Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
“People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?” Rodney King 5/1/92
The arguments and divisions politically here and throughout this country are rampant and destructive. Anger and hatred of others of differing opinions rises at times to fever pitch and I admit that I am part of the problem as much as anyone else is. This is a somewhat different piece in that I am going to present some national problems, as I see them and elicit your comments on them, in an attempt to discover whether there is some common ground agreement, on some things plaguing our society. While I am more interested in whether or not people agree that these are indeed problems for us all to consider and work to solve, it is certainly apropos for people to comment on what they believe the solutions to be.
This is an experiment on the viability of people agreeing on the premise that a problem exists in a given area. We cannot begin to resolve issues, unless we first agree that they are issues to be contemplated by the entire body politic. My hope is to engender real, civil discussion and perhaps at the end reach something like consensus. This is not a plea for Bi-Partisanship because to me that is a fantasy, whoever may utter it. To be “partisan” is to hold strong opinions and srong opinions do not resolve themselves into agreement. The resolution reached by “partisans” is always one of compromise, without either side changing their core beliefs, but agreeing to take part of the loaf. I am “experimenting” to see if many of the diverse viewpoints represented here can at least agree that a specific issue is indeed a problem, or if it is indeed an issue. Beyond writing this, I will not take part in the ensuing discussion, since the formulation itself indicates my views on whether these are indeed problems. I will limit my questions to legal issues, with no particular order of importance intended.
A. Does the fact that we have the highest incarceration rate of any nation in the world indicate a problem?
B. Given the overcrowding and long delays inherent in our legal system, do we need to do something to reform it?
C. Have our Constitutional Rights been diminished?
D. Has the policing authority both State and Locally been extended beyond permissible bounds.
E. Has the War on Drugs been a failure and added to addiction rather than restricting it?
F. From the perspective of criminal/civil procedure, has the Right to Privacy been terminated and/or restrictively diminished?
G. Does State and Federal Government have the right to criminalize non-coercive sexual acts between adults?
H. Should the States and Federal Government admit the “War on Drugs” is a failure and seek new methods to deal with addiction?
As an illustration of what I am looking for I will present this. FFLEO and I both voted for Barack Obama, even though FFLEO and I have very different political and partisan beliefs. Yet we both agree that he has been an awful President. Where we respectfully disagree is that he has stated he will never vote for Obama again and I have stated I might, if there are no alternatives that seem viable. The most important element is that we, though vastly different politically, agree on the nature of the problem. With that agreement, there comes a mutual respect and a future hope of resolution, even though one is not now apparent or even likely. If there is no agreement on whether something is at least a problem, then the legacy of that disagreement is ongoing, unresolved strife.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Slarti,
“If you don’t believe in Dr. Kruger’s theory, then find scientific evidence that falsifies it, but if you just don’t like the conclusions then why should anyone care?”
But you know that’s not what I am arguing.
What I am saying is that when someone comes by, and participates in a conversation, and then, over the net, you come in and call out Dunning Kruger, that all you’re doing is being a snarky bully.
You have no idea of what the guy’s intelligence is. And you show yourself unwilling to listen to his argument.
It’s ironic, troubling, telling, that everyone here today is aligning themselves with Feynman.
If you knew the first damn thing about Feynman, if you respected the man, you would ask yourself, would Feynman resort to Dunning Kruger to avoid having to take up an argument? Or would he take up the argument and disprove the argument.
Would Professor Turley go into court and call out Dunning Kruger? Your honor, the defendant and his attorney are Dunning Kruger Effect, let’s laugh at them and not listen to them.
Telling you that to call out Dunning Kruger on others is a bullshit tactic is of course not the same as saying their research is right or wrong. And I have no doubt that you can understand that.
anon,
I don’t think people who disagree with me are evil incarnate – I just think they are unlikely to be part of the solution as I see it. In fact, I’ve argued against such demonization (and it seems particularly rampant on the right – especially the fringe, by the way). If you don’t believe in Dr. Kruger’s theory, then find scientific evidence that falsifies it, but if you just don’t like the conclusions then why should anyone care?
@Slartibartfast
Indeed, when I see Dunning Kruger tossed about, it’s not done because the bomb tosser has any evidence that that the target is dumb and doesn’t understand that while the tosser is smart, it is mainly used as a name calling tactic.
It’s snarky.
To the extent the bomb thrower is serious, than my suspicion is that in all likelihood it’s quite likely it’s the bomb thrower suffering from Dunning Kruger as much as the target.
It’s just a dumb way to avoid a conversation and avoid having to listen to someone you disagree with.
I read recent posts where Mike and Rafflaw want to know why there can be no insurrection, and the real reason is because we are so divided and insistent that anyone who disagrees with us is evil incarnate that there is no way we can find common ground.
I would think you are better than this.
I know Turley is.
OS,
Hope this helps with the headache…
I wonder if you understand just how foolish this letter makes you look…
I’m sorry, but that email was hilarious.
“I dont think we can ever get along, there is a fundamental difference on how each side sees the world.”
There is and I am certain I will be accused of naivety but I think at some level we did when the 2 sides were willing to act in a bipartisan way. Now, esp for the republicans, it is party and ideology above all else. Even someone like McCain was willing to work with the democrats. Now bipartisanship is considered to be noting more than a dirty word.
(Seems to me A,B and E, ( the jailing of low level drug users taking up prison space much better used for caging those who truly threaten society (murder, rape, etc) all have a direct effect on each other. As a chronic pain patient I have seen first hand the “war on drugs” being taken out on those of us who need narcotic medications to just get through each day or even merely get out of bed and for whom addiction is rarely a problem.)
Carol Levy
apainedlife.blogspot.com/
i guess if you don’t like the idea behind dunning/kruger you can always go with “out of the mouths of babes”
Slarti, I read Roco’s alleged email to Kruger and now I have a headache. I did not think that many logical fallacies could occupy so little space.
Roco,
Did you really expect a reply? And did you figure out the other half of the effect in your youth?
Tom:
the Dunning Kruger effect was made up by a guy who may have been under its influence. And if the guy wasnt sure then how can we know he is correct.?
I sent this email to Dr. Krueger, I never heard back from him. Something to think about anyway concerning the effect.
Dear Dr. Kruger:
I was recently introduced to your work on ignorance and overconfidence. Apparently you did the work in good faith to give business leaders some sort of yard stick with which to measure aptitude and ability with regard to advancement.
I have been noticing a very ugly trend with respect to your work; people use it during arguments to dismiss the other person’s point of view. It is being used by highly educated people to dismiss others thoughts and opinions.
Personally, I would say this does not bode well for your work. Of course you can dismiss my opinion because I am ignorant of psychology. But it seems you have created an anti-epistemological monster with your work. Honestly, how do you know you interpreted the data correctly, how do you know you came to the correct conclusion? And what is superior knowledge? As you and I both know, one individual or even a dozen individuals with PhD’s do not have all of the answers or all of the knowledge available on a given subject. There is always something to learn about a particular subject. What your research seems to imply, at least how it is being used, is that we can never know if what we know is true.
Your research is being used in very bad ways to stifle the sharing of knowledge and opinions, something necessary for a free society. You have opened a worm hole for people of bad faith to intimidate others.
When I was younger we just used to say “ignorance is bliss” when confronted with someone who thought they knew more than they did. Or tell them they had the “complete authority of the uninformed”. We didn’t publish a research paper proving it, we already knew.
But then I guess I suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
OS,
I doubt it – and I doubt that it will matter how much he reflects on it until he admits the possibility that he might be wrong (confirmation biases are powerful things…). He’s probably happier imagining that I’m an incompetent idiot so that he doesn’t have to feel bad about his own feelings of helplessness. To the extent that I care about him, I pity him.
tom,
Lately I’ve been talking to several PhD’s and many other highly skilled professionals and convincing them that not only do I know what I’m talking about, but that they want to be a part of what I’m trying to build. You cannot imagine how insignificant your doubt is to me right now. I’m going to do my work – I leave you to whatever it is that you think you are accomplishing here.
Dr. Slarti, do you suppose our friend Tom has heard of the Dunning–Kruger effect? If not, perhaps he should reflect on it a bit.
Kevin,
“My solution is to have the conversation about how to achieve a solution without people like you in it and that’s exactly what I plan to do.
Thank you for illustrating my point.”
Keep on talking to yourself. There are some here who understand that our government is so corrupt, that only naive people believe that if they have a solution to a problem, the wheels of government will stop long enough to let a solution get on board — regardless of the overwhelming number of powerful people and interest groups who might oppose it.
I think you’re extremely naive, uninformed, and hopelessly so.
OS, there are still some significant items up for grabs and that are dearly wanted- the privatizing of Social Security and Medicare. Anybody else have the feeling that SS is no longer the ‘third rail’ in American politics but defense spending seems to be.
In reading through the S&P statement I noticed that among the things S&P felt was positive or negative about the countrys spending a defense budget that eats up 50% of our expenditures and perpetual wars were not mentioned. Guess they overlooked that.
Raff, I think you are right. The vultures are just picking over the remains now.
OS,
I think the uber-wealthy are no longer trying to buy all three branches. They closed the deal a while back.
Question: Would anybody buy their shit from the Bush, Cheney or Koch crime family enterprises?
Slarti-
Ask the greeter at the door which aisle leads to the opium den.
I think the Walton’s probably have the best shit.
When “illegal” drugs are legalized, which criminal enterprise should be allowed to distribute them? :
A. Genovese Family
B. Gambino Family
C. Lucchese Family
D. Colombo Family
E. Bonanno Family
F. Walton Family