SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (91251)10/21/2008 8:20:58 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541457
 
[Todd Zywicki, October 20, 2008 at 7:32pm] Trackbacks
Glibness v. Intelligence:

This piece by Randall Hoven on American Thinker raises a question that I've been wondering about, namely how it came to be that many people believe that Sarah Palin is not smart enough to be Vice-President. I think that what it probably explains it is a tendency to confuse glibnesswith intelligence, or perhaps more accurately, to confuse the ability to "bullshit" with actual intelligence.

The meme that has arisen that Sarah Palin isn't smart enough to be Vice-President (and potentially President) strikes me as quite implausible. Focusing on the big picture: she has been an extraordinarily successful governor with substantial policy accomplishments in a short time, she has an 85% approval rating, and she knocked off an incumbent and former governor to be elected. And, as I've previously discussed, based on my experience working with and in government, being governor of a state is an extremely difficult job, much more difficult than being a Senator (for instance). Sure there are some things that people are picking at, such as the trooper story or what really happened with the Bridge to Nowhere--but none of those things raise any doubt about her intellect or ability. With respect to the issues to which she has set herself to mastering and implementing, and the most important issues for Alaska, by all accounts she has an extremely strong understanding and mastery of the issues. It is simply not plausible to believe that she is dumb any more than it was credible that Ronald Reagan was dumb back when the establishment said the same thing about him.

Put another way, to believe the view that Sarah Palin is unintelligent you would have to have an awfully low opinion of the voters of Alaska and the overwhelming majority of Alaskans who approve of her job as governor. It seems much more plausible to me that when you are dealing with someone who has an impressive record of accomplishment as governor, won a couple of very tough elections, and has hugely high approval ratings, there should be a strong presumption that the person is capable and intelligent. And it is very difficult to hide if you are an incompetent governor (unlike being in the Senate, for instance). Alternatively, you would have to believe that she is simultaneously dumb yet so smart that she can fool the voters of Alaska into not realizing how dumb she is. There are probably some people out there who do believe that Alaskans are that dumb, but that's not who I'm thinking of. And when it comes to the issues that Palin has dedicated herself to mastering and acting on, such as energy policy, there seems to be little doubt that she understands quite well what she is doing.

Given this, how can it be that many reasonable people can suggest with a straight face that Palin is dumb--leaving aside those who actually do think that Alaskans are stupid?

My sense is that Hoven is on the right track. Some thoughtful people simply have a tendency to confuse intelligence with the ability to be glib, or more precisely, to bs. And I think that is much of what it comes down to--if Palin doesn't know the answer to a question, she just isn't that good at making something up. Biden, by contrast, is a master bs'er, as his debate performance exhibited. As a general rule, the less informed he was about the answer to a question, the more assertive he was in answering it, such as his extraordinary answer about the legislative role of the Vice-President. It is clear that he had not the slightest idea what he was talking about, yet he just plowed ahead throwing out assertions with rhetorical flair. Classic bs. Even on issues that were supposedly in his area of expertise, such as the Constitution, he wasn't even in the ballpark of being correct. Hoven picks up on Biden's whopper of answer about kicking Hezbollah out of Lebanon, but it is pretty much the same thing--aggressive bs covering a complete lack of any clue what he is talking about.

It is not uncommon to confuse glibness with intelligence. Certainly law professors do it all the time in assessing faculty candidates or students. I suspect that we are not alone in doing this. Quite obviously the establishment mainstream media falls for the same thing (at least when it fits their ideological predispositions). They also underestimated Ronald Reagan (remember the characterization of him as an "amiable dunce"), but I suspect that many of those who thought Reagan was dumb would not admit today that they held that position back then.

As a sidenote, I think McCain one reason McCain has suffered in the debastes is that he also is not a great bs'er either. Frankly, I'm not sure how smart he is--unlike being a governor where it is very hard to hide if you are dumb, it is pretty easy to hide in the "world's greatest deliberative body." And Obama is obviously quite good at bs'ing, although his style is different from Biden's--Obama has this ability to fall back on empty stock-phrases that he utters with a furrowed brow and gravitas, projecting a perception of intelligence and understanding even if what he is saying is largely devoid of substance. For instance, it seems relatively clear that neither McCain nor Obama has the slightest clue about what caused the financial crisis or what to do about it. But McCain's discomfort and lack of knowledge when it comes to talking about the financial crisis is transparent, whereas Obama is able to cogently spout empty generalities that obscure his lack of knowledge.

I have to say though, given the choice between someone who gets flustered when she doesn't know the answer to a question versus someone who doesn't know the answer but just makes something up, it is not obvious to me that the latter is smarter or better able to lead the country.

Update:

Along the same lines is this observation following on Orin's post and mine, at psjs.net:

It's more important that an ignorant executive be cautious than decisive. On that score, Palin is the only candidate in either ticket that seems even mildly conscious of her own ignorance. When foundering in ignorance, Obama reverts to platitudes, Biden makes stuff up, McCain suspends his campaign, and Palin asks for clarification.

volokh.com



To: TimF who wrote (91251)10/21/2008 8:28:21 PM
From: Cogito  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541457
 
>> Judging Who is Smart<

Tim -

An interesting view, though I would have to quibble with the author's dismissive take on the Troopergate situation. He claims that the Governor "committed no crime." In fact, the Branchflower report found that Sarah Palin abused her power in violation of a state ethics statute.

Remarkably, she claimed that the report said nothing of the kind. I've read it. She's lying. While it wasn't a crime for her to lie about the report, it does bring her honesty into question.

Also, while there have been some false Palin quotes on creationism circulated, there are some real ones circulating as well.

In any case, I don't personally think that Sarah Palin is stupid. Nor do most of the criticisms I have read of her, by people from all across the political spectrum, include the word "stupid."

The woman has charisma to burn, and she is not incompetent. But that doesn't mean all those people who have questioned her readiness to be VP are incorrect. I'm not going to rehash all the reasons they've put forward, but I will say that their objections amount to more than mere criticism of her ability to speak english without a teleprompter.

- Allen



To: TimF who wrote (91251)10/21/2008 8:36:55 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541457
 
"Judging Who is Smart"

She seems smart enough to me. The key issue has been her ignorance.



To: TimF who wrote (91251)10/21/2008 8:48:17 PM
From: ManyMoose  Respond to of 541457
 
That was a very worthwhile piece.

I see two responses besides your own addendum. Neither suggests that it's smart to underestimate Sarah Palin.

Which is my point: That it's NOT smart to underestimate her.

I do take issue with the opening paragraph: Apparently, the skill most highly prized in a President is articulateness in extemporaneous public speaking. In fact, it is so highly prized, it is considered a necessary condition to assume the Presidency, and probably even a sufficient one.

Not that it's untrue, but that it should not be true. A populace who thinks it is a sufficient criterion in itself had best consider that it has nothing to do with character and motive, and that the talent can be possessed by evil as well as by good.



To: TimF who wrote (91251)10/21/2008 9:45:22 PM
From: NAG1  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541457
 
Tim,

From the article,

<<By everything we know about Sarah Palin that is factual and verifiable, she is intelligent, honest and competent. So why then do so many people think she isn't? The answer boils down to one and only one thing: her extemporaneous public speaking. The Couric interview. The Gibson interview. The VP debates.>>

I think that Palin is intelligent. I just don't get the honest and competent. She is a typical politician, just like all the others, and plays fast and loose with the facts.

I will go to factcheck again and what they say about the kilkenny letter about Palin or the previously linked articles where she has played fast and loose with the facts.

factcheck.org

Again, I see Palin as being intelligent, but I don't see the curiosity about issues that will have her asking the appropriate questions that may give her an answer that may stop her from making a mistake. I see that as the same flaw that Bush has. I believe he is intelligent. But I don't think he had the curiosity to ask the right questions to keep us out of Iraq or having us go into Iraq for the right reasons.

The main thing that I think may speak to her lack of competence is the issue of starting to build the sports arena without having clear title to the land. I don't think there is any way that she shouldn't have known about this. If she truly didn't know about this, then she didn't ask the right questions. And if she didn't get the right answers from people, I didn't see anyone getting fired over this when she seems to have fired others over more insignificant offenses(mostly, it seems, those who voice a different opinion). I can't imagine her on a much larger stage.

Neal