COLUMBINE

[Wayward Son]

I'm reading the excerpt that quote is taken from on google books. Haidt presents it as coming from an email from an angry conservative, and starts to emote about doing a poor job understanding how conservatives view fairness: focusing on proportionality rather than equality. And he claims that their views appear uncharitable, but are derived from principles like the Protestant Work Ethic and Karma, but that quote, which is proceeded by one claiming that his hard earned money is being funneled off to support welfare mothers and crack babies, and another example mentioned all just happen to be women who are the focus of conservative vitriol....single mothers....if I could read more of their emails, I'm sure we would get to the part where these "non-producers" just happen to be black also. I've heard Haidt doing the rounds on public radio show interviews, so I'm a little familiar with his line of thought, and yes, I would conclude the same things that Hedges concludes here: that Johnathan Haidt's notion of moral pluralism is a sign that he has no moral compass himself. He seems to have some liberal views, but he doesn't condemn the tea party-type rhetoric that we find here. Instead he seems to agree or at least sympathize to a large degree with these self-centered assholes writing to him, so I wouldn't say that Hedges has lied about anything as you are trying to paint the picture here.

You are just as bad of Hedges. Maybe worse. Hedges flat out lied. He claimed that Haidt, who was clearly showing the views of others, was actually showing his own stated views. You defend Hedges lying about Haidt because you disagree with some of Haidt's views. I don't give a damn if Haidt doesn't meet your (or Hedges') views of what are the acceptable morally pure views. Both Hedges and you are such extremists, and have such hatred for anyone who holds different views, that you view someone as having "no moral compass" because they are trying to understand and explain why others can come to hold views you don't hold. Sad.

If Haidt can't distinguish these views from his own, then I'm going to assume that he shares them also!

Of course. That is what extremists do. You and Hedges are peas in a pod.

A far better analysis of liberal and conservative mindsets is found in The Authoritarians by Robert Altemeyer written in 2006, and available free of charge at that University of Manitoba website.

I am well aware of Altemeyer's work, having not only read his popular science book that you link to, but also his earlier more academic book by a similar name. Many years ago I also actually took part in one of his studies which was about authoritarian levels in two different professions (one of which was regarded to be pretty anti-authoritarian, and the other related profession which was regarded to be pretty authoritarian).

I like Altemeyer, and I enjoyed reading his books. Undoubtedly that is, at least in part, because they make me feel good about my own views and cause no cognitive dissonance. However, I can't claim that his views are correct (or not correct for that matter), nor do I see any indication that his research holds a prominent place in his field.

The problem here is that you promote a book, as "better analysis" than another book that you have not touched. And at the same time expect your views to taken seriously. The book that you promote is clearly a one-sided one where the views you hold are lifted up as great, and the views of others you oppose are exposed as extremely deficient (and despite the lies Hedges spreads about Haidt's book that is not the case with it. Hedges complains that Haidt promotes Conservatives as being more highly evolved because they are far more likely to weigh all six values the same, and while the research Haidt provides does show that Conservatives are more likely to weigh all six equally when compared to non-Conservatives, he in no way claims that weighing all six values equally is ideal, or should be what people should strive for. I, for instance, have zero interest in placing any weight behind a couple of the ideals, let alone equal weighting, because I feel that those values in question are not actually positive values. And while you and Hedges also seem to love to call Haidt a Libertarian, his same research shows that libertarians give the least equal weighing, so which one is it Hedges?)

That doesn't mean that the research Altemeyer promotes is crap. Several of the things you mention that Altemeyer focuses on are also found in other books....like Haidt's.

led Altemeyer to conclude that being conservative or liberal was a matter of nurture, rather than nature, as Johnathan Haidt believes these worldviews largely emanate from innate characteristics.

I think your conclusions for where both Altemeyer and Haidt sit on the nature/nurture cause scale are simplistic and misleading. The difference between them on this matter is likely much smaller than you would like to believe. You seem to just butcher the pragmatic positions and philosophies that most people have developed in order to place them either in line or opposed to your own ideology and worldview. Haidt, for instance, is middle of the road among experts in his field when it comes to the nature/nurture debate. Studies on identical twins raised apart have shown that nature's influence on political views is about 1/3 to 1/2. That is what the best research shows, and Haidt supports what the best evidence shows. It has been a while since I have read Altemeyer, but he either, like almost everyone else in his field, supports nature having a role along those lines, or he holds views that are not supported by evidence and not inline with the mainstream views in his field.

