Van Jones - Social Justice vs. Legal Justice (at Guilford College, NC)

“There is no reaching him logically, as nature has programmed him this way.”

First, correlation is not causation - an important maxim of science. Two very different things exhibiting very similar patterns is a correlation but it does not identify or prove a cause, much less that the pattern is the same cause. Nature did not program Van Jones to have the political ideas he has. Genetics did not "wire" him that way. He was "programmed" in a fashion by education and influence from Marxists directly and Marxist inspired thinker and writers indirectly. His political views are not "primitive" in a Darwinian fashion, even as delusion, stupid and dangerous to Liberty as they are. There is no genetic or natural mystery to it.

It can’t really help, but I’ll file it all away.

At the individual level, from conception, variablities enter the system, from nutrients the embryo gets, to stress hormones in the mother’s blood, which the baby is exposed to. As the child grows, changes can build upon each other to the point that one event, which might have one effect, can have a different effect if experienced following another event. Don’t learn to hate your parents and get criticised by them, and it might bring you down. Hate your parents, and get criticism, the effect is much different.

As you step out to the group level, individual variabilities will blur out, as statistical probabilites play out over large numbers. In one case, maternal harshness may not have any effect. But study thousands of people, and maternal harshness will affect many of them. Same for the Dopamine dysfunctions, and the childhood play conditioning. I suspect a lot of it goes hand in hand, with Dopamine affecting muscular cordination, and mood, through various mechanisms, and the mood affecting parenting styles. If so,the DRD4 mutants are the ones unduly predisposed to the path of the Liberal.

We will learn a lot when we begin functional neuroimaging studies of the brain. Already we are finding Liberals have smaller amygdalas, probably as a manifestation of their inability to confront fear. When we figure out how they are using their brain structures differently, we will learn a whole lot about this disorder, very quickly.

I disagree. If you look at our species broadly, you do see two psychologies in our political ideologies. One embraces competitiveness, in every regard. Economic, in the form of capitalism. Physical self defense, in the form of gun ownership. International competition, in the form of patriotic nationalism. Even sexual competitiveness, in the form of a competiton for a monogamous mate.

The other psychology embraces an aversion to competitiveness, in every arena. Capitalism must cede to Marxism, or redistibution. All guns must be banned, and all violence must be stopped. Inter-national competitions must be controlled by a world governing body, and mating must be uncompetitive, non-monogamous, and indiscriminant.

Van found a home for his psychology in Marxism. He was drawn to the ideology, because it was created by individuals like him, and taught by individuals like him, to satiate their own need for an Anticompetitive environment. He was made a Marxist by education, however he was not made an Anticompetitor by education any more than you were made protective of your wife by education. And I do not believe you could educate him to Conservatism any more than I could educate you to be a Marxist. His psychology and Conservatism would mix as well as your psychology and Marxism.

We are either driven to compete, and accept that there will be disparities in outcomes, or we are driven to abhor competition, and abhor the fact that disparities in outcomes exist. That innate drive is what will cause a political ideology to “take” in our brain. And it is why Gun control, capitalism, sexual competitions for monogamous mates, and a desire to cede soverignty to world bodies all are related issues, and the Conservative will have his own set of Competition favoring positions, and the Liberal will have their own set of competition averse positions.

One question. If the Cuttlefish continued to evolve, and became smarter, formed groups, and ended up in a society, would the Competitors be driven to Capitalism? Would the Anticompetitors adopt Capitalism as well? Or might they try to thwart the free market?

We have two ideologies, which can never agree. Freedom or control, Liberty or oppression, moral or immoral. This is why.

“Van found a home for his psychology in Marxism”

That’s your interpretation, and its flaw is the biggest and most frequent advocates for Marxist ideas - including Marx and Lenin as well - who have been in material positions in their life where they were VERY competitive, intellectually and politically and were in material stations in life where competition was not an issue. Even today, the bulk of the Marxist influence comes NOT from poor deprived citizens but from the elites, in academia, and often in science, in the media and other well paid and competitive professions as well.

They may SELL a need to control everything to the sheeple, but it is NOT fear of competition, or a lack of competition , for themselves, that they has gotten them to their (usually very comfortable) stations in life at this time.

A “psychology” looking for a political theory to match it is putting a theoretical horse behind the cart. You have it backwards. They may now have the “psychology” you speak of, because it satisfies their Marxist beliefs and ideas.

Again, my theoretical theory is no more than yours, an identification of correlation, not causation.

Again, the Anticompetitive Cuttlefish is not afraid of competition, as he does, in fact compete. The Anticompetitive Cuttlefish is afraid of entering the free competitive scheme the Competitive cuttlefish uses to better his species' advancement. He is afraid of free, open competition, where his peers are on equal footing with him, and where losses are enforced.

