Have you ever wondered why there are intelligent people among both conservative and liberal groups? Why is that?  After all, when you aggregate both liberal and conservative positions, wouldn't evidence almost always favor either the liberal position over the conservative, or vice versa? 

Of course it would. To disagree would mean that you believe evidence would support both the liberals and the conservatives by a split of exactly 50.00% to 50.00%.  That is extremely unlikely.  The evidence is very likely to favor one group's position with at least the support of 50.000000001% of the evidence (I'm not saying what the evidence favors, yet).

And by the way, I realize that there is some subjectivity regarding the importance of issues.  Abortion is different than immigration.  But subjective issues can still be categorized. Simply poll people to rate their importance.  Once you've exhausted objective descriptions, the only way I can think of to value something subjective is to poll people.

So if evidence supports the supremacy of either liberalism or conservatism over the other, then why do many intelligent people appear among both groups?

Well, I believe that intelligence isn't the only factor that influences people's voting patterns. Bias may be one factor, but one factor that I've never seen mentioned is this: rationality.

Is it possible that either liberals or conservatives are more rational, on average, than the other? I believe this is likely the case. Stanovich reported about evidence that suggested there is almost a zero correlation between intelligence and rationality!

That could explain it.  Could liberals be much more rational than conservatives, or vice versa?
eric
10/26/2010 03:25:26 am

You are a retard!

Reply
#3
5/12/2012 12:02:28 am

Truly inteligent reply! WOW

Reply
DR.D
10/28/2010 10:28:58 am

Eric, outside of calling the blogger what you seem to be........can you share with us your thoughts and reasoning on the topic?

Reply
Not Unique Name
11/1/2010 07:56:19 am

Actually, it usually depends on the issue and your own personal beliefs.

I'm going to generalize here, since I don't feel like researching right now.

Don't conservatives prefer to revert to the past/stay at the current point in time? I can see where they come from.

But, I can also see the liberal's side. They want to advance humanity (ideally) so that everyone can live in a utopia.

As an idealist, I would like to see the liberals actually going forward with their ideals. Yet as a realist, I'm more than mixed between the two.

So it's more of a belief than evidence/intelligence. And I think that using rationalism as a synonym to belief in this post would work just as well.

Reply
11/2/2010 01:44:48 pm

Not Unique,

regardless of what conservatives and liberals may tend to prefer, only one of two opposing views is more rational than the other.

Reply
Anonymous
11/11/2010 04:05:34 pm

Okay with this post I'm sure you're trolling.

Reply
Anonymous
11/11/2010 04:05:49 pm

Your premise is wrong, liberals and conservatives are not at polar opposites. There are many aspects with which they agree. So, since the world is not black or white, there is again no answer to your riddle.

Reply
Anonymous
11/11/2010 04:06:03 pm

Yawn

Reply
Anonymous
11/11/2010 04:06:16 pm

Why would evidence ever be able to favour one political standpoint over another? What evidence could ever do this?

The logic throughout this article is too flawed to even know where to begin.

People have different priorities - as recognised in the article. Equally, liberalism and conservativism prioritise different issues. Therefore, a person who follows either ideology, so long as that ideology follows their own principles (or at least the most important thereof), is acting rationally.

Reply
11/11/2010 04:06:35 pm

Anonymous,

you write:

"Your premise is wrong, liberals and conservatives are not at polar opposites. "

I never claimed conservatives and liberals tend to disagree on every single thing.

But you'd have to be a fool to believe that there isn't a typical liberal or conservative view on many issues (abortion, etc).

Also, even on issues about which there is large overlap in agreement between liberals and conservatives, as long as one of the two groups more greatly favors a policy than the other group does, that in itself is a difference in ideology.

You write:

"So, since the world is not black or white, there is again no answer to your riddle."

Actually, there IS black and white. Either the majority of existing evidence tends to support or not support any particular view. The only exception are the rare cases in which there is an exact 50.00000000% split.

Reply
11/11/2010 04:06:53 pm

Anonymous,

you write:

"Why would evidence ever be able to favour one political standpoint over another? What evidence could ever do this?"

