3 ms·

First, let me just say that I do think this is inappropriate for Hacker News. That said, the article is ridiculous. Here, in a nutshell, is why... The author

First, let me just say that I do think this is inappropriate for Hacker News. That said, the article is ridiculous. Here, in a nutshell, is why... The author in his very first sentence disproves his own theory by saying... What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? The problem is, he bases his entire thesis on this misconception that any working class person who votes for a Republican is somehow voting "against their self interest" (which by the way shows how someone's own self interest can pervert a study if they let it) The truth is, since the advent of modern economic theory there have been two differing perspectives on how to create wealth. One side believes that it's best to give money to corporations who will then hire people which in turn creates more jobs and more wealth. The other is to give money to individuals who will buy more stuff forcing corporations to hire more people and hence create jobs and more wealth. These are both logical perspectives and the reason they persist is because neither can be conclusively disproven. With that fairly simple logical explanation Mr. Haidt's thesis goes down the tubes in it's entirety. Both of the above stated theories produce wealth for the working class if the theory is correct and hence neither is necessarily "against the best interest" of any class of people.

msie 18y ago
You should read the entire article. It appears you have stopped reading past the first sentence. The last piece by Roger Schank is BRILLIANT!!!
- TomOfTTB 18y ago
  I did read the whole article and I don't see anything that contradicts what I said. Do you have an actual concrete example of what it is you refer to?
  - hooande 18y ago
    http://awurl.com/duhUew7J2 http://awurl.com/duhUew7J2 You can click "Jump to Highlights" at the top if you don't feel like scrolling down.
    - TomOfTTB 18y ago
      OK, the points you highlighted don't really disprove what I said. His thesis is built around the idea that there must be an irrational reason for certain people to vote Republican. He then goes out in search of that reason and the bulk of the article is him pursuing that reason which he eventually deems to be a focus on moral concerns that Democrats ignore. But if his thesis was wrong from the outset (which is what I contend in my original comment) than the rest is just fruit of a poisonous tree. Because if “working class” people have a reason to rationally vote Republican than any argument he makes as to why they would irrationally vote Republican is, at best, incomplete and at worst completely wrong.
      - deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]
      - hooande 18y ago
        Perhaps we interpreted his point differently. It sure seemed to me, as evidenced by those highlighted sections above, to be: "We as liberals don't understand why people vote republican. A lot of us believe that they are voting against their economic interests because they are being mislead. In fact, they have a very different system of values than we do and we should learn to understand and respect it"
        TomOfTTB 18y ago
        Even there I think bias leads you to an inaccurate conclusion. I saw your original comment (don’t know why you changed it there didn’t seem to be anything wrong with it) and for the record I did click on the links and took some of the quizzes (there were a lot). But again I think his bias prevented him from formulating questions that delivered anything but what he wanted to see (which in turn leads to his focus on values in the first place) The quizzes I took focused not on values but on the root of values which is largely irrelevant. So when he asked whether people “think God would approve” as a reason for holding a certain value he’s trying to target what he perceives to be irrational reasons for values rather than looking at the values themselves. The truth is that most actual values are shared between both Republicans and Democrats. Take Gun Control. One side believes we shouldn’t put restrictions on guns because it gives honest people a way to defend themselves while the other believes we should limit gun ownership to keep those guns out of the hands of people who would abuse them. The value behind each position is “to have a society with less violence” the disagreement is just in how to achieve the value. So the conclusion he comes up with (that conservatives have a different set of values) is an inaccurate one generated by biased process.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
natrius 18y ago
Far more people vote based on issues of morality and values than vote on the nuances of progressive taxation. The author doesn't address your issue because in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.
- TomOfTTB 18y ago
  Well, two things. First, that isn't what the author said (which is why I quoted him) and second, I don't know for a fact that more people vote on morality without some scientific evidence to prove it. That is my point. The author went in with a pre-defined bias which it turn corrupts his conclusion.

msie 18y ago

You should read the entire article. It appears you have stopped reading past the first sentence. The last piece by Roger Schank is BRILLIANT!!!

TomOfTTB 18y ago
I did read the whole article and I don't see anything that contradicts what I said. Do you have an actual concrete example of what it is you refer to?
- hooande 18y ago
  http://awurl.com/duhUew7J2 http://awurl.com/duhUew7J2 You can click "Jump to Highlights" at the top if you don't feel like scrolling down.
  - TomOfTTB 18y ago
    OK, the points you highlighted don't really disprove what I said. His thesis is built around the idea that there must be an irrational reason for certain people to vote Republican. He then goes out in search of that reason and the bulk of the article is him pursuing that reason which he eventually deems to be a focus on moral concerns that Democrats ignore. But if his thesis was wrong from the outset (which is what I contend in my original comment) than the rest is just fruit of a poisonous tree. Because if “working class” people have a reason to rationally vote Republican than any argument he makes as to why they would irrationally vote Republican is, at best, incomplete and at worst completely wrong.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
    - hooande 18y ago
      Perhaps we interpreted his point differently. It sure seemed to me, as evidenced by those highlighted sections above, to be: "We as liberals don't understand why people vote republican. A lot of us believe that they are voting against their economic interests because they are being mislead. In fact, they have a very different system of values than we do and we should learn to understand and respect it"
      - TomOfTTB 18y ago
        Even there I think bias leads you to an inaccurate conclusion. I saw your original comment (don’t know why you changed it there didn’t seem to be anything wrong with it) and for the record I did click on the links and took some of the quizzes (there were a lot). But again I think his bias prevented him from formulating questions that delivered anything but what he wanted to see (which in turn leads to his focus on values in the first place) The quizzes I took focused not on values but on the root of values which is largely irrelevant. So when he asked whether people “think God would approve” as a reason for holding a certain value he’s trying to target what he perceives to be irrational reasons for values rather than looking at the values themselves. The truth is that most actual values are shared between both Republicans and Democrats. Take Gun Control. One side believes we shouldn’t put restrictions on guns because it gives honest people a way to defend themselves while the other believes we should limit gun ownership to keep those guns out of the hands of people who would abuse them. The value behind each position is “to have a society with less violence” the disagreement is just in how to achieve the value. So the conclusion he comes up with (that conservatives have a different set of values) is an inaccurate one generated by biased process.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

natrius 18y ago

Far more people vote based on issues of morality and values than vote on the nuances of progressive taxation. The author doesn't address your issue because in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.

TomOfTTB 18y ago
Well, two things. First, that isn't what the author said (which is why I quoted him) and second, I don't know for a fact that more people vote on morality without some scientific evidence to prove it. That is my point. The author went in with a pre-defined bias which it turn corrupts his conclusion.