--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. Mistakes matter, but only some of them. Probably the worst mistake
in the Democratic primary debates was Hillary's famous non-answer to a
question about drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants. But it
wasn't a big mistake because people care deeply about the issue. (When
is the last time you've heard driver's licenses mentioned on the
campaign trail?) It was important because it fit into a pre-exisiting
narrative about Hillary that had been developed by her opponents for
some time. Namely, that Hillary is politically calculating and
dishonest. Since it reinforced a pre-exisiting narrative it caused
Hillary immense damage and sent the campaign into a tailspin from
which it never fully recovered.
During the next debate in Nevada, Obama was asked a similar question
about drivers licenses for illegal immigrants and gave a similarly
meandering answer. Yet, he paid no political price. The reason is
simple: no one believed at the time that Obama was dishonest or
politically calculating. So a mistake that was debilitating for
Hillary was a non-issue for Obama.
IMO, thats the classic struggle between not be swallowed by
confirmational bias (automatically seeing what conforms to your POV,
not seeing that which does not ) vs. identifying patterns and themes
in what one observes -- and using such as a (partial) model of how
things work.
Both dynamics rely on filtering and 'lenses (of varying shades). The
result of each dynamic is that one tends to give to some the benefit
of the doubt -- to others you give far less.
How to resolve and balance the two forces stay (more so) connected to
truthiness?
Particularly when the effects of these forces can be multi-layered and
multi-dimensional. And each prone to be used as rationalizations for
and against a given proposition.
For me, its the regular reassessment and reassignment of probabilities
as to the truthiness of a particular perception.
For example, over the past month or more, McCain has managed to erase
any and all memories of his 2000 campaign -- straight talk express an
all -- with his series of lying, massively distorting and manipulative
ads and ploys. Every time I see a lying, short-sighted, or clueless ad
by McCain -- and then him (smirking?) I'm JM and I approve this ad
-- I cannot deny the evidence right in my face: JM is a lying,
opportunistic weasal (that clearly does not put country first and all
such talk is shallow attempts at manipulation and oozing hypocricy.)
The evidence is so clear, and so often repeated, its hard not to
assess a pattern to such behavior -- and to make an assessment of his
core character.
And the having identified this pattern, its natural for a degree of
confirmational bias to emerge. Or is it simply a filter that cuts
through the BS? If I have to assess every JM statement for truthiness,
from the gitgo, I will miss the overwhelming pattern. However, having
seen the pattern, does the subsequent filtering of what he says cause
distortion?
The debate illustrated this dilemma. I found evidence that McCain was
not as shallow, opportunistic and manipulative as his ads may suggest.
Hardly a saint -- or a worthy candidate IMO, but still not as one
dimensional as my internal model would predict.
Constant reassessing and reassigning probabilities as new data emerges
is towards a solution. But perhaps only for anal analyzers such as
myself. How do others deal with balancing these two dynamics:
confirmational bias and pattern seeking?
