It seems the graph is missing from my original post I don't want to get involved in the global warming discussion, but I am a bit curious about what the posters think about pollution. That is undeniably real, yes? Why is that never brought up when discussion these issues? Regardless, the point of the article wasn't really to discuss global warming, it was to show that humanity is doomed. We are not only terrible at assessing our own competence, but equally incapable of assessing the competence of others. This comes as no surprise, of course, but it is still very depressing reading. I guess Mike Judge got it right with his "Idiocracy", or is there still hope for Thomas Jefferson's "Natural Aristocracy" to rise? http://www.livescience.com/18706-people-smart-democracy.html People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies. The research, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments. As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. On top of that, "very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people donât have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is," Dunning told Life's Little Mysteries. He and colleague Justin Kruger, formerly of Cornell and now of New York University, have demonstrated again and again that people are self-delusional when it comes to their own intellectual skills. Whether the researchers are testing people's ability to rate the funniness of jokes, the correctness of grammar, or even their own performance in a game of chess, the duo has found that people always assess their own performance as "above average" â even people who, when tested, actually perform at the very bottom of the pile. [Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It] We're just as undiscerning about the skills of others as about ourselves. "To the extent that you are incompetent, you are a worse judge of incompetence in other people," Dunning said. In one study, the researchers asked students to grade quizzes that tested for grammar skill. "We found that students who had done worse on the test itself gave more inaccurate grades to other students." Essentially, they didn't recognize the correct answer even when they saw it. The reason for this disconnect is simple: "If you have gaps in your knowledge in a given area, then youâre not in a position to assess your own gaps or the gaps of others," Dunning said. Strangely though, in these experiments, people tend to readily and accurately agree on who the worst performers are, while failing to recognize the best performers. The most incompetent among us serve as canaries in the coal mine signifying a larger quandary in the concept of democracy; truly ignorant people may be the worst judges of candidates and ideas, Dunning said, but we all suffer from a degree of blindness stemming from our own personal lack of expertise. Mato Nagel, a sociologist in Germany, recently implemented Dunning and Kruger's theories by computer-simulating a democratic election. In his mathematical model of the election, he assumed that voters' own leadership skills were distributed on a bell curve â some were really good leaders, some, really bad, but most were mediocre â and that each voter was incapable of recognizing the leadership skills of a political candidate as being better than his or her own. When such an election was simulated, candidates whose leadership skills were only slightly better than average always won. Nagel concluded that democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders."
As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. ----------------------------- Suppose the voters just choose a side then pick apart the oppositions values. What's to evaluate? Perhaps the process is the problem. We are not evaluating a new Democrat.
I was an environmental science student at that time. There was no serious extensive talk about the ice "age" and it was something that was made a big deal of by the media when in fact it was just one small theory that had no widespread support. Certainly no comparison to today's consensus on AGW. But continue to bury your head in the sand. You conservatives are excellent at it.
You are obviously ignorant about the science of AGW. And you don't want to know. Continue to stick your head in the sand and toe the party line.
so it was just a sort of a "little" giant embarrassment as opposed to a really big one.. that "consensus" thingy, is that out of Saul Alinksy's playbook, the part where you act like there are a lot of you and you really mean business? [this time]..
You don't understand, it was nothing of any import. It's been played up by the deniers but really it was nothing. Climatologists looked at the theory but it was not accepted. But you don't want to learn. You want to protect your ego. You won't believe no matter what. The fact that ALL THE WORLD'S SCIENCE ORGANIZATIONS believe it matters nothing to you. Because you and your righty denier friends are deluded fools of the highest order.
I see you are still at it. I've cleared my ignore list so I suppose I'll have to read these posts of yours for the time being. Absolute declarations accompanied by unjustified certitude followed by personal insults. I feel sorry for you. Such anger and embitterment isn't something I experience in my life. I've had such a long track record of technical successes there is no reason for me to be troubled by anything that pseudo-scientists say through their clenched teeth or gesticulatons made with their clenched fists. I think you're going to develop hypertension but I'm no medical doctor and could certainly be wrong.
I trail-run six miles every other day, hypertension is not a problem. But thank you for your concern. I think you may exactly fit this demographic... ""The result was stunning and alarming. The standard view that knowing more science, or being better at mathematical reasoning, ought to make you more accepting of mainstream climate science simply crashed and burned. Instead, here was the result. If you were already part of a cultural group predisposed to distrust climate scienceâe.g., a political conservative or âhierarchical-individualistââthen more science knowledge and more skill in mathematical reasoning tended to make you even more dismissive. Precisely the opposite happened with the other groupââegalitarian-communitariansâ or liberalsâwho tended to worry more as they knew more science and math. The result was that, overall, more scientific literacy and mathematical ability led to greater political polarization over climate changeâwhich, of course, is precisely what we see in the polls. So much for education serving as an antidote to politically biased reasoning. What accounts for this effect? For one thing, well-informed or well-educated conservatives probably consume more conservative news and opinion, such as by watching Fox News. Thus, they are more likely to know what theyâre supposed to think about the issuesâwhat people like them thinkâand to be familiar with the arguments or reasons for holding these views. If challenged, they can then recall and reiterate these arguments. Theyâve made them a part of their identities, a part of their brains, and in doing so, theyâve drawn a strong emotional connection between certain âfactsâ or claims, and their deeply held political values. And theyâre ready to argue." http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/sec...arming_deniers/
Fox News lol. I've mentioned that I don't watch them but don't let that deter you. You've got an obsession and frankly it just isn't my problem. I'm at my desk because I've got a solar array degradation algorithm problem to solve by Monday so I'm reading ET and the Mathworks newsgroup and writing a note to an old gf while the runs process, making a few changes and then running the data set again. The tv is on in the background with Three Days of the Condor. My dogs are napping at my feet. Its supposed to start snowing in a few hours. I'm simply not troubled by anything you write. Why should I be? You and I aren't even the same species intellectually. I don't think we have anything in common socially. You have every right to type anything you like into posts in P&R. Its just not something that I'm going to expend any energy on. What I'll offer is that your anger is off-putting and I don't think it helps you convince anyone of anything, assuming that is your goal. It isn't clear what you want. Do you want people to post their profound agreement with your views? Do you want them to compliment you? What is it that you are after? You seem to want something, can you elucidate what that something is? The very topic of this thread is about you futurecurrents. You are supplying an example of what is being discussed. Are you unable to see that?
The periphery of psychosis does start with ideations inconsistent with reality.....if they manage to take over the individuals day to day activities, then an MD is likely to give a diagnosis of psychosis.