tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post6875154994317096937..comments2023-04-03T19:10:54.088-04:00Comments on Critiques Of Libertarianism: The pseudoscience of libertarian morality.Mike Hubenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-56725814484009574142011-08-22T18:58:30.611-04:002011-08-22T18:58:30.611-04:00Waitlaw, you pompous simpleton, why don't you ...Waitlaw, you pompous simpleton, why don't you explain how "psychological roots" are established with "a correlational study".<br /><br />You can't: your entire argument is merely pompously declaring that you are the judge of the argument. And you are obviously unfit.<br /><br />For example, a psychological study about indoctrination would not take a 20 year longitudinal study as you foolishly suggest: it's obvious to anyone that you could use overlapping cohorts over a much briefer period.<br /><br />A huge amount of psychology is pseudoscientific bullshit. Including pretty much all of the contradictory measures of personality.<br /><br />There's no pretentiousness in declaring that the emperor has no clothes. Nor in pointing out that for all your claimed expertise, you still haven't explained why any one of my criticisms is wrong. All you do is huff and puff and bellow "non-scientific claim". But you don't seem to have the wits to realize that because they haven't excluded such an obvious hypothesis, they have very little grounds to claim they have anything scientific: all they have is a lot of hype and a small correlation based on dubious measures of a self-selected group that was gamed by libertarians.<br /><br />Maybe that's what you consider good psychological research. I would hardly be surprised if you were that pathetic also.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-72524037380210358542011-08-22T16:14:18.335-04:002011-08-22T16:14:18.335-04:00Read the original paper--"Understanding Liber...Read the original paper--"Understanding Libertarian Morality: The psychological roots of an individualist ideology"-- in which Haidt is a co-author. So Haidt ~has~ published on libertarianism then. :-) (Although, the linked copy is not published yet.)<br /><br />Then I looked again at Mike's critique that the paper had a "fundamental fallacy" in that it "did not consider the indoctrination process." Mike then follows this with a non-scientific claim upon which he builds his house of cards: "Libertarians differ strongly from liberals and conservatives in that they are heavily indoctrinated at early ages." <br /><br />As I have noted, and will continue to note, because this a speculative claim with no scientific evidence outside of anecdotal evidence (e.g., personal observation), it can be safely dismissed until there is evidence shown to support the claim. <br /><br />Anyway, back to the empirical paper and Mike's "fundamental fallacy" critique. When I read the study's abstract, I laughed. Then when I read Mike's comment that there was a "fundamental fallacy," I laughed even harder. Sorry for laughing, but I find the pretentiousness in your bold claim quite funny. <br /><br />As the purpose of the study makes clear, this is simply a correlational study to examine how certain moral beliefs and personality traits are linked to one's political orientation. There is no claim to find "DEVELOPED attitudes" (whatever that means). In short, Mike's critique is irrelevant.<br /><br />The study did not purport to examine the developmental roots of a person's political beliefs, nor make any such claims about developmental influences. The questions they were asking were about the links between personality, moral beliefs, and political beliefs.<br /><br />As the authors note, "We show how self-described libertarians differ from self-described liberals and conservatives not just on their<br />moral beliefs, but on a variety of personality measures that may help us to understand why libertarians hold their unique pattern of moral beliefs....Our goal, however, was not just to understand libertarians. The relationships we report reveal a great deal about the moralities of<br />liberals and conservatives, by virtue of the contrast with libertarians and with each other."<br /><br />(As an aside, I really liked the fact that the authors quoted Ayn Rand, who has probably been the biggest influence on modern day libertarianism.)<br /><br />If I were to imagine a study examining indoctrination (and as a research psychologist, I can safely claim some expertise in psychological research design), I think it would require an elaborate longitudinal study. I estimate it would take about at least 20 years to gather evidence. After all, you'd like to see if the indoctrination held when the person is into their adult years (i.e., 25 years old +). But that's an entirely different and complex question. <br /><br />Mike, if I had to mark your essay (and I have marked hundreds upon hundreds of undergraduate psych papers), I would indicate things such as, "The authors made no claims about identifying developmental processes in the purpose of their study. For this reason, your critique is irrelevant. However, studying indoctrination might be useful in understanding how some people form their political beliefs. In addition, your use of anecdotal evidence is insufficient to build arguments or form strong conclusions. At best, anecdotal evidence can be useful for deriving testable hypotheses. Please refer to your textbook chapter on levels of evidence."