High School Dropout Labels Rhodes Scholar ‘Intellectual Nobody’
And this is national news.
Keating labels Abbott ‘intellectual nobody.’
The Apology
Graham Young, in a post on the scope of the apology to be given to the Stolen Generations, gives a view very similar to my own. He also refers to an excellent article by Noel Pearson who analyses the social and political context in which the apology to the Stolen Generations will be given.
Political Party Stereotypes and Stereotyping in General
“In the US, issue ownership analysis is part of broader theories about voter ignorance. We know from many surveys that the general public has very limited knowledge of political institutions and policies. They tend not to know very much about broader social trends either. This means that electors draw on various informational short-cuts to make political decisions. This includes stereotypical views of political parties, based on assumed previous policy success or failure, or on perceptions of how political party members feel about an issue, on the assumption that interest or sincerity will translate into successful policy.
According to the American literature, some issues are not owned by any party but are ‘performance’ issues. The economy is put into this category, as whether or not it is going well is sufficiently obvious to voters, from regular news reports and everyday experience, for them to form their own views directly on the issue without going via a prior party stereotype (in one paper, parties can have a ‘lease’ on the economy as an issue, but one which would end with their recession or another party’s boom).
Even where issues are ‘owned’, the standing of parties is not immune to very salient contrary information, such as debacles and scandals. Sometimes there are long-term changes (this seems to have happened in Canada). But in the more normal course of events, when there is little grabbing voters’ attention, they draw on party stereotypes to form views. Once established, these stereotypes tend to be reinforced; we all have our theories about the world, and pay more attention to information that confirms our views than to information that challenges our views.”
The above quote comes from an article by Andrew Norton on the subject of issue ownership by political parties in Australia (drawing upon US scholarship on the subject.) It got me thinking (a little) about how common stereotyping is in general. I have no doubt that racism and anti-Semitism are kinds of stereotyping where select members of each group (the ‘bad’ ones) are held out as representative of the entire group and used to reinforce negative stereotypes about the entire group. It is not just blacks and Jews that are stereotyped in this manner. Roman Catholic clergy are subject to stereotypes that are no more logically justified than the racist and anti-Semitic ones. Priests are routinely stereotyped as sexually repressed and ‘suspect’, and in more extreme cases they’re characterised as paedophiles. Bishops are stereotyped as dishonest ‘enablers’ of abuse. No doubt that given the large size of each group there will be some that ‘fit’ the stereotype perfectly. But if individuals deserve to be treated on their merits then stereotyping may not only be illogical but also immoral. The unfortunate thing is that stereotypes often effectively serve the interests of some individual or individuals. Anti-Catholic and anti-clerical stereotypes are often used to further a reform agenda (which may or may not be a justified end.) Plenty of other negative stereotyping occurs, for example, those on the political left are often described ‘bleeding hearts’ and those on the right are often viewed as lacking compassion. War time also sees stereotypes used to ‘demonise’ opponents.
Stereotyping in politics occurs not only at the party level but at the individual level. The previous Prime Minister was often stereotyped (as being ‘clever’ in the pejorative sense) and the present Prime Minister already has the ‘nerd’ stereotype thing happening (and I’m sure there are worse to come.) When a member of a party does something wrong, they are held out as being representative of their party as a whole rather than as an individual who has failed and who may or may not be representative of their party as a whole. The stereotyping that goes back and forth in standard political discourse sets a very bad example , but perhaps is unavoidable given the way the electorate responds to things.
Stereotyping is part of the pathology of some mental illnesses, such as social phobia where sufferers often stereotypes themselves as overly anxious (more than they ‘really’ are) and socially incompetent with others viewed as confident and intolerant of the sufferer’s flaws (leading to even more anxiety.)
We seem to have a logical double standard though because negative stereotyping is considered wrong (unless it’s against ‘bad’ people) but positive stereotyping is fine. Perhaps all the positive stereotyping that occurs sets the wrong example and people conclude that if positive stereotyping is logically sound then negative stereotyping is as well. I try not to stereotype if at all possible (in a positive or a negative sense) but I don’t think I’m 100% successful at it.
Update:
Check out this post on the neurology of stereotypes for a more detailed discussion of the subject.
Supply of, and Demand for, ‘Skills’
During and in the run-up to the 2007 Federal Election, a point was made about a ‘skills shortage’ and its effect on the economy. I do not know enough about economics to give an authoritative response but I do have an amateur’s opinion on the subject. A recent article in the Herald-Sun (with variants in other publications) about the Federal Labor Government boosting training places by 20,000 prompted me to write this post.
