Every time I kind of dismiss or
downplay my capacity for coherence before I start a blog it feels in
bad taste, but I'm particularly tired and sore and was only
quasi-paying attention to the book I was listening to at work because
the information felt old. It has no less got me thinking and I'd like
to figure what about.
The book was The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. What it appears to be boiling down to for me is an argument in favor of a kind of moral relativism without using the words and arguments moral relativists would employ. Haidt discusses the details and often lectures groups about the differences in conservative and liberal minds. He builds models for the different “types” of morality each hold and how many “pillars” one must adopt in their messaging if they're going to breakthrough. He tries to be pragmatic and descriptive of the evolutionary history that would shape our cultural attitudes to attune to different group aesthetics and ethics.
For my part, whenever I hear someone attempt to explain the differences between groups, at one level I appreciate looking for hard repeatable tests and proofs to describe their behavior. From how the brain responds to specific trigger words, to the excuses and types of rationalizations people employ to justify their behavior, I like seeing people turn into repeatable cliches if only because it assures me there's a pattern, and that pattern can be turned into something else once you employ different conditions. At the same time, and I feel this is often the tendency when there's a relatively strict adherence to an “objective” measure of human behavior specifically, it seems to compoundingly erode any one individual's responsibility to choose to defy their tendencies.
For Haidt, conservatives respond to 6 different indicators for morality that signify to them that you “get it” and are part of their group. They respond to all the chest beating protectionism of strong-men and vote against their interests because they're trying to protect a kind of “cultural spirit,” be it Evangelical notions of purity or the “sanctity” of life independent of what any one individual might choose to do to celebrate or protect theirs. Americans or indeed Western culture in general are the “w.e.i.r.d.” outliers in having an individualistic ethos while the rest of the world, and indeed our ancestors, seem to recall the relational existence they occupy to their family, community, or the rest of the world.
Liberals by contrast only really jive with 3 of the 6 pillars of morality, so when they give wimpy speeches trying to account for their status as a “worldly” citizen or the “fairness” of access to resources, they're jogging right past the other side who wants people to be held accountable, practically worship the in-group, and to respect the safe and accurate structure of “how things are.”
I simply cannot endorse explanations of humanity that divorce us from our ever-present now. It doesn't matter how reflexively you are disgusted by something you don't understand or a moral premise you'd never engage in. You have absolutely no reason to maintain your levels of disdain to vote in self-destructive ways beyond pure infantile ignorance and selfishness. I think to call these people, as Haidt does, “exhibiting a different kind of morality” is to absolve them of the objective reality of the destructive and harmful nature of their decision mechanism. All sorts of oppressive cultures can exist and carry-on, as Haidt points out, but why should we corrupt information as it is so as to make it palatable for people who fundamentally refuse to think through their feelings?
This seems to be the general pursuit of these descriptions, though I may be getting it wrong. Other ways to state my contention would be that it doesn't matter your opinion of gay people, absolutely nothing about how you feel or your conservative triggers justifies denying them equal rights. If your institution is so feeble that it dies the more accurate and accepting information comes into it, then it needs to die, not be given a defense of “well they're just different from you!”
From a political standpoint, of course you want to know what words resonate and where so you can emotionally provoke people to electing something as dramatically crass and destructive as Hitler 2. Which, at the end of the day, seems to be the point. To the degree that you understand these differences, all you're gaining the knowledge for is to manipulate, and for overwhelmingly malicious ends. I liken it to why I got so bored playing games with people. Other than the general amoral nature of it, the goals were selfish and empty and took way more effort than was ever worth the payout.
From that manipulation angle, explanations like Haidt's seem in opposition to why I even behave or speak the way I do. I don't want to hold the hand of the conservatives. I want to force compliance and get relatively short-term new gene expressions for them to cope, as they've conditioned us to generally behave as ignorant cattle. I think it's considerably harder to train a herd of individualistic liberal cats to fight a battle on a million fronts with the language and perspective Haidt argues for. The concern is for the pragmatic implications, right? Why learn these things if not to help us better relate and heal divides? Except it's a war with our implicit selves. Liberals, to my mind, have overcome conservative tendencies, for good reason, and to drag your own mind back to the swamp of gut-feelings and ignorant judgment seems counter-productive.
If liberals moved from the hubs on the coasts and started overwhelming the scattered thousands here and there that add up more electorally, you'd “bridge the divide” in slowly breeding the isolationist cousin-fuckery out of the species. Why in the name of everything reasonable would you want to edge in a lesser cultural morality or norm just because it functions or uses words like “spiritual” to describe it's dimensions? Account for differences, but don't dance around the edges of arguing for the caste system because you had an enlightening and enjoyable few months in India.
Changing behavior can be immensely hard, particularly with yourself. The knowledge on which you rest your actions can be waded into like a cultural pool everyone is pissing in, or fiercely attacked by your inquisitive and honest mind attempting to hold yourself accountable. The moment you accept that you have a choice and that your feelings alone should not dictate your moral attitude or impression of the world is the moment you have to drop the excuses about how you were raised or born as. That's all things being equal barring some brain issue, provided you don't regard conservatives as having one.
If there's any takeaway you don't need prolonged defenses or explorations of about humanity, it's that we are habitually and perpetually wrong. To think our nascent assent of scientific exploration, let alone almost pop-psychology of most social psychology, can more accurately account for the differences in people isn't necessarily unwise as much as it is distracting and naive. If we got to a point where we did pathologize conservatives and gave them an entire chapter in the DSM, it will say nothing about the burden of personal responsibility or the capacity for a reasonably unmotivated Google search. We should be exhibiting legislative power and shame on these people, not pretending they occupy a “different side” alien from what we can understand or perceive. Understand them, then work them into your better informed pattern and habit formation. Don't desperately and brazenly appeal to their vanity in some faux show of “respect” for their “differences.” Have the intelligence and balls to call them wrong. They're certainly not doing that for you lazy entitled fag enabling baby-killers.
The book was The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. What it appears to be boiling down to for me is an argument in favor of a kind of moral relativism without using the words and arguments moral relativists would employ. Haidt discusses the details and often lectures groups about the differences in conservative and liberal minds. He builds models for the different “types” of morality each hold and how many “pillars” one must adopt in their messaging if they're going to breakthrough. He tries to be pragmatic and descriptive of the evolutionary history that would shape our cultural attitudes to attune to different group aesthetics and ethics.
For my part, whenever I hear someone attempt to explain the differences between groups, at one level I appreciate looking for hard repeatable tests and proofs to describe their behavior. From how the brain responds to specific trigger words, to the excuses and types of rationalizations people employ to justify their behavior, I like seeing people turn into repeatable cliches if only because it assures me there's a pattern, and that pattern can be turned into something else once you employ different conditions. At the same time, and I feel this is often the tendency when there's a relatively strict adherence to an “objective” measure of human behavior specifically, it seems to compoundingly erode any one individual's responsibility to choose to defy their tendencies.
For Haidt, conservatives respond to 6 different indicators for morality that signify to them that you “get it” and are part of their group. They respond to all the chest beating protectionism of strong-men and vote against their interests because they're trying to protect a kind of “cultural spirit,” be it Evangelical notions of purity or the “sanctity” of life independent of what any one individual might choose to do to celebrate or protect theirs. Americans or indeed Western culture in general are the “w.e.i.r.d.” outliers in having an individualistic ethos while the rest of the world, and indeed our ancestors, seem to recall the relational existence they occupy to their family, community, or the rest of the world.
Liberals by contrast only really jive with 3 of the 6 pillars of morality, so when they give wimpy speeches trying to account for their status as a “worldly” citizen or the “fairness” of access to resources, they're jogging right past the other side who wants people to be held accountable, practically worship the in-group, and to respect the safe and accurate structure of “how things are.”
