Sarah Palin Is Not Stupid

I don't think the Skepchick/Bad Astronomer tribe will like this. They equate skepticism with progressive politics, I think because of creationism and the religious right.

David jones, Birmingham UK
June 30, 2009 8:04am

All too often people seem to say "stupid" when they mean "ignorant"

but did this necessitate an episode?

Jeff Piotrowski, Missoula, MT
June 30, 2009 8:14am

I thought the episode was pretty boring, probably because he makes his point in a very clear and almost redundant way.

I think Brian is on the edge of being pedantic and helpful. The last paragraph is the most informative and helpful and makes the episode not pedantic; even though this will be viewed as pedantic by a lot of people, I actually think it's helping clarify another point in skepticism that is usually overlooked. When using shorthand like, "this dude is crazy" is using glossing over the fact that we mean that his ideas on this certain topic are a bit crazy and/or incorrect.

We want people on the fence to actually acknowledge our criticism rather than dismissing us as the person we are criticizing.

Brandon Peters, Ames/Ankeny, Iowa
June 30, 2009 8:29am

Because a particular way of thinking is normal does not pardon it as a delusion. McVeigh was delusional, no matter who surrounded him. In fact, isn't the process you described, of focusing himself on denying evidence that contradicted his world view one of the constituent elements of a delusion?

Also, one might argue that Sarah Palin, in towing her party and religious lines uncritically, is demonstrating a kind of stupidity. You're probably right that she has some unheralded talents that allowed her to ascend to governor, but those talents don't have to include intelligence of any sort. She might just be charismatic, or good at reading and influencing people. Or maybe the people who elected her are thinking in such the same mindset that her positions seemed sensible even without full justification. Politics is as much about connections, popularity, and image as it is about intelligence.

Marshall, Providence, RI
June 30, 2009 8:45am

[[Continued]]

I agree with your basic premise, that name-calling is childish and unhelpful, that celebrities are more-or-less
normal . I remember being frustrated by ad hominem attacks on Palin during the campaign, even after the same people had complained about attacks on Obama. I think that people find it satisfying to believe that they are more intelligent than those in power. It makes the world seem like more of a level playing field.

So perhaps "ignorant" would is a better word than "stupid." Perhaps some of these figures have not yet been presented with sufficient evidence to justify changing their position. But I have to suspect that some are so stringent in their views that no amount of evidence would sway them. If being stuck, closed-minded on a belief that is demonstrably false doesn't qualify one for stupidity, I'm not sure what does.

Marshall, Providence, RI
June 30, 2009 8:48am

Is this meant to remind us to avoid ad hominems, or is an invective to find common ground with those with whom we disagree? "[so and so] is stupid" is not an argument of merit, but it is useful shorthand to express how one feels about a person and their beliefs.

There is a dearth of civility on the Internet, so I agree in two ways: (1) ad hominems don't tell the full story and (2) they often turn debate into a childish one-upmanship.

But sometimes it is refreshing to use the shorthand. And sometimes people really are stupid - then what do you do?

DoctorAtlantis, Kennesaw, GA
June 30, 2009 8:57am

I think this needed to be said (but maybe I only think that because it’s been going through my head for weeks now – gee, maybe Brian read my mind ;-)

I am fairly new to the skeptic movement and as much as I've enjoyed a lot of it, there have also been some skeptical blogs and articles that come across as irrational and dismissive. Even some that are fear mongering. What I would expect from skeptics is "here are the facts and this is what they show" not "that person is an idiot, so don’t believe anything they say ". The latter doesn't do much to promote science or change opinions.

Shannon Coulter, Union, NJ
June 30, 2009 9:13am

When she became mayor of Wasilia, the town had zero debt. When she left six years later the town owed 20 million dollars. That is some of the most insane civic spending I've ever read about. Her budget she assumed was 2.3 million/year. She had to tack on another 3.3 million in spending on top of that budget, for six years running, to have it add up to 20 million.

I'd say she's either crooked, or absolutely astoundingly stupid when it comes to math.

Wight, Canada
June 30, 2009 10:06am

There is a good point being made in this podcast. When our attacks are made in this manner we end up hurting our cause.

As opposed to the views in the podcast I don't think that sara palin holds the belief that she expresses publicly. I think she holds her religion out like George W Bush to get votes from true believers and sides with big business in important matters.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
June 30, 2009 10:29am

It's common to see atheism correlated with intelligence, but the reality is that those with more knowledge - not intelligence - are most likely to be atheists. Generally, however, those who are more intelligent tend to be more knowledgeable. If people say that Palin is stupid, they're probably just referring to her ignorance in which case they aren't really wrong.

Lee, Nottingham, England
June 30, 2009 10:43am

Outstanding Skeptoid today! I am excited to share this with family and friends. Understanding the other perspective is a hard thing to do for most of us, but knowing that there is another perspective to be considered is a first big step. You did an excellent job putting the concept together in such an understandable, thoughtful and considerate lesson. This joins #116 as my two favorite Skeptoids thus far. Thank you, Brian; I really appreciate the work you put into these.

Cary Snowden, Utah
June 30, 2009 10:44am

While I agree with this episode's premise, Brian, I think it's also important to avoid the trap of cultural relativism.

Sure, a person's actions might make sense within the framework of their value system -- stoning a person to death, for instance. That doesn't mean that what they're doing isn't wrong, immoral, or even evil. Examining a person's motivations might help us to understand why they did something. It does not excuse them from responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.

Too many people dismiss criticism of their behavior or work as "value judgments." There is indeed absolute right and wrong in this world, and there is absolute good and bad. Things aren't always relative.

Lee Sullivan, San Francisco. CA
June 30, 2009 10:55am

"When she became mayor of Wasilia, the town had zero debt. When she left six years later the town owed 20 million dollars. That is some of the most insane civic spending I've ever read about. Her budget she assumed was 2.3 million/year. She had to tack on another 3.3 million in spending on top of that budget, for six years running, to have it add up to 20 million."

WOW...this is astounding. I wonder why information like this was never used against her during the campaign?

My guess is that her following is largely faith-based, and therefor will believe anything she says.

Sean Priest, Burlington, Ontario
June 30, 2009 12:43pm

I agree with you in regards to all of the people that you mentioned as not necessarily being stupid when you look into their backgrounds and so forth, however, stupid people do exist. It's not an urban myth or something. Crazy people exist as well. The average IQ hovers around 100 and what one has understand is that that means that there are a whole lot of people running around with IQs a lot lower than that. I suppose one can argue whether that particular measurement accurately represents an individuals potential for functionality ... My point is that it is just as easy to go the other way and get lost considering the the other person's point of view only to discover that you've been talking to a stupid/crazy person after they throw their diaper at you or something.

skepticat, Lansing/MI
June 30, 2009 1:10pm

I think there was a point missed in the edisode. When some (if not most) skeptical people say something along the lines of "Jenny McCarthy is an idiot" they do not mean "Jenny McCarthy is an idiot and therefore what she is saying is wrong." That is an obvious ad hominum. What They mean (well, at least what I mean) is that when I say Jenny is an idiot I mean "What she is sayings has been proven wrong numerous times by many sources and she continues to say the same things. She ignores proven facts and sticks to her disproven scientific beliefs, therefore she is an idiot." That is something quite different. I agree that just saying "Jenny is an idiot" will not convince anybody or make one of her followers listen to you, but there is usually no motivation or time to sit down to try and convince the person otherwise. "Jenny is an idiot" is just a quick way to make my view known. It can be justified.

Drake Ryan, Atlanta, GA
June 30, 2009 1:12pm

I have spoken to the King of Candyland and I found him a most reasonable fellow. His claim to the throne is firmly based on a self-consistent history and mythology.

He does not get to watch my children. I don't plan to let him handle pointy objects.

tudza, Seattle
June 30, 2009 2:07pm

Certainly her positions on their own do not make her a stupid woman, but we all saw her speak on the campaign trail. I think her public speaking made it abundantly clear that she is a simpleton. I'm very sure that Mahmud Ahmadinejad is a very clever man, I was never under the impression that he was otherwise. I am quite sure that many public figures whose opinions I have found in conflict with my own are incredibly smart, Hitler or Stalin for example, but Sarah Palin is not one of these evil geniuses.

Glenn, Vancouver, BC, Canada
June 30, 2009 2:11pm

"I don't think the Skepchick/Bad Astronomer tribe will like this. They equate skepticism with progressive politics, I think because of creationism and the religious right."

--This has been one aspect of general skepticism that has really bothered me; most podcasts and blogs (though not all) assume that if you are a skeptic, you must therefore be a progressive liberal.

Skepticism is great when looking at/countering the social claims made by the religious (such as homosexuality being a choice/"intelligent design"), conspiracy theorists, alternative meds, etc; but many skeptics can still legitimately hold beliefs that aren't considered politically progressive, like supporting free markets, the Iraq War (Christopher Hitchens), or capital punishment, for examples, all without leaving skepticism.

Skepticism isn't a club that requires certain politics; I think we can agree it is a method or application of thought and reasoning.

--I know this was a side-note from the main point of this particular Skeptoid episode (which was great, BTW), but I ultimately vented some of my political-skeptic concerns here for some reason, since as of late I've been annoyed by other skeptical podcasts assuming what skeptics must have as politics, when in fact I'm a skeptical agnostic-atheist neoconservative independent. : )

Again, sorry for the rant/branching off.

Zachary, Riverton, Utah
June 30, 2009 2:40pm

Intelligence (Or lack thereof)was never one of the problems I had with Sarah Palin, my complaint was that she came off as uncurious and disinterested in correcting her misconceptions. When she was mistaken on a subject, whether misinformed or just unfamiliar with the subject matter, and she was called on that fact she would continue either pushing the party line or parroting the whatever misinformation she had been given and insisting it was true rather than actually correcting the mistake, either for ideological reasons or just wanting to appear consistent in her rhetoric.

My problems with her as a candidate was primarily her use of what I consider to be underhanded tactics such as the implications that not only her opponents but all americans who had ideological differences with her party were in some way "unpatriotic", and her not-so-subtle way of using the word "terrorist" whenever she mentioned Obama. (And before anyone jumps on me for being a liberal ideolouge I must say I am not a member of either party and declined to vote in the past election because of unreconcilable ideological difference with both major candidates.)

J. Nicholas Hudson, Salisbury, MD
June 30, 2009 4:34pm

To be honest, this episode was far from "shockingly politically incorrect" - as I understand the term, it was exactly the opposite. And I mean that as a compliment. Very compassionate and humanistic episode, and a great antidote to the spittle-flecked vitriolic hypocrisy that frequently shows up in the skeptical community.

So yeah, not un-P.C. at all. From your misconception on this subject I can only conclude that you are insane. And the way you ran those two '-ly' adverbs together? Nuts. Absolutely bonkers.

Gwilym Wogan, Christchurch, NZ
June 30, 2009 5:38pm

This is pretty much exactly the message I frustratedly want to communicate to soooo many people. Thank you for articulating it so well. Refusal to even consider it is one of the main reasons I keep an arm's length from most of the self-described skeptics I meet.

One of my favourite nuggets of historical trivia is that Hayek and Keynes were personal friends. Something I wish more people would keep in mind before they write off everyone who disagrees with them as evil, crazy, or stupid. Why isn't it enough to just say "you're wrong" and then go have a beer?

Ryan, Toronto
June 30, 2009 6:32pm

Okay, as a mother I have a problem with Sarah Palin. I think what she did to her kids was pretty awful. As if a 4-month-old with special needs weren't enough, a pregnant and unmarried teen wasn't either to gain her full attention. (Yeah, there's a Mr. Palin, but sometimes a girl needs her Mom.) Couldn't she have asked the Republican big boys to wait another four years? Did she really think she was so important — let alone qualified — to be a heartbeat away from the top job in the world? Couldn't she have put the medical needs of her infant and the privacy needs of her daughter first?
That's how I — and a lot of other mothers I know — see it. We think her eldest daughter is going to have some major "mom" issues coming up.

Pam, SoCal
June 30, 2009 6:47pm

"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."

Allright. During a 2008 ABC interview she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is. Now, this could be seen as ignorance, but I would call not reading up on recent politics when running for VP as pretty stupid. Not to mention the fact that it had been in the new so often that even I knew what it was.

THEN she completely contradicted McCain's suggested foreign policy by suggesting it was fine to attack targets in Pakistand, while McCain attacked Obama for doing so.

This is the same interview where she said that being from Alaska gave her advantage concerning Russia. When asked why, she responded that that was because she could see them.

Need I point out that this was just a single interview? Have you actually heared her talk? This isn't the sound of an intelligent person forming a clear phrase that effectively communicates the information. It's the sound of someone thinking about the answer, making it up as they go along, bumbling all over point.

Politicians can get by very well without intelligence, because you can hire other people for that. All you need is some starter capital and some charisma.

Erik, Trondheim, Norway
June 30, 2009 9:44pm

Bah, 1500 chars is to little ;)

My deeper problem with this podcast is however that Brian seems to be suggesting that good intentions and personal beliefs actually matter.

Let's take Ken Ham for example. He might honestly believe that the earth was created with magic 6000 years ago and that the only way for you not to burn in hell is to accept it.

He might even believe that there is nothing from with all his quotemines, depite being corrected by the original authors thousands of times.

He might actually think there are no fossils, even when presented with a museum full of them.

Even if he's not lying about all of the above, even if he feels he is absolutely right and it makes complete sense for him to believe what he does in light of his background and upbringing...

HE IS STILL WRONG!

That is my problem. Brian makes it seem as if personal experience somehow changes reality to the persons wishes. It doesn't. The universe about what you believe, reality is not a democracy and you have no say in it and we should pretend it does.

Erik, Trondheim, Norway
June 30, 2009 9:54pm

I don't think she's stupid. I think she's evil. Those other people you listed didn't pass a bill to make women pay for their own rape kits. Or shoot wolves from helicopters. Or care nothing about her own state, and won't even take the money offered to help them. She isn't an idiot. She just has no soul, and she's proven it time and time again with her lack of remorse, how she'll do anything to win, and her complete lack of morals while pretending to be this religion loving, small town loving person. Typical Republican, sadly, these days. GW Bush wasn't stupid either. They just don't give a damn, and they don't care who knows it.

Everyone used to scoff at me when I used to say that I didn't think he was out of his league. He knew exactly what he was doing. As does she. Sadly, she doesn't stand a chance in a presidential election. Which is why I hope they continue this downward spiral of their party and continue to promote her.

jane, indianapolis
June 30, 2009 10:08pm

Any woman or human being that throws her own children under the bus to further her career, "IS" STUPID!!

Justin, Coal Valley, IL
June 30, 2009 10:14pm

I can show you several ways sarah palin is stupid...

She does not believe in the theory of evolution.

Doesn't believe in global warming.

She is currently under investigation for abuse of power after trying to get her sisters ex husband fired after a bad divorce.

Wants to teach abstinence only education, although her daughter was knocked up at 17 and wants to marry a drop-out.

She was once asked if she was angered by the addition of "under god" to the pledge of allegiance and her response was "if its good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me", which might seem like a decent answer until you realize that the pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist named Bellamy about 100 years after the founding fathers founded anything and it wasn't until the cold war that "under god" was added.

And last but not least she named a kid Trig... seriously.