That's a bizarre statement. Of COURSE evidence supports one view over another, do you think there's an exact 50/50 split of the evidence?

See my brilliant rebuttal of the brilliant Reader 26 in this thread for an explanation:

http://nosuchthingasanopinion.blogspot.com/2010/11/bizarre-world-of-racial-hyphenation.html

"The logic throughout this article is too flawed to even know where to begin."

Think again.

Reply
Anonymous
11/11/2010 04:07:14 pm

I think your crass lack of modesty may help to explain why you're missing the point here. There's none so blind as them that will not see.

The entire principle behind your argument is fundamentally wrong. People don't vote for the best political philosophy, they vote for the one that will most benefit them. Therefore, it's entirely possible for rational, intelligent people to vote in contrary manners.

Even supposing one could ascertain that either liberalism or conservativsim were 'better' at an aggregate level (which is impossible), it wouldn't follow that a rational person should vote accordingly.

As an example - suppose I set up a new single policy political creed, which advocates slavery for 49% of the population, with the other 51% to benefit. My new creed could be proven to be better at an overall level, since it benefits the majority. Again, according to your logic, because this new political philosophy is the better choice, everyone should favour it.

As an aside, my point about the evidence being unable to support one view over the other did not mean that 'evidence' would favour each equally. Instead, I was questioning what evidence could be used to determine this. Politics is entirely subjective - it's about the individual's identification of what is important to them. There is no evidence.

You broadly reference 'polling' people on subjective matters. Again, this is ridiculous. In order for the results of your poll to have any meaning, you must first assume that all respondents are rational in terms of knowing what is in their self interest and identifying when it is being met. However, to make this assumption, is begging the question, since voter rationality is what you're trying to identify.

Reply
11/11/2010 04:07:41 pm

Anonymous,

Read the entire thread that I posted a link to. You'll see that it refutes much of what you've said. It explains away your claim that bias renders worthless the interpretation of evidence.

You write:

"The entire principle behind your argument is fundamentally wrong. People don't vote for the best political philosophy, they vote for the one that will most benefit them. Therefore, it's entirely possible for rational, intelligent people to vote in contrary manners."

First of all, I never claimed that people don't vote in a manner than benefits them. I simply asked WHY equally intelligent people act irrationally, to promote debate. Perhaps your simply mind (relative to mine) feels that it's smart to imply that the opposing debater has made a claim that hasn't actually been made.

Even though my thread link refutes all of your arguments, I'll go further:

You write:

"As an example - suppose I set up a new single policy political creed, which advocates slavery for 49% of the population, with the other 51% to benefit. My new creed could be proven to be better at an overall level, since it benefits the majority. Again, according to your logic, because this new political philosophy is the better choice, everyone should favour it."

Actually, a creed WOULDN'T be proven to be better simply because it benefits the 51% majority of the population. It might benefit the 51% majority in a SMALL way, but cost the 49% minority in a LARGE way, and therefore the costs of slavery would greatly outweigh the costs. It's simply a matter of defining the costs and benefits. It's crude to determine whether a policy is beneficial overall simply by the % of people it benefits.

If you can refute the arguments in my debate with Reader 26, then I'll consider that there's potential for some of your points to be true. That's a big if.

Reply
11/11/2010 04:08:05 pm

One more thing.

Someone might vote in a manner that they THINK benefits them, (and that they think is rational), but they might not be smart enough to figure out that it will hurt them in the long run.

This destroys your apparent argument (that I hadn't even commented on anyway) that it makes sense for two equally intelligent people to act differently since the actions necessarily benefit themselves.

One person might steal from the poor, and vote accordingly, the other might vote for someone that will steal from the rich, but in both circumstances, the chances may be that they are equally as well off regardless of who they vote for.

That's because there's only a certain amount of money to go around. If the poor vote for the wealth to be returned to the poor, that might benefit the poor short term but harm them long term when the rich have less money to spend buying goods from the poor or hiring them.

