Detailed Abstractions

Sometimes a more interesting way to find out how people truly view the world, is not to have them tell you where they stand on certain issues.  Another informative way to analyze someone’s critical thinking skills is how reflexive they are to disbelieve facts that counter their world view or agree with facts which confirms their world view.

Seeing their reactions to overly simplified answers which not only confirms their world view, but also their ego, you can use it to analyze that person’s tendency towards confirmation bias.

Before going further, a general disclaimer:  we all, every human falls for confirmation bias.  We want an ordered world and want to understand things and want to be right.  So patterns of random events become, after the fact of course, a series of events who destiny is their present state.

However, for those claiming to know more, claiming to impart important information to the masses, the truth as they see it – for those people, confirmation bias shouldn’t be as obvious.

For our example of people who lack critical thinking skills this time, we have Marcella Mroczkowski, a self described lawyer, activist, and Huffington Post Citizen Journalist.

Now I know – looking for critical thinking on a site like the Huffington Post is much more difficult than finding the proverbial needle in a haystack, but I still thinks it’s useful to remind us all of the tendency.

In her February 9th piece titled Why Americans Must Defeat the Right’s Culture of Hate: Understanding the Science And History of Demonizing Hate gives you a pretty good idea of her logical consistency, but for some reason, I read further.   To save you the trouble, I’ll summarize:

Using one poll, which she claims proves a large, but minority, percentage of Republicans are prone to believe things like Obama isn’t a natural citizen.  From there, she lumps the birther movement in with those who believe Barack is a socialist.  Tie that to the freedom-increasing destruction of the Fairness Doctrine, or in her parlance, the end of untainted free press and equality and an increase in corporate slavery.

Tie that to talk radio, through it, use nominal facts like people tend to get more fanatic during recessions and hate is a primal emotion.

Jump from there to leaders who can exploit man’s primal tendency to hate others through dehumanzing, such as Hitler!

& viola – people who don’t believe like Marcella are not just Republicans, but hate filled Republicans who are being exploited by Hitler’s reincarnation.

So with that said, I think objectively we can say that if this sample is her normal standards, then Ms. Mroczkowski’s skills in critical thinking are demonstrably lacking. We can also say, again, assuming this piece of hers is representative of her other writing & analysis, but with that assumption, she’s also a little full of herself.  Narcissistic even.

I mean even I try to assume the role of her – try to think, a liberal would agree – what do they see worth agreeing to?  Her non-familiarity with logic becomes apparent, as even if I agree with all her logical leaps, to believe the underlying assumption that her beliefs are perfectly right and her opponents are evil and full of hate is just too perfect to be believed by any nominally objective person.

I mean seriously – when the snake oil is packaged and marketed that it will grow your hair while shrinking your waistline and increasing your cognitive abilities – critical adults are naturally and rightfully and forcefully skeptical.

Or as others have said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence… or at least should for those pretending to provide “truthful” claims.

The interesting thing however is the polling data itself.  The data she uses to springboard her attempts to conflate Republicans and their mouth pieces with evil hate speech, is completely flawed.   First, it comes from Daily Kos, which should be an obvious sign to anyone approaching or attempting to approach objectivity.  They have an obvious bias and a quick check on their facts demonstrates it.

With simple math, we can take DailyKos’s own figures, 2008 voting records, and see if the percentages of respondents coincide with the actual percentages in the last election.

So in those states they label the NE, in the 2008 Presidential election, a total of 28,836,059 were cast for President, roughly 40% for McCain, or 11,458,616.

Those 11 million votes for McCain in that region, were out of the 59,948,240 votes cast for him nationally.  So the 11 million represents 19% of the total republican vote.  Not exactly a perfect measure of the percentage of Republicans living in the NorthEast, but likely more accurate than DailyKos’s attempts to minimize that part of country’s respondents to only 11%.  & my numbers were also two years ago – I think one can objectively say the Democrats aren’t doing as well as they could be and are in less favor now that prior to the election.

