À propos of the missing dimension, am I wrong in cleaving to the Haidt theory of moral lenses & sanctity?
Also, something I notice is that elite sneering at others seems largely a one-way street. Which is why I obsess about education as the underlying dynamic in current political culture.
Are you & me also manifesting the thing where if you've got a hammer every problem is a nail? You being interested in numbers & me mostly about minds.
I like Haidt's work quite a lot, even cited it in my dissertation. I don't know how much it predicts the current Woke/anti-racism crusade on the left; probably another book I should reread. The strong theme of dehumanizing those infected with "whiteness" within CRT makes me wonder how much that is really the care axis coming into play, and in general I don't get a strong sense that those who push the ideology are overburdened by care. Those who follow might well be, but I don't get that feeling from the top. I don't know, I really don't, just something about Haidt's work and the recent situation where rioters are burning down swaths of cities is hard to square, so I wonder if maybe he found a temporary relation but one that moves.
I think you are quite correct about the importance of education (years of butt in seats) in generating the Elite class in the US. I think that we might be looking at a real secular religion that has grown within the US. As a whole we believe that the educated can solve all sorts of problems, and give deference and respect consistent with them being better people, and then we ignore their consistent failures to actually solve problems and accept when they blame us. "I interceded with the gods to bring the rains, but they refused as punishment for your sins! We must build them a new temple to appease them! And a few more fatted calves wouldn't be amiss either."
I always have a Hammer for every nail, let me assure you :D I am not sure we are falling into the "beat everything with our pet interest" here, however. I see a long historical trend in the question of how humans live together, which makes me think that it must have something to do with how our brains work and why some ideas appeal to some sorts of mind more than others. I like Haidt's work for that reason, but I worry that it alone doesn't explain enough due to layers of culture, history, theories etc. shifting over top of each other giving different results depending on the case. I also wonder a little bit about whether or not our political parties tend to shape our moral foundations a bit, so if you spend all your time among Republicans all the talk about loyalty and sanctity that Democrats don't go in for tends to make you care more about loyalty and sanctity above and beyond what you did before.
I really don't know, but it is very interesting to think about with you guys! :D
Well... on further reflecting and another swig of coffee, I suppose the Woke left could be predicted by a hyper awareness of the Harm dimension, creating harm where none exists and thus making a strong ingroup/outgroup dynamic such that they don't need to apply care to their opponents. I wonder how much of that is natural ie. genetic and how much of that is taught. I really need to dig out my copy of that book... moving three times in as many years, with another probably within six months, has left my library in two dozen boxes spread over two houses in two counties. And of course I didn't label which boxes held what.
I feel like this journey is to some extent a re-discovery of Sowell. His Conflict of Visions theory still feels to me like the simplest and most elegant theory, and I've found it to have high predictive power over time.
I wouldn't be surprised at all that in some larger sense we are living the future Sowell predicted. I haven't read A Conflict of Visions since shortly after it was published... I need to dig out my copy and give it a reread. It would be kind of embarrassing to realize everything I have been writing is a fever dream memory of his book. Although it would make me much more certain it was true :D
Ideologies are like viruses (not bad necessarily) they pass from person and in doing so they replicate and mutate. They can replicate and mutate. Importantly they also fulfill economic and psychological needs for the people who adopt them.
If you're forced to find a common thread that connects the modern left hundreds of years back to J.J Rousseau it's a belief that the natural and just state of humanity is a state of equality. (Equality of what? Usually of material goods but sometimes of other things other than or in addition to) any belief, attitude or assumption that generates or perpetuates inequality is bad and should be abolished.
Historic targets include but are not limited to: Private property, The family, religion, nationhood, ethnic solidarity, individualism, & gender norms.
To *start* with markets and being against them is to think less like a leftist and more like a libertarian. Very few people are libertarians so your description, even if accurate, would be like giving someone accurate directions in Esperanto.
You get contradictions because nature is inherently inegalitarian and a thing that creates leveling across one dimension often increases inequality across another dimension.
Lastly, and not to be underestimated, strands of an ideology can become dominant if when they are properly cultivated and amplified through institutions and financing. Like the alpha and delta variants of covid, the strand of leftism that advocates autarky and command economies goes unpatronized, in favor of the strand that can reconcile forms of racial and sexual equality that are tolerant of free trade, corporations, free movement of peoples across borders. This strand can also embrace statistic levels of tolerance towards economic equality as long as its consistent with racial and sexual equality.
À propos of the missing dimension, am I wrong in cleaving to the Haidt theory of moral lenses & sanctity?
Also, something I notice is that elite sneering at others seems largely a one-way street. Which is why I obsess about education as the underlying dynamic in current political culture.
Are you & me also manifesting the thing where if you've got a hammer every problem is a nail? You being interested in numbers & me mostly about minds.
Just realised I'm being a classic reply guy. I've got one of those on my newsletter hahaha!
I just signed up for it :) I don't know what a classic reply guy is, but I am glad you are here.
Is your Substack new? I don't recall you having one previously, but maybe I am conflating you with Mike H... I am really terrible with names.
I like Haidt's work quite a lot, even cited it in my dissertation. I don't know how much it predicts the current Woke/anti-racism crusade on the left; probably another book I should reread. The strong theme of dehumanizing those infected with "whiteness" within CRT makes me wonder how much that is really the care axis coming into play, and in general I don't get a strong sense that those who push the ideology are overburdened by care. Those who follow might well be, but I don't get that feeling from the top. I don't know, I really don't, just something about Haidt's work and the recent situation where rioters are burning down swaths of cities is hard to square, so I wonder if maybe he found a temporary relation but one that moves.
I think you are quite correct about the importance of education (years of butt in seats) in generating the Elite class in the US. I think that we might be looking at a real secular religion that has grown within the US. As a whole we believe that the educated can solve all sorts of problems, and give deference and respect consistent with them being better people, and then we ignore their consistent failures to actually solve problems and accept when they blame us. "I interceded with the gods to bring the rains, but they refused as punishment for your sins! We must build them a new temple to appease them! And a few more fatted calves wouldn't be amiss either."
I always have a Hammer for every nail, let me assure you :D I am not sure we are falling into the "beat everything with our pet interest" here, however. I see a long historical trend in the question of how humans live together, which makes me think that it must have something to do with how our brains work and why some ideas appeal to some sorts of mind more than others. I like Haidt's work for that reason, but I worry that it alone doesn't explain enough due to layers of culture, history, theories etc. shifting over top of each other giving different results depending on the case. I also wonder a little bit about whether or not our political parties tend to shape our moral foundations a bit, so if you spend all your time among Republicans all the talk about loyalty and sanctity that Democrats don't go in for tends to make you care more about loyalty and sanctity above and beyond what you did before.
I really don't know, but it is very interesting to think about with you guys! :D
Well... on further reflecting and another swig of coffee, I suppose the Woke left could be predicted by a hyper awareness of the Harm dimension, creating harm where none exists and thus making a strong ingroup/outgroup dynamic such that they don't need to apply care to their opponents. I wonder how much of that is natural ie. genetic and how much of that is taught. I really need to dig out my copy of that book... moving three times in as many years, with another probably within six months, has left my library in two dozen boxes spread over two houses in two counties. And of course I didn't label which boxes held what.
Ah, so you're an economist. I was wondering.
I feel like this journey is to some extent a re-discovery of Sowell. His Conflict of Visions theory still feels to me like the simplest and most elegant theory, and I've found it to have high predictive power over time.
https://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Visions-Ideological-Political-Struggles/dp/0465002056
I wouldn't be surprised at all that in some larger sense we are living the future Sowell predicted. I haven't read A Conflict of Visions since shortly after it was published... I need to dig out my copy and give it a reread. It would be kind of embarrassing to realize everything I have been writing is a fever dream memory of his book. Although it would make me much more certain it was true :D
Ideologies are like viruses (not bad necessarily) they pass from person and in doing so they replicate and mutate. They can replicate and mutate. Importantly they also fulfill economic and psychological needs for the people who adopt them.
If you're forced to find a common thread that connects the modern left hundreds of years back to J.J Rousseau it's a belief that the natural and just state of humanity is a state of equality. (Equality of what? Usually of material goods but sometimes of other things other than or in addition to) any belief, attitude or assumption that generates or perpetuates inequality is bad and should be abolished.
Historic targets include but are not limited to: Private property, The family, religion, nationhood, ethnic solidarity, individualism, & gender norms.
To *start* with markets and being against them is to think less like a leftist and more like a libertarian. Very few people are libertarians so your description, even if accurate, would be like giving someone accurate directions in Esperanto.
You get contradictions because nature is inherently inegalitarian and a thing that creates leveling across one dimension often increases inequality across another dimension.
Lastly, and not to be underestimated, strands of an ideology can become dominant if when they are properly cultivated and amplified through institutions and financing. Like the alpha and delta variants of covid, the strand of leftism that advocates autarky and command economies goes unpatronized, in favor of the strand that can reconcile forms of racial and sexual equality that are tolerant of free trade, corporations, free movement of peoples across borders. This strand can also embrace statistic levels of tolerance towards economic equality as long as its consistent with racial and sexual equality.