[Paleopsych] Re: An Evolutionary Mind...

[Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.]

Steve,
You asked me to reflect on your hate speech. Fair enough. I feel:
    - sadness: You are a talented person who engages in reckless talk 
that cheapens dialog.
I am obligated to oppose hate speech. Deontological obligation. Never 
again Jewish gas chambers, never again Cambodian killing fields, never 
again Saddam's mass executions. Every person is obligated to oppose hate 
speech from whatever source.
    Buddha said: Thoughts become speech; speech becomes actions, actions 
become habit, habit becomes character. Take care therefore for your 
thoughts.
    So I speak against hate, and in favor of thoughtful and 
compassionate dialog.

    About the perfection angle: Read "Radical Son" by Horowitz, where he 
discusses that. That notion is also behind the infamous 'politically 
correct dialog' that feminists and constructivists championed about 20 
years ago. It is also behind the attempts to end poverty, as Johnson's 
great failure, the "War on Poverty." It is also behind Stalin's embrace 
of Lysenko. The idea is that by changing society we can fundamentally 
change people. So there is a substantial body of evidence for that as an 
implicit idea, perhaps not espoused but more a theory-in-action.

Steve Hovland wrote:

>As a card carrying liberal, I do not think that
>people can be perfected if we have the right
>kind of society.  I have no idea where you
>get this formulation.
>
>Steve Hovland
>www.stevehovland.net
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com]
>Sent:	Thursday, January 13, 2005 9:08 PM
>To:	Alice Andrews; paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>Subject:	[Paleopsych] Re: An Evolutionary Mind...
>
>Alice,
>Wonderful! I am glad for you. It is always worthwhile to share something 
>you clearly worked hard on. I also read the Dembski review in the same 
>issue, and had fun with that.
>
>    You said, The feminist academic psychologist also asked me if it was 
>not dangerous to our students to teach that "motherhood is innate and 
>that the only way to be happy is to be a mother."
>   You have identified the problem I have with feminists, namely that 
>they ignore data that contradicts their theory, and they believe that 
>only ideas that support their theory should be taught.
>    At another level, you have identified a classic difference between 
>modern conservatism and modern liberalism. The conservative believes 
>that people cannot be perfected by society, the liberal believes that, 
>given the right society, people can be perfected. Every contrary example 
>is explained away.
>    And I liked your description of your reaction to the dutch treat 
>date where the man wanted to kiss you, even though you were raised not 
>to have just that reaction. Sounds innate! So I think your article was a 
>thought-provoking one and I hope it is widely read. I will forward it to 
>the paleo list and encourage people to look it up.
>
>Lynn
>
>Alice Andrews wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hi Lynn,
>> 
>>remember that piece you read some of....re me and the economist, 
>>etc. "An Evolutionary Mind,"?...well it's a lot longer (i'm afraid) 
>>but published!
>>http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/index.asp
>>Thanks again for your encouraging words...they definitely inspired me 
>>to continue on writing!
>>All best!
>>Alice
>> 
>>    
>>
>
> << File: ATT00000.html >>  << File: ATT00001.txt >> 
>_______________________________________________
>paleopsych mailing list
>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/paleopsych/attachments/20050114/e9e5ceb0/attachment.html>