Author Topic: The Politics Thread  (Read 36835 times)

Steven Saus

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 207
  • mmmm. goat cheese.
    • Ideatrash
on: January 30, 2007, 05:30:03 PM
Moderator's Note: This thread was split off from the feedback discussion to EP090: How Lonesome a Life Without Nerve Gas.  You can track back from there for context.


Edit:  Please read my response to Steve before flaming this post.  I didn't carry off my original intent well at all with this, but I'm not going to retcon it to make myself look better either.  Thanks.

As near as I can tell, there is no political bias.  Some people are so obsessed that they will 'pull' political meaning out of anything and nothing.  Bill O'Riley and his ilk teach them that.  Remember "Happy Feet?"  Leftists can be just as bad as the right.

I don't remember which actor (or actress) I'm paraphrasing, but here goes:

Quote
The (American political) left is about understanding and tolerating other people.  We (actors) spend our lives trying to understand other, different people well enough that the audience can believe in them.  So, of course we tend to be on the political left.

Speculative fiction - heck, nearly any fiction - also has elements of that.  Authors must be able to get inside the heads of both protagonists and antagonists - including those who are nothing like the author.  Otherwise you end up with cardboard cutouts instead of characters.  Does that make them "liberal"?  Probably not.  Does that mean they might be a bit more understanding of other points of view?  Probably so.

There has been a shift in American politics, a shift towards extremism and side-taking.  We've forgotten that there's more than the loony leftists and wingnuts on the right.  Any story that is compelling enough that it makes you stop and question your own motives and values - now there's a story worth something.

Um.  I seem to have this soapbox.  I'm done with it now;  would someone else care for it?   ::)
« Last Edit: January 30, 2007, 08:04:47 PM by SFEley »

Walking is the process of controlled stumbling.


SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #1 on: January 30, 2007, 05:57:15 PM
I don't remember which actor (or actress) I'm paraphrasing, but here goes:

Quote
The (American political) left is about understanding and tolerating other people.  We (actors) spend our lives trying to understand other, different people well enough that the audience can believe in them.  So, of course we tend to be on the political left.

I just want to observe that the left's description of itself is inevitably going to come off sounding reasonable and compassionate and hard to argue with.  What the above really boils down to is "I'm on the left because I'm a good person."

Oddly enough, the right's description of itself has the same attributes.  I'm not quoting anyone in particular, but for many who believe in conservative values it might come down to "The (American political) right is about taking care of one's family and community, and ensuring a brighter future for everyone by keeping alive our freedom and the ideals that have made us successful." 

Which, in turn, also boils down to "I'm on the right because I'm a good person."

Neither position is easy to argue with on the surface.  Both positions have led to many policies that are good ideas, and many that are full of weaknesses, hypocrisies, and unintended consequences that can be blown wide open by the other side.  Many policies from both sides are both strong and weak at once.

And I think you can get good science fiction out of either position.  Or both at once.  Or neither.

In any case, this is the lesser of two reasons why I don't talk about my politics in my intros.  The bigger reason is because it isn't what EP is about, and anything I said would alienate parts of the audience for no useful reason. 

But this reason is because it just makes me tired, and I know political lecturing almost never changes anyone's mind.  How can it?  You believe what you believe because you believe you're a good person, and your political beliefs contribute to that.  I know I believe that.  And if I were to try to change your mind about your beliefs, I'd have to start by convincing you you're not a good person.

As the Guy in Glasses said on Heroes, "Good luck with that."

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


scottjanssens

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 63
Reply #2 on: January 30, 2007, 06:00:47 PM
I like being a moderate because it pisses off both ends of the political spectrum.  So I guess you could say I'm a centrist because I'm an asshole ;P
« Last Edit: January 30, 2007, 06:10:54 PM by scottjanssens »



Steven Saus

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 207
  • mmmm. goat cheese.
    • Ideatrash
Reply #3 on: January 30, 2007, 06:46:45 PM
I don't remember which actor (or actress) I'm paraphrasing, but here goes:

Quote
The (American political) left is about understanding and tolerating other people.  We (actors) spend our lives trying to understand other, different people well enough that the audience can believe in them.  So, of course we tend to be on the political left.

I just want to observe that the left's description of itself is inevitably going to come off sounding reasonable and compassionate and hard to argue with.  What the above really boils down to is "I'm on the left because I'm a good person."

Oddly enough, the right's description of itself has the same attributes.  I'm not quoting anyone in particular, but for many who believe in conservative values it might come down to "The (American political) right is about taking care of one's family and community, and ensuring a brighter future for everyone by keeping alive our freedom and the ideals that have made us successful." 

Which, in turn, also boils down to "I'm on the right because I'm a good person."

To clarify my statement, more than anything else:

I wasn't trying to assign value to that point of view.  That it appears I did is a function of my own bias - and, on retrospect, that whole second bit shows it.  There is such a thing as being too understanding of another's point of view as well, and I didn't reflect that at all.

I was attempting to analyze why you might expect to see more stories that get categorized as "liberal" or "leftist" without saying that was a good or bad thing.  I started ranting instead.  My apologies. :-\

Walking is the process of controlled stumbling.


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #4 on: January 30, 2007, 06:49:11 PM
I like being a moderate because it pisses off both ends of the political spectrum.  So I guess you could say I'm a centrist because I'm an asshole ;P

And the only thing that pisses everyone off even more is being a common-sensist (My own word), because eventually you will get around to looking at every single person and simple saying, "that makes absolutely no sense."

Unfortunately I need to say that far too often



Thaurismunths

  • High Priest of TCoRN
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1421
  • Praise N-sh, for it is right and good!
Reply #5 on: January 30, 2007, 07:07:50 PM
{removed by author, 'cause it doesn't have anything to do with the thread}
« Last Edit: January 30, 2007, 10:06:54 PM by Thaurismunths »

How do you fight a bully that can un-make history?


SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #6 on: January 30, 2007, 07:26:08 PM
And the only thing that pisses everyone off even more is being a common-sensist (My own word), because eventually you will get around to looking at every single person and simple saying, "that makes absolutely no sense."

So...  You call it common sense, but nobody has any?  >8->

In their own minds, everybody is on the side of reason and 'common sense.'  Claiming that as a political philosophy is semantically null.  It's like saying "My morality is to do good things and not bad ones."

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #7 on: January 30, 2007, 07:42:53 PM
And the only thing that pisses everyone off even more is being a common-sensist (My own word), because eventually you will get around to looking at every single person and simple saying, "that makes absolutely no sense."

So...  You call it common sense, but nobody has any?  >8->

In their own minds, everybody is on the side of reason and 'common sense.'  Claiming that as a political philosophy is semantically null.  It's like saying "My morality is to do good things and not bad ones."


Come on, you know that's not true. Nobody makes an arguement that's 1+1=2. It's always 1+special interest+religious belief=q. Common sense means looking at all 300 million. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."



Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #8 on: January 30, 2007, 07:45:56 PM
Eh, I think a synonym for "common sense" is "thing I believe is true but haven't bothered to examine rationally." So count me against "common sense."



SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #9 on: January 30, 2007, 07:54:28 PM
Come on, you know that's not true. Nobody makes an arguement that's 1+1=2. It's always 1+special interest+religious belief=q. Common sense means looking at all 300 million. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."

I have never seen any evidence that a truly rational, objective, utilitarian social policy exists or is achievable in human society.  If you believe you have The Answer for that, that's a mighty claim, and I look forward to hearing your ideas... 

But let's not do it in the feedback to a story about an intelligent helmet.

I am herewith splitting the thread, and moving the political parts of this to the Gallimaufry board.

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


jrderego

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 687
  • Writer of Union Dues stories (among others)
    • J. R. DeRego - Writer
Reply #10 on: January 30, 2007, 08:00:38 PM
Quote


... But let's not do it in the feedback to a story about an intelligent helmet.



Funniest. Line. Ever.

"Happiness consists of getting enough sleep." Robert A. Heinlein
Also, please buy my book - Escape Clause: A Union Dues Novel
http://www.encpress.com/EC.html


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #11 on: January 30, 2007, 08:11:44 PM
Come on, you know that's not true. Nobody makes an arguement that's 1+1=2. It's always 1+special interest+religious belief=q. Common sense means looking at all 300 million. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."

I have never seen any evidence that a truly rational, objective, utilitarian social policy exists or is achievable in human society.  If you believe you have The Answer for that, that's a mighty claim, and I look forward to hearing your ideas... 

I never said it was achievable. There will always be special interests. Also it's almost impossible to get someone to do something they don't want to. No matter how much it may benefit others.



slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #12 on: January 30, 2007, 08:31:04 PM
Quote
Also it's almost impossible to get someone to do something they don't want to.  No matter how much it may benefit others.
is patently untrue - especially if you are a parent.  There are a great many things, I do for my kids (and by extension their friends) that would never consider otherwise.

I'm going to sidestep the rest of this arguement because Mr. Eley had it pretty right when he said "You believe what you believe because you believe you're a good person, and your political beliefs contribute to that.  I know I believe that.  And if I were to try to change your mind about your beliefs, I'd have to start by convincing you you're not a good person."



SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #13 on: January 30, 2007, 09:56:49 PM
I never said it was achievable. There will always be special interests. Also it's almost impossible to get someone to do something they don't want to. No matter how much it may benefit others.

Okay.  Please tell me if this is an accurate summary of your position as you've described it here:


You oppose all political views expressed by others, for their failure to meet a standard of rationality that you profess to be unattainable.  Knowing that you are within the system, you do not propose a viewpoint that meets that standard yourself; instead your political belief is essentially a repudiation of beliefs, a form of political nihilism. 

You characterize this position as "common sense."



Do I have this right?  If not, can you clarify?  There's a very simple problem with this, but I want to make sure I'm addressing your actual position.

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


Steven Saus

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 207
  • mmmm. goat cheese.
    • Ideatrash
Reply #14 on: January 31, 2007, 07:00:55 AM
I have never seen any evidence that a truly rational, objective, utilitarian social policy exists or is achievable in human society.  If you believe you have The Answer for that, that's a mighty claim, and I look forward to hearing your ideas... 

llogical behavior isn't illogical.

It just means that you're using a different set of givens.

Finding out what other people's givens are - and how to change them to meet everyone else's - is the foundation of psychology, sociology, and political science.

Walking is the process of controlled stumbling.


Steven Saus

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 207
  • mmmm. goat cheese.
    • Ideatrash
Reply #15 on: January 31, 2007, 07:02:45 AM
And if I were to try to change your mind about your beliefs, I'd have to start by convincing you you're not a good person."

Not really.  You'd just have to convince someone that they were mistaken.

Mind you, that might be a lot more difficult, but...

Walking is the process of controlled stumbling.


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #16 on: January 31, 2007, 11:50:21 AM
This whole conversation goes to prove my point.

My point in saying I'm all alone was actually reenforced by what Steve said. He said nobody's political beliefs can be changed, because everybody thinks they're right, since they're a good person. And his belief in this cannot be changed because that would make him a bad person. People will keep in opinion long after they've been shown it's wrong.

Common sense means having no sacred cows. Constantly listening to what is being said and altering your ideas to fit the new set of givens. It means looking at where the information comes from as well as what is being said. The great thing about using common sense is that you can except it when you're proven wrong. It's great when that happens, because then you're learning something.

Everybody uses common sense to a point. If your car starts shaking and making noises, you get an expert opinion. With this opinion you decide what to do or you get more opinions and then make your decision. However, when we get to political topics, people will only listen to whatever pundit agrees with them. It doesn't matter at all if the pundit has any knowledge in the field at all.

When we were talking about how Fox treated Firefly, I admitted I was wrong as soon as Steve brought up information I hadn't heard before. Simple common sense. I adapted to new facts, found I was wrong, and bowed out, but I now have a better understanding of what happened.

Quote
Also it's almost impossible to get someone to do something they don't want to.  No matter how much it may benefit others.
is patently untrue - especially if you are a parent.  There are a great many things, I do for my kids (and by extension their friends) that would never consider otherwise.

This proves my point too. You mention doing things for your kids. That's called being a parent. What about doing something for a friend, a neighbor you don't know very well, a stranger in the mall parking lot? It gets harder every step away the other person/people get.

Now what about paying higher state taxes, so that the students five towns over can get a better education? For over twenty years we've been saying, "I take care of mine, you take care of yours." This past election was the first one since the early 80's where ballot referendums for increased school budgets passed almost universally. Only after seeing the results of not giving a crap for so long have people finally decided that not paying those taxes was a bad idea.

Final thing:
I wanted to have some real world example, but had a hard time not stepping on the toes of one sacred cow or another. I finally remembered one. In England the government reduced the speed on the main highway going south into London(M25??) during rush hour. They cut it from approx.65mph to 45 mph (I say approx. because I'm pretty sure they were posted in kph, but the story I got said mph). I said, gee I wonder why they did that?" I had no specific information and therefore couldn't make a conclusion. My father went into a half hour tirade about government not caring about the people and stupid politicians and whatever (I stopped listening). After he was done, I gave him the stats. Average speed was up and accidents were way down. Common sense says it was a good idea, but I didn't comment until I could understand the arguement.

Anyway, my original post was just to be funny. Just like the centrist comment. I didn't think I would need to write a treatise about it.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2007, 12:08:43 PM by Russell Nash »



Steven Saus

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 207
  • mmmm. goat cheese.
    • Ideatrash
Reply #17 on: January 31, 2007, 01:11:58 PM
When we were talking about how Fox treated Firefly, I admitted I was wrong as soon as Steve brought up information I hadn't heard before. Simple common sense. I adapted to new facts, found I was wrong, and bowed out, but I now have a better understanding of what happened.

I missed that, and obviously you have some information I don't.  I have my own reasons for being glad it worked out the way it did but would like to hear these new (to me) facts.

Walking is the process of controlled stumbling.


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #18 on: January 31, 2007, 01:45:33 PM
When we were talking about how Fox treated Firefly, I admitted I was wrong as soon as Steve brought up information I hadn't heard before. Simple common sense. I adapted to new facts, found I was wrong, and bowed out, but I now have a better understanding of what happened.

I missed that, and obviously you have some information I don't.  I have my own reasons for being glad it worked out the way it did but would like to hear these new (to me) facts.

It was in the Star Trek XI thread. It was a crow dinner for me.



Steven Saus

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 207
  • mmmm. goat cheese.
    • Ideatrash
Reply #19 on: January 31, 2007, 02:03:42 PM
It was in the Star Trek XI thread. It was a crow dinner for me.

Ah - okay, you didn't have the info I (already) did.  Still, despite the crow you appeared to be gracious about it.  Likewise, I hope I was equally gracious in realizing my error at the beginning of this thread.  (If not, please let me know - that would mean I have more work to do.)

That doesn't make it pleasant, but it does mean that changing attitudes is possible with new information, or with old information presented in a different way.  Especially in a self-selected community where we've got some degree of attachment.  To translate out of sociologist-speak, nobody's forcing any of us to participate here, and pretty much all of us want to gain or retain respect and/or approval of others here.  If we didn't have both those conditions, there'd be a much higher frequency of trolls. 

(Yes, there's other conditions that play into it, but I think my employer would like for me to do something productive.)

Walking is the process of controlled stumbling.


Thaurismunths

  • High Priest of TCoRN
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1421
  • Praise N-sh, for it is right and good!
Reply #20 on: January 31, 2007, 03:11:28 PM
Common sense means having no sacred cows. Constantly listening to what is being said and altering your ideas to fit the new set of givens. It means looking at where the information comes from as well as what is being said. The great thing about using common sense is that you can except it when you're proven wrong. It's great when that happens, because then you're learning something.

I think you have mistaken "Common Sense" for "Critical Thinking."
Common Sense means that if you asked a population a question, whatever answer occurs most often would be the Common, Sensible answer. These questions might be "What is your favorite jelly bean?" or "How do we win the 'War On Terror'?"
Critical Thinking is one path towards reaching an answer to the question, and you're right in that far too many people fail in applying their critical thinking skills.
To use your automotive analogy:
If your car shakes common sense says you take it to a mechanic. But why does it say that?
Critical thinking would say that cars don't shake -> something's wrong -> Mechanics know how to fix cars.
However the paths of cars don't shake -> call daddy -> daddy said to take it to a mechanic or cars don’t shake -> the shake will go away with time are no less wrong, but only one follows "Common Sense."
Now to the defense of those who don't use their critical thinking skills, it is fast, easy, and often amusing to look at other's failures in logic and point them out, but have you ever tried to be an expert on everything? At some points, you just have to go with what you've got.

How do you fight a bully that can un-make history?


Steven Saus

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 207
  • mmmm. goat cheese.
    • Ideatrash
Reply #21 on: January 31, 2007, 04:29:32 PM
I think you have mistaken "Common Sense" for "Critical Thinking."
Common Sense means that if you asked a population a question, whatever answer occurs most often would be the Common, Sensible answer.

Excellent point;  phrasing it that way helped remind me of the distinction as well. 

It also reminded me of an interesting observation from my Sociology of Deviance class.  When one executes a violent criminal, common sense would tell you that there would be a suppressive effect.  That is: "I ain't gonna kill nobody 'cause they just killed Jesse, and I ain't gonna end up like that!" The opposite happens.  Violent crime (maybe just murder - I'm going from memory) trends upward in the period of time immediately after an execution. 

What you're saying is:

Figuring out why - and how to make the facts serve your goals - is critical thinking.

Right?

