The one main belief between liberals and conseratives

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Many Differences Between Liberals and Conservatives May Boil Down to One Belief

Conservatives tend to believe that strict divisions are an inherent part of life. Liberals do not

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Along these lines I recently heard an interview with former Republican house speaker Paul Ryan who infamously ended his long political career because Trump and Trumpism were getting to be way too much, although he didn’t say that directly. I disagreed with most of what he said but was surprised to hear that he completely disagrees with those on the right who are on the birth right train, believing they are better or more American simply because they happened to be born here. That fits perfectly in at the base level of believing in rigid hierarchy and also compliments authoritarianism where they can be a well defined patriotic cog. They believe that will somehow fill the void in their life.

 

[Alli]

In a nutshell, conservatives believe it’s “us” vs “other.” Most of us are “other.”

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

In a nutshell, conservatives believe it’s “us” vs “other.” Most of us are “other.”

But I wonder how much of that comes from personal experience vs what they are told to believe.

Lately I've been thinking about how my lefty ass has little personal experience with certain races and yet my head is full of all kinds of ideas and stereotypes about them. My conclusion is it all came from the media, be it news or entertainment. If somebody truly believes the left controls the media they've really done a piss poor job for race relations and haven't exactly promoted equality. I'm not familiar with this melting pot utopia the right thinks I'm getting indoctrinated with, or at least not before the last couple years. Now it's all either laser focused on the challenges of one identity or all identities coexisting in perfect harmony and no unique challenges based on their identity.

 

[AG_PhamD]

I think it’s important to be wary of psychological studies that involve politics. It’s an area at risk for bias- conscious or unconscious, for obvious reasons. I haven’t read the study itself, it’s not freely available, so I’ll have to see if can access it via my resources through work.

I’m not entirely clear of their methodology based on the article, but the description leads me to have many questions about the integrity of the results. It should be no surprise analyzing 80,000 tweets and 380 books opens the door for significant selection bias. And the survey questions that are asked and they way they are asked can influence respondents. Again, I have no judgement either way based on not having the full text.

The idea of hierarchical thinking among conservatives is not new- I believe this comes from 18th century writer Edmund Burke. The author of the study cites right wing “social dominance orientation” but fails to mention there is left wing authoritarianism, which exists but with different traits. I would argue some of the stereotypical left wing beliefs are very hierarchal in nature, but perhaps not quite to the same extent, but certainly in different areas that may or may not have been addressed.

I do find it interesting his results about not observing strong differences regarding danger vs safety, as this has been a long observed pattern- including differences in brain anatomy that might support this. Maybe those studies were wrong, maybe his study is wrong, or maybe how people respond is based on the context of the environment in which people live, at a given time. Given COVID-19, Trump, 1/6, the reported rise of hate groups, increasingly partisan/dramatic news, etc, it’s not surprising liberals might see the world as more unsafe than in past times.

It’s important to keep in mind any such conclusions, even if valid, are an aggregation of results condensed into a generalization. It does not imply the beliefs of every conservative or every liberal or the motive behind their beliefs. It’s best to treat people as individuals, not statistics.

I would agree with the author however that understanding why people believe what they believe is imperative for people to cooperate when opposing ideas exist.

 

[ArgoDuck]

^ All science is at risk of bias, as indeed is all human thought and discourse, which is why the scientific method includes rigorous checks of reliability, validity, replicability and reproducibility. As such, it is unwise to speculate on the content of a paper before having read it, and disappointingly dismissive of the professionalism of the two scientists involved in this case, and their team. Whilst critique and review is a core part and essential corrective in science, it must be based on the scientific literature itself rather than attempts to dumb it down for a wider audience.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I think it’s important to be wary of psychological studies that involve politics. It’s an area at risk for bias- conscious or unconscious, for obvious reasons. I haven’t read the study itself, it’s not freely available, so I’ll have to see if can access it via my resources through work.

I’m not entirely clear of their methodology based on the article, but the description leads me to have many questions about the integrity of the results. It should be no surprise analyzing 80,000 tweets and 380 books opens the door for significant selection bias. And the survey questions that are asked and they way they are asked can influence respondents. Again, I have no judgement either way based on not having the full text.

The idea of hierarchical thinking among conservatives is not new- I believe this comes from 18th century writer Edmund Burke. The author of the study cites right wing “social dominance orientation” but fails to mention there is left wing authoritarianism, which exists but with different traits. I would argue some of the stereotypical left wing beliefs are very hierarchal in nature, but perhaps not quite to the same extent, but certainly in different areas that may or may not have been addressed.

I do find it interesting his results about not observing strong differences regarding danger vs safety, as this has been a long observed pattern- including differences in brain anatomy that might support this. Maybe those studies were wrong, maybe his study is wrong, or maybe how people respond is based on the context of the environment in which people live, at a given time. Given COVID-19, Trump, 1/6, the reported rise of hate groups, increasingly partisan/dramatic news, etc, it’s not surprising liberals might see the world as more unsafe than in past times.

It’s important to keep in mind any such conclusions, even if valid, are an aggregation of results condensed into a generalization. It does not imply the beliefs of every conservative or every liberal or the motive behind their beliefs. It’s best to treat people as individuals, not statistics.

I would agree with the author however that understanding why people believe what they believe is imperative for people to cooperate when opposing ideas exist.

I’ve heard this theory about the right and their belief in hierarchy before I found out about this study. I won’t say the left is completely void of hierarchy, but I think one of the main reasons the left’s movements fall apart is due to their lack of leadership structure, either people don’t want to be in leadership or the group feels such structure is the antithesis of the movement – the whole “we are all equals!” thing. Occupy Wall St being a most obvious example.

 

[Renzatic]

The author of the study cites right wing “social dominance orientation” but fails to mention there is left wing authoritarianism, which exists but with different traits.

The article is written from a perspective viewed through our current political landscape, but honestly, the divide shouldn't be left or right, but authoritarian mindsets vs. more libertarian ones.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

The article is written from a perspective viewed through our current political landscape, but honestly, the divide shouldn't be left or right, but authoritarian mindsets vs. more libertarian ones.

To make things more confusing I was just thinking that Trump is to Republicans what Stalin was to communism. If you look at the ideals of communism it's far from what Stalin did with Russia and yet became synonymous with it mostly by his own PR. He was a definitive CINO. Take that hijacking of communism out of it and I think you’d find some big fans of Stalin on today’s right.

I'm not saying I'm a big fan of communism. I'm saying I don't think it's even come close to ever being achieved. The top heavy power and wealth while the majority of the masses suffered pretty much started right out the gate.

 

[Renzatic]

I'm not saying I'm a big fan of communism. I'm saying I don't think it's even come close to ever being achieved.

Real communism has never been successfully implemented, and I doubt it ever will, since it requires people to continually act in a way contrary to how they normally act to maintain it.

I think the exact same thing of Big L Libertarianism as well. Any political philosophy that always replies with "the people will..." or "the people won't..." to any question brought against it will inevitably fail.

 

[Alli]

But I wonder how much of that comes from personal experience vs what they are told to believe.

You have to be carefully taught.