| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Dependence Day |
| 2015-07-24 |
| by Richard Fernandez [PJMedia] This argument between Ted Cruz and Code Pink's Medea Benjamin [1] over the Iran deal is an interesting contrast in logical styles. Cruz reasons the deal is bad because it gives Tehran $100 billion that it will use to continue its war against America. By contrast, Benjamin says that since Obama and all the right thinking people think the deal is good then it must be. How can you, Ted Cruz, think differently from all these super-smart people? The debate reflects the age-old conflict between an argument from reason and an argument from authority. It's a real contest because while Western civilization pays lip service to "evidence based" policy, in practice most human beings rely on social proof [2] to decide what to believe. Social proof is a type of conformity. When a person is in a situation where they are unsure of the correct way to behave, they will often look to others for cues concerning the correct behavior. ... and is driven by the assumption that surrounding people possess more knowledge about the situation. The search for "social proof" as a determinant of conviction is not wholly crazy. Few of us can say why a pharmaceutical works. But if the doctor prescribes a pill, we drink it without question. Most of the world is preoccupied with making a living and consequently have a high level of rational ignorance [3]. "Rational ignorance occurs when the cost of educating oneself on an issue exceeds the potential benefit that the knowledge would provide." It takes too long for us to figure things out from first principles, so we find a "smart man" and do what he tells us. Many people spend 15 minutes every four years thinking about foreign policy or politics. Since it would take too much time for them to examine the issues themselves they rely on proxy indicators to inform their choice. Some people have faith in Donald Trump, others in Bernie Sanders. Medea Benjamin happens to believe in Barack Obama. Ignorance about an issue is said to be "rational" when the cost of educating oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential benefit one could reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so it would be irrational to waste time doing so. This has consequences for the quality of decisions made by large numbers of people, such as general elections, where the probability of any one vote changing the outcome is very small. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #6 Bobby has the trick of it. America has always had these voices, we just didn't listen to them. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2015-07-24 11:45 |
| #5 and those who wonder why anyone who broods on a throne should be trusted. The fellow we have now certainly has reduced the 'wonderment.' |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2015-07-24 10:34 |
| #4 So The Age of Reason is over? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason |
| Posted by: 3dc 2015-07-24 10:33 |
| #3 It also implies that Obama's supporters are believers in the RELIGION of OBAMA'S WORD and not Rational Thinkers. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2015-07-24 10:32 |
| #2 It's one of the more insightful short reads that I have seen in long long time. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2015-07-24 10:29 |
| #1 The conclusion is insightful, I think - In some sense the American War of Independence never ended. The issues that divided it remain alive to this day. Perhaps it will never be settled for mankind, which will always be divided between those who look up at Ultron and see Hope and those who wonder why anyone who broods on a throne should be trusted. The problem is that the social proofers demand that everyone conform to their viewpoint, to confirm its validity. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2015-07-24 07:40 |