Simplified Psychology: Conservative and Progressive Ideology

[Augustus]

They oppose the changes recommended by greater scientific and cultural awareness because these changes continually threaten or challenge their sense that their own culture is safe in the face of these changes.

Now the arrogance might come in as a sign of a history of dismissal of those who identify as conservative on the part of those discovering, promoting and implementing those changes, namely the liberals. So there would be blame on both sides even if the changes the liberals espouse are something that cant be reasonably denied like climate change.

The behavior of the conservatives then is a response to a behavior of the liberals and there needs to be less attitude on both sides at this point. Trump is a symptom of how bad things have gotten.

Trying to divide a country down the middle into 2 neatly divided camps and essentialising them with particular qualities is mostly just an exercise in prejudice and confirmation bias.

People tend to focus on the loudmouth fringes rather than the 'silent majority'. A majority of conservatives across the world agree climate change is happening, for example. On issues like immigration, the average centre-left and centre-right belief are going to be pretty similar.

We also 'frame' issues according to our biases. For example in the UK, many people believe voting for Brexit makes one racist (and stupid).

Funnily enough if you look at the EU (EEC) membership vote in the UK it was almost the exact opposite of the Brexit vote. The more left-wing a constituency was, the less support for membership there was. This was because membership was seen as pro-business and anti-worker at that time.

So someone who votes for Brexit on the entirely reasonable principle that they believe the EU is not very democratic (something that has been acknowledged across the political spectrum for decades) is painted as 'objectively' a racist idiot who was fooled by "right-wing media".

We tend to 'mind-read' and assign negative motives to hose we disagree with and positive motives to those we agree with. But for the average person, they support things for 'positive', but different, reasons.

This doesn't mean that everyone does so, but assigning bad-faith motives to our opponents is ultimately a form of egotism: the idea that no 'right thinking' person could disagree with me.

Given the limits of human cognition, and the fact that most political issues and identities are complex and multifaceted, adopting a bad-faith approach is to contribute to the degradation of the political process.

 

[joe1776]

...This doesn't mean that everyone does so, but assigning bad-faith motives to our opponents is ultimately a form of egotism: the idea that no 'right thinking' person could disagree with me.

Given the limits of human cognition, and the fact that most political issues and identities are complex and multifaceted, adopting a bad-faith approach is to contribute to the degradation of the political process.

"...the fact that most political issues and identities are complex and multifaceted..." isn't a reason to dismiss simple causes since we humans are natural systems and Nature seems to delight in taking simple causes and using them to create baffling complexity. That's why scientists prefer to test simple theories that credibly explain more of the observable effects.

You write "...but assigning bad-faith motives to our opponents is ultimately a form of egotism:" Aren't you implying that I had a bad faith motive in constructing the argument in the OP? Aren't we opponents in this debate? So, is your ego driving your charge against me?

But, in the end, this is all nonsense. My motives in writing it don't matter, Whether I'm biased and egotistical or not does not matter. I made a reasoned argument which stands on its own. It's either valid or invalid. And, the only thing we found out here is that, if it's invalid, you weren't smart enough to find the flaw. But I don't think that's true. I think my argument is a good one.

 

[Augustus]

"...the fact that most political issues and identities are complex and multifaceted..." isn't a reason to dismiss simple causes since we humans are natural systems and Nature seems to delight in taking simple patterns and using them to create baffling complexity. That's why scientists prefer to test simple theories that credibly explain more of the observable effects.

"Simplify as much as possible, but no more than that"

It's nice to think you've discovered a silver bullet that explains numerous complex aspects of our existence in a simple manner, but if you have to pretend this complexity doesn't exist in order to do so, your theory will likely decrease your understanding, rather than enrich it.

You write "...but assigning bad-faith motives to our opponents is ultimately a form of egotism:" Aren't you implying that I had a bad faith motive in constructing the argument in the OP? Aren't we opponents in this debate? So, is your ego driving your charge against me?

If it was aimed at you, I would have addressed it to you. Funnily enough you aren't so important that everything revolves around you

It was a general statement that applies to many people on both sides of the political spectrum who assume that the only reason people support the 'other side' is due to some personal failing.

I was actually paraphrasing Michael Oakeshott from Rationalism and Politics which I have quoted many times (check if you like): Rationalists find it 'difficult to believe that anyone who can think honestly and clearly will think differently from himself'.

You should read it. It's very good.

 

[joe1776]

"Simplify as much as possible, but no more than that"

It's nice to think you've discovered a silver bullet that explains numerous complex aspects of our existence in a simple manner, but if you have to pretend this complexity doesn't exist in order to do so, your theory will likely decrease your understanding, rather than enrich it.

I agree with your thoughts. However, you understand that my level of confidence in my theory rises when bright people like you have to resort to twisting my words and other low level argumentative tactics to find fault with the argument for my theory.

If it was aimed at you, I would have addressed it to you...

I doubt that.

 

[sealchan]

You seem to be starting the cause-and-effect chain with liberal-progressives. But look at this list again:

equality for slaves
equality for women
equality for homosexuals
equality for the children of the poor
equality for the insane or the handicapped
equality for all minority groups

Now, what caused the liberals to change their minds on these issues if not conscience (moral intuition as the initial cause)? Isn't it reasonable to think that liberals have more sensitive consciences and feel the wrongness first?

And, as the trend from inequality to equality moves on, why would anyone oppose it? What cause credibly explains that effect if not arrogance?

Example: Conservative Catholics would, if they could, return their Church to the way it was before Vatican Two in the 1960s when Jews and Protestants were headed for Hell and Heaven was reserved for Catholics only -- a far more arrogant position than the current Church holds.

Liberals demonstrate greater empathy for "strangers" people not like themselves. But they can also get disproportionally angry at people who are like them who don't empathize with strangers.

I'm not trying to blame liberals for conservative behavior so much as point out an opportunity for liberals to have some leverage at reducing the polarity. Liberals like me need to think twice about getting angry at people like me, white, male Christians, because I may be projecting my fears about otherness, which I claim not to have, onto other white, male Christians who do have those fears.

This may be a key concept to consider when looking at your own tendancy to arrogance. It certainly has been instructive to me. So I am trying to change my language to something more accurate, less accusatory and less likely, if not completely to raise up someones defenses. I still sound like I am condescending many times. One step at a time.

 

[sealchan]

Trying to divide a country down the middle into 2 neatly divided camps and essentialising them with particular qualities is mostly just an exercise in prejudice and confirmation bias.

People tend to focus on the loudmouth fringes rather than the 'silent majority'. A majority of conservatives across the world agree climate change is happening, for example. On issues like immigration, the average centre-left and centre-right belief are going to be pretty similar.

We also 'frame' issues according to our biases. For example in the UK, many people believe voting for Brexit makes one racist (and stupid).

Funnily enough if you look at the EU (EEC) membership vote in the UK it was almost the exact opposite of the Brexit vote. The more left-wing a constituency was, the less support for membership there was. This was because membership was seen as pro-business and anti-worker at that time.

So someone who votes for Brexit on the entirely reasonable principle that they believe the EU is not very democratic (something that has been acknowledged across the political spectrum for decades) is painted as 'objectively' a racist idiot who was fooled by "right-wing media".

We tend to 'mind-read' and assign negative motives to hose we disagree with and positive motives to those we agree with. But for the average person, they support things for 'positive', but different, reasons.

This doesn't mean that everyone does so, but assigning bad-faith motives to our opponents is ultimately a form of egotism: the idea that no 'right thinking' person could disagree with me.

Given the limits of human cognition, and the fact that most political issues and identities are complex and multifaceted, adopting a bad-faith approach is to contribute to the degradation of the political process.

It takes a lot of work to get at the truth. It certainly is harder than drawing a line and accusing everyone on the other side as wrong.

 

[Augustus]

It takes a lot of work to get at the truth. It certainly is harder than drawing a line and accusing everyone on the other side as wrong.

Even harder as there frequently isn't a truth, just different approaches to problems that can never truly be solved or have no objectively correct answer.

 

[Augustus]

I agree with your thoughts. However, you understand that my level of confidence in my theory rises when bright people like you have to resort to twisting my words and other low level argumentative tactics to find fault with the argument for my theory.

Or it could be that your cognitive dissonance and emotional attachment to being right makes you incapable of judging things rationally which is why you are big on claims, but short of evidence

It's unlikely we'll agree on this though.

I doubt that.

You doubt that someone could reply to another poster in a manner consistent with numerous other of their posts without it revolving around you?

You really do have a quite remarkably high opinion of yourself...

 

[joe1776]

Liberals demonstrate greater empathy for "strangers" people not like themselves. But they can also get disproportionally angry at people who are like them who don't empathize with strangers.

I'm not trying to blame liberals for conservative behavior so much as point out an opportunity for liberals to have some leverage at reducing the polarity. Liberals like me need to think twice about getting angry at people like me, white, male Christians, because I may be projecting my fears about otherness, which I claim not to have, onto other white, male Christians who do have those fears.

This may be a key concept to consider when looking at your own tendancy to arrogance. It certainly has been instructive to me. So I am trying to change my language to something more accurate, less accusatory and less likely, if not completely to raise up someones defenses. I still sound like I am condescending many times. One step at a time.

I think, in your writing, you do a far better job of not sounding condescending than I do. I tend to write without a lot of qualifiers. When I forget to add some here and there, I sound like a know-it-all.

If I were a Christian, I'd be most annoyed with fellow Christians who argue that they are morally superior to those nasty atheists. If I were an atheist, I'd be most annoyed with fellow atheists who argue that they are smarter than those dumb Christians. I think those people are high in arrogance, trying to satisfy their need to feel superior to others, and contribute to the negative stereotypes of their group.

 

[joe1776]

You doubt that someone could reply to another poster in a manner consistent with numerous other of their posts without it revolving around you

No. I doubt your claim that you only indulge yourself in insulting other posters directly and implying that you wouldn't do it indirectly.

 

[Augustus]

No. I doubt your claim that you only indulge yourself in insulting other posters directly and implying that you wouldn't do it indirectly.

Mind-reading for the purpose of self-aggrandisement on an internet forum is rather silly.

If I were a Christian, I'd be most annoyed with fellow Christians who argue that they are morally superior to those nasty atheists. If I were an atheist, I'd be most annoyed with fellow atheists who argue that they are smarter than those dumb Christians. I think those people are high in arrogance and contribute to the negative stereotypes of their group.

Yet earlier in the thread you said :

If progressives are aligned with equality, they cannot at the same time feel superior.

Can you spot the inconsistency?

 

[joe1776]

Mind-reading for the purpose of self-aggrandisement on an internet forum is rather silly.

Judging likelihood or probability doesn't involve mind-reading. It's based on experience.

Yet earlier in the thread you said :

Can you spot the inconsistency?

No. Help me out.

 

[Augustus]

No.

And therein lies the rub...

 

[joe1776]

And therein lies the rub...

Lemme guess.

You claimed that that there was an inconsistency between my two statements but when I asked for an explanation, and you tried to write one, you realized you were mistaken. But you're too proud to admit it. So, you drop a nonsense statement on me like "Therein lies the rub" hoping that I'll let it pass.

I won't.

I challenge you to show how my two statements are inconsistent or admit that you were wrong.

 

[Augustus]

Lemme guess.

You claimed that that there was an inconsistency between my two statements but when I asked for an explanation, and you tried to write one, you realized you were mistaken. But you're too proud to admit it. So, you drop a nonsense statement on me like "Therein lies the rub" hoping that I'll let it pass.

I won't.

I challenge you to show how my two statements are inconsistent or admit that you were wrong.

Again, such great conceit.

The answer is exactly the same as the last time I told you in this thread. And the time before that. And the time before that.

And if you still don't get it, well you can lead a horse to water...

 

[joe1776]

Again, such great conceit.

The answer is exactly the same as the last time I told you in this thread. And the time before that. And the time before that.

And if you still don't get it, well you can lead a horse to water...

 

[Augustus]

If you really need it to be spelled out again, answer the questions you refused to answer earlier and I'll tell you.

It really shouldn't be beyond you to work it out yourself though given it was a quote I've already replied to in this thread.

 

[joe1776]

If you really need it to be spelled out again, answer the questions you refused to answer earlier and I'll tell you.

It really shouldn't be beyond you to work it out yourself though given it was a quote I've already replied to in this thread.

Stop it. You can't explain how the two statements you quoted are inconsistent. I know it. You know it.

 

[Straw Dog]

Defining arrogance: In order to measure something we need a standard. Since there is no fair standard for measuring human worth, we are all born equal. However, we are not all born equal in abilities. Arrogant people 'stack the deck in their favor' by imagining that their abilities, those gifted to them at birth, are the standard for measuring human worth. For example, arrogant people who are gifted with high intelligence use intelligence as a standard while arrogant people who are born gifted with athletic ability use athleticism as a standard.

Intelligence, athleticism, arrogance, empathy -- most, if not all, human traits are inherited in a range from low to high. Most people will fall into the average group on most traits while being high or low on a few. Some traits (like arrogance and empathy) oppose each other. When one is high, the other will be low.

Our species is, and probably always has been, on an upward moral trend. We humans are treating each other better right now than at any time in our history. (A link at the bottom of this post will take you to my argument with evidence supporting this claim) This historic upward trend supports equality. A few examples:

• equality for slaves
• equality for women
• equality for homosexuals
• equality for the children of the poor
• equality for the insane or the handicapped
• equality for all minority groups

People who favor conservative positions are likely to be higher than average in arrogance. They oppose the upward moral trend because the concept of equality challenges their need to feel superior to others.

People who favor progressive positions welcome change because they are aligned with the upward moral trend. The thought that all other human beings are equal in human worth doesn't threaten their self-image.


Global Harmony is Inevitable

I don’t believe that psychology should be overly simplified by ideology.

 

[joe1776]

I don’t believe that psychology should be overly simplified by ideology.

No theory about anything should be over-simplified or over-complicated.