View Full Version : "People aren't smart enough for democracy to flourish"
Great read and probably all too true. Sigaba, you should read this:
http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2191-people-smart-democracy.html/
I especially liked:
"The research, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments.
As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. On top of that, "very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is," Dunning told Life's Little Mysteries.
He and colleague Justin Kruger, formerly of Cornell and now of New York University, have demonstrated again and again that people are self-delusional when it comes to their own intellectual skills. Whether the researchers are testing people's ability to rate the funniness of jokes, the correctness of grammar, or even their own performance in a game of chess, the duo has found that people always assess their own performance as "above average" — even people who, when tested, actually perform at the very bottom of the pile"
and
"Nagel concluded that democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders."
Could it also not be said that some politicians aren't smart enough...
"you didn't build it"
That's why it's useless to reason with liberals-all of whom believe they're geniuses- who in reality are merely dumbshits.
Half the idiot Obama-voters on the street couldn't even tell you who the Secretary of State is, but they believe rich people are the problem with the world.
This Country's capitols are saturated with elitist dildoes. We would never be able to survive another influx of "above average" politicians.
Badger52
07-19-2012, 11:42
This Country's capitols are saturated with elitist dildoes.Yup. They have a pretty good CONOP along the lines of:
- define, for you, your problem.
- make you afraid of it.
- convince you that only they are smart enough to fix it for you, if you will just let them.
They do a pretty good IPB too... been at it for over a century & they have lots of minions and if you're intractable they want your kids.
(This approach occasionally gets borrowed "in the interests of national security.")
That's why it's useless to reason with liberals-all of whom believe they're geniuses- who in reality are merely dumbshits.
Half the idiot Obama-voters on the street couldn't even tell you who the Secretary of State is, but they believe rich people are the problem with the world.
This Country's capitols are saturated with elitist dildoes. We would never be able to survive another influx of "above average" politicians.
Dusty,
Notice that the article says "incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas." It doesn't say "democrats are inherently unable to judge....."
Dusty,
Notice that the article says "incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas." It doesn't say "democrats are inherently unable to judge....."
I would think that incompetent people would need help taking care of themselves - competent folks for the most part can fend for themselves.
So Yea, there's a left vs right issue in this story.
Dusty,
Notice that the article says "incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas." It doesn't say "democrats are inherently unable to judge....."
lol There's a difference? :D
That's why it's useless to reason with liberals-all of whom believe they're geniuses- who in reality are merely dumbshits.
Half the idiot Obama-voters on the street couldn't even tell you who the Secretary of State is, but they believe rich people are the problem with the world.
This Country's capitols are saturated with elitist dildoes. We would never be able to survive another influx of "above average" politicians.
So you know members of my family? I may not agree with folks on some of their political persuasions but that doesn't mean they are dumbshits. It means they have a different world perspective than I do.
As far as not knowing who cabinet members are, have you spent time in "Red" southern states lately? Some of them aren't the brightest bunch of folks either (take a look at the "unbiased" video Pelosi's daughter did during some of the southern primaries and how she used it to show that "all" republicans are toothless, racist, morons.)
You must lead a pretty boring life if you only surround yourself with people that believe EXACTLY as you do.
Dusty I hate to be the one to tell you this, but I am not a dumbshit just because I don't agree with most of the stuff that you put here on the board. We have a difference of opinion, that doesn't mean we need to label each other as dumbshit, or libertard, or whatever your choice word is for the day.
Painting an entire group with one paintbrush only winds up making you look like the person who is unreasonable. JMO
I would think that incompetent people would need help taking care of themselves - competent folks for the most part can fend for themselves.
So Yea, there's a left vs right issue in this story.
Define competent. I am incompetent to perform open heart surgery, but I am surely competent enough to run an aerial port.
Competency is in the eye of the beholder. There are plenty of people on welfare that are competent in any number of things that would provide them with a means to support themselves. Just because they choose not to do so doesn't make them any less competent.
On the flip side I have worked with numerous folks that weren't competent enough to tie their own shoes, but they were making a pretty good salary sitting at their desk surfing the internet all day and supporting themselves and their families with that salary.
Painting an entire group with one paintbrush only winds up making you look like the person who is unreasonable. JMO
Small price to pay.
Democrats/liberals/progressives are dumbshits in my view, and that's the only view that interests me.
If you can't paint the current White House administration with one paintbrush, then you don't know how to paint.
Competency is in the eye of the beholder. There are plenty of people on welfare that are competent in any number of things that would provide them with a means to support themselves. Just because they choose not to do so doesn't make them any less competent.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the inanity of that statement qualifies you as one of those who thinks she is a whole lot smarter than she is, IMO.
Small price to pay.
Democrats/liberals/progressives are dumbshits in my view, and that's the only view that interests me.
If you can't paint the current White House administration with one paintbrush, then you don't know how to paint.
We weren't talking about this administration, we were talking about "all" liberals.
I have learned in my time as a commander, that everyone has an opinion worth listening too. Not every opinion, on every issue, but at some point in time, even the person I think I could never find common ground with, has attributes and opinions that can move the organization forward. I just had to be willing to take the time and make the effort to find those things.
I have found that by doing so, I am much better at pursuading someone who may not believe as I do, that maybe MY opinion has a valid argument to it. I have also found that works much better than labeling them dumbshits and thereby shutting down any means of two way communication with them.
But your view may vary. So be it.
lol There's a difference? :D
The study is saying that there are more dumb people (in general) than not.
I have also found that works much better than labeling them dumbshits and thereby shutting down any means of two way communication with them.
But your view may vary. So be it.
In case you haven't read the whole discourse, it's been established that you can't talk a liberal out of being liberal.
It's because they're too dumbshit to see reason. All of them; in the White House or in your family, wherever.
Rarely do they see the light.
The study is saying that there are more dumb people (in general) than not.
Roger. Understood.
The Country isn't in a jam because of dumb Conservatives right now, however.
Roger. Understood.
The Country isn't in a jam because of dumb Conservatives right now, however.
Dusty, I hate to tell you this but there are PLENTY of dumbshit republican congressmen, senators and judges and they are equally responsible for our problems.
In case you haven't read the whole discourse, it's been established that you can't talk a liberal out of being liberal. Then how did Reagan go from supporting FDR to having a more conservative set of political views?:munchin
Dusty, I hate to tell you this but there are PLENTY of dumbshit republican congressmen, senators and judges and they are equally responsible for our problems.
Equally? How?
Then how did Reagan go from supporting FDR to having a more conservative set of political views?:munchin
Blind squirrel, I guess. :rolleyes:
Look. I know and am extremely comfortable with my own level of intelligence. I've ascertained that liberals, dems and so-called "progressives" are the root cause of the problems in my Country.
None who disagree with me can convince me otherwise.
I suggest you just leave me alone to live in my fantasy world where all leftists are dumbshits, because you will never convince me otherwise; I've lived too long, been through too much, and have seen enough to know.
Well, at least you're honest
Well, at least you're honest
It worked for Shrek. ;)
Badger52
07-19-2012, 13:50
It worked for Shrek. ;)You have layers, like an onion, right?
:D
If the studies are accurate, then what are the implications for SF?
If the majority of people are simply not smart enough to be taught, then why should the American people fund a regiment of soldiers that are trained to be the greatest teachers in the world?
Wouldn't it be more prudent (politically, economically and militarily) to spend that money on SOF assets who kick in doors?
If the studies are accurate, then what are the implications for SF?
If the majority of people are simply not smart enough to be taught, then why should the American people fund a regiment of soldiers that are trained to be the greatest teachers in the world?
Wouldn't it be more prudent (politically, economically and militarily) to spend that money on SOF assets who kick in doors?
I challenge you to go off in the desert and ponder that dilemma for seven years.
Stargazer
07-19-2012, 14:34
Why make it so complicated -- I think Forrest Gump's Mama said it best... "stupid is as stupid does". Who needs a study to see that???
One of the most eye opening books I read was, "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman.
I learned a great deal about my own cognitive biases... we all have them.
Thanks for the post, Sinjefe.
Dusty, I hate to tell you this but there are PLENTY of dumbshit republican congressmen, senators and judges and they are equally responsible for our problems.
MOO: The Dems are mostly liberal, progressive statists and the Repubs are mostly status quo from whatever damage they inherited. Both sides are guilty of digging the hole, though over the years the Dems have done most of the shoveling.
My .002
ETA:
IMHO: The two-party system has for the most part failed. Political power in this country can be bought and sold, and both sides are responsible for that. With regards to the article itself, maybe some people are too dumb to see through the BS spouted by one and all, but for the most part, the source of whatever could be used to make the necessary decisions is tainted, the MSM. Whether it is apathy, lack of intelligence, ideology, or a true lack of time, people aren't going to be able to make those decisions without the proper information, and for the reasons stated, won't go and do their due diligence to make informed decisions about the candidates that are representing them.
Ultimately politics is a business, a major cash cow. Remove the cash, and you might fix it some.
DocIllinois - quite probably. Many people in this country have simply lost the ability to critically analyze or think through a solution.
You have one party that stresses independence.
You have another party that tells everyone they are incapable rubes and that the game is stacked against them and if they'd just pull the lever for the big "D", they can go back to mouth-breathing; watching Ricky Lake and the X-Factor and not worry about "puttin' gas in muh car, payin fo muh mo'gage", etc. because their "betters" will take care of them.
That's where we are today. The Dunning/Kruger effect is an interesting explanation of some fairly common issues.
As for Dusty - I'm with him. Liberalism is a mental disorder - pure and simple. Many liberals are very nice people and may have occasional lucid intervals, but that doesn't mean that their insistince on suicide is within societal parameters or that we need to ruck-up with the IED vest of National suicide.
MOO: though over the years the Dems have done most of the shoveling.
My .002
As opposed to an equal amount.
I challenge you to go off in the desert and ponder that dilemma for seven years.While the past does not predict the future, it can inform the decisions we make on a daily basis. In the American historical experience, when professional soldiers have exhibited contempt towards those who do not agree with them, navalists empower civilians to punish the army to the navy's benefit.
While members of the navy SOF community dislike the current president, has the naval establishment lost sight of the fact that the commander in chief likes the SEALs and that defense budgets are going to be shrinking?
While the past does not predict the future, it can inform the decisions we make on a daily basis. In the American historical experience, when professional soldiers have exhibited contempt towards those who do not agree with them, navalists empower civilians to punish the army to the navy's benefit.
While members of the navy SOF community dislike the current president, has the naval establishment lost sight of the fact that the commander in chief likes the SEALs and that defense budgets are going to be shrinking?
I don't give a f.ck. Thought you were supposed to be in the desert.
As opposed to an equal amount.
Yup. MOO: However, the inaction on the Repub side to repair the damage is just as onerous. There are no heroes here, just the betters of multiple evils, or not so evils.
Another thought, in line with what QP JimP posted, the (unintended) side effect of many of the social safety nets that have been created by government is the lack of common sense and critical analysis. Why think something through when some government safety net will catch me anyway and cleanup whatever mess I leave behind? Or some talking head will do the critical analysis for me...
My .02
Why think something through when some government safety net will catch me anyway and cleanup whatever mess I leave behind? Or some talking head will do the critical analysis for me...Is it your position that the founders did not put in place a "safety net" when they set up mechanisms to "suppress insurrections"?
Is it your position that the founders did not put in place a "safety net" when they set up mechanisms to "suppress insurrections"?
With all due respect, what does insurrection have to do with "I bought a house I couldn't afford to begin with, without bothering to think about the ramifications or doing any fiscal due diligence; I expected the bank to do that for me. However, the bank was mandated to lend to me no matter what...and...now my mortgage is 'under water' and I can no longer afford the payments and the gov has to bail me out (at tax payer expense)."?
With all due respect, what does insurrection have to do with "I bought a house I couldn't afford to begin with, without bothering to think about the ramifications or doing any fiscal due diligence; I expected the bank to do that for me. However, the bank was mandated to lend to me no matter what...and...now my mortgage is 'under water' and I can no longer afford the payments and the gov has to bail me out (at tax payer expense)."?
It doesn't. His question was Sigabatorical.
With all due respect, what does insurrection have to do with "I bought a house I couldn't afford to begin with, without bothering to think about the ramifications or doing any fiscal due diligence; I expected the bank to do that for me. However, the bank was mandated to lend to me no matter what...and...now my mortgage is 'under water' and I can no longer afford the payments and the gov has to bail me out (at tax payer expense)."?
