Conservatives Needed in Social Psychology

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Did you bother to read the paper? And a study that they cite showed an astounding 82% of liberals would openly admit to at least some level of prejudice towards conservative job applicants, while 67% of moderates and 83% of conservatives would feel no such prejudice.

You're misrepresenting the article. Here's what it actually said:

Their survey posed the question: "If two job candidates (with equal qualifications)
were to apply for an opening in your department, and you knew that one was politically quite conservative, do you think you would be inclined to vote for the more liberal one?” Of the 237 liberals, only 42 (18%) chose the lowest scale point, “not at all.” In other words, 82% admitted that they would be at least a little bit prejudiced against a conservative candidate, and 43% chose the midpoint (“somewhat”) or above. In contrast, the majority of moderates (67%) and conservatives (83%) chose the lowest scale point (“not at all”).

"Not favouring liberals" does not necessarily imply "not prejudiced."

Also, the question seems rather strange. One way to take it would be "if all else is equal, would you flip a coin to choose between the two candidates, or pick the one you'll probably get along with better?"

 

[Apex]

I do strongly and absolutely believe that the vast majority of conservative "values" are both morally and logically inferior to liberal ones. I think anyone who thinks that most conservatives wouldn't discriminate against liberals either ignores or has never lived in a majority-conservative country. One only has to look at minority rights in conservative countries compared to secular ones to see just how inferior conservative so-called morals are compared to liberal ones.

Do you have any comment on any of the points made in the paper?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Do you have any comment on any of the points made in the paper?

The part about prejudice seems skewed to me. I think it severely underestimates conservative prejudice and discrimination.

 

[Apex]

You're misrepresenting the article. Here's what it actually said:

"Not favouring liberals" does not necessarily imply "not prejudiced."

That seems like a very picky thing to claim I misrepresented it. If you don't agree with what I said, then just go with what the paper said, after all I quoted the relevant paragraph to ensure there was no miscommunication.

Also, the question seems rather strange. One way to take it would be "if all else is equal, would you flip a coin to choose between the two candidates, or pick the one you'll probably get along with better?"

Only picking the ones you get along with politically is a problem they address. It leads to a type of group think that begins to exclude the "wrong" types of ideas and viewpoints. This is a major point in the paper.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do strongly and absolutely believe that the vast majority of conservative "values" are both morally and logically inferior to liberal ones. I think anyone who thinks that most conservatives wouldn't discriminate against liberals either ignores or has never lived in a majority-conservative country. One only has to look at minority rights in conservative countries compared to secular ones to see just how inferior conservative so-called morals are compared to liberal ones.

Hey, just so you know.....uh, this constructive advice.....intended to help....faux pas erasure.....
To trumpet one's own moral & intellectual superiority looks.....<searching for non-inflammatory word>....rather....well....a picture would illustrate it better.
It's like the Church Lady's superior dance....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The part about prejudice seems skewed to me. I think it severely underestimates conservative prejudice and discrimination.

Keep in mind that when the 83% of conservatives said "not at all", it was to whether they'd vote for a liberal candidate, not whether they'd base their opinion on the candidate's politics.

From the summary in the poll, it seems like a flawed survey, since the question is lopsided and vague. Does "I would be willing to vote for either candidate" mean that you're "somewhat inclined" to vote for the liberal (just as you're "somewhat inclined" to vote for the conservative)? Some respondents may very well have taken it that way.

Meanwhile, someone who thinks "there's no way in hell I'd hire a liberal" would get put in the "not at all" category.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Hey, just so you know.....uh, this constructive advice.....intended to help....faux pas erasure.....
To trumpet one's own moral & intellectual superiority looks.....<searching for non-inflammatory word>....rather....well, a picture would illustrate it better. It's like the Church Lady's superior dance....

