Conservatives more fearful than liberals

[untermensche]

I think fear explains a lot of differences.

Two are rational criteria to make moral judgements (harm and fairness) and the other three are emotional irrational criteria.

Humans are only partially evolved when it comes to morality.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yeah, the thing is, you almost never post about that stuff. But congrats on being a liberal icon. Your mindset is just like George Soros.

You must have strained to miss it. My thread with Eddie was very long and active. My thread about universal basic income was also very long and active. My support of Bernie over Hillary was also very common. In all three cases we had people calling themselves liberals and who call me conservative, taking the more conservative stance. I get called a conservative on this board because I'm not a team player in the little gang here that likes to attack conservatives with juvenile name calling, and I'm not afraid to recognize when conservatives make interesting observations and points. Jordan Peterson, for example, is sensible in most (but not all) of what he says. Ben Shapiro has a few excellent points from time to time. So does Larry Elder. Even Tommy Robinson has had a rare good point here and there. Just because they are conservative, and we won't agree with much they say, doesn't mean we need to resort to a tribal mentality and dismiss them as always wrong and evil because they are the other side. That's, again, Fallwell style.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Could you please elaborate on "Falwell's style"?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think fear explains a lot of differences.

Two are rational criteria to make moral judgements (harm and fairness) and the other three are emotional irrational criteria.

Humans are only partially evolved when it comes to morality.

I think the other 3 (Purity, Authority, Ingroup) evolved for good reason in us as humans, and exist in some extent in all of us (even in the very liberal people as seen in that graph). Having strong ingroup identity and authoritarian thinking does make for a more socially cohesive ingroup. It is why conservatives are so much easier to organize than liberals. Organizing liberals is like herding cats, yes? Strong ingroup identity also has been shown to mean kinder behaviour to those within your group (and meaner behaviour towards those outside of it). Tribalism is the flipside of empathy to a large extent.

Purity I think evolved as our "yuck!" reflex, first to environmental dangers, and then extended to the social and psychological. I don't see any value in it today. I wonder how conservatives would explain why it matters, without pointing towards religion.

Can any conservatives here comment on that? Why does "purity" matter to a conservative atheist? Or does it?

 

[laughing dog]

LOL Maybe I am a trans liberal. ooooooo

As usual, you miss the point. We are under no obligation to believe your claims about your political identity based on your say so. Of course, you are free to continue with your hypocritical double standards.

My political identity isn't relevant, and was only mentioned because Jimmy demanded it. But your demand to brand me as something despite what I write to the contrary is.

You persist in that straw man. I am not demanding to brand you at all. I don't give a rats' ass what you feel is your political identity. I challenge you to produce an actual quote from this thread that brands you.

I am pointing out your rank hypocrisy - you expect everyone to accept your political identity based on your say so while refusing to accept someone's gender identity based on his/her say so.

It is rare that you see somebody mischaracterize another and then insist that the other has no proof they are not the mischaracterization, and that he is entitled to create strawmen. And then ironically complain that somebody may have mischaracterized himself.

It is not rare - it is exactly what you are doing.

This is quite a comedy routine....blah blah blah......

This is all based on your delusional straw men.

 

[Angry Floof]

I think fear explains a lot of differences.

Tribalism within a tribe of seven billion. Conservatism is maladaptive to a peaceful world for this reason. They can't relate to other humans outside of a group identity that is conceptual in nature.

 

[rousseau]

Would be interesting to know if the political spectrum is evolving physiologically? Since it's indeed a genetic spectrum, I wonder if one side or the other reproduces at a faster rate.

In other words, does liberalism or conservatism confer more survival benefits? Or do we regress to the centre and over-liberalism/conservatism are maladaptive?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Would be interesting to know if the political spectrum is evolving physiologically? Since it's indeed a genetic spectrum, I wonder if one side or the other reproduces at a faster rate.

In other words, does liberalism or conservatism confer more survival benefits? Or do we regress to the centre and over-liberalism/conservatism are maladaptive?

Liberalism tends to target the aspects that allow community and what led to the human species rise, emotion and caring. The conservatism tends to target the old school psychotic and evil which was more beneficial prior to communities in order to move on your line of the species. Conservatives also smell funny.

 

[untermensche]

I think fear explains a lot of differences.

Two are rational criteria to make moral judgements (harm and fairness) and the other three are emotional irrational criteria.

Humans are only partially evolved when it comes to morality.

I think the other 3 (Purity, Authority, Ingroup) evolved for good reason in us as humans, and exist in some extent in all of us (even in the very liberal people as seen in that graph). Having strong ingroup identity and authoritarian thinking does make for a more socially cohesive ingroup. It is why conservatives are so much easier to organize than liberals. Organizing liberals is like herding cats, yes? Strong ingroup identity also has been shown to mean kinder behaviour to those within your group (and meaner behaviour towards those outside of it). Tribalism is the flipside of empathy to a large extent.

Purity I think evolved as our "yuck!" reflex, first to environmental dangers, and then extended to the social and psychological. I don't see any value in it today. I wonder how conservatives would explain why it matters, without pointing towards religion.

Can any conservatives here comment on that? Why does "purity" matter to a conservative atheist? Or does it?

There has to be a distinction drawn between respect for the authority of laws devised in a free and open and fair way and a desire to follow some person of authority.

One is rational and one is primitive.

 

[rousseau]

Would be interesting to know if the political spectrum is evolving physiologically? Since it's indeed a genetic spectrum, I wonder if one side or the other reproduces at a faster rate.

In other words, does liberalism or conservatism confer more survival benefits? Or do we regress to the centre and over-liberalism/conservatism are maladaptive?

Liberalism tends to target the aspects that allow community and what led to the human species rise, emotion and caring. The conservatism tends to target the old school psychotic and evil which was more beneficial prior to communities in order to move on your line of the species. Conservatives also smell funny.

Agreed, the question really is which of those traits lead to the production of more babies.

Societies do tend to get more liberal over time but who knows if that can be attributed to cultural changes or not.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Would be interesting to know if the political spectrum is evolving physiologically? Since it's indeed a genetic spectrum, I wonder if one side or the other reproduces at a faster rate.

In other words, does liberalism or conservatism confer more survival benefits? Or do we regress to the centre and over-liberalism/conservatism are maladaptive?

Haidt believes we need a balance, that liberals are the ones who push technology and ideas ahead and conservatives are the ones that keep them spinning out of control. His research shows that liberals tend to be better at starting new business ventures, for example, and conservatives tend to be better at keeping them going once established.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Would be interesting to know if the political spectrum is evolving physiologically? Since it's indeed a genetic spectrum, I wonder if one side or the other reproduces at a faster rate.

In other words, does liberalism or conservatism confer more survival benefits? Or do we regress to the centre and over-liberalism/conservatism are maladaptive?

Liberalism tends to target the aspects that allow community and what led to the human species rise, emotion and caring. The conservatism tends to target the old school psychotic and evil which was more beneficial prior to communities in order to move on your line of the species. Conservatives also smell funny.

Agreed, the question really is which of those traits lead to the production of more babies.

Whatever helps communities survive helps the species survive. Of course, we've gotten to a point where things are so relatively comfortable, we start being dumbness. Take vaccines for instance. Undisputed success, yet... despite the success, you have people out there railing against them because they don't know what the fuck the Asperger's Spectrum is and why that is responsible for the 'explosion' of Autism diagnoses.

Societies do tend to get more liberal over time but who knows if that can be attributed to cultural changes or not.

Pretty much we continue to discard stuff that we thought was true when we learn it wasn't actually true. That takes time.

 

[bilby]

The conflation of the orthogonal political axes 'Liberal/Authoritarian' and 'Left/Right' is not helpful here.

There are Authoritarians (and Liberals) at both ends of the political spectrum. Today, Right-Authoritarians are typically irrationally scared of 'big government', foreigners (particularly immigrants), and crime; Left-Authoritarians are typically irrationally scared of vaccines, GMOs and nuclear power.

Liberals (of both political persuasions) are less likely to be fearful, even though they may tend to be wary of the things their authoritarian brethren fear. None of these six things are actually serious threats to people in the developed world.

 

[Elixir]

None of these six things are actually serious threats to people in the developed world.

That's true, as long as I have those crystals inside the pyramid hanging over my bed.

Agreed, the question really is which of those traits lead to the production of more babies.

"... more babies that survive to reproductive age" [/niggle]
That can be (and has been in the past) a significant factor for the survival of a culture.

 

[Angry Floof]

The conflation of the orthogonal political axes 'Liberal/Authoritarian' and 'Left/Right' is not helpful here.

There are Authoritarians (and Liberals) at both ends of the political spectrum. Today, Right-Authoritarians are typically irrationally scared of 'big government', foreigners (particularly immigrants), and crime; Left-Authoritarians are typically irrationally scared of vaccines, GMOs and nuclear power.

Liberals (of both political persuasions) are less likely to be fearful, even though they may tend to be wary of the things their authoritarian brethren fear. None of these six things are actually serious threats to people in the developed world.

What you call "left authoritarians" are no such thing. They may be wing nuts but they are not blindly following an authority, or punishing/eradicating outgroups, or lacking in empathy or inclusiveness, or afraid of change/progress/otherness.

What definition for "authoritarian" are you using? If you mean "dogmatically and contentiously forwarding nonsense," that's not what authoritarian means. What it does mean is a serious threat to the developed world.

 

[bilby]

The conflation of the orthogonal political axes 'Liberal/Authoritarian' and 'Left/Right' is not helpful here.

There are Authoritarians (and Liberals) at both ends of the political spectrum. Today, Right-Authoritarians are typically irrationally scared of 'big government', foreigners (particularly immigrants), and crime; Left-Authoritarians are typically irrationally scared of vaccines, GMOs and nuclear power.

Liberals (of both political persuasions) are less likely to be fearful, even though they may tend to be wary of the things their authoritarian brethren fear. None of these six things are actually serious threats to people in the developed world.

What you call "left authoritarians" are no such thing. They may be wing nuts but they are not blindly following an authority, or punishing/eradicating outgroups, or lacking in empathy or inclusiveness, or afraid of change/progress/otherness.

What definition for "authoritarian" are you using? If you mean "dogmatically and contentiously forwarding nonsense," that's not what authoritarian means. What it does mean is a serious threat to the developed world.

On the contrary, I see people on the political left who are authoritarians all the time. They are far fewer in number than they used to be, but they are assuredly doing all of those things - blindly following authority, punishing or eradicating outgroups, lacking in empathy or inclusiveness, and afraid of change, progress and/or otherness. Perhaps they are absent in the USA; But they certainly exist here.

And what is dogmatism, if not blindly following an authority?

The right wing has cornered the market in authoritarianism in recent decades, but it still hasn't established a monopoly on it. And Left-Authoritarianism, like it's more powerful sibling on the political Right, is also largely driven by fear.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What you call "left authoritarians" are no such thing. They may be wing nuts but they are not blindly following an authority, or punishing/eradicating outgroups, or lacking in empathy or inclusiveness, or afraid of change/progress/otherness.

I used to see that exclusively on the right, but in recent years I actually have noticed this more and more on the left. Moreso the punishing outgroups, lacking empathy, and being afraid of otherness than the authority following though. The latter is still very rare on the left.

 

[Angry Floof]

Every human has the capacity for these traits and behaviors, especially in fearful conditions. But they don't necessarily make a personality out of it. They don't necessarily run anyone's life just because they exhibit them from time to time.

The link in my signature provides a lot more info on this. Also, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

Literally everyone favors their own views and customs, and everyone has the capacity to act like an asshole about it. But the political left and the liberal mentality do not live out these traits consistently. Find any leftie you think is "authoritarian" and ask them the questions on the authoritarian scale assessment. We're talking about a personality, a way of thinking, not transient attitudes in contentious times.

 

[lpetrich]

Prof. Altemeyer, in his book on authoritarianism, states:

You could have left-wing authoritarian followers as well, who support a revolutionary leader who wants to overthrow the establishment. I knew a few in the 1970s, Marxist university students who constantly spouted their chosen authorities, Lenin or Trotsky or Chairman Mao. Happily they spent most of their time fighting with each other, as lampooned in Monty Python’s Life of Brian where the People’s Front of Judea devotes most of its energy to battling, not the Romans, but the Judean People’s Front. But the left-wing authoritarians on my campus disappeared long ago. Similarly in America “the Weathermen” blew away in the wind. I’m sure one can find left-wing authoritarians here and there, but they hardly exist in sufficient numbers now to threaten democracy in North America. However I have found bucketfuls of right-wing authoritarians in nearly every sample I have drawn in Canada and the United States for the past three decades. So when I speak of “authoritarian followers” in this book I mean right-wing authoritarian followers, as identified by the RWA scale.

So it's hard to do research on left-wing authoritarians. There aren't very many of them.