cover crowns filled with fetid
filth, sleaze, rot and scum
and we watched
and we lauded
and as we wowed
Runts grew big
guzzled funds like pigs
in hot rut
This link line takes you to an article in TheCable that claims to examine “a million other things that damaged President Jonathan” in his re-election bid. It is wriiten by one Chidi Chima and was uploaded on Twitter via @thecableng #2015Elections . Chidi invites his readers to also come up with and contribute their views on what they think “damaged President Jonathan”.
Chidi Chima skipped Region & Religion! The reader is invited to visit INEC’s results compilation for the 2015 presidential elections and to look closely at the votings in NE, NW & SS zones. Skewed Demography, Religion & Region were at play and were the real “damagers”. This is the harsh truth and we need to tell ourselves some of these hard truths, but Chima prefers to flee from them. If, for example, the SE zone had come out and voted and given Jonathan 750,000 votes each and kept Buhari below 10% of votes cast, as was the case in most of the NE/NW zones, the results would have been otherwise. So, the game changer and decider in these elections were once again Ethnicity and Religion, not any of these fancy reasons that Chidi Chima throws up! Finally, Chidi Chima will do well to study the results for the presidential elections for the FCT and Lagos where populations and religions are more heterogeneous – the results here could be taken to reflect a more balanced representation as to how a cross section of Nigerians inhabiting a common geographical space evaluated the Jonathan presidency.
Noel A. Ihebuzor
Several strategies are employed by the “opposition” in their reactions to any comment on social media that suggests that Jonathan has achieved anything! Each time you as much as suggest that GEJ has some impressive achievements to show in his four year presidency, what you get is panic, instant hostility & then a swarm attack from his die-hards opponents and “serial-opposers” in the APC – such facts and truths frighten them. The facts threaten to pierce the fabric of well told lies such persons have almost succeeded in imposing on major sections of the public as truths through a blend of strategies and tactics involving distortions, fabrications, cyber–aggression, bullying, threats and ridiculing of persons. A study of APC tactics in relation to Jonathan’s major achievements reveals the following as dominant techniques employed in trying to deny/downplay/diminish GEJ’s successes –
- One technique is the TOTAL DENIAL or OBLITERATION strategy. The man has achieved NOTHING. Point your interlocutor to some solid achievement and you get the retort – “but that is nothing”! Ask what then amounts as “something” and all you get is blabber and incoherence.
- A variant of this TOTAL DENIAL technique is the “WE ARE EVEN WORSE OFF TODAY THAN WHEN HE CAME IN” line of attack! Invite your interlocutor then to a “Before GEJ” and “Since GEJ” comparison in a number of key sectors using valid indicators and communication breaks down because your interlocutor now refuses to abide to comparisons based on valid “Tertium Comparationis”.
- Another technique is THE MINIMIZATION STRATEGY- Yes, the man has achieved but he has only achieved very little – not much at all! Ask your interlocutor what the cut-off point for “sizeable achievement” is and all you get is insult – “You people do not think”
- A variant of this minimization strategy is THE TRIVIALIZATION STRATEGY – what he has achieved is trivial and of minimal import.
- Another strategy is to recognize the achievements & then slam them as not been good or modern enough – this is NOT GOOD ENOUGH strategy
- Another variant is to recognize the achievement but then smear it with the label of MEDIOCRE – The MEDIOCRITY CONDEMNATION STRATEGY.
- Another approach is to recognize the achievement but then to counter immediately to say that its gains are not evenly distributed!
- Yet another strategy recognizes but derides the achievement by claiming it has minimal social impact potential and therefore not useful.
- Another strategy accepts the reality of the achievement but faults it by claiming it has possesses little beneficiary impact value. Ask your interlocutor to define beneficiary impact value and all you get is hot air.
- Another approach consists in accepting an obvious achievement but then to say that the choice of project focus shows poor prioritization.
- Yet another approach is to recognize the achievement but then claim that it costs too much to deliver.
- Yet another approach is to recognize the achievement but then rubbish it by saying that it took too long to deliver.
The opposition strategy to GEJ’s achievement can be described as one that MINIMIZES his SUCCESSES and then struggles to MAXIMIZE whatever SHORTCOMINGS he may have, mostly imagined, out of proportion. A GEJ success that is dismissed as nothing is usually praised to the high heavens should they have occurred in an ACN led state. The name of the game as played by opposition handles and spokespersons is inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty.
One is therefore better off taking whatever the opposition says on Jonathan’s achievements with plenty of salt and criticality. Very little truth and objectivity are found in their evaluations of what has been a fresh and humane centered approach to quiet but effective presidency, a presidency that has delivered despite having to navigate several roadblocks and minefields put in its way by an unholy alliance of the ungodly!
Noel A. Ihebuzor
The incidence of celebrities, authority figures and eminent persons making commentaries on social affairs, the state of the economy and governance etc. is on the rise. We are now assailed from every corner by judgments of, and commentaries on people, places, periods and events by such celebrities and eminent persons. Not all of these judgments and commentaries are however backed by evidence. What should be our reactions before such claims, commentaries and judgements? Is there not a difference between an opinion and a fact? Are the opinions of a celebrity always right? Should we always believe them? Must we suspend criticality when processing the views of such persons?
The reflections below on credibility and credulity were prompted precisely by these questions. My hope is that by the time you have gone through these reflections, you would have come up with your own personal strategy and processes for sieving statements, claims and commentaries for facticity and accuracy, and are thus more able to separate facts from opinions, no matter their sources. Enjoy the reading. Let me also have the benefit of your comments on these reflections.
- The chances of a claim being believed as true are largely a function of two things – How credible the source is or judged to be & how credulous the receiver is!
