This is one of the most beautifully annihilating book reviews I have ever seen, and I say that with deep jealousy.

A good summary, except for the very end. I don't think Dewey _does_ ignore deliberation in _Human Nature and Conduct_; everything he has to say about intelligence (and, to some extent, imagination) has to do with this, which is to say, the whole of Part 3 of the book.

"Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study 3), take valued goods from others (study 4), lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lower-class individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed."

"proposing a "vision" view of love, according to which loving is a way of seeing that involves bestowing charitable attention on a loved one"

" how explanations of social and moral development inform our understandings of morality and culture. A common theme in the latter part of the twentieth century has been to lament the moral state of American society and the decline of morality among youth. A sharp turn toward an extreme form of individualism and a lack of concern for community involvement and civic participation are often blamed for the moral crisis. Turiel challenges these views, drawing on a large body of research from developmental psychology, anthropology, sociology as well as social events, political movements, and journalistic accounts of social and political struggles. Turiel shows that generation after generation has lamented the decline of society and blamed young people. Using historical accounts, he persuasively argues that such characterizations of moral decline entail stereotyping, nostalgia for times past, and a failure to recognize the moral viewpoint of those who challenge traditions."

"That didn't make me feel better like I thought it would."

This, this, this.

This. This EXACTLY. ("Internet FOREVER!")

"The correlation between bigotry and stupidity has been widely observed, leading to much speculation [about] a causal relationship ... I think many observers get that causal relationship backwards. Stupidity does not lead to bigotry. Bigotry leads to stupidity. Bigotry causes stupidity. Bigotry is a choice -- a series of choices. And each of those choices makes the chooser a little bit more stupid. Cumulatively, they make the chooser a lot more stupid.

One might argue that I have here merely replaced intellectual condescension with moral condescension -- replaced "I'm more intelligent than you" with "I'm more virtuous than you." ... The message, rather, is this: You're smarter than you and you're better than you. Right now, you may be selfish, angry, unhappy and really, really stupid. But you don't have to be like that. You can be better and smarter. You ought to be better and smarter. And you can become so without any help from me, just by choosing to be so."

A nice exposition of the highlights of _Exit, Voice and Loyalty_.

Re-reading this, I am struck by how Orwell makes what I would see as a cognitive flaw (projecting the continuation of current trends) into a moral one (power-worship). I feel that this connects somehow to the impression of _bullying_ I have always gotten, and disliked, from Orwell. (But I admit this impression is obscure even to me.) Very much worth reading on its own terms, and also for the historical influence of Burnham on later American conservatism and neo-conservatism (their "new class" = his "managers").

On enjoying bad books: "When I think of my comfort re-reads they all tend to be things where everything comes out all right in the end—children’s books, romances, and military stories. The characters in these sorts of books tend to be justified in what they do. There’s a certain black and white nature to everything. They tend to be series, so I can really soak myself in them, or if not series then at least a lot of books to the same formula... The other thing they have in common is that while the prose might be clunky, the characters might have only two dimensions and the plots when examined may be ridiculous, they’re really good on the storytelling level. They may look contrived when you step away from them, but while you’re immersed, you can care. Indeed, you’re allowed to care, encouraged to care. They’re manipulative in some ways, but you feel that the author is buying what they’re selling, they’re button-pushing, but they’re honest. They’re the author’s buttons too. ..."

A new book of poetry coming from Pollitt, hurray!

I really need to read Coates's book.

This is illuminating, compassionate, and profoundly depressing.

Lizardbreath on the moral vocabulary of liberalism. (Preach it, sister!)