|
Post by otherscott on Jan 19, 2018 6:55:37 GMT -8
When it comes to political discourse, or really being an expert on any subject, I think intelligence is really overrated though. It helps, it helps to logically work your way through an argument and be able to choose the one that makes the most sense, but that's not the be all and end all.
What is really important is being informed/educated. So yes, unkinhead, I'd agree that education does not equal intelligence. But I would say that it's more important to these sorts of discussions. If you were to give me someone who has spent their life learning about a topic vs someone who hadn't but has a 160 IQ, I'm still taking the more informed person because they have at their disposal the opinions and thoughts and learnings of people much more intelligent than them, whereas the smart person only has whatever they can parse out.
That being said, this only applies if people are educated/informed ON THE TOPIC THEY ARE DISCUSSING. I don't care if you have a masters in marine biology and you're trying to argue things about gun control. Show me your credentials in that topic you are debating and then I might start taking you more seriously.
So yes the reason I tend to side with the left wing on actual policy matters is that by and large they do a better job informing themselves of the consequences of the policies that are presented. There's a reason that Washington DC, the people who are most knowledgeable about politics, are somewhere in the range of 90% Democrat. What they are not doing a good job informing themselves on is the best way to achieve those policies that they want - aka actually working with the right wing and trying to find some common ground. They seem to think that just yelling facts very loudly will eventually bring enough people on their side to give them the majority they want so they can ignore the rest of America who "vote against their best interests." It's a bit of a mess and yes I do blame the left for most of it.
|
|
|
Post by unkinhead on Jan 19, 2018 11:22:08 GMT -8
I sort of agree. I would say it's largely dependent on the subject matter. Some subject matters utilize more abstractions and big picture reasoning, and large consideration of variability. Subjects like economics, sociology, and even philosophy would fit into these categories, as logical/analytical intelligence seems to take precedence over someone who may, say, have knowledge of more facts. Something more contained and systematic would probably favor education, like say, Accounting. Not to mention anything relatively abstract tends to favor those who are more intelligent as education tends to keep you in line with what was 'already thought of'. Of course this is all hypothetical, considering it's not at all a dichotomy we really have to live with considering there are experts on subject matters in which they are both educated and intelligent. But even in this model this assumes that being "educated/informed" in the practical sense is akin to being actually educated and informed with regards to what is 'true'. Unfortunately this just isn't the case in US Colleges (especially in politics) at the very least. In my experience at College I've found that traditional 'hard fact' courses are of a reasonable quality and inform students on facts and practical knowledge. Outside of this, and into the realms of courses like sociology, and gender and ethnic studies, their biases are actually more influential and distorting then in any other place I have witnessed, with frequent and virtually undeniable refusal of reality and facts in order to support liberal ideology (and virtually no citations). It's really gross actually. I mean, this is why it's commonly liberal college students that seem to represent ridiculous left extremists, not only are they ideologically possessed, but they're immature and have a strong desire to "change the world" as a result of their age. So idealistically, being informed would be a grater quality to possess, but at least in the US, it's very possibly meaningless depending on subject matter. So as it relates to politics, which requires interpretation and analysis, this is where most of the bias comes from, so, I'll pretty much favor intelligence as long as you can demonstrate that you 'are' informed.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 19, 2018 12:16:02 GMT -8
My own college experience is actually not far off from what Unkin is describing. I've taken a lot of systematically fact-based classes, and at least half a dozen liberal arts classes, and I can say that the latter tend to be much more overtly left-leaning than the former. I think college degrees are a good manner of gauging someone's life experiences, but given how wide-ranging they are in terms of education, they're not the best form for measuring someone's political savvy. I agree with most of Scott's points on intelligence and argumentation. The only issue I'd take is with this: So yes the reason I tend to side with the left wing on actual policy matters is that by and large they do a better job informing themselves of the consequences of the policies that are presented. There's a reason that Washington DC, the people who are most knowledgeable about politics, are somewhere in the range of 90% Democrat. While it is true that liberals do a better job of communicating the consequences of their policies, I'd say this has more to do with the fact that their policies tend to be more immediately effectual in the short-term. The reason why folks who live in DC tend to lean strongly left is the same reason why people in any major metropolitan city (NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc.) tend to lean left - liberal policies largely benefit urban areas, just as conservative policies mainly benefit rural areas. (Also, you are literally the first person I've ever known who refers to people in Washington DC as "the people who are most knowledgeable about politics." )
|
|
PBTD
Newbie
Posts: 44
|
Post by PBTD on May 15, 2018 17:45:07 GMT -8
Did not watch much television in 2017, even less then previous years, but from what I did view I was impressed with probably only The Punisher. Yeah, another MCU tie-in but it's all I can muster up any excitement for these days (and even that is waning). As for the series itself, I think it does a fantastic job of reworking Frank Castle's character to be more relatable then his comic book incarnation while keeping what makes him fundamentally who he has always been: a savage killer of criminals with no remorse. The not so perky dynamic between he and Lieberman is a joy to watch unfold and the fact that tensions continued all the way to its conclusion made it feel believable for a guy who does everything to keep others at a distance. Russo is, along with Wilson Fisk and Cottonmouth, easily one of the best villains in the MCU (it's not even close with their film competitors) and I could have long discussions on just them alone.
