Jonathan Haidt, changer
Jonathan Haidt is a writer and social psychologist who started out as a liberal. But along the way something unexpected happened: he actually read a book that featured the writings of leading conservative thinkers.
Until then, Haidt:
…had thought of conservatism as a “Frankenstein monster,” he says ”” an ugly mishmash of Christian fundamentalism, racism and authoritarianism.
Let that sink in for a moment. Here was a man whose life’s work had been to study the social psychology of moral development across cultures, and who was entering the field of political psychology, and yet until that moment he had swallowed whole the caricatured stereotypes of what a conservative is, without having the intellectual curiosity to find out for himself (I have a bit of sympathy for him; it took me decades to actually get around to reading the work of conservatives, too—although I’d never demonized them in quite the same way as Haidt had, nor was I a political psychologist).
Just to show you how partisan Haidt was prior to reading that book, he says that after John Kerry’s 2004 defeat, he “entered the field of political psychology in order to ‘help liberals win.'” And yet his mind remained open enough that, when he began reading the anthology Conservatism, only three pages into it he was “floored” with the thought that conservatives might actually “have a better formula for how to create a healthy, happy society.”
I can imagine what that moment was like.
The answer he finally came to put him in the centrist camp, neither wholly conservative nor wholly liberal. But that was a far cry from where he started out.
Haidt has quite a bit to say about the influence of liberals in academia and especially psychology:
Mr. Haidt has repeatedly criticized his field, psychology, for including too few conservatives in its ranks. When the topic of academic discrimination against conservatives comes up, he pulls from his filing cabinet a new study by Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers which finds that: “In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents are, the more willing they are to discriminate.”
No surprise there. But it is surprising that Haidt previously had spent close to twenty years in academia without ever noticing that sort of thing. But then again, we all know that a mind is a difficult thing to change—especially if a person never exposes him/herself to thinking or writing that challenges the point of view he/she already holds. But I commend Haidt for having the courage to finally do just that, and to follow where his new knowledge led him.
It isn’t easy.
This comment is not an attack, admonition or advocation.
I’d just like to point out that I had the same approach to Christianity for years before I became a changer.
I had all these media stereotypes to reference, but then I read the Bible as a literary reference (Call me Ishmael…) and it took a couple years, but it all started to make more sense than not.
So I can relate.
I became a conservative after I became a Christian.
In that same vein, I heard Joseph Campbell comment, in his later years, that he had recently visited a Christian Church in the South and was quite surprised to find that religion actually was non totally dead in America.
I first read about Haidt’s research as to how/why each side views morality differently on another blog a couple of years ago. For those who would like a more in-depth discussion with a good conservative evaluation, I’ll try to link:
Moral Adolescence and Leftism
The following reference is cited at the beginning of the entry by Ten O’Clock Scholar:
Compromising with Moral Adolescence: A Losing Strategy
I’m not an expert on Haidt’s thought but there are some obvious aspects of it that should probably be taken into consideration.
What you say is perfectly true within its sphere and obviously somewhat surprising, given his admitted presuppositional biases.
And his evolutionary psychology framed investigations into moral sensibilities or “tastes” as he sometimes refers to them, has produced his “famous five” moral foundations paradigm, which he posits as the result of various kinds of group selection pressures, and as built-in in some way into the brains of most people. And which – here comes the gong – he seems to posit as a more functionally complete system in some persons – possibly conservatives – than in others, namely, liberals.
Whether he figures there is specific wiring for these “tastes”, or whether he means them more figuratively, in the way one might have once referred to the ego or superego, I can’t say.
What I can say is that when he says that conservatives seem to have all five moral modules firing while liberals have what are basically two, he has the courage to confront the implications of his own research conclusions for issue of effective and sustainable social living. (He thinks that liberals probably cannot conserve their own existence against exploiters and external threats and that they need conservatives to help them survive. The desperate challenge of course is to immediately find the non-existent conservative-need yin to balance the alarming liberal-need yang.)
All this has caused him some grief I take it, from fellow liberals who wish to spin whatever conclusions he draws to their ideological benefit. Fewer moral modules fully operative in the modern liberal? Well, good. That’s because we liberals are evolved to focus only on the important and liberating things like equality and fairness and caring!
