Thanks for bringing up Haidt; I’ve taken a close look at some of this writing (e.g. this) and concluded that he is full of it… or at least not being rational.
The Five Pillars of Morality theory in particular falls apart if you scratch the surface too hard.
I’m not sure what you mean by “terminal values”, however.
“Terminal” is just to distinguish them from “instrumental. If you value freedom because it makes people happy then it is an instrumental value. If you value freedom for it’s own sake then it is terminal.
I think Matt is right. This is a rationalist intervention.
Take it from another liberal/leftist (I can give damn good bona fides if need be): Politics has killed your mind. At least on this Haidt stuff but possibly elsewhere. The guy isn’t a neoconservative. But more importantly, he isn’t a pundit or a hack. He’s a scientist and he’s got bucketloads of data to back up his hypothesis. Your response to Haidt is written like someone trying to win a fight, not like someone trying to understand the world.
Edit: Oh, these things always end with “I love you. Please get help today.”
I also think you’re misunderstanding my criticism of Haidt. Yes, he has lots of data to support his claims—but he rigged the experiments in the way he asked his questions, and he hasn’t responded to the obvious flaws in his analysis.
but he rigged the experiments in the way he asked his questions
!?!?!??! What evidence have you for this? Note that the theory wasn’t designed to say anything about politics. It was designed to describe cross-cultural moral differences in different parts of the world, only later was it applied to the American culture wars.
So yes, liberals would consider voting for a republican as a kind of treason.
Does he have data for this? I would vote for whoever seemed the most sensible, regardless of party. If Ron Paul had run against Obama, I would have had a much harder time deciding.
Does everyone else agree with Jack and Matt? I don’t think either of them have rationally justified their criticisms, but that may be my personal akrasia.
“Terminal Values” are goals, then, and “Instrumental Values” are the methods used in an attempt to reach those goals. Does that sound right? So now I need to go reply to Jack again...
I’ve been wary of posting this because I have had trouble finding a way to phrase it in a non-antagonistic manner but I think at this point it needs saying.
Your personal political leanings are transparent in your original post. I took a quick look around issuepedia after reading the post to see if my impression of your distinctly partisan position was confirmed by what I found there and it quickly became clear that it was. The gulf between your stated claim of aiming for un-biased political discussion and truth seeking and the actual content of your site is vast.
On the other hand, it hasn’t been clear to me exactly what Jonathan Haidt’s party politics were when reading his work. I guessed somewhat liberal but wouldn’t have put money on it. He certainly does a much better job of appearing unbiased and non-partisan to me than you do. Your linked post on What Makes People Vote Republican suggests you think he’s some kind of neo-con (“As a piece of neoconservative propaganda, it is splendid”) which didn’t seem to fit the facts to me. I couldn’t find anything definitive on Haidt’s personal politics but this interview suggests he’s basically a liberal:
JH: We would become much more tolerant, and some compromise might be possible, for example, on gay marriage. Even though personally I would like to see it legalized everywhere, I think it would be a nice compromise if each state could decide whether to legalize it, and nobody was forced one way or the other by the Supreme Court.
...
JH: Well, for one thing, I am more tolerant of others. I was much more tolerant of Republicans and conservatives until the last two years. George Bush and his administration have got me so angry that I find my hard-won tolerance fast disappearing. I am now full of anger. And I find my press secretary drawing up the brief against Bush and his administration. So I can say that doing this work, coming up with this theory, has given me insight into what I’m doing. When I fulminate, my press secretary writes a brief against Bush. Once passions come into play, reason follows along. At least now I know that I’m doing it.
...
JH: It’s fine with me. Doesn’t bother me in the least. Remember: I’m a liberal. So if it doesn’t involve harm to someone, it’s not a big deal to me.
These are understandable concerns… but I make no claim of being unbiased in content. (Did I actually say this anywhere? If so, I need to revise that.)
The ultimate resolution of a debate should not be partisan (i.e. adhering to any particular party’s viewpoint just because that party holds it), but that doesn’t mean the initial claims have to be neutral. The point of the exercise is to make claims one is prepared to defend—partisan or not—and then invite others to attack them.
Either my mind ends up being changed, the minds of the attackers are changed, some combination, or some kind of impasse is reached. Regardless of which scenario ensues, I should think that we all learn something about the process and how to avoid impasse.
Also, just because something happens to align with a particular party’s views does not make it wrong. I would argue (and have done so frequently) that the Democrats are right far more often than the Republicans; the latter are often egregiously wrong, in extremely harmful ways.
Reality is not defined by averaging all viewpoints.
I don’t know if Haidt even realizes his arguments are basically a cover for neocon propaganda; he comes across as honestly believing he is a liberal. His arguments, however, are clearly irrational (which is something we can’t “agree to disagree” about; if you can counter my explanations of how they are irrational, then go for it.) -- and have certainly been used by conservatives as a put-down for liberalism. In any case, I don’t dispute your claim that Haidt’s expressed political views seem to be primarily liberal—for now. I would like, however, to see his answers (or anyone’s answers) to the charges I have raised in on those pages.
I think we’ve looped back to the whole ‘politics is the mind killer’ issue again. From what I’ve read of your writing on issuepedia you strike me as firmly in ‘mind killer’ territory on the subject of politics and I’m neither inclined to read more of your writing or to engage in discussion with you because I expect it to be unproductive. If you honestly want to turn your site into a mechanism for political truth seeking then in my opinion you need to adjust your mindset and writing style. While I don’t object to political discussion here as a matter of principle—I think some discussions here have demonstrated the ability to discuss politics rationally—I would object to political discussion that takes the tone and approach you do on your site.
You apparently haven’t kept up with developments of the theory. You say:
Liberals are generally far more concerned about purity of environmental conditions than are conservatives. Food is a good example: filtered water, organic foods, avoidance of over-processing, and avoidance of synthetic ingredients in food are all very much liberal causes, ignored or even disparaged by conservatives.
You’re right, I hadn’t encountered any new items from Haidt since the “why do people vote Republican” piece in edge.
(Lest there be any misunderstanding: the number of follow-ups I would like to investigate seems to grow exponentially with each bit of investigating I actually do. Time is obviously not available to keep up with more than a tiny percentage of what I would like to keep up with.)
I’m glad to see he is at least acknowledging the existence of “liberal purity”—and even seems to realize that it exposes a weakness in his “Five Pillars” argument—but, as far as I can tell, he does absolutely nothing to address that weakness.
Thanks for bringing up Haidt; I’ve taken a close look at some of this writing (e.g. this) and concluded that he is full of it… or at least not being rational.
The Five Pillars of Morality theory in particular falls apart if you scratch the surface too hard.
I’m not sure what you mean by “terminal values”, however.
“Terminal” is just to distinguish them from “instrumental. If you value freedom because it makes people happy then it is an instrumental value. If you value freedom for it’s own sake then it is terminal.
I think Matt is right. This is a rationalist intervention.
Take it from another liberal/leftist (I can give damn good bona fides if need be): Politics has killed your mind. At least on this Haidt stuff but possibly elsewhere. The guy isn’t a neoconservative. But more importantly, he isn’t a pundit or a hack. He’s a scientist and he’s got bucketloads of data to back up his hypothesis. Your response to Haidt is written like someone trying to win a fight, not like someone trying to understand the world.
Edit: Oh, these things always end with “I love you. Please get help today.”
I also think you’re misunderstanding my criticism of Haidt. Yes, he has lots of data to support his claims—but he rigged the experiments in the way he asked his questions, and he hasn’t responded to the obvious flaws in his analysis.
Nor have you.
!?!?!??! What evidence have you for this? Note that the theory wasn’t designed to say anything about politics. It was designed to describe cross-cultural moral differences in different parts of the world, only later was it applied to the American culture wars.
He’s been criticized by some libertarians for neglecting them as a political group and they have raised similar concerns. His reply is here.
Does he have data for this? I would vote for whoever seemed the most sensible, regardless of party. If Ron Paul had run against Obama, I would have had a much harder time deciding.
Does everyone else agree with Jack and Matt? I don’t think either of them have rationally justified their criticisms, but that may be my personal akrasia.
“Terminal Values and Instrumental Values”. You might also want to check out the metaethics sequence, if you haven’t already.
“Terminal Values” are goals, then, and “Instrumental Values” are the methods used in an attempt to reach those goals. Does that sound right? So now I need to go reply to Jack again...
I’ve been wary of posting this because I have had trouble finding a way to phrase it in a non-antagonistic manner but I think at this point it needs saying.
Your personal political leanings are transparent in your original post. I took a quick look around issuepedia after reading the post to see if my impression of your distinctly partisan position was confirmed by what I found there and it quickly became clear that it was. The gulf between your stated claim of aiming for un-biased political discussion and truth seeking and the actual content of your site is vast.
On the other hand, it hasn’t been clear to me exactly what Jonathan Haidt’s party politics were when reading his work. I guessed somewhat liberal but wouldn’t have put money on it. He certainly does a much better job of appearing unbiased and non-partisan to me than you do. Your linked post on What Makes People Vote Republican suggests you think he’s some kind of neo-con (“As a piece of neoconservative propaganda, it is splendid”) which didn’t seem to fit the facts to me. I couldn’t find anything definitive on Haidt’s personal politics but this interview suggests he’s basically a liberal:
These are understandable concerns… but I make no claim of being unbiased in content. (Did I actually say this anywhere? If so, I need to revise that.)
The ultimate resolution of a debate should not be partisan (i.e. adhering to any particular party’s viewpoint just because that party holds it), but that doesn’t mean the initial claims have to be neutral. The point of the exercise is to make claims one is prepared to defend—partisan or not—and then invite others to attack them.
Either my mind ends up being changed, the minds of the attackers are changed, some combination, or some kind of impasse is reached. Regardless of which scenario ensues, I should think that we all learn something about the process and how to avoid impasse.
Also, just because something happens to align with a particular party’s views does not make it wrong. I would argue (and have done so frequently) that the Democrats are right far more often than the Republicans; the latter are often egregiously wrong, in extremely harmful ways.
Reality is not defined by averaging all viewpoints.
I don’t know if Haidt even realizes his arguments are basically a cover for neocon propaganda; he comes across as honestly believing he is a liberal. His arguments, however, are clearly irrational (which is something we can’t “agree to disagree” about; if you can counter my explanations of how they are irrational, then go for it.) -- and have certainly been used by conservatives as a put-down for liberalism. In any case, I don’t dispute your claim that Haidt’s expressed political views seem to be primarily liberal—for now. I would like, however, to see his answers (or anyone’s answers) to the charges I have raised in on those pages.
I think we’ve looped back to the whole ‘politics is the mind killer’ issue again. From what I’ve read of your writing on issuepedia you strike me as firmly in ‘mind killer’ territory on the subject of politics and I’m neither inclined to read more of your writing or to engage in discussion with you because I expect it to be unproductive. If you honestly want to turn your site into a mechanism for political truth seeking then in my opinion you need to adjust your mindset and writing style. While I don’t object to political discussion here as a matter of principle—I think some discussions here have demonstrated the ability to discuss politics rationally—I would object to political discussion that takes the tone and approach you do on your site.
You apparently haven’t kept up with developments of the theory. You say:
Which Haidt has recently addressed specifically in a blog post entitled “In Search of Liberal Purity”.
You’re right, I hadn’t encountered any new items from Haidt since the “why do people vote Republican” piece in edge.
(Lest there be any misunderstanding: the number of follow-ups I would like to investigate seems to grow exponentially with each bit of investigating I actually do. Time is obviously not available to keep up with more than a tiny percentage of what I would like to keep up with.)
I’m glad to see he is at least acknowledging the existence of “liberal purity”—and even seems to realize that it exposes a weakness in his “Five Pillars” argument—but, as far as I can tell, he does absolutely nothing to address that weakness.