Stumble This | You should also watch “The differences between American and Canadian kittens” |
ted,talks,liberals,conservatives,morals,purity,authority,jonathan haidt The Difference Between Democrats and Republicans - TED
Comments 
ted,talks,liberals,conservatives,morals,purity,authority,jonathan haidt The Difference Between Democrats and Republicans - TED |
Besides, this is correlative evidence, not causal.
Trying to explain someone's political opinion based on science is a little undemocratic, and combined with such loaded terms it's not far from considering outlawing the "defectives"
Since when is human behavior off-limits to science?
I'm not sure what you're advocating as an alternative to science, but unless it can send humans to the moon and extend the average human lifespan from 20-30 to 77, I quite doubt that it can replace science as a means of inquiry as readily as your argument implies.
>> ^Crake:
Trying to explain...
Since when is...
my point is that democracy works on the assumption of free will, and if you start trying to second-guess (yeah yeah, a favorite republican word, but hear me out) the voters' motivation or level of ignorance, you encroach on the assumption democracy rests on: that the common man knows what's best for himself.
this might not always be correct, but it's a necessary construct for having a civilized society. so sure, make liberal-ish studies about how republicans are naturally authoritarian and closed-minded, just don't let that study carry any more weight in society than one from, say, Bob Jones University, that says that liberals are so weak-spined and perverted because they don't love Jesus enough
His definition of innateness seemed very reasonable to me: "the 'first draft' of the moral mind." It seems to leave plenty of room for free will:
So I don't think the concern is well-founded, but even if it was, it seems to me like a "moralistic fallacy:" 'if it's bad (undermines democracy), it's not true.'
The enlightenment assumption is that 'the truth is always best,' and I advocate that to people across the political spectrum equally.
I'm not concerned with whether it's true or not, I'm just saying that relying on it as "knowledge about human nature" might conceivably influence the lawmaking process (we don't need the people to vote on this law because it's been scientifically proven to be sound), and that would be a technocratic tendency.
I hope i didn't come off as a hater of science or research into human nature earlier (some of the replies seemed to think so); I'm not, i just see the democratic state as a bit more fragile and precarious than others perhaps do.
I'm with Churchill on this one: "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried"
so sure, make liberal-ish studies about how republicans are naturally authoritarian and closed-minded, just don't let that study carry any more weight in society than one from, say, Bob Jones University, that says that liberals are so weak-spined and perverted because they don't love Jesus enough
But that sounds like you're confusing correlative evidence with opinion.
And Bob Jones University isn't even accredited with the common university system--it's a Christian school with Christian accreditation--so you have to take that into account, too.
liberals are just as close-minded as conservatives are.
the only difference between liberals and conservatives is liberals think they are special because they happen to be living in a cultural which conforms to their beliefs. 100 years ago this wasn't true.
sorry but whens the last time you heard a liberal change his mind on an issue? how many ex-liberals have you met?
liberals are just as close-minded as conservatives are.
Oh, bull.
Liberals often change their minds when faced with new evidence.
We're not perfect, but at least most of us have been paying attention and can spot what a fraud Bush is and how badly he's hurt our country.
A few conservatives have woken up and realized that, but the majority has not and those are the assholes who will be voting for McCain.
the only difference between liberals and conservatives is liberals think they are special because they happen to be living in a cultural which conforms to their beliefs. 100 years ago this wasn't true.
You just admitted that liberals are 100 years ahead of our time, that we are 100 years more advanced than conservatives.
>> ^imstellar28:
sorry but whens the last time you heard a liberal change his mind on an issue? how many ex-liberals have you met?
liberals are just as close-minded as conservatives are.
Oh, bull.
Irony is a liberal like rougy refusing to accept anything in common with a non-liberal like imstellar.
Didn't you watch the video? Liberals don't emphasize ingroup/loyalty.
And to celebrate moral relativism seems rather naive. That is best left for drum circles and the dead.
Adding video to channels (Religion) - requested by jimnms.
>>
Oh, bull.
Liberals often change their minds when faced with new evidence.
We're not perfect, but at least most of us have been paying attention and can spot what a fraud Bush is and how badly he's hurt our country.
A few conservatives have woken up and realized that, but the majority has not and those are the assholes who will be voting for McCain.
the only difference between liberals and conservatives is liberals think they are special because they happen to be living in a cultural which conforms to their beliefs. 100 years ago this wasn't true.
You just admitted that liberals are 100 years ahead of our time, that we are 100 years more advanced than conservatives.
1. The "most recent" is not always the "most advanced". Case in point is the middle ages.
2. Can you give me a list of issues which you have completely changed your stance on?
>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Crake:
Trying to explain...
Since when is...
my point is that democracy works on the assumption of free will,
Okay, I'm gonna stop you right now, because my bullshit meter just went through the roof. No one except religious idiots would have to assume free will to define democracy. I suggest you read more, especially J.S. Mill's On Liberty, of which I will quote the first sentence: Right from the start, he effectively asserts that whether or not you have free will is irrelevant to civil liberties and thus to democracies, which are based on these civil liberties.
Pro Choice/Life
Gay Rights
Origin of Life
Your belief in these can radically change your affiliation. I grew up in a Christian household, and in my experience -- I've been on both sides of the fence -- Pro Life, Anti-homosexual and Creationist ideas are not up for discussion. We were NOT given a choice. I've always been a liberal guy, even when I attended church, but it wasn't until I began educating myself beyond the beliefs forced upon me since birth that I began to let my true identity guide my political thoughts.
The video makes sense when you look at it from a specific point of view (namely a more open, liberal point of view) but from your typical USA Conservative POV, it's just liberal propaganda.
>> ^Crake:
>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Crake:
Trying to explain...
Okay, I'm gonna stop you right now...
Ok fair enough, I'll agree that it's not metaphysical free will I'm talking about, but something like this "social liberty" of which you speak. Makes sense. hmm.. what i want to say is that people should be aware of the sanctity (as it were) of other people's opinions, and be aware that no amount of scientific proof can strip them of that equality in the eyes of the law.
(and thus a proper scientific study carries as much weight in regarding a person's fitness to be a democratic citizen, as a study from an unaccredited school like Bob Jones U, the firmness of his handshake, or the cut of his jib)
also, do i come off as religious or something? i'm really not.
my point is that democracy works on the assumption of free will, and if you start trying to second-guess (yeah yeah, a favorite republican word, but hear me out) the voters' motivation or level of ignorance, you encroach on the assumption democracy rests on: that the common man knows what's best for himself.
There's a great humorous thought experiment in "The Dilbert Future" that goes something like this...
Compare the voting record in a given election of the most intelligent 10% of the population to the rest of the population and you will come to one of two distressing conclusions:
1) The results are the same for the two groups, meaning that intelligence is irrelevant to democracy.
2) The results are different for the two groups, meaning that intelligence is relevant, but democracy negates its impact.
Sure it's not logically sound, but it's still funny.
sorry but whens the last time you heard a liberal change his mind on an issue? how many ex-liberals have you met?
liberals are just as close-minded as conservatives are.
I'd consider myself a liberal, and I believe that I had a discussion with you earlier this week wherein you presented new facts and I changed my mind. Just sayin'.
Beyond that, I believe there is a whole section of liberals who 'changed' their minds. They're called Reagan Democrats.
I also found it surprising that left-wingers are supposedly anti-group and anti-loyalty. This flies in the face of pro-socialism and pro-democracy left-wing movements. Socialism and democracy are largely positive words amongst the left-wing, and both require pro-group and pro-loyalty thinking, much more so than the "every man for himself" capitalist right-wing views. It's the Republicans who are trying to "drown the government in the bathtub" in the hopes that individual Americans, each a capitalist maverick, will benefit society through their own greed. It's the Republicans who are the Destroyers here, dismantling the New Deal, and crushing government benefits, and cheering on globalization and capitalism.
Meanwhile, socialism and democracy are all about majority rule. Groups of people. Huge masses of people. Socialism and democracy were revolutionary concepts in the past, but today they are often seen as obsolete. Please refer to the book "It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism failed in the US".
