User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 74

  1. #41
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    ^^perhaps like this?
    Maybe read about Haidt's moral scales above in the OP of this thread? Much more nuanced, and based on actual research... I think simpler alternatives haven't held up as well under research. And I am emphasizing the possible projections and biases of the various authors... perhaps a bit unfairly.


    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    I suppose I see the argument about SJ/NP in the arguments about deferral to authority, but what I tend to encounter most (in my personal interactions) in republicans is an extreme adherence to being fiscal conservative. And a hell of a strong desire not to be told what to FEEL.
    I disagree with this, too. Conservatives tend not to like their in-group assumptions about what to feel to be challenged. They tend to be less offended about being told to feel patriotic, respectful, aligned-with-their-in-group etc than liberals. Liberals, conversely tend to get offended when out-groups get blamed or attacked (even when it's justified).

  2. #42
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    That was good, however not very surprising. I do believe there are universal values that promote the welfare of all however, if one does not have the neurocognitive complexity to allow for the thought it gets blocked. This especially happens around concepts regarding sexuality and resources because they are so central to life.
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  3. #43
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    [Haidt's The Righteous Mind

    In the Righteous Mind Jonathan Haidt argues first that intuitions comes first and strategic reasoning (also called confirmatory, directive or defensive reasoning) second. Most decisions are made based on affect — that is, small flashes of positive or negative feelings.

    Generally we all tend to decide first intuitively/emotionally very quickly, then come up with reasons to support our decision. This holds especially true when deciding emotionally charged issues.. like those about religion, politics and moral transgressions.

    oro-i think this reads as being highly biased against the thinkers among us?

    Haidt argues that this makes sense, given that our "reasoning" ability mostly evolved to serve a social purpose. We are much better as justifying ourselves and being convincing than we are at objectively reasoning towards the truth. Haidt says that it's as if we all have our own internal press secretary, whose job it is to justify our actions and decisions and make ourselves look reasonable and good. In general we ask "Can I believe it?" when we want to believe something, and "Must I believe it?" when we don't.

    In additional, we all have a need for self-esteem. This at first seems counter-intuitive from an evolutionary standpoint (and when thinking about our internal press secretary), but Mark Leary suggestions that self-esteem is like an internal "sociometer" that continuously measures our value as a relationship partner. It's an internal sensor to correct our behavior before it has too high a social cost.

    So, given that our reasoning is mostly social motivated, when hen do people make good decisions and engage in real exploratory thinking rather than just confirmatory reasoning?



    Otherwise, we mostly just use confirmatory reasoning. Higher IQ is correlated with being able to generate more (and more complex) confirmatory reasons, but not with being more objective.

    We also employ confirmatory reasoning to defend our group's beliefs and actions and to show commitment, particularly in political and moral matters. Haidt says our minds are fundamentally selfish, but they are also groupish and adept at promoting our group's interesting. As he says, "We are not saints, but we are sometimes good team players."

    You may be WEIRD, but most people aren't

    Haidt goes on to talk about WEIRD cultures (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) and how the WEIRD perspective has biased lots of research about moral reasoning. In the U.S., college educated people tend to be more WEIRD than non-college educated.

    WEIRD people (who tend to be Liberals) tend to emphasis certain moral dimensions, but those aren't the only moral dimensions. WEIRD cultures have a very narrow moral perspective, based mostly on autonomy. Most people in the world of aren't WEIRD, and to only see morality from a WEIRD perspective misses the much of morality. This brings us to one of Haidt's central points:


    He then talks in about "hivishness" and how we, as human beings, are 90% selfish and 10% hivish (the "good team player" aspect written above). That, in practice, our altruism is mostly invoked by activating our group identity.

    Oro-this is strikingly bizarre to me and sounds extremely characteristic of Fe. See Ayn rand especialy wrt altruism...


    (Haidt points out that religiously observant people are more charitable and active in the community than the non-observant, regardless of religious belief.) So, in order to build group identity one should:
    • Emphasize (and increase) similarity — not diversity! — including shared goals, values and interests.
    • Exploit synchrony (group movement, singing, etc)
    • Create healthy competition among teams, not individuals.
    • Model transformative leadership by showing self-sacrifice.

    (as an INFP who is largely a non-joiner, the above list seems pretty awful to me... especially in an enforce environment like work) You'll note that many of the above techniques are used by churches and civic organizations (which only makes sense).

    Oro-again this sounds like a really wonderful way to grow an Fe society, but doesnt sound anything like a Te group effort??



