As described in the last post, the Right Man (a term coined by A.E. Van Vogt) is the individual who simply must be right and cannot bear to be proved wrong. For such a person, losing face is the worst imaginable prospect, and he will go to any lengths to avoid it.
As I see it, the key characteristic of such a person is his need for certainty, and its corollary: intolerance of ambiguity. To be Right, the Right Man must know without a doubt what is true and what is false, in all cases, at all times. This means that he must know how things are - how the universe works, what the laws of nature are, and what may or may not be possible.
In his book The New Inquisition, which I'm reading now, Robert Anton Wilson gives numerous instances of this attitude as it relates to what he calls Fundamentalist Materialists (as distinct from liberal materialists, who are open to new ideas). The good people of CSI, formerly CSICOP, are prime examples of Fundamentalist Materialism; as Wilson acidly observes, they know that parapsychologists, who witnessed paranormal phenomena personally, are wrong, even without setting foot in any parapsychology lab or performing any experiments of their own, because they already know what is and is not possible. Thus any deviation from "the laws of nature" (which are fully understood and immutable) is ruled out of court a priori. And so we find, for instance, James Randi declaring that a certain alleged poltergeist manifestation is fraudulent, even without entering the house in which it was taking place, while the people in the house, including apparently neutral witnesses, must be deluded or lying.
Wilson further notes that the history of science in the 20th century, in which numerous fundamental certainties were overruled by new discoveries, ought to give one pause and provide grounds for some humility. But not so among the Right Men, the Fundamentalist Materialists (who often are not scientists themselves, but more like science enthusiasts). Why is this? It's because the Right Man has to be right, and therefore cannot tolerate or even conceive of the possibility of being wrong; and since he must be right, he must know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Anyone who sees things differently is a threat and must be dismissed out of hand as a liar, a crank, or a deluded naif.
In the past I've often talked about people with rigid opinions feeling that their woldview is threatened, but I think the Right Man syndrome provides a new and slightly different angle on the problem. Worldview is actually secondary; what really matters to the Right Man is not his theoretical stance on the nature of reality, but the fact that it is his stance. Under other circumstances, with a different upbringing, he might have had a very different worldview, but he would still be a Right Man, and would be just as certain of whatever he believes.
We can see some confirmation of this in those prominent skeptics who began as religious fundamentalists. Martin Gardner is one such case. Gardner was raised as a conservative Christian and proselytized for his faith in his early years; later he rejected Christianity and became a skeptic of nearly all things supernatural or paranormal, though he did retain a belief in a deistic creator, which set him apart from most of his fellow skeptics. His specific worldview changed (early enough that it was not set in stone), but the mentality that gave rise to it persisted for a lifetime. More than anyone else, he defined the tone of modern skepticism: relentless mockery and derision directed at anything that challenges the status quo. As Colin Wilson once quipped, "I wish I could be as sure of anything as Martin Gardner is of everything." In spite of his apparent self-confidence, Gardner refused to participate in debates; the Right Man, awash in insecurities masked by bravado, can collapse when challenged - as did Rush Limbaugh, another Right Man, in an early attempt at hosting a TV show, during which the audience's hostile reaction to his views brought on a torrent of flop sweat (at the link, see the paragraph beginning "Limbaugh's debut...").
We can also see the Right Man syndrome exemplified by the thinking of many CSI-style skeptics in regard to non-paranormal issues. It is not unusual for such folks to be equally sure of themselves in other areas - for instance, global warming. Thus we see Susan Blackmore, the British skeptic, penning a wild-eyed op-ed piece predicting the imminent doom of civilization because of climate change. ("In all probability billions of people are going to die in the next few decades.... Britain looks set to be one of the few places on earth that might remain habitable for some time.") We see James Randi endorsing eugenics and social Darwinism; when told by interviewer Will Storr that such views are the foundation of fascism, he shrugs off the objection. Fascism is not necessarily distasteful to the Right Man, as long as he and his equally right-minded friends are in charge. And they do assume they will be in charge, because the Right Man always assumes he is - or should be - running the show.
It seems to me that for many Right Men, their thinking ossifies in college. Because they wish to be seen as unchallengeable authority figures, they have an exaggerated respect for authority in general, a respect bordering on uncritical worship. Their professors may be the first really powerful intellectual authorities they've encountered, and the experience makes a lifelong impression on them. For the Right Men, whatever they learned in college is true, full stop. They seldom or never revise opinions established in this stage of life, which means they are always engaged in a rearguard action, defending views that were current during their formative intellectual years. This is why, as Max Planck quipped, science makes progress one funeral at a time, and also why, as Arthur C. Clarke observed, "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
The worshipful attitude toward authority may be one reason why so many Right Men gravitate toward science, which enjoys the highest status as a source of authoritative pronouncements in the modern world, at least in the West. Another reason is that the hard sciences appeal to highly left-brain-dominant individuals, and such people typically have strong egos. Or maybe I should not say "strong," since their egos are in fact remarkably fragile; what I mean is, such people are ego-dominated to an unusual extent.
