Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Peter Dorman and RobinHahnel

[Doyle Saylor]

Title: Re: [PEN-L:20472] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Peter Dorman and Robin Hahnel

Greetings Economists,
   The content about dogmatism in the writings of Jim Devine and jks caught my attention.  For example this snippet from jks,

jks,
The style of orthodox Marxism is of course a  guarantee that no one will talk to you who is not already a true believer.

Doyle
That turn of phrase I recall from the old days of the sixties from the philosopher, Eric Hoffer.  Where Hoffer theorized the Marxist left as being "true believers".  Of course snippets of phrases hardly amount to some sort of theory of anything.  Just connecting this theory of the mind from jks to Jim Devine's remarks,

Jim Devine,
Instead of blaming the theory, I'd look at the material (i.e., social)
basis of dogmatism and a dogmatic style. I think the problem is not the
theory that working in isolation (in a small sect, in an academic setting,
etc.) encourages a style where one gets involved in only talking to others
who have extremely similar views, speak a similar jargon, etc. It's similar
to what happens with religious cults.

Doyle
and ...

Jim Devine,
One thing that turns people off from the "left," often encouraging them to
shift to the "right" is the obnoxious style of many on the left, especially
toward perceived apostates ("renegade Kautsky" and all that). But in my
experience, there are jerks randomly distributed across the political
spectrum, while folks who were jerks on the left (e.g., David Horowitz,
former editor of RAMPARTS, whom I used to know) continue to be jerks when
they shift right (as he has done, with a vengeance).

Doyle
What is a Jerk?  Is that a term that has something to do with Dogmatism?  What is dogmatism?  Please give us an account of this cognitive structure.  If possible cite where a true believer appears in this cognitive consciousness structure.

The reason I ask these questions, is because certainly as Jim says there is a distribution of "jerks" throughout society.  But I think what Jim really is talking about and is really what people refer to as "obsessive" and "compulsive" behavior though that is hardly precise either.  Therefore a robust theory of what makes these things appear would seem to me to be very scientifically called for if possible.

It is also very interesting to put this point out in regard to how mental illness is stigmatized repeatedly this way.  The point being, that the word, jerk, is not certainly about a mentally ill person.  But that if someone is obsessive, then they belong in the social structure not external to society exactly in the sense that the liberal Democratic law ADA was intended.  There is a way in which the sense of these sorts of discussions is that we are healthy functioning people and there are those who aren't and we certainly know the difference don't we.  That is the dividing line between us and the dogmatists.  

I don't think that is so, because if the random sprinkling of individuals tells us anything, group dogmatism is not defined by mental illness, but by a structure which creates a social dynamic.  The problem is that the social structure favors kinds of behavior in kinds of settings, but the content of calling something dogmatism is not content nor understanding.  That those groups are economically constructed ways of organizing human beings, and that in many cases a dogmatist is more functional than someone who isn't, therefore the idea of dogmatism is the problem is rather strange indeed.  In which case that makes the idea of "true believers" rather hard to justify since the structures that favor kinds of mental behavior are the issue.

Within that context one final quote from Jim Devine,

Jim Devine,
By mistake, I've been sending pen-l my wrong web-page address, the one that
refers to the support group for parents of kids with Asperger's Syndrome
(mild autism) that my wife and I run.

Doyle
With regard to this web site, your phrase irony-impaired is offensive.  You have a lot of gall to criticize anyone for being "irony-impaired".
thanks,
Doyle Saylor