The Way I See It!

I am an Ultra-Conservative, Alpha-Male, True Authentic Leader, Type "C" Personality, who is very active in my community; whether it is donating time, clothes or money for Project Concern or going to Common Council meetings and voicing my opinions. As a blogger, I intend to provide a different viewpoint "The way I see it!" on various world, national and local issues with a few helpful tips & tidbits sprinkled in.

Understanding or Mixing it up?

America, Culture, Ronald Reagan, Retail Marketing Analysis, Lara Fritts, Wisconsin

Let’s take the term/phrase "Cherry Picking" or some use the older phrase of "Taking the pick of the Litter”.  It is a fallacy!


Ignore the arguments you can't refute, and nitpick the rest!  Lack of fact, lack of reason - if your gonna criticize something make sure you actually have an argument. 


What does "Cherry Picking" mean to me?


When someone “Cherry Picks” something, they are taking the best part and leaving behind the less desired.  Possibly, to make their point with spin or change the meaning or outcome of something and that can drive a false narrative.


Russ Feingold: "This game's not over until we win."


Core beliefs don’t change, people do grow, and change, but those core beliefs don’t!


What does "Cherry Picking" mean?


Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.  It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.  Cherry picking may be committed unintentionally.”


If your definition and your premise are wrong, your conclusions that follow have to be.  Thus, your logic and reasoning are as well.


Just a brush up for a few who may have forgotten what the meanings are.


Lie - a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.


Truth - conformity with fact or reality; verity, a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like


Fact - a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true


Fiction - something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story


White lie - An often trivial, diplomatic or well-intentioned untruth


Embellish - to enhance (a statement or narrative) with fictitious additions


Opinion - a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty, a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.


Let’s look at a couple scenarios:


Now I used the phrase "Cherry Picking" a while ago when Cudahy Economic Director Lara Fritts took out only the positive and/or items in the Retail Market Survey that she wanted to make her point.  I called her on it because the subject/topic was the Retail Markey Survey and like it or lump it, the results are the results and not giving all of the information, and context changes the perceptional meaning of the Survey.  This is taking things out of context.  This paramounts to lying!


People likely believe what they want to be true than reality - Rationalization/Justification is the second strongest drive


Now let’s move to a different scenario.


You have a TV Station that does an interview with someone at a protest.  The reporter asks the interviewee a bunch of questions on different topics like Obama, Jim Doyle, Bush, Taxes, and Global Warming.  If the reporter only shows the viewer, Global Warming that isn’t taking it out of context or even "Cherry Picking".  They are different subjects and thus are onto themselves.  This is not lying!


You can't crack people's heads open and dump the learning in.


Another scenario:


A radio host does an interview with a Milwaukee Brewer and he asks him about baseball, football, basketball, and fishing.  The interview bounces between the subjects.  For the ease and sake of the listener, the radio host and his engineer move the subjects together so as all baseball, football, basketball, and fishing follow together, that isn’t taking it out of context or even "Cherry Picking".  This is true even if the radio host drops the chatter of the other subjects and only lets the listener hear the interview on basketball.  As long as all of the basketball material was there it doesn’t matter if it was spliced together that isn’t taking it out of context or even "Cherry Picking".  That is subject matter control.  This is not lying!


Are you a one-issue voter?


Another scenario:


Let’s say two people are emailing back and forth.  In the stream-of-consciences in the emails flowing back and forth the topics are Jim Doyle, Public Sector Unions and computers.  To allow outside people not to be distracted by non-relative subject matter you drop the talk about Jim Doyle and computers that isn’t taking it out of context or even "Cherry Picking" as long as the Public Sector Unions discussion is all there and it doesn’t refer to Jim Doyle and computers.  That is also not lying.


The brain will reject patterns it sees if those patterns don't support their own ideology. 


I wonder how Eisenhower would have polled in Germany on D-Day?


Another scenario:


You take a speech that Ronald Regan gave on February 6, 1977 and talk about the so-called proof that Reagan was for the public union worker.  What you fail to tell the readers is he was in fact talking about the private sector unions not the public sector unions.


Twisted facts and used an erroneous quotation to try to convince


But hey, don't let the actual text stand in your way of making a political caricature.


That is taking it out of context or even "Cherry Picking" and is lying.  Put it in context not pull it out of context! 


Out of line for jumping from assumption to conviction while skipping over investigation


"Ronald Reagan - Liberty State Park [Pt. 1] "


"Ronald Reagan - Liberty State Park [Pt. 2] "


Would you like the transcript?


I think there are many people who are instinctive rationalists, and if they can’t see why x is the case, and then they cannot believe it might be reasonable to believe that x.  Their problem is that their imagination of what is possible is constrained to what they can totally conceive.


I can agree to disagree, however, because:


1) The arguments seem to me to favor me, not the other person

2) The other person’s arguments just don’t stack up for me

3) But I accept I may have missed something, or the other person has put things badly, et.c etc.  If the other person were generally smart, etc, this would add to my own uncertainty.


It happens when any two reasonable person have different priorities or values.


It’s a tricky thing bringing a debate to a conclusion without discord.  You can “agree to disagree,” but that leaves you and your opponent on separate boats, drifting away from each other.  Another parting thought is that “reasonable people will disagree.”  You stick to your guns, but offer respect to your opponent – what more could anyone want?


The problem is that in real life we have conflicting interests.


Here we have interests in conflict and if there are interests in conflict, most probably there are values in conflict.  Both sides have reasonable arguments, but interests in conflict.


Does truth have to have no lies as no lies can contain truth?  If a lie contains some truth, is it a lie?  Is a truth that contains a part of a lie still the truth?


Omit even the smallest bit from the truth and is it still the truth or is it now a lie?


Truth and facts are not the same.


Suspicious thoughts are common but error-prone.


Is a twisted truth when convenient a lie?


The truth of science is even cloudy.


The only proven fact in science is that nothing can be proven, only disproven.  That is the only firm foundation of science.


The basis behind science is to nothing as concrete, because you can't understand or observe everything that happens.  That's why every "law" in science is referred to as a theory, and not a proof.  Mathematics has proofs, literature and languages have laws, science only has theories.


This is along the same lines as the logical fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this") and it applies to a whole host of scientific (and pseudo-scientific) reasoning but that can only be proved or disproved through scientific method rather than by simply making stuff up.


So when a politician tells you he doesn’t lie, do you believe him?


Can a politician be trustworthy and honest?


Is it that this once noble profession has been reduced to people who lie for a living? 


Is lip service a lie?  Is lip-syncing a lie?


An old man once said, "There comes a time in your life, when you walk away from all the drama and people who create it.  You surround yourself with people who make you laugh.  Forget the bad, and focus on the good.  Love the people who treat you right, pray for the ones who don't.  Life is too short to be anything but happy.  Falling down is a part of life, getting back up is living."






This site uses Facebook comments to make it easier for you to contribute. If you see a comment you would like to flag for spam or abuse, click the "x" in the upper right of it. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use.

Page Tools