I am deeply in doubt of the future existence of the United States

Beer Baron wrote: The people who say they make they're driven by critical thinking and everyone else is driven by emotion, are usually just better at convincing themselves that they are less emotionally motivated than they really are.

Oh, I'm emotional. Almost everybody is. The key lies in understanding when you're reacting to something emotionally or making a decision emotionally, and doing so with a rational understanding that you are suspending reason on purpose. NOT everybody is capable of doing so, or even wants to.

Duke wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: The people who say they make they're driven by critical thinking and everyone else is driven by emotion, are usually just better at convincing themselves that they are less emotionally motivated than they really are.

Oh, I'm emotional. *Almost* everybody is. The key lies in understanding when you're reacting to something emotionally or making a decision emotionally, and doing so with a rational understanding that you are suspending reason on purpose. NOT everybody is capable of doing so, or even wants to.

Maybe that is the key to making the public vote rationally. Getting them to understand an emotional response verses a logic based one.

Maybe that is the key to the different marketing tactics. Exploiting each group by understanding their emotional maturity/intelligence/awareness.

Duke wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: The people who say they make they're driven by critical thinking and everyone else is driven by emotion, are usually just better at convincing themselves that they are less emotionally motivated than they really are.

Oh, I'm emotional. *Almost* everybody is. The key lies in understanding when you're reacting to something emotionally or making a decision emotionally, and doing so with a rational understanding that you are suspending reason on purpose. NOT everybody is capable of doing so, or even wants to.

I see lots of people who think they're being logical, when what they've really done is make a decision emotionally, and then come up with a rational way to justify that decision. (e.g. "Of course buying my M Coupe and S2000 were logical choices. They are cars that will hold their value better than a more pedestrian car.")

Every emotionally and mentally mature and stable person is capable of evaluating situations and making decisions logically. But it is a skill that must be learned and taught. It is not something that is innate to some people but not to others. If people seem to not want to make decisions logically, it is because they have never learned to see logical reasoning as being more beneficial to them.

In reply to Flight Service:

It's all a bunch of trigger topics they use to keep everyone at each other's throats, if the entire populace voted without these triggers, we probably wouldn't have political parties and we'd actually vote on a cantidate's merit instead.

Beer Baron wrote: The people who say they make they're driven by critical thinking and everyone else is driven by emotion, are usually just better at convincing themselves that they are less emotionally motivated than they really are.

Perhaps. I won't say I am completely without emotion (just ask my coworkers when 3 out 4 rolls in the plotter are empty), but I do seem to have an ability to turn it off when I need (or want) to. My estranged father could attest to that. Push my buttons correctly and I will turn into one cold mother-berker.

I would not consider any of my cars to be purely logical or rational decisions. Every one was more driven by emotion and I will fully admit that. It's why I have 6 of the damn things. Even buying a minivan was as much emotion as rationalization.

Many of my views on what would best for the population as a whole would have a detrimental affect on me personally. But to paraphrase Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

This was an interesting article, although I wouldn't say the findings are surprising: The End of Thinking

Beer Baron wrote:

Duke wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: The people who say they make they're driven by critical thinking and everyone else is driven by emotion, are usually just better at convincing themselves that they are less emotionally motivated than they really are.

Oh, I'm emotional. *Almost* everybody is. The key lies in understanding when you're reacting to something emotionally or making a decision emotionally, and doing so with a rational understanding that you are suspending reason on purpose. NOT everybody is capable of doing so, or even wants to.

I see lots of people who think they're being logical, when what they've really done is make a decision emotionally, and then come up with a rational way to justify that decision. (e.g. "Of course buying my M Coupe and S2000 were logical choices. They are cars that will hold their value better than a more pedestrian car.") Every emotionally and mentally mature and stable person is capable of evaluating situations and making decisions logically. But it is a skill that must be learned and taught. It is not something that is innate to some people but not to others. If people seem to not want to make decisions logically, it is because they have never learned to see logical reasoning as being more beneficial to them.

Logical reasoning is a wonderful thing, and is exceedingly difficult to do properly. I was on a board a number of years ago, and I spent, probably, half my mental effort trying to decide whether a decision I was making was based on personal gain. Its hard to break "whats good for the group" out of the "whats good for me" category.

WOW Really Paul? wrote: In reply to Flight Service: It's all a bunch of trigger topics they use to keep everyone at each other's throats, if the entire populace voted without these triggers, we probably wouldn't have political parties and we'd actually vote on a cantidate's merit instead.

Hot Button topics is the term of the art.

Shhhhhhhhhhhh don't say that, they may hear you. LOL

Duke wrote:

Ian F wrote:

madmallard wrote: i have no idea how we correct this.

One could argue a population generally well educated in critical thinking would be a strong first step.

One could indeed make that proposition, and it would be entirely correct. Unfortunately, the only people who have any interest whatsoever in critical thinking are *already* critical thinkers. Almost nobody else wants to be one - they'd rather be driven by emotion, like we've been raising people to do for generations.

one does not need to be a critical thinker to engage in a persuasive discussion.

there is no intellectual pre-requisite to an honest attempt to sway someone to your argument.

my point was that regardless of how cerebral the discussion becomes, its pointless wankery of the participants if its not rooted in trying to persuade someone.

In reply to Flight Service:

Same difference, all sides are a play on emotion.

WOW Really Paul? wrote: In reply to Flight Service: Same difference, all sides are a play on emotion.

I know they do, but not to the same point. One plays on emotion to arise action to an otherwise usually sedate bunch. The other uses it to direct an already excited bunch in a specified direction.

In reply to Flight Service:

Completely depends upon the subject as to which side is which....they both are the same.

Beer Baron wrote:

mad_machine wrote: I am not going to say that the country is doomed.. but I think the republican party as we know it is. It is being torn between by those on the very far right and those who are still "moderate". I think this election cycle may be the one that finally breaks them into two and gives this country three viable parties (for at least a short while)

They may be able to pull it out, but they're doing their best to hurt themselves. They're either going to have to reinvent themselves as a party, or get torn apart from within. As much as I disagree with the Republican party on many things, I'm not wild about the idea of their party splitting in two. We've had that happen in the past in the U.S. It works out in the end, but is unpleasant in the meantime. The party that doesn't split ends up with a super-majority and just runs things for a while without opposition to temper or balance them. Although I prefer the Democrats, I really don't want them to just get their way on everything.

opposition is a good thing. I am with you in favouring the Dems and in hating to see the Republicans turning into the circus they are. I hope they pull out before crashing and burning

J don't doubt the future existence of the US. What we will be going forward depends on us. Be educated ... be involved . Be civil. Root word of civilization.

The issue most people are having.. the fringes are scary.. and unfortunately, those on the fringe are -very- loud.. so they tend to drown out any and all voices of reason.

In reply to mad_machine:

Where do those who have taken upon themselves a flawed ideological crusade fall?

most likely upon their own Swords, Paul. While I may favour the Dems, I am only liberal because both parties have moved right. The Fringes of both frighten me.. as they should most anyone

In reply to mad_machine:

Unfortunately, they never seem to fall on anything more than a rubber hose.

Flight Service wrote: I saw this from the New York Times today. Thought I would share. All Politicians Lie. Some Lie More Than Others.

I respect the intelligence of this community and it's members. But I have a really hard time taking you guys seriously when you reference The New York Times as a fact source on the subject of honesty, balance, and non-bias. They found Republicans to be less factual than Democrats? Now THERE is a surprise!

I offer this article as a little perspective on the issue:

Daniel Okrent's NY Times article on the Liberal bias of The NY Times

Mr. Okrent is the public editor of the NY Times. He is an employee of them, writes for them, and is an avowed Democrat, liberal, and New Yorker. Yet, he understands the bias of The Times.

Mr. Okrent's summary on the general historical lack of balance from The Times: "Times editors have failed to provide the three-dimensional perspective balanced journalism requires."

I find no inspiration from a NY Times fact-checker's statistic with no guidelines whatsoever on how she decided which "facts" to check, that finds "less honesty" in Republican politicians than Democratic. It's laughable at best- alarming or even dangerous at worst.

...and disappointing when people (whom I respect) swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Any article that finds Hillary Clinton as the 2nd most honest person checked is a steaming pile of poo. If I read the graph correctly.

In reply to spitfirebill & SVreX:

You have to understand the article and what it is. Poltifact, an off-shoot of the Tampa Bay Times is who all the fact checking is done by. The NYT just publish the article on Politifact's findings. The article is part of the opinion pages and is written by a Politifact editor.

You have to remember Hillary is a very skilled politician. You aren't going to catcher her in many open face lies. She is good at it. As long as she can state the context it is. I am surprised her graph didn't look more like O'Maley's.

Here is a good example. Hillary "most of my donors are small donors." Some people would read that as "most of my money comes from small donors." It was meant as, "I have alot of small donors writing my checks but that isn't saying most of my money comes from them."

I posted the article not as a endorsement of any particular paper or candidate but as a compilation piece of a well respected fact checking site. The New York Times had nothing to do with the data, just the commentary presented below it.

I am sorry if for any reason someone read more than the data presented and focused on the editorial. I tend to skip the commentary when reading articles such as this and look at the data, method collected, and analysis rather than the ramblings of a pundit. In this case it appears that the NYTs found some facts to go with their bias. A stopped clock is right twice a day you know.

Did she land in Sarajevo under sniper fire?

Hillary Clinton fact check page.

"I remember landing under sniper fire." Hillary Clinton on March 17, 2008 in Washington, D.C.

We rated the claim Pants on Fire!

So here is your liberal bias....or in this case candidate bias.

"We have fact-checked 108 statements by Clinton. Of them, 35 were rated True, 19 Mostly True and 23 Half True. Another 18 were ruled Mostly False, 11 were False, and two rated Pants on Fire." on Politifact.

NYT said the spread was 28 mostly false or worse and 51 mostly true or better. Politifact has the numbers as 2+11+18=31 lying 35+19=54 truths. With the remainder in the half and half column. Puts her 3 ahead of Bernie....

So there you go. Now you know who the NYT is supporting this election cycle.

Flight Service wrote: In reply to spitfirebill & SVreX: You have to understand the article and what it is. Poltifact, an off-shoot of the Tampa Bay Times is who all the fact checking is done by. The NYT just wrote the article on Politifact's findings.

The author is/was employed by Politifact. Did the NYT publish the article as a means to validate its' own opinions?

Flight Service wrote: The New York Times had nothing to do with the data, just the commentary presented below it.

The NYT and its' media partners have everything to do with the data. You, yourself, noted that fact-checking takes into consideration topics/people that make headlines or generate interest. Do not forget that media decide what becomes a headline, gets buried as an also-ran topic or is completely ignored. Look at the front page of the NYT and the motto "all the news fit to print". That's a policy followed by editors across all media and it influences what we all read, see and hear. It also determines what becomes "important".

Flight Service wrote: In this case it appears that the NYTs found some facts to go with their bias. A stopped clock is right twice a day you know.

Re: the bolded content - Do you really want to place your trust in a source that's right less than 10% of the time?

oldsaw wrote:

Flight Service wrote: In reply to spitfirebill & SVreX: You have to understand the article and what it is. Poltifact, an off-shoot of the Tampa Bay Times is who all the fact checking is done by. The NYT just wrote the article on Politifact's findings.

The author is/was employed by Politifact. Did the NYT publish the article as a means to validate its' own opinions?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying

Flight Service wrote: The New York Times had nothing to do with the data, just the commentary presented below it.

The NYT and its' media partners have everything to do with the data. You, yourself, noted that fact-checking takes into consideration topics/people that make headlines or generate interest. Do not forget that media decide what becomes a headline, gets buried as an also-ran topic or is completely ignored. Look at the front page of the NYT and the motto "all the news fit to print". That's a policy followed by editors across all media and it influences what we all read, see and hear. It also determines what becomes "important".

as admitted in a previous post it is far from perfect, and another metric would be prefered but this is better than nothing.

Remember politicians run on sound bites so checking outlandish soundbites that get repeated is relevant. The site does take requests if you think something looked over.

Flight Service wrote: In this case it appears that the NYTs found some facts to go with their bias. A stopped clock is right twice a day you know.

Re: the bolded content - Do you really want to place your trust in a source that's right less than 10% of the time?

I place my trust more in politifact than the NYT. I just happen to be able to fact check them on this one...