Why Does the White Working Class Predominately Vote Republican?

Interesting speculation about why the white working class (WWC) voted Republican by a 30 point margin in the last election:

"So who does the WWC take out its anger on? Largely, the answer is the poor. In particular, the undeserving poor. Liberals may hate this distinction, but it doesn't matter if we hate it. Lots of ordinary people make this distinction as a matter of simple common sense, and the WWC makes it more than any. That's because they're closer to it. For them, the poor aren't merely a set of statistics or a cause to be championed. They're the folks next door who don't do a lick of work but somehow keep getting government checks paid for by their tax dollars. For a lot of members of the WWC, this is personal in a way it just isn't for the kind of people who read this blog."

I wonder how this hypothesis could be tested.

A Field Guide to Neoreactionaries

Mencius Moldbug (Curtis Guy Yarvin)

I somehow missed this year's spate of exposes of the gang of right-wing cranks known as 'neoreactionaries'. Here is a fine summary of their principal doctrines and figures written by Corey Pein at The Baffler. I had heard of their ring-leader, who blogs under the handle Mencius Modlbug (A.K.A. Curtis Guy Yarvin), but I did not grasp the underlying principles of their political philosophy, nor understand the breadth of their influence in Silicon Valley, until reading Pein's article.

The one thing Pein seems to get wrong is the relationship between libertarians and neoreactionaries. Pein portrays the two groups of cranks as peas in a pod. To me they seem more like the Cain and Abel of contemporary critiques of the democratic republican system of government. They do share an opposition to the common view that democratic majoritarianism is the most fundamental principle, or the view that democratic majoritarianism is in any case more fundamental than other principles such as those of liberty or utility. (I'm not really sure what the fundamental principles are for the neoreactionaries, or even if they have worked out their view that carefully yet.)

However, the libertarians are bigger defenders of the principle of equal liberty than are the neoreactionaries. This is actually a big deal. It means that the libertarians clearly oppose inequality under the law, and are thus consistent opponents of racism, sexism, and other forms of domination by an elite ruling class over the class of the ruled. The neoreactionaries embrace elitism, as they regard rule by knowledgeable elites as superior (producing better social outcomes) than rule by non-elites. Their view resembles Plato's belief that only the wise should rule, and that the wise are a special class of humans separated at birth from the inferior classes of warriors and commoners. Equal liberty is nowhere in sight in Plato's ideal Republic (Kallipolis), and so it seems incompatible with the political vision of the neoreactionaries.

This split between libertarians and neoreactonaries can be seen in Yarvin's admiration of the 19th century British writer and philosopher Thomas Carlysle. Carlysle had an elitist view of history, noting and celebrating the outsized influence of the "Great Man" in history, and also penned an infamous tract in defense of black slavery ("Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question"). Libertarians, by contrast, are intellectual heirs of Carlysle's great opponent in debate, John Stuart Mill. Mill wrote an early, powerful, and influential critique of sexism (The Subjection of Women), and was generally an opponent of racism and classism as well, despite his occasional bone-headed lapses (for example: see his off-hand remark defending imperial rule over "barbarian" nations at the beginning of On Liberty, despite the fact that this is clearly inconsistent with what he argues for in the rest of the work).

So, even though it's true that the contemporary Silicon Valley tech elite seem to disproportionately fall for both libertarian and neoreactionary ideology, this does not really show that the two are somehow very similar in terms of their underlying principles. I mentioned their shared opposition to the principle of democratic majoritarianism, but even in this they show important differences. Many libertarians, perhaps most, support democratic majoritarianism as a system of government; they simply attempt to persuade the majority and those in power to support more libertarian political positions. And when libertarians criticize democratic majoritarianism for leading to bad outcomes, the criticism is not predicated upon the distinction between a wise elite and a foolish underclass. The neoreactionaties, by contrast, are generally opposed to democratic majoritarianism in principle, and the principle in question is that of Plato's 'aristocracy' or rule by the best.

The Pervasiveness and Social Cost of Racism and Sexism

Scott Alexander, at Slate Star Codex, has compiled a handy summary of the evidence for pervasive and socially costly racism and sexism.

I also take Alexander's blog post as evidence of the continuing relevance of the blog as a medium, for four reasons.

