Conservative intuition: ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity

[Galapagos]

Jonathan Haidt published a new article, "What Makes People Vote Republican" on edge.org recently.

 

Edge: WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? By Jonathan Haidt

 

A Durkheimian ethos can't be supported by the two moral foundations that hold up a Millian society (harm/care and fairness/reciprocity). My recent research shows that social conservatives do indeed rely upon those two foundations, but they also value virtues related to three additional psychological systems: ingroup/loyalty (involving mechanisms that evolved during the long human history of tribalism), authority/respect (involving ancient primate mechanisms for managing social rank, tempered by the obligation of superiors to protect and provide for subordinates), and purity/sanctity (a relatively new part of the moral mind, related to the evolution of disgust, that makes us see carnality as degrading and renunciation as noble). These three systems support moralities that bind people into intensely interdependent groups that work together to reach common goals. Such moralities make it easier for individuals to forget themselves and coalesce temporarily into hives, a process that is thrilling, as anyone who has ever "lost" him or herself in a choir, protest march, or religious ritual can attest.

 

Solid points from Haidt right here, although I agree with Harris'critical analysis of another of Haidt's points:

Haidt often writes, however, as if there were no such thing as moral high ground. At the very least, he seems to believe that science will never be able to judge higher from lower. He admonishes us to get it into our thick heads that many of our neighbors "honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats." Yes, and many of them honestly prefer the Republican vision of cosmology, wherein it is still permissible to believe that the big bang occurred less than ten thousand years ago. These same people tend to prefer Republican doubts about biological evolution and climate change. There are names for this type of "preference," one of the more polite being "ignorance." What scientific purpose is served by avoiding this word at all costs?

 

Michael Shermer and Scott Atran also gave good responses, but both missed the crucial point raised by Harris.

[Galapagos]

I also just found this video of Haidt discussing this topic with philosopher Joshua Knobe over at bloggingheads.tv, cool for anyone who wants more/doesn't want to read.

[Thunderbird]

Simply, Some prefer the familiar. The stability of a social order that can be counted on to be the same today as it was yesterday. In a world that is constantly changing though its own internal momentum this can be disconcerting , seen from this point of view it appears as chaos that must be controlled at all cost.

Others prefer the, What is possible…. instability is not seen as an end but a precursor to a higher order that is not predictable and controllable but inherently creative.

 

 

Forgive me for being redundant with this quote. I think it makes a point at the end. The line “Now put the foundations under them” ?

 

 

 

“I learned this, at least, by my experiment: that if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours. He will put some things behind, will pass an invisible boundary; new, universal, and more liberal laws will begin to establish themselves around and within him; or the old laws be expanded, and interpreted in his favour in a more liberal sense, and he will live with the license of a higher order of beings. In proportion as he simplifies his life, the laws of the universe will appear less complex, and solitude will not be solitude, nor poverty poverty, nor weakness weakness. If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.”

 

Henry David Thoreau

[questor]

The quote from Thoreau better descibes conservatism than liberalism. It is difficult to climb the mountain of success while burdened by liberal guilt, political correctness, lack of self reliance, and belief that government is the answer to all problems.

I have no conservative friends who believe the big bang occurred 10,000

years ago. Not many believe in God as an old man with a flowing white beard.

This may describe a small number of religious zealots, but in no way describes

the people who form the main body of conservatism.

[Moontanman]

The quote from Thoreau better descibes conservatism than liberalism. It is difficult to climb the mountain of success while burdened by liberal guilt, political correctness, lack of self reliance, and belief that government is the answer to all problems.

I have no conservative friends who believe the big bang occurred 10,000

years ago. Not many believe in God as an old man with a flowing white beard.

This may describe a small number of religious zealots, but in no way describes

the people who form the main body of conservatism.

 

I don't know where you have been but I find it difficult to find Conservatives who do not believe in that bullshit. I'd say they out number Conservatives who do not believe by at least 5 to 1.

[Galapagos]

The quote from Thoreau better descibes conservatism than liberalism. It is difficult to climb the mountain of success while burdened by liberal guilt, political correctness, lack of self reliance, and belief that government is the answer to all problems.

Thoreau is described in the opening paragraph of his wiki article as an "individualist anarchist". Read the quote again, specifically the bolded part:

“I learned this, at least, by my experiment: that if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours. He will put some things behind, will pass an invisible boundary; new, universal, and more liberal laws will begin to establish themselves around and within him; or the old laws be expanded, and interpreted in his favour in a more liberal sense, and he will live with the license of a higher order of beings. In proportion as he simplifies his life, the laws of the universe will appear less complex, and solitude will not be solitude, nor poverty poverty, nor weakness weakness. If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.”

Nothing about this quote or Thoreau's ideology seem conservative to me.

 

I have no conservative friends who believe the big bang occurred 10,000

years ago.

[...]

This may describe a small number of religious zealots, but in no way

describes

the people who form the main body of conservatism.

You must not have very many conservative friends then:

 

Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism

There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago

 

Gallup-One Third Americans Believe Bible Literally True

 

Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution

 

Climate-Change Views: Republican-Democratic Gaps Expand

 

Republicans are statistically more ignorant about biology, cosmology, and climate science. This is something that needs serious addressing by all parties. Voters armed with so much misinformation(or just plain ignorant!) can be dangerous or harmful to our democracy.

[questor]

I know quite a few conservatives and am around them constantly. Do you claim knowledge of conservative ideals and ideas through your quoted links or do you have a lot of conservative friends?

 

Will one of you tell me what this quote from Thoreau means?

[Moontanman]

I know quite a few conservatives and am around them constantly. Do you claim knowledge of conservative ideals and ideas through your quoted links or do you have a lot of conservative friends?

 

Will one of you tell me what this quote from Thoreau means?

 

Very nearly all my friends are conservatives, even those whose lifestyles should make them liberals. Yes i know exactly what the conservatives want, the same thing as liberals, both sides simply go about it differently. I get insane ravings from conservatives probably 100/1 compared to liberals. I cannot identify 100% with either side, my own intelligence will not allow me to follow anyone 100% when you get to the point that anything your party does is wonderful the kool aid cannot be far behind. Tell me if you consider me a liberal....

 

I own and use guns

I think birth control should a prerequisite for welfare

I think the war on drugs has done nothing but interfere with our society and gives the government a new reason to be bigger and spend money with no results.

Most recreational drugs should be legalized.

Health care should be available at a affordable rate to everyone.

Religion and government should never be the same thing.

I support abortion on demand but not in an unlimited way.

Birth control should be taught in school and be available to all.

Abstinence only sex ed is stupid.

Tax breaks for companies moving over seas should stopped.

Illegal aliens should rounded up and deported.

The list goes on but i choose the things I support not any political party or cause.

[Thunderbird]

I know quite a few conservatives and am around them constantly. Do you claim knowledge of conservative ideals and ideas through your quoted links or do you have a lot of conservative friends?

 

Will one of you tell me what this quote from Thoreau means?

 

Speaking for myself, I do have a few conservative friends they all follow the typical creationist global warming is a hoax, democrats want to take my guns, liberal means high taxes for middle class, bla bla bla.

[questor]

Thunderbird, I thought you worked with felons, Are these the conservative friends you are referring to? I can't imagine anyone with more than a ninth grade education holding these opinions.

[modest]

I do have a few conservative friends they all follow the typical creationist...

 

I live in Kansas. You can't throw a brick 'round these parts without hitting a creationist on the head -_-

 

Oops, one heard me say that... here he comes... with a pitchfork... gotta go...

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

I live in Kansas. You can't throw a brick 'round these parts without hitting a creationist on the head -_-

 

Oops, one heard me say that... here he comes... with a pitchfork... gotta go...

 

~modest

 

Yeah, I carry a few brick bats around with me just in case my pistol runs out of rounds before I get them all!

[questor]

What exactly is creationism? Do these people believe the universe was created 10,000 years ago or that man was created 10, 000 years ago? You people must associate with some very stupid people. On the other hand, I believe the universe was created by some force about 14.5 billion years ago, what does that make me?

[modest]

What exactly is creationism?

Well, obviously there's no date placed on creationism - even in Christianity. It is what it is... a belief that things were created by a creator.

 

Do these people believe the universe was created 10,000 years ago or that man was created 10, 000 years ago?

No - it was 6 thousand years ago. I was raised in an independent baptist church, which is a bit more liberal than your average southern baptist. And, I can attest to the fact that they do indeed claim the bible is factually correct and the bible is very clear with its dates.

 

Have you ever asked yourself what all this opposition to evolution is? Why would three Republican candidates raise their hand in a debate signifying they did not believe in evolution? I understand this is not your point of view, by many of my neighbors would disagree with you on these points. They would tell you dinosaurs lived alongside people and Noah's flood made the fossils we find today.

 

I'm not saying this is a common belief, only that I have found it common.

 

You people must associate with some very stupid people.

 

Well, that's not very nice. Clearly these are people capable of doing very well for themselves - and they're very kind and amiable people as well. Saying they are all stupid is doing a disservice to them and the problem they are faced with. They are misguided. There are powerful institutions and disingenuous people who are motivated to propagate this falsehood. Is the republican party one of these institutions?... It's a fair question.

 

~modest

[questor]

Modest, do you have high schools, libraries and TV in the area you're talking

about? I thought most country folk are democrats. Who were the candidates that didn't believe in evolution?

Ignorance.. being unaware of

Stupidity.. being aware, but lacking the ability to understand

Perhaps I should have used the word ignorant?

You said:

'' There are powerful institutions and disingenuous people who are motivated to propagate this falsehood. Is the republican party one of these institutions?... It's a fair question.'' You live in a different world from me. Where did you get an idea like this? Can you back up this statement with facts?

[modest]

Modest, do you have high schools, libraries and TV in the area you're talking about?

 

:doh: I live in the suburb of a rather large city.

 

I thought most country folk are democrats.

 

That's not the common view.

 

Who were the candidates that didn't believe in evolution?

 

I don't know which candidates believed what... but I can tell you the three that raised their hand in answer of the question "Who does not believe in evolution":

• Mike Huckabee
  
• Senator Sam Brownback (of.. you guessed it... Kansas)
  
• and Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado
  

You live in a different world from me. Where did you get an idea like this? Can you back up this statement with facts?

 

-source

 

In 2008 44% of Americans polled responded that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" You may call these people stupid questor, but what does it say that you fail to acknowledge they exist?

 

Are these people mostly Republican? Yes:

 

-source

 

I don't know what's left to be said on the subject of your objection.

 

~modest

[Eclogite]

It seems we may be about to establish that Questor is a liberal - he just doesn't know it yet.:doh: