The Morality of Liberals and Conservatives
You might find this lecture interesting. Jonathan Haidt, associate professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, has been studying the psychology
of morality. At a recent New Yorker conference, he presented a summary of his findings on the differences in morality between conservatives and liberals. The video of his talk is online HERE.
In general, he describes liberals as having a kind of morality based on two foundations:
He notes that this is a sufficient and reasonable moral basis for a diverse society, where you have to accept the differences between people. He also points out how the Blue counties are all either along the coasts and along the Mississippi River -- areas with shipping, with a lot of trade and a lot of different kinds of people.
Conservative morality includes those two foundations, he said, but also includes principles of:
The five-foundation system of morality has been the prevalent one everywhere in the world where societies have remained distinct from one another and where it was possible to live your whole life within your in-group, he said. Note that until modern times, this was just about everywhere.
Of course he elaborates more in this presentation, as he makes the point that by understanding these differences in the foundations of morality, liberals can understand why conservatives feel the way they do.
It all sounds fine, that conservative people are just looking out for threats to their loved ones, trying to prevent disruption, hoping to preserve cultural values that have sustained people for a long time. I can see that.
But something about it started to bother me a little bit. Because I grew up in a Red State, in Barry Goldwater's own state of Arizona. And I never had any trouble with conservative people. I mean, I wasn't one of them, but they were my friends and neighbors, we just had a different way of looking at things. In November we'd go to the polls and vote and they'd win. No problem.
Haidt refers to the "culture wars" a couple of times in this talk, and I think I see what the problem is.
See, he's talking about conservative people, in the traditional sense. There has always been debate in the US about ... well, about everything ... and it's always had two sides to it, and one side gets called "liberal" and the other side gets called "conservative." Been that way for my whole life, at least.
But the culture wars, that's not just a new label for an old dialectical process. The culture wars are a recent phenomenon. And the problem isn't that "conservatives" want to protect their families from threats and maintain traditional values, the problem is that they have moved so far to the right that they have left real conservatives like Barry Goldwater looking like liberals. The problem is that the "conservatives" are convinced that their mission (whatever it is) is so important that they are entitled to lie, accuse, cheat, to declare wars and reinterpret the Constitution in any way they can get away with.
I don't see that in this "five-foundation" moral system. Where does it say it's OK to lie? Liberals and real conservatives reject that sort of thing equally, though it has become status quo among our political leadership and in the Family Blah Blah organizations and groups like the CRC that are trying to push their narrow value system on the rest of us. We're only just starting to see the indictments and convictions roll in at the highest levels of the federal govenrment. The standard behavior of our government officials has not just been unethical, it's criminal.
Hey, d'ya hear the guy on the news the other days, saying he didn't think it was right to send Scooter Libby to jail without DeLay?
The kind of Assault on Reason we have witnessed in recent years is not an ongoing debate between honest liberals and honest conservatives who just see the world with different priorities. The "culture wars" reflect an attempt by radical elements to remake the United States in their image, removing elementary Constitutional rights and institutionalizing bigotry and belligerence, to create a fundamentally different America based on authoritarianism and rejecting personal liberty.
This guy is correct in general, in describing, say, the difference between City Mice and Country Mice, between liberals and conservatives in ordinary times, but he isn't even in the ball park when it comes to understanding how things have gotten the way they are, where behavior that is outside the bounds of any system of morality has become status quo.
of morality. At a recent New Yorker conference, he presented a summary of his findings on the differences in morality between conservatives and liberals. The video of his talk is online HERE.
In general, he describes liberals as having a kind of morality based on two foundations:
- do no harm and
- be fair (don't cheat people)
He notes that this is a sufficient and reasonable moral basis for a diverse society, where you have to accept the differences between people. He also points out how the Blue counties are all either along the coasts and along the Mississippi River -- areas with shipping, with a lot of trade and a lot of different kinds of people.
Conservative morality includes those two foundations, he said, but also includes principles of:
- in-group loyalty
- respect for authority, and
- purity
The five-foundation system of morality has been the prevalent one everywhere in the world where societies have remained distinct from one another and where it was possible to live your whole life within your in-group, he said. Note that until modern times, this was just about everywhere.
Of course he elaborates more in this presentation, as he makes the point that by understanding these differences in the foundations of morality, liberals can understand why conservatives feel the way they do.
It all sounds fine, that conservative people are just looking out for threats to their loved ones, trying to prevent disruption, hoping to preserve cultural values that have sustained people for a long time. I can see that.
But something about it started to bother me a little bit. Because I grew up in a Red State, in Barry Goldwater's own state of Arizona. And I never had any trouble with conservative people. I mean, I wasn't one of them, but they were my friends and neighbors, we just had a different way of looking at things. In November we'd go to the polls and vote and they'd win. No problem.
Haidt refers to the "culture wars" a couple of times in this talk, and I think I see what the problem is.
See, he's talking about conservative people, in the traditional sense. There has always been debate in the US about ... well, about everything ... and it's always had two sides to it, and one side gets called "liberal" and the other side gets called "conservative." Been that way for my whole life, at least.
But the culture wars, that's not just a new label for an old dialectical process. The culture wars are a recent phenomenon. And the problem isn't that "conservatives" want to protect their families from threats and maintain traditional values, the problem is that they have moved so far to the right that they have left real conservatives like Barry Goldwater looking like liberals. The problem is that the "conservatives" are convinced that their mission (whatever it is) is so important that they are entitled to lie, accuse, cheat, to declare wars and reinterpret the Constitution in any way they can get away with.
I don't see that in this "five-foundation" moral system. Where does it say it's OK to lie? Liberals and real conservatives reject that sort of thing equally, though it has become status quo among our political leadership and in the Family Blah Blah organizations and groups like the CRC that are trying to push their narrow value system on the rest of us. We're only just starting to see the indictments and convictions roll in at the highest levels of the federal govenrment. The standard behavior of our government officials has not just been unethical, it's criminal.
Hey, d'ya hear the guy on the news the other days, saying he didn't think it was right to send Scooter Libby to jail without DeLay?
The kind of Assault on Reason we have witnessed in recent years is not an ongoing debate between honest liberals and honest conservatives who just see the world with different priorities. The "culture wars" reflect an attempt by radical elements to remake the United States in their image, removing elementary Constitutional rights and institutionalizing bigotry and belligerence, to create a fundamentally different America based on authoritarianism and rejecting personal liberty.
This guy is correct in general, in describing, say, the difference between City Mice and Country Mice, between liberals and conservatives in ordinary times, but he isn't even in the ball park when it comes to understanding how things have gotten the way they are, where behavior that is outside the bounds of any system of morality has become status quo.
posted by JimK at 12:01 PM
127 Comments:
What sticks out at me is that two of the foundations for conservative "morality" are in-group loyalty and "purity". Essentially they are overlapping foundations as the "purity" of the group is largely determined by the in-group loyalty.
