Being is the essence out of which all things evolve. This blog is an ongoing conversation of being in various facets and areas of life, including the personal and the professional from which relationships of all kinds are formed and teams built in all communities, virtual or real, at home, at work, in politics and at play.
It simply does not work. What we are seeing in Hawaii is pure illusion. Don't be fooled by those Hawaiians who were interviewed. They were just actors hired by the Democrats to make a good impression. And I think the entrapment of Republicans by inviting them to appear on TV in front of everyone and expose thier foolishness is a mean and nasty trick.
More and more research points to the fact that people with strong political views are wired that way. It is the only thing that makes sense to me. The left does not want to compromise and neither does the right. They both believe its all about values. It might have more to do with the way their brains are structured. Here is a review of some recent research.
Interesting, Zorro. I noticed that the science is not confirmed but it's interesting nonetheless. I found this particularly so, as the framing of arguments seem to work for conservatives as long as they're done so in terms of national security: "Conservatives may be more responsive to health reform, he suggested, if it is framed as a national security argument." What would be a good example for liberals?
What concerns me, if it is true that political views have much to do with how a person processes information is that political arguments reach a point of impasse because they have been finely tuned to appeal to brain types. We seem to be much less flexible than we used to be - in the 1950's there was 1 filibuster in the whole decade. There have been 100 just this past year. The Senate used to work. Have political arguments been refined to such an extent that there is no more movement? I have the biggest problem with liberals, because, being liberal I feel like I understand them better. But they also get hung up on their 'principles' which may not be principles at all - just patterns used to process information. For example, the 'public option' was coined by a health policy person from Yale in a paper written in 2008. It has become as much of a roadblock as anything the conservatives have come up with - and the people fighting for it may be doing it unconsciously - the idea appeals to them almost instinctively and they develop a set of 'values' to explain and justify this instinct. Then , in the end, we wind up with nothing because these people are not aware the real reason they are so passionate about it. They believe they are 'fighting the good fight' but in reality they are just a victim of their own biology.
Zorro - The public option is a good example. I generally don't get hung up on titles but there are most certainly things that I would like to see in the health care bill, all of which President Obama has addressed. Your point about the filibuster is well taken. This makes me question how much culture affects the brain? How much do our thoughts affect it?
President Obama seems to be pragmatic by nature. If this study is correct the president will have difficulties in appealing to both sides. I must say, though, after looking at this video that I have never met liberals who are activists such as those in this video who knew so little. I wonder if there is generally a difference in how issues are challenged by those in their own party as opposed to simply following. The Republicans seem to follow more and the Democrats seem to question everything, especially their leaders.
Good point about "principles" and I might add pragmatism.
I think the left is more reasonable than the right. But I just wish they would think about the effect of losing the house and senate and the presidency again. That did not seem to be a factor as they debated health care. They were in a position to get it done by the end of summer, but they felt they had to fight for the public option. Suppose health care had been resolved by september and focus on job could have taken place starting in October? Supreme Court appointments are driven by the President. The left should take this single fact very seriously. The Republican Party is influenced in a big way by a racist view. If racism was not such a force, the Republican Party would be much different than it is today. Reagan actively courted racists. Every time someone says Reagan had a sunny disposition, it should be immediately brought up that he kicked off his campaign in a park in a small town in Mississippi that had a history of being a place where KKK rallies took place. This cannot be just a coincidence.
Zorro - Yes, it does seem at face value that there is a stirring of racist ideology to get votes if you just look at the ads alone. George H. Bush's Willie Horton ad and Bob Corker's "Call Me" ad readily come to mind. But there were also those despicable Swift Boat ads against the true veteran John Kerry as opposed to the non-veteran George W. Bush that had nothing to do with reality. It was all about image creation and it worked. This stirred national security fears on both sides, Republicans and Democrats, after 911. I wonder if there were such brain studies done during this election. Do you think there are any real Independents? My brother seems to think that Independents are largely disgruntled Republicans. I wonder how their brains would appear in the study.
There is a book out with the most ironic title "How the Liberals Swiftboated America"
What is ironic about the title is that most conservatives say the swift boat ad was based on truth. But this conservative book title implies the swift boat ads were lies.
Reagan won the New Hampshire Primary in 1980 with a trick. He set up a debate with George Bush the elder. He promised Bush the Debate would only include himself and bush - and then chnaged the rules. It gave him a one liner that won him the primary. A one liner he may have stole from Spencer Tracy. Here is a short video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG_M4pKqP7Y&feature=related
Oh, regarding, the Swiftboat book, the title is ironic indeed. Regarding the ad itself and reality, Daniel Patrick Moniyhan quote comes to mind: "You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts."
But did Reagan set the whole thing up just for the line? There is a pbs documentary on this Bush and it goes into this more - Reagan and Bush negotiated a debate where they would be the only participants - at the time, there were 3 or 4 more republicans running. Reagan agreed to pay. Then 24 hours before the debate (after the debate had been scheduled to be on TV) Reagan changed the rules and insisted the others participate - But the moderator, who asked for the mike to be shut off - was under the assumption the original rules would be followed. Reagan s line was not ad libbed - the whole situation may well have been a set up - so Reagan could say the line. This is implied in the PBS documentary.
The problem with Moniyhan's line is - for all practical purposes, many are entitled to their own facts. In other words, the world operates as if these 'facts' are true.
It totally seems like it was a set-up. LOL! The point with regards to facts is that they should be true. I was born on January 16th. This is a fact and it is true according to hospital records. Facts should be true, opinions not necessarily so. But, of course, our understanding of the facts plays a role. But they don't alter the facts.
If the public behaves as if untrue 'facts' are true, then the public has entitled the people representing these 'facts' to their own facts. In some ways, I see Monihan's quote as something from a different age. He assumes logic can win an argument. I'm watching MSNBC and Nancy Schniderman just said something along these lines. "We don't live in a nation that is scientifically illiterate, we live in a nation that is scientifically intolerant".
It still doesn't make untrue facts facts, Zorro. Regarding things from other ages such is the truth from the beginning of time and it's all about definition and redefinition of various times, making them applicable and forging our own way forward. That the whole historical argument that relates to our movement forward. I disagree with Snyderman. I think that many of us are scientifically illiterate and lazy and this is why we believe everything we want to hear. It's ignorance by choice. Many of us want to be led so we don't have to lead ourselves, have to make intelligent decisions. We are the willfully ignorant. When Snyderman threw in the word "scientifically" in both case was she actually referring to science or was this a mere figure of speech?
We are scientifically intolerant. For example, the whole idea of evolution not being accepted only because it challenges people beliefs. This is scientific intolerance. And in the case of evolution, it is wide spread. People who believe in creationism are far from scientifically ignorant. They have developed a theory that attempts to refute evolution and therefore know a lot about evolution or their refutation would not be as seeming logical. Willful ignorance is exactly the same thing as scientific intolerance. It is just people ignoring facts and choosing their own facts. Truth means very little if the truth does not change behavior. That's why I don't see that much value in Moniythan's quote. His quote will not reach someone who is willfully ignorant. Therefore, it just isn't that powerful.
Creationism and science, as Pope Benedict XVI remarked last year in a discussion at the Vatican with Stephen Hawking, need not be adversarial. (Considering the Vatican's historical stance, I found this truly remarkable.) But I will agree that the masses of creationists probably balk at the reality of evolution. Regarding the Moynihan point, I see your point but I simply disagree with you with regards to its relevance. Regarding truth should it be altered when behavioral changes are not immediately evident? Just because we don't see immediate change with regards to what is true does not mean change is not occurring. What we need much more in the culture as a whole is patience.
22 comments:
Hmm, being in India, I cannot watch this video on your blog Aunt. Hmm. But, I bet this is fantastic!
It's both funny and poignant, my dear nephew. When do you return from India? I absolutely love the photos you sent me. Beautiful!
It simply does not work. What we are seeing in Hawaii is pure illusion. Don't be fooled by those Hawaiians who were interviewed. They were just actors hired by the Democrats to make a good impression. And I think the entrapment of Republicans by inviting them to appear on TV in front of everyone and expose thier foolishness is a mean and nasty trick.
D
ROFL, DB!
More and more research points to the fact that people with strong political views are wired that way. It is the only thing that makes sense to me. The left does not want to compromise and neither does the right. They both believe its all about values. It might have more to do with the way their brains are structured. Here is a review of some recent research.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/opinion/14kristof.html
this link works better
www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/opinion/14kristof.html
Interesting, Zorro. I noticed that the science is not confirmed but it's interesting nonetheless. I found this particularly so, as the framing of arguments seem to work for conservatives as long as they're done so in terms of national security: "Conservatives may be more responsive to health reform, he suggested, if it is framed as a national security argument." What would be a good example for liberals?
Thanks for the link, Zorro.
What concerns me, if it is true that political views have much to do with how a person processes information is that political arguments reach a point of impasse because they have been finely tuned to appeal to brain types.
We seem to be much less flexible than we used to be -
in the 1950's there was 1 filibuster in the whole decade. There have been 100 just this past year.
The Senate used to work. Have political arguments been refined to such an extent that there is no more movement?
I have the biggest problem with liberals, because, being liberal I feel like I understand them better. But they also get hung up on their 'principles' which may not be principles at all - just patterns used to process information.
For example, the 'public option' was coined by a health policy person from Yale in a paper written in 2008. It has become as much of a roadblock as anything the conservatives have come up with - and the people fighting for it may be doing it unconsciously - the idea appeals to them almost instinctively and they develop a set of 'values' to explain and justify this instinct. Then , in the end, we wind up with nothing because these people are not aware the real reason they are so passionate about it. They believe they are 'fighting the good fight' but in reality they are just a victim of their own biology.
Zorro - The public option is a good example. I generally don't get hung up on titles but there are most certainly things that I would like to see in the health care bill, all of which President Obama has addressed. Your point about the filibuster is well taken. This makes me question how much culture affects the brain? How much do our thoughts affect it?
President Obama seems to be pragmatic by nature. If this study is correct the president will have difficulties in appealing to both sides. I must say, though, after looking at this video that I have never met liberals who are activists such as those in this video who knew so little. I wonder if there is generally a difference in how issues are challenged by those in their own party as opposed to simply following. The Republicans seem to follow more and the Democrats seem to question everything, especially their leaders.
Good point about "principles" and I might add pragmatism.
I think the left is more reasonable than the right. But I just wish they would think about the effect of losing the house and senate and the presidency again. That did not seem to be a factor as they debated health care. They were in a position to get it done by the end of summer, but they felt they had to fight for the public option. Suppose health care had been resolved by september and focus on job could have taken place starting in October?
Supreme Court appointments are driven by the President. The left should take this single fact very seriously.
The Republican Party is influenced in a big way by a racist view. If racism was not such a force, the Republican Party would be much different than it is today. Reagan actively courted racists. Every time someone says Reagan had a sunny disposition, it should be immediately brought up that he kicked off his campaign in a park in a small town in Mississippi that had a history of being a place where KKK rallies took place. This cannot be just a coincidence.
Zorro - Yes, it does seem at face value that there is a stirring of racist ideology to get votes if you just look at the ads alone. George H. Bush's Willie Horton ad and Bob Corker's "Call Me" ad readily come to mind. But there were also those despicable Swift Boat ads against the true veteran John Kerry as opposed to the non-veteran George W. Bush that had nothing to do with reality. It was all about image creation and it worked. This stirred national security fears on both sides, Republicans and Democrats, after 911. I wonder if there were such brain studies done during this election. Do you think there are any real Independents? My brother seems to think that Independents are largely disgruntled Republicans. I wonder how their brains would appear in the study.
