I'm not so sure. You are pretty much a libertarian, aren't you? And that is a political idealogy.
Basic analytical techniques don't vary based on ideology. To get to the root of any question, it is necessary to isolate the various elements. Otherwise you can draw incorrect conclusions. My ideology is reflected in my POV, not my analytical approach.
Sounds like Lakoff's trying to do some Freudian thing basing things on what kind of families people were raised in.
He's a cognitive linguist. He took the language people use, the metaphors, to tease out why the two sides had the clusters of positions that they had and came up with two very different and competing moral systems. It's gotten a lot of recognition. I don't know how valid it all is but it's a useful exercise when you consider the way the two sides talk past each other. It seems to work, at least at some level.
Nothing Freudian about it. It isn't based on which kind of family you were raised in. You could be raised in one and prefer the other. Or you could take something from each. Of follow your own drummer. You could prefer one for raising your family, a different one when extrapolating to the country. I was raised in a Nurturant Parent family but my moral priorities are those of the Strict Father, namely responsibility and self-reliance. (The third, self-discipline, not so much. <g>) I never raised children, but as a manager I used the Nurturant Parent approach. It's not psychology, it's a framework for moral systems, way of understanding why the left might find Americorps both excellent and moral while the right finds it horrid and immoral.
Lakoff sounds like he's painting stereotypes.
He is. He says so. That's the point of coming up with an idealized stereotypical model. It's a tool for understanding the different views. Starkness facilitates that. It's not stereotyping in a bad way, the prejudiced kind of stereotyping. It's just a way of showing the key threads through each so the differences can be understood.
BTW do you know why you have your worldview?
I know what my worldview is. I know quite a bit about why I have it but there are a lot of holes. I do know why I hold the positions I hold. I can and am willing to explain them to anyone who cares to ask, just as I explained my view on incest to you in this colloquy, and am receptive to being questioned on them. When I first started on SI, I was amazed to discover that everyone couldn't or wasn't interested in doing that and that many people would react negatively when questioned. I have gained some understanding of my predilection and I seek out others who might reciprocate. That's not a perfect understand but quite a bit beyond "don't have a clue."
Sowell's a conservative from an economics background, a protege of Milton Friedman.
I discovered Sowell thirty years ago when he wrote "Ethnic America." I was enthralled by that book. I was most impressed with his insight into the ethnic experience, which had been a big part of my early life.
they can be seen as evolved social wisdom
One thing that impressed me about the book was that he managed to describe the moral models without reference to religion.
I'd still tell them they shouldn't marry
My question was another analytical tool designed to tease out what the real issue is. I observed that you were exercised over incest and tried to figure out just what it was about incest that triggered the reaction. It seemed that you were most outraged by fathers and daughters. So I was trying to determine if it was incest, in general, or something about that pairing. I see that you aren't as bothered by my recent examples. I could have just asked you straight out just what it was about incest that bothered you, but, as we've just discussed, I don't usually get answers to those questions so I took a different tack. <g>
inbreeding like that is a terrible idea
Marriage doesn't necessarily mean children let alone biological children. (The fictional twins I described sought protection via vasectomy.) Many places now allow marriages between cousins. There seems to be somewhat less concern about inbreeding than there once was.
just don't apply purity to sexuality
Some people seem to think that morality is all about sex.
[I do not use the word, "morality," unless I'm posting with someone who uses it. I use it in that situation just to keep from complicating the discussion. The word seems alien and useless to me. I've always thought of it as a religion word. I prefer ethics and constructiveness, instead. For me, that is sufficient and more useful.]
|
