Mike Palij said:
I admit that I do not understand what Rick is saying below. If one defines ideology in cognitive terms representing concepts and relationships among them as well as evaluations (e.g., White-Good/Black-Bad), I don't understand how one cannot identify the events or experiences that gave rise to these concepts and evaluations. RF: Remember, my issue is not with "ideology" but "choice". If events or experiences "give rise" to concepts and evaluations, they are not chosen. MP: It seems to me that Rick might be saying one of the following (or neither and/or something completely different): (1) In principle, it is impossible to explain why a person or an animal makes a particular choice because one cannot separate the effects of (a) innate factors (nature), (b) experiential factors (nurture, and (c) the interaction of innate factors with experiential factors. This just seems like a bizarre position to me but I grant that some might believe it. RF: Where is the choice in a, b and c? If the cause of the behavior is nature, nurture or the interaction between them, none of those involve choice. I am saying it is not a choice if it is due entirely to a, b and c. Does a boulder choose where it ends up at the bottom of the hill? No, it is entirely due to the mass of the boulder (like nature), the shape of the hill (environment) and the gravity, friction and intertia (interaction between the two). It doesn't choose where it will land based on its innate qualities, the environment and the interaction between them; those three factors determine it. MP: (2) It is possible to separate the effects of innate factors, experiential factors, and their interaction, to mathematically model the effects, and to test the model empirically against appropriate data such as those in long-term longitudinal studies. But Rick might assert that even though such activities have already been done, their results do not achieve some criterion of acceptability, thus, even though we have models of choice behavior, they are invalid or useless or [insert your favorite negative comment]. RF: What is the locus of this "choice" behavior? If it is caused entirely by nature, nurture and the interaction between them, I don't see any place for a choice. MP: Again, I don't get what Rick's point is. There also is the issue of "conversion" events, such as going from being a Marxist to a neoconservative -- somebody explain the genetics of that to me (extra points if the explanation doesn't involve Stalin). RF: So if it isn't genetic, its a choice? What definition of "choice" is that? Remember, the original context of this thread was an article in which a distinction was being made between ideology and other characteristics of a person in that ideology was supposedly chosen and the other characteristics were not. I am saying there is no empirical evidence that you choose your ideology more than you choose any other characteristics of yourself because choice is not a testable variable. Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> --- 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=8650 or send a blank email to leave-8650-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
