Jim Devine quoted Simon Baron-Cohen from today's NYT:
> These results suggest a genetic cause of autism, with
> both parents contributing genes that ultimately relate to a similar
> kind of mind: one with an affinity for thinking systematically.
>
> In order to fully test this theory, we still need to do a lot of work.
> The specific genes involved must be identified. It is a theory that
> may be controversial and perhaps unpopular among those who believe
> that the cause of autism is largely or totally environmental. But
> controversy is not a reason not to test it - systematically, as we
> might say.
>
This overlooks the possibility that investigating things "systematically" in this sense may ignore essential features of the phenomena being investigated. For instance, as I've pointed out before, the general idea of "determinism" underpinning the approach embodies a specific corrigible ontology having no logical space for self-determination and final causation. The associated incapacity for "empathy" is then an incapacity for understanding phenomena, such as autism, in which self-determination and final causation may play an essential role.
Neoclassical economics is "systematic" in the same "autistic" sense. So is much else, e.g. the treatment of the motivation behind suicide bombings as an instrumentally rational strategy where "rational strategy" is understood in terms of "game theory" (an area of study where incapacity for entering empathetically into the motives and feelings of others - e.g. John Nash - is a prerequisite for rather than a barrier to "success"). This general approach to strategic thinking (in the form of the Revolution in Military Affairs) apparently appeals to some neo-conservatives . It would make psychological (though not logical) sense if these tended to be the same neo-conservatives attracted to the ideas of Leo Strauss.
Ted