Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 16:08:03 GMT -5
Is that a considered opinion, Russell, or are you going with your gut feeling?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 16:08:22 GMT -5
(I'm trying hard to catch Trampy and Bill...)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 16:08:37 GMT -5
(I bet I can do it if I stay up all night...)
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 18, 2013 16:21:51 GMT -5
All my opinions are considered: carefully researched, deeply contemplated, slept upon, examined from every angle, sluiced clean of any clinging bits of gut, blown dry with perfumed breezes, given a light dusting of confectioner's sugar (with just a pinch of cinnamon), and set out in the sun to cure.
Only then do I indite them with a calligraphic pen on fine vellum, digitize the page at 1200 dpi resolution, OCR the file, and post it here.
(This post, for example, has been several weeks in preparation. I was just waiting for the right thread on which to post it.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 16:25:43 GMT -5
I'm here for you, Russell. Try this one. What is your opinion of the humble kumquat?
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 18, 2013 16:31:10 GMT -5
I share W.C. Fields' opinion that it is a very funny word.
|
|
|
Post by Phil N. Theblank on Sept 18, 2013 19:55:10 GMT -5
I also recommend "The Righteous Mind".
when we want to believe something , we ask " can i believe it." when we don't want to believe something we ask MUST i believe it. if we find a single reason to doubt the claim then we can dismiss it.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Sept 18, 2013 23:03:09 GMT -5
Phil, It took a couple years, but I finally got your handle. Just tonight, I was looking and, bam, whoa, I get it!
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 19, 2013 6:16:10 GMT -5
I also recommend "The Righteous Mind". when we want to believe something , we ask " can i believe it," and choose to believe it if we find any supporting evidence.when we don't want to believe something we ask MUST i believe it. if we find a single reason to doubt the claim then we can dismiss it. I added a bit. Thanks, Phil. I came across that yesterday morning and I agree with John, it's a brilliant observation. Jonathan Haidt is the sole author, but the observations, theories and experiments are not all his. He has drawn on a lot of other people's works and he freely credits others when appropriate. There is much in this book that is not original, but I'm pretty sure nobody has connected the dots as Haidt has. I'm just getting into the care/harm values and how they differ with conservatives and liberals. This is where things are going to get confusing and I'm going to wish I had diagram 6.1 and some of the others to help remember how it all fits together.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 19, 2013 6:32:04 GMT -5
I'm just getting into the care/harm values and how they differ with conservatives and liberals. This is where things are going to get confusing and I'm going to wish I had diagram 6.1 and some of the others to help remember how it all fits together. And I don't blame Haidt for getting the conservative motivation wrong. Lots of conservatives -- especially and including many of the most vocal -- have it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 19, 2013 6:41:25 GMT -5
I think you disagreed with Haidt's views on conservative values last time we talked about him, but I don't remember what you objected to.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 19, 2013 7:06:48 GMT -5
Haidt accepts the basic model that liberals are selfless and looking out for the general welfare of their fellow man. When he wants to appear even-handed, he allows as to how, though they have good intentions, sometimes their implementations and/or programs might be naive and misguided (he'd still vote for those implementations and programs, but he allows as how they might be naive).
And he accepts the basic liberal model that conservatives are an "I got mine" self-serving bunch with no concern for their fellow man beyond a misguided jingoistic loyalty toward their like-selfish-minded tribe.
Or, as you put it by quoting Bill Clinton (who encapsulated the idea)
That's simply wrong. Both ideologies are aimed toward what is best for the collective. Both think we're all in this thing together.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 19, 2013 7:23:19 GMT -5
Clinton's summary was ok, but it was meant to serve political purposes and didn't really go into things too deeply. For Clinton's purposes, it was good enough to put liberals in positive terms and to contrast the two groups in the limited framework of his choosing.
I'm not too far into Haidt's comparisons. He's talking now about how liberals and conservatives both value fairness. Liberals tend to think of the weaker members of our society and injustices inflicted upon them, while conservatives tend to look at injustices inflicted on them and/or their group. That sounds about right to me. Both are valid. Both value fairness. But the emotions and intuitions of liberals get turned on by one set of circumstances while the emotions of conservatives are excited by another. And it's not that conservatives don't care about the underprivileged or that liberals don't care about themselves and their group; they just have different hot buttons and issues that can spark involvement and action.
Or maybe you disagree with that too.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Sept 19, 2013 7:42:51 GMT -5
Two sides to the same coin.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 19, 2013 7:45:05 GMT -5
Or maybe you disagree with that too. yup. Don't get me wrong. Again, I enjoy Haidt's insights. But like every liberal I know (possible exception of 'tramp when he's purposely trying to think outside the box.), Haidt doesn't grasp the extent of his own confirmation bias. He doesn't grasp the extent to which his point of view has monopolized the FRAMING of every issue.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Sept 19, 2013 7:53:39 GMT -5
Yeah, I have to try soooooo hard to maintain that illusion of rationality.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 19, 2013 8:02:05 GMT -5
Yeah, I have to try soooooo hard to maintain that illusion of rationality. I don't get any connection between your obvious offense and what I said. Maybe it's because the discussion is relative to what Haidt has said and you haven't read him?
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 19, 2013 8:03:47 GMT -5
Or maybe you disagree with that too. yup. The best approach would be for you to read the book yourself, rather than listening to me paraphrasing and mangling his ideas. Then you can argue with him directly, assuming you talk to your audio books the way I do. The first chapter of this book is key, I think. I'm not sure how well the rest of the book works if you're not receptive to the idea that we make our moral judgements almost instantaneously based on intuition. (Haidt calls himself an intuitionist.) Another, less attractive approach would be to argue about it. We could list the hot issues in Washington today and see first of all if the "We're all in this together vs every man for himself" comparison applies, and then rate each issue as leaning one way or the other. Off the top of my head I get the supposed liberal vs conservative values for gun rights, voter suppession, the deficit, Obamacare and immigration. Abortion is trickier; conservatives are championing others (babies) while liberals are championing women's rights - I don't know how to rate that one. That's far from an exhaustive list, but I think the pattern would just become more clear the more items that are added to the list.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 19, 2013 8:05:42 GMT -5
Or maybe you disagree with that too. yup. Don't get me wrong. Again, I enjoy Haidt's insights. But like every liberal I know (possible exception of 'tramp when he's purposely trying to think outside the box.), Haidt doesn't grasp the extent of his own confirmation bias. He doesn't grasp the extent to which his point of view has monopolized the FRAMING of every issue. I think that's a fair criticism. I haven't seen any evidence of it yet, but I don't see why he should be immune to the failings of the rest of us human beings.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Sept 19, 2013 8:15:30 GMT -5
John the problem is your assumption that I can only see things correctly in your opinion when I 'when he's purposely trying to think outside the box'. This assumption is based on your opinion that I am in some sort of box of false assumptions already and that some mental effort is required for me to not be restricted by it. I don't believe you think you have to purposely think outside of the box to reach your own opinions, do you? This 'box' of which you speak is as much a construction based on your own preconceived opinions of what 'liberals' believe (the point of view that monopolizes the framing of every issue you see?) and of who you think are liberals so anyone who falls into the liberal box must have to purposely try really hard to see the rational forest for the liberal trees. As someone here once said, "If liberals believed all the things conservatives tell me they believe, I wouldn't like them either."
So to sum up, don't define me then tell me I must be working hard to not be what you have defined me to be.
|
|