Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!cbmvax!snark!eric
From: eric@snark.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.bio
Subject: Politics and Psychometry (was: Knowledge and the Academics)
Message-ID: <124@snark.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jun-87 10:47:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: snark.124
Posted: Mon Jun 15 10:47:13 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jun-87 00:52:45 EDT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Thyrsus Enterprises, Malvern PA 19355
Lines: 31
Xref: utgpu sci.philosophy.tech:175 sci.bio:382

In my response to my article summarizing the hereditarian and environmentalist
positions and concluding with support for a moderate hereditarian position,
a well-known net.flamer replied by e-mail:

>   This totally cracked me up.  You end up plunking for the reading that is
>   most congenial with your politics.  Hah!

I replied:
  
>  I'd be interested to know why you think that. I said that I found the
>  hereditarian case unpleasant, and I do. It would be more congenial to
>  my political beliefs to think that all human beings are potentially
>  equal at a high level of rationality.
>  
>  Perhaps you're one of those people that believes libertarianism is
>  some kind of mutant conservative/reactionary ideology (some of
>  Clayton Cramer's postings could certainly have reinforced such a mistake).
 
I am posting this because I think there are issues of wider interest
here. I believe it's a common error to lump libertarians with
conservatives, and welcome the chance to demonstrate the falseness of that
assumption. More generally, I'm interested in the effect of politics on
world-view and vice-versa. I would welcome non-flaming discussion on both
topics.

I have directed followups to talk.politics.misc.
-- 
      Eric S. Raymond
      UUCP:  {{seismo,ihnp4,rutgers}!cbmvax,sdcrdcf!burdvax}!snark!eric
      Post:  22 South Warren Avenue, Malvern, PA 19355
      Phone: (215)-296-5718