You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Wow. No. Sorry Ryan, you are just wrong here. I guess I have to spoon feed you again. I get the feeling you will simply not agree, but the evidence is not fuzzy. It is clear. Here:
I'm unclear why you insist that your interpretation of the evidence is the only "truth" and anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is somehow stupid or suffering from denial?
Note the first bold statement. Anderson was clearly asking Obama to address his experience viz-a-viz Palin's experience as mayor AND governor. Now I ask you to please look anywhere in Obama's response and tell me if you see anywhere that he addressed Palin's governor experience. He did not. Now you may try to say it is not "cut and dried" or one interpretation could somehow differ from another. But again, Ryan, you are simply wrong. Let us now look at the definition of confirmation bias as given in skepdic:
He clearly was going after the area where she's had the most experience, which was as mayor. Maybe he didn't refer to her governor experience because it's nearly non-existant?
Comment from the Huffington Post article on Palin
CNBC's John Harwood reports that John McCain has selected Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.
"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a self-styled "hockey mom" who has only been governor for a little over a year, is GOP Presidential candidate John McCain's choice for Vice President, CNBC has learned," he reports.
"According to a Republican strategist, Palin is the nominee, though McCain's campaign has not comfirmed this."
Now - how the hell can her Governorship even be considered as relevant? Obama's answer focused on the bulk of her experience (which is, in fact, ultimately her "experience"). Who are you to say why he ignored her governorship - and then call your analysis "fact", and anyone who disagrees with you as stupid or on the same order as a B.S. scam-artist? Do you realize how condescending that is?
http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.htmlConfirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs.
The problem with this term, confirmation bias, is that when you get in an argument with anyone who disagrees with you, it's too easy to pull out the accusation of confirmation bias. When anyone is in a debate, they obviously look for points that support their position and counter the position of the other person. Everyone who has ever debated any topic does that - including you in this thread. Yet, for some unexplainable reason, you come to the conclusion that whoever your disagreeing with is suffering from confirmation bias, or is stupid, because they don't interpret things in the same way you do.
I know you are not this stupid, Ryan. So the only conclusion I can come to is you are purposefully trying to obfuscate this when it is as clear as day.
Your analysis, which is obviously clear as day to you (because, after all, you're the one who holds the position), is certainly not the conclusion that is clear as day to others. Others might read that interview and what's clear as day to them may be that Obama didn't directly answer some of the other questions as he could have - and his answer to this question could be interpreted in a million ways, one of which is what I mentioned above, he was making a point in his answer to refer to Palin's experience - which, in bulk, is not as governor, but as mayor of a tiny little Alaskan town. That's a documented, proven, here's-your-faked-ufo-photo FACT.
Obama selected Palin's mayoral experience in his reply because it "confirmed his beliefs". Similarly, he also ignored Palin's governor experience because it clearly does not confirm his belief.
See how interpretations can be subjective? You say he ignored her governor experience because it didn't confirm his belief. Prove it. Unless you're psychic, you can't. You're drawing an opinion. Just as I can easily draw an opinion based on the fact that she's only been governor for less than two years that he ignored her governor experience because she hasn't been there long enough for it to be considered relevant to this question.
What he did is pretty much a perfect example of confirmation bias, especially since Anderson Cooper purposefully asked him to address her governor experience.
You are correct on one point - he asked Obama to directly address her mayor experience AND governor experience. Obama chose to refer to her mayoral experience only. Why he chose to do so is up to subjective interpretation and opinion. A person's intentions can't be "proven" unless you can get Obama here and ask him yourself.
1) Ignoring the number of state employees in Alaska who fall under the governor. That would clearly not support his statements about running his campaign, for clearly the state of Alaska will have many more employees that fall under the governor.
The one point where you are correct is that Obama made a silly mistake of comparing his campaign experience to her mayoral experience. That was a stupid mistake, because it would have been more legit for him to compare his years of experience in the Illionois senate to her years of experience as Mayor. Instead he chose the aspect of his experience that's also been less than 2 years, therefore hurting his position. Which, by the way, using your method of classifying a remark as affected by confirmation bias, proves that he doesn't suffer from confirmation bias, because he selected something that does not confirm his beliefs, in fact it undervalues and contradicts the belief he is trying to elaborate on.
2) Ignoring the budget of Alaska. That would clearly not support his statements about the budget of his campaign, which we know must pale in comparison to the budget of Alaska.
Again - in your view he failed to compare his campaign experience to her governorship. In my view he failed to compare his Illinois senatorial experience to her mayoral experience.
Regardless of this nit-picking sort of discussion - if we actually discuss their entire range of experience, Palin with Mayoral and a couple years of Governor, and Obama with 12 years in the Illinois senate, and several years in the U.S. Senate...Palin's experience obviously pales in comparison. Anyone who says otherwise is suffering from confirmation bias.
And at this point I have to say: I have pretty much lost all respect for you as a result of this little issue, Ryan. I think any other person who considers themselves a skeptic who is on the lookout for confirmation bias would agree that the above shows clear confirmation bias in Obama's answer. But you don't think so? So clearly you do not apply the tenets of fair skepticism equally if you are willing to say this is somehow fuzzy.
I respect your decision to lose respect for me based on a discussion. Trust me - it's not the first time someone has gotten so fed up with my tenacity that they throw their hands up in the air. Since this isn't a formal "argument" or debate, we aren't tied to the gentlemen's rules of word limits, and a ban of ad-hominem attacks. Ad-hominem, by the way, is something you and I are both guilty of in several of our debates. In this case, I can understand your frustration that I'm not laying down and agreeing with you. I know it's frustrating when someone doesn't agree with your interpretation on a matter you personally believe is "clear as day." But the truth is Ray - people often disagree on issues that are heavily subject to interpretation, but this is definitely the first time I can remember anyone who knows me well, ever making the sort of comments about me that you're making here.
All because you appear to favor Obama. Shocked, I am. I thought you were bigger than this. I guess on that score, I was the one who was wrong.
I'm surprised by the level of emotion that you've expressed on this topic. I don't share that level of emotional attachment to the subject of politics, even though I enjoy debating the issues. But since I do have that level of emotional attachment to the subject of religion - I can completely empathize with what you're feeling and why you're reacting this way. All I have to say is that I'd be sorry to see you go, because you have a brilliant mind and you are a bull-dog in any debate. But we need to find a way for these two bulldogs to carry out a world-class fight without it ending in one getting permanently injured in the process, if you get my drift.
Obviously I'm not going to admit defeat on these points, and neither are you. There's no reason we can't simply accept that and move on - we've done it before.