Opinions about Child Rearing Determine How You Vote

Post Reply New Topic

This proved enormously-helpful for me, and fascinating. My conservative friends I've showed it to say it's spot-on.
What Makes People Vote Republican
"In several large internet surveys, my collaborators Jesse Graham, Brian Nosek and I have found that people who call themselves strongly liberal endorse statements related to the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity foundations, and they largely reject statements related to ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. People who call themselves strongly conservative, in contrast, endorse statements related to all five foundations more or less equally. (You can test yourself at www.YourMorals.org.) We think of the moral mind as being like an audio equalizer, with five slider switches for different parts of the moral spectrum. Democrats generally use a much smaller part of the spectrum than do Republicans. The resulting music may sound beautiful to other Democrats, but it sounds thin and incomplete to many of the swing voters that left the party in the 1980s, and whom the Democrats must recapture if they want to produce a lasting political realignment."

Studying the characteristics of Democrats vs. Conservatives is "abusive" and "offensive"?

Did I misunderstand?

No but the conclusions they draw or what is implied in just about every time a leftist studies the conservative is demeaning, and abuse of science, and offensive precisely for that very reason, because of the abuse of science. This article isn't the best example of it, but I read a study every other month where that is the implication. Every one who does these types of studies should label at the onset that their political persuasion and acknowledge that it may in fact have colored the report.

Conservatives don't question authority?
Conservatives are not independent minded?
Liberals don't respect elders?
Liberals don't have a hierarchy?

Offensive and untrue. The assumptions and framework is the regurgitated in academia, where it emanates from, and said often enough that it is often so easily stated so matter of factly. Hierarchy is how the Left understand the right, much of their movements have been to disrupt that concept of hierarchy to advance equality and social justice, but we on the right do not source our values from hierarchy... our values may create one, that's for another discussion, but it is left wing lens to understand the right, not a right wing animator at the polls.

Well, let's have that discussion about values creating hierarchy. Why are you comfortable with the hierarchy that your values may be creating?

Thank you for that, I especially love to follow through with the yourmorals.org and I'll read the study at work tomorrow.

I've always wondered if liberals are more "F" and conservatives more "T" on the Myers-briggs scale.

So...it's an "abuse of science" if studies result in less-than-flattering conclusions about conservatives?
Again, trying to understand.
Is there a specific part of the methodology you found flawed?


Yes, they are. Those statements also have nothing to do with the conclusions of the study, which were comparative in nature.

Again, is there a specific part of the methodology you're criticizing? I'm confused.

For instance, the vast majority of evolutionary biologists believe in evolution. Should they have to make some kind of declaration of themselves as such?

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 17 Oct 2012, 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Would certainly be interesting.

One of the reasons I like Myers-Briggs is that, unlike a lot of "personality tests", there is no pathological result, merely differences.

I just wonder about it, because 8/10 times I discuss anything with a liberal, I find myself thinking "Can they stop putting so much stock in their f'ing feelings"

Political opinions and worldviews are inherently emotional because they are constructed over a lifetime according to that person's history. There may be an attempt to divorce yourself from your subjectivity to grasp some kind of higher order of reason but if you do to that to too great of a degree then you become apathetic about the issues.

From a psychological point of view, "feelings" precede logic, and for everyone.

Now, those feelings on the part of a liberal might be more empathy-based, vs. a conservative who experiences feelings about different things (disgust response, in-group loyalty, etc), but conscious reasoning on both parts is actually post-hoc, following gut-based responses.

I'm an extremely-solid INTJ, yet I'd imagine you'd call my ethics (and resulting politics) "emotional" relying as they do on a reduction of suffering as the sole imperative. Unless you've discussed something with absolute peons, I highly-doubt a liberal's once said or implied to you that "X is wrong/right because of how it makes me feel." They've likely said something akin to "X is wrong/right because it's in keeping with/violates my ethical imperative (~insert appeal to promotion of happiness/reduction of harm, etc~)." Except for the ethical imperative involved, it's the exact same process for conservatives- we ALL oppose or promote specific things because they involve larger ideals which make us FEEL good or bad. Such is why people can have such fundamentally different worldviews- the reasoning of both is truly-irrelevant to the other, because the foundational premises aren't the same. Those aren't ever discussed, in my experience, because impulsive responses to certain themes is at best sub-conscious.

To imply that feelings and logic-based ethical systems are exclusive (as opposed to definitional in the word "ethics") is to misunderstand human psychology.

Of relevance:
Hume

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."

True.

http://fora.tv/2009/07/04/Antonio_Damas ... th_Feeling


Your emotions tell you what to value, which then guides your reasoning, I also think if you educate your emotions, you sort of do the reversal wherein taking into to account all variables and seeing the gray on a whole host of issues, you end up reacting less strongly to what once drew those strong innocent feelings, and the conclusions, beliefs, and outlook on life that you've newly acquired now guide your emotional reaction to said event, issue, etc.

When beliefs then guide your emotions, gIve the: "Do you think its fair that there are people dying in poverty and people who have vast amounts of wealth" question to any conservative, and they don't immediately see what is in front of them, or the human element in it. All they see is political language of the left, and a precept for leftist policies of economic redistribution. And knowing the reality of the activism of the left, it is fair that they only see policy.

Do conservatives not feel badly for the poor?

Do conservatives not think that there are issues with the way the system is set up that

Well, no on both accounts, they aren't happy with conditions of the poor, and do feel obligations to them via support of charities and certain safety nets(which many of them in their communities are actively involved in), but they do not agree that economic redistribution is the best way to lift them out of poverty. Nor do they view it as unfair because they don't think rich people got rich at poor peoples expense. Their heart is not the source of their answers -- their heart is dependent on how the mind has framed the issue and made peace with the uncomfortable compromises or details that may result from that world view (this sentence applies equally to both sides). We react to political language, which may come off as insensitive and perhaps a bit crass, but that does not mean that conservatives are heartless or are not animated by the heart. Everyone is animated by the heart. But our heart is educated by our mind. This doesn't apply to all issues of course, homosexuality being the obvious one, and many issues concerning that is animated by the heart, and unfortunately, not a good part of the heart for that matter.

Yes, I would assume that you and I share similar foundational premises even though the outcome of what we identify with is different.

I don't imagine jack s**t. You went into a thread directed to other men to b***h at someone who called a woman who completely deserved the title of "b***h," a b***h. Then you started talking BS about how that makes him a sexist, as if a man doesn't deserve to complain about a woman who treated him badly... But that won't stop you from doing the EXACT SAME THING, and then later somehow justifying it because you're a woman. You don't believe in equality; You believe that women should have special privileges, and every single post you make indicates EXACTLY that. You're not fooling anyone. And it would be nice if you'd stop bringing this stupid BS up in every single damn thread you participate in. I doubt the OPs of the other threads are happy about their threads derailing into a feminazi rant all the time.

No... It's polarizing americans further by promoting this idea that you can tell someone's political beliefs by how they choose to raise their children... How stupid are you? They keep making stupid associations between unrelated things. Then when people see either one of those things, they make judgments. Like, someone will see a child being put in time out, and if the person is a republican, he/she will think the other person is a stupid democrat and automatically hate that person for having such different political beliefs, when they know NOTHING about each other's political beliefs. And even if they did, just because people can't agree on everything is no reason to completely hate one another or make assumptions about other beliefs based on the tiny bit that IS known.

We are all one. We are all in the same sinking ship. The more we continue to perpetuate this democrat vs. republican BS, the worse off we're gonna be. Think about it. Most people seem to agree these days that america is going down the shitter, yet nothing ever gets done to fix it because we can't stop fighting and arguing with our neighbors when we SHOULD be fighting pretty much all the politicians. The enemy is not your neighbor. Your neighbor struggles to pay bills like everybody else. Attacking him because he likes or dislikes abortion is ret*d and solves nothing. This is what they want and expect us to do, and you're playing right into it.

Everyone keeps arguing against consequences that they feel will happen instead of arguing against the work.

I'm not. I said it's BS, and I explained why it's BS.