimately provisional pragmatic notions into principles. E.g., our constitutional rights are actually attempts to enact protections for things to which we have a natural right. But that doesn’t mean the actual, exact means is itself something we have by natural right.
In both, we have false analogy at work.
lynched people were considered convicts. By a democracy.
Russian Gulag Archipelago prisoners were also convicts.
And there were a lot of them. They even built their own jails. It can happen in a flash and it seems there plenty of willing participants right now.
kinda glad im old.
The best that one can do with the Trump charges, imo, is to mock the charges themselves. Trump wasn’t convicted of murder, stealing, or something similar. He was convicted because a bookkeeping entry said “Legal Fees” instead of “Paid a woman to quit claiming she slept with him”. Once you phrase it like that, anyone crowing about it is suddenly forced to explain why it’s such an important thing. And that individual either has to shut up, or risk looking ridiculous. That’s because the crime is ridiculous, and anyone who claims otherwise risks looking ridiculous.
Forget it, Jake. It’s the Planet of the Apes.
Trump committed his “crime” to prevent personal embarrassment and (allegedly) to cover up his own gross behavior.
==
Trump committed no offense at all. A company lawyer negotiated a non-disclosure agreement and sent a mess of invoices to the company’s accounting apparat. The bookkeepers in the accounting apparat took the invoices and made journal entries for the company’s general ledger, selecting a pre-fabricated option indicated on the company’s accounting software. The company lawyer was compensated with vouchers redeemable by one of the Trump family trusts.
Forget it.
All of your predicted responses are a certainty.
Still exchange occasional terse texts with my sisters. That’s about it. It will end this way inevitably.