This is a guest post by Dylan Otto Krider, a skeptic, journalist and science fiction author whose work on the politicization of science has appeared in Skeptic, Dissent and other outlets (www.dylanottokrider.com).
What makes the recent Weekly Standard cover story by Andrew Ferguson on “The New Phrenology” worth spending some time on is this: It perfectly captures the quandary faced by conservative intellectuals, who try to hold themselves up as a counter to the stereotype of grassroots conservatives as backwoods “hillbillies,” in Ferguson’s own words (sensitive much?).
As the “thinking man’s” conservative magazine, The Weekly Standard has never been profitable. But it was kept afloat by Rupert Murdoch as an idea incubator for a small but very important slice of the conservative block–the neoconservatives, and also free-market capitalists who find justifications for bare-knuckle markets in Darwin, and for whom the closest thing they have to scripture is The Virtue of Selfishness and other thoughtful writings of Ayn Rand. This audience puts up with the GOP’s constant plays for fundamentalist Christian votes due to the “savvy-ness” of using religion to rally the “hillbillies” – as they see them – to achieve a different set of ends.
The Standard knows well from experience what happens if they support the science too overtly. (more…)
I haven’t blogged much lately about Point of Inquiry, the podcast that I co-host with Indre Viskontas–but it turns out we just got named as one of the top tend podcasts by Business Insider. We’re thrilled at the recognition.
A new and pretty controversial show has just gone up, by the way.
Some of you may surmise that though I’m an atheist myself, I’m skeptical of atheist anger. However, Christina is very passionate and convincing in her views, and I believe we have the same basic goal…making the world just a little more rational.
I think that came across in the interview. You can listen here, and buy Christina’s book here.
This is a guest post by Dylan Otto Krider, a skeptic, journalist and science fiction author whose work on the politicization of science has appeared in Skeptic, Dissent and other outlets (www.dylanottokrider.com).
When Bill Clinton came into office after 24 years of Republican presidential rule (with a brief Carter intermission), a large majority of the federal bench had been appointed by Republicans. It was hoped Clinton could correct that, but after the Republican Revolution in 1994, the GOP employed a strategy of halting Democratic appointments.
Originally, after Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 1994 elections and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch assumed control of the Judiciary Committee, the rule regarding judicial nominees was this: If a single senator from a nominee’s home state objected to (or “blue-slipped”) a nomination, it was dead. This rule made it easy for Republicans to obstruct Clinton’s nominees.
Drum notes that this “anonymous holds” tactic–allowing a single senator to obstruct a nomination–“was used extensively by Republicans during the Clinton administration.”
Things got so bad, Hatch even bragged that he chose Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees. According to his autobiography, Clinton called to ask who he’d let through, and Hatch suggested Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg for the Supreme Court.
Of course, once George W. Bush took the White House, Hatch and the Republicans removed these impediments to appointment. (Hatch, it should be noted, is now in danger of being ousted by his own party for being too willing to compromise.)
The cover story of the latest Weekly Standard, by Andrew Ferguson, is entitled “The New Phrenology.” In it, the writer slams The Republican Brainand pretty much dismisses the whole field of scientific research on ideology.
Why? Ferguson’s complaint rests on a variety of methodological objections to psychology studies, especially those relying on undergraduates (as if the field has not considered these criticisms, and as if these are the only studies involved).
In other words, and just like Jonah Goldberg, Ferguson falls directly into the trap set by The Republican Brain. He attacks a book about how conservatives blithely dismiss science by….blithely dismissing science!
I expect we are going to have several posts here about this article—both because it is very revealing, and because it ups the ante when it comes to conservative attacks on the book. But let me make a few comments first. (more…)
The genetic architecture of economic andpolitical preferences
Daniel J. Benjamin et al. (long list)
Preferences are fundamental building blocks in all models of economic and political behavior. We study a new sample of comprehensively genotyped subjects with data on economic and political preferences and educational attainment. We use dense single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data to estimate the proportion of variation in these traits explained by common SNPs and to conduct genome-wide association study (GWAS) and prediction analyses. The pattern of results is consistent with findings for other complex traits. First, the estimated fraction of phenotypic variation that could, in principle, be explained by dense SNP arrays is around one-half of the narrow heritability estimated using twin and family samples. The molecular-genetic–based heritability estimates, therefore, partially corroborate evidence of significant heritability from behavior genetic studies. Second, our analyses suggest that these traits have a polygenic architecture, with the heritable variation explained by many genes with small effects. Our results suggest that most published genetic association studies with economic and political traits are dramatically underpowered, which implies a high false discovery rate. These results convey a cautionary message for whether, how, and how soon molecular genetic data can contribute to, and potentially transform, research in social science. We propose some constructive responses to the inferential challenges posed by the small explanatory power of individual SNPs.
