arguments of nothing

fact don't matter

psychologically

As usual, the lack of intellectual skepticism or cognitive dissonance in our population is not surprising, but remains a serious challenge.

I did find amusing the abnormally large percentage of NPR/PBS news followers who actually realized that Saddam has no credible links to Al Qaeda, while the bulk of the population, or at least significant minorities who followed other news media were convinced (despite there being no reason for this strange bedfellows association). A simple question, why would he do that, would have sufficed to put it to bed until some shred of evidence was used to support it. There has been no evidence, and the point was quietly abandoned after Saddam's trial/execution (during which time nobody bothered to publicly inquire if he was working with bin Laden or his surrogates).

So basically, as I'm fond of pointing out when I do a study on a divided issue, the facts are parsed and truth is ignored. Only previously held ideological points matter to most people. I usually try to side with the side that uses less deceptive tactics or fewer baldfaced lies to make their case. Truth doesn't need desperation in its defence.

The second article has several points of use. Those familiar with the laws of human stupidity will not be surprised. The interesting kicker (again, not surprising to those acquainted) is that intelligence has some flaws of assessment.
Basically, idiots aren't bright enough to realize they are incompetent. And generally do not know enough to judge the characteristics of the people who are competent. Consequently I find it very easy to recognize the behavioral patterns of idiots and seek to avoid them. The key issue is that intelligent people, considered competent for the purposes of the study, tend to presume that other people are at least marginally as competent as they are and tend to underestimate the level of incompetence. Which naturally presents problems when tasks are delegated by competent people to incompetent ones, where the competence of each is not known or assessed. This means that the likelihood of picking incompetent leaders is heightened by a basic assumption on the part of intelligent, competent, political independents that someone running for public office must be at least marginally qualified. The ideological factors involved basically already create affirmation biases on the part of the rest, whose votes are easily cataloged on the basis of their voter affiliations. There are exceptions but these are largely made up of people who have significant research on particular topics and reach conclusions that are outside the norms of their political party (such Democratic economists and their views on trade or Republican ones and their views on drugs). In other words, there are required levels of competence needed to overcome ideological bias in the first place. If we appropriately assume a fixed ratio of incompetence, then the inevitable conclusion is that there are significant numbers of people whose opinions are based on zero factual evidence, at least as high as 50% on any given issue.

That article essentially reached the same conclusions as the book on Presidential rankings I recently read. That certainty is distinct from vision, and that intellectual curiosity, the need for advice from people much more skilled in specific arenas of public policy, and the ability to flexibly manage these advisers by selecting those most competent, is far more important than most of the silly things the media reports on, even most factual matters. We don't want certainty, we want someone who can both lead and react. There should be an idea, some clear vision of where we want to go, but the President should be able to flexibly define how to get there by using good advice. This is something we should have been able to observe from the previous 8 years. So basically, for those who haven't made up their minds, the best idea is to vote for the guy who seems least certain and most willing to proclaim their ignorance on some particular topic (but who still has some idea where to go).