The difference between conservative and liberal morality is that the conservative morality is suited for our ancient ancestral past and the liberal morality is suited for our modern present and future. Back in cave-man times it made sense to have strong in-group loyalty as humans were divided into seperate often warring groups and the survival of one was often at the expense of the other. Nowadays this works against us as we are a global society and dividing ourselves into warring factions is counterproductive particularly given modern weapons.
Liberals see their in-group as all of society and are concerned for the well being of us all, not just the "us" in "us versus them". This is what we need to overcome the conflicts between religious, ethnic groups, and nations. We've outgrown the need for loyal in-groups and we need to make the whole planet our in-group to survive and prosper.
An excellent book that makes this point extremely well is Carl Sagan's "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors". It notes how in-group loyalty and inter-group fighting is deeply ingrained in our evolutionary past and how our evolution hasn't kept up with social needs in a modern society. It truly is the bible for recognizing and overcoming the problems in modern society due to an evolutionary makeup that no longer suits our needs.
Small minded in-group loyalty is responsible for the conflicts we see in the world today. This loyalty may make people more comfortable within their isolated group but results in the conflicts between groups we see all over the planet today. In-group loyalty may have been productive in the ancient past when there was sufficient space such that groups needn't overlap or encounter other groups much, but in a shrinking world we can't afford to differentiate ourselves like this and keep fighting evertime we inevitably and frequently encounter other differentiated groups. We need a global morality to survive and prosper, the artificial boundaries of nation, ethnicity, and religion must be put aside, we must overcome our cave-man mentality that leads us to these things.
Randi's point is made repeatedly in Thomas Friedman's chillingly prophetic book, The Lexis and the Olive Tree. Written the year before 9/11, he lays out these two approaches clearly -- and notes the dangers posed by "superempowered individuals" -- he specifically names Bin Laden -- who have access to great wealth, but also are obsessed by "in-group loyalty" to the point where those not in the in-group are deemed to be an undifferentated enemy.
"We need a global morality." But assuming that's true, why would you imagine that this "global morality" would reflect the perspective of American cultural leftists, since probably 75-80% of the world's population is in basic disagreement with it? That is to say, the vast bulk of the people on the globe are NOT liberals, they are (in your terminology) "cavemen" or at least they are much closer to caveman-ism than to American cultural leftism.
Check out the reaction in non-American branches of Christian churches to the liberal positions of their American counterparts for one good case in point--American Anglicans think homosexual bishops are A-OK, but the vast majority of the Anglican church in the non-Western world disagrees.
So why do you think "global morality" will reflect YOUR morality and not that of the conservatives? Assuming, that is, that it is actually constructed by the global citizenry and not an elite of Western intellectuals?
Cult, it's a little weird the way you put stuff in quotes and attribute it to me, when I didn't say it. I've got nothing against the conservative "five-foundation" morality, except that it doesn't work if you're in a city surrounded by all kinds of people. In that case, there's no way to avoid the fact that your own group's norms are just one of many. That's why the blue states are near the ports.
In fact, I thought I was pretty clear about that in this post. It's not conservatism that I have a beef with, it's the self-serving fake-morality that today calls itself conservatism.
JimK
I didn't attribute anything to you. YOur name isn't even in my post. I was responding to Randi Schimnosky's comment, as you might have noted that's where the stuff on "global morality" shows up.
As to what does or does not "work" as a moral perspective in a city, do you think there aren't any conservatives in the coastal parts of the country? Just because those states tend to lean left is no indication that conservative morality "doesn't work" there--what would that even MEAN, that it "doesn't work"?
SImply living in an urban environment doesn't mean one has to become a cultural relativist.
why would you imagine that this "global morality" would reflect the perspective of American cultural leftists, since probably 75-80% of the world's population is in basic disagreement with it?
I don't know, Culturologist. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that people from around the world seek to immigrate to the US with it's "cultural leftists" more than any other place on Earth. People are not waiting for years or illegally crossing borders to live anywhere else in numbers like they want in here.
Many people around the world want to come here for some of the same reasons early colonists did - to escape the tyranny of mandatory in-group loyalty and to attain American freedoms.
Ah, so you think that everyone who comes to the US from elsewhere is a cultural relativist, then? Well, the demographic data sure don't indicate that--the vast bulk of the immigration to this country comes from Latin America and Asia, and specifically from countries that are much more 'caveman' (Schimnosky's term) than 'enlightened' in cultural terms. Talk with your average Latino immigrant about same sex marriage sometime and see what response you get. They are generally not enthusiastic about the kinds of things going on in Massachusetts.
And you think "early colonists" were cultural leftists??? Wow, ever heard of Puritanism?
You haven't thought very hard about this, have you, 'O'Really'?
One should also note that, even if every immigrant to the US *were* morally liberal (again, this notion is pretty patently false--the central factor that draws most immigrants here is *work*, not the existence of lots of strip clubs and same sex marriage in Massachusetts), per O'Really's presumption, this doesn't answer my question.
Only a small minority of the world's population desires to emigrate to the US or to the West generally--most of those people prefer staying right where they are.
It is a particularly virulent kind of ethnocentrism to imagine that everyone in a traditional culture really hates it there and desires only to come to the land of porn, the hook up culture, and endless Gay Pride parades. That is, the kind of 'cultural liberalism' that believes that everyone really wants to be LIKE US is actually not so culturally liberal after all, is it?
I just watched the Haidt video. Haidt is exactly right--Atom-World vs. Lattice-World.
As a sociologist, it's easy to see that Atom-World is completely contrary to reality--human beings are NOT isolated individuals, but rather exist ONLY as members of groups and institutions that provide them with values and ways of seeing and understanding the world. Haidt even implicitly notes that this is true of the Atom-World leftists too, although their worldview precludes them noticing it.
The one point Haidt doesn't see in enough nuance is that the Lattice-World morality reliance on tradition does not necessarily imply religious belief and invocations of God. But most of what he says is right.
What he ought to end the talk with is the advice to Atom-Worlders that it is highly unlikely that they will ever eliminate Lattice-World morality, precisely because the latter view of morality is richer and more nuanced (Haidt implies this himself) than Atom-World morality. After all, Lattice-World morality INCLUDES the two elements of Atom -World morality and ADDS three more elements. By this measure, Atom-World morality is more simple-minded--ironic given the fact that so many Atom-worlders seem to get so much satisfaction out of constantly talking about how much smarter they are than the Lattice-Worlders!
My sense is that Atom-Worlders will make no real inroads into political power and dominance in American society until they enrich their own vision of morality. Such a vision used to exist on the left--New Deal Democrats were VERY different creatures than the current batch of identity-centered, relativist and atomistic Democrats. The problem on the left is that the radically individualist framework won over the party of the left, and so many people who disagree with elements of the contemporary Republican right's worldview (e.g., the encroachment of religion into the state, the worship of radical free market individualism and desire to destroy the welfare state), yet who cannot follow the atomistic left in endorsing every little thing some tiny group wants to do as a 'right,' find themselves without a party.
Ah, so you think that everyone who comes to the US from elsewhere is a cultural relativist, then?...you think "early colonists" were cultural leftists???
Now who's attributing words to others' who didn't utter them? I never said any of that. You did.
Many immigrants support many of freedoms America's liberal culture provides. Marriage equality/civil unions are only offered in a few states. What makes you think those are the ONLY bits of our liberal culture that attracts immigrants?
As for your 12:46 PM comment, I gotta say you sound more like a Cultproctologist than a Culturologist.
Have you seen any data on immigrant cultural positions? That is a MORE conservative population than the already present American population--they are more religious, more family-centered, and certainly more focused on that horrible 'in-group loyalty' than the Atom-World folks Haidt is talking about.
All the evidence indicates that they come here by and large because they CAN MAKE MORE MONEY here than they can in their home countries. If you knew anything about the immigration literature, that would be obvious to you.
Your idea that they come here for 'American cultural freedoms' isn't backed up by any facts. Or at least you haven't mobilized any here.
The fact that you post here anonymously (and with a sad attempt at a joke concerning my last name) is telling--the overwhelming majority of the anonymous posters I have encountered in most places don't know what they are talking about, and they know it, so they prefer to avoid having others know precisely where to attribute their faulty ideas.
Why are you afraid to reveal who you are?
Please forgive the delay. Some of us work for a living.
Immigrants come here for many reasons; more money is one of them and I'll even give you that it might be the most common reason. However, it is far from the only reason people want to come here. Better health care, job security provided by unions, religious freedom, love, food and water safety, fact-based education are but a few of the other reasons they come. As I said before, you don't see nearly as many people sneaking across borders or waiting years to immigrate legally into other contries as you do here.
ever heard of Puritanism?
Yeah. Have you ever heard of the Unitarians?
attempt at a joke concerning my last name
Your last name is urologist?????
Why are you afraid to reveal who you are?
You ass-u-me waaaaaay too much. I'm not afraid, I just don't care to identify myself. It's still a (mostly) free country.
Thanks for making it clear that time spent talking to you is wasted time.
Culturologist said ""We need a global morality." But assuming that's true, why would you imagine that this "global morality" would reflect the perspective of American cultural leftists, since probably 75-80% of the world's population is in basic disagreement with it?".
I never said it would reflect the american "cultural leftists"' perspective. What I'm saying is that one of the pillers of conservatism, "in group loyalty" and the overlapping piller of "purity" is dangerous and destructive in a globalized society and we see this everywhere in the global conflicts over religion and ethnicity.
By definition a global morality is one that does away with the destructiveness of in-group loyalty and makes the "in-group" the entire planet. Participating in a global government would force people to think beyond artificial borders and to think of their fellow human's needs and desires just as national governments force some consideration of all peoples within a nation.
A global morality isn't something that's going to happen automatically, it'll take work and time to bring it about. Ultimately everyone is better off when we cooperate and its eventually in everyone's best interest to have consideration for their global neighbours. People can be convinced of this bit by bit. Its easy to see how everyone would be better off if the money spent on armies and defense could go to feeding the poor, health care, and technological development. There's a huge opportunity cost in being enemies divided by nationality, religion, and ethnicity.
Give individuals a say in global affairs and they'll start to think of their group as all of society. Teach morality in school, teach that we are global citizens. The more educated people are the more consideration they tend to have for their fellow citizen.
Culturologist said "it's easy to see that Atom-World is completely contrary to reality--human beings are NOT isolated individuals, but rather exist ONLY as members of groups and institutions that provide them with values and ways of seeing and understanding the world".
Uhh, Culturologist, if anyone's view is contrary to reality its your's. What you're saying is nonsense. People exist both as members of groups and institutions AND as individuals. Without individuals there is no group or institution and the idea that we exist ONLY as members is preposterous. People don't cease to be when they are not interacting with others, they continue to exist as individuals.
Our values and ways of seeing and understanding the world come from within us as much as from others. Certain values are inherent in people and that's why core values tend to arise independent of culture and social grouping. Its inherent in people to understand that that which I want, value, and desire there is a good chance that someone else will feel the same way. Its inherent in people to understand that what causes me pain will cause someone else pain and if I desire to avoid pain so will others. Its inherent in people to understand that since they need food, shelter, and water, that others will have the same needs. Its inherent in people to understand that just as there are things that bring me pleasure others will have things that bring them pleasure. Because we inherently know who we are, our needs, desires, and dislikes we have a reasonably good idea what everyone is like.
"What I'm saying is that one of the pillers of conservatism, "in group loyalty" and the overlapping piller of "purity" is dangerous and destructive in a globalized society and we see this everywhere in the global conflicts over religion and ethnicity."
And what of the destructiveness of the radical individualism that is at the heart of the Atom-WOrld morality?
"By definition a global morality is one that does away with the destructiveness of in-group loyalty and makes the "in-group" the entire planet."
Good luck with that.
"A global morality isn't something that's going to happen automatically, it'll take work and time to bring it about."
You mean it'll take plenty of reeducation efforts as Western elites convince everyone else in the world that they've got it wrong and need to see the world the way the Western elites do. People have a strange desire to hang on to their culture, largely because they recognize that is a huge part of what makes them what they are.
"The more educated people are the more consideration they tend to have for their fellow citizen. "
When the educational system takes it as given that 'global morality' is superior, this might perhaps be the case. But the most educated people in many societies are in fact the most nationalist, precisely because they have learned the most about their nation's history and culture from their country's educational system.
But they're just cavemen, right?
"People don't cease to be when they are not interacting with others, they continue to exist as individuals."
You would do well to study some social theory. Of course people don't cease to exist when they are alone--but they ALWAYS carry society around inside them, unless they are feral children. This is Social Science 101.
"Our values and ways of seeing and understanding the world come from within us as much as from others. "
Oh, do tell. Which values do you mean? Which ways of seeing the world? And tell me from precisely WHERE they come from if not from culture?
Everything you do and think is cultural--the very language in WHICH you think is a result of the culture into which you were born.
The very idea of the 'individual' upon which Atom-Worlders stake so much is cultural and is in fact not found in all societies. There is a large literature on the emergence of the notion of the 'individual' in the West as well.
Much of what you say here sounds like the stuff I hear every term from first year undergraduates who are convinced (by their immersion in the radically individualist American *culture*) that they are REALLY INDIVIDUAL. Then they are forced to read and think a little about that notion and most of them figure out pretty quickly how simplistic that way of thinking is.
Andrea -not anon
Hey, culture- don't you have your own blog where you can answer yourself?
Yeah, I do have a blog of my own, Andrea Anon, but from time to time I look around at what others say and comment on that too. You might try it sometime, maybe you'd learn something.
Or maybe not.
Culturologist said "And what of the destructiveness of the radical individualism that is at the heart of the Atom-WOrld morality?".
