1. Comment #250044 by beanson on September 18, 2008 at 11:23 pm

So liberals are fairer and less authoritarian- I could have told him that, but isn't it a chicken/egg scenario and wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that ones innate feelings of justice led one to being politically liberal rather than viewing the correllation between liberality and fairness as novel data?

But we need the right wing- it's a yin/ yang duplicity apparently- well thanks for making that assertion- I see no evidence or even sound reasoning to back it up, just a diffident falling in with wishy-washy semi-religious notions-

this 'lecture' sounds to me like so much guff

Other Comments by beanson

2. Comment #250045 by Grantaire of JC on September 18, 2008 at 11:24 pm

Religion was designed to make people cohere and work on social advancement..,well said. But are the conservatives ready to give up their comfort zone in religion, I think not. So much sense of fairness and justice is tied up in the belief of a higher entity rewarding/punishing people, that the loss of the belief system would rock their foundations to the core.

Other Comments by Grantaire of JC

3. Comment #250051 by robotaholic on September 18, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Not to be rude to anyone on this site who may read this and not in reference to any particular person here either... I've noticed that plenty of liberals are hypocrits, more emotional, and they are totally condescending too!

Oh and I'm liberal lol

Other Comments by robotaholic

4. Comment #250054 by kev_s on September 18, 2008 at 11:49 pm

How many "conservatives" are capable of stepping out of their side of the 'moral matrix'? Since there were only 8 "conservatives" in the audience, I don't imagine they are interesting in listening to this kind of message.

Other Comments by kev_s

5. Comment #250059 by banzaib on September 19, 2008 at 12:05 am

It's an interesting and valid proposition he's making. Notice how his mentioning religious philosophies and figures makes us(atheists) want to shut him off/down.
I do think that both liberals and conservatives need to get more of a bird's eye veiw of their respective positions to see where they've made false or meaningless assumptions.
I think the clearest path to that is to know more about ourselves. What are we? What is it that drives us? How well do those drives serve us and how well do they lead us to harm?
If you haven't read the Blank Slate (Steven Pinker) yet, I urge you to do so.
We all should move on from the God/No God question. For most anyone on this website that is a done deal. Going over and over it and bashing religious people, gets boring after a while. And in the context of this video looks just like ingroup/outgroup fighting.
I do think religion is most likely the largest barrier between the liberal conservative divide, but it's not the only one. And religious people are not the only ones with dogmatic positions on issues.
Read the Blank Slate and see where it takes you. It's been the most interesting part of this whole ride for me.

Other Comments by banzaib

6. Comment #250060 by banzaib on September 19, 2008 at 12:08 am

By the way...

I really think this should be a FEATURED ARTICLE rather than "Latest News"

Are you out there Josh?

Other Comments by banzaib

7. Comment #250062 by beanson on September 19, 2008 at 12:16 am

Banzaib

Why should we move on from the God/No God question, why should anyone of us wink at superstition, turn a blind eye to willful ignorance. This is the 21st century, it's laughable and extremely sad at one and the same time that these delusions persist. We must continually look at how to diminish the grip of these ruinous ideologies

Other Comments by beanson

8. Comment #250067 by Barry Pearson on September 19, 2008 at 12:31 am

#250059 by banzaib: We all should move on from the God/No God question.

Quite.

In my page "Dimensions of enlightenment" I pose the question: "I am a scientifically-literate atheist. Guess who I would rather have as neighbours:

- On one side: a scientifically-illiterate arts-teacher who believes in pluralism and human rights and representative government, or an authoritarian scientist who favours restricting people's rights in order to censor objections to research.

- On the other side: a privately-religious tolerant secularist, or an intolerant totalitarian dogmatic atheist."

Even scientifically-literate atheists need better measures for societies, organisations, and people than how scientific or atheist they are!
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/enlightenment.htm

My model for coexistence is "Religions are hobbies", rather than "eliminate religions". We may prefer people to get rid of delusions and evidence-free faith, but that is centuries away, if ever.

We need something in the meantime:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/hobby.htm

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

9. Comment #250069 by a non e-moose on September 19, 2008 at 12:35 am

saw this a few days ago. I think he's full of shit.

