F Scott Fitzgerald's quote about intelligent people

[Mac1958]

.

As fascinated as I am about the behavior of partisan ideologues, it was interesting to see F Scott Fitzgerald's quote about how an intelligent person can hold two opposing views and still function (at about 1:08 here: MSNBC Host’s Attitude Toward ‘Evil’ Billionaires Makes a 180-Degree Turn After Near-Death Experience).

So, just for giggles, let's assume Fitzgerald was right. Let's assume that any intelligent person can argue either side of an issue. What does that say about partisan ideologues, who can only be seen arguing their side of an issue while ignoring/avoiding/minimizing/distorting any argument from the other "side"? Does it mean that:

1. Their adherence to their ideology has seeped into their subconscious and denied them the ability to clearly see both sides? (my guess has always been that there is some of this at play...)

2. They know what they're doing, being intellectually dishonest, and choosing to win any given argument or issue at the expense of honesty?

3. They're just terribly intellectually lazy and don't want to be bothered to put forth the effort to understand the other "side" of an issue, even at the expense of better solving the problem at hand? (I think some of this might be at play too...)

4. A lack of self-esteem and a strong need to fit in with a group renders them unable to be honest and say something that someone on their "side" doesn't like? (yeah, I can see that)

5. Or, as Fitzgerald infers, are they simply not as intelligent as they think they are?

Personally, I've always assumed to partisan ideologues are intelligent but are intellectually paralyzed by #1 through #4. But the quote is interesting.

Any civil, mature, thoughtful input on this?

.

 

[Pennywise]

It's not exactly the same thing, but it's akin to playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion. I do it all the time when discussing business issues; I always look at the problem form the perspective of the antagonist, whether I agree with them or not.

It's also important to define the concept of an issue versus a belief or general principle. In cases where an ideologue has turned his position to the opposite, I think what he has discovered is that his idea about this or that is not as simple as he once thought. This does not account for people with no principles to stand on, or who are flat out stupid, or otherwise incapable of taking a firm stand, but instead use "nuance" as a crutch to do nothing.

I think Obama falls squarely into Fitzgerald's inference of someone who is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. I mean that sincerely, I'm not playing politics.

 

[Mac1958]

It's not exactly the same thing, but it's akin to playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion.

Digging down more on this point, I wonder if any kind of "devil's advocate" inner conversation even takes place. In other words, does a partisan ideologue even allow contrary thoughts and facts to be interjected into their thought processes? I usually see no evidence of this, but perhaps that's just part of the game.

.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Come to think of it, here's a sixth option:

6. Political rhetoric and debate represent a game for them, and being honest really isn't required in a game. Just play it, have fun with it, like watching professional wrestling.

.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

It's not exactly the same thing, but it's akin to playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion.

Digging down more on this point, I wonder if any kind of "devil's advocate" inner conversation even takes place. In other words, does a partisan ideologue even allow contrary thoughts and facts to be interjected into their thought processes? I usually see no evidence of this, but perhaps that's just part of the game.

.

Maybe the partisan ideologue in question has held the contrary beliefs, perhaps even lived the lifestyle that they entail, and found the beliefs wanting.

Maybe the real measure of the first-rate intelligence it to notice when something is not working, then doing something else.

 

[Sallow]

It's not exactly the same thing, but it's akin to playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion. I do it all the time when discussing business issues; I always look at the problem form the perspective of the antagonist, whether I agree with them or not.

It's also important to define the concept of an issue versus a belief or general principle. In cases where an ideologue has turned his position to the opposite, I think what he has discovered is that his idea about this or that is not as simple as he once thought. This does not account for people with no principles to stand on, or who are flat out stupid, or otherwise incapable of taking a firm stand, but instead use "nuance" as a crutch to do nothing.

I think Obama falls squarely into Fitzgerald's inference of someone who is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. I mean that sincerely, I'm not playing politics.

Sure you are.

President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people. He appointed many folks in the opposition party to his cabinet (So much so, it drew criticism from the left) and has had political adversaries (Namely Hillary Clinton) filling out top roles in his administration.

That's quite unlike either George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

 

[Sallow]

.

As fascinated as I am about the behavior of partisan ideologues, it was interesting to see F Scott Fitzgerald's quote about how an intelligent person can hold two opposing views and still function (at about 1:08 here: MSNBC Host’s Attitude Toward ‘Evil’ Billionaires Makes a 180-Degree Turn After Near-Death Experience).

So, just for giggles, let's assume Fitzgerald was right. Let's assume that any intelligent person can argue either side of an issue. What does that say about partisan ideologues, who can only be seen arguing their side of an issue while ignoring/avoiding/minimizing/distorting any argument from the other "side"? Does it mean that:

1. Their adherence to their ideology has seeped into their subconscious and denied them the ability to clearly see both sides? (my guess has always been that there is some of this at play...)

2. They know what they're doing, being intellectually dishonest, and choosing to win any given argument or issue at the expense of honesty?

3. They're just terribly intellectually lazy and don't want to be bothered to put forth the effort to understand the other "side" of an issue, even at the expense of better solving the problem at hand? (I think some of this might be at play too...)

4. A lack of self-esteem and a strong need to fit in with a group renders them unable to be honest and say something that someone on their "side" doesn't like? (yeah, I can see that)

5. Or, as Fitzgerald infers, are they simply not as intelligent as they think they are?

Personally, I've always assumed to partisan ideologues are intelligent but are intellectually paralyzed by #1 through #4. But the quote is interesting.

Any civil, mature, thoughtful input on this?

.

I seriously doubt your honesty or sincerity about this.

And anyone who's followed O'Donnell, knows while he has an agenda, he is hardly unfair.

 

[Redfish]

It's not exactly the same thing, but it's akin to playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion. I do it all the time when discussing business issues; I always look at the problem form the perspective of the antagonist, whether I agree with them or not.

It's also important to define the concept of an issue versus a belief or general principle. In cases where an ideologue has turned his position to the opposite, I think what he has discovered is that his idea about this or that is not as simple as he once thought. This does not account for people with no principles to stand on, or who are flat out stupid, or otherwise incapable of taking a firm stand, but instead use "nuance" as a crutch to do nothing.

I think Obama falls squarely into Fitzgerald's inference of someone who is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. I mean that sincerely, I'm not playing politics.

Sure you are.

President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people. He appointed many folks in the opposition party to his cabinet (So much so, it drew criticism from the left) and has had political adversaries (Namely Hillary Clinton) filling out top roles in his administration.

That's quite unlike either George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

LOL, ^^^that post confirms the OP. You are so out of touch with reality that its amazing that you can find your ass with both hands.

There were more minorities represented in Bush's administration than Obama's by a large margin. As to having Hillary in his cabinet, that was the deal for her dropping out of the 08 primary, the Clintons hate the obamas with a passion.

 

[driveby]

It's not exactly the same thing, but it's akin to playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion. I do it all the time when discussing business issues; I always look at the problem form the perspective of the antagonist, whether I agree with them or not.

It's also important to define the concept of an issue versus a belief or general principle. In cases where an ideologue has turned his position to the opposite, I think what he has discovered is that his idea about this or that is not as simple as he once thought. This does not account for people with no principles to stand on, or who are flat out stupid, or otherwise incapable of taking a firm stand, but instead use "nuance" as a crutch to do nothing.

I think Obama falls squarely into Fitzgerald's inference of someone who is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. I mean that sincerely, I'm not playing politics.

Sure you are.

President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people. He appointed many folks in the opposition party to his cabinet (So much so, it drew criticism from the left) and has had political adversaries (Namely Hillary Clinton) filling out top roles in his administration.

That's quite unlike either George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Indeed, he doesn't look at lying to the American people about Obamacare, using the IRS to target people that disagree with him and lying about the death of our ambassador as faults. He also made it clear about how much he values the opinions of others when he said republicans "have to sit in the back seat" or " I won, get over it"......

 

[HelenaHandbag]

It's not exactly the same thing, but it's akin to playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion. I do it all the time when discussing business issues; I always look at the problem form the perspective of the antagonist, whether I agree with them or not.

It's also important to define the concept of an issue versus a belief or general principle. In cases where an ideologue has turned his position to the opposite, I think what he has discovered is that his idea about this or that is not as simple as he once thought. This does not account for people with no principles to stand on, or who are flat out stupid, or otherwise incapable of taking a firm stand, but instead use "nuance" as a crutch to do nothing.

I think Obama falls squarely into Fitzgerald's inference of someone who is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. I mean that sincerely, I'm not playing politics.

Sure you are.

President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people. He appointed many folks in the opposition party to his cabinet (So much so, it drew criticism from the left) and has had political adversaries (Namely Hillary Clinton) filling out top roles in his administration.

Do you like the cherry or grape best?

 

[Redfish]

It's not exactly the same thing, but it's akin to playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion.

Digging down more on this point, I wonder if any kind of "devil's advocate" inner conversation even takes place. In other words, does a partisan ideologue even allow contrary thoughts and facts to be interjected into their thought processes? I usually see no evidence of this, but perhaps that's just part of the game.

.

Maybe the partisan ideologue in question has held the contrary beliefs, perhaps even lived the lifestyle that they entail, and found the beliefs wanting.

Maybe the real measure of the first-rate intelligence it to notice when something is not working, then doing something else.

Good point, history shows that liberalism and socialism have failed every time and every place that they have been tried------------but those on the left refuse to learn the lessons of history and continue to try to ram that failed ideology up the butt of the USA.

 

[Sallow]

It's not exactly the same thing, but it's akin to playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion. I do it all the time when discussing business issues; I always look at the problem form the perspective of the antagonist, whether I agree with them or not.

It's also important to define the concept of an issue versus a belief or general principle. In cases where an ideologue has turned his position to the opposite, I think what he has discovered is that his idea about this or that is not as simple as he once thought. This does not account for people with no principles to stand on, or who are flat out stupid, or otherwise incapable of taking a firm stand, but instead use "nuance" as a crutch to do nothing.

I think Obama falls squarely into Fitzgerald's inference of someone who is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. I mean that sincerely, I'm not playing politics.

Sure you are.

President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people. He appointed many folks in the opposition party to his cabinet (So much so, it drew criticism from the left) and has had political adversaries (Namely Hillary Clinton) filling out top roles in his administration.

That's quite unlike either George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

LOL, ^^^that post confirms the OP. You are so out of touch with reality that its amazing that you can find your ass with both hands.

There were more minorities represented in Bush's administration than Obama's by a large margin. As to having Hillary in his cabinet, that was the deal for her dropping out of the 08 primary, the Clintons hate the obamas with a passion.

What, wait?

Nothing I said was incorrect.

In FACT you confirm what I posted.

Obama's administration was populated with many REPUBLICANS.

The "minorities" in the Bush administration were CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS.

And by the way? Anyone that knows my posting also knows I have praised Bush MANY TIMES for being one of the most color blind Presidents in history.

 

[Sallow]

Digging down more on this point, I wonder if any kind of "devil's advocate" inner conversation even takes place. In other words, does a partisan ideologue even allow contrary thoughts and facts to be interjected into their thought processes? I usually see no evidence of this, but perhaps that's just part of the game.

.

Maybe the partisan ideologue in question has held the contrary beliefs, perhaps even lived the lifestyle that they entail, and found the beliefs wanting.

Maybe the real measure of the first-rate intelligence it to notice when something is not working, then doing something else.

Good point, history shows that liberalism and socialism have failed every time and every place that they have been tried------------but those on the left refuse to learn the lessons of history and continue to try to ram that failed ideology up the butt of the USA.

The US is a liberal country with socialism BAKED into the Constitution.

It hasn't failed.

Neither has most of the Western European countries that have adopted a mix of Liberalism, Capitalism and Socialism.

Hard RIGHT countries fail quite often.

 

[Sallow]

It's not exactly the same thing, but it's akin to playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion. I do it all the time when discussing business issues; I always look at the problem form the perspective of the antagonist, whether I agree with them or not.

It's also important to define the concept of an issue versus a belief or general principle. In cases where an ideologue has turned his position to the opposite, I think what he has discovered is that his idea about this or that is not as simple as he once thought. This does not account for people with no principles to stand on, or who are flat out stupid, or otherwise incapable of taking a firm stand, but instead use "nuance" as a crutch to do nothing.

I think Obama falls squarely into Fitzgerald's inference of someone who is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. I mean that sincerely, I'm not playing politics.

Sure you are.

President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people. He appointed many folks in the opposition party to his cabinet (So much so, it drew criticism from the left) and has had political adversaries (Namely Hillary Clinton) filling out top roles in his administration.

Do you like the cherry or grape best?

That's quite an argument you have there.

Now get the diaper off your head. It's smelling up the room.

 

[Redfish]

Sure you are.

President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people. He appointed many folks in the opposition party to his cabinet (So much so, it drew criticism from the left) and has had political adversaries (Namely Hillary Clinton) filling out top roles in his administration.

That's quite unlike either George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

LOL, ^^^that post confirms the OP. You are so out of touch with reality that its amazing that you can find your ass with both hands.

There were more minorities represented in Bush's administration than Obama's by a large margin. As to having Hillary in his cabinet, that was the deal for her dropping out of the 08 primary, the Clintons hate the obamas with a passion.

What, wait?

Nothing I said was incorrect.

In FACT you confirm what I posted.

Obama's administration was populated with many REPUBLICANS.

The "minorities" in the Bush administration were CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS.

And by the way? Anyone that knows my posting also knows I have praised Bush MANY TIMES for being one of the most color blind Presidents in history.

you said "President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people"

that is about as far from the truth as anyone on this forum has ever been.

 

[Sallow]

It's not exactly the same thing, but it's akin to playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion. I do it all the time when discussing business issues; I always look at the problem form the perspective of the antagonist, whether I agree with them or not.

It's also important to define the concept of an issue versus a belief or general principle. In cases where an ideologue has turned his position to the opposite, I think what he has discovered is that his idea about this or that is not as simple as he once thought. This does not account for people with no principles to stand on, or who are flat out stupid, or otherwise incapable of taking a firm stand, but instead use "nuance" as a crutch to do nothing.

I think Obama falls squarely into Fitzgerald's inference of someone who is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. I mean that sincerely, I'm not playing politics.

Sure you are.

President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people. He appointed many folks in the opposition party to his cabinet (So much so, it drew criticism from the left) and has had political adversaries (Namely Hillary Clinton) filling out top roles in his administration.

That's quite unlike either George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Indeed, he doesn't look at lying to the American people about Obamacare, using the IRS to target people that disagree with him and lying about the death of our ambassador as faults. He also made it clear about how much he values the opinions of others when he said republicans "have to sit in the back seat" or " I won, get over it"......

Look at what?

Lying about Obamacare? What lie?

The whole "you can keep your doctor" thing was blown way out of proportion without looking at the real culprits. HMOs tried to pull a fast one. None of you folks cared about that..at all.

Same with IRS. The "Citizen's United" case opened up a flood gate of PACs that stampeded the IRS. They had no effective way to deal with it. By the way? NONE of those PACs should have gotten the 501 (c) 4 status. They ALL broke the FEDERAL law regarding that.

And there was no lie about Benghazi. Turns out the very terrorist that ORGANIZED ONE of the attacks? Was pissed about the video.

There..all dealt with.

Feel better?

 

[Redfish]

Maybe the partisan ideologue in question has held the contrary beliefs, perhaps even lived the lifestyle that they entail, and found the beliefs wanting.

Maybe the real measure of the first-rate intelligence it to notice when something is not working, then doing something else.

Good point, history shows that liberalism and socialism have failed every time and every place that they have been tried------------but those on the left refuse to learn the lessons of history and continue to try to ram that failed ideology up the butt of the USA.

The US is a liberal country with socialism BAKED into the Constitution.

It hasn't failed.

Neither has most of the Western European countries that have adopted a mix of Liberalism, Capitalism and Socialism.

Hard RIGHT countries fail quite often.

The constitution of the USA is NOT based on liberal principles as they are described today. Just the opposite.

As to european socialism failing-----------Greece, Spain, France, Portugal, Italy just to name 5. All broke, all full of people longing for individual freedom, all begging for bailouts from "conservative" countries i.e. the USA.

Your idelogy has failed, sallow. Liberalism is a failed idea. It is destroying the USA as we speak.

Time to scrap it and move back to what worked for 200 years-------FREEDOM.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

you said "President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people"

that is about as far from the truth as anyone on this forum has ever been.

Hence, my question as to whether he likes the cherry or grape best, which flew right over his head.

 

[Redfish]

Sure you are.

President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people. He appointed many folks in the opposition party to his cabinet (So much so, it drew criticism from the left) and has had political adversaries (Namely Hillary Clinton) filling out top roles in his administration.

That's quite unlike either George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Indeed, he doesn't look at lying to the American people about Obamacare, using the IRS to target people that disagree with him and lying about the death of our ambassador as faults. He also made it clear about how much he values the opinions of others when he said republicans "have to sit in the back seat" or " I won, get over it"......

Look at what?

Lying about Obamacare? What lie?

The whole "you can keep your doctor" thing was blown way out of proportion without looking at the real culprits. HMOs tried to pull a fast one. None of you folks cared about that..at all.

Same with IRS. The "Citizen's United" case opened up a flood gate of PACs that stampeded the IRS. They had no effective way to deal with it. By the way? NONE of those PACs should have gotten the 501 (c) 4 status. They ALL broke the FEDERAL law regarding that.

And there was no lie about Benghazi. Turns out the very terrorist that ORGANIZED ONE of the attacks? Was pissed about the video.

There..all dealt with.

Feel better?

Wrong on all counts, but its very clear that the left wing brainwashing of your tiny brain has been very effective.

 

[Redfish]

you said "President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people"

that is about as far from the truth as anyone on this forum has ever been.

Hence, my question as to whether he likes the cherry or grape best, which flew right over his head.

LOL, when your head is full of koolaid, I guess you can't see it.