Political Roundtable - Part VII

[dobrojim]

I'm sorry. Carson is scary. My impression is he is actually not very good at critical thinking.
In fact, I think he's actually pretty bad at critical thinking.

[Induveca]

I'm sorry. Carson is scary. My impression is he is actually not very good at critical thinking.
In fact, I think he's actually pretty bad at critical thinking.

Carson performed over 10,000 brain surgeries, I'd say his critical thinking is pretty solid. Many of those operations take months of analysis and preparation.

Now a politician? I share your concerns with his credentials, however it's exactly our concern that apparently is the mass appeal. The "typical" politically-savvy white male christian politician hasn't been en vogue these past two elections. That much has been firmly established.

Obama
Hillary Clinton
Carson
Trump
Fiorina
Cain
Sanders
Cruz
Rubio

And I'm sure I'm forgetting a few others.

[dobrojim]

I submit that doing neurosurgery, strange as this may sound, doesn't require the
type of critical thinking skills I'm referring to. For instance, I'm not sure how he
passed his undergrad biology courses, assuming he does have critical thinking skills,
and still be a non-believer in evolution.

Then there are things like his inability to understand relatively basic concepts
about governing like evidenced by his debacle on answering the debt ceiling question.

[popper]

Can someone please explain to me what the hell is happening in the most progressive city in America. I understand the concept of "sharing the load" but this is getting ridiculous.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-homeless-crisis-A-most-beautiful-spot-6585499.php?t=d96f615b277d4f3860&cmpid=twitter-premium#photo-8841342

[nuposse04]

I submit that doing neurosurgery, strange as this may sound, doesn't require the
type of critical thinking skills I'm referring to. For instance, I'm not sure how he
passed his undergrad biology courses, assuming he does have critical thinking skills,
and still be a non-believer in evolution.

Then there are things like his inability to understand relatively basic concepts
about governing like evidenced by his debacle on answering the debt ceiling question.

I imagine his knowledge of neuroanatomy is outstanding... I will say, neuroanatomy doesn't require nearly the amount of critical thinking as does say... pathology since the former since for me, it was a lot of memorization of pathways and landmarks as oppose the latter requires understanding the mechanism and why diseases occur. There are some parts that required understanding mechanisms in neuroanatomy but in general, just because someone is a surgeon, or hell, a medical doctor of any kind doesn't mean they are particularly intelligent (they can be, but I'm not sure they have to be together here). You just have to be a hard worker cause of the amount of content.

Also, if I remember right he was a psych major, I doubt he would have taken many courses in Biology outside the pre-med requirements.

[nate33]

just because someone is a surgeon, or hell, a medical doctor of any kind doesn't mean they are particularly intelligent (they can be, but I'm not sure they have to be together here). You just have to be a hard worker cause of the amount of content.

Nonsense.

Being a doctor is one of the most intellectually demanding professions. The kind of memory and recall necessary is way beyond the person of average IQ.



An average doctor has an IQ of about 120, which is 1.5 standard deviations above the norm. That means that roughly 7% of the population has the IQ to become an average doctor. Carson, who is a very accomplished neurosurgeon, is almost certainly in the above-average range for doctors and probably has an IQ of at least 130. That puts him among the top 2%.

[nuposse04]

just because someone is a surgeon, or hell, a medical doctor of any kind doesn't mean they are particularly intelligent (they can be, but I'm not sure they have to be together here). You just have to be a hard worker cause of the amount of content.

Nonsense.

Being a doctor is one of the most intellectually demanding professions. The kind of memory and recall necessary is way beyond the person of average IQ.



An average doctor has an IQ of about 120, which is 1.5 standard deviations above the norm. That means that roughly 7% of the population has the IQ to become an average doctor. Carson, who is a very accomplished neurosurgeon, is almost certainly in the above-average range for doctors and probably has an IQ of at least 130. That puts him among the top 2%.

Memory recall doesn't equate to critical thinking to me however. There are plenty of doctors who are accomplished that go against the grain on generally well agreed upon scientific consensuses.

Also, to be quite frank, I never took a class in the basic sciences portion of md school that was anywhere near as difficult as multivariable calculus in undergrad, and that is like a core class for math majors. When someone says "critical thinking" I think of physicists, chemists, mathematicians/statisticians and molecular/geneticists biologists. Those fields have some intensive and difficult to conceptualize content. (Especially if you are a chemistry major, I salute anyone who wants to go through that crap >.> )

Now on a whole MDs do have higher IQs and may be capable of critical thinking but undertake their field for many reasons (maybe they enjoy it, maybe they want a decent pay check compared to other scientific fields get shafted) but doesn't take away from IMO, that basic sciences isn't insurmountable in MD school. Can a "moron" do it? No, prolly not, but you don't HAVE to be on the upper end to get through.

And at the end of the day, Carson's pedigree and degree does not absolve him from taking boneheaded stance on w/e arbitrary issue he does. We are suppose to examine Carson's logic on his debates, not whether or not his opinion carries some weight cause he as a MD degree. At least, I think that is how debates ought to be approached :/

[nate33]

My smugness sense is tingling. Basically, you are arguing that Carson is incapable of "critical thinking" because he doesn't agree with you or your political platform. Sorry, but that's not going to convince me.

[nuposse04]

My smugness sense is tingling. Basically, you are arguing that Carson is incapable of "critical thinking" because he doesn't agree with you or your political platform. Sorry, but that's not going to convince me.

Oh he can prove he is capable of it but it depends on his stances on issues. For example he did say something during the last debate that WAS very intelligible IMO. When he claimed that not going into Iraq would have been the better idea and instead investing in advancing energy technologies at home would help make America independent of corrupt oil rich countries and thus ruining them... that seemed like a much more logical alternative then a useless geopolitical war that only benefited defense contractors. Of course then Rubio shot it down right after saying something... paraphrasing "we can't use intellect all the time" or something of the like.

Of course he has a whole bunch of other stances that don't exactly exude critical thinking: No abortion on rape/incest, evolution denier (he doesn't demonstrate an understanding of the biology at all in his interviews) etc. Actually it is mostly his social views that leave me skeptical of him. I don't think he is horrible on immigration... don't know enough about his reasoning for his potential fiscal policies, all I know of his is tithing thing, which is cute, but I doubt its plausibility. He seems to let his religious doctrine govern his policy making, which is a nonstarter for me.

[stevemcqueen1]

Carson definitely isn't stupid. But he does say a lot of stupid crap. He's a political neophyte with no real experience or education in public policy or history or political science or economics or law or any other discipline that might help him be a politician. He's an amateur and it shows when he proposes things that show he's startlingly ignorant of the history and role of the Geneva Conventions in international law, for example. And he's been exploited by the GoP to some extent. The party glommed onto him even though he's obviously unqualified to represent the party in a presidential election, and did so because they badly want an impressive black politician to play a highly visible leadership role in the party and make it seem more diverse. Went through similar situations with Herman Cain and Allen West. Although to Ben Carson's credit, he's definitely not them. He's far less of a clown and he's actually likable.

[stevemcqueen1]

Now a politician? I share your concerns with his credentials, however it's exactly our concern that apparently is the mass appeal. The "typical" politically-savvy white male christian politician hasn't been en vogue these past two elections. That much has been firmly established.

Obama
Hillary Clinton
Carson
Trump
Fiorina
Cain
Sanders
Cruz
Rubio

The success of some of those candidates isn't so much about them not being white, male, and Christian, although for some, it has played a part in forming their national brand and bringing minorities and/or women and various under-represented demos in the electorate into their tent. Obama, Clinton, Sanders, Cruz, and Rubio are world class political operatives.

Carson, Trump, Fiorina, and Cain don't belong on the same list as those other names. They've never actually won an election and only Cain has ever held any sort of government position. In fact, I want to see Carson, Trump, and Fiorina actually win something real before I can safely say they won't go the way of Herman Cain.

[Zonkerbl]

George W Bush is proof you can be a complete imbecile and still lie cheat and steal your way to the presidency. Intelligence has nothing to do with anything.

[stevemcqueen1]

George W Bush is proof you can be a complete imbecile and still lie cheat and steal your way to the presidency. Intelligence has nothing to do with anything.

* If you come from a family of political elites.

Just any old moron doesn't get Karl Rove to run his campaign and presidency.

Seriously though, GWB had at least some genuine political talent. Amazing as that seems in hindsight. People actually liked him. Winning four big elections takes a candidate with some talent.

[nate33]

Carson definitely isn't stupid. But he does say a lot of stupid crap. He's a political neophyte with no real experience or education in public policy or history or political science or economics or law or any other discipline that might help him be a politician. He's an amateur and it shows when he proposes things that show he's startlingly ignorant of the history and role of the Geneva Conventions in international law, for example. And he's been exploited by the GoP to some extent. The party glommed onto him even though he's obviously unqualified to represent the party in a presidential election, and did so because they badly want an impressive black politician to play a highly visible leadership role in the party and make it seem more diverse. Went through similar situations with Herman Cain and Allen West. Although to Ben Carson's credit, he's definitely not them. He's far less of a clown and he's actually likable.

FWIW, I agree with most of this. I'm not a fan of Carson. I just objected to this notion that he's not very smart and incapable of "critical thought".

[stevemcqueen1]

Carson definitely isn't stupid. But he does say a lot of stupid crap. He's a political neophyte with no real experience or education in public policy or history or political science or economics or law or any other discipline that might help him be a politician. He's an amateur and it shows when he proposes things that show he's startlingly ignorant of the history and role of the Geneva Conventions in international law, for example. And he's been exploited by the GoP to some extent. The party glommed onto him even though he's obviously unqualified to represent the party in a presidential election, and did so because they badly want an impressive black politician to play a highly visible leadership role in the party and make it seem more diverse. Went through similar situations with Herman Cain and Allen West. Although to Ben Carson's credit, he's definitely not them. He's far less of a clown and he's actually likable.

FWIW, I agree with most of this. I'm not a fan of Carson. I just objected to this notion that he's not very smart and incapable of "critical thought".

Yeah I disagree with the idea that he's stupid. I think he's brilliant and the impression I got from reading some of the stuff he's written was that he's thoughtful. A lot more thoughtful than he seems when he speaks publicly. Probably true of most candidates. And his career is definitely worthy of respect, which is why I think the party embraced him so enthusiastically.

I don't like this GoP movement to embrace amateurism though. It will seriously hurt the long term health and viability of the party. And I think it's driven by a movement to "privatize" the power and money of the party--taking it away from the traditional professional political operatives in the machine and diffusing it to private special interests that are otherwise politically disengaged and unaccountable to the polity. And I think that a large bloc of the party voters are much more poorly informed than they were 25 years ago, and that they are unduly influenced by the Rush Limbaughs of the party as a result. So amateurs like Carson have a unique opportunity to thrive in candidacies for major national elections now, if they can get the support of a few super wealthy/influential party outsiders.

Jonathan Rauch published a really interesting and counterintuitive paper in May about the value of professional political machines for American Democracy that I found really influential. He was mostly talking about the harm that reforms to break up traditional political machines have done to government, but I think it also extends to a warning about the potential danger for the GoP of embracing amateurs like Carson and Trump and Fiorina. Here's a link to the paper: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2015/04/political-realism-rauch/political-realism-rauch.pdf?la=en

[Zonkerbl]

Well, Carson and Trump are both consistent with the libertarian idea that wouldn't it be better to have someone who actually knows how to run a real world business (assuming being a doctor = running a business) running the government, instead of some insider spoiled by its essentially soviet-style hierarchical structure?

I totally get it. A lot of political appointees at Commerce under W were business leaders and they did a damn good job. Why not?

[stevemcqueen1]

Yeah. It's a mistake to think that, in this day and age, politician/elected official isn't a profession. Or that it's a bad thing that it is.

[nate33]

Carson definitely isn't stupid. But he does say a lot of stupid crap. He's a political neophyte with no real experience or education in public policy or history or political science or economics or law or any other discipline that might help him be a politician. He's an amateur and it shows when he proposes things that show he's startlingly ignorant of the history and role of the Geneva Conventions in international law, for example. And he's been exploited by the GoP to some extent. The party glommed onto him even though he's obviously unqualified to represent the party in a presidential election, and did so because they badly want an impressive black politician to play a highly visible leadership role in the party and make it seem more diverse. Went through similar situations with Herman Cain and Allen West. Although to Ben Carson's credit, he's definitely not them. He's far less of a clown and he's actually likable.

FWIW, I agree with most of this. I'm not a fan of Carson. I just objected to this notion that he's not very smart and incapable of "critical thought".

Yeah I disagree with the idea that he's stupid. I think he's brilliant and the impression I got from reading some of the stuff he's written was that he's thoughtful. A lot more thoughtful than he seems when he speaks publicly. Probably true of most candidates. And his career is definitely worthy of respect, which is why I think the party embraced him so enthusiastically.

I don't like this GoP movement to embrace amateurism though. It will seriously hurt the long term health and viability of the party. And I think it's driven by a movement to "privatize" the power and money of the party--taking it away from the traditional professional political operatives in the machine and diffusing it to private special interests that are otherwise politically disengaged and unaccountable to the polity. And I think that a large bloc of the party voters are much more poorly informed than they were 25 years ago, and that they are unduly influenced by the Rush Limbaughs of the party as a result. So amateurs like Carson have a unique opportunity to thrive in candidacies for major national elections now, if they can get the support of a few super wealthy/influential party outsiders.

Jonathan Rauch published a really interesting and counterintuitive paper in May about the value of professional political machines for American Democracy that I found really influential. He was mostly talking about the harm that reforms to break up traditional political machines have done to government, but I think it also extends to a warning about the potential danger for the GoP of embracing amateurs like Carson and Trump and Fiorina. Here's a link to the paper: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2015/04/political-realism-rauch/political-realism-rauch.pdf?la=en

I don't think the interest in Carson and Trump is driven by an enthusiasm for "amateurism". I think the problem is that the party elites have miscalculated dramatically and taken the base down a path where they don't want to go. As long as the entire GOP Establishment is all-in on amnesty, protecting the banks, and perennial war in the Middle East; the rank-and-file are not going to follow. A chunk of them are going to split off and join an independent candidate or party.

[nate33]

Well, Carson and Trump are both consistent with the libertarian idea that wouldn't it be better to have someone who actually knows how to run a real world business (assuming being a doctor = running a business) running the government, instead of some insider spoiled by its essentially soviet-style hierarchical structure?

I totally get it. A lot of political appointees at Commerce under W were business leaders and they did a damn good job. Why not?

Agreed. I think an executive like Trump or Fiorina could theoretically handle the job of president. There would be some hiccups as they get up to speed on the public relations aspects of politics, but there's no reason to think it can't be done.

I'm a little less convinced about Carson though. I don't know what time of managerial experience he accumulated as Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery. That doesn't sound like a big enough operation to be all that useful in prepping him for the presidency.

[popper]

It's going to be interesting to see how congress handles the imminent insolvency of Puerto Rico. The President proposes that they be allowed to declare bankruptcy thus shafting bondholders and transferring risks and costs from irresponsibly run U.S. territories to taxpayers throughout the country. States like IL, NJ, and most D's support the proposal knowing that once a precedent is set for territories then it will be much easier to extend bankruptcy protection to irresponsibly run states as well. In other words, someone's got to pay for the profligacy and there is a major push underway by D's to ensure it is not those that caused it. Should be an entertaining fight.

http://thehill.com/opinion/judd-gregg/258778-judd-gregg-the-pitfalls-of-a-puerto-rico-bankruptcy