Matt, Atlanta
June 30, 2009 10:41pm

Sarah Palin's remarks mocking fruit fly research were a sign of ignorance, but her decision to mock something she's ignorant about was a sign of stupidity.

One of her stupidest comments was about climate change: "And I don’t want to argue about the causes, what I want to argue is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?"

How does she expect to fix a problem when she doesn't care about the causes? That's worse than ignorance, that's plain stupid.

Max, Boston, MA
June 30, 2009 11:18pm

Brilliant! Brian's critiques of other folks' wacky beliefs are fun and insightful, but I find the instances when he turns the skeptical eye back upon me to be the most enlightening. In striving to become a critical thinker, I sometimes forget my humble origins and look down upon the "inferior" mindsets of friends and family. However, I still commit many of the same logical fallacies as them. It's useful to be reminded that I still retain the same neurology and psychology that they do, and that I need to remain ever-vigilant over my own emotions. It's hard to remain level headed when you're listening to drivel.

Chris, Bentonville, AR
June 30, 2009 11:38pm

Wow I really learned something, Thanks.

Francois, South Africa
July 01, 2009 12:14am

A recent example of Sarah Palin's stupidity was her response to Letterman's tasteless jokes about her daughter getting knocked up during a baseball game.
Palin responded as if Letterman had joked about her 14-year-old daughter, although he was obviously referring to her pregnant 18-year-old daughter.
So Palin either didn't realize what Letterman had in mind, or she thought she could distort the joke and nobody would notice. Stupid either way.

Max, Boston, MA
July 01, 2009 12:17am

I am totally behind you with your argument that it is counterproductive to label people we don't agree with as "stupid" or "crazy" since often times they are smart and well-intentioned, just deeply misguided or underhanded.

I also agree that Palin's beliefs and motivations are not held out of stupidity, and she certainly makes ignorant-sounding statements for shrewd political gain.

But there is a difference between those qualities and the criticism of Palin as an incompetent hack, fueled by her peformance in interviews and her post-election antics.

Yes, she has won elections and has many strengths, but her presence on the Republican ticket possibly cost her party the election, partly because her extreme views scared people but also because of those embarrassing moments that made people wonder if she has what it takes to be a credible public figure nationally. In other words, her schtick might have worked in Alaska but not on the whole country.

President Bush held some similar positions to Palin's but he was a credible candidate thanks to his confidence and ability to put people at ease (many dont remember this but in 2000 he had the image of the MBA president). The same cannot be said of Sarah Palin. Even a centrist with that same nervousness and apparent lack of preparation becomes unelectable.

So while Palin might be "stupid like a fox" to an extent, neither is she perfect.

Adamu, Tokyo, Japan
July 01, 2009 1:04am

Well done, Brian ! This article and
Phil Plait's "skepetiquette" should be required reading.

I have mixed feelings though. I do agree that one should not be too harsh, I am less forgiving of those in power. They do have access to resources and scientists would fall over themselves to educate a powerful leader if the latter asked for it. These people make decisions that affects millions of lives, sometimes involving life-and-death matters. So, perhaps the best thing is not to poke fun at Sarah Palin but to make sure that she is aware of the facts. If she persistently refuses, well, then the gloves are off.

Or maybe it is not that simple...

anonymous, London
July 01, 2009 2:53am

Thanks for this Podcast, Brian. I do like the ones that challenge my own perspectives.

You are right that we should not just dismiss people we disagree with as crazy or stupid. I guess that when we see someone do or say something so entirely contrary to the facts as we understand them it is hard to avoid the same kind of knee-jerk reaction we might see in a religious moralist who sees a person engaged in some inequity.

My one point of contention has to do with Tim McVeigh. Having a mental illness does not necessarily mean being a gibbering, incoherent mess. There is a disorder among the Scizophrenic types called Delusional Disorder in which the sufferer holds specific, narrative and non-bizzare delusions and has little impairment to functioning otherwise. This person would probably interpret and seek out information and people to support his beliefs as you say Tim did. I'm not saying he had the disorder but it's a possibility and it should not be ruled out.
It was my perception that the podcast gave the impression that it was only discussing insanity in the popular perception. Mental illness is much more varied and subtle.

Kate Chrisite, Moorhead
July 01, 2009 4:55am

"Stupid" is a term without a clear definition. When we say "stupid," we might mean that a person lacks critical thinking skills or the power to reason. Perhaps we meant that a person has an inability to evaluate information and synthesize conclusions. Maybe we mean that the person is incurious, or uneducated, or poorly spoken.

I, myself, have said Sarah Palin is "stupid," or worse, on several occasions. Of course, I know what I really mean--she speaks poorly in public, and she is incurious. But I recognize that she has political savvy. She knows how to use particular messages to appeal to a segment of the population. She knows how physical appearances work on camera. She knows how to create an overall story that will win her adulation by many.

Yet, this political prowess was not enough to help McCain in 2008; indeed it harmed him. It was enough to win as governor of Alaska, although it can be argued that her success was due more to the unpopularity of the incumbent and that her continued popularity (which has suffered in recent months) is attributable much more to the oil-money checks distributed to every Alaskan. A person with a severe lack of curiosity and an inability to articulate messages that are acceptable to a majority of the population will nevertheless win support when she sends thousands of dollars to every person.

Adam, Mount Vernon, OH
July 01, 2009 5:42am

Well-said, Adamu.

I can appreciate that using Sarah Palin so prominently brings more attention to this because of the shock value, but I really don't like it. I have a strong adverse reaction to Palin and everything she stands for.

Will Tomlinson, Houston, Texas
July 01, 2009 7:28am

Brian, how should we remember Tim McVeigh?
"Tim McVeigh was a good man who cared deeply about his country. Unfortunately, a lot of his white supremacist ideology was woefully out of date."
Care to humanize Hitler and Stalin for us?

Max, Boston, MA
July 01, 2009 8:05am

That wasn't so bad - from your Twitter post I expected the worst ;)

I'm also guilty of calling Bush, McCarthy and Palin stupid. "Ignorant and maybe a bit misguided" probably should have been the correct way of formulating. Saying someone is stupid because he or she believes weird things does come very easy, doesn't it?
For my part, I'll try to be mindful of that in the future.

Max:
You got it a bit wrong, I think. He is not out to lift McVeigh into sainthood - Brian, please correct me if you are indeed out to do so ;). And perhaps Hitler and Stalin did feel the same and only acted within their context. How they put this to work we all know.
But that's not the issue here.

Chris, Vienna, Austria
July 01, 2009 8:46am

Brian,
According to dictionary.com, the definition of stupid is "lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull"

I watched every one of Sarah's interviews with Katie Couric, and I have to say that OBJECTIVELY, and with this definition in hand, the word "stupid" to describe her performance in those interviews is pretty accurate. If it was just one interview, I'd agree that maybe she had a bad day, but she did it over and over again. I think this could lead a reasonable person to extrapolate on her overall "smarts" or lack thereof.

Ben, Texas
July 01, 2009 9:07am

It seems like a good number of people are missing the point. Sure, we can continue to call people "stupid" within the context of talking amongst ourselves all we want. We probably know what we mean. I think W. is an idiot, but i don't think his IQ is below 30. He clearly has an above-average IQ. I mean--and I think most people here would GET my meaning--that his POLICIES were idiotic. That his VIEWPOINT is idiotic. That his unbending refusal to admit when he's wrong is idiotic.

But when we are expressing these views in a public forum where non-critical thinkers are likely to see/hear, it would be best if we remember the impression it leaves in the minds of people who don't necessarily get the shorthand by dint of being in our "in group."

I've been accused of arrogance and closed-mindedness after making such pronouncements without thinking of my audience, and had to backpedal and explain. But it's too late by that point. They probably dismissed everything else I said.

Gary, Atlanta, GA
July 01, 2009 9:36am

I think the knee jerk response to suppress ideas as "stupid" is a failing of our current culture. We try too hard to embrace uniformity in our beliefs and knowledge. Questioning is the basis of science errors are how we revise hypothesis. Dimissive or repressive attacks on people expose weakness, and fear of the attacker, not the weakness of the person being attacked. No matter how much I disagree with her(or others) statements. I made support of obama my focus, not attacks on palin.

Stephen Propatier, Providence RI
July 01, 2009 9:55am

Zachary from Riverton Utah,

Do you actually frequent the political part of the SGU forums? Some of the most contentious discussions there are among skeptics who argue progressive vs. libertarian politics. As a liberal or progressive I've been called out a few times on those boards.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
July 01, 2009 10:29am

I just wanted to say that this is my favorite episode so far. I have direct experience with this phenomenon. I was not vaccinated as a child (I am now) and my parents still use homeopathy, and see an acupuncturist. I love my parents and understand that they are not bad people but that the people they know, also intelligent people, reinforce their mistrust of modern medicine.

I was so glad to hear you call for understanding in arguing these issues. I've heard a lot of passionate rhetoric directed at those who mistrust vaccines, and it bothers me. The more skeptics realize that we need empathy for the people with whom we disagree, the more convincing we as a whole can become.

Thanks for the great podcast.

NOTE: Tried to submit this comment once but it didn't show up, so I'm trying it again.

Joshua Bennett, Richmond VA
July 01, 2009 10:50am

That Palin was ignorant about why fruit fly research is done is understandable. Everyone is ignorant about any number of things. That she would mock the research without trying to understand why it's done, speaks poorly of her. That she would mock the research without trying to understand why it's done, while making comments about national policies on such matters, while running for office to be able to set policies on such matters... well, I think some people can be forgiven for considering that "stupid."

That she arguable did something stupid, doesn't mean she's purely stupid though, or that everything she says or does is stupid. I've done at least 7 stupid things myself. I kid you not.

On your other points, I think in at least some cases that people who stone their neighbours to death (or who commit some other religion inspired act of violence), do so because they enjoy committing acts of violence. The religious gibberish saying they should do it isn't *why* they do it, it's merely what they use to not feel guilty about doing it.

Karl Johanson, Victoria, BC. Canada
July 01, 2009 11:29am

I find that your analysis of Sarah Palin's accomplishments compared to to her intelligence to be flawed.

it's certainly possible to be city councilor in a tiny city in a state with a low population, you just have to have people like you. The same goes for Governor. It's a quirk with elected office, you don't have to be competent, just likable.

When someone gives the answer of "All of them" to the question, "What newspapers do you read?" That's a sign that someone's not very intellectualy curious.

Similarly, when someone says that America's on the road to socialism, that means they don't know what socialism is or what's going on or both. Nor do I think they can mount a reasonable defense why socialism would be a bad thing.

That level of thinking is what I would describe as "stupid."

Chris D, Las Vegas, NV
July 01, 2009 11:32am

Saying that she must not be stupid because a majority of people in Alaska elected her, and that John McCain picked her as his running mate, is very much like saying that God must exist because so many people believe it.

Either way, it's flawed logic, not to mention that it's IRRELEVANT to an evidence-based test of whether she is stupid or not.

Ben, Texas
July 01, 2009 11:36am

I'd say I agree with the ultimate point you're making here (ie 'don't simply ridicule people as it polarises onlokers, often cementing them against you') but I'd probably modify it slightly - something along the lines of don't JUST ridicule people. To leave it at 'Jenny McCarthy is crazy' is to appear to be making an ad hominum, but I don't think 'Jenny McCarthy is a good woman who means well but is misguided' is intellectually honest either.

I think the middle ground is where to inhabit, certainly in the cases of the more dangerous and deranged - and vocal/respected - of the woo-peddlers, something along the lines of 'Jenny McCarthy is crazy - she steadfastly refuses to heed medical opinion, calls out experts without having an expertise of her own, and uses her emotive tale to beat down rationalist thought, to the detriment of the health of America's children, and yet she shows no signs of even comprehending why her actions are dangerous and destructive. All of this makes her crazy'.

I suppose it's what Mark Crislip calls 'Evidence-based ridicule'.

Still, thought-provoking podcast as ever, that's just my opinion on the position!

Marsh, Merseyside, UK
July 01, 2009 5:40pm

Brian, thank you for this post. Unfortunately, I'm discouraged to read in the comments that there are still a great many "skeptics" who believe what they are told because it fits into their political point of view. There were many, many smears of Palin in the MSM and on 'progressive' blogs. Here's a pretty comprehensive debunking of many, if not most, of them.

http://tinyurl.com/6b3mqq

#48 & 49 deal with her views on creationism (guess what? She doesn't think it should be part of the curriculum)
#50 - her views on 'abstinence only' education. No, she doesn't believe in it and (gasp) thinks contraception should be taught!
#72 deals with the rape kit smear

Much more at the link.

Carissa, Nevada
July 01, 2009 7:33pm

Very often someone is categorized as "stupid" when they enter a new milieu, especially one for which they aren't fully prepared. This is the basis for most of the jokes revolving around "rubes" of various eras: the Irish, Italians, Polish, etc, all were in this category when they immigrated to America. Were all these people "stupid?" No. They were merely the classic "fish out of water" and had yet to learn how the game is played in the new culture. A rube can very easily be made to look stupid by cruel people with less than stellar ethical values. This was the situation with Sarah Palin in 2008. For those with memories, Princess Diana was similarly beat up by the media 20 years earlier. It seems the media has a real dislike for good-looking women in the public eye. Witness the deplorable TMZ today. Or the execrable Perez Hilton web site. These people seem to exist primarily to torpedo women, for no discernible reason other than them being women, attractive, and popular. Apparently an unforgivable combination.

David Richards, Orange County, CA
July 02, 2009 1:10am

I can understand people having cultural biases and religious beliefs but the kind of topics we are concerned with is not dependent on these beliefs. We are not talking about creationism where religion colors the disagreement but topics like alternative medicine, vaccination etc. Good science tries to search for empirical truths. To determine the truth of a statement there are accepted and established methods. For example the double blind randomized placebo controlled trials. But too many people will not accept a gold standard or as close as we can come to a gold standard. Its the methodology they don't accept not the answers. Perhaps Prince Charles and people of his ilk can articulate a methodology they would accept to prove or disprove a finding

Jasbir, Malaysia
July 02, 2009 2:17am

Carissa,

None of the quotes and debunks on that web site are linked to their source. Pretty much worthless in my opinion.

Ben, Texas
July 02, 2009 6:08am

Whoa, David Richards. Sarah Palin was unable to give coherent responses to basic questions about important issues. What "milieu" do you think she should inhabit? One in which those issues are unimportant? Should we make up a "milieu" in which a rabidly right-wing Christianist can rule?

Yet, her "national" introduction was a speech in which she tore into Democratic Party leaders using the same base of issues and talking points that the Republican party has been using for decades. As a supposed outsider, she sure jumped into the classic Washington framework gladly. If she didn't feel comfortable in this world and wasn't able to compete within it, why did she not only enter it willingly but with such great gusto?

Adam, Mount Vernon, OH
July 02, 2009 6:23am

People can get very far in American politics based on their charisma and ability to dodge issues and responsibilities. You don't need to be smart to do that. You correctly used a lot of "probablys" in your list of Palin's accomplishments. I think you're overestimating both Palin and the American electorate.

And as for promoters of pseudoscience and other nonsense being "victims" of their defunct rationality who only have good intentions...so what? I personally have no interest in whatever personal deficiencies led them to harming the public. The road to hell (metaphorically) is paved with good intentions, and the end result is the same, so whether they do it maliciously or not doesn't matter in the slightest.

