Variations in Moral Concerns across Political Ideology: Moral Foundations, Hidden Tribes, and Righteous Division

From The Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology (2022):

* Traditional Conservatives (19 per cent). This group is patriotic, religious, moralistic, and tends to lament what it perceives as the gradual erosion of a bygone and glorified American way of life. They tend to believe that America is a fair society, and that people’s success is the result of hard work and effort rather than luck and circumstance. They strongly approve of Donald Trump’s job performance, and tend to agree in traditional notions of American identity, such as having two American parents, speaking English, and being Christian. They tend to get their news from Fox News and from talk radio, and are suspicious of traditional media, believing that it is biased in favour of liberal causes and tends to be anti – religious. Traditional Conservatives’ more important concerns are foreign tensions, jobs, and terrorism.
Devoted Conservatives (6 per cent). This group is highly active, highly engaged, uncompromising, and nationalistic in its views. Members of this group have a higher income than any other group, and feel significantly happier and more secure than the average American. They are staunchly supportive of Donald Trump and his ‘America First’ policies, including a ban on travel from Muslim – majority countries and a wall on the US — Mexico border. They tend to oppose compromise, and are the most likely to believe there is a need to ‘defeat the evil’ within our country. They feel the most pride in the American flag, and are deeply loyal to the ideals for which it stands. Their most important issues are immigration, terrorism, jobs, and the economy.
Overall, the results revealed a number of interesting insights regarding the psychological roots of political polarization in the United States:
Tribal membership predicts political views better than self – identified political labels…. For example, support for building a wall on the US – Mexico border was predicted better by tribal membership than by self – identified ideology (as measured by the question asking people to indicate their political on a scale ranging from ‘very liberal’ to ‘very conservative’). The same was true for overall approval of Donald Trump, and beliefs that racism and sexual harassment remain serious problems in the United States. In addition, when predicting concern for each of the moral foundations, tribal membership does a significantly better job at predicting four out of the five moral foundations (purity, authority, loyalty, and fairness) than self – identified ideology. (The one exception is harm, in which there is no significant difference between the models.) Overall, this helps confirm the notion that tribal membership (obtained directly from measurements of core beliefs) is a powerful predictor of explicit political attitudes. Moreover, it helps explain the seemingly unlikely election of Donald Trump by revealing the ‘hidden tribes’ in America that would be most susceptible to his message of threat and his expressed desire to return to the putative ‘golden years’ of American greatness.

* endorsement of the care foundation is most closely correlated with the view that hate speech is a real problem in America and that sexism is pervasive. Endorsement of fairness is associated with the views, for instance, that women are paid less solely because of their gender and that the world is a dangerous place. Endorsement of the loyalty foundation is associated with pride in seeing the American flag and feeling as though being American is central to one’s identity. The authority foundation is associated with support for the Muslim travel ban and the view that the police should be more protected than Black Lives Matter activists. Endorsement of the purity foundation is associated with opposition to gay marriage and the view that changing attitudes towards sex are causing American to lose its moral foundation. Overall, these results show a strong and intuitive relationship between people’s endorsements of various moral foundations and their professed views regarding a variety of current political issues. More broadly, the results show that moral foundations have important power in predicting not just people’s underlying ideology but also their political opinions.

* perceived threat subsequently correlated with such attitudes as support for the Muslim ban, and support for the US – Mexico border wall. Another important predictor of political attitudes was parenting style. Devoted Conservatives were a full three times more likely to endorse authoritative as opposed to permissive parenting values (for instance, preferring preferring ‘good manners’ to ‘curiosity’, and ‘respect for elders’ to ‘independence’) In turn, endorsement of authoritative parenting principles positively predicted a slew of political opinions, including opposition to gay marriage, being ‘pro – life’ in the abortion debate, and believing that people’s gender is fixed at birth.
A final important difference between the tribes was in views about personal responsibility. Corroborating the observations of past research, 86 per cent of Progressive Activists believed that people’s lives are determined by forces outside their control, while 98 per cent of Devoted Conservatives believe that people are largely responsible for their own outcomes in life. These viewpoints are subsequently correlated with a variety of policy decisions. For example, those who endorse the former perspective (vs those endorsing the second) are more than twice as likely to support expanding the government safety net, 25 per cent more likely to say that refugees are America’s moral responsibility, and 35 per cent more likely to believe that women are discriminated against in the workplace.

Conservatives tend to believe that it is only through disciplined and effortful adherence to a certain set of pre – established obligations — including one’s family, one’s country, one’s religion, and existing laws and traditions — that the individual may become a good and moral person. To the liberals, by contrast, true personal success is achieved not by taming the inner spirit, but by cultivating and freeing it. Progress, therefore, is achieved by releasing people from pre – existing moral obligations, and instead allowing them to pursue their own authentic path of self – expression.

Posted in America, Ethics | Comments Off on Variations in Moral Concerns across Political Ideology: Moral Foundations, Hidden Tribes, and Righteous Division

Humor & Morality

From The Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology (2022):

* when one is engaged humorously one adopts a certain static ‘state of mind, a way of seeing and being, a special mental ‘set’ towards the world and one’s actions in it’ that calls for nothing. …a paratelic state precisely to distinguish it from the telic states that underwrite more serious, goal – directed forms of activity. … in laughter we often lose control of our normal abilities to act voluntarily in goal – directed ways. In laughter, muscle tone decreases and, in extreme cases, it is accompanied by the non – voluntary production of tears, and even by incontinence…

* developed comic sensibilities are, like developed moral and linguistic sensibilities, highly culturally situated.

* Richard Wiseman’s ‘Laugh Lab’ 4 reports that people from Ireland, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand prefer jokes implicating word – play, such as:
patient : ‘Doctor, I’ve got a strawberry stuck up my bum.’
doctor : ‘I’ve got some cream for that.

Americans and Canadians, in contrast, prefer jokes that seem to turn on a sense of superiority, for instance:

texan : ‘Where are you from?’
harvard grad : ‘I come from a place where we do not end our sentences with prepositions.’
texan : ‘Okay — where are you from, jackass?’

Wiseman’s data also suggests that Europeans display a preference for ‘surreal’ jokes, and for jokes about subject matter that makes many Americans uncomfortable — jokes about death, and marriage, for example. And Germans, apparently, don’t display preferences for particular kinds of jokes, but like them all equally.

* people who dislike complexity, novelty, or symmetry display a relative preference for incongruity – resolution humour: those possessed of strong preferences for incongruity – resolution relative to nonsense forms of humour also tend to prefer simple art forms, and simple patterns of dots on a card, relative to ‘fantastic’ art forms and more complex dot patterns…

* Affiliative forms of humour tend to be more popular in collectivist cultures, which emphasize the interdependence among the members of social groups, while aggressive forms of humour are more highly appreciated in societies where the needs of individuals take precedence over the needs of the group or community…

* Laughing together often is consistently cited by successful couples as something that promotes the strength of their relationships…

* In an early but well – known evolutionary theory of humour, Gruner hypothesized that laughter originated in the ‘sexy’ vocalizations that signalled victory in aggressive conflicts among our male ancestors ( Gruner 1978 ; cf. Eibl – Eibesfeldt 1973 ). Laughter, Gruner reasoned, still functions as a dominance signal that’s been updated to reflect the ways that more complex linguistic capabilities have made it possible to ‘defeat’ others in conversation.

* There is some evidence supporting a sexual selection model of humour. Women tend to laugh more than men do, and to seek out men who make them laugh; men tend to tell more jokes, and to seek out women who will laugh at their jokes ( Provine 2000 ; Lundy, Tan, and Cunningham 1998 ). Greengross and Miller (2011) found that intelligence predicts humour ability, that humour ability predicts mating success, and that males, relative to females, have more humour ability.

* comedians tend to be more suspicious than average, more intelligent, angrier, and more depressed. The early lives of the professional comedians interviewed were, moreover, typically characterized by intense feelings of isolation and deprivation. Subsequent research also suggests that many of the same familial conditions that predispose to the development of gelotophobia characterize the early lives of professional humourists: in general, comedians tend to describe their mothers very negatively, and in fact it appears that the mothers of children that go on to become professional humourists are selfish, controlling, less kind, and less likely to be intimately involved in the lives of their children than the average… the comedic skills of professional humourists are developed as a tool to cope with uncongenial family environments — in particular, as a way dealing with feeling of anxiety and rejection, and of gaining the attention and approval of otherwise dismissive parents. Following Ruch and Proyer (2009), it has been suggested that those who professionally seek out the laughter of others might be called gelotophilic. Gelotophiles more generally seek out or cultivate situations in which they can elicit the laughter of others, which is experienced as a source of joy and validation.

