Monday, November 28, 2005

Liberalism as Socially Motivated Cognition

I have mentioned a research study by the APA entitled, Political Conservatism as Socially Motivated Cognition, that appeared biased against conservatives. The study pointed out that there had been little research done on the traits of liberals--but they must have overlooked this article in Clio Psych's Journal from 2003. Here is an excerpt from the article that mentioned research on liberals from 1982--I guess the writers of the APA's biased article did not see fit to go back that far.

Research on the psychology of radical activists helps us to understand this mismatch between Chomsky's ideas and his personal style. In the 1970s, Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter administered Thematic Apperception Tests to a large sample of "new left" radicals (Roots of Radicalism, 1982). They found that activists were characterized by weakened self-esteem, injured narcissism and paranoid tendencies. They were preoccupied with power and attracted to radical ideologies that offered clear and unambiguous answers to their questions. All of these traits can be found in the work of Chomsky and other anti-imperialist intellectuals.


And if you ever wondered why some liberals seem wishy-washy at times--this paragraph from the same article might explain things:

The unwillingness to offer alternatives reveals a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem. If they offered their own policy ideas they would be vulnerable to criticism. They would run the risk that their ideas would fail, or would not seem persuasive to others. This is especially difficult for anti-capitalists after the fall of the Soviet Union. It has also been difficult in the war against terrorism because Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are such unsympathetic figures. Psychologically, it is easier to blame America for not finding a solution than it is to put one's own ideas on the line.


Hmmm.... I don't agree here that it is lack of self-esteem that would cause liberals to seem spineless. I think it is their desire to avoid responsibility at any cost. And speaking of spineless liberals, here is another way they avoid responsibility for murderers, they just nominate them for a nobel prize--thanks to Sissy Willis.

Update: It seems like I have struck a nerve in a number of readers with this post, so let me clarify my thoughts. My intention with this post was to point out that the original APA article on Conservatives stated that there was little published about the psychological traits of liberals. The article I linked to pointed out that there was such a study and it looked just as negative as the one that was published by the APA about Conservatives. I was mocking the way one could exploit this research much in the same way this press release from Berkeley did with the APA article in which they mention Rush Limbaugh and Reagan as right wingers like Hitler and Mussolini. I should have made these points clearer. In addition, the "spineless liberal" term was a bit over the top but I have very strong feelings about celebrities who rally to get murderers sentences reduced or released. The legal system should deal with this, not a group of actors. It just makes me think of the Norman Mailer fiasco.

62 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding liberals: "I think it is their desire to avoid responsibility at any cost."

Wow, there is a stereotype if I ever saw one. This is what makes the blogoshere so "great" I guess. Anyone can say anything, regardless of how reckless, angry, or ill-informed it is.

2:47 PM, November 28, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And they can say it on other people's blog comment sections!

2:58 PM, November 28, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

To anonymous 2:47--

I see you have mastered step 1 of Scott Adam's rules for commenting on the internet: "Turn someone’s generality into an absolute."

To get more tips on how to debate on the internet, please see my previous post on Scott Adams rules for how to attempt to make others look stupid.

3:09 PM, November 28, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

I think that psychologists are losers who freely trade in stereotypes. It's a professional hazard, since they study personality.

But hey, I didn't mean you, Helen. You shouldn't take it personally. It was just a generality, not an absolute. Spineless liberals who lack self-esteem may confuse generalities with absolutes; I don't.

3:36 PM, November 28, 2005  
Blogger DADvocate said...

weakened self-esteem, injured narcissism and paranoid tendencies

Maybe this is why when I'm around liberals something I or my children say is taken as an insult, insensitive, sexist,(whatever it is when your kid says something that could be derogatory of gays), etc. or maybe we're just rude, insensitive, and judgemental.

4:30 PM, November 28, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not going to chide Dr. Kuperberg, who I hope is simply reminding everyone that generalities are both unwise and inaccurate.

I have listened to a large number of so-called liberals in academia rail against folks more conservative than themselves (even moderate Democrats), name calling and insulting those people loudly and with venom. Why, there are several famous liberals who have suggested that conservatives just aren't as smart as liberals (suggesting the opposite, at least for the pundit who brayed that nonsense).

Of course there are many conservatives who say bad things about liberals; it is a sadly polarized society. But find me a few in academia. Good luck.

That being said, two wrongs do not make a right, as the children's saying goes. But I would hope that everyone would be polite to our host, who is providing us with a forum for discussion.

"Eric Blair"

5:36 PM, November 28, 2005  
Blogger BobH said...

Helen, where to begin disagreeing with your post???

1. "They were preoccupied with power and attracted to radical ideologies that offered clear and unambiguous answers to their questions." - The first part of that statement applies to lots of people, including lots of conservatives, and the second part also applies to lots of religious fundamentalists of all stripes. In fact, humans tend to see non-existent patterns and causes when faced with a random series of events.

2. "The unwillingness to offer alternatives reveals a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem. If they offered their own policy ideas they would be vulnerable to criticism." - Many liberals are VERY willing to offer alternatives. Many of them are also very willing to see criticism of themselves and their alternatives as caused by stupidity, ignorance and bias of their critics, while simultaneously ignoring their own stupidity, ignorance and bias.