Maybe what Sigaba is eluding to is this:
Here's my concern. What's at stake is not only the 2012 presidential election, but the very relevance of the Republican Party and the American political right. Right now, because of our increasingly shrill rhetoric and ideological blinders, we are presenting the opposition with a golden opportunity to destroy our intellectual credibility by turning the nation's attention to our view of history. (There are several Americanists who, if they were to marshal their resources, could bring such a work to market by October.*)
http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=458953&postcount=75
GratefulCitizen
07-19-2012, 15:54
The problem is not one of intelligence, technology, or material wealth.
It is a problem of morality.
Some people have more power than others.
This may be due to ability (such as intelligence) or circumstance.
Bottom line: power corrupts.
It doesn't matter if that power comes from the ability to accrue wealth through black-box trading programs, the ability to rally voters through charisma, or the ability to kill an antelope with a single blow to the forehead.
Moral bankruptcy plus increased power (including intelligence) just makes people more effective at doing evil.
With all due respect, what does insurrection have to do with "I bought a house I couldn't afford to begin with, without bothering to think about the ramifications or doing any fiscal due diligence; I expected the bank to do that for me. However, the bank was mandated to lend to me no matter what...and...now my mortgage is 'under water' and I can no longer afford the payments and the gov has to bail me out (at tax payer expense)."?BofH--
My point is that in our haste to attribute blame for the problems the nation currently face, we are increasingly prone to not remember that we've faced similar issues since day one.
Take, for example, the concept of "safety nets." It is presently fashionable to blame the liberals for those nets. The implication is that America would be better off without them. However, this position discounts the overwhelming evidence that Americans have historically sought to hedge private-sector risk through public and foreign policies. This position also ignores the fact that even while Reagan sought to dismantle FDR's welfare state, he still believed in safety nets.
The debate, then, is not about safety nets, yes or no but rather the appropriate number of safety nets. By reducing the debate to yes or no propositions, the political left can just sit back with an "Oh, really?" smirk and fire up the populist wind machine of class warfare.
If we were to keep the debate focused on the question "What are the appropriate number of safety nets that the federal government should provide?" then we can offer solutions that will work for all Americans--and not just the ones that agree with us-- and that are consistent with our core political philosophical beliefs.
YMMV.
Many liberals are very nice people and may have occasional lucid intervals, but that doesn't mean that their insistince on suicide is within societal parameters or that we need to ruck-up with the IED vest of National suicide.
I have to admit that made me laugh.:cool:
With all due respect, what does insurrection have to do with "I bought a house I couldn't afford to begin with, without bothering to think about the ramifications or doing any fiscal due diligence; I expected the bank to do that for me. However, the bank was mandated to lend to me no matter what...and...now my mortgage is 'under water' and I can no longer afford the payments and the gov has to bail me out (at tax payer expense)."?
That is not the only "safety net" Sigaba was talking about here; I think he was making reference to mechanisms such as the Electoral College and our government's "Separation of Powers."
Originally Posted by BOfH
"...the bank was mandated to lend to me no matter what..."
Based upon what I read about the home loan issues, I don't think this is an entirely accurate statement:
Look. I know and am extremely comfortable with my own level of intelligence. I've ascertained that liberals, dems and so-called "progressives" are the root cause of the problems in my Country.
None who disagree with me can convince me otherwise.
I suggest you just leave me alone to live in my fantasy world where all leftists are dumbshits, because you will never convince me otherwise; I've lived too long, been through too much, and have seen enough to know.
Reminds me of something I've heard somewhere before:
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."
- SecDef Donald Rumsfeld, 12 Feb 2002
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
BofH--
My point is that in our haste to attribute blame for the problems the nation currently face, we are increasingly prone to not remember that we've faced similar issues since day one.
Take, for example, the concept of "safety nets." It is presently fashionable to blame the liberals for those nets. The implication is that America would be better off without them. However, this position discounts the overwhelming evidence that Americans have historically sought to hedge private-sector risk through public and foreign policies. This position also ignores the fact that even while Reagan sought to dismantle FDR's welfare state, he still believed in safety nets.
The debate, then, is not about safety nets, yes or no but rather the appropriate number of safety nets. By reducing the debate to yes or no propositions, the political left can just sit back with an "Oh, really?" smirk and fire up the populist wind machine of class warfare.
If we were to keep the debate focused on the question "What are the appropriate number of safety nets that the federal government should provide?" then we can offer solutions that will work for all Americans--and not just the ones that agree with us-- and that are consistent with our core political philosophical beliefs.
YMMV.
Sigaba,
Thanks for clarifying, I agree. And to clarify my position, I do believe that some safety nets should exist, at the same time, I believe that people should be forced to perform their own proper due diligence before hedging risk against those safety nets. Basically, the safety net shouldn't become carte blanche for irresponsible fiscal( or other) behavior, with the tax payer picking up the tab. With regards to blame, as I previously stated (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=459411&postcount=28), both sides are to blame, some more than others considering their respective ideology and its impact on their legislative decisions and objectives.
My .02
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."
- SecDef Donald Rumsfeld, 12 Feb 2002
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
WTF?
Round up and quarantine all of Richard's students before this idiocy spreads any further. :D
Based upon what I read about the home loan issues, I don't think this is an entirely accurate statement:
QP Richard,
Mandated may have been too strong of a word, however, an article on the Clinton administrations creative loosening of lending standards is located here (http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html).
\
ETA:
IMHO: The two-party system has for the most part failed. Political power in this country can be bought and sold, and both sides are responsible for that. With regards to the article itself, maybe some people are too dumb to see through the BS spouted by one and all, but for the most part, the source of whatever could be used to make the necessary decisions is tainted, the MSM. Whether it is apathy, lack of intelligence, ideology, or a true lack of time, people aren't going to be able to make those decisions without the proper information, and for the reasons stated, won't go and do their due diligence to make informed decisions about the candidates that are representing them.
Ultimately politics is a business, a major cash cow. Remove the cash, and you might fix it some.
Based on people I have spoken with who consider themselves dumb or uninformed......they states exactly what you have just stated in regards to the two party system and it's pay to play system. In their eyes the system is rigged, they have no say and their vote really doesn't matter.
It has been my experience that ones that are blinded by the BS and/or how they can profit......generally have college educations.
Sigaba,
Thanks for clarifying, I agree. And to clarify my position, I do believe that some safety nets should exist, at the same time, I believe that people should be forced to perform their own proper due diligence before hedging risk against those safety nets. Basically, the safety net shouldn't become carte blanche for irresponsible fiscal( or other) behavior, with the tax payer picking up the tab. With regards to blame, as I previously stated (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=459411&postcount=28), both sides are to blame, some more than others considering their respective ideology and its impact on their legislative decisions and objectives.
My .02BofH--
Are you aware that some of the founders ended up in debtors prison and many others faced the specter of debt due to poorly managed risk throughout their adult lives? Is the persistent issue of debt a byproduct of flawed ideology and/or a lack of virtue alone or is the issue also a reflection of the vicissitudes of capitalism?
Based on people I have spoken with who consider themselves dumb or uninformed......they states exactly what you have just stated in regards to the two party system and it's pay to play system. In their eyes the system is rigged, they have no say and their vote really doesn't matter.
It has been my experience that ones that are blinded by the BS and/or how they can profit......generally have college educations.
I wouldn't say it is completely rigged, and give up and say my vote doesn't matter. The point is large cash donations, cronyism, kickbacks etc all have a very chilling effect. And further, turning that cash to (un)inform populous through the 24h news cycle only furthers this by them saying "look, they even voted for us! This is what they(the people) want!".
Look, we still have a far better system than any other country in the world. That said, we need to remain vigilant in ensuring it stays that way. Cronyism, ballot stuffing, vote buying, voter intimidation etc. should not be the way of political life in this country. Granted it will never be eliminated, but reducing it to an acceptable level should be the goal. Much like risk ;)
BofH--
Are you aware that some of the founders ended up in debtors prison and many others faced the specter of debt due to poorly managed risk throughout their adult lives? Is the persistent issue of debt a byproduct of flawed ideology and/or a lack of virtue alone or is the issue also a reflection of the vicissitudes of capitalism?
A little bit of both. Success almost always requires taking risk, with a very good chance that you will fail. Fiscal prudence can soften that blow, but the risk of failure will never be eliminated. There is a difference between planning, attempting and failing vs. throwing things at a wall to see what will stick. I have no problem with my tax money bailing out someone who lived mostly within their means and then lost their source of income. I do have a problem with that same money bailing out someone who knowingly (or ignorantly because they didn't bother to find out) lived outside of their means, and now needs a bailout.
My .02
IMHO: The two-party system has for the most part failed
...generally have college educations.
IME, people who have college educations learned in high school that the American political system was not intended to be a two party system.
USANick7
07-19-2012, 17:57
Competency is in the eye of the beholder.
Is that a true statement?
USANick7
07-19-2012, 18:01
IME, people who have college educations learned in high school that the American political system was not intended to be a two party system.
While I understand the frustration with political parties, I dong understand the statement that "the two party system has failed"...as opposed to what? I dont see a great deal of success with strong multi-party systems, certainly not enough that would make me want to trade...
Parties are a natural by product of a representative political system, and technically we don't have a 2 party system. Our 2 party system was essentially arrived at democratically. It isn't something that was or is imposed on us.
V/R
USANick7
07-19-2012, 18:06
I have no problem with my tax money bailing out someone who lived mostly within their means and then lost their source of income.
Not to sound cold heated, but I absolutely have a problem with my tax dollars going to such an expenditure.
I do feel an obligation to help my fellow man, especially my neighbor if he/she is struggling, but why would I ever want such a service to be manged by government? It is an open invitation to corruption when a politician is permitted to redistribute funds from one sector to another based on his or her arbitrary definitions of altruism.
GratefulCitizen
07-19-2012, 18:11
Not to sound cold heated, but I absolutely have a problem with my tax dollars going to such an expenditure.
I do feel an obligation to help my fellow man, especially my neighbor if he/she is struggling, but why would I ever want such a service to be manged by government? It is an open invitation to corruption when a politician is permitted to redistribute funds from one sector to another based on his or her arbitrary definitions of altruism.
Spot on.
There is a big difference between voluntary charity and "government" charity (ultimately at the point of a gun...).
The discipline of failure goes a long ways towards encouraging prudent decisions.
I'd like to see the follow up study -- "Big Government Bureaucracies - too Bloated and Ossified for Taxpayers to Flourish."
Paragrouper
07-19-2012, 18:20
BofH--
Are you aware that some of the founders ended up in debtors prison and many others faced the specter of debt due to poorly managed risk throughout their adult lives? Is the persistent issue of debt a byproduct of flawed ideology and/or a lack of virtue alone or is the issue also a reflection of the vicissitudes of capitalism?
Failure tends to generate consequences, reciprocally sucess creates reward--that is free market capitalism. Free market capitalism affords individuals great opportunity to succeed, or fail. the opportunity to fail is naturally more prevalent during periods of market contraction. thus individuals will fail. Is this fair?
Should it be?
My opinion; we are allowing our government to weaken our nation by their poor 'management' of our economy. We need to stop.
Originally Posted by afchic
Competency is in the eye of the beholder.
That statement, I think, exactly defines the Dunning-Kruger Effect and I wonder if afchic actually went to the link and read the article.
While I understand the frustration with political parties, I dong understand the statement that "the two party system has failed"...as opposed to what? I dont see a great deal of success with strong multi-party systems, certainly not enough that would make me want to trade...
Parties are a natural by product of a representative political system, and technically we don't have a 2 party system. Our 2 party system was essentially arrived at democratically. It isn't something that was or is imposed on us.
V/R
As opposed to shifting coalitions of interests that cut across geographic, economic, cultural, social, and ideological lines. IMO, this was the genius of the founders.
Define failed...
If you believe that the two-party system is rigged such that only the two parties has a reasonable chance of participating - I would call that a founding failure.
If you believe that the members of said parties constitute a political class whose main interest is furthering their own self-interests - I would also call that a founding failure.
Regardless, the real failure is that of the people to recognize and rectify these, and other, corruptions.
Sort of bolsters the people aren't smart enough argument.
Not to sound cold heated, but I absolutely have a problem with my tax dollars going to such an expenditure.
I do feel an obligation to help my fellow man, especially my neighbor if he/she is struggling, but why would I ever want such a service to be manged by government? It is an open invitation to corruption when a politician is permitted to redistribute funds from one sector to another based on his or her arbitrary definitions of altruism.
QP USANick7,
I absolutely agree, I would love for the government to stay out of the social safety net business altogether. That open invitation has already been well worn, used and abused.
My response was with regards to the point that I believe Sigaba is trying to make, mainly both sides of the aisle are responsible for the situation we are in, the safety nets aren't going to go away, and trying to solely point fingers at the Democrats while Republican legislative voting records show shared blame will kill any chances of the political "right's" relevancy in the face of the "left's" extremism.
