Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Life, the Universe and Everything
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Life, the Universe and Everything Post comments about everything else here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 01-05-2012, 06:17 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Come on, man. Why have you been doing this lately? Can we not extrapolate to extremes? I provided a link and everything. Because the left shares similar moral sensibilities, it might be difficult for a liberal to distinguish between altruistic and pathologically altruistic sentiments.
YOu mean like in the examples you gave of Hitler and Rwanda.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 01-05-2012, 08:00 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Come on, man. Why have you been doing this lately? Can we not extrapolate to extremes? I provided a link and everything.

Altruism is good. It's the pathological part that makes it pathological. The book is important because it identifies what I've noticed for quite some time: the moral certainty and hatred that some people have on here. This is the same sort of rational thinking that allows someone to murder a doctor who performs abortions or firebomb a clinic.

This has nothing to do with ideology. You have to know that when eeeeeeeli was a more frequent commenter, I rarely if ever exchanged uncivil words with him and he was quite possibly the most socialist person on this board.

I'm not saying TS will go out and commit horrible acts. You need physical violence and intent to do so for it to qualify. Thoughts are not enough; words are not enough. But this type of thinking, this so called pathological altruism, is a necessary, not a sufficient. And that means you don't get horrible behavior if you don't have this type of thinking.

Because the left shares similar moral sensibilities, it might be difficult for a liberal to distinguish between altruistic and pathologically altruistic sentiments. After all, that's a subjective evaluation. This happens to people on the right as well, like in my abortion clinic example. I am not trying to score points here.

But one should take note that of the 6 factors for moral foundations, conservatives have all 6, as do virtually everyone else in the world. Liberals, by contrast, only have 4. See Haidt. So, that's where the bias creeps in. You can't see it if you don't have it.
Not only do I not have much of a dog in this fight, I'm fairly out of my depth discussing Moral theory. But it is just theory after all, right?

I was pretty much with you until the last paragraph. So I took your advice:

Wiki:
Quote:
1.Care for others, protecting them from harm. (He also referred to this dimension as Harm.)
2.Fairness, Justice, treating others equally.
3.Loyalty to your group, family, nation. (He also referred to this dimension as Ingroup.)
4.Respect for tradition and legitimate authority. (He also referred to this dimension as Authority.)
5.Purity, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.

Haidt found that Americans who identified as liberals tend to value care and fairness considerably higher than loyalty, respect, and purity. Self-identified conservative Americans value all five values more equally, though at a lower level across the five than the liberal concern for care and fairness. Both groups gave care the highest over-all weighting, but conservatives valued fairness the lowest, whereas liberals valued purity the lowest. Similar results were found across the political spectrum in other countries.
Looks like only 5 to me, and a pretty subjectively rated qualities at that IMO.


I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but with all due respect, and from my point of view, this all seems a less than adequate metric for such a complex field. Not only that, the subjects themselves provided the data ("Both groups gave care the highest over-all weighting"), not an independent and unbiased observer.
And my impression (just a feeling, now) is that you are subconsciously using this as some sort of proof of the moral inferiority of the "other".
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 01-05-2012 at 08:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 01-05-2012, 09:21 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Not only do I not have much of a dog in this fight, I'm fairly out of my depth discussing Moral theory. But it is just theory after all, right?
Yes. The theory is in all likelihood insufficient to describe all moral factors involved. What is not disputable is the consistency to which respondents react to stimuli and the empirical data cross tens of thousands of participants.

Quote:
Looks like only 5 to me, and a pretty subjectively rated qualities at that IMO.
It was amended to 6. You'll need to look beyond Wikipedia.

Quote:
I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but with all due respect, and from my point of view, this all seems a less than adequate metric for such a complex field.
Inadequacy does not equal irrelevance.

Quote:
Not only that, the subjects themselves provided the data ("Both groups gave care the highest over-all weighting"), not an independent and unbiased observer.
From what I understand, people were given surveys to fill out. Please comment on how you think these surveys should be better administered.

Quote:
And my impression (just a feeling, now) is that you are subconsciously using this as some sort of proof of the moral inferiority of the "other".
Then you're reading too far into what I've said. I presented facts, not preferences for a particular set of morals. I wouldn't describe any moral beliefs as inherently inferior or superior. We do not choose our birth, our parents, our country, our era. You are born into a society with a given set of morals that then indoctrinates you within it. Haidt's claim is that liberals lack 2 of the 6 metrics.

The metrics may be inadequate to explain everything about human moral psychology. What is clear, however, is that differences exist between liberals and everyone else.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 01-05-2012, 09:40 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
YOu mean like in the examples you gave of Hitler and Rwanda.
Hitler and Rwanda are examples provided to illustrate an argument. Yes, they are extreme, but the purpose is to further conceptual understanding of the argument. It is not to impugn anyone's character, including TwinSwords and AemJeff before him.

Like I said before and in the other thread, the fault lies in believing that there are evil people in the world who have evil intentions. My proposition is that great evil can only be done in the name of good (God, economic progress, racial purity, etc.). Hate can only be justified on moral grounds.

The topic at hand is pathological altruism. You then deviated from the narrow confines of the issue and abstracted towards altruism in general and, either intentionally or not, gave the impression that I opposed the normal concept of altruism. This is frustrating because it hints at what you think of me, personally, and because I cited the specific quote that should have answered your question before you asked it: "Altruism can be beneficial at every level of society."
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 01-05-2012, 09:47 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Handle,

You got the idea right. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about 5 or 6 different foundations. The meaning is that those are roots from where moral principles develop. Having more roots isn't better than having fewer roots. Besides, Haidt explained that those foundations weren't measured in a present or absent metric but rather quantified. So one group may score higher in one of those dimensions than the other. According to their findings, Haidt summarized it by saying that liberals tend to base (they score higher) their moral principles on concepts of fairness and care/avoidance of harm. Conservatives value other principles highly as well: loyalty to authority, favoring the ingroup, and concepts or purity or sanctity. It doesn't mean that liberals don't give importance to the last three, but that they aren't as strong as the first two. If you think of liberals as challenging authority, challenging the status quo, valuing principles above alliances and defying concepts of sanctity, then it all makes sense.

The value that you can attach to the resulting morality has nothing to do with the number of factors that originated it. And the relative value of each of those factors is of course, debatable.

So, the interpretation that having more factors from where moral principles are founded is somehow better or superior or preferable only shows poor understanding of what Haidt has described. There were a couple of diavlogs on this, and there multiple articles and talks by Haidt all over the internet that spell out these ideas pretty well.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 01-05-2012, 09:52 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Yes. The theory is in all likelihood insufficient to describe all moral factors involved. What is not disputable is the consistency to which respondents react to stimuli and the empirical data cross tens of thousands of participants.
But you are making some inferences here. First, there's no particular a priori reason to assume that the best moral calculus would weight all virtues equally.

In particular, I am skeptical as to whether rating purity and care as equally important is the sign of virtue. For that matter, I don't see Authority as an unmitigated good. It depends on the particular authority in question. Radical Islamists would score high on authority, as would your previously mentioned abortion bomber. Your Tutsi and Hutus would score very high on In-Group, as would your Klan members, etc. It's unclear that more is always better or for that matter, that Care *should* be weighted no higher than authority or the aforementioned purity.

It's reasonably intuitive in terms of descriptive- most (not all but most and I am not claiming to have a representative sample) people I know conform to the patterns described. Liberals do weight care and fairness higher than other things. Conservatives do weight care and fairness lower than liberals do, and authority and ingroup higher. Okay.

It's unclear to me that each of these weighs the same such that scoring higher in care and fairness and low on the others is morally worse than scoring moderately on all or the same on all.
Indeed, in his JPSP article, Haidt said "The moral thinking of liberals and conservatives may not be a matter of more versus less but of different opinions about what considerations are relevant to moral judgment."
Sure. Again, you seem to be imposing some sort of ranking that Haidt wasn't endorsing, at least in his published work.

As well, your "liberals only have 4 and conservatives have all 6" is a very inaccurate portrayal. They all have all 6. Conservatives are lower than liberals on two of them and higher than liberals on three of them. Quoting Haidt: "Importantly, the differences between liberals and conservatives were neither binary nor absolute. Participants across the political spectrum agreed that individualizing concerns are very relevant to moral judgment. Even on the binding foundations, liberals did not (on average) indicate that these were never relevant to moral judgment."

he also framed fairness and care as individualizing values and the other three as binding ones, which at least would make you as a libertarian pause before you leap to the conclusion that the individualizing values are no more important than the others.

To further drive home the point that it's not clear that the dimensions all have the same prescriptive value, here is the entire list of his examples of violations of Fairness, from his study:
1. Cheat in a game of cards played for money with some people you don't know well.
2. Steal from a poor person and use the money to buy a gift for a rich person
3. Say no to a friend’s request to help him move into a new apartment, after he helped you move the month before
4. Throw out a box of ballots, during an election, to help your favored candidate win
5. Sign a secret-but-binding pledge to only hire people of your race in your company

Here is the entire list of violations of Purity:
1. Sign a piece of paper that says “I hereby sell my soul, after my death, to whoever has this piece of paper”
2. cook and eat your dog, after it dies of natural causes
3. Get plastic surgery that adds a 2-inch tail on to the end of your spine
4. Get a blood transfusion of 1 pint of disease-free, compatible blood from a convicted child molester
5. Attend a performance art piece in which all participants (including you) have to act like animals for 30 minutes, including crawling around naked and urinating on stage

Do you honestly see violations of these two classes of things as equal in importance?

(just to be open and honest, most of the purity list doesn't appeal to me, except 4 which I wouldn't care at all about, but I don't consider my lack of eagerness to do them (except 1) violations of some important moral code.)

But you, sugarkang- do you weight these two things equally? And do you really think someone who rates these two things the same are morally superior to someone who wants to avoid violations of Fairness more than violations of Purity?

(I pick fairness, because I wonder if you are aware of how Haidt is defining it- it's largely procedural rather than some kind of equality of outcomes deal that I think you assume it is, and because it's the purity dimension that according to the JPSP article most strongly distinguishes liberals and conservatives.)

Last edited by miceelf; 01-05-2012 at 09:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 01-05-2012, 10:11 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Hi pal!
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 01-05-2012, 10:56 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

I am shocked, shocked, to see Sugar simplifying, taking out of context, or simply lying about someone else's words in order to insult Liberals. I would never have expected such behavior from a paragon of serious and considerate rhetoric like him.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 01-06-2012, 12:13 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
But you are making some inferences here. First, there's no particular a priori reason to assume that the best moral calculus would weight all virtues equally.
I didn't make that inference and like I mentioned above, I do not rate people's sense of morality in terms of inferiority/superiority in some objective sense. I have personal moral positions and will advocate them from time to time, but that is all.

Quote:
In particular, I am skeptical as to whether rating purity and care as equally important is the sign of virtue. For that matter, I don't see Authority as an unmitigated good. It depends on the particular authority in question.
Liberals tend to have less respect for authority. I am no exception.

Quote:
Sure. Again, you seem to be imposing some sort of ranking that Haidt wasn't endorsing, at least in his published work.
I proposed no such ranking and therefore did not propose that Haidt endorsed some ranking.

Quote:
As well, your "liberals only have 4 and conservatives have all 6" is a very inaccurate portrayal. They all have all 6.
Yes. Poor choice of words on my part. I should have said conservatives use all six and liberals use all six but use two less relative to conservatives. Actually, my memory was poor since it's been a few years since I looked at this. Liberals use 2 and reject 3 (of 5) in the aggregate.

Quote:
he also framed fairness and care as individualizing values and the other three as binding ones, which at least would make you as a libertarian pause before you leap to the conclusion that the individualizing values are no more important than the others.
Again, you've assumed that I ranked them. I did not.

Quote:
To further drive home the point that it's not clear that the dimensions all have the same prescriptive value, here is ...
Above.

Quote:
Do you honestly see violations of these two classes of things as equal in importance?
Above.

Quote:
But you, sugarkang- do you weight these two things equally?
Above.

Quote:
And do you really think someone who rates these two things the same are morally superior to someone who wants to avoid violations of Fairness more than violations of Purity?
Above.

Just from your incorrect assumptions, I've already been convicted in the court of public opinion. This is why I fear simple democracy.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.

Last edited by sugarkang; 01-06-2012 at 12:25 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 01-06-2012, 12:30 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
I am shocked, shocked, to see Sugar simplifying, taking out of context, or simply lying about someone else's words in order to insult Liberals. I would never have expected such behavior from a paragon of serious and considerate rhetoric like him.
I am shocked that you use the same phrasing to express sarcasm time and time again. How about providing the evidence that I lied and took people out of context? I've been accused of lying many times, but not a single person has provided evidence. Couldn't be hard. It's not like everything is on record, searchable on the site or anything. I've been accused of taking people out of context many times, but I never have. That's also searchable. But I've been taken out of context. My opinions have been distorted. My character has been questioned many times over. I don't whine to the police about it. But the same liars, distorters and whiners are also the same ones that whine to the police.

So, I'll say it again. You made an accusation. Everything I've said is on the record. Prove it. Or is this outburst a consequence of having lost virtually every single substantive argument you've had with me?

If you need love in your life, adopt a pet.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.

Last edited by sugarkang; 01-06-2012 at 12:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 01-06-2012, 12:59 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
I didn't make that inference and like I mentioned above, I do not rate people's sense of morality in terms of inferiority/superiority in some objective sense.
...
Yes. Poor choice of words on my part. I should have said conservatives use all six and liberals use all six but use two less relative to conservatives.
Well, I guess I took "that's where the bias creeps in" as an indicator that the fact that liberals "only use four" to suggest that the liberal perspective was or was the cause of bias. Well, relative to conservatives, yes. But the conservative downgrading of fairness and avoiding harm relative to liberals could also be construed as a bias. The reference to the rest of humanity again seemed to suggest a unique deficiency on the part of liberals. But that assumes that things like democracy and a notion of human rights, also relatively rare across human societies.


If anything, Haidt's work seems to suggest who is the heir of classical liberalism in the old school democracy and freedom sense.

I also have to admit I was also thrown by the linkage to pathological altruism, which i have trouble squaring with the Haidt stuff. I suppose you could have simply been completely switching topics, but it seemed to be linked somehow and the inference I took was "ways that liberals fall short" or somesuch.

The only linkage that I could make looking back was that the really pathological altruism (the stuff that is violent as opposed to just pathetic) is essential an overly high emphasis on Authority or Purity or Ingroup. But those are all traits that conservatives tend to value more than liberals, and I strongly suspect you weren't trying to say that conservatives were slightly more prone than liberals to the violent forms of pathological altruism. You seemed, rather to be going from the risk liberals have for pathological altruism and how easily their scorn for tea partiers could lead to the gas chambers to some reason that liberals couldn't see their bias because they don't use all the dimensions. Well, again, they use some dimensions more than conservatives and some less. It's only bias if you are assuming a gold standard (in measurement theory terms, not Ron Paul economic terms), which gets us back to ranking.


As well, and to clarify earlier. I asked if you thought altruism was always or often pathological and you focused on the always, but your quote talked about how altruism can be good, but is bad in many ways.

Last edited by miceelf; 01-06-2012 at 01:07 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 01-06-2012, 12:59 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Because the left shares similar moral sensibilities, it might be difficult for a liberal to distinguish between altruistic and pathologically altruistic sentiments. After all, that's a subjective evaluation. This happens to people on the right as well, like in my abortion clinic example. I am not trying to score points here.
You've constructed this paragraph in an odd way. First you point to liberals and then you point to conservatives. Why not just say all people?

But then you say this and apparently you seem to surmise that liberals have more of a predilection for...what? And are you also saying that liberals aren't as self aware or just less moral or what?

Quote:
But one should take note that of the 6 factors for moral foundations, conservatives have all 6, as do virtually everyone else in the world. Liberals, by contrast, only have 4. See Haidt. So, that's where the bias creeps in. You can't see it if you don't have it
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 01-06-2012, 01:00 AM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Paranoia runs deep

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
I am shocked that you use the same phrasing to express sarcasm time and time again. How about providing the evidence that I lied and took people out of context? I've been accused of lying many times, but not a single person has provided evidence. Couldn't be hard. It's not like everything is on record, searchable on the site or anything. I've been accused of taking people out of context many times, but I never have. That's also searchable. But I've been taken out of context. My opinions have been distorted. My character has been questioned many times over. I don't whine to the police about it. But the same liars, distorters and whiners are also the same ones that whine to the police.

So, I'll say it again. You made an accusation. Everything I've said is on the record. Prove it.
Definitively and for the record let me attest to having witnessed Koch King profess on multiple occasions that he is not now or has ever been a liar. And I know it to be true because he says it is so. The many posters that have challenged his veracity or highlighted his twisting of meaning and context were either mistaken or intentionally deceptive. This too I know, because he has said so. I say further, his word is gooooooold. (And we know how much value he places on that substance -- especially as compared to dollars or donuts). Case closed.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 01-06-2012, 01:07 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
The real problem I had with your comment is that you seem to be arguing for reversing the trend, and think we ought to turn back the clock on this, hence the bus reference. You would do much better to clarify that aspect of it, but once again your reading comprehension level gets you off the hook as you had no idea what my crazy ramblings were driving at, right?
Oh good, now we get to hear about your real problem. I didn't mention nor do I advocate reversing the trend. The die is cast. Time marches on. There is no going back. And everything has consequences. You might try reading what I write instead of overlaying your inaccurate assumptions about what I'm saying and reacting to those.

what bus reference????

Quote:
Before you get all rabidly partisan on me (again), I've said it before and I'll say it again, this was a group effort, all ideological, political, demographic, race, and gender divisions are responsible. But if you want to continue to believe it was the evil, (I paraphrase for effect sometimes) "progressive narrative" at play, I really don't care, 'cause those jobs ain't coming back unless everyone gets thier head out of their ass ASAP, and I'm not holding my breath.
I never mentioned evil.

Quote:
Don't worry, This forum is about to go down the tubes and I probably won't be calling you on your "aw shucks" "Fox and Friends" inspired passive aggression anymore. But keep the links to those JPEGs on your desktop just in case
You still haven't called me on anything but good for you if you think you have.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 01-06-2012 at 10:51 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 01-06-2012, 02:35 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Well, I guess I took "that's where the bias creeps in" as an indicator that the fact that liberals "only use four" to suggest that the liberal perspective was or was the cause of bias.
It is the cause of bias.

Quote:
Well, relative to conservatives, yes. But the conservative downgrading of fairness and avoiding harm relative to liberals could also be construed as a bias.
Yes, you make this point as if I didn't think conservatives have a bias. I believe that there is only bias. The status quo is a bias.

Quote:
The reference to the rest of humanity again seemed to suggest a unique deficiency on the part of liberals. But that assumes that things like democracy and a notion of human rights, also relatively rare across human societies.
I do think it's a deficiency amongst liberals. If you watch the entire video, Haidt goes on to explain why civilization needs all 5 (now 6). I agree about democracy and a notion of human rights. That doesn't render the other moral senses moot.

Quote:
I also have to admit I was also thrown by the linkage to pathological altruism, which i have trouble squaring with the Haidt stuff. I suppose you could have simply been completely switching topics, but it seemed to be linked somehow and the inference I took was "ways that liberals fall short" or somesuch.
Yes, only tangentially related.

Quote:
The only linkage that I could make looking back was that the really pathological altruism (the stuff that is violent as opposed to just pathetic) is essential an overly high emphasis on Authority or Purity or Ingroup. But those are all traits that conservatives tend to value more than liberals, and I strongly suspect you weren't trying to say that conservatives were slightly more prone than liberals to the violent forms of pathological altruism.
I wasn't making a direct linkage.

Quote:
You seemed, rather to be going from the risk liberals have for pathological altruism and how easily their scorn for tea partiers could lead to the gas chambers to some reason that liberals couldn't see their bias because they don't use all the dimensions.
Okay, let's be careful here. I tried to be careful, but apparently it wasn't good enough.

To get genocidal, you need a leader to carry out the policies of large scale violence. I am accusing nobody here of that. The Nazi example is illustrative not because pathological altruists can be like Hitler; they can be, but that's beside the point. Rather, my point is that during Hitler's reign, millions of Germans did absolutely nothing to stop the mass killings, even if they were not directly effectuating mass murder. My comment has never been about Hitler, but about the German civilians, non-military. The common response to this is the old Burkean proposition that evil prevails when good men do nothing. I believe that this is incorrect. I believe that great evils like the Holocaust can only happen in the name of good. Millions of Germans would not have stood by to do nothing if they thought SS policies were immoral. They were complicit in those policies because they thought they were eradicating Jewish evil.

Quote:
As well, and to clarify earlier. I asked if you thought altruism was always or often pathological and you focused on the always, but your quote talked about how altruism can be good, but is bad in many ways.
Where did the quote say that altruism is bad in many ways? I believe it says pathological altruism is bad in many ways.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.

Last edited by sugarkang; 01-06-2012 at 02:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 01-06-2012, 03:24 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
You've constructed this paragraph in an odd way. First you point to liberals and then you point to conservatives. Why not just say all people?
I think I tried that last year and then that conversation got thrown in the dungeon. I'm always ready to fail in a different way.

Quote:
But then you say this and apparently you seem to surmise that liberals have more of a predilection for...what?
Now that sentence should have been worded better. I should have said that liberal and conservative differences with regard to moral sensibilities show similar patterns in all societies around the world according to the data.

The reason I brought up Haidt in conjunction with the issue of pathological altruism is that liberals care much more about fairness. We know this, right? Who's more likely to say, "Hey, life isn't fair. Suck it up"? And because the liberals on this board share similar moral sensibilities, they may not readily perceive the differences in someone expressing altruism vis-a-vis pathological altruism.

It also leads them to say nonsensical things like:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
Conclusion: do evil for better results?

Go figure.
I think anyone who isn't so caught up with personal resentment knows that I wasn't saying that.

Quote:
And are you also saying that liberals aren't as self aware or just less moral or what?
I don't think evaluating morality should be in terms of less or more. That's my opinion, of course. But imagine a person that had all the 5 factors amped up super high. Not only would it be ridiculous, but these factors involve implicit tradeoffs. Liberals have slightly more of two and way less of the other three.

I think there are times when liberals are needed and there are times when conservatives are needed. If people were overly deferential to authority, colonists wouldn't have had the Revolutionary War; MLK wouldn't have practiced civil disobedience. But if the country is suffering from entropy and malaise, as I believe it is, then conservatives are needed to whip the fat bastards into shape.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.

Last edited by sugarkang; 01-06-2012 at 03:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 01-06-2012, 06:25 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
I do think it's a deficiency amongst liberals. If you watch the entire video, Haidt goes on to explain why civilization needs all 5 (now 6).

Weren't you just upset with me for inferring that you were claiming that the liberal version, described by Haidt, was deficient? I am honestly trying to figure out how the above isn't what I inferred you to be saying, or why you were bothered that I thought you were saying the Haidt model showed a deficiency in liberals.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 01-06-2012, 08:09 AM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Weren't you just upset with me for inferring that you were claiming that the liberal version, described by Haidt, was deficient? I am honestly trying to figure out how the above isn't what I inferred you to be saying, or why you were bothered that I thought you were saying the Haidt model showed a deficiency in liberals.
Ah, coming around to understanding the schizophrenogenic mind!

Let's see how the Nazi phenomenon could be analyzed under Haidt's moral foundations:

Quote:
His Moral Foundations Theory looks at the way morality varies between cultures and identifies five fundamental moral values shared to a greater or lesser degree by different societies and individuals.[2] These are:

Care for others, protecting them from harm. (He also referred to this dimension as Harm.)
Fairness, Justice, treating others equally.
Loyalty to your group, family, nation.(He also referred to this dimension as Ingroup.)
Respect for tradition and legitimate authority. (He also referred to this dimension as Authority.)
Purity, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.

Haidt found that Americans who identified as liberals tend to value care and fairness considerably higher than loyalty, respect, and purity. Self-identified conservative Americans value all five values more equally, though at a lower level across the five than the liberal concern for care and fairness. Both groups gave care the highest over-all weighting, but conservatives valued fairness the lowest, whereas liberals valued purity the lowest. Similar results were found across the political spectrum in other countries.[3]
1. Care for others, protecting them from harm: Sending millions of people to be tortured, mistreated and killed in concentration camps would be a profound violation of this principle. Unlikely that a liberal morality could possible support it.

On the other hand, it isn't unlikely that conservatives will find good reasons to violate this principle: for example torture is justified under certain circumstances, collateral damage in wars is also justified. Both are situations that liberals tend to reject.

2. Fairness, Justice, treating others equally: identifying a group of innocent people by the millions and punishing in the most horrendous way, would violate any principle of justice or equality. Highly unlikely that a liberal morality would support it.

On the other hand, conservatives justify treating certain groups differently, for example discrimination against certain groups: gays and lesbians, immigrants, different race or origin.

3. Loyalty to your group, family, nation: obviously Nazis relied heavily on their nationalism and putting their race and ethnicity above all. It was the perfect example of loyalty and adoration to one's own group. Liberals are constantly accused of their lack of patriotism because they always tend to see how the situation is from the other's perspective.

Conservatives have made a caricature of nationalism and patriotism by elevating the American symbols (and military, constitution, institutions and culture) to a quasi religious relevance.

4. Respect for tradition and legitimate authority. The Nazi movement embraced a return to tradition, and their sense of legitimate authority lead them to their blind pursuit of their goals while ignoring the horrors they were responsible for.

The link between conservatives and respect for tradition is too obvious to explain.

5. Purity, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions: Nazis are the perfect example of the exaggeration and corruption of the sense of purity, in their case their concept of racial/cultural purity. Similarly conservatives elevate certain values to a level of sanctity where they become above any form of challenge or questioning. They tend to find sacred values as an extension (often) of religious values.

Liberals, although they have their own version of purity (obsessions with organic food, uncontaminated environment and so on), tend to be less concerned with sacredness and seeking purity in actions (as Haidt's studies showed).

So, there's no such link between Nazi like phenomenon and liberalism at all, and even less so according to Haidt's ideas. That erroneous concept seems to align more with Jonah Goldberg's ludicrous ideas, although I would rather not comment on that because I haven't read his book, and I don't intend to.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 01-06-2012, 09:14 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Weren't you just upset with me for inferring that you were claiming that the liberal version, described by Haidt, was deficient? I am honestly trying to figure out how the above isn't what I inferred you to be saying, or why you were bothered that I thought you were saying the Haidt model showed a deficiency in liberals.
I think we're having a language definition problem. I think you're seeing deficient as a value judgment and I'm seeing deficient as lacking sensitivity to 3 of 5 (or 6) factors relative to conservatives. I've already mentioned that I don't judge other people's sense of morality, didn't I?

I think you (and others) have difficulty with what I'm saying because my thought process and sense of morality is different.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.

Last edited by sugarkang; 01-06-2012 at 09:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 01-06-2012, 09:17 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
I would rather not comment on that because I haven't read his book, and I don't intend to.
Willful ignorance. Gotta love it! Hopefully, you've already forgotten that Bob Wright named Ron Paul his hero of 2011. Whoops. Did that disrupt your cognitive dissonance?
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 01-06-2012, 09:33 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
1. Care for others, protecting them from harm: Sending millions of people to be tortured, mistreated and killed in concentration camps would be a profound violation of this principle. Unlikely that a liberal morality could possible support it....

2. Fairness, Justice, treating others equally: identifying a group of innocent people by the millions and punishing in the most horrendous way, would violate any principle of justice or equality. Highly unlikely that a liberal morality would support it.
Well, if we are actualy trying to understand the phenomenon, an extreme (in my view) focus on InGroup would make it easier to square Care and Fairness with the Nazi regime. "Others" only count, after all, if we consider them people and/or worthy of recognition as such. We don't worry about care or fairness toward bacteria, after all. If one divides up the human race in such a way that one's own group matters and others don't, one can exercise the fairness/care dimensions toward one's own group perfectly and still engage in all kinds of horrific behavior. (Of course, one can also be high in InGroup and NOT engage in fairness or justice toward one's own group).
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 01-06-2012, 09:39 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
I think we're having a language definition problem. I think you're seeing deficient as a value judgment and I'm seeing deficient as lacking sensitivity to 3 of 5 (or 6) factors relative to conservatives. I've already mentioned that I don't judge other people's sense of morality, didn't I?

I think you (and others) have difficulty with what I'm saying because my thought process and sense of morality is different.
I don't see how deficient isn't a value judgment. It's at least an evaluative statement. Different would be a non-evaluative statement. One can note that some people have brown eyes and some have blue without regarding either as deficient; that's how Haidt's model is intended. But claiming that scoring low on this index that isn't necessarily good or bad is proof of deficiency or lacking sensitivity or whatnot is simply not what haidt intended and also seems at most a wording difference from value judgment, at least at the scale of better/worse.

And the corollary of the above is that conservatives are deficient because they lack sensitivity to fairness and care, relative to liberals. If one wanted to treat Haidt's moral scale as something that measured deficiencies, rather than a framework for describing variation.

I'd also point out that your distinction between a statement of deficiency and a statement of values is exactly the kind of distinction that you have avoided strenuously when we've discussed accusations of racism.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 01-06-2012, 09:40 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Willful ignorance. Gotta love it! Hopefully, you've already forgotten that Bob Wright named Ron Paul his hero of 2011. Whoops.
actually Bob Wright named a part of Ron Paul his hero of 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 01-06-2012, 09:43 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
The reason I brought up Haidt in conjunction with the issue of pathological altruism is that liberals care much more about fairness.

Haidt's fairness principle is almost entirely some combination of procedural fairness and/or reciprocity. Procedural fairness is exactly what libertarians state that they value relative to similarity in outcomes (which is how liberal concerns about fairness often get characterized, and which has nothing to do with Haidt's fairness).
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 01-06-2012, 10:47 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
The reason I brought up Haidt in conjunction with the issue of pathological altruism is that liberals care much more about fairness. We know this, right? Who's more likely to say, "Hey, life isn't fair. Suck it up"? And because the liberals on this board share similar moral sensibilities, they may not readily perceive the differences in someone expressing altruism vis-a-vis pathological altruism.
I see. I guess I am always reluctant to lump people but being on this board has given me insight into some behavior which I might be persuaded to call representative. But I still think it's slippery and often inaccurate to lump people.

Quote:
I think there are times when liberals are needed and there are times when conservatives are needed. If people were overly deferential to authority, colonists wouldn't have had the Revolutionary War; MLK wouldn't have practiced civil disobedience. But if the country is suffering from entropy and malaise, as I believe it is, then conservatives are needed to whip the fat bastards into shape.
life is tough! get over it! I said that to my daughter recently. She was not amused.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 01-06-2012, 12:39 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Oh good, now we get to hear about your real problem. I didn't mention nor do I advocate reversing the trend. The die is cast. Time marches on. There is no going back. And everything has consequences. You might try reading what I write instead of overlaying your inaccurate assumptions about what I'm saying and reacting to those.

what bus reference????



I never mentioned evil.



You still haven't called me on anything but good for you if you think you have.
Wow.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 01-06-2012, 01:18 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
I don't see how deficient isn't a value judgment. It's at least an evaluative statement. Different would be a non-evaluative statement. One can note that some people have brown eyes and some have blue without regarding either as deficient; that's how Haidt's model is intended. But claiming that scoring low on this index that isn't necessarily good or bad is proof of deficiency or lacking sensitivity or whatnot is simply not what haidt intended and also seems at most a wording difference from value judgment, at least at the scale of better/worse.

And the corollary of the above is that conservatives are deficient because they lack sensitivity to fairness and care, relative to liberals. If one wanted to treat Haidt's moral scale as something that measured deficiencies, rather than a framework for describing variation.

I'd also point out that your distinction between a statement of deficiency and a statement of values is exactly the kind of distinction that you have avoided strenuously when we've discussed accusations of racism.
I'm still having a problem with the idea that having less of everything is somehow prefferable to having higher concentrations of some things in some areas, (at least that's how I read the argument), as it leads to some sorts of moral blind spots.
The self quantification of these things is highly suspect. All one could empirically conclude from all this is that certain groups are under the impression, no, are willing to say they have certain moral qualities, quantified by themselves, when surveyed.
Maybe it's just me but this amounts to pretty weak "science".
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 01-06-2012 at 01:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 01-06-2012, 01:35 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
Handle,

You got the idea right. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about 5 or 6 different foundations. The meaning is that those are roots from where moral principles develop. Having more roots isn't better than having fewer roots. Besides, Haidt explained that those foundations weren't measured in a present or absent metric but rather quantified. So one group may score higher in one of those dimensions than the other. According to their findings, Haidt summarized it by saying that liberals tend to base (they score higher) their moral principles on concepts of fairness and care/avoidance of harm. Conservatives value other principles highly as well: loyalty to authority, favoring the ingroup, and concepts or purity or sanctity. It doesn't mean that liberals don't give importance to the last three, but that they aren't as strong as the first two. If you think of liberals as challenging authority, challenging the status quo, valuing principles above alliances and defying concepts of sanctity, then it all makes sense.

The value that you can attach to the resulting morality has nothing to do with the number of factors that originated it. And the relative value of each of those factors is of course, debatable.

So, the interpretation that having more factors from where moral principles are founded is somehow better or superior or preferable only shows poor understanding of what Haidt has described. There were a couple of diavlogs on this, and there multiple articles and talks by Haidt all over the internet that spell out these ideas pretty well.
Thanks Ocean, since I am treading on thin ice here, as far as background and experience, your perspective helps confirm my suspicions that saying group x has 4 out of 6 and when group y was asked the had 6 out of 6 might be an oversimplification. And I think this is getting clarified to some degree. I'm curious, were there any conclusions concerning those that didn't identify with any particular group?
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 01-06-2012, 01:42 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Wow.
Wait a minute, so you are just here to bitch about stuff you know you can't change, mock things you don't understand, and expect to be taken seriously when you champion the "conservative" point of view?
Once again, wow.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 01-06-2012, 01:52 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Well, if we are actualy trying to understand the phenomenon, an extreme (in my view) focus on InGroup would make it easier to square Care and Fairness with the Nazi regime. "Others" only count, after all, if we consider them people and/or worthy of recognition as such. We don't worry about care or fairness toward bacteria, after all. If one divides up the human race in such a way that one's own group matters and others don't, one can exercise the fairness/care dimensions toward one's own group perfectly and still engage in all kinds of horrific behavior. (Of course, one can also be high in InGroup and NOT engage in fairness or justice toward one's own group).
Correct. Once you apply strong ingroup and purity principles, then the other two principles (caring/no harm and fairness) may only apply to the ingroup and the pure, which is a recipe for the possibility of atrocities against the outgroup if the same is viewed as threatening the ingroup.

Also, not to demerit Jon Haidt's work, which I find interesting overall, but the reality is that these constructs are just that: made up concepts which attempt to look at differences in how people think about their moral principles and their political-ideological affiliations.

The same concepts can be interpreted in various ways. That's why we have to be extremely careful in how we interpret those findings and how we use those ideas. Look at what we saw just here in this forum when someone tried to create the impression that endorsing two of those principles more strongly than the others meant to be lacking in morality or deficient in some way. It's very difficult to understand how to integrate these findings to one's views, or rather how NOT to integrate these findings to one's views.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 01-06-2012, 01:57 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
Correct. Once you apply strong ingroup and purity principles, then the other two principles (caring/no harm and fairness) may only apply to the ingroup and the pure, which is a recipe for the possibility of atrocities against the outgroup if the same is viewed as threatening the ingroup.

Also, not to demerit Jon Haidt's work, which I find interesting overall, but the reality is that these constructs are just that: made up concepts which attempt to look at differences in how people think about their moral principles and their political-ideological affiliations.

The same concepts can be interpreted in various ways. That's why we have to be extremely careful in how we interpret those findings and how we use those ideas. Look at what we saw just here in this forum when someone tried to create the impression that endorsing two of those principles more strongly than the others meant to be lacking in morality or deficient in some way. It's very difficult to understand how to integrate these findings to one's views, or rather how NOT to integrate these findings to one's views.
Great post, even I can get my mildly ADHD head somewhat around this foreign territory.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 01-06-2012, 01:59 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Maybe it's just me but this amounts to pretty weak "science".
Yes, it's pretty weak because it relies on the survey of concepts which are by themselves very poorly defined. Of course if you have huge samples you may still get a general idea of what kinds of things people who have different ideologies value most. But that's the limit of it.

If you think about it, how does purity generate anything positive in a moral system? I guess if you apply such concepts of purity to yourself, your goals, it may include some "elevated" principles, but it can also generate racism, nationalism, lack of flexibility to deal with people who are seen as guilty/dirty, blemished, religious fanaticism, etc. So those dimensions by themselves don't mean much, but rather point at certain characteristics which have a potential for good or bad depending on how they are applied.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 01-06-2012, 02:09 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
I'm still having a problem with the idea that having less of everything is somehow prefferable to having higher concentrations of some things in some areas, (at least that's how I read the argument), as it leads to some sorts of moral blind spots.
Well, the methods are not at all unusual for social science. But then Sheldon Cooper likes to say "social science is mainly hokum" so YMMV.

As to the above, I have trouble getting either. When you look at the actual graphs, if they demonstrate a deficiency on the part of liberals, it's along the lines of, if liberals are lower than conservatives in this area, this means they're deficient, but if they're higher in this other area, it's a draw.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 01-06-2012, 02:10 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
Yes, it's pretty weak because it relies on the survey of concepts which are by themselves very poorly defined. Of course if you have huge samples you may still get a general idea of what kinds of things people who have different ideologies value most. But that's the limit of it.

If you think about it, how does purity generate anything positive in a moral system? I guess if you apply such concepts of purity to yourself, your goals, it may include some "elevated" principles, but it can also generate racism, nationalism, lack of flexibility to deal with people who are seen as guilty/dirty, blemished, religious fanaticism, etc. So those dimensions by themselves don't mean much, but rather point at certain characteristics which have a potential for good or bad depending on how they are applied.
I agree with this perspective. In my mind "purity" is a completely suspect concept. Couldn't someone aspire to lead a "pure" existence purely out of fear of the unknown or unfamiliar? I see fear as the ultimate morally destructive force in otherwise moral people. Especially when it inspires hatred of that which is feared.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 01-06-2012, 02:11 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Thanks Ocean, since I am treading on thin ice here, as far as background and experience, your perspective helps confirm my suspicions that saying group x has 4 out of 6 and when group y was asked the had 6 out of 6 might be an oversimplification. And I think this is getting clarified to some degree. I'm curious, were there any conclusions concerning those that didn't identify with any particular group?
They'd be in the middle of Haidt's curves. Somewhat lower in care and fairness than liberals and somewhat higher than conservatives. Somewhat lower in authority and ingroup and purity than conservartives, but higher than liberals. I think Haidt has grouped people based on some other questionnaires regarding their politics, and not just self-identification, although the two overlap to a very large degree in general.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 01-06-2012, 02:18 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
I agree with this perspective. In my mind "purity" is a completely suspect concept. Couldn't someone aspire to lead a "pure" existence purely out of fear of the unknown or unfamiliar? I see fear as the ultimate morally destructive force in otherwise moral people. Especially when it inspires hatred of that which is feared.
My impression is that purity comes from a religious understanding of virtue/sacredness. It appeals to the idea of free of blemish, free of sin, untouched by dark powers. It also may relate to purity in (genetic) origins as a seal of the ultimate ingroup status.

At the more liberal level it can be applied to holding certain principles which are the most virtuous above all others. Haidt saw elements of purity in some liberal's insistence on organic (pure, free of contaminants) foods. I don't really understand how it can be applied to other areas, since from my perspective it always goes back to the idea of unblemished.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 01-06-2012, 02:37 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
They'd be in the middle of Haidt's curves. Somewhat lower in care and fairness than liberals and somewhat higher than conservatives. Somewhat lower in authority and ingroup and purity than conservartives, but higher than liberals. I think Haidt has grouped people based on some other questionnaires regarding their politics, and not just self-identification, although the two overlap to a very large degree in general.
Interesting, thanks. I would never have the patience to wade through this stuff, but I am unexpectedly fascinated by this discussion. I guess I should have paid more attention to the previous dv's and posts Ocean was referring to.

Before I get accused of succumbing to group-think here,
Discalimer:
There are aspects, and methodologies of many ideological points of view that I consider productive. But probably even more that I feel have the opposite effect. I do lean toward liberal world view, but the more extreme and partisan factions of any group seem to me anyway, progressively (as they become more extreme) less beneficial to the society as a whole.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 01-06-2012, 02:46 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
There are aspects, and methodologies of many ideological points of view that I consider productive. But probably even more that I feel have the opposite effect. I do lean toward liberal world view, but the more extreme and partisan factions of any group seem to me anyway, progressively (as they become more extreme) less beneficial to the society as a whole.
I don't know whether I would consider the most extreme positions as not beneficial, but rather as having a different role. They point farther away into the past (conservatives) or a potential future (liberals). The less extreme positions deal with what's more possible in the present. They have practical application. The others are just ideological question marks which help shape ideologies and remote goals.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 01-06-2012, 03:00 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
My impression is that purity comes from a religious understanding of virtue/sacredness. It appeals to the idea of free of blemish, free of sin, untouched by dark powers. It also may relate to purity in (genetic) origins as a seal of the ultimate ingroup status.

At the more liberal level it can be applied to holding certain principles which are the most virtuous above all others. Haidt saw elements of purity in some liberal's insistence on organic (pure, free of contaminants) foods. I don't really understand how it can be applied to other areas, since from my perspective it always goes back to the idea of unblemished.
Now I remember why this stuff bothers me, it appears to focus more on intent than the reality of consequence, intended or otherwise. And as you clearly pointed out up thread, the dangers of misuse of this kind of study are numerous. I guess I'm somewhat old fashioned in that I focus on doing the right thing when the opportunity arises way more than aspiring to moral character as it is defined for me by others, especially those who wear it on their sleeves, but to each his own...probably explains the blemishes.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 01-06-2012 at 03:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 01-06-2012, 03:17 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
I don't know whether I would consider the most extreme positions as not beneficial, but rather as having a different role. They point farther away into the past (conservatives) or a potential future (liberals). The less extreme positions deal with what's more possible in the present. They have practical application. The others are just ideological question marks which help shape ideologies and remote goals.
Maybe I'm being negative, but it seems to me that extreme factions inspire the most fear in the opposite extreme faction, giving positive reinforcement to the idea that only an extreme position is a viable deterrent to the horrors that will certainly ensue if any ground is given. In other words polarization leads to more polarization. But since I have already characterized this as the rhetoric of failure, perhaps this spiral is more a product of the tightening of available resources. Maybe when things even out, I will begin to see it more from your perspective.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.