3. "...it is easier to blame America for not finding a solution than it is to put one's own ideas on the line." - It is easier to blame America because it is much easier to see an effect of the criticism and to feel that the critic is "making a difference". Feeling hated may not be as good as feeling loved, but it's better than feeling completely ignored. An American criticising somebody 10,000 miles away will almost certainly be ignored and will feel powerless as a result.

4. Do you remember the "fundamental attribution error" in your training. You seem to have forgotten all about it.

That will do for a start.

6:34 PM, November 28, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everyone avoids responsibility at some point in their lives.

Do not act as though you are immune to irresponsibility or unaccountability.

It is interesting that you mock those who are against the Death Penalty, yet you make no mention of the fact that the State of Texas probably executed an innocent man.

That is the problem with the Death Penalty. There is no guarantee that overzealous prosecutors will release exculpatory evidence to Defendants. There is no guarantee that innocent defendants will not be killed.

Clearly, it does not deter crime. States that do not enforce a death penalty actually have lower murder rates than states that do.

Whatever symbolic value that could be obtained from killing those convicted of heinous crimes is entirely minimized when innocent people are also killed by the government.

From a state treasury perspective it actually costs more to execute an inmate than it does to incarcerate that same inmate for the rest of his or her natural life. Why waste taxpayer dollars?

The Death Penalty, in its current form, is unacceptable. Until the government can provide a 100% guarantee that the person they are executing actually committed the crime for which they were convicted, the Death Penalty should be abolished.

6:34 PM, November 28, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boy, liberals sure have thin skin don't they?

8:12 PM, November 28, 2005  
Blogger DRJ said...

Regarding the death penalty, anonymous 6:34 said: "Clearly, it does not deter crime."

Clearly, you've never heard of Kenneth Allen McDuff. Many women are alive today because McDuff was sentenced to death and executed by the State of Texas.

9:14 PM, November 28, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon - anout your anti-death penalty rant. if Texas did execute an "innocent man", boo-hoo!!!
In fact, I think the death-penalty is badly underused. There are a lot of people sucking up good, fresh air, and taking up space in the USA, sitting in various prisons, and wasting up taxpayer monies, who never can be rehabilitated, and who are a danger to all law-abiding citizens.

9:54 PM, November 28, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...fact that the State of Texas probably executed an innocent man."

Nice qualifier! Guess it wouldn't do to point out that "probably" negates this as "fact". From the Chronicle article to which you link (written with poorly concealed bias: "Neighborhood officers... had never successfully pinned a crime on Cantu."? This is the language of a factual report? LOL!), the conviction was based on eyewitness testimony. Recanted? Little bit late, now. If this witness perjured himself, he should receive the same penalty as the man he falsely accused. (And no Clintonesque "Everybody does it" defense. Perjury really is a serious matter. Regardless of the wishes of certain liberals.) But do we believe this recantation? Sounds like our witness is trying to rehabilitate his reputation in a community which despises breakers of "...the neighborhood code of silence."

11:46 PM, November 28, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

The substantive political issue in this post is that Stanley Williams, who is on death row in California, could be granted clemency by Governor Schwarzenegger. Arguing that Williams deserves clemency does not remotely amount to "avoiding responsibility" for anything. That is a conflation of accepting responsibility for your own actions and piling responsibility onto other people for their actions. Desmond Tutu did not commit murder and he is not on death row. Tutu takes full responsibility for everything that he has ever done, as far I know. Here he's talking about something completely different; he's talking about clemency for someone that he has no personal connection to.

Undoubtedly the famous Norman Mailer and Jack Abbott case will damage the parole cases for thousands of convicted murderers decades into the future. But in this case, Schwarzenegger isn't even thinking about paroling Williams. All that he is considering is commuting his sentence to life without parole. If anyone cares to consider the argument for this, instead of psychoanalyzing those who argue it, it is that Williams has a lecture circuit in prison in which he counsels teenagers against gang membership and crime. He can speak with some authority, since he founded one of the gangs that they might join.

So what message would it send to everyone that he has talked to if they cut short his speeches to execute him? He has been carrying water for the system for years, but the system might not care. His would-be executioners want to send him to exactly the same place as if he had sat in his cell and stared at a wall. What message would it send to anyone in prison who wants to do any good for the world?

It isn't even about saving money, because the death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole, even in states where liberals are few and far between.

Indeed, to talk about avoiding responsibility, there are a lot of people who ditch the responsibility of self-restraint when it comes to the death penalty. They have an itch to see convicts executed, even when they have no connection at all to their crimes. I have heard that when Gary Gilmore asked to be executed by firing squad, the state was inundated with letters from volunteers.

12:11 AM, November 29, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here we are again debating the issue of gun control and crime. I remember the day John Lennon was shot dead. Same goes with the shooting of Ronald Reagan. In both cases, the mental state of the criminal came to the fore. We know that something needs to be done about people with mental/psychological issues having access to guns or other weapons.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10214838/

Should this burden be shouldered by the psychological profession or will it violate doctor/patient privacy?

12:53 AM, November 29, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was a time in my life when I would have agreed with the Berkeley blurb. Like when I was a student there, during my flaming liberal days. 20 years later I returned my alumni association card in pieces when they gave Bill Clinton a medal for something, but that's neither here nor there. I just want to point out the creepiness of labeling someone else's political inclination a psychiatric pathology. This has a grand history in the Soviet Union, where the "treatment" for dissidents involved extended convalescence in mental hospitals.

