2015-07-24 Home Front: Culture Wars
|
Dependence Day
|
by Richard Fernandez
[PJMedia] This argument between Ted Cruz and Code Pink's Medea Benjamin [1] over the Iran deal is an interesting contrast in logical styles. Cruz reasons the deal is bad because it gives Tehran $100 billion that it will use to continue its war against America. By contrast, Benjamin says that since Obama and all the right thinking people think the deal is good then it must be. How can you, Ted Cruz, think differently from all these super-smart people?
The debate reflects the age-old conflict between an argument from reason and an argument from authority. It's a real contest because while Western civilization pays lip service to "evidence based" policy, in practice most human beings rely on social proof [2] to decide what to believe.
Social proof is a type of conformity. When a person is in a situation where they are unsure of the correct way to behave, they will often look to others for cues concerning the correct behavior. ... and is driven by the assumption that surrounding people possess more knowledge about the situation.
The search for "social proof" as a determinant of conviction is not wholly crazy. Few of us can say why a pharmaceutical works. But if the doctor prescribes a pill, we drink it without question. Most of the world is preoccupied with making a living and consequently have a high level of rational ignorance [3]. "Rational ignorance occurs when the cost of educating oneself on an issue exceeds the potential benefit that the knowledge would provide." It takes too long for us to figure things out from first principles, so we find a "smart man" and do what he tells us.
Many people spend 15 minutes every four years thinking about foreign policy or politics. Since it would take too much time for them to examine the issues themselves they rely on proxy indicators to inform their choice. Some people have faith in Donald Trump, others in Bernie Sanders. Medea Benjamin happens to believe in Barack Obama.
Ignorance about an issue is said to be "rational" when the cost of educating oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential benefit one could reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so it would be irrational to waste time doing so. This has consequences for the quality of decisions made by large numbers of people, such as general elections, where the probability of any one vote changing the outcome is very small.
|
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2015-07-24 05:11||
||
Front Page|| [11128 views ]
Top
|
Posted by Bobby 2015-07-24 07:40||
2015-07-24 07:40||
Front Page
Top
|
Posted by 3dc 2015-07-24 10:29||
2015-07-24 10:29||
Front Page
Top
|
Posted by 3dc 2015-07-24 10:32||
2015-07-24 10:32||
Front Page
Top
|
Posted by 3dc 2015-07-24 10:33||
2015-07-24 10:33||
Front Page
Top
|
Posted by Besoeker 2015-07-24 10:34||
2015-07-24 10:34||
Front Page
Top
|
Posted by Iblis 2015-07-24 11:45||
2015-07-24 11:45||
Front Page
Top
|
|
14:34 Frank G
14:28 Melancholic
14:27 NoMoreBS
14:14 swksvolFF
14:12 swksvolFF
13:54 mossomo
13:51 mossomo
13:50 NoMoreBS
13:50 Abu Uluque
13:44 Abu Uluque
13:41 NoMoreBS
13:39 Abu Uluque
13:36 mossomo
13:36 swksvolFF
13:32 mossomo
13:26 Frank G
13:12 Regular joe
13:12 mossomo
13:11 swksvolFF
13:08 Abu Uluque
13:00 swksvolFF
12:59 Regular joe
12:55 Skidmark
12:53 Skidmark









|