--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 2. Mistakes matter, but only some of them. Probably the worst mistake > in the Democratic primary debates was Hillary's famous non-answer to a > question about drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants. But it > wasn't a big mistake because people care deeply about the issue. (When > is the last time you've heard driver's licenses mentioned on the > campaign trail?) It was important because it fit into a pre-exisiting > narrative about Hillary that had been developed by her opponents for > some time. Namely, that Hillary is politically calculating and > dishonest. Since it reinforced a pre-exisiting narrative it caused > Hillary immense damage and sent the campaign into a tailspin from > which it never fully recovered. > > During the next debate in Nevada, Obama was asked a similar question > about drivers licenses for illegal immigrants and gave a similarly > meandering answer. Yet, he paid no political price. The reason is > simple: no one believed at the time that Obama was dishonest or > politically calculating. So a mistake that was debilitating for > Hillary was a non-issue for Obama. >
IMO, thats the classic struggle between not be swallowed by confirmational bias (automatically seeing what conforms to your POV, not seeing that which does not ) vs. identifying patterns and themes in what one observes -- and using such as a (partial) model of how things work. Both dynamics rely on filtering and 'lenses (of varying shades). The result of each dynamic is that one tends to give to some the benefit of the doubt -- to others you give far less. How to resolve and balance the two forces stay (more so) connected to truthiness? Particularly when the effects of these forces can be multi-layered and multi-dimensional. And each prone to be used as rationalizations for and against a given proposition. For me, its the regular reassessment and reassignment of probabilities as to the truthiness of a particular perception. For example, over the past month or more, McCain has managed to erase any and all memories of his 2000 campaign -- straight talk express an all -- with his series of lying, massively distorting and manipulative ads and ploys. Every time I see a lying, short-sighted, or clueless ad by McCain -- and then him (smirking?) "I'm JM and I approve this ad" -- I cannot deny the evidence right in my face: JM is a lying, opportunistic weasal (that clearly does not put country first and all such talk is shallow attempts at manipulation and oozing hypocricy.) The evidence is so clear, and so often repeated, its hard not to assess a pattern to such behavior -- and to make an assessment of his core character. And the having identified this pattern, its natural for a degree of confirmational bias to emerge. Or is it simply a filter that cuts through the BS? If I have to assess every JM statement for truthiness, from the gitgo, I will miss the overwhelming pattern. However, having seen the pattern, does the subsequent filtering of what he says cause distortion? The debate illustrated this dilemma. I found evidence that McCain was not as shallow, opportunistic and manipulative as his ads may suggest. Hardly a saint -- or a worthy candidate IMO, but still not as one dimensional as my internal "model" would predict. Constant reassessing and reassigning probabilities as new data emerges is towards "a" solution. But perhaps only for anal analyzers such as myself. How do others deal with balancing these two dynamics: confirmational bias and pattern seeking?