* self – disparaging forms of humour can facilitate depressive etiologies, and professional humourists score unusually highly on measures of psychotic traits, even relative to other creative artists and performers…

* Comic sensibilities may, then, be developed in different ways as tools to cope. But it remains unclear whether having a good sense of humour provides a good strategy for coping across the board. Abilities to produce comic materials are associated with premature mortality, and that link — like that between comedy and tragedy — may have deep roots. In a seminal study of young children, it was found that high ratings of a child’s sense of humour, from both parents and teachers, predicted a greater likelihood of dying over seven decades ( Friedman et al. 1993 ). A much more recent study found an inverse relationship between comedic talent and longevity, in a cohort of professional male comedians from Britain and Ireland ( Stewart et al. 2016 ). And it’s not just that the lifestyles of professional humourists from the UK are riskier than the average; it looks as though their level of comedic talent also matters: the funnier the comedian, the more likely they were to die prematurely. In the case of comic duos, the funnier of the two comedians was three and a half times more likely to die prematurely, relative to their partner, even after adjusting for differences in age ( Stewart et al. 2016 ).

Posted in Humor | Comments Off on Humor & Morality

The rise of the “substackademic”

Chris Bickerton writes:

A successful academic entrepreneur must make themselves their primary focus. In an odd way, the academic entrepreneur is the realisation of Foucault’s call for a “cultivation of the self”. The constant curation of one’s status as a source of insights is the route to success…

To whom do academic entrepreneurs address themselves exactly? Instead of creating a new public through the elaboration of a distinctive body of thought, academic entrepreneurs more often than not address each other and a small quasi-public drawn from a narrow social elite, such as those who will pay for the insights the academic entrepreneur provides. The “substackademic” will struggle to go beyond a relatively closed conversation with like-minded individuals, one where the conversation itself is driven by the search for Likes and Up-votes.

The final and perhaps greatest danger is that by breaking free from the academy, the academic entrepreneur is exposed to all the vagaries of corporate and political power. Political and social elites are the core audience for the academic entrepreneur, making them dependent upon their interest and goodwill. Speaking truth to power when one is entirely dependent upon its munificence is a perilous enterprise.

…research in the social sciences is dominated by lots of little dots; what is missing are the threads to bring these dots together. Many of today’s thinkers are not from within the academy at all. They are professional writers, or occasionally journalists who have risen above the cut and thrust of chasing news to devote themselves to writing.

News and intellectual labor rarely pay for themselves.

Posted in Academia | Comments Off on The rise of the “substackademic”

Decoding the Trump Transition (12-3-24)

04:00 Hunter Pardon, Day 2, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme1_gt4GJM
11:00 The “If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Keep Your Doctor” Pardon and Kash Patel,
https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/the-if-you-like-your-doctor-you-can
17:30 Say Nothing tv show, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say_Nothing_(TV_series)
19:30 Americans used to be known for their plain speech, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0arXVZ72hvI
24:20 Inflation was the result of Biden’s failed attempt to buy off voters, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0arXVZ72hvI
27:00 Joe Biden’s Ukraine catastrophe
31:20 Donald Trump & Gaza, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViqsVFGazLs
34:20 Jesse Waters
43:00 Are Democrats too nice? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViqsVFGazLs
47:20 If you’ve met one Irishman, one Aussie, one Brit, one Frenchman, one Jap, you’ve met them all, but not with Americans, https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/supplementary-material-19-critic-o-rama-with-extra-trans-dimensional-alien-demons
51:20 Jordan Petersen’s lazy Christian apologetics
59:00 Are there are any proud Biden Democrats?
1:08:00 Kip joins to discuss morality in America
1:17:30 Mike Benz does not optimize for truth
1:21:00 What is the nature of truth?
1:28:00 My different experiences with God, Christianity & Judaism
1:40:00 Why We Don’t Change (and what you can do about it) | Dr. Ross Ellenhorn, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTzA15BQzHo
1:42:00 The buffered identity, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=149512
1:43:00 The Embodied Expression Of The Elite Attitude, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=157628
1:48:00 Smart people ‘especially prone to tribalism, virtue signaling and self-deception’, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=158031
1:52:00 ‘Trump Is De-Stereotyping Republican Foreign Policy’, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=158024

Posted in America | Comments Off on Decoding the Trump Transition (12-3-24)

Smart people ‘especially prone to tribalism, virtue signaling and self-deception’

Musa Al-Gharbi writes:

We pay attention to, easily recall, and feel positive emotions towards things we deem interesting or useful. We dismiss, downplay, dump, and have negative emotional reactions to information that is threatening to our objectives or our self-image, or that conflicts with our expectations or pre-existing beliefs. Things that don’t seem particularly significant in either direction, we largely ignore (even though these neglected details often prove to be quite important in retrospect).

…When good things happen that could be plausibly laid at our feet, we attribute those positive outcomes to stable and internal factors that are within our control – i.e. positive characteristics we possess and wise actions we took. When bad things happen, we tell the opposite story. Adverse outcomes are attributed to contingent and fleeting circumstances – things external to us and outside of our control.

…Most business fail within six years. An overwhelming majority of romantic relationships end in less than a year. Most employment relationships end up not working out for one or more parties eventually (relative to the alternatives) – typically leading to resignations or termination within five years. Social movements rarely achieve their stated ends. Most innovations are maladaptive. The modal result of publication submissions is rejection. An overwhelming majority of published scientific findings are wrong, trivial, and/or non-impactful. If we allowed these types of probabilities to govern our attitudes and behaviors, we’d rarely invest ourselves in anything.

In reality, however, people defy the odds all the time. Ostensibly irrational levels of confidence, conviction, resilience and optimism often play an important role in these outcomes. Our biases and blindspots are, therefore, not just a product of our cognitive limitations – they empower us to accomplish things we otherwise may not.

…people who are highly educated, intelligent, or rhetorically skilled are significantly less likely than most others to revise their beliefs or adjust their behaviors when confronted with evidence or arguments that contradict their preferred narratives or preexisting beliefs. Precisely in virtue of knowing more about the world or being better at arguing, we are better equipped to punch holes in data or narratives that undermine our priors, come up with excuses to “stick to our guns” irrespective of the facts, or else interpret threatening information in a way that flatters our existing worldview. And we typically do just that.

In a decades-long set of ambitious experiments and forecasting tournaments, psychologist Philip Tetlock has demonstrated that—as a result of their inclinations toward epistemic arrogance and ideological rigidity—experts are often worse than laymen at anticipating how events are likely to play out . . . especially with respect to their areas of expertise. What’s worse, cognitively sophisticated people tend not to be very self-aware about our error rates either, because we excel at telling stories about how we were “basically right” even when we were, in fact, clearly wrong – inhibiting our ability to learn from mistakes and miscalculations.

In a similar vein, experts have been shown to perform a bit worse than laymen at predicting the likely effects of behavioral science interventions. Political practitioners have been found to be no better than laypeople at predicting which political messages are persuasive. Comparative and longitudinal studies have found that highly educated political leaders perform no better than less educated ones, and may even be a bit worse in some respects.

Rather than becoming more likely to converge on the same position, people tend to grow more politically polarized on contentious topics as their knowledge, numeracy, reflectiveness increases, or when they try to think in actively openminded ways.

These empirical patterns would be shocking and difficult to explain while operating under the assumption that humans’ cognitive and perceptual systems are primarily oriented towards objective truth. However, these tendencies are exactly what one might expect if we instead work from the premise that our cognitive capacities are fundamentally geared toward group building and coalitional struggles, and that we typically reason in ways that help us achieve our goals with and through other people.

On this understanding of how our brains work, we might likewise expect that the kinds of people the symbolic professions select for (cognitively sophisticated, academically high-performing, highly educated) may be especially prone to tribalism, virtue signaling and self-deception.

Posted in Psychology | Comments Off on Smart people ‘especially prone to tribalism, virtue signaling and self-deception’