I'm pretty sure you believe the moral system you follow is superior to most others in at least some way too. You don't believe that the moral values you hold are equal to or inferior to those of people like Westboro Baptists, do you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That seems like a picky thing to claim I misrepresented it. If you don't agree with what I said, then just go with what the paper said, after all I quoted the relevant paragraph to ensure there was no miscommunication.

Only picking the ones you get along with politically is a problem they address. It leads to a type of group think that begins to exclude the "wrong" types of ideas and viewpoints. This is a major point in the paper.

Again with the misrepresentation. Using workplace cultural fit as a tiebreaker when there's no way to choose between candidates on their qualifications (which itself is a very rare situation) is not "only picking the ones you get along with politically." In the vast majority of cases, there will be one "best candidate". The relevant question here is whether they would set aside a better qualified conservative candidate for a lesser qualified liberal candidate. How do you think people would respond to THAT survey?

 

[Lyndon]

Here is the exact quote from the paper:

So again, where am I misrepresenting it?

Its pretty obvious to me conservatives are much more willing to lie to make it look like they are not prejudiced, and the liberals just admit that they are.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm pretty sure you believe the moral system you follow is superior to most others in at least some way too. You don't believe that the moral values you hold are equal to or inferior to those of people like Westboro Baptists, do you?

I strongly prefer my moral system. But to say that others are "morally and logically inferior" is to imagine an objective universal standard. I don't have that. I don't see you presenting one either. The "superiority" argument is usually one proffered by those with THE TRUTH (religious fundies). You don't want to be seen that way, do you? No, of course not....which is why I offered advice & a giffy.
We do best here by advocating with cogent arguments...not by proclaiming our superiority. (Even if we are superior, we all get along better if we don't lord this over lesser folk.) Moreover, the OP's theme is about increased diversity of thought, which is good for hashing out ideas.

 

[Apex]

I'm pretty sure you believe the moral system you follow is superior to most others in at least some way too. You don't believe that the moral values you hold are equal to or inferior to those of people like Westboro Baptists, do you?

Superior to most others? No. That is far to vague and broad statement for my comfort.

And the Wesboro church is a very small and specific demographic that can be easily summarized into a specific set of moral values. Attempting the same thing with the general term "conservative" does not work. Even the paper states the following:

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 & POLITICAL DIVERSITY -- 5 Stern, 2005; Stenner, 2009).

So stating categorically that your particular set of values are by default, superior to all conservative's does come off as quite... arrogant.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I strongly prefer my moral system. But to say that others are "morally and logically inferior" is to imagine an objective universal standarkd. I don't have that. I don't see you presenting one either. The "superiority" argument is usually one proffered by thise with THE TRUTH (religious fundies). You don't want to be seen that way, do you? No, of course not....which is why I offered advice & a giffy.

That's where we disagree, then. I believe in objective morality, but it's not based on any religious beliefs. Explaining that would definitely derail the thread, though, so I can't do that here. If you would like us to continue this discussion, I'd be happy to do so in another thread.

 

[Apex]

Again with the misrepresentation. Using workplace cultural fit as a tiebreaker when there's no way to choose between candidates on their qualifications (which itself is a very rare situation) is not "only picking the ones you get along with politically." In the vast majority of cases, there will be one "best candidate". The relevant question here is whether they would set aside a better qualified conservative candidate for a lesser qualified liberal candidate. How do you think people would respond to THAT survey?

Are you willing to read through the paper? It discusses political diversity and the benefits of it among group decisions. I think its points would be quite relevant to your questions. And I would rather not be the one constantly pulling the relevant sections out and posting them here when the paper is available for all to read and discuss.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Superior to most others? No. That is far to vague and broad statement for my comfort.

And the Wesboro church is a very small and specific demographic that can be easily summarized into a specific set of moral values. Attempting the same thing with the general term "conservative" does not work. Even the paper states the following:

So stating categorically that your particular set of values are by default, superior to all conservative's does come off as quite... arrogant.

I think there are core beliefs that are shared by most conservatives (and I'm primarily talking about social conservatives here, not fiscal ones) to make the statement applicable to them.

I can see how some people would view the statement as arrogant, but I believe it has enough logic to back it up to make it tenable, which is why I don't have any problem standing by it.

 

[Apex]

Its pretty obvious to me conservatives are much more willing to lie to make it look like they are not prejudiced, and the liberals just admit that they are.

So your counter is that the conservatives who responded were just lying? Do you think moderates were also lying, as their response lined up with the conservative response?

 

[Revoltingest]

That's where we disagree, then. I believe in objective morality, but it's not based on any religious beliefs. Explaining that would definitely derail the thread, though, so I can't do that here. If you would like us to continue this discussion, I'd be happy to do so in another thread.

I once thought objective morality a great idea. I read a bunch'o Ayn Rand & other stuff pursuing the concept. And you know what? All approaches were based upon assumptions which will vary with cultures & individuals. Now, I'll admit that logic can be applied when moral systems have internal conflicts. But to claim moral superiority over all conservatives in such a sweeping fashion bespeaks hubris. Yes, I threw down the gauntlet with the "h" word.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I once thought objective morality a great idea. I read a bunch'o Ayn Rand & other stuff pursuing the concept. And you know what? All approaches were based upon assumptions which will vary with cultures & individuals. Now, I'll admit that logic can be applied when moral systems have internal conflicts. But to claim moral superiority over all conservatives in such a sweeping fashion bespeaks hubris. Yes, I threw down the gauntlet with the "h" word.

Nah, I can see where you're coming from, since I used to believe the same thing. Now I genuinely believe there are ways in which some moral systems are superior to others, and I personally regard conservatism to be pretty low on the list of "Logically/Ethically Sound Ideologies."

I obviously don't know enough about most conservatives to personally say whether or not they're decent people themselves, but I'm certainly familiar enough with conservatism and its social applications to decide for myself whether or not I view it as a morally inferior ideology compared to liberalism.

 

[Lyndon]

Well my philosophy is basically to follow the left wing social ideology of Jesus, and honesty was very important to him, If your idea of a good time is getting tax breaks and cutting of desperately needed social services to the poorest, sickest and most disabled people in society, then I for one don't think you deserve to be listened to or payed any attention, why is your opinion just as valuable as Jesus', sorry but this is what's wrong with the world.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nah, I can see where you're coming from, since I used to believe the same thing. Now I genuinely believe there are ways in which some moral systems are superior to others, and I personally regard conservatism to be pretty low on the list of "Logically/Ethically Sound Ideologies."

I obviously don't know enough about most conservatives to personally say whether or not they're decent people themselves, but I'm certainly familiar enough with conservatism and its social applications to decide for myself whether or not I view it as a morally inferior ideology compared to liberalism.

OK, you're enticing me to admit something which shouldn't be....tis an unspoken polite fiction that we all (mostly) respect each other around here. But really, I feel superior to everyone....morally, intellectually, spiritually, culinarily, educationally, landscapingly, interior decoratingly, philosophically, etc. But if I expressed my superiority, what would happen? Even more people would find me an insufferable sanctimonious jerk. It's a discussion ender to put oneself on a pedestal, looking down upon the unwashed masses. So I feign respect for & kinship with common folk. It works.

 

[Debater Slayer]

OK, you're enticing me to admit something which shouldn't be....tis an unspoken polite fiction that we all (mostly) respect each other around here. But really, I feel superior to everyone....morally, intellectually, spiritually, culinarily, educationally, landscapingly, interior decoratingly, philosophically, etc. But if I expressed my superiority, what would happen? Even more people would find me an insufferable sanctimonious jerk. It's a discussion ender to put oneself on a pedestal, looking down upon the unwashed masses. So I feign respect for & kinship with common folk. It works.

My best friend offline is a Christian, and I've expressed to him exactly the same views I've expressed here regarding different issues and beliefs, including those of Christianity. I prefer to be direct in most cases.

We're still best friends, so I figure I haven't done anything wrong... yet.