And when the rich vote to steal from the poor, that may hurt the rich long term when the poor don't even enough money to buy as many goods from the rich.

Your argument about why people are rational (which I hadn't offered an opinion on anyway) is useless.

Reply
Anonymous
11/11/2010 04:08:23 pm

So are you saying that when you wrote this...

"Have you ever wondered why there are intelligent people among both conservative and liberal groups? How could that be? After all, when you aggregate both liberal and conservative positions, wouldn't evidence favor either the liberal positions over the conservative, or vice versa?"

...you weren't implying that a rational person should advocate that position which is better overall?


As for my slave-policy example being crude - yes it was. Deliberately so. Regardless, its point holds. Supposing the cumulative benefits to the majority outweighed the cost to the minority, are you then saying that it would be irrational for someone in the minority to oppose that policy?


Oh - and my point wasn't that bias renders worthless the interpretation of evidence. My point was that you are trying to ascertain voter rationality. You can not do this by first assuming that voters are rational.

Reply
Anonymous
11/11/2010 04:08:39 pm

Regarding another posters slave comment and your response, you characterize benefits as LARGE or SMALL, but when calculating, in your universe you are using numbers and percentages, you get into subjective evaluations, and guess what, they are OPINIONS, and based on VALUES

And your long-term vs short-term arguments--Where is it written that long-term is the way to go?? After all, in the long term we are all dead.

By compartmentalizing your thinking in the way of a computer--binary logic, yes or no, right or wrong, you are missing the subtlety of the human condition and such unquantifiable emotions as love, hate, fear, desire, jealousy, respect, greed etc., maybe in your world "irrational", but in the real world they exist.

Maybe when you grow up you will modify what I would call "sophomoric" philosophy. Not that I expect you to agree with me or others, but just recognize that "there are more things in heaven and earth...

Reply
11/11/2010 04:10:31 pm

Anonymous,

you write:

"...you weren't implying that a rational person should advocate that position which is better overall?"

Yes I was implying that. And I said nothing since to contradict that.

You write:

"As for my slave-policy example being crude - yes it was. Deliberately so. Regardless, its point holds."

Huh? Your point was that the benefits outweigh the costs simply because of a 51/49 split, which I proved to be false.

Please, you are simply a troublemaker that is not that intelligent.

"Supposing the cumulative benefits to the majority outweighed the cost to the minority, are you then saying that it would be irrational for someone in the minority to oppose that policy?"

In many, if not all cases, yes it WOULD be irrational for the person in the minority to oppose that policy, because when it comes to wealth, for example, a policy might benefit the minority in the short term but that would harm the minority in the long term.

Did you not understand my example about how a short term wealth benefit to person A can actually hurts that same person since it means wealth is taken away from someone else who is, in the long run, less likely to spend that wealth on person A?

Reply
11/11/2010 04:11:13 pm

Anonymous,

you write:

"Regarding another posters slave comment and your response, you characterize benefits as LARGE or SMALL, but when calculating, in your universe you are using numbers and percentages, you get into subjective evaluations, and guess what, they are OPINIONS, and based on VALUES"

LOL! There are no subjective evaluations!

Read my thread about "Racial Hyphenation" for proof.
Everything can be measured in some way. Why do you think it's not possible to measure people's opinions? Have you never heard of polling?

You write:

"And your long-term vs short-term arguments--Where is it written that long-term is the way to go?? After all, in the long term we are all dead."

You don't think it's smarter to look at long term logic (your lifespan) rather than the short term? Why do you think it's more important to look at the short term (let's say, 5 years) instead of looking at benefits over the long term (say, 50 years). Do you not understand that 50>5?

Also, did you know that studies have shown that people who think the same way as you are more likely to be criminals? (People who aren't able to delay gratification and hence think about short term benefits, not long term).

