Saturday, July 4, 2015
Albert Hobbs - Conservative Professor Of Sociology University of Penn
Albert Hobbs, Conservative Professor of Sociology wrote 3 books dealing with the epidemic of liberal influence in behavioral sciences. His first book came out in 1951!
So, Jonathan Haidt The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion claims to have discovered that OHMYGOSH, Conservatives are under-represented in the field of Behavioral Sciences and that in the last 50 years, liberals have, not only 'taken over' behavioral sciences, they have created a hostile environment (liberals, being intolerable? What!! Absurd!!)for those who think logically and believe in self honor/value.
I can't even remember what led me to Hobbs book (Man is Moral Choice)...perhaps because I've been a student of the behavioral sciences and when I woke from my deep political slumber to realize all the crappy choices I made in life were based on Liberal Values, I started searching for Conservatives in behavioral sciences which was like trying to find Obama's college transcripts - luckily, I finally...finally discovered Man is Moral Choice...and then also The vision and the constant star and The claims of sociology: A critique of textbooks.
Talk. About. Taking. Off. Blinders.
Wow.
His book(s) expose the discrimination and devaluation of strong character values and how the rank strivers (liberals)in behavioral sciences are often really doing nothing but creating disease(s) for only which they have the cure.
Other than my family and my dogs, the only other thing I'd bother to save in a fire would be my 3 books by Hobbs. They are invaluable in insight and knowledge - and prove that Jonathan Haidt's claim is BS - conservatives have never been represented in the behavioral sciences, and his "shocking new theory" is actually 64 years old.
This book will help you get clued, not screwed - because happiness and success is up to you; not the government, not the pretentious elite professors who think they are better then everyone because they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for a piece of paper (jokes on them, no wonder they are so bitter!), not self help gurus like Deepak Chopra who shrills that people should not have attachment to money while, of course, he wears his diamond encrusted designer eyeglasses.
Wake up World.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I attended Penn in the 1960's. I took Prof. Hobbs' Soc. 2 course my senior year to satisfy what we called the "Chinese Menu" requirement of courses in many disciplines. (I was a history major.) Having spent time in his class, I hold in my mind an image of a man most characterized by his resentments.
ReplyDeleteI remember Hobbs not as a conservative but as a fascist. I considered myself conservative then and still do, so I am not coming from a place where every conservative is a fascist. I'm talking about a man who was at pains to tell the class, for no apparent reason, that a fasces was "just a bundle of sticks." He pronounced "England" as "Angland" - probably because it was the land of the Angles. He was obsessed with "scientism."
Hobbs' central moral claim was "There is nothing moral about A telling B to help C," for which purpose he considered the Government party A and taxpayers as Party B. This bit of reductive nonsense was for him a full rebuttal of welfare for the "unworthy" poor, a far more complex problem than he made it out to be. As you might imagine, I have not read Hobbs' books, so they may well contain some good arguments. But the man was very strange.
I found this blog by searching for Hobbs in connection with the current brouhaha at Penn Law involving conservative Professor Amy Wax. I don't recall Hobbs coming under any pressure for what were surely unpopular views in the 1960's, nor did it ever occur to me that he should. I was at college to hear such views, not to suppress them. I am VERY glad I took Prof. Hobbs' course, for the same reason I am glad I got rolled in a Tijuana whorehouse when I was 19. This is how we learn.
Hi Mr. Kramer! I'm really excited to "meet you" so to speak. His books, to me, were really eye opening. If you can get your hands on copies of any of them, I'd suggest it (try college libraries). Though I do not agree with all aspects mentioned in the book, I realize he was coming from a warning place of Science becoming something that would be manipulated (as it has been). He was denied tenure and had to take UofP to court. He had some really valid points in his books - the main take away - that self responsibility was diminishing as excuses for immorality was increasing (in the name of science). It's not the poor he disliked, it's the government fostering the idea that a person isn't worthy of success, so why try, allow the government to take care of you (and thus create a trusted party base).
Delete