Now to the defense of those who don't use their critical thinking skills, it is fast, easy, and often amusing to look at other's failures in logic and point them out, but have you ever tried to be an expert on everything? At some points, you just have to go with what you've got.

Shouldn't one instead say "There isn't enough data?".

[Spock]
Anything less... would be illogical.
[/Spock]

Walking is the process of controlled stumbling.


Jonathan C. Gillespie

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
  • Writer of Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Horror
    • Jonathan C. Gillespie, Author
Reply #22 on: January 31, 2007, 05:20:46 PM
It also reminded me of an interesting observation from my Sociology of Deviance class.  When one executes a violent criminal, common sense would tell you that there would be a suppressive effect.  That is: "I ain't gonna kill nobody 'cause they just killed Jesse, and I ain't gonna end up like that!" The opposite happens.  Violent crime (maybe just murder - I'm going from memory) trends upward in the period of time immediately after an execution. 

Did they supply any data to back up this claim?

Published genre fiction author with stories in print and upcoming.

Official site: http://jonathancg.net/ | Twitter: JCGAuthor | Facebook


Steven Saus

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 207
  • mmmm. goat cheese.
    • Ideatrash
Reply #23 on: January 31, 2007, 06:51:25 PM
It also reminded me of an interesting observation from my Sociology of Deviance class.  When one executes a violent criminal, common sense would tell you that there would be a suppressive effect.  That is: "I ain't gonna kill nobody 'cause they just killed Jesse, and I ain't gonna end up like that!" The opposite happens.  Violent crime (maybe just murder - I'm going from memory) trends upward in the period of time immediately after an execution. 
Did they supply any data to back up this claim?

I believe so, though I think it was secondary (referencing another study).  I don't have the text on me;  if I haven't responded in a day or so, remind me, please (my life is more hectic than it appears).

Walking is the process of controlled stumbling.


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #24 on: January 31, 2007, 08:04:48 PM
Common sense means having no sacred cows. Constantly listening to what is being said and altering your ideas to fit the new set of givens. It means looking at where the information comes from as well as what is being said. The great thing about using common sense is that you can except it when you're proven wrong. It's great when that happens, because then you're learning something.

I think you have mistaken "Common Sense" for "Critical Thinking."

As I said before this was an off the cuff quick comment and wasn't deeply thought out before being made. And although the definition on Wikipedia is almost word for word of what you said, the three answers at Dictionary.com were "sound pracitical judgement" some added "without specific knowledge."

Once I was into defending that I wasn't just trying to say, "my beliefs are better than yours," I continued to how common sense leads me to handle information. Then we had the whole snowball thing.

But let me say one last time it was just an off the cuff comment.



Thaurismunths

  • High Priest of TCoRN
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1421
  • Praise N-sh, for it is right and good!
Reply #25 on: February 01, 2007, 12:41:50 AM
I'm sorry, I re-read my post and it came off a little dickish. I didn't mean to jump on any bandwagon, and I see your point behind using the term "Common Sense." Also, any communality between my post and Wikipedia is purely coincidental.

How do you fight a bully that can un-make history?


SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #26 on: February 01, 2007, 02:43:16 AM
And if I were to try to change your mind about your beliefs, I'd have to start by convincing you you're not a good person."

Not really.  You'd just have to convince someone that they were mistaken.

But in this context, the thing they're mistaken about is fundamental to their perception of themselves as good people.  Thus, it's the same thing.

That's why it's harder to convince people to change their minds about politics or religion than it is about, say, mathematics or science fiction television trivia.  Those things aren't tied into the self-identity of most people.  To say "You voted for the wrong candidate" is to say "You support the wrong values," and to say "You support the wrong values" is to say "Everything you thought made you a good person?  It didn't."

People don't like to hear that.  Weird, huh?

Worse, trying to change their minds means that I'm starting with a postulate that I'm better than them.  That I know more about the world than they do, my perspective is broader, my politics and religion are more sensible than theirs.  That I'm a better person.

In other words, attempting to change people's minds about their politics requires me to be an asshole.

I used to do that all the time.  For fun, and because I really was convinced that I had the answers.  I felt it was my prerogative and my good deed to share those answers with people, and if you didn't see the wisdom of my position, you were just being a stubborn idiot who chose not to think about it enough.

But the older I get, the less appeal I find in being that sort of asshole. 

Occasionally I even entertain the notion that I might not be better than everyone else around me.  Again: weird, huh?

Anyway, that failure of perspective, that strange and growing disinterest in rhetorical assholishness, has begun to maladjust me for common political argument.  And that's probably just as well, as frankly I don't have the time to spend in debate that I used to have in college.  >8->

(Although I still have a strong Devil's Advocate reflex, and tend to poke at other people's strong opinions, as I did with Russell the other day.  My apologies if that, too, was too high on the asshole meter.  If I ever overdo it, please don't hesitate to report me to a moderator.  I'll let someone besides me decide.)  >8->
« Last Edit: February 01, 2007, 02:49:31 AM by SFEley »

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


Steven Saus

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 207
  • mmmm. goat cheese.
    • Ideatrash
Reply #27 on: February 01, 2007, 03:57:49 AM
It also reminded me of an interesting observation from my Sociology of Deviance class.  When one executes a violent criminal, common sense would tell you that there would be a suppressive effect.  That is: "I ain't gonna kill nobody 'cause they just killed Jesse, and I ain't gonna end up like that!" The opposite happens.  Violent crime (maybe just murder - I'm going from memory) trends upward in the period of time immediately after an execution. 
Did they supply any data to back up this claim?

My references come from the 8th edition of Deviant Behavior, pp 84-85.  He cites studies examining data from Philly during the 1930's, California between 1946 and 1955, NY between 1907 & 1963, and the 1990s in OK.  The data examined showed, at best, that a recent execution had no deterrent effect - and at worst, caused a "brutalizing effect", though hard numbers (or detailed statistical data) isn't presented.   If you really want, I can dig through the text and get you the studies that the author of the textbook cites.

Walking is the process of controlled stumbling.


Steven Saus

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 207
  • mmmm. goat cheese.
    • Ideatrash
Reply #28 on: February 01, 2007, 04:08:46 AM
And if I were to try to change your mind about your beliefs, I'd have to start by convincing you you're not a good person."
Not really.  You'd just have to convince someone that they were mistaken.
But in this context, the thing they're mistaken about is fundamental to their perception of themselves as good people.  Thus, it's the same thing.

I have to disagree - and bear with me for a second, because I think we have the same goals (or at least, not contradictory ones).  Let me restate what I think you're saying:

It sounds like you dislike political "debate" that's centered around devaluing others.  It also sounds like you don't see a way to change someone's mind without devaluing that individual.

That's fair enough - and I have no argument with those.  What if - just if - it was possible to change someone's mind without demeaning that person? 

My mother and I are very different on the political spectrum.  I remember one particular conversation with her about welfare (I supported welfare, she did not).

Our conversation largely resembled every other one I've seen or heard about welfare.  It boiled down to this:  My fundamental value was that we should help those who need it.  Her fundamental value is that people shouldn't get a free ride.  Our insight ended up being that these things are not mutually exclusive. 

Have you ever had any experiences like that?

Walking is the process of controlled stumbling.


Jonathan C. Gillespie

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
  • Writer of Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Horror
    • Jonathan C. Gillespie, Author
Reply #29 on: February 02, 2007, 01:56:33 PM
That's fair, uriel.  I'm just pro-death penalty, so it looks like I have some reading to do.

Published genre fiction author with stories in print and upcoming.

Official site: http://jonathancg.net/ | Twitter: JCGAuthor | Facebook


Steven Saus

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 207
  • mmmm. goat cheese.
    • Ideatrash
Reply #30 on: February 02, 2007, 02:42:45 PM
That's fair, uriel.  I'm just pro-death penalty, so it looks like I have some reading to do.

Note what I said, though:  The evidence (I) provided does not indicate that it would be a good deterrent of future crimes.  If that's one's reason for supporting the death penalty, then yeah, that's an issue.  If on the other hand, one's concern is punishment or retribution, then the data I provided has no relevance whatsoever.

It might seem like a semantic distinction, but I really believe it's an important one.

Walking is the process of controlled stumbling.


Thaurismunths

  • High Priest of TCoRN
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1421
  • Praise N-sh, for it is right and good!
Reply #31 on: February 02, 2007, 02:55:33 PM
It sounds like you dislike political "debate" that's centered around devaluing others.  It also sounds like you don't see a way to change someone's mind without devaluing that individual.

I believe that has everything to do with the listener, not the speaker, and you can't do anything to change how they take what you say.
There aren't many situations where there can be a truly open and accepting exchange of ideas with out fear of reprisal or being "wrong."
You were saying that you and your mother were able to have a conversation about welfare while coming at it from very different sides. For one, you were talking with your mother not a friend, acquaintance, or stranger, so that changes the dynamics a lot. Secondly, were you trying to convince your mother to see as you do, or were you two just sharing your opinions and swapping pros and cons? The fact that you were arguing for supporting those less fortunate, and she was arguing for "a hand up, not a handout" would suggest that you were having an exchange of ideas on different topics that happened to have a lot of common components. Had you been arguing for giving free rides and her against free rides, and one of you had been successfully converted to the other's opinion, with out the convert feeling like they had been a bad person or that the converter was a better person, then there would be some grounds for comparison.

Something that I think feeds in to the ‘bad person’ problem Steve mentioned is that in our culture (and possibly others) it isn't ok to be "wrong." Being wrong, something that happens to everyone, makes you a bad person. Americans don't have any way to deal with being "wrong" other than shame or disappointment. It use to be that if you were wrong you could offer an apology, public or private, and regain your 'honor' but saying "I'm Sorry." doesn't seem to carry the weight these days. Our options seem to be A) Be wrong and hold your ground come hell or high water. B) Hedge your statements with "I think..." and "I might be wrong, but...", or C) Make a decision, be wrong, spend the rest of the day/week/life feeling like you have egg on your face.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2007, 02:59:09 PM by Thaurismunths »

How do you fight a bully that can un-make history?


Steven Saus

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 207
  • mmmm. goat cheese.
    • Ideatrash
Reply #32 on: February 02, 2007, 03:12:24 PM
It sounds like you dislike political "debate" that's centered around devaluing others.  It also sounds like you don't see a way to change someone's mind without devaluing that individual.
I believe that has everything to do with the listener, not the speaker, and you can't do anything to change how they take what you say.

You're right - it has everything to do with the listener - but the speaker can do something to change how they receive the message.  You pointed it out really well here:
Quote
You were saying that you and your mother were able to have a conversation about welfare while coming at it from very different sides. For one, you were talking with your mother not a friend, acquaintance, or stranger, so that changes the dynamics a lot.

What we're talking about is infinitely harder to do with speeches, writing for mass media, and the like.  Individual communication (or even semi-individual communication, like we're doing here) is a different story.  You teased that out really well by pointing out that the way I talked to my mother (whom I don't get along with, by the by) would be very different than that of a friend, acquaintance, or stranger.  That onus of adapting largely falls on the speaker, again, as you pointed out.

Quote
There aren't many situations where there can be a truly open and accepting exchange of ideas with out fear of reprisal or being "wrong."

You're also very correct here.  There aren't a lot of spaces like that.  In fact, my original rant that started this thread kind of bemoans that fact (or at least, that was my intent) - so we agree completely here.  Our culture has largely moved away from the kind of environment where being wrong (even a little bit) is "okay".  I think that's sad - and from what I've seen you and Stephen say, I hope you'd agree.

And I hope you'd agree that the mere existence of this polite thread means that we're making progress towards reversing that.

[sorry - gotta scat, "work" calls....]

Walking is the process of controlled stumbling.


Michael

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Reply #33 on: February 19, 2007, 05:13:03 PM
Putting on my Psychologist Hat... as Milton Rokeach (The Nature of Human Values) so elegantly demonstrated, and many others have replicated, there are 4 Basic Political Philosophies, which in America are crammed uncomfortably into 2 political parties. 

This makes each party inherently unstable, and puts an element that is really individually detestable into each party.  Unfortunately this is how the math works, as the winning side has to get to 51% and no single philosophy is strong enough to win such a race on its own.  Each party thus has to become a "big tent" to get enough votes to reach majority.

To review, the basic philosophies are: Facism, Socialism, Capitalism and Communism.  Of course few Americans are going to admit they are either Fascists or Communists, but if you TEST them they walk and quack like those ducks, and exist in substantial numbers.  Fascism has been a dominant world philosophy, and still exists quite happily all over South America, Africa, and the Middle East--it is more palatable to call it "Authoritarian".  Communism still rules over a good chunk of the world, from China to Venezuala, and on paper it sounds awfully good to many people.   

The Democrats are Socialists and Communists, the Republicans are Capitalsists and Fascists.  What Democrats love to hate about Republicans are the Fascists (far right).  What Republicans love to hate about the Democrats are the Communists (far left).

Most of the vitriol is thus a basic misunderstanding that most people are happy balancing the healthy economy of a Capitalist Society with the good schools and health care of a Socialist Society, and have little respect for the extremes of either party.

My personal feeling is that if the Dems had the guts to divest themselves of their PC, PETA's and Naders they would pick up enough centrist votes to rule without them,  and if the Republicans lost their Falwell's and Reids ditto.  Unfortunately, neither can truly be a centrist party as longs as the extremes of the Bell Curve are tugging them right or left.

But this does explain why we get such terrible candidates.  And why political discourse is so polarized.

You ARE:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html


Bdoomed

  • Pseudopod Tiger
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5891
  • Mmm. Tiger.
Reply #34 on: February 19, 2007, 10:01:27 PM
I think you have mistaken "Common Sense" for "Critical Thinking."
Common Sense means that if you asked a population a question, whatever answer occurs most often would be the Common, Sensible answer.
ah but what you are overlooking is that most people are complete idiots! Most people have NO common sense.  My view of common sense is when you are faced with a problem, and the answer to the problem is one that everyone seems to miss except for a few.  and to those few people, they find the answer obvious and easy, and wonder how the heck everyone else missed it.  Then when they tell everyone else the answer, everyone emits a quior of "oooooooh!"'s and wonders why they didnt reach that same conclusion themselves.
those few people who see the obvious answer have common sense.  The others REALIZE the obvious-ness of it all and hate themselves for it.

Communism still rules over a good chunk of the world, from China to Venezuala, and on paper it sounds awfully good to many people.
oh yes, it looks great on paper, one of the best ideas ever thought up i think.  But its just that, an idea.

I dont have any clear cut views on politics.  Im too inexperianced in the world and dont wanna sound like an idiot, because i dont really know what im talkin about half the time.  I lean towards the democrats because my parents are, but i really dont know... i'll probably end up an independant.  I guess its more that i think republicans are too stiff and idiotic while democrats are too loose and idiotic.  and since everyone is idiotic i think ill just move to Austrailia.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2007, 10:06:07 PM by Bdoomed »

I'd like to hear my options, so I could weigh them, what do you say?
Five pounds?  Six pounds? Seven pounds?


SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #35 on: February 19, 2007, 10:39:55 PM
ah but what you are overlooking is that most people are complete idiots! Most people have NO common sense.  My view of common sense is when you are faced with a problem, and the answer to the problem is one that everyone seems to miss except for a few.

How do you reconcile that with the word "common" in the phrase?  >8->


Quote
and to those few people, they find the answer obvious and easy, and wonder how the heck everyone else missed it.  Then when they tell everyone else the answer, everyone emits a quior of "oooooooh!"'s and wonders why they didnt reach that same conclusion themselves.  those few people who see the obvious answer have common sense.  The others REALIZE the obvious-ness of it all and hate themselves for it.

And how often in your life have you observed that actually happening?  Be honest.

What you just described is one of the fundamental problems with casual rhetoric.  The problem is that everyone knows with absolute conviction that their ideas are "common sense."  And everyone seems to expect what you just described to happen the moment they share their ideas with other people.  Then, when their audience does not react with an immediate head-slapping and an "Of course!  That's brilliant!  We'll get on that right now!" it's clearly a failure of the audience.

Another fundamental problem is that the number of people who are eager to talk about their ideas far exceeds the number of people who are genuinely eager to listen to others.  Answers to life's problems are an unstable economy: there's far too much production, far too little demand.

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


Reap3r

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 22
  • Dont Make Me Eat You.
    • The Green Bunny
Reply #36 on: February 19, 2007, 11:25:58 PM
Quote
and to those few people, they find the answer obvious and easy, and wonder how the heck everyone else missed it.  Then when they tell everyone else the answer, everyone emits a quior of "oooooooh!"'s and wonders why they didnt reach that same conclusion themselves.  those few people who see the obvious answer have common sense.  The others REALIZE the obvious-ness of it all and hate themselves for it.
And how often in your life have you observed that actually happening?  Be honest.
Sadly, alot, but that's when I'm helping some of my classmate with algebra and geometry, and that deals with logic, not common sense.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2007, 11:28:56 PM by Reap3r »

Thinking? I've never heard of that. Is it some kind of food? Please tell me it tastes better than those sick pop tarts filled with meat. You know, Hot Pockets. What, thinking isn't a food? Well then, what is it? Does it have to be built. I hate building things. JUST TELL ME NOW! O look, a bird.


ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #37 on: February 20, 2007, 01:21:27 AM
I'm getting into this thread late but let me throw in my two cents on some of these issues.

