09.18.08
Left, Right, and off-center
I found a lot that bugged me in this talk by Jonathan Haidt, but I also came away with some food for thought.
What do you think?
[If nobody comments on this, my next post will not be pretty. Me want discussion!]
8 Comments »
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
machinist said,
September 18, 2008 at 3:01 am
We’re here! Just need time to watch the show and the evil orb is rising.
BrendaK said,
September 18, 2008 at 3:30 am
Food for thought. While I agreed with a good bit of what he had to say, I am on the fence about one thing: Does he start with faulty perceptions?
By that, I mean that it seems to me that he tends to view the two major groups as somewhat monolithic. I would like to know more about his sampling methods.
Sulla said,
September 18, 2008 at 9:06 am
morning folks!
Brenda – I had a similar thought. it’s such a wide brush he paints with.
He also started off on the Left foot, and seemed to take bigger leaps with the sinister foot, which annoyed Honey to no end. We debated whether that’s his internal bias or if he used that as a Judo move to suck in his audience before upending their worldview. Still a bit condescending to the Dextrosphere, she thought.
Sulla said,
September 18, 2008 at 9:23 am
(now I’m feeling totally guilty for my shameless groveling for attention…is that a Left or a Right trait?)
machinist said,
September 18, 2008 at 10:23 am
Pffftt!!
We are glad to know when you have a new post up, Silly Sulla.
BrendaK said,
September 19, 2008 at 2:24 am
Ok, I realized what bothered me about his speech, what always bothers me about these kinds of things:
He ascribes character traits and behaviors to two classes of people: Conservatives and Liberals. Intelligent, open to new experiences, steady, religious, rebellious, responsive to authority, etc.
The problem, as I see it, is that one really can’t authoritatively determine that another person has most of these qualities and certainly can’t assign these qualities as belonging to all/most/many of a class of people. People can only self-identify as having or wanting and/or admiring most of these qualities. With regard to intelligence, I don’t for one instance believe that they have a wide enough sampling of verified intelligence tests to be able to assign a greater/lower level of intelligence based on political leanings. Once again, it pretty much has to be self-identification. The problem with self-identification is, what people admire or wish to emulate is not necessarily what they are capable of achieving. It is simply what they admire or wish to emulate.
His greatest error, I believe, is in his own assessment of which qualities are most desirable and the implications thereof. The ‘liberal’ qualities assigned are along the lines of fun, happy, questioning and therefore more intelligent and more desirable. The ‘conservative’ qualities are routinely stoic, plodding, unimaginative and therefore less intelligent and less desirable.
It would be as correct to say that the majority of liberals resemble butterflies of the meadow, and conservatives resemble worker drones in a hive. Very value laden, light on ‘nuance’ and ultimately not overly helpful.
Sulla said,
September 27, 2008 at 1:08 pm
That’s a GREAT comment, Brenda. It helps a lot; I needed an uplifting counterpoint to Mr. Snarky’s too-clever approach, and I think you nailed it.
Thanks!
Sulla said,
September 27, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Mac – thanks. I feel the same – I’m always happy to see a comment from you. Your modesty hides a keen intellect and sharp wit. Your Hoff-Fu is beyond compare. And your gentlemanly ways are a joy to behold.