    Haidt also argues that we gain a lot of personal meaning from transcendent group experiences, whether this is at church, at a football game, or participating in a choir, band or dance. Social groups, especially local groups such as bowling leagues, churches, teams and clubs, increase social capital and are crucial for the health of individuals and nations.

    He also spends a fair amount of time talking about the utility of religion: "There is now a great deal of evidence that religions do in fact help groups to cohere, solve free rider problems, and win the competition for group-level survival." Religion helps make sacred (and therefore inarguable) the very conventions that make civil society possible. "Sacredness binds people together, and then blinds them to the arbitrariness of the practice." (loc 4525)

    The six scales:

    Haidt eventually boils things down to six scales (in his TED talk, he had five scales, but based on data collected, he added liberal/oppression):

    1. Harm/care (doing no harm, caring for the members of society)
    2. Fairness/cheating (meaning to the left: equality, to the right: proportionality)
    3. Loyalty/betrayal (in-group identity)
    4. Authority/subversion (respect for hierarchy, social structures)
    5. Sanctity degradation (purity)
    6. Liberty/oppression (anti-bullying, domination)

    Liberals primary use the scale for care/harm the most, liberty/oppression. and, to a lesser degree, fairness/cheating (equality)

    Libertarians mostly use the liberty/oppression scale, almost to the exclusion of other concerns (they do se fairness/cheating scale a bit).

    Conservatives use all six scales, with the fairness fairness/cheating being
    about proportionality (being rewarded in proportion to your efforts). This also means conservative may overrule primary scales of favored by liberals and libertarians may lose in deference to other scales.

    (As a personal side, it makes sense to me that the loyalty, authority, and purity scales all tend to bind together. What is "pure" is partially social constructed, therefore rendering those from other societies/groups as impure and other. That other societies or groups don't follow one's own social structures also helps reinforce awareness of in-groups.)

    Strengths and weakness

    Haidt does a pretty good job of listing strengths and weaknesses of the various groups:

    Liberals:
    • Experts at care and better able to see the victims of current social structures
    • Are able to see the necessity of constraining corporations
    • Are able to see that some problems can be solved by regulation

    Conservatives:
    • Able to see the value of the current social structures
    • Provide ballast to liberals urge to change
    • Better understand the social value of group identity and religious belief

    Libertarians:
    • Able to see the value of markets (when externalities, etc, can be addressed)
    • Reinforce the importance of individual autonomy and freedom


    [Mooney's The Republican Brain and closing thoughts on this trek later.]
    I added a few notes in bold-i dunno, it just feels muddled up. I should read the book though

  4. #44
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    I disagree with this, too. Conservatives tend not to like their in-group assumptions about what to feel to be challenged. They tend to be less offended about being told to feel patriotic, respectful, aligned-with-their-in-group etc than liberals. Liberals, conversely tend to get offended when out-groups get blamed or attacked (even when it's justified).
    This does sound like Fi to me...If you try and tell Fi what to feel, you get resentment and push back. I would suggest that the other things you note them being "asked" to feel, aleady align with the values they already hold, thus they will gravitate towards those notions.

    Anyways, I am not saying that our current libral party = Fe users and that our current conservative party = Fi. What I would instead, quite comfortably, suggest is that fiscal conservatism has a strong NTJ flavor and that progressive liberalism/socialism has a strong NTP flavor. The rest of us kinda get caught up in the back and forth pull between these two groups as each pushes for thier notion of what an "ideal" society looks like.

  5. #45
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Republicans have brains?

    SORRY

    No one had said it yet!

  6. #46
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    oro-i think this reads as being highly biased against the thinkers among us?
    I don't think it does. Even Thinkers are fundamentally emotionally driven. None of us can function without our emotions, since they act as a fundamental process that helps us decide what's important and worthy of attention. The existence and usefulness of emotions doesn't change just because one is unaware of them or thinks them unimportant. Even so, doesn't rule out Thinkers tend to being more objective than Feelers in many (or most) situations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    Oro-this is strikingly bizarre to me and sounds extremely characteristic of Fe. See Ayn rand especialy wrt altruism...
    Bringing up Ayn Rand as any kind of empirical authority seem dubious at best. Altruism clearly exists in some sense, whether you think it good or bad (Ayn Rand clearly thinking it bad). It's not the only thing that motivates human behavior, but any model that doesn't include it is clearly incomplete. I think it's useful to understand that group cohesion tends to activate altruism. There's a reason why the military, for example, does the things it does to try to get people to risk themselves personally.

    Te tends to be a lot about group goals and achieving them. While how things are weighed by Te is different than it is for Fe, Te clearly leads to a valuing of practical social structures (such as authority hierarchies in companies).

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    I added a few notes in bold-i dunno, it just feels muddled up. I should read the book though
    I would at least watch Haidt's TED talk before you decide. And the Big Five Openness (correlated with N) being associated with liberalism and Big Five Conscientious (correlated with J) being associated with conservatism is based on real research.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    This does sound like Fi to me...If you try and tell Fi what to feel, you get resentment and push back. I would suggest that the other things you note them being "asked" to feel, aleady align with the values they already hold, thus they will gravitate towards those notions.
    I disagree again. Fi tends to be based on individual values and personal value assessments, and less on the group evaluations (which doesn't deny that every individual isn't influenced by their social milieu and upbringing). Fi is less likely to change judgments based on external pressure than Fe is. Fe is more practical and adaptive to social context.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    What I would instead, quite comfortably, suggest is that fiscal conservatism has a strong NTJ flavor and that progressive liberalism/socialism has a strong NTP flavor. The rest of us kinda get caught up in the back and forth pull between these two groups as each pushes for thier notion of what an "ideal" society looks like.
    You can see here for an MBTI-related breakdown of political affiliation with type: http://www.politicaltypes.com/content/view/24/56/ (their conclusion is that STJ preferences are correlated with being conservative, and NFP tend to be liberal... but with various exceptions, like NTPs breaking toward being libertarian/independent and conservative, not liberal)

    If you can find studies to the contrary (including Big Five studies), I'd be interested.

  7. #47
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    bump

    I like this thread

  8. #48
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    A related post from Salon (liberal website): Conservatism Makes You Happy. The article has a definite liberal bias, but does touch on some of the same points as the various books mentioned in the OP (which makes sense, since it is by Chris Mooney, who wrote The Republican Brain).

  9. #49
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    A related post from Salon (liberal website): Conservatism Makes You Happy. The article has a definite liberal bias, but does touch on some of the same points as the various books mentioned in the OP (which makes sense, since it is by Chris Mooney, who wrote The Republican Brain).
    I'm all for understanding but I do think that a lot of this material has a strange analysising this "alien" species of "other" kind of quality, I find there's a lot more in common between these apparent polar opposites than is usually suggested and that a lot of the "they so strange" comment is just ego stroking for those of which ever target audience is being aimed at. Not a comment on this link but more generally upon some of these sorts of books and how they are used somehow.

    There are sincere differences which I dont think should be pathologised, of the sorts of thinking or behaviour which could be categorised as "pathological", well, I think that's true across the board, less to do with completely different cultural camps and more to do with unconscious social character which transcends conscious differences.

    At least the reason I have for thinking this is that I've known some radical leftists to become radical rightists or neocons, some radical marxists who've become radical libertarians, there was a username "recovering trotskyist" who posted loads, and loads, of listmanias when they changed their stripes but while the message appeared to have changed the desire for contrariness, protest and radicalism remained and probably was more powerful than any particular point in the first place.

    I've seen the same thing within religious communities too, they talk about the "zeal of the converted" or "persecuting zeal", in the more religious language, to describe it. Its the same thing.

  10. #50

    Default

    Interesting bit of scholarship there @Seymor.

    I generally considered myself neutral politically. But those books you mentioned makes me seem extremely "liberal".

    I seriously hope the "sorting" by authoritarian/anti-authoritarian leanings in party stops. I was envisioning (w/ anxiety) a future where parties run brain-scans of people and then euthanize some of them in an attempt to make the population more like the party they support.

    From the information provided in your posts, the authoritarians would win because they would be able to morally justify such actions to themselves, while the anti-authoritarians would hesitate and in-fight because they would not be able to morally justify these actions to themselves.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

Similar Threads

  1. [JCF] xNTP vs. xNTJ In Logic and Debate
    By Mal12345 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-21-2015, 09:33 PM
  2. Video: INFP vs. INFJ: Andrew Garfield and Carey Mulligan
    By highlander in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-02-2014, 09:33 AM
  3. Authoritarianism, authority and just plain assholery
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-08-2011, 04:56 PM
  4. NF vs. NT Debate! (Fun and Educational)
    By SquirrelTao in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 04-11-2009, 09:48 PM
  5. McCain vs. Obama: Your Vote and Why
    By Jack Flak in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 177
    Last Post: 10-07-2008, 08:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO