Jonathan Haidt: the differences between conservatives and liberals

[Juddog]

To those who haven't heard of Jonathan Haidt, I highly recommend this piece:
The fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives, and why both are needed.

He goes into great detail about the conservative versus liberal way of thinking, both in the US and other countries as well. He goes on to show why both are necessary as part of a society whole.

I highly recommend the video to both libs and cons of the board, to foster a greater understanding of how the other side thinks and why they think the way that they do.

My opinion about the piece is that he is right; society has fashioned itself in this way as a means of self-preservation and growth at the same time. Perhaps it's biologically wired in a way that we don't realize, but the fact is it's necessary for society to function to have both liberals and conservatives, the two sides of the spectrum, as one side maintains the old and fosters stability, offering punishment, while the other side grows and incorporates new ideas.

Most of the people I work with and a few of my friends are conservatives and a lot of them are fairly bright people. This is one reason why I'm an independent; I can see both sides have valid points, and both sides are really needed for society to function. When events happen on a national scale the balance swings from one side to the other in order for the country to survive. Thus my own internal balance can sway from one to the other depending on the circumstances. In certain ways I am very conservative, and in others I would be very liberal. It's the duality in human nature, and it's easy to sway to one side and stay there, but that would be limiting yourself.

As far as impact on the election, I think that the voter balance is swaying towards the left since the country has been under the leadership of one of the worst presidents in history and after 8 years of the country taking a beating, we need someone leaning left to set the balance again. Thus the call for change. Had George Dubya Bush been a proper leader and led the country in a better way, the balance between sides would have been in the middle and thus it would be more logical to vote along the conservative party line - in other words, to keep going with the plan that is working.

Cliffs: Both liberals and conservatives are needed for society to function.

 

[StageLeft]

Didn't see vid. Read your post. Agree.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Didn't see vid. Read your post. Agree.

In a way it reminds me of mathematical / computational modeling. In a given society, people tend to fall one way or the other, to "fill the gap" so to speak. In other words due to human interaction, as a society grows in size, so too will people naturally migrate to the other side to create a balance. I have to wonder if computers become powerful enough at some point, along with enough advancement in science, that we will be able to model human behavior on a large / macro scale.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Same as Skoorb. The way you put things in your post reminds me of Robert Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality and how he discusses the necessity for both static latching as well as dynamic Quality in order to allow progress to occur. A decent primer can be found here, but for full immersion I would recommend Pirsig's book "Lila" and a visit to the Metaphysics of Quality website.

ZV

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Same as Skoorb. The way you put things in your post reminds me of Robert Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality and how he discusses the necessity for both static latching as well as dynamic Quality in order to allow progress to occur. A decent primer can be found here, but for full immersion I would recommend Pirsig's book "Lila" and a visit to the Metaphysics of Quality website.

ZV

Cool, bookmarked for later.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes yes yes

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: Juddog
I have to wonder if computers become powerful enough at some point, along with enough advancement in science, that we will be able to model human behavior on a large / macro scale.

In some sense we've been doing that for ages. We are nowhere close to a universal formula or rule, but we have many different academic subjects that covers one small part of it.

Take for example,

Economics, Psychology, and Ethics. These are all studies trying to understand and "model" human behavior so to speak.

 

[cwjerome]

It's all about the proper balance... assuming we're defining the concepts in terms of change, the trick is to know when to be conservative and when to be liberal.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Same as Skoorb. The way you put things in your post reminds me of Robert Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality and how he discusses the necessity for both static latching as well as dynamic Quality in order to allow progress to occur. A decent primer can be found here, but for full immersion I would recommend Pirsig's book "Lila" and a visit to the Metaphysics of Quality website.

ZV

Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is also a good one.

 

[JS80]

If there were no far left nor far right the country would be better off. But to vote left because of W, who is fiscally left so conservatives hate him and socially right so liberals hate him, makes no sense. You're just going to get a fiscally left and socially left Obama. Voting for McCain doesn't solve it either because you'll just be getting an idiot maverick so you have no idea what position he'll take. What we should be vying for is more fiscally right and more socially neutral (i.e. states). Whichever party figures this out will win every time.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
It's all about the proper balance... assuming we're defining the concepts in terms of change, the trick is to know when to be conservative and when to be liberal.

I agree. Wisdom is knowing when it's time to stay the course and when it's time to try something different. The push and pull between liberals and conservatives in our society is a manifestation of society's attempts to make the wisest choices. It's a forest for the trees kind of thing. Most people can see and understand this decision-making process at a personal level but not at the societal level.

 

[Moonbeam]

The Mind of Absolute Trust

from a literal translation
by Robert F. Olson

The Great Way isn?t difficult
for those who are unattached to their preferences.
Let go of longing and aversion,
and everything will be perfectly clear.
When you cling to a hairbreadth of distinction, heaven and earth are set apart.
If you want to realize the truth,
don?t be for or against.
The struggle between good and evil
is the primal disease of the mind.
Not grasping the deeper meaning,
you just trouble your mind?s serenity.
As vast as infinite space,
it is perfect and lacks nothing.
But because you select and reject,
you can?t perceive its true nature.
Don?t get entangled in the world;
don?t lose yourself in emptiness.
Be at peace in the oneness of things,
and all errors will disappear by themselves.

If you don?t live the Tao,
you fall into assertion or denial.
Asserting that the world is real,
you are blind to its deeper reality;
denying that the world is real,
you are blind to the selflessness of all things.
The more you think about these matters,
the farther you are from the truth.
Step aside from all thinking,
and there is nowhere you can?t go.
Returning to the root, you find the meaning; chasing appearances, you lose their source.
At the moment of profound insight,
you transcend both appearance and emptiness.
Don?t keep searching for the truth;
just let go of your opinions.
For the mind in harmony with the Tao,
all selfishness disappears.
With not even a trace of self-doubt,
you can trust the universe completely.
All at once you are free,
with nothing left to hold on to.
All is empty, brilliant,
perfect in its own being.
In the world of things as they are,
there is no self, no non-self.
If you want to describe its essence,
the best you can say is "Not-two."

For the mind in harmony with the Tao,
all selfishness disappears.
With not even a trace of self-doubt,
you can trust the universe completely.

In this "Not-two" nothing is separate,
and nothing in the world is excluded.
The enlightened of all times and places
have entered into this truth.
In it there is no gain or loss;
one instant is ten thousand years.
There is no here, no there;
infinity is right before your eyes.
The tiny is as large as the vast when objective boundaries have vanished;
the vast is as small as the tiny,
when you don?t have external limits.
Being is an aspect of non-being;
non-being is no different from being.
Until you understand this truth,
you won?t see anything clearly.
One is all; all are one. When
you realize this, what reason for holiness or wisdom?
The mind of absolute trust
is beyond all thought, all striving,
is perfectly at peace; for in it
there is no yesterday,
no tomorrow,
no today.