About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Friday, January 21, 2011 - 4:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike, thanks for posting this.

It's great to see Haidt et al. admit of -- and transcend some of -- their "liberal academic bias" by recognizing the reality of the existence of libertarian people on earth. Even still, they are left with a bias (pun intended):

... libertarians “score high on individualism, low on collectivism, and low on all other traits that involved bonding with, loving, or feeling a sense of common identity with others.” Haidt and his fellow researchers suggest that people who are dispositionally low on disgust sensitivity and high on openness to experience will be drawn to classically liberal philosophers who argue for the superordinate value of individual liberty. But also being highly individualistic and low on empathy, they feel little attraction to modern liberals’ emphasis on altruism and coercive social welfare policies. Haidt and his colleagues then speculate that an intellectual feedback loop develops in which such people will find more and more of the libertarian narrative agreeable and begin identifying themselves as libertarian. From Haidt’s social intuitionist perspective, “this process is no different from the psychological comfort that liberals attain in moralizing their empathic responses or that social conservatives attain in moralizing their connection to their groups.”



According to Haidt et al., the genesis of a libertarian mindset is interchangeable with the genesis of a liberal or a conservative mindset. The reason for the 3 different moralities, according to Haidt et al., is that there are 3 in-born, esthetic preferences (3 basic "kinds" of humans).

That's tribalistic determinism, dressed up as science. It ignores the fact that people can convert in response to checking their premises. It ignores the fundamental fact about humans which separates us from the lower animals -- that we're on a mental journey as well as a merely a physical one sprinkled with ineffable emotions.

Ed
[converted from a Christian socialist to an Objectivist libertarian at age 33, in 2001]

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/21, 4:31pm)


Post 1

Friday, January 21, 2011 - 4:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Addendum:
It'd be good to see Haidt et al. continue shedding leftie biases and begin investigating whether you can convert from one morality to another.

Also, the fact that Christ died at age 33 and that I 'died' (as far as being a devout Christian goes) at age 33 ... is very likely just a coincidence.

:-)

Ed


Post 2

Saturday, January 22, 2011 - 6:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed -- What happened at age 33, if that is not too personal?

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Saturday, January 22, 2011 - 7:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim,

I blame M. Scott Peck (author: The Road Less Traveled, The Different Drum, People of the Lie) for making me question everything.

Example:
He was writing about God in one of his books and he -- without warning -- referred to God as a woman. That shook my whole foundation. Here was this Christian psychiatrist, a man as smart as a Jesuit priest, referring to God as a female. I just about shut the book in disgust. But then the questions started coming, and I couldn't stop them ...

If I'm so sure that God is male, then how do I prove it?
If I can't even prove it to myself, then am I even justified in believing it in the first place?
Please God, forgive me for questioning You.
What else am I currently believing which cannot be rationally justified using facts and logic?
Holy crap.
What about my feelings that CEO's should not make more than twice what the lowest paid worker makes?
What about my feelings that man is destroying the earth and that it'd be okay to imprison, and maybe even to murder, polluters?
Holy shit.
What about ...
Etc.

:-)

Then I checked other sources. I heard of this guy named Nathaniel Branden. He reminded me of Peck. That was good enough for me at the time. Then, this Branden guy mentioned this "Ayn Rand" lady. What in the world was she all about? I went online. Folks were ripping into Ayn Rand left and right. What gives? Did these folks have an actual rational justification for hating Ayn Rand? What kind of behavior could she be guilty of? I had to get to the bottom of this, find out what all the brouhaha was about. I picked up the Ayn Rand Lexicon but never read the "A" section (because that's where "atheism" and "abortion" were).

After a couple months of devouring B-Z, I was finally psycho-epistemologically ready for A. Then I learned about this site, and the rest is history.

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/23, 6:53pm)


Post 4

Sunday, January 23, 2011 - 5:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Certainly was a long way to trip a wary... ;-)

Post 5

Sunday, January 23, 2011 - 5:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I vacillated all through college between belief and disbelief. My last semester (Fall 1988), I was in the "belief" phase again. A classmate offered to loan me The Virtue of Selfishness based on some conversations we had. I came very close to rejecting his offer based on the title alone. Fortunately, reason had its way that day, and the rest is history.

Post 6

Monday, January 24, 2011 - 11:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Since this seems to have become a neat 'share how you became objectivist' thread:

During early 9th grade (or was it 8th grade?) I decided to confront altruism head on and figure what it really was about (I asked myself this question a few times before in middle school but I evaded the issue) so I remember it being the opposite of selfishness. I thought to myself:

"If my wife was sick and I help her, that's altruistic right? No, that's selfish since I care about her so I shouldn't care about her, that's ridiculous. The same goes with friends.

What about my enemies, since helping them is unselfish, should I help them? That's even more ridiculous.

Things like happiness is selfish, so I shouldn't be happy? That's also incredibly dumb."

Later(tenth grade):
"OK, sure I can be selfish, but I can't go around killing people can I? No, that doesn't make sense. Why? Then people can go taking all your stuff that you worked for.

Ok, then what limitations need to be placed on 'selfishness?' Hmm, how about rights? That makes sense, so a man can do whatever he wants as long as it doesn't violate another's rights allows selfishness but doesn't allow people to go around killing or stealing, ok good.

What's the rational basis for rights? I have no idea, damn."


This was the state I was in until I read anthem in junior year and loved it but I was dumb and didn't look into the author more. At 12th grade my friend showed me the other books written by her and I loved them too. The two major things she did was give the rational basis to right and remove the emotion-reason dichotomy (something I never did).

Post 7

Monday, January 24, 2011 - 4:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great story, Brandon.

Later(tenth grade):
"OK, sure I can be selfish, but I can't go around killing people can I? No, that doesn't make sense. Why? Then people can go taking all your stuff that you worked for.

Ok, then what limitations need to be placed on 'selfishness?' Hmm, how about rights? That makes sense, so a man can do whatever he wants as long as it doesn't violate another's rights allows selfishness but doesn't allow people to go around killing or stealing, ok good.
Now, obviously you are merely retracing the early steps you took (at a young age, even) in your journey toward Objectivism. So when I criticize something above, it's not really criticism of you -- instead, it's criticism of an idea. Everyone makes mistakes along the way. I, myself, couldn't let go of philosophically-immature ideas about abortion and atheism, not for a few months, anyway.

Okay, you mentioned how individual rights prevent selfish people from killing one another. But I'm not sure Rand would say the same thing. Instead, she might say that it isn't just any "kind" of selfishness, which is a virtue -- it is only the rational kind. And, further, being rational isn't just being rational in the short term (e.g., cunning criminals) and it isn't just being rational in a compartmentalized way (e.g., being religious except for in scientific matters). Instead, it's long-sighted, wide-minded thinking.

It turns out that when you think about it, when you really think about things and integrate them, it turns out that going around and killing people is not in your rational self-interest. This is logically prior to the issue of rights. In fact, the idea of what's in a human's rational self-interest is what it is that gives rise to the idea of individual rights.

Of course, you may know all of this now -- but posting the early steps you took merely gave me the opportunity to really shine the light on the matter.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/25, 3:16am)


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.