Crazy? Evil? Stupid?

In My Humble Opinion
21

I disagree. I feel that there’s always going to be a strong overlap between them. I have a difficult time imaging somebody who only possesses one of those traits.

Take Hitler, for example. All the evidence suggests he really believed in his extreme anti-semitism and thought all Jews were part of a global conspiracy against non-Jews. So he believed he had legitimate grounds to fight what he saw as a war against dangerous enemies.

So he was crazy. Does that mean that what he did wasn’t evil? And how can he initiate such a great evil without being evil? And how can you hold views that are so divergent from the real world without being stupid?

22

Firstly, I don’t think you’ve given any reason to suppose that.

Secondly, let’s look back to the OP. You said that the choices of crazy / evil / stupid were separate. And implied that the answer “All three” was invalid.
Has your position on this changed over the course of this thread? Fair enough if so, that’s what we’re all here for.

23

I think it’s helpful to identify the primary problem so you can figure out how to deal with it. I think it’s foolish arguing the facts, for example, with MTG because the problem there isn’t her limited intellect. She’s pure evil, or at least pure enough evil that educating her or treating her for mental disorders won’t help. You can’t teach her how space lasers work or show her how her issues all stem from her relationship with her dad–it doesn’t matter to her.

Likewise for crazy or stupid people–you have to deal with the problem at hand, and not mix them all together.

24

What about the possibility that, because they are possessed of a different set of facts or have had different experiences, they see the world differently from us? And that, from their point of view, their beliefs are sane, intelligent, and morally correct?

This thread reminded me of the book Being Wrong: Adevntures in the Margin of Error, which discusses (among other things) how we view people we disagree with as, well, stupid, crazy, or evil.

25

I think she does believe it. She’s a moron and a bigot. She is the face of the GOP and anyone in the same party as her is complicit.

26

Really? I’m not talking about what she says, however impassionedly in public, or even in private among her fellow GOPers. I’m talking about what she really, truly believes, in her heart and with a heavy dose of truth serum. I think down deep on some profound level she’s not remotely conscious of she knows it’s BS.

27

I think she believes it and even worse things. I think that she believes all kinds of conspiracy theories about Jews running the world and crisis actors faking mass shootings. I think she is the epitome of a bigoted moron and the GOP.

28

Sane? Kind? Intelligent?

I see these choices as separate.

Well…ok…of course there’s bound to be a mixture of all three; all three can coexist to a degree, but one predominates.

If you acknowledge that a person is more than one of these things, you’re “mixing them all together” and therefore not giving proper credit for anything.

29

MfM is evenhanded: he attacks both sides

In case you haven’t noticed, nit picking is what we do here. There’s a tradeoff between accuracy and clarity: the original posts often properly emphasize the latter. Commentators look for holes and weaknesses, as well as suggesting clarifications that are important to them. (See below! :slight_smile: )

Frankly though I think your terms are more accurate - eg you are describing political behaviors not making a mental health diagnosis regarding a person’s everyday life. I think you may have identified the 3 primary colors of modern US political dysfunction. I take issue with this plank though:

The choice is an interesting one to me because until we understand if someone is crazy or stupid or evil, we don’t know how to deal with them.

I say: we don’t know how to deal with them anyway, because persuasion is imperfectly understood. I’m not sure your taxonomy helps, because nothing helps (so you just try everything and see what works). Nonetheless: very good OP.

I’d like to add 2 concepts to the mix. The first is, Rule of thumb, a rational strategy when you have imperfect information because you are not a political junky and you have other interests like your job and family. So using rule of thumb, if you earn substantially more than the average in your locale, like a plumber or electrician or if you run a small business you should vote GOP. If you are lower middle class, vote Dem. Debt ceiling talks? Just more Washington blah blah - happens every year, major stuff happens maybe one out of 5.

Obvious exploits exist for the above, if one party emphasizes accuracy over clarity, i.e. refuses to dumb their message down. Oliver Willis often writes about this: Dear Liberals, Stop Wonking And Save Lives

See also Kevin Drum: The Hack Gap: The Hack Gap Is Hard at Work Today – Mother Jones

“Rules of thumb” are arranged near the Stupid- Evil axis.

The second concept is, Dopamine. Certain things give you a charge, and positive reinforcement is powerful learning tool. Fox News grasps this as does right wing media, which is why the GOP platform so much revolves around owning the libs. Adam Serwer: The Cruelty Is the Point - The Atlantic eg Work requirements aren’t about cutting the deficit.

In terms of international relations, broad sanctions on Russian oligarchs give liberals a nice rush of Dopamine. No greater pleasure than a yacht seizure (where do they go anyway?) Sanctions focused on machine tools and the military supply chain are probably more to the point, but that requires careful and focused enforcement. 2 post thread:

Here’s a more detailed argument about leaky Russian sanctions (anybody interested can start new a thread, but I probably won’t participate, since this is basically all I have to say. Remember I’m trying to make the Dopamine point.) : Thread by @kamilkazani on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App

“Dopamine Addiction” is near the crazy-stupid axis.

30

I usually go with “liars, crazies, and idiots” but that’s probably the same list.

31

Thank you. I have this ongoing fantasy, utterly un-borne out by experience, in which I could sit down with Marjorie Taylor Green or some other MAGAnut, and say “Look, no cameras on, no recording devices, tell me what you really think” and they would. What would they confess?

In my fantasy, they’d chuckle and go, “OK, this part is a total scam, this part is just for the gullible goobers, this part is Yeah, I’m a racist at heart, this part I really believe, this part is just to piss people off…” and I’d thank them for their honesty. As if.

It’s easy to get up in their public pronouncements, which often (usually?) don’t represent what they’re thinking in their innermost hearts. I think the pols are smarter and more cynical than most people do, and that if it could be shown to most of them that their electability, or their personal income, or whatever motivates them the most, would increase dramatically if they’d switch teams, they’d do it in a nanosecond.

And I feel sorry for their followers, who I think are far more stupid and crazy than evil, mostly stupid. The pols are gifted at oversimplifying complex realities, and they’ve discovered a few notes that can be hit over and over to explain the world (incorrectly) to these simpletons, most of whom have already based their lives, apart from politics, on a belief system (religion, patriotism, nationalism, tribalism, what have you) that is 90% bullshit to begin with, so it’s not a hard sell to get them to buy into simpleminded twaddle politically.

32

I think @Measure_for_Measure really nailed it.

As to @slicedalone just above:
Obviously you cannot actually get them to tell you their innermost “true” thoughts.

Those thoughts may not even be accessible to their consciousness. And, as we’ve discussed at length in the Tucker Carlson & Elizabeth Holmes threads, humans are learning adapting creatures. After playing the RW loon or whatever in public long enough, they become the character they used to merely portray. What then is their “inner truth?”

Lastly of course, even assuming they knew their own “inner truth”, there’s no upside to them sharing that with you or anyone else. So they won’t. You’d need a magical “mind-o-scope” to read their innermost thoughts against their will.

Ultimately, as public personas, the debate about what they “really” believe is immaterial. They are what they do. Nothing more and nothing less. Their public surface is all that matters.

33

I’m with madmonk28 on this one. I think Greene and people like her really do believe the things they are saying. I feel it’s an issue of projection.

Greene fears people who aren’t like her. She doesn’t want to acknowledge this is fear is delusional. She wants to believe she’s rational. Se she decides that her fear of other people has a rational basis; other people are threatening her so her fear is just a rational response to what those other people are doing.

A similar effect explains the hate. Greene hates people who aren’t like her. She doesn’t want to acknowledge that this is because she’s an unusually hateful person. So she assumes everyone feels a similar hatred directed at other people. Then you use this belief to justify your actions. You tell yourself that discrimination, while perhaps regrettable, is necessary. If your group weren’t suppressing those other groups, then they would gain power and be able to suppress your group.

34

But the interesting question, to my mind, is this: let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you’re right about Greene and those who vote for Greene; and let’s say, too, that Greene eventually leaves the House; and, while we’re at it, let’s also say you’re an amoral opportunist who now has a shot at that House seat.

You figure that what she was selling is what they were buying. You figure that you could pick up where she left off, saying significantly similar stuff to people who vote for someone who says such stuff. If, as you say, the “people like her really do believe the things they are saying”, then how do you — as an amoral opportunist, like I was just saying — present yourself to them?

35

I take this as a given of my description of my “fantasy” and my “As if.”

But we’re discussing just that–what’s REALLY going on inside their heads. Are they crazy? Are they stupid? Are they evil?

How are you ever going to know any of that, for certain? You’re not. But as a topic of discussion, this line of speculation is very interesting because we approach crazy people very differently from how we approach evil people, and both of them far differently than we approach very stupid people. Yet there are those who say “What difference?” I think there’s a big difference–it’s just hard to tell which ditch they’re standing in.

36

I think you have to look at conservative efforts to dismantle education and realize that MTG and her constituents aren’t uneducated, they have in fact been actively de-educated. For years, there was an elite in the GOP that pandered to the racists and nuts, but now those nuts are in charge in the party.

37

Are they nuts, though? They’re nuttier than their predecessors, okay, but in the main they’re sane enough and smart enough to serve in Congress (admittedly a very low bar of sanity or smarts.) The problem with the pols is they’re too committed to evil ends to let their rationality or their intelligence overrule their selfish interests. It doesn’t present itself often enough to matter much, but on those rare occasions it doesn’t affect their pandering or their vote.

38

You could say that about any belief. Where it matters, where it controls her actions, she believes it. How are “Jewish Space Lasers” any more ridiculous a notion than “Doctors are mutilating children’s genitals without even asking the parent’s permission”? There’s lots of idiots out there who passionately believe the latter (ran into one myself last Friday); why is it surprising that someone might genuinely believe in the JSLs?

I mean, Jews exists, lasers exist, and we’ve been in space, so how hard would it be to put those all together?

39

The mental processes you describe here are… crazy. Not clinically insane. Possibly neurotic. I trust there’s a DSM entry somewhere. But in a colloquial context or when discussing politics, it really doesn’t matter.

In its purest extreme crazy people can’t help themselves. That rarely applies to pols though. Or voters. Or 4chan posters. Or even pundits. Most can help themselves but choose not to.

Let’s work through our example. Jewish space laser theory is clearly crazy, stupid and evil. But in this case it makes sense to place MGT near the evil-stupid axis. Why? A pure crazy person wouldn’t drop the theory just because it wasn’t working out for them - they can’t help themselves. So that’s the tell. But the fact that she said this in the first place means that you need to include the stupid factor. In fact, I’d argue that craziness plays a role, since MGT wouldn’t have brought this up if it didn’t give her a dopamine rush. But observationally, I’d say mostly evil-stupid.

Evil. That seems harsh. Here’s my nitpick: I suggest substituting “Immoral” for “Evil”. Immoral covers lies, deceptions and much worse, but doesn’t imply things like mass shooter, war crime, or tying Penelope Pitstop to the railroad track. So here’s the model:

                                 Crazy 

                           (X)           (Dopamine)

                      Stupid                   Immoral
                             (Rules of Thumb)

I reality, pols are smarter than you think: they are method actors. Believing one thing and saying another? That’s not smart. It requires an unnecessarily taxing cognitive load. It is far better to persuade yourself that you believe something and go with that. Kamil Galeev, discussing the Russian mafia:

[hijack]Follow Kamil Galeev on twitter. Greatest hits: https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1568991857039777795?s=20 [/hijack]

Question: What’s near the middle of the Crazy-Stupid axis? As a joke I wrote, internet memes on twitter, but that’s not quite right. I mean there’s nothing stupid about dopamine addiction: it’s universal. There’s nothing crazy about using rules of thumb: that’s sensible. What is crazy and stupid but not especially immoral?

Concluding. Persuasion remains a puzzle, something I’ve wondered about since I joined this message board. But I think the framework in slicedalone (2023) is at least helpful for understanding modern US political dysfunction. Crazy - stupid - immoral. For those who think this is merely hurling insults at their political opponents, I refer them to Stuart Stevens’ It Was All a Lie: the strategy of assuming good faith in one’s opponents has its limits after norms fall away.

40

I don’t believe evil is a thing, it’s just a lazy and self-aggrandizing shorthand to describe someone with whom you have trouble empathizing. To a lesser extent, same with crazy. Stupid, however, is as stupid does.

If you think of people as existing on a spectrum, like a nice set of artsy pencils all organized so that the color of one pencil fades nicely into the one next to it (yellows into oranges into reds into purples into blues, etc.), you can find commonalities and differences between individuals in groups of friends. My friends and me, we’re pretty much all shades of blue. But maybe my more violet friends have their own circles of friends including reds and oranges, maybe even a yellow! In this way, pretty much everyone is surrounded by folks who are similar with their thoughts, but with some trivial differences that earn no more than an occasional ribbing. But if you were to take, say, a yellow and stick that person in a room with a blue, they’d each be inclined to consider the other either crazy, evil, or stupid. And of course, neither of them are. They both act as reasonably as they can in accordance with how they interpret their surroundings.