Why we disagree on politics - It's genetic

[Mal12345]

Why Conservatives Can’t Understand Liberals (and Vice Versa) | Intellectual Takeout

Although this is not the first time the idea has been stated online, it seems to be a relative newbie on the intellectual scene.

The idea states that we are born with our moral foundation already in place, and that this moral foundation appears in the form of politics later on in life because our political decisions are based on our moral values. The theory states that liberals lack a few of the pillars of the basic moral foundation. Out of the five pillars, conservative thinkers have all five, while liberals only have two. Anybody who refuses to accept this genetic component of human values is living, it is said, in a "moral Matrix."

I don't know if I buy into the theory 100%. It could be that liberals simply have different values, that they don't lack three of the foundational values but simply don't practice the ones conservatives practice.

The basic assumptions underlying the two mindsets can be split into, 1. society must not change (traditional value systems, law and order), vs. 2. society can and must change, even at the risk of causing complete social breakdown (Progressivism). The author of this view believes that conservatives possess loyalty whereas liberals don't. However, liberals also possess loyalty, let's say, to a vision of the future, of a utopian social structure rather than an existing social structure (which they tend to castigate in as many dystopian ways as possible).

The author of this theory (who, by the way, is named Jonathan Haidt), thinks that liberals lack a sense of and thus reject authority. I find that to be true. These people, whom I have lived among and dealt with, detest being controlled or told what to do. But it is not that they lack a foundational value, it's that they possess a substitute: the value of individualism, of freedom from restraint. These are the Voltaires who live among us.

Haidt believes that liberals lack a feeling of sanctity regarding their bodies. However, they substitute this lack with a sense of sanctity regarding the external world of Nature. These are environmentalists who pollute their "temples" but demand that Nature be left pure.

I think this should help Haidt along with his novel idea.

 

[Thalassa]

I think these are about people who take extreme positions, and sometimes very young people have less informed but well intentions about politics,thus the "if you aren't liberal when you are young you are missing a heart, if you aren't more conservative when older you are missing a brain" (this has been my experience of myself, the more mature and educated I became the more I eschewed blind socially driven morality for common sense or logic, and was able to understand more conservative or moderate positions - especially paleoconservatives - even while recognizing a more coherent consistent rational morality for my being as well as my feeling/thinking i.e. do morality don't just believe in it) ...but I've also seen Ayn Rand or anarcho libertarian types become more moderate or even liberal with age.

I think part of the extremism in American culture is historically based, but exacerbated by the generational extremism of Boomers, who have held sway up til fairly recently as the old people establishment.

I have read though that the more conservative you are, the neater, more fearful and less creative you are, while the more liberal is messier, less careful with money but more creative and open minded. I think I am middle left, or left libertarian, I think people obviously don't all fall genetically into two extreme pools.

Also I want to point out his generalized wrongness about liberals having less sanctity for the body...how do you explain vegans (some are conservative but many are liberal), straight edge punk, and health craze movements in general? Conservative people can just as easily pollute their bodies with cigarettes, alcohol and meat, as well as junk food - in fact I'd venture the average neoconservative to eat like shit, compared to far left or progressive liberals.

Plus there are stewardship movement conservatives, as well as a ton of conservative outdoors nature people in the South.

 

[Mal12345]

I think these are about people who take extreme positions, and sometimes very young people have less informed but well intentions about politics,thus the "if you aren't liberal when you are young you are missing a heart, if you aren't more conservative when older you are missing a brain" (this has been my experience of myself, the more mature and educated I became the more I eschewed blind socially driven morality for common sense or logic, and was able to understand more conservative or moderate positions - especially paleoconservatives - even while recognizing a more coherent consistent rational morality for my being as well as my feeling/thinking i.e. do morality don't just believe in it) ...but I've also seen Ayn Rand or anarcho libertarian types become more moderate or even liberal with age.

I think part of the extremism in American culture is historically based, but exacerbated by the generational extremism of Boomers, who have held sway up til fairly recently as the old people establishment.

I have read though that the more conservative you are, the neater, more fearful and less creative you are, while the more liberal is messier, less careful with money but more creative and open minded. I think I am middle left, or left libertarian, I think people obviously don't all fall genetically into two extreme pools.

Also I want to point out his generalized wrongness about liberals having less sanctity for the body...how do you explain vegans (some are conservative but many are liberal), straight edge punk, and health craze movements in general? Conservative people can just as easily pollute their bodies with cigarettes, alcohol and meat, as well as junk food - in fact I'd venture the average neoconservative to eat like shit, compared to far left or progressive liberals.

Plus there are stewardship movement conservatives, as well as a ton of conservative outdoors nature people in the South.

I have already attempted to message Dr. Haidt via facebook and Twitter about the error of his theory. As if Progressives lack 3 pillars for their moral foundation. Shame on him for being such a - conservative.

 

[Mal12345]

He talks about a moral Matrix, but he is in one himself.

 

[Mal12345]

I mean, he says that those who don't recognize their own inherent genetic biases are in a moral Matrix. I agree with that. But I believe he is in the Conservative camp in his own theory, and that it has blinded him to the presence of three moral foundations that belong to the Progressives. He is far from being free of the Matrix.

 

[Bush]

These people, Haidt says, reside on both sides of ideological spectrum. They exist in what he calls a “moral matrix.”

First off, this ^ is important to note. He's not saying that only liberals live in such a matrix, if anyone got that impression. (Though that doesn't necessarily nix all potential biases..)

During a TED talk a number of years ago, Haidt shared his discovery that contrary to the idea that humans begin as a blank slate—“the worst idea in all psychology,” he says—humans are born with a “first draft” of moral knowledge. Essentially, Haidt argues, humans possess innate but malleable sets of values “organized in advance of experience.”

I can buy this, though I'd love to see some evidence via, say, a study of adopted children and their adoptive parents (and if possible, their biological parents).

Liberals might contend, of course, that these values are not proper morals at all but base human traits responsible for xenophobia, religious oppression, etc. Haidt rejects this thesis. And through a series of historical illustrations, psychological studies, and cross-cultural references he explains that many liberals often fail to appreciate a timeless truth that conservatives usually accept: order tends to decay. (A truth, I’ll add, buttressed by the second law of thermodynamics.)

[...]

Now, Haidt is not suggesting conservatives are superior to liberals. He points out that conservatives tend to value order even at the cost of those at the bottom of society, which can result in morally dubious social implications. Liberals, however, often desire change even at the risk of anarchy.

1. How.. how can it be claimed conservatives embrace that order decays more so than those with the mindset that order and stability aren't the end-all, be-all and that things may have to change as the zeitgeist does? It's true if we're talking about libertarian-leaning conservatives, but it doesn't look like we are. The answer might be in the article.

2. That second paragraph is important to note as well. If true, his evaluation of the sides' morality is more impartial than it appears. That quote "If you think that half of America votes Republican because they’re blinded" wouldn't be the full story. Dude should've expounded.

3. This is pretty much the only argument I've ever seen on the history of the planet that invokes the second law of thermodynamics in a way that actually makes any goddamned sense.

__

From the source of the five moral foundations, moralfoundations.org:

Moral Foundations Theory was created by a group of social and cultural psychologists (see us here) to understand why morality varies so much across cultures yet still shows so many similarities and recurrent themes. In brief, the theory proposes that several innate and universally available psychological systems are the foundations of “intuitive ethics.” Each culture then constructs virtues, narratives, and institutions on top of these foundations, thereby creating the unique moralities we see around the world, and conflicting within nations too. The five foundations for which we think the evidence is best are:

1. So if (or at least one whole side out of two) of the political spectrum don't hold them, are they still universal..?

2. Not that it matters too much, but I had a years-long research project heavily involving morality, ethical principles, etc. It took into account experts' and Mr. Average Joe's thoughts and assessments about that domain. I haven't looked into moralfoundations, but the experts who came up with its five principles would do well to look outside of themselves, their own group, before they claim universality.