And in a democracy, even if your team loses the election, you must remain loyal to the nation due to the force of the law. You must pay taxes to wars you oppose for example. In a more capitalist society, taxes might be almost entirely abolished, and if you don't support a war, you wouldn't pay for it. Heck, the military would be non-existent, replaced by mercenary groups..
And are American liberals really more tolerant than the conservatives? If so, in what ways? Most American liberals are highly critical of the non-Western world, usually citing human rights issues ("human rights" having been formulated almost entirely by Westerners by the way). Roughly 80% of the world does not exist in the West and they are all condemned regularly in Western liberal circles, from what I've seen. Meanwhile, Western right-wingers condemn the non-Westerners for other reasons, namely economic ones. "The world isn't capitalist enough, not rich enough, not smart enough. Too lazy." Simply put, most Westerners are "Western Supremacists", regardless of liberal or conservative affiliation.
Here's more food for thought. America, the most capitalist (and supposedly the most right-wing) of the white Western nations, is also the MOST diverse racially and culturally (but perhaps the LEAST politically diverse.. there are only TWO parties.) Meanwhile, northern Europe countries, the most socialist, and supposedly the most left-wing, are also the LEAST diverse racially and culturally, but appear to be far more politically diverse (far more parties in parliamentary systems). Which region of the world is more "open", knowing this?
>> ^imstellar28:
sorry but whens the last time you heard a liberal change his mind on an issue? how many ex-liberals have you met?
liberals are just as close-minded as conservatives are.
I'd consider myself a liberal, and I believe that I had a discussion with you earlier this week wherein you presented new facts and I changed my mind. Just sayin'.
Beyond that, I believe there is a whole section of liberals who 'changed' their minds. They're called Reagan Democrats.
There are moderates and independents on both sides of center: Reagan Democrats on the one hand, and "Obamacans" on the other, though the latter is a much smaller movement.
Aaronfr was talking to Rougy, though, who's posts (on politics, not science) generally seem representative of the demographic that is more interested in self-righteous tribalism than any kind of discourse that reaches across dividing lines.
jerryku: upvote your comment so hard as another advocate of capitalism. and the mention of jared diamond's "collapse." do you have "it didn't happen here: why socialism failed in the US" as an ebook? i'd love to read it.
"What's the difference, I thought Democrats were liberal and Republicans were conservative?" you might ask. On social issues, this is mostly true. But as current events with regard to Wall Street bailouts illustrate, both parties are liberal on economic issues. They just cater to different groups.
People who are shielded from or made ignorant of the consequences of their actions tend to be more liberal in their choices. Examples: children, college profs, the worst workers in a union, affirmative action hires and the temporarily wealthy by inheritance or bad movies.
People who are exposed to and experience the consequences of their actions tend to be more conservative. Examples: children after a spanking, private educators, performance-based workers who can be fired for making too many mistakes, the temporarily wealthy by inheritance after losing too much money or making bad movies nobody sees.
I DEMAND 3 DOWNVOTES FOR THIS COMMENT. 'Night.
I found the data to be very interesting.
Also, a pet hate, don't base your argument on "read such and such book". To coin a phrase, Quote Relevant Paragraph or Get The Fuck Out.
Great stuff, but the poster's title does not represent the views of the lecturer. The lecture is about conservatives vs. liberals, not Republicans vs. Democrats.
"What's the difference, I thought Democrats were liberal and Republicans were conservative?" you might ask. On social issues, this is mostly true. But as current events with regard to Wall Street bailouts illustrate, both parties are liberal on economic issues. They just cater to different groups.
Compared to Europe, both US parties favor more government entanglement in business, but less welfare. It's hard to place that on a liberal-conservative scale. I would prefer less government entanglement in business, but more welfare. Downsize the military-industrial complex, cut subsidies and tariffs, and promote alternative fuel with a pollution tax instead of pork barrel spending on pet projects.
QM: Cite some statistics to back up your stereotypes. I'm still waiting.
Free will is a red herring...
Yeah, but until we've mapped out all the causal relationships of the brain, it makes more sense to just assume that people have free will. It would be arrogant to think we can rely solely on what little neurological knowledge we have.
And hear hear for a 4 party system!
Also, a pet hate, don't base your argument on "read such and such book". To coin a phrase, Quote Relevant Paragraph or Get The Fuck Out.
Do you remember any time in high school or college when you walked into class and the teacher put a single paragraph on the board and then said class dismissed?
Your argument rests on the assumption that any subject can be asserted/argued for in a single paragraph. I would argue that this is almost never true. As proof of my argument, pick any issue you would like even one we all know is true (say that the earth is round) and try to provide a single paragraph which proves beyond a doubt that it is true.
I would maintain that it takes at least one, if not several books, to grasp an understanding of a complex subject. This is going to be anywhere from 400-800 pages, or on average 150,000 words and 3,000 paragraphs. So if what I say is true (and it seems to be as this is how high school/college classes are taught) then you are, in effect, attempting to "pass a class" by reading 1/3000th of the text associated with it. As an experiment, maybe sign up for a class at a local college and try reading only 1 paragraph from the textbook and see how that works out?
I also found it surprising that left-wingers are supposedly anti-group and anti-loyalty. This flies in the face of pro-socialism and pro-democracy left-wing movements. Socialism and democracy are largely positive words amongst the left-wing, and both require pro-group and pro-loyalty thinking, much more so than the "every man for himself" capitalist right-wing views.
I think you misread what he means by relative importance of these five moral issues. While more left leaning folks don't hold loyalty in high regard relative to caring and fairness, they still have a feeling that loyalty is good, as long as it does not subvert those concerns. Caring about your country is good, excusing it's abuse of the citizens of other countries is not good in the liberal view, because fairness trumps loyalty.
To conservatives this is treasonous, to liberals loyalty at the expense of fairness is unconscionable.
Neither of these positions is "wrong", because they are matters of political opinion, we can certainly argue which is more practical, or beneficial, but the fact that these differing opinions exist, are internally consistent, and correlate into neat groups is all that the speaker is claiming.
As an ex-liberal(to answer imstellar28's question) I am struck that his analysis seems critical of that perspective, I would submit that taking the red pill is uncomfortable no matter where you sit. For those who are more to the right, and you thought it was too hard on you, I think this was an equal opportunity to be offended all around.
>> ^nosro:
Great stuff, but the poster's title does not represent the views of the lecturer. The lecture is about conservatives vs. liberals, not Republicans vs. Democrats.
"What's the difference, I thought Democrats were liberal and Republicans were conservative?" you might ask. On social issues, this is mostly true. But as current events with regard to Wall Street bailouts illustrate, both parties are liberal on economic issues. They just cater to different groups.
Compared to Europe, both US parties favor more government entanglement in business, but less welfare. It's hard to place that on a liberal-conservative scale. I would prefer less government entanglement in business, but more welfare. Downsize the military-industrial complex, cut subsidies and tariffs, and promote alternative fuel with a pollution tax instead of pork barrel spending on pet projects.
QM: Cite some statistics to back up your stereotypes. I'm still waiting.
They say Europeans distrust business (e.g. GMO), and Americans distrust government (e.g. wiretapping is controversial here, but in Europe it's done regularly).
The American parties' more relaxed approach to regulation of minimum wage and "quality of life" issues like the length of the work week seems to be a big part of US parties favoring less, not more, government entanglement in business relative to European parties.
From looking at some of the comments here there are calls for 'four party systems' and the like...
But you know what, it doesn't work that way.
For instance. In Australia, there are the two really big parties, the Liberals (who are actually conservative) and the Labor Party (Who are the left wingers). But then there are two other pretty large parties, the Greens (very environment focused, very left), and the Democrats (also left, but not as much as the Greens).
Now... the Greens and the Democrats wax and wane in popularity, and win seats and the like, but never really pose a real threat at taking leadership of the country.
And why is that? Because the majority of people are pretty much... average... and they don't give that much thought to the long terms affects of political decisions, they don't think about what's best for the community as a whole, just what they see as best for them.
They don't necessarily think about injustice or the like, just how they can get ahead better.
And thinking of a country run by actual libertarians... would be horrific, as it would by authoritarians. No country should ever be run by a complete, hard line anything really, as you need a bit of it all melded together.
And that's really what the major parties in each country appear to give.
Although I am saddened about how right the middle seems to be moving... more and more right, less and less left. Sad.
You need statistics to tell you you'll be more reckless spending OPM (other peoples' money) than your own money?
Lettuce agree that it is good that new ideas be heard, but it is also good that new ideas be forced to "run the gauntlet". Thus, the conservative who opposes change is as valuable as the liberal who demands it.
And thinking of a country run by actual libertarians... would be horrific, as it would by authoritarians. No country should ever be run by a complete, hard line anything really, as you need a bit of it all melded together.
what on earth are you talking about? liberty is the root word from which libertarianism is derived. libertarians want extremely limited government: it is the exact opposite of authoritarianism.
The problem is tribalism, and being unable to capitalize on diversity of thought because we just don't think alike and don't want to be around people who don't think alike. This is the reason he asks for hands raised @3min, to try to illustrate that these people are surrounded by few voices different from their own (...I'm simplifying things, of course).
And don't even get me started on his "moral foundations theory" of human innateness:
1. Care for others, protecting them from harm
2. Fairness, Justice, treating others equally.
3. Loyalty to your group, family, nation
4. Respect for tradition and legitimate authority.
5. Purity, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.
the emergence of all of these need to be proved through selection pressures in evolutionary theory, not some bullsh*t new age pseudoscience. several of them may be valid, but he is severely perverting the implications they have. here are two examples:
3. Loyalty: most animals have developed a "loyalty" to their kin, precisely because there is a clear biological advantage for animal that is loyal to members of its own family. this is because animals that are related to them have a higher chance of having some of the same genes, and if they guard or protect (are loyal) to animals who are their kin, they are more likely to pass down their genes to further generations. but to take this and think it applies to ones patriotic duty for their country (ala republicans) is just nonsense.
5. Purity: animals have powerful pyschological responses to poisonous/noxious foods developing what is know as taste aversion. again this has a clear biological advantage, those who avoid lethal plants or substances are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. in the talk, he uses an example of "organic foods" that liberals eat. it is just rubbish to try to liken taste aversion to the liberals choice of eating organic foods.
and his 23,000 person questionnaire might have been good for a freshmen-level psychology student, but TED is really dropping the bar of standards for scientific practice if they are sponsoring this quack.
^spoco2
And thinking of a country run by actual libertarians... would be horrific, as it would by authoritarians. No country should ever be run by a complete, hard line anything really, as you need a bit of it all melded together.
what on earth are you talking about? liberty is the root word from which libertarianism is derived. libertarians want extremely limited government: it is the exact opposite of authoritarianism.
Exactly what I was saying, they are polar opposites.
Either extreme would be terrible. A group of people who want to be able to pretty much any damn thing they please and not have anyone to answer to running the country would be god damned terrible. As would the OPPOSITE, as in authoritarians.
Geeze, try to read a bit better, which seems to be your major problem in your aggressive reaction to this talk overall really... you don't quite 'get' where he's coming from I don't think.
Your complete misunderstanding of what point 5 is all about just as a simple example is stunning.
your argument is basically extremism=bad. which really makes no sense. "extremism" is just another word for "consistency". just because you usually hear it proceeded by "islamic.." doesn't mean extremism is bad.
here is an example of why your logic is flawed:
"a government run by wholly good people would be terrible, just like a government by wholly evil people. what we need is some mix of people who are sorta evil, sorta good"
good and evil are two extremes. thus by your argument, we wouldn't want someone who is wholly good to run our government. clearly this makes no sense. you need to attack positions on their merits, not the notion that they are "extreme"
A group of people who want to be able to pretty much any damn thing they please and not have anyone to answer to running the country would be god damned terrible
what you are describing here is anarchy. libertarians aren't anarchists. it depends on how you set up the scale, if you set it up as "total government versus no government" then libertarians wouldn't even be the extremists: anarchists would be. if you set up the scale as "no individual rights vs full i