Liberals Predicting Conservatives?

[glintofpewter]

I only know Haidt through the moral foundations which I think is useful. I understand it to be based on surveys across cultures. I was concerned that he was expanding his list. I have not followed his "religious studies". He obviously has made himself a target for some fair criticism in a fight he seems to have asked for.

 

Whatever the content of the conversations with conservatives - I refer back to Obama's speech I quoted above in which he was challenged to use "fair minded" words. As a result he changed the language on his website.

 

Dutch

Edited April 7, 2012 by glintofpewter

[GeorgeW]

I can't say if duality is a part of the structure of the human mind, but this idea does seem to work in various theories. In linguistics, basic syntactic analysis is based on binary nodes. In Optimality Theory (primarily phonology) there is tension between dual alternatives (faithfulness vs. markedness), etc.

 

As much as some of us rationally resist duality, there seems to be such a human tendency built into our intuitive systems.

 

George

[glintofpewter]

Neon,

 

Haidt deserves criticism for this mash-up. He has conflated so many ideas and phenomena for this to make sense. This is a good argument for memes assembled badly.

 

http://www.youtube.c...&v=IP2Uk4rfzgM#!

 

To start: being in the zone (WWII) and experiencing transcendence are two separate phenomena.

 

Dutch

Edited April 7, 2012 by glintofpewter

[Tea]

While anecdotal evidence is interesting and worth discussing...

 

I wasn't providing "anecdotal evidence" but trying to show how, in certain situations, you might disagree about motivations via different frames of reference, different levels of motive, or even different interpretations of "the same" values.

 

I admit I'm not familiar with his categories, in any case; I just thought the complexity of how people see motivations (in themselves and others) isn't cut and dried. Apologies if that was off-topic in not being related to the specific person and article.

[GeorgeW]

I admit I'm not familiar with his categories, in any case; I just thought the complexity of how people see motivations (in themselves and others) isn't cut and dried. Apologies if that was off-topic in not being related to the specific person and article.

 

I don't think it was "off-topic" at all. I guess I didn't understand what you meant by "cut and dried" in this context. I don't know (not having read the book yet) whether Haidt's claims are "cut and dried" or not. But, having read another book of his, I suspect that it is not the case.

 

My superficial understanding is that he has developed a testable model of moral features that can be correlated with liberal and conservative world views. Lakoff (Moral Politics) has a model of morality that makes a lot of sense. He developed sets of various moral values that would explain one's worldview. However, he did not test it.

 

Whether any of these models are right or wrong, I don't know. But, I do think that there are basic, underlying, intuitive moral values that motivate our social and political worldviews. It is not just coincidence that someone who is a gun-toting, bible-thumping, gay-bashing conservative would not likely be a vegan. Why would someone who is pro-life also likely to support the death penalty and the converse for someone who is pro-choice? There must be a explanation. And, trying to find that explanation is, IMO, a worthwhile endeavor.

 

George

Edited April 7, 2012 by GeorgeW

[minsocal]

I started reading from the link provided in Post # 1 and soon stopped. It starts talking about a category labled "very liberal" (in quotes and boldened). Then it appears to drop the special category (undefined) and instead uses broader categories. I would think "the very X" applies to many sub categories of "the very", not?

[GeorgeW]

Myron,

 

I did a word search of the book and there are four instances of "very liberal." In all cases, this was how people described themselves to the researchers.

 

George

Edited April 10, 2012 by GeorgeW

[minsocal]

Myron,

 

I did a word search of the book and there are four instances of "very liberal." In all cases, this was how people described themselves to the researchers.

 

George

 

George,

 

The category of "very liberal" would be derived from a 5 or 7 point Likert scale and should be fairly rare. I do not have Haidt's distribution handy, I'm concerned about inferences or generalizations moving across a scale. Are there references to "very conservative" and any analysis from that extreme?

 

You've probalbly seen the scale, it is something like this: "Very Liberal - Liberal - Somewhat Liberal - Neutral - Somewhat Conservative - Conservative - Very Conservative." Some researchers are cautious about the extreme ends of the scale as they can be quite unreliable.

 

Myron

[GeorgeW]

Myron,

 

I agree. I would give Haidt the benefit of the doubt, at this point, and assume that he was "cautious" in his research. (I am only 12% into the book.)

 

George

[GeorgeW]

Well, I have finished Haidt’s book. First, it is about much more than whether conservatives understand morality better than liberals. It is about the basic foundations of morality and an evolutionary explanation of why they developed.

 

As for the headline bombshell about conservatives understanding morality better than liberals, I think our (i.e. liberals) initial reaction is based on a misunderstanding of what he is proposing. We know it can’t be true because we are smarter and more rational than those troglodytes :-)

 

Part of the initial misunderstanding may relate to Haidt’s definition of morality. It is more nuanced and broader than many of us think. He defines morality as interlocking sets of values that suppress or regulate self-interest and make cooperative societies possible.

 

In some respects, our initial reaction to the claim about conservatives may even support his point. First, this moral “understanding” is intuitive not reasoned. He goes to great lengths to demonstrate that our reactions to moral situations are more instinctual than reasoned. Our moral rationalizations tend to be post hoc to give some rational basis for our intuitive reaction: An explanation not a determiner. Occasionally reason does enter the moral picture when trying to resolve a moral dilemma.

 

Also, he proposes that morality has a genetic basis which is elaborated by culture and experience. This genetic basis has six foundations which he identifies. Liberals tend to invoke the Care/Harm foundation to the exclusion of the others. We tend to see morality almost exclusively in terms of avoided and preventing harm. Empathy is our strong suit. However, he argues that morality is more complex and has other foundations as well. And, supported by extensive testing, conservatives (intuitively) invoke more moral foundations such as the Authority/Subversion dimension. A functioning society requires more than empathy.

 

I think he make a good case. I left the book with my liberal conscience still in tack, but, I think, a better understanding of myself and others with different worldviews. If anyone is interested in the basis of morality, I highly recommend the book.

 

George

[glintofpewter]

George,

 

Thanks for the review. But I now I have to find the book.

 

Dutch