US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

Dunning-Kruger called and disagrees with this assessment.

Wouldn’t that not apply? Because in wisko’s scenario it doesn’t leave it up to the person to assess their own intelligence. It assumes the not smart person never reaches that conclusion.

Actually nm. I’m dumb.

[Kepler]

Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

Dunning-Kruger called and disagrees with this assessment.

Not really. D-K only says stupid people are so stupid they don't know they're stupid. AFAIK, it doesn't say anything about smart people.

I recognize that smart people are less likely to make intellectual commitments because they recognize the flaws in their perception and the multivariate nature of reality. But I would not be at all surprised if once we commit we stay committed despite meeting contrary personal opinions. That behavior would make statistical sense even given the higher recognition of fallibility by the smart. When a smart person meets somebody who disagrees with them the odds are pretty good the disagreeing person just hasn't processed the available information as well.

OTOH, when confronted with a recognized authority such as peer review, a smart person is hopefully much more likely to be deferential to that authority over their own opinion than a stupid person (e.g., climate change denial by the stupid).

The scary thing about Milgram was even smart people vested a lab coat with authority. That was disappointing. It may well have changed since then, though, since one of the hallmarks of intelligence stressed in the culture of liberalism ever since has been a high skepticism towards mere symbols of authority (churches, banks, uniforms, flags, etc).

[Slap Shot]

Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

"The Rising Sun" by John Toland is one source.

Any specific passages?

During my delving into the subject years ago my recollections of the Japanese treatment of POWs had more to do with their views that surrender was dishonorable and justifiably punishable (Bushido code), and that such treatment didn't begin with WWII but goes back to the 1930s at least. Their own military recruits were subjected to brutality by their own superiors.

Also see Horror of the East by Laurence Rees. He posited that their brutality was partly based upon context in which they themselves were living in a brutal and repressive culture, but also that they drew inspiration from Hilter and Stalin. The Japanese absolutely butchered their enemies and slaughtered even babies everyplace they conquered - especially the Chinese in 1937 which saw them resort to murder, rape, looting and using Chinese civilians for bayonet practice.

I also suggest you study up on the influence of the Shinto religion and finally the fact the Japanese were monumentally racist and viewed Americans as extremely beneath them. Also look up Toshio Tono and Kyushu University experiments.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

Not really. D-K only says stupid people are so stupid they don't know they're stupid. AFAIK, it doesn't say anything about smart people.

I recognize that smart people are less likely to make intellectual commitments because they recognize the flaws in their perception and the multivariate nature of reality. But I would not be at all surprised if once we commit we stay committed despite meeting contrary personal opinions. That behavior would make statistical sense even given the higher recognition of fallibility by the smart. When a smart person meets somebody who disagrees with them the odds are pretty good the disagreeing person just hasn't processed the available information as well.

OTOH, when confronted with a recognized authority such as peer review, a smart person is hopefully much more likely to be deferential to that authority over their own opinion than a stupid person (e.g., climate change denial by the stupid).

The scary thing about Milgram was even smart people vested a lab coat with authority. That was disappointing. It may well have changed since then, though, since one of the hallmarks of intelligence stressed in the culture of liberalism ever since has been a high skepticism towards mere symbols of authority (churches, banks, uniforms, flags, etc).

Regarding smart people, from my observations, I think your take is generally correct. I'd add that smart people aren't necessarily harder to sell in the first place, in fact they are often easier as they are quicker to comprehend the benefits the seller is explaining. And maximizing perceived benefit is half of the equation.

The thing that strikes me about Milgram isn't solely it's application regarding authority though. I see it in it's entirety as a rather diabolical sales job. Among other things, it does use our ingrained deference to authority against us (It's not just a lab coat after all, it's a (recognized) Yale lab coat. In Yale University labs. A place where quite obviously, people aren't just running around torturing other people for no reason.) but I don't think that authority is the only lever that can be used successfully at all.

Previously, in passing, I touched on my thought about who would in fact be immune to the experiment and mentioned the Dalai Lama (Big Hitter, the Dalai...) and John Wayne (meaning the character). The Dalai is like the Gretzky of moral and ethical questions in that he has literally trained his whole life to confront such dilemmas as are presented here. This experiment all happens in real time, subjects aren't given the opportunity to sit and ruminate on the moral/ethical considerations, rather they have to act one way or the other right now. All that training makes the Dalai a good candidate for success, as eliciting the true nature of the situation is probably by now fairly automatic.