You obviously need to have another look at the video and to think about it this time. The morality of a liberal is based on "is anyone getting hurt" and fairness. These moral concepts preclude hurting others because we recognize them as individuals just as we are. The conservative "morality" (as we've seen played out with sickening repitition in the conflicts around the planet) does not preclude hurting others, in fact it encourages this because "ingroup loyalty" is an "us versus them" philosophy that encourages seeing others as enemies to be fought with.
I said ""By definition a global morality is one that does away with the destructiveness of in-group loyalty and makes the "in-group" the entire planet."
Cultureologist said "Good luck with that.".
Yes, a monumental problem I agree. But out of curiousity, don't you agree that the planet would be better off if everyone saw everyone else as part of their group and aimed to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems for all in an equal fashion? Do you really think in-group loyalty is a good thing given the conflicts this leads to between groups and the denial of cooperation and mutual goal attainment that might otherwise exist?
Culturologist said "When the educational system takes it as given that 'global morality' is superior, this might perhaps be the case. But the most educated people in many societies are in fact the most nationalist, precisely because they have learned the most about their nation's history and culture from their country's educational system.".
Its a given that global cooperation is superior to fighting between groups based on religion, culture, ethnicity, and so on. Its a given that an opportunity cost is the huge sums and efforts spent on fighting and defending ourselves from each other and that these resources could be better spent advancing everyone's lot in life. That's something everyone should be able to agree should be taught in school to everyone.
Culturologist said "You would do well to study some social theory. Of course people don't cease to exist when they are alone--but they ALWAYS carry society around inside them, unless they are feral children. This is Social Science 101.".
Society is made up of individuals, without individuals there is no society - that's the facts of life 101. Society is there to serve individuals, not the other way around, if society doesn't serve individuals then it serves no purpose whatsoever. People don't build houses for the sake of the houses, they do it for the sake of themselves.
Culturologist said "Oh, do tell. Which values do you mean? Which ways of seeing the world? And tell me from precisely WHERE they come from if not from culture?"
The value of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you cut yourself, you feel pain and you know that cutting others is wrong because they feel pain as well. If you lay down on a soft bed to sleep you know that feels better than sleeping on rocks and you know others would similarly prefer a soft bed to rocks. The individual experiences one has as a human are automatically transferable to other humans, we know instinctively that some of what we feel others likely feel
as well.
Culturologist said "Everything you do and think is cultural--the very language in WHICH you think is a result of the culture into which you were born.".
Nonsense, our basic needs as humans have nothing to do with culture, they're inherent in being human. We don't have to learn from the culture that it feels good to eat when we're hungry, drink when we're thirsty, sleep when we feel tired. We don't learn our sex drives from the culture, it appears unbidden to the individual. We don't (generally) learn to masturbate from others, we discover it on our own. We don't learn it hurts to damage our bodies from others, we learn that on our own. And the list goes on...
Culturologist said "The very idea of the 'individual' upon which Atom-Worlders stake so much is cultural and is in fact not found in all societies. There is a large literature on the emergence of the notion of the 'individual' in the West as well.".
Nonsesene. The fact of our being physically and mentally seperate from others makes individuality inherent in all people and all cultures. No one exists thinking they can't act independently from other people, we learn that from the time we are babies when we first crap or whiz without any interference from anyone else. No one exists who solely thinks of themselves as incapable of independent action and thought - you don't require permission or interaction with others everytime you move part of your body or have a thought. There isn't a sole in the world who doesn't think of herself as an autonomous individual. You didn't require someone's assistance to swallow your breakfast this morning, you acted as a distinct seperate individual.
Golly gee! Should we all thank the Culturologist prof for teaching us ignorant elites for free 13 times in 28 hours?
ANother powerful contribution to the conversation by someone too frightened to attach his/her identity to his/her post. You represent your illiterate anonymous tribe well, Anonymous #3!
Randi, I'd invite you to watch the video, as you clearly missed something basic in it. Haidt is *CRYSTAL CLEAR* that the conservative five prong approach to morality INCLUDES the two liberal prongs. That you missed this is pretty amazing.
You are example #7000 or so that I've encountered of Atom-Worlders who evince no ability whatsoever to get outside of their framework long enough to see what negative effects it has. Indeed, you see things in black/white terms--your morality is all good, other moralities are all bad. That's a child's way of seeing things. Spending a little time thinking about the issue makes one see that there is much grey.
You have a LOT of reading to do before you can say anything meaningful or coherent on the issue of culture and the individual. There are some good sources indicated on the syllabi on my web page--have a look there. Or consider auditing just about ANY course in social theory and/or social philosophy at any college or university.
you see things in black/white terms--your morality is all good, other moralities are all bad.
Says the man who referred to the USA as "lots of strip clubs and same sex marriage in Massachusetts...the land of porn, the hook up culture, and endless Gay Pride parades."
"don't you agree that the planet would be better off if everyone saw everyone else as part of their group and aimed to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems for all in an equal fashion? Do you really think in-group loyalty is a good thing given the conflicts this leads to between groups and the denial of cooperation and mutual goal attainment that might otherwise exist?k"
LIke the vast majority of the rest of people on the planet, I have a hierarchy of values in terms of my investment in other people. Like lots of good liberal Americans, I can express a certain level of abstract concern for the lives of all humans, but the differences become apparent when I have to make practical decisions with the limited resources I have.
In those situations, my family is more important to me than people in Bangladesh I don't know. My family is also more important to me than you are, although you (I'm assuming you are an American) would rank somewhere above the Bangladeshis in terms of the amount of investment in real terms I have in your fate.
To imagine that people can or ought to think otherwise is just utopian fantasy. In fact, it's a basically RELIGIOUS idea--Christianity is centered on this, why else did Jesus call for his followers to abandon their families to follow him and the Way, which was about ALL humanity? For this and other reasons, I reject Christianity, just as I reject the 'secular' utopian projects like the 'global in-group' fantasy you present.
"Society is made up of individuals, without individuals there is no society - that's the facts of life 101. "
No, that's American individualist ideology 101. Consult some thinkers who have actually thought hard about this issue and you'll get a different answer.
"The value of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you cut yourself, you feel pain and you know that cutting others is wrong because they feel pain as well. If you lay down on a soft bed to sleep you know that feels better than sleeping on rocks and you know others would similarly prefer a soft bed to rocks. The individual experiences one has as a human are automatically transferable to other humans, we know instinctively that some of what we feel others likely feel
as well."
Wow.
You do know that "do unto others" comes from a specific culture, right? And that there have existed PLENTY of cultures that do not abide by that rule, that indeed promote as morally good the quick crushing and subjugation of enemies?
You know that cutting others is wrong after cutting yourself eh? WHy does virtually every society then have some kind of cultural practice involving voluntary cutting and scarrification of the body? It hurts, after all. How is it that they ALL act against that 'basic need'?
YOu know how others prefer to sleep, eh? Do you even KNOW anything about how others sleep? Do you know that people can sleep standing up in some cultures, that some cultures do in fact prefer sleeping on hard surfaces, the better to train their bodies to a particular askesis, that cultures vary WILDLY regarding when and how much they sleep? So how valuable is it to point to this as something that 'unites' us, given how much variation there is in how we actually DO it?
Again, it's clear that you haven't thought very hard about much of this.
"You didn't require someone's assistance to swallow your breakfast this morning, you acted as a distinct seperate individual. "
Again, wow. Do you think you were born able to make your own breakfast and eat it? Where did you get the knowledge of what to eat and how to eat it? And what NOT to eat? Did you make all of that up yourself? If so, you're the first.
I wrote: "There is a large literature on the emergence of the notion of the 'individual' in the West as well.".
And you responded: "Nonsesene [sic]."
Are you saying there is no such literature? Would you like a bibliography? YOu can start with Charles Taylor's _SOurces of the Self_, it's a rather fat book, so it'll take you some time to get through, but once you've finished it, I can provide you some more sources.
What you say after "nonsesene" is in fact nonsense and indicates that you don't even know what it means to talk about someone conceiving of themselves as an 'individual.' It is obviously not about whether one is or is not physically separate from others--OF COURSE anyone whose eyes work correctly will note this aspect of reality.
But considering onself an 'individual' in the moral sense that you have been talking about throughout here is another issue entirely and not one reducible to the simple question of physical separation. We know (at least those of us who have bothered to read any history and anthropology) that the moral sense of individualism DOES NOT EXIST in many, many societies, and it DID NOT EXIST always in the West. Human beings can think of themselves and their identities in myriad ways, and in many, many societies they have understood their identities and their moral obligations and rights as intimately collective--tied to others via kinship/family, or nation, or religious belief, or ethnic/racial stock, or some conception of a shared history (even if empirically false).
The very fact that there are people in the world who do not agree with Atom-World morality (which you have already admitted) is in fact EVIDENCE that there are people who do not think of themselves and their moral being in individualist terms.
If human beings are something other than culture, you've indicated only the most trivial of such ways--we eat, we defecate, we sleep. All animal processes that we share with other mammals and indeed with other kinds of living creature.
How do you propose to get from THIS to 'global morality'? Or is your 'global morality' just about agreement on what we eat, how we defecate, and when, where and how we sleep?
Culturologist said "Haidt is *CRYSTAL CLEAR* that the conservative five prong approach to morality INCLUDES the two liberal prongs. That you missed this is pretty amazing.".
It includes them, but deemphasizes them for the sake of the dangerouse "ingroup loyalty" and "purity". That's the problem with conservative morality, it emphasizes artificial boundaries and conflict at the expense of fairness and "not hurting anyone".
Culturologist said "Indeed, you see things in black/white terms--your morality is all good, other moralities are all bad.".
LOL, as anonymous said "Says the man who referred to the USA as "lots of strip clubs and same sex marriage in Massachusetts...the land of porn, the hook up culture, and endless Gay Pride parades.""
I don't say all conservative morality is bad, just that the idea of "ingroup loyalty" and "purity" are and are something that no longer suits our global society - that's caveman morality suited for a time when humans were independent roving bands that rarely encountered each other and didn't need to cooperate on issues like global warming, global trade, global wars, etc.
Culturologist said "You have a LOT of reading to do before you can say anything meaningful or coherent on the issue of culture and the individual".
Nonsense, the problem of ingroup morality and the international conflict it creates is the most meaningful thing we are discussing here. What you need to do is to read Carl Sagan's book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, its the bible.
The damaging effects of "ingroup loyalty" and "purity" can be seen
in groups that have taken this to extreme like the Fundamentalist Mormon Church of Latter Day Saints". The desire for a closed "pure" society has lead to all manner of birth defects and social problems such as hordes of young men being expelled from their community and turned into dangerous drifters because of competition amongst insular groups.
When I was your age I thought I knew it all too. With the experience of age you'll see that just because you're in university now you don't automatically have a grasp of everything.
Culturologist said " my family is more important to me than people in Bangladesh I don't know. My family is also more important to me than you are, although you (I'm assuming you are an American) would rank somewhere above the Bangladeshis in terms of the amount of investment in real terms I have in your fate.".
That's were your morality falls down. While I am not completely free from my cave-woman inheritance I have the intelligence to say that the stranger is just a important and valuable as the family member, our worth is inherently equal. I most certainly would not value an American above a Bangladeshi, or a Canadian above an American (I'm Canadian by the way). That's immoral and although there may be a temptation to put one ahead of the other due to our unevolved psychology this is something we must work against. Although few of us would admit it the fact is that we are all a little racist inside and those of us who are moral recognize this and work to fight that natural impulse at all times - its the same way with "in-group loyalty".
Its indisputable that the world would be better off without inter-group conflicts and its indisputable that the cave-man morality which places a high value on "in-group loyalty" is responsible for much of it. It is indisputable that part of conservative morality - "ingroup loyalty" and purity is problematic.
Culturologist said "To imagine that people can or ought to think otherwise is just utopian fantasy. In fact, it's a basically RELIGIOUS idea".
Now you're really showing your immaturity. Relgioun is all about "us versus them". Christianity and Judeaism teach that Jews were gods chosen ones. The bible justifies genocide against non-believers. Islam teaches "kill the infidels". Its the nature of the Abrahamic religions to create a fantasy that the world was created especially for our little group and all the outsiders, the non-believers will be tortured for eternity. Religion is the ultimate "us versus them" philosophy. If religion were about global unity as you say there wouldn't have been terrorists flying planes into buildings, there'd be peace in the mid-east, the former Yugoslavia would still be one country, there wouldn't have been "the troubles" in Ireland.
Culturologist said "I reject the 'secular' utopian projects like the 'global in-group' fantasy you present.".
That's extemely unfortunate. The only way we can make the best world possible is to define the ideal and then work to come as close to it as possible. The ideal is a global society without inter-group conflict, its a shame you don't want to be a part of it, its a shame that you're content to have a world and society that isn't the best it can be. Hopefully with time and experience you'll mature and change your attitude.
I said "Society is made up of individuals, without individuals there is no society - that's the facts of life 101. "
Culturologist siad "No, that's American individualist ideology 101.".
No, that's reality - no individuals, no society. No matter how you slice it you can't avoid that. Arguing otherwise is childish denial of reality. Why don't you take a break and look up "society" in the dictionary - it says very clearly there "a group of individuals".
Culturologist said "YOu know how others prefer to sleep, eh? Do you even KNOW anything about how others sleep? Do you know that people can sleep standing up in some cultures, that some cultures do in fact prefer sleeping on hard surfaces, the better to train their bodies to a particular askesis, that cultures vary WILDLY regarding when and how much they sleep?".
Of course there are variations in the way people sleep, but what you're talking about are rare exceptions. Virtually no one sleeps standing up, virtually no one prefers sleeping on rocks to something soft and universally people need sleep, at a minimum we learn that inherently from our own needs, not from culture. Humans are much more similar in the basics of needs and desires than we are differnt. The existence of rare differences doesn't change the fact that we have a good general idea from our own nature what other people's nature is.
