All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
June 30, 2009 - Skeptoid
14:52
Skeptoid #160: Sarah Palin Is Not Stupid

Good arguments often go unused because poor arguments like ad hominems are so much easier. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Beyond Political Tribalism 00:08:53
So obviously the title of this episode is a bit of a provocation for many listeners.
But hey, it got you to tune in, right?
Sarah Palin doesn't really have anything to do with this episode.
It's more about learning to straighten out your thinking when it comes to political tribalism.
To start with, it's about not making an ad hominem attack against those with whom you disagree.
Sarah Palin is not stupid is today on Skeptoid.
A quick reminder for everyone, you're listening to Skeptoid, revealing the true science and true history behind urban legends every week since 2006.
With over a thousand episodes, we're celebrating 20 years of keeping it focused and keeping it brief.
And we couldn't have done it without your curiosity leading the way.
And now we're even offering a little bit more.
If you become a premium member, supporting the show with a monthly micropayment of as little as $5, you get more Skeptoid.
The premium version of the show is not only ad-free, it has extended content.
These episodes are a few minutes longer.
We get rid of the ads and we'll replace them with more Skeptoid.
The Extended Premium Show available now.
Come to Skeptoid.com and click Go Premium.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Sarah Palin is not stupid.
Today we're going to delve into the minds of those who actively promote misinformation, political oppression, terror, conspiracies, and anything else that detracts from the public good.
What drives them to do so?
Are they right in their own minds?
Or do they know that what they do is wrong?
More importantly, what should we know and understand about these people?
I'm going to go out on a limb and start with a concept that may seem shockingly politically incorrect to some.
I'm going to disagree with the popular perception that Sarah Palin is nuts.
Let me tell you something about Sarah Palin, but first with the understanding that I don't know any more about her than you do.
I've never met her either and I didn't vote for her.
Stupid people don't tend to attract contributors, managers, supporters, and electorates.
If she'd exhibited stupidity on the Wasilla City Council, they probably wouldn't have elected her mayor.
If she'd exhibited stupidity as mayor, they probably wouldn't have elected her for a second term.
Her appointment to the oil and gas committee by the governor was probably not because she'd behaved stupidly.
Finally, stupidity probably does not characterize most successful bids to run for governor of one of the United States.
Does she exhibit an almost robotic and uncritical, point-by-point support of the Republican platform?
Yes.
Is she undereducated for her position?
Possibly her bachelor's degree is in journalism.
It's arguable that she's demonstrated a clear disdain for and illiteracy in science.
She gives every indication that her religious beliefs and her party guidance determine her priorities.
But welcome to reality.
That's the way a lot of people work, including a lot of people on the other side of the political aisle.
If you call yourself a critical thinker, ad hominem attacks should not be the extent of your criticisms of those in whom you find fault.
Show me one thing Sarah Palin has said or done that's stupid, and I'll show you something that's perfectly rational for someone with her religious and political convictions.
It may be that you simply disagree with her convictions, and you probably have very good reasons for doing so.
But if that's the case, don't just say Sarah Palin is stupid.
That's kindergarten talk, and it makes you look bad, not her.
Understand why she takes the position she does, then reveal the faults in that position.
My point today has nothing to do with Sarah Palin, or with anyone else.
It has to do with a lack of critical thinking among many people who consider themselves skeptics.
A lot of prominent people are dismissive of science, celebrities, politicians.
Many of us tend to dismiss them right back as irrational or nuts.
But this demonstrates exactly the same kind of short-cutted thinking that we're accusing them of.
For example, I heard some skeptics the other day talking about Bill Maher, saying, I didn't realize he was as crazy as he is.
Bill Maher is an outspoken critic of science-based medicine.
He's endorsed AIDS denialism, big pharma conspiracies, anti-vaccination, and natural medicine.
Now, granted, Bill Maher is wrong about a lot of things, but he's not on the fringe.
A lot of people believe that stuff.
Clearly, it's important that they be educated, because widespread beliefs like this would represent a serious national health crisis.
If you dismiss those beliefs as craziness, you're saying there's nothing to them.
They're meaningless.
Instead, acknowledge that there are compelling cultural influences that have led Bill Maher and others to believe those things.
Bill Maher is just one of many victims of these influences.
And it's because he has the average person's ability to understand and interpret the information he's been exposed to, not because he's crazy.
In the same way, you could say Sarah Palin is simply responding to cultural and political influences.
People need cheap energy, so she's a proponent of drilling the oil in her state.
People want government to eliminate wasteful spending, so she bashes fruit fly research, the significance of which has never been made clear to her or to the public.
The United States is a strongly Christian nation, and many people support teaching creationism in schools and oppose stem cell research.
Palin isn't being stupid by embracing these concepts.
She's responding to the same influences everyone else is.
In a world that can feel overwhelming, spreading thoughtful, evidence-based content is one of the best ways to make a positive impact.
Ask your local public radio station to air the Skeptoid Files, a 30-minute radio-friendly version of Skeptoid that pairs two related episodes promoting real science, true history, and critical thinking.
And in these challenging times for public media, we're offering these broadcasts for free to radio stations, available on the PRX Exchange or directly from Skeptoid Media.
It's an easy ask.
Just send a quick message to your station's programming director.
By helping to bring the Skeptoid files to the airwaves, you'll help promote the essential skills we all need to tell fact from fiction.
Just go to your local station's website, find the programming director's email address, or just their general email address.
You can even use the telephone.
I know that might sound crazy.
It's an old legacy device that allows real-time voice communication.
I know that's weird, but hey, it's an option.
The world can feel chaotic, but you're not powerless.
When you promote critical thinking, you can help your community tell fact from fiction.
And that's how we shape a better future.
In uncertain times, spreading good ideas can make you feel helpful, not helpless.
Let's stand up for reason, truth, and understanding together.
Get them to air the Skeptoid files from Skeptoid Media, available on the PRX Exchange, and they'll know what that is.
If you were to sit down and have a conversation with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in such a way that you could both speak your native language in order to be articulate and insightful, I bet you'd find that he's knowledgeable, well-spoken, and intelligent.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I haven't had such a conversation with him, but from what I've read of his background, I'd say it's practically a certainty that he has his act together pretty well.
Unless you happen to be a Muslim fundamentalist, you're likely to disagree pretty strongly with many of his beliefs and priorities.
But I bet he'd convince you that his convictions run pretty deep and have solid historical and cultural roots.
They're not going to be washed away from an entire nation overnight.
Understanding Radical Motivations 00:05:37
I bet you'd say, wow, he actually has a point of view, and what he's saying makes sense within that context.
This characterization is acutely different from the whimsical ramblings of a nut.
If you dismiss Ahmadinejad as a crazy whack job, not only are you factually wrong, but you do it at your peril because you are grossly underestimating the depth and foundation of what you're protesting against.
I've watched two Muslim executions by stoning in all their graphic detail on video.
I hope I never see it in person.
Because we live in a world where this actually happens and I feel it's important to understand what I object to as fully as possible.
It's easy to watch a stoning and conclude that only a crazy person could willingly be part of such a medieval horror.
What's just as frightening as the stoning itself is that the people doing it are someone's next-door neighbors.
They take their kids to the park.
They give birthday presents.
They paint and write and play musical instruments.
They are, in fact, quite human.
And yet, they're capable of something that's unthinkable to you or I.
It's not because they're crazy.
It's because they're smart people who are profoundly dedicated to their belief system and who are raised in a frame of reference that lets them stone a person to death with the same regard as a Westerner might kill an enemy in battle.
It's a necessity.
It's a duty, and it's the right thing to do.
If you dismiss these people as crazy or as zealots, you are factually wrong.
You're missing the point, and you're failing to understand what it is you object to.
Look at Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, and consequently the United States' greatest mass murderer of children.
To best prepare ourselves to prevent this kind of thing happening again, we have to be sure that we accurately understand the motivations behind it.
McVeigh is a guy who lived in a world of conspiracies.
The people he surrounded himself with all believed the same thing, that the government was out to get them.
When you live and breathe that 24 hours a day, when it's your entire sphere of influence, it's not delusional.
It was a vicious circle.
The more input he received, the more he sought out such information.
Well-understood perceptual phenomena like confirmation bias made it normal and healthy for McVeigh's brain to reject information that did not indicate the government was out to get him.
Eventually he got to a point where the best move, in the context of what he believed was going on, was to strike back as violently as possible.
We are better prepared to deal with Timothy McVays if we don't allow ourselves the intellectually lazy shortcut of, oh, he was just some nut.
The same goes for Sarah Palin, Ben Stein, Ken Ham, Bill Maher, Ginny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, and Prince Charles, all people who actively promote bad science or misinformation and who believe they're doing the right thing.
That's an important point that's too often overlooked.
With few exceptions, most honest promoters of bad information have good intentions.
They're not crazy raving lunatics out to get us.
If you want to have an informed, rational conversation with one of these folks, and you want them to be receptive to your statements, approach them as you would any public figure who works hard in the public good.
At a fundamental level, they're on our same team.
They want what's best for people.
Prince Charles is a nutcase who has no idea what he's talking about.
Makes you sound like a closed-minded radical making irrational ad hominem attacks.
Prince Charles is a good man who cares deeply for the public welfare.
Unfortunately, a lot of the medical information he passes along is woefully out of date.
Has a chance that someone will actually listen to it.
And expressing yourself in a way that's worthy of people listening is an important, but all too often overlooked, part of the promotion of critical thinking.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Hello everyone, this is Adrian Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and mousse.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double-doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, Premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile non-profit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the Teacher's Toolkit, then sign up today.
The Best Medicine for Skepticism 00:00:17
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX.
Export Selection