Reply
Reader 80
11/11/2010 04:12:00 pm

I would say that regardless of how bad something is to the 49% they are still outnumbered. People in the 51% (even though they gain very little from sacrificing a lot from the 49%) still view that little as a gain and would be in favor of it.
This is where I would say emotion comes in (which can be measured in #'s, everything can, watch the show numbers, its very cool if your brain can keep up, or just take extreme math classes as I am :D )
Feeling sorry for one of the 49% people could change the view of someone in the 51%.
As for the, why don't all intelligent people vote the same?
No one is intelligent in the same manor.
If you were to test two peoples intelligence in a IQ test and they both had the same score would they have the same views? No, two big factors come into play here. 1: A IQ test comes in many different problems, all which use different parts of the brain. One person may be strong on one problem while weak on a problem the other excels on. This changes the brains thought process and overall has a affect on the persons views. 2: Their life. No one has had the same childhood, parents, teachers, classes,pets, friends, terrain....etc...
This all has an effect on how this persons brain develops and what they view as important for their lifestyle. ex: if one person gets mugged, they might have a different view on mugging laws as to someone of the same intelligence who has never gotten mugged.

Also, did you know that studies have shown that people who think the same way as you are more likely to be criminals? (People who aren't able to delay gratification and hence think about short term benefits, not long term).

I was just about to mention that last night but was too tired... ty for doing it for me... This also further proves my point that everyone, regardless of intelligence lvl, has a different thought process.

Reply
Anonymous
11/11/2010 04:12:25 pm

Everything is measureable--nosuch

How do you measure love and hate? like, dislike, and couldnt care less?

#2 I never said short term is "better" than long term--I am merely questioning that assumption that in everything long-term (and here one can think up to thousands of years) is superior.

As far as polling is concerned, ok for election choices, but answering simple questions does not generate a true picture to a complex situation.

As far as criminality, in many cases it is a social construct based on "OPINION"--in the moslem world alcohol consumption is often prohibited and often severely punished, the age of consent (for sex and alcohol) various in different states and countries, and some countries criminalize freedom of speech in certain areas.

While delaying gratification (like thrift) may be useful for some in the society, if EVERYBODY did it all the time to an extreme, we would be in a depression like we havent seen in a long time, if ever.

From your posts I still feel you are very young, while somewhat intelligent,your binary thinking and worship of "logic" and "rationality" as gods, will get you nowhere other than a good job as a troll.

Reply
Anonymous
11/11/2010 04:12:58 pm

You make the assumption, however, that what is good for the majority (or most beneficial overall) is good for the whole. There's no reason why that should be the case. This was the purpose of my slave analogy. Why would anyone support a policy that, while beneficial overall, is punitive to them.


Let me set out your argument, as I understand it, in logical terms...

A) What is of greatest good overall is good for everyone.
B) It is rational for individuals to support that policy that is in their own best interest.
-----------------
C) Therefore, everyone should follow that policy that confers the greatest overall good.


Even if we accept B, on the basis that it's a fair assumption, you haven't in any way proven A, except with vague reference to trickle-down economics (which is highly disputable). Equally, C does not logically follow from A and B.

If I've mis-stated your argument, please feel free to clarify it. However, I don't believe that you can either prove your premises, or create an argument that logically entails your conclusion.

Reply
Reader 80
11/11/2010 04:13:25 pm

i would greatly argue that trickle down eco is a failure policy. It goes against everything in economics... at least in the way it actually works out. Why change how many workers/ how much u pay your workers when your demand is still the same. The way the current "trickle down system works" it is not best for the most people but the top 5%, However I would say that one of the factors that makes something the overall greatest good, is how many people it is best for... You CAN'T make EVERYONE happy... It isn't possible. I would not say the slave inquiry is a good argument because slaves do not have a say in whether they are slaves or not.
You have to realize that the leaders in slave culture don't believe that slaves are the same level of people that they are or people at all, for that matter. So, they dont consider the slaves needs at all, the voting population has little care for what slaves think, as is noted by the fact that they are slaves. It took a couple hundred years for slaves in a FREE country to be free.... Slavery was not at all rational. It really does not counter A)... Because slaves are not considered part of everyone.... I can't think of many white people that were hurt by slavery. So, yes slavery was good for the white people. Was it right? No, but it is the truth. Like I said, that is where emotions takes its part. After that few hundred years people started to care and started to realize slaves are people. Slaves had little to no play in their own freedom.

