Republicans and democrats don't understand each other

[LesPalenik]

There was a good article in theatlantic.com about the extreme partisanship between the members of the two political parties. Apparently, the universities and media are part of the problem. A new "Perception Gap" study found that the best educated and most politically interested Americans are more likely to vilify their political adversaries than their less educated, less tuned-in peers.

Democrats who have a high-school degree suffer from a greater perception gap than those who don’t. Democrats who went to college harbor greater misunderstandings than those who didn’t. And those with a postgrad degree have a way more skewed view of Republicans than anybody else.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/

It is deeply worrying that Americans now have so little understanding of their political adversaries. It is downright disturbing that the very institutions that ought to help us become better informed may actually be deepening our mutual incomprehension.

[Martin Kristiansen]

If that’s accurate the fault lies with the education system. Not teaching critical thinking but simply reinforcing existing confirmation biases.

[LesPalenik]

If that’s accurate the fault lies with the education system. Not teaching critical thinking but simply reinforcing existing confirmation biases.

That's what also Jordan Peterson is saying (although in another context).

[Martin Kristiansen]

That's what also Jordan Peterson is saying (although in another context).

Well there you go. It seems the evidence would indicate that he is correct.

[JoeKitchen]

I've listened to a few podcasts with Jonathan Haidt (professor of sociology who has been studying this for the last 15 years) on this, and he found, through role playing activities, that conservatives actually understand liberals pretty well actually.  It is liberals that cant understand conservatives. 

His theory is that since liberalism is so pervasive, especially in schooling, that someone who is conservative has been taught the philosophies of liberalisms even if they disagree with it.  However, conservatism almost never is taught is school, so liberals have no basis for understanding conservatives. 

He also found this is very much an Anglo-Saxon cultural phenomenon and does not really exist in other cultures, or not nearly as much.  This is especially the case in the Asian cultures where yin and yang philosophies are very much part of the culture.  Those cultures tends to try and take the good from each side (liberal vs. conservative) and realize that going too far in either direction is damaging.   

[RSL]

To verify the findings Joe's stating, watch a few of Will Witt's interviews with college students and people on the street. There's one where Will asks a student what she thinks about socialism. She replies, to the effect that: "Well, I think it's okay. We're socializing right now, and it's okay." There's another where he asks students at one of California's prestigious universities "Who was the first president?" Many shake their heads and admit they don't know. Others think Abe Lincoln was the first president. Most of them, by the way, think Lincoln was a Democrat.

It's really scary. Time to shut down all the universities and start over.

[James Clark]

I've listened to a few podcasts with Jonathan Haidt (professor of sociology who has been studying this for the last 15 years) on this, and he found, through role playing activities, that conservatives actually understand liberals pretty well actually.  It is liberals that cant understand conservatives. 

His theory is that since liberalism is so pervasive, especially in schooling, that someone who is conservative has been taught the philosophies of liberalisms even if they disagree with it.  However, conservatism almost never is taught is school, so liberals have no basis for understanding conservatives. 

He also found this is very much an Anglo-Saxon cultural phenomenon and does not really exist in other cultures, or not nearly as much.  This is especially the case in the Asian cultures where yin and yang philosophies are very much part of the culture.  Those cultures tends to try and take the good from each side (liberal vs. conservative) and realize that going too far in either direction is damaging.

Haidt is fascinating... Speaking personally, I find him much more constructive than Peterson, but my understanding of his theory is different from yours, or perhaps just drawn from a different exposure to what he (Haidt) has done.    In essence, if I remember right, he's arguing that at baseline conservatism is valid because it's adherents think it to be so.  That is, if the "market of ideas," with it's roots in human biology, see value in conservatism, then it *has to*, by definition, have value to humanity.  I think that's a sound point, but on the other hand, I think it throws aside our moral obligation to think beyond our biology.

Interesting stuff, in any case.  I don't know enough about it to discuss it in any more depth specifically with regard to Haidt, but the whole discussion about the biological basis for conservative (and liberal) leanings and how we can (and if we should) work contrary to our "programming" is something that obviously has very wide repurcussions.

[Alan Klein]

Haidt is fascinating... Speaking personally, I find him much more constructive than Peterson, but my understanding of his theory is different from yours, or perhaps just drawn from a different exposure to what he (Haidt) has done.    In essence, if I remember right, he's arguing that at baseline conservatism is valid because it's adherents think it to be so.  That is, if the "market of ideas," with it's roots in human biology, see value in conservatism, then it *has to*, by definition, have value to humanity.  I think that's a sound point, but on the other hand, I think it throws aside our moral obligation to think beyond our biology.

Interesting stuff, in any case.  I don't know enough about it to discuss it in any more depth specifically with regard to Haidt, but the whole discussion about the biological basis for conservative (and liberal) leanings and how we can (and if we should) work contrary to our "programming" is something that obviously has very wide repurcussions.

Wow.  So now conservatives and traditional thinking is immoral if we follow our DNA.  That's quite a holier-than-thou conclusion.  Unfortunately, I think that's a belief many liberals, socialists, Marxists, globalists, etc think and believe. 


So if a person thinks that national rights should transcend international (ie Brexit), the territorial imperative of man makes that person immoral in his thinking.  We must give up our patriotism, otherwise we're not moral beings.  We're just knuckle dragging Neanderthals. That caring for people of your own tribe first is immoral? 


That keeping money that you earned to be used to further your own family's welfare is immoral to giving it to others.  Well, we'll just take it if you're not willing to just give it.  What happened to charity?  Can't conservatives be both?  In any case, liberals are phonies.  They're conservatives in liberal sheep skin, willing to take your money to be spread around for the common good, but don't raise their taxes.

[/font]

[JoeKitchen]

Wow.  So now conservatives and traditional thinking is immoral if we follow our DNA.  That's quite a holier-than-thou conclusion.  Unfortunately, I think that's a belief many liberals, socialists, Marxists, globalists, etc think and believe. 


So if a person thinks that national rights should transcend international (ie Brexit), the territorial imperative of man makes that person immoral in his thinking.  We must give up our patriotism, otherwise we're not moral beings.  We're just knuckle dragging Neanderthals. That caring for people of your own tribe first is immoral? 


That keeping money that you earned to be used to further your own family's welfare is immoral to giving it to others.  Well, we'll just take it if you're not willing to just give it.  What happened to charity?  Can't conservatives be both?  In any case, liberals are phonies.  They're conservatives in liberal sheep skin, willing to take your money to be spread around for the common good, but don't raise their taxes.

[/font]

So far as I an can tell, this is a misunderstanding of Haidt's modern theory, although this interpretation could be based on earlier work.  Haidt, admittedly, started off as a progressive liberal who lost his mind when the 2nd Bush was elected.  He could not understand why people would vote for such a man and started his research to answer this question.  Perhaps his earlier work was based upon confirmation bias, which is where this is coming from?  Now, however, he seems to imply both sides are crazy and identifies as a classical liberal. 

However, as I understand his modern theory, there are three main political groups, liberals, conservatives and libertarians.  Note that libertarians are a separate group from the other two.  The group which one attributes to boils down the combination of traits of the five main personality traits along with a person's ability to be disgusted by new ideas. 

Liberals are very empathetic for others, are hard to disgust, open to new ideas, have a low level of conscientiousness (meaning they lack order) and a low level neuroticism (higher risk taking).  So when a liberal looks at gay marriage, they feel for them and are not disgusted by the idea of gay relationships.  Since they are open, the idea of another lifestyle does not bother them, they don't care about loosing order by allowing this to happen and are willing to take the risks of allowing order to become compromised.  This leads them to be for gay marriage. 

Conservatives (and I know for liberals this going to be hard to believe) are also very empathetic for others.  However, they are disgusted easier and less open to new ideas.  They are also much more conscientious and more neurotic.  So when a conservative looks at gay marriage, they feel for them deeply, but are ultimately disgusted by the idea of gay relationships and not open to the idea of other lifestyles.  Being that they are very orderly, and since order is hard to obtain, are not will to take the risk of allowing order to decrease.  To them, allowing order to decay by allowing gay marriage would not be good in the long run for anyone, especially gays.  So, they try to help them by being not for gay marriage and by trying to add more order to their lives. 

Libertarians are the odd ones.  They have little empathy for others, and this is replaced by a high level of analytical thinking with the ability to not allow emotions to interfere.  It is nearly impossible to disgust a libertarian and they are even more open to other lifestyles then liberals.  They also have a high level of conscientiousness (order) and a low level of neuroticism (higher risk taking).  Libertarians look at gay marriage and really feel nothing for gays, but look at it from a logical stand point.  They come to the conclusion gay marriage is not going to effect them, they are not disgusted by the lifestyle and open to the variation in lifestyle.  Although they are very orderly, they are also willing to take risks allowing order to be lost with others since it does not directly effect them.  So libertarians are for gay marriage not because they care about others, but because they feel it would have no effect on them personally and are willing to accept the societal risks. 

I find his work so interesting because of his research on libertarians.  I am a libertarian and have never be able to understand why people allow emotions to effect their logical thinking.  So hearing all of this helped answer this question.  Also, for the longest time I always had issues with whether or not I was a conservative or a liberal.  I agree with liberals on nearly all social issues, but with conservatives on nearly all fiscal and regulatory issues.  Understanding a libertarian is a totally separate political identity was kind of reassuring and the personality differences certainly answers many questions I have had on why I agree with liberals sometimes and conservatives other times. 

[Alan Klein]

So far as I an can tell, this is a misunderstanding of Haidt's modern theory, although this interpretation could be based on earlier work.  Haidt, admittedly, started off as a progressive liberal who lost his mind when the 2nd Bush was elected.  He could not understand why people would vote for such a man and started his research to answer this question.  Perhaps his earlier work was based upon confirmation bias, which is where this is coming from?  Now, however, he seems to imply both sides are crazy and identifies as a classical liberal. 

However, as I understand his modern theory, there are three main political groups, liberals, conservatives and libertarians.  Note that libertarians are a separate group from the other two.  The group which one attributes to boils down the combination of traits of the five main personality traits along with a person's ability to be disgusted by new ideas. 

Liberals are very empathetic for others, are hard to disgust, open to new ideas, have a low level of conscientiousness (meaning they lack order) and a low level neuroticism (higher risk taking).  So when a liberal looks at gay marriage, they feel for them and are not disgusted by the idea of gay relationships.  Since they are open, the idea of another lifestyle does not bother them, they don't care about loosing order by allowing this to happen and are willing to take the risks of allowing order to become compromised.  This leads them to be for gay marriage. 

Conservatives (and I know for liberals this going to be hard to believe) are also very empathetic for others.  However, they are disgusted easier and less open to new ideas.  They are also much more conscientious and more neurotic.  So when a conservative looks at gay marriage, they feel for them deeply, but are ultimately disgusted by the idea of gay relationships and not open to the idea of other lifestyles.  Being that they are very orderly, and since order is hard to obtain, are not will to take the risk of allowing order to decrease.  To them, allowing order to decay by allowing gay marriage would not be good in the long run for anyone, especially gays.  So, they try to help them by being not for gay marriage and by trying to add more order to their lives. 

Libertarians are the odd ones.  They have little empathy for others, and this is replaced by a high level of analytical thinking with the ability to not allow emotions to interfere.  It is nearly impossible to disgust a libertarian and they are even more open to other lifestyles then liberals.  They also have a high level of conscientiousness (order) and a low level of neuroticism (higher risk taking).  Libertarians look at gay marriage and really feel nothing for gays, but look at it from a logical stand point.  They come to the conclusion gay marriage is not going to effect them, they are not disgusted by the lifestyle and open to the variation in lifestyle.  Although they are very orderly, they are also willing to take risks allowing order to be lost with others since it does not directly effect them.  So libertarians are for gay marriage not because they care about others, but because they feel it would have no effect on them personally and are willing to accept the societal risks. 

I find his work so interesting because of his research on libertarians.  I am a libertarian and have never be able to understand why people allow emotions to effect their logical thinking.  So hearing all of this helped answer this question.  Also, for the longest time I always had issues with whether or not I was a conservative or a liberal.  I agree with liberals on nearly all social issues, but with conservatives on nearly all fiscal and regulatory issues.  Understanding a libertarian is a totally separate political identity was kind of reassuring and the personality differences certainly answers many questions I have had on why I agree with liberals sometimes and conservatives other times. 

Nothing a liberal, conservative or libertarian thinks per se makes them immoral, as was suggested by another poster when he accused conservatives of immorality  Each group just thinks differently.  To suggest that a certain belief on the face of it is immoral is just wrong.   Immorality happens when you break God's law, not man's.  We can argue about policy without calling someone's belief immoral because you believe differently. 

[JoeKitchen]

Nothing a liberal, conservative or libertarian thinks per se makes them immoral, as was suggested by another poster when he accused conservatives of immorality  Each group just thinks differently.  To suggest that a certain belief on the face of it is immoral is just wrong.   Immorality happens when you break God's law, not man's.  We can argue about policy without calling someone's belief immoral because you believe differently.

I was talking about James' interpretation of Haidt's work in response to your comments.  I hope you realize I was not criticizing your comments. 

[Rob C]

Oh dear.

I'm afraid I don't fit into any of the three handy classifications. I certainly share some values across the three, but absolutely do not recognize myself as fitting into any of the boxes like the proverbial foot into Cinderella's tiny glass slipper.

Guess I'll stick to the usual cheapo, market variety of canvas and dubious soles, reverting to trainers when I need to dress up. I still own an almost unused pair of white leather shoes, but lack of use has rendered them as hard and uncomfortable as the original glass ones must have been. Cindy certainly had more moral courage than I to wear such obviously uncomfortabe abominations just in order to go jiving at the palace hop! Women! At any age, I'd say, but fear of provoking another sexual nature v. nurture argument stops me in my tracks.

Rob

[Alan Klein]

Joe,  I was referring to someone else's comment. 

[josh.reichmann]

Both Eric and Bret Weinstein have much to say about this binary mess, relativism, anti-science and dogmatism etc.

[Rob C]

Nothing a liberal, conservative or libertarian thinks per se makes them immoral, as was suggested by another poster when he accused conservatives of immorality  Each group just thinks differently.  To suggest that a certain belief on the face of it is immoral is just wrong.   Immorality happens when you break God's law, not man's.  We can argue about policy without calling someone's belief immoral because you believe differently.

So which gods' laws do you refer to as in the breaking?

Thete are as many of each as you can shake sticks at, and then some. You need a tighter definition of morality than that.

[Alan Klein]

So which gods' laws do you refer to as in the breaking?

Thete are as many of each as you can shake sticks at, and then some. You need a tighter definition of morality than that.

Certainly, morality is not defined by a political policy you disagree with.  You may not like people who voted for Brexit.  But that doesn;t make them immoral any more than voting against it makes a person immoral.  Many people call positions they don;t agree with as being immoral.  They use the insult to sway votes by trying to make them feel guilty. "If you don't give teachers raises, you obviously want to hurt children."  In any case, morality is not defined by man.  Without God, man can justify any act regardless of how evil it really is, and has.

[James Clark]

Nothing a liberal, conservative or libertarian thinks per se makes them immoral, as was suggested by another poster when he accused conservatives of immorality 

Not what I said.   What I said was that *not examining* one's tribalism or nationalism *abrogates* or excuses what I believe to be our moral obligation to consider ourselves outside of our biology.

That goes for libertarians that refuse to move beyond the strictly rational, conservatives the refuse to consider their discomfort with the "other" and liberals that refuse to consider that lack of order causes some people great emotional pain.

[James Clark]

Both Eric and Bret Weinstein have much to say about this binary mess, relativism, anti-science and dogmatism etc.

Thanks for the suggestion!

[Alan Klein]

Not what I said.   What I said was that *not examining* one's tribalism or nationalism *abrogates* or excuses what I believe to be our moral obligation to consider ourselves outside of our biology.

That goes for libertarians that refuse to move beyond the strictly rational, conservatives the refuse to consider their discomfort with the "other" and liberals that refuse to consider that lack of order causes some people great emotional pain.

Jim, none of those things are immoral unless they violate God's laws.  It doesn't matter what group you're in.  It's just policy divisions.  Also, we all have tendencies to be in each group sort of like fitting into any of a horoscope's monthly description of your personality.

But the main point is that we tend to see only our position as being "moral".  For example, a liberal would say it's immoral to condemn children's unborn children 70 years from now by not eliminating fossil fuels that's changing the climate for the worse.  The "conservative" that opposes spending that money may say that he sees unemployed coal miners in West Virginia living today as not being able to feed their family so we should continue coal plants.  Or, maybe the money should be spent on cancer research rather than renewable energy.  WHo decides what is "more"  moral?  Trying to say one is moral to effect policy changes by guilt is a bad way of changing policy.  In any case, God wants us to be good stewards of the environment.,  But he also wants us to take care of the people living now.  Let's not call each other "evil" in order to get our point across when discussing policy. 

[OmerV]

Certainly, morality is not defined by a political policy you disagree with.  You may not like people who voted for Brexit.  But that doesn;t make them immoral any more than voting against it makes a person immoral.  Many people call positions they don;t agree with as being immoral.  They use the insult to sway votes by trying to make them feel guilty. "If you don't give teachers raises, you obviously want to hurt children."  In any case, morality is not defined by man.  Without God, man can justify any act regardless of how evil it really is, and has.

And yet, with God, who gets to interpret him/her?

A Christian preacher has claimed that gays should be executed because the Bible commands it.

https://www.metroweekly.com/2018/06/christian-preacher-says-gays-should-be-executed-because-the-bible-commands-it/


Or how's this:

How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/

God's morals, Alan?