So yes, the Anticompetitor will gain money and resources, he will strive for power. But he will not support a free, competitive scheme where everyone can. It is like gun control. Mike Bloomberg will carry a gun, and surround himself with armed men. But he will not want other men to be armed. Contrast that with me. I will carry a gun, and I support every other American's right to carry a gun as well.

Now, go to the work by Belsky Steinburg and Draper here This work goes on through many papers by many different researchers over many years. There is a good rundown in the Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, if I recall correctly. Two upbringings. One stressful for the very first years of life, one stable, and not stressful. Many of those who experience the stressful upbringing actually enter puberty earlier, depersonalize mates, exhibit increased selfishness, and engage in promiscuity. According to the researchers, they see cues in their environment which indicate they will have difficulty competing, and they adopt a psychology akin to the Anticompetitive Cuttlefish - a desperate attempt to get their genes to the next generation fast. Those who are raised in a stable environment do not, and tend more towards close personal relationships, loyalty and monogamy.

Go here for an article showing Liberals have different physical brain structures from Conservatives. (I'd get you a better reference, but I am rushed right now) If I learn Marxism, will my amygdala whither away? Or is it possible brain structure is altered during early development to produce a psychology designed to better such an individual's survival? Is Pee Wee Herman better off if he has Conan the Barbarian's psychology, or would he better served, evolutionarily by having a psychology like Obama?

Carol Dweck, who studies children's psychologies at Stanford has found two psychologies. One seeks to have status bestowed upon them, but does not think they are able to better themselves by their own effort. The other psychology is driven to better themselves, and does not view others as able to bestow status upon them. And these psychologies persist into adulthood, where marketers are studying them as we speak. Are these children inculcated with Marxism and Conservatism, and that produces these two psychologies? Or is there a primitive mindset which we adopt early on, and later we gravitate to a form of governance which scratches our itch?

What about the mutation in a Dopamine receptor which is found in Libs, but not Conservatives? Or the brain parasite which affects the same pathway, and produces individuals who desire a "a rule-oriented society geared to reduce uncertainty," (the researcher's words, not mine), engage in promiscuity, become dogmatic, and exhibit selfishness. Clearly learning Marxism can't affect a gene in your DNA.

Additionally, though many Marxists are successful elites as adults, if you look at the research, the cues which make individuals trend towards being marxists/socialists/redistributionists are provided either genetically, or when the individuals are children. Their course is set regardless of their station later in life, hence they will adopt such an illogical position despite intelligence, logic, and personal impact.

Also, it pays to restate, as with any work studying behavior and psychology, this theory operates at the group level, and explains the majority of cases. Will you find an individual somewhere who is a liberal for some other reason? Probably. Will you find a large Competitive Male Cuttlefish who goes the transvestite route on occasion? Maybe. Correlations produce some of the best advances in science, if they are researched, though. H Pylori was just an incidental stomach inhabitant. HIV was present where AIDS presented. The fact there was a correlation was cause for more research, not a dismissal of any theory involving it.

I have a lot more hard substantiation for the theory than is on the profile page (which is too long already), and I probably should put it up at some point, though it is available in the book. I think I make a good case there are two psychologies, they are found in multiple species, they present, and are documented in humans by multiple researchers, they begin in childhood, they alter brain structure, and they are associated with different political philosophies. At this point, my view is I have more evidence for my theory than exists for evolution, and the concept that God did not create the fossil record 6000 years ago. At some point, you have to look at what is likely.

Now, I am not saying case closed either. I lay out what research needs to be done, but understand if I am right, (and the important parts of this theory can be confirmed with modern neuroimaging techniques) it means we can actually manipulate Liberals, and control them at a deep psychological level by stimulating various brain structures, in a way a Conservative could not even imagine being controlled. To dismiss the theory out of hand is to fail to grasp a potentially phenomenal advantage we have in the political debate. Especially considering this theory can actually be tested and confirmed with current technology.

Don't think the Liberals are just like us. That is an atrocious mistake. They are not.

"Again, the Anticompetitive Cuttlefish is not afraid of competition, as he does, in fact compete. The Anticompetitive Cuttlefish is afraid of entering the free competitive scheme the Competitive cuttlefish uses to better his species' advancement."

Van Jones (or any Leftist) is not a cuttlefish, nor does he have the simple brain of one. Again, you assume finding a corollary pattern means you have found a common cause - you haven't.

"Don't think the Liberals are just like us. That is an atrocious mistake. They are not."

No one said Liberals are "just like us". Liberals are not like us because of the erroneous opinions they have formed, not because of their genes, and their genes did not lead them to form those opinions.

Go peddle your theories somewhere else.

Liberals are not like us because of the erroneous opinions they have formed, not because of their genes, and their genes did not lead them to form those opinions. Wow. Studies (by researchers at UC and Harvard, and published in the Journal of Politics by Cambridge University Press no less) show the DRD4 gene is linked to political affiliation) studies show Liberal's have different brain structures, the science is in it's infancy, and you want it shut down, by your decree. See, I am kind of cool with anyone "peddling" any theory they want. As with guns, I support free competition for all, even among ideas. I gotta say, your position, ie you tell others what they are allowed to post, (while on someone else's website no less) - Seems kind of Anticompetitive to me. Cheers.

“Wow. Studies (by researchers at UC and Harvard, and published in the Journal of Politics by Cambridge University Press no less) show the DRD4 gene is linked to political affiliation”

You (and many self-appointed “scientists” today), typify the biggest error of modern scientific proclamations (like global warming), which I have repeatedly reminded you:

correlation IS NOT CAUSATION

Finding two (or more) things to exist in a singular contest does not identify that one is a cause of the other. It demonstrates ONLY correlation, it does not identify a mechanism of cause and effect.

A fact, and a scientific maxim, repeatedly avoided in the politicized science environment of today.

Again,

GO PEDDLE YOUR BOGUS THEORIES ON SOME SHEEPLE ON SOME OTHER WEB SITE.

And again, you don’t listen to what I say repeatedly in the book, which is that the correlations, (Of which there are many), are not proof, but cause for a much closer look. The modern functional neuroimaging techniques available today might just show that Liberal brain development and functionality stalls in early adolescence, and freezes them in that psychology. That fact alone, if proven, would devastate Liberalism, as they would literally be shown to be, mental retards (Sorry Sarah...). If attenuated amygdala development and function is demonstrated in both Children and Liberals, But Conservatives develop increasing Amygdala function as they mature, then you have taken a huge step towards discovering your causation, as Amygdala function relates to fear processing. And it would humiliate Liberals.

If Liberals are documented to have a high likelyhood of a deficient Amygdala, and Conservatives do not (as is established now), only a fool (or a Liberal) would not step in for a closer look, and try to figure out the mechanism involved.

As I said previously, many diseases (which you could actually classify Liberalism as) are discovered through correlations, as that is where you begin when dissecting biological systems, which I know a little about. Proposing a causation absent any knowledge of correlations would be pretty wasteful of time and effort.

On Global Warming, the problem there is not correlation being mistaken for causation. Given the Medieval Warming Period, the history of climate fluctuations over the life of the Earth, and the fact there was actually cooling over the last decade, there was not correlation. Rather, one idiot decided CO2 was a “greenhouse gas,” and produced a proposed mode of causation. Then a bunch of Anticompetitive Liberals ginned up fake numbers and hockey stick graphs to produce a conjured correlation. All to support their attempts to undermine free competition among men and their businesses, and institute a tax on success, to provide a reward for failure. The problem in AGW was not Correlation vs Causation, it was dishonesty, motivated by the psychological dysfunction in Liberals, who so fear the free competitive environment, that they will do anything to stamp it out.

Again, I do not say my theory is cased closed (notice, I even call it a theory), but given sufficient research, I think Liberalism will be established as a stress mediated activation of a genetic mechanism designed to produce an individual with a stalled, childlike brain development, who will seek to selfishly subvert the competitive schemes which advance their species’ evolution, probably due to an inferior amygdala which never develops the ability to handle or process fear.

As for going to another website, that demand of your’s is indicative of an Anticompetitive Liberal psychology in you. You show up somewhere, decree what is acceptable to you, and then tell others what to do, rather than let everyone be free to advance their own agendas, and propose theories for consideration, in free open competition. A Competitive psychology, even if they disagreed with me, would say they thought I was definitely wrong, and maybe even that I was an idiot for proposing it, but then drop the issue, as they would have no problem with me advancing a theory. If I was wrong, they would trust in the power of the “market” to disregard my theory and support their position, and if they were wrong, they would not be bothered to be shown so, as it is more about truth than the individual’s personal success.

Of course, if my theory were correct, the Anticompetitor wants to decree outcomes, so as to not have free, open competition among all, and thus you seek to decree yourself the “winner”, and I must stop saying something you dislike and cede the competition of ideas to you. Even though this is actually not your website, you don’t even speak for anyone else here, and you are more or less impotenet to enforce any decree, despite your YELLING.

Tsk tsk.

FYI. Know yourself, know your enemy, 1000 battles, 1000 victories.

Thank you for the debate, though, as this is great prep for me. Keep it coming.

Cheers!

I will say it ONLY once more.

Go peddle your book(s) somewhere else. Fin.

THis nitwit, has no clue.

The reality is that no everyone puts forth the same effort. So if I were to take my life and put it in a hat with “everyone else”, The odds are that the new life would be significantly less palatable. If everything were to be socially just, everyone would be equally miserable.

No, thank you.