I would further put that while 1 situation might be good for everyone, it will most likely benefit 1 person more than another. People will usually vote on what will help them the most. So if anything I would say A) and B) play against each other slightly.

Reply
Anonymous
11/11/2010 04:13:45 pm

I am pretty sure the slaves in his scenario get to vote. It case he/she is correct!

Also not everything can be measured in an accurate enough manner to be considered. Have you ever heard of intangible goods.

Reply
Anonymous
11/11/2010 04:14:01 pm

I agree with above poster that not everything can be measured--not just intangibles, but emotions, etc., and how they influence our behavior and views.

As an economist once stated, putting one hand into boiling water, and the other into freezing water, on the average, you would be comfortable-lol. And this although it is reductio ab absurdum, is an example of the danger of binary thinking--to which you, mr/ms nosuch seems to be stuck firmly in that box

Reply
11/11/2010 04:32:59 pm

Reader 80,

you write:

"I would say that regardless of how bad something is to the 49% they are still outnumbered."

Think about it this way. If 49% of people were raped, and 51% or people were robbed, I think most people would assume the 49% are victims of a worse crime, even though they are in the minority.

Reply
11/11/2010 04:33:29 pm

Anonymous

you write:

"How do you measure love and hate? like, dislike, and couldnt care less?"

Look elsewhere on my site for an explanation. You define the terms through polling.

You write:

"As far as polling is concerned, ok for election choices, but answering simple questions does not generate a true picture to a complex situation."

It doesn't generate a true picture? What could be more true than saying that the majority of people define a word a certain way? Isn't that how we define ALL words, by consensus?

You write:

"As far as criminality, in many cases it is a social construct based on "OPINION"--"

That's such liberal bullshit. There are dozens of crimes that would universally, or near universally, be considered crime.

You write:

"While delaying gratification (like thrift) may be useful for some in the society, if EVERYBODY did it all the time to an extreme, we would be in a depression like we havent seen in a long time, if ever."

Who cares? Your thoughts are absolutely worthless to the discussion. I never suggested everyone should delay gratification in all circumstances. And since you mention gratification, why don't you actually discuss it in the intended context, which had to do with choosing to delay short term wealth due to long term expectations. Oh, that's right, you're probably just a troublemaker grasping at straws, desperate to make me a smart person look bad.

You write:

"#2 I never said short term is "better" than long term-"

Huh? What you wrote was:

"And your long-term vs short-term arguments--Where is it written that long-term is the way to go?? After all, in the long term we are all dead."

If you weren't implying that short term arguments have value, then what could you POSSIBLY have meant by your comment?

You are certainly a troublemaker.

Reply
11/11/2010 04:33:48 pm

Anonymous,

you write:

"You make the assumption, however, that what is good for the majority (or most beneficial overall) is good for the whole. There's no reason why that should be the case. "

Your A/B/C argument is not what I said. What I said was simply what I wrote earlier in this thread.
No reason? You don't believe in making a decision that is the most beneficial (meaning the decision that is supported by the majority of existing evidence)?

Reply
Anonymous
11/14/2010 05:51:23 pm

Can you formulate what your argument is, in that case?

Also, I see nothing wrong, per se, with making a decision that is beneficial for the majority. However, your initial blog queries why people would hold different political views, if one theory can be shown to be more beneficial overall. I have demonstrated why that would be the case.

Reply
Anonymous
11/14/2010 05:51:42 pm

"As far as criminality, in many cases it is a social construct based on "OPINION"--"

That's such liberal bullshit. There are dozens of crimes that would universally, or near universally, be considered crime.--nosuch

And there are dozens and dozens of acts and thoughts that are not universal crimes,--examples--alcohol, drugs (certainly not crimes in the 19th century!), bigamy, adultery, prostitution, alienation of affections, gambling (although lately in the usa buying a lottery ticket is touted by the state as duty rather than a vice) crimes involving age of consent, sexual acts, criminal libel, gun laws, apostasy, blasphemy, restrictions on free speech, and the list goes on...

And tying all this to your theme, "intelligent" (narrowly defined, for this purpose by ability to score high on iq tests) people dont vote the same way because they have different OPINIONS on the issues based on their differing beliefs and their different status. And if facts and ideas can be "weighed" and "measured", the weighing and measuring mechanism (not looking at facts alone, but the relevance of the facts many of which are competing) differs.

And public opinion polls differ with time, rephrased questions, different polling techniques (eg including or excluding cell-phone users).

If you asked people about the provision of the new health law which prohibits insurance companies for canceling insurance from those who get sick (years after purchasing the insurance), I am sure the vast majority would approve of this provision.

A poll using telephones in 1936 showed a landslide for the republican candidate.

Sort of like in wartime, the old "guns and butter" argument--to explain it (if you never heard it before which I suspect), how much should society devote to civilian or military efforts since each uses up the resources of the other. Again there is no ideal balance point at any point in time, and it is a political decision subject revisions with changes based on course of events.

Reply
Anonymous
11/14/2010 05:51:53 pm

Continuing my "guns and butter" argument about policy decisions, there being no "right" or "intelligent" answer to the issue.

The US Supreme Court, presumably 9 intelligent persons (or at least they are able to write, or supervise the writing of, "scholarly", as opposed to "sophomoric", opinions). This esteemed bunch, based on applying their "biases" to the interpretation of words, can rule 5-4 on many issues, the majority opinion is right by definition since there is no higher appeal on earth in the united states.

Reply
11/14/2010 05:52:09 pm

Anonymous,

I'm not going to write my opinion again. It's in my original post. Feel free to find logical errors if you can.

You write:

"Also, I see nothing wrong, per se, with making a decision that is beneficial for the majority. However, your initial blog queries why people would hold different political views, if one theory can be shown to be more beneficial overall. I have demonstrated why that would be the case. "

Where have you demonstrated that? I've refuted every reader comment so far.

You don't see that it's wrong to make a decision that benefits 51% of the population if the costs to the other 49% of the population are twice as severe as the benefits to the 51%?

Reply
11/14/2010 05:52:23 pm

Anonymous,

you write:

"And there are dozens and dozens of acts and thoughts that are not universal crimes".

So what? I wasn't referring to every crime.

And why are we even discussing crime at all? Crime was just ONE example I provided in relation to determining costs/benefits. There are thousand of example I could give. How about the costs/benefits to the majority/minority in relation to: money, friends, muscles, strength?

Reply
11/14/2010 05:52:39 pm

Anonymous,

you write:

"And tying all this to your theme, "intelligent" (narrowly defined, for this purpose by ability to score high on iq tests) people dont vote the same way because they have different OPINIONS on the issues"

I'm not referring to individual cases, but the aggregate. How can so many intelligent liberals think differently than so many intelligent conservatives? After all, at the aggregate level in the millions, you would expect similar numbers of people in each group to have been exposed to similar situations.

Reply
Anonymous
11/29/2010 08:39:37 am

Lets say there is actual war and or threat of war? How much of our limited resources should be spend on guns (war offense and defense) and how much on butter (non-war budget). Should we take a poll, what is the intelligent answer.

And if you suggest a poll, after the poll, how would expenses be charactereized??


Would feeding potential soldiers with improved diets (at age 12-18 for example) be considered improving capacity for war (war budget), or non-war expense. How about feeding soldiers, or military reserves-- after all they would be eating in civilian life too?? Ditto for gun clubs and private (civilian) pilot training and airport maintenance, building and improving the internet and gps are expenses on the military or non-military side of the budget? How about civilian research with some military potential, or military research with civilian potential??

Of course, in your binary world, without shades of grey, everything is easy just like in lake woebegone where everyone is above average.

Reply
11/29/2010 08:39:56 am

Anonymous,

you write:

"Lets say there is actual war and or threat of war? How much of our limited resources should be spend on guns (war offense and defense) and how much on butter (non-war budget). Should we take a poll, what is the intelligent answer."

