The Republican official serving as the Senate’s point man on the audit, former Arizona secretary of state Ken Bennett, recently leaked initial audit results showing the county’s original count was accurate and found himself locked out of the audit facility for days as a result, according to Vice. While Bennett told Vice he was trying to “work things out with [Senate] President Fann” and resume his role, in recent interviews he had also detailed being shut out of Cyber Ninja’s audit processes and admitted he had threatened to resign. He also suggested Cyber Ninjas might “force balance” their report, an accounting term for maliciously cooking the books with fake data. (As Slate noted, Bennett’s last-minute flip after months of promoting misinformation about the Maricopa County vote reeks of distancing himself from the disaster.)
At least two Senate Republicans who are responsible for helping bring the ongoing debacle about are starting to have second thoughts.
Scottsdale State Senator Michelle Ugenti-Rita recently tweeted “it’s become clear that the audit has been botched” thanks to the “incompetence” of Fann, ABC 15 reported. Phoenix-Glendale State Senator Paul Boyer told the network he agreed, but had a disingenuous excuse: Republicans had supported the audit but “just didn’t think it would be done by a firm that didn’t have a clue of what they were doing.”
I don't think our hardware is evolved for critical thinking. Even folks who seem to be pretty good at it have some enormous blind spots. Too much of our decision making processes go on "under the hood," where the conscious part of our brains has no access. Even when we try to think critically, there is no good way for us to tell what is reasoning and what is rationalizing.
I think we have a fair bit of evolution left to go here, but hopefully we can constantly remind ourselves that any belief or understanding we have could be wrong. It's a mindset that is hard to achieve and maintain.
I don't think our hardware is evolved for critical thinking. Even folks who seem to be pretty good at it have some enormous blind spots. Too much of our decision making processes go on "under the hood," where the conscious part of our brains has no access. Even when we try to think critically, there is no good way for us to tell what is reasoning and what is rationalizing.
I think we have a fair bit of evolution left to go here, but hopefully we can constantly remind ourselves that any belief or understanding we have could be wrong. It's a mindset that is hard to achieve and maintain.
I think that’s true. I think maybe the best method is to have a friend or two who are willing to call “BS” when we get off track.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
I think that’s true. I think maybe the best method is to have a friend or two who are willing to call “B.S.” when we get off track.
Or a troll?
C'mon Res. C'mon. Even just a little bit of a smile? Even a thought of a smile for a fraction of a second?
Yeah, I thought it was funny. I’m happy to throw fast pitches all day for anyone who can hit them out of the park.
But seriously, no, not a troll. Because it’s a two-way street, and bona fide trolls have no interest in ferreting out and correcting their own BS. The relationship has to be two ways and built on trust.
I was introduced to the concept in a book that came out last year titled “Calling BS.” It was written by two University of Washington Profs who appear to have the kind of relationship I’m talking about. Given the difficulty our brains have in recognizing their own BS, it sounded like an approach that might be worthwhile.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
I was introduced to the concept in a book that came out last year titled “Calling B.S..” It was written by two University of Washington Profs who appear to have the kind of relationship I’m talking about. Given the difficulty our brains have in recognizing their own B.S., it sounded like an approach that might be worthwhile.
Bergstrom and West?
That’s the one. It takes techniques for spotting BS and applies them specifically to graphics. I found it interesting and helpful.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
That’s the one. It takes techniques for spotting B.S. and applies them specifically to graphics. I found it interesting and helpful.
I just listened to the audio sample and read the samples on kindle. Not exactly a Clancy thriller. I will do the dry audio. I never look up the footnotes anyways so the print or ebook version won't make huge difference. Will I miss anything from the graphics or tables if I do audio?
Yeah, it’s nowhere near a Clancy. I found some of the notes interesting, but I don’t think you need to read them. But you’d be missing out if you couldn’t see the graphs. I don’t know which service you use, but it looks like the audible version comes with a PDF of the illustrations. As long as the service you use does the same thing, I think you’d be good to go.
If you do listen, I’d be curious to hear what you think.
Also, the authors have taught this as a class for some number of years, and I think they have materials and lectures on a you tube channel. If you multitask with audio books, you could listen and then look at the video when needed. I suspect the quality is not as good as the audiobook, but it would save you some shekels.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
