Moses Mobetta
Well-Known Member
Every time I called him, he either answered the phone or called me back himself. Think about that. He was always accessible, and he always got things done. I also know many people who had the same experience with him.
Two years wasted on the Mueller Investigation. How will the media discredit President Trump next?
- Thread starter MichiganSpinDoctor
- Start date
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
a representative who actually cares about his constituency is a rare thing.
all politicians seem to have skeletons in their closets...but what else is in those closets?
sometimes it's hard work and compassion, sometimes it's fuckery and hate....
all politicians seem to have skeletons in their closets...but what else is in those closets?
sometimes it's hard work and compassion, sometimes it's fuckery and hate....
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
And sometimes, it's Geritol, Ben-Gay and untouched shaving cream. (Johnny Isakson)
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
isakson isn't big on women's rights, or lgbt...lmnop...rights, either...but otherwise, he's refreshingly sane...too bad there aren't more republicans willing to call bullshit bullshit..most of the time...
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
...that's far from the worst political track record i've heard...jack shit is easier to fix than just about anything trump has "accomplished"....
MichiganSpinDoctor
Well-Known Member
That is great. Almost makes me not care that he left a woman to drown. Really sounds like a great guy.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
yup, almost as nice as a guy who cheats on his wives multiple times, unprotected...then pays the women to shut up about it...or a guy who regularly screws over the contractors who do any work for him....or a guy who sets up a charity for the sole reason of being able to steal tax free money from it...or a guy who regularly misreports the value of every property he owns to get out of paying taxes, then refuses to show his taxes to the people, like everyone else who has held the position for the last 100 years has done voluntarily...a really great guy
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
You prefer Newt Gingrich types ? He left his wife for another women while she was fighting cancer...Good old Conservative values with a large C
Moses Mobetta
Well-Known Member
People get scared, anyone, people make mistakes. I knew him and saw who he was, I saw the concern on his face when we talked about the crime and the gangs. More important was what I saw him do about it. Changed that whole part of the city. Everybody should get a second chance, I stopped handing out life sentences a while back.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Didn’t you vote for a guy who raped his own wife?
MichiganSpinDoctor
Well-Known Member
Sincerely, your story almost makes me not care that he left a woman to drown. Sounds like a great guy.
dandyrandy
Well-Known Member
Did you ever read that study I shared? You really need self help.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
What do you think of trump raping his own wife?
Or about trump raping Jill harth?
dandyrandy
Well-Known Member
Spin has an appropriate handle.... He must not work.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Sincerely your post makes me think you don't care about Trump's child separation policy causing over dead babies. You only care about fetuses but once its a baby, it's OK to murder them, is that how you justify it?
MichiganSpinDoctor
Well-Known Member
Thank you. I actually called myself spindoctor because of an invention I made years ago. The motorized plant mover. Just a happy coincidence that I like talking politics.
Also, I work full time.
dandyrandy
Well-Known Member
Hey spineless read this
In a new book, “The Enigma of Reason” (Harvard), the cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber take a stab at answering this question. Mercier, who works at a French research institute in Lyon, and Sperber, now based at the Central European University, in Budapest, point out that reason is an evolved trait, like bipedalism or three-color vision. It emerged on the savannas of Africa, and has to be understood in that context.
Stripped of a lot of what might be called cognitive-science-ese, Mercier and Sperber’s argument runs, more or less, as follows: Humans’ biggest advantage over other species is our ability to coöperate. Coöperation is difficult to establish and almost as difficult to sustain. For any individual, freeloading is always the best course of action. Reason developed not to enable us to solve abstract, logical problems or even to help us draw conclusions from unfamiliar data; rather, it developed to resolve the problems posed by living in collaborative groups.
“Reason is an adaptation to the hypersocial niche humans have evolved for themselves,” Mercier and Sperber write. Habits of mind that seem weird or goofy or just plain dumb from an “intellectualist” point of view prove shrewd when seen from a social “interactionist” perspective.
Consider what’s become known as “confirmation bias,” the tendency people have to embrace information that supports their beliefs and reject information that contradicts them. Of the many forms of faulty thinking that have been identified, confirmation bias is among the best catalogued; it’s the subject of entire textbooks’ worth of experiments. One of the most famous of these was conducted, again, at Stanford. For this experiment, researchers rounded up a group of students who had opposing opinions about capital punishment. Half the students were in favor of it and thought that it deterred crime; the other half were against it and thought that it had no effect on crime.
The students were asked to respond to two studies. One provided data in support of the deterrence argument, and the other provided data that called it into question. Both studies—you guessed it—were made up, and had been designed to present what were, objectively speaking, equally compelling statistics. The students who had originally supported capital punishment rated the pro-deterrence data highly credible and the anti-deterrence data unconvincing; the students who’d originally opposed capital punishment did the reverse. At the end of the experiment, the students were asked once again about their views. Those who’d started out pro-capital punishment were now even more in favor of it; those who’d opposed it were even more hostile.
If reason is designed to generate sound judgments, then it’s hard to conceive of a more serious design flaw than confirmation bias. Imagine, Mercier and Sperber suggest, a mouse that thinks the way we do. Such a mouse, “bent on confirming its belief that there are no cats around,” would soon be dinner. To the extent that confirmation bias leads people to dismiss evidence of new or underappreciated threats—the human equivalent of the cat around the corner—it’s a trait that should have been selected against. The fact that both we and it survive, Mercier and Sperber argue, proves that it must have some adaptive function, and that function, they maintain, is related to our “hypersociability.”
Mercier and Sperber prefer the term “myside bias.” Humans, they point out, aren’t randomly credulous. Presented with someone else’s argument, we’re quite adept at spotting the weaknesses. Almost invariably, the positions we’re blind about are our own.
In a new book, “The Enigma of Reason” (Harvard), the cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber take a stab at answering this question. Mercier, who works at a French research institute in Lyon, and Sperber, now based at the Central European University, in Budapest, point out that reason is an evolved trait, like bipedalism or three-color vision. It emerged on the savannas of Africa, and has to be understood in that context.
Stripped of a lot of what might be called cognitive-science-ese, Mercier and Sperber’s argument runs, more or less, as follows: Humans’ biggest advantage over other species is our ability to coöperate. Coöperation is difficult to establish and almost as difficult to sustain. For any individual, freeloading is always the best course of action. Reason developed not to enable us to solve abstract, logical problems or even to help us draw conclusions from unfamiliar data; rather, it developed to resolve the problems posed by living in collaborative groups.
“Reason is an adaptation to the hypersocial niche humans have evolved for themselves,” Mercier and Sperber write. Habits of mind that seem weird or goofy or just plain dumb from an “intellectualist” point of view prove shrewd when seen from a social “interactionist” perspective.
Consider what’s become known as “confirmation bias,” the tendency people have to embrace information that supports their beliefs and reject information that contradicts them. Of the many forms of faulty thinking that have been identified, confirmation bias is among the best catalogued; it’s the subject of entire textbooks’ worth of experiments. One of the most famous of these was conducted, again, at Stanford. For this experiment, researchers rounded up a group of students who had opposing opinions about capital punishment. Half the students were in favor of it and thought that it deterred crime; the other half were against it and thought that it had no effect on crime.
The students were asked to respond to two studies. One provided data in support of the deterrence argument, and the other provided data that called it into question. Both studies—you guessed it—were made up, and had been designed to present what were, objectively speaking, equally compelling statistics. The students who had originally supported capital punishment rated the pro-deterrence data highly credible and the anti-deterrence data unconvincing; the students who’d originally opposed capital punishment did the reverse. At the end of the experiment, the students were asked once again about their views. Those who’d started out pro-capital punishment were now even more in favor of it; those who’d opposed it were even more hostile.
If reason is designed to generate sound judgments, then it’s hard to conceive of a more serious design flaw than confirmation bias. Imagine, Mercier and Sperber suggest, a mouse that thinks the way we do. Such a mouse, “bent on confirming its belief that there are no cats around,” would soon be dinner. To the extent that confirmation bias leads people to dismiss evidence of new or underappreciated threats—the human equivalent of the cat around the corner—it’s a trait that should have been selected against. The fact that both we and it survive, Mercier and Sperber argue, proves that it must have some adaptive function, and that function, they maintain, is related to our “hypersociability.”
Mercier and Sperber prefer the term “myside bias.” Humans, they point out, aren’t randomly credulous. Presented with someone else’s argument, we’re quite adept at spotting the weaknesses. Almost invariably, the positions we’re blind about are our own.
dandyrandy
Well-Known Member
Wow a dope grower. Your mama must be proud. How many years of college is required?
MichiganSpinDoctor
Well-Known Member
Yes, everyone who disagrees with you doesn't care about dead children.