In which GoldmanSachs pays Jonathan Haidt to read them their favorite fairy tale (h/t Yastreblyansky for this delightful catch):
Talks at GS: JONATHAN HAIDT: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PARTISANSHIP & ETHICAL LEADERSHIPAs the political divide across America continues to deepen, social psychologist and professor of Ethical Leadership at NYU Stern School of Business, Jonathan Haidt, explains the root causes of that divide from Capitol Hill to college campuses – and how it might be overcome.On explaining confirmation bias behind the political divide: “We don't look to disconfirm. We always look to confirm what we believe and that's the case when there's no real motive. There's no real benefit. But now when you have political disagreements and our team is fighting your team and we can't give you an inch, we are all incredibly motivated to confirm our beliefs and to disconfirm yours.”...
Both Siderism buys more influence and puts more money in the pockets of more influencers than any other ideology extant.
Behold, a Tip Jar!
2 comments:
Witnessing the sewage burbling up at every sewage drain. Like in Georgia with NRA/Republican party vs Delta.
We see the conservative view of an honorably well paid professor by the funding elite who maintain the dictate of the evils of liberal professors on campus, evil liberal biased journalists, Liberal activists from the bench and what ever else back flows up all over the place.
Let the American citizenry peer review since his work omits it.
It is the Citizens United folly.
A free market based failed professor can still have a voice in freely paid speech. To which the Citizens without the ample billions to have part in a country of free speech. Where the professor is anointed with special privileges of speech.
The psychology professor shoud discuss his view with a math professor.
The cost of free speech in the age of Citizens United being topic..
Which allows well paid mouths, well media aired space to reach masses. To absorb air time and be the only loudest itinerary to indulge. Creating it as the only one.
To give the old tired Executive speeches like.
* The company is doing great.
*"You" folks have made some errors and have seemed to lack in (name it).
* "I" have a plan to correct.
* "We" need to turn it around and "we"" will succeed with these policy and enforcement guides to hold all of "you" responsible.
The choice of nouns and pronouns are essential to to the core of bothsiderism.
When employees could not carry out horrible impossible policy dictated from the chief executive. Both sides will only come into play after the blame.
"
You" failed and "I" am doing something so "We" can make this right.And "we" will overcome.
The professor takes no blame in what he espouses. He as an "intellectual" who speaks for has condemned intellectual as harmful to the nation for thinking and getting and education. But they pay him/ to hold up as the ultimate authority on the intellectual subject as an intellectual on the intellectual subject. Being one of the very intellectuals they disgrace for their profession.
So don't listen to them, listen to me is the basic argument.
Only conservatives should be; professors
-----------------------------Legislators
----------------------------Govern. And so forth.
How did both sides fail on the assault weapons ban expiration?
I am sure any explanation is going to be painful.
And,
Why is only liberal judges carrying out judicial activism's from the bench?
Bush V Gore decision was not judicial activism? Florida State Supreme Courts decision to recount the votes was liberal judicial activism from the bench over their state election and SCOTUS decision to overrule Florida's state right was conservative judicial legal prudence?
It is shame the professor has never read my theory of "The social devolution of republican tribalism"
It is almost like a foreseen needed peer review of his hypothesis and how it fails to address the rudiments of following the money that pays for a preconceived product to disburse and inflict confusion of awe and dazzle.
The professor should play the game of Monopoly with a bunch of ambitious conservatives. Who would find no limits to get ahead.
In the end with one winner. Look at what everyone else ends up with for their effort in the game.
"Would you steal the teeth from a blind old lady?"
Post a Comment