= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jack comments on Overcoming the mind-killer - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (126)
I think Matt is right. This is a rationalist intervention.
Take it from another liberal/leftist (I can give damn good bona fides if need be): Politics has killed your mind. At least on this Haidt stuff but possibly elsewhere. The guy isn't a neoconservative. But more importantly, he isn't a pundit or a hack. He's a scientist and he's got bucketloads of data to back up his hypothesis. Your response to Haidt is written like someone trying to win a fight, not like someone trying to understand the world.
Edit: Oh, these things always end with "I love you. Please get help today."
I also think you're misunderstanding my criticism of Haidt. Yes, he has lots of data to support his claims -- but he rigged the experiments in the way he asked his questions, and he hasn't responded to the obvious flaws in his analysis.
Nor have you.
!?!?!??! What evidence have you for this? Note that the theory wasn't designed to say anything about politics. It was designed to describe cross-cultural moral differences in different parts of the world, only later was it applied to the American culture wars.
He's been criticized by some libertarians for neglecting them as a political group and they have raised similar concerns. His reply is here.
Does he have data for this? I would vote for whoever seemed the most sensible, regardless of party. If Ron Paul had run against Obama, I would have had a much harder time deciding.
Does everyone else agree with Jack and Matt? I don't think either of them have rationally justified their criticisms, but that may be my personal akrasia.