Opt-out and Widdershins Spin - Just One Example

Wow! The left is spinning like a ten year old at Disney’s Teacup Ride. 

Tactics employed consist of the whole panoply of left wing disinformation techniques:

·         False premises (straw men) [FP]

·         Misrepresentation of opponent’s views and statements [Mr]

·         Misquotes [Mq]

·         Using biased sources as ‘authorities’ [BS]

·         Distortion of facts [DF]

·         Quoting opinions of uninformed sources [US]

·         Outright lies [L]

·         Throw away truthful statements [T]

·         Irrelevant statements that appear to support point of view [I]

·         Unverifiable statements [UV]

·         Qualified statements that actually deny statement itself [Q]

·         Assertions not supported by author [A]

Let’s tag just part of a recent article published on Live Science (Complete article here).

“Complaints about airport security recently triggered calls for a consumer-led "Opt-Out" day [T] (boycotting full-body scans) that would hopelessly snarl travel plans [FP] and force the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to rethink its intrusive methods [T]. Airline and government officials worried that there would be nationwide travel disruptions today [unknown]. 

“According to the Chicago Sun-Times [BS], "Despite threats of protests from passengers angry at new security rules, it was relatively [DF] smooth sailing — and flying [I] — at O'Hare Airport Wednesday. Lines at ticket counters [I] and at security checkpoints were moving freely throughout the morning and early afternoon [T. 'There are no delays [UV], no lines [UV] [difficult to believe], no protests [F] that I know of [Q],' said Karen Pride, spokeswoman for the Chicago department of aviation [BS]."

“Why did the Opt-Out protest fizzle?  [A, L]

…

“Furthermore, only a small minority of passengers is asked to go though the body scanner [L, although possibly true on Wednesday]. It is not routine [L], nor required for all airline passengers [FP, DF] [exactly the opposite of TSA’s published statements]. In fact it’s likely that many of the people who might have planned on opting out in protest never even had the chance to do so[T], since they weren't among those asked to undergo those body scans in the first place[T] [Not mentioned that the actual reason is because of changes in TSA operations on Wednesday]. 

If the threat [FP] was intended to make the Transportation Security Administration back down, it failed [L]. The TSA did not discontinue any procedures [L] in response to the threatened protest [A, UV], though it reiterated its long-standing position that policies would be continually re-evaluated [UV].”

Article author was Benjamin Radford, managing editor of Skeptical Inquirer science magazine and author of six books. His website is www.RadfordBooks.com.

Thus we see that this article supposedly debunking the success of the opt-out protest  of TSA’s invasive procedures consists only of lies and distortions. While the article appears honest and filled with supported facts it is actually a typical left wing spin piece. 

Political Impact of Generalized Perceived Intelligence

Selecting a leader has been a challenge for humans well before written and even oral history. Without belaboring what is know about this process, humans apply selection methods using one or more of the following  characteristics:

• Physical characteristics
• Beauty - facial biometry, ethnic features, adornments
• Physique - height, strength
• Physical abilities - weapon prowess, stamina, dance, wrestling
• Perceptual abilities - excellent sight, hearing, olfactory,

•  Psychological characteristics
• Bearing - 'presence', confidence,eye contact
• intelligence- proven decision making, problem solving, invention
• Oratorical skills -

• Social Characteristics
• Status - including companion status
• Friendliness
• Usefulness Characteristics
• Providing for individuals or group - hunting, gathering, tool manufacture
• Dispute resolution
• Spatial memory - navigation, resource location,
• Combinatorial Characteristics
• Dispute resolution
• Organization skills
• Hunting
• Manufacturing
• Building
• Animal care/management

• And so forth

Any particular individuals may use different selection methods when choosing a leader. Each selection method may use a combination of the above characteristics. These combinations may weight each characteristic differently. And, finally, an individual may use different methods in different circumstances.

For example, one is likely to use Method A to select a soccer team captain, Method B to select a raiding party leader, and Method C to choose a person for president.

Or, one may use Method A when in a particular emotional state and Method B when in another emotional state.

Not only are the methods we use complex but also complex is the selection of the method. Further, both are typically not a conscious act.

With the above discussion as a background, let us consider the thesis of this post. Psychologists have known for many years that intelligence is not unitary. While there has been considerable dispute among psychologists about the number and characteristics of these several intelligences,the over arching belief is not disputed.

[Well, it is disputed by Progressives who cling to the discredited notion that "g" adequately explains human intelligence and is measured by traditional intelligence tests. This belief was and is the basis of the eugenics movement which underlies Progressive thought and was the basis for Germany's "final solution' during WWII .]

Without getting involved in the arguments over the number and the nuances of the kinds of intelligence, most psychologists would agree that there are at least the following types: emotional intelligence, social intelligence, abstract reasoning intelligence, musical/mathematical intelligence, and kinesthetic intelligence.

Practical support for this notion is provided by the US military's ASVAB does a good job of recognizing various kinds of intelligence. It has demonstrated better predictive power than the WAIS in military applications.

I propose that humans make a fundamental error when applying leader selection methods. This error is one of expectations. Regardless of which method is selected and the characteristics evaluated by the method, humans then generalize the results of their selection. Positive selection leads to the expectation of positive scores on other, disparate, unmeasured  attributes.

As a young child will fail to correctly evaluate two objects' weight based solely on their visual appearance, so too will adults fail to correctly evaluate a leader's full ability set based upon their selection method.

A trivial example is provided by the well known fact that in a one-on-one political race the more attractive candidate has a considerable [need to research exact number] advantage. Other positive appearance influencers are known to be: height, oratorical skill, movement (Carter appeared taller on TV because he walked like a Southerner), accent, hair, lack of glasses, clothing/style, and facial expression.

People who select politicians based on these characteristics expect their choice to be intelligent, warm, a good decision maker, considerate, and thoughtful. [need to add reference]. Clearly such a relationship is strictly chance. While appearance really is an indicator of genetic uniformity and good looks are frequently associated with less childhood stress, such characteristics are not well correlated with outstanding capabilities as a leader.

Even in those individuals who use a selection method well purposed to political leadership make the generalization error. This is noticed when evaluating leaders with which one disagrees.

We often hear people say things like "That guy's an idiot! How did he get elected?"

Here the individual is applying the generalization error in reverse. A leader is seen not to possess a desired characteristic of leadership. Humans then question the leader's abilities in all other areas of leadership.

The 'guy' in question undoubtedly has excellent social skills, is capable of raising large sums of money, and probably is better than average looking. Further, this 'guy' likely sounds like those who elected him and dresses appropriately. He is very likely to be well spoken or can at least read a teleprompter convincingly. He is very likely to be tall and have 'prescience' .

At the same time he may be morally bankrupt, not be able to ride an ATV, have zero ability to operate let alone fix a computer, and have no understanding of economics or farming.

Is he a good leader? That depends on what he is being asked to lead. Is he an incompetent moron? That also depends upon what he is asked to do.

Recognizing our propensity to generalize from our selection characteristics to other, even hidden, characteristics of potential leaders could lead us to choose better leaders. Of equal importance, it could lead us to better appreciate those who we or others have chosen as out leaders.