4 ms·

People with higher cognitive abilities have weaker moral foundations

throwawaysleep 1y ago
> loyalty, tradition, or purity. Those three just seem to mean religion.
- delichon 1y ago
  I'm an atheist who values loyalty and see no contradiction there.
  - bluefirebrand 1y ago
    Same. I also value tradition, but not for religious reasons I think tradition is generally a good way to build bonds in society A society without social traditions is going to be a very atomic society and I think that is kinda bad Yes, historically most social traditions were based in religion but they don't have to be imo. We have to find ways to build strong social connections in other ways Strong social connections are extremely important. United we stand, Divided we fall
    - ajdjcbxjxnx 1y ago
      I’m fully in agreement with your post except for > but they don't have to be imo Are there any historical examples you’ve seen of this working? ie a society not binding over race / religion? I’ve come to terms with religion being necessary, even if I don’t prescribe to it. I benefitted heavily from growing up in a white, christian european society even though I rebelled against it. And after personally seeing good candidates (everyone passed them with highest marks) get turned down for jobs because they were white/asian males, it really opened my eyes to the whole world being tribal and I was the one tricked into thinking an alternative was possible. I still like to think it’s possible, but I don’t see evidence for it.
      - bluefirebrand 1y ago
        > Are there any historical examples you’ve seen of this working? ie a society not binding over race / religion? I'm not widely studied enough on History to say that this has never happened, but I think you're right. I am not aware of any Maybe it is not actually possible without religion, but I like to think that people can find a strong set of shared cultural and social values without the metaphysical aspect of religion
  - kgwxd 1y ago
    I suspect you mean you value people not stabbing you in the back, and strive to not stab people in the back. That, people you consider close, will work through rough patches, to some reasonable degree. Etc. That's just basic, bi-directional, human decency, it's not the "loyalty" they're talking about. They're talking blind devotion, under any and all circumstance. The "superior" can do no wrong. "Loyalty" isn't even the right word for that, but they'll use it anyway, just like they hijack "morality". Same with "tradition". They're talking about the king raping every woman before marriage. Seppuku from anyone that fails to meet their demands. People with "higher cognitive abilities" aren't seriously resistant to the annual potluck. The "purity" thing is just disgusting on it's face. Would love to see someone try to defend that idea here. This isn't a matter of cognitive ability. Even small children easily recognize, and resist, these abuses of power, until it's beaten out of them. There's an accurate name for the people that hold these "morals", it's "submissive". If you still don't see a conflict, perhaps you did actually mean that you value a kind of uni-directional loyalty, but good luck getting much of it without at least 1 other form of power. Theism is a highly effective tool, that's why so many powerful, self-proclaimed atheist, that are seeking more and more power, eventually "convert" anyway. It comes with a huge bag of free rubes.
- jacknews 1y ago
  Indeed I was about to post the same. The clue is probably in the title 'moral foundations'. Some tradition, loyalty and authority might be good, or even required for society to function, but they don't define 'goodness' to me, just 'conformity'. Take for example FGM. Are people who follow that tradition, accede to authority that dictates it, and loyal to it's tenets, 'good'?
karmakaze 1y ago
I didn't need a study to tell me this. I figured out that morality amounts to an appeal to authority, whether church or society. Ethics on the other hand, tries to work things out from first principles. Higher cognitive abilities means having greater ability to work things out from first principles. I would expect the a similar study for ethics to show a positive correlation (or possibly bimodal distribution).
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
PopAlongKid 1y ago
>These include two “individualizing” foundations—care and equality—that focus on protecting individuals from harm and promoting fairness. The other four—proportionality, loyalty, authority, and purity—are called “binding” foundations because they support social cohesion, hierarchy, and shared values. These six categories from this article reminded me of another article I saw recently. "The Elephant in America’s Room: How Moral Psychology Explains Our Political Civil War" > Haidt identified several distinct “moral foundations” that operate like taste receptors for moral concerns: Care/harm: Sensitivity to suffering and the need to protect the vulnerable Fairness/cheating: Concerns about equality, proportionality, and reciprocity Loyalty/betrayal: Valuing group cohesion and detecting threats to the group Authority/subversion: Respect for legitimate hierarchy and tradition Sanctity/degradation: Protection against contamination, both physical and spiritual Liberty/oppression: Resistance to domination and restriction of freedom https://medium.com/@_X_/the-elephant-in-americas-room-how-moral-psychology-explains-our-political-civil-war-e97824d07036 https://medium.com/@_X_/the-elephant-in-americas-room-how-mo...
- kgwxd 1y ago
  > Sensitivity to suffering and the need to protect the vulnerable > Concerns about equality, proportionality, and reciprocity > Resistance to domination and restriction of freedom Great. > Valuing group cohesion and detecting threats to the group > Respect for legitimate hierarchy and tradition > Protection against contamination, both physical and spiritual Here's where it all falls apart. Who decides "group" membership? Why is hierarchy and tradition so often allowed to violate the other "morals", even within the "group"? WTF is "contamination"? It's so easy to see the latter "morals" are just tools for tyrants. The former "morals" exclude them outright, so why does anyone accept them as being part of the same "foundation"? When I see people doing that, I feel the urge to "protect the vulnerable". I clearly see how they're giving up their equality and freedom to liars, cheats and thieves that will betray the group whenever it benefits them. It's frustrating as hell. The "group" should simply be "everyone", except the would-be tyrants. Guess some people just want that submissive life.
ringeryless 1y ago
i simply find that certain values defined by this study to be immoral, and the source of much of humanities problems, namely: purity, authority, and loyalty. it's as if the study put our political spectrum as an a priori set of truths, rather than symptomatic of the strong cultural sway what i consider to basically be the sources of social evil has. the power and prevalence of wrongful ideology does not make it moral.
- bigbadfeline 1y ago
  Disclaimer - I only skimmed through the linked article because I expected the selection of "values" to be biased to the point meaninglessness. Add the picture of a naked brain... can't get more cliche than that, very hard to read that kind of low quality propaganda. In general. looking for solutions in Psychology is as dead end as it can be. Propaganda and incentives determine values and knowledge, propaganda being the prime mover, it provides the excuses for skewed incentives. Talking about knowledge - how smart one is means little without true knowledge, which is sorely lacking in the so called "humanities". Without it, the "people with higher cognitive ability" are simply "garbage in - garbage out" generators. Well, a study of garbage can't result in anything other than garbage.
asmodeuslucifer 1y ago
Immediately reminded me of this TED talk from 2008: https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_liberals_and_conservatives https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_... But yeah, I don't just do what I'm told. Got kicked out of heaven for it.
more_corn 1y ago
The problem is that figuring things out for yourself takes a lot of work. It’s far easier to take someone else’s pre-built moral framework. If you have the spare energy maybe you’ll question the pre-built moral framework and thus diverge from it. (Or if the framework is insane in some important way as many moral frameworks have been throughout time —consider “Why can’t I own a Canadian”) People who can’t or don’t want to put in the effort follow all the rules. Thoughtful people figure out the rules they think are important to follow and how to live safely while ignoring the dumb ones.
raffael_de 1y ago
> While it’s often assumed that smarter people are more ethical or morally developed ... That is definitely not matching my experience and observations. Also there is absolutely no way to meaningfully assess ethics of a person with a standardized questionnaire.
- kgwxd 1y ago
  > That is absolutely not matching my experience and observations. Then I assume your experience and observation finds no correlation. If you're claiming a negative correlation, that's the same "meaningless" assessment the article makes, just based on anecdotal evidence, instead of a questionnaire.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

> loyalty, tradition, or purity. Those three just seem to mean religion.

delichon 1y ago
I'm an atheist who values loyalty and see no contradiction there.
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  Same. I also value tradition, but not for religious reasons I think tradition is generally a good way to build bonds in society A society without social traditions is going to be a very atomic society and I think that is kinda bad Yes, historically most social traditions were based in religion but they don't have to be imo. We have to find ways to build strong social connections in other ways Strong social connections are extremely important. United we stand, Divided we fall
  - ajdjcbxjxnx 1y ago
    I’m fully in agreement with your post except for > but they don't have to be imo Are there any historical examples you’ve seen of this working? ie a society not binding over race / religion? I’ve come to terms with religion being necessary, even if I don’t prescribe to it. I benefitted heavily from growing up in a white, christian european society even though I rebelled against it. And after personally seeing good candidates (everyone passed them with highest marks) get turned down for jobs because they were white/asian males, it really opened my eyes to the whole world being tribal and I was the one tricked into thinking an alternative was possible. I still like to think it’s possible, but I don’t see evidence for it.
    - bluefirebrand 1y ago
      > Are there any historical examples you’ve seen of this working? ie a society not binding over race / religion? I'm not widely studied enough on History to say that this has never happened, but I think you're right. I am not aware of any Maybe it is not actually possible without religion, but I like to think that people can find a strong set of shared cultural and social values without the metaphysical aspect of religion
- kgwxd 1y ago
  I suspect you mean you value people not stabbing you in the back, and strive to not stab people in the back. That, people you consider close, will work through rough patches, to some reasonable degree. Etc. That's just basic, bi-directional, human decency, it's not the "loyalty" they're talking about. They're talking blind devotion, under any and all circumstance. The "superior" can do no wrong. "Loyalty" isn't even the right word for that, but they'll use it anyway, just like they hijack "morality". Same with "tradition". They're talking about the king raping every woman before marriage. Seppuku from anyone that fails to meet their demands. People with "higher cognitive abilities" aren't seriously resistant to the annual potluck. The "purity" thing is just disgusting on it's face. Would love to see someone try to defend that idea here. This isn't a matter of cognitive ability. Even small children easily recognize, and resist, these abuses of power, until it's beaten out of them. There's an accurate name for the people that hold these "morals", it's "submissive". If you still don't see a conflict, perhaps you did actually mean that you value a kind of uni-directional loyalty, but good luck getting much of it without at least 1 other form of power. Theism is a highly effective tool, that's why so many powerful, self-proclaimed atheist, that are seeking more and more power, eventually "convert" anyway. It comes with a huge bag of free rubes.
jacknews 1y ago
Indeed I was about to post the same. The clue is probably in the title 'moral foundations'. Some tradition, loyalty and authority might be good, or even required for society to function, but they don't define 'goodness' to me, just 'conformity'. Take for example FGM. Are people who follow that tradition, accede to authority that dictates it, and loyal to it's tenets, 'good'?

I didn't need a study to tell me this. I figured out that morality amounts to an appeal to authority, whether church or society. Ethics on the other hand, tries to work things out from first principles. Higher cognitive abilities means having greater ability to work things out from first principles. I would expect the a similar study for ethics to show a positive correlation (or possibly bimodal distribution).

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

PopAlongKid 1y ago

>These include two “individualizing” foundations—care and equality—that focus on protecting individuals from harm and promoting fairness. The other four—proportionality, loyalty, authority, and purity—are called “binding” foundations because they support social cohesion, hierarchy, and shared values. These six categories from this article reminded me of another article I saw recently. "The Elephant in America’s Room: How Moral Psychology Explains Our Political Civil War" > Haidt identified several distinct “moral foundations” that operate like taste receptors for moral concerns: Care/harm: Sensitivity to suffering and the need to protect the vulnerable Fairness/cheating: Concerns about equality, proportionality, and reciprocity Loyalty/betrayal: Valuing group cohesion and detecting threats to the group Authority/subversion: Respect for legitimate hierarchy and tradition Sanctity/degradation: Protection against contamination, both physical and spiritual Liberty/oppression: Resistance to domination and restriction of freedom https://medium.com/@_X_/the-elephant-in-americas-room-how-moral-psychology-explains-our-political-civil-war-e97824d07036 https://medium.com/@_X_/the-elephant-in-americas-room-how-mo...

kgwxd 1y ago
> Sensitivity to suffering and the need to protect the vulnerable > Concerns about equality, proportionality, and reciprocity > Resistance to domination and restriction of freedom Great. > Valuing group cohesion and detecting threats to the group > Respect for legitimate hierarchy and tradition > Protection against contamination, both physical and spiritual Here's where it all falls apart. Who decides "group" membership? Why is hierarchy and tradition so often allowed to violate the other "morals", even within the "group"? WTF is "contamination"? It's so easy to see the latter "morals" are just tools for tyrants. The former "morals" exclude them outright, so why does anyone accept them as being part of the same "foundation"? When I see people doing that, I feel the urge to "protect the vulnerable". I clearly see how they're giving up their equality and freedom to liars, cheats and thieves that will betray the group whenever it benefits them. It's frustrating as hell. The "group" should simply be "everyone", except the would-be tyrants. Guess some people just want that submissive life.

ringeryless 1y ago

i simply find that certain values defined by this study to be immoral, and the source of much of humanities problems, namely: purity, authority, and loyalty. it's as if the study put our political spectrum as an a priori set of truths, rather than symptomatic of the strong cultural sway what i consider to basically be the sources of social evil has. the power and prevalence of wrongful ideology does not make it moral.

bigbadfeline 1y ago
Disclaimer - I only skimmed through the linked article because I expected the selection of "values" to be biased to the point meaninglessness. Add the picture of a naked brain... can't get more cliche than that, very hard to read that kind of low quality propaganda. In general. looking for solutions in Psychology is as dead end as it can be. Propaganda and incentives determine values and knowledge, propaganda being the prime mover, it provides the excuses for skewed incentives. Talking about knowledge - how smart one is means little without true knowledge, which is sorely lacking in the so called "humanities". Without it, the "people with higher cognitive ability" are simply "garbage in - garbage out" generators. Well, a study of garbage can't result in anything other than garbage.

asmodeuslucifer 1y ago

Immediately reminded me of this TED talk from 2008: https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_liberals_and_conservatives https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_... But yeah, I don't just do what I'm told. Got kicked out of heaven for it.

more_corn 1y ago

The problem is that figuring things out for yourself takes a lot of work. It’s far easier to take someone else’s pre-built moral framework. If you have the spare energy maybe you’ll question the pre-built moral framework and thus diverge from it. (Or if the framework is insane in some important way as many moral frameworks have been throughout time —consider “Why can’t I own a Canadian”) People who can’t or don’t want to put in the effort follow all the rules. Thoughtful people figure out the rules they think are important to follow and how to live safely while ignoring the dumb ones.

raffael_de 1y ago

> While it’s often assumed that smarter people are more ethical or morally developed ... That is definitely not matching my experience and observations. Also there is absolutely no way to meaningfully assess ethics of a person with a standardized questionnaire.

kgwxd 1y ago
> That is absolutely not matching my experience and observations. Then I assume your experience and observation finds no correlation. If you're claiming a negative correlation, that's the same "meaningless" assessment the article makes, just based on anecdotal evidence, instead of a questionnaire.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]