With regards to the two parties, yes, we got there democratically, however, we can't seem to get out of it democratically, at least not now.
My .002
ZonieDiver
07-19-2012, 20:10
QP Richard,
Mandated may have been too strong of a word, however, an article on the Clinton administrations creative loosening of lending standards is located here (http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html).
Examination of the link provided reveals that not all provisions of the plan to loosen lending requirements for homeownership that was proposed by the Clinton Administration's HUD were "approved". Approved by whom? Why, the US Congress, of course - which, at the time, found the Republicans in the majority in both houses, and Newt Gingrich as Speaker.
It also mentions that NONE of the approved provisions were later undone by the administration of GW Bush, when he had both houses to do it with.
There is plenty of blame to go around. At the time of the collapse, the ONLY person I heard take ANY blame - with a lot of "buts" and "we didn't knows" - was former President Clinton.
That statement, I think, exactly defines the Dunning-Kruger Effect and I wonder if afchic actually went to the link and read the article.
Either that or she's French-Canadian. :D
USANick7
07-19-2012, 20:24
As opposed to shifting coalitions of interests that cut across geographic, economic, cultural, social, and ideological lines. IMO, this was the genius of the founders.
I think Madison anticipated political parties very early on
USANick7
07-19-2012, 20:28
QP USANick7,
I absolutely agree, I would love for the government to stay out of the social safety net business altogether. That open invitation has already been well worn, used and abused.
My response was with regards to the point that I believe Sigaba is trying to make, mainly both sides of the aisle are responsible for the situation we are in, the safety nets aren't going to go away, and trying to solely point fingers at the Democrats while Republican legislative voting records show shared blame will kill any chances of the political "right's" relevancy in the face of the "left's" extremism.
With regards to the two parties, yes, we got there democratically, however, we can't seem to get out of it democratically, at least not now.
My .002
While I completely agree that both sides of the aisle as far as people are concerned are complicit, I do think there is a very marked difference between the 2 platforms.
Unfortunately we do seem to automatically assume that if a politician is a member of a particular party that they automatically govern according to the stated principles of that party which is clearly not the case for many Republican...I would argue that for the most part Democrats have shown a greater felicity toward their platform than many Republicans have to theirs.
Nothing was more frustrating than to see capitalism be blamed for some of the economic polices during the Bush administration that were clearly not based on free market principles.
USANick7
07-19-2012, 20:34
Either that or she's French-Canadian. :D
I didn't mean any offense to afchic, I simply am questioning the validity of such a statement...
its like when someone says that there is no objective truth...really? is that statement "objectively true". I believe her meaning was more along the lines of what Will Rodgers said "We're all ignorant, just about different subjects" ...but that is different from the statement that "competency is in the eye of the beholder."
Comments like that bother me...such as when Obama stated in one of his books that "the genius of the founders was that they rejected absolute truth" ...you would be hard pressed to find anything in the founders documents which suggest that they were relativists...not that I assume that President Obama has ever taken the time to read a thing the founders wrote.
While I completely agree that both sides of the aisle as far as people are concerned are complicit, I do think there is a very marked difference between the 2 platforms.
Unfortunately we do seem to automatically assume that if a politician is a member of a particular party that they automatically govern according to the stated principles of that party which is clearly not the case for many Republican...I would argue that for the most part Democrats have shown a greater felicity toward their platform than many Republicans have to theirs.
Nothing was more frustrating than to see capitalism be blamed for some of the economic polices during the Bush administration that were clearly not based on free market principles.
Agreed. The left probably worry more about the woodshed and media assassination that the right, case in point: Cory Booker. Whereas the right is already vilified, so they may be more inclined to speak their mind and not toe the party line. I guess there are downsides to having the MSM in your wallet. :D :rolleyes:
My .002
I think Madison anticipated political parties very early onDid Madison merely anticipate political parties or did he also foster their rise while Hamilton attempted to warn and to guard against their influence?
It also mentions that NONE of the approved provisions were later undone by the administration of GW Bush, when he had both houses to do it with.And also, Bush the Younger took credit for expanded home ownership during his 2004 acceptance speech for his re-nomination on 2 September 2004 <<LINK (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=72727&st=&st1=)>>.Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
Thanks to our policies, homeownership in America is at an alltime high. Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."
In an ownership society, more people will own their health care plans and have the confidence of owning a piece of their retirement. We'll always keep the promise of Social Security for our older workers. With the huge baby boom generation approaching retirement, many of our children and grandchildren understandably worry whether Social Security will be there when they need it. We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account, a nest egg you can call your own and Government can never take away.
In all these proposals, we seek to provide not just a Government program but a path, a path to greater opportunity, more freedom, and more control over your own life.
How about that.
While I do not agree with the basic premise the fact that the current administration was elected into office makes a great case for their cause.
Originally only males that owned land were allowed to vote. Perhaps we sould do something like that such as citizens that have a job or held a job in the last year or are retired after x amount of years are allowed to vote. Soldiers that are retired medically from combat wounds would be accepted as well as a few other folks that were not working for legit reasons. People on welfare do not get a vote.
FWIW, a leading proponent of property ownership as a criterion for voting was also a leading proponent against maintaining a standing army led by professional soldiers. Was he correct on one and not the other?
Dozer523
07-20-2012, 03:00
WTF?
Round up and quarantine all of Richard's students before this idiocy spreads any further. :D
Dusty, Just because you put a :D doesn't make it funny.
Dusty, Just because you put a :D doesn't make it funny.
Not to a liberal-you're right.
USANick7
07-20-2012, 08:32
Did Madison merely anticipate political parties or did he also foster their rise while Hamilton attempted to warn and to guard against their influence?
Hamilton was very active in party politics...in fact if Hamilton had any issues with political parties I would think it was because there was more than one...lol...and I admire Hamilton.
Madison simply understood that various interest groups did not necessarily need to be a "bad" thing if our system was set up correctly. That interest groups in the form of organization, political parties, etc. could actually work against one another to ensure that no central group gained overwhelming dominance of the political apparatus and move us away from a federated republic...
I still think Madison was correct in his assumptions, the problem is not necessarily political parties but an ever expanding government which has the ability to hand out favors, which greatly expanded as a result of leftist progressive political theory, which was for a time popular in varying degrees in both political parties...
The federal income tax for instance provides the federal government with far too much power, as did a series of supreme court decisions (all perpetuated by leftist courts) which eroded key portions of constitutional precedence.
V/R
USANick7
07-20-2012, 08:33
FWIW, a leading proponent of property ownership as a criterion for voting was also a leading proponent against maintaining a standing army led by professional soldiers. Was he correct on one and not the other?
Sigba while that is an interesting point...it is straying close to ad hominem...
USANick7
07-20-2012, 08:38
And also, Bush the Younger took credit for expanded home ownership during his 2004 acceptance speech for his re-nomination on 2 September 2004 <<LINK (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=72727&st=&st1=)>>.
How about that.
The only difference I would offer in approach is that Bush did call for auditing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... the fact that he didn't get it done when he had control of both houses suggests that they may have been a disingenuous suggestion.
But this also gets back to my point that we should judge political theories according to the results of their implementation. President Bush was not a fiscal conservative, nor was he a strong advocate for free markets. He was certainly better than any Democrat we have had since Garfield, and he certainly claimed to be a free marketeer, but if capitalism is to be judged by its proponents rather than its results then we have an issue.
Either that or she's French-Canadian. :D
No Dusty, I am an AMERICAN, albeit one that you disagree with. And as Dozer stated just because you put a :D does not make it funny, or sarcastic. It just makes it sad.
As of yesterday I have spent 22 years either as a dependant to two people who served this country honorably, and 18 years wearing the uniform myself. I like many on this site, have tried to live up to the ideals of what this nation stands for. I have sacrificed to do so. I have friends and loved ones that have died for the same ideals.
Some of those are the folks you like to describe as "libertards". Is their blood any less red than yours? Or are the lives they lived any less valuable to this great country we have all sworn to protect and defend?
If there is one thing I have learned in my 40 years on this earth, it is that it is better to try and find the things that bind us together, and keep us strong, than it is to focus on the things that make us different and can drive us apart.
I have loved ones that are homosexual, which is something I view as a sin, but no greater sin than some that I have committed. They are what you would call "libertards". They are people who have enriched my life, and I hope made me a better person by knowing them.
I have had someone I love more than life itself have an abortion, a sin that I find abhorant. One that I am afraid she will regret, and will haunt her to the day she dies. And although I find her actions horrendous, she still adds great value to my life every day, simply for her being in it. She is what you would call a "libertard"
I just found out this morning that my neighbor back home passed away from cancer. She was 38 years old, and only knew of her diagnosis for a short time. She leaves behind a husband, a 22 year old step daughter, a 14 year old son and a 8 year old daughter. She is what you would call a "libertard".
Do you know what she has been doing for the past couple of years of her life? She worked in East St Louis, trying to help teenage girls who are pregnant stay in school so they can work to get out of the ghetto so they and their children have a chance at a better life. To break the cycle of welfare and single motherhood. So although I may not always agree with some of her politics, she is a person who made a difference in this world, and is going to leave a gaping hole in the life of many with her absence. I am a better person for having known her.
So I guess I will end with this, not everyone is made in the same mold. Life expereiences make us who we are. If I sheltered myself from everyone who didn' have the same thoughts as I do on a majority of issues, I would be less of the mother, wife, sister, daughter, friend and Officer I am today.
The political environment we find ourselves in today sometimes causes us to define winners and losers, friends and enemies, Republicans and Democrats. And if we who hold conservative values continue to draw a line in the sand that further defines our differences rather than trying to find ways to seek common ground, we are no better than the man that is currently occupying the White House.
No Dusty, I am an AMERICAN, albeit one that you disagree with. And as Dozer stated just because you put a :D does not make it funny, or sarcastic. It just makes it sad.
As of yesterday I have spent 22 years either as a dependant to two people who served this country honorably, and 18 years wearing the uniform myself. I like many on this site, have tried to live up to the ideals of what this nation stands for. I have sacrificed to do so. I have friends and loved ones that have died for the same ideals.
Some of those are the folks you like to describe as "libertards". Is their blood any less red than yours? Or are the lives they lived any less valuable to this great country we have all sworn to protect and defend?
If there is one thing I have learned in my 40 years on this earth, it is that it is better to try and find the things that bind us together, and keep us strong, than it is to focus on the things that make us different and can drive us apart.
I have loved ones that are homosexual, which is something I view as a sin, but no greater sin than some that I have committed. They are what you would call "libertards". They are people who have enriched my life, and I hope made me a better person by knowing them.
I have had someone I love more than life itself have an abortion, a sin that I find abhorant. One that I am afraid she will regret, and will haunt her to the day she dies. And although I find her actions horrendous, she still adds great value to my life every day, simply for her being in it. She is what you would call a "libertard"
I just found out this morning that my neighbor back home passed away from cancer. She was 38 years old, and only knew of her diagnosis for a short time. She leaves behind a husband, a 22 year old step daughter, a 14 year old son and a 8 year old daughter. She is what you would call a "libertard".
Do you know what she has been doing for the past couple of years of her life? She worked in East St Louis, trying to help teenage girls who are pregnant stay in school so they can work to get out of the ghetto so they and their children have a chance at a better life. To break the cycle of welfare and single motherhood. So although I may not always agree with some of her politics, she is a person who made a difference in this world, and is going to leave a gaping hole in the life of many with her absence. I am a better person for having known her.
So I guess I will end with this, not everyone is made in the same mold. Life expereiences make us who we are. If I sheltered myself from everyone who didn' have the same thoughts as I do on a majority of issues, I would be less of the mother, wife, sister, daughter, friend and Officer I am today.
The political environment we find ourselves in today sometimes causes us to define winners and losers, friends and enemies, Republicans and Democrats. And if we who hold conservative values continue to draw a line in the sand that further defines our differences rather than trying to find ways to seek common ground, we are no better than the man that is currently occupying the White House.
Well said
Competency is in the eye of the beholder.
Is that a true statement?IMO, there's much to be said for the accuracy of afchic's observation.
In our everyday lives, how many times have we observed a wet behind the ears new comer figure everything out in a day or two and then proceed to tell established experts how things should be done and then rail at the Powers That Be for their lack of competence for not listening? Only later, after that person has had gotten to spend time on tasks does the light go on.
(Of course, I've never done anything like that. Nope. Not me.:o:rolleyes:)
GratefulCitizen
07-20-2012, 19:14
I'll throw in with Dusty for now.
Not necessarily because I agree with him, but to make a point.
Liberals love to play the "define the middle" game.
It's all about compromise.
Suppose I say: 2+2 = 6
The likely response would be no, it's 4.
Then I say: 2+2 = 5 (a compromise)
The likely response would be no, it's 4.
This game keeps going until I say 2+2 = 4.00001
Most people would still insist that 2+2 = 4
I'VE COME WAY MORE THAN HALF WAY, WHY ARE THEY SO UNREASONABLE!!!!
The game is to get people to give up their core beliefs.
Then it's time to start boiling the frog.
Many people (probably Dusty included) often respond by going far the other direction rhetorically.
This helps expose the "define the middle" game and prevents the "boiling the frog" strategy.
IMO, there's much to be said for the accuracy of afchic's observation.
]
You obviously didn't read the article either.
You obviously didn't read the article either.Your conclusion is inaccurate.
Prior to 2010, there were conversations on this BB about the development of expertise in various domains of knowledge. That conversation was recently renewed in the controversial Payton Manning coming to Denver (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=440950) thread. I was thinking only about these conversations, and also some the works referenced in those discussions, and my own study of the field of educational cognitive psychology, as well as the article you cited in the OP, when I made the comment about "competence."
At this point, I would like to ask a question. Precisely what is so controversial about the notion that "competence is in the eye of the beholder"? Is the issue that the statement appears to contradict the point(s) you sought to make by starting this thread?
By my reading, the statement actually fits into a point of view you, and generations of your brethren both here and across the street, have eloquently argued through the years. That point is because only BTDTs can correctly see what it takes to be a competent member of the SOF community only BTDTs can determine the appropriate means to assess, to select, and to train prospective members of the SOF community.
At this point, I would like to ask a question. Precisely what is so controversial about the notion that "competence is in the eye of the beholder"? Is the issue that the statement appears to contradict the point(s) you sought to make by starting this thread?
By my reading, the statement actually fits into a point of view you, and generations of your brethren both here and across the street, have eloquently argued through the years. That point is because only BTDTs can correctly see what it takes to be a competent member of the SOF community only BTDTs can determine the appropriate means to assess, to select, and to train prospective members of the SOF community.
You've completely missed the boat on the point of this thread (I'm the one who started it). The title of the thread is "People aren't smart enough for democracy to flourish" and the point of the link was to create a discussion about, in general, the gist of the article, and the quoted study, that stupid people are too stupid to know their stupid and too stupid to know if anyone else is stupid and the effect THAT has on democracy. It would appear that the Dunning Kruger Effect is well accepted amongst psychologists and they even won the Nobel prize in psychology for their study. My point to you and others (as well as myself), as a I highlighted, is their statement that "people (all people, not just everyone except Sigaba) are self delusional when it comes to their own intellectual skills". I never stated anything relating to "only BTDTs can correctly see what it takes to be a competent member of the SOF community only BTDTs can determine the appropriate means to assess, to select, and to train prospective members of the SOF community."
As to that statement......der! I don't know your background, other than what you wrote in your profile, but it obviously isn't SOF, let alone SF. You don't even have a perspective on that issue, nor will you ever, until you've walked a real mile in our shoes.
No Dusty, I am an AMERICAN, albeit one that you disagree with. And as Dozer stated just because you put a :D does not make it funny, or sarcastic. It just makes it sad.
Some of those are the folks you like to describe as "libertards". Is their blood any less red than yours? Or are the lives they lived any less valuable to this great country we have all sworn to protect and defend?
You mean "libtard". That's a bastardization of the words "liberal" and "retarded".
I hate liberals, and I don't give a f.ck what hat they wear.
Liberals are the ones who spat on my Brothers when they came home from dodging bullets. Called these heroes "baby killers".
I don't give a f.ck if you love homossexuals; that's your business. I don't give a f.ck if you love liberals, either.
I hate 'em. They're diseased. They're the enemy.
AF Chick said:
If there is one thing I have learned in my 40 years on this earth, it is that it is better to try and find the things that bind us together, and keep us strong, than it is to focus on the things that make us different and can drive us apart.
The political environment we find ourselves in today sometimes causes us to define winners and losers, friends and enemies, Republicans and Democrats. And if we who hold conservative values continue to draw a line in the sand that further defines our differences rather than trying to find ways to seek common ground, we are no better than the man that is currently occupying the White House.
I can see and understand the sentiment expressed above. Most folks do not want to be isolated on one side or the other as it seems abhorrent. Like we're not making an honest effort to be productive. "It's better to find the things that bind us together." Without playing out the hand, how do you know it will be better? This could end up simply being wishful thinking.
If you took a snapshot of where the mainstream left and right were in say 1930 or 1950 and compared it to where they are today, I believe you would see that the left has migrated way further to the left. This migration is constant. Accordingly to find common ground, it necessitates that the right also migrates to the left.
I guess my sticking point is that unless the right follow this migration pattern, they are viewed as not wanting to compromise.
In reality, what common ground is there between a socialist/ communist and a conservative? What binds these two groups together? One could almost say these two ideologies are mutually exclusive and non compatible. If they are, there is no common ground is compromise the best policy?
Also, I don't see the relevance of making an issue that the liberal folks you know are nice people. What does that matter?
I believe most of us can look back at the history of western civilization and see the rise and falls of empires. We may dispute the reason behind both, but all of us would be hard pressed to say it doesn't happen. Therefore, the fall of the American Empire is always a possibility. To say it's not possible, is a position of detrimental arrogance in my opinion.
If we look at certain migration in social policies in the military, specifically gays in the military and women in combat, as a nation we have taken a leap of faith. There is no historical precedence supporting these actions and no guaranty that these policies will make our military more combat effective. Isn't that the point of having a military? WE need the military to be combat effective. What if it doesn't make it more combat effective and somewhere down the path we are defeated? There's no guaranty in how the conquering army is going to treat us as there will be nothing to still their hand. All the compromise and finding common ground just destroyed our nation. These nice, personable, and well meaning liberals just ended our existence as an independent sovereign nation.
Maybe it's not time for compromise, but time to stand our ground. Maybe drawing a line in the sand is the most patriotic move.
You think Dusty's comments are sad? Not as sad as your faith in unproven social changes.
afchic,
With relevance to this thread-it's immaterial to me whether I'm in the "12th percentile" or the 112th. I don't care if someone is smarter than I am; don't care if they're dumber, either. I just know what I know.
You waste your time if you labor under the concept that you can change my mind about the progressive mentality, regardless of whether you ran the entire freaking Air Force. That's been tried by people with a hell of a lot better chance of persuading me than yourself.
Any of you "intellectuals" who have bought into liberalism don't get my sympathy, just my disgust. You should know better, if you're so much smarter than others.
IMO - there are a lot of posts in this thread which offer ample examples to support the Professor's arguments.
Perhaps this is why our 'revered' so-called 'Founding Fathers' were foresightful enough to establish a democratically constituted Republic instead. ;)
On another note - I can't recount the number of times members of this BB have posited the argument that direct, personalized criticism and ridicule (Alinsky's rules number 5 and 12) is a favored tactic commonly used by 'liberals' - KEEP IT CIVIL.
Richard :munchin
@sinjefe--
IMO, getting upset about others' lack of intelligence (including my own) is like getting mad at water for being wet. (Even though I spend time being railing about both on Facebook.)
MOO, the article (or rather the studies that the article summarizes), misses the point of both "intelligence" and "competence." IMO, intelligence is the ability to learn the relevant skills one needs to live a self-efficacious life. That is, if a person can live a life he or she finds fulfilling, then that person is intelligent and poses competency at some skill set, even if that person is making choices I find disagreeable.
As an example, I will briefly re-tell an anecdote I shared on this BB some years ago. Back in the 1990s, Ralph's (a grocery chain) opened up a new store close to a certain university in Southern California. This particular store immediately attracted an interesting cross section of L.A. in terms of ethnic background, national origin, and social class. During my second trip to this store, I noticed that an elderly working-class Latina had brought the lone open check out line a screeching halt. The woman appeared not to know a word of English. She seemed absolutely clueless of how an American grocery store should work as she handed off some sort of a check to the cashier, gestured indecisively, and proceeded to wait. The rules of this BB prevent me from repeating the stream of profanity I uttered in sotto voce. Suffice to say, I cursed a blue streak that would have settled once and for all my claims of not being bitter.
Then, I recalled what I'd recently read about the cognitive science of learning, expertise, and competence and I started laughing. The woman was not, as I initially thought, an incompetent idiot too dumb to learn how to make it in America. On the contrary, she was quite adept at turning her grocery shopping into a one stop shopping AND banking experience without speaking a word of English. How about that.
So from this experience (and from teaching undergraduates and working with engineers and managing Teamsters), I've learned time and again that there are many types of intelligence. Because someone doesn't fit into my preconceived definition of intelligence or competence, it doesn't mean that they're dumb. It just means that they're using a different set of skills to reach a different set of goals. If I want them to pursue different goals or to adopt different behaviors it is incumbent upon me to convince them to make that change, and, if appropriate, to give them the information to make informed choices.
IME, this mindset is especially beneficial when it comes to political conversations in which I hope to encourage others to look at issues from a variety of perspectives in addition to their own while I simultaneously seek opportunities to do the same. Although I have few expectations of changing most peoples' minds, one never knows when an intense debate is going to have unforeseen benefits
YMMV.
Now, turning to your last point. I am hoping that you can walk me through what you meant when you said the following.
You don't even have a perspective on that issue, nor will you ever, until you've walked a real mile in our shoes.
By this line of reasoning,
If a non BTDT disagrees with BTDTs on the issue of selecting and training men to be SOF, the non BTDT's POV is irrelevant because that person hasn't BTDT.
If a non-BTDT (a) takes the time to research the POVs of BTDTs on the issue of selecting and training men to be SOF, (b) pieces together a consensus POV of BTDTs, and (c) finds that consensus POV persuasive, that non-BTDT's POV is also irrelevant because that person hasn't BTDT.
What are the implications for American military policy and civil-military relations if both positions are equally true?
Does this mean that the next time I'm in a conversation about controversial issues related to military policy (e.g. gays in the service, women in combat, changing standards for SOF selection and training), I should not let non-BTDTs know that they can find a robust debate on those issues here and across the street? By the logic of your argument, ultimately, what they think as civilians who vote doesn't matter because what ever they read will be entirely beyond their comprehension?
FWIW, Emory Upton would have agreed. And, as, one historian pointed out. By proposing a military policy that the country could not accept, Emory Upton helped ensure that the country would continue to limp along with virtually no military policy at all.*By contrast, General George C. Marshall believed that respect was a two way street. He believed that informed civilians did have a place at the table when it came to making military policy. Consequently, between 1939 and 1941, he spent a great amount of time consulting with and testifying before Congress. As a result of his outreach, after 7 December 1941 Congress and the American public were willing to defer to army's professional judgement "with surprisingly little resentment."**
To be clear, as I've said many times in previous posts, I have zero illusions about knowing what it takes to be high speed. And my previous post was consistent with that position.
My point simply is that, for better and for worse, civilians are stakeholders when it comes to making military policy. If soldiers want to heap disrespect upon civilians for having the temerity to form an opinion that is based upon research and offered from a perspective of respect, that's certainly their prerogative. However, I don't think anyone should be surprised if civilians remember this dynamic when it comes time to crafting other components of national security policy. Or, for that matter, when it comes to voting.
My $0.02.
_______________________________________
* R. F. Weigley, History of the United States Army (1967), p. 281
** Mark Skinner Watson, The United States Army in World War II, The War Department, Chief of Staff: Prewar Plans and Operations (1950; reprint, Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, United States Army, 1991), pp. 7-9. The quote is from page 9.
@sinjefe--
IMO, getting upset about others' lack of intelligence (including my own) is like getting mad at water for being wet. (Even though I spend time being railing about both on Facebook.)
MOO, the article (or rather the studies that the article summarizes), misses the point of both "intelligence" and "competence." IMO, intelligence is the ability to learn the relevant skills one needs to live a self-efficacious life. That is, if a person can live a life he or she finds fulfilling, then that person is intelligent and poses competency at some skill set, even if that person is making choices I find disagreeable.
As an example, I will briefly re-tell an anecdote I shared on this BB some years ago. Back in the 1990s, Ralph's (a grocery chain) opened up a new store close to a certain university in Southern California. This particular store immediately attracted an interesting cross section of L.A. in terms of ethnic background, national origin, and social class. During my second trip to this store, I noticed that an elderly working-class Latina had brought the lone open check out line a screeching halt. The woman appeared not to know a word of English. She seemed absolutely clueless of how an American grocery store should work as she handed off some sort of a check to the cashier, gestured indecisively, and proceeded to wait. The rules of this BB prevent me from repeating the stream of profanity I uttered in sotto voce. Suffice to say, I cursed a blue streak that would have settled once and for all my claims of not being bitter.
Then, I recalled what I'd recently read about the cognitive science of learning, expertise, and competence and I started laughing. The woman was not, as I initially thought, an incompetent idiot too dumb to learn how to make it in America. On the contrary, she was quite adept at turning her grocery shopping into a one stop shopping AND banking experience without speaking a word of English. How about that.
So from this experience (and from teaching undergraduates and working with engineers and managing Teamsters), I've learned time and again that there are many types of intelligence. Because someone doesn't fit into my preconceived definition of intelligence or competence, it doesn't mean that they're dumb. It just means that they're using a different set of skills to reach a different set of goals. If I want them to pursue different goals or to adopt different behaviors it is incumbent upon me to convince them to make that change, and, if appropriate, to give them the information to make informed choices.
IME, this mindset is especially beneficial when it comes to political conversations in which I hope to encourage others to look at issues from a variety of perspectives in addition to their own while I simultaneously seek opportunities to do the same. Although I have few expectations of changing most peoples' minds, one never knows when an intense debate is going to have unforeseen benefits
YMMV.
Now, turning to your last point. I am hoping that you can walk me through what you meant when you said the following.
By this line of reasoning,
If a non BTDT disagrees with BTDTs on the issue of selecting and training men to be SOF, the non BTDT's POV is irrelevant because that person hasn't BTDT.
If a non-BTDT (a) takes the time to research the POVs of BTDTs on the issue of selecting and training men to be SOF, (b) pieces together a consensus POV of BTDTs, and (c) finds that consensus POV persuasive, that non-BTDT's POV is also irrelevant because that person hasn't BTDT.
What are the implications for American military policy and civil-military relations if both positions are equally true?
Does this mean that the next time I'm in a conversation about controversial issues related to military policy (e.g. gays in the service, women in combat, changing standards for SOF selection and training), I should not let non-BTDTs know that they can find a robust debate on those issues here and across the street? By the logic of your argument, ultimately, what they think as civilians who vote doesn't matter because what ever they read will be entirely beyond their comprehension?
FWIW, Emory Upton would have agreed. And, as, one historian pointed out. By contrast, General George C. Marshall believed that respect was a two way street. He believed that informed civilians did have a place at the table when it came to making military policy. Consequently, between 1939 and 1941, he spent a great amount of time consulting with and testifying before Congress. As a result of his outreach, after 7 December 1941 Congress and the American public were willing to defer to army's professional judgement "with surprisingly little resentment."**
To be clear, as I've said many times in previous posts, I have zero illusions about knowing what it takes to be high speed. And my previous post was consistent with that position.
My point simply is that, for better and for worse, civilians are stakeholders when it comes to making military policy. If soldiers want to heap disrespect upon civilians for having the temerity to form an opinion that is based upon research and offered from a perspective of respect, that's certainly their prerogative. However, I don't think anyone should be surprised if civilians remember this dynamic when it comes time to crafting other components of national security policy. Or, for that matter, when it comes to voting.
My $0.02.
_______________________________________
* R. F. Weigley, History of the United States Army (1967), p. 281
** Mark Skinner Watson, The United States Army in World War II, The War Department, Chief of Staff: Prewar Plans and Operations (1950; reprint, Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, United States Army, 1991), pp. 7-9. The quote is from page 9.
Whatever. You're smarter than everyone else and not the least self delusional about yourself. You're the Dunning-Kruger effect personified.
This is an interesting subject, and probably one that would take a doctoral thesis to really address the more I think about it, but I'm not sure if I buy that competency in a skill-set makes one intelligent per se (OTOH, I don't know if there are any legitimately dumb people who are competent at anything (???)). A lot of "dumb" people who are competent at something, it's more just a lack of knowledge or education, because with education, knowledge, and development of critical-thinking skills if they lack them, they can become much more "intelligent" seeming.
And that, is essentially what both Dunning and Kruger said. Not that people are permanently ignorant. They can change, become informed, improve their knowledge, etc. They just don't tend to.
Dozer523
07-21-2012, 23:39
afchic,
With relevance to this thread-it's immaterial to me whether I'm in the "12th percentile" or the 112th. I don't care if someone is smarter than I am; don't care if they're dumber, either. I care. I'd like to meet the dumber ones. :D
Whatever.@sinjefe--
You're clearly invested yourself intellectually into what you label the Dunning-Kruger effect and Ms. Wolchover's article about it.
However, I think you've over looked key components of the theory as introduced in 1999 (http://www.wepapers.com/Papers/70939/Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_-_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One%27s_Own_Incom petence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments) and elaborated in 2002 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=unskilled%20and%20unaware%20of%20it%20pdf&source=web&cd=7&sqi=2&ved=0CGIQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Frfrost.people.si.umich.edu%2Fcour ses%2FSI110%2Freadings%2FCyberculture%2FUnskilled% 2520and%2520Clueless%2520about%2520It.pdf&ei=858LUMeEJYz22AXC_vTrDw&usg=AFQjCNGNiL8nfCvp15qLu3L0X5p6wUM3MA&cad=rja).
By my reading of the two pieces, the core issues are the assessment of one's own expertise in a domain of knowledge in which one is unskilled and how an inability to perform a realistic self-assessment makes it difficult to acquire new skills. That is, a person thinks he's a very good keyboard player when he actually stinks. He cannot improve as a keyboard player because the same cognitive processes that prevent him from realizing that he stinks also prevent him from improving his play. <<LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuBJLTdr_pQ)>>
By contrast, those who are highly skilled in a domain of knowledge tend to under-estimate their expertise while concurrently over estimating the competence of their peers. In this scenario, another lawyer is at the top of his specialty. Yet he rates himself lower because he thinks his peers are better. In neither case is the issue about being "dumb" or being "smart." Instead, the issue is being unskilled or being skilled. (You may have noticed that the words "dumb" and "smart" do not appear in the 1999 piece nor the 2002 follow up.)
Additionally, there's this evaluation that you offered. And that, is essentially what both Dunning and Kruger said. Not that people are permanently ignorant. They can change, become informed, improve their knowledge, etc. They just don't tend to.
However, by my reading of the 1999 article, the two specifically point out that those who are unskilled in a different domain are prone to be caught in a loop that prevents them from improving their skills. This point is developed on pages 1121 and 1122, and it is prefaced as being the most "controversial" aspect of the theory. Kruger and Dunning suggest that certain people cannot "improve their knowledge" because they lack the self monitoring skills to do so. As they put it.In essence, we argue that the skills that engender competence in a particular domain are often the very same skills necessary to evaluate competence in that domain—one's own or anyone else's. Because of this, incompetent individuals lack what cognitive psychologists variously term metacognition (Everson & Tobias, 1998), metamemory (Klin, Guizman, & Levine, 1997), metacomprehension (Maki, Jonas, & Kallod, 1994), or self-monitoring skills (Chi, Glaser, & Rees, 1982). These terms refer to the ability to know how well one is performing, when one is likely to be accurate in judgment, and when one is likely to be in error.
But hey, I may be misreading the two pieces while your reading of the article may be more accurate. As Kruger and Dunning put it in 2002:
The discerning reader may have noticed that both camps seem to be rather confident in their conclusions, although, given the contradictions, someone must be wrong. Whoever is wrong, they do not seem to know it.One thing is certain. I've become a bit more competent at a differentiating between an opportunity for earnest discussion of contrasting views based upon research, careful reading, critical thought, and mutual respect and an opportunity to accept uncritically another person's POV of an article in the blogosphere.
I care. I'd like to meet the dumber ones. :D
You're the poster boy for the ones who, pathetically, think they're smarter. :D
olhamada
07-22-2012, 08:32
If you haven't read Glenn Beck's new book "Cowards", you MUST.
He argues, quite convincingly, that Dems and modern day Repubs (McCain, Bush, etc..) are essentially cut from similar cloth and are not true conservatives...and are all part of the problem. He argues for true conservatism (Liberterianism) with small government, etc....
According to him, the last true conservative was Regan.
and the last true Democrat was John F. Kennedy.
I hold out great hope that folks are not irredeemably stupid - we'll know - if they repeat the debacle that occurred in 2008. :D
I hold out great hope that folks are not irredeemably stupid - we'll know - if they repeat the debacle that occurred in 2008. :D
The only possible way Obama will be re-elected would be through subterfuge, hijinks and chicanery. He only won by single-digits, and there's more than a double-digit load of contrite ex-Obama-lovers (mostly women), who won't make the same mistake (until Hillary runs).
We're looking at a landslide of 7 or 8 electoral votes, even, in a fair election.
What makes you think this election will be fair? We all know the last one wasn't via ACORN and the new black panthers intimidating voters.
Where in my post do I say it will be fair? :munchin
I predicted what would happen if it were fair.
What makes you think this election will be fair? We all know the last one wasn't via ACORN and the new black panthers intimidating voters.The radical left foisted Governor Palin upon the GOP?
ZonieDiver
07-22-2012, 12:36
If you haven't read Glenn Beck's new book "Cowards", you MUST.
He argues, quite convincingly, that Dems and modern day Repubs (McCain, Bush, etc..) are essentially cut from similar cloth and are not true conservatives...and are all part of the problem. He argues for true conservatism (Liberterianism) with small government, etc....
According to him, the last true conservative was Regan.
Don Regan or President Ron Reagan?:D
So, Glenn Fricken Beck gets to define who is and who is not a "true conservative"? I'd rather have Dusty define who is and who is not a "libtard"! Oh... wait....:D (I almost forgot the Grinning Face, which makes all okay!)
Don Regan or President Ron Reagan?:D
I'd rather have Dusty define who is and who is not a "libtard"! Oh... wait....:D (I almost forgot the Grinning Face, which makes all okay!)
No, it doesn't. Dusty's been a baaaaad boy.
I should not be so vulgar and mean, and I apologize to anyone who might be offended.
I still hate liberals, though.
Dozer523
07-22-2012, 17:05
Hey Dusty!
:D
The radical left foisted Governor Palin upon the GOP?
She was a net plus. McCain was foisted on us.
Pat
TXGringo
07-22-2012, 19:16
She was a net plus. McCain was foisted on us.
Pat
Strongly agree. Unfortunately, IMO, we didn't learn our lesson.
craigepo
07-22-2012, 20:40
I think that I disagree with the entire theme of this article. To accept the premise, that people are so dumb democracy won't/can't work, we would have to ignore the fact that the United States, a democratic republic which has now been in existence for over 200 years, is one of the world leaders in almost every relevant category possible.
I become cautious when members of the intelligentsia look down their noses at the poor, ignorant paupers that make up society. True, our voters don't always pick the "right" candidate, but the country has done rather well for the duration of its existence. Moreover, it takes quite an assumption to say that the electrician who has made a living for him and his family being an electrician is too stupid to vote for candidates, just because he doesn't have an advanced degree in economics or taxation.
I would humbly submit that the authors of this article should come hang out with me at a coffee shop once in a while, and engage in conversation with some "normal" folks. While there is no doubt that these authors are well-read, I wonder if they could frame a house, fix a tractor, operate a tugboat, or tailor a dress.
As was mentioned above, I would argue that the problem today is not the relative intelligence of voters. Rather, the important issue is whether the voter has any "skin in the game" when he/she votes. There was a good reason why the founders of this nation limited who voted---they wanted persons exercising that power to be persons who voted, not just for their own best interests, but for the country's as well. Question: why should we allow a person to vote whose sole intent is to better his own position with his ballot?
Another point that I would argue is relevant: "Bad government" is a relative term. I think it was Winston Churchill who said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other type of government ever devised. This government, full of "dumb" voters, has in one way or another, defeated monarchies, dictatorships, fascists, communists, and totalitarian regimes. Remember the 80's, when people were worried that Japan would own the U.S.? How about the Cold War, when the world feared that the Warsaw Pact would roll through the Fulda Gap, stomp Europe, and start communist domination of the world?
Is there some other type of government under which these writers would like to live and work?
Our dumb voters have access to healthcare, education, interstate highways, free speech and religion. Other countries' poor people are malnourished---our poor people are overweight. We are the lone military superpower in the world. When natural disasters strike, anywhere in the world, U.S. charities respond. Hungry North Koreans eat rice packaged in bags that says "Made in the U.S.A."
Is our government imperfect? Yep. Could we have a better administration than what we presently have? I would argue yes. But, to say that our people are too dumb to govern themselves is a statement that, in my opinion, ignores too many obvious facts to be tenable.