I view common sense as experience, as in "the last time I had this problem, I did X and it went away."  or "Jimmy had this problem and he said he did X and it went away."
The problem is that sometimes people mis-apply what they think they have learned, because they don't have a clear understanding of the problem. They don't realize that the problem isn't quite the same as the one they had last time.  They also don't try and find a better way to do something.  "We do it this way because we've always done it that way."
That isn't to say common sense is always wrong. Very often it's right. It also has the advantage of giving you an answer right now.  Sometimes you don't have time to think things out.

Anyway...
I think the main problem with politics here in the U.S. is that there are two parties, allegedly left and right, each with their own laundry list of positions, but almost no one actually believes in everything on those lists.  They are forced to pick whichever list is less awful. 
I think people have their own opinions on issues and that those opinions can either be what is considered left or what is considered right. So people could have a very leftist view one issue and a very rightest view on another.  For example, I think that we need some type of national health insurance, something considered very leftist, but I'm very much against welfare (paying people who don't work), which is very much on the right.  I am mostly anti-abortion (right), but I am mostly anti-death penalty (left).  I think we should have a flat tax (right) but we should do more to protect our environment (left).

One thing I do find ironic is that the internet (and all of other wonderful communications technology that has come about in the last 15 years) was supposed to bring us together and make the world more harmonious. Since anyone can talk to anyone, we can all learn to get along.  In fact, the result has been the exact opposite. Our country is more polarized and more divided than it has even been in my lifetime (I was born in 1964).  The internet makes it easy to find other people who share your interests (he typed onto the message board of his favorite science fiction podcasting site :P) so there is always someone like you to talk to. Lots of TV channels means there is always something on that at least won't offend you. You can always find something to watch. (I remember when there was really only 5 channels on any TV - CBS, NBC, ABC, a local public television station and a local station that played reruns of old network shows)  Radio sucks, but thanks to satellite radio and the internet (mp3's), you can find more of your kind of music than you could ever listen to. 
My point is that when there was much less media to choose from, it was much more common to see something that challenged your views or hear something that offered a point of view you'd never considered or even encounter something that was totally new and outside your experience.  These days that doesn't seem to happen nearly as much. People find it much easier to just change the channel, just walk away or just set themselves up to avoid those ideas to begin with.  It has made people's ideas much more entrenched and when they find they can't escape from an alternative point of view, they are much less able to handle it and much more combative and much less willing to learn.

Anyway, me and my cane will return the soapbox now. :P
« Last Edit: February 20, 2007, 01:24:17 AM by ClintMemo »

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Holden

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
  • EXTERMINATE!
Reply #38 on: February 21, 2007, 04:04:30 PM
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Einstein



Thaurismunths

  • High Priest of TCoRN
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1421
  • Praise N-sh, for it is right and good!
Reply #39 on: February 22, 2007, 12:15:54 AM
I think the main problem with politics here in the U.S. is that..

As an aside, and not to detract from the thread:
Back when Bush's presidential victory was hanging in the balance a coworker of mine, who is a Russian immigrant, shared this observation: "You, here in America, as so lucky. You don't even know! This country doesn't have a President and everyone is fighting over it, there are lawsuits and court hearings, and everyone is scream that this system doesn't work. But this system does work, so well! There are no tanks. There are no coups. There are no assassinations. This system does work!"
He has a point.

How do you fight a bully that can un-make history?


SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #40 on: February 22, 2007, 12:22:19 AM
Back when Bush's presidential victory was hanging in the balance a coworker of mine, who is a Russian immigrant, shared this observation: "You, here in America, as so lucky. You don't even know! This country doesn't have a President and everyone is fighting over it, there are lawsuits and court hearings, and everyone is scream that this system doesn't work. But this system does work, so well! There are no tanks. There are no coups. There are no assassinations. This system does work!"
He has a point.

Yes.  A very good point.

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


Anarkey

  • Meen Pie
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • ...depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Reply #41 on: February 22, 2007, 12:37:38 AM
Back when Bush's presidential victory was hanging in the balance a coworker of mine, who is a Russian immigrant, shared this observation: "You, here in America, as so lucky. You don't even know! This country doesn't have a President and everyone is fighting over it, there are lawsuits and court hearings, and everyone is scream that this system doesn't work. But this system does work, so well! There are no tanks. There are no coups. There are no assassinations. This system does work!"
He has a point.

Yes.  A very good point.

It is a good point, but I can't help thinking that not having assassinations or tanks in the streets is a pretty low bar to overcome.  In the "could be worse" category, sure, a lawsuit over who is going to president is better than a coup, but just because things could be worse doesn't mean things are going great, either. 

Winner Nash's 1000th member betting pool + Thaurismunths' Free Rice Contest!


ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #42 on: February 22, 2007, 12:52:46 AM
Just because no blood was spilled doesn't mean there wasn't a coup.

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #43 on: February 22, 2007, 12:56:50 AM
Honestly, I think someday my grandchild is going read about the years from 2000 - 2008 in her history class, condensed down in two or three paragraphs of whatever they use for books in 2037 and his/her response will be "No way! Are you serious?"

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Steven Saus

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 207
  • mmmm. goat cheese.
    • Ideatrash
Reply #44 on: February 22, 2007, 02:27:24 AM
Putting on my Psychologist Hat... as Milton Rokeach (The Nature of Human Values) so elegantly demonstrated, and many others have replicated, there are 4 Basic Political Philosophies, which in America are crammed uncomfortably into 2 political parties. 

I personally like the Pournelle axes for this purpose.  More descriptive, and with less emotional baggage with the words.

The Democrats are Socialists and Communists, the Republicans are Capitalsists and Fascists.  What Democrats love to hate about Republicans are the Fascists (far right).  What Republicans love to hate about the Democrats are the Communists (far left).

Except Communism (as practiced in the USSR and China, the latter of which you cite) are facist states.  This causes futher confusion.

Most of the vitriol is thus a basic misunderstanding that most people are happy balancing the healthy economy of a Capitalist Society with the good schools and health care of a Socialist Society, and have little respect for the extremes of either party.

Until, at least, either "reasonable" alternative creates its own problems, thus creating further extremists.  Where do you deal with issues like market failures in a capitalist society?  Are education and healthcare really public goods as you imply here?  If so, what levels of each are public goods?  Why?

Walking is the process of controlled stumbling.


Steven Saus

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 207
  • mmmm. goat cheese.
    • Ideatrash
Reply #45 on: February 22, 2007, 02:40:31 AM
ah but what you are overlooking is that most people are complete idiots! Most people have NO common sense.  My view of common sense is when you are faced with a problem, and the answer to the problem is one that everyone seems to miss except for a few.

How do you reconcile that with the word "common" in the phrase?  >8->

It seems less pretentious that way.  I think they took a good swing at describing rationalism.

Quote
Quote
and to those few people, they find the answer obvious and easy, and wonder how the heck everyone else missed it.  Then when they tell everyone else the answer, everyone emits a quior of "oooooooh!"'s and wonders why they didnt reach that same conclusion themselves.  those few people who see the obvious answer have common sense.  The others REALIZE the obvious-ness of it all and hate themselves for it.
And how often in your life have you observed that actually happening?  Be honest.

Surprisingly frequently.  In my experience, humans have a hard time looking past thier own assumptions about reality, society, etc.  This leads to illogical premises, and therefore illogical results.  An outsider (especially one who isn't particularly impressed with the society's assumptions) can more frequently cut through the BS.  And yeah, I tend to do fairly well with that and other people.

I am, however, absolutely horrible doing that with myself.  That's a major life goal, really:  Be able to examine my own assumptions rationally at will.

Quote
What you just described is one of the fundamental problems with casual rhetoric.  The problem is that everyone knows with absolute conviction that their ideas are "common sense."  And everyone seems to expect what you just described to happen the moment they share their ideas with other people.  Then, when their audience does not react with an immediate head-slapping and an "Of course!  That's brilliant!  We'll get on that right now!" it's clearly a failure of the audience.

I think we're still talking about the same thing from different angles.  If my premises are the same as yours, then we have that kind of agreement.  When people are working from different premises -- especially when those premises aren't identified -- then we get a lot of hot conflict.

For example, the death penalty discussion earlier.  If one's premise is that sentencing is for punishment, then the death penalty will make sense regardless of its effects on murder rates.  If your premise is that sentencing is to rehabilitate, then the death penalty will never make sense.  I personally go with the latter;  when I find out that someone views the punative effects as most important, I quickly agree to disagree. 

Walking is the process of controlled stumbling.


ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #46 on: February 22, 2007, 02:50:47 AM

For example, the death penalty discussion earlier.  If one's premise is that sentencing is for punishment, then the death penalty will make sense regardless of its effects on murder rates.  If your premise is that sentencing is to rehabilitate, then the death penalty will never make sense.  I personally go with the latter;  when I find out that someone views the punative effects as most important, I quickly agree to disagree. 

The way to attack punishment assumption is to ask them why you punish someone for committing a crime in the first place.  You punish someone so they learn not to repeat the crime.  (That's why you give a child a "timeout").  That sort of makes the death penalty pointless.
Now, here's third assumption.  The only time you should invoke the death penalty is for reasons of public safety - i.e. the person is too dangerous to be allowed to live - people like Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahlmer (sp).  Those people are beyond our ability to rehabilitate and dangerous enough that allowing them to escape into society could be an unacceptable risk.

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Holden

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
  • EXTERMINATE!
Reply #47 on: February 22, 2007, 04:11:29 PM
I've heard many times and many different variations of the statement, "Common sense is not common." It is striking how often this nonsensical statement is regurgitated. I've even seen a dictionary use this sentence as the example sentence in defining the term "common sense".

The problem is something cannot be common and uncommon at the same time. To accept that something is both common and uncommon undermines the meaning of both words.

If you are trying to convey that critical or logical thinking is not common, say that. To say common sense isn't common is to say there is no such thing as "common" sense, meaning that the majority of humanity has no sense at all. Surely you don't mean that.



ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #48 on: February 22, 2007, 04:31:49 PM
The problem is the term itself.  "Common" could also have these meanings
from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/common

7.   of mediocre or inferior quality; mean; low: a rough-textured suit of the most common fabric.
8.   coarse; vulgar: common manners.
9.   lacking rank, station, distinction, etc.; unexceptional; ordinary: a common soldier; common people; the common man; a common thief.

Now that's not how people think of it, and it's not what the term originally meant.

Common sense <> rational thinking.

btw, the older I get, the more I believe the majority of human beings do not practice rational thought on a regular basis.  In fact, I think the vast majority of decisions are made by non-rational means.  What happens most of the time is that decisions are made on an emotional, instinctual or "common sense" basis and then the decision maker goes out into the world to find evidence to support the validity of the decision they already made. 
Think about how many decisions have no real rational basis.  How do you rationally decide what your favorite color is? or your favorite song? or which sports team to support? or what makes a good sci-fi story?  All of these are subjective decisions and therefore require something beyond pure logic and reason.

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Anarkey

  • Meen Pie
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • ...depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Reply #49 on: February 22, 2007, 10:23:52 PM
btw, the older I get, the more I believe the majority of human beings do not practice rational thought on a regular basis.  In fact, I think the vast majority of decisions are made by non-rational means.  What happens most of the time is that decisions are made on an emotional, instinctual or "common sense" basis and then the decision maker goes out into the world to find evidence to support the validity of the decision they already made. 

Astute observation, Clint.  I believe this more and more as time goes on.  At first I thought it was just those that who cast themselves as hyper-rational that fall into the trap of making decisions without thinking things through, but then I realized that I just noticed them first because I have an acute hypocrisy detector.  It's really all of us.  We rationalize and prop ourselves up, usually well after we make the decision we intended to make all along.   

In a dreadful attempt to bring this back round to science fiction, has anyone here read "Second Person, Present Tense" by Daryl Gregory?  I found it in The Year's Best Science Fiction Twenty-third Annual Collection.  It's a fairly intriguing concept, well-executed, and I enjoyed reading it.  At any rate, without spoilers, one of the central arguments of the story is that the job of the self is to inject reason into our actions, which are not determined by the self but at a lower level.  I didn't backcheck Gregory's neuroscience research, but I certainly said to myself "Yes! Exactly!" when I read it.

Winner Nash's 1000th member betting pool + Thaurismunths' Free Rice Contest!


ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #50 on: February 22, 2007, 11:26:21 PM
For along time, I've thought that one of the things that separates us from the animals is our ability to recognize our instincts and not act upon them.
Unfortunately, recognizing this and accomplishing this are vastly different.  :P

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Holden

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
  • EXTERMINATE!
Reply #51 on: February 23, 2007, 04:15:56 PM
Quote
I believe the majority of human beings do not practice rational thought on a regular basis.  In fact, I think the vast majority of decisions are made by non-rational means.

Quote
Astute observation, Clint.  I believe this more and more as time goes on.

I disagree. Not only is it cliché to say humans aren't rational thinkers, it's wrong. Humans are rational thinkers. Just this morning, I had a cup of coffee, took a shower, had a shave, dressed myself, and drove to work. I'd like to see a chimp do that!

Just because someone makes a wrong decision every now and then doesn't mean they are not thinking rationally. It's possible to think rationally, make a decision, and be wrong.

"Second Person, Present Tense" by Daryl Gregory
Haven't read it, but I've had others tell me it's basically an argument against the existence of free will. Sounds interesting.



ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #52 on: February 23, 2007, 04:38:13 PM
Quote
I believe the majority of human beings do not practice rational thought on a regular basis.  In fact, I think the vast majority of decisions are made by non-rational means.

Quote
Astute observation, Clint.  I believe this more and more as time goes on.

I disagree. Not only is it cliché to say humans aren't rational thinkers, it's wrong. Humans are rational thinkers. Just this morning, I had a cup of coffee, took a shower, had a shave, dressed myself, and drove to work. I'd like to see a chimp do that!

That doesn't make you rational, that just makes you well-trained.  :P
Seriously, what did you eat for breakfast? Why? Was it because you analyzed the ingredients and determined it to be healthy or was it because it's your favorite thing to eat for breakfast?

Just because someone makes a wrong decision every now and then doesn't mean they are not thinking rationally. It's possible to think rationally, make a decision, and be wrong.


Oh, I agree. Flawed logic is a different problem all together. 
But as Mark Twain said "Thinking is hard work. That's why so few people do it."

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Anarkey

  • Meen Pie
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • ...depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Reply #53 on: February 23, 2007, 04:46:31 PM
Quote
I believe the majority of human beings do not practice rational thought on a regular basis.  In fact, I think the vast majority of decisions are made by non-rational means.

Quote
Astute observation, Clint.  I believe this more and more as time goes on.

I disagree. Not only is it cliché to say humans aren't rational thinkers, it's wrong. Humans are rational thinkers. Just this morning, I had a cup of coffee, took a shower, had a shave, dressed myself, and drove to work. I'd like to see a chimp do that!

Kind of a false dichotomy, there, isn't it?  If I say we aren't rational thinkers, I'm not thereby implying that chimps (or any other living beings) are rational thinkers.  It wasn't a comparative statement.  And to clarify, we're (and forgive me and step in if I misquote what you mean, Clint) not talking about human beings not having the capacity for rational thought, but that human beings often don't make critical decisions using that capacity.  I'll take this thread alone as evidence that human beings have the ability to think rationally, so there's no need to go all straw man and chase down that alley.

Also, I'm not convinced that your ability to follow a routine should be described as "rational thought".  To borrow your logic, my dog follows a routine every day in which he goes out, pees, comes in, eats breakfast and then accompanies me for a ride.  If I deviate from this routine, he gets a little anxious.  He expects to do those things every day in that order.  It's a habit, completely unrelated to critical thinking. 

Your premise is precisely part of the upthread discussion that led to Clint's statement: whether what people talk about as "common sense" is often just habits, or reactions to prior experience that have nothing to do with thinking objectively about the task or problem at hand.  Daily routine is not a counterargument.  It is, if anything, further evidence for the argument.

Just because someone makes a wrong decision every now and then doesn't mean they are not thinking rationally. It's possible to think rationally, make a decision, and be wrong.

This is interesting, because so far in this conversation, I don't think anyone has directly correlated "rational" decisions with correctness or characterized other types of decision-making as wrong.  The implication has been strongly made that rational thinking is superior, but I don't think anyone has addressed results.  It seems like there's a whole separate side-argument that could be had as to whether rationality leads to right or wrong decisions and further, what constitutes a "right" or "wrong" decision. 

"Second Person, Present Tense" by Daryl Gregory
Haven't read it, but I've had others tell me it's basically an argument against the existence of free will. Sounds interesting.

I didn't read it that way, but I can certainly see that slant in it.  It's at least an argument as to how deep anyone's free will really is, and how easily compromised it can become, though I didn't feel as though it ruled out the possibility of free will completely.  Perhaps that's just my optimistic interpretation of it, though.  I have a total soft spot for free will, and always root for it.  At any rate, if you have any sort of interest in the "ghost in the machine", which seems to be part of what this thread is about, then it's definitely a worth your time, and a good story to boot.

Winner Nash's 1000th member betting pool + Thaurismunths' Free Rice Contest!


ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #54 on: February 23, 2007, 05:03:58 PM
You summed up my point very well.

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Holden

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
  • EXTERMINATE!
Reply #55 on: February 23, 2007, 07:43:19 PM
Quote
That doesn't make you rational, that just makes you well-trained.

Quote
I'm not convinced that your ability to follow a routine should be described as "rational thought".

What I was getting at is not a human's ability to follow routine, but the complexity of most "simple" human tasks by taking inventory of what I had done this particular morning. I agree following a routine is not an example of rational thought. (By the way, I don't really have a morning routine. Three jobs and weird hours.

Quote
And to clarify, we're (and forgive me and step in if I misquote what you mean, Clint) not talking about human beings not having the capacity for rational thought, but that human beings often don't make critical decisions using that capacity.

Thanks for the clarification. So your argument is not "humans don't think rationally" but rather "The vast majority of critical decisions made by humans are made without practicing their capacity for rational thought." That's an important distinction. Can you give me some examples of critical decisions you made without using your capacity for rational thought? That might better help me understand what we are talking about.



ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #56 on: February 23, 2007, 07:53:30 PM
Can you give me some examples of critical decisions you made without using your capacity for rational thought? That might better help me understand what we are talking about.

I got married.  :P


But seriously folks...
Here's a few examples from the life of a middle-aged guy. (I'm 42)

I'm a programmer by trade. Why? I like doing it. I tried it once, decided I liked it and stuck with it.  Was it the best career choice for me? No. The best career choice for me would have been law.  I like to debate issues. I have shown an ability to convince people that I'm right. Lawyers can make piles of money.  The thing is, I like being a programmer. I'm not great at it, but I am competent.  I didn't wake up one morning and ask myself "what career should I pursue?", gather evidence, examine it and make a decision.  I decided I wanted to be a programmer and then found reasons to convince myself it was a good idea.

When I went to college, I decided to stay home and go to my local university. It is (or was) a decent enough school.  Why? Because I wanted to be close to my girlfriend at the time (not my wife - I met her later).  I did pretty well in high school and scored well on my ACTs so I could have went to any number of better schools, but I didn't.  Did I wake up one morning, gather evidence and then decide on which school to go to?  Nope.


« Last Edit: February 23, 2007, 08:07:47 PM by ClintMemo »

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Anarkey

  • Meen Pie
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • ...depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Reply #57 on: February 23, 2007, 08:32:49 PM
What I was getting at is not a human's ability to follow routine, but the complexity of most "simple" human tasks by taking inventory of what I had done this particular morning.

I would not have countered a description of your everyday actions as complex.  I think complexity and rationality may overlap, but I don't think one is necessarily an indicator of the other.  Ecosystems are complex, and while they are sometimes posited as sentient by SF writers, I think most of us wouldn't describe them as rational.  Conversely, a very simple flowchart can be used to delineate a straightforward process of taking in variables, weighing pros and cons, and coming up with an ideal action/reaction or (more pertinently to this conversation) political position.

Thanks for the clarification. So your argument is not "humans don't think rationally" but rather "The vast majority of critical decisions made by humans are made without practicing their capacity for rational thought." That's an important distinction. Can you give me some examples of critical decisions you made without using your capacity for rational thought? That might better help me understand what we are talking about.

It is an important distinction, and I appreciate you acknowledging it.  You'll pardon me my descent into semantic quibbling for a moment.  While your rephrasing of my stated position is accurate in the general, I'm uncomfortable with certain hyperbolic words such as "vast" and "critical".  I would say, instead, that people make decisions all the time, most of them are not driven by critical thinking, even when the people making the decisions think they are being rational.   

I'm also not terribly comfortable giving examples of my own.  My thesis is that we rationalize decisions we make, whether they are intrinsically rational or not, so I'm not sure I'm well-equipped to find the beam in my own eye, so to speak.  Additionally, I'm not sure what giving up personal examples provides to the discussion overall, except for a statistically insignificant anecdote that allows people to take a position that I may not be rational, but they would easily avoid such pitfalls.

And here my better (more rational?) judgment would have me leave it.  But, because I have a sense that not providing an example is weaseling out (a feeling, see?  Not based in the rational, based perhaps in years of conditioning to respond to questions or a thousand other things I couldn't probably trace or name), I shall attempt to fulfill the request, and hope that it won't result in potshots.

Because of my age, when I was pregnant, I was advised by the doctor to have an amniocentesis, to test for various genetic defects (most notably Down's syndrome) that correlate with mother's age.  I declined the test.  There's a very small risk involved with the test, but that didn't really trouble me.  I had various rationalizations as to why I didn't want the test, but I'll spare you the rehash.  If I try to analyze my behavior, I find it wasn't too rational.  It would be better to be prepared, especially for a baby with Down's.  The truth was, if there was something wrong with my baby I didn't want to know it beforehand.  So I didn't have the test. 

Winner Nash's 1000th member betting pool + Thaurismunths' Free Rice Contest!


Holden

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
  • EXTERMINATE!
Reply #58 on: February 23, 2007, 09:59:17 PM
Quote
I got married.

Now that's hilarious!

Both of the serious examples you gave sound perfectly rational to me. You chose a degree based on a type of work you enjoy and chose a school that was close to your girlfriend. Perhaps you were a bit passive in your approach to both decisions, but certainly not irrational. Since you cited these as examples of non-rational critical decision making, I can infer that what we disagree on is the definition of the term "rational thought".

How do you define rational thought?

As far as the test for defects, it sounds like you had rational reasons for declining test, but you feel the real reason you denied the test was not those rational reasons but rather fear, making the decision irrational. Do I understand you correctly?

Quote
people make decisions all the time, most of them are not driven by critical thinking, even when the people making the decisions think they are being rational.

Are the terms "being rational" and "thinking critically" interchangeable? Or are these two different things?



Anarkey

  • Meen Pie
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • ...depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Reply #59 on: February 23, 2007, 11:08:18 PM
Perhaps you were a bit passive in your approach to both decisions, but certainly not irrational. Since you cited these as examples of non-rational critical decision making, I can infer that what we disagree on is the definition of the term "rational thought".

How do you define rational thought?

Yeah, I think you infer correctly, because I don't believe thought to be either rational or irrational, and you have indicated by your comment that if a thought is not rational, then it must be irrational.  This sheds a lot of light, for me, on your previous comments about being rational (I get up, I eat breakfast, I dress, I drive to work).  Of course if you aren't behaving erratically and irrationally, then you must be behaving rationally.  It also illuminates your comments about "right" and "wrong" decisions. 

I have not meant to imply that people's decisions are "irrational", so perhaps "rational" is too loaded a word to be using in this context.  (I notice Clint deliberately said "non-rational" as opposed to "irrational").  In essence, I'm talking about considered approaches to problems/ideas/situations.  If you're going with your gut, or your instinct, or using your emotions as the impetus for your actions, or doing something out of habit, then you are not taking a considered approach to the problem.  You've not thought it over, you've not weighed the consequences, you've not looked at every angle.  Yet I find most of the time when I stop to evaluate my decision-making process (or that of those around me), it's far more likely to have arisen from emotion, instinct, habit, whatever than from examination, even when the results of those decisions might be very important, life-changing ones.

So, for example, someone who smokes?  In my book, that's habit behavior.  It's not rational (but I wouldn't call it irrational, either). It has nothing to do with rationality.  Other forces are at work at there.  Some people argue that religious belief is a non-considered behavior (whoa, politics and religion in the same thread.  Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!).  People go to church, pray, etc. because they were brought up that way.  And certainly, this can be the case (though how you'd get theologians if this were absolute, I have no idea).  Upthread knee-jerk political beliefs are discussed.  People vote against their self-interest, which in terms of preservation and advancement, probably ought to be considered as acting non-rationally.     

As far as the test for defects, it sounds like you had rational reasons for declining test, but you feel the real reason you denied the test was not those rational reasons but rather fear, making the decision irrational. Do I understand you correctly?

Right.  Exactly.  Even though I'm perfectly capable of explaining to myself good reasons for not doing the test, in the end, it boils down to cowardice.  And the explaining to myself part of it is really the critical point I'm making.  We want to believe we're doing things that make sense, even when we're not.  So when we take actions that don't make sense, we explain them to ourselves in ways that do.

Or at least, that's what I think. 

Are the terms "being rational" and "thinking critically" interchangeable? Or are these two different things?

I was using them basically interchangeably, because I can only write so many passively constructed sentences in a row before I snap, but I think the latter term would have been a better place to go, given the obfuscation "rational" seems to have created.

Winner Nash's 1000th member betting pool + Thaurismunths' Free Rice Contest!


ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #60 on: February 23, 2007, 11:53:11 PM
Quote
I got married.

Now that's hilarious!
 

Thanks.
I meant that to be funny, obviously, but it's also true. I married my wife because I loved her (still do) adn if there is anything that is irrational it's love.
(altogether now  "awwwwww")

Both of the serious examples you gave sound perfectly rational to me. You chose a degree based on a type of work you enjoy and chose a school that was close to your girlfriend. Perhaps you were a bit passive in your approach to both decisions, but certainly not irrational. Since you cited these as examples of non-rational critical decision making, I can infer that what we disagree on is the definition of the term "rational thought".
How do you define rational thought?

I think of rational as logical (ala Mr Spock) - which is probably not exactly correct.  Define the problem. Gather evidence. Examine the evidence. Make a conclusion based on the evidence.  Now, there is nothing wrong in developing a process as an outcome of a logical decision and following that process later because you understand the process, why it is the way it is, and know when the situation dictates that you deviate from the process.   That's just a complicated way of saying that developing good habits can be beneficial.  That's important because you can't go through life making all of your decisions on a rational (logical) basis.  Some simply can't be made that way because there is no non-subjective way to evaluate the evidence (What should i have for dessert?), but others you don't have time to examine fully (There's a car coming at me in my lane. What should I do?)

As far as my two real life examples go, they were completely non-rational decisions. I made a decision based on my emotions and then found evidence to convince myself (and others) that it was the righ thing to have done.

btw, I use the term "non-rational" from classes I had in college. We were studying decision making processes and that was the term they used.

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Michael

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Reply #61 on: February 24, 2007, 11:53:52 AM
This is in response to Uriel's 2/21 Post

Sorry I missed that at first, this thread had mainly seized on beating the concept of "common sense" (obviously nonproductive in a sharply polarized country of red and blue) to death, then moved to rationality. 

I was more focused on why there IS so much friction, and the fundamental MISUNDERSTANDING which causes good men to fight with such vitriol over trivialites.

Quote
I personally like the Pournelle axes for this purpose.  More descriptive, and with less emotional baggage with the words.

Pournelle is a smart guy.  And he recognizes essentially the same 4 philosophies, he just relabels the X-Y Axis.  This is a thing about statistics--when you do a factor analysis, you get these 4 factors, but the statistics program doesn't give you a NAME for the factor, it is just "Factor1-4" --it is up to people to name their philosophy or movement, and they are often highly creative in doing so. (Fascism in Germany was 'National Socialism" Fascism in America is "Christian Conservatism" (http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0743284437.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg)   

But I must disagree that there is less emotional bagages in his words:



By making the making the major "North South" Axis "Rationalism" Pournelle declares "Fascism is irrationalist; it says so in its theoretical treatises" -- defining a major political philosophy "irrational" is pretty baggage laden.  Most Fascists I know believe themselves to be pretty pragmatic people.  They want law and order and the trains to run on time. 
 
Rokeach had the same 2 Axis, but he was truly less emotional... the Axis are:

Freedom
and
Equality

See there are both GOOD values.  Everybody believes in Freedom, and Everybody believes in Equality.

But if they had to fight it out--if you had to pick just one--which would win?  That is what makes you what you are, politically. 

Capitalist=Freedom High, Equality Low
Socialist = Freedom High, Equality High
Communist=Equality High, Freedom Low
Fascist=Freedom Low, Equality Low

To me, it just drips out of their writings.  Do their philosophers speak of the commonality of man (I have a dream?) or are they focusing on singling out groups "inferior" to demonstrate inherent inequality? (Jews, gays, Muslims, secular humanists, welfare queens).  Do they wish to be unfettered completely or do they tolerate restrictions on Freedom for the "common good"? 


Quote
Except Communism (as practiced in the USSR and China, the latter of which you cite) are fascist states.  This causes futher confusion.

Of course you are right, as did the Nazi use of "National Socialism" confuse everyone.  I would say Venezuela then as an example... Human nature being what it is, don't all Communists states drift toward Fascism with time?

Quote
Where do you deal with issues like market failures in a capitalist society?  Are education and healthcare really public goods as you imply here?  If so, what levels of each are public goods?  Why? 
 
 
I think that is why we bounce back and forth between Republican and Democratic rule.  Enlightened Capitalists realize we need an educated and healthy workforce, but some people want to make their million (or Billion) now and screw the future.  I read that General Motors suffers a $1,000 per car cost penalty vs. a European Car, because GM is saddled with health care costs for workers and retirees, whereas the Government picks up that tab in Germany, so it is not a direct cost to the manufacturer--gives Japan and Germany a huge worldwide competitive advantage.  GM would obviously like to see National Health insurance, which is a Socialist idea.   ;D 


Anarkey

  • Meen Pie
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • ...depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Reply #62 on: February 24, 2007, 01:13:23 PM
I like the two axes system as well, by the way, it's always made more sense to me than the left/right spectrum.

Rokeach had the same 2 Axis, but he was truly less emotional... the Axis are:

Freedom
and
Equality

See there are both GOOD values.  Everybody believes in Freedom, and Everybody believes in Equality.

But if they had to fight it out--if you had to pick just one--which would win?  That is what makes you what you are, politically. 

Capitalist=Freedom High, Equality Low
Socialist = Freedom High, Equality High
Communist=Equality High, Freedom Low
Fascist=Freedom Low, Equality Low

However, if we're talking about being balanced and non-judgmental by forcing people to pick one of two good values, I don't think this system does it.  It seems clear that at least in one instance, the two values are not fighting it out.  You don't have to pick if you're going to be socialist.  In that case, you get both.

Winner Nash's 1000th member betting pool + Thaurismunths' Free Rice Contest!


ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #63 on: February 24, 2007, 04:41:34 PM
Capitalist=Freedom High, Equality Low
Socialist = Freedom High, Equality High
Communist=Equality High, Freedom Low
Fascist=Freedom Low, Equality Low

[/quote]

The idea is not bad, but to divide everything into just two categories is a fallacy.  There should at least be High, Medium and Low.  Knowing nothing about the creator of the system, I can't say for sure, but I suspect that this is a case of setting up your analysis to give you the answer that you want (a prime example of non-rational decision making, if ever I saw one. :D). My guess is that the creator is a socialist.  I laughed when I saw this, listing Capitalism and Socialism as having the same amount of Freedom (high) while listing Capitalism and Fascism as having the same amount of equality (low). I wonder what his definition of "equality" is.  Equal standard of living? Equal under the law? Equal opportunity?   Depending on how you define this makes a huge difference in how "fair" your society is.  Communism has high equality - everybody's poor!

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Michael

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Reply #64 on: February 24, 2007, 05:08:47 PM
I have no doubt that Rokeach, like most academics, felt that European Socialism is the best economic idea around--good funding for the arts, universities, healthcare, lots of vacation time.

That said, do you really feel Donald Trump feels all people are equal? He must feel he is somehow superior to justify his vast wealth--pretty much all the Oligarchs must believe they have special abilities which justify their wealth, even if they were born with it.   I think most Capitalists believe in winners and losers, survival of the fittest, and all that stuff--I have never noticed them to be too concerned about the plight of the losers.

Do Fundamentalist Christians feel on moral parity with athiests?    Fascists always seem to pick on some other group who is clearly "inferior"--with Hitler it was Jews and Gays, in Americas it is mainly gays.


 


Anarkey

  • Meen Pie
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • ...depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Reply #65 on: February 24, 2007, 06:17:33 PM
Do Fundamentalist Christians feel on moral parity with athiests?    Fascists always seem to pick on some other group who is clearly "inferior"--with Hitler it was Jews and Gays, in Americas it is mainly gays.

I'm a little uncomfortable with what I'm reading (possibly incorrectly) as your grouping of discriminating haters (whether it be race or sexual preference or gender based) with fascists.  Sure, fascists may have propagated that as part of their ideology, but in my experience, discrimination comes from all sides of the political spectrum, and no one's hands are clean.  Being a racist doesn't automagically make you a fascist, and it's possible, I suspect, to be fascist without being racist (at least in a politically ideological sense).  I don't know if it's your intent to conjoin those categories or not, but I certainly see them as distinct and separate (though I'll accept overlap).

I'm also not comfortable with the label "fascist" to describe the sorts of totalitarian demagogic governments (low freedom, low equality) enumerated thus far, because in current American English parlance, "fascist" is an epithet, an extremely loaded term.  No one calls themselves fascist, they are labeled so by others, often wildly inaccurately.  I understand the term may have been more descriptive and less inflammatory at one time, or in other places, perhaps, but to an American it's a straight up insult.

Personally, I find it most useful to analyze political positions using the economic and social axes, the way politicalcompass.org does.  Every country, and every citizen of every country, is involved in both economy and society.  I can spend days without thinking of liberty or equality, but I do some economic transaction daily, and interact with others in my society daily as well.  Neither term is particularly "good" nor "bad", they are merely descriptive.  The economic/social axes allows for free-market totalitarian states which would be difficult to place on the Rokeachan axes, as neither freedom nor equality are really the values being striven for (or against) there.  It also allows some of what Clint wants, in the "low,medium,high" realm, in that you can be somewhat for economic controls, and somewhat for social controls, and that just puts you toward the center of the grid.  It's not an either/or proposition.  Messy, but probably more accurate.

(edited because apparently I don't know the difference between Pournelle and Rokeach)
« Last Edit: February 24, 2007, 06:46:36 PM by Anarkey »

Winner Nash's 1000th member betting pool + Thaurismunths' Free Rice Contest!