Moral Stereotypes

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

If I were in a Trollish mood I would simply leave these here and watch the fireworks ;)

Liberals are less tolerant of divergant viewpoints.

and

Conservatives Understand Liberals, But Liberals don’t get Conservatives. (AKA Conservatives are better at empathy :P)

However, both studies raise an interesting point that may give some insight into how to bridge the partisan gap.


In a recent study published by the University of Virginia, Dr.s Jesse Graham, Brian A. Nosek, and Jonathan Haidt, attempted to assess the moral priorities of self-identified Liberals and Conservatives. They also asked those same Liberals and Conservatives how they thought their opposite number would respond to similar questions.

Their initial hypothesis was that moderates would be best at predicting the behavior of partisans from either side followed by Liberals. What they found was that Liberal partisans were infact the least able to predict how a Moderate or Conservative would react in a given scenario, while Moderates and Conservatives achieved a near parity.

Despite the typical stereotype of Liberals advocating the "greater good" and Conservatives advocating individualism they found that ...In reality, liberals endorse the individual-focused moral concerns of compassion and fairness more than conservatives do, and conservatives endorse the group-focused moral concerns of ingroup loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and physical/spiritual purity more than liberals do.

Haidt theorizes that the Liberal's difficulty predicting the behavior of Conservatives or Moderates hinges on the idea that it is easier for an individual to subtract a variable from his or her descision-making process than to add a new one. In fact the some of the manifestations of the so-called "group-focused moral concerns" are in themselves viewed as immoral by many Liberals. "Ingroup Loyalty" can manifest itself as Patriotism, Racism, or mistrust of outsiders, and "Respect for authority/tradition" can result in opposition to "needed" reforms or revolution. (I don't even want to touch the issue of "purity")

I recently started reading Haidt's Book and while I think he's on to something the book is clearly written from Left-wing perspective so I'm going to throw in my own $0.02.

While Haidt and his fellow researchers focus on the varying priority levels assigned to what they call "group-focused" or "binding" moral concerns I think the distinction is a bit simpler and more fundemental. Afterall you see "Ingroup Loyalty" (Identity Politics) and "Physical/Spiritual Purity" (The Enviromentalist Movement) from the Left as well as the right.

I would assert the real dividing line is in how the individuals on the left and right view Contracts. I'm sure we've all heard the old saw about how "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up" but how many of us have stopped to consider what that statement actaully says? Is the harm done by a given act really less of an issue than the dishonesty of trying to conceal it?

I would answer "Yes". Furthermore, I would hypothise that a survey of those who answered "Yes" vs. "No" would closely reflect the split between those who identify themselves as "Left" vs. "Right" wing.

Personally I feel that internal consitency and honesty are integeral to morality and as such I put a great deal of stock in contracts. I will do my best to honor any contract (written, verbal, or social) that I enter into even to the point were it may bring harm to myself or others. Likewise I'll feel guilty and ashamed of myself about reneging on a contract even if I had an unassailable reason for doing so.

Upon reflection I suspect that this is why I find myself arguing due process for Zimmerman and spend half my posts arguing semantics.


X-Posted to Conservatalk

Comments

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Yep, we moderates, or as they're called here, centrists, are a true enigma! Often to ourselves, even.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

In this brave new world where polls are studies.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Click through the links.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Who said that "ingroup loyalty", "respect for authority and traditions" and "physical/spiritual purity" are necessarily positive concerns to pursue for the whole social group?

I would say that ingroup loyalty is obviously benificial in any circumstance requiring team-work/cooperation or an individual to put another's wellfare before their own. Likewise society requires respect for tradition and authority to function because without it policemen would simply be well-equipped thugs in funny hats. The issue of purity is a bit abstract and personal, but I'm sure you can think of something that another person enjoys that you find disgusting.

As for the issue of "balancing concerns" I could just as easily ask you the same question.

(Are compassion and fairness really individual-focused moral concerns?) - this apparently means that liberals aren't interested in creating benefit to the whole of society.

