[MrAce]

I don't know how accurate this is but i found it interesting.


https://www.facebook...70297793160789/

[Winstonm]

The Washington Post quoted Senator Bob Corker as saying this:

Quote

“The president is, as you know — you’ve seen his numbers among the Republican base — it’s very strong. It’s more than strong, it’s tribal in nature,” said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who decided to retire when his second term concludes at year’s end, after periodically sparring with Trump.

“People who tell me, who are out on trail, say, look, people don’t ask about issues anymore. They don’t care about issues. They want to know if you’re with Trump or not,” Corker added.

This puts the Republicans in a bad position as moderates and independents are not part of that base.

[barmar]

I've been reading the book Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. It includes a good explanation for why many people discount facts and get caught up in conspiracy thinking:

Quote

The standard explanation of the madness of crowds is ignorance: a mediocre education system has left the populace scientifically illiterate, at the mercy of their cognitive biases, and thus defenseless against airhead celebrities, cable-news gladiators, and other corruptions from popular culture. The standard solution is better schooling and more outreach to the public by scientists on television, social media, and popular Web sites. As an outreaching scientist I’ve always found this theory appealing, but I’ve come to realize it’s wrong, or at best a small part of the problem.
...
In a revolutionary analysis of reason in the public sphere, the legal scholar Dan Kahan has argued that certain beliefs become symbols of cultural allegiance. People affirm or deny these beliefs to express not what they know but who they are.15 We all identify with particular tribes or subcultures, each of which embraces a creed on what makes for a good life and how society should run its affairs. These creeds tend to vary along two dimensions. One contrasts a right-wing comfort with natural hierarchy with a left-wing preference for forced egalitarianism (measured by agreement with statements like “We need to dramatically reduce inequalities between the rich and the poor, whites and people of color, and men and women”). The other is a libertarian affinity to individualism versus a communitarian or authoritarian affinity to solidarity (measured by agreement with statements like “Government should put limits on the choices individuals can make so they don’t get in the way of what’s good for society”). A given belief, depending on how it is framed and who endorses it, can become a touchstone, password, motto, shibboleth, sacred value, or oath of allegiance to one of these tribes. As Kahan and his collaborators explain:

Quote

The principal reason people disagree about climate change science is not that it has been communicated to them in forms they cannot understand. Rather, it is that positions on climate change convey values—communal concern versus individual self-reliance; prudent self-abnegation versus the heroic pursuit of reward; humility versus ingenuity; harmony with nature versus mastery over it—that divide them along cultural lines.

The values that divide people are also defined by which demons are blamed for society’s misfortunes: greedy corporations, out-of-touch elites, meddling bureaucrats, lying politicians, ignorant rednecks, or, all too often, ethnic minorities. Kahan notes that people’s tendency to treat their beliefs as oaths of allegiance rather than disinterested appraisals is, in one sense, rational. With the exception of a tiny number of movers, shakers, and deciders, a person’s opinions on climate change or evolution are astronomically unlikely to make a difference to the world at large. But they make an enormous difference to the respect the person commands in his or her social circle. To express the wrong opinion on a politicized issue can make one an oddball at best—someone who “doesn’t get it”—and a traitor at worst. The pressure to conform becomes all the greater as people live and work with others who are like them and as academic, business, or religious cliques brand themselves with left-wing or right-wing causes. For pundits and politicians with a reputation for championing their faction, coming out on the wrong side of an issue would be career suicide.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2018-March-21, 07:29, said:

Here's what I found about your source.



If this is what you read and believe, it is no wonder you are confused. I strongly suggest better sources and reading about how to unravel yourself for conspiratorial thinking.

(bold and italics mine)

Let's try FOXNEWS and the Washington Examiner.

http://www.foxnews.c...-documents.html
https://www.washingt...-tarmac-meeting

Quote

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch said Friday that the FBI has uncovered 30 pages of documents related to the controversial 2016 tarmac meeting between former President Bill Clinton and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The newly uncovered documents will be sent to Judicial Watch by the end of November in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, a spokesman for the group told Fox News.