A poll wouldn't need to be taken to answer many larger budgetary questions. You simply estimate the probability of war, then the estimated number of deaths, then you figure out how much money it would take to buy weapons to protect us. You can get a ballpark figure of how much money needs to be spent to save one life.

You then compare that to how much money it costs per pound of butter, multiplying that figure by the effects butter has on lifespan (increasing or decreasing it).

I don't think it's that important whether you characterize feeding potential soldiers as a war or non war expense. Either way, the same expenses show up in the budget as an expense, regardless of their title. The important thing is to decide how much to budget, not which heading you decide to list the expenses under.

The world is binary, there are NO shades of grey. Everything can be reduced to binary, as long as you define things specifically enough.

Reply
Anonymous
11/29/2010 08:40:12 am

Lets say it would cost $1 million to prevent one death. Lets say $100 million prevents the first 100 deaths . Lets say $200 million is needed save the next 100 deaths. Lets say you reach a point where $1 billion is needed to save each additional life. (or a similar analogy in making safer, but costlier cars). And lets say for example that you can avoid war entirely (for the moment) by conceding mostly empty land in alaska to the enemy.

Estimate upon estimate, upon estimate--How do you determine the estimate? And How do you estimate? What would you do if the estmate is a 20% probability of a war with 100 casualties, a 30% war with 1000 casulaties, and a 5 % war with zero causualties, but property damage of $1 trillion, and all the shades of grey probabilities and combinations i in between, assuming that one can even calculate "estimates" in any reasonable way--history does not repeat itself exactly since we are always attempting to avoid mistakes of prior history.

What does the intelligent person do. Is there ONE right answer.

By the way, by your insisting in a binary world, and inability to recognize shades of gray in life situations, I would suggest, if that is what you really believe (and are not just a troll as I suspect), that you should get treatment for mental illness. But more likely you are 13 years old without any experience in the real world, so your immature and radical, authoritarian and "intelligence" worshipping ideas, are more understandable.

Reply
11/29/2010 08:40:28 am

Anonymous,

there IS one right answer, based on how those estimating define the variables that are important to them.

In the example you provide, the estimated # of deaths would be .20 * 100 + .30 * 1000 etc.

If there were really shades of gray, as you suggest, then some aspects of life wouldn't be definable at all. Everything in life is definable, because language can define anything. Therefore, everything can be reduced to binary.

Reply
Anonymous
12/9/2010 01:48:26 pm

numbers are universal concepts,

but language can only be defined by itself-can you see the dog chasing its tail here?? Probably not as you are not intelligent enough to see it. As Clinton said--it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is--lol.

"there IS one right answer, based on how those estimating define the variables that are important to them."--you

"those estimating" would that be only "intelligent people" like yourself, or "compassionate people" like those who dont agree with ayn rand's philosophy?

"important to them"--do we decide make decisions for everyone based on what is important to a certain person or group??

Reply
Anonymous
12/9/2010 01:48:39 pm

A lot of the conversations we have here could be informed by research. Not research about the main topics, but rather on little points like this one:

"Everything in life is definable, because language can define anything. Therefore, everything can be reduced to binary."

This stuff is not so easy-especially the philosophical stuff about truth, human nature and meaning.

Our views may very well stand up to the scrutiny of philosophers, scientists, etc. But we shouldn't feel so so smug until we've made a serious effort to test our thoughts against many opposing arguments in the literature - and that means finding out what these views are. That involves commitment of time, energy and sweat. No amount of natural talent will substitute for that.

I don't doubt that anyone here is smart - but we have to understand that we still must do our due dilligence. You must ask yourself, how much smugness is actually warranted? Am I confident that a successful reply to my idea isn't sitting in a commonly-read journal article or book?

Young hotshots have taught the world a lot - but they are still beholden to our long history of shared ideas. Every successful philosopher (young hotshots included) I've met is prodigious not only in mental acuity, but in the breadth/depth of material he has read.

