Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Maybe it should be harder to vote, and not so easy & convenient. That way maybe the people who vote will be the ones who actually understand the importance of voting and care about the outcome.

Interesting combination of viewpoints: Don't censor speech, but vote suppression is ok.

[sailorchic34]

Ah, voting. How does one register to vote when one is on a boat, mobile with no fixed address or location. California wants to know where you reside or the closest two streets. I know this as I tired to register at one time, but they assume one lives on land. Giving lat/lon on a given day does not really work. Good lord I don't even know what the closest street names are, nor do I really care.



But then I don't really worry about it either.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Sorry, but when you mentioned making it harder to vote, I thought that’s what you were aiming at. And I didn’t realize it was so hot a topic.

No, my comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, and reflects frustration over how dumbed down political campaigning has become, at least here in the US. But I'm sure to a large extent it's always been this way. I just abhor that it's more of a beauty contest for so many voters as opposed to anything substantive. Hopelessly idealistic I know, but I always believed elections were an opportunity to have constructive debates and learn more about our democratic processes. Instead it seems like something you might see following the Kardashian's.

I can use a few Canadian examples during recent federal and provincial elections where voters have been intentionally misdirected to the wrong polling stations in an apparent effort to stop them from voting. And we’ve seen efforts to increase ID requirements, which has the effect of disenfranchising those people who already exist on the economic and social margins.

I'm sure you can cite documented incidents, and I wouldn't doubt their authenticity. Here in the US, the whole ID thing is enmeshed in the unrelenting immigration debate, and nothing disrupts truth more than hot-button political topics, real & manufactured.

It’s not a partisan tactic, it's a power tactic, usually enacted by those in power to say in power.

Yes, but there's also valid & reasonable requirements that should be in place to eliminate double-voting, fraudulent identities, and other abuses. I don't think requiring some sort of ID prior to casting a lawful ballot, for example, is all that onerous when you consider all the less consequential things in life where having one available is also necessary. As always, it's striking a reasonable and fair balance between competing concerns.

I guess a spoiled ballot is the same as writing in “Mickey Mouse”. It’s a form of protest that makes the ballot invalid. It’s viewed as a means of protesting the system. Some jurisdictions actually count these ballots, so they can have some (usually minimal) impact on the polity.

Originally Posted by GordMay

It's where you deliberately spoil your ballot, which is supposed to indicate "none of the above".

Oh ok, thanks. I think here in the states this might be more commonly referred to as a "write-in" ballot where a vote is cast for someone who's actually not on the ballot as a candidate. Also a form of protest I suppose.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Bothsidism really is a cancer.

Voter suppression is over 90% driven by Republicans. No experts or science required, the politicians themselves openly acknowledge that they are historical artifacts as soon as more citizens get out to vote, especially minorities and the young.

Yes gerrymandering can be found in Democratic jurisdictions, but nationally that too is much more widespread and egregious in Republican territory.

Pretending otherwise is just lame.

The US's use of winner takes all first-past-the-post elections really hampers progress with a two-party system.

All the other western "democracies" use voting systems designed so multiple parties are proportional in the legislature, and shifting coalitions can require snap elections.

This allows new parties to form and fundamental shifts in the polity transition incrementally rather than having to tear everything and start over, rarely but cataclysmically.

I think the coming years will give opportunities for such systemic adjustments and we should take advantage of them.

But overcoming big money's and corporate hegemony has to be the top priority, as well as privacy protections in interpersonal communications.

"All the other [W]estern 'democracies'" have a parliamentary system and so function as you've described. The American democracy is rather unique, and so yes, it is more prone to "winner-take-all" dysfunction and disruptions because coalitions with opposing parties cannot be formed to effectively govern. In my view anyway, that means it is even more reliant on compromise and moderation to function properly. So not only is "Bothsidism" not a cancer, it's an indispensable component of the system. The all-knowing, intolerant, myopic approach you consistently advocate for is one of the primary reasons the system seems to now be coming apart.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Ah, voting. How does one register to vote when one is on a boat, mobile with no fixed address or location. California wants to know where you reside or the closest two streets. I know this as I tired to register at one time, but they assume one lives on land. Giving lat/lon on a given day does not really work. Good lord I don't even know what the closest street names are, nor do I really care.



