posted
BlackBlade, Do you ever visit the other side of the board? Let's just say that people pretty routinely say far far more derogatory things about Mr. Cards opinions at this forum than what I posted. Those threads don't get locked and the posters don't get banned. Respect for Mr. Cards opinions is not part of the user agreement here and it does not appear it is something Mr. Card expects.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to strengthen the warning. I'm really sorry I ever read Uncle Orson's political essays, as it has soured my ability to enjoy his books. Now whenever some character speaks political rhetoric which before I could just take as part of the fiction, now I see it as being OSC's own didactic voice, trying to convince us of his views. Particularly because the Shadow series was so political, it spoiled my pleasure with it entirely. I haven't even read starting with Shadow Puppets.
It's a serious flaw that a whole lot of Mormon art has, in my opinion, that it becomes too explicitly didactic. My theory is that it's because we LDS focus so much on teaching ourselves and each other lessons in church and Sunday School and during our monthly visiting teaching and home teaching (all good things). We also believe in having lots of kids and teaching those kids constantly (also a good thing). So much focus on teaching, though, makes it sometimes difficult for LDS artists to drop the didacticism in their art. In my opinion, didacticism in art is always a total killer for artistic value. I don't want to be preached at in novels and paintings and music. I want it to evoke a response in me that is my own response to the honest real story itself. I don't need to be led by the nose to some pat moral. It's paternalistic and boring and off-putting when the author does that. It's not recognizing the reader's full intelligence and heart and abilities.
Had I just avoided reading any of those political essays (or, better yet, had OSC avoided writing them -- although that's obviously NOT my stewardship) I would hopefully have retained the ability to enjoy his stories, an ability that I'm deeply sad I've lost.
So you may want to consider not reading those political essays. I certainly wish I never had.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Had I just avoided reading any of those political essays (or, better yet, had OSC avoided writing them -- although that's obviously NOT my stewardship) I would hopefully have retained the ability to enjoy his stories, an ability that I'm deeply sad I've lost.
This sounds more like an issue with you than anything that Mr Card may have done. You can't enjoy things made by someone with that does not adhere to your world view? Is this true across all genres?
quote: I want it to evoke a response in me that is my own response to the honest real story itself. I don't need to be led by the nose to some pat moral. It's paternalistic and boring and off-putting when the author does that.
Again, I think you are putting your own biases into what you read as you previously stated
quote: Now whenever some character speaks political rhetoric which before I could just take as part of the fiction, now I see it as being OSC's own didactic voice, trying to convince us of his views. It's paternalistic and boring and off-putting when the author does that. It's not recognizing the reader's full intelligence and heart and abilities.
The story did provoke a real response in you that was your own response and true to the honest story you were reading but at a later date you changed your mind about what your response meant and what the honest story meant. I find it hard to believe that he is leading us all by the nose to some pat moral. If that were true, wouldn't you have noticed it instantly? Should characters in a book behave only in the ways you believe they should? I do not agree with a lot of Joss Whedon's political beliefs but that does not influence my love of a lot of his work.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This sounds more like an issue with you than anything that Mr Card may have done. You can't enjoy things made by someone with that does not adhere to your world view? Is this true across all genres?
I think you simply don't understand what Tatiana is saying. The problem isn't that I disagree with Card's political views. It is not this alone which has ruined the experience of reading his books. The problem is that after reading his political essays, it is difficult for me not to read his novels through the lens of those essays. For example, in the scene in Ender's Game where Ender kicks Stilson to death, Card shows us Ender's rational for doing such a monstrous thing. Before reading Card's essays, I thought that scene simply showed insight into the complexity of human nature and motivations. It was interesting and there were lots of thoughts it provoked and questions it raised. But after reading his commentaries on how we should deal with terrorism, I see something completely different in that scene that makes it far less enjoyable for me to read. That problem is even worse in his more recent novels that are more political in nature.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with your last point only Rabbit. Much of his older stuff I can still read with fervor and enjoyment. It's only in his most recent works that his views and opinions seem to ooze out of the stories to a off-putting degree. I admit that I regret reading some of his world watch articles (not all, but enough). Love his reviews on stuff though.
But I read such books as Lost Boys, Treason, and many of his older short stories after becoming aware of his more extreme views and I still throughly enjoyed them(without feeling bombarded with his unsavoury political rhetoric).
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trent, You are correct that my experience isn't true for all of his novels. I can't think of anything in Lost Boys or Enchantment or many others that would be colored differently because I've read his essays. But then I haven't reread those books recently either. Ender's Game is the only one I've reread in the past few years and I was saddened to find my enjoyment of the story was diminished by having read his political essays.
I will say that after my experience rereading Ender's Game, I've largely given up on reading Card. I read for pleasure and I no longer expect reading Card's books to be as pleasurable as it once was. I really wish I had never read his essays, but I have and there is no going back. If you see that as my weakness, fine but I don't think I'm particularly unique here. That's why I issued the warning.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: For example, in the scene in Ender's Game where Ender kicks Stilson to death, Card shows us Ender's rational for doing such a monstrous thing. Before reading Card's essays, I thought that scene simply showed insight into the complexity of human nature and motivations. It was interesting and there were lots of thoughts it provoked and questions it raised. But after reading his commentaries on how we should deal with terrorism, I see something completely different in that scene that makes it far less enjoyable for me to read.
Mr. Card wrote that particular passage back in the early 80's so there really is no correlation between what he wrote 30 years ago and his current essays. Again this seems like you are applying your perceptions of your current biases against something he wrote a long time ago. Your intial reaction to the passage is still one that is valid. Stilson's death and the rationalization of it still works as written as showing insights into the complexity of human nature and motivations. Some of his more recent novels are more reflective of current history but picking Ender's game is not the best example.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Trent, You are correct that my experience isn't true for all of his novels. I can't think of anything in Lost Boys or Enchantment or many others that would be colored differently because I've read his essays. But then I haven't reread those books recently either. Ender's Game is the only one I've reread in the past few years and I was saddened to find my enjoyment of the story was diminished by having read his political essays.
I will say that after my experience rereading Ender's Game, I've largely given up on reading Card. I read for pleasure and I no longer expect reading Card's books to be as pleasurable as it once was. I really wish I had never read his essays, but I have and there is no going back. If you see that as my weakness, fine but I don't think I'm particularly unique here. That's why I issued the warning.
You are not unique here. I, too, have found that I no longer enjoy reading Mr. Card's fiction after having read his essays.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Had I just avoided reading any of those political essays (or, better yet, had OSC avoided writing them -- although that's obviously NOT my stewardship) I would hopefully have retained the ability to enjoy his stories, an ability that I'm deeply sad I've lost.
This sounds more like an issue with you than anything that Mr Card may have done. You can't enjoy things made by someone with that does not adhere to your world view? Is this true across all genres?
You can't expect to get away with such a deliberate misreading of her view. She said that the didactic voice takes away from her reading of the books. Whether you agree with the views or not, this is a valid criticism of writing, not just the person writing. For instance, I generally agree with Michael Moore, but don't like his later work that much because it is so self-satisfied and personal. I agree with the worldview, and yet the writing and the art in it is off.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Trent, You are correct that my experience isn't true for all of his novels. I can't think of anything in Lost Boys or Enchantment or many others that would be colored differently because I've read his essays. But then I haven't reread those books recently either. Ender's Game is the only one I've reread in the past few years and I was saddened to find my enjoyment of the story was diminished by having read his political essays.
The most striking thing about Lost Boys, and the only really definitive thing that comes off as a "Card speaks" moment, is when the family is dealing with the medical community, and the doctor treats Step differently once Step says something that shows some knowledge of medicine. Usually OSC is pretty even handed when it comes to character motivations (with a few big exceptions, like in Empire), but in this moment he forgets himself, and his personal need for vindication seems to overwhelm his ability to stay in the context. I have read that this encounter is autobiographical, and taking OSC's attitude from Step's I can see quite clearly that OSC handled the situation badly, and doesn't really know it.
Now, that's all based on what he's written, which one might expect to favor his viewpoint, but perhaps he does have room in that story for the reader to find step unreasonable? In that particular book, the paranoia and obsessiveness of the whole family, especially the parents, is interesting. I do think it's possible that it is a self-criticism or at least a bit of self-reflection from OSC, showing the reader some of the negative attitudes that he or other Mormons have, and how that isolation from others effects them.
If one's reading takes Step's attitudes strictly as reflections of OSC's own, then it is an interesting but damning self portrayal. I have always found it a little hard to believe that OSC finds the family to be entirely reasonable.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You can't expect to get away with such a deliberate misreading of her view. She said that the didactic voice takes away from her reading of the books. Whether you agree with the views or not, this is a valid criticism of writing, not just the person writing.
I believe she stated that she enjoyed the book and found no issue with EG until after she read Mr. Card's essays. After she read the essays she found EG to be didatic. Her opinion, that he is using a didatic voice, changed after she learned more about the author's personal beliefs. Had she been unaware of his beliefs she would not think EG is didatic. I was not trying to get away with anything. I am merely pointing out that she did not believe EG was anything but a good work of fiction until she found that she dislikes some of Mr. Card's beliefs.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mr. Card wrote that particular passage back in the early 80's so there really is no correlation between what he wrote 30 years ago and his current essays.
I disagree. In an essay on Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama, Mr. Card made the argument that by the time people are 21 or 22, their ways of thinking and approach to reasoning are established for life. While I think that's unlikely to be true of all people, I think the fact that he makes that claim suggests it is largely true for him. Mr. Card was more or less the same person 30 years ago. His views on particular issues have certainly evolved, but his way of thinking about the issues is largely the same.
My problem isn't that I think Mr. Card was making a statement about Al Qaeda in Ender's Game. My problem is that when I read that scene now, I see Ender using the same basic rational for kicking Stilson to death that Card has used in his essays on terrorism. Before I read Card's essay, that particular interpretation of the scene would never have crossed my mind but now I can't keep it from crossing my mind and it spoils the experience.
Its like an art show I was at some years back. There was one particular abstract painting that I liked because of the striking combination of colors. Then one of my friends said "I think its a vagina", after that comment I simply couldn't look at the painting the same way as I had before. I still don't know if that was the painters intent, it certainly wasn't an interpretation I would have come up with on my own. Nevertheless, I simply couldn't enjoy the painting after the comment was made because it permanently altered the way I looked at the painting.
Its not really an issue of unfair bias or some sort of prejudice I hold against Mr. Card because of his essays. The issue is one of context. Because I have read Mr. Card's essays, they have become part of the context I cannot escape when I read his books. Therefore, I wish I hadn't read the essays.
[ January 23, 2009, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first time I read the later Ender books (Xenocide), I was slightly annoyed by his portrayal of the scientists and science. I kinda ignored it though and thought, well, he isn't a scientist. Reading his articles and the basic contempt he seems to have for scientists, I can't stand the books now.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't this just hatrack. It started off as thread about Obama's inaugural address, immediately veered off to discuss big vs small government, then swerved into a discussion of ends vs means and now somehow its become a discussion of how OSC essays influence our reading.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As soon as by one's own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one's own right is laid.
Taken by itself, out of context there are several different things one could rationally intuit from the words.
Once you know even a little context, only who spoke the words and where that person stood, only one possible interpretation remains.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In [Lost Boys], the paranoia and obsessiveness of the whole family, especially the parents, is interesting. I do think it's possible that it is a self-criticism or at least a bit of self-reflection from OSC, showing the reader some of the negative attitudes that he or other Mormons have, and how that isolation from others effects them.
If one's reading takes Step's attitudes strictly as reflections of OSC's own, then it is an interesting but damning self portrayal. I have always found it a little hard to believe that OSC finds the family to be entirely reasonable.
I've seen this from you before, I think. The theory that Card is isolated from the world and it makes him weird and obtuse. The fact that you think the portrayal of the family in Lost Boys to be damning in any way is really very strange to me, and I suspect that you're viewing it through a lens already bent toward negative judgment. Let me put it this way: Step was a totally decent and normal character. There's nothing damning about it.
Personally I think your theory is bunk. Card deals with people in business, in every day life, and in his travels that are not just like him. He's not a hermit.
He is opinionated, and often wrong. I don't agree with a lot of what he says. But he understands human nature well enough to be a successful storyteller. Someone with the twisted, microcosmic worldview you imagine he is limited to would not be able to write about Path, or Capitol.
I think YOU are guilty of bending the truth to fit a preconceived interpretation.
I would be very interested to see specific examples of things from Lost Boys that you think demonstrate a family that isn't "reasonable" in some way that is specific to Card or the subculture(s) he inhabits.
I also want to respond to the specific example that Rabbit offered from EG. If Card at some level considers the "war on terror" to be analogous to Ender's fight with Stilson, he still recognizes the tragedy inherent in both the deaths of children and in the monstrous ruthlessness of someone like Ender. Ender spent decades repenting for what he did; OSC doesn't just give it a pass. I don't see what makes the story of Ender - bred for a purpose, used and manipulated, never comforted or helped by those responsible - so unpalatable.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I really really need to meet you in person some day Tatiana.
You hit my sentiments exactly.
If this was the disappointment you were talking about, I'd probably withdraw my original objection. But that might make me a hypocrite, so I'm still thinking about it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't think of anything in Lost Boys or Enchantment or many others that would be colored differently because I've read his essays.
Enchantment, while being one of my favorite books, contains one of my least favorite passages in anything I've read.
Paraphrasing since I am at work (though I think its pretty close to the actual text):
Ruth and Ivan find that both are virgins, and discover that despite many young people who claim to have had sex and are liars, pretty much everyone else they know is also virgin, with the exception of a small number of "human mattresses".
Being that Ruth and Ivan were teenagers from upstate NY (and a suburb of Syracuse), and that I myself was a teenager from upstate NY (living in a different suburb of Syracuse) when reading this, the line sat very poorly with me.
The story wasn't set in an obviously fictional America were teenagers don't have sex (like some idealized portrayals of the 50s). The line may or may not be true for a high school in Utah, I couldn't say, but it's very out of place in the mind of a teenager from NY.
The labeling of "human mattresses" for sexually active teens was especially jarring for me, since while I knew lots of teenagers who chose not to have sex, very few would harbor such an uncharitable view of those that do.
I bring this line up about once a year on these boards, since it bothered me that much. Some old timers with good memories are probably sick of me ranting about it . I haven't read the book in a few years though, so I wonder if I'm even remembering it as correctly as I think I am.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Add me to the list of people who have a harder time enjoying Card now that we're familiar with his political views.
We are not trying to convince people Card's views are terrible. We're trying to warn people about a bad experience that we ourselves have had. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
There's a pretty strong correlation between being liberal and having Card's essays make you sad. I don't even remember whether the original poster was liberal or not, but it's a worthwhile warning.
Edited because I accidentally listed the wrong name. My bad.
[ January 23, 2009, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I really really need to meet you in person some day Tatiana.
You hit my sentiments exactly.
That'll be easy! We just hold a huge convention of all the LDS female engineers, get our respective employers to pay for the trip, and then we'll be the only two participants. I think the Bahamas might be nice, or how about Cancun? If you're tired of gorgeous tropical places we could do Paris or London, I suppose. Just let me know. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dark Knight, The Rabbit is right that you've completely misunderstood my point. I'm sorry I didn't state it more clearly.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sound great Tatiana, II do know at least one other LDS female engineer, we'll have to invite her too.
I live in the tropics and I was in London last year so I'd favor Paris. Its been several years since I was in Paris.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: BlackBlade, Do you ever visit the other side of the board? Let's just say that people pretty routinely say far far more derogatory things about Mr. Cards opinions at this forum than what I posted. Those threads don't get locked and the posters don't get banned. Respect for Mr. Cards opinions is not part of the user agreement here and it does not appear it is something Mr. Card expects.
Yes I do, did you see the open letter to the forum I posted about it?
posted
Originally posted by Tresopax ------------------------------- What we want government to do is usually far more than it should do - for the simple reason that we often want things that aren't actually good for us or that aren't worth the costs.
Thus, I think it is fair to say that our government should be smaller than a government that does whatever we want it to do --------------------------------
I agree with this. I think the bottom line with governments is people expect too much. The government is expected to do More and more every year.
I equate the Nation to a family. The kids are always going to want what they can't or shouldn't get. In the same analogy, what child who is given everything in life is really better off than the child who is expected to labor and fight for what he gets.
Politically, average Joe Q. Public is just a child- wanting and demanding what he either shouldn't or can't really have. The bigger the government, the more capable big daddy is, and therefore the less capable the average person will be. I think this is a sure-fire way to draw stronger lines between working classes.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
------------------------------- <Originally posted by ChristineChristine>
I'm with Rabbit on this one. There is no perfect government, but ours is pretty darn good. The will of the majority may not always be in our best interests but the only real alternative is to allow for the will of the minority and I'm afraid that's worse. -------------------------------
This is absolutely true <in my opinion>! We have the best working government in the entire world. It's no wonder why our government is always so scrutinized by other world nations. They are both admiring us, and looking for flaws. Did you see all the world's pirana devouring the problems we had over this conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan and with President Bush?
Posts: 18 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Let me put it this way: Step was a totally decent and normal character.
Which is a subjective judgment. I think the character is so obsessed with righteousness, that he seems to be totally oblivious to how he deals with others. His constant victim mentality was not healthy, and he alternated between aggressive vindictiveness and self-victimization. I'm not going to argue that he isn't a likable or good character, because he is, but he is not "totally normal." Perhaps he's a better character for having these flaws, but they are certainly there for me.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Politically, average Joe Q. Public is just a child- wanting and demanding what he either shouldn't or can't really have. The bigger the government, the more capable big daddy is, and therefore the less capable the average person will be. I think this is a sure-fire way to draw stronger lines between working classes. [/QB]
Whereas I think that the public is made up of adults and our government reflects the way we decide as a group of adults to organize the parts of our lives that affect one another.
I can't tell you how glad I am that our laws are set up to reflect my veiw on this rather than yours.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
DKW- Thank you for spelling out my analogy for me. I understand we are a bunch of adults, and I understand the government is set up to act on the voice of the public- working class adults.
One problem I see, something that supports my initial analogy <if you take two seconds to think about it> is there are too many uneducated voices. I hope you agree with me in that not enough people are educated on the state of the government and politics in general. The average person- good old John Q keeps himself naive or ignorant of the details that surround the important decisions, "the parts of our lives that affect one another" thanks for the quote, and instead bothers himself with going to work to support the family and watching TV or Movie entertainment. the fact the average person is naive supports that they keep themselves in a state of political pupescence or immaturity.
I assure you our laws are set up to reflect my views as I hope yours as well.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
DC, I think you fundamentally misunderstand dkw's comment. If you did, you'd recognize that it is diametrically opposed to your views and that a no government can simultaneously have laws that treat John Q public with the respect due an adult and hold that most of the public are children who don't understand what they really need.
One of the big difference between a child and uninformed adult, is that the uninformed adult can be taught and persuaded. A leader who sees the people as adults, will try to persuade the people by educating them and engaging them in the issues. A government that sees the people as mature adults, will strive for openness and work toward building a consensus.
A leader who sees the people as children, will ask the people to trust him blindly and feel free to work through lies and deception if he feels it expedient. A leader who sees the people as children will have no problem with secrecy and will work to force through his/her agenda using any means possible and with out regard to or respect for the opposition.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of the big difference between a child and uninformed adult, is that the uninformed adult can be taught and persuaded.
This isn't accurate. Children are more easily taught and persuaded than adults.
There are other differences between children and uninformed adults, so I don't think you can equate the two in government. Nevertheless, it is still true that a significant percentage of adults are uninformed, and an even more significant percentage of adults lack the wisdom, experience, and understanding to make good laws. To admit that fact is not akin to calling adults "children". Rather, it's just accepting the reality of our (and probably every) society. A large percentage of adults do not have a high school degree. Large percentages of adults lack a basic understanding of government and history, as demonstrated in studies like this. There's also plenty of adults out there, even among those who have a lot of experience, education, or knowledge, who act unethically on a regular basis. And even among the segment of adults who are ethical, knowledgable, and generally capable of making good political decisions, many of them lack the time or desire to become informed on the specifics of all the many issues that face our government every year. I suspect the number of people informed enough about economics to make sound economic policy in a national banking crisis, or the number of people who understood Iraq well enough to make a sound foreign policy towards Iraq, or the number of people who know enough about rocket science to decide whether or not NASA is ready to spent billions of dollars on a proposed trip to Mar is well under 10% of the adult population.
That's why following the public's whims is not a wise thing for government to do. And that's why the government does not function in the way The Rabbit was describing above. We have a vast bureaucracy that makes many decisions on all sorts of technical issues - and it doesn't ask for a public vote. We have a court system that is neither elected nor accountable to public opinion. We have a Federal Reserve that does not ask for the input of public opinion. We have a military that doesn't put military strategy up for a vote. We have a president who can't be kicked out of office early just because the public no longer agrees with what he's doing. We have a constitution that requires an overwhelming agreement among the people in order to be changed. In summary, we have a government that does NOT generally decide most things based on what the general population thinks is best.
We are not a democracy because the people themselves decide all the laws. We are a democracy because the power that underlies those who do make the laws and the responsibility for that power rests with the people. That is why America treats its citizens as adults rather than children. Adults are not automatically smarter or better at learning than children. But adults ARE independent and responsible for their actions in a way that children are not. We, the people, are in control of and responsible for our government - even if we don't vote on every decision made within it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This isn't accurate. Children are more easily taught and persuaded than adults.
Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently specific. While children are able to learn certain things more readily than adults, their ability to understand a line or reasoning, to comprehend long term consequences, to empathize with others, to delay gratification, and generally exercise sound judgement is not yet fully developed. While some adults its true have weaknesses in these things, they aren't weaknesses or character flaws in children. Children's brains simply aren't sufficiently well developed to understand certain things and be able to exercise good judgement. The overwhelming majority of adults are.
So when a three year old wants chocolate cake for breakfast, its very likely because their brains aren't sufficiently well developed for them to understand why healthy food is important. So after you've explained to the three year old that chocolate cake doesn't provide the nutrients they need to grow strong and health and the child is still crying "But can't I wanna eat chocolate cake", a responsible adult doesn't just give in and let the child eat nothing but cake.
But you don't treat an adult the same way. If an adult wants to eat chocolate cake for breakfast, I might give them all the latest research on why eating a a healthy breakfast is important. But once I've given them the data, I presume that an adult is capable of making their own decision. Once they are informed, I presume that if they still prefer to eat the cake for breakfast it is because for them the pleasure of eating cake outweighs any negative consequences. Because they are mature adults, I respect that they value pleasurable eating more than they value their long term health. That is their right.
And the fact that the some adults never graduate from high school, that some peoples brains never mature enough to make rational choices and that some adults still can't follow a line of reason is really irrelevant. In a democracy, it isn't necessary to persuade every single adult, only the majority. And the overwhelming majority of adults are capable of these things.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the overwhelming majority of adults are capable of, for instance, figuring out whether the Obama stimulus plan will have a helpful effect on the credit crisis. I don't even think I could do a decent job of that, and I'm a college graduate with a major in economics.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps not, but we are capable of listening to various expert opinions, looking at the qualifications of those experts, determining who seems credible to us and so forth.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I don't think the overwhelming majority of adults are capable of, for instance, figuring out whether the Obama stimulus plan will have a helpful effect on the credit crisis. I don't even think I could do a decent job of that, and I'm a college graduate with a major in economics.
Is this dependent on natural conditions, or do you believe that an overwhelming majority of adults, having been educated on the conditions of the market and the theory in practice in this situation, would still be unable to parse the long term consequences of the plan?
I would argue this is not a great leaping-off point, as I have been educating myself on this crisis, and have come across too many expert opinions that say, essentially, the outcome is too difficult to predict with good accuracy. Long term economic variables may actually be too complex for humans to analyze effectively.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I don't think the overwhelming majority of adults are capable of, for instance, figuring out whether the Obama stimulus plan will have a helpful effect on the credit crisis. I don't even think I could do a decent job of that, and I'm a college graduate with a major in economics.
Is this dependent on natural conditions, or do you believe that an overwhelming majority of adults, having been educated on the conditions of the market and the theory in practice in this situation, would still be unable to parse the long term consequences of the plan?
He didn't say that they couldn't understand the general "long-term consequences" - he said they couldn't "figure out whether the Obama stimulus plan will have a helpful effect on the credit crisis".
And no, I don't think the majority of adults can correctly figure that out (where "that" means the likely effects of the Obama stimulus plan), even with education. Unless you think the majority of adults are capable of earning a ph.d in economics with a specialization in macroeconomics? Most adults are, frankly, not capable of the mathematics required to understand this field. It's very, very hard stuff.
Even with a year of ph.d level macroeconomics under my belt, I can't get close to truly understanding the likely effects (altho, I hate macroeconomics and have tried to purge my brain of it). At best, I can give you a very general overview of what the likely outcomes will be, and - probably more importantly - I can evaluate professional macroeconomists' arguments about the issue.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Perhaps not, but we are capable of listening to various expert opinions, looking at the qualifications of those experts, determining who seems credible to us and so forth.
I'm sorry, but the general public is not capable of understanding the nuances of the arguments that professional economists, for example, present to each other. And while you can certainly decide who seems to be credible to you, your opinion on that matter is not credible.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry, but the general public is not capable of understanding the nuances of the arguments that professional economists, for example, present to each other. And while you can certainly decide who seems to be credible to you, your opinion on that matter is not credible.
But that doesn't mean anything. What matters is if the general public can listen to the experts as well as the elected officials can. Senators don't have a PhD in economics with a macro-economics concentration either. They listen to the experts, just like the general public does (or at least should).
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Perhaps not, but we are capable of listening to various expert opinions, looking at the qualifications of those experts, determining who seems credible to us and so forth.
I'm sorry, but the general public is not capable of understanding the nuances of the arguments that professional economists, for example, present to each other. And while you can certainly decide who seems to be credible to you, your opinion on that matter is not credible.
That's why there's such a thing as consensus among experts.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xavier - there's a reason why the Federal Reserve was set-in in such a way that the economists there had some free reign from the legislature. I don't believe that Senators are good at economics either.
Juxtapose - we're currently in the long tail of economic scenarios, which means there isn't much data on past occurrences. Which means there isn't much consensus beyond the basics among experts. This problem is part of the reason I hate macroeconomics - the models are too broad and the data too scarce to deal with events like today's economic crises. It's difficult to be scientific when you have a bunch of rare variables interacting in a system that's difficult to accurately model.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forgive me, but if even the pros have little understanding of the situation beyond the basics, what does it matter that the general population doesn't either? The whole thing seems like a wash.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say that there was little understanding, just that there wasn't consensus among the researchers - which is a very common occurrence in the sciences when you have little data on a subject that hasn't been studied in great depth. Think of how many medical studies there are which have shown different results on things like developing food allergies or the positive/negative effects of different types of nutrition. And there are literally billions of test subjects these medical researchers could be studying. There's only one global economy, and only one US economy for macroeconomists to consider. You can't run a randomized experiment or test outlier situations with data constraints like that
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Xavier - there's a reason why the Federal Reserve was set-in in such a way that the economists there had some free reign from the legislature. I don't believe that Senators are good at economics either.
I think, then, that we've drifted off of the original subject of debate in this chain. The original debate was whether we elected officials to make our decisions for us because the general public lacks the capability to make them ourselves.
If the elected officials don't have the capability either, I don't see how this is relevant to the point.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The original subject was whether officials in government should make decisions for us because the general public lacks the capability to make good decisions ourselves about the issues that face government. Elected officials are one group of individuals in government who make those decisions. Appointed or hired experts are another group of individuals in government who make decisions. In the case of the current banking crisis, most of the decision making so far has been done by unelected experts - ranging from members of the Fed to officials at the Treasury.
A system in which elected officials simply voted on every decision to be made would not be much better than a purely democratic system where people were polled on every decision. Our government is effective because it has many different groups (some elected representatives, some civil servants, some appointed experts, along with the general public) who serve as checks against one another. It's a system that often doesn't give the people what they want (for instance, the auto industry got a bailout even though the majority of the public was against it and Congress voted against it), but it's a system that tends to create pretty good public policy without allowing any single group to consolidate all the power.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the average citizen can become informed enough to have a good opinion as to whether elected officials are making good* decisions or appointing people who will make good decisions.
*whatever that citizen's definition of "good" is.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that the average citizen can become informed enough to have a good opinion as to whether elected officials are making good* decisions or appointing people who will make good decisions.
*whatever that citizen's definition of "good" is.
If you listen real close, you can hear the hearts of innumerable populists break at the difference between can and does or will.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have much to add on this topic, since Tresopax has been stating more or less how I feel. _______________________________ originally published by Orinoco: "or do you believe that an overwhelming majority of adults, having been educated on the conditions of the market and the theory in practice" ________________________________
I'm not sure where you live, or who you interact with, but the overwhelming majority of adults have NOT been educated on the conditions of the market and the theory in practic.
Xavier- You're right, the general public SHOULD listen to the experts, but I say the general public should take a more active role in their political education and the government as a whole.
Rabbit- I'm not suggesting adults are being treated as children by the government, I'm suggesting precisely what Tresopax has so eloquently explained just above. In short, a "large percentage of adults lack a basic understanding of government and history." A point you brought up that suppports the ideas both Tresopax and I eluded to, that government should not base decisions on the general public, is the general public, or the concensus of the general public might very well be content eating cake for breakfast. They aren't smart enough to do the right thing because of want and desire. In some cases, knowing the consequences and choosing to accept those consequences or in some cases, the possibility of those consequences isn't acceptible. Not everything in life is an absolute, and I think too many people bank on the possibility- especially when it comes to unethical behaviors.
What this section of ideology is missing is that the general concensus is getting biased information. The influence of the media puts a spin to everything, and I fear the general public is romanced along with the rest of the fat and happy, cake-eating adults on the merry go round.
Something else you said that bothered me:
_________________________________ Originally posted by Rabbit: "A leader who sees the people as children will have no problem with secrecy and will work to force through his/her agenda using any means possible and with out regard to or respect for the opposition." _________________________________
This scares me because I feel based on how incapable the general public is, how they are uneducated, and not properly informed with the content of the big decisions pertaining to our government, I fear there are leaders today who might try just what you suggest- "work to force through his/her agenda using any means possible." I think such leaders exist today, and worry the general public will not be ready for them.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. I haven't read the book in a few years though, so I wonder if I'm even remembering it as correctly as I think I am.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
