<p>Nah Driver, you and your cohorts have just personally made a multitude of derogatory comments about the minimal intellectual prowess of the liberal CC posters. </p>
<p>We are just like your average American. Maligned for our poor intellect by the other side.</p>
<p>FS,</p>
<p>The notion of rational ignorance isn’t necessarily that people are “dumb,” but that they have to selectively choose information.</p>
<p>For example, I bet that you don’t know much about the politics of Japan. At least not to the extent that I do. Why? You’re rationally ignorant. Sure, you could go and read up about the subject and seek to know more than I do, but time (a commodity) is scarce.</p>
<p>So to that end, we’re all really really ignorant of a lot of things. Tell me something. Do you follow legislation that your rep. votes on regularly? I sure don’t. I could, but I choose to be rationally ignorant.</p>
<p>The average person, as well, makes the same choice. This is one of the dangers of delegating authority to others (Madison really noticed this.) It’s why we SHOULD be careful about trumping up the masses. No, they’re not a bunch of drooling idiots. But they’re not shining suns in the darkness, either.</p>
<p>UCLAri, your point is well put and well taken. Unfortunately, as it’s not just an elaborate or clever way of saying “The people who are on the other team are a bunch of stupid losers” it really doesn’t have a place in this discussion.</p>
<p>I know…I know. </p>
<p>Okay, here we go.</p>
<p>The Tories are a bunch of idiots! Why else would Labour trounce them?</p>
<p>There, I took a side. :p</p>
<p>Got it - the Tories lost the Americas to the Americans? ;)</p>
<p>I think the main difference between conservatives and liberals (and there are conservatives in the Democratic party and liberals in the Republican party, so I’m not dividing them along party lines) is authoritarianism vs. individualism. Intelligence is not really a factor, IMO, although I do not disagree with UCLari’s “rational ignorance” statements, either.</p>
<p>edited to correct spelling</p>
<p>Ari,</p>
<p>You have made my point well:</p>
<p>Of course, any individual is capable of ignorance; but such ignorance is not multiplied by numbers but is rather mitigated by volume; i.e. The American People are in mass smarter and less prone to fall victim to their singular ignorance than the self-styled ignorance of the go-it-alone, nearly god-like, intellectual (Kerry et al).</p>
<p>Holiday reading for you, Kluge and all other smarty-pants:</p>
<p>Intellectuals by Paul Johnson
<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Paul-M-Johnson/dp/0060916575/sr=8-1/qid=1162497469/ref=sr_1_1/103-0803445-5321404?ie=UTF8&s=books[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Paul-M-Johnson/dp/0060916575/sr=8-1/qid=1162497469/ref=sr_1_1/103-0803445-5321404?ie=UTF8&s=books</a></p>
<p>Free Super-Saver Shipping is available if you act fast!</p>
<p>What’s more, Surowiecki, in The Wisdom of Crowds goes a step further to say that there is a genius to crowds that transcends their numbers and their betters. Could be. Rousseau, Marx and Mao not withstanding.</p>
<p>Crowd mentality, a groupthink kind of psychobabble (which really isn’t psychobabble at all, since it is well studied and documented), rather contradicts your Mr. Surowiecki’s argument. In a group, there is a follower mentality, which is rarely genius, although I’d be curious to see his research.</p>
<p>Heck, FS, I enjoyed just reading the reviews:
</p>
<p>Kitty Kelly with a thesaurus - gotta remember that one…</p>
<p>Actually, Allmusic, I think the premise of the “Wisdom of Crowds” is correct, but you have to understand the criteria and limitations. I haven’t read the book itself, but there’s an informative outline on Wikipedia. Stated very simply, the premise is that mobs acting in unison lack wisdom; but collections of independent decision makers acting independently can display more wisdom than the wisest individual among them. I think if you read through the outline you’ll see the promise in the concept.</p>
<p>Driver,
This is from the same site and easier to understand:
<a href=“http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006ballot/[/url]”>http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006ballot/</a> </p>
<p>Voting no would only make stem cell research in Missouri more restrictive than the Federal law already makes it. I’m sure you know this but Federal law does not ban stem cell research and doesn’t even ban Embryonic stem cell research, it just limits public funding to stem cell lines already established, which in turn limits widespread research.</p>
<p>Uclari, I like this definition of “rational ignorance” and this particular comment that you made,
“The only problem: Rationally ignorant people are delegating authority to slightly less rationally ignorant people.” </p>
<p>I, of course read into that statement that Bush is one of those “slightly less rationally ignorant persons” , but after your comment to Kluge, I’m not so sure.</p>
<p>Probably not less rationally ignorant, in terms of many leaders, but have access to greater numbers of folks with specialized knowledge - the leader just knows whom to ask for advice, I’d suggest.</p>
<p>The effect is the same, but the mechanism is different. This, I would also suggest, is very common. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like kluge pointed out, this is not necessarily limited to liberals (even if they are easy fodder.) But I still disagree.</p>
<p>We delegate, at least in theory, because some poeple have a comparative advantage in certain areas. I delegate my health to doctors, for example. I delegate my politics to politicians.</p>
<p>Not all doctors are good. Not all politicians are good. But in theory, they all enjoy at least SOME comparative advantage as agents. </p>
<p>If the American people were so great and smart and capable, why would they bother delegating their politics at all?</p>
<p>lizschup,</p>
<p>Bush is of course less rationally ignorant in politics than most Americans. He is not, however, less rationally ignorant in medicine than most licensed physicians.</p>
<p>And I suspect that a certain lack of willingness to admit the administration’s ignorance on some issues has been a problem. Or so it seems. </p>
<p>For the record, I mean ignorance as in “not knowing in the economic sense.” Not, “KKK ignunt.”</p>
<p>The plain language version is indeed easier to read, but doesn’t ease the understanding of the actual amendment. The definition of terms is omitted, for one thing.</p>
<p>Uclari,I do think Bush is more rationally ignorant in world and domestic affairs than most politicians. But I would agree that he is less rationally ignorant in politics than most Americans. </p>
<p>I feel like I’m talking to the Chesire Cat.</p>
<p>liz,</p>
<p>As much as I’m not a fan of the Pres.'s policies in general, I actually think he demonstrates a great deal of mastery of politics. Not necessarily for African politics or domestic capital inflow politics, but politics.</p>
<p>Maybe you should define politics because I’m having difficulty seeing mastery, GW, and politics in the same sentence. Bush has a great ability to talk to people that share his belief system as on the campaign trail, but other than that he’s been quite ineffective as a politician.</p>
<p>I think I have to agree with Ari on this one. Whether it’s Bush or Rove, he’s gotten elected President at least 1-1/2 times. There’s only 6 other people who’ve done that much in the last century, and two of them got impeached at around this point in their Presidencies. Plus, until the last 6 months or so he managed to maintain fairly high popularity, notwithstanding an abysmal record of actual accomplishment. I think that qualifies someone for a Master of Politics degree.</p>
<p>Not only was he President, he was governor of a major state. It’s so easy for Bush to hoodwink the Dems when he’s the politically smart one.</p>