In any event, it is fascinating to see how so many self-proclaimed skeptics, freethinkers, and independent minds exhibit a slavish enthrallment to the pronouncements of science, or perhaps I should say, Science. Even the most weakly supported and seemingly far-fetched hypotheses, like Richard Dawkins' "memes" or the Just-so Stories of evolutionary psychology or the proliferating universes of Many Worlds Theory, are sometimes treated almost as oracular revelations. At the very least, such claims are afforded deep and respectful seriousness by those who wish to be part of the scientific fraternity - a seriousness entirely lacking from their consideration of evidence for (say) ESP, even though it is much better supported. The authorities of Science have decided, by executive fiat, what is to be taken seriously and what is to be mocked; and the Right Men (many of whom, remember, are not actually scientists but only science groupies) nod in approval of all such proclamations. To do otherwise would be to question authority; and where authority can be questioned, the Right Man's own peculiar authority may well come under attack. This catastrophe must be forestalled at any cost.
I don't mean to suggest that all Right Men fall into the Fundamentalist Materialist camp. It may be true that all Fundamentalist Materialists are Right Men, but the contrary is not true: all Right Men are not Fundamentalist Materialists. Some are aggressively and self-righteously "spiritual." We see this most obviously in gurus, preachers, and New Age channelers who demand absolute obedience from their flocks. Sylvia Browne, the TV psychic, strikes me as having pretty obvious Right Man qualities; despite a history of failed predictions and other misfires, she will not admit to being wrong, and she lashes out blindly and stupidly when challenged (see the above link, specifically the paragraph about her name-dropping of Stephen Xanthos on Larry King's show). Other Right Men may not fall clearly into either the materialist or spiritualist camp; Ayn Rand, for instance, was not a materialist (despite her atheism), but she was certainly a Right Man - or in this case, a Right Woman - who not only insisted that her answers, and only hers, were the right ones, but who founded a quasi-cult that is largely a cult of personality grounded in her own infallibility. She also showed an unhealthy attraction to the Right Man type in her journal entries and, of course, in her fiction, where her "ideal man" seldom or never exhibits doubts or inner conflicts, and never changes his mind on fundamental issues. Indeed, Rand (who numbered herself among the three greatest philosophers in history, the others being Aristotle and Aquinas) boasted that she had held the same philosophy since childhood and had never seen the need to revise her broad conclusions, though she'd had to adjust some details. She also boasted, inaccurately, that she had achieved her considerable success entirely on her own, and that no one had ever helped her. Every Right Man is an island.
The Right Man is an alpha male, and as such he appeals to those beta males (and beta females) who look for "leadership." This is highly unfortunate, because it means that the rulers of political systems throughout history have largely been a succession of Right Men - rigid, intolerant, unyielding, closed-minded - the kind of people who, like Shakespeare's Henry V, plunge whole nations into war over a quarrel about tennis balls or, like Swift's Lilliputian kings, over eggs. To a greater or lesser degree, nearly all people in leadership positions exhibit unmistakable Right Man qualities. To give a contemporary example, I recall seeing an interview with Barack Obama when he was running for president in 2008. The interviewer asked the candidate if he ever doubted himself. Obama grinned smugly and replied, "Never." Many people no doubt thought this was a highly satisfactory answer; clearly Obama himself was pleased with it. I thought it signaled trouble. A person who never doubts himself is a person who is liable to make mistakes and - worse - not know it or acknowledge it. Perhaps we're seeing the results of such an attitude in the floodtide of scandals presently engulfing the administration. Personally, I would have been much more comfortable if Obama had answered, "Sure, I doubt myself sometimes. I think it's healthy to have some perspective on yourself, and unhealthy to be too absolutist in your thinking." But this is an answer no Right Man could give, and quite possibly, an answer that would strike many voters as weak and spineless. "If he doubts himself, how can he stand up to _______?" they would ask. (Fill in the blank with the enemy of the moment: the Republicans, the bankers, Al Qaeda, Vladimir Putin, China, Zionism, the 1%, etc., etc.)
One other characteristic of Right Man thinking is an all-or-nothing attitude. For this reason, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying that people can be readily divided into Right Men, who are entirely rigid in their thinking, and the rest of us, who are entirely flexible. Life would be simpler if such were the case, but it is not. In fact, it is the furthest thing possible from the truth. All of us have some Right Man traits; and probably all Right Men have some areas in which their habitual rigidity is relaxed. It's more a question of emphasis. The Right Man is typically closed-minded and rigid, even if he may surprise us occasionally by being open to a new idea; the opposite sort of person is typically open-minded, though he will surely surprise us by proving rigid and dogmatic in a few areas. We all have our blind spots and prejudices.
Though the Right Man syndrome is useful in examining history, politics, and intellectual disputes, it is perhaps most useful as a corrective to our own tendencies toward hubristic overreach. In other words, rather than looking primarily for the Right Man in others, we might start by looking for him in the mirror. If we look hard enough, we may see him glaring back.
Because you mention her, I think what happened with Susan Blackmore in her very brief career researching parapsychology is instructive. It appears to me that she lacked the scientific competence and the patience necessary to design experiments capable of detecting a small effect-size phenomenon like psi. But rather than admitting that she was just not capable enough to be a scientist, she loudly declares that her experience proves psi does not exist, as if her low quality experiments cancel out all the high quality ones done by others. It is much easier on her ego this way to decide everyone else is wrong than that she is incompetent. It really boils down to a bad case of Right (Wo)Man syndrome.
Posted by: Stephen | June 08, 2013 at 02:08 PM
" To give a contemporary example, I recall seeing an interview with Barack Obama when he was running for president in 2008. The interviewer asked the candidate if he ever doubted himself. Obama grinned smugly and replied, "Never."
Michael, I'm not aware of that interview, and I'd be interested in knowing more about the context. As you describe the exchange, it does seem problematic, and I'm surprised it was never given more attention.