Having said that, I'll vouch that my own former liberalism may have originated in my youthful social inadequacy and impecuniousness. The world frightened me, my own darker impulses frightened me, I couldn't understand people with different points of view, so I projected my own ignorance and nastiness onto them and decided whoever disagreed with me was evil and/or stupid. Likewise, I felt that my own brilliance was not being adequately recognized or compensated by society and I attributed this to the greed and/or foolishness of others. This thought pattern mapped quite well onto my identification with liberal causes and issues.

Or it did until I was knocked out of the center of my own little universe by the arrival of my kids, and my need to succeed at a job in order to feed them. I had to focus on the needs of others before my own. For me these new thought patterns mapped onto a conservative philosophy better than a liberal one.

I won't generalize my experience onto anyone else. Or at least I'll try not to. However, I am curious... if you've switched political identities, what was your catalyst?

1:37 AM, November 29, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just want to point out the creepiness of labeling someone else's political inclination a psychiatric pathology. This has a grand history in the Soviet Union, where the "treatment" for dissidents involved extended convalescence in mental hospitals.

Agreed.

"...something needs to be done about people with mental/psychological issues..."

Ok. What? At what point of eccentricity do we deprive a person of liberty? How do we determine when a person's threat to society/himself outweighs his right to his freedom (or his politics)?

3:21 AM, November 29, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

xray_dude: I agree that labelling people by their politics is a social pathology. That's something that liberals do.

I was a liberal too, once. That was back when I stole candy from children, cheated regularly at chess and solitaire, and demanded government rescue for every wrong thing that I did. I tried to stifle my aggression by wearing pink, but I ended up just lashing out.

Now I'm a much better person.

10:52 AM, November 29, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So all you people who support the Death Penalty have no qualms about innocent people being swept into the execution net? What if it were your father/mother/brother/sister/child?

Of course, why should you care about innocent people being executed by the government? Its much more interesting to play semantics than concern yourselves with poor, innocent defendants.

Culture of Life indeed.

11:27 AM, November 29, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Anonymous 11:27: The most enthusiastic death penalty advocates have no thought of it happening to anyone that they know. Making a total stranger pay the ultimate is a convenient way to claim that you believe in personal responsibility. Just not necessarily for yourself.

In this case there isn't any real doubt that Williams is guilty. The question is whether the system cares that he has done good for the world while in prison, or whether instead it will play out "personal responsibility by proxy" to the maximum.

Again, Schwarzenegger is not talking about ever letting him go, or about saving money by killing him.

11:41 AM, November 29, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

One other detail that has been lost in the discussion: The article in Clio Psych does not once mention the word "liberal". Chomsky does not call himself a liberal. In fact, he severely criticizes liberals in almost the same terms as people here do. He thinks of them as effete and cowardly.

12:32 PM, November 29, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

Greg,

Take a deep breath....

12:43 PM, November 29, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Take a deep breath?

Why I do believe that is the phrase of the rather common species of the caterwauling conservative. One can easily identify this brand of conservative by observing whether he or she, when presented with an argument that tests their pre-conceived notions, responds by mistaking passion for one's deeply held beliefs as "wild-eyed" or "crazy."

"Take a deep breath" is also a common phrase uttered by the caterwauling conservative when confronted with an argument that they can neither comprehend nor counteract.

Caterwauling conservatives enjoy spending their days pointing out how anyone who disagrees with George W. Bush is a traitor to their country and hates the troops. They also enjoy blaming the liberal media for portraying Iraq as a land where insurgent attacks are increasing week by week, rather than the real Iraq: happy fun land, where even in the green zone you can obtain some souvenir shrapnel.

1:24 PM, November 29, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At the risk of pouring gasoline on a flamewar, I don't think anyone who remotely calls herself or himself a liberal should ever bring up Noam Chomsky. He is typical of the kind of ideologue---right OR left---who wants OTHER people to follow rules he himself will not follow.

In particular, Chomsky's constant "class warfare" meme is completely hypocritical on his part. And when someone calls him on it, he admits to the charge. But you see, he wants OTHER people to follow the rules, not him.

Here is a quick reference (plenty others out there):

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1019055.html

Replying by saying that nasty rightwingers do the same thing is quite beside the point. It doesn't defend Chomsky's position, nor does it make his hypocrisy any more palatable.

I am delighted to listen to anyone from the Left on this subject who gives tons of money to the poor. I will not listen to crypto-aristocrats who want a different set of criteria applied to them than for the "common folk" they so clearly disrespect.

And THAT is independent of party affiliation.

Sorry to add to this, but Chomsky gets me angry.

"Eric Blair"

1:55 PM, November 29, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Anonymous 1:24: No, Helen has a point. Even I have been known to troll and overreact.

But it is true that Chomsky doesn't like to be called a liberal. Maybe the Clio Psych article could have been written about someone who doesn't mind that appellation, but as it happens Chomsky does mind.

Actually I can't stand Noam Chomsky for more than a few minutes.
I'm not sure that he is truly insecure or in denial of responsibility, but he is a 24x7 polemicist. Something is wrong with that man.

2:03 PM, November 29, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Eric Blair: On the other hand, I don't know whether Chomsky gives money to the poor, "tons" or otherwise. He might. His son Harry Chomsky, who I once knew personally, stood by leftist principles. (They cannot be called "liberal".) He worked in Guatemala and he also quit graduate school in mathematics to work as a garbage man in Berkeley. Or so I have been told.