This is a guest post by Dylan Otto Krider, a skeptic, journalist and science fiction author whose work on the politicization of science has appeared in Skeptic, Dissent and other outlets (www.dylanottokrider.com).
The ideas of “I’m Rubber, You’re Glue” politics has gained some traction lately. The basic concept is to paint your opponent as guilty of your sins, so that balanced centrists split the difference and say “everybody does it.”
There are many cynical reasons for encouraging partisanship, but one no longer need to search for economic or political self-interests to explain inexplicable stands: tribal politics is reason enough. There is now literally nothing for which conservatives will not find reason to become enraged.
Who can argue with encouraging kids to exercise and eat healthy? Sarah Palin, for one, who showed up at a school with sugar cookies to protest Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign.
I’m not saying the right objects to Mrs. Obama’s efforts because the Teabaggers are stupid, or because they’re hysterical, or because they hate black people, though all of that is true, but what does it say about America that even a First Lady’s suggestion has to be controversial? Especially when she picked one no one could disagree with. (more…)
In the video, I play the role of talking head, via Skype.
The big scientific study this is all based on, by the way, is here.
I can’t figure out how to embed the video here–Wordpress issues getting to be a serious hassle–but it’s right at the link below. Plus, there’s a brief political personality quiz that Huffington Post has set up, which is simple but also pretty revealing.
So check it out. What personality are you? Liberal or conservative? (Grin)
Up with Chris Hayes is a television marvel: a deeply smart, highly intellectual show that nevertheless manages to be pretty entertaining. And all of that and more was on display yesterday on my more than 20 minute long segment with Jonathan Haidt, discussing U.S. polarization and the science of ideology.
WordPress will not cooperate and post the video right now, but it is here. And a picture is to the right.
There is tons to discuss about this segment, and most prominently, how Haidt and I differ. It is a pretty subtle affair.
But I’m thrilled that he put his stamp of approval on The Republican Brain‘s science reporting, noting:
Chris has done a great job of surveying the literature. I want to give him a stamp of approval. He is not cherry picking, he is representing the current state of thinking about politics and personality.
I just contributed a video for The Young Turks’ “The Point,” for a special science episode hosted by the Huffington Post’s Cara Santa Maria. Basically, I did a minute and a half video, and then a panel of science aficionados discussed it. Here’s the episode, also featuring the great Phil Plait!
This is a guest post by Dylan Otto Krider, a skeptic, journalist and science fiction author whose work on the politicization of science has appeared in Skeptic, Dissent and other outlets (www.dylanottokrider.com).
Lee Harris has a critique of The Republican Brain up at The American, an “online magazine of the American Enterprise Institute.” So we already know where it is going. It manages to distinguish itself in how it can at once demonstrate a handle on history, and yet be so misguided it deserves a response.
Harris cites historian and philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn to make the point that “every scientific revolution begins by overturning the dominant scientific paradigm of its time.” (We’ll get back to him.)
This is fine, as far as it goes, but usually devolves into the “Galileo defense” employed by many pseudoscientists when confronted with the fact the scientific community thinks they’re bonkers. Galileo got in some trouble for his sun-centered solar system. Therefore, this line of reasoning asserts, the fact that the scientific community rejects them just shows how revolutionary their scientific idea really is, and that it will eventually be accepted.
The problem with this argument is that if you take the greatest scientific revolutionaries of the past couple hundred years – Darwin and Einstein – far from being persecuted, they were hailed by the scientific communities in their lifetimes.
Einstein was working in a patent office at the time he published his theories in 1905. If anyone were to be rejected as a crackpot, it would be him, yet he was awarded the Nobel prize 16 years later, and was able to quit the patent office in 1909. Darwin’s On the Origin of Species sold out when it went on sale in 1859 and the scientist was buried in Westminster Abbey next to Isaac Newton.
There are plenty of examples of scientists who stubbornly held to wrong ideas, but Harris chooses Darwin as his example of pig-headed denial. (more…)
