Just repeating what I've been saying for 18 months. I am lukewarm about Palin, but the evidence her opponents bring up to show she's stupid only shows their own stupidity. The latest is this writing-on-the-hand thing.
I have "Don't take it personally" written on the top line of my to-do legal pad every day. Whatever else I may lack, I do have IQ candlepower. I don't write on my hand, but I do write on random scraps of paper to carry in my pocket and hold in my hand at times. Writing five words on your hand as telegram reminders of the main points to hit during a Q&A period is simply not evidence of any intellectual lack. The objection is entirely cultural, because People Like Us don't write on their hand, and have negative associations with it. To them, it is entirely more acceptable to read off two teleprompters when speaking to a 6th grade class, because that all very dignified looking.
It's just nuts. The Couric interview, even if it is conveniently edited as Palin claims, can be legitimately used as minor evidence that Sarah isn't that smart. But it's not that big a deal. Lots of people in Washington say much dumber stuff yet retain a reputation for intelligence for reasons of smoothness and culture. Lots of highly-placed people, in fact, including...oh never mind. You can generate the high-profile list yourself.
Here's a modest proposal. When making an argument for someone's qualifications of any sort - intelligence, courage, experience, common sense, fashion sense, or kindness to wombats - describe first your criteria, then rate the person. In this way you expose yourself to the very reasonable risk that 1) others might challenge your criteria, or 2) others may point out that your own favorites don't meet the criteria. If you are unwilling to take that risk, you shouldn't be opening your mouth.
11 comments:
I read comments about her that could easily describe Obama. His inexperience is not a factor with these people, but even though Palin was a governor, that doesn't mean anything because it was just Alaska. I don't know how I'd feel about her as president, but I simply don't believe all the negative comments. At this point, I just want someone who loves this country and doesn't want to "transform" it.
Minor point of information: the teleprompter setup was to say a few words to reporters afterward, not to speak to the class. The session with the class was closed and media/photos weren't allowed.
(On the other hand, who needs two teleprompters to say a few words to the press? And what idiot decided that a photo of the president with two teleprompters plus associated machinery, standing in a grade-school classroom, would make the president look so good that it should be added to the Obama PR photostream? Sometimes I truly don't know what's wrong with these people.)
And yes, it's insane. Most people would write a few notes on an index card... but a hand has the advantage that you can't drop it if you get flustered by a question. If she'd been carrying an iPhone with notes on it, she would have been attacked by it, but not with such bizarre condescension, I don't think. Having notes on a personal electronic device is acceptable.
The fact that she appeared in public a day or two after this broke with 'Hi Mom' written on her palm speaks volumes, as does that buffon of a press secretary Gibbs showing up with 'Hope' and 'Change' written on his hands.
The use of crib notes, note cards and TelePrompters tell us nothing about the intellectual capacities of the speaker, beyond establishing a floor at the minimal level of cognitive-perceptual capacity required to read a particular text.
In the second part of my comment, I will turn to the question of fallacy and bias. I will otherwise mercifully spare your readers a lengthy recitation of the criteria I rely upon when I assess intellectual functioning and will just say that I am extensively trained to conduct these assessments and have been doing so professionally for 25 years.
I do think that some of the ridicule directed toward Sarah Palin in this instance lies in what is perceived as a degree of smug hypocrisy. During the same presentation, she derisively referred to leaders who lead by TelePrompter. This reference carries a specific, erroneous connotation for many of Obama’s critics who have, again and again, ridiculed his use of TelePrompters as if it were a valid indicator of low intelligence.
I suspect that this incident could be best described as a “gotcha” moment for many of Palin’s detractors.
------------------------------------------
Jaed’s comment exemplifies a faulty analysis based both on a faulty premise and bias-driven selection of evidentiary data.
I’ll take the faulty premise first. The fact that Obama uses a Prompter, regardless of the particular situation, does not give us a valid indication of his maximum cognitive ability.
Example: If a mathematician uses a calculator to balance a checkbook, we have not thereby established that his mathematical ability is no better than everyone else who uses a calculator. A particular intellectual capacity is only evident when maximal ability is detected. That occurs when we locate a reliable point of failure on a norm-derived scale of increasingly difficult tasks. Then we can say: If the task is more difficult than this, he can’t do it; if it is easier than this, he can do it. Having that information, we can rank that individual’s ability on a scale comparing his maximum performance to established population norms for maximum performance (e.g. his ability on this task ranks at the 75th percentile.)
The next problem is the biased selection of evidentiary data. Citing Obama’s use of the Prompter while ignoring his performance at Prompter-free press conferences, confrontational interviews (check out the interview with O’Reilly) and, most recently, an hour long Q&A at the Republican congressional retreat, ignores those situations that sample his performance in more challenging conditions. This is, by definition, biased sampling of evidentiary data.
"The fact that she appeared in public a day or two after this broke with 'Hi Mom' written on her palm speaks volumes, as does that buffon of a press secretary Gibbs showing up with 'Hope' and 'Change' written on his hands."
What it establishes is that Gibbs took a jab that was humorous to some and offensive to others. And Palin injected some humor, probably in an effort to make light of an incident that says nothing about her intelligence.
I like your "modest proposal," but I doubt the Democrats and the MSM will accept the challenge.
I am a (1)Conservative and that makes me recoil violently from the Democrat party and leads me to supporting the (2)Republican Party.
And I also agree that Ms. Palin would not top my list of Republican Presidential candidates. I think she has things to say and has developed quite an audience among Conservatives and Moderates. I like her spunk and the "kiss my ass" attitude that drives the left nuts.
Over the years, the Democrats have always employed the strategy of "Ad Hominem" attacks. It's for sure, at this point, Democrats can not compete with Ms. Palin on the issues. So the use of the tactic of attacking her personal habits, the way she speaks, her family, where she was born, etc, etc, is their main weapon they use to defeat the opposition.
Let's face it, the Democrats surely can not govern, but they make up for that with negative personal campaigning.
I also think the average person is becoming a bit wiser to the Democrats and their accomplices in the MSM. The Democrats still play this music in some parts of the country among certain groups, but it is just not that loud anymore.
Jaed’s comment exemplifies a faulty analysis based both on a faulty premise and bias-driven selection of evidentiary data. I’ll take the faulty premise first. The fact that Obama uses a Prompter, regardless of the particular situation, does not give us a valid indication of his maximum cognitive ability.
Eh? Did I say anything whatever about Obama's cognitive ability level?
I have reread my comment. My recollection is correct; I did not. The oyster out of which you have constructed the above stew is this:
"[W]ho needs two teleprompters to say a few words to the press?"
I think it's a reasonable question. I also consider him overly dependent on the teleprompter. I base this on having seen tape of multiple occasions on which Obama was speaking with the aid of a teleprompter which malfunctioned - and responded with stammering, multiple repetitions of the last word or phrase he'd used, and other indications of confusion and disorientation. He also often uses teleprompters for brief addresses for which most people in public life would not require one - such as the occasion under discussion.
Many people, of course, become flustered when speaking in public and may lose track of what they're saying. It's unusual to see a high-level politician with a great deal of experience in public speaking experience these difficulties, however. The fact that Obama's talent as an orator has been so highly praised adds a bit of irony to the observation, which I'm sure has increased interest in it.
None of this has anything to do with Obama's cognitive abilities. (I do not, come to think of it, recall ever hearing anyone who "ridiculed his use of TelePrompters as if it were a valid indicator of low intelligence". I certainly did not.)
Jaed,
I misunderstood you. Thanks for setting me straight.
jaed is off the hook; I am quite certain I have read commenters making that claim over the last 48 hours, though.
What it establishes is that Gibbs took a jab that was humorous to some and offensive to others.
What an unemployed soccer mom with a Facebook page does is worthy of comment by the Presidental Press Secretary?
You're right about one thing. It doesn't say anything about her intelligence. It does say a lot about the intelligence of people who felt the need to point and laugh, and the touchiness of those who need to post long essays attempting to explain why Obama is not like Palin.
(Thanks, Dr. X.)
Post a Comment