This is all very interesting but I think the critical word in the statement is "choose" not "ideology". Change in ideology over a lifetime (whether described in a series of anecdotes or systematically collected data) says nothing about whether those changes are determined or chosen. Science cannot provide any evidence for the fact that anyone chooses anything (which is not the same as saying that choice is impossible). The only possible observable and testable causes of all behaviors are biological/genetic (sometimes known as "nature") and environment (sometimes known as "nurture") and the interactions between them. Neither nature or nurture is chosen and choice as a cause of behavior is not a testable scientific hypothesis.
So to respond to two of Mike's statements: "One could then ask whether a particular ideology was present from birth or had developed over time as a function of experience." One could but it would say nothing about whether or not it was chosen or determined. And then: "If we can undo or give up existing beliefs for different beliefs, isn't that evidence that ideology is selected and not innate?" No. It might provide evidence that environment is a relatively more important cause than genetics/biology but it says nothing about ideology being selected or chosen. The relevance to concepts that started this thread is that you cannot scientifically distinguish between things like race, ethnicity or sexual orientation (not chosen) and ideology (chosen) as a justification for differential application of affirmative action. Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 [email protected] ________________________________________ From: Mike Palij [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:54 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Cc: Mike Palij Subject: RE: [tips] Discrimination against conservatives (again) On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:51:10 -0800, Rick Froman wrote: >Krugman says: >"And it's not just the fact that you can choose your ideology, but not your >race." > >I realize he is not giving much weight to this argument but he does refer to it >as a fact. There were certainly people commenting on the original Times article >that believe that we choose our ideology. > >Is there any scientific or empirical evidence that you choose your ideology as >so many seem to assume? There is the problem of defining what the term "ideology" means and, since there are several meanings that people can use, there is the question of which meaning(s) are being used in a particular situation. Wikipedia (yadda-yadda) has an entry on "Ideology" which shows that it is far from a simple concept; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology For argument's sake, if one is merely referring to ideology as a system of ideas about people, social organizations, the nature of reality, etc., I think that one would be hard pressed to say that we have innate tendencies to select a particular ideology, such as thinking that White people are better than Blacks, Christianity is better than other religions, the U.S. is the greatest nation that has ever existed on the planet, etc. Moreover, the phenomena of "conversion" illustrates that one may subscribe to a particular ideology at one point in their life but another ideology at a later point in life. A couple of examples: Irving Kristol: as a young man he was a Marxist/Trotskyite but would become the "godfather of neoconservatism". The NY Times had a recent review of a book of his essays ("The Neoconservative Persuasion") that provides some his intellectual and political development and "conversion". See: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/books/review/Berman-t.html?_r=1&nl=books&adxnnl=1&emc=booksupdateema2&adxnnlx=1297228686-ZhNOOGYOjs5OlOIUc%20zYxg&pagewanted=all William Kristol is his son and may be familiar to Tipsters as a Republican journalist. It should be noted that a number of people, especially artists considered themselves communist/Marxist during the 1930s but rejected that affiliation when Stalin's purges and other crimes became widely known. Ronald Reagan: as a young man he considered himself to be a liberal. Some where along the way he was taken in by the dark side and became the conservative that most people think of. Bart Ehrman: started out as a literalist Bible scholar who came to the conclusion that that was an impossible position to maintain since the original manuscripts that make up the New Testament are long gone and we only have questionable copies of copies of the gospels. One cannot take the copies literally because the copies don't all agree with each other. See Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" for his intellectual journey as well as an overview of the problems with biblical scholarship; see: http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297229540&sr=8-1 Here is a Wikipedia entry (yadda-yadda) on Ehrman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Ehrman Bob Altemeyer (of Right Wing Authoritarianism fame) has also had an interest in the psychology of religion, specifically why people convert from one religion to another as an adult. This might be a relevant research source. Again, if we think of ideology as involving concepts, patterns of associations among conceptions, and related processes such as positive/negative evaluation, then there are different cognitive architectures that can be identified that would simulate such systems of belief. One could then ask whether a particular ideology was present from birth or had developed over time as a function of experience. Seems to me that the latter makes more sense. For example, the implicit association for the White racial stereotype (i.e., Reaction Time(White-Good/Black-Bad) faster than Reaction Time(White-Bad/Black-Good)) couldn't be innate -- how could this RT pattern be demonstrated by someone who has never seen a Black person? Similarly, if one viewed such a pattern as representing a racial ideology, then there is the question of whether a person's concept-evaluation association can be changed. A person arguing that this pattern is innate might suggest no while a person who says we acquired such a pattern through experience would be able to re-learn and undo the association. If we can undo or give up existing beliefs for different beliefs, isn't that evidence that ideology is selected and not innate? -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5f8a&n=T&l=tips&o=8633 or send a blank email to leave-8633-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=8636 or send a blank email to leave-8636-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
