About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 8:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Does sanctioning this quote imply agreement with Ann Coulter? It is categorized as "Philosophy" rather than "Infamous." Inquiring minds want to know.

Post 1

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 8:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's hard to believe this any supposedly intelligent person would actually make this statement. It sounds like one of those Geico commercials in which the caveman is losing to Billy Jean King in Tennis 6-0, 6-0, 5-0, and points to the scoreboard as proof that he's beating her.

- Bill

Post 2

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 9:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Try reading Pat Buchanan's Making a monkey out of Darwin. Exceeds 100% of your daily allowance of fallacies per column inch. But at least with Buchanan I think he really does doubt evolution. What Coulter's game is has got me.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 10:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From Peter Olafsson:  "The Coulter Hoax"

"In conclusion, Coulter has written a biting satire over the trend of anti-intellectualism that clouds part of the conservative ideology, which is otherwise based on principle and reason."

From the comments to the above article:

"I think I will get this book... I may not start LIKEING Coulter... (I'm a middle ground-to-conservative) but I will respect her if she has committed "Heresy" and written a book too clever for her usual target audience to understand. ROFL!"

(Edited by Mike Erickson on 7/17, 10:29am)

Fixed. Thanks Ted.
(Edited by Mike Erickson on 7/17, 10:30am)


Post 4

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 10:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike, your link is broken.

Post 5

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 3:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike, Ted,

I read the column, but I'm unconvinced. Coulter is intelligent but I see her as having compartmentalized her thinking and using faith for accepted principles in the area of religion and reason in most of the political/economic world. I don't think it is clever satire - but literal beliefs.

I think that the same is true with Buchanan - severely compartmentalized mental processes. Buchanan is bright, but get into those areas where he has religious hot-spots and you get nonsense... strikingly so!

O'Reilly on Fox News is fun to watch because his compartmentalization is more interesting - he is more of a populist with a few conservative leanings and his hot-spots are not just religious but very child-oriented. He really sees himself as "looking after the folks" and when it comes to kids, his "looking after" motivation goes into high gear at the same time that his compartmentalized thinking gets extreme.
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 7/17, 4:25pm)


Post 6

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 4:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Could she be just playing to the crowd, riding the popular conservative bandwagon?

Seems illogical - a contradiction - that she could be intelligent one moment, and an absolute moron the next.

jt

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 4:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jay,

The thing to focus on is the concept of compartmentalization. For what ever reason, a person sets subconscious markers so that when given content is triggered, they use a different process. Think of someone who is a normally relaxed confident person, but has a fear of closed spaces. You will see things change in the way they process anything having to do with closed spaces. In that case the emotional reaction is markedly different, but if you think about it, the underlying reasoning must also be different from how they process other content.

Perfectly normal people, in different cultures believe in virgin birth, talking bushes, coming back from the dead, that cows are sacred, that they will get 72 virgins when they ascend to paradise, that spirits inhabit the threshold of buildings, that a mirror over the door will deflect bad spirits from your business, that spitting behind a foreigner as they walk past will keep their bad spirits from jumping onto you, etc., etc. Compartmentalized thinking lets people maintain not just contradictory thoughts, but radically different processes for manipulation of concepts in specified areas.

With people that don't deal with ideas for a living and with people that aren't terribly bright this doesn't strike us with such force. But when we find a scientist that doesn't believe in evolution it does, or when we see a person that is as intelligent and well educated as Coulter it is very striking. But what happens is that the compartmentalized area has some kind of powerful emotional investment - something from an early age. That force acted through out their development to motivate them to find rationalizations and the more of that they did, and the more they used denial for the twinges of doubt, for the inkling of a contradiction, and the stronger the compartmental wall became.

We can't function without automatizing a great deal of our processes. Try walking to the door, turning the knob, and going out, if you had to explicitly, consciously address every single muscle contraction and readdress that action's relation to the sub-sub-goal (lift leg), the sub-goal (move towards door) and the goal itself (go to the kitchen for a sandwich). We automatize not just large numbers of subroutines, but also that very kind of mental processing. We automatize defensive reactions as well - and attach them to triggers.


Post 8

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 5:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's not my theory that it's a hoax, but I do believe her stand needs some explanation. She is too intelligent not to understand evolution, and except for biblical literalist evangelicals there is no opposition to evolution from the Christian sects. Her opposition to evolution is neither necessary for nor enhances her Christianity - it's more like a bizarre atavistic fetish for hairshirts and Gregorian chants. She's 47 and she was educated in the North East and went to Cornell. Her father was Catholic, and she considers herself non-denominational. Did she simply skip biology class? Did she go to some weird private high school run by Baptists? The whole thing strikes me as a pose, but maybe she really is just a nut. After all, she has never married, and her head is shaped funny. In any case, she is otherwise smart as a whip, does not let the liberals get away with anything, has written some damn good books and she's funnier than any living professional comic.

Post 9

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 5:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted, I agree with nearly everything you said, except that I suspect that you would like her to share the dryness of wit you often spring on the rest of us - a much more pleasing portrait than someone who managed the degree of bizarre compartmentalization that would otherwise be required.

Post 10

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 9:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is as good a time as any to pass on the rumor that she had an affair with the Leftist host of 'Politically Incorrect.'

Ed


Post 11

Saturday, July 18, 2009 - 1:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Had to have been drunk - he looks like a toad...

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.