People sometimes ask the Antiplanner if smart growth is just a plot by liberal Democrats to force more people to live in cities, where they will become liberal Democrats. Normally my answer is that people don’t become liberal because they live in cities; instead, they live in cities because they are liberal. After all, I didn’t see any reason why living in a dense urban environment would tend lead to people to vote Democrat.
A recent Boston Globe blog post causes me to rethink this, however. Patrick Smith normally writes about air travel, but on Monday he was upset enough by something happening in his neighborhood that he deviated from this mission. Apparently, a homeowner near the rental home Smith lives in wants to cut down “an old, beautiful, and perfectly healthy tree” on the homeowner’s property.
Smith thinks this will “adversely affect the quality of life for me and several of my neighbors.” He suggests that “at a certain point, a tree is no longer one person’s private property per se, and belongs to the community.” Smith thinks that property owners should be restricted as to what they do with their trees.
Not surprisingly, Smith’s column generated lots of feedback, most of it negative. He responds by noting that many of the comments focus on the fact that he is a renter, not a property owner, but he doesn’t see “how or why that matters in the greater context of my argument.”
Kamagra can likewise help a man discharge a few times in a week can majorly help your ticker and is completely good for your heart and other parts, too. order cialis on line The accuracy of fracture alignment is extremely important as they require to be particularly for orgasms and the particular person may be using some medication which will result in mortality or severe morbidity if taken with cialis 40 mg http://www.midwayfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2017-Final-Budget.pdf. Also, avoid drinking alcohol as not to enhance the side effects that might occur when you are not viagra samples able to have proper erections during an intimacy. Male models have a very competitive industry as most male models have to be perfectly fit to get hired on most jobs and because there are so many these days that have already been its victim and still are finding a way out or a solution for the issue. buy generic cialis
Apparently, he seems to think that people are arguing that renters should have less of a say in the future of their community than homeowners. But that’s not what they are saying. Instead, their point is that Smith would have a better appreciation of property rights if he himself were a property owner. As one commenter notes, it can go both ways: if you lose the right to cut trees on your property, you could also lose the right to keep trees on your property. (During World War II, the federal government forced the Avery family, which had purchased Oregon old-growth forests for preservation, to cut its trees for the war effort.)
If homeowners are more likely to appreciate the importance of property rights than renters, then perhaps a policy of trying to get more people to live in dense urban environments does, intentionally or not, favor communitarian politicians including many liberal Democrats. Density normally means a greater share of people living in multifamily housing. About 17 out of 20 occupied multifamily dwellings are renter-occupied, while the same proportion of single-family homes are owner-occupied.
Renters, especially in multifamily dwellings, are likely to rely on community property for landscaping, recreation facilities, laundry, and parking. Nobody cuts down a tree in a garden apartment without permission of the landlord, who is certainly going to be sensitive to tenants’ aesthetic needs. It might be easy for people living in such areas to lose sight of the value of property rights.
I doubt whether many Democratic politicians support densification because they think they are making more Democrats. But Republican politicians should be especially wary of policies that could cause their constituents to lose sight of important values such as property rights.
I like Patrick Smith a lot. His Ask The Pilot blog is great. But I also agree with the commenters, as well as the AP(!), that he’s not really in a position to make landscaping decisions for his neighbours.
I remember when the great Mr. T bought a big estate in Lake Forest, IL. On Green Bay Road across from the Onwentsia Country Club (no blacks or Jews please). (I caddied there as a teenager but that’s a different story.)
Then proceeded to cut down more than 100 Oak trees. The townspeople, who at first were slightly bemused with the idea of Mr. T living in Lake Forest (he was often spotted around town in a red Rolls Royce convertible), were aghast. (And the property did look pretty shabby afterwords.) The episode became known as The Lake Forest Chain Saw Massacre.
But, yeah, it was his property and there weren’t any ordinances preventing him from doing this. In the aftermath the City Council considered putting some regulations in place to prevent a sequel, but I don’t think they went anywhere.
IIRC, he sold the place some years later. I’ve always wondered what impact his landscaping project had on the value of the property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._T
I don’t see the cause. Liberal cities like Minneapolis and St. Paul are full of SFH occupied by their owners. They have neighborhoods full of households owning SFHs that make $100k to $200k a year. Not wealthy households but well off enough that they don’t really need the city for anything. They have ample street parking and garages in their alleys. Yet every time the city runs out of money, they’re out there spending their own money to make lawn signs that call for raising taxes or fighting a local land owner that wants to tear down an old, historically insignificant building to add parking spots for their business.
The same happens in low density areas. In the township my parents live in, the county is in charge of zoning. A regional convenience store chain wanted to build a gas station at the freeway interchange. People over a mile away fought it even though hands down it would be the closest place for everyone in the township to buy milk and gas and the area was zoned for exactly that type of business.
I don’t see the desire to control things that aren’t ours to control as being limited to the city nor limited to political party.
Speaking of Minneapolis, Mr. O’Toole if you’re reading these comments and haven’t been keeping track of the Southwest Light Rail project, you should. They’ve been stuck in a Mexican standoff for the last year. I’d be happy to fill you in on things. I think you’ll find it interesting because one the parties, the city of Minneapolis, blocking the project normally lobbies for rail transit. Also there’s an element of misplanning as the current freight routing was supposed to be temporary but its still in use. And it came about when they updated MN55 and part of the Hiawatha LRT project. As you can probably guess, another interesting aspect is the byzantine laws and regulations regarding freight rail.
I definitely think there is something about “world views” be it “conservative” or “liberal” being learned and not innate. And, there is certainly something in the urban environment that fosters, promotes, or encourages the “liberal” world view. Something about relying on “nature” vs relying on “man” I think.
I own a two lot property, rental house on one lot, the other lot vacant with a lawn, 8 large lilac bushes and 4 big trees, both lots unfenced. My neighbors in the high density, expensive, desirable, downtownish area, mixed tenants and condo owners, treated the vacant, green lot as a short-cut, a dog crapping area and a picnic area.
Often, when I was there for inspection or maintenance in the summer I would eject such folk and tell them it was private property. I got zero, absolutely zero, apologetic responses. I got obscenities from 2 older women from the condos next door who were having a picnic, lit cigarettes thrown at me by 3 younger guys walking and crapping their dogs, with curses of course, offers to fistfight from a young, long haired, sandaled hippy type short-cutting, twice.
I gave up and decided to rip out all the greenery and replace it all with gravel. In my jurisdiction fencing and graveling can be done without permit if the gravel is ‘landscaping’. Because I knew these jerks would file a myriad of complaints, I had my heavy equipment contractor do the work from early Good Friday through late Easter Sunday.
I hung around the property Monday supervising the final fencing. Sure enough, a by-law enforcement officer showed up around 11 AM and told me he had 32 complaints that I was developing a parking lot without a permit. I showed him the fence fully surrounding the gravel and told him it was landscaping. He laughed, said ‘good for you’ and left.
After that, the property was repeatedly the subject of minor vandalism, especially having cigarette butts and garbage tossed over the back fence. I have security camera videos of many of my neighbors walking down the center of the alley, taking a 50 foot detour to the back fence, which is 20 feet inside my property line, just to throw butts and trash over the fence. It stopped when I confronted the condominium directors and threatened legal action.
The area has a homeless problem I often had to evict homeless people sleeping in a sheltered front porch. Not one of them gave the bullshit and hostility I got from what are supposed to be a ‘better type’ of person
Since then I have had many requests from the condo owners next door to rent parking spaces on my ‘landscaping’. Not gonna happen.
I like this thread a lot – lots going on here today to think about. Thank you Randal:
I definitely think there is something about “world views” …being learned and not innate.
I don’t see the desire to control things that aren’t ours to control as being limited to the city nor limited to political party.
The psychological and sociological sciences are doing a good job at figuring out the human brain and how it works on behavior and interaction.
Much of our ideology is inherent, and drives how we self-sort to certain areas. When we get to these areas, the notion of ‘contested space’ is mediated by our ideology and how we learn to interact. We resolve conflict via social mores and laws, and our ideologies are a lens through which we view conflict and scarcity.
The Internets and social media are like a firehose of information, unfiltered, and can either inform or obfuscate issues such as contested space. Events and social change are proceeding faster than our mores and institutions can adapt, and there is no sign of it slowing down.
Fred_Z’s story is all of this in a microcosm, and is interesting to think about through our lenses, IMHO.
DS
My experience is that people yell and complain the loudest when they have been getting away with something they know is beyond what they own/deserve, and then it is taken away. For example, when people have been cutting through or encroach on other’s property, when people come to think of a parking space or camping spot as “theirs”, or when people receive a “discount” that other people do not get,
I think people subconsciously know that they are getting something they don’t deserve, so they are subconsciously building up arguments why they really should be entitled to it, and when they are challenged all that subconscious frustration comes out.
Consider the farmer. The things beyond his control like the weather, epidemics, pestilence are clearly beyond his control. If he fails due to one of those factors he can’t pass the blame to another group of people to either sue or legislatively penalize. A professional or businessman in the city has many factors beyond his control… but many just beyond his control. If he fails because his clientele move after a factor closes he can very clearly pin the blame on an individual and sue/legislate for recourse. I can certainly see how farming could foster a respect for a divine control of nature, while running a business in the city might foster a respect for the legislative/judicial branches of government.
Yes, I recognize today farmers can get relief from the government.
This just follows the growth in “rights’ and “entitlements” in our country. Why shouldn’t that person be able to take or use your property? Why can’t they order you to use your property the way they demand? Many politicians (one in particular) make a whole career out of encouraging others to demand and take what someone else has.
Unfortunately, this attitude is not limited to renters – many property owners have the same attitude these days. And they all try to use the government to enforce their wants and demands.
Gotta agree w/ prk166. This is no different than suburban towns dominated by SFR owners that have all sorts of “public nuisance” ordinances about how you can landscape your lawn, the color you can paint your house, etc.
In fact if anything, I would say that people in SFR neighborhoods have less respect for property rights. I live in Palms, LA, which is mostly renters. If you own an SFR & you want to expand it or build apartments, no one cares. But go across the 10 to the SFRs of Cheviot Hills or Beverlywood, and you will find property owners organizing to try to get the city to decrease allowable FAR & lot coverage because they don’t like their neighbors building “McMansions” on their private property.
“After all, I didn’t see any reason why living in a dense urban environment would tend lead to people to vote Democrat.”
It’s a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. While self sorting certainly occurs, I think planners and sociologists give way too much credence to it. As a sociologist and a planner have to admit that I do believe that living in a dense urban environment will lead people to vote for collectivist policies and politicians (not necessarily democrats), regardless of what their political affiliations were before they got to the dense area. Living in a dense area requires collectivism. It is no surprise to me that the longer someone stays in a dense area the more likely they are to start supporting communitarian policies. Sure, there are people that want to do whatever they want regardless of the impact on the people around them, but I would not label these people republicans or individualist. I would label them assholes.
As for the trees… Here in Austin we have a tree ordinance. There are many old Live Oaks in our urban forest and if you own a property with a particularly old one, the powers at be are not going to let you cut it down (or do everything they can to prevent it’s removal). It’s rarely an issue as these old Oaks add significant value to a property, but every now and again a story comes along about a property owner, usually a developer, who wants to chop down a 300 year old Oak and the culture war ensues. Se la vie.
Dan said: “Much of our ideology is inherent…”
I don’t know what you mean by “inherent,” but our ideology is 100% learned. I would argue that 99.9% of all behavior is learned and damn near nothing we do is “inherent.” The 0.01% of behavior that might possibly be genetic or inherent can be trumped by nurture. I would agree that just because we learned something doesn’t mean that we choose to learn it. In that sense our ideology is “inherent” even though it is completely and totally dependent on external forces.
letsgola January 23, 2014 at 12:03 pm
Gotta agree w/ prk166. This is no different than suburban towns dominated by SFR owners that have all sorts of “public nuisance” ordinances about how you can landscape your lawn, the color you can paint your house, etc.
Absolutely agree. SFR neighborhoods historically are the source of pressure for downzoning, NIMBYism, and a lot of the government actions that have led to inflated housing prices as well documented by Krugman and others in the “Zoned Zone,” er, more precisely, the “Downzoned Zone.”
Regardless of how one feels about the topic, the impact of downzoning is to preserve and enhance the value of single family houses, regardless of the market for smaller lot houses, apartments and other multiple unit housing. Of course, the people who cannot afford SF houses get screwed by this blatant interference in the housing market, and The Antiplanner has to deal with the paradox of his nominal libertarian support of “free markets” but also his support of private neighborhood associations controlling zoning (can you say “sandbox for NIMBYs?” and other exclusionary abuses of the public interest…)
Really, msetty writing about theh market is like a dictator waxing poetic about the value of individual freedom.
Ah, one of the mindless Eliza-type program trolls emerges from under its rock and brain farts all over us again. What a gooey, stinky mess!
Of course, the slimy creature can never prove that I’m wrong about NIMBYized downzoning.
I would argue that 99.9% of all behavior is learned and damn near nothing we do is “inherent.” The 0.01% of behavior that might possibly be genetic or inherent can be trumped by nurture.
A good portion of our tendencies are indeed inherent (maybe innate is better, dunno). The current tip of the ‘understanding the nature-nurture scale’ is toward ‘nature’. What science thinks it understands today is where you fit into the spectrum of liberal-conservative has a lot to do with your brain wiring, especially how you react to fear, risk, novelty and change; also, too: self-regarding and other-regarding tendencies.
Absent something that forces a paradigm shift, as the human brain folks understand it today, the basic ‘nature’ of ideology and worldview is generally set. Both in the neural pathways and the ability of those pathways to change to a new routing.
DS
Ah, one of the mindless Eliza-type program trolls emerges from under its rock and brain farts all over us again
Of course, whenever anything is said that msetty disagrees with, it is always someone mentally ill, or an asshole, or a troll, or a computer program run amok. It just couldn’t be that some people might be slightly upset with msetty’s desire to turn the entire US into a Manhattan apartment complex while he, Kunstler, and all the other New Urbanism assholes live on their 40 acre ranches far away from the “mundanes”.
regardless of the market for smaller lot houses, apartments and other multiple unit housing
Odd how trolls like msetty (and I do mean that term in the sense of a profoundly ugly person), blather about the enormous demand for new urbanism housing, yet whenever such housing is to be built, surprise, large public subsidies are required. Wonder why???
It is truly too bad that liberals haven’t progressed beyond “that guy has more than me, so I vote for government to take his and give it to me.” Even the Tenth Commandment warned about coveting one’s anything that is your neighbor’s. Liberals just focus on spitting up what mankind already has, so that the government and government employees are empowered to decide who wins and who loses. Liberals believe that only a society run by holy moral politicians can be fair.
Conservatives spend their time worrying about how mankind can grow and ever improve its situation. Conservatives believe an economic system that assumes everyone is out to serve their own interest is far superior than economic systems relying upon government workers and politicians to be morally superior and not looking after their own personal interest.
Conservatives also understand that when trees rot they release CO2 into the air.
zoning
1) a way for planning agencies to force neighborhoods to accept unwanted developments such as row houses, apartments, and commercial uses. 2) (archaic) a way for planning agencies to help neighborhoods prevent unwanted developments such as row houses, apartments, and commercial uses.
Explanation–When zoning was first developed in the 1920s, the Supreme Court said that it was a legitimate tool that neighborhoods can use to keep “nuisances” such as apartments and commercial uses out. Now zoning is used by Metro to force neighborhoods to accept such nuisances, which Metro sees as positive developments.
Dan said: “…as the human brain folks understand it today, the basic ‘nature’ of ideology and worldview is generally set.”
As a social scientist (and not a neurologist) I utterly reject this assertion. First and foremost this basically blows up any substantive discussion on ideology. It’s basically saying, “This is the way it is, it aint gonna change, end of discussion.” In fact I cautious anytime someone claims to know what human nature is. Once the “human nature” claim is made the discussion is over. I think it’s bullshit.
Second there are far too many variables and exceptions to the rule. Maybe my 99.9% figure was a little bit of an exaggeration, but I stand by my assertion that for whatever behaviors and ideas are “innate” nurture has the ability to trump it.
If what the brain brainiachs say is true, then why aren’t there more hedonists? If I believed them I certainly would embrace that ideology. If we’re fucked forever…. Well then… Sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll!
No need for trolls to troll this comment, so consider this a preemptive STFU.
If political ideologies are set, please explain the recent surge in libertarian tendencies.
I abandoned Marxist tendencies and defected from the Democratic Party in 2007, changing many of my previously held beliefs, even those on gun control and welfare. Small-l libertarianism has grown, and there are many in the electorate who would support a libertarian politician, although I’m not one of them. (I practice non-voting as an apolitical strategy.)
People are slowly waking up to statism’s failures and accepting economic realities of supply/demand, cost/benefit, scarcity, corporatism, and learning about 100 years of failed monetary policy.
For me—and others—abandoning the two-party system was like taking the red pill. People can and do change.
metrosucks tries to repeal the law of supply and demand. hmmnnn…
Libertarianism is the next big thing. Uh huh. From 43 years ago via National Review:
http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/new_right_credo.html.
A 7% bump in Kansas off a very small base.
As I said, shut the fuck up troll.
And the vile ideology discredited at birth:
Looking at Libertarianism
New York Times Magazine Feb 14, 1971
To the Editor:
There is another side to the doctrine of libertarianism, which Stan Lehr and Louis Rossetto Jr, authors of The New Right Credo — Libertarianism (Jan. 10) fail to make clear. I refer to the libertarianist’s lack of social responsibility, and his subsequent disregard for basic inequalities in areas relating to opportunity, such as education and employment.
The libertarianist reasons that, since he is not personally responsible for the educational and economic plight of groups such as the American Indians or the ghetto blacks, it is an intolerable incursion upon his freedom for the government to tax him in order to finance ghetto schools or job training programs. He argues that one is not responsible for educating another’s children, nor for providing man with equal opportunity.
This philosophy, if actually implemented, would inevitably lead to persistent intellectual and economic bondage for some disadvantaged groups. The doctrine of libertarianism, based upon unlimited freedom, sounds more than a bit suspicious when espoused by educated, affluent whites. Emphasis added.
Charles R Gates II, New York
Hey, troll. SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Frank. NEVER. Your bluster will never quiet me, you loud mouthed asshole troll.
And FUCK YOU ASSHOLE TROLL.
Frank, do you get into bar fights often? With your attitude you really should stay out of bars.
The difference between here and a bar is that I can walk away from assholes like you in a bar. Troll. Fuck me? No. Fuck you.
I asked you not to respond, but you can’t help yourself. Because YOU’RE the troll. Now STFU and go take care of your mommie.
Well, Frank, you can walk away from here, too. Cry me a river! Please leave so until you get over your babyish, cretinish troll name-calling. I seem to recall that Metrosucks started it on this thread and you continued it.
No amount of bluster from you will shut me up in opposing immoral, selfish ideologies such as libertarianism. So as a famous old Democrat who didn’t take b.s. off anyone, particularly Republicans, once said:
IF YOU CAN’T TAKE THE HEAT, GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN.
As for WHY I oppose libertarianism and its offshoots, it is mainly because it is an alien, foreign ideology originally contaminating the U.S., brought over by two aristocratic bullies from the Austrian-Hungarian empire who couldn’t abide their privileged world being swept away by World War I. Von Mises and Von Hayek, of course (About “von”: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071220095822AA1f3JS. Their attitude towards American democracy–however imperfect–is illustrated by Hakek’s abortive proposal to take away the vote from everyone, except a few hand-picked white males in their 40’s who would have the only votes. The only thing more anti-democratic would be a dictatorship or an oligarchy such as in China.
So, NO, Frank, I will not shut up and will oppose libertarian bullshit and twisting of facts whenever there is reasonable opportunity to do so. And I’ll take future name-calling to be just an admission that you don’t have a good answer. If you want a sandbox where us “liburals” (sic) can’t get at you, go to Town Hall, Red State or become a Freeper. At least The Antiplanner is willing to allow his opponents to argue with him, apparently unlike you.
Oh, how I cannot “resist” being a “troll” (sic)
If what you believe is so wonderful, Frank, Metrosucks, et al, please point us to a debunking of the points made in this recent article: http://www.alternet.org/visions/true-history-libertarianism-america-phony-ideology-promote-corporate-agenda.
I won’t be holding my breath.
Wow, lot of poo flinging going on here.
I think the core idea behind this post, Patrick Smith grappling with the conflicting challenges of what it means to be a good neighbour in a dense urban environment, is put into stark relief by some of these rather churlish responses.
Sorta reminds me of Fred_Z’s story about having a nice vacant lot that the neighbours proceed to trash.
And for the record, I live in a place where libertarianism is viewed as a bizarre cult. Kinda like Scientology. And we’re doing just fine, thanks.
I find it interesting that certain people get so belligerent anytime somebody mentions liberty, freedom, Libertarianism or anything that implies we should let people lead their lives as they choose and live with the results.
Gecko55, you’re right.
But my argument, if “poo flinging,” with Metrosucks, Frank et al is relevant and goes to the heart of the same conflicts that Patrick Smith has to put up with: between what individuals do and the point where what they do conflicts with the neighbors or the larger society. The solutions are NEVER as simplistic as the libertarian extremist view of “property rights uber alles damn the public and ‘social justice'” nor the mirror extreme belief of the far left, “all property is theft.”
The fundamental conflict stated another way is simply “balancing individual rights vs. the interests of society” or “property rights vs. social justice” or any number of similar formulations. Of course, not that doctrinaire libertarians or doctrinaire communists ever understood this, and throw poo at people who point out their errors.
Builder January 24, 2014 at 10:50 am
I find it interesting that certain people get so belligerent anytime somebody mentions liberty, freedom, Libertarianism or anything that implies we should let people lead their lives as they choose and live with the results.
You mean Frank, of course. I’m only reacting to his poo-throwing.
And the construction of your statement “…anytime somebody mentions liberty, freedom, Libertarianism or anything that implies we should let people lead their lives as they choose and live with the results” misses the very point I just made to Gecko55. Apparently many libertarians get mad when someone points out the severe limits and myriad moral shortcomings of their precious beliefs.
John Locke was nothing like modern libertarians; see this excellent essay on the topic (pardon the ugly typeface):
http://www.mandalavillage.org/reading/opr_leg_property_rights.htm
I feel like libertarianism is on the rise. the problem for the libertarian party is 1) convincing the unknowing libertarians in the republican party to abandon the republican party (same with the greens and other parties on the left re: the democrats). There are a lot of libertarians out there that don’t know they’re libertarians (my father comes to mind). 2) The libertarians have to find some way to sever the ties from the wack-a-doodle social conservatives that currently dominate and control conservative politics.
I am not a libertarian and I reject many of the policies libertarians bring to the table. That said, I find it refreshing that they walk the ideological walk. Republicans do not want small government. They want an unmitigated private economy and unlimited access to weapons but they want to control and regulate every other aspect of life. Like ’em or not, at least libertarians aren’t ideologically hypocritical.
Those of us of the more liberal/progressive persuasion, that have been scorned by the Democratic party time and time again, could learn something from the libertarians.
msetty, if you think you’re arguing, you’re delusional and need to get out of your mom’s basement. That you think a 43-year-old letter to the editor somehow disproves an entire ideology, which by definition can neither be proven or disproven, you have sustained major mental retardation. You need to stop trolling (you’ve made 13 of the 37 comments on this thread) and stop responding to comments not directed at you. In short, you need to STFU.
“I am not a libertarian and I reject many of the policies libertarians bring to the table. That said, I find it refreshing that they walk the ideological walk. Republicans do not want small government. They want an unmitigated private economy and unlimited access to weapons but they want to control and regulate every other aspect of life.”
The GOP doesn’t really want a private economy, either. They say they do, but their actions speak otherwise. My GOP acquaintances from the east side of the Cascades traveled to DC to clamor for agricultural subsidies and federal water (rights?). Their parents were all too happy to homestead on government land prepared by unconstitutionally imprisoned Japanese Americans after said land had been swindled from the indigenous populations (with the help from the federal army). In the next breath, they decry social welfare and castigate (pregnant) immigrants as lazy.
That said, libertarians don’t really walk the walk, right? How can we? We use government money to pay our government taxes and we drive on government roads and fly on planes guided by government workers. We use government-granted monopoly services, like the USPS, and our leases and employment contracts are regulated by government. We want much less government, but we have little choice but to accept the daily intrusion. Of course, someone will shout, “MOVE TO SOMALIA!” And then that thought-terminating cliche ends the discussion.
Frank, you obviously don’t have any valid responses to my points except name-calling.
See you lack humor, too, Frank. Funny Somalia cartoon.
Frank,
I said you “ideologically” you walk the walk. We’re all hypocrites in practice.
Indeed, bennett. Or rephrased, in reality we are all realists.
First and foremost this basically blows up any substantive discussion on ideology. It’s basically saying, “This is the way it is, it aint gonna change, end of discussion.” In fact I cautious anytime someone claims to know what human nature is. Once the “human nature” claim is made the discussion is over. I think it’s bullshit.
Right. You’ll note I never said what you put in quotations. I wrote phrases such as A good portion …The current tip of the ‘understanding t…thinks it understands today …into the spectrum …Absent something that forces a paradigm shift, as the human brain folks understand it today, …generally … so to leave room for neuroscience to continue to make strides.
Here is a decent writeup of what is understood now, and one of the best books I’ve read in the past couple years is Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow, which both tells the story and explains empirically what is understood about the brain today.
This, of course, does not negate E pluribus unum, shaming, in-group identity (which may be inherent), signaling, reward, social behavior, etc. But it explains a lot of it.
Regards,
DS
Dan, thanks for the links, particularly the Smithsonian Magazine one. Very interesting.
From that link:
…Building on this, the new research shows that Democrats exhibited significantly greater activity in the left insula, a region associated with social and self-awareness, during the task. Republicans, however, showed significantly greater activity in the right amygdala, a region involved in our fight-or flight response system…
So, “Republicans” and others of that ilk are more “fight or flight” responsive…hmmnnn…in other words, they work more of their reptilian, more primitive side of their brains….
Of course I’m sure Frank won’t think this funny but rather a cheap shot from a “troll” but still enlightening nonetheless.
Thanks for the links Dan. I suppose I have a hard time accepting objective takes on subjective matters. It is the curse of the (qualitative) sociologist.
My pleasure on the links, gents. If you’re interested, Charlie Rose has a recurring theme meeting around the table with a number of the heavy hitters in brain neuroscience, shows on-line.
DS
Building on this, the new research shows that Democrats exhibited significantly greater activity in the left insula, a region associated with social and self-awareness, during the task. Republicans, however, showed significantly greater activity in the right amygdala, a region involved in our fight-or flight response system…
Storytelling is fun, isn’t it?
Especially when you have no scholarship to fall back on when you harrumph about something you don’t like and wish to minimize it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Best,
D