Simplified Psychology: Conservative and Progressive Ideology

[joe1776]

I suppose you could measure arrogance as follows:

• Arrogance is emotionality
• Emotionality reduces the ability to think and feel rationally

So if a person resorts to logically fallacies, evidences a preference for winning a point rather than listening and understanding another's response and is otherwise emotional, all in a way that strives to support their qualities or ideas as better than someone else's, then they are being arrogant.

I think this might even be measurable publicly on a forum such as this.

Absolutely! It think the unconscious need to feel superior to others offers a credible explanation for competitive behavior generally and debate is a competitive game. Trolls are like the aggressive competitor in any game -- willing to cheat to win.

Forums like this can be used to measure our own arrogance. One of the reasons I come here is to gauge how much work I still have to do.

 

[joe1776]

...
The rate of change in social standards is greater than at any time in the past...

Agreed. Modern technology makes it possible for ideas to move from mind to mind much faster than they did in the distant past. That means that change in social standards can move globally much faster than ever before.

The loss of power of a dominant group within a society is happening under more or less peaceful, non-revolutionary conditions

Right. Marx was wrong when he wrote that a revolution was necessary to bring about socialism. The world isn't ready for full-blown socialism but it's evolving in that direction.

I'm in agreement with the other thoughts you expressed in your post as well.

 

[Augustus]

So, you disagree with the argument in the OP. I understand that. But your opinion isn't making a counter-argument.

Do you understand that pointing out the average person is mostly likely to be around about the average on any given metric is not simply 'opinion'.

No. Whether I am biased or not has no bearing whatsoever on whether my argument is sound or not.

You're giving me the impression that you are not able to recognize a reasoned argument when you read one.. The OP is an argument. I made a claim and supported it with reasons that you haven't challenged.

It does when your entire argument is premised on an opinion that you have offered no evidence to support and have accepted is subject to your own bias.

Your argument:

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.

Your implicit assumptions:

• Conservatives oppose an 'upward moral trend'
• That people cannot legitimately differ in their opinions as to the best way to achieve a common good (racial equality for example)
• That conservative beliefs regarding the best way to create equality are intellectually illegitimate
• Progressive moral principles are premised on a 'lack of arrogance' (given your 'holier than thou' view, quite common among progressives, that people who disagree with them mostly do so due to a moral failing, this is highly debatable. You clearly feel morally superior to conservatives, why is this not simply a different manifestation of arrogance?)
• That 'arrogance' is a meaningful, quantifiable metric, rather than an 'eye of the beholder' concept frequently based on our own prejudices. That our judgements of who is/isn't arrogant are sufficiently independent of our own ego and emotion to render our judgments meaningful in extrapolating from the specific to the general.

 

[Augustus]

• Arrogance is emotionality
• Emotionality reduces the ability to think and feel rationally

So if a person resorts to logically fallacies, evidences a preference for winning a point rather than listening and understanding another's response and is otherwise emotional, all in a way that strives to support their qualities or ideas as better than someone else's, then they are being arrogant.

Not sure this follows.

Emotionality has little to do with arrogance on most issues, it's simply what you care about or judge as important. Most people do not deliberately commit fallacies, and hypocrisy is a hardwired human trait that impacts us all to some extent.

I don't really care about Trump or US politics, although I might discuss them on here with people who deeply care about them. My detachment is not because I am less arrogant, it's because US politics doesn't impact me all that much so I don't have to care.

None of us are particularly receptive to arguments that contradict our deeply held emotional values because our brain has inbuilt 'defences' against attitude change. Emotion literally changes our perception of reality meaning that 2 people debating may live in 2 different 'realities'.

Emotional commitment is far more pertinent than arrogance, and emotional commitment is based on many factors.

 

[joe1776]

Do you understand that pointing out the average person is mostly likely to be around about the average on any given metric is not simply 'opinion'.

This was your unsupported opinion: "I believe most conservatives and most progressives are roughly average in arrogance."

It does when your entire argument is premised on an opinion that you have offered no evidence to support and have accepted is subject to your own bias.

Most arguments don't offer evidence. They offer reasons to support a conclusion. If I'd offered the conclusion without prefacing it with reasons that would be an unsupported opinion.

Your implicit assumptions:

Conservatives oppose an 'upward moral trend'

That conservative beliefs regarding the best way to create equality are intellectually illegitimate

Progressive moral principles are premised on a 'lack of arrogance'

Correct

You clearly feel morally superior to conservatives, why is this not simply a different manifestation of arrogance?

I feel I am morally right because the progressive position is aligned with equality as explained in the OP. If I thought that my being morally right was an indicator that my human worth was greater than the conservatives that would be arrogant -- but I don't think that.

That people cannot legitimately differ in their opinions as to the best way to achieve a common good (racial equality for example)

It's possible to differ on reasonable grounds. However, arrogance provides a credible explanation for both conservatism and racism in the personality.

That 'arrogance' is a meaningful, quantifiable metric, rather than an 'eye of the beholder' concept frequently based on our own prejudices. That our judgements of who is/isn't arrogant are sufficiently independent of our own ego and emotion to render our judgments meaningful in extrapolating from the specific to the general.

Human traits aren't measurable with precision. However, they produce observable effects (behavior) that we can describe. For example, you agree that Donald Trump is highly arrogant. We can't put a precise grade on it, but there's no doubt that his arrogance is higher than that of the average person.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How do you measure arrogance in a rigorous manner? What is 'average arrogance'?

Do you consider yourself to be of 'below average' arrogance?

Funny how arrogance is used to fight arrogance. Cancels out each other in the end.

 

[Augustus]

This was your unsupported opinion: "I believe most conservatives and most progressives are roughly average in arrogance."

There was a reason. It was in the quote you replied to

Your unsupported opinions:

• Conservatives oppose an 'upward moral trend'
• That conservative beliefs regarding the best way to create equality are intellectually illegitimate
• Progressive moral principles are premised on a 'lack of arrogance'

Most arguments don't offer evidence. They offer reasons to support a conclusion. If I'd offered the conclusion without prefacing it with reasons that would be an unsupported opinion.

The premise is an unsupported opinion. If the premise is wrong, so is the conclusion.

You have provided no evidence or reasoning that your premise is correct and not simply the result of your own bias. To me it seems like you have made no attempt whatsoever to understand those who you are making such judgements about or to consider how people may disagree on an issue in good-faith.

Your judgement on the nature and motivations of conservatives is simply an unsupported subjective opinion on personal characteristics shared by a large and diverse group. Remember you have admitted we are all biased when making such judgements.

Correct

See what I mean.

I feel I am morally right because the progressive position is aligned with equality as explained in the OP. If I thought that my being morally right was an indicator that my human worth was greater than the conservatives that would be arrogant -- but I don't think that.

Many conservatives also believe their position is aligned with equality though.

You can feel morally superior to others without being arrogant, yet if conservatives believe they are morally right then it must be because they judge their human worth is better?

You have proposed 'expert panels' to make government decisions. There are certainly some progressives who would see this as enshrining privilege of the white, cis-het patriarchy (you may disagree, but that's beside the point).

As these people believe they are more aligned with equality than you, does that make them less arrogant? Does your unwillingness to accept their views on the best way to achieve equality necessitate you thinking your human worth is greater than oppressed minorities?

It's possible to differ on reasonable grounds. However, arrogance provides a credible explanation for both conservatism and racism in the personality.

You aren't talking about the far-right though, most conservatives are not racist and are middle of the road centre/centre-right whose views are not all that far off those on the centre-left.

Human traits aren't measurable with precision. However, they produce observable effects (behavior) that we can describe. For example, you agree that Donald Trump is highly arrogant. We can't put a precise grade on it, but there's no doubt that his arrogance is higher than that of the average person.

You aren't judging Trump though, you are judging hundreds of millions of average people as being more arrogant than hundreds of millions of other average people.

 

[Augustus]

Funny how arrogance is used to fight arrogance. Cancels out each other in the end.

To some extent, we all think our views are superior, that's why we hold them.

When I do this though it is because I am right, when they do it it's because they are arrogant

 

[joe1776]

Conservatives oppose an 'upward moral trend'

The upward moral trend I referenced was supported by a linked argument. Therefore it was not an unsupported opinion.

That conservative beliefs regarding the best way to create equality are intellectually illegitimate.

Progress requires change. If the moral trend is toward equality, and conservatives resist the progress, what intellectually legitimate reason(s) can you offer for their resistance?

Progressive moral principles are premised on a 'lack of arrogance'

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

You have provided no evidence or reasoning that your premise is correct and not simply the result of your own bias. To me it seems like you have made no attempt whatsoever to understand those who you are making such judgements about or to consider how people may disagree on an issue in good-faith.

Your opinion on this isn't a counter-argument.

Your judgement on the nature and motivations of conservatives is simply an unsupported subjective opinion on personal characteristics shared by a large and diverse group.

Another unnecessary opinion.

Remember you have admitted we are all biased when making such judgements.

Why is this point relevant to my argument? Bias doesn't have any bearing on whether an argument is valid or not.

Many conservatives also believe their position is aligned with equality though.

If they do, they're mistaken.

You can feel morally superior to others without being arrogant, yet if conservatives believe they are morally right then it must be because they judge their human worth is better?

No, that wasn't my argument. That's a straw man.

You have proposed 'expert panels' to make government decisions. There are certainly some progressives who would see this as enshrining privilege of the white, cis-het patriarchy (you may disagree, but that's beside the point).

As these people believe they are more aligned with equality than you, does that make them less arrogant? Does your unwillingness to accept their views on the best way to achieve equality necessitate you thinking your human worth is greater than oppressed minorities?

The argument in the OP is a simple one. The fact that you want to create hypothetical arguments for me to consider is evidence on its face that you know you haven't put a dent in my offering.

You aren't judging Trump though, you are judging hundreds of millions of average people as being more arrogant than hundreds of millions of other average people.

I gave you reasons for judging both. It's those reasons that you must counter and not the fact that I judged both.

 

[Augustus]

The upward moral trend I referenced was supported by a linked argument. Therefore it was not an unsupported opinion.

"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."

They oppose the trend because they are arrogant.
They are arrogant because they oppose equality.

Oppose equality = opinion
Thus arrogant = opinion
Thus oppose trend = opinion

And this is why your admitted bias matters.

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

A common refrain in middle-class progressive politics is that the only reason working class people vote for conservative candidates is because they are stupid bigots who are too dumb to think for themselves. Some even go on to make arguments that such dumb people should have less of a say in elections than smart, educated people (i.e. themselves).

This is very much 'feeling superior'.

You can see such attitudes expressed in many RF threads on Trump and Brexit. Go back and check the ones fresh after Trump's election if you want some evidence.

Look at the trend of 'milkshaking', this is progressive people feeling they have the right to assault non-violent people who have differing political opinions to them.

This is very much 'feeling superior'.

I could go on, but you get the point.

The fact that you want to create hypothetical arguments for me to consider is evidence on its face that you know you haven't put a dent in my offering.

Or you could say the fact you won't answer it is evidence you haven't considered the implications of your 'logic'. You have subjectively defined another group as being 'arrogant' because they 'oppose equality'.

Some people will subjectively claim you 'oppose equality', thus making you 'arrogant' because you 'oppose the upward trend'.

So:

You have proposed 'expert panels' to make government decisions. There are certainly some progressives who would see this as enshrining privilege of the white, cis-het patriarchy (you may disagree, but that's beside the point).

As these people believe they are more aligned with equality than you, does that make them less arrogant? Does your unwillingness to accept their views on the best way to achieve equality necessitate you thinking your human worth is greater than oppressed minorities?

 

[sealchan]

Not sure this follows.

Emotionality has little to do with arrogance on most issues, it's simply what you care about or judge as important. Most people do not deliberately commit fallacies, and hypocrisy is a hardwired human trait that impacts us all to some extent.

Certainly...but what I am saying is that arrogance is a type of emotionality, not exhaustive of what emotionality itself is. The OP might be making this point, but I am not.

 

[joe1776]

"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."

They oppose the trend because they are arrogant.
They are arrogant because they oppose equality.

You couldn't find fault with the statement you quoted, so you had to put your own slant on it (the statement in bold).

A common refrain in middle-class progressive politics is that the only reason working class people vote for conservative candidates is because they are stupid bigots who are too dumb to think for themselves. Some even go on to make arguments that such dumb people should have less of a say in elections than smart, educated people (i.e. themselves).

This is very much 'feeling superior'

I've never heard that "common refrain." But it's irrelevant anyway.

As for your off-topic hypothetical questions: I'm not interested in discussing them.

 

[Augustus]

You couldn't find fault with the statement you quoted, so you had to put your own slant on it (the statement in bold).

Your words are above it. That is what they say.

"They oppose the upward moral trend because the concept of equality challenges their need to feel superior to others."

1. Oppose trend (because)
2. Don't want equality/i.e. oppose equality (because)
3. Equality means they can't feel superior (i.e. arrogance)

They oppose the trend because they are arrogant. They are arrogant because they oppose equality.

If this is not what you mean, by all means clarify it.

I've never heard that "common refrain." But it's irrelevant anyway.

You should pay more attention to what people say then, especially if you are going to massively generalise about such groups.

It's not irrelevant though because you said "If progressives are aligned with equality, they cannot at the same time feel superior." and I've given clear examples that show you are wrong.

Feel free to make a reasoned argument against this. Remember "your opinion is not a counterargument"

As for your off-topic hypothetical questions: I'm not interested in discussing them.

Because you can't without showing how naive your "logic" is

 

[joe1776]

Your words are above it. That is what they say.

"They oppose the upward moral trend because the concept of equality challenges their need to feel superior to others."

1. Oppose trend (because)
2. Don't want equality/i.e. oppose equality (because)
3. Equality means they can't feel superior (i.e. arrogance)

They oppose the trend because they are arrogant. They are arrogant because they oppose equality.

If this is not what you mean, by all means clarify it.

My statement doesn't require clarification for intelligent, unbiased readers who might happen to read our discussion.

And simply your need to put it into your own words should be enough to let those readers know that you couldn't find fault with it as written.

 

[Augustus]

My statement doesn't require clarification for intelligent, unbiased readers who might happen to read our discussion.

Do you genuinely believe the statement "They oppose the upward moral trend because the concept of equality challenges their need to feel superior to others" is not based on at least 1 unsupported opinion?

 

[joe1776]

Do you genuinely believe the statement "They oppose the upward moral trend because the concept of equality challenges their need to feel superior to others" is not based on at least 1 unsupported opinion?

Yes. It makes a logical deduction and a credible explanation for the behavior. It can be countered with a different cause that makes as much or more sense. You haven't been able to think of one and neither can I.

 

[Twilight Hue]

To some extent, we all think our views are superior, that's why we hold them.

When I do this though it is because I am right, when they do it it's because they are arrogant

Some might see it as arrogant towards arrogant people. Basically eye for an eye.

 

[sealchan]

Do you genuinely believe the statement "They oppose the upward moral trend because the concept of equality challenges their need to feel superior to others" is not based on at least 1 unsupported opinion?

I would express this differently...and maybe in a way that is somewhat less insulting (then again maybe not)...

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.

 

[joe1776]

I would express this differently...and maybe in a way that is somewhat less insulting (then again maybe not)...

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.

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.

 

[Augustus]

Yes.

And therein lies the rub...