Other Comments by a non e-moose

10. Comment #250073 by BrandySpears on September 19, 2008 at 12:47 am

Wow, the 14th Dalai Lama has moral humility? Isn't that the little old man in the robes that declared major fund raisers Richard Gere and Steven Segal were "holy" on one of his many trips to Hollywood? The same man that met with Shoko Asahara, whose cult Aum Shinrikyo released sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway system? Where was the moral humility when amputations were practiced on the serfs of Tibet? Alas, the Dalai Lama is allowing the Tibetan people to vote on his "rebirth", which he says, will not be in China. Humility? None.

Other Comments by BrandySpears

11. Comment #250076 by suffolkthinker on September 19, 2008 at 12:54 am

Am I the only European who is fed up with the way Americans seem to have hijacked the term "liberal" as a code for left wing?

There is a long liberal tradition in Europe both politically and socially that does not map onto the American use of the word as a code for "socialist". Liberal Economic Policy used to mean a "Free Market" laissez faire approach. Politcal parties that embodied free market economics combined with laissez fair moral policies also have a long tradtion (e.g. the old Liberal Party in the UK or the Free Democrats in Germany).

Probably a lost cause in American but perhaps we might just be able to hold the line on this side of the pond.

Other Comments by suffolkthinker

12. Comment #250084 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 19, 2008 at 1:12 am

*blood pressure rising*

This is such unmitigated bullshit that I find it hard to believe.

"Openess" is a trait of the left? Really? This is the same left that has instituted those idiotic 'speech codes' on campuses, that has made it essentially criminal to criticize Islam, is muzzling free speech, hounded Ayaan Hirsi Ali out of the Netherlands Parliment...

Need I go on? Why, I do think I shall!

In-group/out-group thinking is apparently 'conservative', especially when it is used, quelle horreur, to fight other people. Unfortunately, as I have pointed out, there are always those who are willing to make use of those ingroup loyalties to get what they want, meaning you have to use them to defend yourself.

As regards "delusional", hmmm... - you might want to check in which political area the 9/11 conspiracy kooks are found.

The "moral matrix" - lovely phrase. In other words, it's a virtue not to know right from wrong, not to know can't from shouldn't. And no, this isn't just something about pornography and so forth - a moral sense is what gives you the strength to stand up when push comes to shove as it does.

Or you can step out of the moral matrix and end up like certain impeccably liberal professors in Norway and Australia explaining to rape victims that it was really their fault as they didn't bother to understand the culture the, ahem, "youths" came from. It's this sort of cringing, amoral, spineless cowardice that got us Shariah in great britain.

Now here it goes:

1) Liberals question authority. Really? Ever tried questioning the "Islam is peace" bullshit with a liberal? Ever try pointing out what socialism has always caused? Ever try explaining what the National Socialist Workers Party's manifesto actually was, and on which side of the political spectrum it lands?

2) "Liberals speak for the weak and oppressed" - question: which side of the politcal spectrum formed common cause with the Kurds in Saddams Iraq? Which side of the political spectrum has stymied all efforts to prevent the genocide in the Sudan by demanding we go through the UN?

3) From what I can make out it's a bad, baaaaad thing to be for or against anything. Well, excuse me I happen to be for women's emancipation and against treating them like slaves. I happen to be for freedom and against slavery, and I have no problems saying that those who practice slavery in the Sudan and Mauritania should be burned from the face of the planet.

I imagine that gets this prissy little bitch screaming.


"Do you accept stepping out of the battle of good and evil?"

NO, I fucking DON'T! In case this goddamn idiot hasn't noticed it this is what is going on right now. Or how else do you describe this conflict? What else can you call the massacre of two million Christians and animists in the Sudan? Or the conditions of life in Saudi Arabia? Or the killing of the entire Shia Hazara in Afghanistan?

I'm sorry, I don't think I can continue watching this mindless drivel without blowing a fuse.

What utter balderdash. Here's my basic difference between liberal and conservatives:

A conservative has realized that there's a real world out there, where real people live and die and suffer, and that that real world isn't amenable to our wishes. A liberal believes the whole world should mold itself to his narcissism,

Completely unfair, I'm sure, and there are bound to be many objections, exceptions etc. but if you're going to put up with crap like this, you can put up with my counter blast.

Josh I submit that this has no part on a site that's principally devoted to the destruction of religion. Or else post something from a conservative atheist point of view (you'll find a lot from, say, the Ayn Rand Institute).

Or is there some new rule that atheists must be leftists? That they have to swallow the whole suicide package of modern liberalism in one go?

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

13. Comment #250094 by Laurie Fraser on September 19, 2008 at 1:19 am

Hahaha - Fanusi, old chap - I just KNEW this would get your dander up! (And every word the pure truth, brother!)

Or is there some new rule that atheists must be leftists?

Yeah, haven't you read the RD rulebook lately? Rule no 2: "Thou shalt have no other gods before Charles Darwin and Karl Marx"

Jeez, get with the program, Fan...

P.S. Josh, don't listen to him; he's just an old curmudgeon.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

14. Comment #250099 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 19, 2008 at 1:22 am

Laurie, actually very little of it is truth, as I pointed out in my post.

Now, the question is: is this a 'clear thinking oasis'? Or is this just another site for left wing demagoguery?

As I said, if you want to balance that nonsense out with something from right-wing atheists, great. But to present this junk as, as it were, gospel, is, deeply dishonest.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

15. Comment #250105 by BrandySpears on September 19, 2008 at 1:25 am

Fanusi, who canonized this article? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Other Comments by BrandySpears

16. Comment #250106 by atp on September 19, 2008 at 1:25 am

I see some people took the opportunity to take the blue pill, and instead of "stepping out of the moral matrix" use this to strengthen their feeling of "we are better than them".

>Am I the only European who is fed up with the way Americans seem to have hijacked the term "liberal" as a code for left wing?

Absolutely not. I'm from Norway, and in many ways I think of the right wing as more liberal in the sense that it is the political left wing who wants to have laws and regulations everywhere, and it's the right wing who prioritize individual rights and freedom.

Also it's the left wing who seems to demand conformity in moral and ways of thinking, are claiming moral authority and are the quickest to condemn those who have other ideas and ways of thinkng than themselves.

Take a trip to Norway and say you support Bush, and you'll see how liberal left wing norwegians are when it comes to people who think differently than themselves. Actually, when I think about it, from reading som american forums liberals in the united states are not very liberal in this context either.

I am not saying that conservatives are better! Only that those who claim to be liberal is often not. They're liberal when it comes to their chosen subjects, and not very accepting of those who not hold the same values.

I see this post started drifting. To sum up, liberal and conservative is not a very good divition between left wing and right wing outside america.

And from my very superficial knowledge of america and what I've seen of liberals discussing conservatives, it doesn't seem to be very fitting in america either.

I think if you really are liberal at mind, you shouldn't need to take the red pill. You should already be understanding and accepting when it comes to people who have different political views and moral than yourself.

Other Comments by atp

17. Comment #250108 by Laurie Fraser on September 19, 2008 at 1:27 am

To be serious, for a second, I don't think that Haidt was promoting any sort of agenda here. I've actually been following some of the threads of his, and others, investigations for some time, and there are some genuine findings from a lot of wide-ranging research that do point to affective differences between the "liberal" and the "conservative" mind (although I'd hesitate to paint with such broad brush-strokes.)

I certainly don't think that Haidt is necessarily a left-wing demagogue ; shit, there's plenty of others who are heroes of mine.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

18. Comment #250113 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 19, 2008 at 1:31 am

I don't think that Haidt was promoting any sort of agenda here.

Are you serious? He was all but saying liberals walk on water, while all conservatives cast their first born into a giant bronze statue of Bush.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

19. Comment #250146 by Not the Messiah on September 19, 2008 at 2:09 am

I think the important thing to take away from this lecture is the entreaty not to view our preference for either novelty and change on the one hand, or familiarity and stability on the other, as an issue of right vs. wrong. It's true that a society needs both impulses working in tandem to survive and grow.

To a jaundiced eye this talk seems to be straying into the dangerous quagmire of moral relativism, but I don't think it's being wishy-washy to appreciate how respect for authority, and loyalty to the group can be the cornerstones of morality for some individuals. They are gifts of our evolutionary past as much as our curiosity, altruism and lust.

When you label someone a f*cktard, when you spew forth venom and heap scorn upon them, and dismiss their views as stupid, evil or insane, you're speaking from within the moral Matrix that Jonathan Haidt talks about. Stepping outside it for a moment can only increase your understanding of your fellow human beings.

I'm a huge fan of the TED talks btw, there's a Youtube Channel you can subscribe to with hundreds of talks on a huge range of topics to challenge your presumptions and expose you to new ideas... Which I guess makes me a liberal after all :)

Other Comments by Not the Messiah

20. Comment #250147 by rod-the-farmer on September 19, 2008 at 2:11 am

Re # 3. Comment #250051 by robotaholic

Not to be rude to anyone on this site who may read this and not in reference to any particular person here either... I've noticed that plenty of liberals are hypocrits, more emotional, and they are totally condescending too!

From my experience, you could just as well substitute "conservatives" for liberals in the last sentence.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

21. Comment #250148 by Kimpatsu on September 19, 2008 at 2:11 am

Max Pigliucci has already responded to this:
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-makes-people-vote-republican.html

Other Comments by Kimpatsu

22. Comment #250150 by HunterZolomon on September 19, 2008 at 2:13 am

atp
Absolutely not. I'm from Norway, and in many ways I think of the right wing as more liberal in the sense that it is the political left wing who wants to have laws and regulations everywhere, and it's the right wing who prioritize individual rights and freedom."

Hear, hear!! I'm from Sweden and I share that sentiment. The Scandinavian political spectrum is generally far more leftist than the US one.

Though in my experience, left or right has little to do with how "open" you are to new ideas and experiences. Both political groups have their fundamentalist, irrational retards.

Other Comments by HunterZolomon

23. Comment #250166 by Beachbum on September 19, 2008 at 2:49 am

Wow- and I don't even care which is what! Anti-theist without a doubt, but a clear line between liberal and conservative. Just consider it a pause to self evaluate before jumping to conclusions on any particular topic. Control vs. Openness, to other viewpoints.

Other Comments by Beachbum

24. Comment #250167 by theonlybap on September 19, 2008 at 2:53 am

suffolkthinker, atp, and HunterZolomon,

I'm from the US, and I agree!

But wikipedia (yeah...) splits Liberalism up into many different groups, it's ridiculous. Anyway, no point to argue definitions. But it is confusing to people when I tell them my views align with Liberalism, then find out I really like capitalism and laissez-faire economics.

Other Comments by theonlybap

25. Comment #250185 by JemyM on September 19, 2008 at 3:20 am

This is pretty much the subject that I have chosen to dedicate my life to. I have already begun to answer ideologies/religions survival rate based on natural human emotions and needs. I have already accepted that there are grains of truth in liberalism, conservatism, socialism and even in the five world religions and if you really want to learn about a societys survival rate you owe yourself to read them all along with psychology.

Other Comments by JemyM

26. Comment #250189 by memphis matt on September 19, 2008 at 3:36 am

sam harris has a nice response to this:

http://www.edge.org/discourse/vote_morality.html#harriss

Other Comments by memphis matt

27. Comment #250192 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 19, 2008 at 3:41 am

Thanks, memphis. Sam Harris is a very smart man and is able to understand that there is such a thing as good and evil, right and wrong.

Does forcing women and girls to wear burqas make a positive contribution to human well-being? Does it make happier boys and girls? More compassionate men? More confident and contented women? Does it make for better relationships between men and women, between boys and their mothers, or between girls and their fathers? I would bet my life that the answer to each of these questions is "no." So, I think, would many scientists. And yet, most scientists have been trained to think that such judgments are mere expressions of cultural bias. Very few of us seem willing to admit that simple, moral truths increasingly fall within the purview of our scientific worldview. I am confident that this period of reticence will soon come to an end.

I hope so, Sam, I hope so.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

28. Comment #250196 by Sally Luxmoore on September 19, 2008 at 3:52 am

This is interesting, by the way...

http://blog.dailyatheistquote.com/post/Obama-Stands-up-for-Atheists.aspx

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

29. Comment #250202 by TIKI AL on September 19, 2008 at 4:22 am

Don't take the red pill unless you want to blog standing up for a few days. They are made from concentrated chili peppers.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

30. Comment #250204 by Vaal on September 19, 2008 at 4:25 am

Hmmm, Sally, am I just being cynical or is it that Obama is just considering the atheist vote in a close run contest. After all, even at the most pessimistic estimate atheists consist of 10% (30 million people) of the population, and I suspect that it is probably closer to 40%. Most of the other politicians seem keen to demonize atheists, even that clown Bush who openly admits that he regard atheists as non-US citizens, even though he took an oath to uphold the US constitution on the separation of the Church and the State (hypocrite).

So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles

Hmmm, why should he be encouraging people to read their bibles, why not Confucius or Shakespeare?

Still, I suppose in that context, he is raising consciousness, so that can only be a good thing. I do suspect myself that Obama is an agnostic, and is treading the yellow brick road of lip service to Christian evangelism to ensure election.

EDIT: Mind you, that idiot pastor of Obama's would turn the Pope into an atheist (if he isn't already).

Other Comments by Vaal

31. Comment #250207 by epeeist on September 19, 2008 at 4:29 am

Comment #250192 by Fanusi Khiyal

Sam Harris is a very smart man and is able to understand that there is such a thing as good and evil, right and wrong.

Oh, I think most of us understand that.

It is just that some of us don't think there is an objective basis for it.

Other Comments by epeeist

32. Comment #250208 by Dhamma on September 19, 2008 at 4:32 am

HunterZolomon:

I agree in the sense that I don't find the Swedish right to be necessarily less open-minded, but you'd have to realize the American right is so much further to the right than the Swedish, they're not comparable.

The GOP is much more similar to SD (Sverigedemokraterna) than anything else. And I'd sure as hell consider them close-minded fools.

Personally I'm non-partisan for the reason you gave in your last sentence. There's simply too many fundamentalists that want to indoctrinate you with their views, and that goes for every established party.

Other Comments by Dhamma

33. Comment #250228 by Sally Luxmoore on September 19, 2008 at 5:43 am

Vaal

By posting it I was not intending to indicate total approval. I'm inclined to agree with you about his motives.
The bit that interested me was just that atheists and the wall of separation got a mention at all!

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

34. Comment #250238 by squinky on September 19, 2008 at 6:07 am

I read Harris's retort to Haidt and I have to say, Sam guts him like a fish. I'm not saying Haidt doesn't have a few contemplative points but Sam just pounds him with neuroscientific data.

Other Comments by squinky

35. Comment #250242 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 19, 2008 at 6:22 am

squinky, indeed he does. Haidt strikes me as one of those cheap demagogues whose cheapness tries to imitate sophistication.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

36. Comment #250244 by kwhitefoot on September 19, 2008 at 6:26 am

Fanusi Khiyal,
Your post contained a number of assertions that might or might not be true but are testable. Can you provide references for the "certain impeccably liberal professors in Norway", etc.? If you are certain enough you can give us names. Then we will know to be wary of their other utterances. If not then the statement is just scare mongering.

Other Comments by kwhitefoot

37. Comment #250248 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 19, 2008 at 6:41 am

kwhitefoot, no problem.

Though I need to make one correction: in Australia, it was Monroe Reimers who wrote the following in the Sidney Morning Herald:

""As terrible as the crime was, we must not confuse justice with revenge. We need answers. Where has this hatred come from? How have we contributed to it? Perhaps it's time to take a good hard look at the racism by exclusion practised with such a vengeance by our community and cultural institutions."

In Norway, it was the University of Oslo Professor Unni Wikan who said the following:

"Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes [...] Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

I think I've managed to even chase down the article where she says it:
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2001/09/06/279676.html

I say 'I think', because though this is listed as the source, I don't speak Norweigan - I've relied on translations.

So, there you have it. And no, this isn't the first such case - you can see similar guff with that silly bitch Germaine Greer saying that female genital mutilation should be respected as a cultural practice.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

38. Comment #250257 by jshuey on September 19, 2008 at 7:08 am

Two things need to be said about this:

1.) The left claims to be more caring (who knows, they may believe it) BUT...in every survey ever done in the US conservatives (no, I'm not one) voluntarily give much more money and time to charitible causes; leading to the conclusion that

2) The left (liberals) are only willing to be compassionate with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY! In short, they are willing to use the force of government to fund their concept of do-good programs. (Which may or may not be best in the long run for those they purport to care about.)

Other Comments by jshuey

39. Comment #250277 by kwhitefoot on September 19, 2008 at 8:21 am

Fanusi Khiyal,

Thanks for the reference. Can't comment on the Aussies but I do speak Norwegian so I can comment on the Dagblad article.

The english version that you quote is misleading because it conflates a paraphrase by the Dagblad with a direct quotation from Unni Wikan. The first part is from the introduction to the article:

Wikan, som er professor i sosialantropologi, mener norske kvinner må ta sin del av ansvaret for at voldtektene skjer.

In English:
Wikan, who is a professor of social anthropolgy, is of the opinion that Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for the occurence of rape.

This is a report of an opinion, not the opinion itself.

The latter part comes under a bold face heading:

Hun er klar over at hun kan få kritikk for uttalelsene sine, men mener debatten er viktig.

- Jeg vil ikke legge skylden for voldtektene på de norske kvinnene. Men norske kvinner må innse at vi lever i et flerkulturelt samfunn, og innrette seg deretter.

In English:
She is aware that she will be criticised for her statments, but is of the opinion that debate is important.

- I will not lay the blame for the rapes on Norwegian women. But Norwegian women must admit that we live in a multicultural society, and behave accordingly.

This sounds terribly damning if you ignore the first sentence but if you read on you see this:

Advarer
Med mindre de har et ønske om sex, advarer Wikan norske kvinner på det sterkeste mot å invitere med seg hjem for eksempel muslimske menn som vet lite om norsk kultur.

Warning
Unless they want sex, Wikan warns Norwegian women strongly against inviting home, for example, Muslim men who have little knowledge of Norwegian culture.

So you can see that her point is largely that when one interacts with another person it is wise to be aware of and take account of their preconceptions. She doesn't seem to me to be saying that Norwegian women in general must alter their behaviour or dress.

Translations should always be taken with a pinch of salt. By the way you gave the original Norwegian source but what was the source of the translation?

Here is another take on the same article: http://www.globalpolitician.com/22792-norway

Other Comments by kwhitefoot

40. Comment #250278 by DamnDirtyApe on September 19, 2008 at 8:23 am

'Liberal'. 'Conservative'.
Why not just 'Fear' and 'Love'?

Donnie Darko:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Q38N9QvsdzU

Things are NOT that simple.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

41. Comment #250280 by s.k.graham on September 19, 2008 at 8:37 am

I would be interested how the survey respondents were divided into "conservative" and "liberal" independent of the survey questions. Self-labelled? What about non-english-speaking regions? I'm sure, for example, that communists in Russia would be consistent with the "conservative" spectrum in his 5 components of morality.

That said, the underlying message here -- one of trying to understand each other -- is surely sound. There are those in any society who strive to maintain such things as "national unity", "respect for authority", and "restraint on excess". And their are those who see the abuse of such power as a grave threat to more basic freedoms and universal justic.

Here's another way to see it. There are those who more fear the top-down abuses of central authority. And there are those who more fear the bottom up chaos of unrestrained freedom.

Other Comments by s.k.graham

42. Comment #250282 by Shaka on September 19, 2008 at 8:50 am

Yay for the Matrix!

Sadly this video is spot on.

Other Comments by Shaka

43. Comment #250285 by Ultraviolet G on September 19, 2008 at 9:19 am

Fanusi:

What Suffolkthinker said. Please can you Americans stop using the word "Liberal" when you mean "Socialist" or in the case of Fox news "Centrist" (which they also call "far left" lol).

This is really a problem of the old human tendency to stereotype everything, literally. As up/down left/right black/white. There IS no "left-right" spectrum in politics.

For fun, take this test:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/quiz.php

Not perfect, but it is a lot better than the old left-right model.

Other Comments by Ultraviolet G

44. Comment #250286 by liberalartist on September 19, 2008 at 9:19 am

What I have come to hate about our (American) political system is that you have to be "liberal" or "conservative". There is such a thing as a range of belief, range of interests, and range of values. To put all of Americans into 2 categories, is to me, simply stupid.

Other Comments by liberalartist

45. Comment #250288 by radiohead1000 on September 19, 2008 at 9:22 am

This study is nothing new. Nietzsche published beyond good and evil in 1886 which encouraged readers to step out of the box. I also think that Liberal and Conservetive means vastly different things in varying cultures.Labeling yourself makes you intractable.

Other Comments by radiohead1000

46. Comment #250290 by AmericanGodless on September 19, 2008 at 9:33 am

I like what Haidt has attempted here, but I think his analysis is superficial.

The biggest problem is that he picks out five components of morality for study (care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity) and leaves out the most important moral imperative for a modern scientific culture: a commitment to tell the truth. But the problem is even deeper, because the liberal/conservative divide (or some kind of moral/cultural divide associated with those labels) is also an epistemological divide. As Lincoln pointed out for the value of "freedom," we can all favor it without agreeing on it -- we can have entirely different notions of what "truth" might mean. To one group, it is a pure and sacred truth based in an authority that demands our loyalty; and to the other it is a human attempt to construct a model of reality that we hope will reduce harm and promote care, and, to be stated fairly, can only at best be the most probable model we have so far been able to come up with.

I find more significant the finding (I wish I had kept the link to this study) that American conservatives, when given a controversial truth claim that they might be expected to favor, such as "there were WMD in Iraq," about 1/3 of them will agree with it; if they are also given documentary evidence that the claim is false, the number who will (in spite of the contrary evidence) agree with the claim doubles to about 2/3. The same is not found as strikingly for liberals confronted with an issue that they might be inclined to favor.

Now, I don't know whether to believe this finding or not. I suspect that it is not really a "conservative/liberal" divide; perhaps it's an authoritarian/democracy divide. But there is, apparently, a mind set, either inherited, or (I suspect more likely) learned within a subculture, that places a greater value on a feeling of security and certainty, as compared to another mind set that values a hope for a more probably correct and so potentially more practical, useful, and workable picture of reality. This divide is quite evident in American politics, where a "reality-based" approach can often be a political liability.

There obviously are "conservatives" who do value research and a human approach to truth. We will need a lot more of it if we are ever to discover a cure for the human addiction to blind dogma. Or do we need our blind dogma to have a proper yin/yang balance? Is the Vatican right to exclude "overly scientific" evolutionists from their evolution conference?

Other Comments by AmericanGodless

47. Comment #250291 by Caudimordax on September 19, 2008 at 9:34 am

Help! I'm so confused!

I live in the U.S. and when asked, I identify myself as a foaming-at-the-mouth, bleeding-heart, tree-hugging liberal.

Yet I agree with 99.9% of what Fanusi said.

I'm trying to invent for myself a sort of "robust" as opposed to "flabby" liberalism, something that values truth over political correctness.

But once again, as we know, Truth has a well known liberal bias.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

48. Comment #250293 by Lucas on September 19, 2008 at 9:41 am

Fanusi - Most of the time I at least mostly agree with you, but you are way too reactionary on this one. Some of what he said was oversimplified balderdash, but he made many good points, and many of yours were simply crap. There is enough that I find odious about the "liberal" camp in America that I would rather not be called one, but by all measurements I guess I do lean heavily toward the liberal side. However, I have somewhat more fascist and authoritarian ideas about government, and I certainly am as sicked as you are by the "Islam is peace" bullshit.

I think the take-away point from this lecture, and your mostly uselessly emotional interpretation, is that each of us, if we indeed intend to cooperate, needs to take a look at each of these five factors and realize that we need not be so extreme in any one of them. I agree that purity/sanctity is a value, but it is a matter of how much weight that is given in law. The same for all the others. Liberal's tendency toward anti-authoritarianism, to the point of anarchy, is rooted in a good instinct but is taken too far, and conservatives go too far the other way. There must be balance. I've come to accept that while I may be instinctually drawn toward fairness to all, taken to the extreme we get situations like we have with Islam in Europe, which you rightly rail against. It's all a matter of degree, and I think liberals and conservatives have both made the mistake of taking their core instincts to the extreme without tempering them with the reason and knowledge needed to achieve the ideal admixture.

This lecture also highlighted for me the problem with dichotomies like theist/atheist and liberal/conservative (see how I switched the normal correlates from left to right?). These are surface dichotomies that mask the true dichotomy: stupid and smart. That's it. I said it. It is not that theists are stupid and atheists are smart; it's that stupid theists argue with stupid atheists and they all just end up fighting instead of cooperating. Same with liberals and conservatives. Smart liberals and conservatives will find themselves agreeing on enough things to forge a good path for society; stupid liberals and conservatives would rather just shoot each other.

Other Comments by Lucas

49. Comment #250295 by Caudimordax on September 19, 2008 at 9:48 am

There was a letter to the NY Times addressing Haidt's spheres (in response to Steven Pinker's article "The Moral Instict.":


"Among the five ''moral spheres'' of harm, fairness, community, authority and purity, Jonathan Haidt ''found that liberals put a lopsided moral weight on harm and fairness while playing down group loyalty, authority and purity.'' In fact, liberals do put weight on these spheres: Haidt may simply have been asking the questions from an inappropriate point of view and disregarding Peter Singer's ''Theory of the Expanding Circle.'' Liberals put great weight on loyalty to the entire human race (or even all animals), as opposed to one's own race, nation or clan. They put weight on the authority of empirical evidence (over dogma), the international community (over one's own country) or the Constitution (over the flag). And they put weight on purity in terms of the environment and sustainability. What appears to be moral ''lopsidedness'' is the result of applying the spheres to larger groups and more universal, all-encompassing entities.

STEPHEN W. SMITH

Minneapolis "

Other Comments by Caudimordax

50. Comment #250296 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 19, 2008 at 9:51 am

Lucas, specifics please about where and why I'm wrong.

Liberal's tendency toward anti-authoritarianism

I simply don't buy this. Liberals in the American sense of the word strike me as regimented as any other political movement.

Incidentally, I'm not an American, and I have to use the terminology that's used in this stupid presentation.

It's all a matter of degree, and I think liberals and conservatives have both made the mistake of taking their core instincts to the extreme without tempering them with the reason and knowledge needed to achieve the ideal admixture.

Technically speaking, I'm not actually a conservative, though I share many common political goals with the conservative movement (such as it is).

Sorry, I get irritated by alot of these cheap claims. Take the following:

I find more significant the finding (I wish I had kept the link to this study) that American conservatives, when given a controversial truth claim that they might be expected to favor, such as "there were WMD in Iraq," about 1/3 of them will agree with it; if they are also given documentary evidence that the claim is false, the number who will (in spite of the contrary evidence) agree with the claim doubles to about 2/3. The same is not found as strikingly for liberals confronted with an issue that they might be inclined to favor.

You could run that test about 9/11 conspiracy nutters and see what the results are. Or you could try seeing how many agree with the "Islamic terrorists are only responding to US foreign policy" b.s. and see what responses you get.

That's the other thing that infuriates me: it's not good science. Where are the controls? Where's the double-blind analysis? Where's the critical review?

ect that it is not really a "conservative/liberal" divide; perhaps it's an authoritarian/democracy divide.

Oh, I have no trouble agreeing with that. It's just that this self-satisfied idiot presents it in a totally one-sided way.

I will not lay the blame for the rapes on Norwegian women. But Norwegian women must admit that we live in a multicultural society, and behave accordingly.

This sounds terribly damning if you ignore the first sentence

Actually, I think it sounds damning, first sentence included. But anyway, thanks for the trans.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal