Psychologizing


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I cant do without Ted, too.

--Brant

keeps Phil

I'm just putting Phil in purgatory so I can write that piece without getting distracted by his silliness. Ted has been cast down in hell, from which there is no return. I recall that I used to like some of his posts, but he seems to have become unhinged.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sinners in the hands of an angry God!

Who knew it was as simple as an ignore button!

I wonder if Jonathan Edwards had a button like that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

III

CREDIBILITY: BARBI BRILLIANT V. DANNY DIPSCHITZ

You are participating in a controversial OL thread. Most of your exchanges are with two other veteran posters: Barbi Brilliant and Danny Dipschitz. Your general opinion of these two posters could not differ more. Although you often disagree with both posters, you respect Barbi Brilliant a great deal. Her posts are usually coherent and interesting. They exhibit the ideas of a person you would describe as a "serious thinker."

Danny Dipschitz, in contrast, strikes you as an intellectual train wreck, especially when he comments on philosophical issues. His "arguments" typically wander all over the intellectual landscape, flitting from one subject to the next, Were it not for the fact that his sentences appear in the same post, you would have no reason to think that they are supposed to bear some logical relationship to one another.

One day both Barbi and Danny write responses to one of your posts. Both responses are lengthy and involved, and both will obviously take additional time and effort to understand.

You look over the post by Barbi Brilliant. You are surprised to see that it is poorly written, by her standards, so you figure she was probably in a rush. Her major points are not clear to you, but, given your past evaluations of her intellectual character and ability, you gladly give her the benefit of the doubt. You decide to read her post a few more times, figuring that you may have missed something. And if, after these additional readings, you are still confused, you will ask her some questions for the purpose of clarification.

You now read the post by Danny Dipschitz. It, too, is poorly written, but this is par for Danny's course, so you barely notice. A first reading reveals the content to be muddled and confusing, but this is also par for his course. So you shrug and think, "More crap."

Next, you write a reply to Barbi Brilliant. It explains the problems you had with her post and requests that she clarify some points. A cordial exchange ensues.

Then you write a brief reply to Danny Dipschitz. You tell him the truth: You cannot make sense of his "argument." It is a mess, and you wish he would give more thought to the subject before writing any more posts.

Danny is offended, of course. He demands to know why you don't reply to his argument instead of getting personal. You didn't understand all of Barbi's post either, but you were civil to her and paid her the respect of asking for clarification. So why is he being treated like a bum?

You are reluctant to reply this time, because you know exactly what will happen. The more truthful you are, the more he will get offended, and the exchange will quickly spiral downward into flamewar territory. But you reply anyway. You explain that you cannot answer his argument because you don't know what his argument is supposed to be. You know what his conclusion is; it is what he says in the final sentence or two. And you can read the sentences that fall between the first sentence and those final sentences, but that's it. You can see no logical connections, and you are not willing to invest any more time or effort looking for them.

Now Danny Dipschitz really gets pissed. You were willing to extend certain courtesies to Barbi, but not to him. Why is that? He darkly hints that her being a woman has something to do with all this. Where is the equality of treatment? You found both posts poorly written and difficult to understand, but you were, by your own admission, willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. So why won't you give him the benefit of the doubt? Doesn't basic decency demand this?

At this point another OL member, Billy Civility, interjects a post. He gravely assures everyone that Danny Dipschitz is absolutely right. You were unnecessarily rude when you called his post a mess. And you psychologized when you suggested that he didn't put much thought into it. How do you know how much thought he put into his post? Were you in his mind at the time? All this is irrelevant. You should have criticized the arguments of Danny Dipschitz, not Danny Dipschitz himself. You need to learn to separate the argument from the person.

And so the battle begins.....

(To be continued.)

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Is it possible to know another person's motives?

2.If this is possible, then what kind of evidence is needed to establish a psychological claim about motives with at least a fairly high degree of probability, if not certainty?

3. Assuming we can answer these two questions satisfactorily, we will then arrive at the most complicated question of all: Under what circumstances does the attribution of motives (i.e., psychologizing) play a relevant role in discussions and arguments?

George,

I want to throw in a tangent here, but one I believe is fundamental.

The term "psychologize" within an Objectivist context takes Rand's view of human nature as the starting point. In other words, man chooses his values, which run on survival and pain/pleasure at root, and decides whether he wants to use reason or not as his thinking method for obtaining and or preserving them.

I believe you are presuming something similar (or maybe more in line with Mises) since you do not stipulate it.

But I say that it is nearly impossible to know what anyone's motives are if that is how you view fundamental human nature in terms of desires and drives. It ignores the entire prewired and culturally learned part.

As you know, I have been studying a lot about neuromarketing, persuasion, advertising, propaganda/public relations, and so forth. Each field has different authors with their own approaches, but there are patterns you can discern after a while that are common to all of them.

I found a good overall breakdown from a person who has studied up a storm and has spent a lifetime as a direct response copywriter. You can agree or disagree with the following. I do not have a list of experiments and references at hand to show that this is a good synthesis (but I can provide one if you need it, however I would prefer to do that in another context as there are some things that would need a lot of blah blah blah to work academically in the stuff below). The book has a horrible title for a discussion like this, Cashvertising, by Drew Eric Whitman, but I ask you to bear with me for a moment.

I know this guy's stuff is the real deal from all the other stuff I have been studying. So here are two lists of human desires he has synthesized, the first is biological and the second is more learned. His purpose is to make sure you include them in sales copy. Outside of the research I have consumed, from his view there are countless ad tests that show them to be extremely effective in prompting people to act as opposed to how people react to the same ads where they are not present. (This is called split testing and is done all the time in the marketing world.)

We might quibble over one or another and what goes on what list (and I do), and especially about his language (and I do), but this does it for me as a general summary. From page 21 of Cashvertising:

The Life-Force 8

Human beings are biologically programmed with the following eight desires:

1. Survival, enjoyment of life, life extension.

2. Enjoyment of food and beverages.

3. Freedom from fear, pain, and danger.

4. Sexual companionship.

5. Comfortable living conditions.

6. To be superior, winning, keeping up with the Joneses.

7. Care and protection of loved ones.

8. Social approval.

These are core. If you reduce all the bickering you see here on OL to fundamental desires--to motives you can psychologize about, you will almost always arrive at one of them, if not more in conjunction with each other a few times. Guaranteed. I've done it a few times and it becomes quite obvious after you get the hang of it. And this is just on the biological level.

Now here is another list to add to this one. From page 23 of Cashvertising:

The Nine Learned (Secondary) Human Wants

Perhaps you read the list of eight primary wants and thought, "Heck, I want more than just these eight things!" Of course you do. We have many other wants. We want to look good, and be healthy, well educated, effective, and so on. (Don't you?) These are called secondary, or learned wants, and nine have been identified:

1. To be informed.

2. Curiosity.

3. Cleanliness of body and surroundings.

4. Efficiency.

5. Convenience.

6. Dependability/quality.

7. Expression of beauty and style.

8. Economy/profit.

9. Bargains.

These secondary wants are strong, but they don't even come close to the LF8. They're way in the background, completely clouded by your LF8 dust. We're not born with these secondary wants. We learned them.

I can quibble, for example, that curiosity is present practically from birth (and it is one of the affects mentioned by Sylvan Tomkins), so satisfying curiosity should be in the biological prewiring, and so on, but if you think of these lists in general terms, you basically have the average human being's core values.

If you want to understand motivations, you have to understand values. I believe an approach like this is a great place to start.

When people produce (or steal), they do it for these things. When people interact, they do it to satisfy these desires.

In the case of a tyrant like with your Jefferson example, let's look at a couple of the biologically wired desires. A lifetime of King George not only feeling superior, but being treated as superior, and getting a hell of a lot of social approval for it (two of the big LF8) would warp any human being. So I believe it's a mistake to treat such a person as if he were a normal human male like a businessman or farmer in his intentions--and claim we cannot know what this guy's intentions are, not really. If a man like that keeps to a certain course of exploitation and repression of others, it's totally reasonable to presume he will continue because he believes he is entitled and because those under him are inferior.

This is not the same as claiming his motivation is envy or some kind of "death premise" (as Rand did at times).

In the above case, you look at a person's history and run it against the list of core desires to see how he behaves most of the time. This will give you a solid basis where you can postulate a "point of no return", i.e., you can psychologize, with a high degree of reasonableness, about when a revolution is in order or when peaceful measures have a plausible chance of success..

Whether you agree with the lists above or not is almost beside the point. I believe the method is sound. To understand human motives, you identify core biological desires, and then core learned desires within a culture. Then you observe what a person has said and done for years in terms of them, then look at what you wish to understand and psychologize about--what he presently says and does. You will almost always discover that he is pursuing one or several in combination underneath the surface.

Anyway, that's just a monkey-wrench to throw into your works. :)

If you find value in it, fine. If not, fine, too.

(I won't even go into Robert Cialdini's subconscious vulnerabilities or Blair Warren's mental addictions or the like since I believe these can be overridden by awareness much of the time. Anyway, they are reactions, not pursued actions like the desires mentioned by Whitman.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

Here's another quick example based on two of the LF8.

You see a little girl you know, maybe a niece or the kid of a friend. She looks at you with a mischievous grin and says, "Don't tickle me! Don't you dare tickle me!" And, still bearing that grin, she keeps looking at you, ready to run at a second's notice.

Is she acting out of a sense of superiority, since she gave you a direct command, or social acceptance, i.e., she is playing with you?

I think it's obviously social acceptance, although you have to "psychologize" to claim that.

You have to do it based on your "social acceptance" knowledge of her playfulness and her demeanor.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

Here's another quick example based on two of the LF8.

You see a little girl you know, maybe a niece or the kid of a friend. She looks at you with a mischievous grin and says, "Don't tickle me! Don't you dare tickle me!" And, still bearing that grin, she keeps looking at you, ready to run at a second's notice.

Is she acting out of a sense of superiority, since she gave you a direct command, or social acceptance, i.e., she is playing with you?

I think it's obviously social acceptance, although you have to "psychologize" to claim that.

You have to do it based on your "social acceptance" knowledge of her playfulness and her demeanor.

Michael

I can't do anything with your comments until after I get my own ideas mapped out. It will take perhaps three more parts to explain those basic ideas. Then it will be possible to compare and contrast the particulars of our approaches.

I am defending a fairly limited thesis. I wish to show that psychologizing in the generic (dictionary) sense is not only permissible but is also indispensable in certain types of argument. This is not true for all arguments, but it is is especially true for the types of arguments that occur on OL.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has recently been considerable discussion on OL of "psychologizing" so I want to start a thread on this topic. Although Phil has been involved in much of the controversy, it is not my intention to target him specifically. I want to focus on general points instead, so I will not be quoting Phil or referring to him by name in my initial posts.

I emphasize this because if Phil responds to my posts, which he probably will, it would be beside the point for him to object that I have not represented his points accurately, that he never argued such and such, etc. Such objections are irrelevant because, although some of the generic arguments I will seek to rebut may resemble Phil's, such arguments commonly appear on elists and internet forums. If Phil regards some of my formulations as straw men, then he is perfectly free to present what he regards as stronger arguments. Again, however, this thread is about psychologizing -- its various forms, when it is and is not appropriate, and so forth. This thread is not about Phil,, and I do not want it to degenerate to that level.

Since I don't want to write a long essay, I will break my thoughts into separate posts. I shall postpone discussing specific theoretical points, such as how to define "psychologizing," until my second post. Here I want to analyze what is probably the most famous instance of psychologizing in the history of political literature, namely, a key passage from Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, viz:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Since my forthcoming book from Cambridge includes a discussion of this passage, I will quote it here to get the ball rolling. I think this passage is fairly self-explanatory, so I will not comment on it until my next post.

[Excerpt from Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism, by George H. Smith. Forthcoming from Cambridge University Press. Chapter Six, "The Radical Edge of Lockean Liberalism." Footnotes deleted.]

...Given this base of support, when may resistance properly turn to revolution? When may we move from resistance against particular laws and seek the complete overthrow of a government? This was a crucial problem for American radicals, who had been involved in resistance activities for thirteen years prior to the Declaration of Independence. Many Americans, even some who approved of resistance, questioned whether the situation was bad enough to justify outright revolution. Therefore, this issue was of great concern to Jefferson, who made it a major theme of the Declaration. This concern is especially evident in the second paragraph.

As we have seen, Jefferson explicitly ties the right of revolution to the violation of inalienable rights. But the violation of inalienable rights justified resistance as well as revolution, so we are still left with the problem of deciding when to turn from limited resistance to unlimited revolution. Jefferson deals with this problem as follows: After stating that governments "should not be changed for light and transient causes," Jefferson continues: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

This passage, which closely follows a passage from Locke, constituted a crucial step in justifying revolution. Radical Republicans acknowledged that no government is perfect and that even the best governments may sometimes engage in inappropriate or unjust activities. Although resistance may be appropriate in such cases, especially if inalienable rights are involved, revolution is not justified when dealing with incidental and unconnected violations. Governments must commit unjust acts as a matter of policy in an effort to deprive citizens of their freedom, or, as Jefferson says, "to reduce them under absolute despotism."

Here, of course, we encounter the problem of mind reading. We cannot enter into the thoughts of rulers, so how can we know if they intend to establish despotism? Jefferson summarizes the typical answer to this question when he says, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism...." In other words, we infer the intentions of rulers from their actions. If we have empirical evidence of a continuous and systematic violation of inalienable rights, then we may reasonably infer a deliberate design to violate those rights. At a certain point, it simply becomes unreasonable to excuse such violations as the honest mistakes or the misunderstandings of well-intentioned rulers.

Ghs

This is a unique perspective from which to view psycho-gizin'. Is that what it is, the example you give? Or is it pathology? Or is it just a description of tyranny?

I have observed one thing about the activity (psycho-gizzin')--it is done on various levels of consciousness. Or, even, said psychologizer not even being conscious of their so-doing at all. I'm not sure which one is more lethal.

And, fairly often, when someone does it, it seems to me that they aren't so much talking about the other person, but, in a way, saying something about their own self; meaning, it/they "presents" in such a manner--that becomes more clear, apparent, than the topic they address. In other words, the behavior itself shines first.

Outside of clinical, psychology-based writing, I thoroughly question psychologizing. Well, I guess I can put up with it in good prose, too. You can take a psychologizing tract from any decent writer, you know, from Hemingway to Thompson, and enjoy the insight.

I have had it performed on me a number of times, right? Bottom line is I consider the source. Carefully.

I have virtually eliminated it from my own behavior, other than in two places.

1. If someone sincerely asks me to (proceed with caution then, especially with, uh, women I think)--it is a sticky one.

2. As a vehicle of humor. I am not addicted to running folks up the flagpole, but I'm not ready to completely abstain from it, either. Why would I? My favorite writers (even Twain) do not.

Other than those two places, though, I am washed clean in the blood of the lamb on this one, my bruthas.

r

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a unique perspective from which to view psycho-gizin'. Is that what it is, the example you give? Or is it pathology? Or is it just a description of tyranny?

I don't really understand what you asking me here.

The Radical Republican (RR) tradition had a very detailed theory of resistance and revolution. RRs wished to establish what I call Bright Line tests that will tell us (1) when violent resistance against specific unjust laws become justified, and (2) when the violent overthrow of a government becomes justified.

A very important requirement for revolution was that there must be a deliberate design on the part of rulers to impose absolute despotism on their subjects. The passage from my book explains how Jefferson made the transition from what the British did to what the British rulers were supposedly thinking. If a government repeatedly hammers you with the same oppressive laws, at a certain point you would be justified in concluding that the government intends to reduce you to absolute despotism.

This issue of intent was vital. In classical political theory, the difference between a bad ruler and a despotic ruler was this: The bad ruler, whatever his faults, has the public good as his primary purpose. The despot, in contrast, has his own selfish good as the primary goal. And if the latter is true, the king has "unkinged" himself and may be killed.

Note the difference between the words "regicide" and "tyrannicide." Both refer to the killing of a king, but "regicide" (from "rex," or king) suggests a king whose rule is still legitimate. Tyrannicide, however, refers to killing a tyrant, and, for some theorists, a tyrant has already unkinged himself, so you are killing a former king. You have not toppled him from his lofty throne. He did that himself.

After the execution of Charles I in 1649, the parliamentarians called it tyrannicide. The royalists called it regicide.

Thus -- to return to the original point -- if the essential difference between a king and a tyrant lies in how the king thinks about himself and his power, then there is a hell of a lot riding on the issue of whether or not we can legitimaely claim to know what the king is thinking. This reduces to the problem of psychologizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus -- to return to the original point -- if the essential difference between a king and a tyrant lies in how the king thinks about himself and his power...

George,

Why does there have to be only one "essential difference" in judging a tyrant?

Even common sense says you judge a man by what he does and what he says. In my book, using these solely to arrive at what he thinks is not the way humans do it.

For example, if you kill someone's loved one, he or she will get pissed. Why you did it will be secondary to that you did it. (What he does.)

And if he says he did not kill that person's loved one, but the loved one instead committed suicide by shooting himself 6 times in the head, that person will get even more pissed. (What he says.)

I doubt, at that point, the person would even care why he did it. He would just want to kill the evil bastard. And he might mention some psychologizing as he went about seeking revenge, but I seriously doubt that would be the "essential difference" in his judgment.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus -- to return to the original point -- if the essential difference between a king and a tyrant lies in how the king thinks about himself and his power...

George,

Why does there have to be only one "essential difference" in judging a tyrant?

Even common sense says you judge a man by what he does and what he says. In my book, using these solely to arrive at what he thinks is not the way humans do it.

For example, if you kill someone's loved one, he or she will get pissed. Why you did it will be secondary to that you did it. (What he does.)

And if he says he did not kill that person's loved one, but the loved one instead committed suicide by shooting himself 6 times in the head, that person will get even more pissed. (What he says.)

I doubt, at that point, the person would even care why he did it. He would just want to kill the evil bastard. And he might mention some psychologizing as he went about seeking revenge, but I seriously doubt that would be the "essential difference" in his judgment.

Michael

I was half-asleep when I wrote that post. It is not a good effort. Let me try one more time, even though I am still half-asleep.

According to the classical theory of kingship, the foremost purpose of a good king will be to further the interests of his people. This is the justification for his political power. If a king become corrupt and uses his power to further his private interests (which could include making his family and cronies rich, etc.) instead of the public interest, then he has become corrupt. And the more corrupt he becomes, the more he is properly called a despot, tyrant, etc.

I mentioned this doctrine because it ties into the point that Jefferson made in the Declaration, namely: How can we know the motives of a king? -- or of anyone else, for that matter? At some point we must psychologize. That is to say, we must attribute certain motives to kings, and we must be able to justify this psychologizing. Otherwise, how could we ever claim to know that a king has become corrupt, and is now chiefly motivated by his private interests instead of the public good?

I just read your comments again, and we seem to be talking about different things. I suspect that the sloppiness of my earlier post misled you in some way. I didn't mean to say that a tyrant was judged by different standards than a king, or anything like this. I merely meant to point out that the classical distinction between a legitimate king and an illegitimate tyrant revolved around the basic motives of the man. I didn't mean to say that I agree with this doctrine.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> How can we know the motives of a king? -- or of anyone else, for that matter? At some point we must psychologize. That is to say, we must attribute certain motives to kings, and we must be able to justify this psychologizing. Otherwise, how could we ever claim to know that a king has become corrupt, and is now chiefly motivated by his private interests instead of the public good? [GHS]

I would say you judge him essentially by his actions. He has increased your taxes. He has built himself huge palaces with that money, not spent it on improved conditions for the poor. That's a corrupt action. And the 'motivation' - greed, contempt for rights - is on the surface in most cases.

That's not illegitimate mind-reading in the way that it would be to infer that Danny Dipschitz constantly argues with you because:(i) he just wants attention and doesn't care much about the issues, versus: (ii) he strongly disagrees with you on issue after issue and truly doesn't grasp your superior wisdom.

You have evidence for the king's intent to steal (an action) as opposed to DD's deeper intention behind arguing.

,,,,,,

feel free to ignore this objection till you have completed your magnum opus.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, Danny Dipschitz's intention is not of primary relevance. If his arguments are silly, you are free to simply ignore them. If they are plausible, but mistaken you can answer them.

This is the approach reputable academics take in journals in science or the humanities (or should). They don't assess the motives of their opponents, they simply refute them in careful, respectful responses.

They don't call their opponents dipshit or evader or the most evil man in history in the American Journal of Physics or the Proceedings of American Anthropology. It's not likely science and dispassionate inquiry would advance under those conditions.

,,,,,,,

feel free to ignore this until you have completed your magnum opus.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

The revolutionary colonists had to rationalize their actions to the public at large since prior they had accepted a king and now had to cast him out, but it's basically semantics. And it wasn't just the king that had to go, of course, but the whole of English governance. So far your justification for psychologizing seems only to be a justification for propaganda, incitement to riot, revolution and let's all hang together so we don't hang separately. I admit, that's a lot of "only."

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Georgio--

I guess it was that you were talking about psych but giving the Jefferson example, nature of tyranny, and so forth. My bad, maybe. It took a minute but I started getting the slant pretty quickly.

I would like to say I do not know, George, but I do. Again, look, even in this, at some of the replies you have received. As I said, very often you get a "tell" from the tone of writing (in this case, but almost anything will do it) that, er, "tells" you (or at least your gut if you have good one and listen to it) that said doer is actually talking about something else. Usually these things are old saws, such as jealousy, or their personal esteem issues. The tone comes out, and speaks above (supposed) content. Maybe that is what one might refer to as the unconscious agenda that is presenting operant.

And this is a human thing, George. That's where I screwed up forest-for-trees-style. The basic principle exists, and even though I knew that I didn't show it. Duh. Back to the 5th grade with me, then. Not behaviorism. Not coming from the impetus that theory puts into things, as if that were all that is--as if consciousness is so simple. As if the prefrontal cortex id so simple.

I do agree with Michael Dowd (and his esteemed colleagues) that man represents a nested, emergent universe that has evolved us--so now, we are, literally, the universe contemplating itself.

And of course, that's where the trouble can come in.

As to the slappy-fights, well, they only grow if you water them. I always have trouble with that one. But, you know the roll, George--like:

". . .outside of personal feelings, nothing that's any good can be hurt by satire." --Hemingway, letter to Sherwood Anderson

Always so tempting. I'm trying to cut back. What I need to learn is that there are, for sure, some people that just have a bad set of wires up there. This is why the term "intelligent design" is so perplexing.

Heh:

"You ought to know at your age that you can't have Theories about friends." --Sara Murphy, writing to F. Scott Fitzgerald

rde

Today's interesting vocabulary/phrase list:

opprobrium

vituperative

disharmonic

postprandial

tough-guy swagger

parapaletic

moral industry

internal gloat

delicately-organized babies

pugnacity

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

The revolutionary colonists had to rationalize their actions to the public at large since prior they had accepted a king and now had to cast him out, but it's basically semantics. And it wasn't just the king that had to go, of course, but the whole of English governance. So far your justification for psychologizing seems only to be a justification for propaganda, incitement to riot, revolution and let's all hang together so we don't hang separately. I admit, that's a lot of "only."

--Brant

I get the feeling that I have been posting so much material lately, some of which was written quickly, that I have been sending some false signals. I discussed the example of attributing motives to a king because the America Revolution could not have been justified theoretically without this kind of psychologizing.

This problem was discussed extensively by libertarian types throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. Indeed, when Jefferson wrote that "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism," he was following Locke's wording (in the Second Treatise) quite closely. In other words, this was not an ad hoc theory that Jefferson used in the Declaration to rationalize a revolution. On the contrary, it was a major theme in his tradition.

Moreover, when these libertarians wrote (as they often did) about the corrupting effects of power, the "lust for power," and so forth, they were advancing psychological theories based, they believed, on human nature. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that a theory of human psychology, and the need to understand why power has the effect on people that they believed it does -- which entailed a lot of psychologizing -- were as important to American revolutionaries as their philosophical theories of rights, government, etc.

This is the point I was trying to make when I opened this thread with a discussion of what I described as "probably the most famous instance of psychologizing in the history of political literature." I find this to be a fascinating strain in the history of libertarian thought, but it is merely a sidebar to the stuff I have been writing about the role of psychologizing in everyday discussions and arguments.

In any case, I strongly disagree with your remarks that the focus on motives by American revolutionaries was "basically semantics," and that we are dealing with a "justification for propaganda." That was the interpretation defended by Charles Beard and other progressivist historians during the first half of the 20th century, and that was the interpretation that Bernard Bailyn criticized so successfully in The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Fortunately, in my judgment, the Bailyn school has dominated work on the American Revolution in recent decades.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, I strongly disagree with your remarks that the focus on motives by American revolutionaries was "basically semantics," and that we are dealing with a "justification for propaganda." That was the interpretation defended by Charles Beard and other progressivist historians during the first half of the 20th century, and that was the interpretation that Bernard Bailyn criticized so successfully in The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Fortunately, in my judgment, the Bailyn school has dominated work on the American Revolution in recent decades.

Ghs

Well that of course had nothing to do with the actual motives of Americans wanting separation from G.B. They wanted to be out from under. They wanted political equality. They wanted freedom. I'm only saying this to keep this matter clear, not that you said anything different.

--Brant

could they have mixed up pragmatism (Beard) with idealism (Bailyn?)?

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Georgio--

I guess it was that you were talking about psych but giving the Jefferson example, nature of tyranny, and so forth. My bad, maybe. It took a minute but I started getting the slant pretty quickly.

I would like to say I do not know, George, but I do. Again, look, even in this, at some of the replies you have received. As I said, very often you get a "tell" from the tone of writing (in this case, but almost anything will do it) that, er, "tells" you (or at least your gut if you have good one and listen to it) that said doer is actually talking about something else. Usually these things are old saws, such as jealousy, or their personal esteem issues. The tone comes out, and speaks above (supposed) content. Maybe that is what one might refer to as the unconscious agenda that is presenting operant.

And this is a human thing, George....

I get frustrated from time to time, especially when dealing with a complicated and highly nuanced topic on OL, but I also know that Internet discussions have their own inherent liabilities and that I am not being singled out for misunderstandings. This happens to all of us, especially we frequent posters.

At the last session of IHS summer seminars (at which I lectured for 16 years), the faculty would give their favorite tidbits of advice to students. I usually covered the topic of how to use books effectively, Ralph Raico (then a history professor at SUNY) discussed problems related to writing, etc, etc.

