an in-between move

Cool kids read The Bellman.


Don't read this blog!

I mean, thanks for dropping by my little corner of the blogospheric backwaters, but the blog you should be reading is The Bellman. The stuff I post there is much, much less likely to be imbued with dormitive powers.


[German, from zwischen, intermediate + zug, move

Literally an "in-between move". A move in a tactical sequence is called a zwischenzug* when it does not relate directly to the tactical motif in operation. |source|

image copyright TWIC

From this position, black played a zwischenzug: 19…d5
(Linares 2002, 1-0)


about your blogger

David Rowland studies philosophy at the University of Illinois - Urbana / Champaign, where he's an active member of the Graduate Employees Organization. He used to play a lot of chess, but wasn't all that good. He has a blog. And email.



A Google star is born
What it is, what it was, and what it shall be
Drink up!
Dew it to it?
Objectivity and morality
Another query
A query
What's in a name?
Writing tools


error log

January 2004  
February 2004  
March 2004  
April 2004  
May 2004  
June 2004  
July 2004  
August 2004  
September 2004  
October 2004  
November 2004  
December 2004  
January 2005  
February 2005  
March 2005  
April 2005  
May 2005  
June 2005  
July 2005  
August 2005  
September 2005  
October 2005  
November 2005  
December 2005  


$zwichenzug$ sell-out zone





Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under
a Creative Commons License.

Union Label

Direct Action
Gets the Goods!


some folks I know

Mark Dilley
a daily dose of architecture
Safety Neal
January Girl
mimi jingcha
Hop, Skip, Jump
ambivalent imbroglio
Brooke & Lian


some blogs I read

strip mining for whimsy
It's Matt's World
School of Blog
Fall of the State
Dru Blood
Echidne of the Snakes
Colossal Waste of Bandwidth
Running from the Thought Police
Bionic Octopus


some philosoblogs

Fake Barn Country
Freiheit und Wissen


some labor blogs

Confined Space
Working Life
Dispatches From the Trenches
Labor Blog
Eric Lee


some A-list blogs

This Modern World
Matthew Yglesias
Andrew Sullivan
Political Animal
The Volokh Conspiracy


some other links

Rule 33
This Week in Chess
War Nerd
National Priorities Project
Bible Gateway
Internet Archive
A Weekly Dose of Architecture
Orsinal: Morning Sunshine
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Safety Sign Builder
Get Your War On


some philosoblogging

Six views about reasons
Seidman on reflection and rationality
And another thing
Tiffany's argument for strong internalism
Internalism v. Externalism
What do internalists believe anyway?
Rationalism and internalism
The experimental method in philosophy
Advertising to children
On moral skepticism
A linguistic argument
More on Williams
Williams on reasons
General and particular
Normativity and morality
Political intuitions
What it is, what it was, and what it shall be
Objectivity and morality
Thinking revolution
Abortion and coercion
Moore on torture
On the phenomenology of deliberation
Even more Deliberation Day
more Deliberation Day
Deliberation Day run-down
He made a porch for the throne where he might judge, cont.
He made a porch for the throne where he might judge
Every shepherd is an abomination
Droppin' H-bombs
ad hominem

Tuesday, August 10, 2004


Political intuitions

Haidt and associates (1993: 613) presented stories about `harmless yet offensive violations of strong social norms' to men and women of high and low socioeconomic status (SES). For example: a man goes to the supermarket once a week and buys a dead chicken. But before cooking the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he cooks it and eats it. (Haidt et al. 1993: 617). Lower SES subjects tended to `moralize' harmless and offensive behaviour like that in the chicken story. These subjects were more inclined than their privileged counterparts to say that the actor should be `stopped or punished,' and more inclined to deny that such behaviours would be `OK' if customary in a given country (Haidt et al. 1993: 618-19).
[Source: Doris, John M. and Stephen P. Stich (2004). ETHICS AND PSYCHOLOGY . In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge.]

Doris and Stich draw a conclusion for philosophical method. Philosophers, especially those working in ethics, are inclined to treat their own moral intuitions as evidence for the correctness of their favored interpretation of morality. Doris and Stich note that the academic setting of contemporary philosophy virtually guarantees that its practitioners will possess high socioeconomic status. So, when philosophers assume their intuitions to be normative, they unknowingly assume that the intuitions of those with high socioeconomic status trump the intuitions of those from other backgrounds. Given this situation, Doris and Stich recommend that if philosophers continue to make use of thought experiments that they consign them to an expository rather than an evidentiary role.

I haven't been able to track down the Haidt article*, so my response to Doris and Stich is preliminary. I have questions regarding the factors that go into determining social and economic status, and how those various factors are correlated. It would be interesting to know, for example, whether the results are more highly correlated with educational achievement or with income. The most I am confident in saying at this point is that there is some variable, call it SES, which is correlated with ethical intuitions.

There is, it seems to me, an interesting political point to be made. Note that the families of responses correlate roughly with positions that might be called 'socially progressive' and 'socially conservative'. It doesn't take a particularly astute observer of American politics to note that this divide has been used by the Republican Party in service of an agenda that, viewed from a materialist perspective, favors the interests of the monied elite. Moreover, this marriage of ideology and policy is not mere accident. Consider, for example, the notion that each person has an absolute right to the product of his own labors. This doctrine is a tenet of social conservatism which has the effect of contributing to the reproduction of existing structural inequalities. It has been used to garner broad support among the economically less well off in favor of polices that don't materially benefit them. Examples include support for the repeal of the inheritance tax, for the lowering of marginal rates of income tax, and for the weakening of the social welfare net.

The upshot is that the Republicans, or at any rate the monied elites who benefit from Republican policy, have reason to promote broad acceptance of social conservatism, and hence reason to seek that value of SES which is correlated with socially conservative intuitions. If this variable does, in fact, correlate with advantages in social and economic status then this comes very close to empirical support for Marx's remarks about the nature of ruling class ideology. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

*But here's a citation: Haidt, J., Koller, S. and Dias, M. (1993) `Affect, Culture, and Morality, or Is It Wrong To Eat Your Dog?', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65 (4): 613-28

+ - + - + main + - + - +