<br /><br />"Fundamental fallacy"...that's priceless.Walter Foddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16873814629660193643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-61258649443079334342011-08-22T12:33:27.314-04:002011-08-22T12:33:27.314-04:00Waltlaw, you are correct that my evidence was anec...Waltlaw, you are correct that my evidence was anecdotal: I had confused anecdotal with second hand.<br /><br />But I'm not claiming scientific study of libertarianism. I'm pointing out that the study cited is pseudoscience. I don't have to have a scientific alternative to show correctly that they are not scientific.<br /><br />As for your opinions and those of your friend, they constitute anecdote. Nor do they contain argument citing anything I've written. They are mere denunciation.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-78466822861345119342011-08-22T11:52:09.929-04:002011-08-22T11:52:09.929-04:00Mike, you keep rationalizing and defending the ind...Mike, you keep rationalizing and defending the indefensible. Personal observation is anecdotal. If I surveyed 1000 research psychologists and asked them, "Is a personal observation anecdotal evidence?" 100% of them will say yes. Personal observation is textbook anecdotal evidence. Even wikipedia says, "Accounts of direct personal experience are commonly equated to anecdotal evidence where the evidence is anecdote, hearsay or represents a conclusion deduced from generalisation." (shakes head in disbelief)<br /><br />Anything else you say that builds on your anecdotal evidence is pure speculation and can be safely dismissed as a non-scientific. In your case, the claim is obviously an emotion-laden bias given your antagonism and hostility to libertarians. <br /><br />I have shared each of your rationalizing and psychologizing comments with my friend (who describes his politics as socialist, if that matters) and he never fails to raise his eyebrows and express words of disbelief.<br /><br />Thanks for reaffirming my opinion of you. (So my memory was not exaggerated; you are as irrational as I had remembered. So much for giving you the "benefit of the doubt.")Walter Foddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16873814629660193643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-4317324662344281272011-08-22T09:26:25.053-04:002011-08-22T09:26:25.053-04:00Waltlaw: in your own words you are "patronizi...Waltlaw: in your own words you are "patronizing, arrogant, and simply disrespectful." Not to mention wrong in many ways.<br /><br />First, my evidence is not anecdotal: it is my personal observation in informal surveys over the past 40 years.<br /><br />You say that means you can safely dismiss the argument: that's wrong of course, because you're merely preferring your own biases.<br /><br />You accuse me of "psychologizing", but provide no quote to back up your claim. That's lazy or dishonest.<br /><br />it's very nice that you have daydreamed about research: that makes you all hat and no cattle.<br /><br />Your bet is stupid: Haidt does not explore the development of political beliefs. Thus he wouldn't make conclusions about indoctrination. And that is one of the great faults of his methodology. Ask any biologist if development is unimportant for understanding the adult organism They will tell you that it is critical. Why should psychology be any different?<br /><br />In short, your entire response is specious, a waste of bits.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-90222638068554776512011-08-21T22:49:05.949-04:002011-08-21T22:49:05.949-04:00Thanks Mark and Mike for clarifying your appeal to...Thanks Mark and Mike for clarifying your appeal to anecdotal evidence. Mike, you are free to absolve yourself from being scientific in your ostensibly empirical claims. It just means I can safely dismiss the statement, and as well, note that you justified yourself. All I can say to that is, "Wow." <br /><br />Psychologizing can be fun because it does absolve one from taking the other person seriously. Kind of a lazy and arrogant strategy, if you ask me.<br /><br />I prefer to understand the underlying beliefs of people's politics at an individual basis after getting to know them. By actually asking them deeper questions about their beliefs, I get at some of their root assumptions or philosophical commitments about human nature and social structures. I find that much more informative and interesting than broad brushstroke psychologizing, which, in reality, is patronizing, arrogant, and simply disrespectful.