Culturologist said "You do know that "do unto others" comes from a specific culture, right?".
It certainly isn't specific to any one culture any more so than "thou shalt not steal" is. The bible merely recognized common beliefs, it didn't create them.
Culturologist said "And that there have existed PLENTY of cultures that do not abide by that rule, that indeed promote as morally good the quick crushing and subjugation of enemies?".
Oh, but you're wrong, they did abide by that rule, but merely within their own group. If they hadn't have had a "do unto others" morality at least within their own group they wouldn't have survived a single generation to reproduce. Once again, the existence of such cultures shows the inherent problems with "ingroup loyalty" in a global society such as we now have. It may have worked well for cavemen but we are no longer cave-people.
Cultureologist said " Do you think you were born able to make your own breakfast and eat it?".
Never said that, what I said was that the act of swallowing is an individual solitary act that requires no one's assistance or permission. You experienced it therefore you have a concept of your self as an individual, as has everyone without exception.
Culturologist said "And you responded: "Nonsesene [sic].".
Oh dear, I made a typo and being the genius you are you caught it, now that just shows I'm entirely wrong and you're entirely right - I concede to your superior intellect, how could I possibly go on...(small things like gloating over someone's typo amuse small minds)
Culturologist said "Are you saying there is no such literature?".
No, what I'm saying is that any literature that says there's no such thing as an individual in some cultures is nonsense. Our physical and mental seperateness from others makes the knowledge of our individuality unavoidable in any and all cultures. There simply is no such thing as a culture where people don't have a concept of themselves as individuals.
Culturologist said "We know (at least those of us who have bothered to read any history and anthropology) that the moral sense of individualism DOES NOT EXIST in many, many societies, and it DID NOT EXIST always in the West.
No one ever said liberals see themselves as morally cut off from all people. Morality is inherently about others. Go back and watch the film again. Liberalism is about "is anyone getting hurt" and fairness. Those concepts are meaningless without the consideration of others. Once again, that is the problem with conservative morality, the pillers of "ingroup loyalty" and "purity" prevent consideration of others. You said so yourself, you don't value all others equally, you see a hierarchy dependent on whose part of your group. That's where your morality is unworkable in a modern society, its a small world and it can't work in the best way possible without equal consideration for all. You don't have euqal consideration for all, you undervalue you fairness, your morality is sorely lacking. Until people like you learn to put aside your tribal mentality the world will continue to suffer from needless counterproductive conflict. Learn to put fairness first, that's the essence of morality and the only philosophy that can unite the world and give us all the best life possible. That's what I mean by global morality, teach the golden rule instead of the nepotism of my family first or the tribalism of my group first. See yourself as a global citizen, not an "american".
You've got an extremely impoverished morality as long as you see "americans" as more important than "bangladeshis".
"Until people like you learn to put aside your tribal mentality the world will continue to suffer from needless counterproductive conflict."
Well, I guess we're doomed. Because I'm not likely in this lifetime to align myself with people like you and your equally confused anonymous buddy.
My general rule is that as soon as someone with whom I'm having a discussion references the dictionary in a discussion about the meaning of technical terms in a scholarly discipline, the discussion has come to an end.
This is certainly not worth any more of my time, and it's clear that you're in no fit state to actually learn anything from anyone, no matter how much more they know about the topic than you.
I like it both ways. I think it's cool to have a group of people you can feel comfortable with, people who understand you even when you're just mumbling. Even in the city people find people they're comfortable with, you have ethnic neighborhoods and gay neighborhoods and rich neighborhoods and poor. But you just won't have enough energy to walk around resenting everybody who isn't one of your group, you just can't do it. And you also cannot make rules, laws, policies that are easy for one group to follow but make it hard for another -- it just doesn't work.
Everybody thinks their own ways are better -- you get that, right Cult, being a sociologist and all?
PS Are you submitting your comments by email or something? I get them in my email, and for some reason your comments don't come mixed with the others -- that's why I didn't realize earlier that you were responding to somebody else.
JimK
Culturologist said "Well, I guess we're doomed. Because I'm not likely in this lifetime to align myself with people like you and your equally confused anonymous buddy.".
That's why you can't convince people you've got anything worthwhile to say. If you can't admit the world would be a better place without the conflict caused by "ingroup loyalty" how can rational person take you seriously in an intellectual discussion.
Culturologist said "My general rule is that as soon as someone with whom I'm having a discussion references the dictionary in a discussion about the meaning of technical terms in a scholarly discipline, the discussion has come to an end.".
You mean the discussion comes to an end when you realize you can't support the absurd idea that society isn't made up of individuals.
Culturologist said "it's clear that you're in no fit state to actually learn anything from anyone, no matter how much more they know about the topic than you.".
If you can't accept the idea that all people should be treated as equals and the overall goal of society should be to maximize the benefits and to minimize the problems for all in an equal manner you're not fit to be teaching anyone anything and its a cinch that you're a long ways from knowing more than me.
My dear Ms. Schimnosky,
My intellectual credentials, in the form of a record of published work at scholarly peer-reviewed sources, can be found quite easily at my web page, which is linked to my profile on blogger--I have been quite successful, thank you, at speaking to rational audiences and engaging in intellectual discussion.
May I ask then to see YOUR credentials? That is, beyond the one-entry blog I find when I click on your name? Where precisely have you demonstrated YOUR ability to speak rationally and convince anyone in an intellectual discussion?
the Culturologist writes,
My dear Ms. Schimnosky,
My intellectual credentials, in the form of a record of published work at scholarly peer-reviewed sources, can be found quite easily at my web page, which is linked to my profile on blogger--I have been quite successful, thank you, at speaking to rational audiences and engaging in intellectual discussion.
May I ask then to see YOUR credentials? That is, beyond the one-entry blog I find when I click on your name? Where precisely have you demonstrated YOUR ability to speak rationally and convince anyone in an intellectual discussion?
Lots of luck...one entry? Wow! How come I am not surprised though by this? LOL. Nevermind...
Jim, may I suggest that you read a book on this subject,
Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, by James Davison Hunter, Professor of Sociology and Religious Studies at the University of Virginia? Perhaps then you might be less likely to make comments like this,
The kind of Assault on Reason we have witnessed in recent years is not an ongoing debate between honest liberals and honest conservatives who just see the world with different priorities. The "culture wars" reflect an attempt by radical elements to remake the United States in their image, removing elementary Constitutional rights and institutionalizing bigotry and belligerence, to create a fundamentally different America based on authoritarianism and rejecting personal liberty.
What really strikes me as hypocritcal is this,
The "culture wars" reflect an attempt by radical elements to remake the United States in their image
And what, pray do tell, exactly is an abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, inclusive sex-ed curriculum culture that you and TTF support? Is it not an effort to remake the US in YOUR image???
Time to do some homework Jim...then maybe folks like myself will take you for something more than a political partisan hack. Then again, you can simply look at yourself in the mirror, preening and reciting your favorite litany about how Montgomery County is Oh-So-More-Progressive-Than-Anyone-Else, and how the rest of us have so much work to catch up with you, the Enlightend Ones.
Talk about living in a bubble...
BTW, Libby should go to jail and serve his time. Lying under oath is perjury and as such is the intentional obstruction of justice, and it does not matter WHO you are...political corruption is not a Republican phenomenon, just ask any Democrat about Rep. William "Cold Cash" Jefferson...
Orin, those are good questions. Let me first note an important point. These things you mention, "abortion on demand" etc -- have nothing to do with me personally. There is no intention to re-make the world in my own image (and I express myself here as the resident opinionated loudmouth).
I've never had an abortion, and I expect that your use of the phrase "abortion on demand" is probably its first occurrence on this web site. I might be wrong, but it is certainly not part of the TTF platform -- I'm not sure what "on demand" means there. I think most of us would agree that there are times that people need to make hard decisions, and we would prefer that they not be thrown in jail for doing what they have to do. But either way, it's not my own choice -- at my ripe old age I'm not going to be knocking anybody up. My view has nothing to do with making anyone live like I do.
Same-sex marriage, same thing. I don't want to marry another guy -- I've been married to my wife for twenty years and that's the way I like it, uh huh. But that doesn't mean that sometimes two guys don't fall in love and want to spend their lives together. And I would speak out for their right to share the love that they feel, officially, publicly.
And "inclusive sex ed" here just means we don't use the public schools to demean and bad-mouth our friends and neighbors. Some people are gay -- not many, but they add up -- and it's better for kids to know about it, objectively, so those people can live their lives without fear of violence and discrimination. Again, it has nothing to do with me -- I'm not gay, have no gay family members that I know of, I just happen to think it's a better world if we give one another the freedom to live to their God-given potential.
Now, I need to comment on Cult's latest move, which is to throw up the "academic" banner. This isn't a web site for sociologists, Cult, these are mostly ordinary folks. I tend to agree with you in principle, there's nothing more natural than groups forming norms and the entitativity that comes with group identification. The point here isn't that there's something wrong with that very natural human social tendency. The point is that in a diverse society each group has to recognize somehow that its own norms are not the only ones. No group has to give up its own way of life, except to the extent that it makes it impossible to coexist with other groups.
In a small town or an isolated country you can assert that your own norms are correct, come directly from God, whatever. But in a society where two or more groups assert those same things you will have conflict -- look at the Apache and Navajo both claiming to be "Dine." The city can be filled with constant strife, or people can adjust to a new awareness -- and one that is more objective and more accurate -- that they aren't the only game in town. That doesn't seem too threatening, does it?
JimK
How telling. The Cult'ist, a credentialed Western elite intellectual opts for the personal attack to respond to Randi's cogent points.
I agree with Randi 100% on this thread, that is, she's convinced me, but I don't have a website listing my credentials so I guess I don't count to the young brash college professor who thinks he knows it all. You know, you can learn things from other places besides academia, such as reading and studying on your own, young man.
"Now, I need to comment on Cult's latest move, which is to throw up the "academic" banner. This isn't a web site for sociologists, Cult, these are mostly ordinary folks. "
So ought we expect 'ordinary folks' to know nothing about argument and facts and logic? Your standards are low, my friend. Very low. But then so is the general level of YOUR discourse here.
I didn't throw up any 'banner'--I merely pointed to an objective indication that I quite understand how to have what Ms. Schimnosky called "intellectual discussions." She has no such evidence, only her own claim that she's 'rational,' which is instantly disproven to any objective person upon five minutes' examination of what she has written here (e.g., referring to the dictionary definition of 'society' as though this were a reasonable way to get at a tremendously complicated concept that has been discussed and nuanced for more than a hundred years now in the academic social sciences).
If 'rationality' consists of responding to references of sources (e.g., Taylor's SOurces of the Self) that make a point I made here by denying they exist, then intelligent people of whatever political stripe should leave that to the populist mob and have nothing to do with it. The Aunt Beas of the world may be 'convinced,' but intelligent people will understand what is going on.
Whether you or anyone else much likes it (and there is indeed MUCH populist hatred of the academy these days, on the political left as well as the right--both Aunt Bea and the several--or perhaps it's only one--anonymous writers here have engaged in anti-intellectual rhetoric of the populist variety--this is driven by many things, not least of which is the recognition that it is always easier to employ populist anti-intellectual rhetoric than it is to mount an intellectual case), the university remains the model of disinterested and objective inquiry into facts.
This certainly doesn't mean everyone has to be an academic to have an informed opinion, but it does mean that people who cannot even be bothered to adhere to minimal standards of intellectual inquiry as ppracticed in academia (e.g., knowledge of relevant literatures, or at least willingness to consult them and inform oneself; the recognition of the difference between naked claims and claims bolstered with evidence; the ability to get outside one's own political biases long enough to understand the cases made by others in other positions; the refusal of the strategy of deliberately misinterpreting what an interlocuter says--e.g., Schimnosky's ludicrous insinuation that I see the US as *only* about sexual libertinism, when my reference to that point was in the context of a demonstration that immigrants to this country come here PRECISELY because of other and in my view much more positive aspects of American society having to do with the opportunity for work and financial well-being)can generally be discounted from consideration on serious matters.
It is of course the case that much of the blogosphere is not at all about intellectual inquiry into anything--it is rather a place for groups of partisans to shout choruses of "HOORAY, AREN'T WE GREAT!" to one another. It seems clear that my initial assumption that this place might be at least to some degree about the former was incorrect, and it is almost entirely Hooray for us chorus members to be found here.
Well, carry on.
Cult, I earned my PhD in social psychology the hard way, and have contributed dozens of papers toward the understanding of the relationship between the cognitive individual and the society he or she is embedded in, and I don't appreciate your pompous, self-serving attacks on my friends and myself.
If there is a populist rebellion against intellectuals, it is because know-it-all stuffed-shirts like yourself give the rest of us a bad name.
JimK
Culturologist said "May I ask then to see YOUR credentials?".
Now that's funny. You can't debate me so you want to compare education points. Don't you know the "arguement from authority" is a logical fallacy? The truth of a position isn't determined by the authority, knowledge, or position of the person asserting it.
Well, let me tell you my credentials, I dropped out of school in grade 11, in 1985 I competed for the position of Information Systems Manager in Environment Canada against a fellow with a PHD in computer science. That's an exam style interview with questions in a variety of areas of expertise that are scored according to the answers. I beat him badly in all areas including the statistics where the interviewers expected him to excel. I worked as a computer expert for 13 years and have spent the last 12 years sitting on my acreage, staring out the window and comntemplating life's bigger questions. You don't do that wihout coming to a few conclusions about what's important and what isn't.
As to your credentials, I value your opinion no more than a wino I might find behind a dumpster, I am prepared to take both of your arguemnets based on their merits and your background means nothing to me. I judge you based on the quality of your arguments and what I've found coming out of you has been sadly disappointing.
What epitomizes our exchange is my statment "Until people like you learn to put aside your tribal mentality the world will continue to suffer from needless counterproductive conflict."
and your lamentable response "Well, I guess we're doomed. Because I'm not likely in this lifetime to align myself with people like you".
You would rather see the world destroyed than acknowledge that there's a better way to do things than to divide ourselves into antagonistic competing groups. You confuse aligning yourself with me with adopting the supreme social policy of maximizing the benefit and minimizing the problems for all in an equal fashion. Its tragic that you can't put aside your cave man mentality of "ingroup loyalty" to acknowledge the obvious and indisputable, that to make the world the best possible place we have to define the ideal so that we can work at coming as close to it as possible.
You've proven that your "credentials" have been pathetically inadequate to counter small-mindedness. Its a shame that refusing to acknowledge what is right and good is more important to you than making the world the best place it can be. A truly moral person puts fairness and equality first.
Orin said "And what, pray do tell, exactly is an abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, inclusive sex-ed curriculum culture that you and TTF support? Is it not an effort to remake the US in YOUR image???".
LOL, Orin, how naive and hypocritical you are. None of those things is an effort to remake you in our image. No one's going to force you to have an abortion, a same sex marriage, or to take comprehensive sex ed. In contrast people like you ARE trying to remake us in your image. You ARE trying to force people not to have same sex marriages, abortions, and to keep them from taking comprehensive sex ed. It is you who is trying to force liberals to live according to your desires, no liberals are trying to force you to live according to their desires.
And Orin, we're still waiting for answers to the questions:
How does allowing a gay couple to marry keep men and women apart?
How does allowing a gay couple to marry deprive any child of a father or a mother?
I've asked you repeatedly to give a cause and effect step by step explanation and you've avoided that with changes of subject and nebulous talk of public institutions and no fault divorce. How about you give a concrete answer or admit that you can't, that in neither case your assertions are true?
Right, high school dropout. That's just about what I imagined.
Where's your degree from, JimK? Where do you teach? WHat journals have you published in? Written any books? I can't seem to find any such info linked to you here, not even your last name.
"Right, high school dropout. That's just about what I imagined."
Tell us, Cult, are any of your students former high school drop outs and do you look down your nose at them too? How do you feel about people who were placed in "special education" classes?
Culturologist at June 27, 2007 2:09 PM
Culturologist said "So ought we expect 'ordinary folks' to know nothing about argument and facts and logic?".
Culturologist, you're the one that showed yourself to be not up to the challenge. I challenge you to put together a cohesive argument as to how "ingroup loyalty" and purity are anything but destructive in a global society. Simply asserting "I have credentials therefore I'm right and don't need to address the points you raised" is not argument, fact, or logic.
Culturologist said "She has no such evidence, only her own claim that she's 'rational,' which is instantly disproven to any objective person upon five minutes' examination of what she has written here".
Once again, Culturologist, you've failed to refute my point in any way that the ultimate overall goal of society should be to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems for all in an equal manner. You've failed to refute the point that the essence of morality is "do whatever you want but hurt no one" - "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Instead you verbally nurse your wounds with pompous empty talk of social "sciences" and "standards of intellectual inquiry as ppracticed [sic] [see I can do it too)] in academia".
Culturologist said "the refusal of the strategy of deliberately misinterpreting what an interlocuter says--e.g., Schimnosky's ludicrous insinuation that I see the US as *only* about sexual libertinism".
You referred to it as "the land of porn, the hook up culture, and endless Gay Pride parades" and as "radically individualist American *culture*". You had ample opportunity to expand on what the U.S. is and that was solely how you chose to characterize it.
Culturologist said "my reference to that point was in the context of a demonstration that immigrants to this country come here PRECISELY because of other and in my view much more positive aspects of American society".
What you said was they come here because they can make more money - hardly a bountiful description of "much more positive aspects of American society".
I suggest again to you and Orin that you read Carl Sagan's "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors". It's an exceptional description of the ancient roots of conflict in society that once served a useful purpose but which now holds us back from creating the best possible world for all. Its time to put aside the "us versus them" mentality inherent in conservatism and recognize that "us" IS "them".
Culturologist said "Right, high school dropout. That's just about what I imagined.".
What's funny is that you're afraid to deal with the points raised by this high school dropout because you can see my points stand on their own merits and apart from me whereas your's do not.
That's a tough deal, isn 't it Cult? As for me, PhD UNC-Chapel Hill. Journals: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Social Psychology Quarterly, Transactions in Evolutionary Computation, Science, Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Adaptive Behavior Journal. Book: yes. Chapters and Proceedings, too many to mention.
JimK
Anonymous,
You may be unaware of this, but by definition in the US you have to complete high school to enroll in a university, so all the students I see have high school diplomas. That is, all of them are better prepared for intellectual interaction than Ms. Schimnosky.
MInd giving some titles and perhaps a last name, mysterious JimK? Or is your work a secret to be divulged only to your 'friends' here? I'd be quite interested to see who you are.
And you didn't mention where you work.
Ah, that makes about three times for the Carl Sagan reference from Schimnosky. Do you know the titles of any other books? Have you actually read any of them?
And why so much animosity toward cavemen and winos? Isn't it tolerance for all that you Atom-Worlders strive for? Will the cavemen and winos not be tolerated?
And such politically incorrect terms too--I think they would prefer "alternatively housed" and "enamored of spirited beverages" or something more caring.
Don't be so angry and mean-spirited with those who are not like you! It's not very liberal!
Has anybody else notice how "Atomic" and "not-Latticelike" Culty is? Everything's personal with him, it's all about judging people and showing off how great he is with his big college degree. He hasn't done an ounce of "Lattice-World" connection building, it's just him against the inferior idiots.
He's like one a them there hippo crits, ain't he.
illitrit
"I challenge you to put together a cohesive argument as to how "ingroup loyalty" and purity are anything but destructive in a global society."
The argument scarcely needs to be made (at least not for high school graduates)--just look at the world you live in. It is fundamentally informed by those evil things you cannot tolerate and see as "[nothing] but destructive"--would you say the world we live in then is ONLY about destruction? That there is nothing at all of a constructive nature going on among those in-groups with their silly evil worldviews? Are you that Manichean (your dictionary will come in handy now) and blinded by your child-like ideology?
If it's all destructive, how on earth has the world managed to continue? How is it we have not all perished from all that destruction, especially since it's been going on since 'caveman days,' to quote you?
(I can hear you now: 'Iit's only because of the wonderful morally PURE global morality pushers like myself that it hasn't collapsed into the rubbish heap'--but certainly that's foolishness, as there are so few of you and so many of us).
The answer of course is that it is perfectly possible for nation-states with very different cultures to co-exist for the most part harmoniously, so long as they retain their distinctiveness and autonomy (that is, do not have cultural conformity enforced upon them by d