Jared, Fairport, NY
July 02, 2009 8:24am

Very well put, Brian. I've felt this way about many of the Bush's, Palin's, etc. of the world for quite some time, but have never expressed it with your level of eloquence. I believe you're correct in arguing that they're not stupid. They wouldn't have attained their positions in society if they were.

Kent Searight, Pacific NW
July 02, 2009 8:28am

Everyone should play nice. Calling someone a name when arguing with them is a show of bad manners. If you can't respect another human when arguing then you don't deserve to play.

However, I take issue with the relativism of the argument presented here. It's possible to be both crazy/stupid *and* have a coherent belief system which may or may not be in common with those around you.

And an ad hominem attack is only used when arguing. If someone says "I love Palin's policies" and I say "Palin's policies are all wrong because she's an idiot" I'm using an ad hominem attack. However, if I see Palin on TV talking about abstinence only education I am fully in my right to say "She's an idiot" because I'm not arguing against her policies, I'm making a value judgment.

Peter, Leawood, Kansas
July 02, 2009 9:23am

Brian, I have to disagree with your commentary about honest promoters of bad information having good intentions.

In most cases they know they are lying. They are being deliberately dishonest to forward their particular agenda. Hamm and Stein are excellent examples of this. I agree that they are not crazy-raving-lunatics; they are deliberately deceptive liars and as such, deserve to have this thrust in their face and every opportunity.

Cheers,
Shayne

Reverend Dark, Canada
July 02, 2009 9:52am

Adam:

I would appreciate a link to a reputable source regarding Palin's inability to answer questions about "important questions", as most of the quotes allegedly ascribed to her were later proven to be completely made-up, by reporters who put the quotes in the mouths of non-existent people at non-existent think tanks. Yet, this is state of the art "journalism" in this country. You're a reporter and you don't like someone? Just make up a degrading fact about them, like they don't know that Africa is a continent for example. Where and when exactly did Palin say that, please? Or are you clinging to the question about "the Bush Doctrine", a nebulous name for a whole slew of topics that the Leftist media created, and were then surprised that a Republican running for office couldn't provide a concise response to? Guess what, I couldn't either. If *I* was asked what I thought of the Bush doctrine, the only way I could respond would be to ask the person to be more specific. And I suspect you would also.

David Richards, Orange County, CA
July 02, 2009 9:58am

David I'll point you toward the vice presidential debates. Then there was also her citing her states's proximity to Russia as being foreign policy experience.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
July 02, 2009 10:26am

Very well said Brian. Keep up the great work.

Erik, LA
July 02, 2009 10:37am

...evidently you don't post every comment, or maybe just ones that don't jive with your argument.

Or should I re-submit? My original comment:

- - - - - - - - - -

Only the sound-bite trolls have called Sarah Palin "stupid" because it's the simplest and most descriptive lowest-common-denominator verbal distillation of her persona.

In fact, Sarah Palin is much worse than stupid. She is a presumptuous, precocious, opportunistic pseudo-socio-Christio cultural surrogate, who unwisely (and foolishly) convinced herself and her like-minded devotees that she possessed the mental capacity, the moral disposition and, above all, the intellectual curiosity to be entrusted with the oversight of a nation state, to recognize its place within a complex global community, and to properly appreciate and manage its intricacies.

Sarah Palin--to use one of Donald Rumsfeld's neologisms--didn't know what she didn't know. That's not stupidity, that's ignorance, and the distinction is an important one.... Read More

Lastly, given that your essay is shadowed by a full format "Support Sarah PAC" advertisement, whatever points you may have endeavored to illustrate have been eunuchized.

Emlyn, Providence, RI
July 02, 2009 10:56am

Considering the recent Vanity Fair article (http://www.newsy.com/videos/vanity_fair_on_palin_what_s_it_all_mean) I'd say this is timely. Ad hominem usually make you look like an idiot, jerk or arrogant bastard. And when you are on the receiving in, it is better to mock their lack of content than surrender and reply in kind. Never argue with a fool: they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

james, oh
July 02, 2009 2:07pm

Very usefull and refreshing.
A truth thats hard to aply but will defenitly bear it's fruits.
A state of mind that could bring us one step closer to understanding each other in a world which is impossible to understand for one man. Keep up the good work.

Laurens Verhoeff, Steenbergen The Netherlands
July 02, 2009 2:42pm

Wow! I'd like to thank all of Brian's commenters for making it clear that you have to be a Democrat to be a skeptic. I hadn't known there was a political litmus test.

Cambias, Massachusetts
July 02, 2009 3:11pm

"When she became mayor of Wasilia, the town had zero debt. When she left six years later the town owed 20 million dollars. That is some of the most insane civic spending I've ever read about. Her budget she assumed was 2.3 million/year. She had to tack on another 3.3 million in spending on top of that budget, for six years running, to have it add up to 20 million.

I'd say she's either crooked, or absolutely astoundingly stupid when it comes to math."

You should see what the current president has done in just a couple of months. It's orders of magnitude larger.

So if budgetary deficits is your scale, how smart is he?

Glen Wolfram, Eugene, Oregon
July 02, 2009 6:10pm

I think what a lot of people seem unwilling to do is divorce the concepts of intelligence and job-specific competence. I fancy myself a bright fella, and I'm quite confident I'd be abysmal in public office (maybe even as bad as some of the people who currently hold it!). I suppose one could argue that a lack of self-awareness on that matter (which might motivate an unqualified person to run) is an intellectual demerit, but I doubt the truly intellectually honest person could really hold that against anyone. Most of us have chased or even held a job we weren't right for at some point, including those of us who are very smart. Failing to recognize that lack of qualification may be a strike against you, but it hardly pegs you at below average intelligence (let he who is without withheld resume entries cast the first ad hominem).

I am curious, though, as to why so many people who wouldn't assume a bad accountant is a dimwitted evil scumbag feel the need to make that assumption about bad elected officials. I can see why they might seem more influential or important, but who really has more of an impact on your life: your boss, or the president?

Ryan, Toronto
July 02, 2009 7:47pm

Fantastic podcast, Brian.

I know a major reason I've stayed away from any formal skeptic-type activities is the "curmudgeon factor" in that self-styled skeptics can often be overly dismissive of things out of hand, sometimes rudely. This podcast is a good wake-up call in how to effectively consider people who you don't necessarily agree with, and promotes productive attitudes in skepticism. Well done!

Shane Caldwell, Montreal
July 02, 2009 8:37pm

Probably the best episode yet. I must say that I have dismissed creationists, quack medicine promoters, etc as stupid before. You've got a really great attitude!

Pat, Peterborough, Canada
July 03, 2009 11:09am

To understand the hysterical reaction to Sarah Palin one needs only to understand that Conservatives think that Liberals are wrong while Liberals think that Conservatives are STUPID and EVIL. That is why there is no debate on the issues, only slurs:'stupid' 'racist' 'homophobe' etc. No need to engage on the issues because the other side (conservative) is EVIL. We are doomed because the two sides cannot exchange ideas or debate the issues.

Wayne Dallas, Denver, CO
July 03, 2009 12:40pm

I love most of your episodes and agree with most as well. I am neither conservative nor liberal. I have to say, however, this episode seems a bit lame.

This issue seems to me to be pretty much a matter of colloquial usage vs. technically accurate usage of the word "stupid".

I suspect that most people )hence the word "colloquial") tend to use the word (when discussing public figures) more to describe their behavior than to describe their intelligence or education or ability.

Although the actions of such figures may be consistent with their beliefs, any action that is inconsistent with testable facts can not easily be dismissed as "not stupid" (colloquial meaning) by virtue of it's basis in said beliefs.

I look forward to more significant topics in the future.

Will M, Bend, Oregon
July 03, 2009 12:54pm

Wow, this episode was timed very well, between the Vanity Fair article and — today's news! I still think she's a dork.

Pam, SoCal
July 03, 2009 2:33pm

There you go brian. Look what you made her do.

Shahar lubin, Ha-Noi, Vietnam
July 03, 2009 4:13pm

I have to agree with several commenters here that you don't address the real issue as seen by most skeptics. Most skeptics would probably agree Palin and the others you listed act rationally within their worldview (at least as much as is allowed by its contradictions), but this does not mean they aren't crazy or stupid. It's the fact that they hold their worldview at all which makes them crazy/stupid in that way (they could be intelligent or perfectly sane in other ways). As Dawkins has pointed out, sharing a delusion with others does not make it less of a delusion. Nor does being honest or having good intentions. This holds regardless of how politically advantageous it may be for us to point it out.

Mickey, Seattle
July 03, 2009 5:06pm

Okay, they are not stupid...they are "positively ignorant".

Or evil(e.g: Dick Cheney).

Now we've cleared that up, why are we allowing them to lead?

It's fine that they should want to be successful in life with their skills and knowledge, but it encroaches on my pursuit of happiness when they get elected and anchor positive progress in the country I pay taxes in.

Drill in our wildlife areas, but promote stem cell research and cloning to replace the extinct species. And make all American power companies as renewable-redundant as the Bush ranch in Texas...

Free Afghanistan and Iraq AND Iran, AND North Korea AND Saudi Arabia from tyranny, but also catch Bin Laden(use our CIA dammit, they hired him).
Better yet, publically redistribute the natural resources to civil rights leaders in those "liberated" lands from Year One. I'd join the military JUST to do that.

They preach total separation from consequence and responsibility. They are complete hypocrites. They are liars, they are thieves, but they are not stupid.

They are ignorant, the people who don't research candidates and vote as a herd are stupid.(both sides of the aisle) None of America's policies atm, make sense.

MayB scool sistem needs to be reformed or sumting...

Lusulpher, America
July 03, 2009 5:17pm

Certainly a well-written piece of obviousness, but hardly worth my time. The reason ad hominem attacks exist is because they're FUN. Stop trying to spoil everybody's fun by pointing out that we're all just water molecules with a little bit of extra flavor added at random. So what if the average imbecile off the street couldn't do a better job as governor of Alaska? Now they get an early chance to prove it.

Joshua Adelson, State College
July 03, 2009 5:22pm

I listen to your podcasts when they come out and a couple days of ago you didn't convince me but I could Palin the benefit of the doubt.
Today? Doubt removed. Palin is stupid and you are wrong.

Tootles,
ZZ

Zed Zero, Austin
July 03, 2009 5:44pm

Show me one thing Hitler did that was evil and I'll show you something that's perfectly rational for someone with his religious and political convictions.
While that may be true. I think that we can objectively consider Hitler an evil person without it being an ad hominem.

Milton, Sunnyside Queens
July 03, 2009 10:43pm

Case in point: Ms Palin's resignation of her governorship.

Whatever happened to "Country First"?

Emlyn, Providence, RI
July 04, 2009 2:59am

Milton,

Hitler couldn't have been evil, because evil people don't tend to attract contributors, managers, supporters, and electorates, duh!

Max, Boston, MA
July 04, 2009 7:54am

Wow. This just isn't very well thought out. Of course people have reasons for the actions they take. Some reasons are just flat bad and it is hardly ad hominem to point that out

td, Chicago
July 04, 2009 7:59am

Specifically where is Sarah Palin wrong re her not wanting the government to fund fruit fly experiements? (I have no personal opinion, because I do not know about this research.)

Where does that put her in relation to members of Congress and the Administration, present and past?

Putting some context around it would be helpful.

The Clinton administration funded the WHCCAMP. (Now that was a bizarre work.) Harkin and others have promoted quackery and funded it. This present administration is playing fast and loose with science to get some really really terrible regulations in place. Al Gore misrepresents sceince in his movie and presentations. I could go on.

It's just when some one presents as dramatically as Palin with the markings of a conservative, the bullseye is on their chest and the script is written and the rest be damned.

So of course many people think she's more stupid and less credible than Ted Kennedy who doesn't want windmills on HIS ocean.

We really have a need to believe our own lies.

JAL, Asheville, NC
July 04, 2009 8:47am

Quitting the governorship--for whatever meandering, half-baked excuses she offered to the amassed media tadpoles--would seem to be directly at odds with the spirit of what "Country First" was intended to mean to Republicans when it was used in the 2008 election.

"Country First" would imply that public service should take priority over all other concerns, whether familial, medical or legal, and that from her post as Governor she should have continued to work at realizing her party's ideals until the very end. So, in all, another bullshit slogan from a bullshit party.

By quitting she has compromised on the last real opportunity she ever had to prove herself (and silence her critics).

So perhaps Sarah Palin is stupid, after all?

Emlyn, Providence, RI
July 04, 2009 8:47am

Emily,

I guess that makes Obama pretty smart for not running on "Country First", because he puts Democrats First. All that talk of bipartisanship was out the door the minute he took office. "He won" after all.

David, Nashville TN
July 04, 2009 9:05am

@David: Amazing that you interpret universal health care, renewable energy and the revitalization of the economy initiatives as Democrats-only.

Would Republicans and Independents be excluded from reaping the very same rewards offered by these initiatives--should they be lucky enough to survive Congressional scrutiny?

That's like saying Bush's (so-called) "War on terror" was only aimed at protecting Republicans' freedoms.

As Mr Dunning rightly points out, we generally see what our convictions and biases permit us to see.

Love him or hate him, President Obama has never wavered from the core principle that we are, first and foremost, Americans.

Emlyn, Providence, RI
July 04, 2009 9:14am

JAL,

The context is that Palin was promising to fund programs for children with special needs by cutting pork projects that "really don't make a whole lot of sense" and have "little or nothing to do with the public good ... things like fruit fly research in Paris, France, I kid you not."
In fact, fruit fly research is crucial in the study of birth defects and genetic disorders suffered by children with special needs. The Nobel Prize has been awarded for such research.

Max, Boston, MA
July 04, 2009 9:30am

Max,
The fact that Nobel prizes have been awarded for similar research doesn't really speak to whether funding of specific research has a positive cost/benefit and/or whether such funding is the best use of limited government resources. There's also the question of benefit horizon and risk; funding research tends to be speculative, with no guarantee of beneficial output in the near term. It's an assumption (which in fairness, has not been dispelled)that Palin hadn't done some form of cost/benefit analysis and that this informed her determination of what programs had "little to nothing to do with the public good".

Ray, Allentown, PA
July 04, 2009 11:08am

What about Michelle Bachmann? I'm pretty sure she's stupid!

Steve, Dublin, Ireland
July 04, 2009 12:04pm

Brian
Well said and timely.

Tom Arnold, Mingleville, PA
July 04, 2009 12:41pm

The conclusion of this article -- that we should treat those with whom we disagree with respect, and that we should attempt to engage them intelligently on the issues rather than call them names -- is, of course, indisputable.

But that has nothing to do with whether Sarah Palin is stupid or not. Sarah Palin has a very public record of ineptitude, ignorance and inability to coherently articulate her own ideas. This is not a partition position -- people from all corners of the political spectrum have described Sarah Palin in terms that could reasonably be summarized as "Stupid". You need only to watch the debates, the various interviews with her, and listen to or read transcripts of her public speech to find evidence that she is in fact "stupid" (using a broad definition of that word). Your counter-evidence, which basically amounts to, "She got elected Mayor and Governor so she can't be stupid!" is unconvincing, to say the least. There is nothing one has to do to get elected to those posts that necessarily precludes one being "stupid."

It's really too bad, because the actual point you made at the end is really good, and one that many skeptic need to hear. But trying to connect it with the stupidity or lack thereof of a controversial political figure is a bit of a non-sequitor -- and a needlessly polarizing one at that.

Febo, Philadelphia
July 04, 2009 2:03pm

Powerful stuff. I often forget to think of it in those terms when I am in discussion with other skeptics about polarized ideas.

However, I do often find myself playing devil's advocate by stepping into their shoes and explaining what they believe.

For example, when I was discussing gay marriage with a friend, both myself and the person I was discussing it with agree that it is a limitation of rights for gays to not be able to marry each other. However, when I step into a fundamentalist Christian's shoes, I point out that these Christians believe that gays still have 100% the same rights as straights. Gay men are completely allowed to marry women as much as straight men are, and same goes for women.

These Christians are wrong, but when you look at it through their shoes, you can start to understand how they can rationalize defending their position. Once you comprehend that, you can let them know that you understand where they come from and you can both begin a debate on the same level.

Nathan, Los Angelos, CA
July 04, 2009 4:25pm

I'll say this, Obama is clearly not any more intelligent than Palin.

I can easily point to Obama criticizing McCain for pursuing policies he is now pursuing, or for criticizing Bush's policies that he's continuing, etc that clearly show he's "Stupid" by the standards of most posters here.

...provided that the posters here were intelligent, and clearly, that is not the case.

Mike, SC
July 04, 2009 4:43pm

I found myself agreeing with the podcast, for the most part...then I forced myself to watch Palin's painful 15 minute resignation "speech" a few days later when she resigned.

Conclusion? Nope...she's stupid.

Donna, Tucson, AZ
July 04, 2009 10:56pm

<i>Your counter-evidence, which basically amounts to, "She got elected Mayor and Governor so she can't be stupid!" is unconvincing, to say the least. There is nothing one has to do to get elected to those posts that necessarily precludes one being "stupid.</i>

Only if you assume most people are "stupid" and are incapable of recognizing "stupidity" in those with whom they have much more direct experience than you.

Remember, the Party Line is there to keep you from thinking. Follow it at peril to someone, least of all yourself.

Mark Poling, Brooklyn, NY
July 04, 2009 11:04pm

I think my previous post may have not been clear... I believe that calling the piece "Sarah Palin is not Stupid" and then supporting that blatantly subjective claim with easily refutable evidence is totally at odds with what eventual point of the piece was meant to be -- that it is more effective to argue using facts and logic than to call people names.

There are lots of intelligent people who think that Sarah Palin is stupid regardless of whether they agree with her politically, and lots of intelligent people who do not. That is irrelevant. The point is we can and should argue intelligently about actual issues without having to agree on the stupid/not stupid status of those issues prominent proponents.

Perhaps the title of the article should have been something like "Sarah Palin might be stupid, but it doesn't matter."

Febo, Philadelphia
July 05, 2009 4:05am

Ray,

Way to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Imagine if McCain criticized pork projects that have "little or nothing to do with the public good ... things like tankers for the Air Force, I kid you not." That would be a stupid way to refer to a specific program. People would ask what's so damn funny about Air Force tankers.

Max, Boston, MA
July 05, 2009 7:38am

No Brian, you are wrong. Read this: http://www.gov.state.ak.us/exec-column.php and tell me if that sounds like it's coming from a stupid person or not.

Mike, Israel
July 05, 2009 8:49am

I think we all use these "ad hominem" attacks way too much, at least I know I do. Great subject for a podcast, and entertaining as allways.

Markus, Oslo, Norway
July 05, 2009 12:32pm

One thing i would ad:

The arguments against comments like "X-Person is dumb" could and should be extended to "crazy" and "evil".

Thinking, for example, that a certain WWII personality with a funny mustache was just pure evil, some sort of occurrence that just happened, is foolish. A bit like the McVeigh example you mention in this episode.

Understanding these kind of people, helps prevent us form repeating tragic episodes of our human history.

-G.

juepucta, LA/CA/US
July 05, 2009 3:43pm

I think Christopher Hitchens put it nicely in response to "Bush is so dumb" jokes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECI4QK_mXA&fe

Theo, www.skepticsfieldguide.net
July 05, 2009 8:18pm

Part of the problem is that for a lot of people, "science" has dropped into the same slot that "religion" used to fill. If you go against SCIENCE, these people say, then you aren't just disagreeing; you're fundamentally opposed to the very definitions of the universe itself. If someone is so completely wrong as to deny the basic tenets of existence, then why bother treating them with respect or reason? Just consign them to the ash-heap of history and move on, following the True Believers to the New Jerusalem.

DensityDuck, Luna City, Mars
July 05, 2009 10:21pm

juepucta,

When you say, "Understanding these kind of people...", what kind of people do you mean? If you don't acknowledge that they're evil, then what's there to understand? They're just normal people behaving normally, right?

Max, Boston, MA
July 05, 2009 11:07pm

There seems to be a premise here that being able to rise in politics shows that she's not stupid.

She may be charismatic and still stupid.

I say that having talked with politicians, some of whom came across, in person, as just dumb.

People rise in our political system because they get financial backing. I'm sorry to disabuse anyone who's still stuck in high-school civics class, but that's the only a politician has a chance. A charismatic but dumb politician who believes the right things will do OK.

A smart politician who remains sufficiently amenable to donors' wishes, and is still charismatic is better, no doubt. (I think that's what we're seeing with Obama, to pretty much everyone's dismay.)

If Palin isn't stupid, she sure gave a good impression of being so when put in situations requiring a bit of mental agility.

That's not to do with ideology: I've spoken with people I disagree with strongly who were very smart, and ones I agreed with who were dumb.

I have found that people on the right seem much less interested re-evaluating conceptions and misconceptions, and seem to just dismiss facts as irrelevant details.

I know there's no control over what ads appear, but I was surprised by this one on a site called skeptiod:

IS IT OVER?
FIND OUT IF YOUR RELATIONSHIP WILL MAKE IT THROUGH HARD TIMES...

Chat now with a Professional Psychic.

Claire, Townsville, QLD
July 06, 2009 9:43am

"I think Christopher Hitchens put it nicely in response to "Bush is so dumb" jokes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECI4QK_mXA&fe"
--Theo, www.skepticsfieldguide.net
July 05, 2009 8:18pm

So, you think that Hitchens' infantile "NO U!" response is worth sharing in a discussion about how to treat people with respect when arguing with them? Okay. Whatever. You're not stupid, we just disagree ;).

Febo, Philadelphia
July 06, 2009 9:49am

Smart and educated is not the same thing. Remember (I heard it on the SGU) when a white lawyer used the term "black hole" and two black lawyers got really offended? I couldn't make it as a lawyer, yet I knew at age 10 what a black hole was... I generally agree with Brian though on the pointlessness of ad hominems that aren't backed up. If someone is doing something nutty, tell me what they are doing and refer to the deeds as nutty, not the person. I will however, like everybody else, use those deeds to judge the person and whether they should be in the position that they are in.

Adrian, Brisbane, Australia
July 06, 2009 1:44pm

Timothy McVeigh was *not* "the United States' greatest mass murderer of children". That dis-honor goes to Andrew Kehoe who killed 38 children in the Bath Schoolhouse disaster in Michigan in 1927 (look it up). There were only 19 children killed in Oklahoma City.

Greg, Kenmore, WA
July 06, 2009 5:52pm

I feel a little conflicted saying that I think this is a great article, given the subject matter, because I'm saying it largely because I agree with you.

We all have a tendency when confronted with a viewpoint that is wildly divergent from our own to dismiss it as belonging to a crackpot, zealot, or monster. Most of us will look at things done by Pol Pot, Augusto Pinochet, Benito Mussolini, etc. and think "Their problem was that they were insane. They weren't human."

As you pointed out, they were entirely human, and they lived inside of cultures where what they did was not only accepted but strongly supported by a like-minded segment of society. If we exclude them in our minds as being mentally deficient, we overlook the possibility of similar foibles in our own world views.

People who don't agree with you aren't necessarily nuts or stupid.

But having said that, I also don't think that you're likely to ever bring them around to your point of view through rational and civil discourse. Some world views are inherently conservative in the sense that they will not abide the consideration of new ideas.

David, San Antonio, TX
July 06, 2009 6:25pm

Stopped reading when you said "Stupid people don't attract supporters, managers, etc." Clearly not true. Rich white people that are dressed nicely and have a cute haircut and have been thoroughly educated attract supporters. Overconfidence also helps. It has little to do with intelligence.

This general hindsight bias of "I succeeded, therefore I am intelligent and hard working" is really annoying. Palin is a clear example of how person of less-than-average intelligence can succeed wildly because she is born into the right family. Your faulty reasoning is preventing you from seeing an obvious truth.

Either that, or you're just taking a clearly absurd position for attention.

John, San Francisco, CA
July 06, 2009 6:49pm

Ideology-based reasoning: "Stupid people tend not to get elected; Palin got elected; therefore Palin is not stupid."
Evidence-based reasoning: "Palin is stupid, judging from her words and actions; Palin got elected; therefore stupid people can get elected."

Max, Boston, MA
July 06, 2009 8:25pm

I listened to your podcast and I am grateful that the full text is available here. Although I appreciated your point regarding ad hominem attacks I think you have made a few mistakes.

A skeptic should look at comments such as "Sarah Palin is stupid" and directly address the governor's cognitive abilities. It is erroneous to suggest that electoral success or campaign contributions are indicators of intellectual capacity. Many intelligent people have failed to be elected and many rather dim witted people have been elected for higher office. It is irrelevant. Religious and cultural convictions may go a long way to explain her policy positions, but do not give us a clear indication of her intelligence. So although it may help us be more empathetic to Mrs. Palin they are also irrelevant to determining her intelligence.

You are correct that true skeptics shouldn't resort to ad hominem attacks. Each situation should be judged based on the merits of the arguments or facts presented. Even if the conclusion does not support your system of beliefs or values.

Normally I wouldn't nit pick with you, because I enjoy your podcasts very much. But you see I wasn't very well educated. I studied journalism and television production. (Tongue in cheek!)

Sean Webb, Hamilton
July 06, 2009 8:41pm

Flawed logic; unsupported claims and a bit of "Clintoniamism" that doggone it you're smarter than most people, better than most people, and that you care more than most people.

Gov. Sarah Palin told you why she resigned. Get over it. She had here reasons; that someone doesn't agree is their perrogative; doesn't make them right.

And, by the way, how many kids did Janet Reno murder in Waco? How many children did the wacko Muslims of the Ahmadinejad ilk murder on 9/11? Or, how many babies have the "good women" of this country murdered since Roe v. Wade? Calling them "masses" simply dehumanizes them something your buddy Bill Maher and his ilk totally support while trashing honorable people like Sarah Palin who have dedicated their lives to serving people.

Tony Partigianoni, DeRidder, LA
July 06, 2009 9:00pm

Yeah, Palin told us why she quit: because "the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out."
Got it, not quitting is the quitter's way out. Brilliant!

Oh, and "we can ALL learn from our selfless Troops... they're bold, they *don't give up*, they take a stand..."
(Emphasis on "don't give up")

And the last quote, oh man:
"In the words of General MacArthur said, [sic] "We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction."
ROFLMAO, I'm gonna use that one next time I quit.

Max, Boston, MA
July 06, 2009 10:03pm

Sarah Palin is not a stupid woman in Wasilla, AK. She's right on par with everyone else there and in the rest of Alaska, hence her success.

Take a senior in high school who's President of his class, for example.. he's not stupid.

But thrust him directly into the job of CEO of a major corporation and suddenly he looks very stupid, hence the reason your argument and article fail.

John Smith, Wasilla, AK
July 06, 2009 10:30pm

LOL, she couldn't even get the quote right, misattributing it to General MacArthur. It was actually said by General Oliver P. Smith: "Retreat, hell! We're not retreating, we're just advancing in a different direction."

Max, Boston, MA
July 06, 2009 11:16pm

Your point is valid, Brian, but it unfortunately puts skeptics at a disadvantage. To zealots of any outrageous cause, facts and scientific consensus is irrelevant. These kinds of arguments are deflected easily as evidence of a cover-up or conspiracy. So, more often than not, the strident skeptic just gets sick of his voice being drowned out by meaningless babble and resorts to the only argument left, calling the zealot an idiot. Like it or not, at the core of things, any person who consistently rejects reality in the form of scientific data is one of two things, a manipulator or an idiot, or possibly both.

Mark, Huntsville, AL
July 07, 2009 6:36am

Brian, very well said. It is massively difficult to shift someone from one pole to the other without some sort of traumatic event that undercuts the foundation of their world-view, and I wish that on very few people. The long slow road of engagement and civil conversation is the only way forward. I totally understand the frustration that leads to writing the other person off, but that is failure. That said, it's best to focus your efforts on the influencers and not try to convert the uncritical followers one by one. Fight smarter, not just harder.

Alex, Providence, Rhode Island
July 07, 2009 8:29am

Until very recently I worked aboard a luxury cruise ship and sailed to various ports in Alaska. I found the people there very friendly and courteous. It's a truly beautiful part of the U.S. and I would love to spend more time there. The residents do tend to be very socially conservative and and religious. Often when we went to see a movie in Juneau there would be advertisements for Christian summer camps and such. But just because they are socially conservative doesn't mean that they are stupid or less worthy of contributing to national policy decisions. I'm a Canadian and one of our favourite sports is American bashing. We look at our friends to the south and see violent crimes, urban decay and crazy right wing Christians. However, after spending three years working for a U.S. based cruise line and living and working with Americans I have found that many of our pot shots from the north have been unfair. You have some beautiful cities and some wonderful people who truly care about others. Both conservatives and liberals have a real sense of patriotism and passion for their country. I still can't believe that so many of you can't get adequate health care, but when I take a skeptical look at American society I know enough to consider the facts and ignore some of my Canadian biases. Sarah Palin my possess less than average intelligence. I'm not aware of any standardized IQ tests that the governor has taken. Nor do I know what the results would have been.

Sean Webb, Hamilton
July 07, 2009 9:29am

Here's a gem:
"Palin said there was a difference between the White House and what she had experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House, she said, the "department of law" would protect her from baseless ethical allegations."

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8016906&page=1

Sorry Brian, Sarah Palin's a tard*.

*tard - Any person who is not developmentally disabled, but rather has what is considered normal cognitive faculties but for whatever reason has opted out of using it.
Source: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tard

stardustmilkshake, santa barbara
July 07, 2009 11:05am

On the one hand I was moved by the sincerity of this podcast, and I agree.

On the other hand, one way that ideas get promulgated through our culture is humor, and the heart of humor is oversimplification. I doubt we will ever reach a point where reasoned discussion is the default position for more than a tiny tiny minority.

Jon, Greensboro, NC
July 07, 2009 12:20pm

Brief response: The argument that something isn't stupid because a lot of people do it is an appeal to popularity.

Longer response: First off, you need to have a working definition of stupidity, which socially encompasses not simply working against ones' own interests, but also being inarticulate, putting forth irrational explanations, committing to actions heedless of likely adverse outcomes…

Palin is shallow, callow, mendacious and glib. That her actions stem from understandable perspectives or good intentions does not shield them from being stupid—indeed, by going by that definition, you've eliminated stupidity from humanity! Congratulations!

I understand and sympathize with your obvious desire to remind your readership of the common humanity that should motivate our actions. However, by conflating that with intelligence in such a fallacious manner (the idea that someone could be elected despite being an idiot doesn't seem to have occurred to you), your argument became, in a word, stupid.

Josh, LA, CA
July 07, 2009 2:28pm

One more:

"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said in a local interview that the vice president is "in charge of" the U.S. Senate and "can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes" – the second time she has claimed a more expansive role for the vice president than the U.S. Constitution outlines."

Source: http://tinyurl.com/5cpklq

It is evident that Sarah Palin doesn't know what she is talking about. Perhaps, she's deliberately misleading the public... She can't possibly be that stupid, right?

stardustmilkshake, santa barbara
July 07, 2009 4:09pm

Congratulations Brian on an excellent podcast. I hear these sort of ad hominem attacks all the time among skeptics. I always prefer arguments that you could imagine the opposition actually giving time to rather than ones that would just put them on the defensive.

I do think that democracy tends to make politics a bit of a popularity contest, especially once religion plays much of a role, so Sarah Palin being elected implies people can relate to her rather than implying she's intelligent or not stupid.

But it doesn't matter whether she's stupid or not. The point is that accusing her of being stupid gets us nowhere. We at least need to provide evidence to back up such a claim, and not just the vague data mining a couple of people have given above.

I'll probably still think of Palin and Bush as basically stupid, or at least ignorant, but in any serious debate these are not valid argumentative points in themselves.

Anyway, well done! I think all skeptics should listen to this one.

Thanks,
Rob.

Robert Webb, Melbourne, Australia
July 07, 2009 5:59pm

Everyone occasionally makes a stupid comment, but the media is determined to turn Sarah Palin into another Dan Quail. They never got their potato moment, so they were reduced to using Tina Fey's SNL skit quote "I can see Russia from my house!"

The media used that quote so often at the lead of a Sarah Palin article that I have met several people who believe Palin actually said it.

In fact, she is of course not stupid, although you are one of the few leftist journalists I have ever noticed admitting it. She is very commonsensical, and if she has flaws, who doesn't? If the media had done their job with Obama, he probably would never have become President, as the protege of a card carrying (literally) communist party member who was a self admitted child molester (Frank Marshall Davis) and all the other Farrakhan/Wright/Rezko/Ayers baggage. Could you imagine what the media would do if those personages were linked to Palin? They try to turn everything about her to scandal.

She carries herself as one of us, not the "intellectual" Washington elite, and we appreciate it. I don't know if she will be President or not, but I think she would do a creditable job of it.

She seems to have about 50,000,000 fans. Not all of us are stupid and ignorant, and we are tired of being treated as "fly-over country." We are neither colonies or tax slaves, and many of us are ready to revolt, however we need to do it. We could easily rally around Palin.

badfrog, CT USA
July 07, 2009 8:43pm

I think you will find that the Republican powers, if they could be called that, have almost no respect for Sarah Palin. The Republican Party (establishment) would love to have seen the last of her.

Personally, I do not believe her to be stupid. As far as Sarah Palin is concerned, I am an agnostic. I don't look down upon her because her degree is in journalism; her most ardent critics hold the same credentials.

I am not an enthusiastic supporter of embryonic stem cell research because experience has shown that researchers have had far more success with adult stem cells; and as one who might benefit from such research (RA), I would rather get as much bang for the buck as I can. I wouldn't berate anyone who feels otherwise - no matter their reasoning or inspiration.

I would venture to say that the human race is devolving, at least culturally and politically. Name one living American statesman (gender neutral term). Vitriol seems to be the only thing manufactured in America these days and it's served with a steaming side order of hypocrisy.

It's really quite simple. Each side feels strongly about an issue for reasons that are valid to themselves. The anti-abortion side believes that abortion is infanticide. The pro-abortion side believes that it is not. Morally, both are correct; legally only the latter. I do not know if resolution is possible but civilized discourse should be.

PS: I don't speak PC. It is what it is; pro and anti.

Frank, Albuquerque, NM
July 07, 2009 9:26pm

I will completely disagree with you on this one Brian. Palin es extremely stupid and I have heard her say MANY stupid things. These stem from ignorance, but also from the fact that she is not all that bright.

I can't believe that you said:
"If she'd exhibited stupidity on the Wasilla city council, they probably wouldn't have elected her mayor."

Are you kidding me? This is a huge fallacy! Of course they can elect idiots. People dont elect people based on intelligence, but rather on charm or other traits.

Stupid things Palin has said:

--Which newspapers do you read?
--All of them!

--Don't you think you would have quit as vp too?
--No, the department of law would have protected us.

Even Keith Olbermann made an episode with a wonderful soup of all the stupid things she has said. They are plentiful!

Johnny, Xalapa, Mexico
July 08, 2009 11:33am

In my subjective opinion, this is possibly your best episode to date.

It is only too easy to write off someone as being stupid as a consequence of having an apparently distorted worldview based upon incorrect ideas. I know highly intelligent, well-educated individuals who openly embrace the most extreme form of christian belief--clearly they are not idiots, but instead have bought into a belief system that they rationalise to their satisfaction.

It is a fascinating quirk of human psychology that otherwise very smart people can believe the most bizarre things. My visceral reaction to people with such beliefs is that there must be something lacking somewhere--how else could they believe such nonsense? But a deficit in intelligence is not usually the answer, even if that's the easy explanation.

Thank you for once again pointing out yet another elephant in the skeptic-filled room.

Jason Etheridge, Brisbane, Australia
July 08, 2009 1:35pm

If you need an example of a Republican religious nut with a relatively high IQ, use Bobby Jindal, who was a Rhodes Scholar like Bill Clinton.

As for the rest of them, Bush, Gore, and Kerry were mediocre students, and McCain graduated 894th in a class of 899.

Max, Boston, MA
July 08, 2009 5:12pm

Brian,

Need I remind you (once again) that you made the following argument in your May 26, 2007, "Free Range Chicken and Farm Raised Fish"?:

"Fish farming is considered a good thing by such a large consensus that you have to dig pretty deep to find criticism of it: You have to dig all the way down to our favorite anti-human fire-bombing eco-terrorists at PETA, just the people you want in charge of your unbiased science information."

That's a textbook Ad Hominem, Abusive. I could go on and on (but won't) about the number of times you, Brian, employ ad hominem attacks.

True, you leave yourself an out when you write:

"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."

The words "not be the extent of your criticisms" leave you wiggle room, but you must admit that you do, in fact, serve up a heap o' ad hominems just about every week.

Now, before any of the Dunning apologists accuse me of committing an ad hominem myself here, I must say that I totally agree with Brian. That is, I am not criticizing his *argument* (that would be an ad hominem) because I *agree* with and endorse his conclusion. I just think he's being hypocritical, that's all. Either way, I love his podcast. Thanks, Brian.

Robert, New Haven
July 08, 2009 6:30pm

No, she is not stupid. Uninformed yes.

Now, you also said nuts. Stupid (ignorant) is not the same as nuts (insane).

Is she nuts?

I think so. Not many of her decisions seem particularly rational.

As for Ad Hominem attacks... seems you are being called to task about this yourself. It is hard to be balanced all the time, is it not? Dawkins seems to suffer the same illness as a lot of us who call ourselves critical thinkers... those who are not critical thinkers drive us nuts...

Seems we are all nuts at times...

Shad, Ottawa, Canada
July 08, 2009 6:44pm

You don't have to look far for Brian's ad hominems. The episode following this one begins:
"Again it's time to give a voice to our listeners. Some approve, some disapprove, some are insane raving lunatics straining at the straps of their straitjackets and flapping around on the floor like landed fish."

Max, Boston, MA
July 08, 2009 7:23pm

Isn't the literal belief in a supernatural being the same as lunacy? If so then she qualifies unless you think she is lying about religion.

And just because alot of people share the delusion doesn't make it sane.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
July 09, 2009 7:15am

As an example of Ad Hominem attacks, I wish you had used Michael Jackson and his alledged pedophilia. I haven't heard enough about that.

Ryan, Los Angeles
July 09, 2009 10:56am

Ryan,

An accusation ("I think he's a pedophile") is not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack means responding to a person's argument by attacking the person: "He's wrong that 2+2=5 because he's a pedophile."

Max, Boston, MA
July 09, 2009 4:13pm

In general is there a "fanboy" fallacy already named?

The best example I can think of is Michael Moore. Some people hate him so much that they wouldn't consider a good argeument from him (an often respond with ad-hominym attacks) while others will not consider any negetive information about him.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
July 10, 2009 10:15am

Brian -- your episodes are so timely. First, you kill John Keel. Then, you try to portray Sarah in a more reasonable light and she goes and says something "stupid" again.

Really, I did like this episode. I feel it applies to atheist conversations too when we pigeonhole people with strong supernatural beliefs into these same categories. I'm reminded of positive parenting advice for children… It's not recommended to scold the child for being "bad" but to label the behavior as "bad". This is less apt to be construed as a personal attack and indicates that the child has a choice about how to behave. The same goes for "stupid". Now, I don't think Mrs. Palin has a keen mind but I would label her words and deeds as stupid, not her. She COULD make more of an effort to improve. So, I agree that this was a very pertinent episode and have recommended it to those who probably should be reminded to not be a hater...

I Doubt It, Harrisburg, PA
July 10, 2009 4:08pm

Brian has obviously run out of ideas.

Miles, Germany
July 11, 2009 9:47am

Who are you trying to please with this episode Brian ?

Brack, Singapore
July 12, 2009 9:47am

In general, I agree with the theme of this episode. However, there are problems with advancing the idea that "stupid" is an ad-hominem attack. First, as a previous poster noted, ad-hominem refers to attacking a person instead of their ideas -as an argument against the merit of the idea-. Second, the truth of the statement "Sarah Palin is stupid," depends on what we mean by "stupid."

There is a difference between ignorance and -willful- ignorance; one is an epithet, the other is not. Sarah Palin is willfully ignorant not only on basic science, but a great deal of general knowledge. The data show that she is WRONG on these points, but that she has -access and exposure- to the correct answers. To then persist in those beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary makes her willfully ignorant and thus (under one definition) stupid.

Stretching the imagination, one might think that Brian's arguments about her appealing to voters by embracing these ideas is excusable. Unfortunately, willful ignorance is willful ignorance: many of those voters are "stupid" by this definition as well. And more damningly, Palin -actually- believes what she's saying. The argument falls apart. When morons elect a moron- even a crafty one- we should hardly express surprise.

Semantics matter. If the term is properly framed, Sarah Palin is undeniably stupid. But even if you don't agree, under what circumstances WOULD you say someone is stupid, if not in this case?

Tony, Austin, TX
July 12, 2009 11:55am

I didn't hear your entire presentation at TAM7; I missed the beginning. I don't know if you covered this at all. If you didn't, you SHOULD have. Your points are well taken and could have helped more skeptics to carefully form their skeptical arguments -- rather than to use the lazy "they're stupid" or "they're crazy" claim.

Maria, Arizona
July 13, 2009 8:09am

Dear Sir,
Skeptoid episode # 160 left me feeling a little puzzled. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of Isreal and has denied the Holocaust . And you say he is not a nut case ??
Your episode is dare I say anti-semetic

Evan Klein, Atlanta, Ga
July 13, 2009 8:41am

Dont you think that at some point, it is fair to look at the evidence and say, "Yep. That's an idiot?"

As long as it is not stated as a premise to an unrelated conclusion, I have no problem with calling trumped up little shop girls who are no better than they should be, well, trumped up little shop girls who are no better than they should be.

Bing, St. Louis
July 14, 2009 5:35am

Sarah Palin claims she can see Russia from her house, that besides than Roe v Wade the other Supreme court decisions she disagrees with are, uh, Roe v Wade and Roe v Wade, and that she reads every magazine... and she's not stupid? I guess I have to recalibrate my stupidometer.

Natasha, Canada
July 14, 2009 12:46pm

sarah palin still are dumb! this podcast changes nothing!

grumpy guy, tucumsa
July 14, 2009 12:58pm

What's also interesting to me about this podcast and its comments is how few people got the point you were trying to make.

Maria, Arizona
July 14, 2009 7:22pm

And aren't we all lucky that we have a handful of extremely bright people like you, who are smarter than the rest of us poor, scientifically (and generally) uneducated sots, to bring us up to snuff and help us see the "scientific" and "academic" light. (I once was lost and now am found...)

Oddly enough, sorta reminds me of how the whole religion thing gets going - apparently priests (and similarly impressive titles within various religious spheres) have the inside skinny on chatting it up with God, Jesus, Allah, etc. that the rest of us don't and thus are able to instruct the rest of us as to how we should think/behave/believe.

Gawd, OPINION IS STILL OPINION. Yours sir, is opinion lined with some facts and a GREAT DEAL OF SCIENTIFIC THEORY and personal bias. But you definitely do have a very high regard for your own intellect to be sure. And a very poor regard for everyone else that doesn't agree with you.

Dee, Wisconsin
July 14, 2009 8:47pm

Wow! Great website. Sarah Palin got terrible treatment from the press and I think Natasha from Canada above really typifies the misinformation about Gov. Palin. She never said she could see Russia from her house. Tina Fey said that on SNL. Palin said that one can see parts of Russia from parts of Alaska. If you must be critical, get your facts straight. It's only fair, even if you don't like her.

Dan, Southern MN
July 14, 2009 10:19pm

Congratulations Dee, for attacking a essay pointing out the fallacy of Ad Hominems with an...Ad Hominem (with maybe a smidge of Strawman?). Your personal attack had absolutely nothing to say about the arguments Brian has advanced in his essay. Btw if you weren't trying to refute Brian, then sorry but the point still stands and do try to be more specific in future.

Adrian, Brisbane, Australia
July 15, 2009 4:03am

Touche' Adrian,

I do not wish to steer the general direction of comments any further off-topic either, but you're right.

I was upset when I typed that message and wasn't speaking to the points raised by the author at all, and as you suggest, perhaps illustrating them for him unintentionally.

So, my apologies to the author and to your readers for the rant and veering off-topic.

Dee, Wisconsin
July 15, 2009 9:40am

Wow Dee, you’ve shown a level of intellectual honesty that was refreshing and almost unheard of in the blogs/forums that I frequent. Thank you. For the record, for everybody else, I despise Sarah Palin. I recognize however that I’m not American, have never met her and know almost nothing about her that I haven’t been told by headlines and the analysis of admittedly biased groups of podcasters etc that I listen to. I personally consider Sarah Palin, Prince Charles, Oprah etc to be stupid or foolish or dangerous because of specific beliefs they hold, statements they’ve made etc that conflict with my own bias. If you now leap to defend or condemn these people, then you’ve missed the point. Point me towards a thread on the Jref forum and tell me your username (mine’s AdinDraco) and I will try to debate the actions/words of anyone you want (real life permitting). I am assuming that Brian’s point here was about Ad Hominems and will not stray from that point.

Adrian, Brisbane, Australia
July 15, 2009 1:00pm

You don't have to be smart to be elected. You just have to be ablt to win a popularity contest. She's an expert at it - playing on the conservative voters' tendency toward cliqueiness. (Sorry for making up a word.) She's a total moron when it comes to what it really going on in the world. Religions like hers are for closed minded people.

Ricko, Austin
July 15, 2009 10:44pm

Brian says: "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 shortcutted thinking that we're
accusing them of."

Great stuff, Brian.

BUT...why didn't you apply this same reasoning to your Skeptoid posts 10, 35, 65 or 82?
Like you say, if you dismiss anybody 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.

Try and be fair, Brian. You're so right sometimes, and you are so dead wrong at other times. That's hypocritical, don't you think?

Oh... I wold have voted for Palin if I could have because she would have been a far better vice-president than that Clinton clone, as McCain would have been a far better president than that Obama sham...Glad right now I'm not a Yankee...

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
July 16, 2009 7:34pm

Calling someone stupid is not an ad hominem attack the way I understand it. It's just a discription of a person from another's point of view, right or wrong. If we can't call somebody or something stupid, why is there such a word then.

On that basis skeptics should have the right to call Palin (or Ahmedinejad for that matter) stupid as a description of her ideas. In a tolerant world, we would ofcourse understand that as another man's point of view and not as an absolute.

What would be 'ad hominem' is if we were to dismiss one of her ideas simply on the basis she is stupid without rational evaluation.

In my view, from what I have seen and heard from her, Palin sounded stupid.

Sachith, Sri Lanka
July 17, 2009 2:15am

Joe, your bias is showing. The podcasts you referenced are the creationist/evolution podcasts. Are you so sick of being slammed by Marius, John and Craig (have I missed anyone?) that you have to sneak your religious propaganda in here?

Adrian, Brisbane, Australia
July 17, 2009 3:27am

Unless there was some spectacular editing, Ms. Palin didn't appear to be a well-organized brain box when she announced that she was no dead fish.

She isn't stupid; she is willfully ignorant and incurious. And we still don't know what magazines and papers she reads.

Christina, Calgary, Alberta, Great White North
July 20, 2009 10:07am

I don't think that Sarah Palin is stupid at all. I think that she represents most of the down to earth American people and I do believe that McCain/Palin could of won the election. A tanking economy at the time of campaigns blinded everyone to the down to earth possibility of having someone with common sense in charge of our destination. People were blinded with the charisma of Obama and his promise of taking the poor entitlement population under his wing and paying off their houses and taking from the rich to give to the poor. Obama scares the hell out of me and my future for myself and my Grandchildren, I never got that feeling of fear from McCain or Palin!!! The USA will never be the same from the time that Obama took office and our future is looking pretty bleak, I bet all those that voted him in wish they could have "overs", wake up America we are doomed.

Linda, Buena Park, CA
July 23, 2009 9:55am

I'm sorry that Obama scares you..change is scary. But having someone apparently as unfit for public office as Palin seemed to be a lot of the time one old man's heart attack away from being in charge of America scared the hell out of the rest of us.

Adrian, Brisbane, Australia
July 23, 2009 12:58pm

Stupid is ad hominem, by strict definition, but it is not necessarily a logical fallacy. If I say "Cap and trade must be good, because Sarah Palin doesn't like it... and she's a dumb bunny," that's ad hominem fallacy (although I might say that).

On the other hand, if I, like many Americans, say "I don't want Sarah Palin in public office, because she's a ditz, and I believe elected officials should have a reasonable level of intelligence", that's perfectly reasonable.

So... why on earth would you even mention such a polarizing figure here?

EP Thorn, Seoul
July 25, 2009 9:16am

Ad hominem attacks are just another way of preaching to the choir. It's a great tool in the political process to rally the masses without having to take the time to present a valid arguement. The more power or clout the person who is making the attack has, the more it is accepted as being credible. It's a shame more people aren't free-thinkers and see right through this ploy.

Mike, Chatham, ON Canada
July 25, 2009 3:13pm

this is actually as embarrassing for the author as sarah palin was for john mccain. while i applaud the attempt to recenter the dialogue towards the issues, or at least towards the understanding of the candidates, there are entire passages in this piece that, if they are not so sad to the author, make me cringe. we ought to be so much more understanding of timothy mcveigh, because if we had just understood that, in the context of his sset of acquaintances, blowing up a ton of human beings was really a very normal thing to do, then maybe, just maybe, we could've stopped him before he acted on his entirely insane but also very acceptable and normal impulses (IN THE CONTEXT OF WHO HE WAS AND WHAT HE'D DONE). at the same time, Sarah Palin isn't dumb because frankly, dumb people never rise to the level of power that she did. dumb people don't randomly become members of the city council in small cities in alaska, dumb people certainly don't get appointed to arbitrary positions on partisan boards of state, nor do they leave those boards when their intelligence is questioned (which sarah palin did) because dumb people just are never asked to do these types of things in our society. and it would be callous and childish and inappropriate to suggest that sarah palin, who is by every piece of evidence, pretty dumb, might've been placed in the various positions that she's filled precisely for the reason that she is godawful dumb. because if all the evidence leads us to believe she's dumb.

john, palo alto
July 27, 2009 3:17am

I thought Sarah Palin was just George W. Bush in a dress. Uh-oh, I think I owe Mr. Bush an apology. I mean, she makes Dan Quayle look good.

Pam, SoCal
July 30, 2009 1:58pm

SHE'S IGNORANT

carol, peoria ill
July 31, 2009 11:11pm

Sarah Palin is stupid. That was abundantly clear from her lack of understanding on almost every question she answered.

Also, the idea that "stupid people don't get funding and support" is ridiculous. Where have you been for the last 8 years? Stupid people get support, funding, and votes from other stupid people!

Jarek, Ohio
August 02, 2009 2:52am

What Brian was trying to say with this piece was " I wouldn't mind getting into her panties".
So there you have it, Skeptoid fancies Sarah Palin.;)

Shadowjack, London UK
August 02, 2009 12:32pm

I found myself agreeing with Brian as I listened to this episode; disagreement is not an indication of stupidity. However, as I listened to her press conference as she announced her resignation as governor, I was again questioning her intellectual strength. In the few months since I had seen or heard her speak, I had forgotten that she comes across as being incapable of communicating verbally. She cannot string together a logical statement, nor apparently use a complete sentence. This doesn't necessarily make her stupid, but she does come across that way.

Nathan, Maine
August 03, 2009 4:13pm

She is stupid, by all reasonable standards. But, she isn't a lunatic. Like Sam Harris said, "[Religion] is quite dangerous, because it allows people, en mass--by the millions--to believe what only lunatics or idiots could believe on their own".

The great error with this episode was that it was mistitled: in line with your argument it should rather have said "Sarah Palin is not _Crazy_".

Tyler Davis, Christchurch, NZ
August 05, 2009 2:26am

It's not that I disagree with her. Well, I do. But that's not the point. I disagree with other people, and I don't think they are stupid. But Palin just isn't capable of putting a logical thought together. She makes Bush look like a brilliant public speaker. Perfect example. Bush. I disagreed with him a lot, but contrary to what many believe, I don't think he's an idiot. But you want me to "show" you something Palin said that's stupid? Here you go:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/239933/july-27-2009/sarah-palin-will-be-missed

And, yes, this is really her. If you think this makes any "sense"... Well, I fear for your sanity. And this definately isn't the first dumb thing she's said. If I can figure out WHAT it is she's trying to say. What about the fact she has foreign policy experience because of Alaska's proximity to Russia. She called the health care plan a death show-down and "evil". So she definately calls things worse than stupid when she disagrees with them. Of course, the health plan is optional, which she refuses to see. Or read.

Her dialogue is divisive, and I can only imagine if she were our VP. Or president. I think I would scream in terror just like the horror movies. It's not that I think she's a bad person, she just has bad perception, and a very narrow-minded approach.

Kel, Seattle, WA
August 08, 2009 11:26am

Good one, Brian! I don't like SP particularly but, having been raised as a fundamentalist (I'm better now, thanks), I can understand where she's coming from, even while I disagree.

I've noticed a human tendency to label one's enemies as "stupid" even when it doesn't really apply. It's a bad habit to get into; if you constantly think your opponent is "stupid" you'll become overconfident and underestimate them.

But then, I'm talking about "enemies" and "opponents" which is another element of the same divisive meme. We're all members of the same human family and we can learn to listen to each other.

Lucky Jean, Pahoa, HI
August 09, 2009 1:34pm

I agree with your wider point, but I had to seriously question your logic when you started talking about McVeigh. Just because you live and breathe a delusion doesn't make your delusion any less delusional. The confirmation bias doesn't make anything healthy, and a consensus about the normality of something has no bearing on that things true measures.

Yes, they're crazy. Yes, some of them are stupid. But you are absolutely right that you can never just stop at that and expect to convince anybody of your point. That would just be crazy and stupid.

Paul, Alaska
August 17, 2009 1:49am

Many of the issues discussed are right on point and some are to the left a bit or to the right. But all things considered, the bell curve of ignorance has a LOT of folks down at the -sigma 5 to ....
level that leave a lot to be desired when discussing political issues. Heaven forbid that one of them might read this column and respond to it.
"Life is too short to take everything too seriously".

Clark Long, Renfrew, PA
August 18, 2009 1:12pm

After listening to your typical liberal and Neo-Darwinian arguments, it is now clear why you stopped debating. I think you made the right decision.

Joe Keck, Norman, Ok
August 29, 2009 11:53am

"After listening to your typical liberal and Neo-Darwinian arguments, it is now clear why you stopped debating. I think you made the right decision."

Oh the irony. Poisoning the well, anyone?

Mara, NYC
August 31, 2009 11:41am

No, actually, she is stupid. I use the term because I just don't have the time or energy to try and sugar coat her to folks who think she's a capable leader. Sarah Palin is, in fact, stupid. She thinks that mankind walked the earth with the dinosaurs 4,000 years ago. That is stupid. She thinks that a Jewish zombie (who was his own father) actually walked on water. That is stupid. There are lots of ridiculous things that people believe to be true even though science and logic rule them out to be untrue. There are people who think that the 3 health care bills in the house and the 2 in the Senate contain government run "death panels" which will pull the plug on Grandma. Sarah Palin let her daughter's boyfriend move in and then was surprise at the resulting tragedy that is teenage pregnancy. Stupid people think these things. Stupid people spend their time working hard against their own best interests. Sarah Palin does all of these things, because Sarah Palin, my former quitter Governor, is very stupid. Thanks!

Neil, Anchorage, Alaska
August 31, 2009 6:59pm

What an excellent article, Brian. All of us get angry with the views of people we oppose, especially if we view them as being ignorant and stupid, but as you say, that will get us nowhere. I think you're totally right. We still have to oppose things we disagree with, but can stop the personal attacks. Other people believe differently and that's life. If we understand them, it will help, I know it.

Michael, Denver, CO
August 31, 2009 8:06pm

She thought that Africa was a country instead of a continent. How do her religious beliefs relate to that?

Megan, Montreal
September 17, 2009 5:50pm

Sara Palin may not be stupid. But she acts stupid, if it is a deliberate act, then I have contempt for her. If she is actually stupid, then she does not deserve contempt. Holding, or being elected to office does not guarantee any level of intellect or competence. Others behind the scenes can manipulate elections through media, and even more sinister acts.
Going into public office and holding interviews without being able to name any periodicals is evidence of stupidity. How she got to that public office and those interviews is a matter for speculation.
Still – love Skeptoid

Steve, Minneapolis/MN
September 22, 2009 11:58am

George Bush wasn't stupid. He was actually bright. He was intellectually lazy and lost interest in his presidency early on. His verbal gaffes came from being being unprepared.
Sarah Palin is also intellectually lazy but she also not bright. She cannot answer simple questions put to her.
The idea that people do not elect "stupid people" or appoint them simply is not true.
Your points would have been been better served if your examples had anything to do with your topic.
I can give you an example of her being stupid. Her answers to Couric's interview, as well as Charlie Gibson's show an inability to think things through.
Are we supposed to comforted by the fact that she may just be willfully ignorant? And it is a grave insult to the religious right or political right to palm off her lack of intellect and knowledge as a byproduct of their beliefs.
As for Ben Stein, Ken Ham, Bill Maher, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, and Prince Charles, we may disagree with them, call them crazy, but nobody calls them stupid. They are not. Comparing them to Palin is comparing apples to stupid.
Your last four paragraphs have nothing to do with this topic. Inane comes to mind.
This was a truly disjointed
article - sorry - but you should think it through again.

reebie, arizona
September 28, 2009 3:11pm

Wasn't Andrew Kehoe the greatest mass murderer of children in the United States?

According to your article, where everyone's actions can be explained by qualified positives and good intentions, you were mostly correct (McVeigh did kill people), but slightly inaccurate.

But for someone with the framework of your views (the political, religious, and intellectual forces that shape you), you must be correct, because you were unaware of Kehoe, he didn't exist within your framework. That's great, it means everyone's right all of the time. Everyone can explain away their ignorance by showing that "in their environment" they are correct.

Others might just simplify that by saying wrong. But that sounds kindergardenish.

Too bad the South didn't have you beforehand, because we could have avoided that whole Civil War when you explained slavery is ok, because its acceptance is based on people's political and religious viewpoints.

You spend time convincing us that Palin has the capacity for intellect without the desire. That she is a product of political convictions and environment, but that in a different environment she would be different. But all evidence points to that capacity not being there. All evidence shows her to be a fundementally ignorant person.

But hey, as right as you were about McVeigh, you can be just as right about Palin.

But she is pretty dumb.

Dan, New York, NY
October 05, 2009 10:33pm

In reply to:

Max, Boston, MA
July 05, 2009 11:07pm

I meant to say we all start the same. And understanding what makes somebody who started just like you and me act like an ignorant/murderer/etc is the important thing.

To think that some people are just "monsters", arriving fully formed in their evil (a la the kid form The Omen) and there is nothing to understand is simplistic and silly as it plays into the "good vs. evil" bs argument some people use (especially since this is not LOTR or Star Wars).

-G.

juepucta, LA/CA/US
October 16, 2009 4:42pm

Sarah Palin is not stupid? Didn't she build a skating rink, but forgot to buy the land it sits on? Didn't she boast about her "foreign realations experience" because she lives between two foreign countries, yet had absolutely no clue as to who the Prime Minister of Canada was?
Sorry, but she's stupid through and through.

katherine, Vancouver
October 17, 2009 9:58am

First off, the criticism that anonymous posts are less credible than people who leave their name and city is fallacious. Fear mongering to get people to reveal information about themselves was in style for Bush's terms in office and should never have been allowed. Secondly, the second paragraph makes it sound as if Palin was unanimously appointed to office with every voters blessing. That's simply not true. What was the voting margin? What where her platforms? I know many people who aren't that bright but can say the right things to a group of people to get them to go along with their point of view. It's also easy to go along with the crowd than to actually question something.
I don't need to talk to Ahmadinejad to know he's deeply committed to his beliefs and way of life, just because he has a point of view doesn't make it right, even though he thinks it is. Most of your argument is based on the fact that people are ignorant and base their points of view on that ignorance, it's the refusal to educate themselves that elevates them into the level where people make ad hominem attacks. The level of Palin's ignorance was actually frightening, in the context of her becoming VP.
Your arguments don't hold water here, it's ignorance and the refusal to educate oneself that causes backlash against Palin and others like her.

Anonymous, Earth
October 26, 2009 6:06pm

>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.

But the influence that everyone else is responding to is ignorance and stupidity. Yes, people are ignorant of the science behind evolution, But we also find that when religious people are asked "If a scientific fact backed up by evidence contradicted your religious beliefs would you change our religious belief?" two thirds of those who responded said "No".

That is not just stupid, it's an outright denial of reality.

Perhaps the word "Stupid"is the problem. "Ignorant", "uninformed", "delusional", and "religious" may be a better description. But "Stupid" sure seems to fit.

GregB, Auburn, Ca
November 05, 2009 7:58am

Wow. This episode was terrible. I like skeptoid. Most of the episodes are logical, thought provoking, unbiased, and educational. Unfortunately this episode was none of these. It was just a podcast telling people don't do ad hominum attacks. Fair enough. But what is more dangerous about this podcast is that it seems to me to take away all personal responsibility. The comments about McVeigh are very disturbing. Yes he may have focused on conspiracy theories and surrounded himself with those types of people. That was his choice and he was naïve and I would say stupid for believing all of that. Many people believe in conspiracy theories but don't go blowing people up or hurting others. There is no excuse for his actions. I know Brian did not excuse his actions or condone them in anyway on the podcast. I don't want to give an ad hominum attack either. But what I will say is that this type of thinking can excuse anyone bad deeds or decisions. If one can argue that you did something because of your culture or environment. If this would pass as a defense than almost everyone would be acquitted. After listening to many episodes I do thin Brian would be a great Defense attorney. This is a compliment.

Also wanted to add. Brian on your listener feedback episodes you routinely call people crazy and naïve. Well I believe you once said that clelbrities need to be responsible with their status. It is time for them to get educated then.

Ben, Phoenix
November 07, 2009 6:40am

It's frigtening to think that we would even have a debate considering whether she is qualified for the Presidency, much less the Vice Presidency.

Conservatives are on the wrong track. Every single one of them sounds whiney -- everyone else is to blame. It's like the dark ages -- science and facts are evil. I remember when Republicans were proud and touted things like "self-responsibility" and offered ideas and inspiration. the GOP may have taken down political correctness which had gone awry, but they just didn't stop before getting too giddy. Now, they look like biggots, fools and hypocrites. The incessant whining from radio and Fox news is a turn-off! If Sarah Palin is the face of the future of the GOP, it's going to be an awfully small party. Don't count on the younger generation offering any help unless you're looking to the uneducated, back-woods of the South.

Jim, Emeryville, CA
November 17, 2009 7:18pm

This was an excellent post. I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but any rational person can see she's no fool. Learning to turn off the emotion, to actually look at your opponent's arguments, and to consider them rationally instead of foaming at the mouth with ad hominem attacks, is a basic task every thinking person must master. Sadly, the majority of your commenters here are unable to question the sacred dogma negated by the headline of this piece. Too bad.

Tony, Austin, Texas
November 20, 2009 8:29pm

"....Does she exhibit an almost robotic and uncritical point-by-point support of the Republican platform?...."

What an odd statement. The American conservative position is the most reasonable for anyone concerned with liberty and individual rights.

Phil, Boston
November 22, 2009 12:18pm

One of the best episodes I've heard...IF your goal is to actually connect with people and have them take you seriously. I have convinced people that certain pseudoscientific ideas were crap...but only after they realized I considered them rational and intelligent. I tend to talk around the point, and raise questions (without demanding answers right then...it takes time for people to give up cherished beliefs) and then move on to another topic. This may seem to some of you weak or too slow, but it's the way people work. Most of us are not so clearly rational we can just weigh the evidence and snap to the right decision. I'm convinced that most skeptics ARE that way, and therefore find it hard to be patient with the rest of us.

It's all about effectiveness. If you want to be effective, take this advice.

FB, Shimonoseki, Japan
November 24, 2009 9:20pm

Ad hominem attacks make us feel good-- superior and smart. But if we really want to influence people and change minds, it is absolutely necessary to understand that all those misguided people think WE are the misguided ones. Once we see how they see the world, there is some hope of showing them how to come over to our views. Thanks for an excellent and important podcsat.

Gail, Flint, Michigan
November 29, 2009 5:00am

This is best podcast I’ve ever heard. If you want to have an influence on someone, you can’t assume that they are an idiot to begin with. No one who sees them self as reasonable believes that they are bad or stupid, no matter what they do. An excellent book on the subject is ‘Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)’ by Carol Travris & Elliot Aronson. This book has changed the way I deal with other people, for the better.

Ron, Nelson, BC, Canada
December 06, 2009 1:35pm

I agree with you on most parts of this article, except the drive-by on Bill Maher. I, too, thought he was a little nutty after some stuff he said on Real Time this past season about vaccines, but he clarified his position later(and much more clearly) here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/vaccination-a-conversatio_b_358578.html . He sounds pretty rational there, to me. The other accusations I've not see the evidence of (though it may be there) and you did not provide it.

"Understand why she takes the position that she does, then reveal the faults in that position."

Nicholas Sapsford, Fort Thomas, KY
December 09, 2009 9:23am

She can't name a book or magazine or newspaper she reads, she doesn't know what the specific duties were of the position she was running for, and knows next to nothing about geography or foreign policy.

If that's not stupid I don't know what is, and it honestly really scares me that she even came as close as she did to being in office.

Emma, Good old US of A
December 09, 2009 9:52pm

Excellent discussion, really. I'll withhold comments on Palin specifically, but I really think you've hit the mark here. It is EASY to engage in ad hominem attacks, and also effective - but only when you are talking to people who work on the same premises as you do. If you want to engage in a real debate - and if you want to be honest and mature about it - you MUST understand where the other person is coming from. Only then can you really have a good debate, and only then can you have a shot at converting others to your point of view (assuming that is your goal).

I am definitely guilty of this kind of shortcut thinking, more often than I would like. So I thank you for reminding me to try to be calm, civil, and understanding, even when confronting a person who makes me angry or upset. Maybe we'll even find common ground.

Neil, CT, USA
December 10, 2009 11:39am

Part of being intelligent is having the ability to think critically about the things people tell you. Being convinced of misinformation and refusing to listen to arguments to the contrary is stupid. You can't excuse people from being stupid by claiming that they're just operating on a different set of beliefs.

Also, political ranking is NOT necessarily a good indicator of intelligence.

However, being calm when conversing with someone who you don't agree with is undoubtedly good advice. It's never a good idea to outright call someone stupid, but it doesn't mean that they aren't.

Alec, PA, USA
December 10, 2009 4:54pm

This was thoughtful and insightful article. Thanks for giving us a necessary reminder. I hope you don't mind that I share this around.

Rebecca Westbrook, Durant, Oklahoma
December 10, 2009 5:01pm

Yeah I guess I don't have anything else to say

Andypat, Southgate, KY (I live right by the Ft. Thomas border)
December 19, 2009 9:38am

This is one of the most cogent observations I've seen in a long time. I'm guilty of calling some people stupid when the fact is, I actually meant I disagreed with their stated beliefs. It's the easy way to deal with them. We're all hugely influenced by our family environment, our formal education, our friends, our income level and other factors unique to each of us. We may be acting and expressing ourselves precisely in line with our self-interest, which is not stupid. I plan to try harder from now on to determine a person's background before tacking a label onto him/her -- stupid or smart. Thanks for this valuable offering.

Ray, CO, USA
December 19, 2009 10:06pm

At a point in this I expected you to bring up Hitler.

Anyway, well said. It reminds me of my own view; that the words evil, crazy, stupid, etc. are meaningless for any understanding or objective analysis. They are subjective generalizations serving almost as a god-of-the-gaps to provide a simplistic explanation for what we can't explain and attempt to not confront the fact that acts we find dispicable or foolish are normal human nature, that our irrational and dark side is not so much "our animal nature we must rise above" as it is closer to "one of the things that defines humans" (though it's sort of both)

That said, I've argued the claims of politicians are untrustworthy with "They're politicians." Is that a fallacious Ad Hominem argument?

Jonathan, Earth
January 07, 2010 3:44pm

Generally I agree with you, but I cannot support your apologetics here.

People like Timothy McVeigh and Prince Edward are not noble but misguided. They had all the correct information available to them; they CHOSE to reject it. Insanity and stupidity do exist, and there are crazy and stupid people in the world. Many of them receive wide-spread popular support and acknowledgement. Your argument that Sarah Palin is not stupid is basically an argument from incredulity, which is a fallacy.

I agree that we shouldn't use these terms to easily dismiss such people. Idiots and crazies can be dangerous and do deserve a kind of respect. However, it is perfectly rational and human to make judgements about people based on their actions.

Listen to Sarah Palin talk some time. It's not what she says, it's her inability to say it. She's stupid.

John, Canada
January 07, 2010 10:05pm

John in Canada, I was about to comment on this, but you said it perfectly already. Love skeptoid, but the apologetics are a bit much, even if ad hominem isn't a rational way to point out the stupidity of Palin and the like.

Johnny, Dallas
January 08, 2010 2:41pm

I disagree that the views expressed in this article should be termed "apologetics." These views are in fact rational and constructive. More than once, I've seen people I assumed adamant in their views swayed by civil discourse, where insult or disdain would have left them entrenched. The idea that we shouldn't talk to our enemies at all, be they North Korea or an obnoxious neighbor, generally leads to heightened conflict rather than resolution. The point of this article is not that Palin or Prince Charles are keen people, but that dismissive judgments are not constructive.

It's important to remember that words like "stupid" and "evil" are relative. What is "evil" tends to vary with the culture and era -- human dissection was deemed "evil" for thousands of years, in many places, while today in most places it's considered an invaluable scientific tool.

I came to the realization recently, by observing the intellect of those who defend Sarah Palin, that neither is the term "stupid," absolute. While I believe whole-heartedly that Palin is less intelligent than I, there are evidently hordes who believe she is more intelligent than they. These two contentions do not conflict, and I have no problem accepting that both are entirely accurate.

I fault Dunning's paragraph three argument, though. "Perfectly rational for someone with her religious and political convictions" hardly precludes the possiblity that her "religious and political convictions" themselves are stupid.

Caesar Neron, Prescott, AZ
January 08, 2010 6:27pm

To your point that Sarah Palin isn't stupid, your absolutely right, she's a complete moron.

Chris Lane, PBG, Fl
January 12, 2010 6:15am

All one has to do is listen to Palins' answers to simple questions and you'll realize she's not bright. That's all it takes. She didn't even know what the VP does! As one comedian said, "You can't fix stupid."

Ike, Atlanta
January 26, 2010 12:58pm

John,Canada and sympathisers, you believe that 'crazy' and its synonyms are absolutes, objective truths which we all ought arrive at (like 4+8=12) but that some of us '"CHOSE"' not to. I would reccommend reading the wikipedia entry on Discordianism because I can't write a more coherent argument/analysis of the importance of perspective (not just the position of our approach to something - the angle of incidence - but the filters - determining percieved colour and shade - and associations - personal catalogues of metaphor and synecdoche by which we relate x to y and to ourselves - our limited, entirely subjective, brains must use to analyse anything and everything we encounter) in making what are no more than subjective value statements such as 'this bitch be one crazy mofo'.

DuddBudda, England
January 27, 2010 10:33pm

I don't need to read this dumb article to tell you that Sarah is in fact one of the stupidest people I've ever seen in the media. She's a joke to this nation. She gets all cocky with Obama saying that "hope and change" hasn't happened yet, I'll tell you what you stupid, stupid, bitch, you can talk smack all you want but your little "Mavericky" strategy to "help this country" wont amount the job Obama knows how to handle. I don't think she can comprehend the scale of our nation's problems inside her thick skull to understand how big of a job being president really is. I give you a fucking month in office Palin, you'll be having a breakdown. Palin, just go back to Alaska and just do your job being a mother and leave America heal.

Steph, Appleton
February 07, 2010 8:37pm

Lol, yes Palin is stupid and I dont mean that figuratively. Please defend her palm reading. If she needs to write 3 words on her hand for what over a year now has been her primary basis of existance....then, wow, yeah she dumb as a box of rocks. Pleeeeeaasse run for president! That would be hilarious.

cj, mi
February 08, 2010 5:32pm

Just the day before the "Tea Party" convention, my boss and I argued about Sarah Palin's stupidity and he made some good points and I deferred to him just a little(he is my boss). Well, I showed him the video of her values, yes her core values and what she wants to do for the country written on her hand. He is in silent agreement now.

Stacey, Texas
February 09, 2010 12:31pm

Sarah Palin IS STUPID because... she is NOT SMART enough to present herself otherwise in any public forum. When she tries, she fails. And she keeps going! Her inability to appear capable and freethinking has transcended the opposing hive mind. She is Just. That. Stupid. And I'm stupid, because I'm still struck by disbelief whenever I attempt to comprehend the level of stupidity she manages to broadcast to her constituency.

Nick, Denver
February 11, 2010 12:12am

My favorite thing about this is that the very next episode describes Brian's detractors as "raving lunatics."

Yes, yes, I know, he's being facetious when he says it. I just find it hilarious, because I listened to them back to back.

Collin, Tigard OR
February 13, 2010 7:46pm

This episode raises points that I wish more people would acknowledge.

I write fiction, and most fiction authors will tell you: The key to creating a memorable, believable antagonist (villain) is to give them a sympathetic motive.

In other words, the evil scientist isn't just trying to take over the world; he's doing it because he honestly believes he can make the best decisions to improve peoples' lives. The alien shapeshifter isn't just trying to eat humans; it's doing it to feed its offspring and survive.

Likewise, it's important in psychology to put ourselves in other people's shoes and understand their motives for doing what they do. Verbal attacks help no one. At best, they rile up people who agree with you and stir up arguments. At worst, they make you sound petty and hateful.

If you're the type of person who says "Sarah Palin is stupid" or "Christians are all stupid," please remember they're saying the exact same thing about you, and for the exact same reasons. A little empathy and understanding is in order.

Abby, Austin, TX
February 22, 2010 11:44pm

I agree that calling Sarah Paln stupid is probably factually incorrect and that ad hominem attacks have no place in rational debate. Please remember this Brian when you refer to people concerned about the potential repercussions of "peak oil' as 'doomsters'. If calling people who do not accept AGW as 'deniers' is wrong so is your use of 'doomsayer'.
I also think that it unnecessarily sycophantic, and without evidence, to refer to Prince Charles as a good man who cares deeply for the public welfare. Have you any more personal experience of him than you have of Sarah Palin?

Yossi, London
February 26, 2010 4:15am

Sarah Palin is a genius. This is true when you compare her to the idiot we have as a President. The world's most accomplished do nothing. If only it was Sarah Palin who thought she visited 57 US states. Then you could call her stupid.

David, San Jose
February 26, 2010 8:51pm

Brian, this was absolutely wonderful. What a great attitude to espouse. I blogged this article. http://perkhoel.tumblr.com/post/435036965/read-this-if-you-consider-yourself-an-honest-skeptic

Per Hoel, Washington D.C.
March 08, 2010 10:52am

She's dumb as a box of rocks! She was the governor of the state with the biggest oil field in North America, Prudhoe Bay, which has been in terminal decline since 1989 and she is going to go on and on about how the U.S. could be energy independent if we would only "drill baby drill"??

Why does she think there is so much interest in offshore drilling under miles of water and seabed to get tiny amounts of crappy quality oil? Because that's all that is left unexploited. It's like a crackhead picking through the carpet for some tiny piece of crack he missed, it's pathetic. If she really cared about energy independence she would advocate things like practical electric cars, not continuing to enable the addiction to crude oil. But hey, maybe she's one of those mouth-breathers that thinks oil is a renewable resource. Either way she sucks and has no business being a county commissioner let alone vice president.

Common Sense, Seattle, Washington
March 25, 2010 4:12pm

two words define sarah palin:

pretentious charlatan

82ndAirborneSniper, Orange County, California
March 28, 2010 1:33am

I tried to read this but it was too stupid and I was forced to give up.

You formed complete sentences and used proper grammar and punctuation but somehow I cannot make the sentences you typed support the idea that Sarah Palin is not stupid.

Have you read anything that the woman has said? Stupid people say stupid things...like this article.

Sean, Carmel Valley, CA
March 28, 2010 8:57pm

David,
>If only it was Sarah Palin who thought she visited 57 US states. Then you could call her stupid.

Obama thought he visited 57 states like Bush thought you put food on your family.

What if Palin thought that Africa was a country, and couldn't even deny it properly?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4A708D20081108

"I think if there are allegations based on questions or comments that I made in debate prep about NAFTA or about the continent versus the country when we talk about Africa there, then those were taken out of context, and that is cruel and mean-spirited, it's immature, it's unprofessional, and those guys are jerks," Palin said.

She asked questions about the continent versus the country of Africa?

Max, Boston, MA
March 29, 2010 5:11am

Sean from Carmel Valley - way to miss the entire point of the article, which is about how labelling people as "stupid" does not do any good as it shows one's close-mindedness.

Instead, pointing out the societal pressures that make them act this way (whether the politicians do it for good or bad, it is good for them, so looking out for their best interests isn't "stupid" for them in any way, in fact allot of them are probably feeling VERY smart they managed to get into a comfy position like that).

Leaf, Arcata, California
March 30, 2010 3:41pm

Leaf,
>Instead, pointing out the societal pressures that make them act this way...

Act what way?

Max, Boston, MA
March 30, 2010 4:23pm

Pointing out a misspeak as evidence of stupidity is umm... shortsighted.

National figures give more speeches in a week than you or I do in a lifetime and misspeaks are bound to happen.

Does anyone honestly believe that the President doesn't know how many states are in the union, or that Sarah Palin believes that Africa is a country.

Put aside your political biases for a moment and turn your brains on.

Don, Livona, MI
April 02, 2010 11:00am

"Does anyone honestly believe that the President doesn't know how many states are in the union, or that Sarah Palin believes that Africa is a country.

Put aside your political biases for a moment and turn your brains on."

Well, here's the thing: when we consult the evidence regarding Ms. Palin's worldly knowledge, what do we find? We find not just one or two misstatements - we find that she continues to make extremely large errors over and over again, and testimony from her own damn colleagues fully corroborates the notion that she doesn't know - or even care to know - much about the world, what's happening in it or what has happened in it in the past.

That's stupid by definition. I'm sorry if Mr. Dunning doesn't like the word, but it's certainly a proper term for describing Ms. Palin's intelligence as far the evidence shows.

You think she's of average or above average intelligence, in spite of her painful answers given during interviews and the testimony of her peers? Fine. Show us the evidence supporting YOUR position, then. Show us where Ms. Palin has been correct & insightful in supporting a position or positing an opinion.

I won't hold my breath.

Kevin R Brown, Calgary, AB
May 03, 2010 9:44pm

Did your forget her priceless answer to her foreign policy experience? Her proximity to Russia! How about her excusing Rush for using the word retard because he was using it in satire?
I could go on and on. Palin is obviously STUPID.

Ike, Atlanta, Ga
May 05, 2010 8:58am

It's rather depressing to see so many people rant about the low intelligence of Sarah Palin and others, while at the same time demonstrating deplorable reading comprehension skills.

Gregory, Alabama
May 05, 2010 10:42am

The difference is that Sarah Palin wanted to be the vice president of the united states. To help run the country I would expect you to be more intelligent then the average american posting a comment on a blog.

McGruff, Chicago
May 08, 2010 3:53pm

Thank you for helping me regain a bit of modesty again, I'm afraid i was being a bit condescending and agressive towards some people in my life. Now I see that they were a bunch of assholes but with a good reason (Just kidding lol), GREAT episode.

Pablo Colombo, Buenos Aires, Argentina
May 12, 2010 12:06pm

The point of underestimating people while they are responding to demands of a lot of people certainly is a vicious circle too, and we only need look at history facts to understand that critical thinking is not required to lead people until is too late, but in fact people seems to follow and support nonsense just because everybody does.
Thanks again, and you are right, it has nothing to do with Sara Palin.

Cesar, Resistencia, Argentina
May 12, 2010 7:32pm

When Richard Dawkins was asked if religious people are delusional, he said he wouldn't quite put it that way just because they're the majority, but if just a single person believed in miracles like water turning into wine, he'd be put away into an insane asylum.

Max, Boston, MA
May 13, 2010 12:33am

Brian, you spend the first two paragraphs arguing that Sarah Palin is not stupid, so its entirely appropriate that some readers are responding to that claim.
I understand that you *intended* to make a general point about ad hominem attacks -- but its you who misdirected the conversation. If the intellegence of anti-science pundits is irrelevent to criticism of their arguments, then you should have left defence of Ms. Palin's IQ out of your own essay.

David, SF, CA
May 13, 2010 4:36pm

This reminds me of those bogus proofs that 2+2=5 or that a horse has nine legs.
The proofs can be very complicated, but you know they're wrong because the conclusion is absurd. Upon closer inspection, you can track down the fallacy. Where there's smoke, there's fire, you know.
"Sarah Palin is not stupid" is just the smoke that we trace to the fire, which is Brian's fallacy: deducing from the false premise that stupid people don't get elected.

This fallacy is common among ideologues and people who are too lazy to search for evidence or run experiments. It's easier to blindly deduce from a simple premise like "Corporations are evil" or "People are rational."

Max, Boston, MA
May 13, 2010 11:17pm

Sarah Palin certainly appears stupid as dose GW Bush. However I also doubt that either of them could be as stupid as they behave. They are catering to superstitions and trying to manipulate the public for the benefit of the corporations that finance their campaigns and enable them to make a lot of money in ways that aren’t called bribes. They are scam artists and liars. The questions should be why aren’t the corporations doing a better job picking their scam artists and liars. This is appearing to be more like a satire more ridiculous than any comedian can come up with which raises more questions than it answers. Regardless of why this is happening the public needs to be better educated about the way government and business is run if we are going to have a sincere democracy and avoid environmental destruction.

Zach Taylor, Boston Mass
May 20, 2010 7:49am

I can rebut your argument that she isn't stupid with 3 words. Yes. She. Is.

If you as Americans are stupid enough to elect her to any form of higher office such as the presidency, you deserve any anti-science de-progression of the country you get.

Seriously. It's like getting Bush's retarded twin who just happens to also have control of the big red button. And with such a pro-religious fundie theocrat as Palin, don't expect anything good to happen from that.

Ah. Now I await some conservative dolt to comment me about how awesome and smart she is.

Randall Scott, Canada
May 22, 2010 11:39pm

"It's like getting Bush's retarded twin who just happens to also have control of the big red button."

See, this is an unwarranted personal attack, and it just makes us who oppose her look bad. If nothing else, such rhetoric puts the opposition on the defensive. "Yes.She.Is." will win over no one, and demonstrates nothing (nor did anything else in your statement demonstrate anything other than your own distaste for her).

As Mr. Dunning said,

"...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."

Gregory, Alabama
May 24, 2010 2:58pm

Sarah Palin comes up with witty rhetoric that reminds me of "Cut a little swath and lead the people on" . . from the Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. She likes to bash and preach without substance. Specifics please Sarah I'm tired of the smoke an mirror act - How would you do things differently? She compares the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska with BP's Gulf disaster and there's nothing said except, "yeah we had an oil spill". That's the extent of her discussion. What is that?? They are totally different situations. It's frightening to me that there are people who believe that she is a capable of running the country.

Jen, Maryland
May 27, 2010 7:57am

I would like to comment on McVeigh he was not a conspiracy nut ...he was a right wing smaller government gun loving, faux patriot ,just like every super righty like ,beck ,Limbaugh , O Reilly,hannity ,all by the way men who never served our country ,just like Cheney,palin,and yes bush (really people he did not serve he just dressed up in a uniform )palin is dangerous ,when in search of the best candidate for whatever office the cream should rise to the top not in the case of the republicans not for over thirty years...say what you will about OBAMA he is smart ,shrewd and intelligent

sean, new jersey
June 02, 2010 8:23pm

As a third party member, I have no dog in this fight. I agree with Palin on some issues (mainly economic) but am generally turned off by her "aw shucks" populism.

To the point, I think many of the commenters here are completely missing Mr. Dunning's point. While I don't personally like Sarah Palin, I'm constantly amazed by the knee jerk hate she inspires, ask anyone on the street if she said she could see Russia from her house, and they would likely answer in the affirmative. She didn't, Tiny Fey did in a pretty funny SNL routine. It's like Al Gore with the internet, he never said he "invented the internet" yet his political opponents framed that as the narrative and it has become part of the accepted truth of politics.

The point is, if you disagree with Mr. Gore or Mrs. Palin argue on the merits of their arguments, not some politically motivated meme.

Also, the "Sarah Palin is stupid" narrative can have a blowback effect in giving ammunition to the right-leaning populists who paint the elite culture as being unfairly hostile to dissenting points of view.

Let's stop the politics of demonization and debate Palin, Gore, Bush, and Obama on the merits of what they say. We can find plenty wrong with all of them without resorting to charactures.

Mike PT, Philly
June 03, 2010 12:14am

Sarah Palin is this generations equivalent of Dan Quayle. No doubt about it, she's very pleasing to the eye, has some catchy phrases and get the crowd fired up. But how is it that when Katie Couric asked her what newspapers and magazines she read, that she couldn't remember???

Matt Morgan, San Diego
June 22, 2010 10:45am

"But how is it that when Katie Couric asked her what newspapers and magazines she read, that she couldn't remember???"

I can't list the magazines I read off the top of my head. A great deal of my reading comes from journal articles--yeah, I can look up the references, but ask me on the spot where Lecce, 1994 came from and I'd give you a blank stare.

This is still an ad homonym, and still invalid for the same reason that every other fallacy is wrong.

"Let's stop the politics of demonization and debate Palin, Gore, Bush, and Obama on the merits of what they say. We can find plenty wrong with all of them without resorting to charactures."

Exactly. Thank you.

Gregory, Alabama
July 02, 2010 9:58am

Well I agree you should never underestimate the person you disagree with and that people only listen when you approach them respectfully. And it needed to be said, as people get worse at this the smarter they are, usually.

On the other hand, I do think you're giving people touting irrationalities way too much credit. Sarah Palin has demonstrated ignorance on pretty much anything outside a very narrow scope of her convictions, and harsh as it may sound, that position is simply intellectually inferior to one of an average open-minded person. On top of that she has no problem with exploiting people who know even less then she does by making stuff up, which is ethically inferior.

Granted, people have different backgrounds and different value systems, but I think we're the ones going nuts if we'll do the holier-then-thou act. Left or right, liberal or conservative, a closed mind is always inferior to an open one and we should not blur that just to earn some cheap correctness points.

Also, people who lie or abuse their opponent's intellectual honesty should never be respected because that would make respect worthless. What they deserve is professional comedy making their lies obvious.

Mladen Stific, Zagreb
July 04, 2010 10:29am

This statement was really funny: "... any public figure who works hard in the public good". Do you know many of those? :D

I bet you are one of those who really believes that all these politicians, royals and other elitists work really hard for the wellfair of their fellow human beings.

Look at the evidences Brian; and leave aside for a moment your wishfull thinking... ;)

Adam Freeman, Springfield
July 20, 2010 3:25am

1. She made up a word. She is ignorant and she thinks only her side is right.

James Royce, New England
July 20, 2010 5:53pm

This is a nicely written article with considerable depth in critical reasoning. However, it undermines cultural and political influences that made people call Sarah Palin stupid. following the same logic of critical thinking, it is also important to understand why people are calling Sarah Palin a stupid. This may just be a choice of words to put forward the idea of a great misfit. It is important to analyze that people are not attacking her intelligence here, but her ignorance and lack of responsibility. It is not wrong to be ignorant in certain areas, but it is definitely wrong to be ignorant of those areas which one is going to be responsible for. "Stupid" may not be the word but definitely "Ignorant" and "Irresponsible" describes it better.
I do agree with your view for critical reasoning, but that needs to be extended to the people who call some one "nuts".

Anthony, San Antonio
July 27, 2010 4:22pm

This is probably my favorite Skeptoid episode. Great, great work Brian.

I'm afraid a lot of people do miss the point though. This article is not about Sarah Palin. It's about ad hominem attacks and our instinct to ignore the legitimate contextual background of someone you are fundamentally opposed to.

I've played this for a lot of people, and it's sometimes frustrating when after the episode ends, they start with "yeah, but c'mon, Sarah Palin said or did blah blah blah."

Sometimes when I get frustrated with someone's seemingly obvious logical or scientific illiteracy, pausing to reflect on this episode's message greatly helps me to take a breath and readdress the argument constructively and with respect for the other person instead of condescension.

It's amazing how well it helps you maintain a clear-minded argument and how much more receptive it makes the person you're talking to.

I seriously think they every single person on the planet needs to hear this episode.

Tom, St. Louis
August 03, 2010 9:59am

Sarh Palin has proven, time and again, that she cannot absorb facts. Her views are even more deeply ideological than George W. Bush's were. Since the 2008 Presidential election, Ms Palin has made no effort to expand her mind, politically, nationally or internationally, either. The far-right corporate Republicans want such a person in the White House, knowing someone like Sarah Palin would do "their will". This is precisely why George W. Bush HAD TO be our president, and why he literally STOLE the 2000 election. As long as we continue to have "dumbed down" Americans, we'll have ideologues like Sarah Palin to contend with, but the rest of the world is laughing at us too. We are talking about the most powerful position in the world, when it comes to picking a U.S. President, not some mayor of a town of one quarter the population of the Chicago suburb I reside in, or governor for less than half a term of a state with half the population of the South Sude if Chicago. I'm sorry, but supporting such a person as Sarah Palin is proof positive of how dumbed down a good portion of the American people have become. It's actually very frightening.

Peter, Chicago area
August 04, 2010 6:33am

ive read her book and im 13, im not a democrat or republican but she does seem very oldschool and ignorant. evolution is obviously real, there is overwhelming evidence of that. it seems as though she views herself as the victim and is too stubborn to admit when shes wrong or change her stance on an issue.

thomas, youll, never know
August 10, 2010 5:21pm

She is an idiot. Period. You do yourself a dishonor, and lose any credibility by even trying to defend her.

Alisi, orlando
August 28, 2010 12:38pm