Rick Santorum is an idiot, a bigot, and morally inconsistent...

[Pardalis]

Nothing supernatural, and nothing that requires a "professional". In fact, as voters in a form of democracy, it's our civic duty to "analyze other people's psyche at a distance".

Strange, I always base my vote on whether or not I agree with a party's policies, not a particular's candidate inner sanctum.

 

[leftysergeant]

I'm not claiming they are wrong, I'm claiming they have no business to make those determinations.

Where do you get the credentials to claim that he had to have been referring to the white Iowans in the audience?

The liklihood that any of the peope he was adressing are on welfare is pretty remote.

He does, of course, need to reassure his supporters that he is not going to take their stuff and give it to black people.

The republicons have ridden that meme to great heights already over the last thirty years.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nursing and psychoanalysis are two different fields.

You called it psychoanalysis. That would be an error on your part. A more valid term is the one I used, "evaluating a person's behavior".

I couldn't care less about your self-taught "expertise". Your personal opinion on this man's subconscious mechanisms is of no interest, and can't be used as "evidence".

His behavior demonstrates a stereotypical belief about people on welfare. That seems to also include a belief the stereotype applies specifically to blacks as a group. You are welcome to draw a different conclusion.

I seem to disagree with him on many issues, and I wouldn't vote for him if I were American.

I'm glad to hear that.

I just dislike lies being propagated, regardless of who is being lied about.

What if it is Santorum lying about what he said to cover it up? If that turned out to be confirmed in the days to come if supporting racist comments/actions he's made/done come out, will you also revisit your opinion on who is propagating lies here?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Strange, I always base my vote on whether or not I agree with a party's policies, not a particular's candidate inner sanctum.

It's pretty hard to separate the two.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Strange, I always base my vote on whether or not I agree with a party's policies, not a particular's candidate inner sanctum.

You mean you don't evaluate their credibility or their character as well? You'd vote for someone if he said he supported a certain configuration of political positions even if you thought he was a compulsive liar?

ETA: I notice you're ducking most of the questions being asked. Can you at least address the one about whether or not it is indeed within our human evolved mental capacity and our civic duty to evaluate the candidates in this way?

If only psychoanalysts can do this, how are we to function? Wouldn't we fall victim to every e-mail scam that comes along? Wouldn't we be unable to conduct any kind of negotiations on our own behalf (everything from job offers, to buying a house or a car) without the aid of a psychoanalyst?

 

[Pardalis]

Are you suggesting that psychoanalysts should get more than one vote to every vote of an "amateur"?

No. I'm saying psychoanalysis is a difficult and complex process. You can't just determine another person's inner mechanisms like that.

Or are you suggesting that we lack the capacity to judge motives and thought patterns (and even "the character") of a political candidate and that we ought not have the authority to do so?

On the contrary, we overly judge other people's motives and thought patterns, it's too easy to infer meanings into slips ups and coincidences.

We are a pattern seeking species, and we should always be careful about that.

Should we be prohibited from relying on our evaluations of these matters and be required to rely on a professional psychoanalysis of the candidates?

I think we should be careful not to over do it, and take our personal assumptions as fact. We too have a psyche and subconscious motivations of our own.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I just dislike lies being propagated, regardless of who is being lied about.

Ah. . so you do seem to agree that you have the capacity to decide for yourself when you believe someone is lying. You reached this conclusion without the aid of a psychoanalyst, didn't you?

And even if you yourself are a psychoanalyst, your opinion of someone you've not conducted a psychoanalytical examination would still be the opinion of an "amateur" wouldn't it? (If you're going to make an argument based on authority or expertise, you've got to do it right.)

 

[Pardalis]

Where do you get the credentials to claim that he had to have been referring to the white Iowans in the audience?

I'm basing my assumption on the full quote itself. I feel it's much more coherent this way.

He does, of course, need to reassure his supporters that he is not going to take their stuff and give it to black people.

I see no reason why he would be talking about black people at that moment.

The republicons have ridden that meme to great heights already over the last thirty years.

Your childish names are getting tiresome.

You called it psychoanalysis. That would be an error on your part. A more valid term is the one I used, "evaluating a person's behavior".

You're not talking about people's behavior, you're talking about a person's unconscious motivations.

Behavioral psychology deals with behavior, psychoanalysis deals with the subconscious.

You are trained in neither.

His behavior demonstrates a stereotypical belief about people on welfare.

No, his words demonstrate a very common socio-economic belief system, called conservatism.

One might disagree with that way of thinking, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

What if it is Santorum lying about what he said to cover it up?

Again, one only can interpret what he said, you can't accuse him of lying without evidence.

If that turned out to be confirmed in the days to come if supporting racist comments/actions he's made/done come out, will you also revisit your opinion on who is propagating lies here?

If he confirms that he did say "black" in that particular speech I will retract my position, yes.

You mean you don't evaluate their credibility or their character as well?

A person' character and person's psyche are too different things.

I notice you're ducking most of the questions being asked. Can you at least address the one about whether or not it is indeed within our human evolved mental capacity and our civic duty to evaluate the candidates in this way?

I don't think it's our civic duty to pretend that we are psychoanalysts, no.

 

[leftysergeant]

I think we should be careful not to over do it, and take our personal assumptions as fact. We too have a psyche and subconscious motivations of our own.

I am not looking at the inner workings of his mind. I am looking at his speach patterns and previously-expressed attitudes.

I spend a lot of time thinking about how the mouth is shaped to pronounce certain words. (Studying multiple foreign languages will incline a person to do this.)

Dude did start, at the very least, to say "black" and most of it came out.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

it's too easy to infer meanings into slips ups and coincidences.

You mean infer "from" do you not?

We are a pattern seeking species, and we should always be careful about that.

Yes, we have a remarkable mental capacity for recognizing patterns, one that doesn't require special expertise to exercise. In fact, it's our civic duty to evaluate candidates on these matters.

I think we should be careful not to over do it, and take our personal assumptions as fact. We too have a psyche and subconscious motivations of our own.

I'm glad you've abandoned the idea that we shouldn't exercise our right (and duty) to conduct these evaluations at all. What you say here doesn't cut either direction with regard to the question of whether or not Santorum is racist.

People defending him are just as prone to biased thinking, relying too much on preconceptions and "subconcious motivations".

That's why I've made my case wrt to the "black people's lives" thing based on an evaluation of the evidence: 1)what the video sounds like to me, 2)past instances of Santorum making racist comments and 3)Santorum's response to the charge that he said "black people's lives" (that he found it plausible he did say that and tried to explain why).

Again, my take is that he started to say "black people's lives" and caught himself as he was saying it, and tried his best to say "people's lives".

 

[Pardalis]

I am not looking at the inner workings of his mind. I am looking at his speach patterns and previously-expressed attitudes.

You're accusing him of being a sociopath.

Only psychiatrists can diagnose mental disorders.

I spend a lot of time thinking about how the mouth is shaped to pronounce certain words. (Studying multiple foreign languages will incline a person to do this.)

I am not a native English speaker, and I don't see it far-fetched that he would make something that sounds like "bl" without intending to say "black".

People defending him are just as prone to biased thinking, relying too much on preconceptions and "subconcious motivations".

And people attacking him aren't?

Again, my take is that he started to say "black people's lives" and caught himself as he was saying it, and tried his best to say "people's lives".

I disagree.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm basing my assumption on the full quote itself. I feel it's much more coherent this way.

Except you've repeatedly mischaracterized the full quote by claiming he is only talking about the people in his audience. That's objectively false. He's talking about at least two groups of people--those whose lives are made better by welfare programs and those who pay taxes into that welfare program. His thesis is that he doesn't think it's right to improve the lives of the one group at the expense of the other group.

Behavioral psychology deals with behavior, psychoanalysis deals with the subconscious.

You are trained in neither.

Irrelevant. Professional training is of no value if that professionally trained person hasn't done an actual psychoanalysis of Santorum. And the existence of professionally trained psychoanalysts doesn't prove that we "amateurs" are incapable of analyzing the evidence and coming to a valid conclusion about Santorum's character, motivations and intentions--the stuff that matters in a political race.

A person' character and person's psyche are too [sic] different things.

Which evaluation matters for purposes of a political race? We're not discussing treatment options. We're discussing Santorum's fitness for the office of POTUS.

I don't think it's our civic duty to pretend that we are psychoanalysts, no.

But that's not what we're doing. None of us here are even pretending to analyze and treat any psychosis or neurosis Santorum might have. (That is the point of psychoanalysis. And by the way, there's no broad consensus that it's the best theory or approach anyway.)

We're trying to decide whether or not there is credible evidence that Santorum is racist as part of a larger discussion on the question of whether he would be the right person for the job of POTUS.

Do you think it requires a psychoanalyst to do this?

 

[eeyore1954]

You mean infer "from" do you not?


Yes, we have a remarkable mental capacity for recognizing patterns, one that doesn't require special expertise to exercise. In fact, it's our civic duty to evaluate candidates on these matters.


I'm glad you've abandoned the idea that we shouldn't exercise our right (and duty) to conduct these evaluations at all. What you say here doesn't cut either direction with regard to the question of whether or not Santorum is racist.

People defending him are just as prone to biased thinking, relying too much on preconceptions and "subconcious motivations".

That's why I've made my case wrt to the "black people's lives" thing based on an evaluation of the evidence: 1)what the video sounds like to me, 2)past instances of Santorum making racist comments and 3)Santorum's response to the charge that he said "black people's lives" (that he found it plausible he did say that and tried to explain why).

Again, my take is that he started to say "black people's lives" and caught himself as he was saying it, and tried his best to say "people's lives".

I am always inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt but in this case it clearly seems as if he said black or started to and tried to stop.

Why would he do that? Probably because he thinks blacks are recieving a larger share of welfare than their population warrants.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're accusing him of being a sociopath.

Only psychiatrists can diagnose mental disorders.

Claiming he has made racist comments is not equal to claiming he is a sociopath.

I disagree.

I know that. I supported my take with 3 separate lines of evidence. You're merely reasserting yours.

 

[eeyore1954]

He's talking about at least two groups of people--those whose lives are made better by welfare programs and those who pay taxes into that welfare program. His thesis is that he doesn't think it's right to improve the lives of the one group at the expense of the other group.

I think his thesis is there are better ways to help others than just giving them things.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why would he do that? Probably because he thinks blacks are recieving a larger share of welfare than their population warrants.

That's pretty much how I took it. Pardalis claims this is impossible because he was only talking about the people in the audience. That claim is objectively false, as I've shown.


Ultimately what any of us think Santorum said or started to say is a matter of opinion, and everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but they are not entitled to have their opinions treated as valid, especially when the arguments they make have been well rebutted and the arguments for the opposite opinion still stand.

 

[Pardalis]

We're discussing Santorum's fitness for the office of POTUS.

I think the fact that he got blindsided by the question about the quote and felt he needed to invent a reason disqualifies him as a potential president, because he's going to get tougher questions when in office.

We're trying to decide whether or not there is credible evidence that Santorum is racist as part of a larger discussion on the question of whether he would be the right person for the job of POTUS.

Do you think it requires a psychoanalyst to do this?

No, but Skeptigirl is clearly seeing unconsious motivations where there are none.

 

[Pardalis]

I know that. I supported my take with 3 separate lines of evidence. You're merely reasserting yours.

Your only evidence is that it sounded like "black" to you. I doesn't to me, and it doesn't fit in the context of the full quote.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think his thesis is there are better ways to help others than just giving them things.

I won't quibble with that, much--but that really isn't how he worded it. He said he doesn't want to improve the lives of one group by taking from another group. That doesn't imply that he is open to other welfare programs or other tax-payer financed plans to help them.

The way you worded it, I would expect it to follow with some other proposal for helping low income people. Instead it was part of an argument for simply cutting programs.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Your only evidence is that it sounded like "black" to you.

That is false. I've even numbered the 3 separate lines of evidence for your convenience.

I doesn't to me, and it doesn't fit in the context of the full quote.

Actually, it does, as I've shown. See also Eeyore's post.

He started to use "black people's lives" in referring to people who receive government aid--low income people, poor people, whatever terminology you prefer. That it's not correct to do so is why it's racist (in Iowa, there are more whites on welfare than blacks). So pointing out that "black people" isn't correct is not a defense against it being racist or against him making the comment.

Similarly, in the discussion of the racist comments in Ron Paul's newsletter, the observation that black people don't actually refer to MLK Day as "Hate Whitey Day" is not an argument that the comment isn't racist or that Ron Paul isn't responsible for it.

If you're trying to argue that because most Iowans on welfare are white is proof that Santorum didn't start to say "black people's lives", then you have a hidden premise: Santorum can't possibly make a racist comment that is contrafactual. Do you believe in that hidden premise?