Because he was measuring DIFFERENCES not similarities. If you look at the data a

Because he was measuring DIFFERENCES not similarities. If you look at the data and the charts he’s measuring deviation from one another. Why would you expect otherwise?

Are you saying that his use of reduction and simplicity to explain why we’re in conflict is insufficient for explaining all political behavior? That’s what I interpret from your complaints.

That’s our job. He doesn’t. He probably can’t. He doesn’t work or think at that level of precision. Nor does his entire discipline. It’s introspective logic, not constructive logic.

So, you know, this might be another case where you’re interpreting the world as the common people see it and guarding against their misinterpretation and I’m trying to produce juridical decidability to reform law so that it doesn’t matter what they have to understand or think.

I’m not saying both goals aren’t useful. I’m saying we should criticize a thing in the context of our theory (goals) but not independent of them because it causes us to make the same foolish categories of error that everyone else does -and is the purpose of the method – to eventually eliminate that error that everyone else engages in.

Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS @JonHaidt