Telelogical constructs are not from Greece. This idealist mindset originates in eastern language and is fundamental to the worldview of the east in many respects.
Uh… The oposite of materialism is idealism. Instead of having a material world which exists independent of thought, the world is created by thought.
Even modern physics has instances of idealism. The Copenhagen interpretation (hah!) of quantum mechanics says the mere act of measurement causes a calculated set of probabilities to collapse to the measured value. The mere act of observing something is enough to influence an outcome. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes from this line of thought. Hence Einstein’s snide remark of: “Do you really think the moon isn’t there if you aren’t looking at it?”
I have to disagree with den Beste. The problem is that teleology ultimately is merely that there’s a fundamental, absolute purpose to the universe. The other baggage he ascribes to this philosophy just doesn’t have anything to do with that. That isn’t in contradiction with materialism. A combination of the two would just mean that the fundamental purpose of the universe can be known in ways consistent with materialism. For an example of a material purpose, consider a computer program as it exists inside a computer. It is the intent of the programmer imprinted on matter.
A glance at Wikipedia came up with a more natural name, Idealism, which so happens to be precisely the philosophy that “the ultimate nature of reality is based on mind or ideas”.
Moving on, none of these philosophies imply, as far as I can tell, the symptoms that den Beste describes:
It’s because teleologists believe that human thought truly affects things. Of course it does; thought precedes action, and actions change history, right? Yeah, but that’s not the point. Teleologists believe that thought directly affects things. The mere act of thinking about something and wanting it a lot directly changes reality, even if the thought doesn’t get translated into action.
My view is that this isn’t a philosophy, but rather a mental coping mechanism being vastly misapplied. Remember the stories about ancient peoples and solar eclipses? Apparently some cultures saw an eclipse as some celestial foe “eating” the Sun. The solution then was to do something (make noise, pray, etc) to drive away the foe. Here was this great thing beyond the power of humans to cause or control. So the idea was to act, even if there’s no conceivable reason a bunch of noise makers or a pile of prayers could scare off anything that could eat the Sun. Just the ability to do something provided a release for fear that could otherwise go to more destructive ends.
I think a lot of modern idealists fall in this category. They aren’t proposing these ideals because they believe their want shapes the world. Instead, I think it’s because they’re inherently powerless in some way, say because they can’t understand the complexities of modern civilization. The establishment of idealistic goals is an act of defiance, a confirmation that they have some sort of power.
For example, if they’re afraid of losing their job, then attempting to implement laws forcing employers to keep their workers is a way to assuage that fear. Fear of dying? Health care reform. Afraid that society will end in a massive nuclear war? “Imagine World Peace”. All the bad things that you can’t control (real or imagined), will be controlled by government.
In my view, it’s a mistake to categorize these sorts of beliefs as philosophies. They are simply mostly irrational behaviors.
“I think it’s because they’re inherently powerless in some way, say because they can’t understand the complexities of modern civilization. The establishment of idealistic goals is an act of defiance, a confirmation that they have some sort of power.”
I believe in psychology this is referred to as compartmentalization. Segment an ideal into parts. Strip away the stuff one doesn’t understand. Amalgamate the the recognizable parts into a new construct and bake at 350 for 45 minutes.
“If you unclench your fist and hold out your hand, everyone else will unclench their fists, and become your friends.”
I learned from last week’s episode of Heroes that unclenching your fist sometimes means that the other guy will plant a loaded nail gun in it.
One of the Great Myths of the Left is the assumption that humans are basically good. This is why their foreign and economic policies implode. They think Palestinians want peace. Most of them want to conquer the Jews. They think Mahmoud Ahminanukejihad wants peace; he wants Iran to be the Middle East’s regional superpower (and perhaps wants to take over at least the Shiite portions of Iraq).
They think perpetual welfare statism is possible; they do not see how such systems bleed producers dry and encourages many to be sponges instead of producers. They buy into the B. F. Skinner-inspired notion that humans can be made perfectible through social engineering. (Anyone remember that ST:TNG episode where Picard said that humans no longer chase after wealth?)
If humans are not inherently good, what are we then? We’re basically motivated to pursue wants, stuff we think will enrich us. Palestinians don’t think they get anything out of letting Israelis having a state, so they have to reason to want it. Bernie Madoff and people who defraud Medicare don’t care about their marks; it is the self that ultimately matters.
It would have been great if den Beste understood the meaning of the word “teleology”, but I guess he didn’t want to get bogged down in details. Instead we got a treatise on why the Left is Wrong and the Right is Right, referring for authority to the obvious wisdom of Ancient Greek Philosophy.
The piece also didn’t account for the “Religious Right”, the tendency for engineers to consider themselves conservatives (and to be highly religious) and for scientists and mathematicians to consider themselves liberals. The Right often complains loudly of the Left’s high proportion of atheists; I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of an atheist conservative. The Right often has a tendency to talk about a set of Principles; the Left also has its Principles, the intersection of the two being the empty set.
Both sides accuse the other of being overly emotional and underly analytical in different ways. Each side will cut off its own nose to serve its own Principles and to spite the other side’s Delusions. The tendency to make absolutely illogical, non-pragmatic decisions based on loosely Principle-based rationalizations is not unique to either side. The Right is often better at organizing itself, probably through the virtue of church groups; the Left tends to get bogged down in philosophical discussions which lead to its dismemberment at the polls. Lately the Right has become confused with the dichotomy between good conservative pragmatism and the values its most recent base holds most dear.
There does seem to be an annoying tendency on both sides of politics to consider themselves firmly rooted in reality and the other side to be completely dreaming. Either side likes to talk at length about how the other side’s policies will fail miserably because of the other side’s perceived insanity/illogic/idiocy/lack of Principles. Both sides like to consider themselves Exclusive Conservators of Sacred Truths. The phrase “Bleeding Hearts” seems to be the exclusive criticism of Christians for those who care too much for the poor or disadvantaged, an obvious violation of the Christian Principles of hard work and responsibility.
But then, from my own experience, it’s always been that way. If you’re on the Left, it’s genetically selective for people to reflexively line up on two sides and spit at one another. If you’re on the Right, God made us that way for His own Unquestionable Purposes.
Dave Klingler said: The Right often complains loudly of the Left’s high proportion of atheists; I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of an atheist conservative.
Well, I’m definitely atheist, and I’m pretty conservative (a small-l libertarian mostly), and an engineer to boot…
In his marvelous book The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker spends significant time discussing Thomas Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. The basic idea is that most humans fall into two camps: the Utopian Vision, which is really what den Beste means by his misuse of “teleological” (exemplars: GB Shaw, RFK), and the Tragic Vision, which is similar to what den Beste identifies as “materialism” (exemplars: Hayek, Hobbes). I prefer Sowell’s and Pinker’s terminology myself. Regardless of terminology, there does seem to be something in human nature that bends a given person toward one pole or the other, but Pinker points out that the Tragic Vision does seem to match the real world much better.
I would have described the distinction as between magicians and scientists. A magician and scientist both use tools, potions, complicated instruments to affect desired ends. The only real difference is that the magician believes his wishes, attitudes and beliefs affect the outcome. The scientist is certain they do not.
That is, the difference between Harry Potter and Mr. Spock is that Harry Potter’s blasting spell only works when he really, really wants it to, and thinks in the proper desperate lonely way of his long-dead father’s long-lost affection. By contrast, Mr. Spock’s phaser works (or doesn’t work) regardless of his frame of mind.
But another thing that’s very interesting here, to the scientist, is why so many people are magicians. If it really doesn’t work, the how could this mental handicap survive the brutal winnowing of natural selection over the past 50,000 years? Why, for example, wouldn’t primitive tribes among whom the tendency towards magical thinking was low prosper, displacing and out-competing tribes in which magical thinking abounded?
The answer must be that magical thinking is adaptive, somehow. It does work. But not in the real world, of course. Magical thinking builds no successful machines, develops no useful technology. Where it works is in the social world — in the world of social structures, and influence, and leadership. If you present a very compelling delusion of how the world ought to work, you can become, yourself, very personally successful. And if you cleverly move on from one con to the next, before the rubes catch on, you can build an entire and very successful career.
Scientific thinking is the only way to successfully live as a primary producer, a photosynthesizing organism, which takes light and air or iron ore and silicon and constructs the machinery and substances of a comfortable life. But magical thinking is a very successful way to live as a parasite, or secondary consumer, someone who siphons off his living from primary producers.
Not surprisingly, magical thinking is particularly detested by people who are primary producers. Unfortunately for them, the parasites specialize on hitting that magical (ha!) sweet spot where they siphon off as much blood as possible, but just barely not enough to induce the primary producer to say that’s IT, damnit!, down tools, and reach for the flyswatter. The ideal mosquito, they are, the precise length and diameter of their proboscis honed by ten thousand generations’ evolution.
Well, I’m definitely atheist, and I’m pretty conservative
Well, obviously you can’t be an authentic atheist if you’re conservative.
“The answer must be that magical thinking is adaptive, somehow. It does work. ”
One trial learning?
One of the things I cannot do is drink coffee, I just plain cannot choke it down. Even the smell of coffee is mildly nauseating.
My theory is that when I was a kid an had “stomach flu”, Mom gave me a coffee can “just in case.” Maybe I put my face at the top of the can when feeling really queezy and breathed in the rancid smell of old coffee in there. Perhaps I associate the aroma of coffee with the symptoms of stomach flu.
There is a strong adaptive feature of this kind of one-trial learning. If you ate some food that made you sick, you don’t want to even think of again eating that food. Ever. It is most likely poison.
This one-trial learning feature leads to superstition. I mean what just is superstition apart from attributing causation to correlation, or even causation to one-of coincidences? Hence magical thinking, QED.
I would have described the distinction as between magicians and scientists.
Coincidentally, I have referred to the current Treasury Secretary as “Tim the Enchanter.”
McGeeHee,
Kim du Toit is both an authentic atheist and conservative.
Yours,
Tom
The structured dichotomy you’re talking about can be simply, and most usefully, described as…conservatives and liberals. Conservatives tend to hang back and resist change. Liberals tend to run forward and discover new things. If not for liberals, conservatives would advance far less than is adequate for effective adaptation. If not for conservatives, liberals would probably all get themselves killed. The presence of both modes of thought leads to debate that both sides find frustrating, and yet that debate allows both proper caution and adequate forward progress.
“Magical thinking” is an entirely different mechanism, and it’s eminently adaptive. I wish I had more of the mechanism myself. I’d be off building spacecraft instead of posting on this forum.
My high school physics and chemistry teacher would make a good example. He had PhDs in both physics and physical chemistry, had been in on the discovery of three elements, received Presidential teaching awards every year, and was also a Catholic monk. He knew exactly why he was put on Earth, how his priorities lay, and where he would go when his life ended. He was one of several brilliant Catholic monks who taught me, and I have never met men who were kinder, more resilient or more productive.
The basis for his focus was magical thinking. In the past thirty years or so psychological researchers have determined that the human mind forms, as part of its cognitive process, a “cognitive narrative”. A cognitive narrative is a personal narrative to which one refers as a method of making and explaining decisions. “I’m really tough”, “I’m really smart”, “I don’t need anybody”, and “I’m a servant of God/Buddha/the spirits” are all important portions of one’s cognitive narrative. They allow one to think without rethinking every little question that comes along.
All large-brained social animals explain events using a personal “attribution style”, the complexity of which depends on the variety of factors like intelligence, childhood events and probably some neurotransmitters as well. Our attribution styles allow us to interpret outside events and react, thus adapting them to our cognitive narratives. People with pessimistic attribution styles (“it will never change”, “it’s my fault”, “reality bites”) tend to develop chronic depression. People whose attribution styles can attribute external events to forces which are either benign or benevolent don’t have that problem. Magical solutions to bad external stimuli are especially effective: “[A benevolent force] wants it this way, and therefore I can move through my life without giving it a whole lot of thought.”
The idea that “the Other Side thinks magically/wrongly/illogically/faithlessly/Evilly, but *I* am better connected to reality/forces of Good” is a component of a common cognitive narrative. The Other Side itself is a social construction that allows occasional natural selection through physical conflict and, at a lower adrenalin level, healthy debate.
If Sowell’s musings on Visions relate to AGW, they do so indirectly. The tragic-vs-utopian conflict revolves around assumptions regarding human psychology and sociology. AGW is something entirely different.
Why to Utopian Vision folks tend to jump on the AGW bandwagon? I believe it’s because they have planted one of their assumptions about human society into the natural world: the concept of class conflict. Class conflict sees the world divided into victim classes and oppressor classes. The only solution is victory over the oppressor classes.
The Utopians see “nature” as the victim class and humanity as the oppressor class. AGW hypothesis plays right into this mindset.
But if global warming is supposed to kill off 90 percent of humanity, is Paul Ehrlich losing any sleep over that? Or is he shopping for a bigger SUV?
Tom DeGisi, your sarcasm detector may need new batteries. 😉
Noble lies, Dave?