I'd also be interested in learning about another occasion on which he expressed the same thing.
Is it possible your politics are clouding your judgement when you bring Obama into the picture? Do you think he is more rigid in his certainty than George W. Bush was when he was president? Or Ronald Reagan?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 08, 2013 at 02:49 PM
I guess what I'm saying is that maybe it's easier to single someone else out as a Right Man when we disagree with their views.
It's easy for me to see Randi as a Right Man. George Bush, too.
But I'm less likely to call Obama a Right Man because I often agree with him.
So would you be more likely to see a Democrat as a Right Man than a Republican?
And if so, are you certain you're right? :o)
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 08, 2013 at 02:59 PM
"I want to make it clear that I'm not saying that people can be readily divided into Right Men, who are entirely rigid in their thinking, and the rest of us, who are entirely flexible."
In looking at this, I realize that your position is more nuanced than my comments might have suggested. And I do applaud your last paragraph.
I guess I just got triggered by the political reference. Strange--*that's* never happened before. ;)
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 08, 2013 at 07:25 PM
Allright--one final thought. Despite my last remarks, I'd still be interested in your response to the first comment I wrote.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 08, 2013 at 07:39 PM
Mike, you're preaching to the choir but man-oh-man-oh-schevitz you are one eloquent writer and make one heckuva point in your thesis.
Posted by: Chris | June 09, 2013 at 12:28 AM
This certainly resonates with my own experiences. I can't say I know for sure why some people behave in this way (ha!) but it is certainly very evident in debates about psi. I would say more so from the anti lobby, as the pro lobby are usually arguing from personal experience or research at least.
It's a trait that seems to reinforce itself too as it attracts those who want certainty but cannot or will not think for themselves, or consider the evidence in a dispassionate way. It also repels those of a more moderate view who may be disinclined to enter into 'combat' with people like this.
Nevertheless I think it is important to challenge "Right Ones" (to use a British expression as in 'we've got a right one here') so that their views are not the only 'show in town'.
Posted by: Paul | June 09, 2013 at 03:56 AM
I pasted a link (below) that has some thoughts somewhat related to the right man concept.
Partly I decided to share the link because of a weak, but definite, paranormal connection. My son and I were having a discussion last night about how stupid our politicians and their policies are and I worked in the right man theory, which my son thought was a useful and accurate explanation for a lot of what happens (combined with greed, etc.). So these last two Prescott posts were on my mind.
Then, this morning I had a dream wherein an Australian and an American were having an argument and the American pointed out that the Australian was suffering from right man syndrome. I woke up, went downstairs and got a cup and went to sic semper tyrannis (a military/foreign affairs blog I like) and, lo and behold, there was the post linked to below (in which an American contributor to the blog is discussing ego based issues concerning a disagreement with an Australian commenter and occasional contributor).
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2013/06/wing-nuts-1-by-richard-sale.html#more
Posted by: no one | June 09, 2013 at 08:52 AM
Excellent posts on an important, useful and woefully overlooked model. Wilson's A Criminal History Of Mankind certainly fits well with the current reign of kleptocrats.
Posted by: twitter.com/catvincent | June 09, 2013 at 09:35 AM
I like Montaigne's "Que sais je?"
Posted by: Pavel Chichikov | June 09, 2013 at 09:44 AM
"Michael, I'm not aware of that interview, and I'd be interested in knowing more about the context."
All I remember is that one exchange. It was on a major TV network.
"I'm surprised it was never given more attention."
I think most people would see it as a sign of healthy self-confidence. Anyway, this is a well-known trait of Obama's. His coworkers at a brokerage firm (where he had an entry-level job putting out a small newsletter, not a big-time dealmaking position as he claims in his memoir) have said it was impossible to ever tell him he was wrong or to explain anything to him; he would just smile and ignore them. Some prominent Democrats visited Pres. Obama soon after he was sworn in and came away dismayed by the fact that, unlike any other president they had known, he did not seem at all intimated by his responsibilities; he gave the impression he thought the job would be a cakewalk for him. He is on the record as saying he could do the jobs of his campaign manager, chief of staff, etc. better than any of them.
"Is it possible your politics are clouding your judgement when you bring Obama into the picture?"
Probably. Although the guy has a certain charm, I just don't like him.
"Do you think he is more rigid in his certainty than George W. Bush was when he was president? Or Ronald Reagan?"
Hard to say. As I said, leadership positions tend to go to Right Men. I think Reagan, at least, had more varied life experiences - sportscaster, movie star, union president (SAG), corporate spokesman, political pundit (he had a newspaper column and radio show), governor of the largest state. This may have given him a wider perspective. Obama strikes me as someone whose ideas froze in place while he was in college and have not changed much. Reagan, OTOH, went from being an FDR Democrat to a Goldwater Republican fairly late in life. He was also flexible enough to work with Gorbachev, over the objections of more doctrinaire conservatives who called Reagan "a useful idiot" for his apostasy.
As for W, I think he was a pretty poor president overall, and obviously too sure of himself when it came to, say, WMDs in Iraq. On the plus side, as far as I know, he didn't sic the IRS on his political enemies or wiretap journalists. Obama comes straight out of Chicago machine politics, as does his top advisor, Valerie Jarrett (not to mention Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley, both key figures in the first term). As I see it, Obama is the furthest thing from the idealist he masquerades as. And I think that's becoming increasingly evident as the scandals pile up.
Your mileage may vary!
