Much to my disappointment, I notice that I, on occasion, passionately hold opinions about matters of which I have little to no knowledge. On these occasions, when I come upon a view contrary to my own, I almost instinctively draw my sword, raise the banner, and launch a thousand ships, ready to battle in a fit of Homeric rage. Of course, my opponent has but to breathe the slightest breath in support of his position, and my sword is shattered, my banner is torn, and my fleet is lost to the stormy sea. I retreat and seek shelter in the labyrinths of Wikipedia or Google, hoping against hope that I might find some posthumous support for my uninformed opinion.
I take some comfort in knowing I am not alone. Walking down the street in my neighborhood would bring me into the presence of people who hold adamant and various views on climate change but who couldn’t tell me the difference between climate and weather. I would not have to look far to find advocates and opponents of same sex marital unions who couldn’t tell each other anything substantial about the institution of marriage. I need only peruse the Internet for a short while to come across defenders and detractors of socialism who couldn’t precisely define social without the aid of a dictionary.
Why am I known, on occasion, to spout uninformed comment? Looking back on such occasions, I observe that I have sometimes repeated the views of someone I trusted without bothering to understand those views. I find myself hearing an opinion that suits me well, that perhaps fits with my fashionable worldview, and, because I hold the speaker or writer as an authority, I put in on and wear it with pride. If asked where my new suit was made, I am at a loss. If questioned about the fabric, I cannot say with certainty, though I might hazard a guess based on the feel. If asked why I wear the suit, I can at most respond by saying that I got it from an authoritative tailor who sews only those fabrics of the good and true. I’m not always right about this tailor, though.
My wife and I watched the movie Thank You for Smoking over the weekend. In the film, the protagonist, a smooth-talking lobbyist played by Aaron Eckhart, discusses argumentation with his school-age son. He shows him that some arguments you can’t win the conventional way, so you have to switch from debating the agreed upon subject and show instead that your opponent is wrong in some larger sense. While his son defends chocolate ice-cream as the best and all he needs, he admits to needing more than chocolate, more than even vanilla. He says he needs freedom, choice when it comes to ice-cream, liberty. “But that's not what we're talking about,” his son objects. “Ah! But that's what I'm talking about,” Eckhart’s character retorts. He then explains to his son that to win the argument, he didn’t need to prove that vanilla was better than chocolate, he only needed to show that his son was wrong because he opposed liberty. “But you still didn't convince me,” his son remarks. “It’s not you I’m after. I'm after them.”
I would like to say that I am never susceptible to such rhetorical tricks, that my mind always and everywhere functions in a logical and analytic manner. I would like to say that I am never one of “them,” but I cannot say that truthfully. I have fallen for fallacious reasoning because I liked the conclusion. I have shouted statements to the heavens without having done the work to determine if they are true. I have sought attention by agreeing with what sounded like it could be true. Yes, to my disappointment, I am, on occasion, one of them.
_____
Cross Posted
Monday, June 15, 2009
Uninformed Comment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 profound comments:
I think we are all, at times, one of "them." We should all strive to recognize when we fall into that pit, and dig our way out. But the frightening thing is that many people take pride in being one of "them." They like living in the pit. For example the "ditto-heads." Why would you be proud that you robotically spout what someone else says rather than thinking for yourself? Maybe because the response is not one of thought, but of emotion. If only we could infuse humanity with a bit of vulcan.
Well said, Jerome. I agree the pride some people take in uncritically embracing what Limbaugh or anyone says is scary. It is one thing to consider oneself a follower of a particular person’s thought because one has reflected on the thinking and found it to be true; it’s quite another to define oneself as an unquestioning repeater of what someone says as if that person were the fountain of truth.
I totally agree with both Kyle and Jerome. We should not act like robots spewing the same words what we hear commentators saying or their talking points. I believe that we must look into every issue from both points of view and than decide for ourselves. Yes, I do believe each person is susceptible to being one of "them." I have found that it is hard when a person associates him/herself with a particularly political Party and listens to what that party is saying, the party's stance on the different issues, to dissaociate oneself and look at the issue from the other side.
I think with the great dicussions on this blog, as well as other blogs, it is easier for people to experience different points of view and at least familarize yourself with opposite points of view or give a person a different perspective regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the other person.
Kyle, while you are beating your breast and repenting of the sin of taking stands on issues before becoming fully informed, keep this in mind - sometimes it is necessary to stand up and be counted on important issues even when we don't have the luxury of becoming experts on them. No matter how conversant you become with the facts, there always seems to be more to know. You could wait forever before feeling secure enough in your understanding of an issue before taking any stand at all. Meanwhile, you are ceding the territory by default to all the other uninformed dingbats out there who are only different from you in that they do not share your scruples on this matter. If you accept the opinion of a trusted authority on those occasions and count yourself with him, her, or them, you will end up wrong once in a while. But if your authority is a good one, you will be right often enough to participate responsibly when you should, even when you can't offer the same level of participation that you would if you had the leisure to become an authority yourself. Getting more information does not always reduce the probability of taking the wrong side of an issue. Depending on what the info is (and what it does NOT tell you), it could actually cause you to lean toward the wrong conclusion. Sometimes you only THINK you know enough.
Speaking of spouting uninformed opinions, let me call out one that was offered in this section of commentary already:
"'ditto-heads.' Why would you be proud that you robotically spout what someone else says rather than thinking for yourself?"
I have never considered myself a ditto-head, and if I did, I wouldn't tell anyone that I was unless they were, too, because the phrase lends itself to a natural misunderstanding - the very one that Mr. Santuccit holds about the meaning of the phrase. No one who calls himself a "ditto-head" considers himself a robot who spouts someone else's opinions and does not think for himself. The phrase originated with people who already believed the ideas that they later heard Limbaugh express on his program. They used to agree with him profusely and at length, burning a lot of radio time on it. Then they started simply saying "Ditto." Meaning that they had already always thuoght about and believed the same thing that Rush was saying. Later, they evolved to take the label, and the meaning was the same - they had already thought for themselves and come to the same conclusion.
Now that the meaning of the phrase is clear and the intentions of those who identify themselves with it has been properly explicated, any further negative assumption about ditto-heads is at best a culpable failure in charity.
I am retracting my "totally" in me being in agreement with both Kyle and Santucci. Although I do agree with the essence of the argument.
I believe that if a person comes to a conclusion beforehand and agrees with a commentator most of the time that does not mean a person is being a robot and just spouting the words of the commentator. The person has come to a conclusion about the topic before the particular commentator expresses his opinions and thoughts regarding the topic. For example, I only listen to Limbaugh every once in awhile but I agree with him on issues most of the time. That is because I hold certain viewpoints before listening to him. He has not swayed me in one direction or another. It was my investigating the topic that brought me to a certain opinion or belief on the topic. If a person who believes in the liberal point of view most of the time but comes to his/her own conclusion beforehand, does that mean they are just spouting liberal talking points and being a robot as well?
I don't find it much more noble to listen to a rant, presented by a man with whom you already agree (i.e., why bother?) than it is to be guided by the opinions contained in his rants. Either way, it's a demonstration of herd mentality. If one needs to feel surrounded by people with whom one usually, or always, agees (i.e. other "ditto-heads"), then one is simply a co-dependent digit in a rhetorical mob.
Thank you, Rodak, for demonstrating my exact point about a failure in charity.
One does not listen to political commentary to be "noble", one listens to stay informed, and if you already agree with that person about key, important issues, you have, on that token, a reason to accept their judgment as akin to yours and as likely to come to conclusions similar to yours if you were presented with the same information and had the time to consider it carefully. People trust political commentators with whom they agree politically because their points of view are made public. Their biases are plain, unhidden - right on their sleeve. The biases of broadcast and print news media, with their pretensions to objectivity, are deceptive, clandestine, and operate on the sneak. They are not copped to. They do their work while those who hold them pretend they don't exist and even actively deny them when they are rightly accused of them.
I find it very telling that those who knock those who listen to right wing talk radio for exposing themselves mainly to voices with whom they already agree do not themselves listen to talk radio because they DO NOT AGREE WITH THE HOSTS!
I have found it a useful heuristic about those who consistently argue for positions that have a left-of-center home in the political debate: if I want to know what they are up to, I just listen to what they are accusing their opponents of, and, upon investigating further, I invariably find that they are doing more and worse of the very same thing of which they are (sometimes even falsely) accusing their opposition.
Kevin,
I wouldn't necessarily fault myself or someone else for taking a position on an issue without being an expert on that issue. We rely on authorities all the time. That's not the problem. Rather, I am troubled by those occasions in which I get heated and antagonistic about matters about which I'm more or less clueless. Most of the time I keep my mouth shut on such things, but occasionally I will passionately shout out my opinion when I have no real basis for holding that opinion. I can't defend it. I can't explain why it's true. Yet I'm emotionally invested in it. I see these occasions as very different from those times where I'm not sure about a matter but I, for the time being, reference an authority whose views I tend to lean towards or accept until shown otherwise.
As to the label "ditto-head," yes, from what I understand, Rush Limbaugh and his listeners do not mean by this term those who unquestioningly regurgitate whatever Rush Limbaugh says. However, such people do exist. I've met some of them. There's also a group, not exactly small, that will tolerate no major criticism of the radio show host from within the camp. Look what happened when Michael Steele criticized Limbaugh.
Teresa,
I don't think anyone here is claiming that "if a person comes to a conclusion beforehand and agrees with a commentator most of the time" he or she is just a robot who thoughtlessly spouts the commentator's words.
A further point: I don't see this herd mentality, as Rodak calls it, coming only from the Left or the Right. I find this mentality in myself, and I'm all over the political radar.
Kevin--
One can only be "informed" by being presented with new information. If you already agree with what's being said, you've learned nothing--although you may experience a warm, fuzzy feeling.
One can be truly informed only by having one's preconceptions challenged. I don't think that anybody calling himself a "ditto-head" is looking for challenge: he is looking for affirmation and approval.
Rodak,
A person who listens to Rush is listening to both sides of an issue. But, a person who is only listening to MSM and not listening to any conservative commentators, are in effect not being presented with new information or both sides of the issue, but only the same old rhetoric from the media. Conservatives are bombarded with the liberal medias perspective so I don't have to look far to hear a new perspective or a counter argument on a particular topic which means I do hear both sides of the various issues and that is at least making a concerted effort to be well informed. But, a person who is liberal does not have conservative news thrown at them 24/7 and has to be far outwardly reaching and really has to make a concerted effort to see the conservative point of view.
People who listen to Rush don't look for warm and fuzzy feelings. He does not give off that perception in the least.I believe that most people look for affirmation on their views but that doesn't mean the person doesn't listen to new and different information. A person can listen to Rush, watch the MSM and keep updated on new information on both sides of the aisle and that is being informed. Being forcefed liberal propoganda by CNN,MSNBC,ABC,CBS,NBC is not being well informed. No, Sorry conservatives don't get chills running up our legs like Chris Matthews.
Teresa--
I would say that MSNBC and Fox are polar opposites, presenting a left and right perspective, respectively.
As for the three "major networks" and CNN, none of them is anywhere near "left" enough for me to call them anything other than "moderate." Do most of their anchors and reporters seem to prefer liberals over conservatives? Probably so. I also think that all of them give conservative voices more face time than does Fox. And Rush Limbaugh gives only his hard-right perspective at all times. He doesn't even treat other perspectives with any respect. He states his viewpoint and ridicules all others.
For my part, I only visit blogs whose viewpoint differs from my own. As a Protestant, I read Catholic blogs. As a lefty, I read conservative blogs. I have no interest in hearing people agree with me, unless they are people who started out disagreeing with me, and had their thinking changed in the course of a discussion.
Note: in my last comment I meant, of course, that the majors and CNN give conservatives more air time than Fox give liberals.
":Kevin--
One can only be 'informed' by being presented with new information."
That is literally true.
"If you already agree with what's being said, you've learned nothing-"
That is not. New information is not, by any logical necessity, connected with it being presented by someone who speaks from a point of view with which I disagree.
Today I got up earlier than I normally do in order to be up with my wife, who was geting ready for work. When I am sleepy, I find it easier to stay awake if I turn on the radio, and talk radio is more effective than music or an idiotic morning show. So I listened to Jim Quinn in the morning. I often agree with Quinn. Sometimes even when I disagree with his reasoning, I find his conclusions worth consideration.
Quinn, like Rush, is a commentator. He reads the newspaper, including Pittsburgh news since he's local to us. When he does that, I get th enews from him before I hear or read it elsewhere. It is always accurate information, as up to date as anything else I get, from a source with whom I am inclined to agree. So you're wrong, Rodak.
This morning, from Quinn, with whom I agree, I was exposed to historical information that was new to me. I found out that our nation's first progressive President, Woodrow Wilson, was a rabid racist, a white supremacist and a devotee of the KKK. Apparently I knew very little about him before. I knew his face from pictures. I knew he was highly educated as U.S. presidents go - the only one I knew of who had a Ph.D. I knew he led our country through the First World War, known then as the Great War, and was the architect of the League of Nations, but failed to get the U.S. to join it. I think he also gave us Mother's Day. But somehow it escaped the attention of those who wrote what I read about him that he was eugenicist and a screaming vicious hater of black people. That was new to me. But it's true, and it took Quinn, someone with whom I agree, to get that information to me.
"-although you may experience a warm, fuzzy feeling.
One can be truly informed only by having one's preconceptions challenged. I don't think that anybody calling himself a "ditto-head" is looking for challenge: he is looking for affirmation and approval."
As global sweeping over-generalizations go, that would be shocking in its judgmentalism and stupidity if I didn't already know that I was reading one of Roadhack's hit pieces.
"As for the three 'major networks' and CNN, none of them is anywhere near 'left' enough for me to call them anything other than 'moderate'"
How do you breathe all the way out there in outer space?
"For my part, I only visit blogs whose viewpoint differs from my own. As a Protestant, I read Catholic blogs. As a lefty, I read conservative blogs. "
No wonder you're such an antagonistic boob! You've lost touch with your ability to be congenial with people, which comes easily when around those with whom you agree on important issues and values. You are out of practice in an important skill for a civilized human being.
Mmm. But I didn't say that one couldn't learn something new from someone with whom one often agrees. What I said was: "If you already agree with what's being said, you've learned nothing--"
If I have a firm conviction that the sky is blue during much of the daytime, and you come and tell me "Say, Rodak--I've just learned that the sky is blue during most of the daytime!" I haven't learned anything.
However, if I'm curious about Catholicism (being a Protestant), I suggest that I'll learn more about it listening to Kyle than I would listening to his hypothetical Protestant counterpart.
You are out of practice in an important skill for a civilized human being.
I do just fine in the real world, thank you. Cyberspace and comment boxes are not quite that. Not for me, anyway.
If I were to over-generalize the mainstream media, I would call it the corporate media rather than the liberal media. Yes, a good number of voices in the media lean left, but, as Rodak points out, many of these are fairly moderate. You won't generally see the likes of Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, or Howard Zinn making the rounds on the MSN shows. You will see Cheney. Using the same adjective to describe the NY Times and The Nation seems to gloss over some crucial distinctions.
Rush is a well known conservative and has never claimed to be unbiased or objective in his point of view.These networks,CNN,MSNBC,ABC,CBS,NBC, claim to be objective and unbiased but that is not true. Rodak must be living in some kind of fanstasy land to think that they are not liberal news outlets. They DO NOT have more conservatives or give more time to conservative commentators than FOX NEWS.In fact their conservative analysts are at best imitation conservatives or moderates. People who listen to conservative commentators also listen to MSM because there is virtually no way of getting around it. So yes, people who listen to conservative commentators also listen to other points of view.
They DO NOT have more conservatives or give more time to conservative commentators than FOX NEWS.
You missed my correction at 12:06 p.m.
As for the rest, I completely agree with Kyle when he says: "Using the same adjective to describe the NY Times and The Nation seems to gloss over some crucial distinctions."
I listen to both Fox and MSNBC, as well as CNN, et al. I was speaking more of blogs, where there is actual back-and-forth interaction, than I was of information gathering as a passive spectator. Even there, however, I listen more to those with whom I tend to disagree.
I'd appreciate it if we could discuss these issues without using ad hominem attacks. Thank you.
Ooops. I now must correct my last comment. The correction about Fox and conservative commentators was posted at 11:34 a.m. Sorry.
Post a Comment