Posted on 01/17/2005 10:59:10 AM PST by pissant
In January 2004, I wrote a somewhat tongue-in-cheek essay called "The S Factor," in which I identified an issue that I believed had been overlooked as a strong determinant of the way people vote.
The S factor -- short for the Stupid factor -- describes people who don't understand cause and effect, can't handle more than two sides of an issue and don't seek out multiple sources of information. It was my contention that, although the S factor applies to people across the political spectrum, it went a long way to explaining the apparent popularity of President Bush in the face of facts that indicated he was neither competent nor virtuous.
One year later, is the S factor relevant? A survey found that a significant majority of Bush supporters believed that Iraq had either actual weapons of mass destruction or a major program for producing them, that Iraq was providing "substantial" support to al-Qaida and that "most experts" agreed with those conclusions. The corresponding numbers for Sen. John Kerry supporters were far less.
Let's reduce this to the personal: Shortly before the election, NASCAR celebrity Darrell Waltrip explained his support for Bush by saying that he -- Waltrip -- wasn't "an issues guy" but that he'd been impressed by Bush's handshake.
Listen up, folks: Facts, observations and reason are not the currencies in which many people deal.
We've been conditioned to think that if only we could lay down the facts as we know them and make cogent, logical arguments, others would at least understand us, paving the way to some sort of consensus. But it doesn't always work that way. Millions of people respond exclusively to simple solutions for complex problems, think non-linearly and would rather someone else do the hard work of being "the issues guy." For these Americans, it's more important to feel than to think.
That might work well in church or therapy, but it's dysfunctional in the practical world. And it's a partial answer to why Bush garnered so many votes: Can you argue facts or logic with people who still believe that Saddam Hussein masterminded 9/11? Can you argue facts or logic with people who still believe that Bush has made us safer? And can you argue facts or logic with people who believe that handshakes -- or smiles, or haircuts or wives' offhand comments -- trump policies?
Is it any wonder that those who adhere to ask-no-questions, do-as-you're-told-from-on-high faiths consistently favor conservative candidates? Voltaire said, "Faith begins where reason ends." But many people don't even give reason a chance to start.
Let no one doubt the prominence of the S factor. Whether or not it's patronizing to say that doesn't matter; it exists. "Dumbing down" our arguments is not the answer. We have to slide horizontally into another universe and try to figure out a different way to communicate. At the same time, we need to persevere in teaching young people how to think critically. Maybe it's not too late for the next generation.
George Lakoff ("Moral Politics; Don't Think of an Elephant") promotes reframing issues so that people of reactionary bent will listen to what others are saying. He's right. We have to do a lot of reframing, we have to apply stricter standards of truth and accuracy to mass media, we have to transform the apparatus of communication -- the sender, the receiver and the medium itself.
The real battle ahead of us isn't Democrat versus Republican, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal or even church versus state. It's much more basic than that: The real battle is people who reason versus people who don't.
Neal Starkman lives in Seattle.
Except for a bunch of squared away guys that I have coffee with every morning at Tully's Coffee House, this jerk is the predominate type of "man" in Seattle.
Posts like yours make me think about moving - its been crossing my mind more amd more lately.
"Can you argue facts or logic with people who still believe that Saddam Hussein masterminded 9/11? Can you argue facts or logic with people who still believe that Bush has made us safer?"
This is the first time I've heard anyone state that Hussein may have 'masterminded 9/11'.
There has been no attack on US soil since 9/11. It is more difficult to prove a negative, but the lack of events is exactly what security is.
There was a massive effort to transport SOMETHING by truck into Syria just before we invaded. Does it require a great leap in logic to assume Hussein wouldn't want the weapons to be found in Iraq by our military? None of this is rocket science but it is obviously beyond the grasp of this author.
I just love reading crap written by effeminate, elitist and condescending a-holes who wouldn't know a "fact" from a "fart".
FMCDH(BITS)
ASV Prov 1:7 The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge; But the foolish despise wisdom and instruction.
http://www.ccel.org/c/ccel/bcb/bcb.html
An author who conveniently is unreachable by email and thus immune to counterattack or rebuttal.
It takes a lot of courage to hide behind a "guest columnist" title, crap on the floor, and then sneak out the back door. /sarcasm
I moved back to Tacoma after 12 years in Seattle. But despite the preponderence of libs in Pugetopolis, Washington State is still a great place, and I'm going to work hard to flip it red. Stay and fight!
"This is the first time I've heard anyone state that Hussein may have 'masterminded 9/11'"
This is what these "smart people" keep doing. It is simply propaganda. They set up the straw man by lying about what happened (i.e. Saddam masterminded 9/11) and then easily knock the straw man down so they can crow about how right and smart they are.
I was on the receiving end of the, "stupid republicans believe Saddam caused 9/11," myth this weekend. I simply challenged the person making the statement to come up with a prominant republican that believes this. The person could not. The best he could do was give me the old, "everyone knows it" lie. I then explained that he was using the straw man propaganda technique as I explained above. He got pretty mad and refused to talk further. Funny!
>>> We have to slide horizontally into another universe and try to figure out a different way to communicate<<
ROFLOL! Shouldn't be hard to do for any worthwhile democrat.
Owl, sounds like you trapped amother rodent in your talons.
I've always liked a good, firm handshake. My Dad taught me how to shake hands like a man, and I've always appreciated that ability in other men. Only women give you the four flat finger touch.
Not to mention the 400 tons of Uranium suitable for enrichment.
You can tell alot about a guy by how he shakes hands.
Reminds of the bar scene in The Quiet Man where the priest makes Sean Thornton & Red Danaher shake hands. They try to crush each other's fingers. Quite funny.
"NASCAR celebrity Darrell Waltrip explained his support for Bush by saying that he -- Waltrip -- wasn't "an issues guy" but that he'd been impressed by Bush's handshake."
An entertainer smart enough not to make political commentary and alienate half of the audience is "stupid."
Well, he's right about one thing: "The real battle is people who reason versus people who don't. "
"Can you argue facts or logic with people who still believe that Bush has made us safer?"
It seems to me that his main criteria for determining "who uses logic" and "who doesn't" is whether or not they agree with his views. He bashes conservatives for not looking at both sides of an issue. Well what about him?!?
"we need to persevere in teaching young people how to think critically."
really means....."we need to persevere in instilling in young people the need to criticize American institutions."
Neal Starkman is a moron. Hating America is no way to go through life.
Wasn't "The personal is political," something the left said?
Never mind. More important point: Not everyone is a political wonk, nor has time to. In situations like that they are going to make judgments based on less issue-based factors -- on personalities, on attitudes, and, yes, on handshakes. And for those people, that is a rational, reasoning mechanism.
In fact, it may be the key one. In every Presidential election I can remember (which is from 1976, on) it has been the candidate who portrayed himself as more optimistic who has been elected.
Yes. Neal Starkman is an arrogant , condescending dork but beware George Lakoff. He writes very clearly and understands the issues better than most, then chooses the wrong side. I can't figure out what his primary pathology is.
It explains why people would vote for an admitted baby-killer who wants to raise our taxes and drop our defenses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.