Sounds like you jumped from the side of cold hard reality to the side of comfortable humanistic delusion. Can't completely say I blame you, and I'll give one quick example, if you're going to denigrate Paul Ehrlich as being a doom-monger for trying to wake everyone up 40 years ago to some of the dangerous trends that were already being established. Earlier today, I was listening to one of my science podcasts, and they were discussing a recent published study of the Permian-Triassic Extintion, otherwise known as the Great Dying Event, because at least 90% of sea creatures and 95% of land animals went extinct during that time about 250 million years ago. It seems more accurate analysis of rock strata at the time reveals that a huge spike in CO2 levels lasted about 200,000 years, and during that time global average temperatures increased about 10 degrees C. Now the kicker is that only about half, or 5 degrees warming was caused by the active volcanism of that time, which occurred in Siberia, in what is called the Siberian Traps. The other 5 degrees came as the result of a positive feedback effect that released sequestered carbon into the atmosphere - most of it likely coming from methane clathrates in Arctic and Antarctic waters that were released when the waters began to warm above a threshold temperature. Worth considering that today we are being told that the IPCC goal of stopping the heating of the planet at 2 degrees C is considered a lost cause today, and serious estimates are now that there will be between 4 and 6 degrees warming at the end of this century. To me, that sounds like we have already set a planetary extinction in motion that will take out the human race and most life as well. And aside from these people you call doomsayers, no one else is saying anything or doing anything to stop it. And that makes me a doomsayer also.

You can call either side whatever you wish. However, every time you and your fellow doomsayers "lie for Jesus" they make more people distrustful not just of your exaggerations and lies, but also of the legitimate problems you may also promote. The lies told by the doomsayers make it much harder for the people who actually want to address legitimate problems, because cynical people say "well, you said -insert crazy thing here - and that was not true, so why should I trust what you say now." It doesn't matter that the crazy thing was said by a nut-case doom-monger. Ehrlich did more harm than good. Yes, he "woke" some people up to long known issues with his ridiculous claims, but he made far more people distrustful of the claims of environmentalists. And no it is not a case of him being correct, but just early. And no it was not a case of disaster being averted because people heard Ehrlich's warnings and managed to steer clear of the iceberg. Ehrlich was spectacularly wrong, worthy of a Guinness World record. He made bold short-term claims of extreme disaster despite that fact that solutions to those problems were already in place at the time he wrote his book.

As for your view that the doomsayers are facing the cold hard reality compared to the comfortable humanistic delusion, I disagree completely. The news media has long understood that bad news sells. And whether it is the far right, far left, or the environmental movement they know that if they were to say that things are getting better they would be out of business. People like the idea that there is a great battle between good and evil, and they are a part of it, opposing the evil forces.

In my teen years and early twenties I lived in a community that fought a decade long environmental battle. The David and Goliath battle that we all knew we were bound to lose invigorated the community, brought it together with a shared sense of purpose. Somehow we won and we celebrated the next couple days, knowing that the danger was gone, and we now had a new sense of freedom. It was only when one of the leading figures committed suicide a couple months later that I started to realize that I was not the only one who was depressed after the victory. It turned out that many of us were. These things give our lives meaning. That is true whether you are on the "right side" fighting a legitimate battle, or whether your battle is complete nonsense.

As for the rest of your post it is irrelevant to the conversation, as 1) it is not only the doomsayers who are concerned about things like climate change, 2) it is not only the doomsayers who are trying to do something about those problems, 3) almost no real climate change research is being done by doomsayers and 4) the doomsayers, as usual, cause more harm than good as their lies lead to distrust from the general public towards both legitimate claims and exaggerated lies. It was not people like Ehrlich who brought the changes needed to avert a population crisis 50 years ago.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Wayward Son

[betsy]

Smith states that Gould is misleading the public....and yet somehow Gould did not sue him for libel. That must mean that it is true!! Or, of course, it could (and actually does) mean that Gould, like almost all public figures, knows that as public figures they have opened themselves up a higher level of criticism and therefore it is almost impossible for them to win such a libel case. If you are too lazy to google this simple fact then, once again, I can't help you.

I haven't heard much about Gould compared to the shenanigans of Dawkins. Lewontin was not the only one who had harsh criticisms for him.

excerpt from Michael Ruse

Second, unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery. Dawkins was indignant when, on the grounds that inanimate objects cannot have emotions, philosophers like Mary Midgley criticised his metaphorical notion of a selfish gene. Sauce for the biological goose is sauce for the atheist gander. There are a lot of very bright and well informed Christian theologians. We atheists should demand no less.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse

And of course Dawkins continue to make himself a caricature. The mad scientist!

For once, Richard Dawkins is lost for words

Atheists arrogance is their Achilles heel, as a cringemaking radio performance has proved.

The transcript of the next minute or so only hints at how cringingly, embarrassingly bad it was for Dawkins.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9082059/For-once-Richard-Dawkins-is-lost-for-words.html

And showcasing his ignorance is costing him.

An Alexa web traffic tracking graph showing the global market share of Richard Dawkins' website in June of 2012. The graph was featured in an article which contrasted the world's interest in Jesus compared to the world's interest in the evolutionist and agnostic Richard Dawkins.[1]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins'_loss_of_influence

But the incident with Gould shows that atheist scientists protect their own - with total disregard for scientific truth - just so to present a united front against creationists. Need I say more about the so-called Peer Review journals - how corrupt it had become. No wonder.

