OpenMind | Reduce political polarization in your community

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I like the work of Jonathan Haidt. His books are among my favorites: The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom; The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, and The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. (I'm working on a review of the third book.) This morning Haidt posted on Twitter that he has started a website called OpenMind, "A free interactive platform designed to depolarize communities and foster mutual understanding across differences." Here is the link.


OpenMind | Reduce political polarization in your community


I've signed up so I can take the quiz that measures my bias; it will be interesting to see if I'm practicing what I'm preaching! The site also posts resources to help explain liberal, conservative and libertarian mindsets. I haven't explored all of the content but I like what I've seen so far.

Political Discussions: Wielding the Moral Hammer

-->

-->

Before I tell the story of what triggered today’s post I want to explain my usual approach to political discussions. In general, I avoid them. Why? Because I’m a libertarian in deeply liberal Massachusetts and because I’ve seen conversations between people who disagree quickly plunge into emotional barrages of one-liners with no amicable resolution. I especially avoid getting into political discussions with ideologues. Of all of the discussions and arguments I’ve been party to almost none of them end with either of us changing our minds. The only rare exceptions have been when the person with whom I’m talking calmly asks me to explain why I believe what I do or calmly asks questions about the source of the facts I’m citing.

With that as background the story starts when I was playing in my Friday morning men’s doubles tennis match with three other guys. One of the guys, let’s call him George, almost always brings up politics between sets. George hates Trump so he uses the changeovers as an opportunity to vent about Trump’s latest actions that offends him. When our first set ended this week George came to the net and asked his two friends (who also happen to be liberal) a question that I’ll provide below along with the exchange I had with him. I’ve added some comments in parenthesis to explain what I meant.

George: Can we find someone to kill Mitch McConnell? (A Republican and Senate Majority Leader. George was referring to McConnell’s involvement in the current government shutdown.)

Me: That’s what I love about liberals. They want to kill people who disagree with them but if a conservative said something like this they’d scream bloody murder. (I almost never come out this strong but at this point I’d had enough of George’s weekly political rants. I wouldn’t have reacted this strongly if he hadn’t used the word “kill.”)

George: So you’re OK with the government shutdown?

Me: Yes. (Actually I think there could be a better way to resolve the difference between what Trump wants for border security and what Pelosi and Schumer want [whatever that is] but I answered this way partly to shock George. I play tennis to get away from the constant drone of politics.)

George: Even though it hurts people?

Friend #1: Good one! (Said with a smug smirk on his face.)

Me: As long as the border is not secure people are going to continue to die.

George: You’re going to have to explain that to me.

Me: Some other time. I came here to play tennis.

I’m not here to talk about the pros and cons of the shutdown and immigration policy. My purpose is to share some observations and thoughts.

1.  I consider George to be an ideologue. Merriam Webster defines an ideologue as “an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology.” Oxford defines an ideologue as “an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.” George fits this definition because there can be no honest disagreement with him. He is like many other people I’ve seen who think it’s OK to demonize anyone who disagrees with you. That makes it OK to joke about killing, say, Mitch McConnell or Donald Trump. Yet they’re apoplectic if don’t share their adulation for Obama or – horrors! – dare to say one critical word about him! (George is not an aberration. Other liberal friends have said they wished Trump would die until they realize that Mike Pence would take over. This is unacceptable to them because they believe Pence is more evil than Trump.)

2. George thinks he wields the unquestionable moral trump card because he cares about people while he believes Republicans, conservatives and libertarians don’t. I’m not singling out liberals or progressives as the only people who climb onto their moral high horse. Ideologues at each end of the spectrum believe they have a monopoly on moral rectitude. This is one reason why many political discussions end in a stalemate. Each side thinks they’re moral and that their opponent is immoral. If you’re on the receiving end of this your natural reaction is going to be defensive. Who wants to be called an immoral heathen while also being asked to change your position?

3. My standard way of making my case is to avoid throwing the moral trump card onto the table. If someone presents their favor for a policy such as trying to help the poor or claim that regulations protect us from greedy businessmen I respond by saying their policies often don’t accomplish their goals. Or if the topic is climate change I’ll say my reading of several hundred scientific papers has lead me to a different conclusion. (Of course my responses need to be backed by research. Plus I know the facts I quote need to come from sources the person is willing to give some credence.) However, when George trotted out the “you don’t care who is hurt” ploy he was challenging my moral character. Countering with practical issues such as the financial cost of securing our border or the legality of trying to enter the U.S. without going through proper channels wouldn’t have tackled George’s snarky attack on me as a person. So I felt the proper response was to resort to a moral argument of my own and say that his position on open borders results in no controls of who comes in, which means some of the people could be criminals such as members of MS-13.

4.    I find it amusing how many liberals mock religious fundamentalists or evangelicals because they constantly refer to God and rigidly adhere to the Bible yet these liberals are just as fundamentalist about their political beliefs and heroes.

Nov 6, 2017: Discussion with Dr. Jonathan Haidt NYU - YouTube

Nov 6, 2017: Discussion with Dr. Jonathan Haidt NYU - YouTube


This wide-ranging interview by Jordan B Peterson of Jonathan Haidt contains fascinating and rich insights that are too many and too broad to even summarize here. Both Peterson and Haidt touch on moral foundations, differences in how conservatives and liberals see the world, tribalism, free speech, and so on. It's over 90 minutes long. Highly recommended!

5 Reasons Meryl Streep's Golden Globes Speech Was A Dud

5 Reasons Meryl Streep's Golden Globes Speech Was A Dud 

Last night as my wife and I channel surfed we stopped at the Golden Globe awards just in time to see Meryl Streep receive the Cecil B. DeMille lifetime achievement award. She lost no time to launch into an anti-Trump tirade. I like this commentary on The Federalist by Mollie Hemingway.

Here is a sampling of her commentary.

Streep said, “Just to pick up on what Hugh Laurie said. You and all of us in this room, really, belong to the most vilified segments in American society right now. Think about it. Hollywood, foreigners, and the press.”

How do I put this? UM, NO. Just no. The press and Hollywood are some of the most privileged segments of society. Whether you measure it in terms of cash money, prestige, fame, or an ability to fail year after year and get promoted, Hollywood and media elite do not get to cast themselves as victims. 

To be fair, Streep is right that the press and Hollywood are indeed vilified among certain parts of the population which includes some but not necessarily all of Trump's supporters. Streep's comment therefore is partially true: some of the people who voted for Trump did so because they vilify Hollywood and the press ... maybe because these voters feel vilified by Hollywood and the press! So it's mutual vilification!

Read the rest of it. Hemmingway is not a Trump supporter; I agree with her criticisms of some of Trump's verbal shenanigans during the campaign that consisted of mocking insults. 

I also agree with her closing paragraph.

As individuals, however, we can and should always redouble our efforts to speak well of each other and treat each other well. We shouldn’t take our guidance from politicians or movie stars, and if we focus our efforts on improving our own virtue, perhaps future generations will have better statesmen and artists.

Where are the conservative social psychologists?

Is the Field of Psychology Biased Against Conservatives? This New Yorker
article starts with:

On January 27, 2011, from a stage in the middle of the San Antonio Convention Center, Jonathan Haidt addressed the participants of the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. The topic was an ambitious one: a vision for social psychology in the year 2020. Haidt began by reviewing the field that he is best known for, moral psychology. Then he threw a curveball. He would, he told the gathering of about a thousand social-psychology professors, students, and post-docs, like some audience participation. By a show of hands, how would those present describe their political orientation? First came the liberals: a “sea of hands,” comprising about eighty per cent of the room, Haidt later recalled. Next, the centrists or moderates. Twenty hands. Next, the libertarians. Twelve hands. And last, the conservatives. Three hands.