This ongoing dialog with his fans and critics however has caused its own problems apparently, as Haidt has now, for example, to confront just what is meant by “fairness”. And he currently has in play two distinct definitions of fairness which he must juggle to suit the occasion: one redistributionist (liberal), and the other related to individual reciprocity, return on or ownership of productive effort, and dealing with cheaters. ***
It has also been interesting to watch as his liberal followers have tried to square their proclaimed interest in liberty with their manifest valuations of equality and care as the two primary sensibilities they emphasize.
I think that Haidt is currently trying to reconcile this problem in his own mind through reference to the concept of positive liberty, since the two “liberal” modules don’t really function to enhance liberty in the broadest sense. Yeah to gay marriage, but freedom from the claims of free-riders and unhindered access to the material world, not so much.
Finally, this is all about values as evolved-for-social living. As Haidt points out, and as I found out belatedly, there is no meta-story here as to whether these values are good or bad or right or wrong in any but an instrumental sense; which brackets the value of the goodness or badness or character of “that which” they are imagined to be functioning in aid of.
He stipulates his project is descriptive and not normative. Yet try as I might to ignore it, there does seem to be a lot of normative creep in his framing.
Also he has just released some research on the moral foundation weighting of Libertarians. As this steals their supposed liberty interest thunder, and is described as weighted toward the masculine and rational, it will upset liberals, and already has. They are hopefully comparing Libertarian sensibilities to sociopath mentalities … no offense intended of course. “Just saying” Besides evolution will cure the problem in the way it does with all “pioneer species” which merely serve to prepare the seed bed for the arrival of the higher more sensitive and flowery forms of the genus … like caring, sharing, liberals.
*** “[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]” Haidt
The brand of mainstream left-wing ideology in America is especially caustic. It’s leaders denigrate individual dignity and devalue human life in order to advance their political, economic, and social standing. They appeal to people’s emotions and exploit humanity’s baser nature, especially a predisposition to dream of instant gratification. They pit special interest groups against one another and promote a culture of dependence and subordination. They propose redistributive change (i.e. involuntary exploitation) as a viable solution to compensate for the inherent inequality of reality (i.e. not everyone will enjoy a beachfront property in Hawaii). It is a fantasy which sells well to opportunists and vulnerable individuals. In practice, they are the ultimate “capitalists” who seek to gain advantage through an authoritarian monopoly.
American conservatism is defined in the establishment document, The Declaration of Independence, and the organization document, The Constitution, and surrounding traditions. It can be best described as classical liberalism tempered by Judeo-Christian principles. It maintains a perspective that places the trees before the forest. It emphasizes individual dignity and offers reasonable deference to the collective (or community). It recognizes the intrinsic value of human life. It is the product of human enlightenment, which rejects special or superior dignity of individuals which was common practice historically.
American conservatism is the moderate philosophy. It represents a superior approach to establishing and developing civilization. It is only suitable for individuals capable of self-moderating behavior.
I do like “liberal” ideas such as “habit for humanity”; but, I am concerned that the minimal “sweat equity” required by the program is insufficient to mitigate corruption of beneficiaries. The key to sustainable and proper development of individuals (and society) is that they maintain a stake in their outcome and that they bear the great proportion of risk associated with their decisions and behavior.
The cause of our crisis is a progressive dissociation between reality and individual decisions and behavior. The feedback mechanisms which arise in nature and human communities have been corrupted, which sabotages our ability to manage risk. This has occurred with politics, economics, and evolutionary fitness. There are two notable examples. First, through promises of anything and everything to anyone and everyone, we have distorted our economy and caused massive inflation, thereby necessitating the need for increased non-contributory entitlements (i.e. redistributive change) and cheap goods and services. Second, with progressive resistance to doing “jobs that Americans will not do”, we have invited an illegal invasion, which displaces Americans, corrupts our system (e.g. selective rule of law), and obfuscates that a majority of Americans are reproducing in the minority.
Our good intentions, out-of-sight and out-of-mind policies, and dreams of instant gratification, are creating a decadent society in decline.
To me the progressive-conservative divide comes down to 2 simple, straightforward issues:
a.) Progressives assume they know what is best for everyone and they have the right to rule from above. Conservatives assume people are capable of determining what is best for themselves and as individuals have the right to rule their own lives.
b.) Progressives believe they are compassionate because they want to rob Peter to give Paul a fish dinner. Conservatives view compassion as helping Paul learn how to fish.
This posting got me to thinking about my change from “D” to “R”. The two triggers were from the ’70s: NYC’s “brink of bankruptcy” financial crisis (I live in NYC) and the flexing of OPEC’s price-fixing muscles. (The failures of Jimmy Carter and the emergence of Ronald Reagan completed the process.) Re OPEC, the conspiracy theories were incredible, among them: the oil companies keeping their tankers outside the three-mile limit as they waited for the price of oil to rise further; the big 3 automakers suppressing cars in development that would get 75+ mph, etc. Added to this were price controls on natural gas limiting development of that resource. Today, we have the Keystone Pipeline being blocked, ANWAR blocked, limited exploration on Federal lands, coal production halted, and Andrew Cuomo blocking fracking, looking to close the Indian Point nuclear plant (his dad, Mario, blocked the Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island, on the eve of its completion). Also, to complete the parallels, a growing list of cities and towns, around the country, about to go bankrupt. I’ve never looked back on my “D” to “R” change.
If there is a commonality running through most progressives, it has to be their anti Christian bigotry.
Of course the irony is in how progressives fear Christians shoving their world view down the country’s throat, while they can’t help but shove their worldview down the country’s throat.
effess writes (4:27pm),
“[T]he conspiracy theories [on the left] were incredible, among them: [long list]. Today, we have [long list].”
Can anyone say, PROJECTION??
MJR–is that what you think?
DNW Says:
September 1st, 2012 at 3:05 pm …
…Excellent post. I’d add to your thoughts on the progressive notion of “liberty” that the left chooses to focus exclusively on the bedroom (where conservatives only wish some activities would remain) and on the womb, and pretends that it has cornered the market on freedoms.
Yet it’s those very same progressives who have worked to deprive us of making such basic choices as how much water our toilet tanks can hold, or how much our shower heads can produce in a given period of time; what kind of light bulb we can use; and coming soon, what kind of medical coverage we will have.
And if they had their druthers, we’d also lose the freedom to drive the vehicles we wish, to run our businesses as best serves our customers and ourselves, to rear and educate our children as we deem best, to live our out faith as we believe our Creator intended, and to utter thoughts or phrases which may, for even the flimsiest of reasons, be found offensive by another.
Oblio wrote at 8:20 pm,
M J R — is that what you think?
—–
M J R responds,
Hmmmm . . . looks like I need to be more specific and less sloganish. Here goes.
I saw, in effess’s comment, a long list of “incredible” conspiracy theories of the left. For what it’s worth, I recall quite a few of those.
I then saw in effess’s comment a long list of present-day realities, items of accomplishment by the left.
I asked, “Can anyone say, PROJECTION??”
My idea was that the left conjures up all manner of conspiracy theories, things purportedly imagined by lefties about the unspeakable eeeeevil that’s doable (and about to be done) by what the left sees as the right. How many of those actually came to pass?
The projection consists in the left projecting onto the right a hidden agenda (they’ve done that for years). According to lefties, righties’ hidden agenda is (for example) prevent black folks from voting, get us into ever more wars (which benefit the warbucks class), etc.
But to M J R, it is the left that is projecting the hidden agenda concept onto the right. To M J R, it is the left that has the hidden agenda — a statist collectivism of sorts, a mediocratizing of the USA, an implementation of racial equality by winking at egregious doings by the black panthers, ramming through a very unpopular health care bureaucracy, and so on (and so on).
As one who sympathizes with the rightie outlook, I see no hidden agenda on the right — what you see is what you’re going to get. I do see the hidden agenda on the left, and that’s what I meant when I wrote, “Can anyone say, PROJECTION.”
Parker nails it. I’d only add to that the leftist (I refuse to call it “progressive”, since that is using the other side’s deceptive terminology) article of faith that all cultures are equal, except for Western culture, which the left views as uniquely bad. Because Western culture with its Judeo-Christian basis has had bumps in the road over the centuries, and isn’t perfect, it therefore must be rejected in its entirety (except for the elites of left, when it is advantageous for them to take advantage of the freedoms and opportunities offered by Western culture; see Soros, George). But other cultures which enslave women, give license to revenge killings, and deprive individuals and sometimes entire groups of even the most basic of human rights are tolerated, if not actually celebrated.
…advantageous to take advantage…
Yuck. Need more coffee.
For the (hysterically) funny side of Lefty prejudice, I give you Mark Steyn’s “Dog-Whistling Past the Graveyard.”
http://preview.tinyurl.com/8elf89e
Get a snort of something, curl up, and enjoy.
Teaser: “When Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell observed that Obama was “working to earn a spot on the PGA tour,” O’Donnell brilliantly perceived that subliminally associating Obama with golf is racist, because the word “golf” is subliminally associated with “Tiger Woods,” and the word “Tiger” is not so subliminally associated with cocktail waitress Jamie Grubbs, nightclub hostess Rachel Uchitel, lingerie model Jamie Jungers, former porn star Holly Sampson, etc., etc. So by using the word “golf” you’re sending a racist dog-whistle that Obama is a sex addict who reverses over fire hydrants.
“On the matter of those racist dog-whistles all these middle-aged pasty-white liberals keep hearing, the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto put it very well: “The thing we adore about these dog-whistle kerfuffles is that the people who react to the whistle always assume it’s intended for somebody else,” he wrote. “The whole point of the metaphor is that if you can hear the whistle, you’re the dog.” . . .
Re Haidt’s article: I find it hard to believe that even a New Englander can live so long without ever having “met a conservative.” Wow.
This was interesting, too: his remark “I’m an awe junkie,” he confides. “I crave experiences of awe.” –says the atheist.
Hmmmm. He’d better be careful, because you get what you ask for. Who was the writer who said: “Awe. If you knew what it was, you wouldn’t go looking for it.” ?
I don’t know. Fully admitting to having destroyed professional careers based on political beliefs he realizes no longer hold substance should make the man liable for criminal action let alone a serious look at himself that he won’t do until he realizes, fully, that his actions have consequences, or in other words until he takes responsibility for his actions by becoming a true conservative. Further, that he doesn’t do anything to make sure that isn’t continuing?
I have no room to parry words with such witless, immoral, criminal, mongrels.
Passing along this great column, relevant to this posting and comments, by Janet Daley of The Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9513687/We-should-tune-in-to-the-Romney-and-Ryan-show.html
Doom: I’m no expert on Haidt’s academic career, but I never got the impression he said he had ever been complicit in the destruction of “professional careers based on political beliefs he realizes no longer hold substance.” He was describing the acts of others, and basing it also on some research he quoted.
beverly
As far as I can tell, the only time Dr. Haidt spent in New England was his 4 years as a Yale undergrad. He is a Scarsdale High graduate, in NY’s wealthy Westchester County,and now teaches in Noo Yawk City. Hardly a New Englander. Perhaps I am being a nitpicker, but as a New England native from a rural dairy farming town, that is my reaction.
I do find it plausible that Haidt hadn’t met a conservative- or hadn’t had an extended discussion with one- especially with his Scarsdale/Yale/Penn background.
From the article, here is the title of his doctoral dissertation at Penn:
Rather prophetic, considering the “dog in a crate” versus “dog on a plate” back and forth we have had this year.
Gringo and Beverly: for much of my life, until I entered the blogosphere, I was unaware of having met any conservatives. That’s because I almost never talked politics back then. And the few political discussions I had were of the very casual variety—such as, for example, after an election, where fellow-Democrats were saying how happy they were that so-and-so (the Democrat) had been elected, and I agreed.
So although I am certain I met conservatives, it just didn’t come up and I didn’t know for the most part. Not sure whether that would apply to Haidt’s situation, though.
The comments about “meeting conservatives” reminded me of this NY Sun column, of some eight years past, “Living in a Closet” by “Mr. X” on being a Republican living on Manhattan’s upper West-Side.
http://www.nysun.com/opinion/living-in-a-closet/1403/
Still worth a read.
I don’t have an issue with Haidt’s basic premise that people use different moral frameworks in political views. From what I have seen, I think his methodology has some serious problems. Accordingly, I wouldn’t put a whole lot of confidence in anything he’s pitching beyond his basic premise.
I am reminded of how someone once described Hillary Clinton in the first year of their administration. According to this insider, Hillary had a very simple, almost childish view of the political divide. She wanted to help people. In order to help them, she supported certain policies. If people opposed her, they didn’t want to help people and thus, they were evil.
I’ve met Haidt a couple of times, and he’s a good guy. Honest is the key word – a very rare trait among his academic kind. Right or wrong, Haidt is always a straight shooter. My sense of him is that he is where I was for some years after I was sure I was not on the left, but did not have the stomach to admit I was a conservative.
In that “phase,” I spent almost all of my time DEFENDING conservative ideas to my lefty friends, and then adding caveats,
“Now, I’m not a conservative, or a liberal for that matter, I’m just saying don’t be stupid. No one could seriously advocate [x] for so long and in such detail if it were as easily rebutted as you say. Stop and think and do some reading before you jump to conclusions.”
It’s very clear that that’s where Haidt is right now. He’s appalled at how prejudiced and narrow-minded leftists have been and are when it comes to conservatives. He’s already had the key insight: there is no way something as pervasive, intellectually rich, and appealing as conservatism could be as crude, hateful, and inane as lefties suppose. And the flip-side of that he knows as well: if leftists suppose conservatism is crude, hateful, and inane, then it is likely that that is born from the left’s own narrowness.
My guess – and it is only that – is that he’ll get more conservative as he gets older, maybe along the lines of Edward Banfield, whom Haidt strikes me as being similar to in temperament.
Hillary had a very simple, almost childish view of the political divide. She wanted to help people. In order to help them, she supported certain policies. If people opposed her, they didn’t want to help people and thus, they were evil.
What you’re saying is that a fifty year old woman had never learned basic adult social skills despite being a politician’s wife for 25+ years.
How incompetent do you have to be at EVERY level in order to fail to develop those basic skills?
Thank yous to Olderandwheezier for his links and to Effess for the Daley column and the reminder of the NYSun column.
At Olderandwheezier’s link, I found it interesting to read the discussion of liberalism as moral adolescence — especially after just posting a comment about Hillary Clinton’s “childish” views. It really is a case of immaturity. There is the failure caused by hubris, the failure to recognize that wisdom starts from the understanding of one’s ignorance, the failure to consider that others may desire the same goal but, in good faith, evaluate the proposed solutions differently.
As for Haidt, one of the biggest shortcomings that I find in his framework is that I don’t think he has any place for the lessons of experience — and that is a big part of conservatism. As I understand it, Haidt would characterize an argument over minimum wage or increased welfare benefits, et al as the liberal focusing on the morality of helping while the conservative is focused more on the immorality of forcibly taking from others. I’m sure I’m simplifying, but the critical essence is that he is saying that both views are valid morally.
BUT — this is where the conservative is jumping up and down trying to point out the law of unintended consequences. The problem with the liberal policy proposal is that it fails to accomplish the stated moral purpose! Haidt doesn’t account for the possibillity that the conservative has the same moral framework he had when he was a liberal. [Remember — Haidt’s big claim is that liberals focus on only 2 of the different moral values and conservatives value all 5 about the same.]
The reformed liberal has just learned from years of hard experience that minimum wage actually hurts those lowest on the wage ladder. That welfare harms the families it was meant to help be creating cycles of dependency. That racial preferences harm the ‘beneficiaries” in all manner of ways. We can describe this as a kind of moral maturity, but it represents maturity in more spheres than just the moral.
To put this in another context, I don’t think that it is necessary to view the ideological journey that Neo, Michael Barone and so many others have trod as being due to a change of their operative moral framework (i.e. expanding from the 2 to valuing all 5). I think it far more likely that most of them have simply learned from experience that the policies they favored didn’t work the way they were supposed to or caused more harm than good.
Neo — I would like to hear your feedback on this question. Do you think your conversion was due to a change in your personal moral calculus (as Haidt seems to imply)? Or was it simply experience and logic (albeit emotionally difficult)?
Michael Bakunin 1872
stan –
I know you didn’t ask me, but I think it’s a great question so I’m going to give my response anyway.
For me, I think I would have to say it was an expansion of my moral horizon. I would guess that’s not the case for neo; I would also guess it’s not the case for most changers of generations before my own (I’m still a youngun). By which I mean to hypothesize that people from my generation (1980 to today) have been more indoctrinated with simplistic leftist assumptions from grade school to college, and every day from pop culture, so that we really do tend to have the kind of “two dimensional” moral universe Haidt describes.
Part of being morally immature is that you view everything through childish magical thinking. You see everything in terms of strong agency – “X should happen, so give someone the power to actualize the intention to do x, and it shall be done.” This is the natural bias we have against the free market and toward central planning.
The other part of moral immaturity is basing moral views on personal sentiments of resentment, guilt, indignation, and so on. When stated “objectively,” these tend to be manifested as an obsessive preoccupation with Haidt’s two dimensions of liberalism: “equality” and “caring.”
Now, with respect to the other dimensions – loyalty, respect, and sanctity – it is undeniable that these are downplayed and often outright mocked by the leftist establishment in education and the media. But I suspect that, again, this is much more pronounced today than in previous eras. However that may be, I really had to do a lot of thinking and reading to even see tradition and hierarchy (legitimate, of course) as things of any value.
Yes, I really believed that, in the end, all tradition and hierarchy are ultimately oppressive and immoral. Any compromise with them was just tactical.
And if you (stan) could see some of my old comrades’ daily remarks on facebook, you might be shocked (or not) to discover how many of them still think that way. It’s galling, truly galling. I venture to say that my generation and those succeeding (the millennials) will prove to be the most morally amputated in this nation’s history.
Which isn’t to say we’re all going to hell in a handbasket – just that, if or when we wake up and make the transition to a more mature moral understanding, it will be a larger leap for us.
But to get back to your thoughts on the flaws in Haidt’s view, I would suggest that Haidt may simply be picking up on something that is not, in fact, biological (as he asserts) but cultural and historical. Today, in other words, Haidt’s breakdown of the liberal/conservative divide as being between two-dimensional and five-dimensional moral concern is probably fairly accurate. But for those of generations prior to my own, maybe not.
The question would then become how exactly moral immaturity became a quality of the left. I can only hint at a possible answer, but I would guess it’s the permeation of the more radical reformist temperament with ideological Marxism. I’ve plugged this book before, but Allan Levite’s “Guilt, Blame, and Politics,” make a convincing case that Marxism, in effect, politicized guilt and ressentiment, creating a psychological phenomenon he refers to as “political guilt.”
So, put simply, as political guilt became increasingly identified with the strong “reformist” or counter-traditional temperament, we wound up with things like cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and the long march through the institutions. The Scoop Jacksons, Sidney Hooks, etc., of the world disappear, and what remains are, indeed, these “two-dimensional” cretins Haidt keeps finding.
stan: I don’t think there was any change in my moral framework. As you say, I learned that some of the things meant to help didn’t. I also learned that quite a few of the sources I was relying on for information were either lying, or mistaken.
There were always pockets of what I now recognize as conservatism in my makeup, but what I thought at the time was just common sense. I never put these things in a political context or framework. For example, when I first learned about bilingual education (other than just a short period of transition) many many decades ago, I immediately thought, “That doesn’t make sense; I don’t think that will work.” I didn’t see my stance as conservative vs. liberal, though.
neo-neocon@7:32 pm:
That was my experience as well. A veil of deception was lifted. My principles never changed. I learned that the people who seemed to support my position were misrepresenting themselves through outright lies and semantic games. Instead, they were bent on advancing their political, economic, and social standing through appeals to emotion, exploitation of base desires, and, ultimately, cultural corruption. They are willing to achieve their ends using tactics which denigrate individual dignity and devalue human life. This is utterly reprehensible behavior.
In any case, Eastwood said it right. Whoever we choose to represent us, it is the responsibility of the people to hold them accountable. While a philosophy may guide development, and a label provide a shortcut to classification, they do not guarantee an outcome.
Neo, I suspect that most people who have made the same journey you did would agree. This causes a huge problem for Haidt (unless he accounts for this somehow that I haven’t seen).
I think the biggest part of maturity is tied up in the same process that defines the path to wisdom — recognizing our ignorance and our limitations (individually and as a society). A major part of the conservative mindset that Haidt seems to ignore is this idea of wisdom and maturity. We want to help people, but we want to do it right. There’s only so much govt can do without doing more harm in the end.
The beauty of conservatism:
Conservatism is liberalism, at least what was understood to be liberalism, that is the protection of an individual from power of duke, king, government . . .
Equal rights do not exist in Saudi Arabia, France, or South Africa. They do not come from government. Understand that. Sharia and socialism leave the powerless unprotected because the law they enforce is a law of the mighty and perverted over those without property. That is why property in guns and land is so important because if that did not exist, the evil that pronounces itself the will of the people would quickly kill the people as it has in the past and seeks to do in the future.
The beauty of conservatism is to question the values of those who would give total control to the government and end individual rights. We question not only their politics but their personal lives because both show a paucity of common value and common sense. They are not common. They are not us. They are against us and we shall rise up, every time, and grip them by their throats, and deny them their pathology, their evil, their plan.
If there are “investments” to be made, the investment needed is to rip these pretenders down from their throne and stomp their faces in the mud.
Outstanding post, comments, and links. A virtual feast for the old brain to ponder.
I think we have discussed the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives several times in the past, but never had a template to work with such as Haidt provides. IMO, this provides a better way of examining the differences in the way liberals and conservatives approach the world.
In the past I’ve made some observations about differences based on Steven Pinker’s book, “THE BLANK SLATE.” However, Pinker’s work is based on what he believes to be genetically determined personality characteristsics. Haidt’s moral traits seem more readily open to change with experience and culture. Thus, it seems to explain why people can experience change in their political philosophies. Since nearly all the change I read about seems to be from liberal to conservative, it appears that Haidt’s hierarchy of traits really do have something to do with acceptance of more of the various moral traits.
On the other hand, Pinker posits that one of the genetically inherited traits of people is a tendency to be either open or closed minded. If you have a tendency to be closed minded and are subjected to a childhood of liberal teachings, I can guess that it might be very difficult or maybe impossible to change your mind about political philosophy without some overwhelming evidence and deeply moving experiences. It seems that for many liberals 9-11 provided just such an instance.
That said, I welcome this new framework in which to examine the thinking of both liberals and conservatives. It may be flawed, but it provides a systematic way of talking about it.
Oh yes, I went to Haidt’s site and took some of the tests. He confirmed for me that I am conservative. Well, there you have it – a bit of confirmation bias.
Sorry, MJR, I misunderstood your antecedent.
It’s always good to win a changer, though it has been frustratingly slow. Let’s hope that the “preference cascade” is in full flood.
Maybe we should be planning on how to keep up the momentum if Romney wins. Scorched earth politics will be the response of the Democrats and the MSM. How can we make the cost of that strategy unacceptably high?
Something to point out to your liberal friends : The Democrats and the media for years have claimed that the “Bush Tax Cuts” were only for the rich…now that they are about to expire the Democrats claim they want to extend the portion of the Bush tax cuts that were for the middle class …How can they claim they want to extend something that for years they claimed did not exist?
Little Fauntleroy President child pretends to be king, but he has not proven himself in combat. He prefers to bow instead of battling. This piece of want-to-be tilts his head up in claims-to-be, but everyone knows his claiming is without title and testing. He believes, incredibly, that proclaiming Arts will win him Kingdom.
But the succor and herald registry could provide will not prevail. A golden sparrow, the only left flying, will tweet ruin upon him but freedom for us.
n.n Says:
“The cause of our crisis is a progressive dissociation between reality and individual decisions and behavior.”
Ding ding ding. Yes. On many levels on many different tracts, I end up here at the same thought.
n.n. says…”“The cause of our crisis is a progressive dissociation between reality and individual decisions and behavior.”
But to a progressive, to not dissociate from harsh realities is closed minded and cruel. And they got there by cultural marxism’s (PC) built in ridicule mechanism, that defines acceptable thoughts and expressions for a person to not be publically labeled closed minded and cruel.
The crux of the matter seems to come down to who can fight off demands to conformity under peer pressure and who can’t.
I guess I should have noted that Haidt’s changing framework problem applies to him as well. If he has moved to the center, does it mean his own moral calculus as changed? If not, then his framework is inadequate for the task of explaining the differences.
Oblio at 11:33 pm:
“Sorry, MJR, I misunderstood your antecedent.”
No problemo, amigo. I need(ed) to be more explicit the first time around.
Re: “Scorched earth politics will be the response of the Democrats and the MSM. How can we make the cost of that strategy unacceptably high?” . . .
If I had a good answer to that, I’d be a rich one-percenter consultant to the good guys! They’re out for blood, take no prisoners. We need to do likewise, and UNapologetically.
I don’t think Romney is going to be a McCain — which means, obey the parameters of acceptable discourse delineated by the other side, and be a good loser when it’s over — and I am heartened by how he went after his primary opponents, even if, at the time, I sometimes thought he was off-base in his attacks.
But alas! I have at hand no acceptable answer to your question.