ABSTRACT
As an aspiring social psychologist, it was Bob Abelson’s writings on belief systems that drew me to want to work with him. I was convinced by Bob’s arguments about the need for psychology to take account of the knowledge and beliefs that persons bring to situations (cognitions that can influence behavior); taken by the boldness of the attempt to map their essential contents and structure; and excited by the importance of the subject matter to which this new perspective was applied (understanding political ideologies that could have pernicious real-world effects). But what finally made up my mind to seek Bob out was a caveat. After showing the virtuosity of the “Goldwater machine” at simulating the former presidential candidate’s ideology-driven answers to foreign policy questions, Bob cautioned that a part of its apparent success was due to gimmickry in dubbing the characteristic phraseology of the Cold Warrior into the program’s output (Abelson, 1973, p. 290). This intellectual honesty, such a contrast to self-promotion or adversarial academic debate, made the work’s achievements that much more credible and impressive. I had found my mentor. I learned from Bob that it is better to listen to criticism than to defend against it, and best to revise one’s formulations to incorporate the valid and worthwhile components of opposing viewpoints. In the long run, I came to believe, the most honest and inclusive theories are those most worth pursuing and most likely to endure.
