3 ms·

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

6 points by thedday 4y ago

nhchris 4y ago
People high in hierarchical world belief see the world as full of differences that matter [..] You might imagine that, to them, the world looks full of big, bold black lines. The opposite view—held by people low in this belief—tends to perceive differences as superficial and even silly. For individuals with this perspective, the world is mostly dotted lines or shades of gray. This conflates two distinct things: the belief that things differ (e.g. blue is different from red), and the belief that there are clear and unambiguous distinctions between categories (on the color spectrum, where exactly does blue transition to red?) It seems one side argues there is a clear, objective line between blue and red, while the other argues blue and red are the same color.
- hindsightbias 4y ago
  In their mind it’s absolutely clear - now tell them their 15 year old daughter is pregnant and the world is suddenly gray. I’ve got a high school full of examples. The other side was always clear that it isn’t clear. They dont flip flop.
jqpabc123 4y ago
Is this really a surprise? I thought it was obvious. Conservatives spend their lives attempting to make the world rigidly binary --- good/bad, male/female, black/white. They rarely succeed but still, they rigidly maintain the faith and refuse to develop any real tolerance for gray areas. Their viewpoint is always under attack by reality but this only reinforces their need for and insistance on non-existent fantasy. Liberals view most of the world as being some shade of gray with the few real absolutes being exceptions rather than rules.
jfengel 4y ago
I don't doubt the results here, but I'm not sure they're as meaningful or predictive as it sounds. I think there's another dimension here, which not only distinguishes between personality tendencies but further reinforces the others as "bad". I feel like the level of distrust and outright hatred is out of proportion to the simple conflict of strategies. If that were the case, we'd be able to find a way for people to live together just by explaining it. We'd be able to posit plans that minimize the discomfort of dealing with people who think differently. Instead, people seem to go out of their way to antagonize their opponents. That tendency seems so strong that the actual difference in belief systems feels secondary. There may be an underlying mechanism that explains why the groups have chosen the positions they have, even when the issues feel orthogonal, but I don't think people are really deriving it from first principles. Instead, they copy each other, and don't seem to care much if it's really consistent with that one underlying belief. Which is to say, I don't think it's going to solve our political and cultural impasses by understanding the underlying psychology of it. I think that the conflict comes down to the fact that people want to be in conflict. For many, it seems like winning the argument is more important than being right about any particular issue. We won't resolve that until we find ways to make people not want to hate each other so much. I suppose it's possible that understanding the underlying world view might give us an insight into a strategy to accomplish that -- at least, that it would be different between liberals and conservatives. But this seems to be a very tough nut to crack, and I'm at a loss.

6 points by thedday 4y ago

People high in hierarchical world belief see the world as full of differences that matter [..] You might imagine that, to them, the world looks full of big, bold black lines. The opposite view—held by people low in this belief—tends to perceive differences as superficial and even silly. For individuals with this perspective, the world is mostly dotted lines or shades of gray. This conflates two distinct things: the belief that things differ (e.g. blue is different from red), and the belief that there are clear and unambiguous distinctions between categories (on the color spectrum, where exactly does blue transition to red?) It seems one side argues there is a clear, objective line between blue and red, while the other argues blue and red are the same color.

hindsightbias 4y ago
In their mind it’s absolutely clear - now tell them their 15 year old daughter is pregnant and the world is suddenly gray. I’ve got a high school full of examples. The other side was always clear that it isn’t clear. They dont flip flop.

jqpabc123 4y ago

Is this really a surprise? I thought it was obvious. Conservatives spend their lives attempting to make the world rigidly binary --- good/bad, male/female, black/white. They rarely succeed but still, they rigidly maintain the faith and refuse to develop any real tolerance for gray areas. Their viewpoint is always under attack by reality but this only reinforces their need for and insistance on non-existent fantasy. Liberals view most of the world as being some shade of gray with the few real absolutes being exceptions rather than rules.

jfengel 4y ago

I don't doubt the results here, but I'm not sure they're as meaningful or predictive as it sounds. I think there's another dimension here, which not only distinguishes between personality tendencies but further reinforces the others as "bad". I feel like the level of distrust and outright hatred is out of proportion to the simple conflict of strategies. If that were the case, we'd be able to find a way for people to live together just by explaining it. We'd be able to posit plans that minimize the discomfort of dealing with people who think differently. Instead, people seem to go out of their way to antagonize their opponents. That tendency seems so strong that the actual difference in belief systems feels secondary. There may be an underlying mechanism that explains why the groups have chosen the positions they have, even when the issues feel orthogonal, but I don't think people are really deriving it from first principles. Instead, they copy each other, and don't seem to care much if it's really consistent with that one underlying belief. Which is to say, I don't think it's going to solve our political and cultural impasses by understanding the underlying psychology of it. I think that the conflict comes down to the fact that people want to be in conflict. For many, it seems like winning the argument is more important than being right about any particular issue. We won't resolve that until we find ways to make people not want to hate each other so much. I suppose it's possible that understanding the underlying world view might give us an insight into a strategy to accomplish that -- at least, that it would be different between liberals and conservatives. But this seems to be a very tough nut to crack, and I'm at a loss.