I don't know if they still teach Maslow's Hierarchy of Need, a theory that seems commonsensical but doesn't quite explain the behavior of many people. Fine as an approximation, perhaps. I wonder if something similar isn't happening about reason and logic. Perhaps the foundational needs have to be in place first. You believe what gets you food and shelter, then can move on to believing what you need to be accepted socially, and only after that is in place can one apply true/false tests rigorously, accepting ideas that go against the group. Personalities vary, and some have a better ability to stand alone than others.
This is at least a possible explanation of why people who are able to reason - which we know because we have observed it in other venues - come up with only lame cliches on some issues. It is not just that they disagree with me, and I thus conclude their reasoning is poor. (there may be some of that.) The obvious counter would be that perhaps it is they who are reasoning nicely and I who have gone off the rails. Yet I know people who disagree with me whose arguments are moderately to extremely strong. I am not thinking of those presently. I am referring to those with significant credentials - math degrees from Ivy League schools and subsequent careers requiring precise thinking; forensic psychiatrists with rather stunning abilities to weigh one factor against another. I know some amazingly intelligent people. Yet some of them spout whatever the New Yorker or the alphabet network consensus is peddling this week.
Nor does it seem to be that they just default to the tribal line on many issues because they haven't the time to examine everything, but apply shrewdness and wisdom to the subjects they invest more time in. These are, if anything, more party line than their - ahem - less educated brethren. This is New Hampshire, and one can easily find Democrats who think that liberals are badly wrong about one or two issues, yet choose them on balance. The worrisome ones who have got me thinking - those who I suspect of having to have their social status and situation nailed down before they can move forward and think - are doctrinaire. And they are legion.
I have commented before that I believe liberalism is spread socially rather than logically,* that social signalling and social enforcement takes up a lot of a liberal's energy. It may be that their social insecurity is greater, so that they can never let down their guard. They sense (correctly?) that they could be cast into the outer darkness at any time. They are intelligent enough to talk themselves into whatever is necessary.
I have little doubt that it is only by the grace of God, via CS Lewis, that I am not fully among that number. My families of origin have many who are still consumed by it, and I was entirely of that mindset throughout school. It still whines at the door. (Okay, that's a bizarre mixed metaphor. Mindsets are not mammals.) But Screwtape, That Hideous Strength, and especially "The Inner Ring" were powerful warnings at a formative time. I find the mirror version, and the mirrors of mirrors, quite easily upon reflection. The approved culture has a special sweetness, but so does the counterculture, and the counters upon counters. Fortunately I haven't the discipline and focus to think about it long, and content myself with having a whack at whatever dragon seems nearest at the time.
Liberals are far better at reading social cues, and reading between the lines. But this strength becomes a weakness when it is relied on to the exclusion of more important virtues. I am asserting all this strongly, because I have had a dozen examples in my mind as I wrote this. Still, I might be missing an entire chapter here. Could you do me the favor of trying this theory on in your imagination about your more intelligent liberal friends, even if historical and long since gone?
*Nor is conservatism always spread logically. Its weak side is that it often relies on emotion and sentimentality. The accusation that it relies on the emotion of fear is misplaced. That's projection.
18 comments:
Did you ever read Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity?
One of the inputs to the work was his finding (studying religions in California, IIRC) that conversion was driven more by the number of friends you had of the new faith than of any intellectual re-evaluation. Spreading socially, in other words.
I have commented before that I believe liberalism is spread socially rather than logically,* that social signalling and social enforcement takes up a lot of a liberal's energy.
I came to that conclusion when I was in high school. In the locker room a peer was telling us how his father was among the signatories of a petition ad against the Vietnam War that appeared in the New York Times. He didn't hesitate to give us some information about who else had signed the petition, to indicate that his father was among the "cool people" - or at least affiliated with those whom we considered to be of higher social status than our families.
Early on I learned about social signaling, even if I wasn't yet familiar with the term.
Yep, liberalism is spread by socialists.
Assistant Village Idiot: I have commented before that I believe liberalism is spread socially rather than logically,*
That's not necessarily a bad thing.
Modern liberals are primarily found in urban areas, places with high population density, and complex social dynamics. Accordingly, they tend to be more open to different people and experiences, while also expecting more give-and-take in social relationships. Transmitting values relevant to this environment to new generations is typical.
Contrariwise, modern conservatives are primarily found in rural areas, places with low population density, with a more stable social structure. Accordingly, they tend to be less open to demographic uncertainty, while expecting less interference with their personal activities. Transmitting values relevant to this environment to new generations is typical. However, during periods of profound social change, this can lead to cultural retrenchment.
Assistant Village Idiot: The accusation that it relies on the emotion of fear is misplaced. That's projection.
A number of studies suggest a link between fear and conservatism, while also finding that liberals are more open to new experiences. Each trait can be advantageous, depending on the environment, and each can bring something to the group experience.
Liberals are more likely to be urban. Conservatives are more likely to be rural. They split the suburbs.
The conclusions you draw from that - or rather, that you have heard others draw from that and incorporated into your thinking - are not well-substantiated. There is a lot of confirmation bias from defining such things as openness to people and experiences in the studies I have seen. The Big Five personality data shows very modest, though certainly significant, trends according to that (pretty good) definition. There is something to it, but I think it is wildly overstated in the social sciences. You betray your own bias when you use the phrase "give and take in social relationships." That is very much unsubstantiated. Putting up with crowding and interference by others is not the same thing at all.
Similarly, the "link between fear and conservatism." It very much depends on one's definition of fear. The entire gun control debate would strongly suggest the opposite, as it is liberals who draw dire conclusions from the mere presence of guns. The entire discussion of race, crime, and education suggests that liberals fear science, while the bulk of environmentalism likewise relies on fear, whether rightly or wrongly placed. There may be things conservatives fear more than liberals, wrongly or rightly. But the generalisation that fear=conservative, made most famous by candidate Obama's bigoted remark, is self-serving to liberals, which is why they repeat it so much.
Assistant Village Idiot: The Big Five personality data shows very modest, though certainly significant, trends according to that (pretty good) definition.
First you say it is confirmation bias, then you say there is an actual correlation.
Assistant Village Idiot: You betray your own bias when you use the phrase "give and take in social relationships." That is very much unsubstantiated. Putting up with crowding and interference by others is not the same thing at all.
What is the distinction you are trying to draw between "give and take" and "putting up with" interference? You can make a lot of noise in an isolated farmhouse that would cause troubles in an apartment building. The farmer would find it odd that a neighbor would tell you to be quiet, and might have trouble adjusting to an environment where people bang on the floor when you are making too much noise, while someone in the city would consider prudent to account for your close neighbors and the norms of the neighborhood.
Assistant Village Idiot: Similarly, the "link between fear and conservatism." It very much depends on one's definition of fear.
Studies show that conservatives tend to be more anxious about immediate dangers, and prefer stability and structure.
Our point is that different personality types, which have a natural political expression, have advantages in different environments, and that each contribute in their own way to the adaptability of the group.
Re Maslow, I can tell you that Maslow is still revered in nursing schools.
I wrote an article some years back on my thoughts on the division between conservative and liberal thinking.
https://hubpages.com/politics/Why-Are-Liberals-So-Concerned-About-Guns-Gays-and-Green-And-Conservatives-Arent
It's a long read, but boils down to: People respond to the environment they live in, and, bluntly speaking, conservatives live in pretty nice places and liberals live in pretty nasty places. Basically, can you freely walk all the streets of the place you live in without fear of a beating? If you answer yes, you are probably living in a conservative place. If you answer no, you probably live in a place run by liberals. Tribalism creates liberal voting, because the problems of violence are so severe that that good people demand strong government response.
@ Tom - Excellent article!
Tom Bridgeland: People respond to the environment they live in, and, bluntly speaking, conservatives live in pretty nice places and liberals live in pretty nasty places.
Nice in the sense of lower crime, but not as nice in terms of economic and social opportunity. That's why people tolerate the problems inherent in urban areas. And in order to enable the intensity of life found in cities, that requires more openness, as well as more rules of behavior. You might jaywalk Smalltown U.S.A. without causing controversy, but it may cause problems if you jaywalk in the city.
On the other hand, people who value the stability of life found in rural areas often feel threatened by demographic and other social changes. Hence, tribalism can lead to conservative voting.
Zachriel: Studies show that conservatives tend to be more anxious about immediate dangers, and prefer stability and structure.
Why is that "bad"?
Donna B: Why is that "bad"?
Indeed, we stated just the opposite. The value of such traits depends on the particular environment, and the group prospers as a whole when it can utilize various types of personalities while minimizing conflict.
No, Zachriel, you at the very least suggested it was because of fear and that lack of such fear was better. And you also link it to rural living as if that equates to an absence of immediate dangers and somehow promotes stability and structure. Perhaps you need to get out more?
Donna B., maybe Zach needs to get farther out, not "just out".
Zachriel said: On the other hand, people who value the stability of life found in rural areas often feel threatened by demographic and other social changes. Hence, tribalism can lead to conservative voting.
All humans are tribal to an extent. City life exacerbates this tendency by forcing unlike groups together in small areas. I'm not complaining about this. It just is. It is a useful tool for understanding why good people disagree on basic issues. Small town tribalism may indeed lead to conservative voting, and urban tribalism leads to liberal voting, on the margins.
The question I raised was, why do liberals, mainly big-city types, care so intensely about issues conservatives do not? The tentative answer I came up with is that big problems demand big solutions, and small problems don't. Gays face social disapproval in small towns, and murder in cities. The scale of the problem is extreme in cities, demanding an extreme answer. Nature is basically dead in big cities, and seems pretty healthy in rural areas. Murder is common in cities, and very rare in rural areas. Even insanity is more common in urban people. Urban liberals are justified in looking for solutions to the serious problems they face.
Donna B: you at the very least suggested it was because of fear and that lack of such fear was better.
Z: A number of studies suggest a link between fear and conservatism, while also finding that liberals are more open to new experiences. Each trait can be advantageous, depending on the environment, and each can bring something to the group experience.
Tom Bridgeland: City life exacerbates this tendency by forcing unlike groups together in small areas.
And so-called rural life tends to create in-group out-group tribalism. It's hard to argue, in the age of Trump, that rural people are not tribal. As Trump himself said, he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and people would still support him.
Tom Bridgeland: The question I raised was, why do liberals, mainly big-city types, care so intensely about issues conservatives do not?
And conversely, why do conservatives, mainly rural small-town types, care so intensely about issues, such as immigration, that liberals do not.
(Keep in mind that most economic and technological progress is due to cities. That's why they exist.)
There is a reason I have not answered Zachriel, though it is always logically easy. He comes over from another site. He does not discuss, he argues, and he ignores every point on which he has been defeated, wrestling over smaller and smaller pieces. He is not entirely honest, though I don't think this is mean or intentional. He applies a black-white reasoning to the statements of others, yet allows himself enormous flexibility on what he meant, and when absolutely cornered changes the subject about 30 degrees. I do not recommend engaging him, except as training for your own ability to argue.
I suspect there is something terribly sad about all this, actually.
He applies a black-white reasoning to the statements of others, yet allows himself enormous flexibility on what he meant.
I have noticed that. Or Zachriel not remembering what Zachriel had stated in a previous thread- which is a consequence of Zachriel most likely being a collective. Zachriel A is not going to remember what Zachriel B said. Nonetheless, it makes communication annoying. Which is why I tend to roll my eyes upon seeing another Zachriel posting.
RichardJohnson: Or Zachriel not remembering what Zachriel had stated in a previous thread
We'd be happy to consider any inconsistency in our posting that you might point out.
Our point remains: The proximate utility of liberalism and conservatism depends on the particular social environment, and society as a whole prospers when it can integrate the concerns of both while minimizing conflict.
Post a Comment