From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sat Jul 09 2005 - 23:45:30 BST
Hola Platt,
[Platt asked]
>Can we agree that there's a difference between the methods used by
>politicians and corporations vs. those used by government? Do you see a
>difference between the power to persuade and the power to jail? When it
>comes to vigilance concerning power structures, can we agree that
>government is the largest and potentially the most dangerous power
>structure of all?
[Arlo responds]
We can agree there is a difference. Can we agree that one (at the point of
a gun) is "overt", in that it makes people act in ways they normally would
not act BUT they are aware of the external coercion, and that one is
"covert", in that people "internalize" the action in a way that makes the
coercion invisible (mostly), i.e., they come to believe that they would act
in this way even without the coercion.
You seem to find the first, overt coercion, to be a larger threat. I don't,
primarily because so long as people are aware of the coercion they can plot
and strategize ways to eliminate it. When people are covertly coerced
through powerful psychological means to internalize values that they would
normally reject, it becomes very difficult (if not near impossible) to
combat it. BECAUSE combatting it requires it first to be made visible, and
been seen as an external coercive force rather than an internal valuation
(that would be quite different without the force).
In other words, it is easy to see the soldier or policeman with his gun, it
is not easy to see the psychological manipulations of, for example, a
powerful speech, advertising, or (I would argue) consumerist placation.
[Arlo had said]
> > The point is that, of course, there are both "qualitative" and
> > "quantitative" research questions. When I ask, "do Americans live longer
> > than people in any other country?", that IS a question I can answer with
> > statistical measures. I can also answer whether people at various
> > socio-economic levels have an average different lifespan.
[Platt responded]
>I'm sure your familiar with the aphorism, "Lies, damned lies and
>statistics." Statistics are no better than the people who compile them.
>Hopefully, those who do compile them have some credentials for doing so
>and a track record of getting them right. But, the fact that two different
>organizations give two different rankings on national longevity makes me
>suspect they lack "objective truth."
[Arlo adds]
Only if you define the "objective truth" as the precise number. For
example, whether we are 38th or 46th. You can, and SHOULD, in such studies
have their included criteria open to you (as a reader) to then base your
view on. However, you can argue that such findings clearly show the US to
be "down the list". You can argue 38th or 46th all you want, but the
underlying "proof" is that the US does not top the list. And what this
means is that you can (as I do) dismiss D'Souza's claim as being
unsupported opinion. I don't care that he holds it, but I care when it is
used as if it were "objective truth". In short, you can argue as to the
precise quantitative measures used, but the claim is a quantitative one,
and if it is offered as "truth", D'Souza must offer some support for how he
can make such a claim.
[Platt said]
>I presume he, being an academic, makes the observations from evidence
>offered in one or more of his books. The article in question is, after
>all, a brief summary of his years of study, not an academic treatise.
[Arlo responds]
Fair enough. Are you going to make me buy his books, or can you provide
some of his supportive research? :-)
[Arlo had asked]
> > For example, his comment "America has the gentlest army in the world" (or
> > something like that) needs some definition. And it needs to respond to the
> > historical facts that our army has been involved in situations that many
> > people feel were "misguided". Not to mention the obvious comparison with an
> > army such as the Belgian. Statements need some clarification and support,
> > they can't JUST be unsubstantiated opinion. Well, they CAN be, but then
> > that's all they should claim to be.
[Platt responded]
>As for support, see above. Does Belgium have an army?
[Arlo adds]
The fact that you have to ask indicates all by itself that its army is more
"gentle" than ours. :-) Here's a link to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Army
> > I'd agree. But no comparison can be made between Denmark and the US,
> > getting back the original proposition that "less CEP means the majority of
> > citizens lead better lives"?
>
>Do you now, percentage wise, the degree of CEP in Denmark vs. the U.S.?
>
No. But I'd be fairly comfortable saying they rely on more governmental
oversight of business than we do.
[Arlo had said]
> > As
> > I said to Ham, are the Amish "wanting to be admired" when they work
> > communally to pay for, and build, barns (etc) for others in their
> > community? Was Jesus looking to be admired when he performed all those
> > charitable and compassionate acts?
[Platt responded]
>Do not the Amish wish to be admired by God? And surely you're not
>comparing yourself to Jesus.
[Arlo adds]
I am most certainly not. What I am saying is that people are often
motivated to act in a way that they won't receive any material reward for
(whether in the form of economic capital (money) or symbolic capital (high
social standing)). Being "admired by God" fits that definition. Even the
Bible, however, points out that "false humility" is a danger when, in
saying you are doing something "for God", you are really doing it "for
social praise".
The point is that many people worldwide act in community-minded ways, often
at a material sacrifice to themselves, oriented by a higher ideal than
material capital (economic or symbolic). To make an implication that such
compassionate action is somehow "self-serving" belies a materialist
normalization of people. If you've made no such implication, I apologize.
> > [Arlo asked]
> > > > But let me ask you, are the "poor" responsible for their poverty?
> >
> > [Platt responded]
> > > In many cases in the U.S., yes.
> > [Arlo responded]
> > How often? The majority of poor? Half? About what percent would you say are
> > responsible for their poverty?
>[Platt then asked]
>I haven't the slightest idea. What percent would you say are NOT
>responsible for their poverty? Can you prove it?
[Arlo replies]
Well, my "educated opinion" is that no one wants to be poor. It is a
horrible, unpleasant situation to be in. I would say that large majority of
poor people are not choosing to be in such a condition. And, since every
social mobility study I've been able to find indicates no significant class
movement in this country, whether from poor->low income, low income->middle
class, or middle-class->(let's just say "up"), I am inclined to believe
most people have no control in "moving up" the social rung. I'm still
waiting for one study from you that does show significant class
progression, especially from poor-low income.
After all, if you hypothesis is that "poor people are just lazy" (or
something like that), then we should see **significant** rising from and
falling into poverty each generation. What we see instead are that low
income children stay low income, middle income children stay middle income,
poor children stay poor.
On what do you base the idea that the majority ARE to blame?
[Arlo previously]
> > Also, in what ways are they responsible?
[Platt responded]
>By dropping out of school, by not showing up for work on time every day,
>by having bastard children, by taking drugs, etc., etc.
[Arlo replies]
Wow. I didn't realize there were people who used the "bastard" designation
any longer.
[Arlo had asked]
> > Reread my paragraph and tell me how I "bashed" the founders? I "bashed"
> > Limbaughians, to be sure. But where and how did I bash the founders?
[Platt replied]
>By closely associating Limbaugh (whom you bash) with the Founders.
[Arlo adds]
You're right. I should not have associated Limbaugh with the founders at
all. But c'mon, I said only positive things about the founders. That
Limbaughians evoke the founders for some psychological distraction is
fairly common knowledge (although they might not want it to be). I
certainly don't blame the founders for this.
[Platt responds to Arlo's agreement to use Wikipedia and MW Dictionary, but
not exclusively]
>What sources would you suggest we might agree on? Seems we could save an
>awful lot of time and frustration if we could agree on reliable sources.
>If I cite Limbaugh as a source you would object. LIkewise, if you cite
>Chomsky. Also, we should try to agree on what constitutes "truth" and
>"proof."
[Arlo replies]
I think both "truth" and "proof" depend on the claim being made. Some
things are, after all, opinion (although one hopefully based on a response
to Quality, and not covert or overt coercion). We should agree then to be
upfront when opinion claims are made (educated and otherwise), and should
be wary of opinion that passes itself of as "truth".
I don't simply dismiss Limbaugh, much as I love to poke fun at him (like
you do Clinton :-)). Just the other day I mentioned to Ham an area where
Sean Hannity and I are in agreement. He lost me when he decided it was more
important to politicize than to critically evaluate. So, that's one key
(for me). If you present to me something that is obvious politicization I
will dismiss it, although I may agree with the underlying concern or
statement. Limbaugh, and I listen to him at least once a week, as I do Al
Franken, Dean Edell, Roe Conn (WLS in Chicago, one of my favorite talk
radio hosts) and Jay Marvin (who keeps a radio blog at
http://blogs.salon.com/0002606/)... anyway, Limbaugh is a politicizer. He
is more concerned with demonizing liberals and glorifying conservatives
than looking for truth. Even he admits he deliberately takes a rightist
slant on everything.
However, what I look for mostly in sources are (1) open and viewable
research, (2) a concern with truth over political agenda, and (3) an
evolutionary view. What I mean by 3 is that people who dogmatically cling
to ideas are usually more interested in advancing their "cause" than
critically and fairly examining facts. So while people may debate over what
the facts "mean", people who continually dismiss them are (in my opinion)
propagandists for a "cause" other than "truth".
So, you can cite me any source you wish. As with D'Souza, I'll read it (if
I have time), and let you know where I agree or disagree. With the D'Souza
piece I saw far more politicizing and advancing a political agenda than
concern over the actuality of what he was saying. This is the type of stuff
I dismiss. I would expect you'd do the same.
[Arlo had said]
> > Interesting, you know, wikipedia is a massive collectivist project,
> > undertaking by people for no profit (almost exclusively anonymously, I
> > might add), all to make something "better". :-)
>
[Platt responded]
>Sometimes it works, like the MD, hopefully. But, how often? Perhaps you
>can cite some studies that "prove" what percent of enterprise ought to be
>collectivist and nonprofit.:-)
[Arlo replies]
The fact that I have heard you admit to the value of collectivist
enterprise alone means I will sleep well tonight. :-) As for what
percentage "should" be, I have no idea. But I imagine we will be seeing
more as time goes by, emerging as they should by individuals valuing such
activity.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 09 2005 - 23:55:28 BST