Sure, polyamory is bizarre and unconventional, but that only further undermines Henderson’s assertion that it was widely adopted (enough to have an impact) by both the upper and lower class of society circa 1960-1970s.
I didn’t present the oil tycoon story as a luxury belief example, but rather as an example of a story that carried the same “saying but not doing” lesson. I did present “support for a harsh criminal justice system” as an example of a luxury belief that Henderson would contest, even though it perfectly fits his template.
Sure, polyamory is bizarre and unconventional, but that only further undermines Henderson’s assertion that it was widely adopted (enough to have an impact) by both the upper and lower class of society circa 1960-1970s.
He’s not asserting that the upper class rejected monogamy in a way that was widely adopted. He does say this about his classmates, but his classmates aren’t the entire upper class.
You may be assuming that if the lower classes did it, and the upper classes promote it, that implies that the upper classes must be responsible for the lower classes doing it. That doesn’t follow. A luxury belief is something that people have on an individual level, so there’s no requirement that the individual have any influence. (In this case, I’d say that there are several aspects to rejecting monogamy, and some are common enough beliefs that the upper class may have some influence, and some are not. Polygamy falls in the second category.)
I didn’t present the oil tycoon story as a luxury belief example, but rather as an example of a story that carried the same “saying but not doing” lesson.
You said that he didn’t use such a story because he thinks anti-leftist examples are uniquely compelling. “It isn’t bizarrely unconventional” and “it isn’t even a luxury belief” are alternate explanations to “he’s biased against leftists”.
I did present “support for a harsh criminal justice system” as an example of a luxury belief that Henderson would contest, even though it perfectly fits his template.
Support for a harsh criminal justice system isn’t bizarrely unconventional, so there is still a reason other than “he’s biased against leftists”.
And luxury beliefs should imply a more extreme elite/non-elite imbalance than just “somewhat fewer people support it”. A substantial number of poor people support a harsh criminal justice system, even if not as many as rich people. For the same reason, supporting Trump isn’t a luxury belief.
He’s not asserting that the upper class rejected monogamy in a way that was widely adopted. He does say this about his classmates, but his classmates aren’t the entire upper class.
He claimed that monogamy was rejected by the upper class sufficiently enough to cause divorce and single parenthood to spike, he literally says “The upper class got high on their own supply.” I consider that “widely adopted”, and if you disagree with my description, it helps to specify exactly why. Regarding his classmates, his favorite anecdote has been one person who says polyamory is good but doesn’t practice it, so I don’t know where he establishes that doing polyamory is widely adopted by his classmates.
You said that he didn’t use such a story because he thinks anti-leftist examples are uniquely compelling. “It isn’t bizarrely unconventional” and “it isn’t even a luxury belief” are alternate explanations to “he’s biased against leftists”.
I can’t make up and apply new criteria like “bizarrely unconventional”, nor can I just accept Henderson’s framework when I’m critiquing it.
And luxury beliefs should imply a more extreme elite/non-elite imbalance than just “somewhat fewer people support it”.
Again, I can’t just make up new criteria. My whole point has been that ‘luxury beliefs’ is selectively applied, and making up new requirements so that only a specific set of beliefs fit the bill is exactly what I’m critiquing.
He claimed that monogamy was rejected by the upper class sufficiently enough to cause divorce and single parenthood to spike
There are various types of opposition to monogamy. Outright support of polygamy is not the only one.
I can’t make up and apply new criteria like “bizarrely unconventional”,\
Yes you can. Of course, it’s not “making it up”, it’s “figuring it out”. If there are obvious explanations why he might want to use that example other than “he’s biased against leftists”, you shouldn’t jump to “he’s biased against leftists”. And “polygamy is a lot weirder” is too obvious an explanation for you to just ignore it.
nor can I just accept Henderson’s framework when I’m critiquing it.
If you’re criticizing his version and not your version, you pretty much are required to accept his framework.
My entire criticism of his luxury beliefs framework is that it is arbitrary and applied in a selective ad-hoc manner, largely for the purpose of flattering one’s pre-existing political sensibilities. The very fact that you’re adding all these previously unmentioned rule amendments reinforces my thesis exactly. If you think my criticism is off-base, it would be helpful if you pointed out exactly where it is contradicted. Something like “if your critique is correct then we should expect X, but instead we see Y” would be neat.
Sure, polyamory is bizarre and unconventional, but that only further undermines Henderson’s assertion that it was widely adopted (enough to have an impact) by both the upper and lower class of society circa 1960-1970s.
I didn’t present the oil tycoon story as a luxury belief example, but rather as an example of a story that carried the same “saying but not doing” lesson. I did present “support for a harsh criminal justice system” as an example of a luxury belief that Henderson would contest, even though it perfectly fits his template.
He’s not asserting that the upper class rejected monogamy in a way that was widely adopted. He does say this about his classmates, but his classmates aren’t the entire upper class.
You may be assuming that if the lower classes did it, and the upper classes promote it, that implies that the upper classes must be responsible for the lower classes doing it. That doesn’t follow. A luxury belief is something that people have on an individual level, so there’s no requirement that the individual have any influence. (In this case, I’d say that there are several aspects to rejecting monogamy, and some are common enough beliefs that the upper class may have some influence, and some are not. Polygamy falls in the second category.)
You said that he didn’t use such a story because he thinks anti-leftist examples are uniquely compelling. “It isn’t bizarrely unconventional” and “it isn’t even a luxury belief” are alternate explanations to “he’s biased against leftists”.
Support for a harsh criminal justice system isn’t bizarrely unconventional, so there is still a reason other than “he’s biased against leftists”.
And luxury beliefs should imply a more extreme elite/non-elite imbalance than just “somewhat fewer people support it”. A substantial number of poor people support a harsh criminal justice system, even if not as many as rich people. For the same reason, supporting Trump isn’t a luxury belief.
He claimed that monogamy was rejected by the upper class sufficiently enough to cause divorce and single parenthood to spike, he literally says “The upper class got high on their own supply.” I consider that “widely adopted”, and if you disagree with my description, it helps to specify exactly why. Regarding his classmates, his favorite anecdote has been one person who says polyamory is good but doesn’t practice it, so I don’t know where he establishes that doing polyamory is widely adopted by his classmates.
I can’t make up and apply new criteria like “bizarrely unconventional”, nor can I just accept Henderson’s framework when I’m critiquing it.
Again, I can’t just make up new criteria. My whole point has been that ‘luxury beliefs’ is selectively applied, and making up new requirements so that only a specific set of beliefs fit the bill is exactly what I’m critiquing.
There are various types of opposition to monogamy. Outright support of polygamy is not the only one.
Yes you can. Of course, it’s not “making it up”, it’s “figuring it out”. If there are obvious explanations why he might want to use that example other than “he’s biased against leftists”, you shouldn’t jump to “he’s biased against leftists”. And “polygamy is a lot weirder” is too obvious an explanation for you to just ignore it.
If you’re criticizing his version and not your version, you pretty much are required to accept his framework.
My entire criticism of his luxury beliefs framework is that it is arbitrary and applied in a selective ad-hoc manner, largely for the purpose of flattering one’s pre-existing political sensibilities. The very fact that you’re adding all these previously unmentioned rule amendments reinforces my thesis exactly. If you think my criticism is off-base, it would be helpful if you pointed out exactly where it is contradicted. Something like “if your critique is correct then we should expect X, but instead we see Y” would be neat.
I don’t have to make up things after the fact to say “he probably chose the polygamy example because polygamy is weird”. It’s obvious.