ZonieDiver
07-23-2012, 05:04
Very well-said! Thank you for that.
I have tried to say similar things in other threads about our young people, thousands of whom I have had direct contact over the past 30+ years. They ain't as stupid, vapid, and worthless as they are painted to be.
"We" get carried away (IMHO) with the faillures, excesses, and general asshattery (as someone likes to say :D) of the current administration. I have faith in the good old USA. The Republic will survive, and thrive. Will there be change? Yes. Always has been and always will be. Will I like all of the changes? No. But that is the way it goes.
I'm hoping that after the conventions, the GOP comes up with a strategy to win the election. So far, I think they've based their campaign on the "strategy" for victory developed by our leaders in VietNam.
YMMV
ZonieDiver
07-24-2012, 05:39
Isn't it going to be "debate"?
I haven't seen Romney, or any Republican, "kick the crap" out of ANYthing lately.
(We had a Congressional campaign in AZ in 2010 in which the scion of a prominent Indiana family who have migrated to AZ promised to "go to Washington and "kick the hell" out of the place!" Here we are, two years later. He's running, again, and doesn't appear to have kicked ANYthing in his two years there. Besides, he looks as if he couldn't kick the crap out of a piece of paper, and didn't even have the guts to at least serve in the Indiana Nationall Guard like his pop.)
Or if people just don't buy into Romney enough. I am hoping that Romney kicks the crap out of Obama in the debates in the way he gave hell to Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry.
Obama doesn't have the charismatic BS going for him, this time. Romney can beat a teleprompter-he just needs to drive Obama's myriad failures home.
Badger52
07-24-2012, 06:29
Romney can beat a teleprompter-he just needs to drive Obama's myriad failures home.Yup. The first time around, Oprah's prince needed only to articulate vision because he had no product or anything substantial to sell. This time around the discussion is going to be about experience in leadership and results in executing a model for American success. As in:
POTUS: "And I've worked hard to reinvigorate programs to help veterans just like yourselves find the path to jobs less difficult."
Romney: "What jobs? Your programs are killing the companies that create jobs. All the "reinvigorating" in the world won't create a job - unless it's another federal job in some new agency you created outside Congress by another Executive Order."
If any debate is w/o a teleprompter coaching the marinette - and I'd like to see 'em have nothing but a small table & water between them & talk on their feet without notes - then Little John knocks Robin's ass into the creek with a staff.
If any debate is w/o a teleprompter coaching the marinette - and I'd like to see 'em have nothing but a small table & water between them & talk on their feet without notes - then Little John knocks Robin's ass into the creek with a staff.
Actually, the debates are pretty well structured and organized. The candidates can't have note cards or teleprompters, earphones, etc. The downside is that both candidates must agree on the line of questions, time for responses, rebuttals, etc, so it is a little canned.
...then Little John knocks Robin's ass into the creek with a staff.
I'm not sure that analogy is quite what you wanted to say; all the material I've ever read had Robin and Little John becoming friends...with Robin retaining his leadership role over the group.
Just sayin'...
Richard :munchin
I haven't seen Romney, or any Republican, "kick the crap" out of ANYthing lately.
Oh, I think former NH Gov. John Sunnu did a pretty good job smacking the lapdog media and its hired pit-bulls around.
I haven't seen Romney, or any Republican, "kick the crap" out of ANYthing lately.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/21/david-brooks-dont-expect-a-highly-ideology-based-philosophical-presidential-campaign/
Voters shouldn’t expect President Barack Obama to add any more depth or nuance to his attacks on rival Mitt Romney, even though the upcoming election raises fundamental questions about the role of government and the direction of the economy, according to New York Times columnist David Brooks.
On Friday night’s “NewsHour” on PBS, Brooks said the two presidential candidates will probably stick to the basics to avoid confusing voters.
“There is the makings of a serious discussion of what sort of role of government, what sort of society, what sort of capitalism we want to have,” Brooks said. “And I do think there is — that’s implied in a lot of these arguments. Barack Obama’s really attacking Romney on all the things people don`t like about capitalism, the high creative destruction involved, especially in private equity. Will we actually have that discussion? I’m extremely doubtful, in part because what they’re targeting are people who don’t pay attention to politics. Everybody who pays attention has already decided. And so they want a very simple message.”
Brooks cited Obama’s criticism of Romney for allegedly helping send jobs overseas as an example of a classic political attack that plays to voters’ instincts, even though the economic effects of outsourcing are complicated and often misunderstood.
“He’s got a very simple-minded ad attacking Romney for being a guy who ships shops overseas,” Brooks said. “But to actually have a debate about capitalism and about the role of government would require more nuance than I think we’re going to [get] from either side, precisely because they are paying attention to people who don’t pay attention.”
MOO: I think it is a combination of apathy and some voter hopelessness of super-PAC's and the billions of dollars that are pored into politics by special interest groups vs. the lone vote(r).
My .002
USANick7
07-24-2012, 11:46
I'll throw in with Dusty for now.
Not necessarily because I agree with him, but to make a point.
Liberals love to play the "define the middle" game.
It's all about compromise.
Suppose I say: 2+2 = 6
The likely response would be no, it's 4.
Then I say: 2+2 = 5 (a compromise)
The likely response would be no, it's 4.
This game keeps going until I say 2+2 = 4.00001
Most people would still insist that 2+2 = 4
I'VE COME WAY MORE THAN HALF WAY, WHY ARE THEY SO UNREASONABLE!!!!
The game is to get people to give up their core beliefs.
Then it's time to start boiling the frog.
Many people (probably Dusty included) often respond by going far the other direction rhetorically.
This helps expose the "define the middle" game and prevents the "boiling the frog" strategy.
I think this illustration does a very good job of establishing part of the problem...Justice Scalia once used something similar to discuss why Originalism was not as popular as pragmatism with relation to judicial philosophy. i.e. the pragmatists have something to bargain with where as the originalists are simply interpreting the text as accurately as possible.
If I believe that a particular position is correct and that its opposite is incorrect, at what point am I to accept a poor or incorrect compromise?
More and more I see a fundamental shift between the conservative and liberal mindsets which provides for very little common ground.
To suggest that the potential solution to this shift is a series of compromises which ultimately feature a number of zero sum choices where liberal progressive increases incrementally is not a solution to to underlying questions, but a war of attrition where instead of careful evaluation of policy we get a subtle and gradual move toward the left in the name of "compromise".
Effective compromise is possible between people who share a common world view, it is much more difficult to achieve when world views are diametrically opposed.
Effective compromise is possible between people who share a common world view, it is much more difficult to achieve when world views are diametrically opposed.
Especially when the guy from the left's view is so wrong. :D
I think I'll hold off spouting any more of my hyper-patriotic rhetoric. Until after the presidential election. :cool:
Guymullins
07-24-2012, 13:21
I think that I disagree with the entire theme of this article. To accept the premise, that people are so dumb democracy won't/can't work, we would have to ignore the fact that the United States, a democratic republic which has now been in existence for over 200 years, is one of the world leaders in almost every relevant category possible.
I become cautious when members of the intelligentsia look down their noses at the poor, ignorant paupers that make up society. True, our voters don't always pick the "right" candidate, but the country has done rather well for the duration of its existence. Moreover, it takes quite an assumption to say that the electrician who has made a living for him and his family being an electrician is too stupid to vote for candidates, just because he doesn't have an advanced degree in economics or taxation.
I would humbly submit that the authors of this article should come hang out with me at a coffee shop once in a while, and engage in conversation with some "normal" folks. While there is no doubt that these authors are well-read, I wonder if they could frame a house, fix a tractor, operate a tugboat, or tailor a dress.
As was mentioned above, I would argue that the problem today is not the relative intelligence of voters. Rather, the important issue is whether the voter has any "skin in the game" when he/she votes. There was a good reason why the founders of this nation limited who voted---they wanted persons exercising that power to be persons who voted, not just for their own best interests, but for the country's as well. Question: why should we allow a person to vote whose sole intent is to better his own position with his ballot?
Another point that I would argue is relevant: "Bad government" is a relative term. I think it was Winston Churchill who said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other type of government ever devised. This government, full of "dumb" voters, has in one way or another, defeated monarchies, dictatorships, fascists, communists, and totalitarian regimes. Remember the 80's, when people were worried that Japan would own the U.S.? How about the Cold War, when the world feared that the Warsaw Pact would roll through the Fulda Gap, stomp Europe, and start communist domination of the world?
Is there some other type of government under which these writers would like to live and work?
Our dumb voters have access to healthcare, education, interstate highways, free speech and religion. Other countries' poor people are malnourished---our poor people are overweight. We are the lone military superpower in the world. When natural disasters strike, anywhere in the world, U.S. charities respond. Hungry North Koreans eat rice packaged in bags that says "Made in the U.S.A."
Is our government imperfect? Yep. Could we have a better administration than what we presently have? I would argue yes. But, to say that our people are too dumb to govern themselves is a statement that, in my opinion, ignores too many obvious facts to be tenable.
I think you are dead right about the USA and other places where democracy works. However, in my country, we have a situation where we can see a recent example of this concept actually taking place. 18 years ago, we changed from a system where only 10% of the population could vote, and the government was , because of this, made up of the voting group. This group, being of European extraction, had an average IQ of 100. The system changed, peacefully, into a majority rule one, where the entire population could vote. The average IQ of those newly allowed to vote is 72.
This has changed the government into 100% of the new voter group.
What happened is a very rapid change from a well functioning national and regional government, to a dysfunctional state. Delivery of services has ceased in many areas and declined very badly in all other areas. Corruption is rife in every government department and infrastructure has collapsed across the board. In one province, school books have not been delivered to schools although half the school year has gone and the Minister of Education says she is doing a good job in spite of this. I suggest that this proves that there are electorates who are too dumb to make democracy work and in fact, so dumb that countries can go into a downward spiral which can never be stopped because ineptitude breeds more, and worse ineptitude , as in the education decline I mentioned earlier.
Guy - well said!!
We're seeing it here. When the goblins figured out they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, the inevitable slide started. Hence...we are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not a pure democracy. We need to get back to our roots and educate the mouth-breathers. Unfortunately, the left dominates in the "mouth-breathing education expertise" arena.
Badger52
07-24-2012, 13:34
I'm not sure that analogy is quite what you wanted to say; all the material I've ever read had Robin and Little John becoming friends...with Robin retaining his leadership role over the group.
Just sayin'...
Richard :munchinYou're quite correct in the historic sense, I was just thinking of that particular moment when they "measure."
What happened is a very rapid change from a well functioning national and regional government, to a dysfunctional state. Well functioning for whom?
Guymullins
07-24-2012, 14:10
Well functioning for whom?
Everyone.
Well functioning for whom?
Your question suggest that there is no such thing as 'well functioning' for everybody.
Everyone.
That word has never meant as much to me before seeing it in this context.
ZonieDiver
07-24-2012, 14:36
Your question suggest that there is no such thing as 'well functioning' for everybody.
That word has never meant as much to me before seeing it in this context.
I don't think he was necessarily referring to what you suggest in a general sense, but I'll let Sigaba answer for himself.
My thinking is this: IF the government of the 100 IQs had spent a little bit more time and money during all they years they were in power in the UofSA (as opposed to the USofA), educating those with the eventual 70 IQs, perhaps when the shift in power took place the 70 IQs might have had higher IQs. Just a thought.
As to your second remark, I am not even sure what you are saying, so I can offer no comment other than, "huh?"
Brevity is not always the soul of wit.
Everyone.If it worked for everyone, then why was there widespread civil unrest?
If it worked well for everyone, then why was there the "need" for the state to exercise a very high level of control over certain segments of the population? Was it for their "own good"?
What happened is a very rapid change from a well functioning national and regional government, to a dysfunctional state.
Well functioning for whom?
Everyone.
Everyone? :confused: The attached pdf ("Implementation Of Apartheid") is what I've always read of that 'well functioning government' you're talking about.
http://www.apartheidmuseum.org/node/48
I was born in 1950 and am certainly glad I was not raised a 'Bantu' under the laws of such a "well functioning" government.
Richard :munchin
Guymullins
07-24-2012, 16:38
Everyone? :confused: The attached pdf ("Implementation Of Apartheid") is what I've always read of that 'well functioning government' you're talking about.
http://www.apartheidmuseum.org/node/48
I was born in 1950 and am certainly glad I was not raised a 'Bantu' under the laws of such a "well functioning" government.