Regardless, they not only undervalue the opinions of those Republicans in the NE, but they also exaggerate the weight of the south, giving them 42% of the weight of the poll questions, whereas using the same basic analysis, those same states only made up 36% of the total Republican vote cast for McCain.

There are other signs in there as well, but ones I didn’t feel like researching… but to the eye, I’m not sure if 89% should be white or that 56% should be men, though I’ll admit both might be possible.  Using a full 70% of respondents aged 45 and up however, defies logic.  A cursory glance shows voter registration for that age group making up a little less than 50% of all registered voters and while I’ll be more than happy to concede the idea that the makeup of the Republican party isn’t a complete demographic mirror of the national population, I’m pretty sure we can safely say the 70% is exaggerated as well.

With all the inconsistencies, it’s hard to even subscribe to a benign notion such as incompetence.  It appears much more likely that they moved the numbers around until they could get results which showed what they wanted.

Of course to normal people, hearing or reading “A poll from the Daily Kos showed….” could be followed by “the Earth is round” and be right to be skeptical.

Using that poll as evidence of something however is another story entirely.  Here again, I’d like to think this is an innocent mistake, but I think hiding the poll through another link (she linked to Huffington Post site which discuss the poll, which linked to the poll), picking only two questions out of the litany asked and acted as if the rest of it was overwhelmingly convincing of her basic point, then logically stumbling about to equate Republicans with hateful, primitive thinkers who are just following Hitler’s rise to power…. well, that might say more about her motives than even her reflexive belief.

The problem is that only slightly off people like me will dig around for all those numbers to prove or disprove our assumptions.  & that percentage of people currently testing their assumptions versus those voting… well, let’s just say it’s probably pretty small.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that mind you – our marketplace of ideas is full of different people with different opinions and tripe like this will always be seen by objective people for the hollow and shallow self-confirmation it truly is.

The only real sad part is some people, probably more than I want to admit to, will read and blindingly believe.  Not because they don’t have an extra hour to research voting numbers and compare then to polling – they will believe it for the same reason it was written – it will confirm something for which they already believe.  Republicans are primitive & evil.

Yep, using a big dose of self-delusion for courage, they will believe completely in such a hateful point, without even noticing the hateful point is being stated in an article decrying hate.

Unintended consequences.  An often used phrase for almost every piece of legislation pushed our politicians.  Whether it’s McCain-Feingold’s chilling effect on free political speech or whether bailing out banks which are “too big to fail” has actually decreased our long term viability instead of supporting it; the term seems to connote any consequence which wasn’t expressly mentioned by proponents of the bill.

Technically, that’s correct.  The definition of unintended consequences does not require the consequences to be unforeseen, though in common language we generally use the base meaning of “intention”.   Therefore the phrase has come to mean those consequences which were neither  intended nor unforeseen.

I submit however, that we should start changing our language and call known consequences intended consequences, because like the citizens in the face of the law our politicians should be held to the same standard: ignorance is not a defense.

Regardless of the human failing that pushes people to believe they, or their elected leaders, can ultimately control behavior which is already constrained by the marketplace, acting as if the results weren’t readily understood is disingenuous.

Looking more closely @ McCain-Feingold effects, we see the chilling of free-speech (here), where citizens can’t create a documentary on their beliefs about Hillary Clinton without it being subject to regulation:

…The case before the court, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, originated over whether a 2008 feature-length movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton could be classified as an “electioneering communication” subject to regulation.

The FEC contended it was, and that its sponsor, a conservative advocacy group called Citizens United, was barred from promoting the film. While nonprofits can be exempt from campaign-finance regulations if they limit their fund-raising to donations from individuals, Citizens United fell under McCain-Feingold because it accepts business contributions….

Now.  I haven’t seen the movie nor do I care to, but when individuals get together to use their own money, their own resources, to produce their own political speech, the government has absolutely no right to be involved.  In the marketplace of political ideas, that whole “congress shall make no law” thingy, seemed pretty straight forward.

Regardless of your reading of the 1st Amendment, some will contend this is an unintended consequence.  I contend it was a known consequence and therefore must have been intended.

I will even go further and say this was like a consequence well enough known by politicians who voted for the bill, that they had incentive to pass restrictions on others as this would help them secure the current balance of power.

Using banks too big to fail (here):

…Increased concentration is vexing for regulators. Because systemically important firms can borrow more cheaply thanks to implicit state backing, small and medium-sized banks struggle to compete. A recent Fed study put big banks’ funding advantage at more than 30 basis points. That leads to another possible problem: indiscipline. Private firms with a low cost of funds and the taxpayer behind them are prone to recklessness: just look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. America’s leading banks were too big to fail before the crisis. Now they are bigger still….

This was not only easy to foresee, but libertarians, conservatives, small business groups, think tanks, economists, literally, tens of thousands of people wrote and discussed that this is exactly what would happen.

Once you’ve effectively told the market that they will not be responsible for their failures, you’ve written them a blank check to become much more reckless than they would have otherwise.

Not only this, but that action, more reckless businesses, will have it’s own well understood consequence.  The banks will continue to make stupid decisions due to a perceived lack of risk.  As long as people allow it, the government will continue to bail them out until it becomes just too expensive.  Then during that emergency, we will see much greater regulation and control of the financial industry which might include a government takeover.

As Hayek stated and history has shown:

‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.

Maybe it’s time to start holding our politicians & leaders accountable for the known consequences & not just the stated ones.

As I’m sure everyone is aware, Obama is going to speak tonight on his health care plan and the current economic crisis.

I’m not sure about the public at large, but in the span of less than a year in office, I’m starting to feel the number of prime time Presidential addresses to the country has gone overboard.

However, the strategic decision that’s being made by Obama and his staff is completely understandable.

When you have a President that is such a gifted communicator, then you want nothing more for him to be in his natural habitat.  They just need to understand that in their arrogance of belief in the leader they continue to push, there will be a saturation point when he is out there too much.

Just like the Soities paradox, we don’t know which grain of sand will make a heap; we also don’t know when/if Obama will become over saturated.  What history does indicate, is that if his handlers don’t become more humble about their leader, over saturation will happen.

Having said that, the really nauseating piece of this so far was aleak about the speech itself.  From the UPI:

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told The New York Times Obama intends to use the news conference as a “six-month report card,” to talk about “how we rescued the economy from the worst recession” and the legislative agenda moving forward, including health care and energy legislation.

The arrogance it takes to announce publicly that the TARP money positively impacted the economy is breath taking. To state they rescued the economy from the worst recession ever is simply a lie.

As written here earlier,  the administration announced loudly and proudly that without acting right now and passing more stimulus, we are in deep trouble.

Using charts and graphs, they warned – without stimulus money, the unemployment rate might go as high as 10%, but with it, will stay below 8%.

Of course, with hindsight, we know the current unemployment rate is verging on 10%, specifically 9.4% today with the additional billions spent.

They warned us that allowing GM to declare bankruptcy would be disastrous.  Now we are almost two full months from that exact thing happening and yet, somehow, the sky has managed to not fall.

So based on historical evidence, in just the very beginning of this presidency, every time they’ve spoken about economic issues, they’ve turned out to be wrong.

Yet, they will go ahead, full force this evening, and loudly proclaim something they can’t possibly prove.  That is that the country is better off than had they not spent future generations’ money.

They can’t prove it, just as I can’t prove them wrong.  Logically, neither I nor the most intelligent economist in the world can prove what might have happened under a different hypothetical situation.

However, people should be smart enough to see that those telling you they did the right thing, have been more wrong than right.

It’s quite an exciting time to live for those people who love to see barriers broken.  We’ve come a long ways from the 50′s segregation to the first African-American President and likely to be the first Hispanic female Supreme Court Justice.

Of course if those were the only firsts, we’d be doing just fine, but there are others to list:

First time in American History where the budget will include a 1 to 2 trillion dollar deficit (here):

WASHINGTON — The federal deficit has topped $1 trillion for the first time ever and could grow to nearly $2 trillion by this fall, intensifying fears about higher inflation rates, inflation and the strength of the dollar.

The deficit has been widened by the huge sum the government has spent to ease the recession, combined with a sharp decline in tax revenues. The cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also is a major factor.

(that I’m aware of) The first time in history we will waste tax payer money, during a recession, to investigate a non-existent program (here – emphasis added is mine):

WASHINGTON – Congressional demands for an investigation grew on Monday over new disclosures that a secret CIA program to capture or kill al-Qaida leaders was concealed from Congress for eight years, perhaps at the behest of former vice President Dick Cheney.

The program, which never got off the ground and remains shrouded in mystery, was designed to target leaders of the terrorism network at close range, rather than with air strikes that risked civilian casualties, government officials with knowledge of the operation said Monday.

& finally, the brand new era of the czars (here) with names such as:

1. Infotech Czar
2. Faith Based Czar
3. Cybersecurity Czar
4. Compensation Czar

In  a time fraught with issues such as nuclear proliferation (there is a czar for that as well) from Iran & NK, a declining economy (new unemployment figure 9.5%), continuing wars, we might be looking into the future with an undeserved pride in our decision making abilities.

Getting back to the basics of what made our country able to stand as the the superpower it does today would be a better use of our time than hiring more czars to control more of our economy.

We seem to be moving fairly quickly from a society that was known for fierce independence.  A society known for arrogance, but revolutionary innovations which have increased the standard of living for millions. A society that truly stood as a beacon of freedom in a world where the majority live in crippling dictatorships.

We moved from a society that would rather ask their neighbors for help, but instead they now ask the government (or call a lawyer).  A society that wanted to live free, to a society that believes it’s ok to take by force money from your neighbors so long as most people feel they are spending it incorrectly.

Maybe instead of attempting to fix everything, as if the current decision makers have more of the truth than did previous generations, we should instead follow the doctors’ calling:  First, do no harm.

This isn’t to say changes aren’t needed, but the last time some sales guy told me I had very little time to make a decision, I laughed and walked away. & that was a for some piece of electronics I didn’t really need.  It even took me three months to buy a new car.

If we truly want to make effective changes that will really impact others’ lives in a  positive way, prudence and open skepticism of our government is warranted.

Of course yelling fire in a crowded theater makes for better tv debates and news reports, but it’s possible prudence is the virtue we should be heeding at this time.

Apparently, our new SCOTUS nominee has a belief that her background, being both a woman and a Hispanic gives her the ability to make better judgments than her white male counterparts.

As reported (here – emphasis is theirs):

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

First, she does have a valid point about judges life experiences being brought into judicial thinking.  & I think it’s a myth wroth destroying that justices are more prone to objectivity than any other human beings.  After all, in the end, we are humans with similar limitations.

Having said that, this portion of her speech seems to imply she’s a racist and certainly should make people question her decision making ability.

She notes, that while there can never be a universal definition of wise, her background makes her more wise?

This is the convoluted logic that has a large percentage of the country banging their heads when reading any judicial opinions as judges everywhere jump over illogical hurdles in order to rationalize bad decisions.  The 9th Circuit is famous for this, but they might start sharing their propensity for illogical gymnastics with a Supreme Court Justice.

& just for the record – Obama’s picks seem a little worthless, two treasury department picks who can’t pay their taxes, but now are trying to run the economy & the IRS.  Many picks never went to fruition due to tax and other problems.  More than one pick that directly broke a pledge of Obama’s and a new regulation he instituted stating no lobbyists in his administration.

It’s as if we don’t even care enough to pay attention, because it’s much more disconcerting knowing these things than being blissfully ignorant of politics in general…