Ralph used to give this very useful bit of advice to writers: Suppose you write what you think is a brilliant little piece, and you ask a friend for comments. After reading it, he says: "I don't understand this one paragraph at all. It doesn't make sense to me."

Ralph maintained that if your paragraph doesn't make sense to someone, then it doesn't make sense. (We are assuming he read it carefully.) You should therefore thank your reader for his time and try to figure out how to improve the paragraph. What you don't want to do is give a mini-lecture in which you explain to your befuddled friend why the paragraph should have made sense to him. Didn't he notice this line or that? Can't he see how you took care of the problem in the penultimate sentence? And so on....

The general lesson I took from Ralph's advice, so far as Internet forums are concerned, was this: If, when writing posts on a given topic, I fail to communicate the point I wished to make with a number of people whose judgment I respect, or if a number of these people misinterpret my argument, then, in the final analysis, it doesn't really matter whose "fault" this is. I should figure out how to do a better job. Hence my recent attempts on this thread to clarify matters for readers who may have misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Accurate communication is an essential skill for every writer, and it is a skill which I can always improve, no matter how long I have been writing professionally, and regardless of how good I am (or think I am). There are some variables here, obviously, for careless readers are as common as careless writers, but I have found Ralph's advice very useful, and I recommend it to others.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Georgio--

I guess it was that you were talking about psych but giving the Jefferson example, nature of tyranny, and so forth. My bad, maybe. It took a minute but I started getting the slant pretty quickly.

I would like to say I do not know, George, but I do. Again, look, even in this, at some of the replies you have received. As I said, very often you get a "tell" from the tone of writing (in this case, but almost anything will do it) that, er, "tells" you (or at least your gut if you have good one and listen to it) that said doer is actually talking about something else. Usually these things are old saws, such as jealousy, or their personal esteem issues. The tone comes out, and speaks above (supposed) content. Maybe that is what one might refer to as the unconscious agenda that is presenting operant.

And this is a human thing, George....

I get frustrated from time to time, especially when dealing with a complicated and highly nuanced topic on OL, but I also know that Internet discussions have their own inherent liabilities and that I am not being singled out for misunderstandings. This happens to all of us, especially we frequent posters.

At the last session of IHS summer seminars (at which I lectured for 16 years), the faculty would give their favorite tidbits of advice to students. I usually covered the topic of how to use books effectively, Ralph Raico (then a history professor at SUNY) discussed problems related to writing, etc, etc.

Ralph used to give this very useful bit of advice to writers: Suppose you write what you think is a brilliant little piece, and you ask a friend for comments. After reading it, he says: "I don't understand this one paragraph at all. It doesn't make sense to me."

Ralph maintained that if your paragraph doesn't make sense to someone, then it doesn't make sense. (We are assuming he read it carefully.) You should therefore thank your reader for his time and try to figure out how to improve the paragraph. What you don't want to do is give a mini-lecture in which you explain to your befuddled friend why the paragraph should have made sense to him. Didn't he notice this line or that? Can't he see how you took care of the problem in the penultimate sentence? And so on....

The general lesson I took from Ralph's advice, so far as Internet forums are concerned, was this: If, when writing posts on a given topic, I fail to communicate the point I wished to make with a number of people whose judgment I respect, or if a number of these people misinterpret my argument, then, in the final analysis, it doesn't really matter whose "fault" this is. I should figure out how to do a better job. Hence my recent attempts on this thread to clarify matters for readers who may have misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Accurate communication is an essential skill for every writer, and it is a skill which I can always improve, no matter how long I have been writing professionally, and regardless of how good I am (or think I am). There are some variables here, obviously, for careless readers are as common as careless writers, but I have found Ralph's advice very useful, and I recommend it to others.

Ghs

George and Rich,

So completely true and needs to be said from time to time.Not only for those who are focused on scholarship and exegesis.

I usually write here in frivolous or comic vein and if readers don't get my tone or my meaning, then I know I am not writing well enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, I strongly disagree with your remarks that the focus on motives by American revolutionaries was "basically semantics," and that we are dealing with a "justification for propaganda." That was the interpretation defended by Charles Beard and other progressivist historians during the first half of the 20th century, and that was the interpretation that Bernard Bailyn criticized so successfully in The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Fortunately, in my judgment, the Bailyn school has dominated work on the American Revolution in recent decades.

Ghs

Well that of course had nothing to do with the actual motives of Americans wanting separation from G.B. They wanted to be out from under. They wanted political equality. They wanted freedom. I'm only saying this to keep this matter clear, not that you said anything different.

--Brant

could they have mixed up pragmatism (Beard) with idealism (Bailyn?)?

No offense, Brant, but I think you have seriously underestimated the American revolutionaries. It was not as if they wanted to break free from Britain and then rationalized this desire by invoking their ideology. On the contrary, their ideology had a lot to do with why they wanted independence.

This is admittedly a troublesome topic, for, then as now, we are talking about individuals with complex and differing motives. After the Revolution, the physician Benjamin Rush, an early proponent of independence (and the "father" of American psychiatry who has been pummeled by Thomas Szasz), wrote a fascinating analysis in which he broke down the sundry motives of American revolutionaries into several basic categories.

I haven't read this piece in ages, but as I recall, Rush said that some Americans supported the war because they hoped the expulsion of the British would present more opportunities to acquire positions of power in America. Many others backed the war because they believed it would lead to the cancellation of their considerable debts to British merchants. Still others fought the war because they didn't have much choice, as Hessian mercenaries plundered loyalists and rebels alike. Nevertheless, Rush concluded that around half the revolutionaries (including himself) supported the war from the genuine love of freedom and respect for principles.

I have no reason to think that you would necessarily disagree with Rush's analysis, but here is my basic point. Seemingly theoretical issues like the motives of George III had enormous practical implications. Until the publication of Paine's Common Sense, the standard line in America was to blame parliament, the king's ministers, and royal officials in the colonies for all the trouble. Parliament was hungry for power, the king was getting bad advice from his ministers and false information from royal governors, etc., etc.

It is widely known that Common Sense was a watershed in American revolutionary literature. Many vitriolic pamphlets had been published before Paine arrived in America, but he was the first to focus the blame on King George III. All other factors, he said, were minor by comparison. The king knew what was going on, and he was directly responsible for the growing tyranny in the colonies.

Paine's fingering of the king (bad choice of words, perhaps <_< ) was far more than a shift in emphasis. It was outright treason, and everyone knew it. To accuse the king specifically was to turn a resistance movement into a revolutionary movement. And this turn could be justified only if it could be shown that the king had bad intentions.

The radicals really believed this stuff; it was not some kind of ideological frosting on a freedom-loving cake. The radicals fully understood the horrendous consequences of rebelling against Britain. Not only would thousands of people die, including many innocents, but Americans would pay an even worse price if they lost the war. Few countries were as brutal as England when dealing with rebels, so the decision to fight was never taken lightly.

Here is it extremely important to understand how these people viewed their theoretical principles. These were viewed, not as mere abstractions, but as distillations of wisdom -- a wisdom based on that "lamp of experience" known as history. In some respects, 18th century Americans regarded history as more important than philosophy. Americans often invoked Bolingbroke's dictum that history is "philosophy looking backwards."

I don't mean to pontificate too much here, so let me cut to the chase. To show that George III had bad intentions, that he had a deliberate design to establish "absolute despotism" in the colonies, was the Archimedian Point of the entire Revolution. It was the perspective that gave meaning to everything else.

I would argue that, with a few exceptions, Americans would never have undertaken a violent revolution unless they sincerely believed that the king intended to establish despotism in the colonies. If he was merely misguided but had good intentions, there was always a chance that he could be persuaded to change his policies -- in which case it would have been highly irresponsible to advocate violent revolution.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Americans often invoked Bolingbroke's dictum that history is "philosophy looking backwards."

This is wrong -- so wrong that I don't think it is even a real quotation. Lord Acton may have said something similar, however.

The quotation I had in mind was: "History is philosophy teaching by example." Bolingbroke said this, or something like this, so the line was sometimes attributed to him, but I think it comes from the Greek historian Dionysius.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for a nice summing up, George. Would you share a short bibliography beyond what you've already mentioned?

--Brant

There are many good books in this field, but, with some exceptions, I have not kept abreast of scholarly literature published during the last 10 or 15 years. Some of what I wrote above, especially my take on how Americans viewed their own ideology, is my own interpretation (more or less) -- one based on my extensive reading of many hundreds of pamphlets and books from the period, as well as key secondary sources.

Bailyn's Ideological Origins of the American Revolution is one of those classic "must reads." So is a book written by one of Bailyn's students, Pauline Maier: From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776 . I am not as happy with Maier's more recent book on the Declaration of Independence.

A book that I really like is Jerome Huyler's Locke in America: The Moral Philosophy of the Founding Era (1995). I don't know much about Huyler, but he appears to be an O'ist of sorts. If so, it is very encouraging to know that O'ist historians have advanced beyond the level of Peikovian propaganda. Huyler's book is first rate.

There are a few other key texts that I will mention later. I have probably mentioned these books before on OL.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now