I understand that the ideal situation is, from an economic perspective, one where all the demand for skills is fully satisfied by skilled workers. I also understand that it is quite difficult to precisely estimate future demand because of the large number of variables involved in such a prediction (and the uncertainty associated with each one). So should we aim to be cautious in an economic sense and aim to have an oversupply of skilled workers or should be cautious in a social sense and have unmet demand for skilled workers? I’ll explain why I call unmet demand for skilled workers ‘socially cautious.’
When someone trains for a particular career they do not do it so that they will end up a ‘product’ that is placed in a metaphorical warehouse should the market one day demand their services. They do it because they think that it will give them a better life. Often they become very emotionally involved in their career choice and it becomes a significant part of their life. They pour their hopes into it. In a situation where the supply of workers in their profession exceeds demand (the economically cautious position) some of these trainees will end up either unemployed, or will have to accept a different job to the one they set their hearts set on. They may even have to start training for another career. I call these things socially harmful because they cause distress and frustration among a subset of the population.
If we set a target that is below the estimated future demand (we’re socially cautious) we will often end up with too few qualified workers and thus a skills shortage, with whatever economic consequences that entails. If we set a target above the estimated future demand (we’re economically cautious) then we will often end up with too many qualified workers and thus a lot of disappointed and potentially bitter individuals. If our estimates are always of a fuzzy nature where at most we can predict a very broad ‘band’ of possible targets that will often be wrong, why are we so harsh on governments that ‘fail’ to prevent skills shortages that were due to the inherent imprecision of our estimates?
I remember in the early 1990′s when Paul Keating spoke of Australia becoming a ‘clever country’, excelling not just in mining and other resource related industries, but in science, technology and the arts. At the time I naively concluded that a career in science would be a good choice. One I graduated with an honours science degree I discovered that there was no work available. I don’t suggest that the then Prime Minister actively encouraged me to do that particular degree, but how much more frustrating would it be to someone whose government actively encouraged them to train in a particular field in order to meet a skills shortage only to find out that there is no job for them once they complete their training and that the government knew in advance that a significant oversupply would occur unless their overestimated targets proved correct?
I think this element has been ignored in the media discussion of the skills shortage. What happens when the government encourages many people to train for jobs that (probably) won’t be there? And even worse, what if the best predictions of future demand suggest that for a significant number of trainees the jobs won’t be there but because the government erred on the side of economic caution they nonetheless encouraged people to train for that particular career anyway? It seems that this process is balancing the economic harm that comes from unmet demand for skilled workers against the social harm that comes from training people up for jobs that for many will not be there. This balancing process is more complex and not readily broken down to ‘sound-bite’ format and that is why it is rarely discussed by anyone in the media or by politicians.
Me versus Random: Costello Retirement Predictions
In order to knock some sense in myself and as an interesting game, I want to test my predictions versus those of a coin or a die. I will not do this in an ultra-scientific way as I do not have the time to fully analyse the validity of my method but I will try to make it so that I get some kind of useful comparison.
The possible predictions are: he will retire within the first year (between 24th of November 2007 until 23rd of November 2008), within the second year (24th of November 2008 until 23rd of November 2009), within the third year (24th of November 2009 until just before the date of the election) or he will serve the full term. There are other possibilities but if they occur and they are outside his control then the game is over. There are no ‘close calls’ so if I predict the first year and he retires on the 24th of November 2008 I am declared 100% incorrect.
For the four possibilities I will use Random.org to generate an integer between one and four, with one corresponding to the earliest prediction and so on.
…
The number generated was one.
My prediction is that he will serve his full term.
Kevin Rudd Predictions
I want to publish a few predictions and see how they come out.
- The swearing-in of ministers will be a more stage managed and ‘media-focused’ event than that seen in previous governments.
- The ‘Rudd brand’ will be maintained by an approach which sees the Prime Minister deliver most of the good news whilst his ministers deliver anything negative.
- Rudd will demand that the Opposition hold him and his government to account, claiming that scrutiny of any kind will bring out the best in his government.
WorkChoices good, bad
I did a post on these advertisements a while back and I’ve uploaded them using the new “Add Video” feature. I’m doing this partially to show the ad’s and partially to try out this new feature.
Oz Politics Test
I’m trying to help others get an insight into my overall perspective so that when they read my work they can ‘factor in’ or attempt to account for any real or potential biases.
My Political Inclinations (Oz Politics)
Workchoices Advertisements
In what appears to be a waste of money, the Federal Government is running an advertisement campaign promoting their workplace relations laws (known as Workchoices) whilst the Victorian Government is simultaneously running a campaign against the policy. I guess one could argue that this allows voters to get ‘both sides’ of the issue but the ad’s really don’t give much information in that respect, so it seems to me to be a waste of money.
The Federal Government ad has a lady who appears to be a senior bureaucrat dispelling ‘myths’ surrounding the new laws.
The Victorian Government ad has ‘victims’ of the new laws giving their stories, in sombre black-and-white.
And the political disclaimer.
