The Brain - How Belief Circumvents Reason

[Diogenes]

WELFARE (and various governmental programs that work by the same methodology) is not only financially unsustainable, it damages the very people it's alleged to help.

It teaches them bad habits and allows them to continue making bad decisions regarding their life. It is one of the major reason's why fathers are no longer an essential part of many poor families.

Every functional society at any level of development needs some sort of social safety net. Without one, you end up with a hellhole society that collapses in anarchy. The tricky part is striking the proper balances.

I am not arguing against a safety net. I am arguing against the methodology currently employed in running the programs that are supposed to serve as a safety net. We are doing it the wrong way. We are reinforcing bad behavior rather than encouraging responsible behavior.

Years ago, I happened to have run into one of our State Legislators with whom I was somewhat familiar. I told him that the current methodology of issuing "food stamps" was rife with abuse. (I used to work as a stockboy in a grocery store, so I saw a lot of it.) I explained that people were selling the food stamps in exchange for money, (usually a two to one exchange) with which they then bought beer and cigarettes, or other indulgences.




People to whom they were not issued were using food stamps, and there was no way to control this under the current methodology. I suggested that the state create a credit card with the recipient's picture on it, so that they could simply charge the food to an account, and so that the grocery clerks could verify the person buying the food was the person to whom the food credits were issued. It would reduce fraud (It's a lot more trouble to go buy the groceries yourself and THEN sell them), and it would reduce paperwork, and so on.

He told me he would look at the idea. Eventually he brought a bill to the floor and it was debated and passed and the credit card idea was implemented, except for one thing. THEY LEFT OFF THE PART ABOUT IT ALSO BEING A PICTURE ID OF THE RECEPIENT! Unless you happen to be Will Rogers, the card will not identify you at all!



Food stamp fraud continues on as before. If anything, it's easier. My contacts in the poor/drug community explain that people are always selling their card and pin number. Again, 50 cents on the dollar.

The methodology being used to implement the program is not doing these people any favors. Among other things, giving the equivalent of money to people who by very the nature of their affliction indicates that they cannot HANDLE finances, is just foolish. They buy things which they ought not be allowed to buy on food stamps, such as candy, coke, and various other junk foods.

Yes, we need a safety net, but we need one which produces a positive feedback for responsible behavior and a negative feedback for foolish behavior. I could go on for a very long time about this subject, so I think i'd better just stop here.

[Diogenes]

Related:

Why Won’t They Listen?
By WILLIAM SALETAN

THE RIGHTEOUS MIND
Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
By Jonathan Haidt
Illustrated. 419 pp. Pantheon Books. $28.95.
....


You’re smart. You’re liberal. You’re well informed. You think conservatives are narrow-minded. You can’t understand why working-class Americans vote Republican. You figure they’re being duped. You’re wrong.

This isn’t an accusation from the right. It’s a friendly warning from Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who, until 2009, considered himself a partisan liberal. In “The ­Righteous Mind,” Haidt seeks to enrich liberalism, and political discourse generally, with a deeper awareness of human nature. Like other psychologists who have ventured into political coaching, such as George Lakoff and Drew Westen, Haidt argues that people are fundamentally intuitive, not rational. If you want to persuade others, you have to appeal to their sentiments. But Haidt is looking for more than victory. He’s looking for wisdom. That’s what makes “The Righteous Mind” well worth reading. Politics isn’t just about ­manipulating people who disagree with you. It’s about learning from them.

I believe others can vouch for my past statements regarding the efficacy of an emotional argument over that of a rational one. People are far more easily motivated by emotion than reason.

Haidt seems to delight in mischief. Drawing on ethnography, evolutionary theory and experimental psychology, he sets out to trash the modern faith in reason. In Haidt’s retelling, all the fools, foils and villains of intellectual history are recast as heroes. David Hume, the Scottish philosopher who notoriously said reason was fit only to be “the slave of the passions,” was largely correct. E. O. Wilson, the ecologist who was branded a fascist for stressing the biological origins of human behavior, has been vindicated by the study of moral emotions. Even Glaucon, the cynic in Plato’s “Republic” who told Socrates that people would behave ethically only if they thought they were being watched, was “the guy who got it right.”

To the question many people ask about politics — Why doesn’t the other side listen to reason? — Haidt replies: We were never designed to listen to reason. When you ask people moral questions, time their responses and scan their brains, their answers and brain activation patterns indicate that they reach conclusions quickly and produce reasons later only to justify what they’ve decided. The funniest and most painful illustrations are Haidt’s transcripts of interviews about bizarre scenarios. Is it wrong to have sex with a dead chicken? How about with your sister? Is it O.K. to defecate in a urinal? If your dog dies, why not eat it? Under interrogation, most subjects in psychology experiments agree these things are wrong. But none can explain why.

The problem isn’t that people don’t reason. They do reason. But their arguments aim to support their conclusions, not yours. Reason doesn’t work like a judge or teacher, impartially weighing evidence or guiding us to wisdom. It works more like a lawyer or press secretary, justifying our acts and judgments to others. Haidt shows, for example, how subjects relentlessly marshal arguments for the incest taboo, no matter how thoroughly an interrogator demolishes these arguments.

Been there, done that.

To explain this persistence, Haidt invokes an evolutionary hypothesis: We compete for social status, and the key advantage in this struggle is the ability to influence others. Reason, in this view, evolved to help us spin, not to help us learn. So if you want to change people’s minds, Haidt concludes, don’t appeal to their reason. Appeal to reason’s boss: the underlying moral intuitions whose conclusions reason defends.

Amen.

Haidt’s account of reason is a bit too simple — his whole book, after all, is a deployment of reason to advance learning — and his advice sounds cynical.

It is impossible to be too cynical.

But set aside those objections for now, and go with him. If you follow Haidt through the tunnel of cynicism, you’ll find that what he’s really after is enlightenment. He wants to open your mind to the moral intuitions of other people.

In the West, we think morality is all about harm, rights, fairness and consent. Does the guy own the chicken? Is the dog already dead? Is the sister of legal age? But step outside your neighborhood or your country, and you’ll discover that your perspective is highly anomalous.

A Fact with which I am Always endeavoring to beat people over the head. They seem to believe that just because THEY think something is moral or immoral (and yes KitemanSA, i'm looking at you. ) then it must therefore be accepted as UNIVERSALLY moral to all human beings everywhere! There is an abundance of evidence which demonstrates this not to be the Case. As with my arguments with Erick Schie (Classic Values) the Afghans see nothing wrong with buggering little boys. In much of the Arab world they ay: "Age of consent? What's that? " Likewise, opposition to Slavery is NOT a universally moral position. It is quite an acceptable idea from a point of view such that if you believe that there are those above who rule, then there must be those below who serve.

People don't emerge from the womb as philosophers. They simply accept what they see going on around them as "normal" and most people seldom question why it so or why it should be so.

Haidt has read ethnographies, traveled the world and surveyed tens of thousands of people online. He and his colleagues have compiled a catalog of six fundamental ideas that commonly undergird moral systems: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority and sanctity. Alongside these principles, he has found related themes that carry moral weight: divinity, community, hierarchy, tradition, sin and degradation.

The worldviews Haidt discusses may differ from yours. They don’t start with the individual. They start with the group or the cosmic order. They exalt families, armies and communities. They assume that people should be treated differently according to social role or status — elders should be honored, subordinates should be protected. They suppress forms of self-expression that might weaken the social fabric. They assume interdependence, not autonomy. They prize order, not equality.

They behave not unlike an organism.

These moral systems aren’t ignorant or backward. Haidt argues that they’re common in history and across the globe because they fit human nature. He compares them to cuisines. We acquire morality the same way we acquire food preferences: we start with what we’re given. If it tastes good, we stick with it. If it doesn’t, we reject it. People accept God, authority and karma because these ideas suit their moral taste buds. Haidt points to research showing that people punish cheaters, accept many hierarchies and don’t support equal distribution of benefits when contributions are unequal.

You don’t have to go abroad to see these ideas. You can find them in the Republican Party. Social conservatives see welfare and feminism as threats to responsibility and family stability. The Tea Party hates redistribution because it interferes with letting people reap what they earn. Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations, whereas Democrats, in Haidt’s analysis, focus almost entirely on care and fighting oppression. This is Haidt’s startling message to the left: When it comes to morality, conservatives are more broad-minded than liberals. They serve a more varied diet.

Well duh.

This is where Haidt diverges from other psychologists who have analyzed the left’s electoral failures. The usual argument of these psycho-­pundits is that conservative politicians manipulate voters’ neural roots — playing on our craving for authority, for example — to trick people into voting against their interests. But Haidt treats electoral success as a kind of evolutionary fitness test. He figures that if voters like Republican messages, there’s something in Republican messages worth liking. He chides psychologists who try to “explain away” conservatism, treating it as a pathology. Conservatism thrives because it fits how people think, and that’s what validates it. Workers who vote Republican aren’t fools. In Haidt’s words, they’re “voting for their moral interests.”

One of these interests is moral capital — norms, prac­tices and institutions, like religion and family values, that facilitate cooperation by constraining individualism. Toward this end, Haidt applauds the left for regulating corporate greed. But he worries that in other ways, liberals dissolve moral capital too recklessly. Welfare programs that substitute public aid for spousal and parental support undermine the ecology of the family. Education policies that let students sue teachers erode classroom authority. Multicultural education weakens the cultural glue of assimilation. Haidt agrees that old ways must sometimes be re-examined and changed. He just wants liberals to proceed with caution and protect the social pillars sustained by tradition.

Conservatives are not against change which is progress. They are against change which is regress.

Another aspect of human nature that conservatives understand better than liberals, according to Haidt, is parochial altruism, the inclination to care more about members of your group — particularly those who have made sacrifices for it —than about outsiders. Saving Darfur, submitting to the United Nations and paying taxes to educate children in another state may be noble, but they aren’t natural. What’s natural is giving to your church, helping your P.T.A. and rallying together as Americans against a foreign threat.

How far should liberals go toward incorporating these principles? Haidt says the shift has to be more than symbolic, but he doesn’t lay out a specific policy agenda. Instead, he highlights broad areas of culture and politics — family and assimilation, for example — on which liberals should consider compromise. He urges conservatives to entertain liberal ideas in the same way. The purpose of such compromises isn’t just to win elections. It’s to make society and government fit human nature.

The hardest part, Haidt finds, is getting liberals to open their minds. Anecdotally, he reports that when he talks about authority, loyalty and sanctity, many people in the audience spurn these ideas as the seeds of racism, sexism and homophobia. And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves “very liberal,” were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals. Liberals don’t understand conservative values. And they can’t recognize this failing, because they’re so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment.

Haidt isn’t just scolding liberals, however. He sees the left and right as yin and yang, each contributing insights to which the other should listen. In his view, for instance, liberals can teach conservatives to recognize and constrain predation by entrenched interests. Haidt believes in the power of reason, but the reasoning has to be interactive. It has to be other people’s reason engaging yours. We’re lousy at challenging our own beliefs, but we’re good at challenging each other’s. Haidt compares us to neurons in a giant brain, capable of “producing good reasoning as an emergent property of the social system.”

Our task, then, is to organize society so that reason and intuition interact in healthy ways. Haidt’s research suggests several broad guidelines. First, we need to help citizens develop sympathetic relationships so that they seek to understand one another instead of using reason to parry opposing views. Second, we need to create time for contemplation. Research shows that two minutes of reflection on a good argument can change a person’s mind. Third, we need to break up our ideological segregation. From 1976 to 2008, the proportion of Americans living in highly partisan counties increased from 27 percent to 48 percent. The Internet exacerbates this problem by helping each user find evidence that supports his views.

The means of addressing the population in the form of news or entertainment has been seized completely by the much smaller Liberal section of society. It has now become very difficult for conservatives to respond to Liberal perspectives promulgated daily as propaganda disguised as News and Entertainment. The stratification between the Liberal part of the Electorate and the conservative part of the Electorate has been exacerbated by the fact that Liberals have won converts to their increasingly radical voting positions simply because the Conservative side does not have the ability to challenge their doctrine on an equal footing. Many of the people who now support liberal views on various issues, do so as a result of having never been exposed to the conservative alternative perspective.

I have personal experience with this. In High School, I had a friend from Baltimore who was vehemently opposed to guns. One day I took him target shooting, and on another occasion my cousin took him squirrel hunting, and lo and behold! He not only accepted the idea that people should have guns, he later bought several himself and eventually became what might be considered by some as a "gun nut. " He was very Liberal in other ways, but over time he came to understand my perspective on things. He still has some Liberal tendencies, but he has changed greatly from where he started.

How can we achieve these goals? Haidt offers a Web site, civilpolitics.org, on which he and his colleagues have listed steps that might help. One is holding open primaries so that people outside each party’s base can vote to nominate moderate candidates. Another is instant runoffs, so that candidates will benefit from broadening their appeal. A third idea is to alter redistricting so that parties are less able to gerrymander partisan congressional districts. Haidt also wants members of Congress to go back to the old practice of moving their families to Washington, so that they socialize with one another and build a friendly basis on which to cooperate.

An alternative suggestion is to NOT ALLOW them all to congregate in the same city where they can be influenced by corruption and intrigue, but require them to remain IN their districts where they can be kept in contact with the perspective of those whom they represent. We have reached a point where Telecommunication or even Telepresence makes this possible, and I dare say it would throw quite a monkey wrench into influence pedaling and lobbying.

Many of Haidt’s proposals are vague, insufficient or hard to implement. And that’s O.K. He just wants to start a conversation about integrating a better understanding of human nature — our sentiments, sociality and morality — into the ways we debate and govern ourselves. At this, he succeeds. It’s a landmark contribution to humanity’s understanding of itself.

But to whom is Haidt directing his advice? If intuitions are unreflective, and if reason is self-serving, then what part of us does he expect to regulate and orchestrate these faculties? This is the unspoken tension in Haidt’s book. As a scientist, he takes a passive, empirical view of human nature. He describes us as we have been, expecting no more. Based on evolution, he argues, universal love is implausible: “Parochial love . . . amplified by similarity” and a “sense of shared fate . . . may be the most we can accomplish.” But as an author and advocate, Haidt speaks to us rationally and universally, as though we’re capable of something greater. He seems unable to help himself, as though it’s in his nature to call on our capacity for reason and our sense of common humanity — and in our nature to understand it.

You don’t have to believe in God to see this higher capacity as part of our nature. You just have to believe in evolution. Evolution itself has evolved: as humans became increasingly social, the struggle for survival, mating and progeny depended less on physical abilities and more on social abilities. In this way, a faculty produced by evolution — sociality — became the new engine of evolution. Why can’t reason do the same thing? Why can’t it emerge from its evolutionary origins as a spin doctor to become the new medium in which humans compete, cooperate and advance the fitness of their communities? Isn’t that what we see all around us? Look at the global spread of media, debate and democracy.

Haidt is part of this process. He thinks he’s just articulating evolution. But in effect, he’s also trying to fix it. Traits we evolved in a dispersed world, like tribalism and righteousness, have become dangerously maladaptive in an era of rapid globalization. A pure scientist would let us purge these traits from the gene pool by fighting and killing one another. But Haidt wants to spare us this fate. He seeks a world in which “fewer people believe that righteous ends justify violent means.” To achieve this goal, he asks us to understand and overcome our instincts. He appeals to a power capable of circumspection, reflection and reform.

He is asking us to be "civilized" which means in my mind, suppressing the baser instincts for the benefit of all.

If we can harness that power — wisdom — our substantive project will be to reconcile our national and international differences. Is income inequality immoral?

No, it's absolutely natural and unavoidable. One might just as well ask if everyone should have the same degree of strength or beauty. It is a nonsensical idea.

Should government favor religion?

Yes. Till recently, (1948) ours did. It wasn't till 1825 (if I remember correctly) that States ceased having official state religions.

Can we tolerate cultures of female subjugation?

We did. Not only that, we engaged in it ourselves for most of our history. Many People have difficulty comprehending an anachronistic zeitgeist.

