My takeaway from the election
 

I'm not really interested in rehashing or discussing the election. But there was one aspect of it that resonated with me, in a non-partisan kind of way. I thought I would throw it out for everybody to consider, dismiss, etc.

It's been said that the Republicans ignored polls that said they were behind. It goes beyond "ignoring." They were actually paying strategists, paying them a lot, for information that was encouraging, but that in hindsight looks dead wrong, mistaken if not outright misleading. I would go as far as to say the Republicans paid people to tell them what they wanted to hear.

"But wait," you say, "I thought this was going to be non-partisan?" Well, yeah. I didn't come here to bash the Republicans over this. I'll leave it to other people to hash out whether they should have realized what was going on.

What I want to know is.... who is telling ME what I want to hear?
Who has received consideration from me (cash or otherwise), and as a result is eager to make me happy? And thinks the best way to make me happy is to confirm everything I already believe or want to believe?
Who has said something that I needed to hear, but that I ignored because I disliked the person?
Who have I disagreed with so often that I can longer even consider the possibility that they might be right about something?

You're taking the wrong lesson from this. What you should be asking is: how can I get in on some of that action? Who can I get to pay me for some simple ego stroking?

Edit: Of course, your take is more mature.

Very good points SD. I can't answer your question as to who's blowin smoke up your butt, because I don't know.

But your strategy, no, wait, your awareness that there might be other points of view that are valid, important, correct, etc. but that you are missing by a little or a lot is, to my mind, a signal characteristic of high intelligence. Now, that sounds a lot like buttsmoke... maybe. It isn't though. It's the only way to know, by wondering, examining what might be missed.

Keep an open mind, keep asking questions like this of yourself and others around you. It isn't directly or immediately pleasant to hear stuff that's ... uncomfortable for whatever reason. But if you have good tools to evaluate the quality of such information, you can have some confidence about how important it is to incorporate such information into what you "know". Considering the source and motivation of the speaker, confirming the information from other sources, comparing it to what you know already, checking the math yourself, these kinds of tools can help you accept good information even from sources you might dismiss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

We only accept the facts and explanations that we agree with. We have our picture of the world and when presented with information that we disagree with, we simply reject it.

Then we surround ourselves with people, channels, websites that agree with us, and we ONLY share the information that proves us all to be correct. We wind up with a collection of information that is half wrong, but we can't see it. We don't really know what we're wrong about, but we persist in believing that we are right, because we enjoy that.

It is a non-partisan observation, because both sides do this. It also applies to religion and just about everything else that there are disagreements about.

Once you are in a particular thought bubble it's very difficult to get out. In serious cases, you may have to leave friends, even significant others behind.

That was the first draft. I decided you wouldn't want to hear that.

You perceive your epistemic bubble. You are striving to pierce it.

Also discussed here (the place where I learned the term epistemic bubble).

Is this a job offer? Does it come with a health plan?:cool: