To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Nick Smith (U.S. politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nick Smith
Nick Smith.jpg
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Michigan's 7th district
In office
January 3, 1993 – January 3, 2005
Preceded byDale Kildee
Succeeded byJoe Schwarz
Member of the Michigan Senate
from the 19th district
In office
January 1, 1983 – 1993
Preceded byJohn S. Mowat, Jr.
Succeeded byPhilip E. Hoffman
Member of the Michigan House of Representatives
from the 41st district
In office
January 1, 1979 – December 31, 1982
Preceded byPaul Porter
Succeeded byMichael E. Nye
Personal details
Born (1934-11-05) November 5, 1934 (age 84)
Addison, Michigan
Political partyRepublican
Alma materMichigan State University

Nick H. Smith (born November 5, 1934) is a politician from the U.S. state of Michigan, who served as a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from 1993 until 2005, representing from the 7th District of Michigan.[1]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    70 109
    939 338
    11 988
    34 215
    36 744
  • ✪ Why You Can't Win an Internet Argument
  • ✪ POLITICAL THEORY - Niccolò Machiavelli
  • ✪ George Carlin: Quotes, Stand-Up, Stuff, Advertising, Books, Education, Politics (1999)
  • ✪ Interesting People #503 "Nicholas Smith"
  • ✪ Molecule Architecture: SciShow Talk Show with Dr. Orion Berryman

Transcription

[INTRO ♪] Let’s be honest: we all try to win arguments on the internet, even though we know it’s pointless. Sometimes when you’re scrolling through your Facebook or Twitter feed, bad opinions and misunderstandings just jump out at you, and you have to set your friends and followers straight. But if it seems like your impeccable logic is always met with hostility and digging in— well, that’s exactly what’s happening. Psychologists have put a lot of thought into how people argue— both online and off— and they’ve found plenty of reasons why people rarely change their minds. Part of the problem is that correcting someone can actually strengthen the memory and influence of their original belief— the one you think is clearly wrong. It’s known as the backfire effect. A study in the Journal of Consumer Research in 2005 demonstrated this by giving 335 people a list of science facts and myths, then clarifying right afterward which were true and which weren’t. 30 minutes later, they asked half of the subjects which things on the list were true, and they were pretty good at separating myth from fact. But when they tested everyone else 3 days later, that group made a lot of mistakes. Specifically, they recalled a lot of the "false" statements as "true" — but not the other way around. Psychologists think that’s because we use how familiar something is as a guide to whether it's true. And all you need to do to make something familiar is to repeat it. This effect doesn’t seem to always happen when people’s false beliefs are corrected. Some studies have failed to find a backfire effect, especially when the topic was political. But pointing out exactly how wrong your Facebook friend is often involves repeating their false beliefs. And when you do that, it’s possible that the backfire effect just makes them more sure they’re right. Another challenge is that we all suffer from confirmation bias: we can look at the same evidence but come to different conclusions based on what we believe is true. If evidence confirms what you already believe, it jumps out at you and you pay attention to it. Meanwhile, we tend to gloss over contradictory evidence and just forget about it. A 2013 study with more than a thousand participants showed this with political beliefs. People were shown the results of a fictional study about gun violence, and were asked whether the evidence supported gun control. But since the study was made up, the researchers made two versions— one in which the data were in support of control measures, and another where the data were flipped. When people were then asked whether the study they read supported gun control, the data barely made a difference. If the person supported gun control, they thought the data did, too, and vice versa. Ironically, the researchers found that being better at math made this effect worse. You’d think people with better math skills would be more likely to interpret the data objectively, but instead, they tended to recalculate the information in their heads in a way that justified their existing belief. So even if you’ve got some super-solid evidence in support of your position, showing it to those who disagree might actually lead them to the opposite conclusion. But if, despite all of this, you still find yourself thinking that you just have to try to change someone’s mind because dangit, they are wrong on the internet, there is some good news: There’s also research on what might work. One group of researchers analyzed a whopping 12,000 arguments on a subreddit forum called "ChangeMyView" to see what the arguments that successfully changed people's minds had in common. They found the most effective tactic was to pick wording that was unlike that of the other side, maybe because unfamiliar wording was a sign that the arguments were new information. Like, if someone’s arguing that Kirk was the best starfleet captain because he led with his gut instinct, pointing out all the times Kirk’s instincts have put the crew in danger might not be that effective. Instead, you might have more success arguing that Picard always opted for the peaceful solution. That kind of shift in language is more likely to change the person’s mind, whereas using really similar wording— especially quoting them directly— is seen as nit-picking. The researchers also found that when the original poster used the word "we" instead of "I" to describe their position, the arguments were less likely to change their minds— probably because they were more entrenched in their viewpoint. And if the debate went back and forth more than 4 times, it wasn’t likely to go anywhere. So if you’re still arguing on that thread from weeks ago, you might just wanna walk away. Even with the more successful tactics, though, very few people were convinced to change their minds. And a lot of people are going to this forum because they say they’re open to change! So no matter how strong your arguments are, it’s probably worth picking your battles. Don’t get too discouraged when you can’t change the other person’s mind— we’re just wired that way. And remember: all of this applies to you, too. So every once in a while, you might want to stop and reevaluate the positions that get you so fired up. Because some of those arguments might not be as strong as you think they are. Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow Psych! Feel free to leave your arguments in support of Sisko or Janeway in the comments. And if you want to learn more about how you might have formed those opinions that you’re so intent on arguing about, you can check out our episode on how your friends can affect your opinions. [OUTRO ♪]

Contents

Life and career

Smith was born in Addison, Michigan, where he still lives. He earned a B.A. from Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan, in 1957 and an M.S. in Economics from the University of Delaware in 1959. Smith served in the United States Air Force from 1959 to 1961. He was Squadron Commander in the Civil Air Patrol and later an Intelligence Officer. He operates a dairy farm in Addison.

Smith served on the Somerset Township board of trustees, 1962 to 1968. He was township supervisor and on the Hillsdale County board of supervisors from 1966 to 1968. He then served as assistant deputy administrator and director of energy in the United States Department of Agriculture between 1972 and 1974.

Smith served as a member of the Michigan State House of Representatives from the 41st District from 1979 to 1983. He then served as a member of Michigan Senate from the 19th District from 1983 to 1993. While in the Michigan Senate, he was appointed President Pro Tempore from 1983 to 1990.

Smith at a congressional event in 1993
Smith at a congressional event in 1993

Smith ran for Congress in the 7th District in 1992, winning the Republican primary by seven points. His nearest opponent was fellow state senator Joe Schwarz, a considerably more moderate Republican. Smith was the major candidate from the eastern portion of the district, while Schwarz and the others were all from the western portion. The candidates from the western portion split the vote, allowing Smith to win despite getting only 37 percent of the vote. No Democrat even filed for the general election, handing the seat to Smith. He was reelected five times.

Smith was a relatively low-profile congressman for most of his career, compiling a reliably conservative voting record despite representing a fairly marginal district. However, Smith gained national attention in 2004 in the controversy over the Medicare Modernization Act. Smith had announced earlier he was not running for reelection later that year, having promised during his initial run to only serve six terms (12 years) in the House. However, he'd endorsed his son, Brad, as his successor. Smith stated that members of the House Republican leadership told him that if he voted for the Medicare bill, business interests would give $100,000 to his son's campaign. When Nick Smith refused to vote for the bill, he was told that his son would never get into Congress. Ultimately, Brad Smith was defeated in the Republican primary by Schwarz, who was elected in November.

In March 2004, the House Ethics Committee admonished fellow Representative from Michigan Candice Miller and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for their involvement in the affair.

See also

References

  1. ^ "Smith, Nick H., (1934 - )". United States Congress. Retrieved 23 August 2010.

External links

U.S. House of Representatives
Preceded by
Dale Kildee
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Michigan's 7th congressional district

1993–2005
Succeeded by
Joe Schwarz
This page was last edited on 9 August 2019, at 20:16
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.