Saturday, August 08, 2015
New and Improved Jonathan Haidt
I have been a big fan of Haidt's truly original research for years, but have had two large objections. Apparently I'm not the only one, because Haidt has co-authored a paper based on challenges to his ideas. Megan McArdle sums it up better than I could, and gives better examples.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I find the conclusion that McArdle states at one point ".. they find liberals arguing from a broader range of moral foundations than Haidt's work initially suggested .." is at least somewhat contradicted by her ending conclusion that liberals "It may not be so much that liberals don't care about sanctity, authority, and so forth, as that they are culturally encouraged not to admit that they do." If you can't (or won't) recognize when you are reasoning on those additional axis of morality, and persistently claim that all your actions are based on 'scientific evidence', can you really be said to be using them in your reasoning? Having a full set of Craftsman wrenches does me no good if I persist in attempting to use a hammer to pound a screw in to a board. She admits as much at the end - "Coming at someone with utilitarian math when the problem is actually that you've desecrated their sacred space is a recipe for bitter and unresolvable conflict...".
I've read and liked Megan McArdle for years, but I thought this was one of her weaker articles. I wondered if she had a word limit or something. I'd like to read your take.
Post a Comment