Scott Allen Czysz
United States
Freeport
IL
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I found this very interesting. It's actually 10 years old, but from the political discussions I have and listen to, I think this fits very well.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind#t...


The gist of it is: after extensive studying and surveys, there seem to be 5 "channels" of morality (I'm not sure I would have called it morality, but that is what the speaker calls it):
- Harm (protecting people from harm)
- Fairness
- Authority
- Ingroup
- Purity

Liberals focus on the first 2: Harm and Fairness

Conservatives focus on those two, plus the other 3.



Pick a topic (border wall, Central American immigrant caravan, school choice, etc.) or think of a recent political discussion with a friend or family member with different views, and see if this makes sense.

Another point the speaker makes is that neither side is better than the other, and in fact. both sides are needed to keep the other in check.

Thoughts?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Niall Smyth
Japan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The analysis of moral viewpoints is good, but the idea that neither is right or that both are needed is very ethnocentric. There’s nothing so special about modern US party politics. What you call ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are not two essential aspects of human society. They’re just clusters of ideas that have grown organically out of US politics.

Neither ideology is fundamental or necessary, and there’s no reason to assume they form the two halves of fundamental human needs, surpassing time, culture, and geography.
20 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Allen Czysz
United States
Freeport
IL
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, watch the video, he states it better than me. But, he is an American, he is talking primarily (but not totally) about U.S. politics.

From my perspective (someone living in this political situation), this view is refreshing . Usually, all I hear is one side screaming at the other. So the concept that both sides have value and that there are ways to work together to solve some of the countriy's problems is a positive.

poshniallo wrote:
Neither ideology is fundamental or necessary, and there’s no reason to assume they form the two halves of fundamental human needs, surpassing time, culture, and geography.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that.



Thanks for chiming in.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Cook
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
It's missing the newest morality viewpoint - if Trump does it, it's OK.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bwian, just
United States
Longmont
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EMBison wrote:
It's missing the newest morality viewpoint - if Trump does it, it's OK.

Authority?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Allen Czysz
United States
Freeport
IL
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bwian wrote:
EMBison wrote:
It's missing the newest morality viewpoint - if Trump does it, it's OK.

Authority?


I think that is actually a very good example. It may be a sincere respect for authority, or it may be "Trump is on my side and I can't stand the other side, so I'm going to support Trump" masked as respect for authority.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bern Harkins
United States
Buffalo
New York
flag msg tools
Do the right thing. It's usually obvious.
badge
I Has a Stick! A Tiny Green Stick!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The idea that conservatism and liberalism are both necessary for a properly functional human society is interesting, and there's a great deal of evidence to back it up.

I heard an unusual and penetrating observation a few days ago.

"We are the liberals. It is our job to watch for fascists. You are conservatives. You keep an eye on the commies. Well, nice job, people. I thought we had this covered."

6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Australia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Radulla wrote:
The idea that conservatism and liberalism are both necessary for a properly functional human society is interesting, and there's a great deal of evidence to back it up.

I heard an unusual and penetrating observation a few days ago.

"We are the liberals. It is our job to watch for fascists. You are conservatives. You keep an eye on the commies. Well, nice job, people. I thought we had this covered."




The trouble occurs when the commies are the fascists.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The play's the thing ...
Australia
Point Lonsdale
Victoria
flag msg tools
badge
Going thirty-eight, Dan, chill the f*** out. Mow your damn lawn and sit the hell down.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mudhoney wrote:
Radulla wrote:
The idea that conservatism and liberalism are both necessary for a properly functional human society is interesting, and there's a great deal of evidence to back it up.

I heard an unusual and penetrating observation a few days ago.

"We are the liberals. It is our job to watch for fascists. You are conservatives. You keep an eye on the commies. Well, nice job, people. I thought we had this covered."




The trouble occurs when the commies are the fascists.



Oh boy that old chestnut. You need some new material your alt-right bullshit is showing again.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Elias Någonsson
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Haidt is quite popular nowadays, but I'd take his claims with a truckfull of salt.

Here's a good post on the issues with his approach.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
poshniallo wrote:
The analysis of moral viewpoints is good, but the idea that neither is right or that both are needed is very ethnocentric. There’s nothing so special about modern US party politics. What you call ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are not two essential aspects of human society. They’re just clusters of ideas that have grown organically out of US politics.

Neither ideology is fundamental or necessary, and there’s no reason to assume they form the two halves of fundamental human needs, surpassing time, culture, and geography.

There seems to be a left cluster and a right cluster in many cultures. The Roman Republic had that. The French largely have that the British and Americans have it hugely. Perhaps the clusters grow out of something underlying?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mudhoney wrote:
Radulla wrote:
The idea that conservatism and liberalism are both necessary for a properly functional human society is interesting, and there's a great deal of evidence to back it up.

I heard an unusual and penetrating observation a few days ago.

"We are the liberals. It is our job to watch for fascists. You are conservatives. You keep an eye on the commies. Well, nice job, people. I thought we had this covered."




The trouble occurs when the commies are the fascists.

Fascism is a political ideology, not a label to hang things you don't like on. There aren't many communists in liberal democracies. I suspect that those you call "commies" are probably social democrats and your politics is nearer Fascism than they are to communists.
21 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul K.
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Narrow Gate Games wrote:
Liberals focus on the first 2: Harm and Fairness

Conservatives focus on those two, plus the other 3.


I have not seen much evidence that Conservatives are very concerned with preventing harm or unfairness. Or at the very least, I do not believe both sides view "fairness" in the same way, such that it is comparing apples to oranges.

Also, aren't "ingroup" and "purity" basically the same thing? People who share my ideological purity are my ingroup.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Allen Czysz
United States
Freeport
IL
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pk2317 wrote:
Narrow Gate Games wrote:
Liberals focus on the first 2: Harm and Fairness

Conservatives focus on those two, plus the other 3.


I have not seen much evidence that Conservatives are very concerned with preventing harm or unfairness. Or at the very least, I do not believe both sides view "fairness" in the same way, such that it is comparing apples to oranges.

Also, aren't "ingroup" and "purity" basically the same thing? People who share my ideological purity are my ingroup.


I think conservatives would say that their desire to end abortions is all about preventing harm. For fairness, maybe drug testing welfare recipients could fall under "fairness". Or, conservatives may feel that the death penalty is fair. I am sure there are more.

I think ingroup is more pack or tribe mentality: Fraternities, Moose Club, Kiwanis, Cubs fans, etc. I think there are many groups people fall into, but it may be more how strongly you identify with the group: Harley Davidson tattoo on your arm, painting your house the color of your favorite sports team, etc. would be high "ingroup" scores.

The video also talked about "purity" as the desire for organic foods (to only put pure things into your body), maybe only eating food that you grow/raise on your own, etc.

(This is all my "expert" opinion based on watching the 18 minute TED Talk video, though).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mortego
United States
New Kensington
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I posted something like this a few months ago based off of an NPR weekend show I listened to.

This the bare basics of what I got out of it:

Liberals look forward to the future and how things can become better. Optimism & new ideas (be they good or not) drives their thinking.

Conservatives are fearful of progression and want things to stay the way they are or go back to the way things use to be. Saftey & Fear drives their thinking.

This is my conjecture and not the program I listened to.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edgar the Woebringer
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
mb
Nice theory in a vacuum, but this supposed balance means very little if huge numbers of people are suckered in by fake news and have made up their own reality. As long as this is going on, polarization will increase.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mortego
United States
New Kensington
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
edgarthewoebringer wrote:
Nice theory in a vacuum, but this supposed balance means very little if huge numbers of people are suckered in by fake news and have made up their own reality. As long as this is going on, polarization will increase.


I believe that these traits of conservatives & liberals have been a part of American Political Identity at least since the Reagan years but much more highlighted with pop news culture things lilke Tim Russert's Blue-Left / Red-Right.

9/11 certainly united the country but then Homeland Security was created which in my opinion catapulted the divisivness.

I don't have the discussion skills more than what I just wrote so it might be useless on your part to get me to say more or justify my belief.

I do have my own thoughts about this which is I also believe things are going to get far worse before it gets any better and the aggressors today are the hard far right wingers, no doubt about it. I feel bad for the conservatives of yesteryear who just want smaller government, lower taxes & the left to calm down just a bit, this Trump guy is fucking it up for them.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edgar the Woebringer
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
mb
Agreed, though for sure the 9/11 "unity" didn't last long, at least not for me. It didn't take many "towelhead" comments (toward Sikh indians in one case, for fuck's sake) and "freedom fries" nonsense for me to step off the train...I spent the runup to the Iraq bloodlust exercise arguing against it, getting called unpatriotic and worse.

I don't think Trump is the cause of any of this. He's just putting it out in the open because he simply doesn't care about rules and conventions. He's the embodiment of the "embrace your own facts" movement that has taken people over for years.

I also think things are going to get worse, maybe much worse. Best we can "hope" for is that the two American realities don't come to blows, Detente I guess.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Carr
United States
Barre
Vermont
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've linked to this video before here, and even shown it in class before. There are a lot of interesting things to chew on with the video.

Combine it with studies around conservative and liberal brain structures (conservatives have a larger and more active structure that processes emotions, while liberals have a larger and more active structure that processes nuance and complexity) and it gets even more interesting.

Add to the mix discussions around our evolutionary social structures, where our brains realistically only can handle viewing about 150 people as individuals, after that people become objects, and you add in even more complexity to our modern world where we have left 150 person tribes behind and deal with millions and billions of people.

Then add in our media environment where we are supersaturated with information, often intentionally structured to manipulate us.

Further add in a general information environment that allows individuals and small groups to leverage far more power than humans had ever previously be capable of doing in history and pre-history.

Finally, add in our growing command of our genetic code with things like CRISPR and the potential for a Gattaca-like dystopia.

It's a complicated mess with a lot of challenging potentialities.

What I see is a world where a decent amount of temperament is genetically based and not coming from the environment. It's not a totality or even the majority, but enough that its presence is real in our world. Some studies I've heard about put it at 40%.

Doh! Have run out of time... but that's the start for me!

Edit: Have a few more minutes... one area to chew on is what happens if we can map out the genetics around this personality spectrum. What happens if society decides that we just edit out certain parts of the spectrum?

3 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pk2317 wrote:
Narrow Gate Games wrote:
Liberals focus on the first 2: Harm and Fairness

Conservatives focus on those two, plus the other 3.


I have not seen much evidence that Conservatives are very concerned with preventing harm or unfairness. Or at the very least, I do not believe both sides view "fairness" in the same way, such that it is comparing apples to oranges.

Also, aren't "ingroup" and "purity" basically the same thing? People who share my ideological purity are my ingroup.


It's a matter of definitions. Conservatives want fewer restrictions, the idea being that everyone would have the same access by lack of government obstacles. The government not picking winners and losers is fair. Liberals tend to acknowledge that while everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not everyone starts off with equal access. So they are focused on balancing that as much as possible. Balancing opportunities is fair.

They're both fair. They just focus on different aspects of it. Alas, more conflict is created than is really necessary.

This description was brought to you by Broad Brush(TM). Broad Brush(TM), for when you only have fifteen seconds to deal with a nuanced subject. Go out and pick up a Broad Brush(TM) from your local rhetoric dealer... today.
8 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
pk2317 wrote:
Narrow Gate Games wrote:
Liberals focus on the first 2: Harm and Fairness

Conservatives focus on those two, plus the other 3.


I have not seen much evidence that Conservatives are very concerned with preventing harm or unfairness. Or at the very least, I do not believe both sides view "fairness" in the same way, such that it is comparing apples to oranges.

Also, aren't "ingroup" and "purity" basically the same thing? People who share my ideological purity are my ingroup.


It's a matter of definitions. Conservatives want fewer restrictions, the idea being that everyone would have the same access by lack of government obstacles. The government not picking winners and losers is fair. Liberals tend to acknowledge that while everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not everyone starts off with equal access. So they are focused on balancing that as much as possible. Balancing opportunities is fair.

They're both fair. They just focus on different aspects of it. Alas, more conflict is created than is really necessary.

This description was brought to you by Broad Brush(TM). Broad Brush(TM), for when you only have fifteen seconds to deal with a nuanced subject. Go out and pick up a Broad Brush(TM) from your local rhetoric dealer... today.


But in the real world many conservatives actions show this.

I'm on Top : Let's keep things as they are.
----------
----------
Foundation of racism, nepotism, sexism, and "old" money.

It's not equal and fair and on the merits. It's the rich white kid stepping into the job "reserved" for them by their "legacy" parents.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Julian Wasson
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
DAD JOKES
badge
Never trot when you can prance.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Narrow Gate Games wrote:
Bwian wrote:
EMBison wrote:
It's missing the newest morality viewpoint - if Trump does it, it's OK.

Authority?


I think that is actually a very good example. It may be a sincere respect for authority, or it may be "Trump is on my side and I can't stand the other side, so I'm going to support Trump" masked as respect for authority.


Ingroup
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
Admittedly I am make rough roundings here but ...

The latest data shows that roughly one-third of Americans are registered Democrats, roughly one-third are registered Republicans, and the rest (uhm, roughly one-third???) are independents, non-political, whatnot.

From numerous books concerning the American Revolution, it appears that:
One-third backed the Revolution
One-third remained loyal to the Crown
One-third sat on the fence to see who won

Change may be inevitable but it is only rarely welcomed with open arms. When it comes to cultural, political, and/or religious change, then things can spin off into the worst forms of violence. From my amateur reading of history, it's pretty much a constant despite the culture, despite the age, despite anything else.

I don't think this is really new at all.
2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Allen Czysz
United States
Freeport
IL
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cosmonaut Zero wrote:
Narrow Gate Games wrote:
Bwian wrote:
EMBison wrote:
It's missing the newest morality viewpoint - if Trump does it, it's OK.

Authority?


I think that is actually a very good example. It may be a sincere respect for authority, or it may be "Trump is on my side and I can't stand the other side, so I'm going to support Trump" masked as respect for authority.


Ingroup


??? Can you explain, please?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Burke Martin
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This doesnt really make sense to me because the far left doesnt fit into that mold at all. What this is considering liberal may as well be centrist which seems to throw the whole idea in the can.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.