I hope you are not arguing that a bunch of closely spaced cars, traveling at high speed, often through interchanges with merging traffic, and drivers distracted by cell phones, is just as safe as well spaced cars, driven by engaged, and considerate drivers? If you have never encountered cruise control cretins in your travels, consider yourself lucky!

It's even more complicated than that. Cruise control is all too often a safety hazard on the interstate. Safety requires space, the more the better, between vehicles. All to often cruise control is the reason cars remain in close proximity, mile after mile. Sometimes a cruise control cretin will bogart the passing lane simply because his cruise control is oh so slowly allowing his vehicle to pass an only very slightly slower one. Safe driving requires constant adjustment of velocity in order to maximize space between vehicles. Driving safely is space and energy management.

I like music. I like Rock, Jazz, Clasical, Ambient, Bluegrass, New Age, just about any genre. I really like artists who write their own music. Not so much singers who are little more than a pretty voice. But I never got on the Beatles (the group or their various solo works) bandwagon. With rare exception, if something made the "top ten", that meant it was played at least once an hour, every hour, 24/7, (on the radio, pretty much the only way to listen to music when I was a kid) until I quickly got tired of it. Rejecting the Beatles was my way of rebelling against the groupthink of the time. Also my impression was that people who listened to the same song, over and over, were rather simple. Not a fair assesment I know, but I've never outgrown that.

Empirical evidence does not support that

Well, it would depend a bit on the complexity of the argument/issue one is trying to be objective about I guess. Some issues are complex. A person with higher intellect would have an easier time evaluating rational arguments (pro and con) than someone with a lower intellect. It's less work for the "smarter" person. What emperical evidence refutes that?

Ha! Thanks for the droll comments illustrating my point!

Is memory that short? We were on the brink of global financial meltdown. GM was but one of the massive dominos teetering. Widespread bank failure seemed to be a real possibility. It's hard or maybe even impossible to prove a negative but, at the time, global depression seemed to be a very real possibility. The stimuli employed in averting that depression may have been our best investment since the Marshal Plan, or The New Deal. There is no scientific way to prove its effectivness but I am grateful we spent that money.

I think ability to be "objective" depends on a lot of personality factors and training, much more so than intelligence

Yes. I agree. And I think I said "it was complicated". But logic suggests that the higher the IQ, the easier it is to be objective, to evaluate complex rational argument. The lower the IQ, the more difficult that becomes.

Generally, no. Objectivity is largely a function of temperament and deliberate effort rather than intelligence. Studies show

I don't know...sounds like these studies were poorly designed if that's what they really show. To be sure intelligent people can be bull headed, but less intelligent people can be bull headed AND incapable of being objective. I know people who are simply intellectually incapable of rational argument. Don't you? Lucky duck.

                                      Uninformed voters are more easily swayed with information challenging their beliefs, but people who know and have strong opinions

I think you may be confusing being wishywashy with having objectivity. I know people who will hold the last opinion presented to them...right up until they are presented with another argument. Some of these people are incapable of evaluating, or forming rational argument. Many of them lack any problem solving skills. While I don't know their IQ, I suspect they are on the low side. Not scientific I know, but I wouldn't be surprised if a scientific study could be designed that would confirm that.

                                    Objectivity takes training and deliberate practice.

I agree. I simply suggest that it also takes discipline, honesty and an IQ capable of evaluating rational argument. Put another way, the higher the IQ the easier it is to be objective. Not saying everyone takes advantage of their IQ in this regard.

Right, I understand your point. But it is my layman's understanding that, if the resolution of the metric is sufficiently fine, perhaps to several decimal points, there would be one, possibly two individuals at the average. The rest of us would fall to one side or the other. Perhaps IQ percentile would have been a better measurement in this case. I only meant to suggest that the more intelligent an individual is, the easier it is to be objective. In my experience, not everyone is capable of objectivity. IQ is but one variable as to why this is true.

Yes, I was not clear. My point is that generally it would seem that the higher the IQ, the more capable an individual is of being objective. but there are other factors to consider. Intelectual discipline, intelectual honesty, and to your point, ego, all come into it to some degree. As I said "it is complicated". I would not for a second suggest that 100 is the IQ cut off. Also I don't understand the term "statistical tautology" as I only speak Layman.

Also...It sometimes help to remember that half of us have below average intelligence. It follows then that some of us are incapable of objective reasoning. Many of us who are capable of rational thought are just plain intellectually lazy. And many of us who are intellectually challenged put a lot of effort into trying to figure things out. It is a complicated issue.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was not an invasion. Japan never planned on occupying the islands. Their main goal was to sink our carriers. In that they failed. Probably the main reason they lost the war. That and the whole A-bomb thing.

You may be forgetting that (we are told that) oil price is set in the global marketplace. "American" oil does not stay in America. This "fact" is always used to explain price increases. Increased "American" oil production will only effect oil prices in the context of global supply. "Drill baby Drill would have only marginal downward presure on prices. So it follows that "Hoard baby Hoard" would also have only marginal upward presure on oil prices. All this talk about increased American production being a boon to Americal consumers is mostly nonsense. Same applies to the argument that the Keystone pipeline would be a boon to consumers here in America. These are con jobs designed to make a very small handful of already very wealthty Americans even more wealthty. Most Americans will/would see very small price changes at the pump.

Yes! Texters at red lights are all too often self-centered, inconsiderate pukes. Keep up the good work officer!

Another way to think about it is that ALL citizens should have a compelling interest in achieving justice. Our responsibility to our fellow citizens compells us to testify. If we conspire to hide the truth, we are being traitors to the ideal of Equal Justice Under the Law. None of us has the right to act as judge and jury by filtering what evidence will be examined during a trial.