Category Archives: Critical Thinking

5 foolproof responses Obama can use to win the second debate!

Posted on by
Reply
Roger Scimé.com

Roger Scimé: Political Commentator

If you’re anything like me, watching the presidential debates can be frustrating, annoying, and . . . well, insert your own adverb here.

Why didn’t he say this? How could he have missed saying that?

Well, I decided I couldn’t take any more of this so, I decided to list some rather obvious responses to some of the assertions that have been made thus far, and which I am certain will be so again.

First Assertion:  President Obama is a failed president. He has reduced neither the deficit nor the unemployment rate. He promised so much and has delivered so little.

  • Republican leaders stated publically that they would do everything in their to ensure that no piece of the President’s legislation would ever pass—not in the interests of the country, or because of ideology, but to deny him a second term. With the exception of the President’s healthcare and stimulus bills, the GOP’s strategy has worked almost flawlessly thus far.

Second Assertion:  Mitt Romney is a compassionate and caring person, not the robotic über-technocrat he is sometimes portrayed as.

  • Gov. Romney may have demonstrated that he cares for individuals in whom he is invested personally or emotionally, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into caring for a nation’s citizens. A president must show compassion for all Americans—not just a chosen few. His “forty-seven percent” comment strongly indicated that only fifty-three percent of Americans will be entitled to his attention.
  • I’ll never forget when, during the administration of the first George Bush, he and Barbara were asked something along the lines of what they would do if their daughter told them she wanted to have an abortion. There response was that they would comfort, counsel, commiserate with, and console her—not treat her as a criminal. Why is it that people will make moral exception for those they know and/or love personally—but are unwilling to make exceptions for those they don’t.

Third Assertion: Look at the unemployment numbers. Under President Obama, more Americans—women especially—are out of work than ever before, and it’s all his fault.

  • Republicans claim that under Obama, unemployment has increased in this country, notwithstanding the numbers of people going back to work.  According to news reports, a disproportionate number of the job losses during the past four years, were in the public sector: teachers, social workers, and other civil servants—and overwhelmingly women, by the way. These new unemployed were, in fact, “furloughed” by Republican-controlled state legislatures.

Fourth Assertion:  Under this administration, the deficit has ballooned.

  • Sometime during the end of the previous administration—I believe it was during Bush’s second term—it was publicly acknowledged that the cost of the Iraq war had not been included in previous budgets, but had been part of a separate, secret one. The deficit that Obama inherited included those trillions.

Fifth Assertion:  With the economy still sluggish the country needs somebody at the helm who is businessman, who knows how to create jobs, and who understands small business. That man is Mitt Romney.

  • People continue to make this mistake; it’s called a false premise: The United States is nothing but a business; therefore, a businessman is in the best position to lead it. The United States is not a corporation and cannot be run like one. The president cannot fire members of Congress who disagree with or impede him, and he cannot govern by fiat. He must represent all Americans­—not just his own “shareholders,” those who agree with or support him.
  • Being a successful businessman does not automatically qualify somebody to be President. After all, Ross Perot had been a successful businessman before running for office, and George W. Bush’s résumé was even deeper: he had a Harvard MBA!
  • From all the available evidence, Mitt Romney has never even come close to understanding small businesses: After graduating from from Harvard, he went straight to Bain. He never created a job, never had to meet a payroll. Even George W. Bush (God help us!) had more experience in running a business than Gov. Romney. And we all saw how well that one worked out <Insert sarcasm font>.

Agree with me? Disagree? That’s what the little comment box at the end is for.

 

The Creative Companion: A dispatch from Conundrum Canyon

Posted on by
1
scribe site | Roger Scime | words music graphic images

Creative enough for you? It's not what you think.

Just to give you an idea of how out of touch and off-the-grid I was between May 4th and the 25th—the time I spent stuck, not it Lodi, but in in the place I’m calling Conundrum Canyon—I actually picked up and read a terrific little book on advertising called The Creative Companion by adman David Fowler.

A book on advertising. . . . me? Who’d'a thunk it?

In my defense, it was only 33 pages long and I figured I could knock it off in, like, 45 minutes or so.

You’ve probably already guessed what’s coming next. I admit it, okay: The Creative Companion is a terrific little book, full of cute and clever insights (but not the precious, cloying kind), and presented with wit and—thank goodness—an economy of prose. Plus, it’s a book that’s perfect for those of us who wonder, on occasion, if we are “talentless schmucks” (as Chris Wall so delicately anoints it in the Forword).

Following are the first three of Fowler’s tips on how to goose one’s creativity (I might add a few more as time goes on and as time permits).

Just saying, though; these are tips on advertising, so some of the rhetoric might be ad-oriented. Oh, and the chapter titles are verbatim.

  1. Get up and go: Browse bookstores, grab a video camera and stalk the streets. Bookstores, as Fowler explains, contain “the sum total of human experience,” while total strangers will offer their opinions on your product—as long as you describe your queries as “marketing research.” He suggests staying away from doing your research on the Web: “You won’t find any real people there to interact with. And you’re still just sitting there in your office.”
  2. Is your baby a monkey? Somebody has rejected an idea you’ve fallen in love with. They’ve called it a “monkey.” Fowler suggests that you listen to the input, and then resolve the issue on those terms. Bring it back, with that new way of looking at it. Or not. It may have been a monkey all along.

    Scribe Site | Roger Scime | words images music

    Is this my baby?

  3. Write a theme, not a line. We all know (or should know) know what a tag line is: it’s shorthand for the underlying theme that drives a product. Fowler tells us that if you can define the parameters of its underlying theme, the line (which he would prefer calling a “theme line” as opposed to a slogan or tag line—it sounds more dignified, he says) will follow from that.

Now, all of this makes more than a bit of sense, even to a right-brain kind of guy like me, and I’m going to go out on a limb and recommend it to anybody who could use a jolt of creativity now and again.

The Creative Companion, in all of its 33-page glory, can be read online at TheCreativeCompanion.com

Related:

 

3 ways opinion polls (deliberately) get it wrong—and what you can do about it

Posted on by
Reply
roger scime | content creation | scribe site | polls

"Er . . . ?

It may be a little early for this, but probably not. As the political field begins to form for the 2012 general elections, we can expect to see more and more polling results released favoring one candidate or another for any particular office. And, it will continue to get worse in the weeks and months leading up to Election Day.

With that in mind, I think a short examination of how public-opinion polls can be manipulated to reflect whatever results the organization paying for the poll wants it to.

Over the years, three polling tactics have been proven to be particularly effective by providing misleading results; and, while the first of these could be attributed to sloppy preparation, the second and third can justifiably be considered deliberately deceptive.

The Unrepresentative Sample

The Loaded Question

The Push Poll

Let’s take them in order:

First, the Unrepresentative Sample

An unrepresentative sample is one that does not accurately reflect the population one wishes to survey. As implied by the illustration above, the man answering the door isn’t your typical, er, normal human being. So, if you wanted to know what normal humans (the ones who do not wear bird cages on their heads, for example) thought about something, this fellow would not be the one to ask.

The real-life example that is cited most often is a poll commissioned in 1936 by the Literary Digest regarding the presidential race between Franklin Roosevelt and Alf Landon. The sample names were selected from telephone directories and auto-registration lists. The results indicated that Landon would win easily, and events of the Landon presidency are discussed in civics classes to this day.

Huh?

As we all know, Alf Landon actually lost to Roosevelt in a landslide, which is why this particular instance of polling error is so well known. Remember where the sample came from? Telephone directories and auto-registration lists. Well, in 1936 few American had either, and those who did were mainly upper-class. But the less-well-off could vote, too, and there were many, many more of them. Literary Digest‘s sample was unrepresentative of the population, and the election results proved it.

Continue reading →

Proof that unemployment is an illusion!

Posted on by
Reply

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881)

Roger Scime | Scribe Site | Content Creator | Who's Working?

The last man working?

NOTE: The following statistics are from Ripley’s Believe It Or Not! the 1946 edition, which has traveled with me from New York to Chicago to Hollywood to Las Vegas, and finally to now make my home: Reno, Nev.

Having been unemployed for most of the last three years, I was stunned to discover—with the book’s shabby covers and ragged spine—that all the time I’d thought I’d been working, I real hadn’t. Nobody had.

Huh?

When I read that, in fact, nobody had been working, I wasn’t certain whether to believe it or not, so I checked the figures in that red-colored book. Mr. Ripley’s figures were incontrovertible, and I offer them to you now, in the unlikely event that you have been under a similar delusion.

To begin with, each year contains 365 days.

Are we all agreed with that? Good. We’ll call that the “base year.” 365 days.

Now, nobody works 24 hours per day (except maybe the zombies in those Dead movies, as well as  Charlie Sheen, I presume), so we’ll subtract 8 hours of sleep per day, which adds up to up to 122 days we’re not working. Everybody got that? I’ll give the folks in the back with the NetBooks a moment to catch up.

Ready now? Because it’s going to go faster from here  on out: I have nothing to do and not much time to do it in.

So, 365 days minus 122 days equals—anybody?—243 days available to work.

Another 8 hours per day to eat, watch TV, relax with the kids, study, etc,, subtracts another 122 days from the 243 we have left from that sleeping thing. So now we’ve only got 121 days available to work. You see where I’m going with this?

There are 52 Sundays in each year, and for the sake of argument, we’ll say nobody works then either. So, 121 minus our 52 Sundays leaves 69 days for working.

Give us 52 Saturdays off and we’re left with only 17 available days.

Why didn’t the unions catch this the first time, I ask you?

Okay, so we’ve got our 17 days. But most of us get a week’s vacation, as well, so subtract that 7 days. That leaves only 10 days left to work. Oh, I almost forgot: an hour for lunch, times 365 equals 9 days subtracted from the 10 days left, and that only leaves 1 day to work!

And, that day is Labor Day—when nobody works!

You’ve all caught the faulty reasoning behind the figures, of course, but if you squint a bit and allow a few brain cells to leak out your ears, some of you might have to think longer than the 5 seconds it took the rest of us to figure it out.

But, woudn’t it be nice, though?

Those of you who would like to either praise my sparkling sense of humor or condemn my less-sparkling arrogance are permitted to do so in the tiny “COMMENTS” space following this post.

And if you don’t write something, well, you wouldn’t want anything really awful to  happen to that cute little dog of yours, would you?

Agnotology: Ignorance by design

Posted on by
Reply
roger scime | scribe site | content creator | agnotology

Doctors & Cigarettes: A 20th Century Love Story

I learned a new word the other day. I was reading a story on Salon.com the other day, when I came across a word with which I was unfamiliar: agnotology, defined by WordSpy as n. The study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.

As one who makes his living from content creation, I was intrigued: culturally-induced ignorance or doubt? Strong stuff!

The authors of the article, Bill Moyers and Michael Winship provided some examples:

  • Believing that global climate change is a myth
  • The insistence by the tobacco industry that harm caused by smoking is still in dispute.
  • The conviction that Pres. Barack Obama is a closet Muslim, who was born in Kenya.

To which I was able to add an example of my own:

  • The 9/11 hijackers were all from  Iraq.

Agnotology: origin of the term

The word agnotology was coined a few years ago by Stanford researchers Robert Proctor and Londa Schiebinger, who have since written a book on the subject,
Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance.

Actually, though, there is nothing new in the use of agnotology in the furthering of some political or social agenda:

Continue reading →

A simple test

Posted on by
Reply
Roger Scime | Scribe Site | A simple test

A perfect score?

The following is a corollary to Following instructions: A (sort of) defense. I remember this particular test from my elementary school days, back in Long Beach, NY, and did some Googling until I found a copy. Many of you probably taking this test or a similar one, but I thought I’d include it here, anyway, just in case you knew somebody who hadn’t.

Anyway, here is that test—just as I remember it:

 

 

Instructions:
Use a blank sheet of paper. When everyone has finished, you may compare answers. Read everything before doing anything, but work as fast as you can.

  1. Write your full name in the upper-right-hand corner.
  2. Write the name of the place where you live.
  3. Draw a circle around the answer to item 2.
  4. Write the name of your birthplace
  5. Write the name of your favorite superstar (sports, film, etc.).
  6. Draw a triangle on the lower left hand corner.
  7. Underline the answer to No. 5.
  8. Write down your age in months.
  9. State whether you are married or single.
  10. Multiply your age in years by 8 and write down the product.
  11. Draw an equilateral (equal-sided) triangle on the upper left hand corner.
  12. Draw an X inside this equilateral triangle.
  13. When you reach this point, shout, “I have!”
  14. Whisper your first name aloud.
  15. Put your hand on top of your head, close your eyes, and count out loud from 10 to 1.
  16. Keep your hand on top of your head and write down your favorite number.
  17. Complete only item No. 1. Put your pen or pencil down and if others are taking this test, wait for them to finish. Do not talk!

How old were you when you first came across this little bit of misdirection? So, how did you do? Comments (and answers) are always appreciated. Just remember to follow the instructions.

Related posts:

Feel the freedom! . . .

Posted on by
Reply

Now that I’ve moved away from an exclusively Critical Journalism Blog, into a Content Creation (and Curating) Blog, I am able to “play” a bit more. For example, here are some of my favorite TV commercials from days of yore. You may have seen them before, but I still think they’re a hoot!

Ford Sportka Auto Commercial #1: The cat



Ford Sportka Commercial #2: The bird



More coming!

 

Following instructions: A (sort of) defense

Posted on by
1
Roger Scime | The Critical Journalism Blog | Instructions

"Parade Magazine" January 18, 1994

This is a companion piece to my previous post, This guy walks into a bar  . . .

Some years back, I was the point man on a bid to build a VA hospital in Las Vegas. The primary investor on the project was a multimillionaire with prior experience with this type of construction, and the team included several of the more prominent Las Vegas businessmen. The RFP (Request For Proposal) included the requirement that there be 16 parking spaces per floor (or, something like that), a requirement the RFP was specific about.

One of the group members was adamant that he needed more space for other projects than the plans allowed, so he finagled his way into having the proposal submitted showing only 14 spaces per floor.

We didn’t get the bid. And, we were informed later, the two fewer parking spots had disqualified us from any further consideration.

We had failed to follow the instructions.

More recently, I had the opportunity to read and critique a business plan that had been submitted to a prestigious competition. The rules for the contest were many and specific, but there was a large cash prize, which would seem to make any effort worthwhile.

Some of the instructions made sense, while others seemed arbitrary. One rule, in particular, had to do with formatting and laid out—in specific detail—what item(s) had to be addressed in each plan, in what order, and what type of support had to be included. The business plan I was asked to examine ignored many of the categories, and when they were addressed, failed to include the specificity the rules demanded. Needless to say, the business plan was rejected and the $50,000 prize went to someone else.

The business plan’s author had failed to follow the instructions.

In almost every instance, in every action created by someone other than ourselves, we are told how to do something by someone who—supposedly—knows better than we do. They are called “instructions”—and we ignore them at our peril.

  • Do not take internally.
  • Place a checkmark beside your choice.
  • Fit Part A inside Part B.
  • Don’t spam your FaceBook friends.

That isn’t to say that all instructions should be followed blindly: we filter instructions though our powers of reasoning, moral code, experience, and commonsense. Based upon what we know, we can modify or decide not to follow instructions entirely. But, as I mentioned, we ignore them at our peril.

Of course, this doesn’t apply to VCR instructions written by that guy in China.

 

This guy walks into a bar . . .

Posted on by
5

Roger Scime | The Critical Journalism Blog

"There's something I want to discuss with you . . . "

So, this guy walks into a bar, spies me at a back table, nursing a double. He walks over to me like he owns the joint, pulls up a chair, sits in it without being invited. I take a pull off my rye and soda, let my eyes drift over his 5’4″ frame.

Soft, I say to myself: A thinker. An arguer. Just what I need on a Saturday night that’s been as empty as a politician’s promises. I stare at him, daring him to say why he’s there. Finally, he breaks:

“There’s something I want to discuss with you,” he says to me, tossing off the words like a challenge.

What follows is a narrative version of a flowchart by Brandon Scott Gorrell, from his blog, The Thought Catalog, via Critical-Thinking. The actual flowchart follows at the end of this post. To continue:

I pause for a moment, as if considering what to say next, although my words are as familiar to me as the lyrics of a favorite song or a long-recited Act Of Contrition.

“So, you wanna discuss something, eh?” I ask.

“Yeah,” he replies. “I do.”

Now for the part where these so-called Arguers usually slink away:

“If you wanna discuss something with me,” I say, emphasizing the last word, “there are certain rules I insist on: First of all, no sermons, no lectures or diatribes.” He nods his head absently, as if he expected something like this.

“Also,” I continue, “discussions are a dialog between people in which the participants are willing to alter their position if it makes sense to do so. I don’t care what you want to discuss. Here’s the kicker, though: ‘Can you envision anything that will change your mind on the topic’?”

If he answers no, then I’m done with him and I think he knows it. He knows I’m not about to waste my time otherwise. He nods a silent “yes,” starts to open his mouth.

“I’m not done yet,” I say.”There are a few other ground rules to this so-called “‘discussion’.”

The guy sits there, waiting for me to articulate those rules. I know I’ve got him, though. By the time I finish laying them down, he’s gonna either agree or slink away. I wait.

Finally, he nods again and I give him the bad news:

Continue reading →