Slashdot Mirror

" they even know the difference between "they're" and "their". Something most college grads seem to not know. Too bad you can't fire people (lovely government interventions) for having been too stupid to get value for their money when they shopped for "education"."

The difference between "they're and their", when people MAKE the mistake. Is often a unconscious memory error. I know because I make these all the time and it has to do with the way each person's neurology stores information in memory. I will also type the wrong word for words that sound phonetically near, or exactly the same. It has nothing to do with being 'ill educated', I think everyone needs some basic courses in neurology as to why these mistakes keep creeping up in people's writing: Hint, it's not (always) because they are simply stupid, it has to do with the way information in memory is stored and organized in the brain.

The so called "fruedian slip" is more like the "storage" slip, networks of associated content are activated, boob job becomes blow job, they both begin with be, and end with job, so the mind while looking up boob, misfires and gives the man "blow". There was an excellent segment on this at orwell coming to america conference (I believe it is in, video 2)

http://www.linktv.org/video/2142

See items by: George lakoff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff

Hist postings at the (now closed) rockridge institute

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/people/lakoff

The number matters because it explains why someone would call conservative think tanks "coin operated".

I'll point out, the original comment said nothing about righteousness, and could easily be applied to both liberal and conservative think tanks. But as a progressive, obviously I would believe that progressive causes are more righteous than non-progressive causes. They are designed for cooperative purposes rather than selfish ones. This is more righteous than this. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't be progressive...

The number matters because it explains why someone would call conservative think tanks "coin operated".

I'll point out, the original comment said nothing about righteousness, and could easily be applied to both liberal and conservative think tanks. But as a progressive, obviously I would believe that progressive causes are more righteous than non-progressive causes. They are designed for cooperative purposes rather than selfish ones. This is more righteous than this. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't be progressive...

If you'd like a few more angles, read Don't Think of an Elephant. The book is mostly just a collection of the Rockridge Institute's essays, so it's a little repetitive. It's shorter than Moral Politics, which should be better, but I've never read it.

Unfortunately, the book is not, as they claim, "the antidote to the last forty years of conservative dominance of the national public policy debate". It does describes the problem very well, and describes a few solutions. But it's not like we're back in the game now.

If you'd like a few more angles, read Don't Think of an Elephant. The book is mostly just a collection of the Rockridge Institute's essays, so it's a little repetitive. It's shorter than Moral Politics, which should be better, but I've never read it.

Unfortunately, the book is not, as they claim, "the antidote to the last forty years of conservative dominance of the national public policy debate". It does describes the problem very well, and describes a few solutions. But it's not like we're back in the game now.

If you'd like a few more angles, read Don't Think of an Elephant. The book is mostly just a collection of the Rockridge Institute's essays, so it's a little repetitive. It's shorter than Moral Politics, which should be better, but I've never read it.

Unfortunately, the book is not, as they claim, "the antidote to the last forty years of conservative dominance of the national public policy debate". It does describes the problem very well, and describes a few solutions. But it's not like we're back in the game now.

I think it has worked like that on the left, but that is because the left is a little behind the right in their understanding of psychology. The right doesn't get votes by moving farther left. They get votes by moving the population farther right. Liberals could do the same if they understood how. George Lakoff of the Rockridge Institute has done some very interesting work on this subject.