While I'm working on the post that will discuss experimental results regarding the intellicentric vs. my emotion-centric paradigm, I saw this (Courtesy of
Daily Kos: ) which I thought worth noting to anyone following this discussion:
Anne Kornblut wrote a column in the NYT for today titled:
Quote:
Clinton, in Arkansas, Says Democrats Are 'Wasting Time'
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, returning to her red-state ties, chastised Democrats Saturday for taking on issues that arouse conservatives and turn out Republican voters rather than finding consensus on mainstream subjects.
Without mentioning specific subjects like gay marriage, Mrs. Clinton said: "We do things that are controversial. We do things that try to inflame their base."
|
However, Clinton was actually chastizing the Republican controlled Senate. Clinton actually said,
Quote:
Wouldn't this be a good agenda for America: safeguard America's pensions; good jobs for Americans; make college affordable for all; protect America and our military families; prepare for future disasters; make America energy independent; make small business and healthcare affordable, invest in life saving science; and protect our air, land, and water.
You know, Blanche Lincoln has a bill to make healthcare affordable for small business, I have a bill I was talking to you about with respect to energy independence, we have legislation sitting in the Senate to address these problems.
But with the Republican majority, that's not their priority. So we do other things, we do things that are controversial, we do things that try to inflame their base so that they can turn people out and vote for their candidates. I think we are wasting time, we are wasting lives, we need to get back to making America work again, in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way."
|
I highlight this as an example of emotions not only directing our concusions - but to show that they can do so by subtly editing our perceptions, the data that we reference when forming a conclusion. I don't believe Anne Kornblut intended to deceive her readers. She read Clinton's words and to her they meant what she already believed them to mean before she started reading them - or perhaps what she wished they meant while she was reading them. In any case, from that point on I'm sure her conclusions just rolled off her word processor.
I think we all are subject to this type of editing-the-data error. This is a good example of how smart persons can do very illogical things. Of course, this doesn't prove that her emotions caused this. However, Kornblut has revealed her animosity (negative emotions) for Democratic pols in the past - so it seems likely that these emotions emanate from somewhere in her identity belief zone. It's quite an obvious and serious error in any case.
Added on edit: I now see that many far left blogs are piling on to Clinton in agreement with Anne Korblut. I never claimed that irrational emotion-based behavior decisions were the exclusive domain of the far right. In fact some here might note that my premise is that everyone does this.
My premise however, is more subtle than that. I have also asserted that different persons have different identity beliefs. In some persons, (especially some scientists) their identity beliefs include a strong respect for rationality - they have developed a bias against the use of strong emotions in their own personal and professional behavior decisions.
That's not an easy path to follow in life but some have seen (reasoned) that there is great value in that for both themselves and the the society they live in. They have purposely weighted that approach to life with positive emotions - and they consciously try to pursue that process in their lives by following those beneficial personal values they have adopted.
Anyone who can pursue the path of reason in these contentious, emotion-filled political times - deserves my admiration.
Margaret