Monday assorted links


A peculiar localism of much of South Korean Protestantism is a tendency in many of the churches to adopt practices and beliefs from the long-suppressed native Korean shamanistic religion of Sinkyo, which, curiously enough, has long been dominated by women shamans, a bit of a sign of rebellion against the long predominant patriarchalism of Korean society. The Japanese especially hated the Sinkyo due to their being identified with hard core Korean nationalism.

I wouldn't say that the churches adopt Sinkyo practices. I would say that most South Korean Christians are syncretic (i.e. simultaneously engaging in ancient Sinkyo practices and Christian practices without seeing them as in conflict), but wouldn't go so far as to say that the church organizations themselves adopt those practices (by comparison consider families that celebrate Christian Easter and have Easter bunny traditions in North America).

But, I would say that South Korean Protestant churches (I attended one for about a year in the U.S. via translation services provided in the church) tend to interpret and apply Christian doctrine with an unspoken tacit Confucian gloss.

Vegansuxality doesn't surprise me. I've even heard rumors that there are members of certain religions that will only have sex with other members of that same religion (or so they say).

I'd be okay being rejected for eating meat......would save me from later learning she's likely batshit crazy

How many people did it take to start this "trend" based on a New Zealand study? It sounds to me just like the alleged pharm parties and rainbow parties that some journalists liked to write about with little to no evidence they were a thing.

But the religious thing would actually be about "moral" principle. My guess is this is really mostly about convenience, although some people might like dressing up utility as morality. People dating each other regularly have to eat together, and while it has become easy for vegetarians to eat almost everywhere, vegans and omnivores will most likely be fully satisfied by completely different kinds of restaurants, and they'll mostly be cooking at home separately too. Eating together on a regular basis is bound to be too much of a hassle where, everyday, a common meal makes one side feel like they're not getting what they want.

I eat meat, but from anecdotal experience believe it is true that vegetarians/vegans taste better.

I couldn't marry a vegan, as BBQ restaurants would be a complete no-go.

#1 "Even Kim Il-sung, first ruler of North Korea, had been a Presbyterian as a child."
He must have missed a few Sunday School classes.

Actually, he was quite studious in his Sunday School classes. He needed some good power models to work from.

Aren't Catholics supposed to not marry non-Catholics, with the exception being if the other person agrees to raise the kids Catholic? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't eat meat (and I don't advertise it or bring it up) but when people insist on asking about my diet, and I say I don't eat meat, it's still treated as pretty odd. But if you say you're a Catholic, and you think you're eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a former carpenter every Sunday (whether you think it's symbolic or not), no one questions that.

No, the Catholic spouse must promise to do all that he or she can to have the children baptized and raised in the Catholic faith. The non-Catholic spouse can act freely to support/ignore/block such action. It is assumed that both parties enter the marriage with knowledge of this promise.

Hum, if you're a Catholic, and you think you’re eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a former carpenter every Sunday, you are likely to be considered an heretic (a "Josephist") by your peers.

Joel - how does what I describe differ from the wiki definition of transubstantiation? I'm missing something here.

Here's from wikipedia:

Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the change of substance by which the bread and the wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the physical Body and Blood of Jesus the Christ.[1][2]

The Catholic Church teaches that the substance, or reality, of the Eucharistic offering (either bread alone, or bread and wine) is changed into both the Body and Blood of Christ.[3]

Stuart, Jesus is not a "former carpenter", he is still a carpenter; as a person, he is eternal, as are the rest of us - if one dies a martyr or a zookeeper or a poet, one is eternally a martyr or a zookeeper or a poet - obviously, the need for martyrdom trends to zero, zoos become quite besides the point, and poetry keeps getting better. Extrapolating from those givens gets you far. By the way, most people I know don't think vegetarianism is odd; and the mix of friends/acquaintances I am likely to talk about the issue with is fairly typical - it is something like 60-30-10 Democrat Republican neither. Maybe you live in a meat factory town like Chicago or Dallas? Anyway, I am not vegetarian and I often tell people I don't eat domestic pork or octopus or lobster (too much like us, too smart, and too old, respectively); nobody reacts to me as if I were odd (at least not for that reason) . Wild boar is another thing altogether, but I see no reason to buy it and any restaurant that serves it has other better tasting things on the menu.

Jesus was not a carpenter. Joseph was, hence the coment above.

Regarding vegetarianism - I could give you my anecdotal evidence, but I think it also coincides with polling on the topic which you may find more persuasive.

Basically, the people who find vegetarians favorable are women, young people, Democrats, people in the West and Midwest. The opposite of those demographics have are more likely to have an unfavorable opinion of vegetarians. And vegans, overall, are viewed less favorably than vegetarians.

I wish there was more polling on this issue, but this was mainly all I found. I wouldn't care if people who learned about my diet just stereotyped me and had a negative view of me because of it, but I often get obnoxious people (usually older white men) who can't drop the subject, and either pester me about it or constantly make jokes and snide comments. But I do sense things attitudes are changing, especially since millennials are demographically taking over, and even old white dudes like Gore and Clinton are changing their diets for health/environment reasons.

While I understand that there are people who believe Jesus still exists, I do not think you really believe he's sawing wood in heaven

Jesus was both man and God (Arians would disagree, but let's say they are wrong). As God, he was uncreated; as man, he was created. That which God creates and which is good exists forever (the annihilationists- an actual philosophical term - would disagree, but let's say they are wrong). Thus Jesus, after the resurrection, is still human. An attribute of humanity is the ability to sleep and dream. So, it is not hard to imagine, in heaven, that Jesus, as God and as a human person, still profits from the attributes of being human, which include the ability to sleep and dream. So Jesus, maybe, still sleeps from time to time (he is in charge of time, not vice versa) , and as humans do, maybe he dreams of the good old days - in his case, many of those days were in the carpenter's workshop in Nazareth. As for me, I have, sadly, never been a carpenter and will never dream of the good old days when I was a carpenter. I was never a zookeeper either, but I have tried to be kind to the dogs who were my companions, to the cats who were my companions, and to quite a few other animals - not excluding the family value respecting cockroaches and spiders who shared the apartments of my impoverished youth, the brave coyotes and muskrats whom I have crossed in my short sad weekend rambles, the affectionate donkeys and horses my richer friends have let me spend time with, the curious octopi and the thoughtful pike, and even the humble houseflies and sun-loving butterflies who appreciated my aversion to swatting or netting them. Maybe for them I am dreamed of when they dream of the good old days.

I tried dating a vegetarian. It didn't work out.

I never realized how much of a relationship revolves around eating meals together until it became a huge hassle every single time we went on a date.

I had a coworker who said his wife wouldn't have sex with him if he eats meat. I mentioned that to another coworker who immediately replied that guy's wife wouldn't have sex with him even if he didn't eat meat.

The Battle of Little Bighorn, aka Custer's Last Stand?

Also the preferred destination for defecting Soviet naval officers.

And fat American women and rabbits.

And a Pick Up Truck.

3) Slightly different, and I think this has largely passed as people get more accepting of vegeterian lifestyles, but I remember, say, 10-15 years ago, frequently encountering a lot of hostility from anti-vegetarians. Aside form various forms of mockery, they would take great pleasure in telling vegetarians, in ridiculously more detail than they would ever say to a fellow meat eater, just how much they were loving their meat, and how they were going to eat lots of meat, and all sorts of stuff.

I was always a pretty quiet vegetarian. If pressed, I would just argue that a) it's better for the environment and b) that we have many ways to get proteins and nutrients without causing the suffering of animals, and that many vegetarian options are very tasty. while I understand that some vegetarians can get pretty militant about things, I don't see why anti-vegetarians ever felt the need to be such asses about the whole thing. Thank God that seems to largely be a thing of the past.

I eat what I want, you eat what you want. And if you want to open the conversation, I'll explain my choices. Eating non-meat options is so not notable anymore that usually people don't even ask unless you specifically have to refuse what they offer to share.

I never really cared if girls were vegetarian or not. Once you can demonstrate that there's lots of tasty vegetarian food out there, it simply becomes more practical to generally eat vegetarian, although if that's the way things go, I sure as hell am not going to lecture someone, or express disapproval in any manner, if they want to indulge in picking whatever they want on the odd occasion. Not all vegetarians are like that, but most are.

Probably some people will disagree with this portrayal. If so, think back to the conversations that drive your perspectives. Probably YOU started the conversation, asking them why they are vegetarian. Then you pushed them and pushed them and pushed them to justify themselves. And then once they explained their reasoning, you deemed of your very own accord that this person was judging you as morally inferior. I've had precisely such a conversation hundreds of times.

If that's you, next time try something more like "Huh, OK, I was just curious" in response to their explanation. But if your agenda is to attack vegetarianism, do not be surprised if the conversation heats up.

How did you manage to respond to my comment before I had posted it?

I think this is a pretty common pattern:

a. You do something which implies some kind of claim about morality or identity or something. This can be being vegetarian, or going to church every day, or prepping for a zombie apocalypse, or whatever. (It seems like it's got to be something a bit unusual--not just following a common script in your society.)

b. This creates some tension in me, because it's a kind of challenge--if you're doing it, why aren't I doing it? This need not involve you implying I should do it--it's still kind-of a challenge to how I'm living.

c. As a defense against this tension or cognitive dissonance or whatever, I start coming up with arguments for why you're wrong or stupid or hypocritical. None of this has much to do with you, in some sense--it's just me defending myself from whatever parts of my mind find your actions appealing. But that often involves me being something of an asshole w.r.t. your actions and choices.

I've seen this pattern play out in a lot of places. It doesn't make any rational sense, but it's still common.

It seems very human.

Considering the example of going to church. Perhaps you just know that someone goes to church every Sunday, and the only relevance is that if you want to meet on the weekend, late Saturdays are not OK and you can't plan to meet on Sunday until well into the afternoon.

But then, one day you ask them about why church is important to them. They give you various reasons, from learning about God, to the sense of community, good role models for children, moral learning, etc. You could end that part of the conversation there by just saying "Ah, OK, I was just curious because clearly it's important to you".

But then, some people will instead attack the relationship between kings and religion and wars in history and blame it on history, get into some issues of hypocrisy (which I think is often dumb - having stated the ideal does not mean that someone must therefore be perfect - at least it's not hypocritical unless they actively attack others for things that they themselves do), or suggest that other community organizations are better or something. Like, you could just say "ah, I understand. Those are important things. Hey, did you know, I have some other ways to pursue the same objectives, but I don't do them in church. I guess we each have our own ways to strive towards similar things and meet similar needs".

I think an important factor, but sometimes this the questioner just ignores it, is whether the person is basically saying "For me, this is a morally superior choice but I don't want to press you on it, I just want you to understand why I think that way" as compared to "This is the ONLY moral choice, and I'm very much implying that you are morally inferior for choosing otherwise."

Perhaps you should not be surprised when people are provoked, as your "ethical" motive ("without causing the suffering of animals") for vegetarianism is a provocation.

If you don't want to know, then don't ask.

People ask because they see a behavior that, while harmless in itself, is often associated with very bad reasons for engaging in it, and they naturally want to know who they are dealing with. It is similar to, say, wearing a swastika armband in public. People will want to know why. If you do not want to answer questions, do not do socially unacceptable things in public.

Refraining from meat is not socially unacceptable.

As though people are not allowed to explain their ethical reasoning when asked a direct question about their personal choices.

Why do you not rape 5-year old children? Now ... don't provoke me with your "ethical" reasoning.