In thinking about it just now I rejected the John Wayne character (fiercely independent, strong moral/ethical code) in favor of Joe Strummer of the Clash (strongly anti-authority). But now I reconsider again. The problem with Joe Strummer is what if I simply reconstructed the experiment and put the lab coat guy in the electric chair? Joe's defense (against authority) is no longer a defense, but works against him. I guess I'm back to John Wayne again, Pilgrim.

The fact that I'm falling back on only one short Asian man with a great golf swing and a fictional character with a limp points me toward a conclusion: We're all susceptible. And that's what is frightening.

Suppose Milgram was kept secret so that we are unaware that it works. But tomorrow I reconstructed it, only this time I put a black man on the wires and used only white volunteers? Or put a MAGA-hat-wearin'-Bubba on the chair and used only liberal elites to push the buttons? Or reversed all these? Milgram points out that all these scenarios would likely have the same (shocking) result, naturally confirming what we all already knew --> They are monsters!

Perhaps we should be heedful of some of the implications.

[Kepler]

Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

In thinking about it just now I rejected the John Wayne character (fiercely independent, strong moral/ethical code) in favor of Joe Strummer of the Clash (strongly anti-authority).

Now that's an idea for a crime fighting duo / buddy movie.

[Kepler]

Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

From the War Nerd:

Today you see another feature of Anglosphere Palestine coverage: instant disappearance of the story. Nothing about Gaza on the BBC homepage. Admittedly it's been a big day in other news. How can you dwell on 2800 dead & wounded when you have "Meghan Markle's Dad to Miss Wedding"?

[GrinCDXX]

Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

Obese dip**** gets played by obese tyrant.

So. Much. Winning.

[mookie1995]

Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

nothing beats bbc radio.

this morning's top stories included

.... new us ambassador to Germany giving an interview encouraging right wing parties across Europe.
.... new us secstate asking the Chinese to account for all people arrested or killed in pro democracy rallies since 1988

[dxmnkd316]

Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

Watching the news over here and everyone is absolutely baffled by the tariffs trump is imposing on the EU. They don’t get it.

[mookie1995]

Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

Watching the news over here and everyone is absolutely baffled by the tariffs trump is imposing on the EU. They don’t get it.

beebs had a Stanford prof on yesterday who was really good. he opined that the only solution that works is somebody backs down. so let us see just who that may be

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

Remember. Rudy wanted the Secretary of State job. Bad. He felt he was the man for the job.

Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, “got back on his hands and knees and begged” for the United States to revive the Singapore summit meeting after President Trump abruptly scrapped it last month, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Rudolph W. Giuliani, said Wednesday.

The remarks by Mr. Giuliani, apparently intended to portray Mr. Trump as a tough negotiator, may have lobbed a disruptive obstacle into the salvaged meeting less than a week before it is set to happen.

The remarks could easily offend officials in North Korea, where a cultlike autocracy exalts Mr. Kim as a deity who cannot be seen as servile and weak.

“If the North Koreans needed a reason to cancel the meeting, the Americans just gave it to them,” said Evans J.R. Revere, a former State Department diplomat who specializes in North Korea.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/w...rth-korea.html

North Korea should cancel now citing Rudy's comments. Then Trump will get on his hands and knees. And round and round we go.

[Kepler]

Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

North Korea should cancel now citing Rudy's comments. Then Trump will get on his hands and knees. And round and round we go.

The two regimes are the same sort of men.

Take them all and shoot them into the sun.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

The two regimes are the same sort of men.

Take them all and shoot them into the sun.

I wonder who called Rudy after his comments and asked him on the phone, "Are you a ****ing idiot"? Cause that's what I would have asked him.

[mookie1995]

Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

Remember. Rudy wanted the Secretary of State job. Bad. He felt he was the man for the job.



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/w...rth-korea.html

North Korea should cancel now citing Rudy's comments. Then Trump will get on his hands and knees. And round and round we go.

mookie was in someone office at 9a (2am est) and saw that on bloomberg tv. did a double take.

they ain't that stupid. have to be looking for an out cause tD feels the little guy ain't giving up anything in trade.

or maybe they are that stupid

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

mookie was in someone office at 9a (2am est) and saw that on bloomberg tv. did a double take.

they ain't that stupid. have to be looking for an out cause tD feels the little guy ain't giving up anything in trade.

or maybe they are that stupid

I can't think of a single person on Earth that wouldn't consider that comment stupid. Well, maybe John Bolton and Flaggy, but other than them, no one.