Judicial Watch originally filed a FOIA request in July 2016 -- which the Justice Department did not comply with -- seeking “all records of communications between any agent, employee, or representative” of the FBI for the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server use, and all records related to the June 27, 2016 meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton.

“We presume they are new documents. We won’t know what’s in them until we see them, unfortunately,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told Fox News in an email Friday. “The fact they just ‘found’ them is yet another scandal.”

JUDICIAL WATCH CLASHES WITH DOJ OVER 'TALKING POINTS' FROM LYNCH-CLINTON TARMAC MEETING

The FBI initially did not find any documents or records related to the tarmac meeting, according to an FBI letter reviewed by Fox News, but in a related case this summer, the Justice Department recovered email correspondence regarding the meeting.

“Upon further review, we subsequently determined potentially responsive documents may exist,” the FBI wrote to Judicial Watch in a letter on Aug. 10. The FBI wrote that the request had been “reopened” and is “currently in the process of searching for any responsive material.”

The tarmac meeting fueled Republican complaints at the time that Lynch had improperly met with the husband of an investigation subject, just before the probe into Hillary Clinton's personal email use was completed with no charges filed.

Fired FBI Director James Comey, in Senate testimony in June, described that tarmac meeting as problematic.

COMEY SAYS LYNCH TARMAC MEETING, DIRECTIVE TO DOWNPLAY PROBE PROMPTED HIM TO GO ROGUE ON CLINTON CASE

Congressional Republicans have called for a second special counsel to investigate Comey, Lynch and Clinton.

No matter which way you slice this, James Comey's FBI has a lot of explaining to do about this coincidental "finding" of records that initially didn't exist about the clandestine tarmac meeting between Clinton/Lynch.

Why would Comey's FBI stonewall the initial Freedom of Information Act request of records about this "innocent" meeting and say that no records existed?

Winston, this is a fair question to ask of our government. . . it's the inconvenient truth and white elephant in the room no one wants to believe. . . so we attack the bloggers and their sources instead of asking our sovereign government the TOUGH questions.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2018-March-21, 09:27, said:

I've been reading the book Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. It includes a good explanation for why many people discount facts and get caught up in conspiracy thinking:

That supports what I have learned from reading - that opposition to the sciences from the ozone hole to cigarettes to now climate science is political in nature, and what then follows for me is my own idea that these types of libertarian/rightish attitudes have more in common with religious beliefs than political ideologies because they are emotive and based on feelings/faith.

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2018-March-21, 09:41, said:

(bold and italics mine)

Let's try FOXNEWS and the Washington Examiner.

http://www.foxnews.c...-documents.html
https://www.washingt...-tarmac-meeting



No matter which way you slice this, James Comey's FBI has a lot of explaining to do about this coincidental "finding" of records that initially didn't exist about the clandestine tarmac meeting between Clinton/Lynch.

Why would Comey's FBI stonewall the initial Freedom of Information Act request of records about this "innocent" meeting and say that no records existed?

Winston, this is a fair question to ask of our government. . . it's the inconvenient truth and white elephant in the room no one wants to believe. . . so we attack the bloggers and their sources instead of asking our sovereign government the TOUGH questions.

I would give it up and go back to what I said at first - check your sources. Not for me, particularly, but for your own self-interest.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2018-March-20, 19:20, said:

Check your sources: https://mediabiasfac...erty-headlines/

Winston, you used https://mediabiasfac...erty-headlines/ to discredit my sources.

http://www.businessi...clinton-2016-11

BusinessInsider is a left-leaning news site that shows the Department of Justice lawsuit was filed by the conservative watchdog group. The 30 pages released afterwards from the FBI when they said none existed initially doesn't negate what occurred REGARDLESS OF IF IT WAS FROM A LEFT-LEANING OR RIGHT LEANING website.

You just don't want to address the horrible optics of this matter. Comey's FBI could be compromised when it gets checkmated through a Department of Justice lawsuit to produce evidence under the Freedom of Information Act about the tarmac meeting that it initially claimed no records existed! Then after the DOJ lawsuit produced 413 pages of information, the FBI all of sudden finds 30 pages of records.

Hmmm.

[Winstonm]

Know thyself.

Quote

The principle applies just as powerfully to ideas. If more people believe a piece of information, then we are more likely to accept it as true. And so if, via our social group, we are overly exposed to a particular idea then it becomes embedded in our world view. In short social proof is a much more effective persuasion technique than purely evidence-based proof, which is of course why this sort of proof is so popular in advertising (“80% of mums agree”).

Thus, the problem of living in a bubble.

[jjbrr]

Breathless, disingenuous right-wing hysteria from a blithering idiot. I am shocked, shocked.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2018-March-21, 09:27, said:

I've been reading the book Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. It includes a good explanation for why many people discount facts and get caught up in conspiracy thinking:

An interesting sounding book. honest. I might even buy it. And read it.

But there are times when I see a "revolutionary analysis" and I think "Really?". To wit:

"In a revolutionary analysis of reason in the public sphere, the legal scholar Dan Kahan has argued that certain beliefs become symbols of cultural allegiance. People affirm or deny these beliefs to express not what they know but who they are."

On the left, the right, the center, with the religious and the non-religious, I have always regarded this revolutionary analysis as being obviously true, beyond any doubt. But then that might just be me expressing a symbol of who I am

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2018-March-21, 11:42, said:

Know thyself.



Thus, the problem of living in a bubble.

You are full of it. The only person living in a bubble is you. I notice when I get in a hair's breadth of showing corruption if not gross negligence in government, you side with government.

It's not a conspiracy when the FBI stonewalls with mistruths and then gets caught red-handed with their lies by other sources such as the lawsuit through the Department of Justice? It's just an honest mistake that just so happens to support their narrative that the tarmac meeting is a nothing burger? They went from purporting 0 records about the matter to 30 pages of evidence once they were checkmated through the judicial system.

You still give the FBI the benefit of the doubt when they're shown as a liar in a matter that has poor optics and overtones of obstruction of justice? Just wow!

It just shows your overly friendly cognitive bias of the Obama administration and these venerated institutions whose ability to tell the truth UNDER OATH, mind you, is lackluster at best.

Stop eating the sand at the mirage and thinking it tastes like FIJI water!

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2018-March-21, 07:29, said:

Here's what I found about your source.



If this is what you read and believe, it is no wonder you are confused. I strongly suggest better sources and reading about how to unravel yourself for conspiratorial thinking.

Project Mockingbird and the MSM. Deep state politics are also an institution but not one that presents itself as one.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2018-March-21, 10:25, said:

That supports what I have learned from reading - that opposition to the sciences from the ozone hole to cigarettes to now climate science is political in nature, and what then follows for me is my own idea that these types of libertarian/rightish attitudes have more in common with religious beliefs than political ideologies because they are emotive and based on feelings/faith.

And what I have learned from being a scientist all my working life was that EVERYTHING is political if it involves money or power or ideology. The scientific method relies on data and reproducibility of results. The number one issue with climate pseudo-science and why they never want to provide raw data and reveal their analytical methods. UNFCCC, IPCC and all the bureaucracy is just politics and once the real science comes in, there is no problem and no need for onerous and expensive solutions.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2018-March-20, 13:51, said:

You do realize that the 'federal government' isn't a single entity, don't you? It is made up of thousands of individuals, each with a mouth, and with their own ideas.

Of course, which means the chances for graft and corruption and the like is even greater. There is no monolithic federal government but I am not seeing how that reduces the chances for graft, corruption, and conspiracies to occur. It's a function of culture, opportunity, lack of internal controls, and poor/nonexistent enforcement.

[Winstonm]

Horse - water. The rest is up to you.

[kenberg]

About the Facebook stuff. In order to deal with such matters we have to think a bit as to just what we object to. I find the whole FB concept of-putting so I rarely if ever have anything to do with it. But I post here. And, at least sometimes, I cooperate witha pollster who calls to ask my views on political issues. If I were to express opinions on FB, I would assume that people, including political operatives, could read them. Of course with the massive numbers involved, the reading and sorting, and subsequent action, is probably done mostly or entirely by robots.

