1 of 4
1
Dan Kahan - The Great Ideological Asymmetry Debate
Posted: 13 February 2012 07:45 PM   [ Ignore ]
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  170
Joined  2009-06-02

Host: Chris Mooney

So who’s right, factually, about politics and science? Who speaks truth, and who’s just spinning?

It’s kind of the million dollar question. If we could actually answer it, we’d have turned political debate itself into a… well, a science.

And is such an answer possible? What does the scientific evidence suggest?

In this episode of Point of Inquiry, Chris Mooney brought back a popular guest from last year, Yale’s Dan Kahan, to discuss this very question-one that they’ve been emailing about pretty much continually ever since Kahan appeared on the show.

In the episode, Kahan and Mooney not only review but debate the evidence on whether “motivated” ideological biases are the same on both sides of the political aisle—or alternatively, whether they’re actually “asymmetrical.”

Dan Kahan is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at the Yale Law School. He’s also the Eli Goldston Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School. His research focuses on “cultural cognition”-how our social and political group affiliations affect our views of what’s true in contested areas like global warming and nuclear power-and motivated reasoning. Before then, he served as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall, of the U.S. Supreme Court (1990-91) and to Judge Harry Edwards of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1989-90).

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/dan_kahan_the_great_ideological_asymmetry_debate/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2012 02:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2012-02-14

After hearing several times during this podcast your worry about people sleeping or turning off the podcast I wanted to comment.  I have been listening to the show for several months now and while I enjoy it, I never actually felt the need to comment.  In light of your apparent worries I wanted to make my feelings clear.  I enjoyed this episode immensely and was not bored or tired of the conversation and cannot wait for follow up on this topic.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2012 06:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  56
Joined  2010-02-11

Wow. thank you. I haven’t shown up in these forums much, but I’ll show up for this comment! thank you thank you for listening and I’m so glad you feel that way

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2012 06:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2012-02-15

I am a new listener and just want to reaffirm cleardale’s post. Phenomenal program, if anything it wasn’t long enough. More like this please. I look forward to your book.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2012 09:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1404
Joined  2010-04-22

Nice episode. There are some awfully important concepts in there for those of us who are concerned with the science-acceptance problem.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2012 07:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  55
Joined  2008-03-21

Way too hot and heavy on the jargon in this episode.  There were large stretches in which Dan and Chris forgot they had an audience and dropped into geek mode, sort of like Robert Price tended to do with his guests.  This is particularly surprising given that they admitted planning out the episode.  Any time you have to apologize to the audience for boring them, it’s a sure sign you’ve messed up the presentation.

[ Edited: 16 February 2012 07:47 PM by Taylor ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2012 07:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  85
Joined  2009-05-28

I haven’t even finished the episode but I have to go. But what myopia. Are you guys even aware of the Boyle-Hobbes debate. Hobbes observed in the 17th century that when their passions and interests are at stake, men will NEVER agree. Save yourself a few centuries of ink and breath here guys. No correlation of evolutionary denialism on the left? For god’s sake what about the denial of the aggressive and malicious intent, and the brutality and deliberate deceptions of the Soviet Union? What about labor union violence, blackmail, and coercion? What about the actual economic effects of minimum wage, federal deficits, and “stimulus” spending? The underlying difference is the overt rejection of truth by the left, considering it a bourgeois weakness or vice in an ends-justifies-the-means Global Revution. For the most part, the right isn’t aware of that. They can’t conceive of so many consistently brazenly dishonest people, but they have realized they can’t trust you. And speaking of denialism - now you can’t imagine why the people who hate you because you hate and mock them as a life mission and lie to them as a deliberate policy, won’t believe you when you think you are telling the truth?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2012 07:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4350
Joined  2010-08-15

Oh boy, as if to underscore the truth within that interview.

As for the left being guiltless…
ok, ok, so it’s universal.

As for rg21‘s angry rant, I could feel the steam coming out of his ears

rg21 - 17 February 2012 07:01 AM

For god’s sake what about the denial of the aggressive and malicious intent, and the brutality and deliberate deceptions of the Soviet Union?

Yea, yea and what about McCarthyism and the manufactured paranoia?
Or the stupid counter productive way Cuba was dealt with from the beginning?

rg21 - 17 February 2012 07:01 AM

What about labor union violence, blackmail, and coercion?


Right, right and child labor, 12hour/6day weeks, no on job safety, no after job support or benefits, no legal standing and incidentally slavery were all wonderful.  eh?

rg21 - 17 February 2012 07:01 AM

What about the actual economic effects of minimum wage, federal deficits, and “stimulus” spending?


