babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Talking to the right-winger in your life
July 4, 2008 - 11:51am
The answer...
The writer starts from the assumption that her background is broad, and that his friends are the dumb ones. He doesn't entertain the possibility that in fact he may be the narrow-minded one.
I've never seen anybody go from left to right or vice versa in a short time frame. Human beings are way too stubborn, and usually they had good reason to be where they are in the first place, so counterevidence will take a while to accumulate in a sufficient manner.
Dear Mikhail:
Grow a brain, you insufferable, anti-intellectual smudge of vapid smugness.
That's a pretty good translation of Ms. C's first sentence.
My impression of the reason that people that do well in activities that have good objective standards of goodness (engineering and athletics being classic) is that it's clear to them that they got there because they are better than the others in their immediate vicinity. So they think the whole world works that way.
How true that is is left as an exercise for the student.
Maybe he's asking 'How do I deal with people who keep calling me when I make shit up?'
[ 04 July 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
I have had some flatly deny that median income is on the order of 30K, they assert it must be closer to 60K because of tips(!?).
Apples, no offense but weren't you the one who posted the sciences on a scale, with sociologists being the lowest and mathematicians being the highest?
Anyways, most of the Business majors and computer science students were some of the most conservative groups of people I have ever met. I expect it is a product of their education OR they pick these fields because they are conservative.
Er, with business that sub population is probably equal to the whole population [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
I found most of my computer science colleagues to be poorly equipped for moral or political arguments. (In fact, I can recall discussing this with one of them. He agreed.) I don't say this because a lot of them were conservative. I recognize a good debater whatever his or her position. I think it's maybe due to a lack of general knowledge: not knowing the history of such discussions, perhaps, or the range of opinion, the counter-arguments, etc.
That's not to say I haven't heard a lot of very poor arguments on all sides.
Yes I was.
But that scale was a joke, which was making fun of everybody, and anyway it had mathematics first and not the sciences.
Do you think Rand-O-Bots constitute a significant fraction of the economics population?
Economics is an important subject, and learning it properly requires investing heavily in specialised skills. Intellectual sloth is not a moral virtue.
There's some truth to that. For instance a lot of leftists are hostile to the idea of a "natural rate of unemployment, quite understandably I think. Doesn't mean they should just "give up" and say, ah, economics is just rightwing pseudo-science.
That being said, have you found there to be a difference between econ majors and business majors in terms of aspirations, political views, etc.?
Actually, the conceit is not mine. I claim no expertise in economics - and in fact, Stephen, I am far more likely than most on this board to accept your word on economic theory, though I may disagree with you in terms of policy because i believe the political consequences of a given policy are greater than the benefits or risks you cite from an economic perspective.
There was a time when being "cultured" meant having a breadth of knowledge in a variety of areas, because we knew that history affects literature affects politics affects economics affects sport affects nature affects etc., etc., etc. Today, in fields as "diverse" as literature and economics, experts create insider language that excludes those not inititated into the elite of a given field. Their study no longer contributes to public debate, in fact the public is advised very seriously to "stay out of it".
This obscures knowledge, debate, and I would argue democracy.
but then, maybe i'm just conceited.