Essay talk:Speculation on the Psychology of Andrew Schlafly

ListenerX's remarks

• Mr. Schlafly is a Catholic and did not grow up in a "fundamentalist" household (the Schlaflys are not sedevacantists or anything of that sort).
• Mr. Schlafly only became a young-earth creationist in 2000.
• The two strands of "conservatism" called "fiscal" and "social" are in a very tenuous alliance; they do not serve as natural "supplements." ListenerX^TalkerX 06:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well that changes everything...after all, the essay's only speculation by a guy who obviously doesn't know his subject too well. It was just my reasoning as to what would make him this way without knowing his background. I guess I can apply my speculation to others who think like him. Meh. SoCal 212 ^{But said it would be legal...} 06:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I've never heard Phyllis arguing for biblical literalism or Young Earth Creationism either - these are positions which Andy holds exclusively within his family and seems to have developed on his own. Also, when he went to Princeton, he apparently had rather normal career aspirations and he must've been willing to accept scientific findings, or else he wouldn't have completed his diploma. If he'd always been the way he is now, I'd have expected him to go straight for a theology degree. Röstigraben (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to imagine then how he acquired such beliefs. You see, I thought I had it pinned down there but I guess the essay doesn't apply to Schlafly very well now. Still, I think it's reasonable to apply it to others who share his views but weren't necessarily brought up Catholic or what not and didn't spontaneously become YECs. That's kind of a bummer, but thanks for letting me know. I'll research better in the future. SoCal 212 ^{But said it would be legal...} 06:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We know very little about how Andy acquired the kernel of his current, completely idiosyncratic belief system. My own guess is that his hatred for the academic establishment - and, by extension, all of science - didn't start before he found himself stymied in his aspirations to become a university-level teacher. Nowadays, he's just dismissing established theories in a random fashion, without seriously considering whether they violate biblical history or not. To me, that suggests a strong aversion to academia itself rather than an actual ideological conflict. Röstigraben (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rosti here. Andy distaste seems to be towered all of academia and I suspect it had something to do with his experiences at harvard and working under Obama. Ace^{of Spades} 07:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I was gonna say this explains a lot...

But, assuming Listener X is right, it doesn't. Oh well. That being said, it does seem to apply to the majority of fundies, at least. And it does still explain why he thinks (his brand) of conservatism is clearly based on reason (he *was* certainly indoctrinated into social conservatism from a young age, looking at his mother), when objectively speaking it seems to me far more rational to be center/center-left, and willing to work with both sides and wanting amicable compromises rather than control (though we can certainly be imperfect also, yeah: see "balance fallacy"/"appeal to moderation").

Thinking about it, that hypothesis about Andy's "grudge against academia" sounds interesting, and *would* explain a lot (such as that "best of the public" bullshit).

Sorry, I had to leave my two cents here. As I said though, this essay probably still applies for most anyone that was born into fundamentalism. So it's not a total loss :P! Sensual Endeavor, the sexy pony ;) (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)