Richard :munchin
I make no pretence that Apartheid was either just or fair. It was not, and that is why the holders of power voted overwhelmingly to share power with the disenfranchised. However, the "unjust" government at the time built many more houses for the disenfranchised than the newly enfranchised have built for themselves. The health system was functional and the law enforcement was such that we had one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Since majority rule, average life expectancy has plummeted, largely due to the collapse of the public health service. The crime rate has rocketed to such an extent that our murder rate is 8 times your USA rate and our rape rate is one every three minutes. The Apartheid government built thousands of schools which were well run and many universities which educated our future leaders. Nelson Mandela was educated in a South African University, so was Bob Mugabe. I could go on for a very long time, but the facts are : We have a dysfunctional government, despite the best endeavours of the Apartheid regime to train the "previously disadvantaged" in their own independent homelands. With regard to increasing the average IQ? I dont think this can be done with education. You can however get the best out of any existing IQ with a good appropriate education. There are more innocent civilians, of all colours killed per month in tiny South Africa than in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan put together.
The attachments you refer to are produced by the present regime in order to demonise the past one. As Stalin revised history so do his followers today. Are you aware that the Communist Party is part of the alliance which forms our present government?
With regard to increasing the average IQ? I dont think this can be done with education.Apparently not.
As Stalin revised history so do his followers today.Evidently, they're not alone in this enterprise. Are you aware that the Communist Party is part of the alliance which forms our present government?So this makes the policies and practices of the former regime all right?
The Reaper
07-24-2012, 17:47
IQ testing is a measure of intelligence.
Not education.
Educational levels can be raised. Intelligence cannot.
TR
ZonieDiver
07-24-2012, 21:48
Educational levels can be raised. Intelligence cannot.
So, one is born with all the intelligence he or she will ever have?
How about "generationally"... over time?
I'm not just talking about "schooling".
Guymullins
07-25-2012, 03:38
Apparently not.Evidently, they're not alone in this enterprise.So this makes the policies and practices of the former regime all right?
Sigaba, as I mentioned earlier, Apartheid was by no means perfect, especially for the underprivileged sector of the population. It was however a system which did provide law and order, a solid education and reasonable health services to everyone. Now that it has been replaced by Democracy, these key areas have fallen into total disrepair. I have three boys and none of them have had the pleasure of walking or riding their bicycles in the streets. Murder for a bike or cellphone is now a common occurrence and our farmers in less-populated areas are being wiped out piecemeal in attacks which often involve torture as well as the usual murder and robbery. This perhaps shows that the strong-arm methods of the Apartheid government were essential to maintain civilized standards in an otherwise uncivilized environment. How do you suggest one deal with a police force that hires out its automatic weapons and uniforms to criminals? How do you deal with a National Chief of Police, who was also appointed head of Interpol, being found guilty of corruption and bribery and consorting with the countries major drug dealer? His replacement in the position has now been suspended pending an inquiry into how criminal charges of murdering his girlfriends lover were dropped by the National Prosecuting Authority. As I say, the horror stories are endless and the contrast between the two forms of government are becoming starker by the day. The decline of our country is the last example in Africa of how calamitous self-rule has been for everyone, rich and poor. Our closest neighbor, Zimbabwe has degenerated from being the bread basket of Africa, to being the basket case of Africa in the reign of a single man, Robert Mugabe. He has so destroyed his country that it is now entirely dependent on food aid and it no longer even has its own currency, but uses yours and ours because Mugabe managed to reach billion percent inflation with his own. And do you know what? Many Zimbabweans still vote for him. Ready for democracy?
...Apartheid was by no means perfect, especially for the underprivileged sector of the population. It was however a system which did provide law and order, a solid education and reasonable health services to everyone.
Attached chart.
Democratic rule is not easy, even for those who have grown up under it, but democratic cultures, like others, tend to generally reap what they sow.
Richard :munchin
Guymullins
07-25-2012, 04:31
Attached chart.
Democratic rule is not easy, even for those who have grown up under it, but democratic cultures, like others, tend to generally reap what they sow.
Richard :munchin
Richard, the point I am trying to make is that Apartheid was bad, but majority rule is worse. The present allocation per underprivileged pupil is now the highest in the world, and the literacy and numeracy rates have sunk to nearly the lowest in the world. This is because the allocations are stolen before they get to the pupils. Teachers dont teach , but spend their time seducing pupils or striking against being inspected by the authorities. Books dont reach the schools because they are dumped in the bush by suppliers who get government tenders because of being politically connected. Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. Apartheid never has people wearing white sheets lynching others because of the colour of their skins. We all have problems integrating the different groups in our countries and America has been relatively successful in this regard, although your prison populations are hardly a true reflection of the demographics of your country.
Sigh
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/africa/
Democracy may have been good for us, but that doesn't mean it is good for everyone.
...the point I am trying to make is that Apartheid was bad, but majority rule is worse.
Democracy isn't easy. Democracy is advanced citizenship. It takes time and effort. You've got to want it bad, because it's going to put up a fight. Even after you've got it. The democratic growing pains SA (and many other countries) are experiencing now seem to be influenced by what once was, and may suffer those repercussions for some time yet to come in their attempts to embrace democracy. And sadly, they may eventually fail in that task, too.
But as rough as that transition may be, I cannot buy the society was 'better off' under slavery's apartheid kin argument. Better for whom? The 20% or the 80%?
And as far as intelligence goes:
intelligence is not entirely hereditary and can, with few exceptions, be developed
quality of pre- and post-natal care (health care and nutrition), as well as environment, affect brain development and intelligence
quality of health care, nutrition, and environment during the brain's formative years (birth to around 23yo) also affect brain development and intelligence
education does impact intelligence
intelligence studies have shown that testing of the same person may vary as much as 5 points in a single week, and as much as 10 points over a few years of education and testing
more recent studies over the last several decades have identified what are referred to as 'multiple intelligences' (Howard Gardner was a leader in this area) which go far beyond the traditional Binet-based perception of human IQ measurement
Richard :munchin
Guymullins
07-25-2012, 09:11
Take your eye off SA for a moment. We have suffered from very bad press over many years and Apartheid has become such an emotive subject that it is hard to see clearly through the mists of propaganda and mis-information. Look just a few hundred yards north over the Limpopo River to Zimbabwe. It was also ruled by a minority government with similar laws to its neighbour to the South. It was turned into a majority rule nation in 1979 and enjoyed a brief few years of honeymoon with the rest of the world before tribal massacres were instigateed by the new President. He than turned his hand to confiscating the land lawfully bought by farmers and turned it over to political cronies to stand idle. The printing presses were stilled, apart from those that printed money and world record inflation followed. The west instituted sanctions against the President and his most virulent friends and election after election was stolen from under the noses of the free world. Would you like to venture some thoughts on whether Zimbabweans were better or worse off under Ian Smiths repressive regime or that of Robert Mugabe?
A benevolent dictatorship is still a dictatorship.
Guymullins
07-25-2012, 09:36
A benevolent dictatorship is still a dictatorship.
Who is the benevolent dictator MR2? If you mean Ian Smith, you are entirely wrong. Rhodesia ran under a qualified voting system whereby one had the right to vote if one either had a high school education, or earned over a certain threshold. Although this did exclude the vast majority of the population, it did ensure that the vote was in educated or responsible hands, and it also catered to a gradual shift in power to the majority over time. The country also had an excellent education system, so this was not a handicap to aspiring voters. It was certainly not a dictatorship. The Mugabe government is, but it is not by any stretch of the imagination benevolent.
Dozer523
07-25-2012, 09:51
. . . Look just a few hundred yards north over the Limpopo River to Zimbabwe. It was also ruled by a minority government with similar laws to its neighbour to the South. It was turned into a majority rule nation in 1979 and enjoyed a brief few years of honeymoon with the rest of the world before tribal massacres were instigateed by the new President. I was fortunate to sponsor a Major from the Zimbabwe Army during the Qualification Course in the mid 80's. "Taffy" was educated in the system, joined the Insurgency and after being captured and sentenced to death was enlisted in the Rhodesian Army as they prepared for the transition to Black rule. He was very proud of the transtion and that he served in an integrated Army (he was pretty happy that he was offered a choice -- "join or die" too). Your discription of that period as a honeymoon is a good one.
I can't agree that Democracy failed Zimbabwe. Rather the elected leadership abused Democracy and the people of Zimbabwe.
Guymullins
07-25-2012, 10:04
Since majority rule, the death penalty has been abolished. The country went from being relatively law abiding to total savagery almost overnight. Savage racial attacks are a daily occurrence.
Here is a link to todays news http://praag.org/?p=838
Guymullins
07-25-2012, 10:12
I was fortunate to sponsor a Major from the Zimbabwe Army during the Qualification Course in the mid 80's. "Taffy" was educated in the system, joined the Insurgency and after being captured and sentenced to death was enlisted in the Rhodesian Army as they prepared for the transition to Black rule. He was very proud of the transtion and that he served in an integrated Army (he was pretty happy that he was offered a choice -- "join or die" too). Your discription of that period as a honeymoon is a good one.
I can't agree that Democracy failed Zimbabwe. Rather the elected leadership abused Democracy and the people of Zimbabwe.
Dozer, yes, certainly the leader abused his position. African leaders are always blamed for the excesses and brutality they bring to their people, but to me, where democracy does fail, is that Africans themselves do little or nothing to stop these abuses. In fact, they often promote changes to fine constitutions which allow leaders to legally abuse their power. This really brings us back to the original contention of this thread.In some countries "People are not smart enough for democracy to flourish."
Dozer, yes, certainly the leader abused his position. African leaders are always blamed for the excesses and brutality they bring to their people, but to me, where democracy does fail, is that Africans themselves do little or nothing to stop these abuses. In fact, they often promote changes to fine constitutions which allow leaders to legally abuse their power. This really brings us back to the original contention of this thread.In some countries "People are not smart enough for democracy to flourish."
Maybe they see it is as payback time. Keep a people under the ruling minority's thumb for long enough, they are going to make sure payback is hell.
Sugarcoat it all you want, but the past ruling parties have made what is going on possible by abusing the ethnic majority.
This is not the first nor last time this will happen.
Guymullins
07-25-2012, 11:35
Maybe they see it is as payback time. Keep a people under the ruling minority's thumb for long enough, they are going to make sure payback is hell.
Sugarcoat it all you want, but the past ruling parties have made what is going on possible by abusing the ethnic majority.
This is not the first nor last time this will happen.
Consider the possibility that the majority have always been pre-disposed to violence and savagery. Almost like your countries relationship between the Native Americans and the colonists. We took the path of living alongside one another, and now live to regret it. American settlers took the path of getting rid of the troublesome natives, and now the very few that remain are kept in Reservations, very much like our concept of Independent Homelands, which you call evil Apartheid. It seems that from this side, our greatest sin was not to wipe out the natives when we had the chance like the Australians and Americans did.
It feels a bit like being lectured on How to Foster Good Racial Relationships by the Germans. Americas racial problems stem from settlers importing slaves from Africa. I find it a bit ironic that you have such a high regard for your own behavior.
Dozer523
07-25-2012, 11:57
our greatest sin was not to wipe out the natives when we had the chance like the Australians and Americans did..I'm not sure genocide is ever an acceptable solution. I challenge you to demonstrate wiping out the natives was ever American policy.
It feels a bit like being lectured on How to Foster Good Racial Relationships by the Germans. Americas racial problems stem from settlers importing slaves from Africa. I find it a bit ironic that you have such a high regard for your own behavior.The American Founding Fathers really struggled with the problem of treating the Native American fairly. Development of the North American continent was just to involved and expansion was moving too fast.
And we just inherited the problem started by the British.
Guymullins
07-25-2012, 12:13
I'm not sure genocide is ever an acceptable solution. I challenge you to demonstrate wiping out the natives was ever American policy.
The American Founding Fathers really struggled with the problem of treating the Native American fairly. Development of the North American continent was just to involved and expansion was moving too fast.
And we just inherited the problem started by the British.
Dozer, perhaps it wasnt policy, but it happened nonetheless. I do seem to remember something about the issue of smallpox impregnated blankets in winter to the tribes, but there were more efficient methods apart from this anyway.
I really liked that,"We just inherited the problem started by the British." Us too!
Bloody Brits are at the root of the Rhodesian/Zimbabwe problem as well. The Rhodesians, just like you , declared their independence from Britain, only to be knifed in the back by the country they had always rallied behind in times of war. Ian Smith was shot down twice flying Hurricanes for the British. Lots of thanks he got.
Astounding.
Those statements just go to show how little people really know of our culture beyond the pop pablum favored by those who never really study it, as well as their surreal sense of the historical underpinnings and meanderings which have brought us to where we are today - patently scarred and admittedly flawed, yet resolution-oriented and cautiously optimistic.
On the other hand, those statements also show just how willing people are to try and do as we have done many times in our own past - sugarcoat our historical buffalo dung and attempt to sell it as some sort of wistfully delicious family recipe to be handed down and cherished by all whenever the occasion suits us. Well, I'm not buying it...and neither should you.
We do seem to have one thing in common today, though, to suffer the consequences of a dirth of competent national-level leadership combined with the perceived desires of a capriciously ravenous voting public. ;)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Dozer523
07-25-2012, 12:43
something about the issue of smallpox impregnated blankets in winter to the tribes, but there were more efficient methods apart from this anyway.The real "der weisse Engel" for Natives of the Western Hemisphere-ians was the early Spanish explorers like DeSoto. Columbus discovered the Western Hemisphere in 1492 and the first settlement was built by the Spanish near Pensacola in 1559 (didn't fair too well) but they did succeed near St Augustine in 1565.
The European diseases they carried and shared caused a dieoff of possibly 90% of an estimated pre-columbian population of 100 million. I don't know if any civilization can comeback from that even without competition from new-comers.
The infected blankets thing is very much disputed but I saw it on Western movies all the time.
I do seem to remember something about the issue of smallpox impregnated blankets in winter to the tribes, but there were more efficient methods apart from this anyway.
That myth was debunked long ago - except for the likes of pseudo-Native American Ex-Professor Ward Churchill and, apparently, you.
However, more recent studies have shown that 90-95% of the native cultures of the Americas, which were far more numerous and advanced, and less nomadic, than the lore of pap history has stated, were decimated not through societal conflicts, but through their inability to survive the plagues of diseases brought to the Americas by the European settlers.
If you are curious about History and America beyond the ingrained myths, legends, and folklore, Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen is an excellent read.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Guymullins
07-25-2012, 13:02
Astounding.
Those statements just go to show how little people really know of our culture beyond the pop pablum favored by those who never really study it, as well as their surreal sense of the historical underpinnings and meanderings which have brought us to where we are today - patently scarred and admittedly flawed, yet resolution-oriented and cautiously optimistic.
On the other hand, those statements also show just how willing people are to try and do as we have done many times in our own past - sugarcoat our historical buffalo dung and attempt to sell it as some sort of wistfully delicious family recipe to be handed down and cherished by all whenever the occasion suits us. Well, I'm not buying it...and neither should you.
We do seem to have one thing in common today, though, to suffer the consequences of a dirth of competent national-level leadership combined with the perceived desires of a capriciously ravenous voting public. ;)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I could do with some of that popcorn Richard.
If you are referring to my statements above, you could be right. I have read tons of academic research on the "Indian Problem" and as we both know, academic truth and real truth sometimes diverge. However, while my knowledge of your history may indeed be be superficial, that does not make your knowledge of my countries history any better. I think we agree that our respective leaders leave much to be desired. You Americans are lucky that your well informed electorate are unlikely to make the same mistake again, while ours are bound to repeat the error ad infinitum.
I do seem to remember something about the issue of smallpox impregnated blankets in winter to the tribes,
If that did indeed happen, it would have been the Brits, again, at the the siege of Ft. Pitt. And they may have tried the same tactic against the Americans during the Revolutionary War.
Pat
Guymullins
07-25-2012, 13:13
If that did indeed happen, it would have been the Brits, again, at the the siege of Ft. Pitt. And they may have tried the same tactic against the Americans during the Revolutionary War.
Pat
Pat, I do believe it was the Brits see below:
We know of but a single instance of such warfare, and the documentary evidence is inconclusive. In 1763, a particularly serious uprising threatened the British garrisons west of the Allegheny mountains. Worried about his limited resources, and disgusted by what he saw as the Indians’ treacherous and savage modes of warfare, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief of British forces in North America, wrote as follows to Colonel Henry Bouquet at Fort Pitt:"You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians [with smallpox] by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method, that can serve to extirpate this execrable race."
Bouquet clearly approved of Amherst's suggestion, but whether he himself carried it out is uncertain. On or around June 24, two traders at Fort Pitt did give blankets and a handkerchief from the fort’s quarantined hospital to two visiting Delaware Indians, and one of the traders noted in his journal:"I hope it will have the desired effect." Smallpox was already present among the tribes of Ohio; at some point after this episode, there was another outbreak in which hundreds died.
From so far away, we dont really make a distinction between the Brits and Americans, because as in our own country, the origins of the settlers are so mixed up between settler and occupier that we see all whites as settlers and all non-whiites as natives.
Sigaba, as I mentioned earlier, Apartheid was by no means perfect, especially for the underprivileged sector of the population. It was however a system which did provide law and order, a solid education and reasonable health services to everyone. Now that it has been replaced by Democracy, these key areas have fallen into total disrepair. I have three boys and none of them have had the pleasure of walking or riding their bicycles in the streets. Murder for a bike or cellphone is now a common occurrence and our farmers in less-populated areas are being wiped out piecemeal in attacks which often involve torture as well as the usual murder and robbery. This perhaps shows that the strong-arm methods of the Apartheid government were essential to maintain civilized standards in an otherwise uncivilized environment. How do you suggest one deal with a police force that hires out its automatic weapons and uniforms to criminals? How do you deal with a National Chief of Police, who was also appointed head of Interpol, being found guilty of corruption and bribery and consorting with the countries major drug dealer? His replacement in the position has now been suspended pending an inquiry into how criminal charges of murdering his girlfriends lover were dropped by the National Prosecuting Authority. As I say, the horror stories are endless and the contrast between the two forms of government are becoming starker by the day. The decline of our country is the last example in Africa of how calamitous self-rule has been for everyone, rich and poor. Our closest neighbor, Zimbabwe has degenerated from being the bread basket of Africa, to being the basket case of Africa in the reign of a single man, Robert Mugabe. He has so destroyed his country that it is now entirely dependent on food aid and it no longer even has its own currency, but uses yours and ours because Mugabe managed to reach billion percent inflation with his own. And do you know what? Many Zimbabweans still vote for him. Ready for democracy?The logic of your argument is, to put it politely, controversial
You say "underprivileged sector." Precisely what is the "privilege" that some received and others did not? What were the key criteria for receiving this "privilege"?
You use the present to justify policies of the past without making an accounting of how the policies of the past may have shaped the present. Has it occurred to you that the good old days shaped the mindset of your contemporaries?
USANick7
07-25-2012, 13:29
That myth was debunked long ago - except for the likes of pseudo-Native American Ex-Professor Ward Churchill
That piece of history was a "gift" from the activist...er...I mean historian Howard Zinn...
Guymullins
07-25-2012, 13:34
The logic of your argument is, to put it politely, controversial
You say "underprivileged sector." Precisely what is the "privilege" that some received and others did not? What were the key criteria for receiving this "privilege"?
You use the present to justify policies of the past without making an accounting of how the policies of the past may have shaped the present. Has it occurred to you that the good old days shaped the mindset of your contemporaries?
Thanks for being polite , I will try to return the favor.
Do you not have underprivileged people in America?
Privileged people like myself, were so because our parents arrived in the country with a very good scientific education obtained in Europe and by their great contribution to the country were able to pass the privilege on to their children by affording them a private education, good food and a good home atmosphere. The policies of the past were formulated because of what had happened over the years to the north of us. When Britains Winds of Change, blew through the continent, power was handed back to the natives country by country over a period of many years. Those countries, without exception began failing, and all for similar reasons. Looking north, we attempted to avoid making the same mistakes. This was very important to the Afrikaners, as they had no European country to run back to if things went pear shaped. Of course the past has shaped the minds of the present ruling class, but it has not stopped them making the identical mistakes that ruined their northern neighbors. This is how this discussion started. Look at the headline.
Entire post.It sounds like you're defending both the politics of identity and the politics of victimization--as long as both work to your benefit.
The former allowed you to determine who should be less free than others. You were "privileged" so you deserved the benefits of public policies more than others who deserved less freedom.
The latter justified the use of oppression to maintain the distinction. As victims of British misrule and the shifting dynamics of international relations, Afrikaners had no choice but to do what it took to maintain order.
Guymullins
07-25-2012, 14:56
It sounds like you're defending both the politics of identity and the politics of victimization--as long as both work to your benefit.
The former allowed you to determine who should be less free than others. You were "privileged" so you deserved the benefits of public policies more than others who deserved less freedom.
The latter justified the use of oppression to maintain the distinction. As victims of British misrule and the shifting dynamics of international relations, Afrikaners had no choice but to do what it took to maintain order.
Phew, I am almost certain I am not bright enough to do all of that. Since you know all our motivations and most secret thoughts, how do you explain the fact that the oppressor class, immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall voted overwhelmingly to include the oppressed in government knowing full well that the demographics meant that a handover of power would be inevitable?
Why, if we were such bad people, would we do that when we held all the reigns of power firmly in our grasp. Where in the world has this ever happened before?
GratefulCitizen
07-25-2012, 19:53
The real "der weisse Engel" for Natives of the Western Hemisphere-ians was the early Spanish explorers like DeSoto. Columbus discovered the Western Hemisphere in 1492 and the first settlement was built by the Spanish near Pensacola in 1559 (didn't fair too well) but they did succeed near St Augustine in 1565.
The European diseases they carried and shared caused a dieoff of possibly 90% of an estimated pre-columbian population of 100 million. I don't know if any civilization can comeback from that even without competition from new-comers.
The infected blankets thing is very much disputed but I saw it on Western movies all the time.
Interesting book addressing the subject: 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann
Much of the Native American population interbred with the incoming populations, but were outnumbered by such a degree that it isn't superficially obvious.
It's likely that many members of this site who are superficially identified as some other "race" have Native American ancestors (my wife and I both do).
America is a melting pot.
Dozer523
07-26-2012, 09:16
. . . if things went pear shaped. That is a great phrase; I've never heard it before.
In America the equivalent might be
. . . if things went south
. . . after it turned into a soup sandwich
and SNAFU . . . Situation Normal All Fouled Up
Why "pear shaped"?
Interesting book addressing the subject: 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann Great book.
Another good one, on a lighter note: A Voyage Long and Strange by Tony Horwitz, Pretty funny but leaves you with a few ohhhhhhh-kay moments. http://www.tonyhorwitz.com/books/voyage-long-and-strange.php
Guymullins
07-26-2012, 09:44
That is a great phrase; I've never heard it before.
In America the equivalent might be
. . . if things went south
. . . after it turned into a soup sandwich
and SNAFU . . . Situation Normal All Fouled Up
Why "pear shaped"?
This descriptive phrase is rumored to have originated with the RAF when a pilot trying to execute a perfect loop, instead went "pear shaped".
Anyway, whatever the origin, it is clearly not perfectly round .
It sounds like you're defending both the politics of identity and the politics of victimization--as long as both work to your benefit.
The former allowed you to determine who should be less free than others. You were "privileged" so you deserved the benefits of public policies more than others who deserved less freedom.
The latter justified the use of oppression to maintain the distinction. As victims of British misrule and the shifting dynamics of international relations, Afrikaners had no choice but to do what it took to maintain order.
It appears the roles are now being reversed.
http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html
http://censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.nl/2012/07/how-do-white-sa-farmers-survive.html
Ultimately, between you and I, the key point of disagreement is that some believe that the function of a legitimate government is to protect the inalienable rights of all of its citizens. And others don't.
Now, on to your comments.Phew, I am almost certain I am not bright enough to do all of that. Since you know all our motivations and most secret thoughts, how do you explain the fact that the oppressor class, immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall voted overwhelmingly to include the oppressed in government knowing full well that the demographics meant that a handover of power would be inevitable?
Why, if we were such bad people, would we do that when we held all the reigns of power firmly in our grasp. Where in the world has this ever happened before?First, my comments were directed at you in particular, not you in the second person plural.
Second, your thumbnail of the magnanimous decision of the "oppressor class" to "include the oppressed in government" appears not to account for the international dimensions of that choice--including ongoing pressure from the American government.*
Third, your candid, if unintentional, admission that there were an "oppressor class" and a cohort that was "oppressed", provides a compelling response to your central question.
Fourth, I question the historical validity of your statement that "we held all the reigns of power firmly in our grasp." I also think the statement raises additional questions about the ultimate legitimacy of your former government and its underlying political philosophy.
Fifth, in response to your question "Where in the world has this ever happened before?" If by "this" you mean a peaceful transition of power, I would point out that it happened in the United States in 1800--the "Revolution of 1800"--and every subsequent presidential election in which one party gave way to another.
_________________________________________________
* Ronald Reagan, NSDD-187: U.S. Policy Toward South Africa, 7 September 1985.