[lapcat]

> They might have been, but they also knew from experience that "do whatever this party apparatchik asks you to do, no matter how pointless it seems" was a better strategy for staying alive.

Why didn't the villagers come to the same conclusion, especially since you're suggesting that the villagers were fearful of this person?

> Note that I am not arguing that the cognitive differences Luria observed were not real.

But that's the crucial question!

[saghm]

There's a difference between "I think this person might be up to something, but I don't know what" and " I know exactly what they're up to and it's in my best interest to avoid becoming an obstacle". Not all fear is the same.

[pdonis]

> Why didn't the villagers come to the same conclusion

Because they hadn't had the same experience--yet.

> you're suggesting that the villagers were fearful of this person

Not fearful, suspicious.

> that's the crucial question!

You don't think it's possible for both things to be true? That literacy caused significant cognitive changes, and that the psychological dynamic I described was in play? I don't see how those two things are mutually exclusive.

[lapcat]

It's possible that the villagers were suspicious of Luria. It's also possible that the collective farm workers were suspicious of Luria. Don't you think it's possible for both of those to be true?

The question is, what explained the difference in behavior of the two groups with regard to Luria's questions? I don't see how suspicion is a plausible explanation for the difference. The villagers were clearly bold enough to talk to Luria, instead of avoiding him completely. They were also bold enough to refuse to entertain Luria's scenario. That could be considered a form of resistance to the Soviets, no? Given that the villagers were so bold, why would they even be afraid of entertaining the scenario in the first place? Are you claiming that they knew the answer to the question yet refused to say it? If so, why? If not, then the issue seems to be a failure of imagination rather than a matter of suspicion.

[pdonis]

> It's possible that the villagers were suspicious of Luria. It's also possible that the collective farm workers were suspicious of Luria. Don't you think it's possible for both of those to be true?

Sure. But that doesn't mean that "suspicion" always has to lead to the same behavior. "Suspicion" doesn't exist in a vacuum. You have to look at all the factors involved.

> The question is, what explained the difference in behavior of the two groups with regard to Luria's questions?

And the answer is, there were multiple factors involved, and trying to pin it down to just one is a fool's errand.

> Are you claiming that they knew the answer to the question yet refused to say it?

No, I'm saying that Luria's claim that the only reason they gave the response to the question was a cognitive difference between them and the collective farm workers who had been taught to read, is way too simplistic. And more generally, that Luria only looking at that one aspect of the situation--the possible cognitive effects of illiterate vs. literate--and ignoring all other salient differences between the two groups--like the fact that the villagers hadn't yet been forced into collective farm work by the Soviet government, while the farm workers had--is way too simplistic.