An interesting question, but as to whether or not it's a slip, you'd have to ask the authors of the paper i was linking to.

I think a few "interesting" interpretations of the various results and trends can make this mean pretty much whatever your bias dictates it should

I'd be interested in hearing your alternate interpretations.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

em·pa·thy [em-puh-thee] (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empathy)
noun

1. The intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

2. The imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.

The "desire to help someone" (or lack there of) has no bearing on someone's ability to empathise.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

As for the intolerance poll: Good thing it was presented full of Caveats. Are they allowing for audience diversity? The likelihood of person X banning someone may be dependent on actually having access to someone 'worthy' of banning. Insularity of membership of a social network would skew the results. It might simply mean that conservatives choose to edit their interactions at a different point in the process.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Another round of this bullshit.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I enjoy kicking the hornet's nest.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

I see. Conservatives studied the situation and discovered they are more inclined to be patriotic, religious, and understand everything much better than liberals.

Amazing... and congratulations.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Cake and ice cream for everyone! ;)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

It took me a long time to figure out that there are otherwise good and intelligent people to whom the idea of adhearing to a prior contract or statement had no bearing on morality.

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

So this study is based on a website that people gave self-reported information to? And the question about whether or not the stereotypes are "exaggerations" is based in part on the people who self-selected as extreme partisans in the same survey, as well as a phone survey? I think that's problematic because I think where a person would rate him/herself on a 7-point political scale would vary based on the state/region they live in. If I was a liberal in a strongly-conservative state, I might rate myself as the extreme; if I was a liberal in a liberal state, I might put myself as more closer to the moderate rating. Sorry, Ph.Ds., but I'm not going to take these survey results - that were based on a bunch of people who had nothing better to do than fill out a survey online and/or a phone survey - and make generalizations about all liberals and conservatives everywhere.

Interesting, too, how there were more respondents who identified as liberal (1174) than moderate (538) and conservative (500) combined.

From the study: "The ideological “culture war” in the U.S. is, in part, an honest disagreement about ends (moral values that each side wants to advance), as well as an honest disagreement about means (laws and policies) to advance those ends. But our findings suggest that there is an additional process at work: partisans on each side exaggerate the degree to which the other side pursues moral ends that are different from their own. Much of this exaggeration comes from each side underestimating the degree to which the other side shares its own values. But some of it comes, unexpectedly, from overestimating the degree to which “typical” members of one’s own side endorse its values."

Funny how the "fascinating new book" Kristof mentions was written by one of the authors of the study he cites! Yet he doesn't mention they are linked in his op-ed, aside from the study introducing doubt, and the book possibly giving answers to relieve that doubt.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I was curious about that as well and actually started reading the book as a result.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

There are all sorts of reasons why "liberals" might be more likely to screen or defriend someone on Facebook for saying "conservative" things that have nothing to do with "tolerance," as such. It may be the case, for example, that conservatives are just more likely to hold, and to be vocal about, morally abhorrent viewpoints. Or liberals may be more likely to have been open-minded about giving their distant and likely conservative family members and friends-of-friends a shot, only to find that their distant relationships with these people did not merit the continuing annoyance caused by seeing and having to be civil about their views. Or conservatives may be unusually likely to maintain their "friendships" with liberals because they prefer to run their mouths off on their status updates and complaining about how they post about politics too often, while liberals are more likely to take a more discreet approach to dealing with such disagreements.

Similarly, the failure of liberals to empathize with the conservative mind might just be an example of a "failure of the imagination" of the sort that led the U.S. intelligence services to have failed to foresee the events of 9/11. It happens; we can only try to get better at it.

I would assert the real dividing line is in how the individuals on the left and right view Contracts.

Okay... Looking for the explanation here...

I'm sure we've all heard the old saw about how "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up" but how many of us have stopped to consider what that statement actaully says? Is the harm done by a given act really less of an issue than the dishonesty of trying to conceal it? I would answer "Yes".

What does this have to do with contracts? And I think that "old saw" is more often used when the person saying it is openly acknowledging that the "covered up" act is actually small potatoes. Like: it's not that you had an affair with an intern, it's that you lied under oath about it. No one would say the "cover up" is worse than the "crime" if the crime in question were, say, murder or a terrorist attack.

Furthermore, I would hypothise that a survey of those who answered "Yes" vs. "No" would closely reflect the split between those who identify themselves as "Left" vs. "Right" wing.

... Still looking for the explanation here...

Personally I feel that internal consitency and honesty are integeral to morality and as such I put a great deal of stock in contracts.

But not promises? This is strange.

I mean - the essence of the contract is a mutual agreement. It's not just about your "consistency and honesty," it's about your promised obligation to someone else, who similarly owes some promised obligation to you. Ultimately, following through on a contract says something about your integrity only because it's the completion of a promise you've made to someone else - it's about your obligation to others. Not that this necessarily contradicts your view, but I think it does shift the focus a bit, which kind of helps explain why you can easily find contractarian liberal political philosophies.

Upon reflection I suspect that this is why I find myself arguing due process for Zimmerman and spend half my posts arguing semantics.

Well, it might help if you actually understood what "due process" there entailed.

[the-s3ntinel.livejournal.com]

>I would assert the real dividing line is in how the individuals on the left and right view Contracts. I'm sure we've all heard the old saw about how "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up" but how many of us have stopped to consider what that statement actaully says? Is the harm done by a given act really less of an issue than the dishonesty of trying to conceal it?

And is the harm done by the act of concealing a harm less of an issue than the dishonesty of trying to conceal the concealment?

>Personally I feel that internal consitency and honesty are integeral to morality and as such I put a great deal of stock in contracts. I will do my best to honor any contract (written, verbal, or social) that I enter into even to the point were it may bring harm to myself or others. Likewise I'll feel guilty and ashamed of myself about reneging on a contract even if I had an unassailable reason for doing so.

OK, you're actually talking about a different question now: "is the harm done by a given act less of an issue than the dishonesty of doing something else (assuming that 'doing something else' is dishonest for some reason)"

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I generally agree with the idea. Liberals often live in their own sequestered circles and trade in boogeyman stories about conservatives.

Likewise I'll feel guilty and ashamed of myself about reneging on a contract even if I had an unassailable reason for doing so.
That's probably because you've internalized the repressive autocracy which subsists on breaking contracts while holding lessers to theirs. Jesus had something to say about this. It wasn't very nice.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

On a side note, these sorts of studies are just the reflection of fundamentally ad hominem character politics takes on, when logically speaking, whether or not liberals or conservatives are "good people" is irrelevant to whether or not the ideas are right or sound.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

If this is about liberals being intolerant of intolerance, well, I'm afraid you're simply going to have to deal with it.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Yeah man, liberals are less likely to tolerate when people like Rick Santorum says abortion is a sin even in the case of rape or incest. They're so prejudiced!

A lot of liberals say a lot of crazy things, but I've never heard Obama say anything to the effect of 'eat/kill the rich' or denying that 50% of the country really had no rights. Or wanting to turn back the clock on history.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

"Their initial hypothesis was that moderates would be best at predicting the behavior of partisans from either side followed by Liberals. What they found was that Liberal partisans were infact the least able to predict how a Moderate or Conservative would react in a given scenario, while Moderates and Conservatives achieved a near parity."

All the better to manipulate you my dear?

"Despite the typical stereotype of Liberals advocating the "greater good" and Conservatives advocating individualism they found that ...In reality, liberals endorse the individual-focused moral concerns of compassion and fairness more than conservatives do, and conservatives endorse the group-focused moral concerns of ingroup loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and physical/spiritual purity more than liberals do."

Sounds right to me

"Haidt theorizes that the Liberal's difficulty predicting the behavior of Conservatives or Moderates hinges on the idea that it is easier for an individual to subtract a variable from his or her descision-making process than to add a new one. In fact the some of the manifestations of the so-called "group-focused moral concerns" are in themselves viewed as immoral by many Liberals. "Ingroup Loyalty" can manifest itself as Patriotism, Racism, or mistrust of outsiders, and "Respect for authority/tradition" can result in opposition to "needed" reforms or revolution."

Respect for authority, being their authority of course.

" (I don't even want to touch the issue of "purity")"

Nah, that would godwin the thread

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Clearly the George Zimmerman case demonstrates the bountiful empathy of conservatives... oh wait, the usual suspects have more or less spent the last week defending the dubious killing of an unarmed man.

Is it empathy towards women that is behind all of the various pieces of state legislation throwing barriers in the way of abortion and contraception coverage? Inquiring minds want to know.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

You keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means. (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1396425.html?thread=111374281#t111374281)

In regards to the Zimmerman case I would ask which takes priority, the feelings of the Martin family, or the rule of law?

In regards to abortion the question is at what point does an unborn child start to have rights of its own?

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

If I were in a Trollish mood I would simply leave these here and watch the fireworks ;)

Clearly liberals must be avoiding you due to an unfair bias they have.

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

This seems like a good place to post something I once read on the issue of "tolerance"/"diversity of opinion"/"freedom of...[insert blank activity]"... It's a gauge to determine if you *really* (really, really!) believe in Freedom of Thought (and the Actions which are inspired by it). And yes each of these undoubtedly offends someone somewhere, but can you, in the interest of freedom, allow them to be and disseminate their drivel and live their life in the way they desire and see fit (which includes not trying to pressure the state to step in and punish/control/restrict them from engaging in such). Think about these questions:

#1) Do you believe members of the public should be able to march on the White House in a non-violent way, carrying protest signs and shouting anything they want, without being tear-gassed, tasered or arrested?

#2) Do you believe it is acceptable for parents to question the medical justification behind mandatory vaccination policies?

#3) Do you believe historians should have the right to question the official explanation of the Holocaust?

#4) Do you believe observers should have the right to question the legitimacy or legality of Israel's current military attacks on its neighbors?

#5) Do you fully support someone's right to pledge their religious beliefs to the Church of Scientology, or to be an Atheist, or a Pagan, or a Druid, or to believe in some religion other than your own?

#6) Do you believe that someone should have the right to stand in a public park and speak about his belief that the end of the world is coming, and Jesus will save us all if we only repent of our sins?

#7) Do you believe that a scientist should be able to voice his opposition to the theory that global warming is caused by human activity, or voice his support of that same theory, without being ridiculed by his colleagues?

#8) Do you believe that the president of a foreign nation (Iran, for example) should have the right to publicly state that, in his view, America is the devil and terrorist attacks against America are punishment from their god?

#9) Do you believe scientists should be able to question the theory of Darwinian evolution without losing their job? Do you also believe that scientists should be able to question the theory of Intelligent Design in an intellectually-open manner, free from harassment or censor by religious groups?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Ohh a Shotgun post!

Ok going down the list.

1: Yes

2: Yes

3: Yes

4: Yes

5: Yes (Even if I feel that they are foolish and misguided for doing so)

6: Yes

7: Yes

8: Yes (With the caveat that we reserve the right to respond in kind. "Behold the Holy Hand-Grenade Cruise Missile of Antioch !")

9: Yes

[fornikate.livejournal.com]

"individual-focused moral concerns of compassion and fairness more than conservatives do, and conservatives endorse the group-focused moral concerns of ingroup loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and physical/spiritual purity more than liberals do."

are we supposed to be shocked or something?

[lai-choi-san.livejournal.com]

Why do your posts always give me the impression that you're looking for excuses ? What stops you from acting like an uninhibited conservative ? Moral principles ?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I'm above these petty labels; on a higher moral plane of understanding!

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

may give some insight into how to bridge the partisan gap

You can lead a horse to water, but...