<br /><br />I have actually thought about conducting such research, namely, exploring core beliefs of people of different political orientations, including people's understanding of economics as I believe economic illiteracy contributes to political beliefs as well. <br /><br />Haidt, mind you, seems to be doing some interesting exploratory research on his website regarding people's political beliefs and morality. I'd be interested to see what he does find on libertarianism as I think he's the first psychologist to study libertarianism. <br /><br />You know, I am willing to bet any money--yes, ANY MONEY--that Haidt's research is not going to conclude or suggest "libertarians are indoctrinated." I am saying this before he has published anything. All I know is his exploratory survey questions on his website. Any takers?Walter Foddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16873814629660193643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-26875488961498751912011-08-21T20:36:12.727-04:002011-08-21T20:36:12.727-04:00Waltlaw, I don't claim to be writing anything ...Waltlaw, I don't claim to be writing anything scientific here: they do. Thus, I don't need to meet that particular standard. <br /><br />However, most people who have talked to libertarians will agree with my statement from their personal experience: libertarians often self-indoctrinate extensively. It is much less common to find liberals or conservatives who do that.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-24695810541144356822011-08-21T20:18:39.808-04:002011-08-21T20:18:39.808-04:00@Waitlaw:
You don't think we got Patri Friedm...@Waitlaw:<br /><br />You don't think we got Patri Friedman and Rand Paul because of their respective families' libertarian cult indoctrination?Mark Plushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03859046131830902921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-65826636398753088202011-08-21T20:04:24.570-04:002011-08-21T20:04:24.570-04:00Huben, you claimed without a shred of empirical ev...Huben, you claimed without a shred of empirical evidence, the following:<br /><br />"Libertarians differ strongly from liberals and conservatives in that they are heavily indoctrinated at early ages."<br /><br />Please cite the psychological studies that support this claim. Thank you.Walter Foddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16873814629660193643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-80353222919615851632011-08-21T18:32:14.875-04:002011-08-21T18:32:14.875-04:00Ayn R. Key, if you are able to read carefully, I d...Ayn R. Key, if you are able to read carefully, I do not criticize this paper because of the beliefs of the authors. I criticize it for methodology.<br /><br />You claim: "Lakoff never questioned the validity of his two option and only two option starting point."<br /><br />Read the book. Page 13, Lakoff says: "There are, of course, far more than two forms of morality and politics, even among conservatives and liberals. But set within normal human minds, the two family systems and moral systems that I will be outlining give rise , in a systematic way, to a considerable number of actual moral and political positions [....]" In other words, he nowhere claims those are the only models. And he finds the conservative model well includes libertarianism.<br /><br />"Interesting in what it attempts" is faint praise for the simple reason that the methodology is stupid. It might be interesting that you attempt to fly jumping from a height with little cardboard wings, but you're stupid to do so.<br /><br />I do not criticize this paper for "apologia" as you claim: I criticize it for naive parroting of unscientific claims by libertarians.<br /><br />Are you done grasping at straws yet, or will we have another round of spurious claims from you? If you want to make a claim about my post, I recommend that you cite a portion as evidence.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-14496603374152705172011-08-21T17:20:35.485-04:002011-08-21T17:20:35.485-04:00The problem with your critique of this paper is th...The problem with your critique of this paper is that the authors of the paper are not libertarians themselves. Since they try for a balanced approach, indicating that each ideology has its own moral foundation by which it judges itself moral and others immoral, they therefore indicated that libertarian have a moral foundation at all.<br /><br />Clearly that is unacceptable, and that also clearly means that the authors are biased in favor of libertarians in spite of not being so.<br /><br />The problem with Lakoff was that he started with a two option premise, and then was left to shoehorn libertarians into one of those. Iver, much to your dismay, started with a three option premise, and then was left to find the differences between the third option and the other two. Lakoff never questioned the validity of his two option and only two option starting point.<br /><br />There certainly was a self-reinforcing aspect in parts of the study, but did you look at the moral dilemma portion? The authors did indicate that the classic question of a speeding train is not a political question. By departing from questions that are simply political the authors were able to ask questions not covered by party platforms. In fact, parts two and three of the study are pretty explicit about trying to go deeper than the superficial political layers as it is their premise that political opinions are a result of moral opinions, and that moral opinions are a result of base gut urges.<br /><br />The paper is interesting in what it atempts, and contrary to your presentation it does not attempt an apologia about libertarianism.Ayn R. Keyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14542012608585134864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-35441893868276776802011-02-25T11:05:29.915-05:002011-02-25T11:05:29.915-05:00UCSDMedRes: That's a good point!