There is a book out with the most ironic title
"How the Liberals Swiftboated America"
What is ironic about the title is that most conservatives
say the swift boat ad was based on truth. But this conservative book title implies the swift boat ads were lies.
Reagan won the New Hampshire Primary in 1980 with a trick. He set up a debate with George Bush the elder. He promised Bush the Debate would only include himself and bush - and then chnaged the rules. It gave him a one liner that won him the primary.
A one liner he may have stole from Spencer Tracy. Here is a short video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG_M4pKqP7Y&feature=related
Funny video, Zorro. He may have stolen that line indeed. After all, he was actually an actor. :-)
Oh, regarding, the Swiftboat book, the title is ironic indeed. Regarding the ad itself and reality, Daniel Patrick Moniyhan quote comes to mind: "You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts."
But did Reagan set the whole thing up just for the line?
There is a pbs documentary on this Bush and it goes into this more -
Reagan and Bush negotiated a debate where they would be the only participants - at the time, there were 3 or 4 more republicans running. Reagan agreed to pay. Then 24 hours before the debate (after the debate had been scheduled to be on TV) Reagan changed the rules and insisted the others participate -
But the moderator, who asked for the mike to be shut off - was under the assumption the original rules would be followed. Reagan s line was not ad libbed - the whole situation may well have been a set up - so Reagan could say the line.
This is implied in the PBS documentary.
The problem with Moniyhan's line is - for all practical purposes, many are entitled to their own facts. In other words, the world operates as if these 'facts' are true.
It totally seems like it was a set-up. LOL! The point with regards to facts is that they should be true. I was born on January 16th. This is a fact and it is true according to hospital records. Facts should be true, opinions not necessarily so. But, of course, our understanding of the facts plays a role. But they don't alter the facts.
If the public behaves as if untrue 'facts' are true, then the public has entitled the people representing these 'facts' to their own facts. In some ways, I see Monihan's quote as something from a different age. He assumes logic can win an argument. I'm watching MSNBC and Nancy Schniderman just said something along these lines. "We don't live in a nation that is scientifically illiterate, we live in a nation that is scientifically intolerant".
It still doesn't make untrue facts facts, Zorro. Regarding things from other ages such is the truth from the beginning of time and it's all about definition and redefinition of various times, making them applicable and forging our own way forward. That the whole historical argument that relates to our movement forward. I disagree with Snyderman. I think that many of us are scientifically illiterate and lazy and this is why we believe everything we want to hear. It's ignorance by choice. Many of us want to be led so we don't have to lead ourselves, have to make intelligent decisions. We are the willfully ignorant. When Snyderman threw in the word "scientifically" in both case was she actually referring to science or was this a mere figure of speech?
We are scientifically intolerant.
For example, the whole idea of evolution not being accepted only because it challenges people beliefs. This is scientific intolerance. And in the case of evolution, it is wide spread.
People who believe in creationism are far from scientifically ignorant. They have developed a theory that attempts to refute evolution and therefore know a lot about evolution or their refutation would not be as seeming logical.
Willful ignorance is exactly the same thing as scientific intolerance. It is just people ignoring facts and choosing their own facts. Truth means very little if the truth does not change behavior. That's why I don't see that much value in Moniythan's quote. His quote will not reach someone who is willfully ignorant. Therefore, it just isn't that powerful.
Creationism and science, as Pope Benedict XVI remarked last year in a discussion at the Vatican with Stephen Hawking, need not be adversarial. (Considering the Vatican's historical stance, I found this truly remarkable.) But I will agree that the masses of creationists probably balk at the reality of evolution. Regarding the Moynihan point, I see your point but I simply disagree with you with regards to its relevance. Regarding truth should it be altered when behavioral changes are not immediately evident? Just because we don't see immediate change with regards to what is true does not mean change is not occurring. What we need much more in the culture as a whole is patience.
Post a Comment