# Can we have a debate on Dunning-Kruger as it relates to politics? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 21, 2018, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-debate-on-dunning-kruger-as-it-relates-to-politics/816479 "2018-06-21T00:58:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2018, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-debate-on-dunning-kruger-as-it-relates-to-politics/816479/81 "2018-06-28T20:06:05Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > If I have a “complete misunderstanding” of his position, then so does the entire Wikipedia article on Watt (second sentence: “Often described as “anti-environmentalist”, he was one of Ronald Reagan’s most controversial cabinet appointments.”). And so does the _Washington Post_ article I cited. So does the TIME magazine article rating him as one of the ten worst Cabinet members in modern history. His record and reputation are as glaringly obvious as they are appalling. If you think I just “misunderstand his position”, it is you who is misinformed. > > Oreally? I responded to your misleading claim that “Despite all that belief in climate change under Obama, they never submitted the treaty to the senate” by pointing out that there was not a hope in hell that the Republican-dominated Senate of the time would have ratified it, which was hardly Obama’s fault, and that Obama took the initiative to ratify it by Executive authority. This is factually what happened. Obama did this because “all that belief in climate change” was sincere and he was motivated to do the right thing. I’m fascinated to know what it is about this that I “don’t get”. > > I responded to your incorrect statement that fracking was mainly responsible for the reduction in US CO2 emissions by pointing out all the other factors that were major contributors. I’m fascinated to know what it is about this that I “don’t get”. > > I gave you at least three different objective mainstream cites about Watt’s reprehensible environmental record. I’m fascinated to know what it is about this that I “don’t get”. What you claimed was not that Watt was controversial or that professional environmentalists and journalists did not like him. I have never disputed either. What you claimed was that Watt believed we do not have to protect the environment because Jesus is coming back soon. You provided an obviously fake quote by him to back up that assertion. What he actually said was the opposite, that no one knows when Jesus is coming back and we have to protect the environment in the meantime. Perhaps you were in a fugue state when you made that post and don’t remember it but if you reread the thread I am sure you can find the post. You say Obama took the initiative to ratify the Paris agreement by executive authority. This is incorrect because while he did write an executive order he does not have the authority to commit to treaties, the constitution is very clear only the Senate can do that. Fracking is the single largest reason the US is leading the world in carbon emissions, you are being pedantic over whether it is the main reason or just a big reason. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2018, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-debate-on-dunning-kruger-as-it-relates-to-politics/816479/82 "2018-06-28T21:22:05Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > What you claimed was not that Watt was controversial or that professional environmentalists and journalists did not like him. I have never disputed either. What you claimed was that Watt believed we do not have to protect the environment because Jesus is coming back soon. You provided an obviously fake quote by him to back up that assertion. What he actually said was the opposite, that no one knows when Jesus is coming back and we have to protect the environment in the meantime. Perhaps you were in a fugue state when you made that post and don’t remember it but if you reread the thread I am sure you can find the post. [The post in question is #62](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21044978&postcount=62). I stand by everything that I said. Watt was just an example I gave of religious nuttery among Republicans, who, regardless of whether that quote is accurate or not, (a) was a devout Dispensationalist Christian, a form of fundamentalism whose followers believe their religion should inform public policy, and (b) as I’ve repeatedly demonstrated, was extraordinarily hostile to the environment. I gave lots of other examples of religious nuttery influencing Republican policy positions. To nitpick on whether that particular quote is apocryphal or not is avoiding the real substance of an important point about Republicans and religious fundamentalism. > [@puddleglum](#): > > You say Obama took the initiative to ratify the Paris agreement by executive authority. This is incorrect because while he did write an executive order he does not have the authority to commit to treaties, the constitution is very clear only the Senate can do that. What I said was not “incorrect”. What I said is what happened. It was based on the premise that the Paris accord was not a “treaty” and could be ratified by the Executive. Some disagree, but that doesn’t make anything I said “incorrect”. It does, however, make your statement misleading, where you attempt to position it as Obama pretending to care about climate change but not even bothering to take the agreement to the Senate – which you know and I know would have been a waste of time since it was controlled by Republicans who were hostile to the agreement, many of them outright climate change deniers. > [@puddleglum](#): > > Fracking is the single largest reason the US is leading the world in carbon emissions, you are being pedantic over whether it is the main reason or just a big reason. You said “… the primary reason that the US leads the world in reducing carbon dioxide missions is the growth of fracking and the switch from coal to natural gas. I also know that the Democrats are the group attempting to ban fracking despite its success in fighting global warming.” To my reading, this is deceptive, and it’s actually deceptive on several levels. It gives the impression that if Democrats had been in charge of things, emissions reductions would not have happened, because Democrats are generally opposed to fracking. The truth is that the majority of the emissions reductions – roughly 67% – were due to various clean energy initiatives championed by Democrats that Republicans are almost universally opposed to. The truth is also that fracking is in aid of extracting more fossil fuels, namely oil whose environmental effects are extremely damaging, and natural gas, whose effects are less damaging, especially when it replaces coal, but both of which are strong net carbon emitters into the earth’s carbon cycle, and both of which have to be phased out. So to suggest that Republicans are somehow responsible for the emissions reductions over the last decade or so is pretty laughable. There’s nothing pedantic about that. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2018, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-debate-on-dunning-kruger-as-it-relates-to-politics/816479/83 "2018-06-28T21:52:32Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This seems to be the weak link in your analysis. What’s you basis for this claim? [http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf](http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf) Page 346-347, 353-354 among others ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2018, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-debate-on-dunning-kruger-as-it-relates-to-politics/816479/84 "2018-06-28T22:27:58Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > [http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf](http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf) > > Page 346-347, 353-354 among others I wonder if you can be more specific. Best as I can tell, there are various attributes being discussed there, some of them the ones you describe as “compartmentalized thinking, dogmatism and use facts (and lies) selectively to maintain an emotionally comfortable narrative” and some of them ascribed to conservatives, but I didn’t see anything which showed that “authoritarians are more prone to compartmentalized thinking, dogmatism and use facts (and lies) selectively to maintain an emotionally comfortable narrative” (in particular for a definition of “authoritarian” which applies more to conservatives - there’s a lot defining and categorizing going on in that link). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2018, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-debate-on-dunning-kruger-as-it-relates-to-politics/816479/85 "2018-06-29T02:07:30Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I wonder if you can be more specific. Best as I can tell, there are various attributes being discussed there, some of them the ones you describe as “compartmentalized thinking, dogmatism and use facts (and lies) selectively to maintain an emotionally comfortable narrative” and some of them ascribed to conservatives, but I didn’t see anything which showed that “authoritarians are more prone to compartmentalized thinking, dogmatism and use facts (and lies) selectively to maintain an emotionally comfortable narrative” (in particular for a definition of “authoritarian” which applies more to conservatives - there’s a lot defining and categorizing going on in that link). Well, here is a recent example: Trump was found to once again fit his lies to a comfortable narrative: From a Washington Post article that needs a subscription: > [@](#): > > Here’s a puzzler: Why is the president of the United States announcing the opening of new factories that a major U.S. company has not announced? > > U.S. Steel is a publicly traded company, so it is supposed to disclose materially important information. The opening of six major facilities and the expansion of even more would be huge news. > > Yet all U.S. Steel has announced is that it will restart two blast furnaces and steelmaking facilities at the company’s Granite City Works integrated plant in Illinois — one in March and the other in October. The reopening of the first blast furnace was announced in March, resulting in 500 jobs, and the second was announced in June, adding 300. The plant had been closed since 2015. > > President Trump has a tendency to cite conversations that did not occur quite the way he describes them — if they took place at all. So we were a bit suspicious when he mentioned a phone conversation with Dave Burritt, chief executive of U.S. Steel. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Wall Street analysts who follow the company are also scratching their heads. They knew of no such expansion. > > > > ``` > > Comment by Digby: > > The good news is that the president is such a notorious liar, braggart, whiner, blamer and moron that he can’t move markets with his words anymore. > > The bad news is that the president is such a notorious liar, braggart, whiner, blamer and moron. And, to get to the subject of this thread: A lot of the followers of Trump also have the ability to categorize items like that as unimportant or to put it in the ‘we will wilfully ignore’ records. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2018, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-debate-on-dunning-kruger-as-it-relates-to-politics/816479/86 "2018-06-29T03:55:02Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I wonder if you can be more specific. Best as I can tell, there are various attributes being discussed there, some of them the ones you describe as “compartmentalized thinking, dogmatism and use facts (and lies) selectively to maintain an emotionally comfortable narrative” and some of them ascribed to conservatives, but I didn’t see anything which showed that “authoritarians are more prone to compartmentalized thinking, dogmatism and use facts (and lies) selectively to maintain an emotionally comfortable narrative” (in particular for a definition of “authoritarian” which applies more to conservatives - there’s a lot defining and categorizing going on in that link). > **[Authoritarianism, cognitive rigidity, and the processing of ambiguous visual...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25280165/)** > > Intolerance of ambiguity and cognitive rigidity are unifying aspects of authoritarianism as defined by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1982/1950), who hypothesized that authoritarians view the world in absolute terms (e.g., good or... > [@](#): > > Abstract > Intolerance of ambiguity and cognitive rigidity are unifying aspects of authoritarianism as defined by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1982/1950), who hypothesized that authoritarians view the world in absolute terms (e.g., good or evil). Past studies have documented the relationship between authoritarianism and intolerance of ambiguity and rigidity. Frenkel-Brunswik (1949) hypothesized that this desire for absolutism was rooted in perceptual processes. We present a study with three samples that directly tests the relationship between right wing authoritarianism (RWA) and the processing of ideologically neutral but ambiguous visual stimuli. As hypothesized, in all three samples we found that RWA was related to the slower processing of visual information that required participants to recategorize objects. In a fourth sample, RWA was unrelated to speed of processing visual information that did not require recategorization. Overall, results suggest a relationship between RWA and rigidity in categorization. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2018, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-debate-on-dunning-kruger-as-it-relates-to-politics/816479/87 "2018-06-29T14:57:33Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > (a) was a devout Dispensationalist Christian, a form of fundamentalism whose followers believe their religion should inform public policy. This is another example, Dispensationalism has nothing to do with whether religion should influence public policy. Perhaps you should do some [research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism)before further commenting. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2018, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-debate-on-dunning-kruger-as-it-relates-to-politics/816479/88 "2018-06-29T16:51:15Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > They do, but its a minority luckily. > > [By the Numbers: Republicans, Democrats and the Vaccination Debate](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/numbers-republicans-democrats-vaccination-debate-n298606) Did you actually read the article? You seem to be assuming that those who oppose mandatory vaccination are anti-vaccination and therefore idiots. From the article: > [@](#): > > A survey released last week from the Pew Research Center showed that 68 percent of US adults believe that vaccinations of children should be required, while 30 percent say that parents should be able to decide not to vaccinate their kids. Supporting voluntary vaccination doesn’t mean the person is an anti-vaxxer. And since supporting personal responsibility seems to be more a Republican thing than a Democrat one, the percentages make sense. (Let me be clear: vaccinations are a good thing.) ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2018, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-debate-on-dunning-kruger-as-it-relates-to-politics/816479/89 "2018-06-29T17:35:11Z")
I sure did read it, I even quoted it. Including the part where over the last decade the % of democrats who think vaccines should be mandatory has increased while the % of republicans who think it should be mandatory has decreased. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2018, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-debate-on-dunning-kruger-as-it-relates-to-politics/816479/90 "2018-06-29T18:16:38Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Did you actually read the article? You seem to be assuming that those who oppose mandatory vaccination are anti-vaccination and therefore idiots. > > From the article: > > Supporting voluntary vaccination doesn’t mean the person is an anti-vaxxer. And since supporting personal responsibility seems to be more a Republican thing than a Democrat one, the percentages make sense. > > (Let me be clear: vaccinations are a good thing.) Ummm, they are and they are. If someone is not for mandatory vaccinations, with the only exceptions being for valid medical reasons, then they are against requiring people to vaccinate their children, and the only reason for that is if they are stupid enough to “still have some questions”. Personal responsibility is being a responsible citizen, and not being a vector to introduce disease into your community. It’s not personal responsibility that causes people to risk the lives of those in their community so that their child doesn’t have to get a shot, it is ignorance and selfishness, so you are right on that, the percentages _do_ make sense. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-debate-on-dunning-kruger-as-it-relates-to-politics/816479/91 "2018-06-30T20:57:29Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > This is another example, Dispensationalism has nothing to do with whether religion should influence public policy. Perhaps you should do some [research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism)before further commenting. So after conceding my other arguments, _ **this** _ is the point that you’re going to hang your hat on? All I can say at this point is that you don’t appear to have read your own cite, and that you also seriously mischaracterized my statement. My statement was that Dispensationalist Christianity is “a form of fundamentalism whose followers believe their religion should inform public policy” – _ **their** _ religion, Dispensationalist Christianity – not any or all religions. And your _ **own cite** _ bears this out. From the intro (emphasis mine): [Dispensationalism] considers Biblical history as divided by God into dispensations, defined periods or ages to which God has allotted distinctive administrative principles. According to dispensationalist theology, each age of God’s plan is thus administered in a certain way, and **humanity is held responsible as a steward** during that time. If that isn’t clear enough, it goes on later to say: Israel has allied with U.S. evangelicals and dispensationalists to influence U.S. foreign policy including protection of the Jewish people in Israel and continued aid for the state of Israel. Political commentator Kevin Phillips claimed in _American Theocracy_ (2006) that dispensationalist and other fundamentalist Christians, together with the oil lobby, have provided political assistance for the invasion of Iraq during 2003. > **[Dispensationalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism#United_States_politics)** > > Dispensationalism is a theological framework of interpreting the Bible which maintains that history is divided into multiple ages or "dispensations" in which God acts with his chosen people in different ways.: 19  It is often distinguished from covenant theology. These are two competing frameworks of Biblical Theology that attempt to explain the continuity of the Bible as a whole. The term "dispensationalism" is attributed to Philip Mauro, a critic of the system's teachings in his 1928 b Dispensa... Tony Campolo, an American sociologist, pastor, author, public speaker and former spiritual advisor to U.S. President Bill Clinton expands on these ideas in his book, _Speaking My Mind_, where he asserts that, among other things, dispensationalists’ impact on geopolitics leads to war, and that dispensationalism leads to environmental ravaging. On that latter point he mentions Watt specifically, saying that … Watt advocated the unrestrained exploitation of oil deposits on government land, even in such places as Yellowstone National Park. This was because he was convinced by the “signs of the times”, as dispensationalist prophecies outlined, that the end of the world would very likely occur within the next few decades … we need the oil now, so why not drill for it now? – Tony Campolo, _[Speaking My Mind](https://www.google.ca/search?q=Speaking+My+Mind:+The+Radical+Evangelical+Prophet+Tackles+the+Tough+Issues+Christians+Are+Afraid+to+Face&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgFuLSz9U3MK1INynMUuLRT9c3rEwpT8oqzM7SkspOttJPys_P1k8sLcnIL7ICsYsV8vNyKh8xhnILvPxxT1jKZ9Kak9cY3bjwKBbS4GJzzSvJLKkUkuPik0KyUINBiocLic8DACupPHCQAAAA&npsic=-627&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiS0peknPzbAhVh44MKHc2oDc0Q-BYIRQ&tbs=kac:1,kac_so:0)_ Now, you may claim that Watt said something more conciliatory and politically correct in a public hearing before Congress, but that’s hopeless weak sauce when one considers that his reckless actions bear out exactly the view Campolo describes. You are of course free to hold your own opinions contrary to the facts in evidence. You are _ **not** _ free to suggest that I’m an idiot suffering Dunning-Kruger delusions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-have-a-debate-on-dunning-kruger-as-it-relates-to-politics/816479.md?page=4)