Reply
12/9/2010 01:48:59 pm

Anonymous,

your reply is bizarre.

You claim that

"but language can only be defined by itself"

but then claim that

"you are not intelligent enough to see it."

You then quote me, and the quote proves that I DO see it!

"there IS one right answer, based on how those estimating define the variables that are important to them."

It's disappointing, but sad, that your intelligence level is not up to par, and worse, that you attack me for no good reason.

Back to my quote. Yes, language is defined as people define it. That's it.

There is one easy way to define it: A word is to be defined as the majority of people perceive it to be defined.

How else would you define language? After all, language is used to communicate, so you would only define it according to how the largest group of people would interpret it when communicating!

Reply
12/9/2010 01:49:13 pm

Anonymous,

you quote me:

"Everything in life is definable, because language can define anything. Therefore, everything can be reduced to binary."

and then write:

"This stuff is not so easy-especially the philosophical stuff about truth, human nature and meaning. "

Why shouldn't those concepts be nearly as easy to define as other concepts? I agree that, at first glance, they don't seem easily definable, but I would counter that you simply need to poll people and choose the most common response. After all, isn't that how language itself would be defined? If you can't choose the majority's definition, who's definiton CAN you choose?

You make good points about doing further research. Myself, I read quite a bit, and have read quite a bit.

One reason I don't link to extensive research is because I'm trying to differentiate my site. I'm trying to show that very strong arguments and potential solutions (as well as "a-ha" moments) related to common controversial issues can be constructed without even needing to do extensive research.

I am careful not to make claims that I am uncertain of, so that I don't contradict any research that may exist (and so that I don't mislead readers).

Reply
1/4/2011 04:50:26 pm

: Patience, time, and money overcome everything.

Reply
1/6/2011 06:39:44 pm

Life has many joys and sorrows(

Reply
1/6/2011 06:41:18 pm

We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples%q% rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings

Reply
1/21/2011 03:54:20 pm

Bless you with happy smile every minute every day

Reply
2/24/2011 11:51:24 am

you can find what you want to in here,make your life full of color ,it's a perfect website.

Reply
2/28/2011 10:00:20 am

Well, I think that at present, the most important quality is the ability to deal with other people. I am poor in this aspect.

Reply
2/28/2011 10:12:46 am

You distribute several thoughts and also intention weblog, I yet seriously observed your interior ideas, you would like to provide to the current society, surely is actually my opinion, I've admitted, Furthermore, i praise you.

Reply
3/1/2011 09:47:22 am

my favorite, Attractive, Great for the shoes. They look great too!

Reply
3/4/2011 02:49:13 pm


Ideal is the beacon. Without ideal, there is no secure direction; without direction ,there is no life.

Reply
3/13/2011 06:44:50 pm

you can find what you want to in here,make your life full of color ,it's a perfect website.

Reply
3/22/2011 06:46:04 pm

There is no rose without a thorn.

Reply
anon
7/12/2011 02:50:08 pm

You're leaving out values and morality. A utilitarian may very well vote differently than a proponent of deontology or whatever flavor of the seemingly innumerable different sorts of ethical approaches there are and if philosophers can't sort out which system of ethics is 'proper' than the 74th smartest man in the world probably can't either, no matter how rational he is.

Reply
anon
7/12/2011 02:55:35 pm

Also, if this is a troll, well done.

Reply
7/23/2011 01:38:01 pm

Anon,

you write:

"You're leaving out values and morality. A utilitarian may very well vote differently than a proponent of deontology or whatever flavor of the seemingly innumerable different sorts of ethical approaches there are and if philosophers can't sort out which system of ethics is 'proper' than the 74th smartest man in the world probably can't either, no matter how rational he is."


I didn't leave out values or morality. Values and morality can be defined and studied, and therefore aspects of them can be determined to be typically rational or irrational.

Reply
#3
5/12/2012 12:01:32 am

you write

I didn't leave out values or morality. Values and morality can be defined and studied, and therefore aspects of them can be determined to be typically rational or irrational.

I ask: How?

Reply



Leave a Reply.