Submitted by: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
Last night Ann Coulter, a person I loathe, appeared on the Bill Maher Show. She was pushing her new book “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America.” Cringing as I watched her the thought nevertheless occurred to me that “She really believes this crap she sells.” This minor epiphany led me on to other thoughts. The battle in American politics has essentially devolved into a two sided affair between opponents convinced of the “demonic,” to use Ann’s term, nature of their ideological opposites. In this ongoing struggle one can’t merely disagree with us on a given political/societal issue, without our believing them to be hateful and worthy of being despised. Their motivation must undoubtedly be sociopathy and/or undemocratic. I must admit that I myself often feel that way about those who disagree with me and I say this with the rueful knowledge that when I do I am allowing myself to engage in stereotypical behavior.
This has been the American condition almost since its inception and was implicit in Ben Franklin’s question about our ability to maintain our Constitution and the freedoms it provides. In order to begin to find solutions for bridging the gaps between us all in the attempt to govern the body politic, we must first understand the fact that much of this division is the result of conflicting mythologies of what we are as a society. If we can identify the underlying mythologies that guide us, perhaps we can see beyond the constraints that limit our ability to see beyond them and discover basis for true negotiation between apparently irreconcilable differences.
In 1988, I watched a many part conversation Bill Moyers had with a Columbia Professor Joseph Campbell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell and_the_Power_of_Myth I was fascinated by the man and by the concepts he was teaching. I found it so compelling that I ran out, purchased, and read most of his books. The books that were the most informative to me were “The Masks of God” series and “The Hero With a Thousand Faces”. What Campbell showed was human history was influenced greatly by the mythologies of various political states and ethnicities. These myths indeed reflected not only religious belief but also social and political philosophies. I don’t pretend great expertise in this area to explain it to you cohesively and the topic is one that has produced untold volumes of throughout thousands of years. Suffice it to say that the mythology of a people is a strong influence of not only its behavior, but of its interactions with other believing different myths. I’m sure as a general concept this idea is not a new one to readers here, especially when it comes to religious beliefs.
Stemming from Campbell reading I embarked on rediscovering the books on mythology I had previous read, but with the new perspective of Campbell’s insights. I later discovered: “TheGunfighter Nation: Myth of the Frontier in Twentieth-Century America” by Richard Slotkin. Using literature, history and even the movies, Slotkin persuasively posited that much of America’s domestic and foreign policy was dictated by the false mythology created of our frontier expansion, “Wild West” and rugged individualism. This myth was portrayed in the newspapers, literature, “Dime Westerns”, Wild West Shows and later on in the Movies.
The nature of myth is such that it’s ingested not only intellectually, but also viscerally. Seeing Gary Cooper in “High Noon” when I was seven in 1951 influenced my own life greatly and actually dictated some actions years later. John Wayne, a college football star spent WWII making innumerable, heroic war movies, while others such as James Stewart actually fought in action. Yet Wayne remains an iconic American Hero and that is pure, though deeply believed mythology. I would be safe to say that many who consider themselves conservative’s today look up to John Wayne as a role model and a hero. That myth becomes meme and that meme becomes point of view.
We of the left are no different in our choice of heroic figures to follow, mythologizing their activities and persona’s into something heroic. JFK, a man I admire on many levels and who I idolized in his time, was a serial philanderer of such epic proportions as to be pathological. Eldridge Cleaver, Bobby Seale, Jerry Rubin, Abby Hoffman were people who my generation followed with veneration and yet in retrospect, given their future lives, were hardly heroic.
We absorb both past and current myths and allow them to cloud our judgment, limiting our ability to make informed political choices, by shutting down our options of reacting to our environment based on the facts at hand and not the reality we perceive colored by the blanket of our mythology. We see people applying “What Would Jesus Do?” to a broad spectrum of possible decisions and yet isn’t even the concept of WWJD, different based upon ones particular Christian denomination. This is true conceptually for most other religions, all of which have subsets of varying belief.
