F Scott Fitzgerald's quote about intelligent people

[boedicca]

.



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 have no serious issues with one through four, but five is the key. The higher up the chain you are the easier it is to see the forest for the trees.

There goes the neighborhood.

The PMH trash hath returneth.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Good point, history shows that liberalism and socialism have failed every time and every place that they have been tried...

That's just utter nonsense, and fully expected.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There goes the neighborhood.

The PMH trash hath returneth.

The teller of truths you mean, truths you reject.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't assume that liberals are evil people. Whenever I speak of the evils of liberals I speak only of those who are in elected office, and those who abuse their power.

Those who have been tricked into supporting them are simply being used. They have closed their minds to the truth and refuse to see everything.

So your side is simply right, and the other side is equally wrong? Yep, that's an ideologue alright.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I have no serious issues with one through four, but five is the key. The higher up the chain you are the easier it is to see the forest for the trees.

The topic of the thread is intelligent people, which would naturally preclude you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I have no serious issues with one through four, but five is the key. The higher up the chain you are the easier it is to see the forest for the trees.

The topic of the thread is intelligent people, which would naturally preclude you.

Nice of you to make his point for him...

 

[Peach]

.

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.

.

I can change my mind when new evidence is found; example: the Cochran/McDaniel "recount", actually litigation. I hope McDaniel decides against that route, but now understand why he is considering it.

 

[jasonnfree]

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.

Capitalism fails often. All the panics before the federal reserve was formed. The two times since, 1929 and 2008, both under republican administrations, it took massive bailouts with government money to revive the "free market."

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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.

Capitalism fails often. All the panics before the federal reserve was formed. The two times since, 1929 and 2008, both under republican administrations, it took massive bailouts with government money to revive the "free market."

Those were not free markets. And neither required bailing out.

 

[Peach]

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.

Capitalism fails often. All the panics before the federal reserve was formed. The two times since, 1929 and 2008, both under republican administrations, it took massive bailouts with government money to revive the "free market."

True, but communism has, thus far, always resulted in a state that borders on totalitarian. The state never "fades away".

 

[Ibentoken]

I watched Obama in Minnesota whining about the republicans won't let him help the people. Funny shit and sad. Sad because the useful Idiots who still support him believe it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have no serious issues with one through four, but five is the key. The higher up the chain you are the easier it is to see the forest for the trees.

The topic of the thread is intelligent people, which would naturally preclude you.

Since this thread is essentially just a duplicate of another thread already going, I'd said that its 'intelligence' component died a very early death.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I absolutely believe that you assume that.

I have no doubt that your post reflects your thoughts.

Another lovely illustration of my point.

.

So you deny the existence of rightwingers on this board who deny irrefutable facts?

That ironically makes you someone who denies an irrefutable fact.

I'm not going to burn a great deal of effort on this, because I don't expect you to be intellectually honest.

You'll notice that I did not refer to "left" or "right" in my OP.

And I wonder if you even realize that you're proving my point, so vividly.

Go through life with only one eye open, and you're half blind.

I just wonder which of my six options (or some combination therein) describes you.

I suspect I'll never know.

.

You denied believing that rightwingers around here deny irrefutable facts, so I called you on it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

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 .

O'Donnell isn't holding two opposing views.

 

[Kosh]

I have no serious issues with one through four, but five is the key. The higher up the chain you are the easier it is to see the forest for the trees.

The topic of the thread is intelligent people, which would naturally preclude you.

Since this thread is essentially just a duplicate of another thread already going, I'd said that its 'intelligence' component died a very early death.

The irony of those comments form a far left Obama drone that posts pretty much the same far left propaganda all the time.

 

[Kosh]

So you deny the existence of rightwingers on this board who deny irrefutable facts?

That ironically makes you someone who denies an irrefutable fact.

I'm not going to burn a great deal of effort on this, because I don't expect you to be intellectually honest.

You'll notice that I did not refer to "left" or "right" in my OP.

And I wonder if you even realize that you're proving my point, so vividly.

Go through life with only one eye open, and you're half blind.

I just wonder which of my six options (or some combination therein) describes you.

I suspect I'll never know.

.

You denied believing that rightwingers around here deny irrefutable facts, so I called you on it.

The far left continues to prove that the far left propaganda that is programmed into them is fact even though it is not connected to reality.

 

[Kosh]

I watched Obama in Minnesota whining about the republicans won't let him help the people. Funny shit and sad. Sad because the useful Idiots who still support him believe it.

Well you have to remember these are the same people that whine and cried about due process and indefinite detention in the Bush years are silent when Obama actually allows this to go on.

 

[candycorn]

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.

.

It reminds me of a discussion I had once about MSNBC and conservative media:

Quote: AzMike
Holy sh*t, so you can't judge a product to it's peers when the peers you present for public consumption are complete f*cking morons?

I wrote:
How do you know the peers are "complete f*cking morons"?

Quote: AzMike
I see their actions and calculate their words on the air. The fact you can't witness these people and come to the same conclusion is pathetic really. Your peers are complete f*cking morons yet you can't see that. It makes you worse than them in the end.

I wrote:
At 5:38 PM today you wrote:
Quote:
I can't name any others because I quit watching them long ago.

Strange how you can see them without watching them... Someone else is doing your thinking for you.

The response was:

I see the highlights, or lowlights depending on your grasp of things. Thinking for me doesn't mean I have to spend my time watching your favorite moron 24/7. I get the gist of the stupid and can pretty safely pass over the mundane minutia.

Basically here is a guy who never watches opposition media telling me he knows exactly what the opposition media says and thinks. By watching "highlights"...

As for this discussion, media doesn't always represent people's thoughts. I recall a time when it was antithetical to the word "media" to represent one school of thought or another . However I think the ship has sailed on many Americans considering the source when deciding on what they are seeing or hearing is legit. Not only that, many seek out the comforting sounds of Hannity or Olbermann. All to pity them more.

I'm quite proud to say that on my Direct TV service, I cannot tell you where Fox News or MSNBC are in terms of what channel number they are. Anyone who believes what they see on either one should have their heads examined and those doing the regurgitation of talking points should be ashamed.

 

[Mac1958]

So you deny the existence of rightwingers on this board who deny irrefutable facts?

That ironically makes you someone who denies an irrefutable fact.

I'm not going to burn a great deal of effort on this, because I don't expect you to be intellectually honest.

You'll notice that I did not refer to "left" or "right" in my OP.

And I wonder if you even realize that you're proving my point, so vividly.

Go through life with only one eye open, and you're half blind.

I just wonder which of my six options (or some combination therein) describes you.

I suspect I'll never know.

.

You denied believing that rightwingers around here deny irrefutable facts, so I called you on it.

Please point out where I "denied" anything.

Precisely.

.

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 .

O'Donnell isn't holding two opposing views.

Did you not watch the video?

That was the whole point of him bringing up Fitzgerald's quote. Here, let me try to help:

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/150708-msnbc-anchor-returns-work-accident-thanks-unlikely-person/


Holy crap.

You're so controlled by adherence to your partisan ideology that you're simply not making sense. You're completely making things up.

Wanna try again?

.

 

[shart_attack]

.

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?

Yes, Fitzgerald is absolutely, unequivocally 100% correct. And the big picture regarding what he says is that there are a whole bunch of idiots online.

One thing he failed to say, however: you can usually spot intelligence in a person by his/ her sense of humor, as the ability to make people laugh tends to be a trait that humorless morons by and large typically don't possess.

A good sense of non-partisan humor—demonstrated in say, Brian Regan, Jerry Seinfeld and Craig Ferguson, for example—also reflects not only intelligence, but how well-rounded, how socially functional a person is.

The contrast? The frauds?

Political hacks like Kathy Griffin and Russell Brand are excellent examples.

The only people whom they can make laugh are the people in their class and/ or party brackets, which is to say that they don't have universal senses of humor. They're polarizing. And that means they and their ilk aren't as intelligent, and certainly not as well-rounded, as socially functional, as they'd like us to believe.

It takes genuine intelligence to be able to make all kinds of people laugh.