Comments on: Going short and going long in terms of blog traffic

By: Razib Khan

Razib Khan — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 02:43:57 +0000

#8, bet less cryptic. i barely understand what you’re trying to get at.

By: Dwight E. Howell

Dwight E. Howell — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 02:17:02 +0000

While highly inconsistent the US used to have a strong thread of egalitarianism that I think the libertarians best support. I’m not sure everybody does ’cause and effect’ and I doubt that most people are pragmatic enough to think that some nice sounding idea like socialism that has failed to work the way advocates hoped time and again is something that should be avoided. I have noted that many local democrats are conservatives that are supporting a national party that craps all over their personal views as stated by them and they don’t see it. It’s as simple as grandpa supported FDR so they vote Democrat. That they are so partisan that they support an organization whose stated views they abhor and against candidates that share their stated views and they can’t even acknowledge what they are doing that blows me away.

I wish the guy well on his new blog.

By: Razib Khan

Razib Khan — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 01:37:05 +0000

I’d have thought the relevant point is whether most people who are secular in their religious orientation are political liberals, not whether most political liberals are (or are not) secular in their religious orientation.

Aren’t they keying off your being secular to infer that you are politically liberal, not that they think that you are politically liberal to infer that you are secular?

both! religious conservatives, from what i have seen, routinely overestimate the secularity of american liberals.* in fact, there is a tendency to think that non-christian ~liberal are the same set. of course, they do the inverse as well. christian ~ conservative.

* secular liberals do to, but this isn’t a big issue with them, so it doesn’t crop up as a major talking point.

By: marcel

marcel — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 00:06:44 +0000

RZ: A converse element are conservative bloggers who rage against ‘secular liberals,’ and routinely false positive me as liberal because I’m secular (the reality is outside of the internet most political liberals are not secular in their religious orientation in any case!).

I must be missing something: I don’t see the relevance of the parenthetical. I’d have thought the relevant point is whether most people who are secular in their religious orientation are political liberals, not whether most political liberals are (or are not) secular in their religious orientation.

Aren’t they keying off your being secular to infer that you are politically liberal, not that they think that you are politically liberal to infer that you are secular?

By: Razib Khan

Razib Khan — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 23:29:05 +0000

#4, i knew the intent. arnold kling has a strong enough background in psychology to know what you’re getting at. in any case, unlike many people he has had a political switch in adulthood (from liberalism to libertarianism). like i said, most non-stupid people who are aware of cognitive and social psych know this problem (natural scientists do not always). but like i said, you don’t need to be versed in the science. moving in diverse political and religious circles and you see clear the phenomenon at work.

and readers know that they don’t have to deal snotty comments if they’re interesting.

By: ac

ac — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:53:57 +0000

since he’s not a retard, probably not. your rhetoric professor told you something pretty trivial, and obvious if you move in diverse political circles (i have).

Ah yes, it’s always nice to be reminded that to post here you need to put up with snotty self-congratulatory responses. Especially when you clearly missed the point I was trying to make; I guess I expected better than a surface reading of the comment from gnxp.

By: Razib Khan

Razib Khan — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:34:40 +0000

Does Arnold Kling think the same thing?

since he’s not a retard, probably not. your rhetoric professor told you something pretty trivial, and obvious if you move in diverse political circles (i have).

(which is a very likely scenario).

what do you base this likelihood on? might be testable with NLSY if you actually offer some specific position.

By: Dm

Dm — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:55:46 +0000

If you strive to change minds, rather than “merely” to enjoy a civilized discussion between people who don’t agree with one another (already a tall order!), then you probably need to administer your medicines in homoeopathic doses.

And “long term impact” may be a fallacy which hinges in an assumption that your own position doesn’t drift much closer to the mainstream camps as you grow older (which is a very likely scenario). So by the time you’d need to assess the long-term impact, your own mind might already change.

By: ac

ac — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 20:18:02 +0000

Sadly – sadly – my mind was blown in college when a rhetoric professor lectured on the point that everyone thinks that their own political opinions are correct, and if only the people disagree me knew the things that I knew, surely they would have the same politics as me. No? Our problem is that we think that our opinions are formed based on our knowledge and if everyone had our knowledge then they would think the same things that we do. (If only the Gazans knew what the Israelis knew!)

Does Arnold Kling think the same thing?