Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old May 1, 2013, 02:02 PM   #1
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Study finds, the less you know about a policy, the stronger your opinion...

http://ideas.foreignpolicy.com/posts..._less_you_know

I found this piece quite interesting, thoughts?
__________________
Cognitive Dissonance: "Regardless of how much I hate religion (and I really do hate religion). I do not hate religious people." AP_piano295
"Majority rule doesn't work in mental institutions"
SLC Flyfishing is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2013, 02:47 PM   #2
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
I found this piece quite interesting, thoughts?
I don't know anything about that piece, but I'm really pissed off and I think there has never been a worse example of crap journalism.

mcrain is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2013, 02:55 PM   #3
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
I don't know anything about that piece ...
I don't know about that piece either.

They want me to log-in to read it.

No thanks.
citizenzen is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2013, 03:00 PM   #4
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
I don't know about that piece either.

They want me to log-in to read it.

No thanks.
Yeah, that pisses me off even more! I really don't like it now!
mcrain is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2013, 03:07 PM   #5
SLC Flyfishing
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
I don't know about that piece either.

They want me to log-in to read it.

No thanks.
You don't have to log in. I started the log-in with google, then cancelled before actually doing it. I was then able to read the article just fine.

Read it, I think you'll find it interesting.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
I don't know anything about that piece, but I'm really pissed off and I think there has never been a worse example of crap journalism.



I see what you did there...
__________________
Cognitive Dissonance: "Regardless of how much I hate religion (and I really do hate religion). I do not hate religious people." AP_piano295
"Majority rule doesn't work in mental institutions"
SLC Flyfishing is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2013, 03:11 PM   #6
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
I see what you did there...
That's 'cause you so smart!
mcrain is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2013, 12:44 AM   #7
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
the study that the article links to (24pg pdf)
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2013, 10:22 AM   #8
Tomorrow
macrumors 603
 
Tomorrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Always a day away
Like trying to ban the "shoulder thing that goes up."
__________________
I would scream just to be heard, as if yelling at the stars - I was bleeding just to feel.
You would never say a word, kept me reaching in the dark - always something to conceal.
Tomorrow is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2013, 11:01 AM   #9
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Here is an interesting study that kind of supplements the OP

Quote:
One of the most infamous and dispiriting findings in recent political science research is that partisans can’t even agree on basic facts, at least when those facts bear on politics. Princeton’s Larry Bartels found that, in 1988, Democrats were much less likely than Republicans to correctly answer questions about whether inflation went down under President Ronald Reagan (it did) and whether unemployment also fell (it did)

Subsequent research found that correcting these kinds of errors actually made the situation worse. Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth and Jason Reifler of Georgia State found that Republicans presented with news articles pointing out that there were no WMDs in Iraq were more likely to say that such weapons were found than Republicans who didn’t read those articles. The truth, in other words, triggered a partisan backlash.
...

But there’s always been a question about how serious the respondents in these studies are. Maybe the Republicans in the Nyhan-Reifler study knew that there weren’t any WMDs, but they wanted to signal support for the war in Iraq and President George W. Bush, and so answered incorrectly. Answering incorrectly, under this view, is just a way to register an opinion in the survey, not an expression of what the survey respondent actually believes. Partisans aren’t closed off from reality, by this theory. They’re just lying.

Political scientists John Bullock, Alan Gerber, Gregory Huber (all at Yale) and Seth Hill (at UC-San Diego) have a new paper that presents strong evidence for the they’re-just-liars theory.

They ran two experiments. In the first, they split respondents into two groups: Those in the control group were asked basic factual questions about politics; those in the treatment group were asked the same questions but were entered into a raffle for an Amazon gift card wherein their chances depended on how many questions they got right.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2013, 11:22 AM   #10
quasinormal
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia.
The premise seems a logical conclusion to me. Lets face it, extremists from either end of the left/right spectrum are two sides of the same debased coin.

The original link wouldn't load for me.
Google cache

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&client=safari

Last edited by quasinormal; Jun 8, 2013 at 11:28 AM.
quasinormal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 02:24 AM   #11
Technarchy
macrumors 68040
 
Technarchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomorrow View Post
Like trying to ban the "shoulder thing that goes up."
Those damn shoulder things!!! When will it end? Think of the children.
Technarchy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 05:29 AM   #12
VulchR
macrumors 68000
 
VulchR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Scotland
Slightly off topic ... apologies

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydde View Post
Here is an interesting study that kind of supplements the OP
Sigh. There were WMD in Iraq. They were used on the Kurds. The question was whether Hussein's largely undocumented assertion that WMD had been eliminated could be trusted (and FWIW, disused, obsolete WMD were found). Perhaps if Hussein had not diddled UN inspectors so often before 9/11... Anyways, I find the current way WMD in Iraq is discussed rather odd. The question should not be 'Did Iraq have WMD?' but 'Did Iraq destroy all the WMD it known to have, along with the facilities for making new WMD?'. The problem was the distinction between evidence of absence versus absence of evidence.
__________________
My first was a Mac+. Now I own an iPhone with 3.5x the pixels, a colour display, WiFi, 512x the RAM, >1500x the data storage, and 100x the speed. And it fits in the palm of my hand.
VulchR is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 08:45 AM   #13
Prototypical
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Nebraska
It is certainly logical that those who see everything in black and white are likely ignorant of the details of a particular situation. Nothing in life is 100% one way or the other... except for the deliciousness of bacon. Mmmm, bacon.
Prototypical is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 10:49 AM   #14
lannister80
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by VulchR View Post
Sigh. There were WMD in Iraq. They were used on the Kurds.
Yeah, most nations wait 15 years to invade when there's evidence of WMD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
__________________
Early 2008 Mac Pro, 8x2.8GHz, 3.25TB, 18GB RAM
UnRAID NAS, 9TB storage, 3TB parity, 400GB cache
lannister80 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 11:33 AM   #15
VulchR
macrumors 68000
 
VulchR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Scotland
Quote:
Originally Posted by lannister80 View Post
Yeah, most nations wait 15 years to invade when there's evidence of WMD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
Actually there were 7 years of inspections from 1991-1998 (you can read the official chronology here). The UN inspectors felt that there was not enough evidence to be certain that Iraq had destroyed its WMD, largely because Hussein was playing a cat and mouse game with them. Perhaps things would have been different if Iraq had been honest from the beginning.... Again, after Iraq's obstruction and deception regarding UN inspections for WMD, the issue was evidence of absence versus absence of evidence.
__________________
My first was a Mac+. Now I own an iPhone with 3.5x the pixels, a colour display, WiFi, 512x the RAM, >1500x the data storage, and 100x the speed. And it fits in the palm of my hand.
VulchR is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 12:58 PM   #16
Happybunny
macrumors 65816
 
Happybunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by VulchR View Post
Actually there were 7 years of inspections from 1991-1998 (you can read the official chronology here). The UN inspectors felt that there was not enough evidence to be certain that Iraq had destroyed its WMD, largely because Hussein was playing a cat and mouse game with them. Perhaps things would have been different if Iraq had been honest from the beginning.... Again, after Iraq's obstruction and deception regarding UN inspections for WMD, the issue was evidence of absence versus absence of evidence.

September Dossier

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government, also known as the September Dossier, was a document published by the British government on 24 September 2002 on the same day of a recall of Parliament to discuss the contents of the document.The paper was part of an ongoing investigation by the government into weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, which ultimately led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It contained a number of allegations according to which Iraq also possessed WMD, including chemical weapons and biological weapons. The dossier even alleged that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons programme. Without exception, all of the allegations included within the September Dossier have been since proven to be false, as shown by the Iraq Survey Group.
The much-anticipated document was based on reports made by the Joint Intelligence Committee, part of the British Intelligence 'machinery'. Most of the evidence was uncredited, ostensibly in order to protect sources. On publication, serious press comment was generally critical of the dossier for tameness and for the seeming lack of any genuinely new evidence. Those politically opposed to military action against Iraq generally agreed that the dossier was unremarkable, with Menzies Campbell observing in the House of Commons that:
“ We can also agree that [Saddam Hussein] most certainly has chemical and biological weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have been willing to assume. ”
However, two sections later became the centre of fierce debate: the allegation that Iraq had sought "significant quantities of uranium from Africa", and the claim in the foreword to the document written by British Prime Minister Tony Blair that "The document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."
Britain's biggest selling popular daily newspaper, The Sun, subsequently carried the headline "Brits 45mins from doom",while the Daily Star reported "Mad Saddam ready to attack: 45 minutes from a chemical war", helping to create the impression among the British public that Iraq was a threat to Britain.
Major General Michael Laurie, one of those involved in producing the dossier wrote to the Chilcot Inquiry in 2011 saying "the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care." On 26 June 2011, The Observer reported on a memo from John Scarlett to Blair's foreign affairs adviser, released under the Freedom of Information Act, which referred to "the benefit of obscuring the fact that in terms of WMD Iraq is not that exceptional". The memo has been described as one of the most significant documents on the September dossier yet published as it is considered a proposal to mislead the public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier
__________________
'You cannot undo history, but you can learn from it'
Happybunny is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 02:18 PM   #17
VulchR
macrumors 68000
 
VulchR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Scotland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happybunny View Post
September Dossier

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction... [/url]
I think Bush favored war out of paranoia and poor intelligence (both in terms of IQ and in terms CIA etc.). I do not know what to make of Blair's actions. At the time it seemed to me that he was acting in concert with the US to prevent a US/Europe split (hence the spin in the September dossier, which made it sounds like there was definite evidence). Now I am not so sure. The UK lost 67 people in 9/11, whereas the other countries on the Security Council who vetoed the resolution specifically mandating war lost only 1-3 each. 9/11 caused the biggest loss of British life of any terrorist attack. Maybe it got to Blair. Maybe it was a genuine failure of the intelligence services. Maybe the cynics are right it this was all for the oil (but why not invade Saudi Arabia because of the Bin Laden connection or Iran because of its state sponsored terrorism?), but I have seen less hard evidence that this has allowed us to control oil than I have about WMD. I am not saying the evidence doesn't exist, just that the idea that it was for oil seems to be brought up often without factual documentation.
__________________
My first was a Mac+. Now I own an iPhone with 3.5x the pixels, a colour display, WiFi, 512x the RAM, >1500x the data storage, and 100x the speed. And it fits in the palm of my hand.
VulchR is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2013, 10:00 AM   #18
SwiftLives
macrumors Demi-God
 
SwiftLives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Charleston, SC
Send a message via AIM to SwiftLives
Quote:
Originally Posted by VulchR View Post
I think Bush favored war out of paranoia and poor intelligence (both in terms of IQ and in terms CIA etc.). I do not know what to make of Blair's actions. At the time it seemed to me that he was acting in concert with the US to prevent a US/Europe split (hence the spin in the September dossier, which made it sounds like there was definite evidence). Now I am not so sure. The UK lost 67 people in 9/11, whereas the other countries on the Security Council who vetoed the resolution specifically mandating war lost only 1-3 each. 9/11 caused the biggest loss of British life of any terrorist attack. Maybe it got to Blair. Maybe it was a genuine failure of the intelligence services. Maybe the cynics are right it this was all for the oil (but why not invade Saudi Arabia because of the Bin Laden connection or Iran because of its state sponsored terrorism?), but I have seen less hard evidence that this has allowed us to control oil than I have about WMD. I am not saying the evidence doesn't exist, just that the idea that it was for oil seems to be brought up often without factual documentation.
I think Bush favored war to bankrupt the country so that 10 years later, his party could make a much more compelling argument that we should cut back on the government services his party so very much dislikes.

But that's just an overly cynical view. Not based on any facts.
SwiftLives is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2013, 11:04 AM   #19
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwiftLives View Post
I think Bush favored war to bankrupt the country so that 10 years later, his party could make a much more compelling argument that we should cut back on the government services his party so very much dislikes.

But that's just an overly cynical view. Not based on any facts.
Remember also, Saddam threatened to kill dad, W had a score to settle.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   3 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:32 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC