Sarah Palin Is Not Stupid

Is an ad hominem attack really the best way to express disagreement?

by Brian Dunning

Filed under Logic & Persuasion

Skeptoid #160
June 30, 2009
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe

Sarah Palin
Are people we disagree with simply "stupid" or is there more to it?
(Photo credit: Wikimedia)

Today we're going to delve into the minds of those who actively promote misinformation, political oppression, terror, conspiracies, and anything else that detracts from the public good. What drives them to do so? Are they right in their own minds, or do they know that what they do is wrong? More importantly, what should we know and understand about these people? I'm going to go out on a limb and start with a concept that may seem shockingly politically incorrect to some: I'm going to disagree with the popular perception that Sarah Palin is nuts.

Let me tell you something about Sarah Palin, but first with the understanding that I don't know any more about her than you do; I've never met her either; and I didn't vote for her. Stupid people don't tend to attract contributors, managers, supporters, and electorates. If she'd exhibited stupidity on the Wasilla city council, they probably wouldn't have elected her mayor. If she'd exhibited stupidity as mayor, they probably wouldn't have elected her for a second term. Her appointment to the Oil and Gas Committee by the governor was probably not because she'd behaved stupidly. Finally, stupidity probably does not characterize most successful bids to run for governor of one of the United States. Does she exhibit an almost robotic and uncritical point-by-point support of the Republican platform? Yes. Is she undereducated for her position? Possibly, her bachelor's degree is in journalism. It's arguable that she's demonstrated a clear disdain for, and illiteracy in, science. She gives every indication that her religious beliefs and her party guidance determine her priorities. But welcome to reality: That's the way a lot of people work, including a lot of people on the other side of the political aisle.

If you call yourself a critical thinker, ad hominem attacks should not be the extent of your criticisms of those in whom you find fault. Show me one thing Sarah Palin has said or done that's "stupid", and I'll show you something that's perfectly rational for someone with her religious and political convictions. It may be that you simply disagree with her convictions, and you probably have very good reasons for doing so. But if that's the case, don't just say "Sarah Palin is stupid". That's kindergarten talk, and it makes you look bad, not her. Understand why she takes the position she does, then reveal the faults in that position.

My point today has nothing to do with Sarah Palin, or with anyone else. It has to do with a lack of critical thinking among many people who consider themselves skeptics. A lot of prominent people are dismissive of science: Celebrities, politicians. Many of us tend to dismiss them right back as irrational or nuts. But this demonstrates exactly the same kind of shortcutted thinking that we're accusing them of.

For example, I heard some skeptics the other day talking about Bill Maher, saying "I didn't realize he was as crazy as he is." (Bill Maher is an outspoken critic of science based medicine. He's endorsed AIDS denialism, Big Pharma conspiracies, anti-vaccination, and natural medicine.) Now, granted Bill Maher is wrong about a lot of things, but he's not on the fringe. A lot of people believe that stuff. Clearly it's important that they be educated, because widespread beliefs like this would represent a serious national health crisis. If you dismiss those beliefs as craziness, you're saying there's nothing to them, they're meaningless. Instead, acknowledge that there are compelling cultural influences that have led Bill Maher and others to believe those things. Bill Maher is just one of many victims of these influences, and it's because he has the average person's ability to understand and interpret the information he's been exposed to, not because he's crazy.

In the same way, you could say Sarah Palin is simply responding to cultural and political influences. People need cheap energy, so she's a proponent of drilling the oil in her state. People want government to eliminate wasteful spending, so she bashes fruit fly research, the significance of which has never been made clear to her or to the public. The United States is a strongly Christian nation, and many people support teaching creationism in schools, and oppose stem cell research. Palin isn't being stupid by embracing these concepts, she's responding to the same influences everyone else is.

If you were to sit down and have a conversation with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in such a way that you could both speak your native language in order to be articulate and insightful, I bet you'd find that he's knowledgeable, well spoken, and intelligent. (Maybe I'm wrong, I haven't had such a conversation with him, but from what I've read of his background I'd say it's practically a certainty that he has his act together pretty well.) Unless you happen to be a Muslim fundamentalist, you're likely to disagree pretty strongly with many of his beliefs and priorities. But I bet he'd convince you that his convictions run pretty deep, and have solid historical and cultural roots that are not going to be washed away from an entire nation overnight. I bet you'd say "Wow, he actually has a point of view, and what he's saying makes sense within that context." This characterization is acutely different from the whimsical ramblings of a nut. If you dismiss Ahmadinejad as a crazy whackjob, not only are you factually wrong, but you do it at your peril, because you are grossly underestimating the depth and foundation of what you're protesting against.

I've watched two Muslim executions by stoning, in all their graphic detail — on video, I hope I never see it in person — because we live in a world where this actually happens, and I feel it's important to understand what I object to as fully as possible. It's easy to watch a stoning and conclude that only a crazy person could willingly be a part of such a medieval horror. What's just as frightening as the stoning itself is that the people doing it are someone's nextdoor neighbors. They take their kids to the park. They give birthday presents. They paint and write and play musical instruments. They are, in fact, quite human. And yet they're capable of something that's unthinkable to you or I. It's not because they're crazy. It's because they're smart people who are profoundly dedicated to their belief system, and who were raised in a frame of reference that lets them stone a person to death with the same regard as a Westerner might kill an enemy in battle. It's a necessity, it's a duty, and it's the right thing to do. If you dismiss these people as crazy or as zealots, you are factually wrong, you're missing the point, and you're failing to understand what it is you object to.

Look at Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, and consequently the United States' greatest mass murderer of children. To best prepare ourselves to prevent this kind of thing happening again, we have to be sure that we accurately understand the motivations behind it. McVeigh is a guy who lived in a world of conspiracies. The people he surrounded himself with all believed the same thing: That the government was out to get them. When you live and breathe that 24 hours a day, when it's your entire sphere of influence, it's not delusional. It was a vicious circle. The more input he received, the more he sought out such information. Well understood perceptual phenomena like confirmation bias made it normal and healthy for McVeigh's brain to reject information that did not indicate the government was out to get him. Eventually he got to a point where the best move — in the context of what he believed was going on — was to strike back, as violently as possible. We are better prepared to deal with Timothy McVeighs if we don't allow ourselves the intellectually lazy shortcut of "Oh, he was just some nut."

The same goes for Sarah Palin, Ben Stein, Ken Ham, Bill Maher, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, and Prince Charles, all people who actively promote bad science or misinformation, and who believe they're doing the right thing. That's an important point that's too often overlooked. With few exceptions, most honest promoters of bad information have good intentions. They're not crazy raving lunatics out to get us. If you want to have an informed, rational conversation with one of these folks, and you want them to be receptive to your statements, approach them as you would any public figure who works hard in the public good. At a fundamental level, they're on our same team: They want what's best for people.

Prince Charles is a nutcase who has no idea what he's talking about.

...makes you sound like a close-minded radical, making irrational ad hominem attacks.

Tip Skeptoid $2/mo $5/mo $10/mo One time

Prince Charles is a good man who cares deeply for the public welfare. Unfortunately, a lot of the medical information he passes along is woefully out of date.

...has a chance that someone will actually listen to it. And expressing yourself in a way that's worthy of people listening is an important, but all too often overlooked, part of the promotion of critical thinking.

Brian Dunning

© 2009 Skeptoid Media Copyright information

References & Further Reading

Alexander, Y., Hoenig, M. M. The new Iranian leadership: Ahmadinejad, terrorism, nuclear ambition, and the Middle East. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008. 30-35.

Booker, C., North, R. Scared to Death. London: Continuum UK, 2007.

McKay, Charles. Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. NY: Universal Digital Library, 1841.

Michel, L., Herbeck, D. American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh & the Oklahoma City Bombing. Darby: Diane Pub Co., 2003.

Shermer, Michael. Why People Believe Weird Things. NY: Henry Holt and Co., 2002.

Sternberg, Robert. Why Smart People Can be So Stupid. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.

Thompson, Damian. Counterknowledge. NY: WW Norton and Co., 2008.

Van Hecke, Madeleine. Blind Spots: Why Smart People Do Dumb Things. NY: Prometheus Books, 2007.

Reference this article:
Dunning, B. "Sarah Palin Is Not Stupid." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, 30 Jun 2009. Web. 30 Aug 2015. <>


10 most recent comments | Show all 317 comments

That's pretty disgusting, Bruce.

Are you proud of yourself?

Darren, Liverpool, UK
May 2, 2013 2:12pm

'that's unthinkable to you or I'

Unthinkable to 'I'? Brian. Really! Basic grammar. But of course, not stupidity :)

Michael, Kiama
May 12, 2013 2:15am

True, you find many laureates in Kiama..

I just wish the fish market would open at a reliable time.

Michael, that's an americanism as abhorrent as "disorientate" or "valedictory speech"..Same tautology for those..

Magnanamous Dinoflagellate, sin city, Oz
July 4, 2013 6:56am

Sorry BD. For the first time in reading 100's of your well written topics, I had to jump to the comments before reading as my own research into Palin has led to believe that there is only one human on the planet with a lower IQ than Palin and that is McCain.

Stupid she is not.

Self-serving, ignorant, unapologetic, narrow-minded, out of her depth she is.

Fact not Fiction, Canada
September 6, 2013 3:14pm

That's the risk you run by not reading an article, but rather basing your assessment on the headline alone.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
September 6, 2013 9:22pm

Fact or fiction could publish his/her research dealing with the topics and the people.

I take it research actually means looking into things, writing it up.

Research isnt view. Many claim research here but I havent seen it yet.

Manatee Diversion, Greenacres by the sea Oz
September 11, 2013 2:01pm

Let's agree that simple name calling rarely accomplishes much for communication.

And I agree that understanding the context in which people make their statements is also important - for example in regard to relatively objectively verifiable things, they may indeed be parroting things from an echo chamber in which they live rather than coming up with their own original untruths and half truths. And in regard to values without objective verification, it gets even murkier.

We can nuance our understanding of why other people disagree with us - at least in our own minds (name calling is still poor communication; so this understanding may inform our approach rather than becoming a hurled insult).

Even without resorting to name calling, we may discern that some are expressing relatively intelligent arguments with different assumptions that ours about how the world works, and others are regurgitating nonsense that's verifiably counterfactual or internally inconsistent.

Simple labels like "stupid" or "crazy" may not help us in that discernment, but we may still notice when somebody is displaying arrogant gross ignorance or ideological brain freeze, and distinguish that from reasoned disagreement - and take different approaches accordingly.

One approach I take is to ask myself "what payoff are they getting from holding onto that belief?". Look for another way to meet some of that need which you believe is more reality based, rather than trying to just take away their payoff.

Zeph, DryNorCal
February 19, 2014 7:52pm

Good article Brian.

While demonizing political opponents boosts one's status... it also lures us down a dark path, with public stonings as one possible outcome.

Kevin, San Jose
September 27, 2014 12:15am

Good article, but you could have gone one step further. US culture (like any other, but the US is an extreme example) is all about packaging and presentation. Palin has gone the whole way, and deliberately portrays herself as the "simple" "hockey mom". There are enough examples of various gung-ho far-right conservative politicians of today being reasoned individuals in the past, but that doesn't sell to their constituency. The consensus of that constituency is that what we might call "stupidity" means honest straightforwardness, with the intelligentsia in an ivory tower safely away from the hockey mom reality of the common folk. They aren't even completely wrong on that. Palin has a team to bat for. That constituency. She's a product of that mentality, but she also uses it and owns it, and she's unnervingly good at it.

Dave, Leipzig
September 28, 2014 2:04am

One thing I'd add: There is a crucial difference between the Palins and Bachmanns of this world, and the McVeighs and Breiviks: The former do actually live in the real world. They can't isolate themselves from pushback. They have to field the opposition and do it well, defending their own authenticity (yes it needs defending - it's their main selling point! Nothing loses worse than not being perceived as authentic). The latter isolate themselves, and very effectively. McVeigh in his own community, Breivik in his online community, with their own distorted microcosm of "reality" guiding them. It's an easy trap to get into. You surround yourself with people that agree with you and ignore everyone else, you will start to think that that's all there is, that everything else is fringes because that's how it looks to you, and eventually you can't help but believe in it. It's not limited to weird fringe political movements either - any organization, public or private, can fall prey to the echo chamber phenomenon with disastrous results.

Dave, Leipzig
September 28, 2014 2:28am

Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point).

Post a reply


What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid

Captain Kidd's Treasure
Skeptoid #481, Aug 25 2015
Read | Listen (12:07)
The Nazi of Nanking
Skeptoid #480, Aug 18 2015
Read | Listen (13:49)
Skeptoid #479, Aug 11 2015
Read | Listen (14:28)
Listener Feedback: Natural History
Skeptoid #478, Aug 4 2015
Read | Listen (11:36)
Wag the Dogman
Skeptoid #477, Jul 28 2015
Read | Listen (13:03)
#1 -
Read | Listen
#2 -
Harry Houdini and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Read | Listen
#3 -
The Death of Rasputin
Read | Listen
#4 -
The Water Woo of Masaru Emoto
Read | Listen
#5 -
The St. Clair Triangle UFO
Read | Listen
#6 -
Tube Amplifiers
Read | Listen
#7 -
The Braxton County Monster
Read | Listen
#8 -
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

  Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Brian Dunning on Google+   Skeptoid on Stitcher   Skeptoid RSS

Members Portal


Follow @BrianDunning

Tweets about "skeptoid"

Support Skeptoid

Email: [Why do we need this?]To reduce spam, we email new faces a confirmation link you must click before your comment will appear.
characters left. Abusive posts and spam will be deleted.