What I meant is that there are good ethical reasons not to rape children, and they also accord with most people's moral intuitions. But there is no ethical foundation for prohibiting meat-eating, and this is also what most people's moral intuitions suggest to them. That is, suggesting that there are ethical reasons for not eating meat sounds wrong to most people, which is why it is a provocation.

Suggesting that there are good moral reasons not to eat meat is not even remotely the same as saying it should be prohibited.

There are good moral reasons to get into volunteership. But that is not remotely the same as prohibiting an absence of volunteership (say, forcing people to volunteer 20 hours a week).

I don't think there's morally anything wrong with eating meat per se. In "nature", animals were free, and at the end of a hunt, perhaps there would be a couple minutes of fear and pain - a life of 99.999% freedom leads a rapid end.

I do, however, think there are moral problems in factory farming. Farming methods which eliminated unnecessary suffering from farming would lead to slightly higher meat prices. But some people don't care if a laying hen was never able to stretch out her wings once in her life, or so much turn her body around, if they can save 5 cents an egg. Several major Canadian grocery chains have committed to only source eggs which are from improved factory conditions by 2025, and many fast food chains are doing the same thing.

There is also a big difference in the environmental footprint of animal proteins compared to plant proteins.

Vegetarians get less grief now because vegens exist.

Much like Agnostics are spared the wrath of the Faithful thanks to Militant Atheists.

What you are actually describing is how quite a few vegans act. As an omnivore I've never commented or cared what others eat.

There is lots of tasty vegetarian food out there, but it's difficult to get enough proteins on a vegetarian diet if you just eat whatever you want. You have to consciously think about where you are going to get your protein from.

Also, some vitamin/mineral deficencies may take years to start impacting your health. I've known numerous vegetarians who gave it up after several years when they found they were developing health problems, and they just couldn't handle all the careful meal planning needed to balance their diet.

Also, south indians have very high rates of type 2 diabetes because of the starchy vegetarian diet.

I became a vegetarian for the same reason Woody Allen becomes a communist in the movie "The Front": I was a young man, and the beautiful girl I was making time with was a vegetarian. So yeah, I became one too, wink wink. But I kept on with it, and now, about 40 years later, I see my contemporaries with their huge pot bellies, heart failure, joint failure, coronary artery disease, and general lack of energy, and I realize it was probably one of the best decisions of my life. And Hazel Meade take note, I do NO conscious meal planning. I just eat whatever I want, as long as it doesn't have meat in it -- or sugar. Being a vegetarian is not more difficult than being a meat eater, its less difficult in every way

In India, its from eating too much polished white rice

Yes, it does take planning to make sure you get the right protein complements. Especially at the beginning. Eventually it becomes quite easy and "natural".

Dairy + legumes is a whole protein.

Brown rice + legumes is pretty complete.

And if you eat eggs, you don't even have to bother. A couple eggs for breakfast, and you've reached the minimum required for every amino acid you need, and any old other protein will do the job to fulfill the rest.

Much harder if you're vegan though. But in time, you establish habits that are borne from planned thinking about what complements you need. You just tend to cook and eat the same meals and no more thinking is required.

7) I am just an anon, but the am the same anon who said that NPR was upside down, giving too much power to broadcasters. Confirmed.

5) Very good. Adaption triumphs.

What kind of billionaire would live in New Jersey in the first place?

The kind that likes to be near NYC but not live or work there?

Connecticut's where you go for that kind of thing.

Jay Z lives in Alpine, NJ. The North Jersey suburbs provide easier access to Manhattan than CT.

NPR's problem is that it's reliably Leftist, but it likes to pretend it's not. It's audience is further to the Left than Fox New's audience is to the Right.

Of course, your average Slate reader is far to the Left. So, from their perspective NPR probably appears right wing.

'Of course, your average Slate reader is far to the Left. '

Since your average Slate reader is likely an American, the idea that they are 'far to the left' is laughable.

One can be "far to the left" by US standards even though by world standards they are center right.

Bernie Sanders supporters, and at least some fraction of Clinton supporters are not center right by any country's standards. Moderate Democrats basically jumped ship in several waves since the 1980s. Joe Manchin and Jim Webb are outcasts in their own party.

Not to fear, the GOP is having its own identity crisis.

Will you about anything other than Dictatorship of the Proletariat as far left ?

Universal health care is far left in the USA. So is anything that any labour union does in negotiating with shareholder unions.

Neither of those things is far left. Forcing people to join (and pay for) a union they do not want to join is de rigueur progressive politics.

You're a lot less to the right than I would have guessed than.

* accept anything other than

"Since your average Slate reader is likely an American, the idea that they are ‘far to the left’ is laughable."

Really? Have you polled billions of Indians, Chinese and African's to get a world centric view? Or were you childishly inserting European views into a discussion contextually about the US and claiming Europe as some kind of base line for all opinions?

As everyone knows Africa, China and India are libertarian paradises, staffed by Randian protagonists... Well, it explains Beijing's air pollution, I guess.

Not even wrong.

The US is probably the only country on the planet with a sizeable political constituency that actively campaigns against social welfare supports.

A lot of the world simply can't afford them. But ideologically speaking, I'm not aware of any place on the planet where there is such a high share of the population with such high antipathy or even hatred of social welfare supports, regardless of the fact that the US actually has much higher social welfare supports than quite a lot of the very same countries I'm thinking of.

Regardless of whether you're on the left or on the right, I think you'd would have to admit that NPR, as currently constituted, appeals to a fairly narrow demographic of secular, college-educated professionals of one stripe or another. In other words, it is firmly in SWPL like territory:

That being the case, taking some (any) concrete steps to broaden their appeal is probably the way to go. That doesn't mean they have to hire Mark Levin, either.

David Koch funds NOVA, but the other large foundations are very liberal.

For many college educated IS left.

Only while you are still in college. When you go out and get a job, you grow up.

Probably true, but why can't NPR win over the socialist youth?!

Pick your NPR show. Marketplace and Planet Money are not left, as illustrated by the Elizabeth Warren ruckus.

Depends on the show. Their news programs (All Thing Considered and Morning Edition) don't seem particularly liberal. Their other shows vary; Diane Rehm is pretty liberal but also kind of dumb, but in contrast, Planet Money is fantastic.

Agreed, that Planet Money is good and doesn't fall into any obvious bias. However, it's more the exception than the rule. The most objective metric we have is to aggregate listener preferences. And it's pretty hard to argue with the data indicating it's listeners are predominantly Left wing.

This old world thinking ties into the broadcaster problem. Pick and choose listeners more likely podlisten. Drive time listeners have loose connection to fairly moderate shows. A dedicated listener is consuming more off hour and less mainstream stuff.

Are you sure you aren't confusion NPR and Pacifica? Now there you have SJW radio.

"BOB GARFIELD, ‘ON THE MEDIA’ CO-HOST, NPR: Okay, so this gets back to not only Brooke’s problem, finding a metric to report on this story, but it’s especially difficult when you and I both know that if you were to somehow poll the political orientation of everybody in the NPR news organization and all of the member stations, you would find an overwhelmingly progressive, liberal crowd. Not uniformly, but overwhelmingly."

Again, you aren't talking about the more mainstream shows, but about the kind of people who take low salary to work at NPR. Of course applicants and workers will look different than those at hedge funds.

Oh no, they have a sense of mission! Lol. People who want to burn it to the ground are less likely to apply!

Park Rangers are more liberal for the same reason

Well since left/right is classically all about money stuff, I think that's precisely where you would want to evaluate their ideological bias.

I don't think stuff about gender, race, etc. or culture in general should be seen in a left/right lens, no matter that these tend to have high correlation for a lot of things. I know, that's not normally how it's viewed.

I can't listen to Diane Rehm...her voice is too offputting. Why does she sound like she's on her deathbed every single day?

"Why does she sound like she’s on her deathbed every single day? "

Because she has a voice disorder called spasmodic dysphonia.

The only economics of NPR? Beggary.

NPR's virtue and downfall has more to it targeting a very sophisticated audience rather than the general public (which you tend to do when you depend on donors for most of your revenue).

By comparison, the BBC news service, which is mostly government funded as opposed to mostly donor funded, aims its broadcasts as an audience with a lower reading level with less education.

NPR is a NeoLiberal Shit Show ™

There is no 'left' in the USA.

5) "moral foundations must be heritable"

Presumably at least a tiny bit. But the obvious explanation is that parents indoctrinate their kids, and you tend to keep the values you grow up. (It's gated, so I can't check the methods to be very sure about the extent to which this critique applies.)

Even when broad social change happens, and views change about certain things, you'll still be on the same general side of a spectrum as what you grew up with.

I suspect the K-PhD educational system, and entertainment-based culture, play a pretty large role in indoctrinating children. As does the predominate culture of the locale(s) where the kids grow up. While parents have an impact, their most significant influence likely comes in their ability to manipulate the educational, entertainment, and local cultural environment their kids grow up in. And there is plenty of room for error there, in part because it is tough to know how a particular personality will respond to those inputs.

There's a decent literature which suggests that most of that stuff is mostly in stone by the age of six. The other stuff cannot be irrelevant, but not as relevant as it might seem. Probably the next biggest impact is whichever group you fall in with in high school and/or university. I'm very skeptical that the education system itself is very effective at "indoctrinating" kids, even if we were to assume that it was actually trying to do so.

Vegansexual: Like being a liberal.
"To be progressive is cool, a factoid reminds. A recent poll on a dating-service website produced a hilarious bit of news. It turns out that Republican men who pretend to be Democrats are far more likely to land a date. “Attaching yourself to that party [the GOP] when you’re on a date with somebody might jeopardize a love connection,” Hannahmae Dela Cruz of What’s Your Price? dating service told the Colorado Independent. A pro-life plank is a deal-breaker for many Silicon Valley households. They simply will not join the party of Hobby Lobby. Religion bugs many techies." -- Forbes

2. Of course, Montana has the best trout fishing in America. I have two Bighorn stories I will share - I've been many times. The first was my first visit to the Bighorn. The river runs through the Crow Indian Reservation (I'll come back to that). As with many native-American reservations, alcohol abuse is a major problem. My friend and I were scheduled to leave well before dawn the next morning to catch a flight in Billings (the largest city and least attractive place in Montana, or most anywhere else). Our host cautioned us to watch for "drunk Indians" parked in the middle of the two-lane highway that runs through the reservation. Sure enough, as we were driving along in the dark at a high rate of speed, there's an old truck parked in the middle of the road, engine running, it's driver asleep at the steering wheel. The second story occurred years later on a trip to Montana in April. When I contacted my son to arrange to meet him at the airport in Salt Lake City, my son questioned whether April would be a good month for a fishing trip to Montana. I assured him that our host had said that April is great fishing and there aren't many anglers on the river. He was right about not many anglers on the river, because the wind blew so hard it was impossible to fish. Thus, I learned a lesson about our host. Being unable to fish, my son and I took a field trip to the Custer battlefield. It's an interesting place, with a building that has a three dimensional depiction of the battle field. Two things I learned about Custer: he had a small frame (there's a jacket that would fit a 12 year old) and a small mind (at least on the day of the battle). One thing I learned about the Crow Indian Reservation: the Crow didn't defeat Custer, the Crow collaborated with Custer, the reservation given to the tribe in consideration for it!

For what states has Tyler not listed his favorite things? Those must be obscure.

2. How about Maine as the most obscure state?

Idaho was my first choice, but the fact I missed Maine says a lot. No major cities. One famous citizen, but not typically associated with it.

New Mexico?

Oklahoma? Do the songs disqualify it?

As a person from Oklahoma, when I traveled in Italy I often had to debase myself and describe Oklahoma as "piccoloa Texas", as most natives had not heard of it.

Americans are the only people on the planet who introduce themselves by state, not country, when overseas.

I think the solution is to mandate that classrooms must have world maps, and not maps of the USA.

You comment far too much. Please stop

#2...When I think of Montana, the writers Ivan Doig, Thomas McGuane, James Welch, Jim Harrison, Rick Bass, and James Crumley come to mind. Also, Richard Hugo, who taught at the University of Montana for years. Doug Peacock is a non-fiction writer I like, as is David Quammen. Now, to me, that's a pretty good list of writers.

Two of my favorite books are set in Montana and they were both made into films I like, being "A River Runs Through It" and "Powwow Highway," by Norman Maclean and David Seals respectively.

I am not american, and I didn't realize Montana was a state until now.
I thought it was a name of a lake or region, or something like it.

I still say Idaho, with Connecticut as the dark horse. Wyoming has Yellowstone, the Dakotas have each other, and Montana is big and has buffalo.

Wyoming has Yellowstone, but I'm positive most people abroad think Yellowstone is in its own mythical place, and not in any state (or stuck to any one of a number of states; I'm still amused at the one Austrialian who placed Yellowstone at the four corners of Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, and Tenessee).

Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon have much higher name recognition than easily half of the states in the USA. I highly doubt that more than a few percent of people overseas know which state these parks are in (and not a much higher percentage are likely to have a clue where those states are, even if they might have heard of them one time in a movie or song or something).

#3: 100% normal teenagers? Young people are easily influenced by the first thing they encounter. Makes me remember the Lorenz's ducks. When we were young, we were sure X was the most important thing in the world and anyone with a different opinion it's just an idiot. It can be sports, fiction, music, eating preferences.......then grouped along like-minded people. After experiences accumulate in life this stage ends gradually.

I used to be the typical atheist idiot. Years later I married a catholic girl because, why not? There's much more beyond 1 single belief and/or characteristic in an individual. What matters is the whole, not a single detail.

"When we were young, we were sure X was the most important thing in the world and anyone with a different opinion it’s just an idiot ... After experiences accumulate in life this stage ends gradually."

Not true enough of enough people, in my opinion.

The url for #3,, is strangely appropriate here.

If Montana is so obscure then how does a Soviet submariner come to dream of living there someday?

Clearly the rabbits raised there are world-class.

#3. That vegansexuals link is a gold mine if you click back onto the author's page.

7. I blame Garrison Keillor. Three freaking hours of his washed up tired shtick every Sunday.

Oh god! Worst show on npr.

Maybe it seems like 3 hours to you, since you don't like it, but it's only a 2 hour show.

This is an error in reasoning.
It is not necessary for particular political/moral/ideological orientations to be heritable in order for moral foundations theory to be true. The theory is that people have heritable modules for moral reasoning, but how those modules are applied to specific social and cultural contexts may change dramatically.

By analogy, language modules clearly exist in the human brain, language ability is clearly heritable, but "French" is not heritable. "French" or "Republican" or "leftist" are just manifestation of the operation of those modules within a particular context. Nobody is born speaking French or with "Republican" values. People are however, born with an inclination to reason about group loyalty, to feel disgust at outgroups and so forth. Who those outgroups are, and what you feel disgust at is completely contextual. Some people might be born with a greater sensitivity to disgust, or more propensity towards ingroup-loyalty, which might incline them more or less towards some political orientations, or may just towards certain "styles" of political behavior.

man acts towards profit rather than loss. Psyce 101, introduction to human behavior (read the first 3 chapters of Adam Smith's, WON).

Agree at least so far as the heritability argument goes. It also strikes me as odd in the criticism to suggest that variability over lifetime is some kind of indictment. The analogy is taste receptors, and we find quite a bit of variation there too. It would be more problematic if testing high in a given foundation could not reliably predict correlated preferences.

negative rights, the foundation of civilization -- and how they provide for the golden goose.

#5. Here is Jonathan Haidt's reply to the criticism of Moral Foundations Theory:

Comments for this post are closed