Liberals are WEIRDer than Conservatives
Guest post by Thomas Talhelm (on a recent publication with Haidt, mentioned by Tom Edsall in NYT)
A few years ago, psychologists looked at all of the psychological studies of people in different cultures and concluded that Westerners are WEIRD. That’s an acronym, not an insult. People from Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic countries are consistent psychological outliers compared to the other 85% of the world’s population.
On psychological tests, Westerners tend to view scenes, explain behavior, and categorize objects analytically. But the vast majority of people around the world more often think intuitively—what psychologists call “holistic thought.”
Five years ago, I had just arrived at the University of Virginia, and I had a thought flash: Aren’t most of these WEIRD elements even more true of liberal culture within the United States? Liberalism thrives in universities (Education), cities (Industrialized), the wealthy East and West coasts (Rich), and ultra-pluralistic groups like Occupy Wall Street and Unitarian churches (Democratic). So if Westerners think WEIRDly, maybe liberals think even WEIRDer. I went to talk with my advisors, Shige Oishi and Jonathan Haidt, and they liked the idea and joined me on the project (along with Xuemin Zhang, Felicity Miao, and Shimin Chen)
Five years and thousands of participants later, we just published the findings in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. We found that American liberals think even WEIRDer, even more unlike the rest of the world, than the average American conservative.
We studied this using tests that cultural psychologist use to measure cognitive differences. In one test, participants have to choose two of three items to categorize together, such as scarf, mitten, and hand. Westerners tend to categorize scarf and mitten because they belong to the same abstract category. People in most other cultures tested such as China and the Middle East tend to pair mitten and hand because those two things have a relationship with each other. American liberals (on the left side of the graph below) choose those relational pairing much less frequently. American conservatives (on the right side) are more likely than liberals to do the relational pairing. It’s not a majority, but we can still see that the conservatives are less WEIRD in their judgments than are liberals.
Next we wondered if temporarily changing people’s thought style would change their political opinions, so we asked participants to think analytically—even if that was the opposite of their own style. Then participants read articles about social issues like welfare and drug sentencing. The temporary analytic shift made people more likely to support the liberal side, and a temporary intuitive shift made them more likely to support the conservative side.
This all leads me to think that it’s no accident that people call American politics a “culture war.” Liberals and conservatives do really see the world as if they were from different cultures, and it influences whether they see welfare recipients as moochers dragging down hard-working Americans or as people in need of a helping hand. It influences whether we see rehabilitation for drug offenders as rewarding bad behavior or as treating an illness. Social policies have facts and data, but how people see those policies depends a great deal on their cultural mindset.
What are the 2nd and 3rd x-axis labels on the “Support for Conservative Welfare Plan”? Image quality is poor, can only tell the first one is “analytical”.
Sorry about that! I’ll get a better image up. From left to right, it’s: Analytical, Control, Holistic.
Haidt uses the second half of The Righteous Mind to explicate a bloated theory that liberals concern themselves with only two of these moral foundations, care and fairness, whereas conservatives are concerned with all five. Haidt sees this so-called difference in moral emphasis as the reason conservative arguments resonate so emotionally with the electorate.
Haidt’s premise is that Republicans speak to all five moral foundations, whereas Democrats since 1960 offer a narrow moral vision, based only on the care and fairness moral foundations. We don’t even have to question his assumption that Democrats serve as stand-ins for liberals to see how Haidt jury-rigs his argument. The premise is false, because it posits that only Republicans talk about loyalty, authority and sanctity. What Haidt is really doing is accepting the Republican’s definition of these terms. Haidt contrasts how the Democrats and Republicans talk about fairness—the Dems focus on equal opportunity while the GOP focuses on the unfairness of taking money from taxpayers and giving it to the poor.
But to construct his argument, Haidt must ignore their differences in the areas of loyalty, authority and sanctity and instead state unequivocally that Democratic candidates don’t care about these moral foundations. It’s really utter nonsense. For example, Democrats often speak of the sanctity of life as the reason to have strong social welfare programs; they evoke “law and order” themes as much as Republicans do (see Radley Balko’s Rise of the Warrior Cop for the sorry details). Haidt gives no example of Republicans’ so-called appeal to the loyalty foundation. Thus, Haidt uses rightwing definitions of two of the three moral centers Democrats supposedly lack and gives no example of the third.
Haidt never considers the other factors that have led to Republican election success in recent decades: He ignores the greater preponderance of cash that Republicans tend to have at their disposal. He ignores the fact that the mainstream news media—owned as they are by the wealthy—tend to pay more attention to Republican races and define political and economic issues using Republican terms. He displays every sign of not having read the works of C. Wright Mills, William Domhoff or Frances Fox Piven/Richard Cloward on how the ruling elite exercises control over elections and the electorate. He never considers the impact of racism, which makes people consider certain groups less than human and therefore not subject to the moral considerations reserved for those considered legitimately humans. Instead, Haidt reduces all the complexity of politics to the Democrats not appealing to three of five moral foundations, as defined by the semantics that Haidt borrows from the rightwing.
Ostensibly substantiating Haidt’s political theory are surveys he and associates have administered. These surveys supposedly show that those who call themselves liberal care much more about the care and fairness foundations than about the other moral foundations, whereas conservatives care equally about all five. But the surveys are full of ambiguous questions that can derive the same answer from both liberals and conservatives.
For example, the basic moral foundations test asks the question, “When you decide whether something is right or wrong, to what extent are the following considerations relevant to your thinking?” What follows are a number of factors, each of which the respondent must rate as very important to not very important as a consideration. Here are some of the factors, with brief comments on why these answers could misguide researchers:
•Whether or not someone violated standards of purity and decency: Liberals will think it pure and decent for marriage to sanctify gay relationships, whereas conservatives will understand “purity and decency” as standards that regulate the behavior of individuals.
•Whether or not someone did something to betray his or her group. Whether or not someone showed a lack of loyalty: What’s true betrayal or true loyalty?—to blow the whistle on unethical behavior by group leaders or to protect the group by concealing evidence it did something that transgressed its ideology or ethics.
•Whether or not someone was denied his or her rights: Which right? The right to be served or the right not to engage in business transactions with someone whose race or way of life you disapprove of?
•Whether or not someone’s action showed love for his or her country: Some believe Dick Cheney loves his country most; others would say it’s Edward Snowden.
I could spend another 20 pages analyzing the flaws and logical inconsistencies in Haidt’s absurd claim that liberals care about only two of the five moral foundations he and others have identified in primates. Before his flight of fancy into political theory, however, Haidt does establish that the five major strands of moral thinking are innate to humans, which argues against revealed religion as necessary for morality to exist. Anyone who reads The Righteous Mind should stop after the first eight chapters or be prepared to wade through some of the most manipulative and misleading nonsense written in recent years.
Marc’s comment seems heartfelt but not particularly well informed. His examples of liberal purity or loyalty are forced and examples of special pleading. In grad school we were taught to not argue with the data, yet that is what he does.
If we follow Marc’s line of thought, it simply leads to more tribalism and “we are better than they” self justification.
I hope the readers will respect Marc’s emotional commitment while also being able to look beyond the heat. Marc’s subtext is stuck in “liberals good, conservatives bad.” Haidt’s research suggests we raise respect for each point of view. That is a more elevating position that the tribalism Marc posits.
In Australia the Conservatives decided that guns killed people so they voted to bring in much tighter gun control. They were all voted out of office by cnservatives. Since then gun violence and murder have drastically dropped. They sacrificed their political power for the good of the people. Lives have been saved.
Portugal, with the worst herion addiction problem in Europe started to actually invest in drug addicts, instead of just punishing them ( the conservative mindset). Now years later their crime rate and drug addict populations are way down. Lives have been saved.
I am not sure how you measure which group has the most concern for people’s lives – and how you can measure that.
Cherry picking a couple of examples of policies supported by one political view actually creating a good outcome proves neither that the view is factually accurate nor moral. Additionally, having the most concern for people’s lives and having a greater positive impact on people’s lives will not correlate 100%. Well-intentioned caring people can do things that have unintended consequences. My greatest concern is that people with different views in the US are viewing those with opposing views as enemies, themselves as morally superior, and their visceral reaction of disgust for others as justifiable. I propose liberalism, opening the heart and mind to see the merit and value in different perspectives and viewpoints and committing to a curiosity-driven examination and debate to advance understanding.
STEFAN, I appreciate your showing interest in Haidt, one of my favorite people, but of your two examples of how liberal / left thinking is superior, at least one is deeply flawed.
There is no evidence that I can find that gun laws in Australia ever did anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
A quote: In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[36] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words “will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives”.[37] Weatherburn responded, “The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice.”[38]
They always had a low level of violence, and as well trained as you seem to be, I am surprised that you don’t see the base rate problem with your assertion.
I know nothing at all about Portugal, but your assertion is based on a “straw man” argument: conservatives want this, but that is better. I think perhaps besides straw man fallacy, one also sees “special pleading” in that “I know accurately what conservatives want.”
You and I have dialoged before. You have some excellent ideas and I appreciate your action and interest and your enthusiastic support of your position. Your contributions are always thought provoking. My quibbles should not be interpreted by you as any discouragement against presenting your point of view. Robust dialog is the fodder of a healthy society.
LYNN
OK fine. But why? Why are liberals WEIRD?
And how can a theory about “why good people are divided by politics and religion” be considered complete unless it answers that question and others like it?
The Righteous Mind and Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) only partially explain the liberal righteous mind.
They explain THAT liberals think more WEIRD than conservatives but not WHY.
They explain THAT liberalism is the outlier, comprising only about fifteen percent of the world’s moralities, but not WHY.
They explain THAT liberals fail to employ half the evolved psychological mechanisms of social opportunity/threat awareness (e.g., care/harm, fairness/cheating, ect.), but not WHY.
Why would such an outlier happen?
Why would a species reject half of what makes it what it is; half of what natural selection shaped it to be?
As it stands MFT’s explanation of moralities and its comparison of conservatives and liberals is a bit like an explanation of how and why birds evolved the ability to fly that then compares eagles and ostriches.
Why the ostrich? Different settings on the moral equalizer, you say. OK, great. That explains eagles and falcons and chickadees and pelicans, but not ostriches. The ostrich is too much of an anomaly. It can’t be just waved off like that old comic of a professor at a chalk board full of equations with a section in the middle that says “And then a miracle occurs.” Why are half of the six settings at or close to zero? That’s a pretty damn big difference that’s left hanging out there to be just….accepted.
How could this happen? Why would a creature abandon the very thing that makes it what it is?
And since (it appears) nobody is pulling on this logical thread of inquiry, what else do we NOT know about the righteous mind? Is MFT missing something that’s hiding in plain sight? Something possibly huge; game changing?
I suggest that maybe it is. I suggest it does not adequately explain everything we see happening in the real world of human social interaction. I suspect there’s something else, something more, going on; something that explains what MFT does not.
I understand that only so much can be covered in a book like this. And I also understand Haidt’s aim was to be impartially descriptive, and to write a book that people of all political persuasions would read, enjoy, learn from. Well, mission accomplished. Now what? He’s given us a whole new lens with which we can reexamine everything we think we know about why the social animal does the things it does, throughout its history and today. What’s next? Now that we’re standing on Haidt’s shoulders, what else can we see?
I think The Righteous Mind and Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) beg some pretty big questions.
When Haidt was interviewed by Krista Tippet at On Being ( http://www.onbeing.org/program/jonathan-haidt-the-psychology-behind-morality/6341 ) he agreed that the moral matrix represents a closed epistemic system beyond which it becomes impossible to think.
Given that, some of the things we know about the liberal righteous mind make sense.
It makes sense, for example, that liberals are higher on the personality trait of openness. Moral foundations operate like little radars, constantly scanning the social environment for the patterns of thoughts and behaviors that represented opportunities and threats to our genetic ancestors. And when these little radars detect such patterns they often cause us to feel intuitive flashes of affect. When half the radars are switched off or turned down as they are for liberals it’s only natural to be open to all sorts of thoughts and behaviors that folks with the full suite of modules would be more wary of.
It also makes sense that liberals understand conservatives to a lesser degree than conservatives understand liberals.(page 334.)
It makes sense that liberals understand human nature less well than conservatives do. (Haidt on Moyers and Colbert) ( http://billmoyers.com/segment/jonathan-haidt-explains-our-contentious-culture/ and http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/luw0ia/jonathan-haidt )
It makes sense that liberals tend to think of conservatives as bad people, whereas conservatives tend to think of liberals as well intentioned people with bad ideas. (Thomas Sowell documents this in his book, and here: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2014/01/24/factfree-liberals-part-iv-n1781573/page/full ). When half the foundations are external to one’s closed epistemic system of thought one is left with practically no logical alternative but to conclude that people who think differently must be, can only be, afflicted with some sort of psychological, emotional, cognitive, or moral handicap like racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, general bigotry, small mindedness, etc., etc., etc.
It follows, in turn, that overwhelmingly liberal college campuses would “disinvite” conservative speakers and try to banish conservative thought. When the tribal moral community “knows” that opposing ideas are the result of a mental handicap it follows that one might feel not only justified but also duty bound to squeeze those ideas out of “polite” public discourse. It’s the mindset of the French Revolution only without the guillotines. And not coincidentally, I’d suggest, we’re seeing another phenomenon today that we saw then: now that liberalism has won most of its major battles liberals are starting to turn on each other.
Liberal beliefs about conservatives say more about the liberal righteous mind than they say about anything conservatives actually think, say, or do.
But a few other things we see happening around us do not make sense.
A three-foundation matrix could feasibly correlate with a variety of styles of thought. Care, fairness, and liberty, for example, could combine into an outlook that is hopeful and optimistic. Or one that is loving, patient, and nurturing, exemplified by the narratives about Ghandi and Mother Theresa and MLK.
But that’s not what we see. Rather than a variety of outlooks stemming from the individualizing foundations we see mostly just one. And the one we see does not seem to intuitively follow from care, fairness, and liberty.
It does not necessarily and inevitably follow from a three-foundation matrix that liberals are much more “naturally inclined to see every transaction as a swindle, every contract as a form of exploitation, every tradition as a superstition” (1) than are conservatives. And yet, that’s generally the case.
It does not necessarily follow that loyalty, authority, and sanctity would tend to be interpreted only, or at least primarily, as bad, even evil, traits that should be squeezed out of “enlightened” society. Those foundations could, for example, instead be interpreted merely as traits that vary from one person to the next, like extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. But no. The predominant feeling on the left seems to be that those are “bad” foundations that do more harm than good, and couldn’t possibly be anything else.
It does not necessarily follow from the three-foundation matrix that numerical disparities between people of different races, classes, sexes, cultures, or ideologies would be interpreted as self-evident proof of some form of bigotry, with no need to even scratch the surface to see if the numbers really do lead to the conclusion that so easily and immediately jumps to mind. (Even allowing for “can I believe it” vs. “must I believe it”).
It does not follow from the three-foundation matrix that the style of thought that correlates with it would feature epistemologically arrogant, we know better than the unenlightend, arrogance. It does not follow, as R. R. Reno obwerved when he reviewed The Righteous Mind, in First Things, that “Liberalism is blind in one eye”yet it insists on the superiority of its vision and its supreme right to rule. It cannot see half the things a governing philosophy must see, and claims that those who see both halves are thereby unqualified to govern.”
It does not necessarily follow that the three-foundation matrix would correlate with the collectivist, redistributionist, impulse to “share.” Might not a basic respect for another person and his stuff seem a more likely consequence of a morality based mostly on “care”?
It does not necessarily follow from the three-foundation matrix that said sharing should be forcibly imposed through the coercive power of the state. If the liberty foundation means freedom from oppression by outside forces, and if that foundation is part of liberalism, then why the liberal insistence on oppressing with outside force?
For that matter the WEIRD style of reductivist thought in which things are examined independent of context does not necessarily and inevitably follow from a three-foundation matrix. Aren’t there other thought styles that could be imagined correlating with the three-foundation matrix?
A three-foundation matrix does not necessarily and inevitably result in a single style of thought; a single way of connecting the dots of the patterns of social behaviors we happen to perceive; a single perception of what’s good and desirable in society and what’s bad and undesirable.
And yet, that’s what happens. The liberal righteous mind tends to connect the dots of empirical evidence in only one way. Ghandi and Mother Theresa aside, on the whole this tendency toward a “paranoid style” of cognitive wiring has been in evidence since there’s been such a thing as liberalism as we know it.
Something’s missing from our understanding of the righteous mind. Moral Foundations Theory alone as it currently exists is, I suggest, insufficient to explain styles of thought. There must be something else going on. There has to be some other factor or ingredient that influences morality.
What is it that filters out or suppresses half of the social animal’s evolved psychological mechanisms of social survival? What genetic switch failed to be flipped, or was flipped the wrong way, such that half of what makes us who we are is seen as bad, evil, corrupting; as if our immune system were attacking our own healthy bodies?
What causes the impulse toward collectivism? What causes the impulse toward the authoritarianism of state-coerced collectivism in a morality which supposedly hates authority? What causes the concept of “freedom to” to resonate more than “freedom from”? What causes the concept that fairness, equality, and justice are outcomes to resonate more than the concept that they’re processes? What causes WEIRD, reductivist, free-from-context, thought when the majority of the world thinks holistically? I doubt very much that the liberal moral matrix of care, fairness, and liberty (but mostly just care) is sufficient to explain all these things.
These are not trivial notions. They’re arguably conceptions of human nature itself that are diametrically opposed. And they’re notions that arguably do not follow necessarily and inevitably from three and six foundation matrices, but instead suggest that there’s something else going on.
It seems to me that style of thought is a heritable ingredient of morality that is separate and distinct from the moral foundations, but that helps to flip the switch between liberalism and conservatism.
Maybe style of thought precedes morality, and is the filter that switches off half the foundations. Or maybe style of thought is an additional ingredient that gets thrown into the blender along with the moral foundations that causes either liberalism or conservatism to emerge from the mix, like the catalyst in a chemical reaction.
But either way, it seems that the least likely possibility is that style of thought follows from a particular set of foundations.
Why are there two such disparate styles of thought? Does it have anything to do with fast evolution? If so, then what were the adaptive pressures that caused the sidetrack of liberalism?
What’s the Y Chromosome of morality?
============
(1) (http://WWW.WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM/IF-YOURE-FOR-THE-LITTLE-GUY-YOU-SHOULD-BE-A-CONSERVATIVE/ARTICLE/2561435/COMMENTS )