6 ms·

Can explain why Republicans are less empathetic towards their fellow citizens, as they tend to be more about libertarian self empowerment, where they are kings

Can explain why Republicans are less empathetic towards their fellow citizens, as they tend to be more about libertarian self empowerment, where they are kings of their own world. Example: If you have a gun, you are placing yourself above others in order to gain power over them, and are therefore less likely to cooperate with your fellow citizens by offering to pay for their health care through taxes.

mordae 11y ago
That's not what is says. It says that if you place yourself above the others, you will need to contribute more. Probably because others will be reluctant to do so out fear of you grabbing most of the earnings. It might mean that you need unions for people to feel that they are getting their fair share, making them more invested.
- dawnbreez 11y ago
  I'd be afraid to get a union involved, because in my experience they make terrible decisions (reducing "full time" from 40 hours to 32, making it near-impossible to fire troublemaker workers, allowing each worker to be used for work they're not actually trained for with no prior warning). Then again, the only unionized place I've worked in is a Kroger.
jrochkind1 11y ago
No, I don't think that hypothesis has anything to do with the study at all. Just for starters, cooperative behavior declined in the lower ranked individuals in the study. From the abstract: "cooperation declined in the presence of a hierarchy due to a decrease in investment by lower ranked individuals." I admit I have only read the abstract so far. Did you even read that?
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
I'd love to see a study of the relative effects of hierarchy and cooperation in problem-solving effectiveness and inventiveness, with some interest in what positive non-toxic hierarchy looks like. The right kind of leadership really does seem to make everyone more focused and effective. But there are so many wrong kinds of leadership that the best outcome happen very rarely; bad leadership seems to be immensely destructive of group ability, and is much worse than ad hoc cooperation with no formal leadership.
- js8 11y ago
  It seems to me that FOSS projects like Linux have a "positive non-toxic" hierarchy. The hierarchy there is only based on merit and imposes no power constraints over the members, who all have the same access to the source. If you disagree with the elders, you can fork. I think if your project or team needs hierarchy for the decision-making, then the hierarchical order should have no power (for example, the leaders could be voted in democratically), because that way you get the positive effects and avoid the negative effects.
skaevola 11y ago
"Republicans are less empathetic towards their fellow citizens" Seriously? It's well established that conservatives/republicans donate more to charity. Here's Nicholas Kristoff's column on it: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=... Not only do Republicans donate more in absolute terms to charity, they also have lower average incomes, which means that the average giving as a portion of income is much higher. And it's not just donations to their church, Republicans are even more likely to donate blood than Democrats! I'm not writing this because I want to claim the moral high ground for the Republicans, I see Republicans and Democrats as each having different takes on how best to help the poor. Neither side has a monopoly on empathy.
- andyjohnson0 11y ago
  "they also have lower average incomes, which means that the average giving as a portion of income is much higher" I'd be cautious about comparing the average of one distribution with the average of another. Unless you know how the quantities are distributed (and income in particular is unlikely to be normally distributed), you risk making some misleading conclusions.
- mozumder 11y ago
  > It's well established that conservatives/republicans donate more to charity. Liberals solve social problems through taxes and big government, instead of donations. Neither side may have a monopoly, but one side is far more effective than the other at solving social problems.
  - jerf 11y ago
    I honestly don't even know which side it is that you think is "far more effective" at solving social problems. Do you think it's the Democrats? Because "big government and taxes" are also far more effective at creating social problems that local charities. Have you read about the corrosive effects of welfare on black communities? Have you ever joined in complaining about the inability of public school systems to successfully adapt and harness changing technologies? Have you noticed that our biggest social problems just "happen" to also be located right where Democratic policies were enacted (i.e., the policies preceded the social degradation)? All of these things are certainly at least debatable, but they are also certainly not so obviously false that they can simply be discarded without consideration. "Big government and taxes" may theoretically be more capable of solving problems, but there's a big gulf between theory and reality. And back on point so this is at least less an off-topic diversion than it otherwise would be, are you A: inclined to agree that hierarchies are bad for cooperation even as B: you declare that the largest hierarchy in the world, "government", is better at solving social problems than distributed non-hierarchical networks? I don't know, because you, mozumder, personally didn't say, but I rather suspect there's a lot of people here holding both those beliefs simultaneously without noticing the profound philosophical conflicts they have.

mordae 11y ago

That's not what is says. It says that if you place yourself above the others, you will need to contribute more. Probably because others will be reluctant to do so out fear of you grabbing most of the earnings. It might mean that you need unions for people to feel that they are getting their fair share, making them more invested.

dawnbreez 11y ago
I'd be afraid to get a union involved, because in my experience they make terrible decisions (reducing "full time" from 40 hours to 32, making it near-impossible to fire troublemaker workers, allowing each worker to be used for work they're not actually trained for with no prior warning). Then again, the only unionized place I've worked in is a Kroger.

jrochkind1 11y ago

No, I don't think that hypothesis has anything to do with the study at all. Just for starters, cooperative behavior declined in the lower ranked individuals in the study. From the abstract: "cooperation declined in the presence of a hierarchy due to a decrease in investment by lower ranked individuals." I admit I have only read the abstract so far. Did you even read that?

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

I'd love to see a study of the relative effects of hierarchy and cooperation in problem-solving effectiveness and inventiveness, with some interest in what positive non-toxic hierarchy looks like. The right kind of leadership really does seem to make everyone more focused and effective. But there are so many wrong kinds of leadership that the best outcome happen very rarely; bad leadership seems to be immensely destructive of group ability, and is much worse than ad hoc cooperation with no formal leadership.

js8 11y ago
It seems to me that FOSS projects like Linux have a "positive non-toxic" hierarchy. The hierarchy there is only based on merit and imposes no power constraints over the members, who all have the same access to the source. If you disagree with the elders, you can fork. I think if your project or team needs hierarchy for the decision-making, then the hierarchical order should have no power (for example, the leaders could be voted in democratically), because that way you get the positive effects and avoid the negative effects.

skaevola 11y ago

"Republicans are less empathetic towards their fellow citizens" Seriously? It's well established that conservatives/republicans donate more to charity. Here's Nicholas Kristoff's column on it: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=... Not only do Republicans donate more in absolute terms to charity, they also have lower average incomes, which means that the average giving as a portion of income is much higher. And it's not just donations to their church, Republicans are even more likely to donate blood than Democrats! I'm not writing this because I want to claim the moral high ground for the Republicans, I see Republicans and Democrats as each having different takes on how best to help the poor. Neither side has a monopoly on empathy.

andyjohnson0 11y ago
"they also have lower average incomes, which means that the average giving as a portion of income is much higher" I'd be cautious about comparing the average of one distribution with the average of another. Unless you know how the quantities are distributed (and income in particular is unlikely to be normally distributed), you risk making some misleading conclusions.
mozumder 11y ago
> It's well established that conservatives/republicans donate more to charity. Liberals solve social problems through taxes and big government, instead of donations. Neither side may have a monopoly, but one side is far more effective than the other at solving social problems.
- jerf 11y ago
  I honestly don't even know which side it is that you think is "far more effective" at solving social problems. Do you think it's the Democrats? Because "big government and taxes" are also far more effective at creating social problems that local charities. Have you read about the corrosive effects of welfare on black communities? Have you ever joined in complaining about the inability of public school systems to successfully adapt and harness changing technologies? Have you noticed that our biggest social problems just "happen" to also be located right where Democratic policies were enacted (i.e., the policies preceded the social degradation)? All of these things are certainly at least debatable, but they are also certainly not so obviously false that they can simply be discarded without consideration. "Big government and taxes" may theoretically be more capable of solving problems, but there's a big gulf between theory and reality. And back on point so this is at least less an off-topic diversion than it otherwise would be, are you A: inclined to agree that hierarchies are bad for cooperation even as B: you declare that the largest hierarchy in the world, "government", is better at solving social problems than distributed non-hierarchical networks? I don't know, because you, mozumder, personally didn't say, but I rather suspect there's a lot of people here holding both those beliefs simultaneously without noticing the profound philosophical conflicts they have.