In my opinion, unverifiable unfortunately, you don’t know enough then.

And many Libertarians (especially those that hang around Reason) often times have the same elitism problem as the Left because neither understands why all the chuckleheads consistently vote against their so-called best interests (as defined by them). Both believe they have arrived at their beliefs because of their high intelligence.

As Reagan so eloquently put it although it applies to Libertarians as well, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

No, I think being able to speak without inserting a second foot into her mouth might be a more apt measurement of that area.

And, as someone who appreciates women, I grasp that dealing with a squabbling pack of kids, as well as a squabbling pack of government officials, might grant more indoctrination into those skills than you are granting, based on a presumption that experience can only come from one source.

“Equal”? maybe not. But I’ll trust her to cut to the chase a lot more correctly than a two-bit political hack with nothing more at interest than his own political survival. And she’s the VEEP, not the PotUS — she’s got time to learn and earn her chops in that regard… unlike the guy on the other side, whose absolute lack of experience is not going to have any sort of learning curve associated with it. If elected, he’s going to start out screwing up, and we’re going to bear the brunt of that.

Mark my words:
Obama gets elected, he will be the worst PotUS since Jimmy Carter (worse, even), and will utterly and completely screw up not just the economy, but also foreign policy as well.

There will be multiple large-scale terrorist attacks on US soil, with a confused, unfocused, and dithering response, which will be utterly ineffective in deterring any subsequent attacks.

The economy will tank to the worst it’s been since the Depression.

And the USA will be regarded as the paper tiger we were in the 1970s.

Obama will not last more than four years, and the stench of his performance will dog blacks with political aspirations for decades to come.

And you can BANK on that.

No problems, Sean.

If you need more help, feel free to ask.

I’m sure we can help you figure out the nature of your problems with being an elitist boob with a massive superiority complex which confuses the value of intellect with the value of wisdom, something which, in most of our experiences, I suspect, is the main thing the left lacks in just about any form at all.

Along with this notion that superior intellect gives special dispensation to lead, this lack of wisdom is certainly hand-in-hand with some of the greatest problems this country faces.

Glad to know we could help you begin to grasp this.

.

Where the hell are you working that you’re encountering engineers and programmers who are on the left?

Programmers are more uniformly libertarian than any other profession I’m aware of — and engineers, with their own experiences keeping them grounded in the real world, almost never veer leftward.

The engineering types, I grant, have a tendency towards a measure of elitism — they focus too much on what R.M.Persig described as “Classical” thinking, and fail to grasp that some problems are inherently Zen/Romantic. Thus they discount those on the Left in particular, who tend too much towards the Zen/Romantic approach just as the engineering type go for Classical thought. Both tend to be wrong — but engineers are more likely to just say you’re a fool than to try and actually order you around.

Boy are they dicks.

Major, grade-A, unrequited and unrepentant dicks.

We may see it as a mark of elitism that liberals are so completely unaccepting of the possibility that the thoughts and, indeed, the very thought processes, of others are worthy of consideration, or at least respect, unless they arrive at the same conclusions as their own.

Conversely, we view an ability to acknowledge the ideas and values of others as having, at least, the merit that should be granted to anything that is a product of the rational intellectual effort of other human beings as a mark of maturity, of open-mindedness, of sufficient ego-security to leave our own intellectual product dangling while reviewing conflicting product fairly.

But we’ve been wrong all this time.

My friends have explained that, while as a rule one should be open to other ideas, the rule does not extend to the product of conservative thought, because conservative thought is just stupid.

(Actually, the first conversation involved the role of religion in governance. My two protagonists were, like me, atheists. To them, any “imposition of religious morality” was idiotic, as there is no god, and the rules that men made up and ascribed to a god were stupid, arbitrary, and, to the extent they had purpose, that purpose was merely to empower the rulemakers.

I pointed out that I, like them, did not believe that any god existed, but that an awfully long list of brilliant and accomplished thinkers throughout history seemed to very strongly disagree with me, and it would be egoism at its extremes for me to write off religious belief to dumb superstition and wishful thinking, since my evidence was no stronger than theirs.

No, my friends told me, that was simply dumb of me – you know what’s right, they said, don’t let all of those brilliant fools dissuade you.

Which told me, right there, much about their views. Maybe children SHOULDN’T be told that they’re just as good as everyone else. Possibly they should be encouraged to PROVE they are, but . . .)

“A psychological one might focus on how academia selects strongly against those who do not question the status quo or are comfortable with commonly accepted explanations.”

Shirley, you can’t be serious. There is no institution in contemporary American society that less often questions its own status quo or is more comfortable with commonly accepted explanations than academia. I’d be tempted to attribute this to Boomer difficulty in coming to terms with their own hegemony, and the aging that implies, if the same were not true for most academies throughout history. It’s an institution reactionary by nature.

Everyone knows what’s PC. Academics have no clue where the dissent actually comes from. Who’s the more curious?

“Isiah Berlin has a great essay on this called ‘The Sense of Reality.’”

From another one:

“Injustice, poverty, slavery, ignorance – these may be cured by reform or revolution. But men do not live only by fighting evils. They live by positive goals, individual and collective, a vast variety of them, seldom predictable, at times incompatible.”

- Two Concepts of Liberty, Isaiah Berlin

The positive rights agenda of the contemporary collectivist left and its Democratic Party is exactly at odds with Berlin. Try again.

While this would be an ironic inversion of the party names, I don’t believe it is accurate in the latter case. McCain/Palin are saying “Look at our record of stopping those who would take decisions away from you, whether out of a misguided superiority or old-fashioned corruption. We want to remove the barriers to your making your own decisions about your own lives. On those decisions only a President can make, we have an extraordinary record of putting the state/country above faction.”

The problem, of course, was most acute among those who were actually the most intelligent growing up, but their risk-averse behavior ended up stunting their growth (especially in wisdom, which depends more upon experience than knowledge does), while those who were not so reinforced as students actually ended up taking more risks and thus learning more in their 20’s and 30’s than the star students, catching up and in some cases surpassing them, especially in wisdom.

It’s this disconnect between the hares and the tortoises that accounts for the phenomenon you describe.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on your first few points. Although both of believe there are objective indicia of our correctness, there isn’t a basis for discussion of such general points are “Leftist political theory in general is nothing but criticism of traditional beliefs of all forms.” I can say that “Milton Friedman is a fried green elf.” That doesn’t make it true. Without some common ground, we’re just talking past each other.

>>Children tend to be leftist because leftism presents simply, immediate solutions to complex problems. Of more interest is the breakdown in political orientation among academics based on self-reporting. In the humanities, studies report that 80-90% of professors report themselves left of center and often very left of center. In engineering, sciences and business the orientations tends to be closer to 50-50%. Clearly, in fields in which objective standards exist, there is greater ideological diversity.

That is interesting. There are many possible explanations as to why academics tend to be left-wing in the United States. A historical one is our long tradition of anti-intellectualism. A psychological one might focus on how academia selects strongly against those who do not question the status quo or are comfortable with commonly accepted explanations. A pragmatic one is that only people who are unconcerned about financial success go in academia, and this self-selection favors liberals.

I’m not sure the explanation that you favor is the most compelling. For example, mainstream (model-based, not behavioral) economics has objective standards based on the mathematical rigor of the models (outside of their somewhat weak predictive power); that does not prevent most academic economists from being politically liberal despite the best efforts of the Chicago school.

I have noticed that engineers do tend to be sympathetic to conservative ideologies; note, for example, that engineers are way overrepresented among Islamic radicals in Egypt and the Middle East. Personally, I relate this to the way an engineering education teaches you to think about the world – construct a logical and coherent model, be suspicious of ambiguity and what you don’t understand, look for an overriding principle with explanatory power, only trust what you can measure. This approach works well for the natural world but tends to be a poor fit for human behavior.

Conversely, fields like liberal arts or the law might encourage “mushy” thinking to some degree – I’ve certainly run across and occasionally produced my fair share – but also encourage humility in the face of the irreducible complexity of the world we live in, something I think Ginny captured well in her post above. Again, this is something that took me years to realize; my first reaction is always to measure and then look at the data. But that approach isn’t a great fit for human institutions or political issues. Isiah Berlin has a great essay on this called “The Sense of Reality.”

p.s. I disagree that children tend to be leftist. In my experience, they tend naturally to be individualists (or crony capitalists) i.e. “I want as much as possible for myself, that most excellent and deserving person, and (maybe) for my friends.” They need to be taught to share and to consider the welfare of others; this doesn’t happen without good parenting.

What I do claim is that learning, knowledge and experience do make a difference in the real world.

What you should be asking as an engineer is how do we measure learning, knowledge or experience in political matters.

I would point out that during the 30’s and 40’s Harvard, Yale and the rest of the ivy league pumped out thousands of dues paying members of the Joseph Stalin fan club and many more fellow travelers. Truman, on the other hand, had a high school education and failed in small business. Of the two, who had the more realistic model of Soviet behavior?

Being able to see Russia does not endow Palin with the same foreign policy skills as Biden.

How would you know that you’re wrong in this assertion? You can’t ever know and that is the problem. It is pointless to say that person A is better at foreign policy than person B. Historically, there is no correlation between education or time in institutions (such as the senate) and making correct foreign policy decisions (as judged by history).

The one thing I can say about leftists, or at least the ones I know, is that we don’t presume to tell conservatives what their beliefs are.

Leftist political theory in general is nothing but criticism of traditional beliefs of all forms. Leftist dissect everything from economic theory to religion in order to show how everyone but leftist are nuts. See the vast body of Marxist literature for a massive example.

I, personally, am very interested in political cognition i.e. understanding why person A believes in one ideology and why person B believes in another. I am creating models of cognition inferred from recurrent patterns in many political context.

Leftist are elitist. The idea that a relatively small number of very smart people should make decisions for everyone lays at the core of virtually every leftist political idea. Their default solution to every problem (except those dealing with sex) is to remove the legal authority to decide from individuals and to invest that authority in the state.

Again, don’t be so quick to make judgments about others.

It’s not a quick judgment but rather the fruits of nearly 20 years of thinking about the problem of political cognition.

Frankly the one thing an elite education has given me is self-confidence.

Again, an engineer is different than someone educated in the humanities. In the humanities, self-confidence usually just equals hubris because they deal in matters in which one person’s opinion is just as good as another’s i.e. they have the same predictive value.

He may not have cared for Aristotle, but then he was destined to be a scientist, not a classicist or philosopher

In Newton’s day, no such distinction existed. The term “scientist” was not coined until the 1840’s and in Newton’s youth even the term “natural philosopher” did not exist. Newton never went to class and neglected his classics studies. He was mocked for doing experiments instead of debating the classic. The story of the birth of science is the story of the empiricist versus the rationalist.

The same dichotomy exist today. The humanities uses the same basic intellectual techniques that their intellectual ancestors used in the pre-scientific era.

There isn’t any “indoctrination” going on though, they’re overrepresented in the incoming student body. I’m not sure why.

Children tend to be leftist because leftism presents simply, immediate solutions to complex problems. Of more interest is the breakdown in political orientation among academics based on self-reporting. In the humanities, studies report that 80-90% of professors report themselves left of center and often very left of center. In engineering, sciences and business the orientations tends to be closer to 50-50%. Clearly, in fields in which objective standards exist, there is greater ideological diversity.

Frankly, unless you’ve spent a lot of time studying this matter, these patterns I lay out may not be readily apparent to you.

What a load of unwarranted hogwash. A quick perusal of the biggest lefty blogs contradicts your statements so utterly that it’s astonishing you would even put forth such an assertion. Leftists who make this claim are reality-based the same way Velveeta is cheese-based.

“I do think you should be less eager to ascribe negative attributes, such as a sense of superiority, to those whose political views differ from your own. As a practical matter, it is both easy and tempting to do so — and, quite often, incorrect. As a moral matter, check for the the mote in your own eye. See, also, the psychological definition of “projection.””

That’s pretty audacious coming from someone whose first response to the assertions made was the intellectual equivalent of a middle-school taunt, without anything of substance in the way of refutation.

“Frankly the one thing an elite education has given me is self-confidence. I’m less likely to be impressed with credentials and more likely to look at the individual.”

Is this why your initial response focused solely on your academic achievements and not your inidividual qualities?

What that man gets away with…

>> So your elite law school education gives you a better knowledge of say, climatology, than I who was educated as a biologist at a state school? I don’t think so. In my experience, my scientific knowledge, minor though it is compared to actual scientist, dwarfs that of even the most “well educated” in the humanities.