We need to individually work to understand just what myths guide our own actions in order to be able to react appropriately to the to the decisions we need to make in reacting to the environment of life around us. If we can do that honestly perhaps, we can then comprehend what motivates those with which we disagree. Maybe then, in understanding the other’s mythological viewpoints we can find ways to bridge our differences. This is most probably an over optimistic view from the perspective of possibility.
So let me end on a less positive, but perhaps more practical note. We ignore the influence of our surrounding mythologies at our own peril. The human organism has a need to interact with its environment in such a way that it draws the sustenance it needs from that environment. If our perception of that environment is skewed by preconceptions of reality, we are unable to benefit fully from the interactions, to our detriment.
The country today is engaged in a deadly battle with itself. The rage and hostility on each side seems to be growing. There is a conflict of fundamental mythologies, neither of which holds all the answers, yet blinded by its own preconceptions. These types of battles can end in a total victory and concomitant harsh defeat for the loser; a continuing stalemate and ongoing struggle; a total collapse of our society; and/or perhaps understanding and cooperation by the parties leading to a synergy of ideas. I’d much prefer the latter, but I am sanguine about it’s’ possibility.
Let’s break down wise Otteray Scribe’s latest screed.
At best this is merely an insult. At worst it is an ad hominem (no engagement with opponent’s argument + attempt at discrediting opponent’s character to avoid consideration of opponent’s argument).
Apparently forgetting what he just wrote, Otteray Scribe apparently has just gotten off on his own attempt at insults instead of attempting dialogue. This is called hypocrisy.
But he does apparently have time to write dismissive comments like this on practically every thread instead of attempting dialogue.
Of course, comments like this contribute to that unreadability. As do every other one of Otteraray Scribe’s comments which are always laced with insults, ad hominems, pot shots, and unsupported opinions. For example, take the long list of ad hominems he recently asserted his opponents engage in. He just listed them. No support was given for any of them. What does such an unsupported list of ad hominems (itself a long ad hominem) contribute the the discussion or readability of the blog? Nothing.
An empty threat. More insults. He says this all the time. And yet he keeps coming back to reply. First he starts off in a passive aggressive manner by addressing his opponent’s comments indirectly. Then when he thinks he has a gotcha point to make, like finding a typo, he’ll pop out of passive aggressive mode for a direct comment with an added insult (always). Then if he gets challenged or insulted back. He replies with this sort of I’m-taking-my-ball-and-going-home comment.
Please, Otteray Scribe, do us all a favor and take your ball and go home for good. Your dopey unsupported comments add nothing to the discussion. Your insults and personal attacks add nothing to the discussion. And comments like this merely waste everyone’s time. If you don’t like the attention you receive with your dopey comments, just stop the dopey comments or grow a thicker skin. Otherwise, do us a favor and keep your promise this time. Jackass.
Roco,
“I have always said, progressives have rigged the educational system in this country to dumb down the populace.”
You said progressives have rigged the educational system in order to “dumb down” the populace. I was making a point that some people think it’s fundamentalist conservatives who have dumbed down/continue to try to dumb down the educational system. Many of those fundamentalist conservaties don’t want people who can think critically. They want people who are believers…people who will take things on faith.
Should we be teaching the youth of this country that the Earth and everything on it was created in six days? That the Earth is approximately six thousand years old?
Elaine, Gene, et al. Why are we wasting time on people whose opinions matter not at all? These people apparently get off on insults instead of dialogue. I do not have time for this. If their purpose is to make the Turley blog nearly unreadable, they are succeeding on that front.
And I cannot think of a single reason to take these moral and educational Luddites seriously enough to even bother to reply to them any more.
Elaine:
Now why do you think I would be for that? I have never once mentioned teaching creation. Personally I would teach the old dead white guys along with a good deal of math and science.
And it would not be taught in some disjointed manner but as an integrated whole.
Otteray,
Better to have a good fundamentalist conservative education that teaches creation science, that dinosaurs and humans co-existed, and that Phyllis Schlafly is an American heroine–than a progressive education.
😉
Roco,
Disingenuous? I’m not the one trying to use strawmen here, but if you want to think I’m disingenuous, then I’m really quite unconcerned.
Notice how GeneH studioulys avoids mentioning any specifics and explanations.
Otteray Scribe:
“I know, personally, some of the poster’s here who are from some of the top academic institutions in the country, if not the world. I value the exchange of ideas with them”
Then there is the problem with our country, too many top notch “intellects” from “top” academic institutions.
I have always said, progressives have rigged the educational system in this country to dumb down the populace. But it seems to have backfired, it has turned the “elite” into primitives.
Did you ever stop and wonder what happens to an intellect subjected to progressive educational philosophy? I think we are seeing the outcome right now. It is some scary stuff.
The first paragraph merely indicates that you have an inference problem and/or your strawman was deliberate.
Your second statement “‘Whether that difference is a sole causation or not is irrelevant to the correlation itself.’ What did you mean? What is the sole causation” indicates that you have a problem with the article “a” as well as the basic grammar of that sentence. You are the one asserting causation where I was asserting correlation.
“If there are other causal links, which is the one causal link you are referring to?” I’m referring to any causal links that might exist.
“Tell me which causal factor will remain. What will that factor cause?” This indicates that you don’t know what the word “contender” means. A contender is one that contends as in strives in debate.
You are quite clearly beyond help, kderosa.
I also find that watching you chase your own tale has simply become tedious.
Gene H:
““what if any other factors contribute to that process is a matter for further study”? ”
You are disingenuous and that is the bottom line.
Supposedly there is a scientific study which says child molesters and liberals have similar cellular structures in the parahippocampal gyrus.
It is the same sort of study, I could bring it up as “proof” of liberals being child molesters but it would be ridiculous to do so.
GeneH
The problem is that when you state “Then why do you two obsess over that very matter when I’ve clearly stated “what if any other factors contribute to that process is a matter for further study”?
You don’t know from the correlation that the factor you have listed, brain structure, is a cause of anything. As I explained to you the causation direction may be reversed: that political ideology causes the different brain structure or, and this is the kicker, there may be a third unknown variable(s) that cause both.
Your statement is clear. And you are clearly wrong.
GeneH,
so what did you mean by this statement “People with the different structures adopt the different ideologies.” What causes them to adopt the different ideologies? The different brain structures? Isn’t that what you characterize by a “causative factors”? That the factors cause something?
And when you said “Whether that difference is a sole causation or not is irrelevant to the correlation itself.” What did you mean? What is the sole causation.
And when you said “There may be other causal links to the acceptance of the differing ideologies, but absent proof additional or supervening causations …”
If there are other causal links, which is the one causal link you are referring to?
And when you said, “or there is a falsification of Kanai’s results, take a wild guess at what the leading causal contender will remain?” Tell me which causal factor will remain. What will that factor cause?
Please, help me, GeneH, you are so much better at understanding English than I am. Please, use small words and simple phrases so that I might understand your wisdom.
Roco,
“And to think that political orientation is predicated on two structures within the brain is to have no brain.”
Then why do you two obsess over that very matter when I’ve clearly stated “what if any other factors contribute to that process is a matter for further study”?
Not that watching you two chase your own tails isn’t sort of fun, It’s much like watching a dog chase its own tail though. The amusement factor wears off quickly.
Any “reading in” is entirely yours, kderosa. You are the one making the inference that I said “correlation is causation” when what I plainly said was “correlation is correlation”. Inference was required for you to attempt your strawman. The correlation indicates that people with these differing structures do indeed adopt different ideologies. If you have an issue with that, it is with Dr. Kanai. Why that correlation is so is a matter for further study, as I’ve already said. That you have a problem with improper inference comports to your general problems understanding English or perhaps your desire to use strawmen for some other purpose. It’s just another item to add to the list of why you shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Gene H:
“I never said there were no other causative factors. I said the structural differences were A causative factor and that until other factors are identified and quantified it will remain the leading causative factor as the others have not been identified and/or quantified yet.”