So, keeping in mind that my purpose is to think on just what sort of regulation might be necessary, what are we objecting to? The robots? The fact that money changes hands?

In 1956 I graduated from high school. I got a letter supposedly from then Senator Hubert Humphrey congratulating me on getting a scholarship. I was not so naive as to believe HHH wrote this personally, his somewhat robotic assistants wrote it. I found it amusing. Even earlier, a girl I dated worked in the courthouse and informed me that she had looked up my IQ and that hers was higher. Certainly invasive, but I also found that amusing. We don't find it amusing that robots scan our FB posts. I agree with not finding this amusing. But why exactly? Before we tell Zuckerberg just what it is he is supposed to do about it, maybe we should think through exactly what it is that we object to. I read about a guy whose wife filed for divorce, citing his FB conversations with his mistress. That was pretty stupid. But it highlights a problem. To what extent is FB expected to watch out for us and to what extent are we expected to watch out for ourselves?

Or, from another angle, suppose robots read my posts, infer my interests, and then send me information targeted to those interests. I object to this because? No doubt part of the answer is something like "because the robots do not really care about your interests, they are trying to con you". Well, yes, but they are sending information targeted to my interests.

Don't get me wrong. I am pretty sure this is a substantial problem. I am trying to put my finger on just why it is a substantial problem.

When I log onto BBO after Becky does some online shopping there will be an ad on the side of the bbo page advertising women's dresses. Again I find this amusing. Exactly what is amusing and what is a threat?

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2018-March-21, 14:00, said:

On the left, the right, the center, with the religious and the non-religious, I have always regarded this revolutionary analysis as being obviously true, beyond any doubt. But then that might just be me expressing a symbol of who I am

The problem is that even though it seems "obviously true", most recommended remedies don't really address this root cause. People frequently say that better education is the solution, but I assume all Congressmen are college graduates, and I'll bet a majority went to Ivy League-calibre schools, and this doesn't effectively immunize them against this problem.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2018-March-22, 09:01, said:

About the Facebook stuff. In order to deal with such matters we have to think a bit as to just what we object to. I find the whole FB concept of-putting so I rarely if ever have anything to do with it. But I post here. And, at least sometimes, I cooperate witha pollster who calls to ask my views on political issues. If I were to express opinions on FB, I would assume that people, including political operatives, could read them. Of course with the massive numbers involved, the reading and sorting, and subsequent action, is probably done mostly or entirely by robots.

So, keeping in mind that my purpose is to think on just what sort of regulation might be necessary, what are we objecting to? The robots? The fact that money changes hands?

In 1956 I graduated from high school. I got a letter supposedly from then Senator Hubert Humphrey congratulating me on getting a scholarship. I was not so naive as to believe HHH wrote this personally, his somewhat robotic assistants wrote it. I found it amusing. Even earlier, a girl I dated worked in the courthouse and informed me that she had looked up my IQ and that hers was higher. Certainly invasive, but I also found that amusing. We don't find it amusing that robots scan our FB posts. I agree with not finding this amusing. But why exactly? Before we tell Zuckerberg just what it is he is supposed to do about it, maybe we should think through exactly what it is that we object to. I read about a guy whose wife filed for divorce, citing his FB conversations with his mistress. That was pretty stupid. But it highlights a problem. To what extent is FB expected to watch out for us and to what extent are we expected to watch out for ourselves?

Or, from another angle, suppose robots read my posts, infer my interests, and then send me information targeted to those interests. I object to this because? No doubt part of the answer is something like "because the robots do not really care about your interests, they are trying to con you". Well, yes, but they are sending information targeted to my interests.

Don't get me wrong. I am pretty sure this is a substantial problem. I am trying to put my finger on just why it is a substantial problem.

When I log onto BBO after Becky does some online shopping there will be an ad on the side of the bbo page advertising women's dresses. Again I find this amusing. Exactly what is amusing and what is a threat?

