Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Do Liberals Have Morals They Haven't Even Used Yet?
The New York Times is running a fascinating article featuring the work of University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt on human morality. One area Haidt explores is the moral differences between liberals and conservatives. He posits five different dimensions of morality. To wit:
Of the moral systems that protect individuals, one is concerned with preventing harm to the person and the other with reciprocity and fairness. Less familiar are the three systems that promote behaviors developed for strengthening the group. These are loyalty to the in-group, respect for authority and hierarchy, and a sense of purity or sanctity...
They found that people who identified themselves as liberals attached great weight to the two moral systems protective of individuals — those of not harming others and of doing as you would be done by. But liberals assigned much less importance to the three moral systems that protect the group, those of loyalty, respect for authority and purity...
Extreme liberals, Dr. Haidt argues, attach almost no importance to the moral systems that protect the group. Because conservatives do give some weight to individual protections, they often have a better understanding of liberal views than liberals do of conservative attitudes, in his view.
If you want to see how your morals compare to those of liberals and conservatives, take the test at Haidt's YourMorals.org.
For the record, I scored 3.0 on harm, 3.3 on fairness, 2.4 on loyalty, 1.6 on authority, and 0.4 on purity.
Check out whole Times article here.
Moral Orel|9.18.07 @ 2:10PM|#
I got my plus five (5d20 +5) cloak of moralness.
but I never use it, because the amulet of redistribution is much
easier to use. And I like fondling it as it gets warm in my
pocket.
|9.18.07 @ 2:12PM|#
They found that people who identified themselves as liberals
attached great weight to the two moral systems protective of
individuals - those of not harming others and of doing as you would
be done by.
Where does "It's moral for me to steal your money because I am more
moral than you and after I steal it I'll spend it for you" fit into
that?
robc|9.18.07 @ 2:14PM|#
2.4
2.5
2.3
1.9
2.0
I think I may have answered some questions too literally.
robc|9.18.07 @ 2:17PM|#
just adding up the numbers, liberals are less moral than conservatives and I am way less moral than liberals.
|9.18.07 @ 2:24PM|#
I scored:
2.1 harm
2.8 fairness
0.5 loyalty
0.6 authority
0.3 purity
The questions are sort of subjective - I think raw numbers aren't
the point so much as how various categories stack up against the
others. Or maybe I'm just a horrible, horrible person.
According to the site, the average liberal scores:
3.8 harm
3.8 fairness
1.9 loyalty
2.1 authority
1.6 purity
And the average conservative:
3.4 harm
3.1 fairness
2.9 loyalty
3.2 authority
2.9 purity
Episiarch|9.18.07 @ 2:25PM|#
They want me to register to take the test? Fuck them.
Here we go with another TEAM RED TEAM BLUE GO TEAM GO "scientific"
study.
I RTFA, but as soon as they said liberals were more about
individual rights I almost choked. Unless they mean "classical
liberal", which I know they don't.
Seeing as liberals and conservatives are equal collectivists with
slightly differing outcome interests, this is laughable.
|9.18.07 @ 2:29PM|#
A census taker tried to measure me once. I answered all of his questions and then I had a beer.
Chucklehead|9.18.07 @ 2:49PM|#
5 dimensions of morality?
Are they included in the 29 dimensions of compatibility?
|9.18.07 @ 2:51PM|#
It doesn't, Warren.
Why don't you try it with a statement that reflects the thinking of
liberals?
|9.18.07 @ 2:53PM|#
I like the way Episiarch doesn't have to know anything about the
study, except the political conclusions that can be gleaned from
it, to know it's false.
I like even better that he precedes this observation by complaining
about the researchers' letting their politics cloud their
research.
Episiarch|9.18.07 @ 2:59PM|#
We had this discussion regarding the last "scientific" study,
joe.
Don't you find it odd that every time one of these studies come
out*, the personal political affiliation of the researcher(s) is
always the one that seems to be indicated by the research
to be positive, especially "positive" from the perspective of their
freely-stated politcal viewpoint?
You don't take seriously studies funded by oil companies that state
global warming is bullshit, but you believe these?
* conservatives have engaged in this idiocy as well
|9.18.07 @ 3:04PM|#
Yes, we did, Episiarch.
To sum up: evidence, research methods, and scientific rigor are for
pussies.
DAMON!|9.18.07 @ 3:06PM|#
DEMAND KURV!!!!!!!!!
No empirical methods. Waaaahhhhh! I ordered a cheeseburger.
Mooooommmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
fyodor|9.18.07 @ 3:07PM|#
Warren: Where does "It's moral for me to steal your money
because I am more moral than you and after I steal it I'll spend it
for you" fit into that?
joe: It doesn't, Warren.
Why don't you try it with a statement that reflects the thinking of
liberals?
joe's right, warren. When liberals want your money, they don't
consider it yours.
|9.18.07 @ 3:07PM|#
Comparable levels of harm but heavier weighting of fairness by
liberals than conservaitves seems about right. I honestly don't
like this too much. Harm seems pretty straightforward. I'm not sure
what fairness means, just as I don't like how many different uses
we have for 'justice'.
I don't know that I buy loyalty as an independent idea. It seems
like you have to say loyalty to whom or to what.
I dunno.
|9.18.07 @ 3:07PM|#
Something I found difficult while completing the quiz was differentiating between my feelings of what the government should do and what I would do. I wouldn't want to put down an answer that implies that I would outlaw certain things if I wouldn't, even if I, myself, wouldn't do it.
Episiarch|9.18.07 @ 3:12PM|#
To sum up: evidence, research methods, and scientific rigor
are for pussies.
And when some conservatives come out with a study that basically
says conservatives are fucking great and liberals suck, I'm sure
you'll say the exact same thing.
I try to take you seriously, joe, but your pathetic desire to
believe this shit is amazing.
And there's no evidence, joe--it's a study that uses questions
designed by a self-described liberal to rate people on his theory
of 5 moral dimensions, which he made up. It is not a study that
measures something like, oh, I don't know, mass or anything.
Don't you think that if a libertarian came up with the questions
for the 5 moral dimensions, it would change the results completely?
And if you do, how can his questions not be seen as completely
subjective?
How you can even call this scientific rigor is beyond me.
Dave B.|9.18.07 @ 3:14PM|#
To sum up: evidence, research methods, and scientific rigor
are for pussies.
what does a self-report survey have to do with evidence and
scientific rigor? Self-report surveys aren't much better than just
falsifying the numbers to support your conclusion. Survey writers
can create almost any results they desire by changing the phrasing
of questions, and there's no reason to assume that respondents are
being honest, especially on an internet survey. Furthermore, an
internet survey of this type hardly gets a random sample.
|9.18.07 @ 3:19PM|#
Nice tantrum, E.
Dave B,
Self-reporting is an effective way to measure people's conscious
opinions.
Do all opinion polls or maket surveys lack scientific rigor?
They're all about self-reporting.
brian|9.18.07 @ 3:19PM|#
Episiarch
Don't you find it odd that every time one of these studies come
out*, the personal political affiliation of the researcher(s) is
always the one that seems to be indicated by the research to be
positive, especially "positive" from the perspective of their
freely-stated politcal viewpoint?
I don't find it odd. The conclusion from every scientific study
reflects the author's beliefs. The research informs the beliefs of
the authors. Newton's work on gravity reflected his belief that
objects attract, but no one thinks that is "convenient." To take a
personal example, my study of economics leads me to conclude that
(A) the free market does a great job at organizing production
efficiently, therefore (B) I am a libertarian. A leads to B. It's
not a coincidence that my libertarianism just so happens to align
with my conclusion that markets are good. I wouldn't expect you to
point at me and say "it's so convenient that your research shows
something that aligns with your beliefs!" My beliefs are informed
by my research. The same goes for these researchers.
Also, how do you know if these researchers are liberal or
conservative? I don't see a slant on their website or anything.
Mike Laursen|9.18.07 @ 3:20PM|#
I must be a liberal, because I don't get how purity strengthens the group. What do they mean by purity, anyway?
Episiarch|9.18.07 @ 3:27PM|#
Also, how do you know if these researchers are liberal or
conservative? I don't see a slant on their website or
anything.
Did you RTFA? The researcher describes himself as a liberal.
Nice tantrum, E.
Nice avoiding of my questions, j.
Dave B.|9.18.07 @ 3:29PM|#
joe - yes, all opinion polls lack scientific rigor. Anyone who has had any training in a social science would know this as a basic fact. Also, self-report surveys only measure conscious opinions if you assume all respondents are honest. Are you assuming that no one lies or fills in answers jokingly? The problem is further compounded when the answers are highly subjective, as in "rate your agreement on a scale of 1 to 5"
Episiarch|9.18.07 @ 3:34PM|#
Newton's work on gravity reflected his belief that objects
attract, but no one thinks that is "convenient."
Uh, that's because his results were empirical. These "studies"
involve someone writing the questions to be asked, the same person
deciding what answers can be given, and the same person then
interpreting those results. Everything in essence occurs within his
head. That is very different from having an apple bonk you on the
head and then studying fall rates.
|9.18.07 @ 3:39PM|#
I'd be interested to see how libertarians rate on this thing. I got 4.0 on harm, 3.7 on fairness, 0.9 on loyalty, 1.6 on authority (way to high for my liking) and 1.4 on purity
|9.18.07 @ 3:42PM|#
I'm jumping on board with Episiarch - all these studies aren't
looking at two atoms interacting with another or the life cycle of
amazonian dart frogs, they're looking at the momentary preferences
given on an arbitrary scale to a bunch of people who might have
been sleepy, drunk, stoned, or religious.
Hard facts can't be revealed through opinion polling, mostly
because there's no such thing as a hard fact when it comes to ones
personality and personal preferences.
|9.18.07 @ 3:44PM|#
I think I may have answered some questions too
literally.
Yeah, I had aproblem there. If a statement is an absolute, and I
don't agree with it absolutely, e.g. most important, #1 priority,
etc., but I somewhat agree with it, e.g. very/somewhat important, a
high priotity, how do I answer? In a science or math test I
strongly disagree. What do I answer in a morality test? I think
rational people agree most morality issues are various shades of
gray.
So I'd rewrite the test and start all over.
|9.18.07 @ 3:47PM|#
Hard facts can't be revealed through opinion polling, mostly
because there's no such thing as a hard fact when it comes to ones
personality and personal preferences.
Hell, even an honest election only records how the voters felt AT
THE TIME THEY CAST THEIR BALLOT.
brian|9.18.07 @ 3:55PM|#
Episiarch
Uh, that's because his results were empirical. These "studies"
involve someone writing the questions to be asked, the same person
deciding what answers can be given, and the same person then
interpreting those results. Everything in essence occurs within his
head. That is very different from having an apple bonk you on the
head and then studying fall rates.
Studying the results of surveys is no less empirical, though it is
plagued by self-selection bias and the possibility of people lying
about their preferences. If I ask you "Zero being disagree strongly
and five being agree strongly, how do you feel about the following
sentence: Our laws should first and foremost aim to reduce harm to
victims," how is that biased or not empirical?
Second, how are his questions slanted to make one group look good
and another look bad (even though it does nothing of the sort)?
It's not possible to make questions that make group X look bad and
group Y look good unless you control their answers. Its their own
answers that make them look good or bad, not the person asking the
question.
If you're complaining about the interpretation, that's fine--I
agree. Interpret it yourself. I'd like to hear what you think about
the different average responses for conservatives versus
liberals.
|9.18.07 @ 4:02PM|#
Its their own answers that make them look good or bad, not
the person asking the question.
Speaking of which..
brian, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Your answers are
1. Yes
2. No
|9.18.07 @ 4:04PM|#
The survey questions were very disappointing. Of course I think fairness is very important, but is my idea of what constitutes fairness the same as that of the person who wrote the questions? Or of other people answering the questions? I assumed fairness meant "equal outcomes," but who knows if I was right to assume that.
Dave B.|9.18.07 @ 4:04PM|#
If I ask you "Zero being disagree strongly and five being
agree strongly, how do you feel about the following sentence: Our
laws should first and foremost aim to reduce harm to victims," how
is that biased or not empirical?
Maybe the question isn't biased in that its designed to get
different answers from liberals and conservatives. But what does it
even mean? I might think that harm to victims refers to the results
of coercion and force. A liberal might think that harm to victims
includes not giving people free health care. And what exactly does
answering "3" mean? You may claim that this is a problem of
interpretation, but how do you interpret two different collections
of meaningless numbers by people who have identified as having
different political mindsets?
Episiarch|9.18.07 @ 4:10PM|#
If I ask you "Zero being disagree strongly and five being
agree strongly, how do you feel about the following sentence: Our
laws should first and foremost aim to reduce harm to victims," how
is that biased or not empirical?
What are victims? Are victims people who take drugs? Or just people
who have had force used against them? Or do they include poor
people?
The fact that different people have wildly different views on what
a "victim" is should be all you need to realize how idiotic this
question is.
|9.18.07 @ 4:16PM|#
Dave B,
You are incorrect. Opinion surveys do not lack scientific rigor, if
conducted property. They can provide a very accurate, repeatable,
falsifiable conclusion about the subject being studied. Sure, there
are shortcomings to that methodology. There are shortcomings to all
methodologies. I don't think you are familiar with the definition
of "scientific rigor." Throwing out "everyone who has studied
Social Sciences knows this" just shows that you have not.
Episiarch,
These studies are empirical, too. They empirically measure people's
opinions, as well as correlations between the expression of various
opinions.
Randolph Carter: when polling demonstrates that Republicans are
five times more likely to think that it was a good idea to invade
Iraq, that's a legitimate, scientifically rigorous, verifiable
conclusion. It may not tell us anything about Iraq, but it tells us
objective information about people's opinions.
|9.18.07 @ 4:20PM|#
joe, you're right that it does show a correlation between
affiliation with a certain political party and certain political
points of view.
I guess what I'm saying is that you can never establish a causal
link between two opinions, and what most people want out of opinion
surveys are causal links that can be used to some end.
I just have a hard time buying statistics in regard to free-willed,
sentient beings and the choices and beliefs they will have. You can
probably establish clusters of correlations, but never
causality.
|9.18.07 @ 4:23PM|#
If the authors draw a causual link that isn't supported by the data, that is sloppy, Randolph.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|9.18.07 @ 4:26PM|#
Harm 3.1
Fairness 3.3
Loyalty 0.8
Authority 0.1 (Way too high.)