Not to belabor the obvious but if there are other causative factors then the initial causative factor is not a causative factor until all of the information is made available. At this point Kanai’s work is a hypothesis in need of proof.
So there is no initial causative factor because at this point we do not know what the causative factor(s) is/are if all the information is not yet available.
And to think that political orientation is predicated on two structures within the brain is to have no brain.
Fascinating, I guess Kanai knew where the grant money was coming from and that it would be coming in fast and furiously with research like this.
No wonder government science is an oxymoron.
I have added the Merriam Webster definition of oxymoron so you do not have to waste your “valuable” time looking it up.
Definition of OXYMORON
: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements
@GeneH
Here’s where you said it:
“People with the different structures adopt the different ideologies.”
Your premise is that people with different [brain] structures cause them to adopt different different ideologies”
So you took the correlation and read in a causation. A causation that does not follow from the mere correlation because there are other equally plausible explanations which is what my second point was trying to get you to recognize. Or maybe you do recognize the distinction and that’s the reason why you continue to evade answering my second point.
It’s funny that you don’t even realize the implications of your own words.
kderosa,
I’m sorry, but the only broken record here is you. I should also point out it’s not a matter of winning or losing. It’s a matter of you not speaking English. You have yet to win any argument that I’ve read.
“Not knowing all the causal factors does not eliminate correlation. Many events have multiple causations. That not all of them may be known simply means all the causal factors may not be known. That the correlation between the brain structure differences and self-identifying political ideology exists is without dispute. It has been independently verified through repeat experimentation. People with the different structures adopt the different ideologies. To what degree they adopt those ideologies and what if any other factors contribute to that process is a matter for further study. The fact is that unless a study falsifies the work of Kanai instead of confirming it as has happened, the correlation stands.”
The premise you tried to insert into my statements (a strawman) was that I said correlation was causation when what I said was correlation was correlation. Your English comprehension problems are a valid defense when you clearly don’t understand the words you read. That your language difficulties are compounded by your committing a logical fallacy is simply an aggravating factor and your problem. Just between you and me, I don’t take anything you say seriously including your suggestions.
@OS
And yet you keep coming back for more. It’s like an obsession with you. You say you don’t care, but your actions demonstrate you care very much. You are clearly fawning over my every word in the background. Analyzing and Googling phrases for any hope of finding some flaw. And yet all you can ever pull out of your ass are typos, trumped up charges, and unsupported accusations. It must kill you. A smart guy like you, what with your fancy credentials and all, not being able to raise and defend any substantive points. I bet the false dilemma mistake really sticks in the craw. Between me and you, we know your ” You demonstrate once again your struggle with the English language” is a typical non-defense defense.
@GeneH
You are like a broken record.
Clearly, you don’t understand my first point.
Why did you skip the main argument of my second point entirely? The point where I explained to you that in this experiment you can’t know the direction of causation and you can’t eliminate other unknown variables.
Also, show me where I inserted a premise in your argument, such that it is. You are very good at hurling unfounded accusations, not so good at supporting them.
Also, you showed me re answering my questions. Better to lose the argument than to comply with an opponent’s request. Good or you.
I recommend this up thread and I’ll recommend it again. You are making yourself look silly.Just call me a liar and declare victory for yourself like you usually do. Why keep coming back and repeating the same old wrong arguments?
K, that was funny. You demonstrate once again your struggle with the English language. Common usage strikes the cad once again. To make it simple for you, let me put it this way and see if you can explain why I SHOULD care what you and your enablers think. You are rude, a serial plagiarist, and having analyzed your sentence structure (when not copying someone else’s work) is sophomoric, ethically and morally challenged, greedy (one of the seven deadly sins), and have no idea of the correct meaning of many of the words you throw around.
As I said, I do not feel compelled to respond to every brain fart you have, nor do I give a rat’s ass what you think. I know, personally, some of the poster’s here who are from some of the top academic institutions in the country, if not the world. I value the exchange of ideas with them. As for you and your fellow internet trolls, I have no interest in your pixel vomit.