Logic and politics

[swansont]

Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts, Study Finds

 

"The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.

...

'The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data,' Westen said."

 

No real surprises, I think.

[Dak]

I always thought that politics could do with some kind of moderation system.

 

I'd like to see politicians argue on a board like this... they'd get perma-banned for persistant logical falicies so quickly

 

hmm... maybe we could invite a couple of the lower-ranking ones on?

[gcol]

I noticed that the activity of politicians brainwaves was the main datastream, so not much evidence to go on. A bit unfair for Republicans and democrats to be singled out, I suspect the experimental results could be reproduced using any politically opposed subjects.

 

I was only surprised that anyone thought that reason, fact, and learning ever played a part in the political process.

[Pangloss]

I'd like to see politicians argue on a board like this... they'd get perma-banned for persistant logical falicies so quickly

 

Heh, yeah that's a good point. Also the mainstream media: Bring in a reporter here to debate the issue of tax cuts, and they'd only be able to tell us about Milly Smith, a working single mother in Sue Falls, South Dakota, and her three children and aging mother. (grin)

[pcs]

No real surprises, I think.

 

No real discussion, either. Westen is modeling base rate bias in different populations under different conditions, and that is a profound piece of work in the cognitive sciences. If this study says what I think it says, you're just as likely to reject base rate information as the next guy. So let's not descend into foolish politico-bashing less when the manuscript is released we're all hoisted up by our own petards. In fact, I recommend that this thread be moved to the psych forums; it deserves more than to serve as a lightning rod for ignorant lay ranting.

[Phi for All]

Objective reasoning doesn't apply when we can't know all the subjective underlying motivations. Politicians have so many reasons for what they argue for that may involve deals and considerations that aren't part of public information. Some of those reasons may actually be logical, but unless we know the whole story we can't judge them.

[ecoli]

politicians can't make an objective argument. When defending questionable policies, a good politician will completely ignore the a direct answer, but side-steping the issues. Which is basically a strawman.

[gcol]

Objective reasoning doesn't apply when we can't know all the subjective underlying motivations. Politicians have so many reasons for what they argue for that may involve deals and considerations that aren't part of public information. Some of those reasons may actually be logical, but unless we know the whole story we can't judge them.

 

Exactly. Which is why, my dear "pcs", in these forums at least, you will get more "politico-bashing" and "ignorant lay ranting" than you hope for. Are these not, in any case, rather over-arching terms beneath the dignity of a political scientist? ( refering to our little spat in another thread).

[pcs]

Exactly. Which is why, my dear "pcs", in these forums at least, you will get more "politico-bashing" and "ignorant lay ranting" than you hope for. Are these not, in any case, rather over-arching terms beneath the dignity of a political scientist? ( refering to our little spat in another thread).

 

Nothing is beneath the dignity of a King Cobra fan. On the other hand, the article refers to a psych study, and wouldn't you agree we'd get more value out of it if discussed in a forum where we're more likely to attract expert input?

[padren]

There is very little reasoning if you assume that the politician is trying to state a factual case.

In most cases, I think politicians on both sides simply state whatever statements they reason will resonate in the manner they want, towards the ends they want to forward.

When viewed as a strategy, its often quite rational. Its when you view the content of the statement itself on the assumption its based on direct fact, it appears to make little rational sense.

[Phi for All]

On the other hand, the article refers to a psych[/i'] study, and wouldn't you agree we'd get more value out of it if discussed in a forum where we're more likely to attract expert input?

When threads straddle different disciplines, I have no objections to moving threads around to garner specialized input (and sometimes taking politics out of the picture makes responses less hostile).

[swansont]

No real discussion, either. Westen is modeling base rate bias in different populations under different conditions, and that is a profound piece of work in the cognitive sciences. If this study says what I think it says, you're just as likely to reject base rate information as the next guy. So let's not descend into foolish politico-bashing less when the manuscript is released we're all hoisted up by our own petards. In fact, I recommend that this thread be moved to the psych forums; it deserves more than to serve as a lightning rod for ignorant lay ranting.

 

Actually I had posted it in poltics because I expected ignorant lay ranting. Apologies to Pangloss, but there are no real experts on politics. To quote Richard Feynman, "....it's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!" If people understood politics, there would be nothing to discuss.

 

It's not the test so much as the notion that politics, like religion, is not so much concerned with logic. The reason I occasionally venture over to the politics boards is because I like to remind myself how much of the discussion is based on ideology and not on objectivity (logic and facts).

[DV8 2XL]

Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts' date=' Study Finds[/url']

 

"The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.

...

'The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data,' Westen said."

 

No real surprises, I think.

 

The telling thing is that the study was not testing the politicians themselves, but their supporters, the ones that vote them in before we drop all of governments' problems at the feet of the politicians, maybe we should look to our own voting habits.

[Pangloss]

Actually I had posted it in poltics because I expected ignorant lay ranting. Apologies to Pangloss' date=' but there are no real experts on politics. To quote Richard Feynman, "....it's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!" If people understood politics, there would be nothing to discuss.

[/quote']

 

As much as I admired Dr. Feynman, I'll respectfully disagree, on the general grounds that the more one spends time following politics, the more one can readily identify when an event (such as the passing of a new law, a going-to-war, or an election) is taking place on objective or ideological grounds.

 

Just to give a brief example, if I haven't followed politics, and I see a news story about some new study reporting a great danger, and I'm told that the study comes from the Center for American Progress (CNN), or the American Enterprise Institute (Fox), then I think "Gosh, that's impressive". If I have been following politics, then I instead think "Gosh, I need to take that with a grain of salt". Obviously I can arrive at that particular piece of information (the partisan bias of those two institutions) any number of ways, but "following politics" is a general approach that yields many similar small pieces of information.

 

That's my two cents worth on the subject, anyway. I'm a big believer in Ike's "alert and knowledgeable citizenry", you might say.

[In My Memory]

Is there a study showing most intellectuals (sans randroids) are Libertarians?

[gcol]

A couple of quotes to stir things up a bit. (Quotations are a well used expert ploy, being well-read can be an excellent camouflage for a lack of objective analytical skills. In my case, at least):

 

Politics, and the fate of mankind, are shaped by men without ideals and without greatness. Men who have greatness within them don't go in for politics. Albert Camus.

 

Political language-and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists-is designed to make lies sound truthful, and to give an appearance of solidarity to pure wind. George Orwell.

 

Those of you who regard my profession of political life with some disdain should remember that it made it possible for me to move from being an obscure lieutenant in the United States Navy to Commander-In-Chief in fourteen years with very little technical competence. John F. Kennedy.

 

I conclude with this one, lest you think I am biased, but it did make me snigger:

 

With all the temptations and degredations that beset it, politics is still the the noblest career that any man can choose. F.S.Oliver, Politics and Politicians.

[ecoli]

Is there a study showing most intellectuals (sans randroids) are Libertarians?

 

reasons?

[sunspot]

Politics is closer to entertainment than education. That is why gray lying (diplomacy), evasiveness, and mud slinging are so important. These all help create a fantasy world, which can be entertaining. Whether it pushes one's buttons left or right, it is definitely not educational. If a polititian tries to educate the public on a new idea, he is ripped a new one, by all the entertainers.