Dumb Conservative Male Logic

[rudy23]

It's obvious that we are where we are in the Middle East because of faulty logic, but I see a pattern to this type of thinking that is very "male." I am a male, and I've certainly seen my share of bad female logic, but this is a certain brand of errant thinking that I've seen time and time again from blustery, hyper left-brained males who think they know how to control a situation. I've seen it at work, from my male relatives, and any situation where a group of men who aren't real fans of thinking try to solve a problem.

Here is the pattern. When a bunch of dimwitted alpha males get together to try and solve a problem, they try to set it up like an algebra equation. The first thing they do is empty their minds of all they already know about the scenario, whether it's useful information or not. Then they identify the variables--no problem with that. But then they assign each variable one and only one qualityand try to solve the equation, based on their assignment.

Example:
The Iraqi people are oppressed by Saddam
We took out Saddam
The Iraqi people will greet us with flowers and candy

When real life flies in the face of their variable assignment, they can't believe it. They deny reality, even getting frustrated that it doesn't conform to their shoddy construct. "That's not fair, that's not the way they're supposed to act".

They don't understand that just because they assign a variable to something in a hypothetical scenario, that doesn't make it so! Human beings have to live through whatever "solution" they implement. These wars aren't being fought on paper, or within an Aristotelian syllogism. This is real life, where people and things have many complex qualities and interrelationships. It takes a gifted person to recognize this complexity, and navigate through it to achieve positive outcomes.

Conservatives don't know the difference between a symbol, and what it represents (the GDP, flag-burning) They don't know a statement from its converse (All jihadists are Muslim is not the same as all Muslims are Jihadists) I'm sick of the raping of logic we've had to endure for the last 6 years.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

1. Interesting way of looking at it

I'm sure that that's the way the Bush supporters think.

In fact, they seem to argue with completely unsupported axioms:

"We're the good guys."
"They're the bad guys."
"We have to kill all of them."

However, I'm not convinced that the Cheney and Rumsfeld types really believe that they're "liberating" the Middle East, anymore than the Japanese imperialists really believed that they were "liberating Asia from European colonialism," even though that's the line they fed to the Japanese people at large.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Isn't it shameful that we don't 'fight' our wars on paper or computer, but

instead just keep investing in more and more weapons of destruction and bringing more and more death. Mankind has no evolved in that way since day one.

What you said is true, but not limited to men. I think it is more the result of not being called upon to explore history, human psychology, different cultures, and putting excessive trust in 'leaders' of governments and religions.

[jonstewartgirl]

3. none

because most men in this country a Bush stupid and they haven't evolved since the beginning of time

[zbdent]

4. Kinda like replacing an abusive dad in a family

with John Gotti ...

[neoblues]

5. Their Ass-umptions flow from their flawed perception of "Reality"

They simply don't have a good grasp of the real world; and it's probably partly due to poor attitude, but it's also quite likely also affected by a very real mental/intellectual deficit. That deficit is the inability to percieve the subtleties, the nuances, the existence of 'grey' areas; they almost cannot even think about the complexities beyond the most simplistic dualities/dichotomies. All or nothing thinking, limited world-view (subsequent to their thinking style) and aversion to complexities, are all examples of such limited intelligence. They can be very intelligent in other ways, though, and since there are so many people who share similar qualities (who see these people as "these guys are making sense, I understand what these guys are saying...", "duh").

I realise that just standing back and belittling the intellectual capacities of others is a rather typical and, as far as communicating with the majority, rather futile behavior. Still, it fits the observable facts.

[rudy23]

9. Couldn't have said it better--in addition

Not only are they incapable of understanding nuance, but they are in denial of nuance. They will accuse you of seeing something that isn't there. They'll accuse you of "overthinking".

Hence, Bush not knowing there were different "sects" of Iraqis at odds with each other. Because it didn't fit his construct, it was treated as if it didn't exist.

Yes, people who think this way can be intelligent in other areas. They tend to excel in fields where this kind of black/white thinking is advantageous. So they succeed in quantifiable ways, and people defer to them because they project an air of authority onto those who are quantifiably successful (i.e. rich).

It kind of explains why Repubs are good at getting elected, but horrible at governing.

Maybe we should be hiring traitor Repukes to run our campaigns. You know all it would take to get them to turn is the right price!

[neoblues]

11. That's very true.

They hate to "waste" time thinking.

And they would happily sell their grandmothers (without a second thought) if it meant an objective success (ie. wealth, power), though they would expect much if they're to lose the future income provided by their membership in their current club (which, with people like Abramoff, can be substantial).

[Initech]

6. Logic is something conservatives are very uncomfortable with

Just try arguing with one of them logically, they go apeshit. I swear, it happens nine times out of ten.

[On the Road]

7. Conservative Rhetoriticians are Masters at

embedding the desired answer in the way a question is framed.

Simply labeling another group as "evil" is often tanamount to calling for violence. The logic is: how can you deal with someone who is evil? How can you negotiate with someone who has no intention of abiding by an agreement? The only way to protect yourself is to kill the evildoers.

Labeling someone insane has a similar effect. North Korea is aggressive and authoritarian, but acting as if Kim Jon Il is crazy has already destroyed the sunshine initiative and will eventually lead to a conflgration of some sort.

[crim son]

8. Wow, that is a unique perspective.

And it really works for me. Many men apply the same principles to every matter they confront, whether it be politics, work or love. I'm going to pass this on, if you don't mind. I like it.

[Sammy Pepys]

10. Are you saying Condoleeza Rice is a man?

:D :D ;)

[Seabiscuit]

13. Only her andrologist knows for sure.

[blonndee]

12. Interesting.

I had a discussion that seems to fit somewhat with this observation just this morning. The "logic" went something like this: Because Country A isn't inflicting the maximum damage it possibly could in Country B, that PROVES Country A's intent to avoid civilian casualties ALTOGETHER. :crazy:

[Hosnon]

16. That's more of an error in the form of a logical argument rather than the

substance of it as the OP was referring to.

[blonndee]

17. I thought the OP was talking about failures of logic.

From the OP: Here is the pattern. When a bunch of dimwitted alpha males get together to try and solve a problem, they try to set it up like an algebra equation. The first thing they do is empty their minds of all they already know about the scenario, whether it's useful information or not. Then they identify the variables--no problem with that. But then they assign each variable one and only one quality and try to solve the equation, based on their assignment.

So for the poster to which I referred, if Country A wasn't killing tens of thousands (using ALL possible force) of civilians in Country B, that proved that they NEVER intended to kill ANY civilians in Country B.

That seems to be a failure along the same lines of what the OP described--basically, black and white thinking, no room for variables or evidence to the contrary. It may indeed be true that Country A never intends to kill civilians; however, the logic used fails, as you said.

[Hosnon]

18. They are both failures but for different reasons. I think the OP was

referring to situations where the form of the argument is correct - obeys the rules of logic - but the premises used are false.

Your example would seem to me to be an error in the rules of logic by asserting that something follows from something else when it clearly doesn't.

Both are errors though and I do agree with the OP that the syllogism is dangerous due to its simplicity.

[blonndee]

19. I see what you mean.

I didn't realize that distinction was important when commenting. I just thought the similarities were interesting, probably since I had just finished with that debate not much earlier than this post.

[Hosnon]

20. The problem with the first type of error (error of the premise) is that

the arguer can support his/her position more easily because s/he can point out that the logic of the argument is air-tight. Then the person begins to believe more and more in the accuracy of his/her factual statements - and that's the beginning of kookoo indoctrination.

I agree with the OP that a whole lot of people do this, not just fundies.

Don't you just love DU tangents:)

[rudy23]

23. The smart ones dress up fallacy as a logical argument intentionally

The lunkheads do it accidentally (which is why they're so easy for the smart ones to trick)

Following someone's logical argument is like following them in a car. All they have to do is take a few quick, sharp turns to lose people. If they're good enough, they can even trick some pretty smart people.

All of the logical fallacies look like logical arguments, it's just that someone took a wrong turn somewhere, and rendered the whole thing invalid.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
(if you want to brush up on fallacies. I highly recommend this!)

What I was talking about in the op was a specific brand of fallacy, in which each variable is assigned one and only one quality as part of a "logical" equation.

My original example was:
Iraqis are oppressed by Saddam
We will remove Saddam
Iraqis will be so grateful they'll give us flowers and candy

In condition 1, the Iraqis are assigned one quality in relation to Saddam--oppressed. This is fairly accurate, but that's not the only quality that relationship had. S

In condition 2, we are given only one action--removing Saddam. There's no mention that we would realistically kill lots of civilians, leave many citizens without basic services, and leave no authority to protect civilians from criminals.

In condition 3, Iraqis are assigned one quality as a result of our action--gratitude.
Can you think of any other qualities a human being in their position might have? Reluctance? Fear? Instability? Anger at those other events that took place in condition 2?

I relegated the discussion to males, because they're the ones in charge, and I think culturally that this black/white thinking is considered masculine. Long, circular debate is considered by these people to be effeminate, though god knows, I know plenty of female black/white thinkers (mostly repukes)

[deaniac21]

14. Looks like more faulty male logic to me.

[HEyHEY]

15. Females have it easy - the don't have logic

:hide: I kid, I kid

[porphyrian]

21. While I'm not sure logic has a gender, I've observed the same behavior.

Perhaps gender biology is a factor, if for no other reason than the chemicals washing through one's system at the time of attempted thought. It would make for an interesting study, if it didn't deepen sexist convictions and set back progress towards equal rights. However, I'm aware that you weren't really speaking on that level.

I've been convinced for some time now that corporate advertising plays a major role in the stupidifying of Americans, moreso than gender (though, again, biology may make this easier one way or the other). Advertising has only one goal - to sell a brand (it used to be product, but now the product has become the brand itself, which is better for the corporation). A "good consumer" is a stupid consumer, who accepts what they're told without question, especially if four out of five doctors agree or if conveyed through a celebrity. I watched bottled water become the pet rock of the Eighties and laughed, only to find the joke on me twenty years later where it's accepted as a staple, despite all evidence that it's no better than most municipal tap water, if not worse. Advertising is a multi-million (billion?) dollar industry for a reason.

The current administration isn't populated primarily by politicians, it's populated with CEOs, businessmen. And their campaigns have employed advertisers for their propaganda. And, for the most part, it's worked, despite any amount of evidence that the adminstration is not only wrong, but guilty of treason. Good stupid consumers.

Yesterday, I got to see the documentary "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media." If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it. In it, he posits basically that the majority of the population is kept stupid and complacent by design, and he makes a very compelling argument for that.

[rudy23]

22. You get it--I didn't mean to restrict it to males

Males just happen to be in power. I was thinking about the cultural phenomenon that equates nuanced thinking, and seeing other perspectives as being superfluous and somehow effeminate.