Jump to content

Some Vital Info, Understanding Lib vs. Con (No Bashing)


Recommended Posts

I've been doing some heavy thinking, and I've decided, that it seems I CANNOT help those understand financial, moral, and political principles, who ALREADY have years of their current beliefs fortified, thru group-think, and the massively dishonest and slanted "free press" in our nation.

 

So, as a Compassionate Conservative (as the ladies tell me), I know that UNDERSTANDING a person's beliefs can be greatly helped, by understanding their MOTIVATION....Therefore, I invite Liberals with the intelligence to avoid bashing and name-calling for AT LEAST ONE POST to weigh in, to read at least SOME of these fine Psychiatrists' findings (the piece was MUCH longer, I tried to hit the highlights) - THEY ARE IN NO WAY PARTISAN, THEY ARE STRICTLY SCIENTIFIC!.....

 

 

 

 

************************************************************************************

 

 

The Psychology of Economic Ideology:
Emotion, Motivation, and Moral Intuition

 

 

Jesse Graham, Ravi Iyer, & Peter Meindl
Jesse Graham is Assistant Professor of Psychology and Principle Investigator at the Values, Ideology, and Morality Lab at the University of Southern California. His research is focused on how ideological and moral values shape behavior outside of conscious awareness, and how this varies across individuals and cultures. He has published numerous academic articles on the subject and his work has received press coverage in a variety of media outlets including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and CNN. - (NO PARTISANSHIP HERE! - THIS IS STRICTLY UNBIASED SCIENTIFIC DATA!)
Ravi Iyer is a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Southern California and the Principal Data Scientist for Rank- er.com. His academic research focusses on the psychological dispositions of liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, with an eye towards increasing inter-ideological understanding. His work has been featured in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Reason Magazine and Good Magazine.
Peter Meindl is a graduate student of psychology and researcher at the Values, Ideology, and Morality Lab at the Universi- ty of Southern California.
INTRODUCTION: GOING DEEPER THAN STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION
A popular recent meme on liberal social networks and left aning blogs summarizes ideological differences as follows:
EQUALITY TO A CONSERVATIVE TO A LIBERAL

Shortbox_zpse5c95446.jpg

While the partisan message is clear (only with liberalism's compassionate box-stacking does everyone get to watch baseball), conservative and libertarian critics of liberal equality also helped spread the image, mocking the inherent unfairness of giving some people more than others in order to ensure that outcomes are equal.
What's more fair: giving everyone the same box to stand on (equality of opportunity), or distributing boxes so that everyone ends up in the same position (equality of outcomes)?
Th s confl t over a crudely-drawn picture on the internet illustrates a deep schism in American culture, coloring political debates over a wide range of topics—from affi mative action to health care to economic policy. Political campaigns have spent large amounts of money on strategic communications, trying to use key words or phrases to "frame" such issues in order to appeal to larger portions of the electorate (e.g., Lakoff, 2004). Howev- er, understanding ideological divisions over economic fairness requires going deeper than words and phrases, because these confl ting visions of fairness are rooted in different un- derlying intuitions, emotions, and motivations. Partisans on both sides tend to see their vision of fairness as the only vision a moral person could have, while the other side's vision must be either amoral (based on delusion, stupidity, or factual errors) or downright immor- al (based on greed, dishonesty, or prejudice). However, psychological work on justice and morality provides evidence that both visions of fairness—which we refer to as equity vs. equality—are based on moral intuitions.
Main Point of ThIs Paper :
Our goal is to provide an empirical psychological review of the emotional and cognitive processes underlying economic ideologies, with a focus on fairness intuitions of equity vs. equality. Our main point is that these confl ting intuitions are powerful motivators for po- litical and social behaviors (from voting to demonstrating), and understanding them will be crucial for motivating and enacting any societal changes in economic policy.
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF CURRENT MORAL AND POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY: THE IMPORTANCE OF INTUITIONS AND VALUE PLURALISM
Empirical psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in both morality and political ide- ology in the last 15 years, due in part to increased attention to non-conscious aspects of human thought and behavior (for detailed reviews see Haidt & Kesebir, 2008; Jost, Federico,
For instance, the results of twin studies suggest that political attitudes are partly heritable (Alford, Funk, & Hibbing, 2005). Though it is diffi ult to accurately quantify the influence that genes have on social attitudes, research suggests that about 20% to 40% of variabili- ty in political attitudes is related to people’s genes (Martin et al., 1986). Similarly, recent physiological research has found predictors of ideological beliefs in non-conscious bodily reactions (Dodd et al., 2012). For example, political views can be predicted by physiological responses (startle eye blink, skin conductance) to threatening sounds and pictures (Oxley et al., 2012), with conservatives more automatically reactive than liberals. Finally, psychol- ogists have recently discovered fundamental motivational differences between those on the left and those on the right. For instance, research suggests that conservatives attend more to aversive “avoidance” stimuli, such as perceived threats, whereas liberals attend more to pleasing “approach” stimuli, such as potential rewards; this manifests in debates about mo- rality, with conservatives focused more on preventing the bad and liberals focused more on promoting the good (Janoff ulman, Sheikh, & Hepp, 2009).
Importantly, many critical individual differences affect political thought at an automatic or intuitive level, often outside of conscious awareness or control. One individual difference thought to have a non-conscious impact on policy views is “system justifi ation,” the mo- tivated justifi ation of existing social and economic inequalities (Jost & Hunyady, 2003). Conservatives are more likely than liberals to justify the economic status quo, while liberals are more likely to question the status quo in pursuit of greater economic equality. It is im- portant to note that system justifi ation occurs even when it is against one’s own self-interest to do so; for instance, conservatives who are relatively poor are more likely to justify the current level of economic inequality than poor liberals (Jost, Banaji, &Nosek, 2004).
It is also important to note that while research on left vs. right ideological orientations is often framed as a liberal-conservative dichotomy, most Americans fall in the middle of the spectrum (Pew, 2012), and those on the extreme left and extreme right represent a vocal minority. While cognitive and behavioral sciences have revealed many attitudes and prefer- ences correlated with political ideology, it is thus important to keep in mind that for most Americans there can be some appeal to values most associated with conservatives, and some associated with liberals.
Like ideology, morality is increasingly understood as an intuition-driven phenome- non. As is the case with individual differences in ideology, individual differences in moral thought (judgments, beliefs, and attitudes about what is morally right or wrong) seem to largely derive from unconscious processes. According to Haidt’s Social Intuitionist Model (SIM) of moral judgment and decision-making, most of moral judgment and decision-mak- ing is driven by people’s initial affective intuitions (Haidt, 2001; Haidt & Bjorklund, 2007). Thus, for instance, a person might think that they judge economic inequality to be morally unacceptable because it violates their consciously-held moral ideals, but in actuality their judgment may be primarily driven by a flash of negative emotion (such as disgust) upon hearing about inequality. Th s idea has been substantiated by the results of myriad stud- ies. For instance, disgusting smells and environments can increase the severity of moral judgments (Schnall, Haidt, Clore, & Jordan, 2008), even when disgust is activated through hypnosis (Wheatley & Haidt, 2005). In contrast, positive mood inductions have been shown to decrease the severity of moral judgments, making people more likely to deem a harmful action morally acceptable (Valdesolo & Desteno, 2006)
Ed. Note:.(What this reader gets out of this, is that Liberals make many of their deepest-held beliefs,based on SMELLS ;(must be why , Liberal wannabe hippies, 60's throwbacks to flower children and unrealistic military-loathers walked around in dirty bare feet, and smelled disgusting, washing once a month!- OK, my ONE comment....)
According to Moral Foundations Theory (Graham, Haidt, Koleva, Iyer, Motyl, Wojcik,
& Ditto, 2013; Haidt & Graham, 2007), people have a discrete set of moral intuitions upon which cultures build moral systems, and upon which individuals make moral judgments. According to this view, these intuitive sensitivities to patterns in the social world (e.g., in- stances of cheating or betrayal) act like “moral taste buds” that may become more or less sensitive throughout the lifespan. Current theory suggests that the most important moral foundations are concerns about a) care/harm, B) fairness/cheating, c) group loyalty/betray- al, d) respect/subversion of authority, and e) purity/degradation (Graham et al., 2013).
In addition to work on Moral Foundations Theory, there also exists a substantial amount of research on general (i.e., not necessarily moral) values and personal concerns. One of the most studied sets of values is Shalom Schwartz’ list of 11 theoretically and empirically derived basic human values (self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, se- curity, tradition, conformity, benevolence, and universalism; Schwartz, 1992).
Moral intuitions and values predict political beliefs and behaviors. One of the more important findings of values research is that people’s moral intuitions and values seem to strongly predict their political beliefs, policy stances, and politically-relevant behaviors. While political liberals value care and fairness much more than loyalty, authority, or purity, conservatives value all five foundation-related concerns relatively equally (Graham, Haidt,
& Nosek, 2009). These moral intuitions also appear to predict attitudes about a host of hot-button policy issues (e.g., gay marriage, stem cell research) over and above factors such as political ideology, education, religious attendance, gender, and age (Koleva et al., 2012). Similarly, research demonstrates that people’s values predict their voting behavior—even more so than general personality traits like openness to experience, conscientiousness, ex- traversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability (Caprara, Schwartz, Capanna, & Vecchi- one, 2006). These fi dings suggest that liberals’ and conservatives’ disparate moral intu- itions and values will also play an important role in their beliefs and behaviors concerning economic inequality.
Finally, there is reason to believe that a person’s current moral intuitions and values are amenable to change. For instance, theory suggests that regardless of which moral intuitions dominate a person’s moral thought at present, new moral beliefs may emerge throughout the lifespan if they are attached to the moral senses people possess (Rozin, 1999), and re- search suggests that people’s moral intuitions and values change across the lifespan (Dunlop, Walker, & Matsuba, 2013). Recent research also suggests that people’s current moral intu- itions can be leveraged to change their moral beliefs. For instance, liberals’ intuitive moral concern about equality of outcome can be lessened, in order to increase their support for environmental regulations (Feinberg & Willer, 2013);(THEY CAN BE BOUGHT- JUST AS SOME CONSERVATIVES CAN!) in the same way, it is possible that moral concerns that are seemingly unrelated to economic inequality (e.g., disgust, respect for au- thority, and/or loyalty to one’s ingroup) could potentially be activated in order to increase people’s concerns about economic inequality. Th s possibility will be explored below in sec- tion 5; fi st, we detail the distinct psychological processes underlying intuitions of equality and intuitions of equity.
EQUALITY VS. EQUITY
The distinction between Equity and Equality represents a fundamental cleavage in justice motivation. When research concerning intuitive primacy in moral decision making is taken into account, it is no longer surprising that logically sound rational arguments for liberal (e.g. Rawls, 1971) or conservative (e.g. Rand & Braden, 1964) visions of what constitutes a fair distribution of wealth in society have failed in convincing anyone who did not already subscribe to those respective philosophies. However, just as the intuitionist perspective has shown that while there are multiple moral concerns that people have, there are not an in- fi te number (Graham et al., 2013), so too has research specifi ally on justice and fairness shown that while there are many ways to defi e justice, there are a few specifi ways of de- fi g justice that capture most of the variance that we see in the world.
Many visions of fairness can be grouped into principles that relate to equality, where rewards are distributed equally, and principles that relate to equity, where rewards are distributed in proportion to inputs and deservingness. Th s distinction has a long history in psychology. Morton Deutsch (1975) conducted years of research showing how principles of equity are motivated by productivity goals, while concerns about equality are motivated by social goals. He also posited a third justice principle, need, where rewards are given to those who need it most, yet multiple other research groups (Iyer, Read, & Correia, 2010; Kazemi & Eek, 2007; Rasinski, 1987) have found that the equality and need dimensions of fairness are psychometrically very close to each other. A great deal of research concerns the distinction between groups that care more about equality/need and groups that care more about equity (e.g. people from collectivist vs. individualist cultures; Bem, 1974; Carson & Banuazizi, 2008; Clark & Mills, 1979; Leung & Park, 1986; Rasinski, 1987; Stake, 1985), whereas researchers almost never focus solely on separating groups that care about equality from groups that care about need, suggesting that the distinction between equality and need has little pragmatic utility.
The Equality/Equity distinction maps onto other basic psychological distinctions. This is not to say that it is impossible to distinguish other justice motivations from equality or equity. Rather, the distinction between equality and equity maps onto prominent broad distinctions in psychology between communal vs. agentic goals (Bem, 1974), approach vs. avoidance motivations (Janoff ulman et al., 2009), liberal vs. conservative morality (Lakoff, 2004), warmth vs. competence (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002), and masculine vs. feminine culture (Hofstede, 1984), such that most posited justice principles are classi- fiable in terms of this fundamental cleavage. For example, Tom Tyler (e.g. Tyler & Lind, 1992) has done a great deal of research on procedural justice, yet procedural justice may simply concern the allocation of socio-emotional goods (e.g., Tornblom & Foa, 1983), and judgments of outcomes and procedures are highly correlated (Hauenstein, McGonigle, & Flinder, 2001).
Finer distinctions made by researchers may be useful in certain domains. However, this broad distinction underlies the important political differences we see today, in terms of the debate between those who want to create a society that rewards our most productive (e.g., fiscal conservatives) and those who want to create a society that provides a relatively equal distribution of wealth (e.g., populist liberals).(NO MATTER WHETHER THEY WORK OR NOT, NO MATTER WHETHER THEY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SOCIETY, OR ONLY DRAIN FROM IT.)
Why do some people endorse equality while others focus on equity? Neuroscientists and evolutionary psychologists have connected moral reasoning with social function, sum- marized by the phrase “moral thinking is for social doing” (Haidt, 2007).
CONCLUSION
Opinions about economic fairness are based in part on intuitive responses to signs of fair- ness and unfairness. People can radically disagree about the merits of different economic policies because there are multiple kinds of fairness intuitions. In this paper we have focused on intuitions of equity (involving values of work ethic and proportionality) and intuitions of equality (involving values of care and compassion), and the distinct goals and motivations associated with each. Different ideological temperaments (liberal vs. conservative) and sit- uations (scarcity vs. plenty) can give rise to different emotions, motivations, and intuitions that support caring about one or the other. Changing public sentiment about economic policies, then, will largely concern evoking the right emotions and intuitions (more caring/ hope, less outrage/scarcity/fear if you want more equality), and this will be more complicat- ed than simply using the right buzzwords.
While equity/equality is a fundamental dichotomy in justice research, and individuals differ in which vision of fairness they most often resonate with, it should be noted that equality and equity are both values that everyone cares about to some degree. Confl ts be- tween these values are not just interpersonal, as in liberal-conservative debates, but intrap- ersonal, with individuals feeling confl ts between different moral intuitions of what’s right and what’s wrong. Appeals that address equity concerns as well as equality concerns—for example by stressing equality of opportunity as well as equality of outcomes—could have the greatest impact, by resolving these confl ting moral visions we all share.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, everything has a way of equaling out. For instance : The wealthy have ice in the Summer & the Poor have ice in the Winter. There ya have it. Seriously. I was raised to be proud of hard work - to never look at any job as beneath me. I have made big bucks & I have struggled to survive; but I never ever believed someone owed me a living. Just me. Retired now & helping to raise grandkids. Not easy, but life is not easy. Just gotta tough it out & not cry the feckin blues. Nobody owes you shiit - regardless of what some clown in DC has to say. You were born alone & you will die alone; so, ya try to make the best of it. Waaaaaaaaaaaa


I mean nobody owes anybody - except for me. The British owe me for enslaving my Irish ancestors. OK Who the feck do I call to get my reparations?


History Lesson On Liberals & Conservatives

For those who don't know about history ... Here is a condensed version:

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer.


These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals
2. Conservatives

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery.




That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. They became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided
.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass for obvious reasons.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men.



Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood, and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.


Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud or Miller. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, engineers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history!

It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to
angrily respond to the above before forwarding it. However, they will probably just delete it!

A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off.

And there you have it. Let your next action reveal your true self. I'm going to have another beer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why woulodn't the larger kid put the smaller child on his shoulders then there would only need be one box. the the middle sized brat could take turns carrying the smaller one.

 

Psychological bull spit.

 

then there is this thing about buying a ticket to the game. these 3 brats are stealing the entertainment.others pay for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...