But we can ...UCSDMedRes: That's a good point!<br /><br />But we can add to your list: pretty much every libertarian-leaning Nobel laureate in economics rejects Austrianism, starting with Milton Friedman. I'd allow people to quibble about Hayek, but he is often <a href="http://world.std.com/~mhuben/austrian.html" rel="nofollow">denounced by Austrians such as Block, Radnitzky, Hoppe, and de Jasay</a> and clearly rejected some aspects of Austrianism.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-45027381264849112132011-02-25T10:22:21.219-05:002011-02-25T10:22:21.219-05:00@Waitlaw- you say in your post that you like data....@Waitlaw- you say in your post that you like data. I'm a science phd,and I love data myself. <br /><br />In my view, here is a simple way to test indoctrination. Ask yourself the following questions: What data would it take to convince you that your libertarian ideas are ill-founded? What would it take to convince you that the Austrian school of economics is fundamentally flawed? <br /><br />Consider that even libertarian-leaning economists (Tyler Cowen, Bryan Caplan) have pointed out that the Austrian school's predictions do not match the data. Its not just the Paul Krugmans.Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02615855799727413456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-5636893011040447062011-02-20T23:38:46.272-05:002011-02-20T23:38:46.272-05:00"This applies to liberals, conservatives, and..."This applies to liberals, conservatives, and libertarians alike."<br /><br />Saying it applies to everyone doesn't absolve you of doing it, or of failing to correct it when you know you've done it. <br /><br />"I see that you parsed my brief response like Huben did; reading a lot into a little. You don't know me and you assume indoctrination. I don't how you guys don't view this as insulting."<br /><br />First, this is a discussion of a study which seems to claim that libertarians are more "rational" than non-libertarians, and you specifically praised Joanna for being rational. Somehow I bet you don't see that as at all insulting. <br />Second, I looked back over what I wrote, and I don't really see me "psychologizing" about you. I put what you said, actually said, into a context. <br /><br />"If you want an actual example to analyze a tiny bit of my personal epistemological method"<br /><br />I've spent too much time discussing things with libertarians (within and without) and I find it boring. Too many will make extravagant claims about how independent minded they are, and then ignore that they come to the exact conclusions others in their group do. <br /><br />"Anyway, I shouldn't have to defend my thinking method."<br /><br />Why not? You came into a public discussion, made remarks, and then took offense at others commenting back. Why do you think you get to set the terms of the discussion? <br /><br />"Have you ever convinced someone to change their mind because you told them they were indoctrinated?"<br /><br />I've never cared enough to try. I discuss for my own reasons, and whether anyone else gets anything out of it isn't up to me to decide. <br /><br />"I come from the perspective that people have their reasons for their beliefs and it's a matter of figuring those out."<br /><br />How do you do that without discussing how they arrive at those reasons? <br /><br />"But whether they are rational or irrational in how they arrived at their beliefs requires much investigation; not an assumption based on their political beliefs."<br /><br />I am almost astonished that you say this. The very study that started this discussion says EXACTLY what you claim shouldn't be done, and you're on that side. Talk about being bad at introspection. <br /><br />"I realize that the Austrian school doesn't support econometrics. To conclude otherwise is to read things into my post that were not there"<br /><br />Where, specifically, was this done? The closest I came was to tell you to look at the writings on methods of Hayek and Rothbard, and that had to do with why they won't accept quantifying things. That you think they "could" use econometrics isn't important, because they won't. <br /><br />"If you are serious about convincing libertarians that they are erroneous"<br /><br />I'm not. It's up to them to do it for themselves, as it was for me. I do care about them putting out ideas in public that are either unsupported by data or flat out wrong. <br /><br />"For the simple fact that it is insulting"<br /><br />You keep going on about being insulted, but can't seem to grasp that saying that your politicial ideology has the most rational adherents is insulting. <br /><br />"I think the lesson here is that just because someone has arrived at a political system different than yours doesn't mean that they are essentially irrational in their thinking"<br /><br />Are you kidding? Are you even paying attention to what this entire discussion is about?Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16891799861827800208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-73771786310975608692011-02-15T02:24:13.376-05:002011-02-15T02:24:13.376-05:00And I subscribe to Cato Unbound, an discussion fo...And I subscribe to Cato Unbound, an discussion forum "between four libertarian and non-libertarian scholars selected by the Cato Institute for participation."<br /><br />http://www.cato-unbound.org/<br /><br />I was very happy to see this. Along these lines, for many years I have hoped and asked that The Atlas Society summer seminar invite non-Objectivist and non-libertarian speakers. Hearing your oppoent's arguments directly is incredibly important to a meaningful, rational dialogue. Indeed, Cato Unbound's approach is much better than assuming your political opponent is indoctrinated and then psychologically analyzing his/her statements in order to confirm that your assumption is valid.Walter Foddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16873814629660193643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-36369794587334813962011-02-14T22:46:28.437-05:002011-02-14T22:46:28.437-05:00@Mike Bast: I believe that anyone who doesn't ...@Mike Bast: I believe that anyone who doesn't recognize that their own political viewpoint is biased is deluding themselves. We all idealize that we are objective, but this is simply not true. This applies to liberals, conservatives, and libertarians alike. <br /><br />I see that you parsed my brief response like Huben did; reading a lot into a little. You don't know me and you assume indoctrination. I don't how you guys don't view this as insulting.<br /><br />If you want an actual example to analyze a tiny bit of my personal epistemological method, here's a better one. I was raised Roman Catholic, but in my early 20s I analyzed my core reasons for believing, and found these reasons answered by naturalistic explanations. I then stopped believing. How many "indoctrinated" people disavow their own religious beliefs, which involves overcoming their own childhood-based indoctrination and strong emotional attachments to deism? As well as experiencing the social disapproval of, and arguments with, family?<br /><br />Anyway, I shouldn't have to defend my thinking method. I did't inquire into yours. Psychologizing is unbecoming of a rational debate. It goes nowhere. Have you ever convinced someone to change their mind because you told them they were indoctrinated?<br /><br />I come from the perspective that people have their reasons for their beliefs and it's a matter of figuring those out. This is extraordinarily difficult at times. People are not (on average) adept at introspection, which psychological research supports, so they may not be able to tell you themselves. But whether they are rational or irrational in how they arrived at their beliefs requires much investigation; not an assumption based on their political beliefs.<br /><br />I realize that the Austrian school doesn't support econometrics. To conclude otherwise is to read things into my post that were not there. My proposing of econometrics is based on my experience from psychological research. <br /><br />If you are serious about convincing libertarians that they are erroneous, telling that they indoctrinated is shooting yourself in the foot. Why? For the simple fact that it is insulting. Some may be indoctrinated, but this is true for any political orientation.<br /><br />I know some Objectivists who regurgitate Rand, and who I would consider indoctrinated and dogmatic. Yet, I also know of Objectivists in which I see rationality exemplified not only in their thinking, but in how they live their lives. The moral of the story: Not all Objectivists are indoctrinated. Similarly, not all libertarians are indoctrinated. And despite the fact I don't agree with them, not all liberals, welfare statists, or conservatives are indoctrinated.<br /><br />I think the lesson here is that just because someone has arrived at a political system different than yours doesn't mean that they are essentially irrational in their thinking. Randroids are notorious for making this conclusion about others who don't agree with them. They are not exactly a group to emulate.<br /><br />Now if you psychologize even more based on this post--e.g., further "proof" that I am indoctrinated--, then obviously you're not getting my point how insulting this is.<br /><br />WalterWalter Foddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16873814629660193643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-39380793245764414332011-02-14T21:33:06.223-05:002011-02-14T21:33:06.223-05:00"my belief is that because most libertarians ..."my belief is that because most libertarians actually read literature in economics and philosophy before arriving at their beliefs, their epistemological method is more rational compared to an adult who just absorbs their politics from their upbringing and schooling."<br /><br />You belief is not verified by anything empirical (even a reliable survey would be nice) and contradicted by my own experience of years of being a libertarian and speaking to others. I find that most of the libertarians I've known (including myself) got into the ideology first and then into economics. I have never met one who did it the other way. <br /><br />"just that the mythology narratives that "capitalism caused the great depression" "<br /><br />On what basis is it a mythology? That it contradicts ideology? I've yet to see a critique of the idea from someone who wasn't ideologically pre-disposed to thinking it was so. <br /><br />"I could follow the logic of Austrian economic theory! "<br /><br />But that doesn't make it true, at all. I've met a few Austrians who say that Macroeconomics doesn't make much sense, but that (again) doesn't mean it isn't true. There are things which just are hard to understand. <br /><br />"if their theory posits predictions (which it does), then it's possible to quantify it. "<br /><br />You might want to read the writings of Hayek and Rothbard on their methods. It's pretty straightforward in being antithetical to the scientific method. <br /><br />"By the way, Joanna, I appreciate you taking the rational higher ground in your discussions with Hubens."<br /><br />Um, no. She is using rational words, but the sounds don't make it actually rational. That's the entire issue. <br /><br />"I have debated socialists and welfare statists. I have friends who are hard core socialists who I debate"<br /><br />Having been involved in many "debates" from many sides, I have to say that I don't think that's a good way to judge your level of indoctrination. Well, maybe it is, in that most of them seem to be nothing more than people who already have a POV throwing it out as an explanation, and defending attacks on it. There's no attempt to get at the truth (often because the participants are convinced they have it) and no exchange and consideration of other ideas, data and viewpoints. No one is listening, just waiting for their turn to talk. <br /><br />"Their Marxist view of economics is frustrating, but I debate with them anyway"<br /><br />And this makes me pretty sure your "debate" is as I described it above. I wouldn't use it as a way to say you're not indoctrinated, if I were you. <br /><br />"I was also reading Marx and Keynes; so I could get the other side"<br /><br />Many people say this, but I haven't seen many read for truth, but merely to learn how to formulate responses to things with which they already disagree. <br /><br />"I'm very aware of people's inherent cognitive biases and faulty thinking, and helping them find ways to correct it."<br /><br />I know a lot of people who have great insight into others, but can't see the same things in themselves. <br /><br />"Bryan Caplan "The Myth of the Rational Voter." "<br /><br />Caplan's basic argument is that the voters are wrong because they don't agree with him and the economists he says are "mainstream". I've read the book, and it's nothing more than libertarian cheerleading. <br /><br />"As to Shermer"<br /><br />I like Shermer's work, but I think he's a great example of someone who sees other's biases, but not his own. He actually argued that those who don't believe in the free-market have a pre-modern mindset.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16891799861827800208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-80856792971025436392011-02-11T19:23:38.672-05:002011-02-11T19:23:38.672-05:00Wow, what a funny over-reaction.
Please list one ...Wow, what a funny over-reaction.<br /><br />Please list one of my "patronizing and insulting" assumptions about you in particular.<br /><br />You as much as admit your indoctrination (by my standards) when you claim "barely anyone knew what it meant; never mind critique it". But of course criticisms existed: you didn't find them.<br /><br />You attempt to excuse yourself from confirmation bias with a "tu quoque" fallacy, that other people do it. Love that rationality!<br /><br />"By alienating the very people you wish to hear your arguments, you sabotage your own goal." Now that is a stupid thing to say, for the simple reason that you apparently think I have only one goal and that convincing you is my goal. Nope: convincing dyed in the wool ideologues with honeyed words is futile. Far better to show onlookers how stupid and pretentious such people are.<br /><br />Please flounce off as you threaten to, and nurse your stinging ego, you thin-skinned and silly person. If you cannot stand a very mild contradiction of your pretentiousness and self-proclaimed "rationality", you're too pathetic to be happy here.<br /><br />Respect does not earn respect here: respect must be earned here with intelligent argument. And it's rather pathetic that you attempt to argue by aphorism. That's not rational either.