|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 08/29/2009 : 08:30:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Why can't fear be used in pro-health care propaganda? The idea that private health care insurance will become increasingly to costly, insufficient, and out of reach for those who need it most isn't scary? |
Do you think that's anywhere near as scary as "Heil Hitler! The gubmint death panels are going to let your grandma die to save some money!" It's hard to compete with the Nazis for instilling terror. Maybe if there were some way of twisting the facts about increasingly costly, inefficient and out-of-reach health care into a short sentence or two that included the words "Osama Bin Laden," you'd be onto something.
It seems to me that health-care reform was presented as an answer to the fears you express, marf, and the answer was a quick and loud, "Ohnooes! Hitler!! OMFG!!!11!!!!" Rationally discussed concerns seem to always fall to irrational sound bites. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2009 : 09:27:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I'm not sure when this became about religious people. The thread started out talking about peoples ability to understand political analysis.
|
That would be here, where you said:
| Not in my experience. I've heard plenty of people who seem to speak English pretty well make some pretty glarringly illogical statements, and I've seen plenty of followers of gurus and preachers who do this respond to such statements with impassioned nods and facial expressions which communicate the message "Why, of course!" |
(bolding mine)
Of course, I could argue that religion and politics follow similar patterns of "belief".
| I don't see where I claimed that. You are the one who introduced the adjective "inherent" before "intelligence". |
Any definition of intelligence appropriate to this conversation implies "inherent", since we are talking about the mental acuity or capacity of people to comprehend basic problem solving skills. Your disparaging comment about how people of "average intelligence" (that use clearly implies inherent capacity) can't understand differing analysis of legislation is what prompted me to join this thread.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2009 : 09:32:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by marfknox
Why can't fear be used in pro-health care propaganda? The idea that private health care insurance will become increasingly to costly, insufficient, and out of reach for those who need it most isn't scary? |
Do you think that's anywhere near as scary as "Heil Hitler! The gubmint death panels are going to let your grandma die to save some money!" It's hard to compete with the Nazis for instilling terror. Maybe if there were some way of twisting the facts about increasingly costly, inefficient and out-of-reach health care into a short sentence or two that included the words "Osama Bin Laden," you'd be onto something.
It seems to me that health-care reform was presented as an answer to the fears you express, marf, and the answer was a quick and loud, "Ohnooes! Hitler!! OMFG!!!11!!!!" Rationally discussed concerns seem to always fall to irrational sound bites.
|
The Obama admin should just take the rhetoric of the lunatic mob and use it against them. DEATH PANELS ALREADY EXIST! How often do you hear of CHILDREN BEING DENIED LIFE SAVING TREATMENT BECAUSE AN INSURANCE COMPANY NUMBERCRUNCHER DECIDED IT WAS TOO EXPENSIVE?! ALL THE TIME!
NEVER AGAIN SHALL A CHILD BE DENIED LIFE SAVING TREATMENT BECAUSE AN INSURANCE COMPANY DOESN'T WANT TO PAY!
Something like that. Because yes, as you say, rational points never win vs teh-crezy in a soundbite war.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2009 : 09:48:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
The Obama admin should just take the rhetoric of the lunatic mob and use it against them. DEATH PANELS ALREADY EXIST! How often do you hear of CHILDREN BEING DENIED LIFE SAVING TREATMENT BECAUSE AN INSURANCE COMPANY NUMBERCRUNCHER DECIDED IT WAS TOO EXPENSIVE?! ALL THE TIME!
NEVER AGAIN SHALL A CHILD BE DENIED LIFE SAVING TREATMENT BECAUSE AN INSURANCE COMPANY DOESN'T WANT TO PAY!
Something like that. Because yes, as you say, rational points never win vs teh-crezy in a soundbite war. |
I think we need to out-crazy teh crazy. And because you didn't mention a single, widely known, 20th-century tyrant, you haven't even matched their crazy yet. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2009 : 03:00:00 [Permalink]
|
| On the whole using Nazis and Hitler as a scare tactic - I don't think that has actually been the most effective one. I think the death panels and talk of cuts to Medicare which will result in old people being denied care, and talk about the government controlling peoples' decisions over their health care has frightened people much more. I don't think a lot of people (realtively, I mean) take the whole "Hitler" thing seriously. I only hear it from the real fringe nutters like the Larouche people. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2009 : 03:10:00 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | Of course, I could argue that religion and politics follow similar patterns of "belief". |
Okay, my bad. But the conversation is about peoples' ability to think critically in the face of tactics of persuasion, not religious people in particular. That's why I mentioned "gurus" as well as "preachers". I was using religious people and followers of gurus as examples of people who follow charismatic representatives of irrational ideas.
| Any definition of intelligence appropriate to this conversation implies "inherent", since we are talking about the mental acuity or capacity of people to comprehend basic problem solving skills. Your disparaging comment about how people of "average intelligence" (that use clearly implies inherent capacity) can't understand differing analysis of legislation is what prompted me to join this thread. |
This has already been explained as a difference in use of the term "intelligence" but I'll try to explain it again. I think someone's "intelligence" is not only measured by their capacity to comprehend basic problem solving skills, but also by their ability to realize when their personal biases are distracting them them from using that capacity, and then put aside those biases.
What else do you call that capacity if not a type of or component of intelligence? I also think capacities for imagination and curiosity (and many other mental capacities) are components of "intelligence". It seems that you are assuming a definition of "intelligence" which is narrower and more specific than me. But if I'm wrong again about our disagreement, go ahead and correct me.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2009 : 03:36:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
On the whole using Nazis and Hitler as a scare tactic - I don't think that has actually been the most effective one. I think the death panels and talk of cuts to Medicare which will result in old people being denied care, and talk about the government controlling peoples' decisions over their health care has frightened people much more. I don't think a lot of people (realtively, I mean) take the whole "Hitler" thing seriously. I only hear it from the real fringe nutters like the Larouche people. |
They're the same thing, marf. The death panels are what are claimed to be Hitleresque. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2009 : 04:01:43 [Permalink]
|
marf said:
| This has already been explained as a difference in use of the term "intelligence" but I'll try to explain it again. I think someone's "intelligence" is not only measured by their capacity to comprehend basic problem solving skills, but also by their ability to realize when their personal biases are distracting them them from using that capacity, and then put aside those biases. |
I am unaware of any definition or use of "intelligence" that includes such criteria.
| What else do you call that capacity if not a type of or component of intelligence? |
You are decribing, more or less, the skill of critical thinking. Skills are trained, inherent capacity is a gift from your genes and environment.
It seems that you are assuming a definition of "intelligence" which is narrower and more specific than me. But if I'm wrong again about our disagreement, go ahead and correct me.
|
It seems, actually, that you are inventing a definition of "intelligence" that is brand new. Yes, the word is difficult to define with any precision. Yes, there are different types of intelligence. But there is a clear difference between intelligence and skill.
Everyone (for the sake of argument, shut up nitpickers!) can run. How fast or far you can run is determined mostly by training. Just because the couch potato is out of breath in short order does not mean he or she lacks the inherent capacity to run well.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2009 : 08:17:44 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | They're the same thing, marf. The death panels are what are claimed to be Hitleresque. |
Wow, you are right - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html I didn't realize the connection because it seems to me that the most successful mainstream pundits who are demonizing the health care reform proposals are avoiding any mention of Hitler and Nazis, and the liberal commentators love when whackjobs make Nazi references because it is an easy way to belittle their concerns as crazy.
My tendency is to think this way: | Former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, an advocate for the health care proposals, said he was occasionally confronted with the “forced euthanasia” accusation at forums on the plans, but came to see it as an advantage. “Almost automatically you have most of the audience on your side,” Mr. Daschle said. “Any rational normal person isn't going to believe that assertion.” |
But then I start to wonder, just how many irrational, abnormal people are out there, especially since this article links to Nazis references from the Washington Times, not a LaRouche publication.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2009 : 08:38:59 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | You are decribing, more or less, the skill of critical thinking. Skills are trained, inherent capacity is a gift from your genes and environment. |
I agree that skills are trained and inherent capacity is a gift from genes and environment. However, I think that many if not most abilities of human beings are a mixture of both. In graduate school for studio arts, I knew many representational oil painters, and they all had various levels of skill, and every one of them could draw and paint a representation more accurately than most people, which I credit at least in part to inherent capacity. However, over the two years of an MFA program, all of their abilities improved, some vastly so, and this can be credited to a development of their inherent ability though advice of mentors and many hours of concentrated practice.