I simply cannot endorse explanations of humanity that divorce us from our ever-present now. It doesn't matter how reflexively you are disgusted by something you don't understand or a moral premise you'd never engage in. You have absolutely no reason to maintain your levels of disdain to vote in self-destructive ways beyond pure infantile ignorance and selfishness. I think to call these people, as Haidt does, “exhibiting a different kind of morality” is to absolve them of the objective reality of the destructive and harmful nature of their decision mechanism. All sorts of oppressive cultures can exist and carry-on, as Haidt points out, but why should we corrupt information as it is so as to make it palatable for people who fundamentally refuse to think through their feelings?
This seems to be the general pursuit of these descriptions, though I may be getting it wrong. Other ways to state my contention would be that it doesn't matter your opinion of gay people, absolutely nothing about how you feel or your conservative triggers justifies denying them equal rights. If your institution is so feeble that it dies the more accurate and accepting information comes into it, then it needs to die, not be given a defense of “well they're just different from you!”
From a political standpoint, of course you want to know what words resonate and where so you can emotionally provoke people to electing something as dramatically crass and destructive as Hitler 2. Which, at the end of the day, seems to be the point. To the degree that you understand these differences, all you're gaining the knowledge for is to manipulate, and for overwhelmingly malicious ends. I liken it to why I got so bored playing games with people. Other than the general amoral nature of it, the goals were selfish and empty and took way more effort than was ever worth the payout.
From that manipulation angle, explanations like Haidt's seem in opposition to why I even behave or speak the way I do. I don't want to hold the hand of the conservatives. I want to force compliance and get relatively short-term new gene expressions for them to cope, as they've conditioned us to generally behave as ignorant cattle. I think it's considerably harder to train a herd of individualistic liberal cats to fight a battle on a million fronts with the language and perspective Haidt argues for. The concern is for the pragmatic implications, right? Why learn these things if not to help us better relate and heal divides? Except it's a war with our implicit selves. Liberals, to my mind, have overcome conservative tendencies, for good reason, and to drag your own mind back to the swamp of gut-feelings and ignorant judgment seems counter-productive.
If liberals moved from the hubs on the coasts and started overwhelming the scattered thousands here and there that add up more electorally, you'd “bridge the divide” in slowly breeding the isolationist cousin-fuckery out of the species. Why in the name of everything reasonable would you want to edge in a lesser cultural morality or norm just because it functions or uses words like “spiritual” to describe it's dimensions? Account for differences, but don't dance around the edges of arguing for the caste system because you had an enlightening and enjoyable few months in India.
Changing behavior can be immensely hard, particularly with yourself. The knowledge on which you rest your actions can be waded into like a cultural pool everyone is pissing in, or fiercely attacked by your inquisitive and honest mind attempting to hold yourself accountable. The moment you accept that you have a choice and that your feelings alone should not dictate your moral attitude or impression of the world is the moment you have to drop the excuses about how you were raised or born as. That's all things being equal barring some brain issue, provided you don't regard conservatives as having one.
If there's any takeaway you don't need prolonged defenses or explorations of about humanity, it's that we are habitually and perpetually wrong. To think our nascent assent of scientific exploration, let alone almost pop-psychology of most social psychology, can more accurately account for the differences in people isn't necessarily unwise as much as it is distracting and naive. If we got to a point where we did pathologize conservatives and gave them an entire chapter in the DSM, it will say nothing about the burden of personal responsibility or the capacity for a reasonably unmotivated Google search. We should be exhibiting legislative power and shame on these people, not pretending they occupy a “different side” alien from what we can understand or perceive. Understand them, then work them into your better informed pattern and habit formation. Don't desperately and brazenly appeal to their vanity in some faux show of “respect” for their “differences.” Have the intelligence and balls to call them wrong. They're certainly not doing that for you lazy entitled fag enabling baby-killers.
