Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Pb on March 23, 2016, 01:01:19 PM
-
Jonathan Haidt has done research on moral beliefs, and how they effect people's political beliefs. His book is fascinating, and explains a lot.
He has found people made decisions based on emotion (guided by "morals") first, and then justify them afterwards with their reason. But there is considerable variation on what those morals are.
He also found that conservatives can understand and state the views of liberals much more easily than liberals can state views of conservatives.
He has decided there seem to be five basic foundations for morality. From his website:
1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]
3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
He found conservatives value each of these five areas mostly equally.
However liberals only value care/harm and fairness cheating!
Conservatives can state liberal views because they also value care/harm and fairness cheating.
Liberals are frequently baffled by conservative views, because they don't care anything about the other foundations of morality.
The theory explains a lot. Why do democrats not mind voter fraud, breaking immigration laws and so on? Because they literally don't value the authority of the law or Constitution- their other values supersede this.
The Loyalty/betrayal standard (or lack thereof) is especially relevant when you consider the left's love affair with Islam, and Obama giving Iran huge amounts of money. The left doesn't value our people and culture above those of hostile cultures and nations.
The fairness/cheating moral is interesting too- both conservatives and liberals value this, but in very different ways. Conservatives think this means giving people what the deserve or earn. Liberals think this means giving everyone the "same." This explains why conservatives usually don't mind social programs like SS, as the recipients supposedly pay into the system. Unearned benefits, like food stamps, tend to be looked down on.
Liberals on the other hand, will say things like "No one deserves to be hungry." Conservatives would reply "If you refuse to work you do deserve to be hungry." Our response varies because we value fairness differently.
Libertarians actually score just like liberals, except they don't care much about care/harm.
His website is here:
http://moralfoundations.org/
He has a great book too, "The Righteous Mind."
Sorry for the wall of text, I just find this theory very useful- once you think about it, examples of this will pop up everywhere.
-
The pastor at my church read that a while ago, and was really intrigued by it. He didn't explain it as well as you did, though. I'll have to look into it. Thanks.
-
That's really interesting. I wonder how true it really holds for liberals only embracing two of the five.
-
That's really interesting. I wonder how true it really holds for liberals only embracing two of the five.
I am certain that the creators of this theory are unbiased, and would never manipulate the theory and data to support a contention that conservatives are wonderful and liberals are scum.
-
I am certain that the creators of this theory are unbiased, and would never manipulate the theory and data to support a contention that conservatives are wonderful and liberals are scum.
LOL. This.
Or that Libertarians are amoral hedonists. =D
-
Interesting.
He also found that conservatives can understand and state the views of liberals much more easily than liberals can state views of conservatives.
Liberals (modern sense) on the internet all seem to thing quite highly of themselves.
-
I am certain that the creators of this theory are unbiased, and would never manipulate the theory and data to support a contention that conservatives are wonderful and liberals are scum.
Jonathan Haidt was a liberal. He started doing research on morality, and had trouble understand his results. He couldn't understand why many of his conservative respondents gave the answers that they did (as a typical liberal). His research in to this led to the theory. He now says he is "middle of the road." (I expect he is still pretty liberal, but his book is not particularly biased).
The examples I gave- about Iran, voter fraud, etc- are my own applications of the theory, not Haidt's. My applications are biased, of course.
-
LOL. This.
Or that Libertarians are amoral hedonists. =D
The theory doesn't say they are immoral hedonist. It says the moral principle they are concerned about is fairness/cheating, and they aren't much concerned with the others. For example, libertarians oppose gun control and high taxes because they are viewed as unfair.
The theory is based on questionaires about the moral values.
-
Dovetails neatly with this:
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/
-
Haidt's views have changed over time, but he has always been transparent regarding his social science work and very strong, methodologically. I would be very surprised if his work was not repeatable in the way much of social science is unrepeatable and therefore unverifiable. He is also very cognizant of bias and how it can queer science of any sort.
I suspect, as does BTR, that he is still at heart a liberal of the old-school variety.
-
Oh, I should have mentioned that Haidt is considering another moral foundation, to make six total:
6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor. We report some preliminary work on this potential foundation in this paper, on the psychology of libertarianism and liberty.
Libertarians rank very strongly on this one, in addition to the fairness/cheating foundation.
Haidt's book is fantastic. It taught me a lot.
-
Here's his Ted talk, with transcript. He can say it better than me.
https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind/transcript?language=en#t-179
-
Oh, I should have mentioned that Haidt is considering another moral foundation, to make six total:
6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor. We report some preliminary work on this potential foundation in this paper, on the psychology of libertarianism and liberty.
Libertarians rank very strongly on this one, in addition to the fairness/cheating foundation.
Haidt's book is fantastic. It taught me a lot.
This is an important one, I think, though I don't know if it raises to the level of "morality."
I have a VERY strong contrarian streak. If I know you are trying to influence me or, heaven forbid, force me to do something, I will often pick the opposite out of spite.*
I rather suspect that most of the individuals on this forum have that same inclination and that added dimension may help square differences between "liberals" and libertarians.
*(Unless, of course, you've convinced me that you (1) are concerned with my best interest and (2) have enough knowledge to know what is in my best interest. Being forthright about your actions helps in both regards.)
-
Here's his Ted talk, with transcript. He can say it better than me.
https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind/transcript?language=en#t-179
He seems to buy into the left-to-right single continuum model, which is probably more deceptive than useful.
http://www.yourmorals.org/aboutus.php (http://www.yourmorals.org/aboutus.php)
-
I would question whether liberals (modern) value fairness at all. The ends justify the means with a great number of that crowd (and not just them). If it means their side will win, they have no issue at all with cheating (voter fraud) or at least justify it in some way. Of course, justification of immoral actions is common to most everyone.
He said moral decisions are made based on emotion, but I am not sure I agree with that. We make decisions based on what we are taught and the lessons that are reinforced in our mind. The decisions may not always involve rational thought, but often the thought was done at some point. I have heard it said with regard to gun training that the body will not go where the mind has not already been.
Maybe I am not seeing where he is coming from.
-
I also think the tendency for some to slave their thinking to a group should also be considered. I think that is a huge factor when looking at the whole population.
http://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458777929&sr=1-1&keywords=the+true+believer+by+hoffer
-
I would question whether liberals (modern) value fairness at all. The ends justify the means with a great number of that crowd. If it means their side will win, they have no issue at all with cheating (voter fraud) or at least justify it in some way. IMO, their "morals" and "values" float with whatever seems convenient.
He said moral decisions are made based on emotion, but I am not sure I agree with that. We make decisions based on what we are taught and the lessons that are reinforced in our mind. The decisions may not always involve rational thought, but the thought was done at some point.
Maybe I am not seeing where he is coming from.
He's coming from the source. Our feelings determine both our actions and our justification for those actions. The basis of those feelings is both nature and a nurture, although I would be the modern "liberal" is more nature than nurture. If you have a good feeling about doing something, you do it, later, you figure out why you felt it was "good" rather than "bad". The reason you felt good in the first place would be largely influenced by what you were taught.
-
He has found people made decisions based on emotion economics (guided by "morals") first, and then justify them afterwards with their reason
FIFH
-
I would question whether liberals (modern) value fairness at all. The ends justify the means with a great number of that crowd (and not just them). If it means their side will win, they have no issue at all with cheating (voter fraud) or at least justify it in some way.
I think it was mentioned in the OP that, to the leftist, fairness has more to do with equality of outcome, rather than making sure everyone is treated equally in the process.
-
"...how it can queer science of any sort."
Are you saying science is gay? Homophobe you are. :O :P
-
"...how it can queer science of any sort."
Are you saying science is gay? Homophobe you are. :O :P
I refuse to let the perverts and deviants capture the language.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/queer
queer
(kwîr)
adj. queer·er, queer·est
1.
a. Deviating from what is expected or normal; strange: "The light above his head made a queer reflection of himself in the glowing wineglass" (Carson McCullers).
b. Odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric: "His mother is very queer, with witchy hair and mismatched shoes" (Caroline Preston).
c. Of a questionable nature or character; suspicious: thought there was something queer about his explanation.
-
Are you saying science is gay?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F510PSeffQ1L._SX303_BO1%2C204%2C203%2C200_.jpg&hash=9aaee20d3a78c2201f68367d88148161b30fc33f)
-
I think it was mentioned in the OP that, to the leftist, fairness has more to do with equality of outcome, rather than making sure everyone is treated equally in the process.
Maybe there is some blind stupidity in there as well. Anyone who pays attention can see that modern liberal solutions don't have equality of outcome whether that was the actual intent or not.
-
He's coming from the source. Our feelings determine both our actions and our justification for those actions. The basis of those feelings is both nature and a nurture, although I would be the modern "liberal" is more nature than nurture. If you have a good feeling about doing something, you do it, later, you figure out why you felt it was "good" rather than "bad". The reason you felt good in the first place would be largely influenced by what you were taught.
I guess that last is what I was thinking about.
-
Conservatives tend to believe very strongly in "karma"- that people should get what they deserve based on their actions. This is expressed in popular conservative support for things like the death penalty, and opposition to "welfare queens" and bailouts.
Veterans benefits are an example of a social welfare program that conservatives generally support because it is perceived to be earned. This is regarded as fair.
Left wing people usually think everyone should get money, food, healthcare, housing weather or not they have done anything to earn it. They regard this as "fair." For example when babydidndu nothin steals something it is okay because he needed the money to buy school clothes or something.
-
Libertarians actually score just like liberals, except they don't care much about care/harm.
This is interesting, since most/all of the Libertarians I know are quite loyal to those who treat them well, and respect the concept of sanctity as long as it is left to the individual to decide the means and degree of their own. As for authority, most are quite open to the idea of voluntary submission to an authority on an individual level. It's when the majority becomes or picks the authority without the individual having the ability to opt out that it becomes a problem.
-
OP and Ted Talk stolen and FB'd.
-
This is an important one, I think, though I don't know if it raises to the level of "morality."
I have a VERY strong contrarian streak. If I know you are trying to influence me or, heaven forbid, force me to do something, I will often pick the opposite out of spite.*
I rather suspect that most of the individuals on this forum have that same inclination and that added dimension may help square differences between "liberals" and libertarians.
*(Unless, of course, you've convinced me that you (1) are concerned with my best interest and (2) have enough knowledge to know what is in my best interest. Being forthright about your actions helps in both regards.)
I have a friend who is really like that.
-
Veterans benefits are an example of a social welfare program that conservatives generally support because it is perceived to be earned. This is regarded as fair.
I don't really see veterans benefits as a "social welfare program".
Veterans benefits are not something that should be "perceived as earned" either.
They are in fact earned and in many, many cases prepaid for in blood.
To equate veterans benefits with welfare in any way is a disservice and a dishonor to veterans.
-
This is interesting, since most/all of the Libertarians I know are quite loyal to those who treat them well, and respect the concept of sanctity as long as it is left to the individual to decide the means and degree of their own. As for authority, most are quite open to the idea of voluntary submission to an authority on an individual level. It's when the majority becomes or picks the authority without the individual having the ability to opt out that it becomes a problem.
Yes, and liberals are VERY tribal people, as well- have you seen the nepotism in most liberal organizations?
-
I don't really see veterans benefits as a "social welfare program".
Veterans benefits are not something that should be "perceived as earned" either.
They are in fact earned and in many, many cases prepaid for in blood.
To equate veterans benefits with welfare in any way is a disservice and a dishonor to veterans.
Agreed. However, for some reason, equating veteran's benefits and social welfare keeps coming up.
-
I don't really see veterans benefits as a "social welfare program".
Veterans benefits are not something that should be "perceived as earned" either.
They are in fact earned and in many, many cases prepaid for in blood.
To equate veterans benefits with welfare in any way is a disservice and a dishonor to veterans.
Oh, I agree that they are not the same thing! The reason I do is because I am conservative. Conservatives supporting spending on causes like this usually, because we view it as earned ("karma"). We get outraged by people buying lobster with food stamps because we view it as unearned.
That was the point I was trying to make. Sorry if I put it inelegantly.
Liberals view the programs as basically the same because their idea of "fairness" is totally different.
-
Agreed. However, for some reason, equating veteran's benefits and social welfare keeps coming up.
That's because conservatives like to say things like "Nobody getting anything from the government should get to vote!" And then someone else says, "Oh, yeah, well I guess you don't want to veterans to vote." And then the first guy says, "That's not what I meant!" And so on.
-
Oh, I agree that they are not the same thing! The reason I do is because I am conservative. Conservatives supporting spending on causes like this usually, because we view it as earned ("karma"). We get outraged by people buying lobster with food stamps because we view it as unearned.
That was the point I was trying to make. Sorry if I put it inelegantly.
Liberals view the programs as basically the same because their idea of "fairness" is totally different.
Yet you still call it a "cause".
Liberals seem to have a different views on what they will do with their own money versus Govt Money (taxpayers).
-
He seems to make some interesting observations.
I wonder if he ever explores the underlying reason for the different emphasis and interpretation of the categories of morals?
My observation is that the reason conservatives have failed to conserve anything, especially in the realm of morality, is because they have adopted the same presuppositions or first principles as the progressives.
That makes conserving anything irrational, as the progressives are the ones following the presuppositions to the logical conclusions.
There is no rational floor or foundation to base a system of morality on so long as people continue to believe - deeply, reflexively, habitually and unconsciously - that we live in a dead and unconscious universe where everything that happens is either mechanically-caused or 'randomly' undirected - and 'just happened'; a universe which is going nowhere of relevance to humans, and has no meaning of relevance to humans; in which we know nothing and cannot really communicate with anybody or anything...
Progressive culture/politics is the logical conclusion of a materialistic (in the philosophical sense) secular (non Christian) society.
*The italicized portion is a turn of phrase lifted from a blogger I read
-
I am certain that the creators of this theory are unbiased, and would never manipulate the theory and data to support a contention that conservatives are wonderful and liberals are scum.
Nobody is unbiased, but I'm hesitant at any explanation that is so 'simple'. Or, to be blunt, both conservatives and liberals are complex and varied.
But yes, Conservatives are generally better at imitating Liberals than Liberals are at imitating Conservatives.
Conservatives, when they do it, tend to invoke Poe's Law a lot. (Parody mistaken as real)
Liberals, not all of them, but many, tend to make obvious and incorrect caricatures.
-
I'm the one who injected the biased examples, not Haidt. Haidt is on the liberal side.
-
My observation is that the reason conservatives have failed to conserve anything, especially in the realm of morality, is because they have adopted the same presuppositions or first principles as the progressives.
That makes conserving anything irrational, as the progressives are the ones following the presuppositions to the logical conclusions.
My problem with observations like this is conserve what? There are a million different things you could point to that prove or disprove point. These days I am really not even sure if what I think you mean by conservative is what you mean. That word has been stretched and mangled quite a bit in the last 20 years.
-
Yea, "conservative" is a reactionary term.
Conservative has come to mean not wanting change from the status quo or worse yet is frequently accused of being against "progress" as defined by the left.
-
But yes, Conservatives are generally better at imitating Liberals than Liberals are at imitating Conservatives.
Conservatives, when they do it, tend to invoke Poe's Law a lot. (Parody mistaken as real)
Liberals, not all of them, but many, tend to make obvious and incorrect caricatures.
I think that comes from that in general we can at least see where they are coming from, even if we believe them to be wrong. They seem to really have no idea where we are coming from.
-
Conservative has come to mean not wanting change from the status quo or worse yet is frequently accused of being against "progress" as defined by the left.
Hasn't "conservative" always meant "resistant to change"?
Allowing the left to define "progress" and "liberalism" is an ongoing problem; perhaps one of the biggest problems. "Conservatives" (me included) perennially urge that we stop calling the left "liberals," but most conservatives keep doing it. Or if we do stop calling them liberals, we substitute the word "progressive," as if it were somehow better to let the Backward Party bear that standard, too. :facepalm:
-
Nobody is unbiased, but I'm hesitant at any explanation that is so 'simple'. Or, to be blunt, both conservatives and liberals are complex and varied.
But yes, Conservatives are generally better at imitating Liberals than Liberals are at imitating Conservatives.
Conservatives, when they do it, tend to invoke Poe's Law a lot. (Parody mistaken as real)
Liberals, not all of them, but many, tend to make obvious and incorrect caricatures.
The more I contemplate this, the more complicated I think the real picture is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation#Structural_differences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation#Structural_differences)
Many g00gle hits seem to be one side congradulating themselves. But, self-identified liberals tend to have a smaller amygdala? Hmm.
-
The more I contemplate this, the more complicated I think the real picture is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation#Structural_differences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation#Structural_differences)
Many g00gle hits seem to be one side congradulating themselves. But, self-identified liberals tend to have a smaller amygdala? Hmm.
Isn't the conservative capacity for disgust discussed in Haidt's book?
Is the self-congratulation coming from the Left, thinking this makes them more evolved? It could just as easily be interpreted as a lack of sensitivity on their part. They're inured to filth, like someone accustomed to life under squalid conditions.
-
Isn't the conservative capacity for disgust discussed in Haidt's book?
Is the self-congratulation coming from the Left, thinking this makes them more evolved? It could just as easily be interpreted as a lack of sensitivity on their part. They're inured to filth, like someone accustomed to life under squalid conditions.
I tend to think a closer analogy would be a cult or organization where one of the acts defining members--against outsiders--is the consumption or participation with/in something that trips non-members' sense of disgust. Historical examples include the consumption of rotting meat, touching/reveling in feces and the anus, killing/harming another human for no reason other than to bind the killer to the group, rehearsals / practicing the consumption of poison--symbolic/fake until the Allotted Time--at the behest of a leader, and so on.
-
Isn't the conservative capacity for disgust discussed in Haidt's book?
I've watched the TED talk, perused the research website he mentions in that talk. I've not read the book, and at this point may or may not ever get to it.
A well developed sense of disgust has survival value.
Is the self-congratulation coming from the Left, thinking this makes them more evolved? It could just as easily be interpreted as a lack of sensitivity on their part. They're inured to filth, like someone accustomed to life under squalid conditions.
-
Isn't the conservative capacity for disgust discussed in Haidt's book?
Is the self-congratulation coming from the Left, thinking this makes them more evolved? It could just as easily be interpreted as a lack of sensitivity on their part. They're inured to filth, like someone accustomed to life under squalid conditions.
Yes, it falls under Sanctity/degradation. Haidt discusses incest in detail as an example. Conservatives oppose incest no matter what. Liberals will eventually agree incest is ok as long as no one gets "hurt."