Re: [FairfieldLife] Another interesting article: the Identity Protective Cognition Thesis
Thanks for 2 fascinating articles, turq. I was realizing yesterday during the Clinton exchanges, that we humans like to think that we're being logical and reasonable and intelligent about our political choices. But I could feel in myself on subtler levels, that my conclusions about Hillary Clinton are not derived only from facts and observables and logic. So I agree with the author when he says at the end that education must aim at something more subtle and not so easy to measure. I'd add that often that something is also a challenge in terms of articulation. But it's great fun to keep attempting to articulate what's elusive and or complex. Yikes! I've slipped into preaching to the choir! On Saturday, November 2, 2013 4:17 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: One that might be of interest to those who seem compelled to prove how much smarter they are than others. As a quote from the article and the research it reports on says: A recent study by Yale's Dan M. Kahan and colleagues might be thought to call these truisms of democratic political culture into question. According to the finding, the better you are at reasoning numerically, the more likely you are to let your political bias skew your quantitative reasoning. Put another way, the brainier you are, the better you can twist facts to your own pre-existing convictions. And that's what you will tend to do.http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/11/01/242138044/the-smarter-you-are-the-stupider-you-are?ft=1f=
Re: [FairfieldLife] Another interesting article: the Identity Protective Cognition Thesis
Whoops! turq, thanks for THREE fascinating articles this morning. Whew, close call, good save, etc! On Saturday, November 2, 2013 6:28 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: Thanks for 2 fascinating articles, turq. I was realizing yesterday during the Clinton exchanges, that we humans like to think that we're being logical and reasonable and intelligent about our political choices. But I could feel in myself on subtler levels, that my conclusions about Hillary Clinton are not derived only from facts and observables and logic. So I agree with the author when he says at the end that education must aim at something more subtle and not so easy to measure. I'd add that often that something is also a challenge in terms of articulation. But it's great fun to keep attempting to articulate what's elusive and or complex. Yikes! I've slipped into preaching to the choir! On Saturday, November 2, 2013 4:17 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: One that might be of interest to those who seem compelled to prove how much smarter they are than others. As a quote from the article and the research it reports on says: A recent study by Yale's Dan M. Kahan and colleagues might be thought to call these truisms of democratic political culture into question. According to the finding, the better you are at reasoning numerically, the more likely you are to let your political bias skew your quantitative reasoning. Put another way, the brainier you are, the better you can twist facts to your own pre-existing convictions. And that's what you will tend to do.http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/11/01/242138044/the-smarter-you-are-the-stupider-you-are?ft=1f=
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Another interesting article: the Identity Protective Cognition Thesis
Share wrote: (snip) I was realizing yesterday during the Clinton exchanges, that we humans like to think that we're being logical and reasonable and intelligent about our political choices. But I could feel in myself on subtler levels, that my conclusions about Hillary Clinton are not derived only from facts and observables and logic. Um, that's what I was telling you yesterday and you were denying, Share. Especially in the case of politicians' private lives, there's more to them than facts and observables and logic, and that more is what we cannot possibly know. So our conclusions are always going to be based on our fantasies of what, say, a couple's marriage is like. And if we then base our political choices on those fantasies (doormat, enabler), we're more likely than not to go seriously astray.
