I'm not really understanding the OP. I don't follow the many-sugar, only-salt analogy. Can you please clarify how that metaphor works?
Perhaps I should have made this a little clearer in text, rather than relying on the chart.
A Better Explanation of the True Taste Analogy
Haidt's research isolated six significant foundations of morality (the chart only shows the original 5, but the analogy still works whether we look at 5 or 6 of them):
Care, Fairness (proportional fairness), Liberty (not on the chart because its newer), Loyalty, Sanctity, and Authority.
There are also 5 (or 6?) tastes detected by our taste buds: Sweet, salty, sour, bitter, umami (savory). (We might soon add 'fat' to that depending on whether recent research is widely accepted.)
The True Taste Restaurant appeals only to one of those taste, and ignores the others. It implied that the others are not "true tastes" by the standards of that restaurant.
In the same way, liberals tend to accept Care and Fairness as the ONLY TRUE moral foundations, and they dismiss the others. Conservatives, it is implied, have a much wider 'palate' of acceptable moral foundations.
This does NOT mean liberals need to value all 6 foundations! Focusing on only two MIGHT be justifiable in the LONG RUN. However, gaining an
understanding of where conservatives are coming from is IMPORTANT, if liberals expect to gain back control of the government in the US, and other countries.
(I may repeat this point a lot because it is important to understand that I am not telling liberals how to think, but rather how to put themselves in the shoes of how other people think.)
Does that make things clearer?
they simply lack social conscience or compassion for the suffering of those who are not in their immediate family or peer group.
This, according to theory, is not accurate. Conservatives DO have conscience and compassion for others not in their group. But, if you look at the chart, you will see that other foundations take priority a lot of the time.
Assuming they lack compassion will get you into trouble. If they sense you are dismissing them as uncompassionate, they will more likely ignore everything you have to say, because they will disagree with you, and you would have lost credibility with them. The more effective approach is to appeal to things they tend to value more.
They also tend to resist rational thought and critical analysis of their own claims.
Well, most people are not great at rational thought and critical analysis. Not even liberals. We skeptics are mutants.
In other words, if liberals had the same moral foundations as conservatives, they would not suck so much at understanding conservatives.
Basically, yeah, but that would be something like an alternative universe.
Liberals are NOT OBLIGATED to share moral foundations with conservatives. All I ask is to try to understand where conservatives are coming from.
Yeah, those people screaming outside Planned Parenthood are all about "we think you're well-intentioned but naive". They even write that on the giant posters of bloody fetuses! And certainly no conservative has ever said people go to hell for being gay, or that Hillary Clinton is a literal demon. Because they're all about the honest engagement.
To be fair, MOST conservatives are not like that. Only a small percent of the most radical are like that. Though, it is still a problem: That radical faction is causing a LOT of damage.
But I'm asked to limit my outrage and reduce my hositility in the name of fairness to their injurious and unjust ideologies?
NOT AT ALL! This is about UNDERSTANDING conservatives, NOT about changing your values!
This about how to MORE EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE the ideals you already have, in ways that appeal better to the conservative mindset. And, stuff like that.
I, also, would like a better explanation of the OP. I don't get the sugar/salt analogy, and I'm kind of puzzled by the idea of conservatism as having a broader moral "palate".
See the top of this post.
It seems to me that conservatives value things that are traditional.
That, according to theory, is not a very useful or accurate statement, in the context of understanding why they think what they do.
although one might throw in "small government", if that is construed as applying only to economic interference. Conservatives in the USA tend to want less taxes, less regulation, and less government interference with business, but they also tend to be perfectly happy with interfering in people's personal lives.
That part coincides with the theory I am outlining, though.
One complicating factor is the use of "liberal" and "conservative" to apply generally to the Republican and Demcratic parties. They aren't very good labels anymore. I am among those people who think being liberal is a very good thing, but think that the modern American left has abandoned some liberal principles.
Perhaps. But, that might be a good discussion for another thread. I see the erosion of liberal principles as somewhat out-of-scope for this one.
Conservatives generally have a few more moral buttons than liberals. For a liberal, harm and fairness are the two main considerations in the realm of morality...
A good summary.
He also overstates the importance of his insight. Conservatives and liberals disagree over what constitutes harm (e.g. abortion) or what's truly fair (flat tax versus a progressive tax). Modernity is about challenging tribalism, tradition, and religion. We can recognize the weight of those structures while also saying they're trumped by individualism, science, and reason.
And, I would say that is a fair point! These arguments do NOT undermine the theory, but I agree there can be complications like this, that make it harder to study.
If one's goals are to communicate liberal policy more effectively to conservatives folks, it is still the best theory around that I have seen, so far.
This is an absolutely perfect example of the bubble that many (most actually) liberals have created for themselves. There are perfectly good reasons for opposing the mainstream liberal position on each and every one of these issues, and yet many liberals won't even allow for that possibility - instead resorting to the effortless and comfortable conclusion that their political opponents are simply motivated by greed or hate. If they're being particularly generous, they might concede that their political opponents are just irredeemably stupid.
Most conservatives I know think of such liberals as being misguided and close-minded. Not evil, or even stupid.
I will add, here, that taking more moderate positions on policies might end up being a side-effect of using this theory to talk to conservatives. It is NOT the intended consequence, but if this theory is more widely adopted, I suspect more people might see the points you are making, over time.
I don't understand this analogy.
See the top of this post for clarification.
In the video you linked to, Haidt actually argues that "liberals" tend to be more "open to experience".
That is an aspect of this subject we can talk about. Though, for my SkeptiCamp talk, I chose to leave it out, and focus on his other points. Later on, he also states things like "The great conservative insight is that order is really hard to achieve.", which is related to the Yin/Yang points I presented.
I think his theory need to be reworked until it fits a lot more political philosophies than "liberalism", "conservatism" and "libertarianism". There are quite a few more than three.
You points might be fair ones. And, it is possible his studies have already unraveled some of the complications you are throwing in. He seems to imply that in a few points in the book, mostly in the footnotes.
If you are willing to write to him about these ideas, I would be curious to know how he responds.
"If only people thought more like me, the world would be so much better" is never a good argument. It is certainly not a good start for understanding other people's views.
That, I hope you understand, is NOT the argument I am making.
It is perfectly fine for people to think in different ways. But, it is difficult for those different people to understand how the other people think.
This thread is about bridging that understanding. Not about changing how people think.
(Yes, I am repeating this point a lot. But, at least I am trying to phrase it differently each time.)
"Liberals suck at understanding conservatives because they have not read the same book I have read."
That is NOT the point I am making. It is the theory that matters, not the specific book.
"Liberals suck at understanding conservatives because sweeteners come in many different varieties and salt does not."
Erm... perhaps my clarification at the top of this post will help straighten out this weird statement of yours.
"Liberals suck at understanding conservatives because they don't understand loyalty, authority and sanctity."
Ah, NOW you state something close to I am ACTUALLY saying! Though, it would be a little more accurate if you replaced "don't understand loyalty, authority and sanctity" with "don't accept loyalty, authority and sanctity as proper moral foundations"
"Liberals suck at understanding conservatives because of differences between their moral foundations."
You do not need to take my word for it. The studies and the evidence are all outlined in reasonable detail in the Righteous Mind book.
"Liberals suck at understanding conservatives because they did not place bets on Trump like I did."
I am using the bets I made as an example of how understanding conservatives netted me $201 (pending electoral college voting). I understood Trump better than most liberal-minded people*. I do NOT like Trump. Never had, never will! But, I SAW where he was coming from. If more people saw this, it could have been prevented.
And I DO credit Haidt's theory for helping me see it.
(*You know, I should probably state for the record that I do not quite consider myself to be a liberal. I tend to more of a moderate when it comes to policy. Though, I have always voted for Democrat presidents, for whatever that is worth. But, enough about me. Let's get back to the bigger issues!)
"Liberals suck at understanding conservatives because it is very complicated."
Well, that IS true. But, my main points are more useful and specific than that!
Wowbagger, respectfully, your OP needs a do-over.
Eh, that's what happens when I convert presentation notes to a forum thread, I guess.
I saw Haidt discuss his book when he was in Seattle a few years back. I didn't buy the premise then and still don't.
If one's goals are to communicate public policy ideas to conservatives who have previously rejected those ideas (perhaps on unjustified grounds), and encourage more of them to change their minds: What theory do you think would work better?
Most consumers are not equipped to shop around for health care.
I largely agree. Now, how do you SELL the idea of something like the Affordable Healthcare Act to people who are naturally inclined not to agree with you on that?
Look at the price of epi-pens for proof the free market is not magical.
You know, I could rephrase that as "Markets CAN BE Miraculous". Clearly they are not always as such.
I should clarify, I think a mix of socialism and capitalism is the best political/economic system.
I agree a good balance is what is needed. But, if we get more into that, I would suggest starting a different thread. Ideal policy structure is out of scope in a discussion on understanding how people feel about policies.
The actual main difference is in levels of understanding integrative complexity (cf Tetlock), such as using dichotomies vs shaded meanings, and adherence (or not) to the idea that examining alternatives can lead to better answers. Basically, tolerance of uncertainty (liberal) vs absolute truths (conservative). There is also more "if my group thinks X, then by golly it's X" among those who value group loyalty more (conservatives, cf Haidt).
That is one way of putting it. I guess.
The question is, will we survive this iteration of right-wing simpletons imposing nonsense as if it were the gospel.
Survival will not come automatically. But, it can happen. We all need to work to do it! Exactly how, is a topic for a different thread.
Though, I think that having these morality-based understandings is going to be an ingredient in doing that.
Firstly those are not morals. They are values
Semantic point. But, whatever.
Furthermore it ignore quite a few other values, e.g. honesty, trust, race purity (not something I understand - but some hold this one as very valuable.), success etc... So by limiting to those 5, how do we not know that other values may have an influence , even a greater one, making actually conservative NOT understanding liberals and suck at understanding them ?
A good question!
Haidt did, indeed, look at a much broader variety of values. He did NOT start with those five. He narrowed down the list to those 5 (actually 6 in the new list), as the MOST influential. The BIGGEST values that seem to make the strongest differences, according to his studies and experiments.
His book does not talk much about those other values as a result. He might have some papers explaining why they were excluded, perhaps.
They do not need to be understood.
This attitude, if adopted by too many more people, could doom us all.
If Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders (or any candidate for that matter) understood conservatives better, in these ways, Trump would have been defeated.
IMO give it 30 to 60 years and most will be gone the way of the dodo, replaced by other type of conservative.
I doubt that. The cognitive elements that emerge as conservatism go too deep. In a future post I hope to emphasize this points by talking about how Moral Foundations Theory ties into other studies: Cognitive dissonance, evolutionary development, etc.
The problem we are dealing with is not 'conservatives', the current crowd who have taken over the Republican party are not conservative in any meaningful sense of the word, they want to burn the system down in the name of a vision of 'freedom' and a fantasy of a past that never existed.
I think this theory applies to that, as well.
Where does a socialist like myself stand?
Probably closer to the side of "liberal", depending on how you define socialist. (Bernie Sanders was a very different socialist than, say, Karl Marx.)
Apparently, Libertarians are invisible also, from the discussion at hand.
We CAN talk about libertarianism. I left that part out of my presentation, because it was only going to be 20 minutes long, and I could not cover everything. But, there is plenty of room in this thread!
The very reason the foundations were increased from 5 to 6 was to cover libertarianism, in fact. The book has a few diagrams to illustrate the subject. When I have time, I will post those.
Not today's conservatives. They've totally abandoned any kind of morality.
And, that, according to theory, is NOT true.
In most moral questions, people do not reason through moral problems to reach a decision, rather they come to a conclusion based on how they feel about something and then rationalize the decision.
Yes, that is one of the basic reason these differences emerge.
It is an important point, though one I had to leave out of the presentation for time. I figured it might be better, from an awareness point of view, to simply talk about the differences that do exist, than how and why they come to exist.
But, that is something that IS in scope for this larger discussion, I think.
I think much of this discussion has failed to live up to the thread title. Here's a passage from Haidt arguing why conservatives understand liberals better than vice-versa:
https://theindependentwhig.com/haid...etter-than-liberals-understand-conservatives/
Thanks for the contribution!
