Why might people *desire* to believe in the super-natural to such an extent that the mere belief over-rides rational scrutiny?
The Amazing Randy has had a several decade challenge to anyone who can conclusively demonstrate para-normal (i.e., non-scientific) phenomena to the tune of 1 million dollars.
It is a shame that certain evil people will use their knowledge of human psychological weakness to prey on their fellow man.
Similar examples to this can be found by exploiting people who are trying to connect with some dead friend, relative, etc. The technique they use is "cold reading."
Ok, this is a little dry, but notice that Pinker provides a reasonable explanation as to *how* politicians utilize plausible deniabilty to avoid saying anything with substance and *why* they do so.
In Richard Clarke's book 'Against All Enemies' Clarke claims that the Bush Administration turned a blind eye to warnings that could have helped prevent the attack on 9-11. He served as Bush I's, Clinton's and Bush II's Counter-Terrorism Adviser until his retirement in 2003.
Needless to say this claim did not sit well with the Bush Administration. In this clip we see an apparently orchestrated attack on Clarke's integrity ("Flack") through the use of the technique of Rhetorical Explanation/Circumstantial Ad Hominem.
In particular it is asserted that the reason that Clarke made this claim is because (1.) he is "auditioning" for a role in the Kerry administration and (2.) he just wants to sell books. Of course, this is essentially a Red Herring that distracts away from the real issue: What is the evidence for or against the claim that the Bush Administration was negligent?
[Note: In this clip from the documentary 'Outfoxed' the additional charge is made the Clarke contradicts himself in his book. It may be the case that the editors of this film (which is of course biased and thus subject to all of the normal suspicion one would cast upon an interested party) eliminated these more substantive charges. Nevertheless, the use of the rhetorical devices cited above is well documented.]
Here is an example of Left Wing indoctrination. Notice that the key point for the Resident Advisor program is to get people to accept a pre-established conclusion. This is nothing less than fascist/communistic/Stalinist/anti-democratic rhetoric.
Even if you agree with their conclusions the point is that they should be arrived at by each individual freely and open-mindedly coming to this. Otherwise, it is just an example of scare tactics/appeal to force/PEER PRESSURE=GROUP THINK.
When certain political parties are in power, or are striving to be in power, they tend to abandon their rationality. Most of my previous posts have been about the powerless at the time. They were generally more rational and from the left.
Now that the "left" are in power-- WHOA! Here is a great example of a two left-wingers just off the charts insane in terms of rational discourse. Shame on Olbermann who until recently had been as "hot-headed" as his opponents but has also presented real arguments.
This whole clip is a mish-mash of of a massive dose of rhetorical explanations/ circumstantial ad hominems (these people are just saying what they are saying since they are racists, are over-ridden by the limbic brain, stockholm syndrome controls them, just looking for a reason to yell at a black president, etc.--take your pick of left-wing targets) and dysphemisms ("tea bagging red necks" "white power activists")... ughhh. This is absolutely awful.