Posted by: Michael Prescott | June 09, 2013 at 01:26 PM
"Max Planck quipped, science makes progress one funeral at a time". That was funny :)
"In other words, rather than looking primarily for the Right Man in others, we might start by looking for him in the mirror. If we look hard enough, we may see him glaring back." That was great. Of course, it's not applicable to me :)
Seems you hit a center pillar in the foundation of our societies. Since the devotion to authorities probably is DNA-wired, there is a real task to turn the table. But it would be funny and interesting to take part in an elaborate effort trying to really do this. After all, since so many depraved anti-human manifestations (I am not going to give any examples) have emerged during the history of mankind, why couldn't such a pro-human issue gain some impact.
Posted by: Rossoli | June 09, 2013 at 01:35 PM
This is a very eloquently stated piece on something that's probably caused more harm for the human race than anything else! (Think about how many times the "right man" has led people into disaster.) It's a tenet of Buddhism that one must be prepared all the time to change one's opinion in the face of new facts. This is something the right man or woman can't do, and is often their undoing.
Posted by: Kathleen | June 09, 2013 at 02:15 PM
Michael, you make some pretty strong claims here.
Now it may be that every single one of them is exactly right. I'm truly open to that possibility.
OTOH, I wonder if this stuff comes from the right-leaning sources you rely on, and whether some of it is hyperbole, or just plain inaccurate.
"he had an entry-level job putting out a small newsletter, not a big-time dealmaking position as he claims in his memoir"
Can you tell me anything more about his alleged lie? If it's as blatant as you say, it would surprise me. What exactly did he say in his memoir, and what's the truth of the matter?
"His coworkers at a brokerage firm have said it was impossible to ever tell him he was wrong or to explain anything to him; he would just smile and ignore them."
Who are these coworkers? Do they have political leanings that might prompt them to say something like that?
"Some prominent Democrats visited Pres. Obama soon after he was sworn in and came away dismayed by the fact that, unlike any other president they had known, he did not seem at all intimated by his responsibilities; he gave the impression he thought the job would be a cakewalk for him."
Can you tell me who these prominent Democrats are? And did they really use words like dismay and cakewalk? Or are those exaggerations?
"He is on the record as saying he could do the jobs of his campaign manager, chief of staff, etc. better than any of them."
Can you tell me where this comes from? Or provide the exact exchange?
As I said, everything you said here may be true and accurately stated. But it would surprise me.
I myself am disappointed in many of Obama's policies. (Though I have no regret whatsoever that I voted for him, given who he ran against.) But I'm skeptical of what you say here, and will need some clarifications to believe it.
I don't mean this as an attack, truly. But when you talk about parapsychology, you do your utmost to present the situation fairly and without bias. Are you doing the same here?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 09, 2013 at 03:48 PM
Excellent essay! The Colin Wilson quip is gold.
I would agree that Reagan was not a "Right Man." I was going to give some of the reasons you did. He seems to have been pretty flexible to me, actually.
George W. Bush, however, seems like an excellent example. OTOH, he might have just been an idiot.
As for Obama, to me he is just a cipher. I can't say how his psychology works, since I just can't understand *him*. He talked a good talk but then ended up being just a pretty ordinary chief executive--what I call a "placeholder president."
I'm not sure the scandals have anything to do with Right Manness, do they? That would seem to have more to do with competence.
Posted by: Matt Rouge | June 09, 2013 at 04:21 PM
"Then, this morning I had a dream wherein an Australian and an American were having an argument"
But then, of course, you dream about contentious Australians all the time, right? ;o) Cool precognitive dream, no one. Just the kind of "coincidence" I would have ignored for most of my life.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 09, 2013 at 04:44 PM
"I'm not sure the scandals have anything to do with Right Manness, do they?"
Probably not. I was just trying to explain why I don't like him. Plus, I'm enjoying the scandals. They're fun. Pass the popcorn!
Bruce, here are some citations. For Obama's newsletter job:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
A more detailed post about the newsletter, inc. info on Obama's attitude toward his coworkers:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/did-obama-turn-down-a-wall-street-career#.UbT-oBZ8u-8
Obama's claim to be better at everyone's job (second to last paragraph):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/books/03book.html
(I got the details wrong, though; he said he could do everybody's job *in his campaign* better than they could. He also claimed he's trying to change his attitude, which, if true, is a good thing.)
The "do you ever have doubts" interview is online as a video here:
http://ztruth.typepad.com/ztruth/2008/07/question-to-barack-obama-do-you-ever-have-doubts-never.html
The question comes at the end, about the 9:00 mark. It's more narrowly focused (in context) than I recalled. He's being asked if he has doubts about his ability to handle the foreign policy aspects of his job. Still, I've never heard him express doubts as to his abilities in any area. Have you?
Can't track down the story about the prominent Dems visiting him after he was sworn in. It's possible I exaggerated it. Can't always trust my memory on these things. "Cakewalk" is definitely my term; I was trying to give a sense of his nonchalant attitude.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | June 09, 2013 at 06:38 PM
My father, a Fundamaterialist, agnostic Right Man to the core (your post serendipitously appeared on the very day I needed to see it, after a conversation that proved his emotional wounds are beyond my reach), is the best teacher; in so many ways he's shown me how *not* to live.
I can vouch that he is not one to believe he is at all capable of being wrong. No surprise, he also soaks up science publications voraciously and openly mocks the 'woo'.