- It is so easy for a credible source or a source that is judged credible to deceive a credulous audience.
- That deception will continue to happen until the “ahaa” moment.
- Wisdom is discovering that even your long trusted, infallible and credible source can sometimes be economical with the truth!
- Credulousness/credulity exposes us to massive manipulation and exploitation.
- Credulity comes with huge social, emotional & economic costs.
- Not all that that your credible source puts forward is true!
- Do not mistake capacity for linguistic elegance with capacity for telling the truth. Lies are often packaged in beautiful prose.
- Raise your credulity threshold. Be more critical! “Shine your eyes”!
- The more critical you are, the more you are likely to discover flaws in the “perfect” logic of that credible source.
- Once you begin to discover flaws, inaccuracies, distortions and lies in your credible source, his/her credibility starts to wane.
- Healthy skepticism is one useful remedy to problems of credulity.
- In our attitudes/receptivity to statements from others, we are constantly exposed to two types of errors called Type I and Type II errors.
- Remember your research methods course from tertiary education? Type I versus Type II errors? A bit similar but not the same!
- Type I error in belief is known as erroneous incredulity- refusing to believe something that is true because of quarrels with the source!
- Type II – erroneous credulity – believing something that is false to be true because of your infatuation with the source!
- The challenge in life is how to avoid type 1 belief errors – erroneous incredulity whilst still being critical & “sieving” all statements.
- For type II belief errors, we simply have to shine our eyes. There are powerful people who would not brook any challenge to their views. All they desire is to hold people captive to their views and go to every length to ensure that such mental captivity perdures.
- One of the most difficult things to do is to maintain the right level of critical distance enough to evaluate and to challenge, where necessary, the views of someone who has distinguished herself/himself.
- Healthy skepticism towards the views and opinions of such a person is usually considered as indicative of either jealousy or outright incivility or impetuosity.
- And yet such persons have been known to exploit their credibility and to stretch it beyond limits.
- They have been known to exploit their credibility to call people names, to smear people, to ridicule others and to march boldly on spaces where even angels tremble to tiptoe over.
- All this they can do because they have been successful in one field of human endeavour or the other.
- Someone who has distinguished herself/himself in any given field invariably builds up some credibility as a result of success in that specific field of pursuit.
- It is not unusual for such a person to make commentaries in other fields of pursuit.
- Danger starts to loom when such a person begins to feel that credibility built up in one area immediately confers omniscience on her/him and elevates her/him to a pansophist.
- Unless checked, such a person may begin to use credibility gained in one field to become the supreme arbiter on every social issue under the universe.
- I call this tendency to use credibility in one field to seek credibility in another the transfer of credibility. Humans engage frequently in such transfer of credibility.
- Let me try to illustrate. We may have a case where we find a geophysicist making comments in the area of rock music.
- Where such comments are made on the basis of solid evidence, our respect for the person making the comments should grow.
- Where, however, the person making the comments is simply appealing, either explicitly or implicitly, to his/her established credibility in one field and building his/her right to be believed on that alone, then we should be on our guards.
- For example, that V.S. Naipaul said something on “Azonto” dance steps does make it true or false. Check his sources. Check his logic. Distinguish opinions from facts. Become more critical. If Naipul is simply transferring his credibility as winner of a Nobel prize for literature and using this to get you to an uncritical acceptance of his opinion, then sack that opinion. The opinions of a Nobel prize are not beyond falsification.
- Also that Niels Bohr said something, say on race and intercultural dialogue, does not make it true or false. Check his sources. Check his facts. Check his logic. Recognize his contributions to atomic physics but also recognize that expertise in atomic physics does not immediately confer competence in race and culture. Raise your credulity threshold.
- Equally, that Einstein said something on politics does not make it true or false. Check the facts. Question his sources. Raise your own criticality
- These three examples are chosen to invite us all to be more critical.
- They are also intended to show that human beings can and do try to transfer their credibility from areas where they are authorities to others where they are not or may not be!
- In these areas where they are not authorities, such persons would still want to impose their views on others and present their opinions as if they were revealed truths.
- We are often victims of such people and suffer mind control by them for a number of reasons.
- One reason for our credulity before such people emerges from the interaction of herd feeling, laziness and inertia. Everybody believes them, so why should I not? And If I have believed them up till now, why should I start doubting them now?
- Another reason is that most of us have been socialized into uncritical acceptance of views by any authority figure. Such persons thus exercise a strong stranglehold on public opinion.
- The stranglehold these persons exercise on public opinion and thinking is aided by our culture of idolization of the successful.
- Such idolization soon morphs into “person idolatory” such that any attempt to examine this person’s views critically soon amounts to heresy!
- Anything this type/class of people says soon amounts to “cast in diamonds truths”.
- But such idolized persons soon over-reach themselves. Their formerly enraptured audiences soon begin to discover that they have feet of clay. People soon discover that not only are such people fallible, but they do tell lies and can be very petty and partisan.
- So, let me sum up –
- Credibility is a plus for the source; credulity is a negative for any audience.
- Credibility is a bit like virginity. Lose it and you have lost it!
- Credibility is an asset. Draw down recklessly on it without any replenishing and soon it runs out.
- Credibility is optimized in environments of high credulity.
- A celebrity uses her/his credibility to exploit the credulity of an uncritical public.
- Erroneous credulity is bad for any society.
- Losing one’s credulity is one key milestone in cognitive and emotional development.
- Celebrities are entitled to their personal opinions, but not all opinions are true!
- Name calling has a certain appeal but it still does not amount to a proof. Ask any lawyer!
- Concluding comment – let your speaker earn your confidence. Do not let him/her take advantage of or abuse your credulity.