But then I don't really worry about it either.

Fwiw, I use a private mailbox service which has a fixed street address and doesn't use a P.O. Box address. It's just a local "Quik Send" place down the street. It is a bit more expensive than using the local post office though.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Interesting combination of viewpoints: Don't censor speech, but vote suppression is ok.

It would be an interesting combination of viewpoints, except that I'm not an advocate for voter suppression. Instead, I firmly believe that every citizen who wishes to vote should be encouraged to do so. That's not inconsistent with minimal requirements to confirm identity and prevent voter fraud. But I'm not surprised why you would only be able to see one side of the issue since that's the only side you've probably ever been exposed to.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Bothsidism really is a cancer.

Voter suppression is over 90% driven by Republicans. No experts or science required, the politicians themselves openly acknowledge that they are historical artifacts as soon as more citizens get out to vote, especially minorities and the young.

Yes gerrymandering can be found in Democratic jurisdictions, but nationally that too is much more widespread and egregious in Republican territory.

John, we’re trying NOT to make this only about the American polity. One side or another may be dominantly to blame in the USA, but it’s fundamentally about power; getting it and keeping it. In Canada we have examples of voter suppression, and it’s not about minorities and not unique to any one political party.

Originally Posted by john61ct

The US's use of winner takes all first-past-the-post elections really hampers progress with a two-party system.

All the other western "democracies" use voting systems designed so multiple parties are proportional in the legislature, and shifting coalitions can require snap elections.

Not so. Canada uses first-past-the-post for almost all of its various elections. And we still maintain a viable multi-party system. At the federal level the House of Commons currently holds representative from five national parties. The province of British Columbia has a working coalition government right now.

That said, there are continual efforts to transition to some form of proportional representation model. I would welcome this change. In fact, our current federal government was elected saying it would do just that.

Naturally, as soon as they got into power, they renegade on that promise.

Originally Posted by Exile

Yes, but there's also valid & reasonable requirements that should be in place to eliminate double-voting, fraudulent identities, and other abuses. I don't think requiring some sort of ID prior to casting a lawful ballot, for example, is all that onerous when you consider all the less consequential things in life where having one available is also necessary. As always, it's striking a reasonable and fair balance between competing concerns.

I am unaware of any evidence suggesting widespread voter fraud exists in Canada or the USA. It seems to me that tighter ID requirements are a solution in search of a problem.

Of course some sort of ID demand is not unreasonable. But it doesn’t take much analysis to see how this can become a tactic to disenfranchise certain economically and socially marginal groups.

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Ah, voting. How does one register to vote when one is on a boat, mobile with no fixed address or location. California wants to know where you reside or the closest two streets. I know this as I tired to register at one time, but they assume one lives on land. Giving lat/lon on a given day does not really work. Good lord I don't even know what the closest street names are, nor do I really care.

SC, wouldn’t it be easy to provide an intersection as your address? In Canada I think a physical address is required to maintain privileges like drivers licenses, car licenses, and healthcare eligibility. It’s a bit of a challenge for some of us.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

...we’re trying NOT to make this only about the American polity. One side or another may be dominantly to blame in the USA, but it’s fundamentally about power; getting it and keeping it. In Canada we have examples of voter suppression...

Not on suppression but absolute turnout:
When I was getting my polisci degree the international experience was such that increased voter turnout (essentially) universally favored whatever element/party that mirrored the US's liberal politic. The old term that explains "why" is blanket politics...such that one party at any given time is the party promising to give out blankets to the poor.

A brief google review finds that it is still the case that in Europe (only place I looked) absolute turnout favors the ~liberal party (with the footnote that opposing extremists are increasingly represented in high-turnout situations, unsurprising as politics becomes polarized).

It must be recognized that creating doubt in the legitimacy of elections is arguably the most malignant (while easiest to accomplish) method of undermining a democratic country. To 'not see' Russia involved in this is...I don't know what. Efforts to increase turnout should not be controversial in a democracy, but the blanket politic bias will likely never go away.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Exile

There's a lot of politically inspired hype about the prevalence of "voter suppression," and to the extent it exists it's not confined to one side (which I'm sure you know). Another one of those polarizing topics which we should probably leave alone. And before you bring out any studies, there are plenty from credentialed experts on both sides. I don't mean to minimize the integrity of any such research, but it's all too easily manipulated for political purposes and then presented as "fact" by whosever's interests it best suits. As with many of these hot-button issues these days, there is "evidence" to support and dispel both sides. Especially since voter suppression has now become one of these political memes, I would urge an open mind.

Studies show exactly what the party that paid for the study wants them to show. VERY prevalent in the pharmaceutical and medical industry. It's no wonder so many question global warming.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I am unaware of any evidence suggesting widespread voter fraud exists in Canada or the USA. It seems to me that tighter ID requirements are a solution in search of a problem.

Of course some sort of ID demand is not unreasonable. But it doesn’t take much analysis to see how this can become a tactic to disenfranchise certain economically and socially marginal groups.

It's not tighter ID requirements, but the lack of any requirements at all in many American states & precincts. I know that, in my own precinct, I am asked my name and to confirm my address. My name is then checked off a paper list and I'm allowed to vote. This may prevent two people with the same name & same address from voting more than once, but it does nothing to confirm what my name actually is or whether I actually live in that voting district or within that precinct. In every state that has enacted some sort of ID requirement, the courts have required them to have reasonable alternatives to traditional forms of ID's that some people may not be able to obtain. We're a long way away from the insidious poll taxes and "tests" that were used to deny the right to vote to African-Americans in the Jim Crow South, but partisans nevertheless cry "voter suppression" whenever reasonable safeguards are adopted to insure fair elections.

By contrast, here are a few examples of the things a valid ID is routinely required for (at least in the US):

1. Booze
2. Cigarettes
3. Opening a bank account
4. Applying for food stamps, welfare and unemployment benefits
5. Applying for medicare, medicaid & social security
5. Renting or buying a home; applying for a home mortgage
6. Driving, renting, or buying a car
7. Flying on an airplane
8. Getting married or divorced
9. Buying a gun
10. Adopting a pet
11. Renting a hotel room
12. Applying for a hunting or fishing license
13. Buying a cell phone
14. Buying prescription medications and some over-the-counter cold meds
15. Donating blood
16. Buying nail polish or spray paint
17. Using a credit card to purchase goods (not always but often)

But somehow requiring various types of easily obtainable ID's in order to vote could become "a tactic to disenfranchise certain economically and socially marginal groups?" I think not, although there is always the potential for shenanigans in American elections. More like yet another "wedge issue" used to divide an unwary electorate, and plays nicely into preconceived fears and guilt over disenfranchised voters from an earlier era.

[Mike OReilly]

Ex, how do you get your name on the list so it can be checked and cross-referenced?

In Canada your name is added to the to the register of eligible voters through various means, most (all?) of which include some sort of ID confirmation. To vote, I still need to show some ID with my name matching that which is on the list. But if I don’t have this ID, I can make a formal Declaration.

If I’m not on the list I need to produce ID with an address. If I can’t produce this, such as if I don’t have a permanent address, then there is yet another process I can go through. And finally, if I can’t meet the other provisions, I can have an eligible voter vouch for me. So we have requirements for identification.

There have been attempts in Canada to make voter ID laws more stringent. So far, they have faced defeat in our courts, or have been reversed by succeeding governments.

Like I said, I am unaware of any evidence that finds there is widespread voter fraud. And as we both know, it has been studied. So whatever systems have been in place do seem to be working. If there is a call to raise the requirements for voter identification, then it is worth questioning what problem it is attempting to solve.

Singularity, your “blanket” connection is interesting. Can you post a few links to the papers that show that. I too have done the poli-sci thing, but I don’t recall being exposed to this notion. I know you said Google will help, but I can’t seem to find what you’re referencing.

It is an adage that high turnout usually means bad things for incumbents. This seems to hold true. But I don’t recall a connection to high voter turnout equating to higher support for more liberal candidates. In my experience, it can and does swing either way.

You’re bang on though about the dangers of casting doubt on the electoral system(s). From my poli-sci days (and my journalism days), this seems to be in the bailiwick of authoritarian rulers. This kind of attack on the institution of elections and voting is indeed a serious danger to democracy.

[john61ct]

Yes, the fact that it is easy to vote fraudulently does not justify tightening ID requirements.

Only if it is the case that there is actually a problem, significant enough to sway results.

Which in fact there is not.

This straw man is **only** raised in order to suppress the votes of the poor.

[GordMay]

In Canada, you must prove your identity and address to register and vote in a federal election. Here are your ID options when you are voting in person – at an Elections Canada office, at advance polls or on election day:
There are three options to prove your identity and address
1) Show one of these pieces of ID
your driver's licence
your provincial or territorial ID card
any other government card with your photo, name and current address
You can use ID with your mailing address if that address appears in your voter registration file. If you're not sure what address we have on file, check your voter registration.
☞ http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx...t=index&lang=e

In the U.S.A., voter I.D. laws are mandated by the State.
About half of the states with voter ID laws accept only photo IDs. These include driver’s licenses, state-issued ID cards, military ID cards, and passports. Many of these states now offer a free voter photo ID card if you don’t have another form of valid photo ID.
Other states accept some types of non-photo ID. These may include birth certificates, Social Security cards, bank statements, and utility bills. Each state is specific about the documents it will accept as proof of identification.
Even if you don’t have a form of ID that your state asks for, you may be able to vote (provisional ballot, or affirmation).
☞ http://www.ncsl.org/research/electio...d.aspx#Details


Not directed at any particular person or group (It just showed up in my morning mail):

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

that’s a long list of somewhat disparate thoughts. Any one of which we could pick up. Care to focus and expound on one or two?

I was trying to explain my understanding of why discussions often "devolve" into politics...from the inverse angle (how and why politics evolves into discussions). As to focus then expound...it's difficult to have a discussion seeking higher understanding when people in the discussion with their own brain chemical addictions distract the discussion by attempting to feed their own addictions at the expense of the higher understanding. I'll expound on this latter point.

This is a thread with intellectual in the title. Let's at least reference a dominant concept/theory of what type of behavior constitutes a person's intellectualosity...the term I'll reference (not complete, but for now) is typical intellectual engagement (TIE). TIE generally related to the openness ("O") portion of OCEAN (the "big 5" personality traits of Openness, Consciensciousness, Agreeableness, Extraversion, Neuroticism).

From the referenced course guide on critical thinking by the Yale neurologist:
"Rationalizing is the process of starting with the conclusion and then figuring out which arguments can be marshaled in order to defend that conclusion. On the other hand, reasoning focuses on the process going forward, where the conclusion flows from the logic and not the other way around."

The thing is, you don't have to believe in TIE/OCEAN. But if you do, you will clearly see why/when/where it is pointless to try to reason with some people. When I was young I clearly remember old people saying "you can't reason with some people." Nowadays the definition of words (mapping of terms cognitively) has morphed such that in the modern lexicon the wisdom of the ages is lost. People use terms like "reason" and "rationalization" interchangeably. Nearly the entire threads on this forum of "do the potty police have science on their side" and the current climate change thread are chocked full of unreasonable but highly rationalizable people. The swimmer's ear thread is a cornucopia of junk science and rationalization.

Again I'll reference the nutter conspiracy people who say that taking latin/foreign language/classical philosophy education requirements out of primary/secondary education was done effectively to dumb people down...take away their ability to recognize when they are, for example, reasoning vs rationalizing. I don't think it's a conspiracy; as much as anything people are lazy or have deficiencies in attention span.

deficiencies in attention span

.



In American culture, for decades there have been all manner of government-subsidized programs (or merely loss of government oversight function allowing land piracy) that allow people without intellectual skills to become "wealthy." There really has been a disincentive to hone one's intellectual skills (again the topic of this thread).

From Novella:
When we have a conclusion that is discordant—that is not in line with the facts or is challenged by a new argument or new piece of information—our tendency is to rationalize that new information in order to resolve the cognitive dissonance that results, and then our brains reward us for doing that.

Note this is precisely what the Kahan study shows...and it should be noted that 301 other papers have referenced the Kahan study. Why did/how could 301 papers get published referencing something that has been known for maybe 200 years in the West (if not the strict biochemical science but clearly the behavioral manifestations of the same)?

So if you care to understand the state of the art of science as it pertains to medical science and decision-making...in the mind of the rationalizer there is a little "satisfying, if not fun" chemical release going on that is not too dissimilar to someone taking a recreational drug (both the rationalization-induce chemical release and recreational drug both serve the same purpose cognitively---dissociation from the reality we don't like). Whichever process an individual uses to satisfy the cognitive dissonance (be it coming to the correct conclusion by finding universally accepted truth OR some cockamamie rationalization (from the perspective of the universal truth community)...the brain gets the same reward hit. Go over to the global warming thread and see this behavior going on whole hog.

The essence of thought control/brainwashing is-
1) establish that there is presence of a conflict/cognitive dissonance (pre-existing or created)
2) provide a rationalization that at least temporarily alieviates the cognitive dissonance (to deliver the little satiating brain chemical release)
3) maintain the narrative that provides the brain/behavioral reward that alliviates the cognitive dissonance

I say that this process was "known for maybe 200 years in the West" because Hegel demonstrated what cognitive dissonance is...Hegel died early 1800s, and Marx refers to religion as being the opiate of the masses (by providing a rationalization to alleviate existential conflict). In contrast over in the East...in China reasoning (until the 20th century) was the default measure. Still today you can ask a Chinese person to "call on their third eye" which means that you are asking them to try to cognitively drop there current logic stream (line of thought)...maybe drop your line of thought/argument...and look at things from a very different angle, set of circumstances, etc. Per current Western psych theory this is a call for openness requiring a bit of intellectualosity that is very, very hard to come by in certain circles.

I do not mean to promote Eastern philosophy because I don't know what it is. What little I know is that people who buy into the ying/yang thing actually have a little graph to look at, such that if you are on one spot of the ying/yang symbol, then you are to understand that the opposite of what you currently believe could also be true, and you need to remember to use the third eye (the little dots on the symbol) to try to best resolve the conflict.

In the West people don't call on the third eye....they google charts to make themselves happy...sometimes change the minds of others. What Kahan shows is that showing graphs to people is pointless because they will see what their brain wants them to see. If you repeat the same Kahan (medical cream and gun control) study after a politically violent conflict affecting the same participants...it would be expected that the erstwhile myopic types will have more of what we might call intellectual humility...they would have reason to question their previous beliefs because something bad occurred.

But the motivation/willingness depletes over time because of other factors. WWI got us the League of Nations. WWII the UN. 2019 people don't know pain, such that they see no utility in such institutions. The old saying that "some people have to learn the hard way" is only correct after a huge conflict...before the next conflict the correct statement is "most people have to learn things the hard way."

[john61ct]

Some here may consider The Intercept to be a "leftie" medium

however this article is IMO completely neutral politically, and its subject cuts to the heart of many topics being discussed here

https://theintercept.com/2019/03/03/...-martin-gurri/