• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Conservatives Needed in Social Psychology

Status
Not open for further replies.

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'll take a stab at explaining where I suspect Debate Slayer's coming from.
The The Week article mentioned that the paper was mostly written by Johnathan Haidt, well known for his Moral Foundations Theory. MFT posits six innate moral foundations with which people create a moral universe:


    • Care/harm: cherishing and protecting others.
    • Fairness/cheating: rendering justice according to shared rules. (Alternate name: Proportionality)
    • Liberty/oppression: the loathing of tyranny.
    • Loyalty/betrayal: standing with your group, family, nation. (Alternate name: Ingroup)
    • Authority/subversion: obeying tradition and legitimate authority. (Alternate name: Respect.)
    • Sanctity/degradation: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions. (Alternate name: Purity.
Interestingly, liberals tend to emphasize the first three, while conservatives weight them all pretty equally. The problem is that the last three pretty much describe an Authoritarian Personality. #4 promotes tribalism, racism and nationalism, #5 promotes unquestioning obedience and conventionalism. #6: more conventionalism, puritanism and intolerance.

You can see why those embracing these last three might be morally suspect. They'd have fit right in in 1930s Germany.
There are so many working definitions of conservative & liberal that I don't see a neat pigeon holing of them in the above traits. But even so, with each definition there is much variation. Now, on top of all this, who is to say that the above traits comprise the singular objective foundation? Non-conservatives, eg, libertarians, feminists, liberals, lefties, egalitarians, commies, socialists, will each have modified lists of premises. To reason from these premises generates even more diversity of thought. So the idea to limit social science works to liberals....pish posh!
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
Hmmmm....

Let's see if I can offer an analogy in the field of dance. The most traditional form of dance in the west is Ballet. Classical ballet is highly underrepresented in undergrad and graduate academia, where modern, contemporary, and theory are much more prevalent.

I've taught undergrad students that disparage ballet greatly, talking about it's restrictions, how it's classist, archaic, and racist. It's the overwhelming mindset, yet ballet is still taught at the undergrad and graduate levels. It's taught as a method, but not the ONLY method. It's also taught as how it helped spawn various other disciplines and how counter culture forms and styles were spawned as a response against it.

Ballet dancers - who wish to focus more on ballet and less on post-modernist disciplines - feel like a minority in academia. And they are.

As an instructor at a university, there's a goal to broaden the horizons (so to speak), to introduce and study the various theories and praxis within the field, and to push their scholarship in dance. But if dancers were to ask me why there aren't more opportunities for ballet for undergraduate majors, my suggestion is to look into conservatories that prep for the stage career. Administration, historian, & archival work tends to be the focus for post-graduate study.

Things have changed radically even since I was in school. The shift has been now in the academic field of dance toward multimedia, commercial work, and marketing/communication, and less on history and lineage which were focal points in my grad work.

I have my own criticisms of the education industry and how much of it is a Ponzi scheme in and of itself. But in regards to the more traditionalist mindset and progressive mindsets in each field? I think it's best to accept it in academia and to find other avenues for theory and praxis for the "ballet purist" in social sciences.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Let's see if I can offer an analogy in the field of dance.

The effort is appreciated, but it seems to me that there are significant, unavoidable shortcomings in the idea itself.

Dance, after all, is an activity that hardly ever impacts people who are not directly interested in it in some way or another.

Politics and social psychology, by contrast, both have explicitly goals of affecting everyone to some degree. Which, to my mind, is in and of itself already one reason why they have a built-in need, even a duty, to continuously discourage conservatism. Not the main reason, but still a real and valid one.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The effort is appreciated, but it seems to me that there are significant, unavoidable shortcomings in the idea itself.
Dance, after all, is an activity that hardly ever impacts people who are not directly interested in it in some way or another.
Politics and social psychology, by contrast, both have explicitly goals of affecting everyone to some degree. Which, to my mind, is in and of itself already one reason why they have a built-in need, even a duty, to continuously discourage conservatism. Not the main reason, but still a real and valid one.
I see a duty to oppose both conservatism & liberalism where either would seek to infringe upon the rights of others. (And they've both pursued mine with gusto!)
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I see a duty to oppose both conservatism & liberalism where either would seek to infringe upon the rights of others. (And they've both pursued mine with gusto!)

I guess this is as good a time as any to admit that I have a poor grasp of the meaning of liberalism. At first glance it looks a lot like conservatism.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
The effort is appreciated, but it seems to me that there are significant, unavoidable shortcomings in the idea itself.

Dance, after all, is an activity that hardly ever impacts people who are not directly interested in it in some way or another.

Politics and social psychology, by contrast, both have explicitly goals of affecting everyone to some degree. Which, to my mind, is in and of itself already one reason why they have a built-in need, even a duty, to continuously discourage conservatism. Not the main reason, but still a real and valid one.

The analogy I think is still an applicable one. The scope of impact may be smaller, but the grievances are similar regardless of the size of the community.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
I guess this is as good a time as any to admit that I have a poor grasp of the meaning of liberalism. At first glance it looks a lot like conservatism.
Well, that's a decent description here, at least. We have two parties: one is conservative-leaning centrist, and the other's just terrifying.

But they are both very vague terms. I'm a democratic socialist, and a lot of leftists of various specific ideologies tell me that's not liberalism, so whatever, I don't really care about the label. Conservatism is no more clearly defined, either.

That's why I keep asking Apex what he takes "conservative" to mean.

In large part, @Apex , that's because, while we've never known each other terribly well, you always struck me as an actual conservative, not one of the crazies who seem to have stolen the term. I hope you didn't think otherwise.
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
How you're defining conservatives. You know, the one that I asked twice, and you cut out of the quote telling me I'd confused the authors.
Sorry, I must have missed it. I mentioned this earlier in the thread. The paper seems to be using the terms conservative and liberal to define anyone who self identifies as such.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Sorry, I must have missed it. I mentioned this earlier in the thread. The paper seems to be using the terms conservative and liberal to define anyone who self identifies as such.
Then the research is worthless, since it doesn't even define its terms.

But I was keeping that as a follow up. How are you understanding the term conservatives, for purposes of this discussion?
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
In large part, @Apex , that's because, while we've never known each other terribly well, you always struck me as an actual conservative, not one of the crazies who seem to have stolen the term. I hope you didn't think otherwise.
I am curious as to what actually gives you the impression I am conservative? It's not the first time I have been labeled one on RF. (Although this is probably the first time where it was not meant as an insult.) I think many people mistake my reluctance to denounce all things conservative as an indication I must actually be a conservative. And for the record, I do not self identify as either a conservative, liberal, republican, or democrat. I consider myself a moderate. I support some viewpoints that make conservatives foam at the moth, and others that make liberals rage.
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
Then the research is worthless, since it doesn't even define its terms.
I can see usefulness in using the term to apply to those who self identify as such. Attempting to restrict it could prove problematic due to the vastness of conservatism. The papers includes this section about self-identifying and the diverseness of conservative beliefs:
However, we argue that the field needs more non-liberals however they specifically self-identify (e.g., libertarian, moderate). Third, it is important to recognize that conservatism is not monolithic—indeed, self-identified conservatives may be more diverse in their political beliefs than are liberals (Feldman & Johnston, 2014; Klein & Stern, 2005; Stenner, 2009).

But I was keeping that as a follow up. How are you understanding the term conservatives, for purposes of this discussion?
For this discussion I would consider it best to stick to how the paper uses the term, anyone who self identifies as such.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
I can see usefulness in using the term to apply to those who self identify as such. Attempting to restrict it could prove problematic due to the vastness of conservatism. The papers includes this section about self-identifying and the diverseness of conservative beliefs:



For this discussion I would consider it best to stick to how the paper uses the term, anyone who self identifies as such.
It's your thread, but I don't see how that has any utility at all, for all the reasons and confusion already given.

I am curious as to what actually gives you the impression I am conservative? It's not the first time I have been labeled one on RF. (Although this is probably the first time where it was not meant as an insult.) I think many people mistake my reluctance to denounce all things conservative as an indication I must actually be a conservative. And for the record, I do not self identify as either a conservative, liberal, republican, or democrat. I consider myself a moderate. I support some viewpoints that make conservatives foam at the moth, and others that make liberals rage.
Fair enough, and my sincere apologies.

To answer the question, I can't think of a specific policy to point to. It's just always been my impression that you lean a bit to the right, in the good way. Intelligent, reasonable, seeking the greater good, just with different ideas of how to get there. I hope you understand it's high praise to add 'like my grandmother.'

That's why I thought it important to the discussion to define terms - that's what I think of as a conservative, but that's not the people calling themselves conservative on the national stage.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
There are so many working definitions of conservative & liberal that I don't see a neat pigeon holing of them in the above traits. But even so, with each definition there is much variation. Now, on top of all this, who is to say that the above traits comprise the singular objective foundation? Non-conservatives, eg, libertarians, feminists, liberals, lefties, egalitarians, commies, socialists, will each have modified lists of premises. To reason from these premises generates even more diversity of thought. So the idea to limit social science works to liberals....pish posh!
Liberals tend to promote multiculturalism. This is something you must possess if you are wanting to go into the social sciences, especially if you want to go to a good school, and not end up at Liberty University. You do not need to be a liberal to have a since of multiculturalism, but the number of acts you find disgusting must be, necessarily, very limited.
Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to promote ethnocentrism. If having to press one for English bothers you, you have a streak of conservationism in you and the social sciences are not an appropriate career, because you have to be multilingual for some specific branches, and even things like psychology were knowing only English will get you far enough it will be severely stunting your potential to not at least learn Spanish. You also can't go around thinking America is the best country, or god's country, or whatever, because you will be working with people who have other national identities. Not a single major medical, psychological, or sociological promotes raparative/conversion therapy, they all hold a stance of seeing homosexuality as normal, natural, and only unhealthy when repressed. This flies in the face of Conservatives who find homosexuality to be unnatural and sinful. Conservatives also tend to put women in a subservient position to men, and to some of them a female headed household is unthinkable. In the social sciences, you will work with very strong and very proud feminist who will be offended working with someone who believes feminism want men to be subservient. Even economically, conservationism is a poor fit in the social sciences because overall there is a pretty good chance you are going to work with people who are poor who have trying their hardest to get ahead, but are unable to. Though I do not doubt you will find many more self-identified liberals within the social sciences than conservatives, even if we broadened the terms to left and right it the left would probably heavily outweigh the right, mostly because once you reach a certain point on the right side of the scale, working the social sciences becomes just as much of a torment as a tree-hugging liberal who hates Dick Cheney selling oil for Halliburton. They're just not good fits.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Even economically, conservationism is a poor fit in the social sciences because overall there is a pretty good chance you are going to work with people who are poor who have trying their hardest to get ahead, but are unable to.
This point in particular makes me wonder if one factor in the under representation isn't that hearing these stories one after another after another, day in and day out, and seeing undeniably how these policies shape people's lives doesn't make conservatives into liberals.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
This point in particular makes me wonder if one factor in the under representation isn't that hearing these stories one after another after another, day in and day out, and seeing undeniably how these policies shape people's lives doesn't make conservatives into liberals.
I suspect it may. But I also suspect social sciences may not be as appealing to conservatives because once you hit a certain threshold on the right and suddenly your education and career choices strongly revolve around positions that are often and frequently counter to your own. Obedience to authority is a virtue of conservatives, and every anthropology teacher I've had, at two different schools, stated they hate the traditional class set up, and in one class (where it was feasible to do so) the teacher rearranged some tables and chairs to make a round-table setting, eliminating the "higher authority" image of the teacher which is inherent in the traditional class set up. The social sciences also expose students to how unfettered capitalism has devastated communities and even entire countries around the world. This also means you get to see pictures and read about huge parts of global destruction, all done just to make a buck.
For the most part, the social sciences seem to be as appealing those on the right as war profiteering is appealing to someone on the left. Too many values are in conflict. And where there is interests, conversions may be very likely to happen.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
A simple liberal vs conservative google search yields hundreds of articles like these:

General traits:
Differences in Conservative and Liberal Brains - 2012 Presidential Election - ProCon.org

Prefer familiar fables to reality:
Diagnosing the Republican Brain | Mother Jones

Paranoid. Evolutionary throwbacks?
Scientists Are Beginning to Figure Out Why Conservatives Are…Conservative | Mother Jones

Liberals have stereotypes about conservatives, and
conservatives have stereotypes about liberals. Moderates have stereotypes about both.
Anyone who has watched, or been a liberal arguing with a conservative (or vice versa)
knows that personal opinion and rhetoric can be had a penny a pound. But arguing never
seems to get anywhere. Whereas if you set up a fair and square experiment in which
people can act nobly, fairly, and with integrity, and you find that most of one group does,
and most of another group does not, that’s a fact, not an opinion.
And if you keep finding
the same thing experiment after experiment, and other people do too, then that’s a body of
facts that demands attention.
The Authoritarians. Bob Altemeyer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top