CDZ The Psychology of "Mandates"

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Mac1958, Dec 22, 2017.

  1. yiostheoy
    Offline

    yiostheoy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    20,330
    Thanks Received:
    1,879
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Ratings:
    +9,866
    Reagan had a mandate to get the hostages back from Iran back in 1980.

    The Persian Allatollahs probably knew it and coughed them up right away.

    Reagan used the rest of his mandate to cut taxes and to stimulate the economy with a huge deficit spending plan.

    Trump is following Reagan's formula but there is NO mandate.

    It was a close election with Crooked Hillary losing to Crooked Trump by a very narrow margin. NO mandate.
     
  2. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,929
    Thanks Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,766
    The intellect one doesn't use manifests no differently than does the intellect one lacks.
    -- Xelor​
    I am willing to agree that it's not purely a function of intellect or one's lack thereof.; however, in the abstract, it appears a huge plurality (if not majority) of people have the acuity needed to discern what matters are, at their core, partisan/political and what matters are not, yet they renounce using their cognitive abilities when they address those questions as matters of politics and pathos rather than as matters to which should be applied logos. In my observation, what those people do is bring their brains to bear to formulate specious arguments, arguments that by dint of one or more of their premises must necessarily lead to the individuals' desired conclusions rather than to sound conclusions. Put another way, what they do is use their intellects to craft valid arguments that are unsound.

    Well, some of them do and some of them don't. I construe whether they do or don't to be a function of the interrelationship among humility, will, intellect and knowledge and not a function of a disease's/affliction's machinations.
    • Humility --> One must refrain from accepting that what is good or best for oneself must also be good/best for everyone else, nearly everyone else or most folks.
    • Will --> One must have the fortitude to consider a matter objectively, without qualitative preconceptions, and one must have the will to obtain as much information as is available pertaining to the matter.
    • Knowledge --> One must possess the raw information pertaining to the matter in question.
    Intellect comes into play both in evaluating a given matter and insofar as it is the "power" one uses to know that, within oneself, there is an imbalance among the above qualities and recognizing as much, act to, for the issue under consideration, effect balance among them. One either (1) abrogates certain aspects of one's intellect, resulting in one inaptly and inaccurately evaluating the matter, thus arriving at unsound conclusions about it, or (2) simply hasn't the intellect, in which case, yes, one suffers from a psychological/physiological affliction, namely some measure and form of intellectual disability.

    Now, how many people indeed are intellectually disabled? Well, my cursory investigation into the matter leads me to think something less than 5% of the population are. I know that when I find myself asking the question you do, I'd prefer to think that the person(s) in question are not thus afflicted, but maybe they are. Could it be that the preponderance of thus afflicted individuals hold elected and appointed offices in government?

    Hell, no, though a small few of them may be, albeit not to an extent that they are profoundly so disabled. That leaves to conclude that most individuals who appear not to "realize what they are saying isn't true, or is only partially true" are dissembling willfully and deliberately being disingenuous. Inasmuch as one must possess at least an average measure of adult-level knowledge and intellect to do that; thus one's doing so is not the function of an affliction.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2017
  3. Mac1958
    Offline

    Mac1958 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    46,189
    Thanks Received:
    9,214
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Independent Ave.
    Ratings:
    +37,494
    In a nutshell, it just goes back to the power of ideology, something for which I'm in greater awe every single day.

    It's about: Perceptions (the prism through which information is absorbed) and thought processes (the very structure of the mental schematic that information then passes through).

    Compare the above process with a deeply religious person and an atheist; I think that, right away, before information is even processed, the core information looks different to each person. The prism through which it has passed has given it an entirely different set of fundamental characteristics. Then, the mental schematic through which it passes is structured differently as well. And one similar and crucial part of that schematic, a key element within an ideology, is to avoid, ignore and distort all information contrary to the ideology.

    The result? And this is key => both people's ideology have distorted the information in completely different directions, and both people's distorted opinions are perfectly honest and sincere. That's why they can be so passionate, perfectly intelligent, even though those very thought processes are betraying them by ignoring and avoiding contrary information. The behaviors both ends then display - hyperbole, insults, name-calling, denial, lies, the rest - are then essentially justified within the very binary, us vs. them dynamic of the ideology.

    And, INTELLIGENCE can be a key driver in how effective the behaviors are on a macro level!

    Obviously, I could be completely wrong here. But this is a real fascination with me, and I'll tell ya, USMB is a perfect little Petri dish for observing this.
    .
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2017
  4. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,929
    Thanks Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,766
    I don't think that at all. There is no such thing as "before information is even processed." We humans receive and process information continuously until we are no longer able to do so. Whether we become unable to because of temporal effects or due to our willfully allowing a prior set of information to bind our rational objectivity is of no matter for the effect is the same.

    How does one come to be an atheist or theist? By using one's intellect to process the information that results in one's adopting either stance. Once one has processed that information and decides to be a theist, by preconditioning any other conclusion on anything having to do with theistic premises or conclusions, one has unavoidably used an unproved, thus neither true nor false, premise/inference into one's line of thinking about the matter under consideration. If that matter has nothing principally to do with theism, one's having done so constitutes an abrogation of one's intellect. After all, even theists acknowledge that only by faith can one come to know and accept God and his dogma.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2017
  5. Mac1958
    Offline

    Mac1958 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    46,189
    Thanks Received:
    9,214
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Independent Ave.
    Ratings:
    +37,494
    Fair point.

    This whole theory of mine came about after reading a few books on the subconscious and how it can control thought processes. Regarding your good question - how did someone get to that point in the first place? - one fundamental theory of all the books was that a subconscious can be trained, over time, to believe some pretty wild things. It's not a light switch, it's a process.

    As you might imagine, the process includes three primary elements: A general (but still lucid and pragmatic) predisposition to something, significant repetition of supporting opinion (including one's own, saying the same things over and over), and a general ideological isolation. And look at what we have today: The ability to pick your own reality, courtesy of an internet that allows us to isolate our news and information gathering to the tiniest slivers of reality. Cable "news" outlets that slant everything in "my" direction. So a person who leans toward a set of opinions, if they're not careful, can easily become consumed by them.
    .
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2017
  6. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,929
    Thanks Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,766
    I'll for now accept that as plausible and possible, though I can't say whether I accept that such is what has indeed happened to the people whom I construe as having "put part of their brains on the shelf" when it comes to "pondering" and discussing matters of public policy.

    That ability, and the will to constrain one's information gathering activities with confirmation bias, is not new. It's merely that the Internet has created new opportunities for individuals and groups, folks who'd profit from one's doing so, to advance their status by meeting the demand for information that sates almost every thirst for information that confirms whatever bias it is possible to have.

    The one thirst for information that, sady, has no more suppliers than it ever did is the thirst for sound, rigorous and highly objective information that exists solely for the sake of increasing the body of humanity's knowledge. Worse, it seems that proportionally, even fewer people read such documents. To wit, query folks who claim to care strongly and deeply about climate change and ask to what science journals they subscribe. Querying folks who attest to being most concerned about economic policy, ask them what economic journals they routinely read. Even among many self-supposing "well informed" folks who post on USMB, I suspect one'll need fewer than all one's fingers and toes to count the quantity of them who regularly read soundly conducted research reports, yet nearly everyone posting here are well aware of what media organizations have to say. If my supposition is mostly accurate, those folk's information-consumption behavior derives from no mental acuity affliction; it is willful.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Mac1958
    Offline

    Mac1958 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    46,189
    Thanks Received:
    9,214
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Independent Ave.
    Ratings:
    +37,494
    It could be argued that such behavior is a symptom of the affliction, and I literally do look at it as an affliction.

    Fascinating to watch and consider, though.
    .
     
  8. MPS777
    Offline

    MPS777 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Messages:
    118
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Ratings:
    +58
    I would identify people who exhibit such behavior as polemicists. For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the term, polemic behaviors have been recognized since ancient times. Wikipedia has a primer on it (see following link): Polemic - Wikipedia

    The way I see it, in any given society, there will probably always be subset of polemicists. Thus we, living in a nation of around 300 million people, are going to have a higher total number of polemicists than nations with smaller populations.

    But then when the Internet is added to the scenario, it gives such people places to “gather” and rhetorically “battle”. Therefore we’re going to witness large “polemicist battles” here merely as a result of our large aggregate number of such people.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Mac1958
    Offline

    Mac1958 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    46,189
    Thanks Received:
    9,214
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Independent Ave.
    Ratings:
    +37,494
    Good stuff, thanks.

    What concerns me, and I may be imagining this, is that this type of behavior is spreading far into our culture. It's almost impossible to escape it now, as it has infected popular culture, TV, sports, you name it. The average guy or gal on the street is liable to launch into a polemic tirade at the drop of a hat, and I do think that's a newer phenomenon.

    Thoughts?
    .
     
  10. petro
    Online

    petro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,137
    Thanks Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    160
    Location:
    The cold north
    Ratings:
    +2,383
    Approximately 100 million voters don't bother to show up at vote. Neither party can lay claim to a mandate under these circumstances.
    If Americans don't bother to show up at polls...they deserve a government that doesn't bother to show up. Our turnout is among the lowest in the developed world.
    I only see extreme pendulum swings in our future based on hyper- partisan politics.
    While political opinion is injected into literally every discussion in the media, I know of far too many people who simply just check out.
    "I don't have time for political crap"..."oh. I never pay attention to all that"...and a favorite "nothing ever changes, doesn't matter, why bother."
    If American's remain apathetic our institutions will remain the same.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1

Share This Page