4 ms·

Would You Slap Your Father? If So, You’re a Liberal

26 points by yan 17y ago

Yes, I realize the title is very politically-charged, but it's an actual interesting article about dealing with ideas and people you don't agree with.

yan 17y ago
Yes, I realize the title is very politically-charged, but it's an interesting article on dealing with ideas and people you don't agree with and open-mindedness.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- novum 17y ago
  I wouldn't say it's politically-charged as much as it's linkbait and a bit of an overgeneralization.
AndrewO 17y ago
Jonathan Haidt (quoted in the article) gave an interesting TEDTalk along similar lines: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_mor...
lallysingh 17y ago
For the specialized research in this area, http://neuropolitics.org/ http://neuropolitics.org/ is a good reference. The site took a bit of time to load for me, but they've done a lot of work in the area of behavior, preference, biology, and political beliefs. The most relevant stuff is in the archives: circa 2006 +/- a year.
dustmop 17y ago
My current favorite political thinker, George Lakoff, has a whole body of work related to this subject. Conservations are focused on authority, while liberals are focused on empathy, and his theories conclude that the difference is based on different mental metaphors for the how families and family figures correspond to roles in government. His Wikipedia page has a decent enough introduction to his ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff
- absconditus 17y ago
  It's a good thing we can all be easily classified into two groups.
  - yalurker 17y ago
    Exactly. Words like "liberal" and "conservative" have become incredibly loaded terms, and the notion that they describe everyone is absurd oversimplification. At a very basic level, the combination of social and economic issues is silly. The politicalcompass.org site/method is not without bias, but at least they break it into a two dimensional problem. I've found that a great number of hackers/engineers skew towards more libertarian beliefs, where they may be "liberal" on one issue and then "conservative" on the next, but overall maintain a perfectly rational & consistent basis for their beliefs. These types of people don't fit well on a simplified 1-dimensional line between left & right.
byrneseyeview 17y ago
For liberals, morality derives mostly from fairness and prevention of harm. How very neutral! I often forget how pro-unfairness, and pro-harm conservatives are! I think a better way to understand it is that conservatives are political Darwinists, who believe in gradual adaptation to circumstances, undertaken at different rates by different groups. Liberals are political creationists, who hope to dissolve traditions and create a better society. It's a question of means, not ends: conservatives would probably argue that expropriating wealth someone has earned in order to give it to a third party is both unfair and an infliction of harm, whereas letting people keep what they make, and protecting them from criminals, is both fair and anti-harm.
- olefoo 17y ago
  Actually, the current definitions of liberal and conservative: Liberals: think it's OK to spend your money on government programs they hope will be useful. Conservatives: think it's OK to give your money to rich bankers so long as there are no strings attached. Entrepreneurs: think it's OK if you spend your money with them.
  - icey 17y ago
    This is why we can't have nice things.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    The fact that you threw the word "entrepreneurs" in there makes this an HN-worthy comment.
    - olefoo 17y ago
      I was actually trying to make a point about how the one-dimensional nature of most political discourse (Us!, Them!!) ignores most of the complexity that actually matters. And also acknowledge the reality that our political structures are corrupt, counterproductive and irrational. This may be one of those things you just can't say in polite society.
swombat 17y ago
Hey, I have a great idea... why don't we most more polarising, political fluff pieces to HN? That way, we might turn it into Reddit.
- quoderat 17y ago
  The problem is, this is based on science, not political puffery. The further problem is that you probably say that because it doesn't confirm some belief of your own. As for me, I care about the evidence.
- dschobel 17y ago
  It's actually an interesting (and scientific!) article saddled with a terrible title.
- dxjones 17y ago
  It is very interesting that a short survey (< 30 questions) can provide solid insights into deeply held political perspectives. Politicians / marketers should both be deeply interested in knowing how powerful / profitable this knowledge can be.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
philwelch 17y ago
So people choose their political beliefs based upon their personality. That's old news to me, but a more interesting question might be how many people buck these trends, because that might indicate how many people think critically about politics rather than embracing and trying to rationalize their first intuition.
jonknee 17y ago
I'd slap dad and also avoid having to touch faucets in public restrooms. Guess I'm a registered independent for a reason.
kirse 17y ago
For liberals, morality derives mostly from fairness and prevention of harm. For conservatives, morality also involves upholding authority and loyalty Interesting how liberal morality is vague and needs defined (i.e. how do we define what is "fair" and what is "harmful"), while the conservative morality is rooted in unchanging, definitive principles that are intuitively identifiable. Authority and loyalty aren't something that needs defined, you know them when you see them and instantly recognize it when there's a lack of them. On the other hand, what is "fair" or "least harmful" among a given set of decisions is always up for huge debate.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  It is worth noting that those positions may have reversed, roughly around Jan of this year. Nowadays, it mostly seems to be liberals promoting authority and loyalty, while conservatives talk about fairness.
  - kirse 17y ago
    Republican/Democrat != Conservative/Liberal. Regardless, can you name a few examples of what you're talking about?
    - anamax 17y ago
      The White House press secretary said yesterday that opponents of Obama's SCOTUS nominee should choose their words carefullywith nary a peep from Dems. When Bush's press secretary said the same thing, Dems went ape-shit.
- jibiki 17y ago
  No, it's a spectrum. There are no conservatives who believe that authority is always right, and no liberals (at least, very few liberals) who believe that it is never right. > Authority and loyalty aren't something that needs defined, you know them when you see them and instantly recognize it when there's a lack of them. On the other hand, what is "fair" or "least harmful" among a given set of decisions is always up for huge debate. It is impossible to base your decisions on authority and loyalty alone, because you might end up being loyal to an authority who enjoys genocide. As noted above, conservatives also take fairness into account. Think about abortion, for instance...

26 points by yan 17y ago

Yes, I realize the title is very politically-charged, but it's an actual interesting article about dealing with ideas and people you don't agree with.

yan 17y ago

Yes, I realize the title is very politically-charged, but it's an interesting article on dealing with ideas and people you don't agree with and open-mindedness.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
novum 17y ago
I wouldn't say it's politically-charged as much as it's linkbait and a bit of an overgeneralization.

AndrewO 17y ago

Jonathan Haidt (quoted in the article) gave an interesting TEDTalk along similar lines: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_mor...

lallysingh 17y ago

For the specialized research in this area, http://neuropolitics.org/ http://neuropolitics.org/ is a good reference. The site took a bit of time to load for me, but they've done a lot of work in the area of behavior, preference, biology, and political beliefs. The most relevant stuff is in the archives: circa 2006 +/- a year.

dustmop 17y ago

My current favorite political thinker, George Lakoff, has a whole body of work related to this subject. Conservations are focused on authority, while liberals are focused on empathy, and his theories conclude that the difference is based on different mental metaphors for the how families and family figures correspond to roles in government. His Wikipedia page has a decent enough introduction to his ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff

absconditus 17y ago
It's a good thing we can all be easily classified into two groups.
- yalurker 17y ago
  Exactly. Words like "liberal" and "conservative" have become incredibly loaded terms, and the notion that they describe everyone is absurd oversimplification. At a very basic level, the combination of social and economic issues is silly. The politicalcompass.org site/method is not without bias, but at least they break it into a two dimensional problem. I've found that a great number of hackers/engineers skew towards more libertarian beliefs, where they may be "liberal" on one issue and then "conservative" on the next, but overall maintain a perfectly rational & consistent basis for their beliefs. These types of people don't fit well on a simplified 1-dimensional line between left & right.

byrneseyeview 17y ago

For liberals, morality derives mostly from fairness and prevention of harm. How very neutral! I often forget how pro-unfairness, and pro-harm conservatives are! I think a better way to understand it is that conservatives are political Darwinists, who believe in gradual adaptation to circumstances, undertaken at different rates by different groups. Liberals are political creationists, who hope to dissolve traditions and create a better society. It's a question of means, not ends: conservatives would probably argue that expropriating wealth someone has earned in order to give it to a third party is both unfair and an infliction of harm, whereas letting people keep what they make, and protecting them from criminals, is both fair and anti-harm.

olefoo 17y ago
Actually, the current definitions of liberal and conservative: Liberals: think it's OK to spend your money on government programs they hope will be useful. Conservatives: think it's OK to give your money to rich bankers so long as there are no strings attached. Entrepreneurs: think it's OK if you spend your money with them.
- icey 17y ago
  This is why we can't have nice things.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  The fact that you threw the word "entrepreneurs" in there makes this an HN-worthy comment.
  - olefoo 17y ago
    I was actually trying to make a point about how the one-dimensional nature of most political discourse (Us!, Them!!) ignores most of the complexity that actually matters. And also acknowledge the reality that our political structures are corrupt, counterproductive and irrational. This may be one of those things you just can't say in polite society.

swombat 17y ago

Hey, I have a great idea... why don't we most more polarising, political fluff pieces to HN? That way, we might turn it into Reddit.

quoderat 17y ago
The problem is, this is based on science, not political puffery. The further problem is that you probably say that because it doesn't confirm some belief of your own. As for me, I care about the evidence.
dschobel 17y ago
It's actually an interesting (and scientific!) article saddled with a terrible title.
dxjones 17y ago
It is very interesting that a short survey (< 30 questions) can provide solid insights into deeply held political perspectives. Politicians / marketers should both be deeply interested in knowing how powerful / profitable this knowledge can be.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

philwelch 17y ago

So people choose their political beliefs based upon their personality. That's old news to me, but a more interesting question might be how many people buck these trends, because that might indicate how many people think critically about politics rather than embracing and trying to rationalize their first intuition.

jonknee 17y ago

I'd slap dad and also avoid having to touch faucets in public restrooms. Guess I'm a registered independent for a reason.

kirse 17y ago

For liberals, morality derives mostly from fairness and prevention of harm. For conservatives, morality also involves upholding authority and loyalty Interesting how liberal morality is vague and needs defined (i.e. how do we define what is "fair" and what is "harmful"), while the conservative morality is rooted in unchanging, definitive principles that are intuitively identifiable. Authority and loyalty aren't something that needs defined, you know them when you see them and instantly recognize it when there's a lack of them. On the other hand, what is "fair" or "least harmful" among a given set of decisions is always up for huge debate.

yummyfajitas 17y ago
It is worth noting that those positions may have reversed, roughly around Jan of this year. Nowadays, it mostly seems to be liberals promoting authority and loyalty, while conservatives talk about fairness.
- kirse 17y ago
  Republican/Democrat != Conservative/Liberal. Regardless, can you name a few examples of what you're talking about?
  - anamax 17y ago
    The White House press secretary said yesterday that opponents of Obama's SCOTUS nominee should choose their words carefullywith nary a peep from Dems. When Bush's press secretary said the same thing, Dems went ape-shit.
jibiki 17y ago
No, it's a spectrum. There are no conservatives who believe that authority is always right, and no liberals (at least, very few liberals) who believe that it is never right. > Authority and loyalty aren't something that needs defined, you know them when you see them and instantly recognize it when there's a lack of them. On the other hand, what is "fair" or "least harmful" among a given set of decisions is always up for huge debate. It is impossible to base your decisions on authority and loyalty alone, because you might end up being loyal to an authority who enjoys genocide. As noted above, conservatives also take fairness into account. Think about abortion, for instance...