Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
*they're not really, I don't base my political opinions on that kind of triviality, but my goodness if you wanted to construct an argument about self-identified lefties being significantly more stupid/inflexible/un-self-critical/unable to comprehend simple arguments, you couldn't find a much better starting point.
without sounding like a dick
It's nothing that hasn't been done before (loads of work was done at the CCCS in Birmingham in the 1980s trying to understand why working class people were voting for Thatcher for instance) but it is always an interesting thing to analyse.
Of course, the answer is always straightforward though no matter which way you slice it. People don't vote based upon their perceived place in an economic system, nor do they vote for people based on THEIR place within an economic system. In other words - it's the reason Marxism failed, and continues to fail, because it reduced every human motivation to economics and nothing else.
Social and cultural factors are much more important to the overall electorate.
(Bearing in mind that the Tory party is there for all those in Scotland that want it.)
(Bearing in mind that having a little cry/lol claiming that if you don't vote Labour you're a Tory is another way of saying 'if you're not for us you're against us' - the classic lefty Achilles heel.)
Classic trolling technique.
For example, according to our data, if you want to hire someone to criticise your nation on a radio show in another nation (loyalty), give the finger to his boss (authority), or sign a piece of paper stating one's willingness to sell his soul (sanctity), you can save a lot of money by posting a sign: "Conservatives need not apply."
- they're loyal to their country
- they're more fussed by authority
- they're religious or some equivalent
none of this seems terribly surprising?
couldn't quite work out whether it was or not from having read the piece
People below the line missing the point as ever. But if anything most of those comments are grist to the guy's mill so it shouldn't bother him...
FWIW I suspect that this research is to some extent compatible with the "duping hypothesis". Just gives us a more sophisticated idea of why their respective opponents see the right as manipulative and the left as patronising.
i would just like to add my tuppence and say that I dont vote conservative
Some of them do, some of them don't. Numbers go up and down. Just because they sort your roads, plumbing, electric, shopping, and virtually everything else you use on a day to day basis out doesn't mean they should feel guilt tripped into voting for the yoghurt eating pansy party because you want to turn the RAF into a happy clappy plane ride fun day experience for kids from tower hamlets
from a single article, but from this I feel like it's a confused and confusing approach. So many issues:
- Poor setting out of basic terms. Is this a value-based model? Or is it about morals? Why does he keep talking about taste buds? Is a taste bud a moral or a value or a belief? Is this a personality theory? If so, is he trying to suggest that you have 'caring' on one side and 'morals' on the other? Because that's how it reads, especially in the last paragraph, and man is that bullshit if so.
- A lack of recognition of emotion. He's made a rather silly argument: start off by dismissing the role of fear (and the subsequent enabling of the duping process) and then talk up about how times of fear enhance acceptance of conservative values. So the politics of fear -are- the primary movers after all?
- In fact, the more you read, the more you see that what he's talking about -is- the duping hypothesis. People feeling threatened and fearful about their national identity and external threats becoming more receptive to shows of national grandeur and social order: this is about wanting to be comforted. A better conclusion of (or general framing to) the article would have been to examine the real socioeconomic harms and inequalities that the left seeks to eliminate versus the perceived comforts that the right provides so well.
self-interest is essentially a pretty meaningless term so the duping hypothesis is pretty empty itself. But he sort of asserts, or tries to induce us to assume that things are self-evidently valuable because people who vote conservative think they're good. Which is dumb.
he took duping as the 'accepted' explantion for right wing voting behaviour, while putting forward another explantion (which was pretty much the same thing). I'm not standing up for the duping hypothesis really; I think the best explanations for voting behaviours are those which are based on general decsion-making theory (I wonder if anyone has applied dual process models in voting behaviour)
just not when taken to extremes.
'Loyalty, respect for authority and some degree of sanctification' are rather important for the stability of society, and I think Haidt's point is that the left don't recognise this, or don't seem to come across as recognising this politically. That's because the right take it too far, especially in America.
Basically, when arguing for something like gay marriage, it seems to suggest that rather than solely focusing on 'equal rights' arguments, there needs to be weight on how gay marriage will *not* undermine the sanctity of marriage or straight people's freedoms, and perhaps emphasising *civil* marriage does not undermine the respect for *religious* marriage/authority. The 'equal rights' argument will probably convince psychological leftists alone, but you'll need more than that to convince psychological right-wingers.
I'm not sure the article actually reflects that argument very well. It comes back to that point about separating values/morals (as right-wing concerns) and caring/equality (as left wing ones). Why is belief in equality not a moral concern?
Furthermore, I don't think even focussing on how gay marriage won't undermine straight marriage would work in terms of 'persuading' right-wing types. Because this (again) underestimates the role of emotion: you're trying to use a rational appeal to an audience that is being led by emotional responses (in this case, ''that's ours and they can't have it''.
It's included within 'fairness'.
Re gay marriage, possibly. But not all right-wingers/social conservatives are completely irrational. They may rationally be concerned about the stability of various cultural institutions. Of course, the role of emotion is also very important, and I think there have been studies showing that if you know a gay person you're more likely to support gay marriage because you can empathise with them as a person.
this isn't a good article.
which is basically supposed to be a more liberal/biased version of Haidt's book and research. Definitely makes sense, at least in an American context.
I don't think the British Conservative Party can be seriously considered comparable to the Republicans though, certainly not considering how far right and anti-science the latter have become.
they're not all that socially conservative and have been gradually becoming less and less so since the emergence of Thatcherism, even though she was fond of frequently evoking Victorian-style morality. Their 2010 intake of MPs, in particular, seems to be overwhelmingly made up of social and economic liberals. Cameroons, Blairites and Lib Dem Orange Bookers seem to be pretty much in agreement on the majority of issues.
The one-nation Tories took a more paternalist approach and were genuinely small-c conservative - on the whole, they saw a compromise with social democracy as the best option to preserve social stability. There are next to none of them left now though, other than perhaps Heseltine.
It is quite good.
and who can blame them for that?