He stands up for what he believes in!

[andyfox]

So what? Why do people admire this alleged characteristic in politicians and other leaders? Lenin stood up for what he believed, so does Osama Bin Laden. Isn't what they believe in more important than their forthrightness or lack thereof?

With very few exceptions, an elected politician who is in power could not possibly have stood up for what he believes in, else he would not be in power.

[HDPM]

I got thrown out of class in 9th grade for pointing that out to a teacher. We were reading A Man For All Seasons and she said old Tom was great because he stood up for what he believed in. I pointed out that Hitler and Pol Pot did too. She told me to shut up. That wasn't too sporting of her so I kept arguing. She was an idiot. Andy Fox ain't.

[IrishHand]

Actually, neither Pol Pot nor Hitler really stood up for what they believed in - at least not before or during their ascents to power. They were just as political and manipulative of the common man as our modern-day politicians - it's just that their views are seen now (and in some cases, then) as extreme and unconventional.

Hitler, for example, had a lot to gain by "standing up for what he believed in" - it ultimately got him to power in the country. However, "what he believed in" changed in direct proportion to how much power he had. "What he believed in" in 1933 just prior to becoming Chancellor and "what he believed in" in 1940 when he'd achieved complete and total control over the country and it's military and knew he could say and do whatever he wanted without fear or reprisal was totally different. You'll note he didn't start his wholesale murders until after he'd consolidated power.

Really, I think the degree to which a politician or public figure "stands up for what he believes in" is directly related to how much or little his expression of his positions will affect the amount of power he holds or will hold. It's easy for a bystander to "stand up for what he believes in" - he has nothing to lose. A prospective presidential candidate, as a function of how our political system works, can do no such thing.

Just some thoughts...
Irish

[HDPM]

"- it's just that their views are seen now (and in some cases, then) as extreme and unconventional"

Don't be so hard on them.

"They were just as political and manipulative of the common man as our modern-day politicians"

Yeah, killing a few million here and there is just as manipulative as hedging a position in the Iraqui weapons inspections.

Dude, Hitler and Pol Pot are OK to hate. Pass judgment on them. Don't compare them to the average pol. They just are fundamentally different.

[MMMMMM]

Often, the real problem is what they believe in.

Part of THAT problem is that most humans habitually come to "believe in" things without taking a truly scientific approach.

Again, I feel that the human race would greatly benefit from greater emphasis being placed on the teaching of tools for rational thinking--especially logic and statistics--and that this process should begin at a very early age.

[andyfox]

No doubt Pol Pot wasn't just your average Pol.

[andyfox]

"Again, I feel that the human race would greatly benefit from greater emphasis being placed on the teaching of tools for rational thinking--especially logic and statistics--and that this process should begin at a very early age."

Very similar to Sklansky here. I'm paraphrasing, but I think he said his father taught him that if he could get the math, he could do anything. He certainly gets the math and does quite a bit; a pretty good example of what you're talking about, I think.

[MMMMMM]

Some issues are highly complex. People come from varying backgrounds, and of course not everyone would develop the same opinion on everything, even with the same information and high analytical skills.

However, with more training in how to think (preferably starting at an early age--I am still catching up;-)), we would probably have far fewer people who believe in sheer nonsense. And people believing in sheer nonsense really does cause all sorts of major problems in the world.

[BruceZ]

I agree, but one problem that occurs with many people who can think logically and analytically is that they don't always get along well with people of more average intellect. On average, people have only average intellect. Those who possess far greater than average intellect have a finite patience for relating to those with lesser intellects. Also, persons who have learned to rely on their high intellect often tend not to develop people skills to the same degree as more affable idiots.

[IrishHand]

Actually, the average person has below-average intelligence. Those with IQs that are incredibly low are, for the intents and purposes of this discussion (and most others) no longer 'people'. They don't vote, don't work, don't participate in a meaningful way in society, and generally just take up space and resources. (To clear up the inevitable freak-out reactions - I'm not saying that our society's decision to provide for those who can't provide for themselves is a bad thing - just that it happens.)

Irish

[BruceZ]

Actually, the average person has below-average intelligence.

I don't follow. If you include the very low intelligence people in computing the average intelligence level, and then remove them from the list of those who you consider "people", then the average intelligence of the remaining people will be above average not below average. On the other hand, if you don't include the really low IQs when computing the average intelligence in the first place, then the average intelligence of those who you consider people must be average by definition. I don't see how it can ever be below average.

[IrishHand]

I don't see how it can ever be below average.

Few people of below-average intelligence can see that. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

Really - what you say makes sense. I just have some strange ways of looking at the world. I figure that since the bottom end of intelligence doesn't function as a person in our society, I'm not going to concern myself with them as a "person", in the day-to-day interaction sort of way. That does not, however, preclude them from bringing down the average. Or something like that.

[BruceZ]

Few people of below-average intelligence can see that.

Probably alot more than those of above-average intelligence /forums/images/icons/wink.gif I could provide some antecdotal evidence, but I'd have to make some elitist sounding statements.

I'm not going to concern myself with them as a "person", in the day-to-day interaction sort of way. That does not, however, preclude them from bringing down the average. Or something like that.

Well if they bring down the average, but you don't count them as people in day-to-day interactions, then the people you do encounter in day-to-day interactions will be above the average. Don't you SEE /forums/images/icons/cool.gif that? Look, the average IQ is 100 including everyone from high geniuses with IQs over 200 to the severely retarded with IQs in the single digits. Since you don't encounter the lowest IQs because they are in jars somewhere, the IQ of the average person you see walking around will have an IQ above the average level of 100. Only slightly above, since the low tail of the curve represents only a small percentage.

[IrishHand]

You speak the Lord's truth! Apparently, I had too much stuffing this afternoon - I was all bass ackwards. /forums/images/icons/crazy.gif My bad.

Irish

[MMMMMM]

One problem however is that many of these people are not just "affable idiots." Many are aggressive and violent.

I'm not so much talking about genetic potential for intelligence here, but rather about those who believe, for example, in the literal interpretations of religious texts which exhort followers to fight and kill those who do not share the same beliefs. Also, look at dark histories throughout the ages.How many innocent persons were burned at the stake, or tortured at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition?

Belief without scientific examination can and often does cause great harm. I think all children should be much more thoroughly educated in the scientific method, because unfounded beliefs can be, and often are, quite pernicious--sometimes merely to the person who holds them, and other times to great masses of people--and potentially to the entire world. With greater training in the scientific method, people would be less likely to embrace irrational beliefs...although due to various aspects of the human psyche, some irrational beliefs would persist (though to a lesser degree).

It is belief in sheer nonsense, coupled with a propensity for violence, which is most dangerous. Unfortuanately a great many people in the world hold just such beliefs even today. I only wish they were instead "affable idiots."