Posted by: Wax Frog | June 09, 2013 at 08:45 PM
You have low expectations of your action flicks if you consider the scandals a popcorner, Michael. :)
They are not really going to have any effect on anything. Obama's not going to do much over the next four years, and then I hope neither Hillary nor Biden run (or that, if they do, they lose), and maybe, who knows, a sincere Democrat can run in 2016.
Posted by: Matt Rouge | June 09, 2013 at 08:51 PM
Michael, those four claims you made about Obama certainly seem less damning after getting the details.
I do agree with you that Obama seems to have overinflated his resume. But what he said was that:
"a consulting house to multinational corporations agreed to hire me as a research assistant."
How does that get turned into (your words) "the big-time dealmaking position he claims in his memoir"?
Maybe you got that confused with the part where he said:
"I would catch my reflection in the elevator doors-see myself in a suit and tie, a briefcase in my hand-and for a split second I would imagine myself as a captain of industry, barking out orders, closing the deal, before I remembered who it was that I had told myself I wanted to be and felt pangs of guilt for my lack of resolve."
Now those remarks sound like the words of someone who can poke fun at himself and his own delusions of grandeur, so it's especially ironic that they would get turned around by conservative pundits (if that's where you got them), and used to make exactly the opposite point.
As to this:
""His coworkers at a brokerage firm have said it was impossible to ever tell him he was wrong or to explain anything to him; he would just smile and ignore them."
In your sources, I found only one comment that points in that direction, a remark by a Bill Millar who found Obama "arrogant and condescending." Since those articles were focusing on the negative, it may be significant that they couldn't find other detractors to support that observation.
"I got the details wrong, though; he said he could do everybody's job *in his campaign* better than they could. He also claimed he's trying to change his attitude, which, if true, is a good thing."
Notice too that he was talking, in a general way, about an *upcoming* (senatorial) campaign, rather than people he had already hired:
“I understand that intellectually, but this is my life and career. And I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I’ll hire to do it. It’s hard to give up control when that’s all I’ve known in my political life. But I hear you and will try to do better.”
His remark that he could do "every job on the campaign better than the people I’ll hire to do it" sounds pretty realistic to me. So where you hear cockiness, I hear primarily an admission that he needs to get better at delegating.
"The question comes at the end, about the 9:00 mark. It's more narrowly focused (in context) than I recalled. He's being asked if he has doubts about his ability to handle the foreign policy aspects of his job."
Not just foreign policy, but he may have been referring specifically to his last comments about assuring the nations of the world that the US would be a responsible partner and leader.
Also, it's pretty understandable that he would express confidence in the middle of a presidential race!
It also struck me as a pretty lighthearted response--even humorous--given the big grin, and the fact that it came at the very end of the interview, when both parties realized there was no time to expand on his answer.
"Still, I've never heard him express doubts as to his abilities in any area. Have you?"
Actually, I like that elevator story quoted above. I could be very wrong about this, but my guess is that with people he trusts--people like his wife who aren't looking for sound-bytes to attack him with--he probably talks like that a lot, making self-effacing jokes about how he's not living up to his hopes and dreams.
But as I say, I could be wrong.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 10, 2013 at 12:39 AM
I think it's useful that you talk about politics from time to time, Michael, so that lurkers on this blog can see that your regular commenters have the capability of disagreeing with you. I'd hate for them to think we're a bunch of toadies. :)
Posted by: Matt Rouge | June 10, 2013 at 02:09 AM
Here are some quotes from Bauer's Science or Pseudoscience? at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0252026012/qid=1070360257/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/103-2148347-8449427?v=glance&s=books#product-details"
Posted by: Roger Knights | June 10, 2013 at 03:18 AM
I do believe this right man hypothesis to be true about arguments that are abstract.(Psi, afterlife, god, finer structure in the universe ext.) but I also think there are some things that people have a right to get angry and upset about
Posted by: someone | June 10, 2013 at 09:43 AM
Love your blog, Michael, but you frankly lose me when you venture into political territory. I'm deeply disappointed in Obama, but does a "Right Man" bring political adversaries into his office for their opinions after being sworn in, as Obama (trying to emulate Lincoln) did? (Foolishly so, IMO). I know of no incident like you described with the prominent Dems, but if you can find the link, I'm open to seeing it. And for the record, the Bush administration *did* sic the IRS after political foes, including the NAACP, and gave special scrutiny to African American churches over whether they violated the law by supporting a politicial candidate, while not giving the same scrutiny to churches that supported conservatives. And if you want an archetypal example of a Right Man in politics, look no further than Dick Cheney.
Aside from that, you do great work.
Posted by: Ray Grasse | June 10, 2013 at 09:51 AM
Those are good points, Bruce. It's interesting, though, that I don't see you subjecting my "Right Man" criticism of Rush Limbaugh to the same scrutiny! After all, the Limbaugh story is at least as vulnerable to attack as any of the Obama stories. There are many possible reasons why a radio personality might be nervous when auditioning for a TV show. And the claim that he sweated a lot is apparently taken from a single source, a guy who is now a producer at PBS. Given PBS's political leanings, the source is quite likely to be hostile to Limbaugh, so maybe he's exaggerating or just making it up. Who knows?
This whole debate-within-a-debate dovetails pretty neatly with Wilson's book "The New Inquisition," which stresses the role of what he calls "reality tunnels" in our lives. We tend to see what we want to see, and ignore what we want to ignore. As he observes wryly, "The human mind is ingenious enough to prove or disprove any proposition, to its own satisfaction, if not to the conviction of those who lack the Faith to believe it."
In my reality tunnel, Obama comes across as an arrogant narcissist, who is incompetent, corrupt, and rather sinister in his politicization of government agencies and his demonization of political foes. In your reality tunnel, he evidently comes across as a self-effacing, reasonable, well-intentioned guy, something of an idealist and a humanitarian. To each his own ...
"does a "Right Man" bring political adversaries into his office for their opinions after being sworn in, as Obama (trying to emulate Lincoln) did?"
He does if he thinks of himself as another Lincoln – which is a sign of narcissistic grandiosity, at least.
"And if you want an archetypal example of a Right Man in politics, look no further than Dick Cheney."
I agree that Cheney fits the profile, but that doesn't mean Obama doesn't. The two possibilities are not mutually exclusive, even though the men have different ideologies. Obama has far more personal charm than Cheney, that's for sure. But in his basic psychology, I think Obama is essentially another Nixon – paranoid, thin-skinned, vindictive, and constantly scheming to undermine his "enemies," whom he sees everywhere.
But that's my reality tunnel, not yours.
"...so that lurkers on this blog can see that your regular commenters have the capability of disagreeing with you."
Wrong! Nobody can disagree with me! You're all banned - you ... and you ... and you! And who ate my strawberries?!
Posted by: Michael Prescott | June 10, 2013 at 11:43 AM
Points well-taken, Michael---except, perhaps, for the comment about O. emulating Lincoln. An old classmate of mine went into the monastery years ago, and once explained to me how he strives to "practice the presence of Christ" in his daily life. I'm not sure his desire to emulate Jesus necessarily means he's identifying with him in a "narcissistic" way. But if you're able to telepathically read Obama's mind and know his secret motivations, then my hats off to you.
Posted by: Ray Grasse | June 10, 2013 at 12:19 PM
"I'm not sure his desire to emulate Jesus necessarily means he's identifying with him in a "narcissistic" way."
No, but the situations aren't comparable. It would take the skills and political genius of a Lincoln (generally considered one of the top two or three presidents in history) to manage a "team of rivals." Obama must have believed he had such skills, or he wouldn't have risked it.
Emulating Jesus by trying to master his compassion and wisdom is one thing; emulating him by trying to raise the dead is another. The former is humble; the latter is not.
Of course, Obama never promised to raise the dead. He did, however, promise to make the seas stop rising ... :-)
"And for the record, the Bush administration *did* sic the IRS after political foes ..."
PolitiFact rates this claim "mostly false":
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/politifact-did-irs-target-liberal-groups-during-bush-administration/2125465
But let's say it was true. Is it really a defense? I thought Bush was supposed to be evil and incompetent. I thought Obama was supposed to be better than Bush. I thought that was a large part of the rationale for electing Obama.
Now we find out that if Bush did it, then it must be okay. So does this mean Bush was a good president after all? Or does it mean Bush was still lousy, but lousiness is all we can expect from a president? Or was it bad when Bush did it, but good when Obama did it?
All this spin is making me dizzy. Anyone got Dramamine?
Posted by: Michael Prescott | June 10, 2013 at 12:46 PM
" In your reality tunnel, he evidently comes across as a self-effacing, reasonable, well-intentioned guy, something of an idealist and a humanitarian."
Let's just say he's capable, at times, of exhibiting those qualities .
What worries me about Obama has nothing to do with the side shows (IRS , Benghazi, etc) currently being blown out of proportion by his enemies. It's something much more basic and insidious: the government is crawling into bed with Monsanto, an evil entity if ever there was one. And that puts our entire food chain at risk.
http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3.pdf
"It's interesting, though, that I don't see you subjecting my "Right Man" criticism of Rush Limbaugh to the same scrutiny!"
Hey, when you're right, you're right. :o)
"No, but the situations aren't comparable. It would take the skills and political genius of a Lincoln (generally considered one of the top two or three presidents in history) to manage a "team of rivals." Obama must have believed he had such skills, or he wouldn't have risked it.
Emulating Jesus by trying to master his compassion and wisdom is one thing; emulating him by trying to raise the dead is another. The former is humble; the latter is not."
This line of argument is tongue-in-cheek, right? I mean, you're not seriously saying that any president who tries to manage a "team of rivals" should be faulted for over-reaching?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 10, 2013 at 02:10 PM
Being "incorrect" doesn't equate with "losing face." Losing face means engendering disrespect. One can be "correct" and lose face.
Posted by: pov | June 10, 2013 at 06:54 PM
Being "right" also doesn't equate with being an "alpha." An "alpha" likes to be in charge - considerations of correct/incorrect don't come into play. An alpha will not infrequently express an approach that is like "I don't want to hear whether it's right or wrong, just do what I tell you to do."
People who have a strong "need" to be right are hardly ever alphas. They are often people looking to bolster their opinion of themselves. In fact, they are more similar to people who have a habit of thinking they're incorrect.
Posted by: pov | June 10, 2013 at 07:05 PM
"Being 'incorrect' doesn't equate with 'losing face.'"
For some people, having to publicly admit they were incorrect would equate to losing face, because it would feel humiliating.
"People who have a strong 'need' to be right are hardly ever alphas."
That seems unlikely to me, based on my personal encounters with people I would regard as alphas.
"... you're not seriously saying that any president who tries to manage a 'team of rivals' should be faulted for over-reaching?"
For a newly elected president as politically inexperienced as Obama, yes, it's overreaching. A guy who was a state senator and then an absentee US senator for less than a full term just doesn't have the chops necessary to pull off a feat like that. (And yes, I know Lincoln's resume was thin, too. But whatever Barack Obama may be, he ain't Abe Lincoln. At this point, I'm not even sure he's James Polk.)
Obama has always overestimated his own abilities, and now, as Rev. Wright might say, the chickens are coming home to roost. He may spend the rest of his term unsuccessfully fighting off calls for a special prosecutor(s) and then unsuccessfully fighting off subpoenas issued by the prosecutor(s). This from a guy who promised "the most transparent administration in history."
Some of us did warn you, you know.
Thus endeth my diatribes on Obama.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | June 10, 2013 at 07:49 PM
" But in his basic psychology, I think Obama is essentially another Nixon – paranoid, thin-skinned, vindictive, and constantly scheming to undermine his "enemies," whom he sees everywhere."
I have the exact opposite complaint! I think Obama is too idealistic and trusting of his political opponents. If you had followed his stimulus, budget, and health care negotiations closely, you would see that his negotiating starting point would often be right in the middle of the Democratic and Republican positions (as defined by the median positions of rank-and-file Congresspeople from each party), as if just by asserting a moderate positions, his political opponents would come to the table in agree with him! Obama also avoided heavy-handed tactics such as the 14th amendment or the platinum coin solutions to the debt ceiling, despite the urgings of many prominent liberals, like Paul Krugman. Many liberal commentators have said Obama isn't paranoid enough, given the determination of the GOP to never cooperate with him.
Obviously, our views of Pres. Obama are mutually exclusive. I think it's very hard to get a clear understanding of contemporary politicians without the hindsight of history. During his presidency, Lincoln was harshly criticized too and now we consider him the greatest U.S. president. It's impossible to say what the history books will say about Pres. Obama.
Posted by: Stephen | June 10, 2013 at 09:51 PM
Michael,
The dislike of Obama seems rather personal. I can understand how someone could feel that way about *a* politician. I despised Bush both politically *and* personally.
But I don't get the hate about *Obama.* I think he's been a pretty mediocre president, and though he doesn't charm me very much (any more--the lofty rhetoric has grown tiresome without commensurate results), he doesn't seem like an odious person to me. This really seems more like Right Wing echo chamber and less like your own individual lens affecting perception.
Is Limbaugh a "Right Man"? It's hard to know what he really thinks, since his propaganda has made him so much money over the years. There has certainly not been any external incentive to change. I will confess I used to listen to and enjoy him in the 90s (I was more or less a Conservative until the 2000 election). I could be wrong, but he seems to have grown more poisonous and hateful over time.
Here is a blog post I wrote that touches on my political evolution. I think it has some insights into the conservative "brand." I'm kinda proud of it:
http://mattrouge.com/2009/08/the-key-to-understanding-the-self-branding-of-the-right-american-honky-tonk-bar-association/
Posted by: Matt Rouge | June 10, 2013 at 10:27 PM
"For a newly elected president as politically inexperienced as Obama, yes, it's overreaching."
If he had selected cabinet members who were all likely to agree with him, you probably would have been asking why he didn't learn from Lincoln's example and choose a more diversified group. Look into your heart and say it ain't so.
Ray made a good point when he brought up Obama's cabinet selections. They were clearly not those of a Right Man.
And the same goes for the woman Obama chose to be his wife. Michelle strikes me as a strong, independent-minded person. She's more in the Hilary Clinton mode than any First Lady I can think of--certainly not the sort you'd want to have around if you were looking for sweet, silent, adulation. She's no librarian.
"Some of us did warn you, you know."
I'm sometimes disappointed by Obama, occasionally thrilled by him, and most of the time I see his administration as politics-as-usual. Which, I freely admit, is not what I hoped for.
On the other hand, I'm *always* relieved that we have a Democrat in the White House (and I might add, consistently exasperated by the behavior of Republicans).
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 10, 2013 at 11:42 PM
"I despised Bush both politically *and* personally........But I don't get the hate about *Obama.* ...."
Matt, Can you really say that Obama is very different than Bush when it comes to the things you dislike about Bush?
Let's just touch on a few highlights.
War? Obama escalated the senseless war in Afghanistan. More US troops have been killed and maimed there under Obama than under Bush. Attempts to garner support for intervention in Syria on the side of radical Islamic extremist rebels and, not entirely indirectly to overthrow the sovereign Syrian government represented by Asad. Extra judicial summary execution, usually by drone, of US citizens.
Civil liberties? I would say that Obama's record has been worse than Bush's. Spying on the free press, increased spying on US citizens, attempted suspension of the 2A, forced a very silly an ineffective healthcare insurance plan on the people.
Economy? Worse than Bush years.
Transparency? In addition to the spying and drone executions there is Benghazi, where clearly the Obama administration sacrificed security for its happy one world story and then tries to cover up its disastrous consequences.
Social policies? I admit Bush was all about taking from just about everyone to give more to the haves - but you knew that about him going in. Obama OTOH is all about taking from the hard working and the veterans who fought his war and giving to those who don't contribute anything.
Some veterans are, half joking, saying that they will renounce their citizenship, move to Mexico, swim across the Rio Grande and, once back in the USA as illegal aliens, reap all of the benefits that they don't get now. That's what the class warrior Obama has brought us.
I fail to comprehend why an employed white person favors Obama's social policies since they clearly favor minority low wage and unemployed welfare types. It seems like some form of self loathing born of a sense of collective guilt that comes from taking too seriously what America hating leftists are trying to push down everyone's throats.