Purity 0.6
Episiarch|9.18.07 @ 4:36PM|#
joe, still waiting for an answer to:
Don't you think that if a libertarian came up with the
questions for the 5 moral dimensions, it would change the results
completely? And if you do, how can his questions not be seen as
completely subjective?
and if you feel like it:
What are victims? Are victims people who take drugs? Or just
people who have had force used against them? Or do they include
poor people?
Brian E|9.18.07 @ 4:38PM|#
I can't believe nobody's asked the really important question in this thread: is the post title a Coldcut reference?
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|9.18.07 @ 4:38PM|#
Well, as far as what the stated results for liberals and conservatives seem to state, compared to the anecdotal results I'm seeing here from a mostly Libertarian set of test takers, it seems that the difference on the first two categories for liberals, conservatives, and libertarians are pretty insignificant compared to the last three, where conservative ratings > liberal ratings > libertarian ratings.
wsdave|9.18.07 @ 4:44PM|#
2.6
3.9
0.0
0.9
0.0
I don't know what this says about me, but it seems I'm far more
liberal than conservative. Funny that I own guns, like profits, and
drive an SUV.
Dave B.|9.18.07 @ 4:46PM|#
joe,
Ok, instead of arguing with you about the general merits of opinion
polling, just explain to me why you believe that this particular
poll is any better than a "Which Simpson's character are you?"
poll. (assuming that you don't find the Simpson's character poll to
be a valuable scientific tool)
|9.18.07 @ 4:51PM|#
Episiarch,
Don't you think that if a libertarian came up with the
questions for the 5 moral dimensions, it would change the results
completely?
Not if it was done right. We would still see liberals scoring
higher on fairness and harm, and conservatives scoring higher on
purity, authority, and loyalty. The absolute numbers might change,
but the underlying difference in moral orientations would still be
there.
What are victims? Are victims people who take drugs? Or just
people who have had force used against them? Or do they include
poor people?
You don't know what the word "victim" means? Look it up.
For the purposes of this study, the readers are going to fill in
their own definition of the term "victim," which will produce
different results. That's sort of the point.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|9.18.07 @ 4:52PM|#
I have colleagues whose PhDs were done on a "Which Simpsons character are you?" survey.
Episiarch|9.18.07 @ 5:05PM|#
Not if it was done right. We would still see liberals
scoring higher on fairness and harm, and conservatives scoring
higher on purity, authority, and loyalty. The absolute numbers
might change, but the underlying difference in moral orientations
would still be there.
Interesting. So you've completely bought into his theories about
fairness, harm, purity, authority, and loyalty? Something that he
made up? Is it because 1) you think this is the right
classification scheme, or 2) you like this classification
scheme?
For the purposes of this study, the readers are going to fill
in their own definition of the term "victim," which will produce
different results. That's sort of the point.
Not if it's supposed to be empirical, joe. Since the study is
specifically aiming for different results--it has those different
results in mind when asking the questions--it is
biased.
|9.18.07 @ 5:10PM|#
Harm - 2.6
Fairness - 2.3
Loyalty - 2.0
Authority - 2.4
Purity - 1.0
For what it's worth, I corresponded with Dr. Haidt when I was
completing my own Master's thesis regarding some of the unpublished
data in his paper The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail - A
Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. He was a class
act and very helpful, even providing me with an unpublished
manuscript of his that had more data in the same vein as my
research. I am baffled that everyone sees this as a case of a
liberal trying to invent or skew data to make conservatives look
bad, when to me it seems to be a pretty charitable view of
conservatives' moral intuitions.
Having read other work of Dr. Haidt's, and knowing that his major
area of interest is how moral intuition, rather than moral
reasoning, drives ethical decision-making processes, I saw this as
a good faith attempt to describe the different sorts of moral
intuitions held by different sorts of people (politically speaking
at least). From my admittedly limited interaction with the man, my
impression is that his interest in the subject is earnest and in no
way designed to inflame or promote red/blue culture war.
Dave B.|9.18.07 @ 5:15PM|#
joe,
I have to think that you're being obtuse here. Lets throw out the
Simpson's issue too, since it wasn't my point. Why do you think
that this survey is a good measure of even the morality dimensions
that the author has defined? And don't answer that he has defined
them as the numerical score you get from the test. Lets assume that
these categories exist apart from this particular survey.
|9.18.07 @ 5:17PM|#
Don't these questions come across as over simple, like as in
thirteenth century simple?
For instance:
If I were a soldier and disagreed with my commanding officer's
orders, I would obey anyway because that is my duty.
I know a couple o' officers, and they would much rather NOT serve
over the kind of troops that would, for instance, man a
concentration camp.
Is this question asking if the decision at Nuremberg was wrong? Has
the conservative viewpoint really moved there? Or is it speaking in
the general, "one should obey, unless...?".
And this one:
One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless
animal.
I suspect this would be confused by most test takers, some would
answer that they agree, while still being meat eaters.
I know a hunter in the "great white north" descended from
french/euro stock, who has fed his family often on things he has
hunted, and yet I have seen him yell at a a fellow hunter for
un-needed violence and cruelty during the hunt. And I've seen him
start a fight over kicking a "defenseless" dog. He might answer yes
to this question, funny enough, but only because there is no answer
to it that "lives" in the real world.
As a hunter and meat eater myself, I avoid people who perpetuate
violence against any being with a spine capable of feeling pain.
The implicit cruelty of that kind of behaviour worries me, and that
leaves me mistrusting someone (I went to a religious boarding
school with 2 guys who burned a dog in a box, it showed, before
they hit twenty, the one was doing time, and the other had beat his
wife into a near coma).
I don't know, something about the "seeming" simplicity of that test
really, really made me uncomfortable.
|9.18.07 @ 5:27PM|#
Maybe this will make everyone happy:
There are no universal truths to be discovered through opinion
polling, but there are marginally useful models that can be derived
from the results.
Now we can all hold hands!
|9.18.07 @ 5:35PM|#
Episiarch,
I have no idea what "his theories about fairness, harm, purity,
authority, and loyalty" is supposed to refer to. What I have done
is notice that his questions appear to have captured genuine,
reliable differences in how people answer the same questions, which
correlate to their self-reported political orientation. This leads
me the stunning conclusion that people's beliefs about fairness,
harm, purity, authority, and loyalty are related to whether they
identify with liberal or conservative political orientation.
Not if it's supposed to be empirical, joe.
I'm sorry, that's just not true. It accurately and objectively
captures that people with different political orientations have
different responses to that question. Of course this is because
they have a different set of understandings of concepts! That
doesn't mean those differences he captures don't exist.
You seem determined to believe that this study is biased in favor
of liberalism. How does a study showing that liberals value loyalty
less equate to a puff piece of liberals?
|9.18.07 @ 5:42PM|#
Dave B.,
Why do you think that this survey is a good measure of even the
morality dimensions that the author has defined?
I don't know that they do. His results are meaningful in a
statistical sense, but the conclusions we draw from those results
are certainly up for discussion. On their face, the questions seem
to be well-phrased to capture those variables. For example, asking
how relevant the subject considers disloyalty to one's group when
judging an action's morality seems like an appropriate question for
judging the importance that person puts on loyalty as a moral
criteria. Do you disagree?
|9.18.07 @ 5:44PM|#
Johnny,
The objections you raise are legitimate. Social scientists try to
avoid such skews by asking lots of questions, in order to drown out
noise created by the misunderstanding of any one question, and by
asking the subject to rate degree of agreement, rather than just
answering yes/no.
Episiarch|9.18.07 @ 5:49PM|#
You seem determined to believe that this study is biased in
favor of liberalism. How does a study showing that liberals value
loyalty less equate to a puff piece of liberals?
And you seem determined to not understand what I am saying. I have
little time, so I will put this as simply as I can: asking a bunch
of questions that the researcher thinks express these 5
moral dimensions doesn't mean squat. If I were to write questions
that I thought expressed these dimensions, they would be
totally different, meaning that different people would score
differently.
Why can't you understand that a survey is so unfocused that it just
doesn't mean anything but the most general crap?
Dave B.|9.18.07 @ 5:53PM|#
joe,
I don't disagree that many of his questions seem reasonable, or
even that the numbers may have some meaning. However, why does any
of this matter if the survey doesn't measure what it purports
to?
|9.18.07 @ 5:53PM|#
Extreme liberals, Dr. Haidt argues, attach almost no importance to the moral systems that protect the group.
I take it the author hasn't been to Berkeley recently. If it is in
any way collectivist, they are for it. "Social justice" is all
about the group, nothing about the individual.
|9.18.07 @ 6:07PM|#
Apparently I'm more like a typical conservative in my slightly
reduced emphasis on preventing harm, compared to the typical
liberal.
I'm even more concerned with fairness than the typical
liberal.
My concern for authority matches that of the typical liberal.
In the other areas, I fall in-between. (I'm not sure what "purity"
means, but I'm guessing it refers to avoiding things deemed
"disgusting" or taboo regardless of whether harm, fairness,
loyalty, etc. are at issue.)
AVOIDING HARM:
Conservative: 3.4 ... Me: 3.4 ... Liberal: 3.8
FAIRNESS:
Conservative: 3.1 ... Me: 3.9 ... Liberal: 3.8
LOYALTY:
Conservative: 2.9 ... Me: 2.3 ... Liberal: 1.9
AUTHORITY:
Conservative: 3.2 ... Me: 2.1 ... Liberal: 2.1
PURITY:
Conservative: 2.9 ... Me: 2.0 ... Liberal: 1.6
|9.18.07 @ 6:10PM|#
Dave B.,
If the questions are good, then the survey does measure what it's
supposed to.
Brandybuck,
I think you misunderstand liberals, or you misunderstand the
distinction between "individuals" and "the group." Groups consist
of individuals, and liberals are concerned with their well-being.