Frankly I think that Rush Limbaugh and Noam Chomsky have a lot in common as polemicists. I don't see how someone can think that one of them is just fine and the other is terrible.

One difference is that Limbaugh has a larger audience and a lot more money. Also Chomsky, as far as I know, has a stable marriage and doesn't abuse drugs.

2:11 PM, November 29, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

To greg,

As am I--known to overreact--I don't think I am a troll--yet. And you and I agree--something is wrong with Chomsky--but I will not even go there.

2:15 PM, November 29, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sigh.

I get it. Rush Limbaugh is nasty, too. Nice if snarky touch to jab at marital status and drug abuse, when you know perfectly well that Limbaugh is much more of a public figure than Chomsky---and has to suffer through much closer scrutiny of what one would think would be his personal life.

Incidentally, I hadn't heard about Chomsky's son being a garbage collector (one might claim that his father has the same metaphoric profession). I am no snob about that kind of job: unlike my own profession, garbage collection does something directly positive for society. I am being quite serious here.

What I do know is that Harry Chomsky is a well regarding musician today:

http://www.berkeleysymphony.org/who/musicians/musician_1649.htm

But the point remains: defending someone by saying someone else is just as bad or worse is hardly a good defense.

I said it before, and I will say it again: I dislike hypocrites of any stripe, left or right, who are judgemental of others while demanding a "free pass" for themselves. It is aristocratic, Hollywood thinking. You bet you can find rightwingers who do that. My point was focused on Chomsky, who insults people for doing things that he himself does in private. Especially when he could invest in "green" areas...but chooses not to, so that he can make more money.

Sort of like Michael Moore investing in Halliburton.

But I am not defending Limbaugh, folks. I am casting aspersions on hypocrites who claim moral or ethical superiority to others...

And I have given up too much time to Chomsky. That time is gone forever! The fault is mine....

"Eric Blair"

3:21 PM, November 29, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Eric Blair: As I said, I don't like Noam Chomsky either. Or rather, I find his polemics maddening and I have trouble listening to them.

But your case that he is a hypocrite is weak and doesn't work. Chomsky wants a different law for the estate tax. But that doesn't oblige him to follow that law BEFORE that estate tax becomes law. That's a ridiculous standard and basically amounts to you putting cotton in your ears.

For example, if you told me that Medicare is a broken system and ought to be eliminated, I wouldn't expect you to just waive your grandmother's Medicare payments and write checks back to Washington. At least at the level of open uses of money, you're entitled to play by the existing rules even if you want other rules. Your situation could be evidence that you are naive, but it wouldn't make you a hypocrite.

As far as Rush Limbaugh and Noam Chomsky, all I will say is that the two men make my blood boil about equally. That isn't any kind of excuse for either one of them.
But in all fairness, Chomsky is only disagreeable as a pundit; as a human being he could be just fine. Limbaugh seems almost as odious at the personal level as at the professional level.

Limbaugh really is a hypocrite, if we can believe the evidence that he violates drug laws. He also insults and humiliates children who happen to be related to liberals, which is a violation of basic family values even if it is legal.

4:48 PM, November 29, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

PD Quig: If you yourself have moved to the right, then it no surprise you might think that leftists or liberals must never have tasted conservatism and that most political transformations go in your direction.

For the record, I had a libertarian phase as a teenager and now I think that I know better. I understand libertarian precepts and I still see some truth in them, but I am out of patience for conventional Republicanism dressed up in libertarian jargon. And I have not moved as far politically as many other people I know.

Certainly one famous example is Ron Reagan Jr.

4:58 PM, November 29, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I dislike fencing with the intellectually ambidextrous Dr. Kuperberg, but...

Noam Chomsky says that it is wrong for "rich" people to shelter their wealth and reduce taxation. He does.

Noam Chomsky says that it is wrong for "rich" people to transfer their wealth to their children in order to obtain lower tax rates. He does.

Noam Chomsky says that investors must be moral in their investments, rather than simply maximize their profits. He certainly maximizes his, and specifically invests in companies he deplores publically.

No matter what kind of limbo the Left does, Chomsky wants one set of rules for him, and another set of rules for everyone else. He is an aristocrat and an elitist, just like many of our politicians, actors, and public figures.

You can certainly say that a person has a right to be critical of a system, but it is intellectually dishonest to be critical of a system while actively seeking profit from it. Notice the last part of that sentence: actively seeking profit from it.

I see this all of the time. It is hypocritical, wrong, and the best single indicator of the intellectual elitist movement in America. It is aristocratic in nature.

And yes, right wingers are guilty of this sin, too. It is still intellectually dishonest, and suggests that the person implicated does not have the courage of his or her convictions.

But in the post-Clinton deconstruction of reality, it is perfectly okay to attack a system while directly profiting from it.

I'm sure I'll get dogpiled on this one, but that doesn't mean I am wrong.

"Eric Blair"

6:38 PM, November 29, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Sloan:

Many thanks for mentioning a very great thinker and writer, Russell KIrk. It is interesting how few students today even know Dr. Kirk's name....but look at the names that they all do get to know, instead.

Which proves Kirk's point, in many ways.

I came to Kirk's writings through his ghost stories. I have learned something useful and lasting from everything of his I have read. I recommend his autobiography, THE SWORD OF IMAGINATION, if you haven't read it.

