On subtlety
Dana Milbank in the Washington Post:
I consulted three leading academics in the fields of psychology and behavior. With their help, I put Obama on the couch and came away with a reasonably coherent diagnosis: There’s too much going on in the poor guy’s head. “What distinguishes Obama particularly is the depth and carefulness of his thinking, which renders him somewhat unfit for politics,” said Jonathan Haidt, a professor of social psychology at the University of Virginia. “He is a brilliant social and political analyst, which makes it harder for him to play hardball or to bluff.”
Obama’s strengths and weaknesses come from his high degree of “integrative complexity” — his ability to keep multiple variables and trade-offs in mind simultaneously. The integratively simple thinker — say, George W. Bush — has one universal organizing principle that dominates all others, while the integratively complex thinker — Obama — balances many competing goals…
One type of thinker isn’t necessarily better or smarter than the other; it depends on the circumstances. A simple thinker such as Winston Churchill, for example, was a better answer to Adolf Hitler than the complex Neville Chamberlain. “Leaders need to be simple enough for people to relate to,” said Tetlock, “but complex enough to explain to people that they can’t have everything.” Obama was simple enough during his campaign, but, as president, became submerged in subtlety.
Mr. Milbank’s view is apparently that the American populace isn’t up to the task of understanding subtlety.
April 28th, 2011 at 3:40 am
Milbank is more impressed with process than results. He’s the kind of guy who will pick a .240 hitter with perfect form over the awkward looking .400 hitter.
He’s a loser with an excuse.
April 28th, 2011 at 6:57 am
“three leading academics in the fields of psychology and behavior”– who have never talked to Obama, analyze him. Well, I can put on my wizard hat and say he is a weak and ignorant man who also has no self-awareness to realize his shortcomings. See, it is easy doing this analysis stuff!
April 28th, 2011 at 8:43 am
Dana is desperate to find praise in his fumbling lover Barack.
He’s not a community agitator with no executive experience, needing a teleprompter for every response. Nope … he’s just too overqualified for a simple job requiring a more simple man.
Like Churchill was better than Chamberlain because he was simple. Chamberlain’s appeasement was not wrong … just too complex.
Good grief.
April 28th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
My takeaway is Obama = Chamberlain = not good.
April 29th, 2011 at 12:36 am
there are some things so dumb that only intelligent people can believe them.
April 29th, 2011 at 1:41 am
I’m sorry but I can recognize stupid when I see it. Multiple variables, yeah right. I have a degree in computer science, I’m willing to bet that my brain handles concepts of complexity beyond what Obama has ever heard of, yet I have not issues with decision making. He’s a fence sitter, not a decision maker. That’s what seperates him from George Bush.
From where I’m standing, a moron can tell that GW is smarter than big “O”. Leftists attempt their feeble plan of pretending like Obama’s problems are that he’s just too intelligent. Dana MilBank is insulting our intelligence.
April 29th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Why, the poor numskull had to be content with the 1953 Nobel Prize for Literature; he was hardly at Dana Milbank’s exalted intellectual level; let alone the ineffable genius of Neville Chamberlain, with his scintillating comprehension of Adolf Hitler’s foreign policy goals. No wonder our brainbox of a president couldn’t bear to have dumb old Winnie’s bust in his house, and gave it back to the English…
[facepalm]
May 2nd, 2011 at 9:24 pm
O isn’t impressed. He’s got his own Nobel Prize.
I wonder what the Committee is thinking now that he’s attacked Libya. Probably something like “I’m glad we awarded it when we did. The timing would be awkward now.”