And this is where my strong personal dislike of Obama come in. Bottom line; The man is not my friend. He doesn't care about me. He cares about minorities. He is - and always has been - a radical social Marxist, always playing the race card as opposed to developing real talent - and he sees me as the enemy. He wants to take what I have worked for, take my rights so he can create a USSR style welfare state for minorities.
Posted by: no one | June 11, 2013 at 09:08 AM
Oh...I should add that I do see Obama as a right man in that his ideas of rightness are similar to Mao's. He is absolutely certain of his Marxist views.
Posted by: no one | June 11, 2013 at 09:14 AM
Tying into the post about the interesting photo that the family thinks is the Virgin Mary, it's kind of amazing that people who mostly agree on some pretty non-mainstream stuff and whose thinking is generally not unalike - based on comment exchanges long enough to clog an NSA server - can look at the same person - Obama - and see such a radically different character.
Obama as Rorschach test.
In a way it's kind of validating of the paranormal because apparently very different people, meaning their overall world view as defined by the proxy of politics, can share the same appreciation of the paranormal.
Actually, I think Michael and I might be outliers. The again, Matt might return to political righteousness again ;-) I would expect most believers in the paranormal to be left of center. But I'm kind of curious now.
Posted by: no one | June 11, 2013 at 06:51 PM
Well, no one, I care about you AND minorities. :)
Posted by: Matt Rouge | June 12, 2013 at 03:14 AM
Posted by: Roger Knights | June 12, 2013 at 01:26 PM
@no one
I disagree with you vehemently about Obama. But I think that most of the skeptics of psi are on the Left. The two skeptical behemoths being Academia and Militant Atheism, both of which lean very left-wing. For example, Daily Kos is obviously a left-wing website but it has a militant atheistic and psi-denialist slant to it as well. Now Academia is an interesting case because a majority of professors actually do believe in or are open-minded about psi but a taboo is being enforced.
Posted by: Stephen | June 12, 2013 at 01:48 PM
Stephen, agreed that many leftists are atheists. This is line with Marxist thought, but also, with the daily kos crowd's rampant rebellious hatred of American traditions and, especially, the traditions they see as pertaining to white male dominance (everything is about dominance, class struggle and social revolution with these people). So, for them, spirituality and paranormal is associated at an emotional level (the emotional level being where all of their associations are made) with patriarchal religions. Therefore all of it must be discarded with extreme prejudice.
I guess I was thinking more of the New Age types who value empathy, the feminine, equality, love thy neighbor, etc. I would think that Obama's socialist rhetoric would appeal to them at a values level.
Posted by: no one | June 12, 2013 at 03:51 PM
How many "right men" are also sufferers of Narcissistic Personality disorder?
I know many "right men".. they have an opinion on anything and everything regardless of whether they know the first thing about it. Their opinion is often made up of what they consider their own "common sense" but in every case these people have been Narcissists.
Posted by: Frank | June 12, 2013 at 10:51 PM
If you want to emulate ,Lincoln you can suspend the writ of Habeus Corpus,order news papers burned down that offend you. An interesting read(Lincoln's Wrath: Fierce Mobs, Brilliant Scoundrels and a President's Mission to Destroy the Press )Order a Congressman arrested and sent to the enemy and other such things.you could also authorize attacks on civilians and their property sign a resolution to abuse and starve enemy Pows. etc and so on.
Lincoln like almost all people of his time was a white supremacist (read the Lincoln Douglas debates). OH did I forget the mass execution of the Mankato Sioux the largest execution in American History.
Obama reminds me too much of the dark side of Lincoln we forget, and very little of the good side of Lincoln that we do remember.
Politicians like to look to the past as their models,with Reagan it was FDR. What a strange fit that was. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson's quip about the Irish, substituting conservatives and liberals "they are a very truthful people they never speak well of one another"
i learned along time ago not to conflate the chaos caused by political incompetence with directed malice. I doubt Obama has the organizational skills to do an intentional Nixon riff.
The IRS and Department of Education are full of little Robesierres. Perhpas Obama's associates such as Holder can take education for Robespierre whoi said
"If virtue be the spring of a popular government in times of peace, the spring of that government during a revolution is virtue combined with terror: virtue, without which terror is destructive; terror, without which virtue is impotent. Terror is only justice prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country ... The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny.
Or lets audit them.
Posted by: steve em | June 13, 2013 at 03:44 PM
i love this quote from Berlinski The tone is characteristic. Peter Atkins is
a professor of physical chemistry at Oxford
University, and he, too, is ardent in his
atheism. In the course of an essay
denouncing not only theology, art, poetry,
and philosophy as well, he observes favorably
of himself that scientists " are at the summit
of knowledge, beacons of rationality, and
intellectually honest." It goes without saying,
Atkins adds, that "there is no reason to
suppose that science cannot deal with every
aspect of existence. "Science is, after all, the
apotheosis of the intellect and the
consummation of the Renaissance."
(Berlinski, 2009, p. 7)
If that does not encapsulate the essence of Scientism I do not know what does. the right man is also a social man for without social commerce he would not be able to pronounce his "Rightness". Therefore in my opinion he or she(rarely) seeks out a group that agrees and together they manifest the 'True Believer" Hoeffer wrote about. Their moral superiority is their Intellectual superiority.what I call the Cult of Intellect.
Posted by: steve em | June 13, 2013 at 04:38 PM