"Eric Blair"

6:45 PM, November 29, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Clearly, it does not deter crime. States that do not enforce a death penalty actually have lower murder rates than states that do."

A lot of factors go into crime rates. As to deterrence, I don't have exact figures right here at my fingertips, but I can assure you the recidivism rate for criminals who have been executed is very, very low.

7:20 PM, November 29, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Eric: You're just bending and fudging it on all sides in order to defend the pre-ordained conclusion that Chomsky is a hypocrite.

First, the phrase that "it is wrong" for people avoid whatever tax is a fudge phrase that doesn't make clear who is in the wrong. I'm sure that Chomsky would say that the lion's share of the wrong is in the tax law itself, and not in the individuals who follow it.

Second, when you say that Chomsky "wants" any particular rules for anyone, you're fudging there too. He follows the same tax rules that you and I do. There is no evidence that the he would commit tax evasion if the government raised taxes. He also doesn't cover up his finances. Basically here you just ignored my original point, which is that it is not hypocrisy to wait until new tax laws are actually enacted before following them.

In fact I'll make the stronger point that a lot of plutocrats want socialists like Chomsky and liberals otherwise to be suckers. If anyone ever proposes taxes, they want to say, "great, you go ahead and pay them, I still don't have to." In some cases this is seriously intended as an argument not to pay any taxes at all.

As for not investing in evil companies, it is true that Chomsky does rather go overborad in condemning corporate America. But you're rather bending things here too, because all Chomsky has is a TIAA-CREF account and similar, and you're making it out like he's the vice president of Halliburton. TIAA-CREF is an extremely uninvolved form of investment. In the annals of hypocrisy, this is very small potatoes.

Frankly you would do better to attack Chomsky's ideas than to attack the person. Many people agree with him, maybe not many Americans percentagewise, but in absolute numbers it's still quite a few. And many people overseas agree with him on various points. Chomsky only matters to the extent that anyone listens to him, so comments about his personal decisions are off on a far tangent.

7:52 PM, November 29, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

anonymous 7:20: And I can assure you that the recidivism rate for suicide bombers is equally low. Maybe recidivism shouldn't be the only priority.

Recidivism is the great obsession of the American criminal justice system, to the exclusion of every other priority. Many Americans have no faith that any prison experience reforms any criminal; on the contrary, they think that prisons corrupt criminals even more. Therefore, they reason, the only way to reform a criminal is to kill him. In the limit you have the all-or-nothing model of justice, in which execution is the main penalty. It is popular in Arab countries.

8:01 PM, November 29, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Recidivism is the great obsession of the American criminal justice system, to the exclusion of every other priority."

And the purpose of a criminal justice system other than preventing recidivism is?

11:26 PM, November 29, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Kuperberg:

You certainly have a right to your own opinion, and an ethos that you no doubt strive to follow.

But regardless of your usual snarkiness and attempts to troll, I maintain that any person who rabidly attacks our society as it is---which Chomsky has long done---should not actively and openly seek to benefit from stratgies that they claim to despise in others. I see that as money grubbing aristocratic and elitist hypocrisy, and you do not. Fair enough.

I will not convince you, and folks like you have yet to convince me of relativism. We should simply agree to disagree on this fundamental idea of citizenship, and move on.

"Eric Blair"

11:35 PM, November 29, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

Anonymous 11:26: Instead of making recidivism the top priority, the criminal justice system could, for example, devote more resources to crime prevention. As it stands, a man who gets out of prison to commit a second felony is a far greater political crisis than another man who commits ten felonies without ever getting caught.

Eric Blair: It's quite obvious when I am sarcastic, and I don't think that I completely forget my manners when I do it. There wasn't anything sarcastic about my comments about Chomsky. Even though I don't agree with Chomsky about hardly anything, you're really putting a lot of words in his mouth. If you want to call him a hypocrite, the least you could do is quote him verbatim.

11:56 PM, November 29, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Instead of making recidivism the top priority, the criminal justice system could, for example, devote more resources to crime prevention."

Can't quite get a grip on what you are trying to say here. The criminal justice system exists to administer justice. Midnight Basketball is the job of Social Services. "...[M]aking recidivism [a] top priority..." is the CJS's appointed role IN crime prevention.

9:27 PM, November 30, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Got me. Why is it again that preventing a criminal from repeating is a bad thing?

9:40 PM, November 30, 2005  
Blogger Greg Kuperberg said...

This seems to be an elusive concept for some people, so I will try to spell it out as clearly as I can:

The United States devotes colossally more resources to keep aging convicts in prison, per likely crime, than it does to prosecute younger criminals who have never been to prison for long. It might have been reassuring to spend an infinite amount of money on both efforts. But since money is finite, a sense of balance and proportion would be helpful.

11:45 PM, November 30, 2005  
Blogger DRJ said...

"This seems to be an elusive concept for some people, so I will try to spell it out as clearly as I can: The United States devotes colossally more resources to keep aging convicts in prison, per likely crime, than it does to prosecute younger criminals who have never been to prison for long."

Dr. Kuperberg:

What is the source of your statement regarding the relative expenditures on "aging convicts" and "younger criminals"? Your statement is far too vague to be convincing absent supporting statistics and links from official sources, such as Bureau of Justice Statistics or Bureau of Justice Statistics-Expenditures. Is there any reason for me to believe this other than you say it is so?

And it doesn't halp that you preface your statement with a patronizing comment. Are you commenting at this website to engage with other people or to lecture us?

2:47 PM, December 01, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remember, people: K. is a troll. He is all about getting people all upset and playing games. When he discusses things, he is smart and witty. When he doesn't, he is just irritating.

Don't feed trolls.

7:00 PM, December 01, 2005  
Blogger DRJ said...

Anonymous 7:00:

In your own words, Dr. K is "smart and witty" at times and at other times he is an "irritating" troll. Perhaps you are correct that he is a troll, but I don't see how it hurts to discuss this subject. I obviously arrived late to this discussion and it's probably too late to continue it, but I trust Dr. Helen to handle trolls as she sees fit - including me, if my posts are annoying.

If we can't discuss different views in blog comments, we become an echo chamber of like ideas. That may be satisfying but it's not demanding in an intellectual sense. I may be wrong, but I believe Dr. K is smart enough to deliver interesting thoughts to back up his statements.

In essence, I want Dr. K to "put up or shut up", so maybe you and I agree here. But we are definitely going about it in different ways.

12:20 AM, December 02, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Getting back to offering new ideas and solutions...

I have long noticed this, and I think it's inherent in the very notion of "liberal" and "conservative." A conservative idea -- not a Republican idea or a right-wing idea, but a true conservative idea -- conserves. It supports the preservation of an existing system. Thus, when I expouse such an idea, I am promoting something that has been done in the past, has had some success (I wouldn't promote conserving an idea that didn't work), and has been accepted / adopted by thousands, if not millions, of people. It's not my idea. It's an idea the culture at large has come up with. Now, some may think it flawed, outdated, whatever. We can have that discussion. You can attack the idea, but you are not attacking me.

But a liberal idea -- again, not Democratic, not left-wing, but a true liberal idea -- is one which, by definition, opposes that status quo, wants to change it in some way. Which is fine -- the status quo could certainly use some changing. But, where do such ideas come from? Not society at large, but from some individual or small group. And the person who adopts such an idea does so knowing that very few others have. Scarier still, the individual who comes up with their own liberal idea is really putting themselves out there. The idea has no pedigree, no history, no track record of success, no millions of followers. Thus, an attack on the idea is more or less an attack on the individual who thought it up, or who has adopted a contrarian position.

Again, this is NOT to say that all liberal ideas are bad, or all conservative ideas are good. Far, far from it. But, adopting a position in favor of stasis is less risky, both intellectually and personally, than adopting a position in favor of unproven change. Thus, the reluctance of many who oppose the status quo to propose an alternative of their own -- an alternative which will surely be subject to critique.

I believe this also explains the orthodoxy we often see in social and political discourse coming from the left. Promoters of a new, largely untried idea are less able and willing to brook dissent from within the ranks than those who are promoting an existing idea.

12:19 PM, December 18, 2005  
Blogger Sissy Willis said...

Goodness! An OpinionJournalLanche once removed.

I noticed an unusual number of visits to my blog today via this post of yours (wherein you link to my blog), and studying the entrails of your own Site Meter, I discovered James Taranto had given you a hat tip today. Ah, the glory of it all. :)

4:01 PM, December 19, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting that someone would study political philosophy as a character trait. I think it too absolute to combine all liberals together. Liberals are really just a bunch of disparate groups who oppose Republican ideas. Unions and environmentalists have virtually nothing in common, but support of either is typically liberal. Likewise for government workers and socialists.

An interesting study would be to take profiles of as many people as possible and ask their positions on issues. This will allow for traits to be graphed with political philosophy. That I'd love to see...


-Mike, http://www.pusatera.net

4:29 PM, December 19, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

Mike,

Me too, that would be quite a study--but it sounds to objective so I doubt it will be done in the social sciences.

5:55 PM, December 19, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I see are a lot of liberals commenting on the original post trying to deflect rather than pointing fingers at themselves and saying "Yep, that's who and what we are" which just further establishes that they "lack of self-confidence and self-esteem" in that they aren't willing to admit who and what they are, something that been quite obvious to myself and others for quite a long time, including Dr. Helen.

6:24 PM, December 19, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe this also explains the orthodoxy we often see in social and political discourse coming from the left. Promoters of a new, largely untried idea are less able and willing to brook dissent from within the ranks than those who are promoting an existing idea.

Mr. Dillenburg,

You had a good post going there decribing liberal/conservative thought, then you went and spoiled it with this final paragraph. Contemporary liberals ARE orthodox, because they are NO LONGER LIBERAL. They have run out of gas, out of ideas, and are no pure reactionary. And anyone who deviates from their reactionary ways gets dogpiled. No ideas, no creative thought, just tired, decades-old nostrums.

The creative thought comes from elsewhere, the neoconservatives for example. You may disagree with them, but they have a new idea or 2.

I think you're confusing contemporary "liberalism" with classic liberalism, which posesses NONE of the orthodoxy that contemporary liberals exercise. These contemporary "liberals" have have become the conservatives, it would seem. What a great country this is!

6:25 PM, December 19, 2005  
Blogger AST said...

I'm so glad to see this post.

I was thinking earlier that the intensity of the hatred the left has for George W. Bush is due to a feeling of shame over the performance of his predecessor in the White House. When Bush beat Gore, it was as if the frat boys had been removed and the adults took over.

Now, they have no alternative to his decisiveness and action, so all they can do is carp and wring their hands.

7:23 PM, December 19, 2005  
Blogger JR said...

There is a critique of the "motivated cognition" article here:

http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/unschol.html

7:25 PM, December 19, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The idea that Bush is not a frat boy type is absolutely laughable.

4:19 PM, December 20, 2005  
Blogger Micajah said...

Perhaps "weakened self esteem" was intended to mean something along the lines of a perceived challenge to their self esteem. The ideas that challenge their self esteem trigger a reaction to defend their self image. The fact that a reaction results indicates that their self esteem has been somewhat weakened by the perceived challenge.

8:47 PM, December 22, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually.....Libtards are suicidal:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/612852/posts

11:04 AM, February 07, 2006  
Blogger Serket said...

According to Wikipedia, Ron Reagan has always been a liberal.
Perhaps a better example of someone who went from conservative to liberal is David Brock.

2:27 PM, January 10, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

搬家
搬家
搬家公司
徵信社
徵信
彩妝造型
新娘秘書
票貼
室內設計
室內設計
徵信
徵信社
外遇
徵信
徵信社
外遇
搬家
搬家
花蓮民宿
花蓮民宿
免費a片
a片
免費av
色情影片
情色
情色網
色情網站
色情
成人網
成人圖片
成人影片
18成人
av
av女優

情慾
走光
做愛
sex
H漫
免費a片
a片
免費av
色情影片
情色
情色網
色情網站
色情
成人網
成人圖片
成人影片
18成人
av
av女優

情慾
走光
做愛
sex
H漫
a片
アダルト
アダルト
アダルトサイト
アダルトサイト
離婚
抓姦
外遇蒐證
外遇抓姦
外遇
侵權
仿冒
應收帳款
工商徵信
Shade sail
nike shoes
水泵
电动隔膜泵
自吸泵
离心泵
磁力泵
螺杆泵
化工泵
水泵
电动隔膜泵
自吸泵
离心泵
磁力泵
螺杆泵
化工泵
水泵
电动隔膜泵
自吸泵
离心泵
磁力泵
螺杆泵
化工泵
隔膜泵
气动隔膜泵
隔膜泵
气动隔膜泵
隔膜泵
气动隔膜泵
a片
成人網站
成人影片
寵物用品
情趣用品
情趣用品
MBA
在职研究生
在职博士
補習班
花店
花店
補正下着
中古車買賣
貸款
婚紗
婚紗攝影
補習班
留學
情色
情色
百家乐
轮盘
21点
德州扑克
百家乐系统
真人娱乐场
百家乐
足球
德州扑克
电子游戏
英格兰超级联赛
德国甲组联赛
意大利甲组联赛
西班牙甲组联赛
法国甲组联赛欧冠杯
英超
足球比分
足球彩票
体育彩票
即时比分
堆高機
婚禮佈置
宜蘭民宿推薦
寵物用品
情趣用品
情趣用品
坐月子
植牙
牙齒矯正
租屋
催眠
房屋出租
租房子
xo醬
牛軋糖
牛嘎糖
代償
房屋貸款
信用貸款
失眠
減肥
眼鏡
金門高梁酒
變頻洗衣機
票貼
借款
關鍵字廣告
租車





減肥
眼鏡
睡眠障礙
憂鬱症
躁鬱症
減重
瘦身
中醫減肥
台北中醫減肥
台中中醫減肥
高雄中醫減肥
產後減肥
下半身減肥
下半身瘦身
高雄眼鏡
屏東眼鏡
名牌眼鏡
太陽眼鏡
隱形眼鏡
鐵氟龍
PTFE
中壢花店
林口花店
南崁花店
金莎花束
歌倫比亞
雞腳凍
飲料加盟

太陽餅
月餅
口袋秤
度量衡
吊秤
吊磅
電子秤
磅秤
口袋秤
度量衡
吊秤
吊磅
電子秤
磅秤
招牌製作
招牌設計
廣告招牌
大圖輸出
電腦割字
招牌看板
廢鐵
廢銅
廢不銹鋼
廢電線
廢鋁
廢棄物
廢電纜電線
廢塑膠
制服
成衣
戒指
耳環
項鍊
對戒
手鍊
銀飾
飾品
對鍊
護理之家
台中花店
考試
塑膠箱
塑膠容器
工具箱
物流箱
拖板車
自動倉儲
倉儲設備
自行車衣
自行車背包
自行車手套
車衣
債務更生
債務清理
法協
蜂蜜
蜂王乳花粉
農產品
草本膠囊
促進新陳代謝
排便順暢的方法
體內環保
塑膠射出
塑膠製品
塑膠箱籃
物流塑膠箱
休閒傢俱
庭園圍籬

4:37 AM, February 01, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

甜心寶貝貼片區 甜心寶貝貼片區 免費日本a片線上觀賞免費日本a片線上觀賞免費日本a片線上觀賞免費日本a片線上觀賞免費日本a片線上觀賞免費日本a片線上觀賞免費日本a片線上觀賞免費日本a片線上觀賞免費日本a片線上觀賞免費日本a片線上觀賞免費a片線上觀賞免費a片線上觀賞免費a片線上觀賞免費a片線上觀賞免費a片線上觀賞免費a片線上觀賞免費a片線上觀賞免費a片線上觀賞免費a片線上觀賞免費a片線上觀賞18禁免費影片下載區18禁免費影片下載區18禁免費影片下載區18禁免費影片下載區18禁免費影片下載區18禁免費影片下載區18禁免費影片下載區18禁免費影片下載區18禁免費影片下載區18禁免費影片下載區美國免費 aa 片試看美國免費 aa 片試看美國免費 aa 片試看美國免費 aa 片試看美國免費 aa 片試看美國免費 aa 片試看美國免費 aa 片試看美國免費 aa 片試看美國免費 aa 片試看美國免費 aa 片試看小弟弟情色貼片小弟弟情色貼片小弟弟情色貼片小弟弟情色貼片小弟弟情色貼片小弟弟情色貼片小弟弟情色貼片小弟弟情色貼片小弟弟情色貼片小弟弟情色貼片aa片免費看微風論壇080哈啦聊天室6k聊天室成人聊天室上班族捷克論壇大眾論壇plus論壇080視訊聊天室520視訊聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族 a片a片影片免費情色影片免費a片觀看小弟第貼影片區免費av影片免費h影片試看 H漫 - 卡通美女短片小魔女貼影片免費影片觀賞無碼a片網美女pc交友相簿美女交友-哈啦聊天室中文a片線上試看免費電影下載區免費試看a短片免費卡通aa片觀看女優影片無碼直播免費性感a片試看日本AV女優影音娛樂網日本av女優無碼dvd辣妹視訊 - 免費聊天室美女交友視訊聊天室080免費視訊聊天室尋夢園聊天室080苗栗人聊天室a片下載日本免費視訊美女免費視訊聊天

11:05 AM, February 16, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

好站推薦
好站推薦
好站推薦
好站推薦
好站推薦
好站推薦
好站推薦
好站推薦
好站推薦
好站推薦
好站推薦
好站推薦

※金瓶影片交流區※
※免費a片下載※
※aa片免費看影片※

免費AV女優-線上視訊
SEX情色
辣妹妹視訊
愛情聊天室
色情貼圖網
交友聊天-線上免費
色情A片-線上免費
美女視訊-聊天室
日本女優色情自拍
情色遊戲天堂
18禁 -女優王國
視訊聯誼聊天室
成人情色貼圖區
辣妹視訊交友網
成人交友網
成人情色視訊聊天室
AV女優-無碼A片天堂
女優天堂
免費A片線上下載
情人視訊聊天室

8:08 AM, February 18, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

成人情色影音網成人情色影音網成人情色影音網成人情色影音網成人情色影音網成人情色影音網成人情色影音網視訊交友聊天室視訊交友聊天室視訊交友聊天室視訊交友聊天室視訊交友聊天室視訊交友聊天室視訊交友聊天室視訊交友聊天室視訊交友聊天室視訊交友聊天室影音電話交友影音電話交友影音電話交友影音電話交友影音電話交友影音電話交友影音電話交友影音電話交友影音電話交友影音電話交友視訊聊天交友視訊聊天交友視訊聊天交友視訊聊天交友視訊聊天交友視訊聊天交友視訊聊天交友視訊聊天交友視訊聊天交友視訊聊天交友成人遊戲區成人遊戲區成人遊戲區成人遊戲區成人遊戲區成人遊戲區成人遊戲區成人遊戲區成人遊戲區成人遊戲區成人電影院成人電影院成人電影院成人電影院成人電影院成人電影院成人電影院成人電影院成人電影院成人電影院成人視訊聊天成人視訊聊天成人視訊聊天成人視訊聊天成人視訊聊天成人視訊聊天成人視訊聊天成人視訊聊天成人視訊聊天成人視訊聊天日本av女優日本av女優日本av女優日本av女優日本av女優日本av女優日本av女優日本av女優日本av女優日本av女優免費成人圖片區免費成人圖片區免費成人圖片區免費成人圖片區免費成人圖片區免費成人圖片區免費成人圖片區免費成人圖片區免費成人圖片區免費成人圖片區成人貼圖片區成人貼圖片區成人貼圖片區成人貼圖片區成人貼圖片區成人貼圖片區成人貼圖片區成人貼圖片區成人貼圖片區成人貼圖片區熊貓成人貼片熊貓成人貼片熊貓成人貼片熊貓成人貼片熊貓成人貼片熊貓成人貼片熊貓成人貼片熊貓成人貼片熊貓成人貼片熊貓成人貼片視訊情色王視訊情色王視訊情色王視訊情色王視訊情色王視訊情色王視訊情色王視訊情色王視訊情色王視訊情色王視訊辣妹影片直播

10:58 AM, February 25, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

福~
「朵
語‧,最一件事,就。好,你西.................

5:11 AM, March 14, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

9:59 PM, May 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

情色視訊520sex成人網站情色交友85cc免費影片倉井空免費影片情色網情色小站影音視訊聊天室xxx383美女寫真aa情色影片kk777視訊俱樂部55123免費aa片日本a片av383 倉井空免費影片080aa片aa免費倉井空影片禁忌書屋成人小說網85cc成人片 西洋片視訊交友 百分百成人圖片微風論壇咆哮55123電玩快打小遊戲米克綜合論壇玩美女人影音秀美女交友av美女美女寫真免費a片卡通影音視訊聊天室080xxx383美女寫真玩美女人免費線上成人影片6k聊天室

2:41 AM, June 07, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home