tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29763791.post6689645673973578185..comments2023-10-31T05:07:19.353-04:00Comments on Delenda est Carthago: Arnold Kling vs. IQDr. Φhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14086783503820477029noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29763791.post-38729497191198700192007-11-24T18:38:00.000-05:002007-11-24T18:38:00.000-05:00Hmm, I think the units we put stock into depend on...Hmm, I think the units we put stock into depend on the set of people we pay attention to. If you are talking football, you identify with metropolitan areas. After 9-11, we became more aware of things outside the States, so we identified more with our American-ness. (Remember the explosion of nice-ness?) At the district science fair, you identify with those from your same school; at the state level, you identify with your city; at the national level, you identify with your state.<BR/><BR/>Related topic: I wish we Indians would stop being proud of our ancestors having conceptualized the number zero.bobvishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11498316988120125641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29763791.post-32800766304414677222007-11-24T16:26:00.000-05:002007-11-24T16:26:00.000-05:00Bob: You and Kling make a fair point: our racial...Bob: You and Kling make a fair point: our racial/national/cultural identity(ies) are far more potent, both in the way that we are perceived by others and the way we perceive ourselves. In contrast, with only a handful of exceptions ("I'm a New Yorker" comes to mind), few Americans draw much if any of their identity from their municipality.<BR/><BR/>But: I do not believe that what we observe here are merely personal preferences. I do not think that we chose, <I>ex nihlo</I> to put more stock in our nation than in our <I>polis</I>, for instance. Rather, the fact that we regard some identities as more important than others reflects underlying social and behavioral realities at the distributional, if not the individual, level of analysis.Burkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14252946969701576139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29763791.post-64563677398243021402007-11-24T14:19:00.000-05:002007-11-24T14:19:00.000-05:00Didn't I mention how much I hate analogies? :)You ...Didn't I mention how much I hate analogies? :)<BR/><BR/>You do a great job, but I think another way to debunk Kling is this:<BR/>If the existing Red Sox team were destroyed and replaced with Bostonians, there is very little chance that they would win the World Series. If the existing Nobel Prize winners were destroyed, there is still a reasonable probability that the new winner would be some other Jewish person.<BR/><BR/>Then again, Kling says "The point of this example is to show how important group identity seems to be." If that is all he means to claim by the analogy, then I'd say he is correct.bobvishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11498316988120125641noreply@blogger.com