[Wayward Son]

I haven't heard much about Gould compared to the shenanigans of Dawkins.

Of course you haven't. You have not heard much that falls outside of conservapedia and similar ignorance spreading sites.

Lewontin was not the only one who had harsh criticisms for him.

So what? Ruse disagrees with Dawkins on some things. Lots of people disagree with lots of people on lots of things. What actually matters is why they are disagreeing on things and what their arguments are.

And of course Dawkins continue to make himself a caricature. The mad scientist!

If you can't tell the difference between the large number of Christians who could not name even one of the books of the bible, and someone who failed to give the full name of first edition of Origin of Species, then you are even more delusional then I had thought. This was, and remains a non-issue for anyone except the most insane fundamentalist.

And showcasing his ignorance is costing him.

I would no more visit conservapedia then I would stormfront, whale.to or an Alex Jones site. There are certain things that a simply not worth my time. As former evangelical Frank Schaeffer said:

"Look, a village cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot. It’s as simple as that. And we have to understand we have a village idiot in this country: it’s called fundamentalist Christianity, and until we move past these people, and let me add as a former lifelong Republican, until the Republican leadership has the guts to stand up and say it would be better not to have a Republican Party than have a party that caters to the village idiot there’s gonna be no end in sight. The next thing they’ll do is accuse Obama of being the antichrist and then who knows what comes next? On and on it goes. There’s no end to this stuff. Why? Because this subculture has, and its fundamentalist faith, that they distrust facts per se."

When you decide that you no longer want to be the villiage idiot, I will respond to you. Until then I have better things to do.

[betsy]

Of course you haven't. You have not heard much that falls outside of conservapedia and similar ignorance spreading sites.

So what? Ruse disagrees with Dawkins on some things. Lots of people disagree with lots of people on lots of things. What actually matters is why they are disagreeing on things and what their arguments are.

If you can't tell the difference between the large number of Christians who could not name even one of the books of the bible, and someone who failed to give the full name of first edition of Origin of Species, then you are even more delusional then I had thought. This was, and remains a non-issue for anyone except the most insane fundamentalist.

I would no more visit conservapedia then I would stormfront, whale.to or an Alex Jones site. There are certain things that a simply not worth my time. As former evangelical Frank Schaeffer said:

"Look, a village cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot. It’s as simple as that. And we have to understand we have a village idiot in this country: it’s called fundamentalist Christianity, and until we move past these people, and let me add as a former lifelong Republican, until the Republican leadership has the guts to stand up and say it would be better not to have a Republican Party than have a party that caters to the village idiot there’s gonna be no end in sight. The next thing they’ll do is accuse Obama of being the antichrist and then who knows what comes next? On and on it goes. There’s no end to this stuff. Why? Because this subculture has, and its fundamentalist faith, that they distrust facts per se."

When you decide that you no longer want to be the villiage idiot, I will respond to you. Until then I have better things to do.

So typical. You look at the name of the site - CONSERVAPEDIA - and you automatically do the knee-jerk dance.

Deal with the issue. Shoot the message - not the messenger.

And no, your personal opinion still don't count. So bye-bye for now until you can back your opinion up with something substantial and credible

[GostHacked]

There are many ways to make a good living while being dishonest, and Hedges makes a lot of money.

Betsy need to get in on that game. I'd say she is well qualified.

[GostHacked]

So typical. You look at the name of the site - CONSERVAPEDIA - and you automatically do the knee-jerk dance.

Deal with the issue. Shoot the message - not the messenger.

And no, your personal opinion still don't count. So bye-bye for now until you can back your opinion up with something substantial and credible

Good, so none of your personal opinions on your faith matter.

[Canuckistani]

Good, so none of your personal opinions on your faith matter.

Well, she's always backed them up with science. And God's word of course - how can you doubt that?

[Peanutbutter]

Why not let people who have faith in God live in.peace?

Please remember that we are all.human beings.

[GostHacked]

Why not let people who have faith in God live in.peace?

Please remember that we are all.human beings.

I would , but they simply won't leave me alone because I am not a Christian.

[Mighty AC]

Why not let people who have faith in God live in.peace?

Please remember that we are all.human beings.

I don't think anyone would have a problem if it was just a personal belief system and Christians were just content to live by their own rules. However, that is not the case. Christian groups are a massive political force that continually try to impose their beliefs on society as a whole.

[betsy]

I don't think anyone would have a problem if it was just a personal belief system and Christians were just content to live by their own rules. However, that is not the case. Christian groups are a massive political force that continually try to impose their beliefs on society as a whole.

And so do secularists and relativists and liberalists!

[Mighty AC]

Yes, but the non-religious use facts, data and reasoning as the basis for law, whereas the religious use a belief system backed only by the fact they believe it.