Each and every one of them. They are not willing to see some harmed
for the purpose of bringing benefits to the group as a whole. There
is little or no loyalty to the group as an abstract, just to the
individuals that make it up, among liberals.
Conservatives - understood as the political right - have loyalty
to, for example, America as an entity in its own right, not as a
collection of 300,000,000 individuals.
Think of a nationalist/xenophobe/racist vs. a "brotherhood of man"
hippie. The former is going to be willing to see a furrner harmed
for the benefit of America, while the latter is not.
Or, think about gay marriage. Liberals argue in favor of it, out of
concern for the individual liberties of the people who want to get
married. Conservatives argue against it because of its presumed
effect on "the culture."
Dave B.|9.18.07 @ 6:24PM|#
joe,
The questions seem reasonable, but they're not good. Several of the
questions have ambiguous meaning and the rating your answer on a
1-5 scale leads to arbitrary answers in many cases.
|9.18.07 @ 6:33PM|#
Or, think about gay marriage. Liberals argue in favor of it,
out of concern for the individual liberties of the people who want
to get married. Conservatives argue against it because of its
presumed effect on "the culture."
And libertarians argue for it 'cause IT AIN'T NONE OF OUR
GODDAM BUSINESS
|9.18.07 @ 6:37PM|#
Having very briefly reviewed the self reports of H&R
commenters who took the test, it appears that most (including me)
skew in the "liberal" direction for this test.
I also agree that the test fails to account for the collectivist
impulse of a lot of contemporary liberalism (progressivism). Could
it be that progressives/liberals/leftists talk a good game about
protecting the interests of some groups, society, whatever, but
actually make the claims that they want to protect group/societal
interests as a way to promote their own self-interests? In other
words, if liberal/progressive claims for promoting fairness to
groups were deconstructed one would find that their actual
motivation was to make sure that their personal portion of whatever
pie is being divvied up is not smaller than the portions that other
people get.
|9.18.07 @ 6:48PM|#
I test closer to Blue than Red, but lower than both in every
category.
Meh. This is exactly why I hate these sorts of tests - almost every
question rouses my suspicion about what response the test-designer
is trying to elicit for whatever target group. If you don't fit
those target groups, you don't fit the methodology of the test.
|9.18.07 @ 7:07PM|#
Dave B.,
Let me take up your second point. Rating your level of agreemnt on
a five-point scale is much less arbitary than a yes/no answer would
be. No-kinda no-don't know/neither - kinda yes-yes allows the
question to capture degrees of agreement, which cuts way down on
people having trouble because they don't hold an absolutist
opinion.
J sub D,
Recognizing that it is none of our business - ie, that it's an
individual issue, not one where the group's opinion should matter -
is the same thing as recognizing that it is the individuals' right
to get married, or not, as they see fit. Both of these are the
opposite of the conservative position that says that the group's
well being (as they see it) trumps the individuals' right to choose
for themselves.
|9.18.07 @ 7:45PM|#
But joe, the "liberals" don't want me to smoke a cigarette in my own apartment or carry a gun to protect myself, or decide if I want to drive a SUV, or allow smoking in my place of business. All of which are MY OWN GODDAM BUSINESS.
Brian E|9.18.07 @ 7:45PM|#
joe,
The libertarian position on gay marriage is not the same as the
liberal position on gay marriage. The liberal position is that the
government should encourage gays to get married with the
same system of benefits that straight couples receive. The
conservative position is that the goverment should not do this. The
libertarian position is that the government should not be marrying
people at all. This may be an overgeneralization, but I haven't yet
heard a liberal politician call for the disestablishment of state
marriage. (Civil unions don't count.)
I squrim when I read test questions about these subjects because
somewhere buried is the hidden notion that the government and the
governed are one, and that the morality of the governed should be
related to the actions of the government. In one of the surveys
there is a question raised about pharmacists who refuse to dispense
emergency contraception despite a state law which mandates the
availability of such medicine. The question relates to the
justifiability and morality of refusing to follow such a law. I
feel that it is wrong for pharmacists to refuse to provide
emergency contraception, but I also feel that the state apparatus
for regluation of medicine is wrong as well. How do I answer a
question like this without somehow disentangling the question from
the entire issue of state involvement in virtually every aspect of
our lives?
|9.18.07 @ 7:58PM|#
"But joe, the "liberals" don't want me to smoke a cigarette in
my own apartment or carry a gun to protect myself, or decide if I
want to drive a SUV, or allow smoking in my place of business. All
of which are MY OWN GODDAM BUSINESS."
J sub D-I see you point, liberals have their nanny-isms (I would
have thought all the p.c. bullcrap is a better example). But
technically the liberal could still claim to be true to the 'harm
principle' laid out in On Liberty with the SUV (if there is a
demonstrable link between such use and something that effects
others like GW) or the cigarettes (second hand smoke). You can
dispute the sciece but if they are arguing that these things hurt
others then they are not being "illiberal." The gun one is harder
to square for me, I think it's just that liberalism is a urban
phenomena and many urban families have little experience with gun
and they have an irrational fear of them.
|9.18.07 @ 8:07PM|#
Looking at the test and the results of various posters here it
reminds me of what I truly believe: that liberals and libertarians
have much more in common than either does with conservatives, and
the conservative-libertarian alliance in the US is one manufactured
by vested interests with the hope of convincing libertarians to
side with those who are naturally their enemies. Both liberals and
libertarians have liberty and autonomy as their central idea.
Conservatives have authority, honor, religion and order as theirs.
I used to be a conservative (I had romantic ideas about family and
community...Burke's "little platoons"). If you read Kirk or Burke
(easily the most prominent conservatives) you will find these
values stressed over and over. If you really want to have fun, read
Modern Age or Intercollegiate Review. It's all about the importance
of orthodox religion (Catholicism mostly), traditional gender
roles, the value of "organic cultures" ("bands of brothers"), the
value of prejudice (as Burke used the word), place (both in the
sense of romantic attachment to agrarian communities and in the
sense of "ordered communities" where everyone knows and accepts
their "place"), the novels of Scott (Ivanhoe and such), the poetry
of Kipling, etc.
I'm not saying that this conservatism is not a resepectable,
coherent intellectual tradition with an impressive pedigree. It is.
It just ain't in line with either libertarian or liberal thought
which can trace itself back to some common origins (J.S. Mills,
Bentham, Voltaire, etc.).
|9.18.07 @ 8:08PM|#
Didn't get any numbers, because I quit the test after the first
few subjective, vague, and biased questions.
Now, since people like me aren't counted in the results, can we
assume that the test is biased towards people who prefer BS
tests?
I thought it a riot that liberal collectivists were ranked as more
caring of individuals -- without defining which individuals. For
example, joe doesn't give a rip about the people he wants his
politicians to steal taxes from, but I bet he rates as really
compassionate toward individuals.
|9.18.07 @ 8:11PM|#
Both liberals and libertarians have liberty and autonomy as
their central idea.
*Spews mango juice over keyboard.*
HAHAHAHAHA! Good one, Mr. Nice Guy!
Oh, wait, were you were being serious?
|9.18.07 @ 8:36PM|#
joe: Groups consist of individuals, and liberals are
concerned with their well-being. Each and every one of them. They
are not willing to see some harmed for the purpose of bringing
benefits to the group as a whole.
So, liberals who harm me care about me? By their definition of
"care" or "harm", or mine?
So, liberals are not willing to see some harmed by taxes?
So, liberals are not willing to see some harmed by nanny-state
regulations?
So, liberals are not willing to see some harmed by taking away
their Second Amendment right to bear arms? By taking away their
First Amendment right to political free speech? Their Tenth
Amendment right to not have a federal government poking in matters
not specified in the Constitution?
If that is how you define "liberals", then there aren't any who
meet your definition.
|9.18.07 @ 9:40PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy... Urban folks have lots of experience with guns..
gun shots in the alley behind their apartments, guns being held to
the head of their cashier friend, gun shots being fired at some kid
outside the club they just stepped out of, etc. They don't have the
GOOD experiences with guns. That is unfortunate. As for the tax
issue, well, that depends on your definition of harm or fairness. A
liberal would tell you that an elderly person or child suffering
with a painful or debilitating disease because they can't afford
adequate medical care is more harmful or less fair than a
moderately wealthy person having to give up money they would spend
on luxuries. The moderately wealthy person might, on the otherhand,
call it theft, point out that luxury spending creates jobs, and
decry waste, fraud, or unnecessary wars their stolen money was
funding.
I did read the article the test was referencing. In all honesty, it
helped me to 'get' my conservative parents. On a number of issues,
we have been talking past each other for a long time.
Nasikabatrachus|9.18.07 @ 11:40PM|#
Conservatives have all of the gross morals, but liberals are not
far behind them. I'm glad I don't share much of that collectivist
"loyalty, authority, purity" crap--even with a test that you're
either a liberal or a conservative.
More on where this Haidt fellow is coming from:
http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.graham.2007.when-morality-opposes-justice.pdf
|9.19.07 @ 2:28AM|#
I think you misunderstand liberals, or you misunderstand the
distinction between "individuals" and "the group." Groups consist
of individuals, and liberals are concerned with their well-being.
Each and every one of them. They are not willing to see some harmed
for the purpose of bringing benefits to the group as a whole. There
is little or no loyalty to the group as an abstract, just to the
individuals that make it up, among liberals.
I am boggled to the bone.
Over the past several years I've retreated from most liberal vs.
conservative battlegrounds, but do you remember the concept of
"affirmative action" for women and minorities? Perhaps some of you
are too young to remember it, but it was all the rage during the
'Eighties, and a major point of disagreement between conservatives
and liberals.
Conservatives argued that broad group-based hiring, promotion or
college admittance preferences that favored the advantaged black
daughter of Bill Cosby at the expense of the disadvantaged white
son of trailer park habitues didn't make sense and wasn't fair
to individuals. But I distinctly remember liberal defenders of
AA saying explicitly that perhaps in rare instances it was
unfair to a few individuals who were "inconvenienced," but this was
a worthwhile price to pay to rectify past injustices.
All people of a certain color were assumed to have been harmed by
the legacy of American racism; and all people of another color were
assumed to have been guilty of that racism, and to have benefited
substantially from it.
Indeed, almost all left-liberal thinking about race and policy, in
terms of past injustices, present-day reparations, and collective
responsiblity, is thinking in terms of groups and not
individuals.
Boggled, I tell you.
|9.19.07 @ 8:29AM|#
Its not that boggling. I think the authors make a mistake calling those first two values about the individual. Liberals and conservatives both believe in justice, fairness, and collective responsibility to the group. Liberals just define the group as everybody. Conservatives define it narrowly as ONLY people in their church or their race or their country, etc. So doing something that might hurt your kids or your neighbor's kids opportunity to help the kids of some black or immigrant family in the name of fairness or justice is a betrayal of the group (that loyalty thing).
Episiarch|9.19.07 @ 9:28AM|#
I said it at the beginning of this thread, and I'll say it
again. Both liberals and conservatives are collectivists, they just
have different priorities. And they both want to claim the mantle
of being for individual rights, but that's a load of shit.
This terrifies joe, and he will not, for any reason, admit that he
is just the flip side of the same coin of the people he sees
himself as opposed to.
|9.19.07 @ 3:29PM|#
I squrim when I read test questions about these subjects
because somewhere buried is the hidden notion that the government
and the governed are one, and that the morality of the governed
should be related to the actions of the government.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing
its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate
that Governments long established should not be changed for light
and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn
that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to
which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design
to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is
their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards
for their future security."
Government is not an entity, but an established process implemented
by a society. Libertarians often confuse this point.
|9.19.07 @ 3:33PM|#
Its not that boggling. I think the authors make a mistake
calling those first two values about the individual. Liberals and
conservatives both believe in justice, fairness, and collective
responsibility to the group. Liberals just define the group as
everybody. Conservatives define it narrowly as ONLY people in their
church or their race or their country, etc. So doing something that
might hurt your kids or your neighbor's kids opportunity to help
the kids of some black or immigrant family in the name of fairness
or justice is a betrayal of the group (that loyalty
thing).
Oh, come on. I don't think "liberals" are all that expansively
inclusive, nor are "conservatives" all that into tribal
particularism. What about black conservatives who oppose
affirmative action that could benefit members of their "group"? (Or
even themselves specifically.) How does this fit into your tidy
little picture?
I remain boggled by what joe said.
|9.19.07 @ 3:44PM|#
blah...they need to get the liberal conservative lefty thing
right...under this test i would score as a liberal and Joe would
score as Adolf Hitler...
Oh wait...nevermind....they got it right.
|9.19.07 @ 5:03PM|#
I squirm when I read test questions about these subjects
because somewhere buried is the hidden notion that the government
and the governed are one, and that the morality of the governed
should be related to the actions of the government.
...
Government is not an entity, but an established process implemented
by a society. Libertarians often confuse this point.
So I was not killed by an entity apart from myself, but by a
process of a society of which I am part? Good. I used to get
confused on this point. I now understand that the distinction
between the government, and myself as the governed, are not so
distinct, and I can now take responsibility for my suicide.
|9.19.07 @ 6:38PM|#
I squrim when I read test questions about these subjects because somewhere buried is the hidden notion that the government and the governed are one, and that the morality of the governed should be related to the actions of the government.
"Governments are instituted among Men...
Those faint noises were the points of both quoted items, far, far
overhead.
Government is not an entity, but an established process implemented by a society.
Funny, a quick check indicates that government can be "the
organization that is the governing authority of a political unit"
as well as the process used for governing.
|9.19.07 @ 6:40PM|#
I guess it is good that us wacky libertarians have taken over dictionaries to spread our weird ideas of what "government" is.
|9.20.07 @ 2:34AM|#
Tell you what, when conservatives have a broad enough definition
of the group, I'll start worrying about the group. Until then I'm
sticking to the individual.
And the polis. I do like my city.
And "purity"? Are you kidding? Only for the food supply!
|9.20.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Could it be that progressives/liberals/leftists talk a good
game about protecting the interests of some groups, society,
whatever, but actually make the claims that they want to protect
group/societal interests as a way to promote their own
self-interests?
No it couldn't....people who call themselves Leftists/progressives
are in fact not liberals at all, but simply fascists who mislabel
themselves.
|9.21.07 @ 4:07PM|#
Ron--
Surprised no one has brought up Aaron Wildavsky's seminal work on a
cultural theory of values. His early work with anthropologist Mary
Douglas and his later work interrupted by his death dealt in depth
with these "new" ideas.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245