Skip to main content

It was a real struggle for me to read this clearly RW viewpoint (link below the orange squiggle), because I can't reconcile the intelligence that the author appears to possess with the clearly absurd content.

The way it's written -- maybe it's not the best writing in all time, but it's definitely way above average -- suggests strongly that the author possesses a good amount of at least some forms of intellect.

But the content, for an article written today, Feb. 8, 2014, bears so little resemblance to the picture that's been emerging from the vast collection of facts already uncovered -- which anyone familiar with the entirely non-fictional NJ drama has come to suspect is just the tip of an iceberg too large to contemplate.

There's a live, intelligent person writing stuff that is so delusional that it becomes really interesting to ponder the question: how can it be?  Is it a hoax?  And if it's not a hoax, I would love to find some explanation of this phenomenon.

http://elm.washcoll.edu/...

Post-Script (after reading the Comments up until 8:30'ish pm):

1)  I need to clarify why it seemed to me like the author possesses above-average intelligence.

     I work in a profession regulated by the FDA (at a major biotech manufacturer, with extensive global presence, and major global market share).  There are several functions (entire departments) that generate, record, and maintain communications, most consisting at least somewhat of narrative -- brief descriptions of observations, memos, and all the way up to extensive, comprehensive reports.
    The more of those written communications I've come across in my 10+ years of working in this field (during which my role always involved creation and/or review of FDA-mandated written communications), the more dismayed I've become about what seems like a basic flaw in our educational system -- one that fails to provide intelligent kids with the important skills that produce high-quality written communication.  That's a whole other serious subject, but I hope this clarifies why the writing sounded above-average to me.

2) More importantly, I need to clarify why I felt compelled to share this student's POV with the DKos community -- and to ask for the community's input.

One of the Comments questions the value of thinking any further about the linked article.  And I can totally see why many people might feel that way; in fact, I was puzzled at first as to why I kept thinking about it so much, and the growing intention to share it with the DKos community surprised me.  But in the end I went ahead with the diary, because eventually I figured out why I couldn't just let it go.

I think the reason it's hard for me to let it go is that this absurd delusional thinking is not that uncommon (or, I should say, IS alarmingly common) among intelligent, educated members of our society.

It has always been a source of puzzlement for me.  And it's easy to get angry and frustrated about it (which I experience on occasion...), but I honestly want to be able to understand this intelligent-absurd phenomenon.  Because I think it might help me have more constructive dialog with people who embody this paradox.

I suspect that it's an inescapable aspect of the human condition, and that it therefore affects individuals regardless of political affiliation, worldview, etc.

But it sure seems far more common on the "right" side of the political spectrum.  Is that true -- or is it just how it seems to every progressive liberal?

If it is true, then I'd like to understand if there's something inherent on that side of the political spectrum that is somehow better than the left at perpetuating the intelligent-absurd paradox.

Because ultimately, from my progressive-liberal perspective, winning debates and elections should be only one of our goals.

The way I see it, another major goal of the progressive liberal community is the creation of a truly intelligent, well-informed voting public.  I believe future generations will thank us if we make good headway toward that goal.  Because I believe it's a vital requirement for creating and sustaining a truly intelligent government, one that fulfills its mission of governing for the people.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  1. There's No Such Thing as Liberal Media (16+ / 0-)

    They're corporations owned by corporations and sponsored by corporations.

    Is MSNBC owned by the Teamsters? How about ABC? Or by trial lawyers? Are teachers, food stamp recipients, climate researchers or Latinos major sponsors of these networks?

    No. Even PBS is largely corporate sponsored. Not largely government sponsored.

    Testimony from a Port Authority official indicates that the road closing procedure violated federal law. That makes it newsworthy, period end of sentence.

    As you say, the description he's providing is not of this case.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 06:39:23 PM PST

    •  Waiting for my response to Kevin - - (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lujane, agiftagain, stunvegas

      Kevin, I do hope you improve your investigative skills before you move on into “real” journalistic endeavor. There is no “liberal” media. Nearly all major “news” sources are entertainment and owned by huge corporations intent on making more money off entertainment than information. Some of your writing shows latent skill but your boat is adrift in right wing koolaide.

      I fervently hope, as humans, we never escape from this earth to spread our bigotry elsewhere.

      by olegar on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 07:29:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  He lost me at "it is very clear that a traffic (19+ / 0-)

    study was done." Anybody who is that stupid in
    the face of all of the evidence is not someone
    whose words I want to read.

    If you are asking how others perceive it:
    Horse shit propaganda.

    "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

    by rubyr on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 06:39:43 PM PST

  •  There was no legal traffic study as (6+ / 0-)

    Asserted by the author in the article you reference: the NYS rep for the Port Authority, David Foye, had no knowledge about the "traffic study" and in fact notified the Jersey PA group that their actions probably violated state and local laws. Beyond that, the "liberal" media continues to report on developments -- 20 Christie functionaries were subpoenaed and more revelations will emerge. And, if Ft Lee Mayor, Mark Sokolich can be believed, Christie has been lying about his acquaintance with him.

    Christie's goose is cooked, only a matter of time.

  •  BENGHAAAZZZIII!!!!! (6+ / 0-)

    Doubt kills more dreams than failure ever will

    by miracle11 on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 06:49:38 PM PST

    •  He was doing his best (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      radical simplicity, Chas 981

      till he penned that last paragraph.  Classic right wing mis-direction.

      He is an undergrad student at Washington College.  It is one of the earliest charter colleges in the USA, with this for the mission statement.  

      ' ' 'The enduring values of Washington College – critical thinking, effective communication, and moral courage – move the world.' ' '

      Maybe Kevin will catch "maturity".

      I fervently hope, as humans, we never escape from this earth to spread our bigotry elsewhere.

      by olegar on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 08:03:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Balderdash. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    radical simplicity, stunvegas

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 06:50:16 PM PST

  •  He overlooks one key point (11+ / 0-)

    If Christie's narrative is true, then he can't control his own people.  So this guy is defending a governor with a rogue staff.

    And as far as intelligence--he's spewing the shibboleth that this is an attempt to derail Hillary's strongest challenger.  Not even Christie's loudest defenders are claiming that anymore--at least the high-profile ones.

    "Leave us alone!" -Mike Capuano

    by Christian Dem in NC on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 06:55:41 PM PST

    •  Damn you, Wildstein! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      radical simplicity, Australian2

      What a nefarious plot indeed, get Christie and all Christie's minions to greenlight a hare-brained, criminal plot that would get discovered and derail Christie's manifest presidential destiny.

      Why that Wildstein really is a sly one.  I guess Christie gave him one too many wedgies in high school

  •  ahhh no (8+ / 0-)

    1. The writer isn't an idiot, but I don't see any indication of "way above average" writing for a college student -  I would call it average at best.

    2. My guess is that the student in question wants to be (or is) a leader of a "young republican" club or other such organization, or perhaps has as his "assignment" for this paper to present the conservative view.  If that is the case, think about a lawyer passionately defending a client he doesn't really believe in.  Essentially, the writer is "doing his job"

    In either event, I wouldn't waste any more brain cycles on this

    •  The writer may be ignorant, or just a young (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      radical simplicity

      Republican in training.  Perhaps he is purposely misleading people to try to help Christie get through this.  

      It boggles the mind that some people think that Christie is not going to jail.  He's out raising monies.  Considering he's already requested to use campaign funds for his expensive defense team, who would want to give him campaign monies?

    •  I work in a profession regulated by the FDA. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite

      There are several functions (entire departments) that generate, record, and maintain communications, most consisting at least somewhat of narrative -- brief descriptions of observations, memos, and all the way up to extensive, comprehensive reports.  The more of those written communications I've come across in my 10+ years of working in this field, the more dismayed I've gotten about what seems like a basic flaw in our educational system, one that fails to provide intelligent kids with the important skills that produce high-quality written communication.  That's a whole other subject, but I wanted to clarify why the writing sounded above-average.

    •  And I sort of agree with your conclusion... (0+ / 0-)

      ...that it's not worth thinking about this beyond this point.  But I think the reason it's hard for me to let it go is because this absurd delusional thinking is not that uncommon (or, I should say, alarmingly common) among intelligent, educated members of our society.

      It has always been a source of puzzlement for me.  And it's easy to get angry and frustrated about it (which I experience on occasion...), but I honestly want to be able to understand this intelligent-absurd phenomenon.  Because I think it might help me have more constructive dialog with people who embody this paradox.

      I suspect that it's an inescapable aspect of the human condition, and that it therefore affects individuals regardless of political affiliation, worldview, etc.

      But is sure seems far more common on the "right" side of the political spectrum.  Is that true -- or is it just how it seems to every progressive liberal?

      If it is true, then I'd like to understand if there's something inherent on that side of the political spectrum that is somehow better than the left at perpetuating the intelligent-absurd paradox.

      Because ultimately, from my progressive-liberal perspective, winning debates and elections should be only one of our goals.

      The way I see it, another major goal of the progressive liberal community is the creation of a truly intelligent, well-informed voting public.  I believe future generations will thank us if we make good headway toward that goal.  Because I believe it's a vital requirement for creating and sustaining a truly intelligent government, one that fulfills its mission of governing for the people.

  •  The only source he lists is CNN. (4+ / 0-)

    If he has used other sources, he hasn't listed them.  I'd offer that his use of the phrase "the liberal media" pretty much tells me where he is coming from.  FoxNews doesn't allow 5 minutes to pass without uttering the dog-whistle phrase "liberal media."  I'd speculate FoxNews is his favorite "news" vehicle, and that he mentioned CNN to appear to be middle of the road.  That alone shows me how slanted his ideology already is.  But to be fair, that is pure speculation, albeit based on much anecdotal experience

    You cannot argue with someone who uses the "authoritarian" ideology for forming thoughts and opinions.  See George Lakoff.  Logic, ideas such as "critical thinking" do not appear in their thought processes.  

    I researched Washington College.  It's in Maryland, a small liberal arts college.  I'd speculate its student body tends to be generally liberal, based on its location and size...  but I wouldn't put any money on it without genuine research.

    One might further speculate that Bridgegate has caught on around the Washington College campus and our poor guy is feeling a bit overhwhelmed by the numbers of opinions that differ from his about Bridgegate that he hears on campus, where based on the above speculations such  opinions are much better informed.  MSNBC has done yeoman work on this story, and is the main reason the story has now gone national, IMO.  Rachel Maddow in particular is adamant about checking the veracity of her sources.  Would that right wing "news" sources would invoke that journalistic imperative even a little...

    Based on the those speculations, this guy sounds like he might feel like he needs to be a cry of a voice in the wilderness.  However, awarding the letter writer

    the intelligence that the author appears to possess
    may be a bit off the mark.

    Stated otherwise, the guy is just flat misinformed, and as a college student, he should be being taught better.

    "There's always room for cello." Yo Yo Ma

    by ceebee7 on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 07:37:55 PM PST

  •  No higher authority is possible (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SharonNK, radical simplicity, a2nite
    Christie and his administration were not involved in the incident nor did they have knowledge of it as proved by CNN legal analysts and others.
    CNN legal analysts are clearly the gold standard of truthiness.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 07:45:48 PM PST

  •  I find no evidence that this writing was (4+ / 0-)

    way above average.  It was written on student level, I give you that, but there is nothing special here, or anything revealing more than a base amount of intellect.  

      Early on in this diatribe the author pens:  "In any case, it has become clear that there was a traffic study done and that Christie and his administration are not implicated in this ordeal."    This is offered without proof or further explanation.  How has it become clear?  Nobody in their right mind believes that there was a traffic study done, but this author, undeterred, makes that outlandish claim anyway.

    The author goes on to write "Upon learning of the incident, Christie held a two hour news conference, proving that it was but a few rogue aids and fielded every question reporters threw his way."

    Again selling fiction as fact.  How exactly did Christie PROVE anything in that news conference?  We are supposed to take Christie by his word, and that is proof positive that nobody else in Christie's administration and Christie himself was involved in the incident?  Weak reasoning.   Also, they are called "aides", not "aids" and he needed to use the plural "were" instead of "was" when talking about said "aides."  

    The opinion piece was neither intelligently written, nor did it show anything above average.  It was a screed one could read any day of the week on Redstate.com.   No good reason exists to bring this trash over here.  

       

    •  Regarding the form and the essence of the article, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite

      I can see how to many people it might seem like my assessment of the article's author is overly flattering, and that the article itself doesn't even deserve to be part of the conversation on Daily Kos.
        But before drawing those conclusions, I hope you consider the additional information I edited into the diary, immediately underneath the link to the article.
        Seriously, if you have a moment, I'd be very much interested to hear back from you after (and if) you take a moment to read my additional ruminations.  I accept the possibility that they may not change your feedback.  But I think there's also a possibility that they might produce some additional share-worthy thoughts.
         - Cheers!

      •  As I said, this writer isn't very impressive (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        agiftagain

        He fails to apply logic in his essay when jumping from one ridiculous conclusion to another.  He declares as fact what any impartial observer would question as "yet to be determined" and shows no proof whatsoever as to why he believes Christie has made an effective case.    

        Redstate.com has much better writers, and they apply actual logic that makes sense if you know how their particular universe is put together.  

        An example:

        http://www.redstate.com/...

        Of course, these are professional writers, whereas your example was that of an amateur, a student still honing his writing skills.  However, even startup writers should be able to pick up certain elements from their professional brethren that help them come up with intelligently written articles that have proper syntax, show logic (within the realm of a particular argument) and can't be easily taken apart by someone with an opposing opinion.  

        Sure, as a student of a university the writer clearly possesses a tad more intelligence than your "average" right-wing hack, but that did not translate into writing anything impressive here.  

  •  I think Republicans have long since descended into (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, agiftagain

    tribal thinking - and Chris Christie is one of their tribal leaders. The first paragraph is so demonstrably wrong there's almost no point reading the rest of the piece. I did but really I think that figuring out how to respond this this example of "motivated reasoning" could be limited to just deconstructing the first paragraph.

    Kevin Lair's exculpatory thesis is this:

    According to Port Authority officials, the lanes were closed on Sept. 9, 2013 to conduct a traffic study.
    Everything else in the piece hinges upon the truthfulness of this statement. The only Port Authority official who has made this claim is Bill Baroni - and he has refused to provide any documentation to support his assertion. In fact the available documentation on this shows that every effort was made to NOT inform affected authorities of the impending lane closures, and for day after day keep them in the dark about whether the lanes would be closed the next day.

    We've all seen how normal traffic closures process with weeks of notice - I have never witnessed a "surprise" traffic closure that wasn't an accident, and the accident didn't keep repeating itself for the next three days. Ask Mr Lair if he has ever witnessed or known of a "surprise" traffic closure that recurred day after day. Chris Christie is still laughably trying to float the idea last week that "maybe there was a traffic study" - because, like Mr Lair, he understands that if this wasn't a traffic study then all hell breaks loose.

    Which brings us to the first statement about the liberal media. I grew up in the UK where liberal and conservative newspapers were daily lined up beside each other, sometimes agreeing on the banner headline - mostly not. Even in liberal Seattle there used to be two newspapers, one slightly liberal, one quite conservative. Only the conservative one is left - and I suspect the vast majority of Americans now live in 1 paper towns.

    However, even if we grant Mr Lair that the print media is unaccountably liberal, and even if we go on to grant him that the mainstream tv sources are all liberal - he would have to accept the Fox News was created precisely to provide the "news" from an unabashedly conservative perspective. Have they presented any evidence for this "traffic study". Have the stalwarts at Drudge, or Breitbart or Limbaugh or ANY right wing information sources produced a single piece of evidence to support Bill Baroni's and Chris Christie's assertions that was (maybe) a traffic study.

    Bear in mind that this story was originally broken by the Wall Street Journal on October 1st. It's worth noting that in Christie's radio interview a week ago he claimed that story was his first knowledge of the lane closures "as an issue" - weasel words leaving open the possibility he knew of the closures - just not that they were an issue until the WSJ came out with the story. Is the Wall Street Journal part of the liberal media?

    I've had many of these kinds of conversations with conservative friends and family - and the only tactic that's partially worked has been to focus on one piece (here the "traffic study") where it should be impossible for the other party to refute (or as Sarah Palin would say "refudiate") the elephant in the room. Everything else is distraction, and you don't even have to talk about agendas.

    The problem for the Christie crew (and a motivated reasoner like Mr Lair) is that all it would take to support his entire defence is production of documentation from that time attesting to a traffic study. They can't produce it because it does not exist.

  •  Go back through history... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, agiftagain

    ... and read how conservatives---- intelligent ones!--- defended segregation.

    Read how conservatives---- intelligent ones!--- defended the Vietnam war.

    Read how conservatives---- intelligent ones!--- defended Nixon's Watergate crimes.

    Read how conservatives---- intelligent ones!--- defended Reagan's Iran-Contra crimes.

    Read how conservatives---- intelligent ones!--- defended W's Iraq War.

    Read how conservatives---- intelligent ones!--- dispute global climate change, equal rights for LGBT's, etc.

    Remember WMD's? Death panels? How every Democratic president since FDR has been branded as a communist?

    I could go on and on...

    This poor little college kid doesn't even reach the base camp of Bullshit Mountain.

  •  Tipped & rec'ed; I just can't care (0+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 08:28:46 AM PST

  •  for an allegedly "intelligent" person (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    agiftagain, a2nite

    ...the letter writer seems to have a very...loose...and...fluid definition for the word "prove."

    The letter writer states in several instances that what Christie has said public "proves" his side of the story correct (as in...Christie's press conference "proves" the allegations against him incorrect...when the words used by Christie during his press conference contained no proof whatsoever).

    This isn't just "cognitive dissonance" to me (whereby someone has conflicting beliefs that lead them to conclusions that contradict their own standards.

    This letter writers words are an example of shamelessly blatant...and deliberate....dishonesty.

    To state that the fact that Christie held a press conference where he used words to refute allegations against him as...."proof" that those allegations are correct, is not just fundamentally flawed, in terms of logic, but is blatantly dishonest on its face.

    There is no proof that's been made public by Chris Christie, either at his press conference or since (or at least none that have yet been reported) that proves his story to be correct in any manner shape or form.

  •  sorry for the delay (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    agiftagain, smileycreek

    there was in issue of some technical nature with my account.  anyway, this is what i wrote a few days ago.  sorry for its length:

    I read your diary and all the comments before I read the article.  That gave me a theory about what might be going on.  After reading the article, I think you make some assumptions.  This first one I took the most liberty with in gleaning it from your words:

    Decent writing skills = above-average intelligence

    More likely, this should be parsed as “good writing skills = above-average intelligence,” and “decent writing skills = intelligence.”  I can’t really argue with the latter, I guess.  But the former is questionable.  Writing skills are just that—skills that can be learned.  The reason I start with this is because, while the writing was fine-to-good in the article, it wasn’t stellar.  As others have noted, there were errors.  But I would also note that this was not a paper for a class (or, not only).  It was an article in the campus newspaper.  A quick look at a couple of links on the paper’s website, shows that there is quite a focus at the paper on developing all the skills needed for good journalism.  This includes editing; in fact, on their “Meet the Press” page, it is nearly all editors.  I am assuming that this article was edited AT LEAST once before it was published.  That addresses the quality of the punctuation and basic writing flow.

    Another part of writing goes beyond “basic writing flow.”  (Sorry, it’s late and I’m not explaining this very well.)  Again, the article has some of this—better than a new college student—but again, not spectacular.  This could be part of the editing process, but I think it’s more likely it’s that this student is an upper-classman at a respected liberal arts college.

    But the “flow” wasn’t all that wonderful, and I think part of that is because it’s likely the writer is parroting things he has heard.  Probably from FoxNews.  I don’t follow the right-wing media, or FoxNews in particular, but while reading the article, it didn’t strike me that the author was presenting anything new/anything that hasn’t already been tossed out, likely many times, by others.

    And there wasn’t much “flow” to that—it was pretty much a point-by-point essay.  Granted, the wording wasn’t clumsy, and the punctuation was pretty good.  But this leads into the next assumption you might have made:

    Decent writing skills = critical thinking skills

    There was no critical thinking in this article.  But you know that.  Your confusion, I guess, stems from trying to equate those two things.  Or these 3 things—decent writing skills must mean intelligence, and intelligence must mean critical thinking skills.  And there is the final assumption:

    Intelligence = critical thinking skills

    This is the one that I think you find most troubling.  I haven’t spent a lot of time pondering this, but I’ll throw this out—there is critical thinking, and there are critical thinking skills.  I think only one can be taught.  (This is a very rough hypothesis on my part; please refute/argue—it helps my critical thinking!)

    We know there are different types of intelligence.  There are very intelligent people who can’t write well.  Is it possible to be intelligent and yet not think critically?
    In quickly trying to analyze my own style/types of thinking, I think there are times when I can chose to think critically or not.  There are also times when it is not a choice….it simply happens.  I don’t know if that’s normal or not.

    So, a couple possible answers to your question –
    1) this author, while intelligent, simply doesn’t have the type of intelligence for critical thinking, or for easy critical thinking, or for automatic critical thinking.  Or,
    2) the author chose to turn off his critical thinking while writing this article/while thinking about this particular topic.

    I’ll leave answer #1 to those with more knowledge of intelligence and thinking styles.  For #2, (and this is what occurred to me before I’d even read the article) people will do some strange things to a) defend their faith, and/or b) avoid looking critically at aspects of their faith.  I’ve seen this repeatedly in religious people.  They can be highly intelligent people, but when confronted with something that calls their faith (either parts or in whole) into question, they may react in very strong ways—sometimes defensively; sometimes in anger (which is likely just defensive).  If they are more intelligent, it seems they try to corral the anger and respond with what appear to be rational arguments…although those arguments completely ignore facts that are inconvenient.

    I think that’s what’s happening in this article.  And this might help answer your other question—why does it seem to be RW folks who display this more?  Again, this is quick, but a lot of RWers seem to have a worldview/faith/belief system that things ARE a certain way.  Those who aren’t RW also have worldviews/faiths/belief systems, but they can be more amenable to change; in fact, the possibility of change is often A PART OF their belief system.  (These are not absolutes, and do not apply to all RWers or all liberals/progressives.)

    I’m sure there are many, many other people who have written about this far better than I ever could.  But the point is, you are looking at this as a question of intelligence, when I think you should be looking at it as a question of ingrained faith/worldview, and what some people will do to defend it.

    •  Thanks, colbey! (0+ / 0-)

      This helps a lot.  Makes more sense now.  I'm not unique in wanting to make the world a better, more peaceful place.  And understanding the "other"'s viewpoint in any given conflict is generally helpful in resolving the conflict.  The "other" may be unable or unwilling to meet me half-way, which is, as you explained, just one aspect of their worldview.  That meta-circular obstacle is frustrating but at the same time fascinating to me.
        If I wanted to make this my life's work -- somehow facilitating the dismantling of that obstacle -- where should I turn to for preparation?  I'm in my mid-40's.  My career so far has been in engineering.  But I would love to shift into something that has a much more direct impact on humanity.  Been thinking of early-childhood education -- figuring that belief systems and critical thinking begin taking shape very early on in life.  But also thinking of something like voter education -- since it's today's grown-ups that are participating in the political conversation.
         I'm curious to know what you and other fellow Kossacks might suggest...

    •  RW viewpoint does heavily rely on faith, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      agiftagain

      along with black/white, right/wrong thinking.  

      It makes it extremely difficult to have a rational conversation with an otherwise intelligent person. I'm thinking about my RW brother and what happens when I bump up against one of his deeply held beliefs, many of which involve the inherent inferiority of people who are not like him.

      Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

      We all owe it to the American people to say what we’re for,
      not just what we’re against.
      ---> President Obama, 2014 SOTU speech

      by smileycreek on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 06:29:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent article in Salon on right-wing ideology (0+ / 0-)

    Apologies for the delayed comment, but an article was just posted in Salon that speaks to this phenomenon:

    http://www.salon.com/...

    "The most basic lesson of modernity is that we must be prepared to change our minds. When we are not — when insistence subverts instruction, and our beliefs are refreshed by resentment rather than experience — we insulate ourselves from any possibility of empirical correction."

    Besides actual delusion, there is another fount from which right-wing rhetoric flows, which is deliberate (disingenuous, intentionally misleading) propaganda.  The statements produced by both are very similar, because, of course, the propaganda is intended to control the thinking of the deluded, so one expects to find propaganda mimicked by the deluded.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site