Previous Month | RSS/XML | Current

WEBLOG

June 25th, 2024 (Permalink)

How to Lie with Quotations

It is my belief that nearly any invented quotation, played with confidence, stands a good chance to deceive.1

Advocates for social and political causes love to use quotations as "evidence" in support of their side. Some of these quotes are true, and others are not; but even those that are true can be misleading. In this entry, I'll enumerate three types of potentially misleading advocacy quotes.

I've previously listed the ways in which quotes can go wrong2, but there is another dimension along which we can classify them, namely, the purpose they serve. Why did the advocate choose this quote, of this person, at this time, and in this place? Advocates use quotes to support their position in a debate, so how are they supposed to do that?

Here, then, is a preliminary classification of advocacy quotes based on their purpose, not their accuracy. Even when such quotes are accurate―that is, not fabricated, misquoted, misattributed, or taken out of context―they can still be misleading.

  • The "Honest Abe" Quote: Advocates love to align their causes with revered public figures by using quotes to prove that they were on the same side. Abraham Lincoln is one such figure, which is why I name this type of quote after him, but there are many others: George Washington and other "Founding Fathers", George Orwell3, Martin Luther King, Jr.4, and so on.

    Even if "Honest Abe" quotes are entirely accurate they can still mislead. What Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, or MLK, Jr. thought about a certain contemporary issue may be historically interesting, but it's weak evidence5. For one thing, such heroes and heroines lived long, long ago, in a place far, far away, and what was once a good idea may now be a bad one, and vice versa. For another, none of these great people were perfect, and sometimes their opinions were just plain wrong.

    Example: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

    This bogus quote, sometimes attributed to Founding Father Thomas Jefferson6, is a nice all-purpose one that can be used to defend any dissident cause.

  • The "Adolf Hitler" Quote: This is the reverse of The "Honest Abe" Quote. Instead of quoting a well-known good guy on your side, quote a bad guy on the other side. As with Abraham Lincoln, Adolf Hitler is a stand-in for all the bad guys who are used to tar the other side, but it's also true that a lot of these quotes are attributed to him as the worst guy ever.

    For every cause, there is an equal and opposite cause: pro-life versus pro-choice, Republican versus Democrat, Liberal versus Conservative, and Coke versus Pepsi. Whichever side you're on, the other side is evil incarnate, and no doubt Adolf Hitler was on that side. Even if he wasn't, it's so easy to quote him as if he were. It stands to reason he was on the other side! No one reads Mein Kampf, not even Nazis, who can't read anyway. Why bother to check? Given this thinking, many alleged quotes of Hitler are pure fabrications, and a lot of the rest are impure.

    The same thing is true of "Hitler" quotes as is true of the "Honest Abe" variety: even when they're true, they're weak evidence7. Hitler died a long time ago, and what was once a bad idea may now be a good one, and vice versa. Moreover, not even Hitler was perfectly bad, and he was right about a few things, for instance, the Volkswagen Beetle8, cigarette smoking9, and that's about it.

    Example: "This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"2.

    This spurious Hitler quote is an attempt to smear the policy of registering guns and anyone who supports it by association with the Nazis.

  • The Boomerang Quote: This is a quote from your opponent's side―or at least claimed to come from that side―that can be turned back against it. The best boomerang quote is something your opponent said, but the next best is an embarrassing quote from one of the opponent's allies. Also, the other side has its heroes, and it will be put on the defensive if one of them seemed to say something that undermines its position, or even that's just offensive or politically incorrect.

    If you look hard enough, you're bound to find something that your opponent said that you can use as a boomerang, but if you're in a hurry you can always take something out of context. If you're just plain lazy, make something up.

    Example: "It is bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins."

    This quote, allegedly said by Clarence Darrow during the Scopes trial, is supposed to turn back against those who support the teaching of evolution, as opposed to creationism, in public schools. The quote itself is not found in the trial transcript, but only in the writings of later creationists who appear to have created it10.

How can you avoid being lied to with any of these types of quote? First of all, be skeptical. When confronted by such a quote, always ask the skeptic's questions: Did he (or she) really say that? What was the context of the quote? Even if the quote is accurate, so what?

Be particularly skeptical of any quotes used to support a cause from Lincoln, the Founding Fathers, MLK, Jr., or any other cultural hero. Also, be especially skeptical of quotes of Hitler or other bad guys used for the opposite purpose. Be wary of a quote attributed to a famous or infamous figure lacking a citation. Even if such quotes are accurate, which they often aren't, they have little probative value.

Notes:

  1. Mark Twain, Following the Equator: A Journey Around the World (1897), chapter 5.
  2. See: How to Fact Check Quotes, Part 1: Four Types of Misleading Quote, 11/27/2020.
  3. See: Misquoting George Orwell, 6/20/2024.
  4. See: Misquoting Martin Luther King, Jr., 1/18/2021.
  5. See: Misleading Appeal to Authority.
  6. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism (Spurious Quotation)", Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia, accessed: 6/24/2014.
  7. See: The Hitler Card.
  8. Jonathan Glancey, "The VW Beetle: How Hitler's idea became a design icon", BBC, 10/21/2014.
  9. Tracy Brown Hamilton, "The Nazis' Forgotten Anti-Smoking Campaign", The Atlantic, 7/9/2014.
  10. See: Familiar Misquotations: Clarence Darrow, 6/23/2024.
Debate Watch Debate Watch
June 17th, 2024 | Updated: 6/21/2024 (Permalink)

Waiting for the Debate

The presumptive nominees of the two major parties have both now agreed to the rules for a debate to be sponsored by CNN on the 27th of this month1. Among other things, they agreed that the microphones of each candidate will only be on during the candidate's time, which should prevent the debate from degenerating into a repeat of the first debate between Biden and Trump in 20202. The same approach was successfully used in the last debate of that election year to prevent both interruptions and filibustering3. So, this is good news.

A positive difference from most previous debates will be the lack of a studio audience, which is something the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has never done as far as I know. To find presidential debates without an audience you have to go all the way back to the Kennedy-Nixon ones in 1960, which kicked off the current tradition of presidential debating. Studio audiences serve no purpose for the vast majority of us watching from the comfort of our own homes and occasionally they're a distraction. Why the CPD has always favored them, I don't know.

A potentially negative difference is the presence of two moderators, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, both CNN reporters. Why two and not one? The CPD was responsible for moving away from panels of journalists taking turns questioning the candidates to a single moderator, and moderator duties were well-conducted by Jim Lehrer through a dozen debates. Lehrer died in 20204, and since then there have been some bad moderators5, but having as many moderators as debaters is a step in the wrong direction. A single moderator ought to be able to control two elderly men. I assume that the reason for having two for this debate is that Tapper and Bash are both "stars" at CNN, both wanted to do it, and no one had the nerve to deny one of them.

CNN has also adopted, possibly at the behest of the two campaigns, the same rules used by the CPD to shut out other candidates. To qualify for the debate, candidates must be on enough state ballots to potentially win the electoral college, which requires 270 votes6, and also must score at 15% or higher on four recent polls. This is a bar so high that no third party or independent candidate has been able to reach it since Perot in 1992. Making matters worse is holding the debate so early in the year, which gives less time to gain ballot access.

The only candidate not from the two major parties who has even a slight chance of qualifying for the debate is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. However, RFK, Jr. is not yet on enough state ballots to qualify and has only three days to do so since the deadline is Thursday. The Kennedy campaign claimed earlier this month that they had met the ballot qualification for the debate, but that was based on having submitted enough petition signatures in several states to qualify, and the states still have to verify those signatures7. It's far more likely that he'll be on enough state ballots to qualify for the second debate, which is scheduled for September, assuming that the two major parties don't raise the bar in the meantime.

RFK, Jr. has already met the 15% standard in three qualifying polls, but again he has only until Thursday to do so in a fourth poll to qualify for this debate8. Is there even an acceptable poll with results coming out between now and then?

So, it's extremely unlikely that RFK, Jr. will be included in this debate. As for qualifying for the second debate, I expect that polling will be the hurdle that will trip him up, since he's likely to get on enough state ballots by September. The three polls that he did at least 15% in will be outdated by then, so that he'll have to do that well in four other polls between now and then. His current polling average is only about half what he needs to qualify, and the best that he's done in recent polls is 13%9. Of course, this could change in the next two months, but it will be hard for him to improve his polling numbers without the publicity that appearing in a debate would provide.

This is the catch that keeps independent and third-party candidates out of the debates: they can't debate without polling well and they can't poll well if they don't debate. That's some catch!

Update (6/21/2024): The deadline for qualifying for the first debate was yesterday and, unsurprisingly, RFK, Jr. failed to qualify10, so the debate will be between just the current and former presidents. As I wrote above, RFK, Jr. will probably be on sufficient ballots by September, but he'll have to raise his polling position to qualify for the second debate. That will be difficult to do without receiving more media exposure. If he doesn't qualify for the last debate, his chance of winning the election will probably be near zero.

Notes:

  1. "CNN to Host 2024 Election Presidential Debate Between President Joe Biden and Former President Donald J. Trump on June 27", CNN, 5/15/2024.
  2. See: Debate Clinic, 10/1/2020.
  3. See: The Last Debate, 10/24/2020.
  4. "Jim Lehrer", Encyclopædia Britannica, 5/15/2024.
  5. See: Second Presidential Debate Logic Check, Part 2, 10/20/2012.
  6. Michael Ray, "How Does the Electoral College Work?", Encyclopædia Britannica, accessed: 6/17/2024.
  7. Jonathan J. Cooper, "Kennedy says he has secured ballot access in enough states to win. That's not yet true", Associated Press, 6/7/2024.
  8. Chris Cameron & Rebecca Davis O'Brien, "The Big Hurdle Between R.F.K. Jr. and the Debate Stage (It's Not a Poll)", The New York Times, 6/5/2024.
  9. "Biden vs. Trump vs. RFK Jr. polls", The Hill, 6/17/2024.
  10. Meg Kinnard, "Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fails to qualify for CNN's debate. It'll be a showdown between Biden and Trump", Associated Press, 6/21/2024.
Puzzle
June 1st, 2024 (Permalink)

Are you smarter than an artificial intelligence?

Three children's blocks are arranged in a stack on a table. These blocks, you understand, are cubes made of solid wood that is painted a single, solid color: blue, red, green, yellow, etc. The top block in the stack is painted green, whereas the block at the bottom of the stack is yellow, but you don't know what color the block in the middle is.

To be clear: a yellow block rests on the table, a block of unknown color rests on top of the yellow block and, finally, a green block is on top of the block of unknown color. By "on top of" I mean that one block rests on the top of the other, touching it, and not simply that it is above it.

So, here's the problem: Is a green block on top of a non-green block? Non-green, of course, is any of the other colors: blue, red, yellow, orange, etc.

Previous Month | RSS/XML | Current