Letters to the Editor
Jeffrey P. Harrison
Published Letters: 354 Editor's Choice: 39
-
I don't think he's answered the question
[Read the article: The certainty epidemic]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]An interesting discussion of cognition, indeed it is. Doubtless it points in the direction of the neurological underpinnings of how we come to conclusions. The question, however, was what makes us so sure of ourselves?
I, too, have observed a rise in "certainty" over the last several decades. I think the source of this rise is an educational system that neither requires the breadth of knowledge (i.e. the diversity of subjects learned) nor the depth of knowledge in any subject as compared to an earlier time. I remember thinking to myself somewhere around the end of my junior year in college on my way to a degree in physics that the more I learned, the less I thought I knew. I thought then and I think now that what had happened to me was that I had passed the knee of the curve and I now knew enough of the nuances and niggly details to know how easy it was to come to an inaccurate conclusion because I had failed to recognize some facet of the problem.
Generalizing the concept - the less you know, the easier it is to come to a conclusion because you have less data to process and you have little or no understanding of the nuances and niggly details that can radically alter the situation (like the presence or absence of the word "kite"). I suspect that people in this condition are more likely to say, I believe rather than I know because, after all, they've checked their beliefs against everything they know and everything's cool. The fact that what they know is only a tiny fraction of everything there is to know about the subject and it's related and analogous subjects is not, unfortunately, the merest of details.
While the study of neurology of thought is both fascinating and important, using it to provide an answer to the question posed will not, in my view, pass Occam's Razor. I think mine will.
-
I like the idea of 3rd/4th/5th party candidates
[Read the article: The audacity of narcissism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You can foolishly call me delusional if you like but there isn't much difference between the two parties. The two Democratic candidates are historic for who they are, not for what policies and concepts they espouse. Three names has politics that are just as tired as Mr. McCain's.
All the candidates want big spending, big government, and major intrusion in what had previously been considered our private lives. Both parties thought the Iraq war was a great idea (and the Republicans still do). So what choice do I really have? Let me make my lesser of two evils speech.
The United States puts real barriers to access to the ballot. Until those barriers come down, we have no hope for an alternative to Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee who run around arguing weather it's an E# or an Fb while Rome burns.
This all started with Mr. Nader. As one of the Salon columnists put it (but in my words): If Ralph Nader was so concerned about these issues that he wants to get out to the people, why hasn't he been doing anything about it for the last four years? There's a simple three letter answer: Ego.
And, as long as I'm ranting, if you're going to sign my name for me, the least you could do is sign it in script instead of the ugly Ariel font you are using.
-
I think Mr. Keane is right
[Read the article: Surge coauthor believes Clinton would wait on withdrawal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Three names is the epitome of triangulation and saying what she thinks you want to hear. What she actually does may or may not bear any relationship to what she said. That, of course, is what spinmeisters are for.
On the subject of Iraq in specific, she refused to suggest that she might even think about considering to conspire to say anything like "I blew it". When she finally claimed it wasn't her fault, she did so because she knew she was toast if she didn't at least acknowledge that something dreadfully wrong happened back then. So, yeah, she's going to think she has to prove that she is strong on national security and the best way to do that is to appear macho. Stupid but macho.