This is a good question, and the way I view a tentative answer is that when a business is trying to get you to buy a product all that is involved is your pocketbook, while an attempt to feed you fake news is an attempt is get you to think and believe a false reality - to me, the latter is much more dangerous.

When it comes to altering thinking, I am of the belief that opinion should be clearly marked as such and anything other than opinion should be an attempt to encourage critical thinking.

These are probably more societal/cultural problems than anything else.

[y66]

kenberg, on 2018-March-22, 09:01, said:

About the Facebook stuff. In order to deal with such matters we have to think a bit as to just what we object to. I find the whole FB concept of-putting so I rarely if ever have anything to do with it. But I post here. And, at least sometimes, I cooperate witha pollster who calls to ask my views on political issues. If I were to express opinions on FB, I would assume that people, including political operatives, could read them. Of course with the massive numbers involved, the reading and sorting, and subsequent action, is probably done mostly or entirely by robots.

So, keeping in mind that my purpose is to think on just what sort of regulation might be necessary, what are we objecting to? The robots? The fact that money changes hands?

In 1956 I graduated from high school. I got a letter supposedly from then Senator Hubert Humphrey congratulating me on getting a scholarship. I was not so naive as to believe HHH wrote this personally, his somewhat robotic assistants wrote it. I found it amusing. Even earlier, a girl I dated worked in the courthouse and informed me that she had looked up my IQ and that hers was higher. Certainly invasive, but I also found that amusing. We don't find it amusing that robots scan our FB posts. I agree with not finding this amusing. But why exactly? Before we tell Zuckerberg just what it is he is supposed to do about it, maybe we should think through exactly what it is that we object to. I read about a guy whose wife filed for divorce, citing his FB conversations with his mistress. That was pretty stupid. But it highlights a problem. To what extent is FB expected to watch out for us and to what extent are we expected to watch out for ourselves?

Or, from another angle, suppose robots read my posts, infer my interests, and then send me information targeted to those interests. I object to this because? No doubt part of the answer is something like "because the robots do not really care about your interests, they are trying to con you". Well, yes, but they are sending information targeted to my interests.

Don't get me wrong. I am pretty sure this is a substantial problem. I am trying to put my finger on just why it is a substantial problem.

When I log onto BBO after Becky does some online shopping there will be an ad on the side of the bbo page advertising women's dresses. Again I find this amusing. Exactly what is amusing and what is a threat?

IMO the problem is one of consent. Many FB users do not understand how their personal data and FB data (friends, posts, likes, dislikes, clicks) are subject to being used and actually being used by corporations and other entities to manipulate their behavior and their view of the world. One solution is to make consent more explicit and to require periodic renewal: I hereby authorize (or reauthorize) FB and any individual or entity to do whatever they like with my data which includes exploiting my internet addiction and whatever tendencies they can glean from my data and online behavior. Presumably, FB will do more to clarify and enforce user consent. This is tricky because it conflicts with their business model.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2018-March-22, 09:11, said:

The problem is that even though it seems "obviously true", most recommended remedies don't really address this root cause. People frequently say that better education is the solution, but I assume all Congressmen are college graduates, and I'll bet a majority went to Ivy League-calibre schools, and this doesn't effectively immunize them against this problem.

I agree.

Education only goes so far. In some ways it can even be a hindrance. Consider religion. I went off to college, took a course in the origins of Christianity, another course on the history of religion (mostly also on Christianity), I read Homer and Plato, and modernists like Bultmann, and so on. My father finished eighth grade. What difference did it make? He knew he did not understand the intricacies of theology, I at least was in danger of thinking that I did. When push came to shove, figuratively, we still just each chose our own path.

I'm definitely not knocking education. I regard my college years as critical and I am, after all, a retired college prof. But it is very possible to get a degree and largely avoid any challenging thinking.

So I think the book could be of interest. I'm a slow reader and so I am still working on finishing the novel my daughter gave me. [ One of my favorite lines from the old Cheers show: Coach says he has to go home to work on his book. Dianne says "Coach, you are writing a book?" "No, reading one." ]