What percentage of DUers ARE Intellectually Honest?

[HughMoran]

Based on "The 10 signs of Intellectual Honesty" posted here, what percentage of DUers are truly intellectually honest in the majority of their arguments (we all have bad days)?

[tekisui]

1. I voted, but I don't think my vote was intellectually honest.

[HughMoran]

3. Heh - I can see that there are some naughty people already

:spank:

I voted 0 - 10% because I think the number is barely larger than 0%

[LooseWilly]

7. Let me guess, you count only yourself as intellectually honest?

(An intellectually dishonest count, if you ask me... ;) )

[Truth2Tell]

2. This poll is

a straw man wrapped in a deliberate misdirection deep fried in a boiling vat of inconsistencies.

[babylonsister]

5. And what about a straw woman? Are you sexist? And

misdirection, deep fried (heaven forfend!)I'm on a diet. :eyes:

Yea, I'm pooped.

[Swamp Rat]

13. LOL!

:rofl:

[NoPasaran]

23. Miss Direction? She was my second grade teacher

[Bucky]

45. She got married. Now she's known as Mrs. Ippy.

She married Old Man River, who apparently has continence issues.

[rwheeler31]

4. This makes no sense.

What did you say and when did you say it? This is political.

[ecstatic]

6. I would say about 60 to 70%. Even when it appears that this place is

batshit insane, someone posts a poll that shows that the vast majority of DUers are reasonable (with the exception of the Kucinich for President/2012 poll).

[HughMoran]

9. Being reasonable and being intellectually honest

based on the standards in the thread I linked to are two entirely different things.

[notesdev]

24. My evaluation is about the same

Keeping in mind that being honest is not the same as being correct, I'd say that most, for the most part, do not try to misrepresent things. That said, there is one issue in particular that I think attracts the intellectually dishonest (and those with gnawing personality issues). I'll refrain from naming the issue since it is not within the rules of the road here to call anyone out.

edit - one caveat is that it is easier to remember the dishonest as they tend to also be attention whores, and they stick out in one's memory more than those who are calm and rational.

[napi21]

8. I think very few could clear all those hurdles, but I can think

of quite a few Pubs who don't fit ANY of them! As soon as I came to the ones like "double standards: & admit they're wrong" several names instantly came to mind!

[Luminous Animal]

10. I'd say it's pretty low mostly because of this...

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

[seabeyond]

25. i dont get that often. but i do get it predictably. it is such a lazy way to discuss

and very irritating. at that point, the person no longer is no longer one i hat with. worthless waste of time.

not for iraq war
so you want muslims to be able to kill us in bed.

ya, thats what i said

[BlueJazz]

11. Geez...I think we're being a little hard on each other. I DO believe that most...

..DUer's try to be honest with their feelings and respect other views but like a typical Human Being, we have our ups and downs.
I believe the vast majority of us are good people who care about others.. :)

[HughMoran]

12. Read the linked to post

Being a good caring person is very common here, but that's not the definition of intellectual honesty - it's more related to how honestly one presents their argument and whether they can show humility (amongst other qualities) - see here -> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7170545

[BlueJazz]

15. I did read it and understand what you mean but perhaps others are not as...

...emotionally stable as the majority....and have not learned (through Life) that many things are Relative.

Hell...perhaps I'm one of the one's who fall in that catagory.

[Double T]

14. 100% ALL.....of course.........

in their own minds.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. Very few on all sides of the political spectrum

[Electric Monk]

17. I voted 31-50, but just to try and round out the bell curve a little

Honest enough for ya?

[Flabbergasted]

18. Rec for an interesting question? nt

[TexasObserver]

19. Another idea ... use fortune cookies for guidance.

I don't believe in anyone's dogma about anything, and that includes someone who embraces a list of guidelines, and then cites it as proof they hold the properties described.

[Echo In Light]

36. I prefer...

[TexasObserver]

41. When I read goat entrails this morning, they told me you were going to say that.

Magic Eightball!

[DainBramaged]

20. After some of the bullshit I've seen lately, I'm beginning to question zero....

as a high number.

[HughMoran]

27. I was thinking the same...

I think the poll results in themselves at least show that the majority realize that it's nearly impossible to be intellectually honest over a broad range of issues where emotions tend to run high and peddlers of unfounded conspiracies abound.

[hfojvt]

21. is it intellectually honest to vote for 0 - 10%?

That seems kinda cynical to me. It also seems to defy point #2

"2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence."

and also slides into point #7

"7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions."

That is, somebody who votes 0 - 10% seems to have a low opinion of most other DUers and is perhaps putting a lot of attention on "the people making the arguments" instead of on the arguments themselves. Also, if you have a low opinion of the people you are arguing with, then it seems that while you might acknowledge that 'reasonable alternative viewpoints exist' it seems that many in the group are not likely to hold one of those 'reasonable alternative viewpoints' because they are all just a deck of cards (or a bunch of moonbats or other ideologues). In which case, perhaps rule 42 would apply. I think it states that all persons with an ego more than a mile high must leave the courtroom. This rule keeps them from looking down their noses at their intellectually dishonest compatriots.

