Who am I?
Christian. Skeptic. Ponderer. Sold on Western Civilization. Background in engineering and software. Rational, but not rationalist.
I'm a Hugh-inspired, long-tail blogger.
I Value
Informs my values.
News
Blog Search
Posts On This Page:
- · Chicago Sight: St. Peter's in the Loop
- · They're targeting you
- · Betraying Our Allies, Phase 1
- · Avoiding the Truth
Archives
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- February 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- October 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- April 2010
- May 2010
- July 2010
- February 2011
- April 2011
- May 2011
- February 2013
Look closer. Think harder. Choose the sound argument over the clever one.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Chicago Sight: St. Peter's in the Loop
Friday, January 12, 2007
They're targeting you
Amir Taheri in the London Times (via Austin Bay):
Those familiar with Iraq know that the real war for its future is waged in the United States and, to a lesser extent, Britain. The terrorists have no hope of riding in triumph into Baghdad, but they continue to fight to persuade US and British opinion that the war is lost and that new Iraq does not deserve further support.
In other words, when terrorists murder a group of civilians, they're really targeting you.
I'd be surprised if they didn't study U.S. opinion polls like generals study enemy troop movements, and measure the effect of everything they do against them.
As one person put it, "terrorism is an information war disguised as a military conflict."
Another sad observation:
Too many Democrats have invested too much in the hope that Iraq fails for them to agree to help Mr Bush to ensure success.
The whole thing is worth a read.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Betraying Our Allies, Phase 1
Thanks for risking your lives to try for a representative government. Bye!
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., shot down the suggestion of more troops within a day of gaining control of Congress.
But they're consulting military experts!
"Based on the advice of current and former military leaders, we believe this tactic would be a serious mistake," Reid said in the Democratic radio address Saturday.
What are their experts' strategy?
Instead, Reid and Pelosi want Bush to begin pulling troops out in four to six months.
Also apparently missing from Reid and Pelosi's statements:
- Their commitment to a representative government in Iraq.
- Their opposition to (or even assessment of) Iran's subversion. Or Syria's.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Avoiding the Truth
Arnold Kling writes:
I am going to suggest that democratic politics is a very poor information-processing mechanism. The great mass of people form their political beliefs with little regard for facts or logic. However, the elites also have a strategy for avoiding truth. Elites form their political beliefs dogmatically, using their cleverness to organize facts to fit preconceived prejudices. The masses' strategy for avoiding truth is to make a low investment in understanding; the elites' strategy is to make a large investment in selectively choosing which facts and arguments to emphasize or ignore.
...
Ignorance is Blissfully Cost-Effective
...there is no particular reason for citizens to make a large investment in learning facts or forming coherent beliefs about political issues. The low probability that your vote will make a difference makes for an adverse cost-benefit calculation from obtaining information.
He goes on to look at the idea that in spite of all this, there's the tendancy for crowds to have a collective wisdom. He doesn't reject that outright (that I can tell), but seems kind of down on the idea.
More on the elite:
In May, 2005, the ombudsman or "public editor" for the New York Times, Dan Okrent, wrote
Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.
Krugman uses what I call a high-investment strategy for avoiding truth. He puts considerable effort into emphasizing facts and arguments that support his overall position, while ignoring conflicting evidence. However, in this regard, he is far from atypical as an opinion leader.
His conclusion isn't too cheery:
The more knowledgable we are, the more we follow a high-investment strategy of selectively accepting evidence that favors our outlook while discounting contrary information. In science, this process ultimately is checked by the methods of experimentation, prediction, and falsification. In markets, it is checked by the process of profit and loss. In politics, the checks are less powerful. Our political beliefs are likely to be especially unreliable, regardless of which strategy we use to avoid truth.
He makes reference to an interesting (to me) new blog called Overcoming Bias.
I find this article interesting because understanding my (and others') biases helps correct them.
Hat-tip: Instapundit