Conservatives and liberals are two distinct political ideologies that shape the beliefs and values of individuals and societies. Both ideologies place a high value on democracy as the cornerstone of a just and equitable society, upholding the principles of free and limited government. Conservatives advocate for limited government intervention, emphasizing personal freedom, while liberals support traditional social institutions and values like family, faith, and community.
Liberalism typically emphasizes progress, equality, and reform, while conservatism often prioritizes tradition, stability, and maintaining established norms. Classical liberal values include economic freedom, free trade, individual liberty, property rights, and freedom of speech.
However, there are notable exceptions between conservatives and liberals in terms of moral values. Liberals rely on care, fairness, and purity when making moral judgments about influential people, while conservatives believe in more freedom to allow people to live the lives they want. Liberals believe in trading freedoms for a society, while conservatives care about individual rights such as harm and fairness.
The moral foundations research suggests that liberals care about moral values related to individual rights such as harm and fairness, while conservatives care about opportunity, responsibility, and security. American liberals and conservatives both value opportunity, responsibility, and security, and share a broad consensus on views.
Liberalism means a tendency to embrace change and reject inequality. Political parties evolve with time, with Democrats being the conservative party. Liberals and conservatives base their moral values, judgments, and arguments on different configurations of the five foundations. Liberals often favor a larger government that taxes more and spends more to provide services to its citizens.
Despite their differing community preferences, liberals and conservatives generally share a desire to be close to family, good schools, and the right to vote.
| Article | Description | Site |
|---|---|---|
| What are main values of conservatives and liberals? | Care, Fairness, and Liberty are the three values liberals and conservatives share. If you’re talking values, you should check out Moral … | quora.com |
| Research finds both conservatives and liberals endorse ‘ … | Conservativism and liberalism each represent generally desirable “values” and generally undesirable “vices” in the nation’s political landscape. | phys.org |
| Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs | Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems. Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free … | studentnewsdaily.com |
📹 The moral roots of liberals and conservatives – Jonathan Haidt
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies the five moral values that form the basis of our political choices, whether we’re left, right, …
Do Liberals And Conservatives Share A Lot Of Moral Values?
Liberals and conservatives often share more moral values than commonly perceived, according to a recent study published in PLOS ONE. This research suggests that while liberalism is closely tied to social issues, the core difference between the two political ideologies lies in their emphasis on loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Liberals mainly construct their moral frameworks around two psychological foundations—Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity—prioritizing individual rights.
In contrast, conservatives focus more on binding values like loyalty, authority, and purity. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt's work highlights the five core moral foundations influencing political choices across the spectrum. Evidence from multiple studies indicates that liberals demonstrate higher endorsement of individualizing moral values, while conservatives equally value both individualizing and binding foundations. Despite this, both liberals and conservatives tend to misrepresent the extent of their moral differences, leading to moral distrust and animosity between ideological opponents.
The research underscores that both groups have shared values, but they differ in their emphases. Overall, Haidt et al.’s findings reveal that empathy across political divides is often lacking, owing to differing moral frameworks, which complicates mutual understanding in the political landscape.
What Are Modern Liberal Values?
Modern liberalism, dominant in the United States, advocates for government regulation of private industry, opposes corporate monopolies, and champions labor rights. It favors maintaining social safety net spending and implementing income-proportional tax reforms to mitigate deficits. This ideology melds civil liberties and equality with social justice and a mixed economy. A key tenet of modern liberalism is the protection of individual rights, including civil and human rights, freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, and privacy.
Modern liberalism seeks to address economic inequalities and extend individual rights, encompassing contemporary issues such as same-sex marriage, transgender rights, reproductive rights, and voting rights for all. Rooted in Enlightenment ideals, it emphasizes rationality, autonomy, and the moral equality of persons, advocating for a welfare state and government intervention to prevent exploitation. Modern liberals strive for equitable treatment across society, rejecting discrimination in any form.
They believe in individual autonomy and the necessity of a government that exists to safeguard personal liberties. Arising from liberalism's broader definition of constitutional government and democratic values, modern liberalism positions itself at the center of the economic spectrum. Acknowledging the vital role of the state in protecting individual rights, it underscores that all individuals are entitled to equal respect and opportunities for self-determination.
What Do Republicans Believe In?
The Republican Party, known as the GOP, has undergone significant evolution since its anti-slavery origins to its current pro-Trump stance. Currently, the party's fiscal conservatism champions lower taxes, gun rights, government conservatism, free market capitalism, deregulation, and restrictions on labor unions. Republicans advocate for liberty, economic prosperity, and traditional American values. Unlike Democrats, who prioritize larger government and social welfare, Republicans emphasize individual responsibility and minimal government intervention.
A survey indicates Republicans are more likely to highlight faith, freedom, and patriotism in their values, as compared to Democrats’ focus on nature and new ideas. Trump's presidency shifted many establishment Republicans' long-held views, with a strong consensus on maintaining fossil fuels as part of the energy landscape. In the upcoming 2024 convention, the GOP aims to promote economic growth, protect constitutional freedoms, and ensure election integrity, encapsulated in their platform "Make America Great Again." As the party prepares for its national convention, understanding its beliefs and policies is essential for those interested in getting involved in the Republican efforts to bolster American ideals amidst ongoing political tensions.
What Are Liberal Beliefs?
Liberal beliefs prioritize progress, equality, and social justice, advocating for governmental intervention to tackle social and economic disparities. Liberals promote diversity, environmental protection, and expand social welfare programs while supporting rights such as gay marriage and access to abortion, in contrast to conservative views opposing these issues. Both conservatism and liberalism shape societal and governmental perspectives, though they significantly differ in approach and ideology.
Liberalism emphasizes individual rights, liberty, and a limited government framework based on fundamental ideals like consent of the governed, freedom of speech, and equality before the law. Central to liberalism is the notion that government should remove barriers to personal freedom and address social issues. It holds that the government has a duty to alleviate social problems and protect civil liberties. Liberals advocate for policies that ensure equal opportunity for all individuals, irrespective of race, gender, or socioeconomic status, while fundamentally asserting individual autonomy.
While modern liberalism has evolved significantly, it continues to uphold essential values like tolerance, the protection of individual rights, and the importance of free markets. The core difference between liberalism and conservatism lies in their perspectives on tradition and reform, with liberalism favoring change and progressive ideals against established norms.
What Are 3 Core Values Of Conservatives?
The seven core principles of conservatism include individual freedom, limited government, the rule of law, peace through strength, fiscal responsibility, free markets, and human dignity. These principles emphasize the importance of preserving individual, God-given liberties against government intrusion. Conservatives advocate for an enduring moral order, seeking to reinforce family values and traditional standards in education. They typically oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, and certain aspects of organized social progressivism.
Upholding individual rights, especially gun ownership, is also a hallmark of conservatism, alongside a belief in assimilation and colorblind laws. Political conservatism in democracies seeks to maintain established social structures and values, often rooted in Christian ethics. While differences in views exist, fundamental principles emphasize liberty, economic prosperity, and American values. Conservatism is seen as cultural and political, aiming to protect traditional institutions and customs.
This ideology does not follow a rigid doctrine, focusing instead on the continuity of values to ensure future freedoms for new generations. Influential conservative media and figures shape American conservatism as a significant ideology.
What Do Conservatives Believe In?
Conservatives advocate for personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and traditional American values, rooted in a strong national defense. They believe that the government's role is to grant individuals the freedom to pursue their goals, emphasizing individual responsibility, where each person should be accountable for their actions. Conservatism supports the Constitution, democratic capitalism, and equality of opportunity, proposing that a moral order exists which facilitates societal cooperation and repels forces of evil.
Current conservative fiscal policies endorse lower taxes, gun rights, deregulation, and restrictions on labor unions, prioritizing local solutions over federal mandates. Social conservatives view society as a network of relationships, reliant on duty and established institutions, and argue for government encouragement of traditional values. Additionally, conservatives often express skepticism toward certain scientific perspectives, such as climate change and evolution, favoring a strong defense against perceived cultural threats.
While progressives tend to seek broad, uniform political solutions, conservatives endorse tailored, community-specific approaches. Overall, conservatism aims to uphold the ideals of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence while fostering a societal respect for rights and traditional values.
What Do Conservatives Value?
American conservatives advocate for a robust national defense, gun rights, capital punishment, and the defense of Western culture against perceived threats such as communism, Islamism, and moral relativism. They often express skepticism regarding epidemiology, climate change, and evolution more than moderates or liberals. Central to conservative belief is the notion of an enduring moral order that emphasizes personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and traditional American values.
Conservatism, at its essence, seeks to preserve established social orders. Republicans, as conservatives, share core values of order, stability, prudence, and honesty, while also valuing civic institutions and assimilation. Though there may be differing viewpoints within conservatism, foundational principles remain constant. Conservatives generally reject the idea that humans can be perfected and embrace a sense of home and tradition. Fiscal conservatives and libertarians support capitalism, advocate for low taxes and reduced government intervention.
Ultimately, conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy that aims to uphold traditional institutions and customs, in contrast to progressive ideologies that promote universal solutions for societal issues.
What Are Conservative Values?
Traditionalist conservatism, often termed classical conservatism, underscores the significance of natural law, moral order, tradition, and established hierarchy. It champions loyalty, individual freedom, and the moral virtues inherent in democratic capitalism. Traditionally at odds with liberal thought, conservatism aims to uphold enduring values and institutions, emphasizing a stable social order. Its four fundamental tenets, referred to as the pillars of modern conservatism, include liberty, the protection of life, and limited governmental interference in both economic and social realms.
Conservatives prioritize "ordered liberty," which balances individual freedoms with societal stability, and are generally resistant to change, favoring the status quo. While differing on specific issues, conservative principles—such as the preservation of tradition and skepticism toward change—remain consistent. In contrast with liberal beliefs advocating for government intervention to rectify social issues, conservatives advocate personal responsibility and free markets.
Influenced by Christian media and figures, American conservatism is a mainstream ideology rooted in the desire to maintain traditional values for future generations, distinguishing itself from liberalism and radicalism.
What Beliefs Do Liberals And Conservatives Share?
The moral codes of liberals and conservatives demonstrate systematic differences, yet their similarities are more pronounced. Both groups commonly rely on principles such as care, fairness, and purity when judging influential figures. While conservatives typically oppose issues like gay marriage, abortion, and embryonic stem cell research, liberals advocate for progressive changes supporting these rights.
Ideologically, conservatism emphasizes personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and traditional values, whereas liberalism prioritizes equality, reform, and broader government roles.
Despite their divergent views, research indicates that both liberals and conservatives value opportunity, responsibility, and security, often desiring close family ties and quality education. The divide is reflected in their political parties; the Democratic Party aligns more closely with liberal beliefs, while the Republican Party embodies conservative values. Studies further highlight that the perceived gap between liberal and conservative moral frameworks may be exaggerated.
Despite differing approaches to societal issues, both ideologies play significant roles in shaping American political and social landscapes, revealing shared values in their complex relationship within the political spectrum.
What Are The Moral Differences Between Liberals And Conservatives?
Moral foundations research indicates that liberals prioritize moral values related to individual rights, particularly harm and fairness, while conservatives emphasize these values alongside group rights such as loyalty, authority, and purity. Studies led by Jonathan Haidt and others reveal distinct moral foundation patterns between these political groups, with liberals focusing on individualizing values and conservatives on binding values. Research involving 37 peer-reviewed studies has shown that liberals and conservatives exhibit different brain structures and physiological responses.
Haidt identifies two primary psychological foundations for liberals—harm/care and fairness/reciprocity—contrasting with conservatives who value loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. While genuine moral differences exist, both groups tend to exaggerate the magnitude of these differences. Overall, liberals are more willing to embrace novelty and change, while conservatives seek security and maintain existing structures.
This comprehensive analysis of moral foundations highlights that both liberal and conservative voters possess overlapping moral intuitions, urging recognition of shared values despite political divides.
What Does A Conservative Think Of Government?
Conservatives advocate for limited government intervention in economic and social matters, favoring a free-market approach. They emphasize personal responsibility, individual liberty, and the preservation of traditional values. A strong national defense and robust foreign policy are also priorities. Reflecting on the nation's founding principles, conservatives stress that government should serve its citizens without overreaching, as articulated by Ronald Reagan.
The perception of the U. S. as inherently liberal shifted post-New Deal, challenging conservatives to offer transformative structural reforms rather than mere government critiques. Many conservatives argue for a smaller government, citing inefficiencies in government spending. Despite the GOP's identity crisis, a majority of conservatives desire a government that respects citizen rights and freedoms.
Conservatism, a dominant ideology worldwide, supports the evolution of traditional institutions within a stable framework. It is characterized by a body of opinion with no rigid dogma, focusing instead on core principles like individual liberty, limited governance, and upholding time-honored customs. The ideology’s influence remains significant, as reflected in various public opinions and the role of conservative media and figures in shaping modern discourse.
What Do Conservative And Liberal Ideologies Believe In?
Both conservative and liberal ideologies value democracy as essential for a just society, promoting free elections, rule of law, and individual rights. Conservatives advocate for personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, and traditional values. They see the government's role as minimal, emphasizing that it should operate mainly at state or local levels while prioritizing national defense and stability. In contrast, liberalism champions government intervention to address social inequalities and emphasize progress and equality.
Liberals support global cooperation, diplomacy, and universal access to services such as healthcare. While conservatives view stability and tradition as crucial, liberals embrace change and reform. The main distinction lies in their approaches to social issues: liberals favor active governance to foster equality, while conservatives resist extensive changes, upholding established norms and values. Overall, these ideologies reflect differing beliefs about the role of government, society, and individual rights within the American political landscape, with many Americans aligning as conservative, liberal, or moderate amidst evolving political dynamics.
📹 How Are Conservative And Liberal Brains Different?
Conservatives and liberals disagree on many topics in the world of politics. Are their brains wired differently? Tara takes a look at …
I’m a big fan of Jonathan Haidt’s work. To the conservatives perusal this – I see lots of comments below where people have stopped perusal after a few minutes but this isn’t quite what you think it may be. I’d only recommend that you persevere through to about the 4m30s point if not further. He is not some trojan horse for either the insane left or insane right but rather someone who has provided insights into how people arrive at their political viewpoints and also why polarisation is getting so much worse whether it be in the US or other democracies. Well worth perusal no matter what your view points are.
I assumed responsibility for an unplanned child when I was 22 years old. It was not easy. At the time I was much more liberal than I am today. Becoming a parent, and having to think of the interests of my daughter, forced me to live my way into a new way of thinking instead of thinking my way into a new way of living. Thanks for reading.
I see some confusion in the comments. Hoping to clear that up. Its not “open mindedness” that liberals are high in, its “open to experience”. Its a psychological term, and one of the big 5 personality traits. The 5 scales are vastly agreed upon by psychological academia to be our best understanding of the dimensions of our personalities. Try to not think about it as a conversational “open minded” nature but rather as where someone stands on this important psychological dimension. Everything he’s saying is bang on with the literature on the topic.
Wow. We need this more today than any day in US history. What a beautiful summation of what it is to be an American, I am looking at my Canadian Familia as well, and what we need to keep a healthy society in which our children can grow and prosper. Love one another people. We all bring strengths to the table. Keep the peace.
I am a huge lefty but never had I heard it explain in a way like this! This whole time I’m beating my brain asking how can the RIGHT be so blind but in fact it was me being blind to their beliefs. I’m more confused then ever but this is good because I want to understand more now then ever thank you very much!!!!!
It’s interesting that we all claim to want to have open and understanding discourse. Open and understanding discourse means two things: that we’re willing to listen to each other and that we’re willing to be respectful of others views. Most people, conservative or liberal have very poor listening skills and respect for one another. On top of that if you really cared about finding solutions together – rather than engaging in inflammatory and redundant discussion, you would make great efforts to communicate in an intelligent way, being careful not to oversimplify issues and make generalizations about other people. Lack of respect, listening skills, and over generalizations are what creates wars and we’re all guilty of it.
What he left out in this talk and what he did mention in his conversation with Sam Harris on Harris’ podcast, maybe because he didn’t have that data yet at this point, was that they also asked liberals and conservatives what they thought people with opposite views would say in the test. And what came out was that conservatives pretty much understand what liberals think and what their rational is for thinking that, and liberals have no clue as to why conservatives hold certain views. This struck me as weird since liberals more or less see themselves as being empathic and open minded, but when it comes to emphasise with conservatives you often hear them say:”I can’t understand how you can think like that.” or something along those lines. The Sam Harris podcast with Haidt is worth listening to if you enjoyed this tedtalk.
This talk was in Feb 2008. It was, in my opinion, the peak of TED Talks. He punked them for being in danger of becoming an ideological echo chamber in such a clever way that they laughed and applauded him for it. I mean, he went in on them… “… if you understand this trait, you could understand why anybody would eat at Applebee’s, but not anybody that you know.” – hahahhahahha – Jon: “this trait also tells us a lot about politics.” — and then gets them to self-identify as partisans, before explaining to them why this is a problem. In early 2008. Not New Years Eve 2012.
Thank you, i’ve always thought you have to be conservative with yourself and liberal to your neighbours. We can’t deny peoples experiences of the world, but we can learn to better co exist, to do that, understanding and accepting ourselves, is KEY to understand and accept each other We’re a lot more similar than we like to accept, its just that we don’t like to show to each other.
He was doing so good until the end when he says, “everyone thinks they are right…some problems require us to change other people.” This is a perfect example of how we can be aware of others problems and be completely blind to our own problems. It’s also funny how often this blindness shows up in literally back to back statements when people talk. Thinking we need to change other people comes into it believing 2 fallacies: 1) I am right 2) I can change other people The idea that we need to change others can happen in all forms of extreme ideology. As a personality trait though, it tends to be more common for those that lean to the left. It comes from being open to change which makes all forms of change seem possible, including changing others. Conservatives tend to resist change which forces them to accept things as they are, which includes people. All you can do is change yourself and constantly strive for the truth. The left needs to focus on changing themselves instead of others. The right needs to focus on being more open to change, so they can be more open to changing themselves.
Brilliant thing to reflect on here in 2022. I consider myself moderate with a desire for new experiences and appreciate values, morality, some traditions. I think this talk gets missed by some in that crowd but the fact that we’re not nearly as witty or as considerate as we think we are is incredible to recognize and reflect on. The fairness and purity chart literally lands the point with no additional effort. You can’t be an arbiter of fairness and prosperity and then ignore what it took to put you in a position to offer that. You have to drive balance and know where to lean to keep the ship afloat and let the vocal minority that can’t handle with it deal with it.
I’m a Christian and a left leaning independent . I’ve been accused of being a “fake” Christian because I’m not a Republican . It’s a trip. Most of my friends are liberals and some are conservatives. We love each other all the same and rarely discuss politics together – especially in this climate. I think we all have something to offer and it shouldn’t be rooted in political ideologies. Just be kind. ❤️
I tend to agree with many commenters here that dividing people into left and right leaning (“liberal” in the North American sense and “conservative”) is simplistic, especially when you are looking at periods of social breakdown and decay. Populist movements around the world are gaining traction. I live in Latin America, where populism is viewed as intrinsically left-wing, whereas in Europe and the US it is seen as right-wing. Regardless of this, Trump – or Farage in the UK, or Le Pen in France – is the closest you could find to say, Chavez or his pea-brained successor in Venezuela, despite the alleged difference in ideology. What drives such movements as far as I can see is the desire to belong to a collective that is numerically strong and has a clearly defined enemy, and people are inclined to accept a degree of authoritarianism for the sake of the feeling of security and belonging this brings. So the divide is really between collectivists and individualists, where the latter are on the defensive pretty much everywhere in the world at present, and I think when you look at it that way, Haidt’s message here is as timely as ever: people need to park their prejudices and lower their hackles and make more of an effort to try to understand the legitimate aspirations and fears of the other side, and look for win-win solutions.
If you start from a place of curiosity and possibly empathy when you are in the presence of someone who has differing views, you are much more likely to be open to exploring where they got their ideas/beliefs from. Most people in a conversation are thinking about a response when they should be listening to the person speaking. It takes skill and practice, something I am certainly working on.
Cool concept. I’ve been trying to start learning more about the conservative point of view, and I think this finally gives me a bit of a starting point. It’s hard because a lot of people who lean on the right side are SO different, that it takes a lot of work for me to try to understand their side. There are some parts where I’m simply left baffled and confused, but I still try. It also doesn’t help that it feels like current political representatives are rather extreme to one side or the other, leaving me to wander in search of people who are level-headed and open to considering different points of view.
Interesting approach. The speaker says that people should reach out and learn about others, but starts out by belittling the “other side.” It endeared him with his in-person audience, but likely not to a more diverse internet audience. This causes approximately half of his online audience to tune out before they can hear his points.
I appreciate that he is pointing out that all/most people seek justice but that liberals and conservatives believe justice comes from two different methods or sources. Liberals believe if they keep working at it, they can obtain justice through enacting more and more restrictive laws, silencing opposing views, and ostracizing people that do not think like them. Conservatives believe limiting laws creates an atmosphere where the most opportunity exists for freedom thereby enabling people to rise above their circumstances. Additionally, many religious conservatives believe that “perfected” justice will only happen with God because man’s justice (or idea of justice) will always be flawed. Now, some of you will read the descriptions above and think, I agree with the writer of this comment. Others of you will say, the way in which you describe the liberal approach is very negative. I believe that is what this gentleman is doing with his descriptions when comparing liberals vs. conservatives. For instance, liberals are very “open to experience” and crave “..variety and diversity”. Sounds very positive and complimentary doesn’t it? Conservatives, on the other hand like things that are “familiar, safe, dependable”. Doesn’t sound very “progressive” or complimentary does it? His own views and biases are clearly evident when speaking about this topic. I do, however, feel like he does a nice job using the graphs to illustrate that conservatives are more balanced with the five components he outlines vs liberals which are clearly more radical because they abandon the three areas of authority, in group, and purity during their pursuit of limiting harm and seeking fairness.
Great article. I agree with these opinions and have alot of respect for Mr Haidt. What happens when one political group believes the other needs to be extinguished though? Being understanding, conciliatory and compassionate to one-another is a noble concept, but when your moral group is endangered, how should they respond?
This was a really great talk until the end, when he mentioned changing others. Instead, we should focus more on changing ourselves. One way to do that is to admit when you’re wrong, and don’t be too eager to defend your views. Before you defend yourself, listen to what the other side has to say. I can’t do this well myself, but I am aware that the only person I can truly change is myself.
If you’re high in Openness, most likely, you’re a liberal. If you’re high in Conscientiousness, most likely identify as a conservative,.. (As a side note; The Big Five is the most consistent, repeatable test regarding personality(Myers-Briggs is not as accurate as it seems most tend to enjoy thinking.)) A very interesting fact about the Big Five personality test is that those that tend to be high in Openness AND Conscientiousness are the majority of the time Libertarians….or Anarchists,..
Excellent, Jonathan! I look forward to seeing and hearing more from you. This provides a foundation for the common understanding we need to achieve to Foster the cooperation we need, not only between “liberals” and “conservatives” (it seems to me that the “powers-that-be” use these labels or distinctions to keep us divided and conquered; I’m an interdependent myself), but between and among all individuals and groups. Let’s listen to each other, and have peace and cooperation in the World – what do you think??
A moderate like myself loves to being able to live in a peaceful society where people can empathize and care for each other despite the difference in our beliefs. UNFORTUNATELY, that’s too idealistic. Between the mass incarceration, the persistent existence of supremacists and hate groups, as well as systematic oppression, being a moderate is right next to being complacent. I hate to admit that throughout history, Radicals are often the ones to drive progress forward. In America, free millions of slaves were once seen as a preposterous and radical move. It’s all about perspectives.
If you want to enact change in your world, enact change in your community. Do this by hearing and understanding the challenges people in your community face. Once you understand those challenges, help to solve them. Everyone has challenges, and in my experience everyone will accept help. When you’ve helped someone, and they have accepted your help, regardless of their moral values, you will have built a bridge between yourselves and them. And you will have found someone to help you enact change in your community, and in doing so, in some small part enacted change in your world.
I wish that there was some context given here. For instance, where was the talk given and what group was attending? I infer that his audience is American (“in a liberal college town”, “60 miles north of Lynchberg Virginia”) and wealthy (“You’re all epicures” who could afford to choose a French restaurant and turn up their noses at Applebees). Perhaps even elitist? He refers to other speakers and subjects which we know nothing about.. I also wish that there were questions and discussion included. Surely some of his audience would have questioned some of his assertions. I certainly do (as a Canadian liberal).
The primary problem in the U.S. today that underlies all the other problems is the concentration of wealth into the hands of the .1% . Unfortunately this problem cannot be solved by conservative ideology. A smaller government, less regulation, and lower taxes on the wealthy cannot solve this problem but will instead exacerbate it. This is not a new problem. The same problem destroyed the ancient Roman Republic and brought on the military dictatorship that we call the Roman Empire. As for me I consider myself to be an Eisenhower Republican. Eisenhower kept the taxes on the wealthy high and he used the money to build a massive infrastructure project called the interstate highway system. The wealthy got their money back because they controlled the companies that got the contracts to build the highways but in the mean time their wealth was pumped through a lot of other people’s pockets. We also need to have more not less regulation on the financial system. The worst thing that has happened to us is “financial innovation”. This constant invention of new financial instruments in order to circumvent the S.E.C. is what caused the collapse in 2008. All we need is a regulated market in stocks, bonds, and futures and the economy will function fine. Another “financial innovation” that needs to be eliminated is computer trading. Today 2/3 of the trades on the NY stock exchange are carried out by computers buying and selling millions of shares per nanosecond and making a penny per share. A small financial transaction sales tax would eliminate this and bring stability back to the markets.
He’s basically right. There are some flaws though. I don’t want to name them all but I will say that the idea that liberals reject authority essentially as opposed to conservatives is wrong. There are tons of conservatives that are the complete opposite of that, as well as liberals who are not as anti-authority as he claims. His theory may have been more true in the past (I don’t know maybe the 1960s or something like that), but not so much any more.
Placing conservatives on the left side of the charts causes different impressions. Placing them on the left side of the endorsement or dog chart provides more visibility that conservatives are less variable regarding these types of characteristics verses liberals. As such, they may focus on other input more and may be less apt to be swayed or triggered by these characteristics when dealing with social/business/political issues/facts. It would be interesting to see his explanation using the flipped charts. it also should be noted that which ever group is on the left side of the charts implicitly indicates a more natural intrinsic “starting point” state based on peoples experience reading these types of charts. Hence, there may be implicit subtle bias delivered or interpreted either way the charts are presented.
3:00 “This a bit of a problem because If our goal is under our world, to seek a deeper understanding of our world our general lack of moral diversity here is going to make it harder. Because when people all share values, when people all share morals they become a team. And once you engage in psychology of teams it shuts down open-minded thinking.”
I have taken multiple personality tests and I always test extremely high in openness to experience, but I have always leaned quite conservative. Its probably because I was raised in a religious household and have come to accept and stick to those values. Purity is probably actually the thing I value most. Nonetheless, I believe that there is a balance between the parties that must be achieved. This is why I think our government system is incredible. The president is in office for 4 to 8 years, not 20 years or life. This allows the country to rapidly change and adapt to new circumstances. We also have 3 branches that have checks and balances and oftentimes the branches are controlled by different parties. What is fascinating is that if you look at the history of the presidents it regularly switches from republican to democrat presidents fairly regularly.
Great article and presentation. However, I don’t believe that a person is EITHER “liberal” OR “conservative.” Everyone is a mixture of both. In fact, it really depends on the other people you’re around as to which one you are! It seems like Liberal and Conservative are polarities like Hot and Cold.
Moral Foundations Theory has been amazingly helpful for understanding and interacting with people at the other end of the spectrum. It seems crazy to me that people over there have the values they do, but after learning about it, at least things make sense. It has also been really helpful reading other studies on ideologically-linked traits, and reading works by the founders of those ideologies. Gotta say though… although the studies paint a clear picture of how and why the world’s problems happened, that picture isn’t pretty. It’s largely a tale of empiricism and empathy driving progress forward against reactionaries with a tribal mindset, and when the latter gain power, things get reeeeeal bad.
I hoped he will cover, along this topic, how to detach your beliefs of the world from your sense of self. In other words when you find undisputed facts about something that contradicts what you believed it to be, it doesn’t make you less of a person or a fraud because you updated that belief. That is not easy at all.
With the impressive rise of Trumpism a few years after this talk, we have perhaps gained more perspective on all of this political/moral/social psychology. All I would point out is that the frame at the 14:17 mark lacks some granularity. One can embrace diversity and simultaneously seek a higher, non-physical inspiration to group membership; indeed, the civil rights movement was about transcending our physical differences (diversity) to recognize and embrace the content of our characters as the foundation of a better society. Similarly, abortion rights advocates may indeed say “keep your laws off my body” but gun advocates say “keep your laws off my guns” so that is a distinction without a difference. And liberals may certainly question authority (especially one grounded in religious or dynastic “facts”), but the worst of Trumpist conservatives question science, rationality, and any form of media authority. As another smart commentator has said recently: conservatives pick freedom over life in terms of vaccine mandates, while liberals pick freedom over life in terms of abortion. So the story is complicated. The 5 elements of human nature discussed by Haidt don’t necessarily fall neatly along the political landscape, particularly when we look at specific issues. My ultimately unimportant 2 cents…
I have a problem with what I’m hearing. Open individuals are liberal? Liberals are the people in to label everyone as a color, religion or creed. They see people as a label, whereas conservatives see people as people, no labels. I enjoy beauty and art, very much so. Yet I’m a conservative. I don’t care what your skin is nor what creed or religion you follow. So, how do I fit in his scenario?
He was all over the place and his description of conservatives was a tad off. “Conservatives speak for institutions and traditions; want order even at the cost to those at the bottom”… is not correct. Conservatives want stability, hard work, and personal responsibility. They don’t want anyone at the bottom to suffer. They want to give a hand up, not a hand out. Welfare should be rare and always temporary.
13:50 everyone quiet af when ppl start realizing that conservatives build everything while liberals question everything He also names off asian religions saying that these two sides work together and then points out how we’ve been divided against each other…like in the story of the tower of Babel…even this man can’t say it when he’s making so much sense. The Bible asks you to do all the thing’s he’s saying, to step outside of ourselves bc we can’t see the will of God from inside our own narrow perspective…
This was a great talk up to a point. But it is 2020 when I write this. The Dalai Lama has been decommissioned, China has essentially broken the Tibetan Buddhist religion. Donald Trump has turned the conservative moral compass on its nose, punishment is paramount and loyalty is meaningless. I know some Republicans, friends, of the kind of which you speak. We can disagree on politics and still respect each other. I also know some that are just authoritarian. They are not ‘nice’ people. and I feel the need to go armed because of them. They are the non-maskers that want to infect voters to help re-elect a narcissist that has literally torn our nation apart. Any suggestions for the Not-So-Brave New World? Where is fascism on your equalizer? So much of your talk was based on a civilized society. Where the President of the United States was a shining example for the world, and our goal was to improve the global community. Which has been proven to be a lie,. Turns out our “shining example” was an example from “The Shining.” I hope was survive the next few years so we can reattain a status where your ideas can function. Until then, wear a mask, wash your hands – and duck and cover…
Here’s what I heard: “Liberalism is good, conservatism is bad, but we need both in order to have a balance.” Is that what you were going for? Jokes aside this is an awesome talk! It’s obviously directed towards liberals, so some bias is inevitable. But the deep message here is that we need to promote understanding of each other, no matter what moral background we come from. Would highly recommend!
damn, after all these discussions I still can’t figure out if I’m “conservative” or “liberal”. For example I’m super-conservative on immigration (invite only the best and the brightest, no illegals, no manual laborers); but super-liberal on education and social safety net (free university tuition for everyone; free food and free child care for poor families – but parents still need to work unless disabled). Approximately neutral regarding social issues like abortion, gay rights, religion in society. Extremely cautions with foreign policy, especially military intervention (keep a powerful army, but keep them at home – unless situation is critical). Very supportive of environmental protection (better err on the safe side). I don’t know what this stance is, I haven’t yet found a group that fits.
He asked who’s liberal and who’s conservative, and then he added libertarian. But she specified that he was referring to social issues ( as opposed to economic issues ) So a savvy political scientist/sociologist really should have known that on social issues libertarians don’t need their own category because they are socially liberal just like liberals.
The leading division in the world, this tribalism on social media, specially regarding politics, is very scary and has caused me great distress for personal reasons as well. I believe we will be able to find common ground with most people, and there are only a few who are so far off that we can’t talk to them. We all do better when we make space for each other’s opinions. I hope the world changes for the better.
Thank you so much for this. I recognize myself very much on the scale you showed: pretty close to the extreme right, but I’m not at all the person people would expect me to be. Because of my openness and friendliness people are shocked by my political and social leanings, but I’ve always been entranced by different people/cultures… LOL and the one time I went to Applebee’s (not knowing what I was getting into) will def be the last time LOL.
I think all the different conservative elements of morality can really all just be grouped together as “conformity”. They look for any excuse to be offended by other people daring to be different from them. That’s really the whole depth of morality to them. ” It’s right because everybody else in my in-group does it this way…. and that’s how I identify outgroups.”
The thesis that liberals are bolder and more intellectually open breaks down in regard to embracing technological advance. Except for areas that are deemed to conflict with religious precepts (Ex: Evolution, stem cell research), conservatives have more readily embraced science and technological innovation, whereas liberals have fought GMO, supersonic flight and innumerable other advances, seeing each as implements of despised corporate or military power.
I agree with the concepts of balance and the issues with the righteous mind. Our main pursuit as human beings should be the truth no matter how much it may offend our own bias and political dogma. The only problem is that we now try and manipulate truth and direct narratives. A clear sign that people do not want to face the faults in their own thinking. I consider myself quite open minded yet I’m a conservative in most political situations. I try my best to challenge my own ideas about things, but am pretty pragmatic in my approach to solving problems. Utilitarianism, logic, math, science, if it all adds sort of thinking. But I have a liberal artistic side that enjoys being fascinated by novel stimulus, especially when it comes to music. Overall great Ted Talk, and then again Ted needs to do a better job sometimes at balancing their own perspectives and presenters.
I hate how the two-party system in America makes it so easy to hate the “other,” and I highly value increased understanding and dialogue between people who think differently. At the same time, in my opinion, this article has an “enlightened centrist” perspective that seems to think that not taking sides on anything is the ideal solution. But when it comes to solving oppression, you can’t just act like the oppressors and their victims both have good points. You have to be “for and against” something if people are being harmed. I also question what “institutions and traditions” conservatives are supposed to be preserving. Are these the same institutions that disenfranchised women and legalized slavery?
I noticed on the hand raising part that about a third of the audience raised their hands as Liberals, about a quarter of them raised their hands as Libertarians, and they DID NOT show the number of people that raised their hands as Conservatives, and just said it was about 8 or ten. As a Liberal you will be quick to think “that’s because that’s about right”. But is it? And what if it isn’t?
What if we’re talking about openness, but we choose a different example? What if the conservative and liberal stereotypes, right up front, were touring Italy and were invited to an Italian Army weapons demonstration? Now which of the two is more likely to react negatively? Assumptions in the test itself drive the results we see.
Its a beautiful notion of harmony, cooperation, and understanding. Its also humbling that peoples trait openess is biological, and therefore an inherent quality of who they are. Which means that being liberal or conservative is not a moral failing, and to assert so is simply an anti-human notion. Doesnt mean that people or ideas on each tribe cant be malelvolent, but that proples natural inclinations and ways of understanding arent malelovent themselves. Hooray for people like Heidt who seek understanding, balance, and harmony.
I am conservative and open to new ideas and experiences. At the same time, I do have some closely examined foundational beliefs that I can’t see changing. Most conservative people I know are willing to listen to ideas that oppose their beliefs, most liberals I know will not even listen to or consider ideas that conflict with theirs. I live in a very liberal area, so most of my neighbors are very much to the left of me. Admittedly, this is a small sample size. Also, I would argue and believe that I can prove that my positions better protect the most vulnerable people than liberal positions. I am a Christian and would debate in a kind manner anyone who wanted to take the other side. I believe that there is overwhelming evidence that the Bible is True. Many the people with great minds have sought to disprove the Bible, only to see the evidence and become Christians. In my experience, I would agree that liberals are more open to new experiences than conservative, but they are at best equal in terms of considering ideas different than what they currently believe. I have several liberal friends and we still agree on most things. That’s what’s missing in our society – let’s find what we agree on and go from there instead of vilifying and silencing people with whom we disagree. BTW – which side uses big media, social platforms, and now government to silence the other side? I like change. But to force change and not have a plan to bring order to the inevitable chaos that results and know what the ultimate result will be better is lunacy and dangerous in my judgment.
The issue with this way of thinking is that often peace and negotiation isn’t a real option for some groups. Many times throughout history the “in-group” has sought to completely exterminate the “outgroup” and the when the outgroup pleaded for assistance, they were met with “why can’t everyone just get along”. I’m not saying that’s what Haidt is saying here, but these sorts of things can be used as justification by those comfortable with their positions in society to ignore the problems of those who were not.
A feeling of being cared for (1.) and having equal worth to others (2.) are basic Human needs helping self-esteem, empathy, trust and rationality. in-group/out-group bias (3.) is an innate response to inequallity making people more prone to conflict and the abuse of advantage, seeking imbalance. Imposing authority (4.) is a crude and superficial way of stablizing conflict and imbalance.
Interesting. I got that each side has to choose what they are willing to sacrifice to get what they want (nothing comes without giving up something for it)- we sacrifice each other (the majority or the minority), we sacrifice order (chaos or peace), and in the end he says we have sacrifice ourselves (learn about each other). Though to truly change the world you have to know what’s good that’s going on and what’s bad. If you don’t know either one, what are you really standing for?
12:40 which is a massive part of conservatives ideals. Alot of us dont grow up in pristine 10/10 white suburbs. Alot of us actually went through life outside a bubble and realized people need consequences for their behaviour. If living in Denmark is what it says it is, its not sustainable. Eventually their going to be faced with a whole generation of kids who never had any hardship in their life, and expect less and less work for the same reward.
I think it’s real impossible to say that you’re value of Authority Ingroup and Purity, and also value Fairness and Harm… also sciences I think these values are at odds with each other: like… Authority –vs– Science Loyalty –vs– Fairness Purity –vs– Harm This is why people who worship god are often at odds with science. Loyalty is less concerned about fairness of out groups, AKA we got ours F*** Off! And why people of “purity” don’t care about harm they do to make something pure! If you value one of these “morals” you can’t in good faith say you value its counter part.
Stephen Crane: Once there came a man Once there came a man Who said, “Range me all men of the world in rows.” And instantly There was terrific clamour among the people Against being ranged in rows. There was a loud quarrel, world-wide. It endured for ages; And blood was shed By those who would not stand in rows, And by those who pined to stand in rows. Eventually, the man went to death, weeping. And those who staid in bloody scuffle Knew not the great simplicity.
Liberals and conservatives, when functioning properly, ought to mimic the biology of the thumb and forefinger. The opposition is a necessary mechanic to achieve full dexterity and unlock our potential. This ought not be construed as a dictate for centrist compromise (i.e. that the correct answer is always whatever sits in the middle of the two)- some behaviors will require the use of the thumb more significantly, whereas others will require the use of the forefinger more significantly, still others warrant an even balance between the two, and from time to time they both have no business being involved. Discovering the ratio of each to solve a given problem is a byproduct of the feedback loop that occurs when those two appendages are in productive tension/opposition. It is quite literally the mechanical gearbox/circuits inside of a self-governing and self-improving society. But if they aren’t functioning productively- if one or both appendages are behaving outside the scope of their design constraints or intentionally sabotaging the other- the system will fall apart. Basic tasks and otherwise approachable problems will become impossible or significantly more difficult to solve. The demand to solve the problems does not go away though, eventually forcing the unnatural use/abuse of other biology in the system to compensate- like an ankle sprain on one side causes a limp that ends up affecting the hip on the other side. The longer the breakdown goes on, the more it unravels- muscular atrophy sets in and the organism tears itself apart.
I’m from Russia, and now see how this difference in values affects the attitude towards war. Liberals all are shoked, say that it’s a crime and are trying to do something. But others say: “right it or wrong, it’s my country” (loyality), “goverment should have good reasons to do this, even if we don’t know them” (authority) and even “we are struggle against the lecherous West” (purity). If I see in taxi any religious symbolic or hear the retro-music it’s 99% that driver supports the war. And I see somedy looks like hipster, he’s 99% is pacifist.
