Jade Helm Conspiracy Non-TerroristsFollow

Man, reading Haidt's stuff versus how it's being presented is insane. Here's the final paragraphs from his book's conclusion (I'd quote more but I'm typing this by hand):


This is what Gbaji's reviewer got from the book:


...I can't even....

The whole thing reminds me people who sort of skim-read the first half of Freakanomics or Guns, Germs & Steel and figure that now they're an authority despite missing the whole point.

Edited, Aug 27th 2015 3:18pm by Jophiel

I bet that telling yourself that it's always the other guys' fault and they're incapable of understanding your arguments (because misunderstood "research"!) is a great way to avoid ever admitting that maybe your argument just wasn't a good one.

My Freakanomics example wasn't the greatest. Reading Haidt's stuff and his "Let's learn to understand each other" tone of his book, talks and political advocacy website, the conclusions that Gbaji is quoting and relying on are more like a Men's Rights Activist reading Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus and saying that it proves that women are too stupid, emotional and needy to bother trying to talk to.

Seriously, the gulf between what this guy is saying and what Gbaji is saying (granted, 3rd hand) is boggling.

Edited, Aug 28th 2015 9:24am by Jophiel

You're not fooling anyone, Dr. Haidt

I'm not so sure. Are all 34 anonymous guests spam bots?

Military officials hate this Texas governor for discovering one weird trick

But can you pass a Turin test?

So, if you've not heard of it, it doesn't exist? Unless you restrict the "help" to government managed social programs, you've got to be insane to even raise the question. I personally know at least a half dozen strict anti-abortion conservatives, who regularly volunteer for big brother/sister programs, or are foster parents, or donate to any of a number of organizations that provide for disadvantaged kids, or even adopt such kids themselves. Or all of the above, plus other things that I'm probably not thinking about right now. Your assumptive cart is way way way ahead of your horse here.

Do you really have such a dim view of conservatives? I mean, I get not agreeing with a counter political or social position, but assuming that they are all just evil people who care only for themselves? That doesn't even make sense.



If your point was that you maybe need to spend more time actually getting to know conservatives (strongly anti-abortion ones even!) rather than just repeating assumptions generated by liberals talking smack about them, then your point was well made. It's just funny because you're practically exhibiting a textbook example of the behavior I spoke about earlier. Maybe a little self examination as to why you assume this would be in order. You can't honestly think that half of the population is just plain evil. Right? Cause that would be nuts.

Bit of an excluded middle there, don't you think? *I* didn't say it was impossible for conservatives to throw out red meat. Heck. I said they do. I took issue with your statement (someone's statement, I've honestly forgotten who said it initially) that conservative talk was *nothing* but red meat.

The reference to Haidt in this context had nothing to do with his view of conservative talk, but that the inability of a liberal to see constructive conversation within conservative talk (which might lead him to conclude it's just "red meat") does align with his research on the liberal focus on only half of the moral foundations studied. I thought I even explained this. If you don't see things like "rule of law", "family values", "love of country", etc as valid moral bases, and perhaps even translate those things into "excuses conservatives give for their terrible positions on social issues I care about", you're going to see nothing but red meat in conservative talk. Because it's going to include those other three foundations as a balance to the three you care about. Thus, all you see is conservatives talking negatively about things you think are important.

Which is completely relevant to his research. I just pointed out that it happens to explain why liberals might view conservative talk very differently than conservatives do. And not just in an "agree or disagree" way. It also explains (to me at least) my own observation that liberal attempts at talk tend to be basically the opposite, not of actual conservative talk, but what liberals *think* conservative talk is. All one needs to do is watch Fox News and MSNBC for a while to see this pattern (well, and be a conservative, I suppose).



Um... Agreeing with someone on one thing does not require that I agree with them on every thing. Cause that would be dumb, right? I'm purely talking about this one finding in this one area of research. It is funny though that you're attributing to me yet another behavior that I've observed and commented on many times about liberals. Which is that you guys tend to find an "expert" and follow what that person says, almost dogmatically. If he's right on thing A, he must be right on thing B. Conservatives tend to look at each issue and position independently. We don't tie ourselves to a slavish support of one person and that person's ideas.

I think it's a pretty weak counter to say "well, if you wont agree to everything someone says, then you can't quote them or their work for anything!". Again, that's just plain silly. It's an impossible standard. I'm sure there were one or two positions that Obama held that you don't agree with, yet somehow, you still managed to vote for him. Twice even. Shocking!



Gee Joph. It's like you've never read something that agreed with and explained something you already believed, and thought "hey! This guy may be on to something." Seriously? I'm fully willing to acknowledge confirmation bias here, but I don't happen to think that's wrong in this case. I guess what I find odd here is that you and most of the folks on this board eternally demand that I provide sources and citations in support of a position or idea I have, yet, when I do this, you find some bizarre way to invalidate it. I'm starting with my position and then looking for sources that support it. I don't think that's wrong. It's your job, if you chose to take the opposing position, to find counter sources that oppose my position or idea. But it's interesting that in this case, you've chosen to go with "but this guy also hold other positions on other issues that you don't agree with, so you shouldn't use him as a source".

um... What? Again, that makes no sense. And yes, I will question conclusions that seem to fly in the face of other data I've encountered. And yes, I'll question sources that are partisan themselves, and then magically derive conclusions that just happen to support said partisan alignment. The reason I specifically chose Haidt's work to cite is because he is himself liberal. So pointing out all the things he believes that I don't isn't really a problem for me. It actually strengthens my case because he *isn't* a conservative. If he was, you could just point that out and dismiss it, right? So kinda strange for you to instead argue that *I* should dismiss it because he's liberal. Again, that's kinda the point here.



That when faced with a non conservative source that supports a conservative position, you punt with what has to be the most bizarre counter imaginable? Note that you haven't actually addressed his research, or his conclusions, but have just insisted that I should abandon them because he's liberal? That makes zero sense.

Edited, Aug 31st 2015 7:18pm by gbaji

You know what they say, when you live in glass pots, don't call black kettles rocks. I've never read someone else's interpretation of something and assumed that it was good enough to represent what I believed in.

I'll just end your quote there since you COMPLETELY missed the point (again). I did not say it did not exist.

THE POINT of what I said is that NO NEWS SERVICE ANYWHERE that I have seen has shown such a GOP politico.

THE POINT of people we elect is mostly picking people who decides WHERE TO SPEND TAXES, so your "they do volunteer stuff and...stuff!!!!!!!!" is not relevant in the slightest.

THE POINT is that if there is a politician as above described by me who exists, he/she is invisible to the media and needs to try harder to get exposure.


WELCOME TO THE POINT.

Good thing that's not what I said then. His findings represent a good explanation for behavior I already observed. You know, like most science does. Like say how the theory of gravity explains the observed behavior of things falling to the ground. You presumably knew that objects fall to the ground long before you'd ever heard of Newton, right? So, when you first heard about him and his theory, did you reject it because it's someone else's interpretation of something and therefore should not be good enough to represent your own beliefs about "things falling to the ground"? Or did you instead go "Hey. That's a good explanation of what I've observed".

Cause one of those is a logical and sensible reaction and the other is bat-shit crazy.

So, still haven't bothered to read the book and listen to his talks, huh?

Well, be sure to always tell us in the future how you make sure to seek out all the information and make your own conclusions instead of just going by what someone else told you. We'd all hate to think that you just cherry pick a few lines that make you feel happy than threaten your happiness with any independent truth-seeking. Must be the pillars of morality you're using