We keep using those words...

[ursangnome]

... but do they mean what we think they mean?

A number of folks I know have spent a lot of energy today pointing out that the 58+ million people who voted for George W Bush aren't stupid:
wcg in 3.5 Million
khaosworks in Four More Years
tpau in this entry

Feeling cynical, I tend to follow the wisdom of my father and grandfather - if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. The electorate has done something that sure looks like stupidity. One is strongly tempted to then say that Occam's Razor then applies.

But referring to Occam's Razor got me thinking - what qualifies as "stupidity"? It has long been known that the American public (in fact, the whole human race, worldwide) is often a bit short when it comes to rational thought. Being a thinking ape is a relative thing. Sure, each of us think a lot more than a trout or a gazelle, but that isn't saying much.

As I understand my fellow citizens, most of them don't research their candidates much. Some of them watch some news, but tend to rely on only one news source. They tend to credit rumor as fact. They don't apply critical thought to what they are told, and don't double check facts. They listen to "talking points" as sources of real information, and react with their guts rather than with their higher brain functions.

Face it, folks, in dealing with choosing the leaders of the most powerful nation in the world, all of that is stupid. And both sides of the political fence were guilty of it, in droves and hordes. The methods both political parties use in the media rely on the fact that the people, on the whole, act stupidly. Humans are dumb, plain and simple.

So, the question isn't whether the voters were stupid. The question is how to approach stupidity. Surely responding to stupidity with more stupidity isn't constructive. So shouting to the skies and the individuals how stupid they are isn't a good idea.

The form of stupidity seen in the electorate may be the default, but it is correctable. Use of critical thinking, Occam's Razor, and other rational approaches are learned behaviors. Thus, the reasonable counter to stupidity is education.

Now, if you're trying to educate a child, it is often reasonable to take a somewhat authoritarian position. That doesn't work when you're trying to teach a superior, or a peer. You aren't going to teach your fellow American much if you talk down to them, or treat them like they were stupid. You have to treat them like you respect them, because they won't respond otherwise, and because to do otherwise would be hypocritical.

Most importantly, you have to treat them with respect because they deserve it. They're your fellow citizens, for cryin' out loud! No matter how they come to their conclusions, they have value and worth. These people are the building blocks of a better world, and that's worth a lot of respect, in my book.

Comments

[jadasc.livejournal.com]

I think that one reason why people are clinging to "the electorate is stupid" is because it's more comforting than the alternate view, which is "the electorate is actively hostile to the things I hold dear." The former gives the hope that there is some Rosetta Stone-translation that will make our (ahem) eminently reasonable positions palatable to them. (This is a very even-ground solution, which is the kind the Left likes best.)

[umbran.livejournal.com]

The thing is "the electorate is actively hostile to the things I hold dear" is 1)probably inaccurate and 2)fails to get at the root problem.

1)It is probably inaccurate because, contrary to how people seem to talk, the portion of the electorate that voted for Bush is not a solid monolith of similar beliefs. Last estimates I've seen say that no more than about 20% of the nation are real die-hard right wingers. That means than more than half of the Bush voters are folks that aren't so actively hostile to anything. You may not be able to reach the most staunch of them, but you don't *need* to do so in order to make things better.

2)The hostility is not a root cause, it is a symptom. Treat the root cause by helping htem use the tools of thought, and the hostility should dissipate.

I'm not a Leftist that likes even-ground solutions. I'm more an idealist, focusing on rationalism. As far as I can tell, when people use the proper tools, they come to enlightened conclusions. The problem is that many folks don't have the tools, or either choose to set them aside, or forget to use them. All these problems are eminently fixable, given time and respectful effort.

[jadasc.livejournal.com]

The hostility is not a root cause, it is a symptom. Treat the root cause by helping them use the tools of thought, and the hostility should dissipate.

I can agree with the idea that the hostility is a symptom. However, I fear that what it is a symptom of is the following:

"We believe that the choices you make are wrong. Not simply incorrect, but immoral and toxic. In a perfect world, you'd turn away from such behavior and turn to righteousness. Since you seem unwilling to do that, it's my responsibility to keep myself, my family, and the things that I hold dear as far away from you as possible until you come to your senses. This includes the governance of my country."

[a] Although this most directly applies to such "moral values" issues as same-sex marriage and abortion, it's also commonly applied to things like the social services system, education, and the like. Watch the public opinion-makers and you'll see more and more support for the meme that liberal ideas are not simply wrong, but wicked and dangerous.

[b] The tools of thought are potent ones indeed. But how do you present them to someone who has been taught that faith is the source of the important answers?

[c] 20% of the nation is 75 million people or so. That's not such a small number.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

c)You might want to check your math. Current population of the US is about 294 million. Only 75% of them are of voting age. That's 220 possible voters. 20% of that would be only 44 million. And not everybody who is of age to vote is registered, and fewer still actually vote. I note that I haven't got a solid reference, so that's all anedcdotal. The point is simply that while there may be many such people, the barriers are not insurmountable.

b)You present it very carefully and respectfully. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. The core text of Christianity is a work highly subject to interpretation, after all.

a)You'll see more support for the meme that liberal ideas are wicked and dangerous, yes. But that support relies upon fear and ignorance. All the more reason to stand against the meme.

[jadasc.livejournal.com]

You might want to check your math. Current population of the US is about 294 million. Only 75% of them are of voting age. That's 220 possible voters. 20% of that would be only 44 million. And not everybody who is of age to vote is registered, and fewer still actually vote. You might want to check your math. Current population of the US is about 294 million. Only 75% of them are of voting age. That's 220 possible voters. 20% of that would be only 44 million. And not everybody who is of age to vote is registered, and fewer still actually vote.

Honest semantical error -- when you said "20% of the nation," I read that as "20% of the U.S. population," where it looks like you meant "20% of the electorate." And I thought the U.S. had reached 350 million, which is where I got the number from.

[jadasc.livejournal.com]

Last estimates I've seen say that no more than about 20% of the nation are real die-hard right wingers. That means than more than half of the Bush voters are folks that aren't so actively hostile to anything.

Similar estimates suggest that 47% of the country now claims membership in an evangelical form of Christianity. The political right is one thing; the religious right is something else entirely.

(Eleven states had same-sex marriage initiatives on the ballot. Religious groups mounted aggressive get-out-the-vote programs in those states to make their opinions heard. Once they got there, for whom do you suppose they voted?)