“If not for conservatives, liberals would probably all get themselves killed.”
.
.
If even HALF the conservatives I know, truly thought this was so, they’d be spend half of next month sending Acme Rocket Skates to all their liberal acquaintances, and spend the second half of the month getting out of the way.
.
.
The assumption plays out that rapid change is good and slow change is bad for you?
I don’t know any conservatives who are for no change ever. It’s just that they want to make small calculated steps to kill the beast du jour, and see if pinching it to make it move, is better than setting afire it’s fur to make it leave. Setting fires is a last step.
It seems to me, Liberals want to make huge, inaccurate, broad shots, pouring gasoline on it, set the thing afire, THEN clean up any concurrent fires, as they come when the beast du jour runs through town setting roofs on fire. And every problem MUST be solved at the federal level too. No one is as smart as someone who’s name includes Congressman or Senator in the title.
Conservatives hardly if ever think that way first. There are exceptions, McCain, Romney and some others who get called conservative come to mind, but they’re not really, they’re just Republicans.
It’s always a positive feed back system too, with liberals, regardless of the size or national importance of the beast du jour. They just as easily set fire to the sudden cold snap, expensive heating oil in MI, WI, SD “problem”, that is NOT part of everyone’s daily life nationally, as they do to ALL of the health care “problem”, which affects everyone everyday.
And no you don’t have to be sick to by concerned with health care, everyday, everyone is concerned everyday, or why don’t we just buy 12 days coverage per month?
It’s not, to me, a matter of (liberal) changers and 9conservative) stay puts, it’s a matter of speed, forethought and allowing the folks at home to decide for the folks at home. If the liberals are on the right track with their programs, ideas and the speed of change, why are their numbers so low with the folks at home?
Conservatives tend to hang back and resist change. Liberals tend to run forward and discover new things
Balls. That’s just the delusion the left tells itself to keep up its self-esteem after so many of its stupid attempts to legislate that water flow uphill crash and burn, taking down millions of hopes and dreams and 401k’s with them. Well, at least we were shooting for the Moon! If you don’t try, you can’t succeed! You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs! and other similar nostrums that the incompetent use to ease their conscience after spreading havoc and misery far and wide.
In fact the distinction is in the arena in which the two groups practise caution and experimentation. Your so-called “conservatives” are imaginative, optimistic, and daring in starting and running businesses, in technical inventions, in climbing mountains or flying spacecraft, or pursuing a woman. They’re cautious and careful in attempting to project their personal issues onto society as a whole, and argue society should change, instead of the individual. They’re cautious about throwing away the accumulated wisdom of generations past, and thinking I, only I, have recently discovered the Key To Happiness — just send me money and your vote, and everything will be wonderful.
By contrast your modern “liberal”, however grandiose his notions of redefining marriage or military service or academic merit, all the broad public themes, is unimaginative and uncreative in his approach to business and technology and family, all the small private themes. Not only are his ideas of social structure stuck in the 1970s, if not the 1870s, but he rarely starts profitable ventures, because he has a hard time imagining win-win solutions. To him, all social transaction is zero sum. I can only profit if someone else loses. Hence their preference for nonprofits, and for the con game of government, where you can talk yourself into believing that even though you reduce the quality of life of millions — by your regulation and staxes — you somehow in some ineffable unmeasureable way improve the life of millions more — by your glorious Copenhagen agreement, say, in which The Earth Is Saved by We Are The Ones We’ve Been Waiting For and other such smoke ‘n’ mirrors laser-lighted rock-opera Oprah spluff which can only be really appreciated under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs.
His personal life is often equally impoverished. He is often a single mother of one and only one child, because he can’t make a marriage work — too much plain compromise, not enough TInkerbell magic — and family and parenthood is too small an arena for his fantasy ambitions — not to mention the fact that successful parenting requires a humbling respect for the reality of the physical needs of children, and children are more resistant to adult narcissist dreams. Few children will eagerly give up a nice drive to the beach for an hour-long stand-up on the smelly bus, because it’s Saving The Environment. They’re practical that way. Drives your modern liberal nuts.
Which is just God’s way of solving the problem. Fortunately, with family sizes of 0.6 children per woman, they’re breeding themselves out of the species. Unfortunately, I suspect the DNA mutation that produces them must be very simple, because it recurs again and again.
McGehee,
Tom DeGisi, your sarcasm detector may need new batteries.
My sarcasm detector is the old model that mainly works off auditory cues. On the web, without sarcasm tags, it’s less reliable than American space launches just after Sputnik.
Telelogical constructs are not from Greece. This idealist mindset originates in eastern language and is fundamental to the worldview of the east in many respects.
Uh… The oposite of materialism is idealism. Instead of having a material world which exists independent of thought, the world is created by thought.
Even modern physics has instances of idealism. The Copenhagen interpretation (hah!) of quantum mechanics says the mere act of measurement causes a calculated set of probabilities to collapse to the measured value. The mere act of observing something is enough to influence an outcome. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes from this line of thought. Hence Einstein’s snide remark of: “Do you really think the moon isn’t there if you aren’t looking at it?”
I have to disagree with den Beste. The problem is that teleology ultimately is merely that there’s a fundamental, absolute purpose to the universe. The other baggage he ascribes to this philosophy just doesn’t have anything to do with that. That isn’t in contradiction with materialism. A combination of the two would just mean that the fundamental purpose of the universe can be known in ways consistent with materialism. For an example of a material purpose, consider a computer program as it exists inside a computer. It is the intent of the programmer imprinted on matter.
A glance at Wikipedia came up with a more natural name, Idealism, which so happens to be precisely the philosophy that “the ultimate nature of reality is based on mind or ideas”.
Moving on, none of these philosophies imply, as far as I can tell, the symptoms that den Beste describes:
My view is that this isn’t a philosophy, but rather a mental coping mechanism being vastly misapplied. Remember the stories about ancient peoples and solar eclipses? Apparently some cultures saw an eclipse as some celestial foe “eating” the Sun. The solution then was to do something (make noise, pray, etc) to drive away the foe. Here was this great thing beyond the power of humans to cause or control. So the idea was to act, even if there’s no conceivable reason a bunch of noise makers or a pile of prayers could scare off anything that could eat the Sun. Just the ability to do something provided a release for fear that could otherwise go to more destructive ends.
I think a lot of modern idealists fall in this category. They aren’t proposing these ideals because they believe their want shapes the world. Instead, I think it’s because they’re inherently powerless in some way, say because they can’t understand the complexities of modern civilization. The establishment of idealistic goals is an act of defiance, a confirmation that they have some sort of power.
For example, if they’re afraid of losing their job, then attempting to implement laws forcing employers to keep their workers is a way to assuage that fear. Fear of dying? Health care reform. Afraid that society will end in a massive nuclear war? “Imagine World Peace”. All the bad things that you can’t control (real or imagined), will be controlled by government.
In my view, it’s a mistake to categorize these sorts of beliefs as philosophies. They are simply mostly irrational behaviors.
“I think it’s because they’re inherently powerless in some way, say because they can’t understand the complexities of modern civilization. The establishment of idealistic goals is an act of defiance, a confirmation that they have some sort of power.”
I believe in psychology this is referred to as compartmentalization. Segment an ideal into parts. Strip away the stuff one doesn’t understand. Amalgamate the the recognizable parts into a new construct and bake at 350 for 45 minutes.
“If you unclench your fist and hold out your hand, everyone else will unclench their fists, and become your friends.”
I learned from last week’s episode of Heroes that unclenching your fist sometimes means that the other guy will plant a loaded nail gun in it.
One of the Great Myths of the Left is the assumption that humans are basically good. This is why their foreign and economic policies implode. They think Palestinians want peace. Most of them want to conquer the Jews. They think Mahmoud Ahminanukejihad wants peace; he wants Iran to be the Middle East’s regional superpower (and perhaps wants to take over at least the Shiite portions of Iraq).
They think perpetual welfare statism is possible; they do not see how such systems bleed producers dry and encourages many to be sponges instead of producers. They buy into the B. F. Skinner-inspired notion that humans can be made perfectible through social engineering. (Anyone remember that ST:TNG episode where Picard said that humans no longer chase after wealth?)
If humans are not inherently good, what are we then? We’re basically motivated to pursue wants, stuff we think will enrich us. Palestinians don’t think they get anything out of letting Israelis having a state, so they have to reason to want it. Bernie Madoff and people who defraud Medicare don’t care about their marks; it is the self that ultimately matters.
It would have been great if den Beste understood the meaning of the word “teleology”, but I guess he didn’t want to get bogged down in details. Instead we got a treatise on why the Left is Wrong and the Right is Right, referring for authority to the obvious wisdom of Ancient Greek Philosophy.
The piece also didn’t account for the “Religious Right”, the tendency for engineers to consider themselves conservatives (and to be highly religious) and for scientists and mathematicians to consider themselves liberals. The Right often complains loudly of the Left’s high proportion of atheists; I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of an atheist conservative. The Right often has a tendency to talk about a set of Principles; the Left also has its Principles, the intersection of the two being the empty set.
Both sides accuse the other of being overly emotional and underly analytical in different ways. Each side will cut off its own nose to serve its own Principles and to spite the other side’s Delusions. The tendency to make absolutely illogical, non-pragmatic decisions based on loosely Principle-based rationalizations is not unique to either side. The Right is often better at organizing itself, probably through the virtue of church groups; the Left tends to get bogged down in philosophical discussions which lead to its dismemberment at the polls. Lately the Right has become confused with the dichotomy between good conservative pragmatism and the values its most recent base holds most dear.
There does seem to be an annoying tendency on both sides of politics to consider themselves firmly rooted in reality and the other side to be completely dreaming. Either side likes to talk at length about how the other side’s policies will fail miserably because of the other side’s perceived insanity/illogic/idiocy/lack of Principles. Both sides like to consider themselves Exclusive Conservators of Sacred Truths. The phrase “Bleeding Hearts” seems to be the exclusive criticism of Christians for those who care too much for the poor or disadvantaged, an obvious violation of the Christian Principles of hard work and responsibility.
But then, from my own experience, it’s always been that way. If you’re on the Left, it’s genetically selective for people to reflexively line up on two sides and spit at one another. If you’re on the Right, God made us that way for His own Unquestionable Purposes.
Dave Klingler said: The Right often complains loudly of the Left’s high proportion of atheists; I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of an atheist conservative.
Well, I’m definitely atheist, and I’m pretty conservative (a small-l libertarian mostly), and an engineer to boot…
In his marvelous book The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker spends significant time discussing Thomas Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. The basic idea is that most humans fall into two camps: the Utopian Vision, which is really what den Beste means by his misuse of “teleological” (exemplars: GB Shaw, RFK), and the Tragic Vision, which is similar to what den Beste identifies as “materialism” (exemplars: Hayek, Hobbes). I prefer Sowell’s and Pinker’s terminology myself. Regardless of terminology, there does seem to be something in human nature that bends a given person toward one pole or the other, but Pinker points out that the Tragic Vision does seem to match the real world much better.
I would have described the distinction as between magicians and scientists. A magician and scientist both use tools, potions, complicated instruments to affect desired ends. The only real difference is that the magician believes his wishes, attitudes and beliefs affect the outcome. The scientist is certain they do not.
That is, the difference between Harry Potter and Mr. Spock is that Harry Potter’s blasting spell only works when he really, really wants it to, and thinks in the proper desperate lonely way of his long-dead father’s long-lost affection. By contrast, Mr. Spock’s phaser works (or doesn’t work) regardless of his frame of mind.
But another thing that’s very interesting here, to the scientist, is why so many people are magicians. If it really doesn’t work, the how could this mental handicap survive the brutal winnowing of natural selection over the past 50,000 years? Why, for example, wouldn’t primitive tribes among whom the tendency towards magical thinking was low prosper, displacing and out-competing tribes in which magical thinking abounded?
The answer must be that magical thinking is adaptive, somehow. It does work. But not in the real world, of course. Magical thinking builds no successful machines, develops no useful technology. Where it works is in the social world — in the world of social structures, and influence, and leadership. If you present a very compelling delusion of how the world ought to work, you can become, yourself, very personally successful. And if you cleverly move on from one con to the next, before the rubes catch on, you can build an entire and very successful career.
Scientific thinking is the only way to successfully live as a primary producer, a photosynthesizing organism, which takes light and air or iron ore and silicon and constructs the machinery and substances of a comfortable life. But magical thinking is a very successful way to live as a parasite, or secondary consumer, someone who siphons off his living from primary producers.
Not surprisingly, magical thinking is particularly detested by people who are primary producers. Unfortunately for them, the parasites specialize on hitting that magical (ha!) sweet spot where they siphon off as much blood as possible, but just barely not enough to induce the primary producer to say that’s IT, damnit!, down tools, and reach for the flyswatter. The ideal mosquito, they are, the precise length and diameter of their proboscis honed by ten thousand generations’ evolution.
Well, obviously you can’t be an authentic atheist if you’re conservative.
“The answer must be that magical thinking is adaptive, somehow. It does work. ”
One trial learning?
One of the things I cannot do is drink coffee, I just plain cannot choke it down. Even the smell of coffee is mildly nauseating.
My theory is that when I was a kid an had “stomach flu”, Mom gave me a coffee can “just in case.” Maybe I put my face at the top of the can when feeling really queezy and breathed in the rancid smell of old coffee in there. Perhaps I associate the aroma of coffee with the symptoms of stomach flu.
There is a strong adaptive feature of this kind of one-trial learning. If you ate some food that made you sick, you don’t want to even think of again eating that food. Ever. It is most likely poison.
This one-trial learning feature leads to superstition. I mean what just is superstition apart from attributing causation to correlation, or even causation to one-of coincidences? Hence magical thinking, QED.
I would have described the distinction as between magicians and scientists.
Coincidentally, I have referred to the current Treasury Secretary as “Tim the Enchanter.”
McGeeHee,
Kim du Toit is both an authentic atheist and conservative.
Yours,
Tom
The structured dichotomy you’re talking about can be simply, and most usefully, described as…conservatives and liberals. Conservatives tend to hang back and resist change. Liberals tend to run forward and discover new things. If not for liberals, conservatives would advance far less than is adequate for effective adaptation. If not for conservatives, liberals would probably all get themselves killed. The presence of both modes of thought leads to debate that both sides find frustrating, and yet that debate allows both proper caution and adequate forward progress.
“Magical thinking” is an entirely different mechanism, and it’s eminently adaptive. I wish I had more of the mechanism myself. I’d be off building spacecraft instead of posting on this forum.
My high school physics and chemistry teacher would make a good example. He had PhDs in both physics and physical chemistry, had been in on the discovery of three elements, received Presidential teaching awards every year, and was also a Catholic monk. He knew exactly why he was put on Earth, how his priorities lay, and where he would go when his life ended. He was one of several brilliant Catholic monks who taught me, and I have never met men who were kinder, more resilient or more productive.
The basis for his focus was magical thinking. In the past thirty years or so psychological researchers have determined that the human mind forms, as part of its cognitive process, a “cognitive narrative”. A cognitive narrative is a personal narrative to which one refers as a method of making and explaining decisions. “I’m really tough”, “I’m really smart”, “I don’t need anybody”, and “I’m a servant of God/Buddha/the spirits” are all important portions of one’s cognitive narrative. They allow one to think without rethinking every little question that comes along.
All large-brained social animals explain events using a personal “attribution style”, the complexity of which depends on the variety of factors like intelligence, childhood events and probably some neurotransmitters as well. Our attribution styles allow us to interpret outside events and react, thus adapting them to our cognitive narratives. People with pessimistic attribution styles (“it will never change”, “it’s my fault”, “reality bites”) tend to develop chronic depression. People whose attribution styles can attribute external events to forces which are either benign or benevolent don’t have that problem. Magical solutions to bad external stimuli are especially effective: “[A benevolent force] wants it this way, and therefore I can move through my life without giving it a whole lot of thought.”
The idea that “the Other Side thinks magically/wrongly/illogically/faithlessly/Evilly, but *I* am better connected to reality/forces of Good” is a component of a common cognitive narrative. The Other Side itself is a social construction that allows occasional natural selection through physical conflict and, at a lower adrenalin level, healthy debate.
If Sowell’s musings on Visions relate to AGW, they do so indirectly. The tragic-vs-utopian conflict revolves around assumptions regarding human psychology and sociology. AGW is something entirely different.
Why to Utopian Vision folks tend to jump on the AGW bandwagon? I believe it’s because they have planted one of their assumptions about human society into the natural world: the concept of class conflict. Class conflict sees the world divided into victim classes and oppressor classes. The only solution is victory over the oppressor classes.
The Utopians see “nature” as the victim class and humanity as the oppressor class. AGW hypothesis plays right into this mindset.
But if global warming is supposed to kill off 90 percent of humanity, is Paul Ehrlich losing any sleep over that? Or is he shopping for a bigger SUV?
Tom DeGisi, your sarcasm detector may need new batteries. 😉
Noble lies, Dave?
“If not for conservatives, liberals would probably all get themselves killed.”
.
.
If even HALF the conservatives I know, truly thought this was so, they’d be spend half of next month sending Acme Rocket Skates to all their liberal acquaintances, and spend the second half of the month getting out of the way.
.
.
The assumption plays out that rapid change is good and slow change is bad for you?
I don’t know any conservatives who are for no change ever. It’s just that they want to make small calculated steps to kill the beast du jour, and see if pinching it to make it move, is better than setting afire it’s fur to make it leave. Setting fires is a last step.
It seems to me, Liberals want to make huge, inaccurate, broad shots, pouring gasoline on it, set the thing afire, THEN clean up any concurrent fires, as they come when the beast du jour runs through town setting roofs on fire. And every problem MUST be solved at the federal level too. No one is as smart as someone who’s name includes Congressman or Senator in the title.
Conservatives hardly if ever think that way first. There are exceptions, McCain, Romney and some others who get called conservative come to mind, but they’re not really, they’re just Republicans.
It’s always a positive feed back system too, with liberals, regardless of the size or national importance of the beast du jour. They just as easily set fire to the sudden cold snap, expensive heating oil in MI, WI, SD “problem”, that is NOT part of everyone’s daily life nationally, as they do to ALL of the health care “problem”, which affects everyone everyday.
And no you don’t have to be sick to by concerned with health care, everyday, everyone is concerned everyday, or why don’t we just buy 12 days coverage per month?
It’s not, to me, a matter of (liberal) changers and 9conservative) stay puts, it’s a matter of speed, forethought and allowing the folks at home to decide for the folks at home. If the liberals are on the right track with their programs, ideas and the speed of change, why are their numbers so low with the folks at home?
Conservatives tend to hang back and resist change. Liberals tend to run forward and discover new things
Balls. That’s just the delusion the left tells itself to keep up its self-esteem after so many of its stupid attempts to legislate that water flow uphill crash and burn, taking down millions of hopes and dreams and 401k’s with them. Well, at least we were shooting for the Moon! If you don’t try, you can’t succeed! You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs! and other similar nostrums that the incompetent use to ease their conscience after spreading havoc and misery far and wide.
In fact the distinction is in the arena in which the two groups practise caution and experimentation. Your so-called “conservatives” are imaginative, optimistic, and daring in starting and running businesses, in technical inventions, in climbing mountains or flying spacecraft, or pursuing a woman. They’re cautious and careful in attempting to project their personal issues onto society as a whole, and argue society should change, instead of the individual. They’re cautious about throwing away the accumulated wisdom of generations past, and thinking I, only I, have recently discovered the Key To Happiness — just send me money and your vote, and everything will be wonderful.
By contrast your modern “liberal”, however grandiose his notions of redefining marriage or military service or academic merit, all the broad public themes, is unimaginative and uncreative in his approach to business and technology and family, all the small private themes. Not only are his ideas of social structure stuck in the 1970s, if not the 1870s, but he rarely starts profitable ventures, because he has a hard time imagining win-win solutions. To him, all social transaction is zero sum. I can only profit if someone else loses. Hence their preference for nonprofits, and for the con game of government, where you can talk yourself into believing that even though you reduce the quality of life of millions — by your regulation and staxes — you somehow in some ineffable unmeasureable way improve the life of millions more — by your glorious Copenhagen agreement, say, in which The Earth Is Saved by We Are The Ones We’ve Been Waiting For and other such smoke ‘n’ mirrors laser-lighted rock-opera Oprah spluff which can only be really appreciated under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs.
His personal life is often equally impoverished. He is often a single mother of one and only one child, because he can’t make a marriage work — too much plain compromise, not enough TInkerbell magic — and family and parenthood is too small an arena for his fantasy ambitions — not to mention the fact that successful parenting requires a humbling respect for the reality of the physical needs of children, and children are more resistant to adult narcissist dreams. Few children will eagerly give up a nice drive to the beach for an hour-long stand-up on the smelly bus, because it’s Saving The Environment. They’re practical that way. Drives your modern liberal nuts.
Which is just God’s way of solving the problem. Fortunately, with family sizes of 0.6 children per woman, they’re breeding themselves out of the species. Unfortunately, I suspect the DNA mutation that produces them must be very simple, because it recurs again and again.
McGehee,
Tom DeGisi, your sarcasm detector may need new batteries.
My sarcasm detector is the old model that mainly works off auditory cues. On the web, without sarcasm tags, it’s less reliable than American space launches just after Sputnik.
Yours,
Tom