1. Blogs offer a longer-form medium than tweets or social media updates.
2. Blogs can be referenced using a stable and publicly accessible URL.
3. It is easier and quicker to publish a piece as a blog post than as a piece of journalism or scholarship in a formal professional publication.
4. Blogs are a convenient medium for people making a contribution outside of their area of specialization. For example, the writer of the Slate Star Codex blog is a psychiatrist by trade, but here he is making a useful contribution to discussions about racism and sexism.

Hilary Clinton's Conservative Christian Piety

According to this article at Mother Jones, Hilary Clinton is a member of a secretive but highly influential Christian political ministry, known variously as "The Fellowship Foundation" or "The Family," which, among other things, organizes the National Prayer Breakfast. All members of the Fellowship Foundation swear an oath of secrecy, ostensibly to prevent them from abusing their ties to the organization for the sake of public displays of faith.

Jeff Sharlet, an investigative journalist, has written an entire book on the Fellowship Foundation, and was interviewed about his research by Fresh Air's Terry Gross back in 2009. According to Sharlet, the Fellowship Foundation fetishizes power much more than Christian charity. They are also supporters of Christian fundamentalism in Uganda, including support for the strict anti-gay laws there.

The Real Amazons: Ancient Scythian Warrior Women

Ancient Greek Attic white-ground alabastron, c. 470 BC, British Museum, London.

National Geographic interviews Adrienne Mayor, author of the new book The Amazons: Lives and Legends of Warrior Women across the Ancient World.

Mayor claims that the Greek legends of the Amazons are based on their contact with Scythian warrior women, whose existence has been confirmed by modern archaeology. The Scythians had both male and female warriors, unlike the legendary Amazons, who were a tribe in which only the women fought.

In the above ancient Greek alabastron, an Amazon is depicted wearing the trousers and patterned cloth characteristic of the ancient Scythian people.

How Can Scandinavian Countries Tax So Much?

How can Scandinavian countries tax so much, and yet still have such high income per capita and other favorable economic and social outcomes?

Henrik Jacobsen Kleven explains, in a recent article from the peer-reviewed Journal of Economic Perspectives. Here are his three main conclusions:

First, the Scandinavian tax systems have very wide coverage of third-party information reporting and more generally, well developed information trails that ensure a low level of tax evasion. Second, broad tax bases in these countries further encourage low levels of tax avoidance and contribute to modest elasticities of taxable income with respect to the marginal tax rate. Third, the subsidization or public provision of goods that are complementary to working—including child care, elderly care, transportation, and education—encourages a high level of labor supply.

Grubergate

Economist Arnold Kling on Grubergate:

I think that the extent to which the attacks on Gruber have become personal is something that every economist, regardless of ideology, will come to regret. I am all for criticizing the ideas and the world view that underlie Obamacare. However, a world in which every economist who steps into the policy arena is subjected to opposition research and “gotcha” attacks is not going to be pretty.

A nice illustration of the Problem with Politics. When talking politics, we just don't play fair. The goal is not to investigate the truth impartially, but rather to cheer our team on. The emotional tail wags the rational dog.

And I say this as an opponent of the Affordable Care Act.

To be clear: the point I am trying to make is that even if Gruber deliberately distorted information, which is clearly immoral, this does not itself prove that the Affordable Care Act is a bad policy. Too many of the attacks on ACA via Grubergate have been merely of the ad hominem variety.

This is not to say that Gruber's admissions are wholly irrelevant to evaluating ACA, but attempting to connect the two must be done with great care to avoid inadvertently stepping over into the Land of Fallacy.

Space: 1999

The writing on this show is pretty poor, but there is some great Mid-Century modern design visible in its costumes and sets. Plus the music and intro sequence is very . . . scifi funky.

Killbot Zero

I am a fan neither of prog rock nor of The Transformers, but this outstanding video by the band Killbot Zero is much more than the sum of its parts:

Killbot Zero is a two-person prog rock band playing out of northwest Ohio. I am friends with their guitarist, Chris Cavera, a professor of music theory by day, whose knowledge of such clearly shows through in their outstanding music. Well done lads!

Martha Nussbaum on Cyberstalking and Internet Misogyny

Philosopher Martha Nussbaum has a well-written piece at The Nation on internet misogyny and on her own personal experience with a cyberstalker.

Libertarian "Free Stater" Wins a Seat in the New Hampshire House

Libertarian free-stater Elizabeth Edwards has won a seat in the New Hampshire house of representatives.

An article at The Washington Free Beacon offers a brief profile about Edwards and her wife Cailtin Edwards-Appell, described as "two terrifying right-wing extremists" with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

Cyberbully "Requires Hate"

Fantasy author Benjanun Sriduankaew has allegedly been cyber-bullying other writers using the moniker "Requires Hate".

What's disturbing is both how calculating and how effective her methods are.

Why Was Agriculture Invented?

Economist Andrea Matinga argues that agriculture was invented (seven different times) because of a large increase in climatic seasonality.

Matinga also attempts to explain some current cultural and political differences in terms of the history of agriculture and climate.

Is this what E. O. Wilson meant by sociobiology? Or something to that effect (social sciences / natural sciences crossover / interface).

What Is the Purpose of Teaching Philosophy?

I have been thinking about this question, for two reasons. The first is that I want to be able to quickly and clearly communicate to my students what the purpose of their philosophy class is The second is so that I do a better job designing the class in the first place.

Here is my answer to this question: teaching philosophy has two main purposes. The first is to teach critical thinking. The second is to teach a small number of substantive questions (and, if you're lucky, answers) from each text studied in the course.

Regarding critical thinking: I recently developed a sequence of questions for students to ask about a text, which will hopefully help them develop critical thinking skills, if they use this sequence for every text they encounter over the course of the semester.

Argument Analysis in 4 Steps

1. What is the thesis? (Is there more than one?)
2. What is the argument for each thesis? (Is there more than one?)
3. For each argument: Are the premises true?
4. For each argument: Is it valid (if deductive) or strong (if inductive)?

Regarding the second purpose of teaching philosophy: I need to work on this more, but my goal is that each text should have one or more substantive lessons for a student to retain and make use of later in life.

For example: Maybe Plato's Euthyphro teaches that moral truth is probably not based on God's will.

Maybe Descartes' Meditations teaches that one should be willing to question custom, authority, tradition, and the appearances of things, in order to discover the truth. And that many forms of dualism face the Interaction Problem.

Maybe Hume's Enquiry teaches that the logic of scientific discovery is not what people often take it to be. And that the argument from design has even deeper problems than those brought up by Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

Oftentimes, though, I anticipate that the key lesson of a text will be an important question, rather than just an important answer.

Dreams of Futures Past

When I was a child, I eagerly awaited a future of space stations and colonies on the moon.

Instead, I got a cell phone, and a weekly video series about tabletop gaming hosted by Star Trek: TNG's Will Wheaton.

Kay Nielsen

Like so many dreams, gifted illustrator Kay Nielsen's died in Los Angeles:

Nielsen briefly returned to Denmark in desperation. However, he found his works no longer in demand there either. His final years were spent in poverty. His last works were for local schools, including 'The First Spring' mural installed at Central Junior High School, Los Angeles and churches, including his painting to the Wong Chapel at the First Congregational Church, Los Angeles, illustrating the 23rd Psalm. 

Nielsen contracted a chronic cough that would plague him until his death on June 21, 1957 at the age of 71. His funeral service was held under his mural in the Wong Chapel. Ulla, his wife since she was 21, died the following year. 

Before her death to diabetes, Ulla gave Nielson's remaining illustrations to Frederick Monhoff, who in turn tried to place them in museums. However, none – American or Danish – would accept them at the time. (Wikipedia)

On Teaching Philosophy

There's a particular kind of futility associated with the teaching of philosophy in a formal school setting. It is very common for students to reject and rebel against the very idea of philosophy, for two different and conflicting reasons (which are often, however, expressed simultaneously if incoherently by the same persons).

First, philosophy is dismissed as irrelevant, insignificant, and of no practical concern or value, because its questions of meaning, value, and being are not directly related to any career path or any area of scientific or mathematical expertise.

Second, philosophy is rejected with great emotional vehemence, precisely because many of the questions it raises touch upon people's deepest convictions about morality, politics, and religion, which they identify with, stake their self-worth on, and cling to passionately, like a dog clinging to its favorite bone.

In other words, to the extent that students are not already passionately attached to beliefs relating to philosophical questions, it is dismissed as worthless and irrelevant. To the extent that students are already passionately attached to beliefs relating to philosophical questions, their mind rebels against the very thought of addressing such questions using the method of rational inquiry. Either reaction is destructive to philosophical discussion, and poisons the atmosphere in the classroom.