And what’s wrong with minimum wage?
“Federal Deficits” gag me with a spoon and look at what Reagan and the Bush’s did to our deficits.
Not to mention the insane road Bush/Cheney set the world on!
“Stimulus” spending, don’t know about that but what about Corporate Welfare?

rg21 - 17 February 2012 07:01 AM

For the most part, the right isn’t aware of that. They can’t conceive of so many consistently brazenly dishonest people, but they have realized they can’t trust you. And speaking of denialism - now you can’t imagine why the people who hate you because you hate and mock them as a life mission and lie to them as a deliberate policy, won’t believe you when you think you are telling the truth?

This one is really precious… why not consider the ruthlessness and manufactored crazy making of the likes Marshall Institute, CATO, SPPI, Heartland, Koch and who lordie only knows how many others.


rolleyes

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2012 07:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4350
Joined  2010-08-15

As for the interview I found it quite interesting and worth digging some gems out of
though I know it’ll take a couple more listens before those gems soak into me lil head.

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2012 07:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  20
Joined  2011-12-13
rg21 - 17 February 2012 07:01 AM

For god’s sake what about the denial of the aggressive and malicious intent, and the brutality and deliberate deceptions of the Soviet Union? [...] The underlying difference is the overt rejection of truth by the left, considering it a bourgeois weakness or vice in an ends-justifies-the-means Global Revution. For the most part, the right isn’t aware of that. They can’t conceive of so many consistently brazenly dishonest people, but they have realized they can’t trust you.

Your observation about stakes was very apropos. Your rant is a demonstration of that observation.

You speak of left denial when in fact US communists were shattered by revelations of Stalin’s crimes, for example. So it appears you exaggerate left denial all the while ignoring the crimes of the self and profit-oriented.  The right is not aware of “bourgeois weakness” or “vice” (which are now in abundant evidence)? How can that be, hmm?

Your straw conception—“so many consistently brazenly dishonest people”—is a caricature of the left’s explanation of how so many people have been consistently betrayed by profit orientation. Now why would you want to caricature that analysis, hmm?

Getting hot in your world?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2012 08:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  20
Joined  2011-12-13

When scientists appear to be studying rhetoric with intent to manipulate, it makes me very uneasy.

Why not organize a science strike for sane climate policy? I think you will find some very interesting biases in the scientists’ rejections there.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2012 04:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2012-02-17

One of the questions I have is:  am I wrong in thinking that the progressives were energized and focused in the late 1800s and early 1900s? What changed?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2012 04:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  56
Joined  2010-02-11

Taylor,
I’ll take that under advisement. I knew that was a risk with this show.
cm

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2012 06:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  85
Joined  2009-05-28

Denying the humanity of unborn babies
Denying the brutal tyranny and oppressiveness of Cuba and Castro
Denying the raw repugnant filthiness of sodomy
Denial that anti-white racism is widely institutionalized and practiced and is racism
Denying the net benevolence of modern Christianity, Creationism notwithstanding
Denying the relevance and danger of virulent Islamism
Denying their own blatant bias in response to and treatment of these two religions
Denying the definitional homosexuality of men abusing boys, calling it somehow heterosexual
Denying that exposing women to pain, crippling, mutilation, capture, torture, insult, rape, and death in combat is barbaric.
Denying the obscene stupidity of marketing this as “opportunity” and equality.
A couple of generations of liberals who persisted in denying the stupidity, much less the horror of their youthful (at a minimum) infatuation with communism.
All the anti-McCarthy breast beating denying the existence, much less the seriousness of the Communist and Soviet threats.
Some liberals denying the blatant, increasingly undisguised bias of the national news and entertainment media.
Denying the measured and documented greater generosity, responsibility, and compassion of the average individual conservative in terms of money, time, blood, anything anyone has measured, as compared to the typical liberal.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2012 12:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4350
Joined  2010-08-15

Ironically, or should I say apropos, I’m in an airport terminal right now with a little kid incoherently screaming at the top of their lungs and the parents seemingly incapable of doing anything about it.

Some sort of cosmic poetry going on there.

At least I know the kid will eventually run out of steam.

PS. this is a discussion thread, not a Time-Out room.

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2012 03:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2009-02-26

rg21,

I doubt the 21 stands for your birthyear so I’ll assume it is your actual age. In any case, you have a lot to learn.  Critical thinking is an acquired skill, which you do not yet seem to possess.

[ Edited: 18 February 2012 03:05 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 4
1