Pages

Jump to bottom

5 comments

1 Romantic Heretic  Mon, Oct 15, 2012 7:05:35am

First of all, define morality. Only then can it be determined who is more 'moral'. The authour of the book reviewed in the article defined it in his way and it struck me as trying to apply scientific categories to a field where such a mode of thinking is both limiting and harmful.

I just re-read the article, and Christ, talk about confirmation bias. The book authour's statement: "Conservatives understand moral psychology, Democrats don't" is a pile of stinking horseshit that as John Galbraith notes is, "Conservatives looking for a high moral reason for being selfish."

Bite me, Jonathan Haidt.

2 lostlakehiker  Mon, Oct 15, 2012 7:58:09am

re: #1 Romantic Heretic

First of all, define morality. Only then can it be determined who is more 'moral'. The authour of the book reviewed in the article defined it in his way and it struck me as trying to apply scientific categories to a field where such a mode of thinking is both limiting and harmful.

I just re-read the article, and Christ, talk about confirmation bias. The book authour's statement: "Conservatives understand moral psychology, Democrats don't" is a pile of stinking horseshit that as John Galbraith notes is, "Conservatives looking for a high moral reason for being selfish."

Bite me, Jonathan Haidt.

Jonathan Haidt is a scientist. You, on the other hand, are a denialist. Oh, yes, there is more science than the science of global warming, and where there is science, there is heated denial.

"Moral psychology" does not mean the psychology of doing what is in fact moral. It means the science of how people in fact think about morality. Haidt has done all sorts of work in this field. Careful field work, careful statistical analysis, and so on. He's a giant in his field.

He wrote his book with the express purpose of explaining to liberals how and why their message wasn't getting through, and how better to appeal to that fraction of the population that gives more weight to factors that liberals deem morally irrelevant.

He's a liberal who's frustrated by liberal inability to work the levers of persuasion.

And your answer to his attempt to help you understand and win arguments about morality? Crude derision.

3 Romantic Heretic  Mon, Oct 15, 2012 9:41:23am

As opposed to your reply to me which is superior derision. Thank you for the lesson in how much better conservatives are than liberals. I'll become a conservative at once.

4 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 15, 2012 12:30:14pm

re: #2 lostlakehiker

Psychology is not a science. Claiming it is is very silly.

We are absolutely nowhere near knowledgeable enough about neurology, genetics, etc. to support the claims he's making, either.

5 Romantic Heretic  Tue, Oct 16, 2012 2:00:58pm

No one will read this seeing as how far down this page is now, but it's been on my mind and this is what my thoughts are.

Mr. Haidt's conclusion that "Conservatives understand moral psychology, Democrats don't," is not borne out by history.

The abolition of slavery, the 8 hour work day and 5 day work week, minimum wage, the right of women to vote, regulation of industry and finance to protect the environment and the economy, unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps, civil rights given to minorities, the right to safe abortions and easy access to birth control, gay marriage; all of these policies are highly moral, brought into existence by liberals and were fought against bitterly by conservatives. Even today conservatives are working very hard to destroy all these things.

So Mr. Haidt did not indulge in science. That is he did not form a hypothesis and then perform experiments using commonly accepted standards of measurements to determine if his hypothesis matched reality. Instead he made a conclusion, i.e. "Conservatives understand moral psychology, Democrats don't," created arbitrary axes of measurement to determine morality and then chose data that confirmed his conclusion.

I'm done.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Justice Dept Sues Uber for Price Gouging the Disabled With “Wait Times”Justice Department Sues Uber for Overcharging People With Disabilities The Justice Department today filed a lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc. (Uber) for charging “wait time” fees to passengers who, because of disability, need more time to enter a car. Uber’s ...
Thanos
1 week, 4 days ago
Views: 1,249 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
Be Alive (Original Song From the Motion Picture ‘King Richard’) Provided to YouTube by Parkwood Entertainment/Columbia Be Alive (Original Song from the Motion Picture "King Richard") · Beyoncé Be Alive (Original Song from the Motion Picture "King Richard") ℗ 2021 Parkwood Entertainment LLC, under exclusive license to Columbia Records, ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 2 days ago
Views: 1,107 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •