You are actually missing it. As the research shows, it's most likely that when you hear a conservative talk about, and place weight on 3 of the 6 moral foundations mentioned, you automatically translate them into hate and dismiss it.
You should actually read Haidt's work and listen to his talks because this isn't at all -- even remotely -- what he is claiming. And he certainly never says that it's impossible for conservatives just be throwing out red meat and that all their arguments are sincere or legitimate.
Bit of an excluded middle there, don't you think? *I* didn't say it was impossible for conservatives to throw out red meat. Heck. I said they do. I took issue with your statement (someone's statement, I've honestly forgotten who said it initially) that conservative talk was *nothing* but red meat.
The reference to Haidt in this context had nothing to do with his view of conservative talk, but that the inability of a liberal to see constructive conversation within conservative talk (which might lead him to conclude it's just "red meat") does align with his research on the liberal focus on only half of the moral foundations studied. I thought I even explained this. If you don't see things like "rule of law", "family values", "love of country", etc as valid moral bases, and perhaps even translate those things into "excuses conservatives give for their terrible positions on social issues I care about", you're going to see nothing but red meat in conservative talk. Because it's going to include those other three foundations as a balance to the three you care about. Thus, all you see is conservatives talking negatively about things you think are important.
Which is completely relevant to his research. I just pointed out that it happens to explain why liberals might view conservative talk very differently than conservatives do. And not just in an "agree or disagree" way. It also explains (to me at least) my own observation that liberal attempts at talk tend to be basically the opposite, not of actual conservative talk, but what liberals *think* conservative talk is. All one needs to do is watch Fox News and MSNBC for a while to see this pattern (well, and be a conservative, I suppose).
I am curious though if you'll continue to hold Haidt's ideas as gospel after you actually digest his stuff on your own. For example, he talks about how conservatives are much less open to new experiences and ideas than liberals. Conservatives are far more likely to reject an idea, not on its merits, but purely because it is new. He jokes about chain restaurants like Applebee's staying open because conservatives value consistent mediocrity over the risk of a new experience. You agree with those assessments, right? He talks about how, compared to liberals, conservatives have a deficit in valuing care for others and fairness. They only really care about these things when they're directly affecting a member of their tribe; when it's happening to someone else their concern goes way down. You agree with that assessment as well, yes?
Um... Agreeing with someone on one thing does not require that I agree with them on every thing. Cause that would be dumb, right? I'm purely talking about this one finding in this one area of research. It is funny though that you're attributing to me yet another behavior that I've observed and commented on many times about liberals. Which is that you guys tend to find an "expert" and follow what that person says, almost dogmatically. If he's right on thing A, he must be right on thing B. Conservatives tend to look at each issue and position independently. We don't tie ourselves to a slavish support of one person and that person's ideas.
I think it's a pretty weak counter to say "well, if you wont agree to everything someone says, then you can't quote them or their work for anything!". Again, that's just plain silly. It's an impossible standard. I'm sure there were one or two positions that Obama held that you don't agree with, yet somehow, you still managed to vote for him. Twice even. Shocking!
Really though, he's just one more voice in the field of psychology, political science and all that. I do have to again laugh at the irony that you say the Guttenmach researchers don't understand their own contraceptive education data, the foremost pioneer in ESC research is just lying so other scientists won't be mad at him and umpteen climate scientists have no idea how their field works, every major polling firm has no idea how to conduct polling and needs their results "unskewed", everyone putting out reports on gun violence or public education is biased but THIS guy.... this guy
sure has it all down! Why, you read a review of a book and liked what it said about liberals so for sure this is the guy who finally gets it
Even better is how many times you've made some lame assertion that you'd never
let anyone do your thinking for you but you'd always
look at the data yourself to draw your own conclusions... but here you cling to someone else's review of a book you've never even read. Hey, someone else's opinion of the author's opinion of the data is pretty much the same thing as making your own conclusions, right?
Gee Joph. It's like you've never read something that agreed with and explained something you already believed, and thought "hey! This guy may be on to something." Seriously? I'm fully willing to acknowledge confirmation bias here, but I don't happen to think that's wrong in this case. I guess what I find odd here is that you and most of the folks on this board eternally demand that I provide sources and citations in support of a position or idea I have, yet, when I do this, you find some bizarre way to invalidate it. I'm starting with my position and then looking for sources that support it. I don't think that's wrong. It's your job, if you chose to take the opposing position, to find counter sources that oppose my position or idea. But it's interesting that in this case, you've chosen to go with "but this guy also hold other positions on other issues that you don't agree with, so you shouldn't use him as a source".
um... What? Again, that makes no sense. And yes, I will question conclusions that seem to fly in the face of other data I've encountered. And yes, I'll question sources that are partisan themselves, and then magically derive conclusions that just happen to support said partisan alignment. The reason I specifically chose Haidt's work to cite is because he is himself liberal. So pointing out all the things he believes that I don't isn't really a problem for me. It actually strengthens my case because he *isn't* a conservative. If he was, you could just point that out and dismiss it, right? So kinda strange for you to instead argue that *I* should dismiss it because he's liberal. Again, that's kinda the point here.
I might just be a silly liberal but I think I've cracked the motivation behind that little mystery.
That when faced with a non conservative source that supports a conservative position, you punt with what has to be the most bizarre counter imaginable? Note that you haven't actually addressed his research, or his conclusions, but have just insisted that I should abandon them because he's liberal? That makes zero sense. Edited, Aug 31st 2015 7:18pm by gbaji