User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 47

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bluemoon123123 View Post
    That's a fascinating assortment of the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. I wonder what the most fundamental of them all is. I'd say that liberals tend to be more open to experience or they score higher on the Openness criterion of the Big Five. Many of the other differences between the people of these two political orientations stem from their differences with respect to that psychological criterion.
    I think more interesting is whether or not anyone would be a liberal or conservative in the abscence of the liberal or conservative "other", at least in the UK and NI (although the politics are different in NI) most people define themselves most of the time by what they are not and often determining their perspectives on particular topics by what they believe is contra what they believe are the opposition's perspective on them, if that makes sense.

    The political landscape I think is determined by underlying and underpinning trends, sociological and characterological, as a consequence, because I think there is a kind of maturational crisis at both the social level, and people appear to maturing later and later in life these days its reflected in politics.

    The most interesting thing in Kohlberg's theories for me are what he had to say at what age people developed consequential thinking, it is later and later in life than it once was, now the concept itself could be considered a meme or whatever but it was a common sensical or universally normative idea at a time, without it personal responsibility, criminal responsibility, political responsiblity and also individual, social and state responsibility, dont make any sense.

    Those are the most basic, basic building blocks of both social or structural stability, the ability of society to reproduce itself one generation after the next without deterioration rests upon it.

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bluemoon123123 View Post
    I see that the distinction between a community and a group is blurred in my post, when I use terms such as "liberal" or "conservative", I mostly referred to groups as opposed to communities. However, the social consequences of liberalism taken to its radical extremes (anomie) and that of conservatism (oppression of the disadvantaged) take place in communities. Remarkably, the apparently arbitrary characterization of groups such as liberalism and conservatism have fundamental underlying characteristics: they have many cognitive tendencies that lead the group-members to behave in a specified fashion. E.G, liberals tend to behave consistently with the moral lenses of care and fairness while conservatives with authority, sanctity and loyalty.
    In my experience liberalism is more controlling and authoritarian on moral issues than caring or fair, when its decided they are not prepared to tolerate or co-exist with conta opinions, in the UK they've used the state to introduce and further some pretty intolerate perspectives upon religious expression or matters of conscience, effectively they have over ridden the sovereignty of businesses, employees and service providers as to who they will provide services to in good conscience or in determining who are their target markets and why.

    Conservatism in contrast, although perhaps it is a matter of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, has defended sovereignty, and fairness is the watch word of political conservatism in the UK presently, perhaps the reasoning on fairness is very simplistic and flawed but it is also very popular.

    An example is that why discussion of wealth distribution per se is avoided at all costs or treated as natural and fair, discussion of the distribution of revenue within the welfare state is the focus and first benefits claimants and then public service employees second are attacked for their claim upon revenue relative to the average low wage tax payer.

  3. #13
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    In my experience liberalism is more controlling and authoritarian on moral issues than caring or fair, when its decided they are not prepared to tolerate or co-exist with conta opinions, in the UK they've used the state to introduce and further some pretty intolerate perspectives upon religious expression or matters of conscience, effectively they have over ridden the sovereignty of businesses, employees and service providers as to who they will provide services to in good conscience or in determining who are their target markets and why.

    Conservatism in contrast, although perhaps it is a matter of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, has defended sovereignty, and fairness is the watch word of political conservatism in the UK presently, perhaps the reasoning on fairness is very simplistic and flawed but it is also very popular.

    An example is that why discussion of wealth distribution per se is avoided at all costs or treated as natural and fair, discussion of the distribution of revenue within the welfare state is the focus and first benefits claimants and then public service employees second are attacked for their claim upon revenue relative to the average low wage tax payer.
    Hi Lark, thanks for all of your comments. I will be sure to get back to you early on next week, I am a little tied up with work right now.

  4. #14
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524
    We perceive by making distinctions. And the more distinctions, the more we see.

    But the distincton 'liberal/conservative' is an American distinction. Here a Liberal is a conservative and a liberal is Labor. So rather than making the American distinction 'liberal/conservative', we make the distinction 'labor/liberal'.

    One would never guess this is an international site, with 54 independent, sovereign Commonwealth countries under Elizabeth II, logged in.

    America is well known for its paranoia and disrespect shown to other countries.

  5. #15
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bluemoon123123 View Post
    Thanks, as far as I understand the concept of a community, it is a group of people who share similar ethos, face similar circumstances and strive to preserve group-cohesion. Meaning, they have many commonalities with respect to their ideological tendencies, their general values cohere well together, they generally inhabit the same geographic region and they strive to live together as harmoniously as possible. Unlike a community, a group is a congregation of people whose connection to each other can be superficial and they are rendered part of the same unit as part of an arbitrary classification. For example, all New Yorkers can be said to be part of a group of "citizens of New York", but residents of a very small town or a village clearly have a community.

    I see that the distinction between a community and a group is blurred in my post, when I use terms such as "liberal" or "conservative", I mostly referred to groups as opposed to communities. However, the social consequences of liberalism taken to its radical extremes (anomie) and that of conservatism (oppression of the disadvantaged) take place in communities. Remarkably, the apparently arbitrary characterization of groups such as liberalism and conservatism have fundamental underlying characteristics: they have many cognitive tendencies that lead the group-members to behave in a specified fashion. E.G, liberals tend to behave consistently with the moral lenses of care and fairness while conservatives with authority, sanctity and loyalty.
    Thank you. My fault. I meant community as a whole: all people. But you are right. There are communities within communities, such as the rich (who tend to be very conservative) in a city.

    Should a President be the President of America or only the President of the rich? The nation is a whole, the electorate, the community can be seen as a whole. The rich is a community within a community? So what you are really saying can be interpreted that a Conservative President may not represent the American people as a whole, but only the Conservative and the rich? Maybe so.

  6. #16
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    We perceive by making distinctions. And the more distinctions, the more we see.

    But the distincton 'liberal/conservative' is an American distinction. Here a Liberal is a conservative and a liberal is Labor. So rather than making the American distinction 'liberal/conservative', we make the distinction 'labor/liberal'.

    One would never guess this is an international site, with 54 independent, sovereign Commonwealth countries under Elizabeth II, logged in.

    America is well known for its paranoia and disrespect shown to other countries.
    Yes. It is a pity America became such rebels and left the Crown. They were aboard a ship, clad as natives, and they threw the tea overboard. They founded coffee plantations close to home.

  7. #17
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    @bluemoon123123 I would say that liberals are not necessarily purely autonomy focused. In fact I would say often they are quite community focused even in moral reasoning however I think there is a distinction made between abstract morality and personal moral feelings which have consequences for others. Liberals tend not to favor restriction by ONE portion of the community for the sake of other members of the community, but they tend not to have as much of a problem with mutual restriction for a common purpose such as implementing environmental regulation for the "higher purpose" of preserving the earth, etc. often conservatives accuse liberals of their own groupthink and restriction of individual liberty such as when trying to increase taxes on cigarettes for public health or with the health care law as an illegitimate tax on the populace, etc
    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.

  8. #18
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    @bluemoon123123 I would say that liberals are not necessarily purely autonomy focused.
    According to Jonathan Haidt, we all tend to use the ethic of autonomy and the ethic of community at least some of the time. Those of us who have religious beliefs also use the ethic of divinity in addition to the aforementioned two ethics. In my judgment, it seems that liberals seem to rely more on the ethic of autonomy than on ethic of community and when the ethic of community is used, it is seemingly used as a means to the end of justifying the principles of autonomy.

    Interestingly, some of the examples you used regarding how liberals employ community-focused thinking illustrate my point very well.

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    Liberals tend not to favor restriction by ONE portion of the community for the sake of other members of the community, but they tend not to have as much of a problem with mutual restriction for a common purpose such as implementing environmental regulation for the "higher purpose" of preserving the earth, etc.
    What you seem to be saying is that liberals oppose restrictions that allow some members of society to be treated better than others when no justification for this difference can be found. Indeed, the kind of restrictions that progressives oppose are those that seem to be unfair. Conversely, mutual restrictions that serve higher purpose re-affirm the principle of fairness. This line of reasoning involves community-centered thinking, however, it is founded on the principle of fairness which is fundamentally individualistic. Whether somebody is being treated fairly is a question of how society treats the individual, that certainly seems to be autonomy-based thinking: it is founded on the question of whether the individual is given all of the freedoms that it is fair for him to have.

    As you see, this description of the liberal point of view employs the ethic of autonomy and community, but the principles of the latter are honored as means to the end of honoring the principles of the former. We can contrast this point of view with a position that is often considered conservative, a position in defense of family values. A conservative may argue that gay marriage violates family values because it may discourage young people from becoming parents by bearing children. One may claim that this argument contains an ethic of autonomy because it presupposes that all individuals should have the freedom to start their own families and gay marriage can undermine that freedom by subtly encouraging people to do otherwise. However, in this case, the ethic of community plays a more prominent role than the ethic of autonomy. The main idea behind that argument is that is that family values are desirable because family-oriented communities tend to be virtuous, thus the individual should have the maximal freedoms to start a family because a family is good for a community. As you may see, here, the ethic of autonomy serves the purpose or reinforcing the ethic of community, with the liberal theoretical framework, vice-versa seems to hold true.

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    often conservatives accuse liberals of their own groupthink and restriction of individual liberty such as when trying to increase taxes on cigarettes for public health or with the health care law as an illegitimate tax on the populace, etc
    Group-think takes place in nearly all political communities, however, it tends to be stronger in communities that place a high premium on loyalty and authority. That is why, as Jonathan Haidt observed in the talk that I referenced in the OP, the occupy Wall-Street movement lacked a clear, centralized leader and the right-wing rallies rarely run into similar issues.



    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Thank you. My fault. I meant community as a whole: all people. But you are right. There are communities within communities, such as the rich (who tend to be very conservative) in a city.
    Again, this is a technicality regarding the distinction between communities and groups. It is hard to say that "all people" are a community because they may have very little in common. I am not sure if there is such thing as an "American community".

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    But you are right. There are communities within communities, such as the rich (who tend to be very conservative) in a city.
    I'd say there are often communities within groups and sub-communities within communities. For instance, there is an Italian-American community among New-Yorkers and there may be an organized crime sub-community within the Italian-American community.

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Should a President be the President of America or only the President of the rich?
    That's another issue altogether. The U.S president is the president of the rich because he owes his power to them. According to Thomas Ferguson's Golden Rule principle (http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Rule-In...ds=Golden+Rule, the candidate who has raised the most money wins in 94% of elections. The implication of this fact is that our liberals serve the interests of the prosperous elites even if they have progressive social views. For example, Obama's progressive social views led him to pass the Health-Care reform act, but he was forced to make a host of concessions to corporate lobbyists when doing so. Similarly, his progressive views may have led him to consider shutting down the Guantanamo Bay detention center, but that proved to be infeasible. He may bluster about softening the U.S belligerent foreign policy, but his military spending is comparable to that of Bush or Reagan. We can find a myriad of examples how liberal presidents from Kennedy to Clinton served the conservative interests of the U.S based transnational corporations.
    Last edited by SolitaryWalker; 01-23-2013 at 01:40 AM.

  9. #19
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    I agree with your general points, but I think you're ignoring certain information in order to preserve the dichotomy (like the cigarette example). The reason I prefer the graduations in moral development view is because some moral systems have more flexibility and nuance and thus can be applied in more contexts. Thus they are more universal. Ideally they are descriptive not proscriptive
    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.

  10. #20
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    I don't think there is a dichotomy. It's not that you have to use the ethic of autonomy or the ethic of community, we all use both, it's just that we tend to rely on one more than on the other. I am having a hard time thinking of an example where they're weighed equally, can you?

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] NTs and their Perception of the Golden Rule
    By CuriousFeeling in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 02-11-2010, 02:48 PM
  2. Typical Work and Social roles of the types
    By BlackCat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-04-2009, 10:08 PM
  3. So in Star Wars: Episode VI Return of the Jedi...
    By swordpath in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-14-2009, 11:55 AM
  4. Ghost Stories (and Other Tales of the Uncanny)
    By Oberon in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 12-30-2008, 01:08 AM
  5. The Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria of the mind
    By Thursday in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-22-2008, 01:42 PM

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