I would ask you the provide links to the studies you mentioned that have found that conservatives know more than liberals about opposing media views. It comes as a surprise to me.
From page 334 of The Righteous Mind (emphasis added):
When I speak to liberal audiences about the three тАЬbindingтАЭ foundations тАУ Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity тАУ I find that many in the audience donтАЩt just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral. Loyalty to a group shrinks the moral circle; it is the basis of racism and exclusion, they say. Authority is oppression. Sanctity is religious mumbo-jumbo whose only function is to suppress female sexuality and justify homophobia.
In a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Qyestionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a тАЬtypical liberalтАЭ would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a тАЬtypical conservativeтАЭ would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing peopleтАЩs expectations about тАЬtypicalтАЭ partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right)тАЩ Who was best able to pretend to be the other?
The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as тАЬvery liberal.тАЭ The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with questions such as тАЬOne of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animalтАЭ or тАЭJustice is the most important requirement for a society,тАЭ liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan [i.e., conservative] narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. HeтАЩs more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.
If you donтАЩt see that Reagan is pursuing positive values of Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity, you almost have to conclude that Republicans see no positive value in Care and Fairness. You might even go as far as Michael Feingold, a theater critic for the liberal newspaper the Village Voice, when he wrote:
Republicans donтАЩt believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who donтАЩt give a hoot about human beings, either canтАЩt or wonтАЩt. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they causeany more harm)3
One of the many ironies in this quotation is that it shows the inability of a theater critic-who skillfully enters fantastical imaginary worlds for a living-to imagine that Republicans act within a moral matrix that differs from his own. Morality binds and blinds.
Thanks for your reply. I love Jonathan Haidt, and have always considered it a betrayal that he refuses to condemn ConservativesЁЯШЙ. I fully subscribe to the notion that both sides have moral architecture; they just use different building blocks. I don't think that I would be very good at predicting how Conservatives would react to a given situation, though I do think I'd predict that Conservatives would rush to defend a defenseless animal (I'd be less ready to say that if animal were replaced by homeless person in that statement - while admitting that I think that most liberals care more about animals than people as well). I think liberals are inclined to predict that Conservatives would disagree with the statement about Justice, because the moral foundations of Conservatives do seem to align with Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity, and Justice doesn't seem to play well with that triumvirate.
I often do try to understand the Conservative position, allowing that they are human, have feelings and families, and hope to get to heaven, but often can't. Can you explain to me for example how they can tolerate the policy that divided children from their parents (if you accept the premise of that question). I will allow that our immigration reality is a shameful morass, but I just think that taking a kid away form his/her parent is inhuman.
Anyway, I have boarded the "more that unites us than divides us" boat, because anything else leads to ends that I am loathe to contemplate, so we need to keep trying to understand.
The "taking kids away" issue depends totally on whether they are "taking kids away" from "PARENTS." My understanding is that people come across the border illegally and cannot prove they are the parents of the kids they bring with them. It is a demonstrable fact that some evil people take advantage of the "catch and release for parents and children" situation by bringing children to the border who are NOT their children. If it can be proven that the Trump Administration is separating children from known and provable parents then I will condemn them. So far, the evidence and logic seem to support the Administration's position, and it is the same position that the Obama Administration had as well.
I condemn the Obama administration policy of caging immigrants, but it was not their policy to separate children from their policy to separate families. Thank you for agreeing that it is worthy of condemnation to do so. As to questioning whether these children were separated from PARENTS I just shake my head, and suggest that perhaps your news sources should be checked.
The idea that a parent would send a child away with an "evil person." I do try to understand, but it always seems to reach a point beyond which I cannot go.
Some media reported a scheme where children were used as pawns by criminal gangs to gain access into the US.
I saw a talking head suggest that some of these children were abandoned!
Probably some truth in both sides of the stories. There is a lot of evil out there. It's not so black or white. I'm blown away that any parent, separated, would not be beating down the doors trying to reunite with their child. Where are the parents? Are the parents still alive? Blackmailed? Caged too? Deported? Sitting somewhere south of the border? I need the details and truth before I wholeheartedly condemn any policy when I don't know the details and nuances.
Yes the parents were deported, and often to Mexico instead of their home country (which though a blessing for those seeking asylum, makes it close to impossible for them to reclaim their children). How hard have you looked for information about the truth of this story? I suspect you are happy to just say I doubt you and let it sit. This is a crime against humanity.
I'm curious about your comment. Why do you think I am being disingenuous?
I would ask you the provide links to the studies you mentioned that have found that conservatives know more than liberals about opposing media views. It comes as a surprise to me.
From page 334 of The Righteous Mind (emphasis added):
When I speak to liberal audiences about the three тАЬbindingтАЭ foundations тАУ Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity тАУ I find that many in the audience donтАЩt just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral. Loyalty to a group shrinks the moral circle; it is the basis of racism and exclusion, they say. Authority is oppression. Sanctity is religious mumbo-jumbo whose only function is to suppress female sexuality and justify homophobia.
In a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Qyestionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a тАЬtypical liberalтАЭ would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a тАЬtypical conservativeтАЭ would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing peopleтАЩs expectations about тАЬtypicalтАЭ partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right)тАЩ Who was best able to pretend to be the other?
The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as тАЬvery liberal.тАЭ The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with questions such as тАЬOne of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animalтАЭ or тАЭJustice is the most important requirement for a society,тАЭ liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan [i.e., conservative] narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. HeтАЩs more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.
If you donтАЩt see that Reagan is pursuing positive values of Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity, you almost have to conclude that Republicans see no positive value in Care and Fairness. You might even go as far as Michael Feingold, a theater critic for the liberal newspaper the Village Voice, when he wrote:
Republicans donтАЩt believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who donтАЩt give a hoot about human beings, either canтАЩt or wonтАЩt. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they causeany more harm)3
One of the many ironies in this quotation is that it shows the inability of a theater critic-who skillfully enters fantastical imaginary worlds for a living-to imagine that Republicans act within a moral matrix that differs from his own. Morality binds and blinds.
Thanks for your reply. I love Jonathan Haidt, and have always considered it a betrayal that he refuses to condemn ConservativesЁЯШЙ. I fully subscribe to the notion that both sides have moral architecture; they just use different building blocks. I don't think that I would be very good at predicting how Conservatives would react to a given situation, though I do think I'd predict that Conservatives would rush to defend a defenseless animal (I'd be less ready to say that if animal were replaced by homeless person in that statement - while admitting that I think that most liberals care more about animals than people as well). I think liberals are inclined to predict that Conservatives would disagree with the statement about Justice, because the moral foundations of Conservatives do seem to align with Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity, and Justice doesn't seem to play well with that triumvirate.
I often do try to understand the Conservative position, allowing that they are human, have feelings and families, and hope to get to heaven, but often can't. Can you explain to me for example how they can tolerate the policy that divided children from their parents (if you accept the premise of that question). I will allow that our immigration reality is a shameful morass, but I just think that taking a kid away form his/her parent is inhuman.
Anyway, I have boarded the "more that unites us than divides us" boat, because anything else leads to ends that I am loathe to contemplate, so we need to keep trying to understand.
The "taking kids away" issue depends totally on whether they are "taking kids away" from "PARENTS." My understanding is that people come across the border illegally and cannot prove they are the parents of the kids they bring with them. It is a demonstrable fact that some evil people take advantage of the "catch and release for parents and children" situation by bringing children to the border who are NOT their children. If it can be proven that the Trump Administration is separating children from known and provable parents then I will condemn them. So far, the evidence and logic seem to support the Administration's position, and it is the same position that the Obama Administration had as well.
I condemn the Obama administration policy of caging immigrants, but it was not their policy to separate children from their policy to separate families. Thank you for agreeing that it is worthy of condemnation to do so. As to questioning whether these children were separated from PARENTS I just shake my head, and suggest that perhaps your news sources should be checked.
It's such infantile policy to trust adults and children to represent truthfully whether they are family or not.
The idea that a parent would send a child away with an "evil person." I do try to understand, but it always seems to reach a point beyond which I cannot go.
Some media reported a scheme where children were used as pawns by criminal gangs to gain access into the US.
I saw a talking head suggest that some of these children were abandoned!
Probably some truth in both sides of the stories. There is a lot of evil out there. It's not so black or white. I'm blown away that any parent, separated, would not be beating down the doors trying to reunite with their child. Where are the parents? Are the parents still alive? Blackmailed? Caged too? Deported? Sitting somewhere south of the border? I need the details and truth before I wholeheartedly condemn any policy when I don't know the details and nuances.
If I was selling bumper stickers...
Yes the parents were deported, and often to Mexico instead of their home country (which though a blessing for those seeking asylum, makes it close to impossible for them to reclaim their children). How hard have you looked for information about the truth of this story? I suspect you are happy to just say I doubt you and let it sit. This is a crime against humanity.