I've heard complaints about its pacing, and while definitely a valid critique, I'm just someone who values believable dynamic building over a few more plot heavy moments or needless gore. It's something The Defenders could have used a lot more of and less campy twists involving the most one dimensional and boring character to ever have two whole seasons of shows about her, or completely over-the-top comically filmed action sequences, complete with the most hilarious dialog, that last an entire final episode.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 15, 2018 18:58:48 GMT -8
It's something The Defenders could have used a lot more of and less campy twists involving the most one dimensional and boring character to ever have two whole seasons of shows about her, I have plenty of criticisms with the Marvel shows, but I don't find Jessica Jones to be one-dimensional at all. She's got a well-rounded backstory, is decently-developed, and knows her way around a good sardonic joke. Of course, I still haven't felt motivated enough to finish her show's second season, so make of that what you will.
|
|
PBTD
Newbie
Posts: 44
|
Post by PBTD on May 15, 2018 23:02:51 GMT -8
I definitely could have been much clearer, but I was referring to Elektra's arcs in season 2 of Daredevil and season 1 of The Defenders. She just didn't earn any of the significance both series gave to her.
I actually have not gotten around to watching Jessica Jones, either season. I'm not familiar with the character, The Defenders didn't sell her enough for me to make going back a priority, and from what I've heard the subject of the material in season 1 might be difficult to digest.
I'd be very much interested in your critique to be honest. Both The Defenders and The Punisher did not make even honorable mentions on your best of 2017 list (although to be fair, The Defenders at least is nowhere near deserving).
I enjoyed season 1 of Daredevil while season 2 was a huge misstep outside Castle's character. The first half of Luke Cage is a reasonably functional exploration of inner city crime and politics while the latter half unfortunately devolves into generic comic book fare, which would be fine if it weren't so jarring. The Defenders is a travesty and The Punisher is the best of the bunch.
Edit: Almost forgot the immortal Iron Fist, protector of K'un-lun, destroyer of The Hand. Yeah, it was... okay even though I didn't actually finish it. Don't see why it's hated so much, but certainly isn't anything to write home about either.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 16, 2018 5:09:55 GMT -8
Ah, I didn't think you were referring to Elektra. Yeah, from what I watched of Daredevil Season Two (which wasn't much, since I got bored in the middle), she wasn't all that compelling a character.
I actually haven't watched Iron Fist, Defenders, or The Punisher (well, except a few minutes of the Punisher premiere). I've grown rather bored with most of the Marvel shows (and most Netflix dramas in general) for the way they drag out 6 or 7 hours of story over 13 hours of airtime. I usually find myself tuning out by the time a season is halfway through.
I'm still watching Jessica Jones, and may check out the new season of Luke Cage, but I haven't felt motivated enough to invest myself further.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on May 17, 2018 7:10:06 GMT -8
It's something The Defenders could have used a lot more of and less campy twists involving the most one dimensional and boring character to ever have two whole seasons of shows about her, I have plenty of criticisms with the Marvel shows, but I don't find Jessica Jones to be one-dimensional at all. She's got a well-rounded backstory, is decently-developed, and knows her way around a good sardonic joke. Of course, I still haven't felt motivated enough to finish her show's second season, so make of that what you will. That has to do with the quality of the writing and pacing though. Not with Krysten Ritter's performance or the character herself, both of which are always a highlight. Even a weak season like JJ S2 becomes watchable for me when she's in it.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 17, 2018 7:29:56 GMT -8
True. I like the character a lot, even if I'm not always happy with the show itself. I expect I'll finish S2 before long, probably once the spring TV season ends.
|
|