What do you make of psychologist Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations theory?

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Basically he says that there are six essential moral foundations (care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation) and that the policy differences between conservatives and liberals come down to which they value and how they prioritize them. In his view, liberals stress the first three, while conservatives consider each more or less equally.

Here's his website about it: Home moralfoundations.org
Here's an older talk about it in his own words: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives - Jonathan Haidt TED-Ed

 

[Pogo]

Basically he says that there are six essential moral foundations (care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation) and that the policy differences between conservatives and liberals come down to which they value and how they prioritize them. In his view, liberals stress the first three, while conservatives consider each more or less equally.

Here's his website about it: Home moralfoundations.org
Here's an older talk about it in his own words: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives - Jonathan Haidt TED-Ed

"First three" means the first three pairs, right?

I like the essential reductions but Liberalism is in effect the opposite of Authoritarianism so that would involve number five. The first, fourth and sixth are personality traits, not political philosophies.

 

[occupied]

Love the Tedtalks. I had seen this one before but I watched it again and I find it to be fairly accurate.

 

[JoshuaZ]

It goes against a lot of my intuitions but the data behind it seems robust. I do think there may be causation v. correlation issues involved, in that someone in one end or the other may be more use to hearing arguments of certain types and so they may adopt them more. I'd really like to see if one could somehow use where people stand on these issues when they are young as a way of predicting what parties and politics they affiliate with later. Of course, it would be difficult to control for the fact that there's pretty heavy overlap between the politics of parents and their children, so one would need to control for that.

It is also worth noting that there's a lot of work now by people other than Haidt which back up aspects of his ideas. For example, it turns out that emphasizing purity aspects helps a lot more to get conservatives to support environmental causes, and emphasizing US energy independence helps to get them to support alternative energy. This is discussed with references in Maggie Koerth-Baker's book "Before the Lights Go Out" about the history and future of the American electric grid and related issues.

 

[Misty]

Basically he says that there are six essential moral foundations (care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation) and that the policy differences between conservatives and liberals come down to which they value and how they prioritize them. In his view, liberals stress the first three, while conservatives consider each more or less equally.

Here's his website about it: Home moralfoundations.org
Here's an older talk about it in his own words: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives - Jonathan Haidt TED-Ed

"First three" means the first three pairs, right?

I like the essential reductions but Liberalism is in effect the opposite of Authoritarianism so that would involve number five. The first, fourth and sixth are personality traits, not political philosophies.

I disagree. Government is authoritarian. Liberals and republicans both represent authoritarianism in different ways.

 

[deltex1]

How did these moral foundations evolve...passed down from monkey to monkey?

 

[occupied]

Basically he says that there are six essential moral foundations (care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation) and that the policy differences between conservatives and liberals come down to which they value and how they prioritize them. In his view, liberals stress the first three, while conservatives consider each more or less equally.

Here's his website about it: Home moralfoundations.org
Here's an older talk about it in his own words: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives - Jonathan Haidt TED-Ed

"First three" means the first three pairs, right?

I like the essential reductions but Liberalism is in effect the opposite of Authoritarianism so that would involve number five. The first, fourth and sixth are personality traits, not political philosophies.

I disagree. Government is authoritarian. Liberals and republicans both represent authoritarianism in different ways.

I do not see a lot of classical authoritarianism on the left. Tough talking, angry, scapegoating, militaristic, nationalistic leaders do not really appeal to us. Care to explain further?

 

[deltex1]

Basically he says that there are six essential moral foundations (care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation) and that the policy differences between conservatives and liberals come down to which they value and how they prioritize them. In his view, liberals stress the first three, while conservatives consider each more or less equally.

Here's his website about it: Home moralfoundations.org
Here's an older talk about it in his own words: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives - Jonathan Haidt TED-Ed

"First three" means the first three pairs, right?

I like the essential reductions but Liberalism is in effect the opposite of Authoritarianism so that would involve number five. The first, fourth and sixth are personality traits, not political philosophies.

I disagree. Government is authoritarian. Liberals and republicans both represent authoritarianism in different ways.

I do not see a lot of classical authoritarianism on the left. Tough talking, angry, scapegoating, militaristic, nationalistic leaders do not really appeal to us. Care to explain further?

Obabbble avoids militarism and nationalism like the plague. He excels at scapegoating.

 

[occupied]

How did these moral foundations evolve...passed down from monkey to monkey?

As the video explains, it's part of the tribal psychology that mankind lived with for eons until the rise of cities and nations. The point is that both groups serve a purpose and neither can long survive without each other. Liberals serve to drive social/technological innovation and exploration of new resources, conservatives are guardians of stability and tradition.

 

[deltex1]

I take it Mohammed missed the briefing.

 

[occupied]

I take it Mohammed missed the briefing.

??? You didn't watch the video and have no intention of watching it, why are you commenting?

 

[deltex1]

I did not know that exhaustive research was required to post opinions here.

 

[occupied]

I did not know that exhaustive research was required to post opinions here.

Watching a 18 minute video is hardly exhaustive research. Are you afraid you might learn something?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Societies generally begin as conservative and over time they progress to liberal. When there are few people you have to embrace a lot more selfishness just to survive, even though there is some socialism, i.e. people help each other build barns etc. But in really hard times people are selfish.

Later after the society is established and the fight for mere survival has receded, a more liberal attitude takes place, i.e. as there is more abundance the community of humans extend more help to those having trouble surviving on their own, like those with mental problems, people that are crippled and can't hunt or work, older members of the tribe or society.

Modern conservatism in America is simply an artificial attempt to make that animalistic selfishness a noble thing. But it isn't. Certainly everyone feeds and houses their own family but in advanced human societies the collective wealth and energy supports those that can't support themselves.

In America this artificial attempt to keep animalistic selfishness as the norm is driven by the very few wealthy who are themselves mental children and do not want to help anyone with anything, so they spend energy and money on convincing (or as in America with Fox News and conservative-talk-radio, brainwashing) millions into helping them keep selfishness as a noble trait.

Again, it isn't. It is an animal leaving others to die because why should you help them in a dog-eat-dog world.

Conservatives are human beings that never grow up entirely. They are forever rabid children on a deserted island fighting for food.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Societies generally begin as conservative and over time they progress to liberal. When there are few people you have to embrace a lot more selfishness just to survive, even though there is some socialism, i.e. people help each other build barns etc. But in really hard times people are selfish.

Later after the society is established and the fight for mere survival has receded, a more liberal attitude takes place, i.e. as there is more abundance the community of humans extend more help to those having trouble surviving on their own, like those with mental problems, people that are crippled and can't hunt or work, older members of the tribe or society.

Modern conservatism in America is simply an artificial attempt to make that animalistic selfishness a noble thing. But it isn't. Certainly everyone feeds and houses their own family but in advanced human societies the collective wealth and energy supports those that can't support themselves.

In America this artificial attempt to keep animalistic selfishness as the norm is driven by the very few wealthy who are themselves mental children and do not want to help anyone with anything, so they spend energy and money on convincing (or as in America with Fox News and conservative-talk-radio, brainwashing) millions into helping them keep selfishness as a noble trait.

Again, it isn't. It is an animal leaving others to die because why should you help them in a dog-eat-dog world.

Conservatives are human beings that never grow up entirely. They are forever rabid children on a deserted island fighting for food.

I should have clarified. I wasn't talking about US economics. I was talking about the two social tendencies. That's what the video and the website are about, and what the theory concerns itself with. It's also the subject of a book Professor Haidt wrote on the subject called The Righteous Mind.

"Moral Foundations Theory was created by a group of social and cultural psychologists (see us here) to understand why morality varies so much across cultures yet still shows so many similarities and recurrent themes. In brief, the theory proposes that several innate and universally available psychological systems are the foundations of “intuitive ethics.” Each culture then constructs virtues, narratives, and institutions on top of these foundations, thereby creating the unique moralities we see around the world, and conflicting within nations too."

"Much of our present research involves applying the theory to political "cultures" such as those of liberals and conservatives. The current American culture war, we have found, can be seen as arising from the fact that liberals try to create a morality relying primarily on the Care/harm foundation, with additional support from the Fairness/cheating and Liberty/oppression foundations. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, use all six foundations, including Loyatly/betrayal, Authority/subversion, and Sanctity/degradation."

 

[deltex1]

Societies generally begin as conservative and over time they progress to liberal. When there are few people you have to embrace a lot more selfishness just to survive, even though there is some socialism, i.e. people help each other build barns etc. But in really hard times people are selfish.

Later after the society is established and the fight for mere survival has receded, a more liberal attitude takes place, i.e. as there is more abundance the community of humans extend more help to those having trouble surviving on their own, like those with mental problems, people that are crippled and can't hunt or work, older members of the tribe or society.

Modern conservatism in America is simply an artificial attempt to make that animalistic selfishness a noble thing. But it isn't. Certainly everyone feeds and houses their own family but in advanced human societies the collective wealth and energy supports those that can't support themselves.

In America this artificial attempt to keep animalistic selfishness as the norm is driven by the very few wealthy who are themselves mental children and do not want to help anyone with anything, so they spend energy and money on convincing (or as in America with Fox News and conservative-talk-radio, brainwashing) millions into helping them keep selfishness as a noble trait.

Again, it isn't. It is an animal leaving others to die because why should you help them in a dog-eat-dog world.

Conservatives are human beings that never grow up entirely. They are forever rabid children on a deserted island fighting for food.

The only interest liberals have in the poor is getting them to vote democratic. Liberals have been feeding a line to blacks for over 50 years. Blacks are only now waking up.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Faux News is the kkk in other clothing.

Amazing how conservatives believe they can hide who they really are. Look at a klan rally, look at a Tea Bagger rally, look at a Republican convention. They are the same. The Republicans bring in some people of color to try to portray themselves as inclusive but they only fool other conservatives.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Faux News is the kkk in other clothing.

Amazing how conservatives believe they can hide who they really are. Look at a klan rally, look at a Tea Bagger rally, look at a Republican convention. They are the same. The Republicans bring in some people of color to try to portray themselves as inclusive but they only fool other conservatives.

You really should read the book I mentioned. It might help you understand why you're doing this.

The Righteous Mind Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt 9780307455772 Paperback Barnes Noble

 

[Pogo]

Basically he says that there are six essential moral foundations (care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation) and that the policy differences between conservatives and liberals come down to which they value and how they prioritize them. In his view, liberals stress the first three, while conservatives consider each more or less equally.

Here's his website about it: Home moralfoundations.org
Here's an older talk about it in his own words: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives - Jonathan Haidt TED-Ed

"First three" means the first three pairs, right?

I like the essential reductions but Liberalism is in effect the opposite of Authoritarianism so that would involve number five. The first, fourth and sixth are personality traits, not political philosophies.

I disagree. Government is authoritarian. Liberals and republicans both represent authoritarianism in different ways.

Government can be authoritarian, or not, by degrees. But to suggest all government is by definition authoritarian is radical anarchy.

Liberalism and Authoritarianism are by nature mutually antagonistic/exclusive.
On the other hand "Liberals" and "Republicans" are not opposites. They're not even the same element.

 

[bripat9643]

Basically he says that there are six essential moral foundations (care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation) and that the policy differences between conservatives and liberals come down to which they value and how they prioritize them. In his view, liberals stress the first three, while conservatives consider each more or less equally.

Here's his website about it: Home moralfoundations.org
Here's an older talk about it in his own words: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives - Jonathan Haidt TED-Ed

"First three" means the first three pairs, right?

I like the essential reductions but Liberalism is in effect the opposite of Authoritarianism so that would involve number five. The first, fourth and sixth are personality traits, not political philosophies.

ROFL! Liberalism is authoritarianism made into a religion.

Who do you think you're kidding?