What I’m about to read in some of the comments will predictably be people attempting to demonstrate superior intellect and critical thinking skills by claiming some other person’s expression of thought is a logical fallacy simply because they don’t agree. They won’t actually prove anything, but they will think they have.
The biggest mistake this article may make is equating lower endorsement scores with nonexistent websites, instead of the reality: Liberals prioritize their websites, putting different weights on different websites. Whereas conservatives give roughly equal weight to all websites. We can also break his logic this way: If liberals use 2 websites and conservatives use 5, then how many websites do moderates use?
As a Christian conservative I view the world and its problems through the lens of the Bible. As a result, I am aware of what is the problem and what the answer is. I do not need to keep searching for answers. I view progress as how loving we are to one another, not technologies. I think technologies are wonderful but unfortunately too many use them for bad purposes which goes back to our love for one another. I’m not buying what Jonathan is selling either…as a Christian, I love trying new things and going new places. I believe this world was created by a God who wants us to discover His magnificence displayed through His creation. His views on those that are not like himself seem close-minded and bigoted. I did not find this talk thought provoking or honest.
We need to, not close, but bridge the gap. But I refuse to belive the gap is really any bigger now than it has ever been, it’s just that now we have several industries thriving(preying) on playing up every single one of these differences, while downplaying the similarities and agreements. The “two party” or “left vs right” view pigeonholes everyone into one of the two, and makes it seem like half the country is diametrically opposed to the other half, this is of course far from the the truth. The truth is that if you asked Americans what they think on a policy by policy basis, you would see that there is massive agreement across the political spectrum for a lot of things.
Unfortunately this talk continues the confusion of Liberalism and Progressivism, which are not equal or analogous. True Liberalism looks a lot like Conservatism to a Progressive. He may be on the right track regarding open mindedness, or he may not actually; but the whole talk fails because of his failure to understand the very basic difference between Liberalism and Progressivism. He’s built his house, so to speak, on a foundation that fails to support the structure he’s made.
In the Bible Christ showed the most compassion- not to those who were self righteous- but to those who showed humility. On the cross the man who showed humility was forgiven. Those who followed Jesus were great sinners. In the garden when Adam and Eve both chose to eat; instead of taking responsibility for their own actions they blamed someone else. This is a repetitive theme. Those who think they’re better than they are and those who ask for forgiveness when they realize their faults. When we realize we all have faults but we all want the same thing- it makes getting along easier. We don’t get to judge others, that’s what God does.
This is interesting that we are talking about this as liberal vs. conservative when it is really about right brain dominance vs. left brain dominance. We are hard wired this way and there are also those who are both left and right brained. This is what makes the world work because god intended to have two types of people on earth who would challenge each other and a third group who would help them figure out how to get along. We need to embrace each group as essential to the healthy development of the human race using the middle group as an arbitrator to help them work things out together. We need to quit forcing a division of the groups and instead foster a means to help them work together for the best outcomes for everyone.
The Sent-ts’an quote is about individual equilibrium through detachment which precludes intellectual engagement. It’s a selfish perspective. But we are a discursive culture and our truths must be consensus-able. This is impossible without discussion. Heraclitus said that war/strife is the ‘Father of all things.’ Ergo: even of consensus. Any consensus worth the name must pass through the process of critical discussion/dialectic. So one should be BOTH ‘for’ and ‘against.’ What is needed is a quote from Hegel. Something like: the truth is the whole or the process.
Would the hypothesis still be the same if you took into consideration the political and economic structures that facilitate the behaviour? It seems to me quite obvious that in our inherently capitalist global system the left wants change and questions the authority. That is because the authority is ultimately enforcing a system that is quite right-wing by its nature. The capitalist system is also highly dependent on the oppression of the few. There is no sense in taking the middle ground when you are oppressed. The conservative right-wing on the other hand is very eager to speak of the middle ground and that is also only natural since they don’t anything to lose. It is quite interesting that in Finland we don’t usually speak in terms of liberalism vs. conservatism and we might even regard the right as being more liberal and left more conservative. That might be because the wellfare country project that defined the system after the wars was quite leftist. Nowadays the right-wing is starting to be more conservative and left-wing more liberal again but also the politics are becoming gradually more neo-liberal capitalist. I bet that in the Soviet Union the right-wing minded people were the liberal ones and the ones feeling oppressed. Okay, maybe some of the left-wing minded as well… So could it be that the one that is conservative and refuses change is doing so simply to protect their position and power? In that case I see the middle ground as being rather conservative and in our context rather inherently right-wing.
Haidt concludes by enjoining us to embrace Sent-ts’an’s moral relativism: an uncommitted formalist vision of the alternatives as such. In effect to assume the meta-level of theoretical potentialities, or simply: the idealized impartiality of the philosopher. On the assumption that it is a realistic possibility for everyone. And without noticing that this effectively amounts to embracing an extra-moral position, for to look at a totality without committing to any particular dimension of it is not what morality in its socio-political exigence is about. Nor is it obvious that a socio-psychological angle on morality has any business offering respite from what ought to be an invitation to self-examination, if not a struggle against one’s own ‘self-evident’ truths, whether liberal or conservative. Contemplating the possibilities AS SUCH follows a purely aesthetic (= perceptual) and totalizing imperative, directing attention away from the implicit obligation to choose. Such contemplation of possibilities doesn’t amount to anything more than an indefinite ‘time out’ from the duty to judge (Hannah Arendt), providing relief from the moral challenges the go with the imperative to commit. This is no more a constructive step towards sorting out one’s priorities than forgiveness is a substitute for retributive justice.
Eventually it sounds a lot like the Middle ground fallacy. “The answer lies somewhere in the middle” and we need each view point to land in that middle. The problem with that is often the answer isn’t in the middle and extremist views and religion often don’t help in the cooperative sense. It’s a nice idea but ultimately flawed
The conservative who resists change is as valuable as the radical who proposes it – perhaps much more valuable as roots are more vital than grafts. It is good that new ideas should be heard, for the sake of the few ideas that can actually be used; but it is also good that new ideas should be compelled to go through the of mill objection, opposition, and contumely; this is the trial heat which innovations must survive before being allowed to enter the human race. It is good that the old should resist the young, and the young should prod the old; out of this tension, as out the strife of the sexes and the classes, comes a creative tensile strength, a stimulated development, a secret and basic unity and movement of the whole.
Time has proven this talk somewhat wrong. The speaker says Conservatives speak for institutions. Maybe it was so back in 2013 (although I was sceptical about this even back then). In 2021 it is clear that liberals are still for change, diversity, fairness, but they are also much more for institutions and the rule of law than modern conservatives.
I have some issues with this. The speaker heavily implies that order is greater than equality. He does this by first theorizing that these great ancient empires of the past were built by people who, in his own words “used every tool in the toolbox” His research (which I believe is accurate) then shows that conservatives are more receptive to using his 5 tools more than liberals. He further claims that conservatives value order more than liberals and liberals value equality more than conservatives. Take away all this information and it can be implied that the speaker believes that order is more important than equality for building a great society. He never mentions the idea that order and equality don’t have to be mutually exclusive. We can work towards a society that is more equal while still maintaining order.
13:44 is where he loses me. He’s made some really interesting points, but, suddenly, (paraphrasing) “here’s what I think”. Then, basically saying, if given control, leftist thinking would inevitably lead to chaos. That’s not the only possible outcome. Thus, his idea that we are born to seek division falls flat. His points about Hinduism and Buddhism are simplistic. For example, the Buddhist quote is about the challenge of desire, i.e., the second noble truth. It is a personal struggle that has nothing to do with his point regarding “teams”. He’s *creating teams*. In the end it’s a strawman.
In my opinion, conservatism is required for liberalism to emerge. One must have a base to rebel against, or provide security however you look at it. Children who have boundaries are happier. Extend it further – if driving, you need rules & roads. So how about having both. You can’t make a great piece of art without the structure it stands in.
I do agree that we all need to understand each other better… But I disagree that conservatives are more concerned with institutions as a whole. We’re just as concerned with individual people. But we’re concerned with them not doing for themselves what they could. You reap what you sow. Sow little, reap little. Liberals think everybody should reap the same amount regardless of what they sow. However, I believe there’s a huge difference between inability to sow much and unwillingness to sow much. We’re concerned about people, mostly when they aren’t self sufficient or self reliant, and can’t count on themselves for whatever they need. In my town, the prevailing view is “don’t work, don’t eat.” It’s not uncaring. Quite the contrary. It’s the tool to teach the value of working for what you want in life. You want it, go get it. Don’t expect it to come to you.
Psychology is valuable in trying to understand polarization. What percent of people here do you think would agree with that statement? The speaker demonstrably does. Sociology is valuable in trying to understand polarization. What percent of people here do you think would agree with that statement? The speaker demonstrably does. Now read 100 more comments here and notice that not one of them gave the slightest thought to biology. Even the speaker only mentioned a brain briefly when he discussed an infant. Brains exist and contrary to what the ancients thought, the brain-not the heart–is the house of emotions, attitudes, and personality. The shape of the interior of the goblet matches the shape of the exterior of the water contained. The amygdala is a thing. The anterior cingulate is a thing. From preliminary studies as early as 2011, it appears that the sizes of the two matter (and brain activity scans matter). Whether certain attitudes cause the growth of the amygdala or whether the size of the amygdala inspires certain attitudes is a question worthy of study. The former proposition is difficult to study but the latter should be easy to prove or disprove (and if you disprove the latter then–absent a third possibility- you have proved the former). The interesting people to study (and there are very few of them) are people who have legitimately, completely, and passionately switched tribes. I wonder about the relative sizes of their amygdalas. If we find that the preliminary studies of amygdala/anterior cingulate size studies are not reproducible then (and only then) can biology be ruled non-essential in the study of polarization.
Resonated with me since I’ve always been of the view that the right is close minded. But when he says at the end that people should come out of their bubble to really understand what the other side is standing for, it seems as if he attempted to conclude the talk diplomatically by not pointing out that the conservatives hardly ever get out of their bubble (which is obviously related to openness to experience). I feel he should’ve ended it with a decisive tone. Perhaps he didn’t want to stir a controversy as the right would obviously be offended. (The right has a habit of taking offence when confronted with facts)
Relevant a decade later! Ultimately, humanity loses when either extreme takes over. You must have balance. You must listen and think about what is being said. You must be willing and be capable of compromise. “My way or the highway” is a great way to make people stop listening to you. If you aren’t willing to understand why someone thinks the way they do and compare those reasons against your own, perhaps even evaluate if you’ve been wrong all along, then you’ve got some personal growing to do. A team is best when it’s made up of people with different skills. If you haven’t come to that realization after all the decades of exposure to diverse teams and crews and squads and friend groups present in all our favorite media, fictional or otherwise (Harry Potter, Star Trek, Star Wars, the A-Team, Mission Impossible, every sports team ever etc., etc.), then I can’t help you.
3:50 Anyone who assumes that anywhere near half of America votes republican or democrat hasn’t bothered to do the math. In 2020 less than 30% of the country voted republican (74 million out of 255 million). Typically anywhere from 38% to 48% of the country doesn’t vote even in presidential elections.
To respond to one of the comments below, one of the reasons Conservatives turn off to presentations such as Jonathan’s is for example at 16:33 in the vid, where JH says “our moral minds were designed by ‘evolution'” No. absolutely not ! There clearly and absolutely was a CREATOR who designed the Mind (not the brain, big mistake to think they are one in the same). And I’m sorry, you Lefties will just NEVER understand that belief which is no less important than the BELIEF of science that the “mind” (brain) was designed by “evolution.” On that ontology, we probably will NEVER agree.
This story doesn’t check out. Conservatives have done a lot to upend stable society in the US. See the Dobbs ruling, Reagan destroying a working federal government and union system. W. Bush invading Iraq. See the attempts to overturn Obamacare and voting rights. See Trump destroying the rule of law. It’d be nice if conservatives were just concerned about maintaining stability. But it’s not reality.
Conservatives understand liberals, liberals do not understand conservatives. Two main reasons: 1. Many conservatives at one point in their life were liberal. 2. One can’t help being bombarded with progressive points of view 24/7. Conservatism, libertarianism and any philosophy right of center is lied about, lampooned, and misrepresented 24/7 in the media, academia, pop culture, and Hollywood. One glaring example of this is how liberals actually believe that conservatives are against abortion because they want to control women’s bodies.
Seems smart: “You can’t just go charging in saying ‘you’re wrong and I’m right'”. – Jonathan Haidt. I hope former Jonathan Haidt fans are here in 2022 noting that his lovely presentation was tremendously bad advice. Every minute you spend attempting to understand a Trump follower is a minute during which ten other Trump followers have created ten new positions, none of which are consistent with one another and and none of which are genuine positions to begin with. Their platform is domination. Everything else is a distraction. The moment you demonstrate empirically that they are the ones perpetrating anything whatsoever, they have already garnered a million likes for asserting the opposite with no evidence at all. There are no actual discussions with Trump followers. There are only successful Trump followers getting liberals to burn time arguing among themselves about whether or not Trump followers are ever pure of heart. The answer is no. In 2015 the answer was yes. Not anymore. Stop the zombies first. Be fascinated by them later.
It’s way simpler than this. Liberals want to fit in, go along with the crowd. They are willing to go against common sense and observed reality to fit in. Conservatives are not joiners and are not afraid to go they’re own way. They know facts don’t care about your feelings. This is why most group think, ie BLM, ANTIFA, etc… are left wing with no real equivalent on the right.