I make no claims to any expertise in climatology beyond being able to spell the word. I’m not sure of the extent of your scientific knowledge; I know very little biology but, as a former engineer, have a reasonably good foundation in mathematics and physics. What I do claim is that learning, knowledge and experience do make a difference in the real world. Being able to see Russia does not endow Palin with the same foreign policy skills as Biden.

>> Leftist believe themselves, individually and collectively, globally superior to the rest of humanity in all things. Leftist with advanced degrees in, say critical theory, >>who can barely add nevertheless think they understand how high finance or the petroleum industry works to the degree that they can decree how to politically manage them.

The one thing I can say about leftists, or at least the ones I know, is that we don’t presume to tell conservatives what their beliefs are. History has shown that sweeping assumptions about other people that are not grounded in empirical data generally turn out to be wrong. Also, we make no claims to be telepaths and even less do we put words in other people’s mouths. Instead, we try to be part of the reality-based community. Reality is often uncomfortable and challenging, but experience has shown that ideology is an inferior substitute.

>>In the end, education and “ability” do not matter. Only accomplishments matter. You think that we should listen and obey you because you’ve performed certain rituals. We >>think we should listened to you because you’ve actually done something worth while. After all, look at all those drones of rich families that got into the Ivy League with >>legacies. Are we supposed to kowtow to their brilliance because they have a sheet of paper from a college with a good reputation?

Actually, education and ability do matter. They tend to enable accomplishments for those of us who are not especially lucky or are not geniuses. I don’t think you should “listen” or “obey” me at all – least of all because of my credentials. I do think you should be less eager to ascribe negative attributes, such as a sense of superiority, to those whose political views differ from your own. As a practical matter, it is both easy and tempting to do so — and, quite often, incorrect. As a moral matter, check for the the mote in your own eye. See, also, the psychological definition of “projection.”

>>Having an “elite” education just means you’ve been indoctrinated in the self-serving world view of elite du jure. Back in the mid-1600’s people with elite educations >>prattled about Aristotle while mocking those who actually tried to understand nature with experimentation. I think we have the same social dynamic working today.

Again, don’t be so quick to make judgments about others. Frankly the one thing an elite education has given me is self-confidence. I’m less likely to be impressed with credentials and more likely to look at the individual. Also, I don’t particularly care about whether other people feel superior to me or not – I only care about, in the case where they might, whether the feeling is justified.

Your analogy to the mid-1600’s doesn’t work. Are you saying that, for example, that Newton did not have an “elite” education? He was the top student at his prep school and then went to Cambridge. He may not have cared for Aristotle, but then he was destined to be a scientist, not a classicist or philosopher. If you mean that liberals are overrepresented at elite schools, you are correct, at least in my experience. There isn’t any “indoctrination” going on though, they’re overrepresented in the incoming student body. I’m not sure why.

>> Rule of thumb: The more difficult it is to know with certainty when someone is wrong, the more nebulous the definition of their accomplishments becomes.

I agree with the sentiment. Having said that, neither their accomplishments nor the definition of their accomplishments become *nebulous* (usually defined as: lacking definite form or limits) – they just become less *certain*. (BTW this bit of pedantry does not, in any way, make me feel superior; I just like to quibble about words given half a chance!)

1) excellent quote by Feynman…I am curious about his other writings… know of any?

Most of his stories come form his two autobiographical works, “Surely, you must be Joking, Mr. Feynman”and “What do you care what other people think?” Several of essays are available on line.

I am curious to hear how you define someone who is said to be accomplished.

Standards vary from field to field. Its pretty easy to tell objectively if a scientist or engineer is good but as you move away from technical fields it becomes progressively more difficult. One can define a business man a good if he makes money long term. A politician is good if the people keep re-electing him. A lawyer is good if he wins cases. Of course, in the latter three examples, people can fake it for years before being caught.

When you get to matters in humanities, accomplishment becomes utterly subjective and strictly a matter of convention and popularity within a field. In the academic humanities, accomplishments mean nothing more than reinforcing established consensus within a particular field.

Rule of thumb: The more difficult it is to know with certainty when someone is wrong, the more nebulous the definition of their accomplishments becomes.