And how far should we trust our instincts? Should people who find homosexuality repugnant overcome that reaction?

No. Like other conditions of sickness, it has repugnant symptoms to which people have normal reactions. One might just as well ask if we should overcome our reaction to necrophilia.

Haidt’s faith in moral taste receptors may not survive this scrutiny. Our taste for sanctity or authority, like our taste for sugar, could turn out to be a dangerous relic. But Haidt is right that we must learn what we have been, even if our nature is to transcend it.


William Saletan, Slate’s national correspondent, is the author of “Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.”

All in all, a very insightful perspective. It pretty much follows my own thinking in many ways.

[djolds1]

Every functional society at any level of development needs some sort of social safety net. Without one, you end up with a hellhole society that collapses in anarchy. The tricky part is striking the proper balances.

I am not arguing against a safety net. I am arguing against the methodology currently employed in running the programs that are supposed to serve as a safety net. We are doing it the wrong way. We are reinforcing bad behavior rather than encouraging responsible behavior.

Ironically, here you are making precisely the style of argument Haidt identifies as 'characteristically conservative.' Note that I do not disagree - I've taken Socrates' injunction about the unexamined life to heart since I was eight.

Haidt argues that people are fundamentally intuitive, not rational.

I believe others can vouch for my past statements regarding the efficacy of an emotional argument over that of a rational one. People are far more easily motivated by emotion than reason.

"People are not rational, they are rationalizing" has been a mantra of mine for over 20 years.

But set aside those objections for now, and go with him. If you follow Haidt through the tunnel of cynicism, you’ll find that what he’s really after is enlightenment. He wants to open your mind to the moral intuitions of other people.

In the West, we think morality is all about harm, rights, fairness and consent. Does the guy own the chicken? Is the dog already dead? Is the sister of legal age? But step outside your neighborhood or your country, and you’ll discover that your perspective is highly anomalous.

A Fact with which I am Always endeavoring to beat people over the head. They seem to believe that just because THEY think something is moral or immoral (and yes KitemanSA, i'm looking at you. ) then it must therefore be accepted as UNIVERSALLY moral to all human beings everywhere!

Two ironies. One by the original author, one you're missing.

1) The original author of the article, William Saletan, implicitly assumes the entire West's moral outlook is typically "liberal" - In the West, we think morality is all about harm, rights, fairness and consent. He's writing a book review about how moral perspectives differ, and turns himself into an object lesson of Haidt's analysis - it is to laugh.

2) Liberals are not necessarily wrong that what they think is moral is moral. Where they miss the boat is in failing to realize that their moral conceptions are subsets of a greater superset. "Conservatives" can easily recognize the valid moral bases of liberal claims - but conservatives also realize that there are competing priorities that need to be balanced against the few that liberals are fixated on.

Conservatism thrives because it fits how people think, and that’s what validates it. Workers who vote Republican aren’t fools. In Haidt’s words, they’re “voting for their moral interests.”

One of these interests is moral capital — norms, prac­tices and institutions, like religion and family values, that facilitate cooperation by constraining individualism. Toward this end, Haidt applauds the left for regulating corporate greed. But he worries that in other ways, liberals dissolve moral capital too recklessly. Welfare programs that substitute public aid for spousal and parental support undermine the ecology of the family.

Conservatives are not against change which is progress. They are against change which is regress.

I have the book, but have yet to read it. However, having perused some of Haidt's other writings in the past, I think the concept of progress is almost outside his model. In some ways - and you won't like this - I'm seeing a similarity to the contrast between optimists and pessimists. Optimists see the beautiful dream, and then jump all-in to achieve it; and they either get things done or fail spectacularly. Pessimists see the world as it truly is, but hesitate due to concern about screwing things up. The comparison doesn't hold perfectly, but there are parallels.

The means of addressing the population in the form of news or entertainment has been seized completely by the much smaller Liberal section of society. It has now become very difficult for conservatives to respond to Liberal perspectives promulgated daily as propaganda disguised as News and Entertainment. The stratification between the Liberal part of the Electorate and the conservative part of the Electorate has been exacerbated by the fact that Liberals have won converts to their increasingly radical voting positions simply because the Conservative side does not have the ability to challenge their doctrine on an equal footing. Many of the people who now support liberal views on various issues, do so as a result of having never been exposed to the conservative alternative perspective.

The Left "won" the 20th century. Quite thoroughly. But all positive feedback loops collapse in time. And political regimes chock-full of positive rights are positive feedback loops in action.

How can we achieve these goals? Haidt offers a Web site, civilpolitics.org... Haidt also wants members of Congress to go back to the old practice of moving their families to Washington, so that they socialize with one another and build a friendly basis on which to cooperate.

An alternative suggestion is to NOT ALLOW them all to congregate in the same city where they can be influenced by corruption and intrigue, but require them to remain IN their districts where they can be kept in contact with the perspective of those whom they represent. We have reached a point where Telecommunication or even Telepresence makes this possible, and I dare say it would throw quite a monkey wrench into influence pedaling and lobbying.

All "mechanical" interventions, such as those you propose here, will fail eventually; the US Constitution inclusive. All such structural adjustments are stopgaps, nothing more. One of the villains in Wahlberg's 2007 "Shooter" got it correct (in part) - "What it is is human weakness. You can't kill that with a gun." I think what Haidt wants to do is refire camaraderie among the pols, that leading to greater conviviality and accomplishment. I.e. a return to the "Pre-Bork" mentality in DC. What he overlooks is that the present tensions in the US are the outcome of a long period of enforced-conviviality (the Left "owned" Congress more or less from 1933 through 1994) and mounting pressures as Civil Rights turned into a quota program and the Reds slowly took over the Left 1950-'75. Tensions like those don't resolve by "everyone just getting along."

If we can harness that power — wisdom — our substantive project will be to reconcile our national and international differences. Is income inequality immoral?

No, it's absolutely natural and unavoidable. One might just as well ask if everyone should have the same degree of strength or beauty. It is a nonsensical idea.

This is actually one area where I agree with Obama on the proclaimed problem, but believe him not at all wrt a desire to confront it. Obama has no interest in upsetting the system that put him on top. He will ride "income inequality" all the way to reelection, and forget the phrase was ever uttered by 8am on November 8th.

Examine the Gini coefficients of states like Brasil, Russia, and Saudi, and then compare them to the liberal democracies. Forty years ago, the income ratio of CEO to line worker in the US was ~40:1. As of a few years ago, it was 300:1, and the Great Recession is only making that worse, not to mention making the practical immunity of the corrupt among the elite impossible to ignore (i.e. Jon Corzine, among hundreds if not thousands). A society with such a polarization of incomes may well be natural, but it is not a society worth living in. OTOH, just as with a safety net, the measures to address this problem need to strike a balance, and the Left's present definition of "balance" equates to "collapse."

Should government favor religion?

Yes. Till recently, (1948) ours did. It wasn't till 1825 (if I remember correctly) that States ceased having official state religions.

And yet again, Saletan betrays his inherently liberal perspective. The religious in the US don't want FAVORITISM of religion, they want Freedom OF Religion, which is entirely distinct from the doctrine of Freedom FROM Religion, which has been pushed for the last 40 years.

Can we tolerate cultures of female subjugation?

We did. Not only that, we engaged in it ourselves for most of our history. Many People have difficulty comprehending an anachronistic zeitgeist.

We do. See our good friends, the Saudis. Fleets of how many B-52s flattened the homeland of Wahhabi al-Quaeda?

And how far should we trust our instincts? Should people who find homosexuality repugnant overcome that reaction?

No. Like other conditions of sickness, it has repugnant symptoms to which people have normal reactions. One might just as well ask if we should overcome our reaction to necrophilia.

THAT is harsh. It harms none. I am profoundly intolerant of attempts by temporal authority to force the religious to redraw their codes, but in the secular arena IMO "The Homo Wars" are over. America typically takes three generations to assimilate a "new" immigrant population, and homosexuals transitioned from "mentally ill" to "acceptable" 40 years ago. They've paid their dues, they're in.

OTOH, good luck to the radicals who want to keep pushing this line of thought. From what I've read, the APA wants to try to "mainstream" the NAMBLA crowd with the DSM-V, just as homosexuality was "mainstreamed" with the DSM-II in 1968. Yeah, right. If ever there was an effort designed to provoke a "the revolutions are over" response, that is it.

All in all, a very insightful perspective. It pretty much follows my own thinking in many ways.

Haidt is a bright guy. Also, its fun to turn around the usual liberal-scholarship-condescension of "conservatism is a form of retardation" psyc studies on them, and hoist them on their own petards. "Oh, you poor, limited liberals. Such a challenged moral system that you labor under." Schadenfreude can be sweet.

[williatw]

WELFARE (and various governmental programs that work by the same methodology) is not only financially unsustainable, it damages the very people it's alleged to help.

It teaches them bad habits and allows them to continue making bad decisions regarding their life. It is one of the major reason's why fathers are no longer an essential part of many poor families.

Every functional society at any level of development needs some sort of social safety net. Without one, you end up with a hellhole society that collapses in anarchy. The tricky part is striking the proper balances.

I am not arguing against a safety net. I am arguing against the methodology currently employed in running the programs that are supposed to serve as a safety net. We are doing it the wrong way. We are reinforcing bad behavior rather than encouraging responsible behavior.

Years ago, I happened to have run into one of our State Legislators with whom I was somewhat familiar. I told him that the current methodology of issuing "food stamps" was rife with abuse. (I used to work as a stockboy in a grocery store, so I saw a lot of it.) I explained that people were selling the food stamps in exchange for money, (usually a two to one exchange) with which they then bought beer and cigarettes, or other indulgences.




People to whom they were not issued were using food stamps, and there was no way to control this under the current methodology. I suggested that the state create a credit card with the recipient's picture on it, so that they could simply charge the food to an account, and so that the grocery clerks could verify the person buying the food was the person to whom the food credits were issued. It would reduce fraud (It's a lot more trouble to go buy the groceries yourself and THEN sell them), and it would reduce paperwork, and so on.

He told me he would look at the idea. Eventually he brought a bill to the floor and it was debated and passed and the credit card idea was implemented, except for one thing. THEY LEFT OFF THE PART ABOUT IT ALSO BEING A PICTURE ID OF THE RECEPIENT! Unless you happen to be Will Rogers, the card will not identify you at all!



Food stamp fraud continues on as before. If anything, it's easier. My contacts in the poor/drug community explain that people are always selling their card and pin number. Again, 50 cents on the dollar.

The methodology being used to implement the program is not doing these people any favors. Among other things, giving the equivalent of money to people who by very the nature of their affliction indicates that they cannot HANDLE finances, is just foolish. They buy things which they ought not be allowed to buy on food stamps, such as candy, coke, and various other junk foods.

Yes, we need a safety net, but we need one which produces a positive feedback for responsible behavior and a negative feedback for foolish behavior. I could go on for a very long time about this subject, so I think i'd better just stop here.

The flaw is paying people money/benefits in exchange for doing nothing. As you have said giving people something for nothing encourages indolence. Even if it isn't the fault of the person they don't have a job. The solution: make them work for it; viewtopic.php?t=3327&start=0&postdays=0 ... highlight=

If a man or woman has to work 8 hours a day to get their benefit would they be as quick to fritter it away or give it to someone else for 50cents on the dollar?

[Diogenes]

Ironically, here you are making precisely the style of argument Haidt identifies as 'characteristically conservative.' Note that I do not disagree - I've taken Socrates' injunction about the unexamined life to heart since I was eight.

One cannot help but manifest one's nature.

I believe others can vouch for my past statements regarding the efficacy of an emotional argument over that of a rational one. People are far more easily motivated by emotion than reason.

"People are not rational, they are rationalizing" has been a mantra of mine for over 20 years.

That is a good line. I'm going to borrow it.

But set aside those objections for now, and go with him. If you follow Haidt through the tunnel of cynicism, you’ll find that what he’s really after is enlightenment. He wants to open your mind to the moral intuitions of other people.

In the West, we think morality is all about harm, rights, fairness and consent. Does the guy own the chicken? Is the dog already dead? Is the sister of legal age? But step outside your neighborhood or your country, and you’ll discover that your perspective is highly anomalous.

A Fact with which I am Always endeavoring to beat people over the head. They seem to believe that just because THEY think something is moral or immoral (and yes KitemanSA, i'm looking at you. ) then it must therefore be accepted as UNIVERSALLY moral to all human beings everywhere!

Two ironies. One by the original author, one you're missing.

1) The original author of the article, William Saletan, implicitly assumes the entire West's moral outlook is typically "liberal" - In the West, we think morality is all about harm, rights, fairness and consent. He's writing a book review about how moral perspectives differ, and turns himself into an object lesson of Haidt's analysis - it is to laugh.

People are often unaware of their own blind spots.

2) Liberals are not necessarily wrong that what they think is moral is moral. Where they miss the boat is in failing to realize that their moral conceptions are subsets of a greater superset. "Conservatives" can easily recognize the valid moral bases of liberal claims - but conservatives also realize that there are competing priorities that need to be balanced against the few that liberals are fixated on.

The "bigger picture." Another topic which I am always going on about. People may wonder why they must refrain from some particular behavior which they wish to engage in, (Such as Sex outside of Marriage) without realizing that the beneficiary of such restraint may not be themselves, but perhaps their future children or community.

My argument against drugs is not about inhibiting someone's pursuit of pleasure as much as it is a recognition that such a practice will eventually over time become unsustainable. Indeed, this is much the conservative argument about everything. The Liberal perspective seems to focus on immediate gratification at the expense of future stability. (i.e. short term thinking.)

Conservatives are not against change which is progress. They are against change which is regress.

I have the book, but have yet to read it. However, having perused some of Haidt's other writings in the past, I think the concept of progress is almost outside his model. In some ways - and you won't like this - I'm seeing a similarity to the contrast between optimists and pessimists. Optimists see the beautiful dream, and then jump all-in to achieve it; and they either get things done or fail spectacularly. Pessimists see the world as it truly is, but hesitate due to concern about screwing things up. The comparison doesn't hold perfectly, but there are parallels.

Here is how I see your point.





Alternatively like this.

The means of addressing the population in the form of news or entertainment has been seized completely by the much smaller Liberal section of society. It has now become very difficult for conservatives to respond to Liberal perspectives promulgated daily as propaganda disguised as News and Entertainment. The stratification between the Liberal part of the Electorate and the conservative part of the Electorate has been exacerbated by the fact that Liberals have won converts to their increasingly radical voting positions simply because the Conservative side does not have the ability to challenge their doctrine on an equal footing. Many of the people who now support liberal views on various issues, do so as a result of having never been exposed to the conservative alternative perspective.

The Left "won" the 20th century. Quite thoroughly. But all positive feedback loops collapse in time. And political regimes chock-full of positive rights are positive feedback loops in action.

Positive feedback loops are oscillatory, which jives quite well with what we see of human history. I personally think the ascendency of Liberalism is the consequence of prosperity. It is no accident that the poorest sections of the Nation are the most conservative, while the richest sections of the nation are most Liberal.

People with money can afford foolish losses, while people with little must be more careful.

An alternative suggestion is to NOT ALLOW them all to congregate in the same city where they can be influenced by corruption and intrigue, but require them to remain IN their districts where they can be kept in contact with the perspective of those whom they represent. We have reached a point where Telecommunication or even Telepresence makes this possible, and I dare say it would throw quite a monkey wrench into influence pedaling and lobbying.

All "mechanical" interventions, such as those you propose here, will fail eventually; the US Constitution inclusive. All such structural adjustments are stopgaps, nothing more. One of the villains in Wahlberg's 2007 "Shooter" got it correct (in part) - "What it is is human weakness. You can't kill that with a gun." I think what Haidt wants to do is refire camaraderie among the pols, that leading to greater conviviality and accomplishment. I.e. a return to the "Pre-Bork" meentality in DC. What he overlooks is that the present tensions in the US are the outcome of a long period of enforced-conviviality (the Left "owned" Congress more or less from 1933 through 1994) and mounting pressures as Civil Rights turned into a quota program and the Reds slowly took over the Left 1950-'75. Tensions like those don't resolve by "everyone just getting along."

The conservatives have started "talking back" to their "betters". I agree It's going to get worse. Many conservatives (normally staid and non-provoking) are slowly developing feelings of murderous rage at Liberals because they hold them responsible for the horrible things which they see coming as a result of Liberal governance and policy.

No, it's absolutely natural and unavoidable. One might just as well ask if everyone should have the same degree of strength or beauty. It is a nonsensical idea.

This is actually one area where I agree with Obama on the proclaimed problem, but believe him not at all wrt a desire to confront it. Obama has no interest in upsetting the system that put him on top. He will ride "income inequality" all the way to reelection, and forget the phrase was ever uttered by 8am on November 8th.

Examine the Gini coefficients of states like Brasil, Russia, and Saudi, and then compare them to the liberal democracies. Forty years ago, the income ratio of CEO to line worker in the US was ~40:1. As of a few years ago, it was 300:1, and the Great Recession is only making that worse, not to mention making the practical immunity of the corrupt among the elite impossible to ignore (i.e. Jon Corzine, among hundreds if not thousands). A society with such a polarization of incomes may well be natural, but it is not a society worth living in. OTOH, just as with a safety net, the measures to address this problem need to strike a balance, and the Left's present definition of "balance" equates to "collapse."

Adam Smith was a proponent of Economic Freedom. What we have currently are an Economic system distorted by the machinations of those in authority who have learned to game the system to their benefit. In other words, the very thing Adam Smith warned us against.

Everyone wants to "rent seek". It is inherent in human nature, but previously (during the 40:1 period) Much of excess was constrained by the ubiquitous influence of Judeo-Christian doctrines, which are far less operative today.

Technology has also played a role by eliminating the need for as many people in various industries. Automation and the development of labor saving devices and equipment has further eroded the need for paying people, and any money which a company can save is that much more that can be used at the companies discretion. (With the CEO's often deciding that paying themselves more is a good investment of the companies money.)

Stratification of the rich and poor is a good way to provoke a revolution, but to the people who "got theirs" it is not something they are going to worry about until it happens.

Should government favor religion?

Yes. Till recently, (1948) ours did. It wasn't till 1825 (if I remember correctly) that States ceased having official state religions.

And yet again, Saletan betrays his inherently liberal perspective. The religious in the US don't want FAVORITISM of religion, they want Freedom OF Religion, which is entirely distinct from the doctrine of Freedom FROM Religion, which has been pushed for the last 40 years.

I think some do, I think others want a tacit favoritism towards the Dominant Christian religion, but with tolerance for the rest. I think it is instinctive among humans to associate their religions and their government. For thousands of years, whomever the King was, it was believed that God or gods chose him to rule. If a person is religiously inclined, they tend to find it difficult to separate their perspective of religion from that of their perspective of reality.

I am not personally religious but I understand the perspective of many who are. I don't think the government should be involving itself in religion pro-actively, but I also don't think they should be actively campaigning against its expression.

Can we tolerate cultures of female subjugation?

We did. Not only that, we engaged in it ourselves for most of our history. Many People have difficulty comprehending an anachronistic zeitgeist.

We do. See our good friends, the Saudis. Fleets of how many B-52s flattened the homeland of Wahhabi al-Quaeda?

One expresses the principles which one can afford. Obviously the value of oil is to us greater than our concern for any difference of principle we may have between us and them.

And how far should we trust our instincts? Should people who find homosexuality repugnant overcome that reaction?

No. Like other conditions of sickness, it has repugnant symptoms to which people have normal reactions. One might just as well ask if we should overcome our reaction to necrophilia.

THAT is harsh. It harms none.

I am not convinced of this.

Chastity Bono was sexually abused as a child by her lesbian pedophile nanny for years. She has spoken and written about this openly. This sexual abuse was what caused Chastity Bono to develop serious psychosexual disorders. When lesbianism didn't "cure" her psychological problems, she sunk deeper into mental illness and began this process of self-mutilation. And this won't "cure" her either.

There are other examples as well. This is a subject I have studied quite a lot over the last 20 years, and it does appear to expand it's ranks through "recruitment." There seems to be a "there" there.

I am profoundly intolerant of attempts by temporal authority to force the religious to redraw their codes, but in the secular arena IMO "The Homo Wars" are over. America typically takes three generations to assimilate a "new" immigrant population, and homosexuals transitioned from "mentally ill" to "acceptable" 40 years ago. They've paid their dues, they're in. Trannies not so much, despite the attempt to frame all issues of variant sexuality as "GLBT."

And this is a very salient point. "Trannies" are just a variation on the exact same theme. One of the things I've learned about Homosexuals over the years is that they manifest quite a variety. There are tops, bottoms, queens, bears, He-men girly-boys, cross dressers, transvestites, pedophiles, and various fetishists. Amongst their sub-culture, they are all familiar with the different flavors of the various subcategories, but most of the people outside of their sub-culture are unfamiliar with it.

Homosexuals merely regard LGTB people as simply variations on the same theme, and regard the societal acceptance of these people as tantamount to their own. If people think they are "finished" then they are sadly mistaken. Once you've accepted the crossing of natural boundaries, the train doesn't stop.

OTOH, good luck to the radicals who want to keep pushing this line of thought.

From their perspective, they are not radical. It is just an incremental step further down the same path.

From what I've read, the APA wants to try to "mainstream" the NAMBLA crowd with the DSM-V, just as homosexuality was "mainstreamed" with the DSM-II in 1968. Yeah, right. If ever there was an effort designed to provoke a "the revolutions are over" response, that is it.

I predict that they will be successful at accomplishing this if they are permitted to have enough time. I told the friend I mentioned earlier (gun nut) that Homosexuals would pursue the ability to marry each other. He thought I was nuts in 1980, and several years ago he told me I was exactly right about everything I had predicted back then.

I am predicting that society will eventually accept as normal things which they currently consider perverted and disgusting, if the pressure to do so is maintained, which will be the case if Liberals remain in control of the News and Media services.

All in all, a very insightful perspective. It pretty much follows my own thinking in many ways.

Haidt is a bright guy. Also, its fun to turn around the usual liberal-scholarship-condescension of "conservatism is a form of retardation" psyc studies on them, and hoist them on their own petards. "Oh, you poor, limited liberals. Such a challenged moral system that you labor under." Schadenfreude can be sweet.

There are a LOT of bright people who have a weak relationship with reality. (I am not suggesting this of Haidt, of course. He actually seems rather grounded to me.) As Ronald Reagan said: "The trouble with our opponents is not that they are ignorant... It's that they know so much which isn't so. "

There are quite brilliant Liberals who have simply not yet been exposed to enough real world information to understand why their philosophy is doomed to fail.

[Diogenes]

The flaw is paying people money/benefits in exchange for doing nothing. As you have said giving people something for nothing encourages indolence. Even if it isn't the fault of the person they don't have a job. The solution: make them work for it; viewtopic.php?t=3327&start=0&postdays=0 ... highlight=

Yes. That is certainly a valid point.

If a man or woman has to work 8 hours a day to get their benefit would they be as quick to fritter it away or give it to someone else for 50cents on the dollar?

No they would not. The ability to regulate their work and manage their income is an invaluable benefit to their prosperity and well being. I am very much in favor of requiring some sort of useful activity in exchange for their food money.

Of course for people who are simply unable to do anything, guardians will have to manage their affairs, just as it is now. I know of Autistics and other people with mental disabilities that cannot be realistically taught to improve themselves, so it will be a necessity for others to take care of them and see to their needs.

[djolds1]

"People are not rational, they are rationalizing" has been a mantra of mine for over 20 years.

That is a good line. I'm going to borrow it.

Stole it myself, ages past. From a Baen Books novel, IIRC.

The "bigger picture." Another topic which I am always going on about. People may wonder why they must refrain from some particular behavior which they wish to engage in, (Such as Sex outside of Marriage) without realizing that the beneficiary of such restraint may not be themselves, but perhaps their future children or community.

My argument against drugs is not about inhibiting someone's pursuit of pleasure as much as it is a recognition that such a practice will eventually over time become unsustainable. Indeed, this is much the conservative argument about everything. The Liberal perspective seems to focus on immediate gratification at the expense of future stability. (i.e. short term thinking.)

My argument against the WoSD is that it degrades community far more than it enhances.

The Left "won" the 20th century. Quite thoroughly. But all positive feedback loops collapse in time. And political regimes chock-full of positive rights are positive feedback loops in action.

Positive feedback loops are oscillatory, which jives quite well with what we see of human history. I personally think the ascendency of Liberalism is the consequence of prosperity. It is no accident that the poorest sections of the Nation are the most conservative, while the richest sections of the nation are most Liberal.

Historically, cosmopolitan urban cores are quite spendthrift, ostentatious and permissive.

The conservatives have started "talking back" to their "betters". I agree It's going to get worse. Many conservatives (normally staid and non-provoking) are slowly developing feelings of murderous rage at Liberals because they hold them responsible for the horrible things which they see coming as a result of Liberal governance and policy.

I think you overestimate the probable severity of reaction.

Examine the Gini coefficients of states like Brasil, Russia, and Saudi, and then compare them to the liberal democracies. Forty years ago, the income ratio of CEO to line worker in the US was ~40:1. As of a few years ago, it was 300:1, and the Great Recession is only making that worse, not to mention making the practical immunity of the corrupt among the elite impossible to ignore (i.e. Jon Corzine, among hundreds if not thousands). A society with such a polarization of incomes may well be natural, but it is not a society worth living in. OTOH, just as with a safety net, the measures to address this problem need to strike a balance, and the Left's present definition of "balance" equates to "collapse."

Adam Smith was a proponent of Economic Freedom. What we have currently are an Economic system distorted by the machinations of those in authority who have learned to game the system to their benefit. In other words, the very thing Adam Smith warned us against.

Everyone wants to "rent seek". It is inherent in human nature, but previously (during the 40:1 period) Much of excess was constrained by the ubiquitous influence of Judeo-Christian doctrines, which are far less operative today.

Rent-seeking via political clientage is probably the default state of mankind.

Stratification of the rich and poor is a good way to provoke a revolution, but to the people who "got theirs" it is not something they are going to worry about until it happens.

The FDR Democrats managed a tolerable median for about 40 years. I've often said I would prefer to be a Truman Democrat - a shame that Party committed seppuku between 1968 and 1974.

The religious in the US don't want FAVORITISM of religion, they want Freedom OF Religion, which is entirely distinct from the doctrine of Freedom FROM Religion, which has been pushed for the last 40 years.

I think some do, I think others want a tacit favoritism towards the Dominant Christian religion, but with tolerance for the rest. I think it is instinctive among humans to associate their religions and their government. For thousands of years, whomever the King was, it was believed that God or gods chose him to rule. If a person is religiously inclined, they tend to find it difficult to separate their perspective of religion from that of their perspective of reality.

I am not personally religious but I understand the perspective of many who are. I don't think the government should be involving itself in religion pro-actively, but I also don't think they should be actively campaigning against its expression.

The late Samuel P. Huntington identified the uniquely American religious settlement as "The American Civic Religion," a Boy-Scoutish conglomeration of monotheist sects that started out as all-Protestant, but gradually admitted Catholics and Jews. Its moral program for society was the agreed-upon mean between all "member" sects. Worked quite well, tho the atheists were locked out.

THAT is harsh. It harms none.

I am not convinced of this.

Chastity Bono was sexually abused as a child by her lesbian pedophile nanny for years. She has spoken and written about this openly. This sexual abuse was what caused Chastity Bono to develop serious psychosexual disorders. When lesbianism didn't "cure" her psychological problems, she sunk deeper into mental illness and began this process of self-mutilation. And this won't "cure" her either.

There will always be pervs of all inclinations. I find various '60s and early '70s fetal-hormonal studies (which have been "incorrect" and unmentionable until just recently) and more recent fMRI studies convincing - sexual orientation is largely biological, tho probably not per se genetic.

OTOH, good luck to the radicals who want to keep pushing this line of thought.

From their perspective, they are not radical. It is just an incremental step further down the same path.

One of the tremendous amusements of the last few years is just how right ex-Senator Santorum's predictions about the implications and probable consequences of the "Lawrence" decision have been proven. As I said, I think homosexuals are "in," but that no further "discoveries" will be permitted - at least within the medium term (100 years).

From what I've read, the APA wants to try to "mainstream" the NAMBLA crowd with the DSM-V, just as homosexuality was "mainstreamed" with the DSM-II in 1968. Yeah, right. If ever there was an effort designed to provoke a "the revolutions are over" response, that is it.

I predict that they will be successful at accomplishing this if they are permitted to have enough time. I told the friend I mentioned earlier (gun nut) that Homosexuals would pursue the ability to marry each other. He thought I was nuts in 1980, and several years ago he told me I was exactly right about everything I had predicted back then.

I think the age of secular revolutions and ideologies is winding down, painfully. Walter Russell Mead's series on the decay of "the Blue Social Model" is quite insightful, IMO various tensions are rising to a boiling point which will "conclude" the revolutions in a stable new form (homosexuals and monogamous-gay-marriages-ONLY "in," other lifestylers "out," female and racial equal rights as taken-for-granted "duhs" instead of battlefields that require constant war, etc.), and I think one of Samuel P. Huntington's observations is correct - the 21st century will be a century of faith, not grand secular experiments.

There are a LOT of bright people who have a weak relationship with reality. (I am not suggesting this of Haidt, of course. He actually seems rather grounded to me.) As Ronald Reagan said: "The trouble with our opponents is not that they are ignorant... It's that they know so much which isn't so."

Orwell - "There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."

Interesting article on just that point today:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/op ... 4gvA3hdHKJ

And of course, Saletan points out that Haidt reaches an almost identical conclusion, albeit phrased much more diplomatically.

[Diogenes]

My argument against the WoSD is that it degrades community far more than it enhances.

That is something MSimon argues as well. I don't find it convincing in light of what happened to China when they had legal drugs. Just looking at the statistics on cigarettes ought to give people pause as to the degree of penetration into the population that other drugs might have if they were available legally.

According to this chart, the addiction rate for cigarettes is around 20%, and that's only after years of decline due to pressures exerted against it.

Historically, cosmopolitan urban cores are quite spendthrift, ostentatious and permissive.

I think this is the result of the prevalence of money and better opportunities to engage in libertine past times. It is more difficult to be debauched in a sparser population. City life helps with anonymity as well as other aspects of an indulgent lifestyle. You may find this amusing.

I think you overestimate the probable severity of reaction.

Maybe.

Rent-seeking via political clientage is probably the default state of mankind.

I think you are absolutely right about this. It is in our very Nature.

The FDR Democrats managed a tolerable median for about 40 years. I've often said I would prefer to be a Truman Democrat - a shame that Party committed seppuku between 1968 and 1974.

You have a different perspective on this than do I. From my vantage, the Democrat party looked evil and corrupt from the very beginning. The Modern day Democrat party is a legacy of Andrew Jackson, who founded the still existent Democratic National Committee.

The crowning Achievement of Andrew Jackson's Presidency was the theft of Indian Lands in the South, and the forcible relocation of the tribes into unwanted territory.Andrew Jackson's efforts made the areas safe for the establishment of Slave Plantations, which was a further blight on society.

I could go on and list subsequent perfidy by other Democrat Officials (such as Nathan Bedford Forest) but the list is so long and the vileness is so extensive that we could spend weeks just discussing this one topic.

Suffice it to say, my opinion of them is summed up by this man's tombstone.

The late Samuel P. Huntington identified the uniquely American religious settlement as "The American Civic Religion," a Boy-Scoutish conglomeration of monotheist sects that started out as all-Protestant, but gradually admitted Catholics and Jews. Its moral program for society was the agreed-upon mean between all "member" sects. Worked quite well, tho the atheists were locked out.

The atheists were a threat to the otherwise successful system. If the entire system hinges on the belief that there is a God who loves you and wants you to be happy, but who also insists that you follow his rules for dealing with one another, anyone who wishes to expose the "man behind the curtain" is a threat to the whole system.

Napoleon wanted his men to believe he Loved them and that he wouldn't waste their lives on a whim, but Napoleon himself once boasted that he could afford to lose 30,000 of them per month. In order to motivate them to do what he wanted he needed them to believe something other than the truth.

There will always be pervs of all inclinations.

And this is exactly my point. They are only "pervs" by our standards. By their own standards, this behavior is not abnormal. Indeed, you yourself have pointed out efforts by various homosexual groups in normalizing pedophilia. They really don't see anything wrong with it, and only espouse objections to it because they realize the rest of society hasn't "grown" enough to be tolerant of it. As a result, they will loudly proclaim that it is wrong, but outside of the spotlight they will quietly indulge and/or ignore it when they are aware of it. Not all, but most. After all, they were originally told by society that same sex intercourse is wrong, but they did it anyway. If you have no problem breaking one long standing rule of society, how is another one different?

I find various '60s and early '70s fetal-hormonal studies (which have been "incorrect" and unmentionable until just recently) and more recent fMRI studies convincing - sexual orientation is largely biological, tho probably not per se genetic.

I tend to agree with this assessment, however
I am aware of various "gay" researchers working in this field that are seeking to prove that homosexuality is entirely genetic. I would suggest they are doing so because this conclusion supports their narrative.

http://gayterribletruth.wordpress.com/2 ... erosexual/

http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/simon-levay.html


My observation is that Homosexuality appears to have a genetic component, but is not a foregone conclusion. The brain rewires itself as an ongoing process and circumstances which favor a certain manner of brain function can alter behavior and outlook. There is a great deal of evidence that indicates many homosexuals were the victims of molestation as children, and in far higher percentages than is true for the normal population.

In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls. Suggestions for future research were offered.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/ ... xuality-2/

I have long suspected that subsequent expression of homosexual orientation is the result of the psyche's attempt at coming to terms with the trauma they have experienced. In other words, to avoid the pain they feel, they convince themselves that nothing is wrong or abnormal about what happened to them.

OTOH, good luck to the radicals who want to keep pushing this line of thought.

From their perspective, they are not radical. It is just an incremental step further down the same path.

One of the tremendous amusements of the last few years is just how right ex-Senator Santorum's predictions about the implications and probable consequences of the "Lawrence" decision have been proven. As I said, I think homosexuals are "in," but that no further "discoveries" will be permitted - at least within the medium term (100 years).

The group has certainly been embraced as "in" by those in charge of Entertaining us and presenting us with the News, and therefore all the "in" members of society, but I think it has not gained acceptance among the rest of society. During the Proposition 8 election, Liberals were shocked to discover that most of the people in the black community resent being compared to Homosexuals.

I find it amusing that the Supreme court now sees as a "right" an activity that was punishable by death when the Nation was founded. Thomas Jefferson himself proposed a bill in the Virginia Assembly to change the penalty from death to castrationbecause he felt the death penalty was excessively severe.

I think the age of secular revolutions and ideologies is winding down, painfully. Walter Russell Mead's series on the decay of "the Blue Social Model" is quite insightful, IMO various tensions are rising to a boiling point which will "conclude" the revolutions in a stable new form (homosexuals and monogamous-gay-marriages-ONLY "in," other lifestylers "out," female and racial equal rights as taken-for-granted "duhs" instead of battlefields that require constant war, etc.),

The problem with this is the legal wreckage left in the wake of this idea. As George Will et al pointed out, if you accept the argument that a marriage can be between any two consenting adults, by what legal basis can you exclude three consenting adults?

and I think one of Samuel P. Huntington's observations is correct - the 21st century will be a century of faith, not grand secular experiments.

If this is the case, it will likely be because evolution will favor the "faithful" in surviving the coming troubles. That appears to be the exact conclusion of his article.

Orwell - "There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."

Interesting article on just that point today:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/op ... 4gvA3hdHKJ

Yes, i've read several articles about how SHOCKED the liberals are that Obamacare may well be struck down as unconstitutional. They simply cannot grasp the arguments against their world view.

And of course, Saletan points out that Haidt reaches an almost identical conclusion, albeit phrased much more diplomatically.

Diplomacy is useful if there is the potential of dealing with someone who has the ability to reason. Against fanatics, it is worse than useless. Here is a maxim about Diplomacy that I have always found amusing.

Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggy...Nice doggy..." while you look for a rock.

[djolds1]

Historically, cosmopolitan urban cores are quite spendthrift, ostentatious and permissive.

I think this is the result of the prevalence of money and better opportunities to engage in libertine past times. It is more difficult to be debauched in a sparser population. City life helps with anonymity as well as other aspects of an indulgent lifestyle. You may find this amusing.

You're probably correct in all particulars here, and thanks for the article.

The FDR Democrats managed a tolerable median for about 40 years. I've often said I would prefer to be a Truman Democrat - a shame that Party committed seppuku between 1968 and 1974.

You have a different perspective on this than do I. From my vantage, the Democrat party looked evil and corrupt from the very beginning. The Modern day Democrat party is a legacy of Andrew Jackson, who founded the still existent Democratic National Committee.

The crowning Achievement of Andrew Jackson's Presidency was the theft of Indian Lands in the South, and the forcible relocation of the tribes into unwanted territory.Andrew Jackson's efforts made the areas safe for the establishment of Slave Plantations, which was a further blight on society.

I could go on and list subsequent perfidy by other Democrat Officials (such as Nathan Bedford Forest) but the list is so long and the vileness is so extensive that we could spend weeks just discussing this one topic.

Popular opinion against the Amerinds was cemented thanks to King Philip's War. Taking the Indian land was popular, and was not going to be stopped. Beyond that, I think you're generalizing too much of the history of the Democratic Party. Progressivism is the core of the modern Left, and dates back to ~1875. Finally, I don't hold out much hope for another "happy median" period.

The late Samuel P. Huntington identified the uniquely American religious settlement as "The American Civic Religion," a Boy-Scoutish conglomeration of monotheist sects that started out as all-Protestant, but gradually admitted Catholics and Jews. Its moral program for society was the agreed-upon mean between all "member" sects. Worked quite well, tho the atheists were locked out.

The atheists were a threat to the otherwise successful system. If the entire system hinges on the belief that there is a God who loves you and wants you to be happy, but who also insists that you follow his rules for dealing with one another, anyone who wishes to expose the "man behind the curtain" is a threat to the whole system.

Napoleon wanted his men to believe he Loved them and that he wouldn't waste their lives on a whim, but Napoleon himself once boasted that he could afford to lose 30,000 of them per month. In order to motivate them to do what he wanted he needed them to believe something other than the truth.

We disagree. I see a society where religion is accepted and active as healthier. Religious institutions have also typically provided charitable "welfare" services for millennia; cutting out proven segments of civil society to indulge theory and tiny minorities (such as militant atheists) is a mistake.

There will always be pervs of all inclinations.

And this is exactly my point. They are only "pervs" by our standards. By their own standards, this behavior is not abnormal. Indeed, you yourself have pointed out efforts by various homosexual groups in normalizing pedophilia.

Incorrect. Go back and look again. I cited the APA.

I find various '60s and early '70s fetal-hormonal studies (which have been "incorrect" and unmentionable until just recently) and more recent fMRI studies convincing - sexual orientation is largely biological, tho probably not per se genetic.

I tend to agree with this assessment, however I am aware of various "gay" researchers working in this field that are seeking to prove that homosexuality is entirely genetic. I would suggest they are doing so because this conclusion supports their narrative.

They could be correct. Multiple and deeply variant sources for the same behaviors is a robust evolutionary strategy.

I find it amusing that the Supreme court now sees as a "right" an activity that was punishable by death when the Nation was founded. Thomas Jefferson himself proposed a bill in the Virginia Assembly to change the penalty from death to castrationbecause he felt the death penalty was excessively severe.

We disagree.

I think the age of secular revolutions and ideologies is winding down, painfully. Walter Russell Mead's series on the decay of "the Blue Social Model" is quite insightful, IMO various tensions are rising to a boiling point which will "conclude" the revolutions in a stable new form (homosexuals and monogamous-gay-marriages-ONLY "in," other lifestylers "out," female and racial equal rights as taken-for-granted "duhs" instead of battlefields that require constant war, etc.),

The problem with this is the legal wreckage left in the wake of this idea. As George Will et al pointed out, if you accept the argument that a marriage can be between any two consenting adults, by what legal basis can you exclude three consenting adults?

Generally accepted public prejudice, sanctified by the politicals and the courts. Reality is not always shaped by juridical pronouncements of sweeping scope.

Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggy...Nice doggy..." while you look for a rock.

Raise a dagger.

[quixote]

I tend to agree with this assessment, however
I am aware of various "gay" researchers working in this field that are seeking to prove that homosexuality is entirely genetic. I would suggest they are doing so because this conclusion supports their narrative.

Diogenes,
Have you considered the implications if they succeeded in proving that homosexual inclinations are primarily genetic? Look at how early fetal gender identification is being used.

[djolds1]

I tend to agree with this assessment, however I am aware of various "gay" researchers working in this field that are seeking to prove that homosexuality is entirely genetic. I would suggest they are doing so because this conclusion supports their narrative.

Diogenes, Have you considered the implications if they succeeded in proving that homosexual inclinations are primarily genetic? Look at how early fetal gender identification is being used.

Advancing biotech over the next few decades looks to stand a LOT of current assumptions on their respective heads. That same screening plus an artificial womb and Themyscria or Athos are just as probable as a repressive hetero-dystopia.

[Diogenes]

I tend to agree with this assessment, however
I am aware of various "gay" researchers working in this field that are seeking to prove that homosexuality is entirely genetic. I would suggest they are doing so because this conclusion supports their narrative.

Diogenes,
Have you considered the implications if they succeeded in proving that homosexual inclinations are primarily genetic? Look at how early fetal gender identification is being used.

A lot of people have mentioned the possibility that parents will abort their children if they can find conclusive evidence that they will become homosexual. I have read articles that suggested such an occurrence might well result in the Homosexual constituency of the electorate becoming pro-life, but I doubt it would actually work out that way.

[Diogenes]

I tend to agree with this assessment, however I am aware of various "gay" researchers working in this field that are seeking to prove that homosexuality is entirely genetic. I would suggest they are doing so because this conclusion supports their narrative.

Diogenes, Have you considered the implications if they succeeded in proving that homosexual inclinations are primarily genetic? Look at how early fetal gender identification is being used.

Advancing biotech over the next few decades looks to stand a LOT of current assumptions on their respective heads. That same screening plus an artificial womb and Themyscria or Athos are just as probable as a repressive hetero-dystopia.

I dunno, I would suggest that in all likelihood, given human nature the people who like sex would band together and wipe out either version of a sexless system. I think it is in the nature of humans to attack and destroy anything that crosses a threshold of differentness. I (and others) suspect the Neanderthals were wiped out by we Homo Sapiens. Other theories are that we had sex with them, which is also an alternative ending to those two colonies you suggested. (Especially the Amazons! )

In any case, I wouldn't call it a repressive hetero-dystopia, more like an anti-pathos effort. In spite of the Media and in-crowd's efforts, many/most people still view homosexuality as a sickness and they want no part of it for their children. From an evolutionary standpoint, it doesn't make any genetic sense to raise fruitless drones.

[Diogenes]

Popular opinion against the Amerinds was cemented thanks to King Philip's War. Taking the Indian land was popular, and was not going to be stopped. Beyond that, I think you're generalizing too much of the history of the Democratic Party. Progressivism is the core of the modern Left, and dates back to ~1875. Finally, I don't hold out much hope for another "happy median" period.

To be fair to the Democrats, much of the "progressive age" was implemented by Republicans. Abraham Lincoln did more to swell the power and influence of the Federal Leviathan than any other man in History. After the civil war, it became fashionable to think up new ways to use the power of the government to force some outcome or other of which the intelligentsia of the time approved. The Embodiment of the Meddling busybody has moved from the Republican establishment of the 1900s over to the Democratic establishment of today.

There are a few exceptions. Woodrow Wilson was a "progressive" Democrat of that Era. He certainly made a mess of things.

In order to motivate them to do what he wanted he needed them to believe something other than the truth.

We disagree. I see a society where religion is accepted and active as healthier. Religious institutions have also typically provided charitable "welfare" services for millennia; cutting out proven segments of civil society to indulge theory and tiny minorities (such as militant atheists) is a mistake.

I agree. I wish they would go proselytize the Muslims, especially in THEIR country. We could nominate them for Darwin's Awards.

There will always be pervs of all inclinations.

And this is exactly my point. They are only "pervs" by our standards. By their own standards, this behavior is not abnormal. Indeed, you yourself have pointed out efforts by various homosexual groups in normalizing pedophilia.

Incorrect. Go back and look again. I cited the APA.

And NAMBLA, which is (in my opinion) a group that doesn't feel such a behavior is abnormal. Also, didn't you see my posting of this article?

A group of academics called “B4U-ACT” classifies pedophilia as simply another sexual orientation and decries the “stigma” attached to adults having sex with children.

B4U-ACT science director Howard Kline challenged supporters to pressure the American Psychological Association to stop defining the sexual compulsions of “minor-attracted persons” as a mental disorder.

I find various '60s and early '70s fetal-hormonal studies (which have been "incorrect" and unmentionable until just recently) and more recent fMRI studies convincing - sexual orientation is largely biological, tho probably not per se genetic.

I tend to agree with this assessment, however I am aware of various "gay" researchers working in this field that are seeking to prove that homosexuality is entirely genetic. I would suggest they are doing so because this conclusion supports their narrative.

They could be correct. Multiple and deeply variant sources for the same behaviors is a robust evolutionary strategy.

I explain this as "Nature tries everything!" (Even stuff that doesn't and won't work.)


There has been a lot of speculation that if it does have a genetic basis, the characteristics of the genes which "cause" homosexuality must have a highly valuable purpose in the gene pool. They are speculated to be genes which are "twofers" in that they are definitely needed in some manner, but occasionally they arrange in such a way as to result in the condition.

Much of this speculation is based on the notion that useless genes eventually die out over time, but the persistence of these characteristics imply that the benefit these genes impart somehow outweighs the detriment of having non-offspring producing males. (and prior to the development of modern anti-biotics and anti-viruls, heavily disease riddled males, living in the community.)

I've seen it argued that it may cause the males not to breed, but it is more than made up for in the females' fertility.

I find it amusing that the Supreme court now sees as a "right" an activity that was punishable by death when the Nation was founded. Thomas Jefferson himself proposed a bill in the Virginia Assembly to change the penalty from death to castrationbecause he felt the death penalty was excessively severe.

We disagree.

That it is not amusing? That the court said it is a right? Or that the Penalty for homosexual acts was death in 1776? Or that Thomas Jefferson proposed a relaxation of the more serious punishment? I'm not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with.

I think the age of secular revolutions and ideologies is winding down, painfully. Walter Russell Mead's series on the decay of "the Blue Social Model" is quite insightful, IMO various tensions are rising to a boiling point which will "conclude" the revolutions in a stable new form (homosexuals and monogamous-gay-marriages-ONLY "in," other lifestylers "out," female and racial equal rights as taken-for-granted "duhs" instead of battlefields that require constant war, etc.),

The problem with this is the legal wreckage left in the wake of this idea. As George Will et al pointed out, if you accept the argument that a marriage can be between any two consenting adults, by what legal basis can you exclude three consenting adults?

Generally accepted public prejudice, sanctified by the politicals and the courts. Reality is not always shaped by juridical pronouncements of sweeping scope.

If you mean the law is sometimes fickle and logically inconsistent like the people for whom it is administrated, then you are of course, right.

[djolds1]

In any case, I wouldn't call it a repressive hetero-dystopia, more like an anti-pathos effort.

I was thinking more of the consequences to this tech in an Islamist Iran or Arabia.