America's 50 Million Informed, Intelligent, Sane People

[viscousmemories]

I'm proud to be an American today. Despite being a rather large, diverse nation with an insanely complex political system and suffering under a massive effort on the part of the media, major corporations and the present administration to spread misinformation and mistrust among us - approximately half of us were informed, intelligent and sane enough to see through all the shit the other half is incapable of grasping and promote the values we understand to be the right ones by voting for the clear and obvious right choice for President: John Kerry.

This is uplifting news to me, but at the same time it's a bit confusing. If religious people - who make up the vast majority of people in America - are all clueless, stupid, and/or crazy people, then how did it happen that about half of the people who voted still managed to pick the right person to vote for? Doesn't that mean some 30 million clueless, stupid and/or crazy people somehow picked the right candidate? Was it dumb luck? A brief blast of education, intelligence and sanity that swept the nation and possessed so many people to vote the right way? I am mystified, really.

What really boggles my mind is how to classify the people who voted for Nader. Are they as clueless, stupid and/or crazy as the people who voted for Bush and the large percentage that accidentally voted the right way? I mean why would anyone waste their time going to the polls just to throw their vote away? They could've just stayed home for all the good it did to try to fill that swimming pool with an eye-dropper.

And yet off the top of my head I would guess that most Nader supporters are among us informed, intelligent and sane people too! Do you think the wave of education, intelligence and sanity that washed over the religious crazies and inspired them to vote the right way had some kind of backlash effect causing some of our fellow rationalists to vote the wrong way? Again, it's a mystery to me. I just really don't understand how it could've happened.

Lastly, I don't really know what to think of myself. I mean, here I thought I was fairly well-informed, reasonably intelligent and mostly sane. But I didn't vote at all. Yeah, yeah, you've all heard the excuses about how I couldn't register in Texas until I got my drivers license and I procrastinated doing that until two weeks before the election and then found out that I was required to register 30 days before the election in order to vote and didn't get the absentee ballot from California I sent away for which means I was either fucked by California or forgot to register there two years ago. But really we all know those are just post hoc rationalizations. If I really was one of the informed, intelligent and sane in America I would have registered in time and cast my vote for the right President: John Kerry.

Of course this leads me into another paradox, in that... well... I'm an atheist. So now I'm even more confused. If it's possible for an atheist to be clueless, stupid and/or crazy enough not to vote for the right President, maybe there's no truth to the idea that atheism is an indication of education, intelligence and sanity. But if we go down that road, how long before we have to start thinking that maybe belief in religion doesn't indicate the opposite?

Man, this is all very tough stuff. I think I'll go take a nap.

[LadyShea]

Well, now we have to look deeper. Are all the people that voted for Bush really uninformed, stupid, and crazy...some of them sure, but all? Is it possible that it's simply a matter of their way of thinking being so alien to our own that we assume they must be completely out of their minds? After calming down and reviewing everything, I don't think that is the entire explantaion.

I think that a large percentage of the people that voted for Bush are afraid. Afraid of losing their gods, afraid of brown people from far away lands, afraid of minorities "taking over", afraid we will start killing babies all willy nilly, afraid that gay is contagious and/or attractive to their kids, afraid to think independently because then the masses might retaliate, afraid to take any kind of hard look at their own values and figure out why they value those things because of traditions or family dynamics.

Another group is the people who really, truly, value their beleifs so much they are willing to overlook the inadequacies as long as those issues are in agreement. These are the issues voters. They don't care how many people Bush kills as long as they have been born, they don't care whose rights get trampled on as long as they don't have to see gays living openly, they don't care that they have no job as long as they have their guns....I don't personally understand these people, but I can't dismiss that they hold those values as dearly as I hold my own...which they don't understand either.

I am rambling and totally off topic I am sure, but too bad I just wanted to kinda see all these thoughts I have been having in writing. I am still reeling from the election quite frankly.

[beyelzu]

post deleted for lack of serious content.

apologies to anybody that bothered to read it.

[Scotty]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

post deleted for lack of serious content.

apologies to anybody that bothered to read it.

I was going to do one of those. Did it include cleaning your brain with cleanser or drinking a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster (same thing)?

I have nothing to add except that I have always wondered what other people were thinking because I was never thinking the same thing.

-Scott

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Of course this leads me into another paradox, in that... well... I'm an atheist. So now I'm even more confused. If it's possible for an atheist to be clueless, stupid and/or crazy enough not to vote for the right President, maybe there's no truth to the idea that atheism is an indication of education, intelligence and sanity.

I'm sure your tongue is firmly in cheek, but nonetheless, I'll answer. I think that on average, atheists are better-educated than theists, at least here in the U.S., and perhaps more intelligent too, on average. Nonetheless, there are atheists who are utterly clueless and/or dumber than dirt, just as there are theists who are -- at least in most ways -- absolutely brilliant.

But if we go down that road, how long before we have to start thinking that maybe belief in religion doesn't indicate the opposite?

While I think that belief in religion reflects a lack of critical thinking, at least in that area, it doesn't follow that religious believers are either ignorant or incapable of critical thinking. Many simply refuse (for various reasons) to employ their critical thinking skills when it comes to their religious beliefs. It's not like there aren't plenty of atheists who are equally unwilling/unable to critically examine their own biases, after all. (I'm thinking of an atheist some of us may be familiar with whose views on women strike me as astonishingly irrational, for an example.)

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think that a large percentage of the people that voted for Bush are afraid. Afraid of losing their gods, afraid of brown people from far away lands, afraid of minorities "taking over", afraid we will start killing babies all willy nilly, afraid that gay is contagious and/or attractive to their kids, afraid to think independently because then the masses might retaliate, afraid to take any kind of hard look at their own values and figure out why they value those things because of traditions or family dynamics.

Another group is the people who really, truly, value their beleifs so much they are willing to overlook the inadequacies as long as those issues are in agreement. These are the issues voters. They don't care how many people Bush kills as long as they have been born, they don't care whose rights get trampled on as long as they don't have to see gays living openly, they don't care that they have no job as long as they have their guns....I don't personally understand these people, but I can't dismiss that they hold those values as dearly as I hold my own...which they don't understand either.

And let's not forget those who voted for Bush for purely selfish reasons. I'm thinking of wealthy and/or politically connected people who may be perfectly well-aware that Bush's policies are disastrous for the "common man," but who don't give a flying rat's backside, because Bush's policies are good for them. Sure, they make up a small percentage of the electorate, but they're disproportionately likely to vote. And in an election this close . . .

Cheers,

Michael

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well, now we have to look deeper. Are all the people that voted for Bush really uninformed, stupid, and crazy...some of them sure, but all? Is it possible that it's simply a matter of their way of thinking being so alien to our own that we assume they must be completely out of their minds? After calming down and reviewing everything, I don't think that is the entire explantaion.

I don't think that's the entire explanation either, Shea. I'm sorry if you made the mistake of taking my OP seriously. It was intended as satire. Nevertheless the issues are obviously a discussion I'm happy to have.

I think that a large percentage of the people that voted for Bush are afraid. Afraid of losing their gods, afraid of brown people from far away lands, afraid of minorities "taking over", afraid we will start killing babies all willy nilly, afraid that gay is contagious and/or attractive to their kids, afraid to think independently because then the masses might retaliate, afraid to take any kind of hard look at their own values and figure out why they value those things because of traditions or family dynamics.

I agree some people probably voted out of fear. In fact I suspect a very large number voted entirely based on a specific fear: terrorism, and a belief that their safety is more assured with GW the fighter than Kerry the talker. I'm sure some people have had a different experience of things than me but most people I've known in my life just weren't very interested in politics and probably don't know much more about the issues than what they get from the 30 minutes of 6:00 o'clock news. I'm fascinated by the gallup poll someone referred to in another thread that indicated that 42% of Americans still believed - in October - that there was a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Was the fact not reported widely enough, are people too stupid to understand the truth, or is it possible that these people heard the same news I did and it just didn't stick for some reason?

I think the latter is the most plausible, personally. And I think the most likely reason is a perfectly common and natural failure to think critically that indicates not that the people are somehow intellectually deficient, but that the message didn't get out in a way that it couldn't be missed.

Another group is the people who really, truly, value their beleifs so much they are willing to overlook the inadequacies as long as those issues are in agreement. These are the issues voters. They don't care how many people Bush kills as long as they have been born, they don't care whose rights get trampled on as long as they don't have to see gays living openly, they don't care that they have no job as long as they have their guns....I don't personally understand these people, but I can't dismiss that they hold those values as dearly as I hold my own...which they don't understand either.

Doesn't that describe all of us? Don't we all vote based on the issues as framed by our own values? Most of my family members, for example, believe that there has been a state-sponsored, systematic genocide going on here in America since abortion was legalized. Seriously. It literally hurts them to think about it. They start crying when the subject comes up. And I assure you they are no more stupid or crazy than I am. Perhaps not as informed on the specifics of the issues, but well enough to know which candidates support their values and which don't. In that light just how much weight do you think a couple thousand dead servicemen and women and tens of thousands of Iraqis carries? I mean compared to the millions of innocent, helpless little babies? How much of an impact do you think you could make by accusing them of voting for Bush because they don't care about human life? I'll fathom a guess: None at all.

I am rambling and totally off topic I am sure, but too bad I just wanted to kinda see all these thoughts I have been having in writing. I am still reeling from the election quite frankly.

I think you were right on topic and I appreciate it, Brandi. Thanks for the response.

[The Lone Ranger]

I think the latter is the most plausible, personally. And I think the most likely reason is a perfectly common and natural failure to think critically that indicates not that the people are somehow intellectually deficient, but that the message didn't get out in a way that it couldn't be missed.

For every instance of some official pointing out that there was no credible evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11, there were probably a dozen instances of some Bush official or apologist implying or stating outright that there was. If anything, I'm pleasantly surprised that so many people recognized the lie for what it was.

Cheers,

Michael

[viscousmemories]

I blame LadyShea for making Bey and Scotty think this was a serious thread.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

For every instance of some official pointing out that there was no credible evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11, there were probably a dozen instances of some Bush official or apologist implying or stating outright that there was. If anything, I'm pleasantly surprised that so many people recognized the lie for what it was.

Your first post was great, Michael. I think I'm fully in agreement though I wonder if the wealthy/politically connected crowd is really big enough to have much pull. But then I don't know any wealthy/politically connected people.

As for this point, how do you suppose all of us here caught that connection when so many others didn't. Surely we were as exposed to the same misinformation as they were.

[The Lone Ranger]

I dunno. But I've spoken with lots of people who believe that Iraq had a direct hand in September 11th -- and that WMD have been found there. Generally, they express either surprise or disbelief when told that neither of these is true.

I suspect it has a lot to do with where they get their "news." Remember the poll that came out awhile ago showing that 70+ percent of regular Fox News viewers believed that WMD had been found in Iraq, while less than 20 percent of newspaper readers and NPR listeners did? (Someone correct my numbers please, if I'm mistaken.)

I've heard plenty of these same people insist that all the other news sources are biased, and that only Fox provides "fair and balanced" reporting. So naturally, they watch only Fox.


Pretty scary. It also raises a chicken-and-egg question. Are they disinclined to seek out alternate sources of information because they've bought the propaganda about them being biased, so they stick with the "unbiased" sources -- or had they already made up their minds, and they're simply dismissing that information which doesn't conform with their established views?

I think an awful lot of us tend to grossly underestimate just how easily most people ignore information which doesn't conform to our already-established views.



As I said earlier, my sister is a Fundamentalist Christian who ardently believes that evilution is a lie propagated by evil Satan worshippers. She also believes that her brother is an intelligent, good and decent person. Occasionally, I remind her that I'm an evolutionary biologist -- and that I'm not part of any sort of Satanist conspiracy to "hide the truth." On such occasions, her face goes utterly blank for about 2 seconds -- then she goes right back to ranting about how only idiots and bad people believe in evolution.

I honestly believe that she's incapable of accepting that one can be an "evolutionist" and a good person, and so her mind automatically filters out any and all evidence to the contrary. I think that similarly, a lot of people have become convinced (for whatever reason) that there was a clear linkage between Iraq and 9/11 (maybe because they couldn't face the prospect that a "godly" man like Bush would start a war on false pretenses), and so they're simply incapable of accepting that there is no such connection.

Cheers,

Michael

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I blame LadyShea for making Bey and Scotty think this was a serious thread.

I so misread you

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I think an awful lot of us tend to grossly underestimate just how easily most people ignore information which doesn't conform to our already-established views.

Bingo. That was the essential point I was trying to make. After reading Clutch's article on critical thinking here I'm far more inclined to attribute gross discrepancies between the facts and the popular opinion to normal brain function than idiocy or insanity. In turn I wonder if there is anything those of us who have long been aware of the facts could have done differently to ensure that the word was getting out to the voters.

Starting with an assumption that all people who voted for Bush this time around are ignorant, stupid or crazy is (imho) going to yield the same results it always does: Increased polarization and hostility to opposing views.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

For every instance of some official pointing out that there was no credible evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11, there were probably a dozen instances of some Bush official or apologist implying or stating outright that there was. If anything, I'm pleasantly surprised that so many people recognized the lie for what it was.

Cheers,

Michael

if only some poster had made a thread addressing just this point.

if only..........

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I so misread you

No worries.

I generally avoid such gratuitously cynical OP's anyway, 'cause as funny as it is to me I'd still rather discuss things than point and laugh at what I consider to be an absurd stance. I confess it weirds me out a little that you didn't immediately identify such a blatantly narrowminded post as a satire, though. But it also kinda helps make my point for me: We tend to be a lot more open-minded to positions expressed by people we know, like and trust. You do like me, right? RIGHT?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

if only some poster had made a thread addressing just this point.

if only..........

Maybe that thread is why the population here seems to know the truth. Did you try starting one of those threads in Ohio or Florida?!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I generally avoid such gratuitously cynical OP's anyway, 'cause as funny as it is to me I'd still rather discuss things than point and laugh at what I consider to be an absurd stance. I confess it weirds me out a little that you didn't immediately identify such a blatantly narrowminded post as a satire, though. But it also kinda helps make my point for me: We tend to be a lot more open-minded to positions expressed by people we know, like and trust. You do like me, right? RIGHT?

Um, I think I thought you were using the emotive language to make a point, or because you were venting or some shit. I really have no idea what I was thinking. Basically, I saw a little crack where I could wedge in my musings. They were connected thoughts in my hormone addled brain okay?

And yes, I like you. Asking me that is a stupid, uninformed thing to do

[seebs]

My mom's a very rational atheist, who voted for Bush, because she thought Kerry was actually worse. She might be right. Certainly, we didn't have very good choices this time around.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, I think I thought you were using the emotive language to make a point, or because you were venting or some shit. I really have no idea what I was thinking. Basically, I saw a little crack where I could wedge in my musings. They were connected thoughts in my hormone addled brain okay?

And yes, I like you. Asking me that is a stupid, uninformed thing to do

Yeah that's what I'm saying. You interpreted what I said based on an assumption - because you know me - that I'm not an ignorant, stupid, crazy person. As a result you gave a courteous and reasoned response, and the hypothetical bridge of communication between us on this issue was built. Had you assumed the worst and attacked me, we'd be done talking and I would be even less likely to give your POV a fair hearing next time.

Anyway I know you know all this and agree, I'm just spelling it out for the lurkers and to help clarify the ideas for myself. On a more important note: Are you aware that you very often leave the period off the final sentence in your posts, and if so do you know why?

[The Lone Ranger]

Brandi missed her period?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Anyway I know you know all this and agree, I'm just spelling it out for the lurkers and to help clarify the ideas for myself. On a more important note: Are you aware that you very often leave the period off the final sentence in your posts, and if so do you know why?

I think if you analyze more closely, you'll find I only (or mostly) do so when I end my post with a smilie. I never figured out if it was proper to put the punctuation before or after the smilie, felt both ways looked wrong, so I simply stopped using punctuation in those instances.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Brandi missed her period?

Not yet, but we're hoping to. We should know around the 10th.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think if you analyze more closely, you'll find I only (or mostly) do so when I end my post with a smilie. I never figured out if it was proper to put the punctuation before or after the smilie, felt both ways looked wrong, so I simply stopped using punctuation in those instances.

I've only noticed a few times, actually, but only once when a smilie was involved. In any case I just thought it was interesting and wondered why it was.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I've only noticed a few times, actually, but only once when a smilie was involved. In any case I just thought it was interesting and wondered why it was.

Hmm, I don't know. I also don't know why I use "..." so much, but I can't stop.

Damn, I don't do it, do I? I was ready to hit submit without a period in the sentence above. Now I'll be thinking about it all the time, for a day or so.

[livius drusus]

You've done it in PM too.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

You've done it in PM too.

Is it always the last sentence only? Guess I subconsciously figure it's extraneous. Yeah, that's it. I am not retarded, I am efficient!

[Roland98]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Bingo. That was the essential point I was trying to make. After reading Clutch's article on critical thinking here I'm far more inclined to attribute gross discrepancies between the facts and the popular opinion to normal brain function than idiocy or insanity. In turn I wonder if there is anything those of us who have long been aware of the facts could have done differently to ensure that the word was getting out to the voters.

Starting with an assumption that all people who voted for Bush this time around are ignorant, stupid or crazy is (imho) going to yield the same results it always does: Increased polarization and hostility to opposing views.

Okay, but how exactly do you distinguish between that normal brain function and their filtering out of the facts and ignorance? If they're ignoring certain pieces of information that don't fit their pre-determined view, doesn't that still make them ignorant of it? I don't think a lot of Bush voters were stupid or crazy (though sure, some of them were those too ) but I think it's pretty clear a lot of them are ignorant (more here): ignorant of what's happened in Iraq, ignorant on both Bush and Kerry's positions, ignorant on what's happened with the economy, and on and on. IMO it's a fair assessment of many Bush voters. *shrug*