[lbo-talk] Bonobo you don't

[ravi]

On 1 May, 2007, at 11:52 AM, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>
> While we are at that, I suspect that Chicago style economists  
> suffer from
> some form of autism, which makes them empathy-blind.  According to  
> Simon
> Baron-Cohen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Baron-Cohen  
> individuals,
> especially males, with high IQ and strong systemizing ability often  
> suffer
> from empathy deficiency, which is a hallmark of autism (Asperger  
> syndrome
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome).  Or at least it  
> appears so
> judging from their vision of "ideal society."
>

This I understand and endorse.


> That goes with my general theory that conservatism is a form of mental
> disorder http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/28/308/98527


This I am not sure about. The DailyKos piece, despite the claims at  
the top (that it is not about "Limbaugh is a jerk") caricatures  
conservati[ves|ism]. For instance, the guy writes that global  
warming, terrorism, etc, would all be solved (or he implies they will  
be) if humanity was "90% liberal". This he asserts and challenges us  
to disagree with. I do disagree with that. For instance, I work in an  
organisation that is 90% liberal but individuals exhibit some of the  
same pettiness, competition, lack of empathy, etc. In fact, the  
"netroots", the very DailyKos and Co are good examples of how vicious  
the "liberals" can be -- and I do not mean towards conservatives. I  
don't have the link handy, but searching through Bitch|Lab will yield  
a post from Markos that shrugs away the lack of diversity in the  
"left blogosphere" as inconsequential/insignificant.

In fact, Woj, I am nonplussed by someone of your intelligence  
forwarding a link such as the above.

Conservatives theorists will claim that there is a complex  
interaction of personalities/attitudes/instincts built into us (that  
we are not going to overcome overnight by holding hands) and that  
"common good" can only be achieved with this in mind. They may be  
wrong, but they are all not psychotic. To some extent, I believe that  
the conservatives have the [more] correct story on "what is". In  
fact, I am somewhat certain that a serious (yet popular) thinker from  
their side will easily embarrass any visible personalities on "our"  
side, such as the "netroots" crowd, since the latter have no theory  
(or avoid having one) underwriting their prescriptions: either  
because the "feel good" factor is found sufficient, or because to  
seek such a theory would compel certain conclusions and positions  
that: (a) run counter to their primary goals (winning elections,  
"supporting troops", etc) or (b) commit them to opposite ideologies  
such as libertarianism.

And I write this as someone who is typically greatly irritated by  
left theorising and its own tall claims.

	--ravi