[dmallind]

22. That's not intellectualy honesty or dishonesty at all

That list is a list of logical fallacies or unacceptable argument tactics. Intellectual dishonesty is the tendency to vary your conclusion, when the premises are the same, based on your personal preference. If you think a Dem adulterer can be forgiven more than a Rep adulterer given the same facts, you are being intellectually dishonest. Using logical fallacies or poor argument tactics is immaterial.

[bigtree]

26. what a hoot

You're hiding whatever motive you have for questioning DUers' honesty behind someone else's definitions. Not very intellectually honest.

Why don't you just cut the crap here and just say how you feel about DUers' 'intellectual honesty' and be done with it.

[HughMoran]

28. Does attacking the poster make you feel better?

Very interesting...

[bigtree]

29. this is a joke

right?

[HughMoran]

30. I am a joke

There, does that make you feel better?

[bigtree]

31. of course not

I see up-thread where you laid out how you feel about DUer's honesty. Good for you. Do you feel better now?

HughMoran says in agreeing the poster that he's thinking zero is too high a number in the poll (to measure Duer's): "it's nearly impossible to be intellectually honest over a broad range of issues where emotions tend to run high and peddlers of unfounded conspiracies abound," he says.

If I got that right, that's not a very high opinion of the folks you talk to almost every day here.

[HughMoran]

33. Yes, you found your answer by reading.

My view is not a low opinion of people who post here, in my opinion it's par for the course on a political board - "expected" behavior if you will. It's not bad to admit that we are all humans who's opinions interfere with our objectivity at times - especially as it relates to politics. I'm pleasantly surprised that the majority is able to admit this.

[derby378]

32. Every DUer, myself included, is a damn fool for five minutes out of every day

As Elbert Hubbard once said, wisdom consists of not exceeding that daily limit.

[rug]

34. I voted twice.

[Javaman]

35. All of us are.

we write anonymously to questions posed by other anonymous people.

That, on face value, is "intellectually dishonest".

[Iggo]

37. I thought all these threads got locked.

[harun]

38. I don't know how many but the number is decreasing!

[EFerrari]

50. lol

:rofl:

DUZY!

[surrealAmerican]

39. Based on those criteria I'd say about a third, ...

... but in a lot of people's posts it's not so much intellectual dishonesty, as it is poor communication or argumentation skills that would disqualify them.

[ensho]

40. its hard to say as there are a number of paid disruptors here

nt

[DainBramaged]

42. yup, and a few of us who ask the question's no one wants to answer.....

[Bucky]

44. I'm sorry, but "paid disruptors"? Really? Is DU really that important?

That strikes me as being a little bit in need of "documentation before assertion".

[Bucky]

43. Interesting. Intellectual honesty means not buying into majority prejudices, right?

So you're basically asking how many DUers piss us off.

[Bucky]

46. Ironic thought: those who say the percentage is really low (< 30%, say) don't meet the criterion.

In claiming most people here aren't being intellectually honest, you're really saying that most of the world is unreasonable to disagree with you. So the 60% who are saying 70% are intellectually dishonest are probably themselves intellectually dishonest.

[burning rain]

47. Your criteria are flawed.

There's only one valid criterion of intellectual honesty, namely agreement with lovely and talented DUer burning rain in all matters. :P

[Marr]

48. I think everyone is at least occasionally intellectually dishonest.

I couldn't begin to guess what percentage are "usually" intellectually honest. It seems like you have an opinion, however. What is it?

[Cerridwen]

49. I picked 71 - 90% because I think most who come here do so honestly

to discuss their ideas, ideology, thoughts, dreams, hopes, etc., in an honest manner.

As we've seen (finally) lately, some come here just to stir the pot.

Because someone agrees/disagrees with me, doesn't make them intellectually dishonest any more than it makes me so. Someone who comes here and consistently liberal/gay/feminist/race baits, isn't honest, they're just a freaking bully.

I'm a "bleeding heart" (that is, compassionate) liberal. The majority here are honest in their opinions and ideals and some will change with time others will not.

And, by the by, I think the "10 signs..." is a crap article. I'd break it down but I'm currently enjoying a nice Full Sail™, Amber and don't care to "kill my buzz."

:toast:

edit for buzz-killed grammar

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. All of the 2nd Amendment supporters and a few others.

[lpbk2713]

52. 58%

What did I win?


:eyes:

[omega minimo]

53. Are we all this full of shit?

:wow:

[HughMoran]

54. Not at all

Read the criterion in the link of the O/P - those standards are nearly impossible to adhere to on a political board. What would you say the intellectual honesty of the MSM is when it comes to political issues? Exactly. Now think of a typical politically hot issue where there are dozens of emotionally fired up posters - all of whom are "right" on the issue in question. There would be little reason to argue if people took a step back and admitted they were exaggerating (or using some other rhetorical device) to make a point. If everybody was intellectually honest in their arguments, there would rarely be heated fighting and nobody would ever need to be banned. Nobody wants that :)