Whoops, one more thing. Mike wrote:
I don't get why conservatives are interested.
I haven't read the conservatives' articles, but I can easy infer why the conservatives are interested. There's a considerable amount of material in the Satel & Lilienfeld book about how we can reconcile a neurologized view of behavior with the idea of personal responsibility (and culpability) for one's actions. I liked their treatment of the topic; it didn't ping my partisan-politics detector. But it could easily be grist for that mill. And there were some ideas that were conspicuously absent from the book. For example, in an otherwise good discussion of evidence that addiction does not obliterate the capacity for choice (citing the relevant data on contingency-management treatment), there was no discussion of the disproportionate conditional probability of addiction (that is, the probability of addiction given use) among socioeconomically disadvantaged people whose options are limited and whose time horizons are short. The prescription for that problem should be social-structural change, not just individual treatment. Satel and Lilienfeld don't say so. --David Epstein [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=26224 or send a blank email to leave-26224-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
