Author
|
Topic: RE: virus: Short Cut Draws Blood (Read 729 times) |
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.63
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
RE: virus: Short Cut Draws Blood
« on: 2004-09-20 03:31:13 » |
 |
[Blunderov] (I would be surprised if the following was true only of
America.) This is why the 'democracy' held so sacred by the hoi polloi
of the West is nothing more than a hollow joke (IMNSHO). This is why
reasoning should be taught from day one at school and is also the reason
why, I suspect, it isn't.
<gnashes teeth>
Best Regards.
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/109767.htm?nl=1
September 05, 2004
Politics: Americans Not Playing With a Full Deck
If any decisions were to be made by using reason and evidence, political
decisions would have to be among them - but Americans generally don't do
that. Only a small percentage appear to have a coherent political
philosophy, consistent beliefs, and an ability to explain what they
decide. The rest go by gut instinct - they're inconsistent and react
poorly.
Louis Menand writes in The New Yorker:
When electoral competence began to be measured statistically, around the
end of the Second World War, the numbers startled almost everyone. The
data were interpreted most powerfully by the political scientist Philip
Converse, in an article on "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass
Publics," published in 1964. Forty years later, Converse's conclusions
are still the bones at which the science of voting behavior picks.
Converse claimed that only around ten per cent of the public has what
can be called, even generously, a political belief system. He named
these people "ideologues," by which he meant not that they are fanatics
but that they have a reasonable grasp of "what goes with what"-of how a
set of opinions adds up to a coherent political philosophy.
Non-ideologues may use terms like "liberal" and "conservative," but
Converse thought that they basically don't know what they're talking
about, and that their beliefs are characterized by what he termed a lack
of "constraint": they can't see how one opinion (that taxes should be
lower, for example) logically ought to rule out other opinions (such as
the belief that there should be more government programs). About
forty-two per cent of voters, according to Converse's interpretation of
surveys of the 1956 electorate, vote on the basis not of ideology but of
perceived self-interest.
After analyzing the results of surveys conducted over time, in which
people tended to give different and randomly inconsistent answers to the
same questions, Converse concluded that "very substantial portions of
the public" hold opinions that are essentially
meaningless-off-the-top-of-the-head responses to questions they have
never thought about, derived from no underlying set of principles. These
people might as well base their political choices on the weather. And,
in fact, many of them do. ... Seventy per cent of Americans cannot name
their senators or their congressman. Forty-nine per cent believe that
the President has the power to suspend the Constitution. Only about
thirty per cent name an issue when they explain why they voted the way
they did, and only a fifth hold consistent opinions on issues over time.
Rephrasing poll questions reveals that many people don't understand the
issues that they have just offered an opinion on. According to polls
conducted in 1987 and 1989, for example, between twenty and twenty-five
per cent of the public thinks that too little is being spent on welfare,
and between sixty-three and sixty-five per cent feels that too little is
being spent on assistance to the poor.
When people are asked whether they favor Bush's policy of repealing the
estate tax, two-thirds say yes-even though the estate tax affects only
the wealthiest one or two per cent of the population. Ninety-eight per
cent of Americans do not leave estates large enough for the tax to kick
in. But people have some notion-Bartels refers to it as "unenlightened
self-interest"-that they will be better off if the tax is repealed. What
is most remarkable about this opinion is that it is unconstrained by
other beliefs. Repeal is supported by sixty-six per cent of people who
believe that the income gap between the richest and the poorest
Americans has increased in recent decades, and that this is a bad thing.
And it's supported by sixty-eight per cent of people who say that the
rich pay too little in taxes. Most Americans simply do not make a
connection between tax policy and the over-all economic condition of the
country. Whatever heuristic they are using, it is definitely not doing
the math for them. This helps make sense of the fact that the world's
greatest democracy has an electorate that continually "chooses" to
transfer more and more wealth to a smaller and smaller fraction of
itself.
So, it would appear that Americans are just idiots, right? Maybe so -
but not in a way that should be surprising. When we take the same sort
of behavior and place it in a different context, it looks a lot more
understandable:
Any time information is lacking or uncertain, a shortcut is generally
better than nothing. But the shortcut itself is not a faster way of
doing the math; it's a way of skipping the math altogether. My hunch
that the coolest-looking stereo component is the best value simply does
not reflect an intuitive grasp of electronics. My interest in a stereo
is best served if I choose the finest sound for the money, as my
interest in an election is best served if I choose the candidate whose
policies are most likely to benefit me or the people I care about. But
almost no one calculates in so abstract a fashion.
Few people have time to do all of the research necessary in order to
ensure that they get the best possible stereo in exchange for whatever
amount of money they are willing to spend. Their time is worth more than
that - they quite simply have better things to be doing. Don't you? So,
naturally, they use mental short cuts and that usually works well
enough.
Why would anyone expect people to act differently when it comes to
politics? Sure, politics is more important than stereos, but the fact of
the matter is people use these short cuts all the time. We're used to
them. Changing all of the sudden is difficult (remember, we don't vote
that often). So it's only to be expected that we reach for our short
cuts in order to reach conclusions. It's sad, really, but
understandable.
And there's nothing we can do about it. The next time you hear someone
complaining about how political ads (or even commercial ads) push style
and looks over substance, just remember the above data - and remember
that the people crafting those ads already know all of this, that's why
the ads look this way.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
LenKen
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 94
Reputation: 8.00
Rate LenKen
Mi caca es su caca.
|
|
RE: virus: Short Cut Draws Blood
« Reply #1 on: 2004-09-20 13:48:21 » |
|
<oy>Rephrasing poll questions reveals that many people don't understand the
issues that they have just offered an opinion on. According to polls
conducted in 1987 and 1989, for example, between twenty and twenty-five
per cent of the public thinks that too little is being spent on welfare,
and between sixty-three and sixty-five per cent feels that too little is
being spent on assistance to the poor.</oy>
Ignorance of the issues—and, all-too-often, apathy about the issues—is one of the most annoying problems with rabble-ocracy. But, unfortunately, it seems to be the lesser of all the other evils. And as much as I’d prefer some sort of meritocracy, I don’t think that’s gonna happen anytime soon—if the mob isn’t pacified with the illusion of democracy, they tend to get a bit unruly. Wankers.
_____________
Blunderov <squooker@mweb.co.za> wrote:
[Blunderov] (I would be surprised if the following was true only of
America.) This is why the 'democracy' held so sacred by the hoi polloi
of the West is nothing more than a hollow joke (IMNSHO). This is why
reasoning should be taught from day one at school and is also the reason
why, I suspect, it isn't. . . .
’Tis better to have loved and lost
than never to have known what it’s like
to have sex with someone besides yourself. —LenKen
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
attached: index.html
|
One man’s frozen sperm is another man’s low-carb ice cream. 
|
|
|
|
Logged