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-7408230385935319482011-02-11T17:59:18.090-05:002011-02-11T17:59:18.090-05:00"Here's my simple test for indoctrination..."Here's my simple test for indoctrination: when you encountered libertarianism and started reading books about it, what books did you read that criticized it? In general, libertarians exhibit a strong confirmation bias, reading essentially nothing but literature uncritical of it."<br /><br />Ever since I encountered libertarian and Objectivist thought, I have debated socialists and welfare statists. I have friends who are hard core socialists who I debate. Their Marxist view of economics is frustrating, but I debate with them anyway. When I first encountered the literature, libertarianism was a term that barely anyone knew what it meant; never mind critique it. I had to learn it from different angles. Hence, reading Adam Smith, John Locke, J.S. Mill, Milton Friedman, the early Austrian school--Menger, for instance--just to see how all these different thinkers converged on what we call "libertarianism." I was also reading Marx and Keynes; so I could get the other side. More recently, I am reading the work of Jeffrey Sachs, "The End of Poverty" in which he is critical of some of the libertarian explanations for poverty. His solutions also, are not exactly libertarian as he argues for the need of economically strategic foreign aid. Sachs attracted my interest after watching PBS's excellent series, "Commanding Heights," (based on a book by Yergin & Stanislaw) which provides an economic overview of the 20th century that contrasts Hayek's ideas vs. Keynes. And I have read several critiques of Objectivism. I even have a few of my own. <br /><br />As to the confirmation bias, people of all political stripes can fall victim to it. Libertarianism is not unique in this way. <br /><br />As someone who has studied psychology for over a decade and does therapy, I'm very aware of people's inherent cognitive biases and faulty thinking, and helping them find ways to correct it.<br /><br />Bryan Caplan goes even further than the typical biases in identifying other cognitive biases (e.g., anti-market bias) in his "The Myth of the Rational Voter." For what it's worth, Caplan is critical of the Austrian school, but at least he is rational about it.<br /><br />As to Shermer, I have read many of his works, which I've enjoyed. Most recently, I'm reading _Mind of the Market_, a defense of free markets, but obviously there is no point in following his arguments because Shermer must have been indoctrinated in order to write the book. Anyway, thanks for the patronizing citation to Shermer's essay. <br /><br />As for the rest of your reply--and your assumptions about me--, they are patronizing and insulting, thus not worth responding to. Respect earns respect.<br /><br />I see you have posted other replies, but guess what? If this is a sampling of your response style, I'm not going to waste my time reading them. I just hope your FAQ--which I have read parts of it back in the late 90s when I wasn't a graduate student--is toned down in patronizing rhetoric.<br /><br />By alienating the very people you wish to hear your arguments, you sabotage your own goal. But at least this gives you the opportunity to say, "They won't even listen to my arguments. And that's because they are irrational/biased/dogmatic/indoctrinated." <br /><br />I'm all ears to hearing critiques of libertarianism (and Objectivism), but I expect respect from the critic. I'll continue my journey elsewhere. Congratulations on alienating someone whom actually listens to opposing viewpoints.Walter Foddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16873814629660193643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-83297113249302149862011-02-11T08:29:52.880-05:002011-02-11T08:29:52.880-05:00Oh, and I also recommend my Parable of the ship: ...Oh, and I also recommend my <a href="http://critiquesoflibertarianism.blogspot.com/2009/05/parable-of-ship-why-austrian-economics.html" rel="nofollow"> Parable of the ship: why Austrian Economics fails. </a>Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-6318280811005292422011-02-11T08:22:13.546-05:002011-02-11T08:22:13.546-05:00Waltlaw:
Here's my simple test for indoctrina...Waltlaw:<br /><br />Here's my simple test for indoctrination: when you encountered libertarianism and started reading books about it, what books did you read that criticized it? In general, libertarians exhibit a strong confirmation bias, reading essentially nothing but literature uncritical of it. <br /><br />Coming to beliefs after reading such a biased sample is not what I would call rational, no matter how it compares to the average.<br /><br />That was one of the major reasons why I started my FAQ and my site almost 20 years ago: because libertarians were so amazingly limited to their own echo chamber.<br /><br />Being able to "follow the logic of Austrian economic theory" is scant recommendation. People can follow the logic of Aristotelian physics and maybe not relativity, but relativity is much better physics. Indeed, a rational person would admit that in order to decide which is better, you would need to understand both well enough to subject them to tests.<br /><br />I wouldn't go around congratulating Joanna on "rational higher ground" for several reasons. First, because most of her arguments don't fit even loose ideas of rational. Second, because like all libertarian argument, it has a very bad Garbage In Garbage Out problem. And third, because (as Michael Shermer observes, and should observe about himself) she's somebody who is attempting to defend rationally what she has come to believe irrationally.<br /><br />I recommend that before you go throwing around the idea of rationality, you read my <a href="http://world.std.com/~mhuben/skept/rationality.html" rel="nofollow">Skepticism of Rationality</a>. It's one of my <a href="http://world.std.com/~mhuben/skept/index.html" rel="nofollow">Skepticism</a> pages.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-29981439046167758252011-02-11T01:09:28.010-05:002011-02-11T01:09:28.010-05:00Sorry Michael, I mean Huben (without the 's...Sorry Michael, I mean Huben (without the 's').Walter Foddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16873814629660193643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-90965206724640237002011-02-11T01:08:01.767-05:002011-02-11T01:08:01.767-05:00@Joanna: I also encountered libertarian thought in...@Joanna: I also encountered libertarian thought in my mid-20s, which overturned many of my previous unquestioned assumptions about economics (e.g., Austrian school) and ethical philosophy (e.g., Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden). <br /><br />Curiously, Hubens claim that libertarians are indoctrinated. In contrast, I believe conservatives and liberals suffer from this problem. I guess we're all indoctrinated and living in our own self-made political matrices!<br /><br />Seriously, my belief is that because most libertarians actually read literature in economics and philosophy before arriving at their beliefs, their epistemological method is more rational compared to an adult who just absorbs their politics from their upbringing and schooling. <br /><br />As a Canadian, I saw my education in economics as indoctrination on the superiority of the mixed economy and the welfare state. There was no examination of different schools of thought; just that the mythology narratives that "capitalism caused the great depression" and "Canada's mixed economy takes the best of capitalism and socialism." Then when I studied macro-economics at university, it sounded all rather abstract to the point of being unreal. I learned it, but it didn't make much sense to me. But then a few years later, I encountered the Austrian school with its focus on the individual, which presented a much more intelligible, concrete, and realistic way of understanding economics. I could follow the logic of Austrian economic theory! <br /><br />I agree with the criticism of Austrian economic theory that it doesn't use econometrics. However, I don't think Austrian economists need to reject econometrics; if their theory posits predictions (which it does), then it's possible to quantify it. <br /><br />For what it's worth, I'm a psychological researcher (PhD student close to defending), so I'm big on the quantification of data, including qualitative data. I am trying to link my psychological research on self-esteem to ethics and eventually--hopefully--to political theory. <br /><br />By the way, Joanna, I appreciate you taking the rational higher ground in your discussions with Hubens.Walter Foddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16873814629660193643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-67726797975100045602011-01-13T06:32:04.748-05:002011-01-13T06:32:04.748-05:00Mike Bast, well okay, thanks for your answers.
I ...Mike Bast, well okay, thanks for your answers.<br /><br />I can only support you in that many libertarian arguments make me cringe as well, they are often superficial, incorrect, mystic etc. That's why I also love Mike Huben's site, another thing we share. You say that building your own worldview out of available ideas is "cultist". But isn't that what thinking for yourself actually means? Why should it be my fault that I only find mises/rothbard version of libertarianism correct? Why should I be responsible for everything other self-described libertarian believe?Joanna Liberationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03683439858840562847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-64349456728480414292011-01-12T20:31:55.047-05:002011-01-12T20:31:55.047-05:00Joanna,
I wish we were in the same room so you co...Joanna, <br />I wish we were in the same room so you could hear me laugh at you. All I can do is guess that, like most cultists, you have to build up a worldview that says outsiders have to have the flaws in the discussion. <br />You ignored what I said about why I am no longer one of you, misinterpreted my responses to particular instances as why I "really" am no longer a libertarian, and try (but fail) to make it seem as though I don't think for myself. <br />Again, I wish you could hear me laugh at you. But you won't hear/see/read me waste any more time on you.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16891799861827800208noreply@blogger.com