Moral Stereotypes
If I were in a Trollish mood I would simply leave these here and watch the fireworks ;)
Liberals are less tolerant of divergant viewpoints.
and
Conservatives Understand Liberals, But Liberals don’t get Conservatives. (AKA Conservatives are better at empathy :P)
However, both studies raise an interesting point that may give some insight into how to bridge the partisan gap.
In a recent study published by the University of Virginia, Dr.s Jesse Graham, Brian A. Nosek, and Jonathan Haidt, attempted to assess the moral priorities of self-identified Liberals and Conservatives. They also asked those same Liberals and Conservatives how they thought their opposite number would respond to similar questions.
Their initial hypothesis was that moderates would be best at predicting the behavior of partisans from either side followed by Liberals. What they found was that Liberal partisans were infact the least able to predict how a Moderate or Conservative would react in a given scenario, while Moderates and Conservatives achieved a near parity.
Despite the typical stereotype of Liberals advocating the "greater good" and Conservatives advocating individualism they found that ...In reality, liberals endorse the individual-focused moral concerns of compassion and fairness more than conservatives do, and conservatives endorse the group-focused moral concerns of ingroup loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and physical/spiritual purity more than liberals do.
Haidt theorizes that the Liberal's difficulty predicting the behavior of Conservatives or Moderates hinges on the idea that it is easier for an individual to subtract a variable from his or her descision-making process than to add a new one. In fact the some of the manifestations of the so-called "group-focused moral concerns" are in themselves viewed as immoral by many Liberals. "Ingroup Loyalty" can manifest itself as Patriotism, Racism, or mistrust of outsiders, and "Respect for authority/tradition" can result in opposition to "needed" reforms or revolution. (I don't even want to touch the issue of "purity")
I recently started reading Haidt's Book and while I think he's on to something the book is clearly written from Left-wing perspective so I'm going to throw in my own $0.02.
While Haidt and his fellow researchers focus on the varying priority levels assigned to what they call "group-focused" or "binding" moral concerns I think the distinction is a bit simpler and more fundemental. Afterall you see "Ingroup Loyalty" (Identity Politics) and "Physical/Spiritual Purity" (The Enviromentalist Movement) from the Left as well as the right.
I would assert the real dividing line is in how the individuals on the left and right view Contracts. I'm sure we've all heard the old saw about how "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up" but how many of us have stopped to consider what that statement actaully says? Is the harm done by a given act really less of an issue than the dishonesty of trying to conceal it?
I would answer "Yes". Furthermore, I would hypothise that a survey of those who answered "Yes" vs. "No" would closely reflect the split between those who identify themselves as "Left" vs. "Right" wing.
Personally I feel that internal consitency and honesty are integeral to morality and as such I put a great deal of stock in contracts. I will do my best to honor any contract (written, verbal, or social) that I enter into even to the point were it may bring harm to myself or others. Likewise I'll feel guilty and ashamed of myself about reneging on a contract even if I had an unassailable reason for doing so.
Upon reflection I suspect that this is why I find myself arguing due process for Zimmerman and spend half my posts arguing semantics.
X-Posted to Conservatalk
Liberals are less tolerant of divergant viewpoints.
and
Conservatives Understand Liberals, But Liberals don’t get Conservatives. (AKA Conservatives are better at empathy :P)
However, both studies raise an interesting point that may give some insight into how to bridge the partisan gap.
In a recent study published by the University of Virginia, Dr.s Jesse Graham, Brian A. Nosek, and Jonathan Haidt, attempted to assess the moral priorities of self-identified Liberals and Conservatives. They also asked those same Liberals and Conservatives how they thought their opposite number would respond to similar questions.
Their initial hypothesis was that moderates would be best at predicting the behavior of partisans from either side followed by Liberals. What they found was that Liberal partisans were infact the least able to predict how a Moderate or Conservative would react in a given scenario, while Moderates and Conservatives achieved a near parity.
Despite the typical stereotype of Liberals advocating the "greater good" and Conservatives advocating individualism they found that ...In reality, liberals endorse the individual-focused moral concerns of compassion and fairness more than conservatives do, and conservatives endorse the group-focused moral concerns of ingroup loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and physical/spiritual purity more than liberals do.
Haidt theorizes that the Liberal's difficulty predicting the behavior of Conservatives or Moderates hinges on the idea that it is easier for an individual to subtract a variable from his or her descision-making process than to add a new one. In fact the some of the manifestations of the so-called "group-focused moral concerns" are in themselves viewed as immoral by many Liberals. "Ingroup Loyalty" can manifest itself as Patriotism, Racism, or mistrust of outsiders, and "Respect for authority/tradition" can result in opposition to "needed" reforms or revolution. (I don't even want to touch the issue of "purity")
I recently started reading Haidt's Book and while I think he's on to something the book is clearly written from Left-wing perspective so I'm going to throw in my own $0.02.
While Haidt and his fellow researchers focus on the varying priority levels assigned to what they call "group-focused" or "binding" moral concerns I think the distinction is a bit simpler and more fundemental. Afterall you see "Ingroup Loyalty" (Identity Politics) and "Physical/Spiritual Purity" (The Enviromentalist Movement) from the Left as well as the right.
I would assert the real dividing line is in how the individuals on the left and right view Contracts. I'm sure we've all heard the old saw about how "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up" but how many of us have stopped to consider what that statement actaully says? Is the harm done by a given act really less of an issue than the dishonesty of trying to conceal it?
I would answer "Yes". Furthermore, I would hypothise that a survey of those who answered "Yes" vs. "No" would closely reflect the split between those who identify themselves as "Left" vs. "Right" wing.
Personally I feel that internal consitency and honesty are integeral to morality and as such I put a great deal of stock in contracts. I will do my best to honor any contract (written, verbal, or social) that I enter into even to the point were it may bring harm to myself or others. Likewise I'll feel guilty and ashamed of myself about reneging on a contract even if I had an unassailable reason for doing so.
Upon reflection I suspect that this is why I find myself arguing due process for Zimmerman and spend half my posts arguing semantics.
X-Posted to Conservatalk