President Obama Re-Elected - Page 888

On October 19 2012 02:04 Zaqwert wrote:
I love all the people attacking Romney's plan

"The numbers don't add up!"
"It wont' fix the deficit!"

etc.

As though Obama has been doing such a great job at those things.

Obama's fiscal policy has been a disaster and will continue to be a disaster.

Romney's will be pretty bad too.

What people here don't understand is that this has nothing to do with truth, an election isn't a math problem, this is about getting votes, you have to view it through that prism.

Pointing out the flaws in Romney's numbers as some sort of GOTCHA! is like picking up the National Enquirer and being like "HAHA! I can prove this isn't wrong! I beat the National Enquirer!"

You're missing the point, while also demonstrating your bias by not applying the same standard to Obama's failed administration.

On October 19 2012 02:16 ziggurat wrote:

There are two problems with this approach. The smaller problem is that it is often difficult to figure out the motivations of the supposed "experts", who often turn out to have greater personal incentives than are readily apparent. In many cases its probably easier to actually figure out the issue that it is to figure out which purported experts have which biases and to what extent.

The larger problem is that people who don't try to figure things out themselves are abdicating their ability to actually understand the world. Often things aren't really that complicated, and with a little hard work anyone can get a decent understanding of them. But if your reaction to a seemingly complex subject is to say "too hard for me, let's see what Jon Stewart [or Rush Limbaugh] has to say about it" then you are unfortunately dooming yourself to a life of not understanding the world around you.

Even if issues are hard, people should still try to figure them out. If you look up a few posts you have paralleluniverse quoting from a write-up by the CBO and while I don't give him many marks for reading comprehension, he certainly deserves credit for at least trying to understand the issues.

I read an interesting book a few years ago by Neil Postman. At the start of the book he explains how he would often start lectures by making some kind of totally bizarre factual claim about the world. I think his example was that he would tell the audience that the chairs they were sitting on contained a significant quantity of salmon skin. He said he was surprised by how often the audience would just nod with interest as if they completely lacked the critical facilities to realize that this was obvious nonsense. His point (at least how I recall it) was that the world is becoming so complex that people are largely giving up on using their own common sense.

Another person who has written on a similar issue is a prof named Ilya Somin. He has written a lot about what he calls "rational ignorance" (of course he didn't come up with this idea) -- the idea that voters don't bother to inform themselves about the issues because, from the perspective of an individual there is no real benefit. The odds of one person affecting the election and miniscule, so why make the fairly significant time commitment to try to make an informed choice? It's not worth it. Of course while this may be true for the individual, it's very harmful to democracy as a whole.

edit: referred to the wrong poster, sorry!

On October 19 2012 01:57 turdburgler wrote:


this is exactly the best approach?

the worlds knowledge is far too vast for any one person to know much about anything, so how do you make choices on economics, safety, politics? you have to trust experts. but how do you know which experts to trust? you trust in their methods, reputation and peer review.

an expert has nothing to gain from being right than being right itself. a professor of economics, or a scientist rarely gets any monetary benefit of proving that global warming exists, their only interest is in getting the right answer, so for them to try and sway the facts or data to push their own view point is self destructive.

when mcdonalds tells you their food can be part of a healthy life style they have their own benefit and profits in mind. when a dietitian tells you its bad for you, you can take it or leave it, they arent making any money from you. this is a crucial factor in weighing evidence. you judge who it is coming from, and what they have to gain from getting you to agree.

this is like entry level critical thinking.

On October 19 2012 02:16 ziggurat wrote:

There are two problems with this approach. The smaller problem is that it is often difficult to figure out the motivations of the supposed "experts", who often turn out to have greater personal incentives than are readily apparent. In many cases its probably easier to actually figure out the issue that it is to figure out which purported experts have which biases and to what extent.

The larger problem is that people who don't try to figure things out themselves are abdicating their ability to actually understand the world. Often things aren't really that complicated, and with a little hard work anyone can get a decent understanding of them. But if your reaction to a seemingly complex subject is to say "too hard for me, let's see what Jon Stewart [or Rush Limbaugh] has to say about it" then you are unfortunately dooming yourself to a life of not understanding the world around you.

Even if issues are hard, people should still try to figure them out. If you look up a few posts you have paralleluniverse quoting from a write-up by the CBO and while I don't give him many marks for reading comprehension, he certainly deserves credit for at least trying to understand the issues.

I read an interesting book a few years ago by Neil Postman. At the start of the book he explains how he would often start lectures by making some kind of totally bizarre factual claim about the world. I think his example was that he would tell the audience that the chairs they were sitting on contained a significant quantity of salmon skin. He said he was surprised by how often the audience would just nod with interest as if they completely lacked the critical facilities to realize that this was obvious nonsense. His point (at least how I recall it) was that the world is becoming so complex that people are largely giving up on using their own common sense.

Another person who has written on a similar issue is a prof named Ilya Somin. He has written a lot about what he calls "rational ignorance" (of course he didn't come up with this idea) -- the idea that voters don't bother to inform themselves about the issues because, from the perspective of an individual there is no real benefit. The odds of one person affecting the election and miniscule, so why make the fairly significant time commitment to try to make an informed choice? It's not worth it. Of course while this may be true for the individual, it's very harmful to democracy as a whole.

edit: referred to the wrong poster, sorry!

On October 19 2012 02:16 ziggurat wrote:

There are two problems with this approach. The smaller problem is that it is often difficult to figure out the motivations of the supposed "experts", who often turn out to have greater personal incentives than are readily apparent. In many cases its probably easier to actually figure out the issue that it is to figure out which purported experts have which biases and to what extent.

The larger problem is that people who don't try to figure things out themselves are abdicating their ability to actually understand the world. Often things aren't really that complicated, and with a little hard work anyone can get a decent understanding of them. But if your reaction to a seemingly complex subject is to say "too hard for me, let's see what Jon Stewart [or Rush Limbaugh] has to say about it" then you are unfortunately dooming yourself to a life of not understanding the world around you.

Even if issues are hard, people should still try to figure them out. If you look up a few posts you have paralleluniverse quoting from a write-up by the CBO and while I don't give him many marks for reading comprehension, he certainly deserves credit for at least trying to understand the issues.

I read an interesting book a few years ago by Neil Postman. At the start of the book he explains how he would often start lectures by making some kind of totally bizarre factual claim about the world. I think his example was that he would tell the audience that the chairs they were sitting on contained a significant quantity of salmon skin. He said he was surprised by how often the audience would just nod with interest as if they completely lacked the critical facilities to realize that this was obvious nonsense. His point (at least how I recall it) was that the world is becoming so complex that people are largely giving up on using their own common sense.

Another person who has written on a similar issue is a prof named Ilya Somin. He has written a lot about what he calls "rational ignorance" (of course he didn't come up with this idea) -- the idea that voters don't bother to inform themselves about the issues because, from the perspective of an individual there is no real benefit. The odds of one person affecting the election and miniscule, so why make the fairly significant time commitment to try to make an informed choice? It's not worth it. Of course while this may be true for the individual, it's very harmful to democracy as a whole.

edit: referred to the wrong poster, sorry!

On October 19 2012 02:16 ziggurat wrote:

There are two problems with this approach. The smaller problem is that it is often difficult to figure out the motivations of the supposed "experts", who often turn out to have greater personal incentives than are readily apparent. In many cases its probably easier to actually figure out the issue that it is to figure out which purported experts have which biases and to what extent.

The larger problem is that people who don't try to figure things out themselves are abdicating their ability to actually understand the world. Often things aren't really that complicated, and with a little hard work anyone can get a decent understanding of them. But if your reaction to a seemingly complex subject is to say "too hard for me, let's see what Jon Stewart [or Rush Limbaugh] has to say about it" then you are unfortunately dooming yourself to a life of not understanding the world around you.

Even if issues are hard, people should still try to figure them out. If you look up a few posts you have paralleluniverse quoting from a write-up by the CBO and while I don't give him many marks for reading comprehension, he certainly deserves credit for at least trying to understand the issues.

I read an interesting book a few years ago by Neil Postman. At the start of the book he explains how he would often start lectures by making some kind of totally bizarre factual claim about the world. I think his example was that he would tell the audience that the chairs they were sitting on contained a significant quantity of salmon skin. He said he was surprised by how often the audience would just nod with interest as if they completely lacked the critical facilities to realize that this was obvious nonsense. His point (at least how I recall it) was that the world is becoming so complex that people are largely giving up on using their own common sense.

Another person who has written on a similar issue is a prof named Ilya Somin. He has written a lot about what he calls "rational ignorance" (of course he didn't come up with this idea) -- the idea that voters don't bother to inform themselves about the issues because, from the perspective of an individual there is no real benefit. The odds of one person affecting the election and miniscule, so why make the fairly significant time commitment to try to make an informed choice? It's not worth it. Of course while this may be true for the individual, it's very harmful to democracy as a whole.

edit: referred to the wrong poster, sorry!

On October 19 2012 02:24 farvacola wrote:

Maybe, just maybe those people who disagree with you actually have studied the material they defend? If someone is throwing out random one liners and unsubstantiated claims, then call them out on it, by all means. But preempting the arguments of those who disagree with you through an unsubstantiated indictment of their investigation is no way to go about getting to the bottom of things. Furthermore, your entire diatribe is undermined by your lack of response to the multitude of people asking you for a demonstration of the viewpoint you are offering forth. Austrian economics, the centerpoint of pretty much every libertarian's economic model, tosses out deductive reasoning in economic representation/truth-seeking, do you know what this means and how do you defend it?

On October 19 2012 02:38 ziggurat wrote:


I am responding to people who say that the best approach is to trust an expert rather than understanding an issue for oneself. I have no clue why you think I am now obligated to defend Austrian economics. I am also not sure which posts you are saying I should have responded to; but if I don't think something is worth responding to I usually just don't.

On October 19 2012 02:22 turdburgler wrote:


trusting experts doesnt abdicate responsibilty because you have to choose who to trust.

and its in no way easier to learn the issues than it is to learn about the person. if you want to argue that every person should have a working knowledge of nuclear physics, global economics, socio-economic and religious background to the middle east etc etc etc. then good luck.

but id rather argue that the power of peer review is that its allows experts to grade experts, and that allows the uninformed person to look in, see the aggregate of what is being said, whether it be ryans tax plan doesnt add up, or global warming is happening, and say. "look, the majority of people who are informed on this subject say this, its our best effort to believe them".

On October 19 2012 02:31 ziggurat wrote:

This is exactly what I would like to see. Although it's not realistic for one person to be a technical expert in all those areas, it is in no way impossible to have a general base of knowledge about them. Of course along with this people would need to be humble to at least entertain the possibility that they're wrong on specific questions.