Smart Ones Avoid

[GePap]

There are many roads into politics. Young people should always start at the municipal level, where they have more of a chance to get in, and build experience that way. Being a member of large civic organizations or unions also helps, anything to build both experience, and a base of support.

[Cyclotron]

I want to get a politics-related job for a summer or two, and I'm debating whether or not to join the College Democrats just to use it as a reference. I'm hesitant to jump in, as you might expect for a group whose members make up the majority of this illustrious body. We shall see, I suppose.

[Ecthy]

Are you doing all of your studies in the US? You seem to be just ahead of your first year anyway...

Then, post your first spring break experiences. Must be one boring event

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Spiffor is basically right on the money here - but I'm not sure about older people getting any better. Rather than having their opinions become finer or more subtle, it seems to me that they simply become more set in stone; the dumb or simply naive things they thought when younger become even more dogmatic, really only changing as they get more conservative with age.

It depends on the person.

Some people are only interested with the activism, or with the feeling of identification to a party, and they won't try to acquire a more subtle political knowledge. These people will act as you describe.
OTOH, some activists are interested in getting a better understanding of politics, and their opinions will get finer.

I have seen old activists of both kinds, but I must say that the latter is more frequent, at least in my party. Most old members of the French Commie Party (at least those I got to know) had little education, and yet they are pretty adept with politics, whether concrete or abstract concepts.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Are you doing all of your studies in the US? You seem to be just ahead of your first year anyway...

Then, post your first spring break experiences. Must be one boring event

I'm a junior, actually. And my Spring Break experiences usually are boring, yes.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
I want to get a politics-related job for a summer or two, and I'm debating whether or not to join the College Democrats just to use it as a reference. I'm hesitant to jump in, as you might expect for a group whose members make up the majority of this illustrious body. We shall see, I suppose.

I doubt it will help that much. I think just relying on your resume for applying for a political internship will help a lot. I think experience in fields that might make you an atractive intern , like some media work or work with the public for some recognized roganization might be better resume boosters.

And make sure you apply to every political internship you see, including with your municipal guys and Congresspeople. Internships with senators are usually a bit tougher.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Spiffor

It depends on the person.

Some people are only interested with the activism, or with the feeling of identification to a party, and they won't try to acquire a more subtle political knowledge. These people will act as you describe.
OTOH, some activists are interested in getting a better understanding of politics, and their opinions will get finer.

I have seen old activists of both kinds, but I must say that the latter is more frequent, at least in my party. Most old members of the French Commie Party (at least those I got to know) had little education, and yet they are pretty adept with politics, whether concrete or abstract concepts.

If people set their minds towards refining their opinions, they will become refined. Most that I see, however, don't seem particularly interested in that. To consciously modify your opinions requires that you accept them as opinions, not facts, which many seem incapable of doing.

My biggest problem with the College Democrats is the idea of party cohesion - everyone last year was expected to be a good little Kerry-ite. It's basically an extention of the party, rather than any kind of intellectual forum to discuss liberal politics. They would likely consider a blockhead with tireless energy with which to attend rallies a much better member than a cynical, theory-minded ass like myself.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by GePap
I doubt it will help that much. I think just relying on your resume for applying for a political internship will help a lot. I think experience in fields that might make you an atractive intern , like some media work or work with the public for some recognized roganization might be better resume boosters.

I'd better get started on that, as all my work experience right now involves chainsaws and the operation thereof

[Flip McWho]

You f*cked it up.

I know *hangs head in shame*

[Pekka]

GePap, yes, yes, yes. I just took this one example. It applies to other things as well. Critical thinking.

I don't think it's prejudices in a negative way to say that someone is being judgemental and sheep, if they don't know what they're rooting for.

IT's like calling a racist racist. It's not racism to point out the racism of someone else. Or if it is, it's not negative racism.

If we start twiching and having brainfarts, then yes, if I say you are a judgemental person, than I'm being judgemental myself. But rational people know the difference in this, and if you disagree, you should go to Agathon's lectures and die or something .

Of course there are many levels of knowledge, and to achieve that expert level, it takes a long time and does this mean we can't express our opinions if we aren't experts, not a lot to talk about then eh?

No. But I do think when I encounter such undeveloped thought processes, I don't mean opinions per se because an opinion that differs from mine can be refined and 'better quality' than mine if it is thought out well enough, having more information than myself and using it to their advantage, it becomes, what I believe is better opinion.

But when I see a low quality opinion, meaning that the person is taking a stand and yet they don't even know what it's about in general, you know, I tend to think that the person hasn't thought about it through, not even in the amateur level, and certainly not enough to voice an opinion that should be taken seriously. It should be directed to the kiddie table with mini sausages and pancakes.

And when that core opinion drives and creates and justifies the rest of the theory, you know... I'm just not ready to get a headache trying to correct or help the other one to raise issues they never thought about. Because when you find flaws, I'm not necessarily blowing the whole case down, the other person should be critical enough to see if this new flaw is actually not a flaw, or if it's an exception, or what is it, but if I point out a flaw, and that is never defended, and that same person goes further in their lives to shout out the same theory, and now CONVINIENTLY enough never mentioning the earlier flaw, I see that person as a failed one.

And it's OK to not know, it's ok to be wrong, it's certainly ok to change view when new information arrives but critical thinking, _pragmatic_ thinking is really a lost art these days I feel like.

I don't care THAT much about the result of a debate, I care much more about the process, if we established facts, if we challenged the views intelligently, if we followed the rules of debating. What's the point of 'winning' a debate if you break the rules? It's not a win anymore. It's like Bill O'Reilly victory then, it's like who gives a damn, it was flawed, 0 points proved, -10 points for street cred.

[Pekka]

Example:

The one who holds secrets fantasies about me, Spiffor. He knows a great deal more about EU than I do. I shine of not knowing when I stand next to him. I disagree with him on many issues with the EU. Now, I believe he has better opinion than mine if we measure it in quality, since he has thought about it more, and has more information, experience etc.

Does it mean he is right? Not necessarily. More likely, but not necessarily. I mean, when assuming he is smart and draws even semi good conclusions and uses the info and experience to his advantage with not much bias.


So we disagree. I still respect that view since it's not some slogan crap. There's a huge difference right there. THe opinion is refined, it comes from somewhere, not just 'because I read this slogan and I believe it because the slogan says so'. A circular error of its own kind.

It's like sheep loves me, so I love sheep and here we go and get married.

Sheep people. Followers.

Sheeps.

[DaShi]

Pekka, don't you know that political science is extremely simple and the same rules for one country can be applied to any other. You don't need exerience to talk about the EU, you just need a degree in BS.