Teaching philosophy is 90% or more about emotion management, and 10% or less about conveying information and stimulating discussion about philosophical concepts, theories, and arguments. It can be a draining, exhausting enterprise, in particular for those who are neither adept at nor passionately interested in managing the emotions of others.

Dante Gabriel Rossetti (Reprise)

The moderns forgot what the ancients knew: the greatest loves were all unrequited; or, if requited, unconsummated; or, if consummated, ended in the blackest tragedy.

Elizabeth Siddal was the model and muse of her husband, the painter Dante Gabriel Rossetti. Here she appears as Beatrix, the unrequited love of famed Italian poet Dante Alighieri.

In 1861, Siddal was overjoyed when she became pregnant with Rossetti's child. She gave birth to a stillborn baby, before dying of a laudanam overdose at the age of 32.

"My Father, Soaring Free"

Kitra Cahana's moving TED talk about her father Ronnie Cahana's experience of "locked in syndrome":

In 2011 Ronnie Cahana suffered a severe stroke that left him with locked-in syndrome: completely paralyzed except for his eyes. While this might shatter a normal person’s mental state, Cahana found peace in “dimming down the external chatter,” and “fell in love with life and body anew.” In a somber, emotional talk, his daughter Kitra shares how she documented her father's spiritual experience, as he helped guide others even in a state of seeming helplessness.

Hypotheses about Motivated Reasoning; Or, Why Most Debates Are Not About Truth

A psychiatrist blogging under the nomme de plume of 'Scott Alexander' has a fantastic recent blog post about the psychology of motivated reasoning, specifically as it applies to emotionally charged debates about politics, religion, and so forth.

His main thesis is that most such debates are not really about meaningfully answerable questions, but are instead competitions in which each side tries to associate its own position with key words that have positive emotional associations and the opposing position with key words that have negative emotional associations. The purpose of such debates is not to prove that a given thesis is true or false, but rather to create pro or con attitudes in the audience toward a given cause or concept, through the strategic use of emotionally-laden verbal associations. In other words, the purpose of such debates is to secure loyalty to a cause, not to secure belief in a proposition.

From the blog post:

This sort of conflation between a cause and its supporters really only makes sense in the emotivist model of arguing. I mean, this shouldn’t even get dignified with the name ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem fallacy is “McCain had sex with a goat, therefore whatever he says about taxes is invalid.” At least it’s still the same guy. This is something the philosophy textbooks can’t bring themselves to believe really exists, even as a fallacy. 

But if there’s a General Factor Of McCain, then anything bad remotely connected to the guy – goat sex, lying campaigners, whatever – reflects on everything else about him.
This is the same pattern we see in Israel and Palestine. How many times have you seen a news story like this one: “Israeli speaker hounded off college campus by pro-Palestinian partisans throwing fruit. Look at the intellectual bankruptcy of the pro-Palestinian cause!”  

It’s clearly intended as an argument for something other than just not throwing fruit at people. The causation seems to go something like “These particular partisans are violating the usual norms of civil discussion, therefore they are bad, therefore something associated with Palestine is bad, therefore your General Factor of Pro-Israeliness should become more strongly positive, therefore it’s okay for Israel to bomb Gaza.” Not usually said in those exact words, but the thread can be traced.

Showing Up

I recently sent this announcement out to my students about the importance of "Showing Up." I think this is a good lesson not just for my students, but for myself, and for people in general. 

I have observed many students arriving late, leaving early, missing class, coming to class unprepared, and not participating in class discussions. This is bad.
 Participation is 10% of your grade. Will you earn participation points if you frequently arrive late, leave early, miss class, come to class unprepared, or don't participate in class discussions? No.
 But the main reason you should avoid these behaviors has nothing to do with participation points. The main reason you should avoid them is because of the kind of person you should strive to be.
 You should strive to be a person who Shows Up. A person who Shows Up is someone who fulfills his commitments and takes care of his responsibilities. This is true both in school and outside of school.
 Sure, there are extrinsic benefits to Showing Up. Professors will recommend you for scholarships, internships, awards, and other opportunities. Employers will promote you and give you greater income and authority. Family members and friends will look up to and admire you.
 But the most important benefit to Showing Up is intrinsic. You will have the authentic sense of pride and self-worth that comes from consistently honoring your commitments. You will have the satisfaction that comes from knowing you are a person who Shows Up.
 So start Showing Up, both in this class and in your other classes, and both in school and outside of school.
 That is all.