If being able to draw and paint well is both a natural talent and a developed skill, why would other abilities be any different? Sure, just about every human is born with the inherent capacity to run, but that inherent ability isn't equal in every human being, and training can only bring some people so far. I ran track in high school and there were these two sisters. One of them had a very slight frame and showed immediate promise her freshman year. By her senior year she was going to state in the mile and going to receive a college scholarship because of her running. Her younger sister also showed promise her freshman year, and I dare say she really did work as hard. However, her body build was totally different – much more curvaceous and muscular, and generally broader and taller. Try as she might, she was never going to be as impressive a runner as her sister. In the end she de-emphasized her running and became pretty darn good at shot put.
| It seems, actually, that you are inventing a definition of "intelligence" that is brand new. Yes, the word is difficult to define with any precision. Yes, there are different types of intelligence. But there is a clear difference between intelligence and skill. |
There are many definitions of intelligence, some of which are too broad for me to consider using in mainstream discussion, but which are only useful in certain specific context - such as definitions used by educators which talks about different types of intelligences for students, including things such as “kinetic intelligence”.
Since this is a mainstream conversation, I went with a more mainstream definition of intelligence which I perceive to be a measure of mental capacity, regardless of how much of that is inherent and how much has been developed. I haven't made anything up. I've read articles about how peoples' “intelligence” is impacted by upbringing and education, so clearly definitions of intelligence do not relegate it to being only about what is inherent. I don't even think researchers yet have the ability to completely accurately parse how much of any individual's abilities (both mental and physical) are inherent and how much are developed, even if we are able to get a pretty good general idea.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/31/2009 08:39:37 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2009 : 09:09:12 [Permalink]
|
I think I see the problem.
You seem to be saying that a person who has been trained is inherently smarter than a person who hasn't. The only way to reach that conclusion is if you conflate intelligence with skill.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2009 : 09:46:45 [Permalink]
|
"Intelligence" is a lot like "Love". Tough to nail down a strict definition but at the same time we all have a good idea of what it means.
People obviously vary wildly in level of intelligence, both in capacity and ability to learn. Some people who speak and understand basic english can not learn or acquire skills to the same degree as others who also speak and understand basic english, no matter how much training they receive. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2009 : 10:11:40 [Permalink]
|
| I figured out how to solve this problem, I'll just give them BigPapa's Health Care Bill(You know Logan's Run style) as their other option and they'll realise how goo the other bill sounds. Hand crystals and bar code tattoos for everyone! |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2009 : 11:24:47 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: I think I see the problem.
You seem to be saying that a person who has been trained is inherently smarter than a person who hasn't. The only way to reach that conclusion is if you conflate intelligence with skill. |
The idea that a person could be inherently more anything because of training makes no sense if we take "inherent" to mean based on genes and basic nature.
So, no. I'm saying that "intelligence" is composed of both capacities which are inherent and capacities which were developed. I believe that a person's intelligence can be stunted by all sorts of environmental factors. I also believe that at some point, like any kind of growth stunt, only so much catch-up growth is possible for individuals. So yeah, some people are smarter because of how they grew up or were trained. They aren't inherently smarter, but they are definitely smarter. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/02/2009 11:26:00 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2009 : 13:58:03 [Permalink]
|
You are wrong to conflate the two ideas of intelligence and skill/training. You are saying that Newton would have been just a stupid hick had he not recieved an education and been pushed into learning the mathematics of the day. It is unlikely he would have worked out calculus, true, but he would have had that inherent capacity regardless.
People who use and understand language skills well enough to get by in day to day life have the capacity to learn basic formalized logic and problem solving skills. Those skills are inherent to language. You have to understand that sentences require certain parts in a certain order if they are to be useful for communication. That is basic logic.
So your conclusion that people are just stupid when they refuse to give up beliefs that defy evidence (political, religious, conspiracy, whatever) is clearly wrong. Your conflation of the terms intelligence and skill/training seem to be little more than a rationalization to avoid being accused of bigotry.
Call them stupid and you don't have to bother with the real reasons they believe things contrary to evidence.
astropin said:
| People obviously vary wildly in level of intelligence, both in capacity and ability to learn. Some people who speak and understand basic english can not learn or acquire skills to the same degree as others who also speak and understand basic english, no matter how much training they receive. |
Well, its good that we aren't talking about the set of all skills, isn't it?
If you can use language to perform your day to day tasks then you have already used and demonstrated basic logic and basic problem solving skills. You already own enough of that specific skill set to be able to evaluate claims vs evidence and reach reasonable conclusions.
Writing people off as stupid when they don't apply those skills to certain claims is wrong.
I've already said what I think is happening earlier in this thread. But if you guys want to just call them stupid and leave it there, whatever.
The problem with that(aside from the obviously offensive nature), as I have also previously pointed out, is that there is no remedy for stupid.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Skepticism applied to postmodern liberalism
