Worth watching imo.
Psychology of Liberalism and Conservatism
Worth watching imo.
Complete bollocls. Doesn't really work they way it is spoken in those vids.
Liberals have a 2 foundation morality.
Conservatives have a 5 foundation morality.
Trying to equate voting democrat as liberal and voting republican as conservative, and therefore democrats are open minded, score high on openness and the reverse for republicans, therefore be a cool kid like him. That being the case, I don't buy this, someone can be low on openness but want a welfare state, open minded because they want little state control and more freedom, so it works both ways. Reminded me of something I heard before, that republicans formed to combat slavery, and abolish it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...publican_Party
Which sounds pretty open minded and progressive to me.
Someone high on the openness dimension but not wanting a welfare state would be low on the "care" dimension and would be a Libertarian. Haidt talks about Libertarians elsewhere.Originally Posted by Words
There are doubtless other combinations of the dimensions, but Liberal and Conservative are the two big ones.
Last edited by xerx; 05-20-2013 at 04:58 AM. Reason: removed a slightly misleading factoid
Fair enough, I didn't watch all the video, just enough to get the impression to myself something didn't add up. Thanks for the info.
np.
On the original TED video, the guy certainly spends a lot of time stroking liberalism (you know, the open minded, intelligent, artistic, creative and uber cool) and demonizing conservatism (you know, the close minded, drab, accountant-like, dumb and unartistic side) to, in the end, arrive at the fact that tribalism = bad.
I had to LOL at the irony, honestly.
It was at this point I got bored, and i'm not even American, heh.
No? he doesn't. He very clearly and unambiguously argues that both are necessary, and even uses a (somewhat tacky) Yin-Yang analogy to make this point.
Right, after consuming 15+ minutes out of 19 taking a very, very slanted view at things, completely using his own bias filters and misunderstanding of liberal/conservative, then completely ignoring a TON of very interesting data from their moral tests since they would defy the point he's been making.
Like I said, his overall conclusion is "tribalism = bad" which is why the end result is "both are necessary". The irony is the 75-80% of his presentation is total, unadulterated tribalism... and his viewpoint, IMO, is greatly hindered by tribalism.
I'm not sure we saw the same presentation. He went out of his way to show the limitations of Liberalism.
At 0:00 - 10:30 he just introduces the subject matter and the dimensions.
At 10:30 - 11:30 he uses Hieronymous' Bosh's painting as an analogy for why lack of authority or tradition lead to negative social consequences.
At 11:30 - 13:20 he refers to an empirical study that showed how [Conservatively] punishing offenders can lead to social harmony and avert a tragedy of the commons. He even hints at the importance of religion and the belief in God to the pursual of that end.
At 13:20 - 14:00 he suggests that Conservative ideology (i.e. using all the moral dimensions) was the primary causal factor of civilization and says that civilization could not have come about using only the two Liberal dimensions.
At 14:20+ he talks about the importance of both Liberalism and Conservatism.
(Times aren't exact).
He made jokes at the expense of both ideologies iirc.
You see it that way by applying your own filters/biases versus sticking to what is objective vs. what is interpreted.
For example, you didn't mention the conflict on how one moment he defines liberalism being open to new experiences, then explains comically how they would never eat at Applebees, etc. etc.
The very definitions he uses are total fluid prejudice and already designed to force a given ideology.
The entire presentation IS from a very devout, slanted, left viewpoint. The analysis of the data is also taking only a liberal standpoint. The conclusion is rife with such hypocrisy and filters a lot of information as it takes this stance.
The end result is very ironic since it is a display of tribalism that concludes that eliminating tribalism is the first step to actually improving the world.
This graphic is way too simplified and practically useless.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Oh my.
It was so helpful for you to provide an alternative to a talking point that was the first google image.
Infact I tend to prefer a 5 axis model stolen handily from Victoria 2.
Trade - Protectionist - Free Trade
Economic - Planned - State Capitalism - Interventionism - Laissez Faire
Religious - Moralist - Pluralist - Secularist - Anti-theist
Immigration - Residency - Limited Citizenship - Full Citizenship
Military - Jingoist - Pro Military - Anti Military - Pacifism
Some examples:
Obama Democrat
Trade - Protectionist - Middle - Free Trade
Economic - Planned - State Capitalism - Interventionism - Laissez Faire
Religious - Moralist - Pluralist - Secularist - Anti-theist
Immigration - Residency - Limited Citizenship - Full Citizenship
Military - Jingoist - Pro Military - Neither Pro nor Anti Military - Anti Military - Pacifism
George Bush Republican
Trade - Protectionist - Middle - Free Trade
Economic - Planned - State Capitalism - Interventionism - Laissez Faire
Religious - Moralist - Pluralist - Secularist - Anti-theist
Immigration - Residency - Limited Citizenship - Full Citizenship
Military - Jingoist - Somewhere between - Pro Military - Anti Military - Pacifism
Thatcherite
Trade - Protectionist - Free Trade
Economic - Planned - State Capitalism - Interventionism - Laissez Faire
Religious - Moralist - Pluralist - Secularist - Anti-theist
Immigration - Residency - Limited Citizenship - Full Citizenship
Military - Jingoist - Pro Military - Neither pro nor anti - Anti Military - Pacifism
Typical EU Policy Making
Trade - Protectionist - Free Trade
Economic - Planned - State Capitalism - Interventionism - Laissez Faire
Religious - Moralist - Pluralist - Secularist - Anti-theist
Immigration - Residency - Limited Citizenship - Full Citizenship
Military - Jingoist - Pro Military - Anti Military - Pacifism
Nazism
Trade - Protectionist - Free Trade
Economic - Planned - State Capitalism - Interventionism - Laissez Faire
Religious - Moralist - Pluralist - Secularist - Anti-theist
Immigration - Way off the axis - Residency - Limited Citizenship - Full Citizenship
Military - Jingoist - Pro Military - Anti Military - Pacifism
Communism
Trade - Protectionist - Free Trade
Economic - Planned - State Capitalism - Interventionism - Laissez Faire
Religious - Moralist - Pluralist - Secularist - Anti-theist
Immigration - Residency - Limited Citizenship - Full Citizenship - Untested
Military - Jingoist - Pro Military - Anti Military - Pacifism
Last edited by InvisibleJim; 05-20-2013 at 11:04 AM.
This guy is obviously a close-minded hypocrite. And his ideas are fucking delusional. What a wanna-be. He won't eat at Applebee's? I mean, come on, I guess he's open-minded enough not to. All that openness just amazes me... openness to being deluded is what I call it.
I'll be eating at Chez Pierre for dinner myself tonight, maybe Applebee's tomorrow night.
Liberal Americans have low standards. Except for 'organic' food. Who would have thought?
Conservatives tend to prefer fixed, literal interpretations of political and religious documents, which they carry into the here-and-now under the assumption that their interpretations still pervade. Consequentially, their ethical attitude isn't to resist change, per se, but to deny new perspectives that don't fit into their schema. While this attitude is inherently more "rational", it's not necessarily more analytic or attuned to reality. Their rationale may even apply to the sciences.
Liberals tend to be uncertain about fixed interpretations; it seems like what's commonly coined as the "open-mindedness" of liberals is actually an anxious attitude that rejects all perspectives other than ones of a Romantic nature. Sometimes, when liberals forget romanticism, they become nihilists who don't give a shit about the dynamics of culture and politics. This, more or less, probably ties into @InvisibleJim's claim that liberals sometimes hold low standards. At least for themselves.
Conservatives place more faith in the structure that supports them and the void that consumes others, while liberals place more faith in the void they inhabit and the auxiliary structure meant to keep them safe.
You're going to run into paradoxes if you make allegations about political preferences for "open-mindedness", "new experiences", and "familiarity". True open-mindedness entails one's brain fell out of their skull, and true close-mindedness entails that one's brain is just a rotting clump of obsidian.
obvious lib shill
I BELIEVE IT BECAUSE CBS NEWS TOLD ME SO. lol
I think the ideas people have of "what is democrat" and "what is republican" are so extreme and incorrect because people are listening to too much warped news/people that are telling us bullshit non-realities and offering extreme pov.
Conservative does not equal republican and liberal does not equal democrat.
B-but, if I don't villainize the other guy by making erroneous claims about his character, I'll have to blame MYSELF for what's happening to me.
Another interesting thing is his audience, it's as if he's preaching to the converted. TED derp.
TED is just a love in now.
Vid simply classifies people into two (three) political arenas in U.S. denying others which is not really surprising. When you (xerx) do the same on this forum amongst active populace here, you're going to arrive at really hilarious scenes by asking who's liberal and who is conservative.
^ Fear ^_^
A head's up for those that haven't watched it
Posting Permissions
