Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213141516171819
Results 361 to 367 of 367

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

  1. #361
    Lucia Apologist
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    24,741

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

    Quote Originally Posted by unofan View Post
    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.
    Last edited by dxmnkd316; 05-16-2018 at 12:25 PM.

  2. #362

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Further on down the road
    Posts
    59,377

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

    Quote Originally Posted by unofan View Post
    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).
    Last edited by Kepler; 05-16-2018 at 01:21 PM.
    It's a book of our true stories
    True stories that can't be denied
    It's more than true it actually happened
    We're coming rougher every time

    Cornell University
    NCAA Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018

  3. #363
    I got nothing Slap Shot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Clark Freeport Zone, Philippines
    Posts
    29,735

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    "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.

  4. #364
    Teaching you how to Bucky.
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    A den.
    Posts
    3,587

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by WiscTJK View Post
    I'm with Wisko and Tim.
    Quote Originally Posted by Timothy A View Post
    Other than Wisko McBadgerton and Badger Bob, who is universally loved by all?

  5. #365

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Further on down the road
    Posts
    59,377

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Wisko McBadgerton View Post
    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.
    It's a book of our true stories
    True stories that can't be denied
    It's more than true it actually happened
    We're coming rougher every time

    Cornell University
    NCAA Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018

  6. #366

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Further on down the road
    Posts
    59,377

    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"?
    It's a book of our true stories
    True stories that can't be denied
    It's more than true it actually happened
    We're coming rougher every time

    Cornell University
    NCAA Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018

  7. #367
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,589

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

    Last edited by GrinCDXX; 05-22-2018 at 12:14 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •