The Righteous Mind

[lawrocket 3]

I happened upon this book review from about a month ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

So much of this makes sense to me. We aren't in the business of supporting other peoples' conclusions. We are in the business of supporting our own. We are inherently knee-jerk and we first conclude, then we come up with arguments in support of the conclusion.

The book seems to indicate that simply dismissing the other side of things is understandable because it's what we're programmed to do. Dismissing doesn't get us ahead - it leaves us merely dismissing and coming up with reasons later instead of understanding what the other side is thinking. We find support with the groups that think like us, leading to greater differences.

What is the most ironic part is that the author suggests that liberals are the worst at opening minds. Not only do they fail to unerstand conservative values, but they cannot recognize that they don't. Which is odd because they consider themselves open-minded and proud of it. Conservatives (who are often proud of being closed minded) may actually be more open-minded than they care to admit.

What's the point I take from it? There are a couple of them:
(1) Are we involved in groupthink? Consider whether we are just joining forces for validation.

(2) See where the other side is coming from. No, those of us who are climate skeptics on here are not getting paid by Heartland but there may be legitimate reasons for our skepticisms. I should consider why the other side believes what it does. What is the moral background?

(3) Challenge our own conclusions. Or conclude something AFTER we analyze it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wmw999 2,584]

Good post.

Now STFU and learn from us liberals

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

I love it when you talk dirty.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

I like the hypothesis. Would make for an interesting study.

I disagree with the conclusions drawn in the absence thereof.

Ultimately the book review and the conclusions of the book itself seems to come down to a matter of opinion rather than fact.

The irony is that is precisely what he's talking about in his hypothesis.

I'll admit I haven't read the book, but in reading the book review, it appears as if he is making the data fit the hypothesis. Not uncommon, but especially ironic here.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[davjohns 1]

Quote

I like the hypothesis. Would make for an interesting study.

I disagree with the conclusions drawn in the absence thereof.

Ultimately the book review and the conclusions of the book itself seems to come down to a matter of opinion rather than fact.

The irony is that is precisely what he's talking about in his hypothesis.

I'll admit I haven't read the book, but in reading the book review, it appears as if he is making the data fit the hypothesis. Not uncommon, but especially ironic here.

I actually started laughing at this one. You reject the conclusion without reading the underlying facts or argument. Funny stuff right there.

I think the author got the idea from reading threads in SC.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Now STFU and learn from us liberals

You never struck me as a liberal.
I'm going to have to reconsider your posts now.

We are all engines of karma

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

What is the most ironic part is that the author suggests that liberals are the worst at opening minds.

Or does that mean conservatives are worst at listening?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[quade 4]

Quote

I actually started laughing at this one. You reject the conclusion without reading the underlying facts or argument.

I rejected the conclusion (liberals are worse) based on the information presented in the review and stated as much.

The review itself may or may not reflect the actual state of affairs in the book. If it does reflect the actual state of affairs in the book, it does little to assure me the conclusions presented are based in fact rather than opinion. On the other hand, if the review is simply the spin of the reviewer which may reflect his personal political bias, then that's also opinion and not fact. In either case, I do not take the material presented in the original post as fact, but at best, secondary opinion.

How many times have we seen the results of a scientific book or paper corrupted to serve another purpose?

For anyone on the right to blindly accept the conclusion isn't exactly critical thinking.

To quote Lawrocket;

Quote

We aren't in the business of supporting other peoples' conclusions. We are in the business of supporting our own.

The original post, the review and perhaps the book, seems to do that quite nicely.

Of course, only the truly intelligent people can see the new clothes on the emperor.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Absolutely. I don't disagree with anything Paul says.

On the other hand it does get me thinking. why is it that I hear liberals call conservatives "stupid" so frequently? Why is it that conservatives will call liberals "ivory tower" or "unpatriotic" so often?

The article brought forth something interesting and topical. "Social conservatives see welfare and feminism as threats to responsibility and family stability." Meanwhile the liberal rebukes the social conservative's beliefs and/or actions as an "attack on women." The liberal has difficulty coming to grips with the idea that, yes, this person doesn't hate women but puts a higher value on family, etc.

It also works both ways. The social conservative and I are almost always at odds. I understand, of course, that there is a desire for greater security in a world where nation-state warfare and terrorism are difficult to separate. I see how the country may indeed be made safer by suspending habeas corpus for some. The social conservative will disagree with my assessment that summary execution of citizens overseas by the US military is not consistent with Constitutional principles, nor of my civil libertarian philosophy. I've had social conservatives call me idiotic for the suggestion that the actions were an affront to liberty. Hey, I like the result but abhor the method.

It's true - there are different moral values. Different ethos. And these are the factors upon which we base our beliefs. We conclude, and then come up with post hoc justifications.

That's why Bush supporters are attacking Obama for being just like Bush only more so, while Bush attackers are defending Obama for being just like Bush only more so. Neither side makes a damned bit of sense. Obama is either their guy or he isn't and can either do no wrong or do not right.

Standards be damned.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[devildog 0]

Quote

If it does reflect the actual state of affairs in the book, it does little to assure me the conclusions presented are based in fact rather than opinion.

Because you "aren't in the business of supporting other peoples' conclusions." but rather you, "are in the business of supporting [your] own."
Seems to me the wise mind at least, would read the book and then be able to say whether or not the conclusions are based in fact and/or study.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

What is the most ironic part is that the author suggests that liberals are the worst at opening minds. Not only do they fail to unerstand conservative values, but they cannot recognize that they don't.

I suppose if this book drew the conclusion that conservatives are the worst at opening minds, you never would have posted this.

You do prove the authors premise, just not his subjective conclusion.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

On the other hand it does get me thinking. why is it that I hear liberals call conservatives "stupid" so frequently? Why is it that conservatives will call liberals "ivory tower"

Your second question, along with the unbelievably partisan nature of US political debate, answers your first. "Stupid" is a natural accusation to throw at followers of a party which allows some of its highest profile members to campaign on platforms which are, essentially, anti-knowledge and anti-intellectual. Which is itself a result of partisanship convincing that party that its more extreme fringes are actually the core it should be pandering to.

Quote

That's why Bush supporters are attacking Obama for being just like Bush only more so, while Bush attackers are defending Obama for being just like Bush only more so. Neither side makes a damned bit of sense. Obama is either their guy or he isn't and can either do no wrong or do not right.

You're right, that does get pretty funny. For some things though, there really is a difference between being the guy who continues something already in motion vs being the guy who set the ball rolling.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

What is the most ironic part is that the author suggests that liberals are the worst at opening minds. Not only do they fail to unerstand conservative values, but they cannot recognize that they don't.

I suppose if this book drew the conclusion that conservatives are the worst at opening minds, you never would have posted this.

You do prove the authors premise, just not his subjective conclusion.

Actually, yes. I found this fascinating. I have attempted to give some fair treatment to both sides in pointing out that everybody does it. Both sides. And the more extreme I figure the more set in stone it is.

I personally happen to find this subject fascinating. It's the understanding of this process that I need for my job. As much as I'd like a jury to view the evidence and then make a decision, I know that cases are usually won and lost in the opening statement. I'd like to figure out ways of doing my job better and how better to not only prevail if it happens to be a trial but also to get into the mind of the other party so that I can figure out what they need so I can settle it.

Preconceptions are difficult to overcome. It's human nature. We haven't evolved out of it.

Quote

I suppose if this book drew the conclusion that conservatives are the worst at opening minds, you never would have posted this

Note that you made an allegation that I believe to be untrue. Will I ever be able to convince you otherwise? Probably not.

Meaning that you are normal.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

What is the most ironic part is that the author suggests that liberals are the worst at opening minds. Not only do they fail to unerstand conservative values, but they cannot recognize that they don't.

I suppose if this book drew the conclusion that conservatives are the worst at opening minds, you never would have posted this.

You do prove the authors premise, just not his subjective conclusion.

Here's a new book that is also making some recent news:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Republican-Brain-Science-Science/dp/1118094514

"The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality" by Chris Mooney.

From the inside cover:

Quote

Why do so many Republicans believe man-made climate change is a hoax? The two most common explanations are that the deniers are uninformed or that they have been bought off by corporate money. Bestselling author Chris Mooney isn't buying either of those arguments. In fact, as he points out, the better educated a conservative is, the more likely he is to dismiss climate change concerns. How can that be?

Part of the answer lies with motivated reasoning—the psychological phenomenon of preferring only evidence that backs up your belief—but in The Republican Brain, Mooney explains that is just the tip of the cognitive iceberg. There is a growing body of evidence that conservatives and liberals don't just have differing ideologies; they have different psychologies. How could the rejection of mainstream science be growing among Republicans, along with the denial of expert consensus on the economy, American history, foreign policy, and much more? Why won't Republicans accept things that most experts agree on? Why are they constantly fighting against the facts? Increasingly, the answer appears to be: it's just part of who they are.

Mooney explores brain scans, polls, and psychology experiments to explain why conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence by doubling down on their current beliefs.

The answer begins with some measurable personality traits that strongly correspond with political preferences. For instance, people more wedded to certainty tend to become conservatives; people craving novelty, liberals. Surprisingly, openness to new experiences and fastidiousness are better predictors of political preference than income or education. If you like to keep your house neat and see the world in a relatively black and white way, you're probably going to vote Republican. If you've recently moved to a big city to see what else life has to offer, you're probably going to vote Democrat. These basic differences in openness and curiosity, Mooney argues, fuel an "expertise gap" between left and right that explains much of the battle today over what is true.

Being a good liberal, Mooney also has to explore the implications of these findings for Democrats as well. Are they really wishy-washy flip-floppers? Well, sometimes. Can't they be just as dogmatic about issues close to their hearts, like autism and vaccines, or nuclear power? His research leads to some surprising conclusions.

While the evolutionary advantages of both liberal and conservative psychologies seem obvious, clashes between them in modern life have led to a crisis in our politics. A significant chunk of the electorate, it seems, will never accept the facts as they are, no matter how strong the evidence. Understanding the psychology of the left and the right, Mooney argues, should therefore fundamentally alter the way we approach the he-said-he-said of public debates.

Certain to spark discussion and debate, The Republican Brain also promises to add to the lengthy list of persuasive scientific findings that Republicans reject and deny.

I highlighted a part. While I am not Republican I do happen to have a great deal of skepticism. Why? Because I have studied history and know that consensus.

Yes, I agree that it is just part of who I am. I don't accept a person's assertions just because that person is saying it. I don't just accept consensus because I was never a popular guy, anyway, and the "consensus" has meant that I had to do shit on my own.

The strange thing is, Mooney dismisses fact in his book. Apparently there's a spot where he provides proof that Republicans are not as able to process reality because right wingers think that ObamaCare will increase the deficit. The issue is not in the "fact" but of the judging of the fact.

Another part discusses a study whereupon peopel were asked to differentiate M from W on a screen. It found that liberals were better at this task than conservatives and therefore more adaptable. Therefore, liberals can change with things and are more adaptable. Of course, another conclusion is that "liberals" are far better than "conservatives" at doing simple tasks that don't require complex thought.

My issue? I don't like being told that because of my skepticism I am anti-science. That would be calling Kuhn anti-science. That would be calling Kepler and Copernicus and Galileo and Einstein anti-science. You know, guys who took on the "consensus" and stuck to their guns even when the consensus said they were wrong. Darwin? Stuck to his guns even when Lord Kelvin ridiculed him.

Let us take a look at some "liberals" who won't change their minds. Paul Ehrlich comes to mind. How about Ralph Nader? He was challenged by Bernard Cohen to eat the same amount of caffeine as Cohen would eat of plutonium. He declined, yet the plutonium danger has become a political and legal truth.

Kuhn himself explained that a new scientific truth does not prevail by convincing its opponents to the other side but rather the proponents of the prior paradigm just die off.

Homeboy Monney, I'm afraid, will likely be one of those who is rather rigid. What will Mooney's response be to those who would critique his book? Would Mooney allow himself to be convinced otherwise or would he stand by his work?

Which to me, is an example of the issue. How does one define someone like Darwin? Was he a liberal because he published a new theory that was at odds with the consensus? Or was Darwin a conservative because he refused to go along with the expert consensus?

This is where I believe Mooney makes a fatal error. Many of yesterday's quacks are today considered yesterday's visionaries. How does one avoid selection bias in determining which of those quacks was conservative versus liberal?

My wife is hotter than your wife.