sozobe wrote: OK, the discussion has gone kind of all over the place, but I want to follow up on what I said about fundamentally different approaches, and how each side perceives insult + thinks the other side is wrong.
I'll say for purposes of trying to illustrate this idea that we have two posters, Thinker and Feeler. (Both are a simplification, neither is an actual poster.) Thinker arrives at his positions by analysis of facts, with a lesser emphasis on gut feelings. Feeler arrives at his positions by gut feelings, with a lesser emphasis on analysis of facts.
I've seen this argument advanced many times (though seldom with me on the feeler side), and it never really works. Most commonly, it's used to differentiate between male and female thought processes and although on a very broad scale there is some truth to it, it is a hopelessly inadequate model for accessing individuals. The second most popular use of it seems to have been conservatives explaining why liberals just don't get it. Again, it is hopelessly flawed as soon as you consider someone like Nimh. So is the reverse as soon as you consider someone like Asherman.
Now in a political comparison between Nimh and I; I would agree that he is the deeper thinker. I've met few people on or off the web that dedicate as much time and energy to precision and accuracy as he. Indeed, that is the reason I went after him, even while dismissing other's weaker positions along the way. It is the strength of his arguments that make's me seek him out in the first place.
sozobe wrote: Feeler thinks Thinker is a bit of an emotionless automaton (that word was chosen purposely), who is elitist and a little disconnected from "just folks." Thinker thinks Feeler is bright but crippled by the need to like a candidate personally.
Not logic. The title merely states the obvious. OBL slammed Bush... why? The answer to that
why: could be Pro-Bush, Pro-Kerry or Pro neither one... but it is just plain silly to deny either that he slammed Bush or that many who are going to bat for Kerry do so by slamming Bush. Is Frank Apisa batting for Kerry? What's his preferred method again?
A little sidebar here. The close of that last point demonstrates why I'm so lousy at articulating my thoughts. My point was clear and concise but my delivery is probably too confrontational and provocative and will likely illicit responses from that aspect rather than the meat of the point. I suspect it is this running on at the mouth that makes it more difficult for people to understand my positions... especially when they are predisposed not to. Those not offended by my frequent excesses usually understand me just fine. (Again, believe it or not, I am working on this and have made progress :wink:)
sozobe wrote: Each extrapolates from their own position and puts the others' position in their own terms. Feeler, not trusting the candidate, thinks that Thinker is making justifications, using that high-falutin' intellect to gloss over imperfections while ignoring his gut -- in Feeler's terms, a good thing. Or, again in feeling terms, Feeler thinks Thinker hates the incumbent so much that there is a knee-jerk reaction against the incumbent and for the challenger. Thinker, in thinking terms, is confused by the lack of consistency and logic in Feeler's position, the fact that Feeler is putting so much stock in his gut feeling -- in Thinker's terms, not a good thing.
This misconception, I am responsible for myself. I suspect you were too severely affected by my high praise of Nimh's intelligence on another thread. At the risk of sounding arrogant (though why that would suddenly begin to bother me, I don't know :wink:), I've tested in the upper 10% on every comprehensive scholastic test I've ever taken and the upper 1% on IQ tests. I have a very healthy respect for high intelligence, but don't confuse it with envy or confusion.
What I do envy; is perseverance. I test higher on IQ tests than my sister for instance, but her lifelong diligent study habits have resulted in a knowledge base that dwarves mine on a wide range of subjects. It is this same trait in Nimh that I find so admirable. Which again, is why I went after him when he suggested Kerry would be worse for Bin Ladin. I'd rather be proven wrong than to make a mistake while
feeling right. The best way to test a theory is too subject it to rigorous testing and see how it holds up. Nimh's typically emotionless, profoundly knowledgeable, liberal viewpoint makes him the ideal person to change the mind of a stubborn bastard like myself.
sozobe wrote: Obviously nimh and O'Bill are the models here, but I added in some other people and tried to get both perspectives. I thought of it when you, O'Bill, said something about not being moved by any of nimh's answers re: Kerry. To me, that was a weird thing to say. "Moved"? Who cares? When you examine the facts, what do the facts tell you?
I had long since come to a conclusion based on what the facts told me. There remains an ever so slim possibility that another's perspective may lead me to believe that my fact-based conclusions are erroneous. Nothing Nimh said did. That you would equate my use of the term "moved me" with some emotional gut reaction speaks volumes to me about how lousy I must be at expressing myself on this forum. While I've certainly been known to go off half-cocked now and then, by and large, I will let you know if I'm guessing. I generally don't have opinions I can't fortify, either. When I feel my opinions are not holding up to scrutiny I try to admit it, out-loud, as a matter of pride. This is something of a mental bookmark for me to remind me to more closely examine where my logic jumped the tracks.
sozobe wrote:Then I started thinking about how if the terms are fundamentally different, you and nimh can keep talking past each other (though, again, I wholeheartedly agree with all that nimh said.)
<smiles> Of course you do. So would my sister and bro-in-law. As would virtually every other liberal thinker you asked. Our fundamental differences aren't found in the Feeling Vs. Thinking equation though. I used to think it didÂ… and wondered why all you liberals were incapable of rational thought.
To make a recent example: Abu Ghraib. Conservatives mostly looked past it as just a dirty, almost inevitable side-effect of war while liberals elevated the significance of it to what I would consider irrational heights. Of course we all agree that things like that should never take place. However, they do, and have in virtually every war there ever was and I'd bet the severity and quantity of the offenses is usually much worse than it was (and likely still is) in this conflict. To use these kinds of incidents as anti-war talking points is beyond absurd when you consider the comparable treatment guests at Abu Ghraib received prior to our taking over management of the facility. Does my rationale excuse the deplorable behavior? No... but it does place it in the nearly trivial category when one considers the BIG PICTURE. If you think I'm wrong, I assure you that's your
feelings trumping your
thinking response.
I didn't bring up Abu Ghraib to re-debate that dead horse some more. I brought it up as a shining example of how two conclusions can be reached from the same facts, while neither is arrived at out of a lack of thought or knowledge. My preference for simple solutions probably magnifies this effect on others perspective of my opinions. I assure you; I read more than your average person about every subject that interests me. I have learned that it is usually a mistake to assume your opponent in a political debate can only reach his conclusions out of ignorance (For clarification: I consider "gut feeling" a kinder way of saying ignorant). That is a mistake I probably make myself as often as people make it about me. I suspect that it's one of the main reasons the political threads can be so frustrating for some.
How can you possibly think that, aarrrrghhh.
<shrugs> This has been an attempt to clarify my own thinking process for anyone who may be interested. If past performance is indicative of future results, I will probably have been very unclear to half the people who read it. No comments are necessary, though all are welcome. If anything in here offends anyone, please accept my apology in advance because as usual; that was not my intention. <shrugs again>