Social psychology, Haidt went on, had an obvious problem: a lack of political diversity that was every bit as dangerous as a lack of, say, racial or religious or gender diversity. It discouraged conservative students from joining the field, and it discouraged conservative members from pursuing certain lines of argument. It also introduced bias into research questions, methodology, and, ultimately, publications. The topics that social psychologists chose to study and how they chose to study them, he argued, suffered from homogeneity. The effect was limited, Haidt was quick to point out, to areas that concerned political ideology and politicized notions, like race, gender, stereotyping, and power and inequality. “It’s not like the whole field is undercut, but when it comes to research on controversial topics, the effect is most pronounced,” he later told me.

The rest of the article ranges widely over the various studies researchers have conducted on this phenomenon. I recommend it highly as well as the work of Jonathan Haidt. He describes himself as a political liberal when he embarked on the journey to investigate the foundations of morality. Haidt ultimately identifies six foundations:

1. Care/harm: cherishing and protecting others.

2. Fairness/cheating: rendering justice according to shared rules. (Alternate name: Proportionality)

3. Liberty/oppression: the loathing of tyranny.

4. Loyalty/betrayal: standing with your group, family, nation. (Alternate name: Ingroup)

5. Authority/subversion: obeying tradition and legitimate authority. (Alternate name: Respect.)

6. Sanctity/degradation: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions. (Alternate name: Purity.)

This isn’t too controversial. However Haidt stepped on a live rail when he noted that conservatives tend to rely on all six foundations while liberals and libertarians tend to favor only one. Liberals rely on the Care/harm foundation while libertarians gravitate to liberty/oppression. (See his paper: Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations) As you can see Haidt is not afraid to question the status quo! Imagine the horror that someone dares to suggest that conservatives might have a broader moral foundation than liberals, and the conclusion comes from a liberal! (Haidt admits he has drifted
more to the center as a result of his research and thinking.)

Anyway, please check out this article as well as the links to the various studies that are referred to in it. To me Haidt shows the result of truly trying to be objective.

When facts and narratives collide. (When facts contradict beliefs, challenge the facts.)

The title is meant to catch your eye. I'm not saying that thinking objectively means we should deny facts that challenge our beliefs.

I generally don't start political discussions with people I know disagree with me. I don't enjoy getting into arguments partly because I know there is no true “winner” in these disagreements. As a libertarian in liberal Massachusetts that means I almost never start such discussions because few people share my point of view.

For instance, during the NFL football season my wife and I watch the games at a friend's house where the wife is as avid a fan of the Patriots as my wife. However, I knew that our host, let's call her Jane, is fairly liberal. During the election she had signs along her driveway for Elizabeth Warren. Need I say more? Sometime after the election Jane brought up politics even though she had a good hunch that I didn't agree with her. I said that I was neither a Republican nor a Democrat but a libertarian. Our talk was quite civil for a while until Jane said she didn't understand why the economy wasn't doing better despite the stimulus package. I told her that every one of my customers have said that they are sitting on tons of cash but don't want to hire people. (In my job I often meet with the treasurer or CFO of my accounts.) Why? Because they're afraid of what additional regulations will be coming and the effects of ObamaCare when it starts being implemented. Jane burst out with “Bullshit! I don't accept that!” She stood up, added that she also didn't think the wealthy or businesses were really responsible for job creation, then started to storm out of the room. I said, “It looks like this conversation is over.” (To give her credit Jane did apologize later for her outburst although she didn’t change her mind.)

This incident opened my eyes to an interesting facet, not just of liberalism but probably of all ideologies: the denial of facts that contradict cherished beliefs.

In this case pointing out that businesses were reluctant to hire people challenged the policies and politicians that Jane supports. It also violated the liberal narrative. This narrative says that the wealthy and business owners have infinite resources that can be taxed and regulated without negative consequences. I think there also is the belief that we have the right to tap these resources because the rich and business owners didn't earn their wealth. After all, they didn't build that, as Obama angrily asserted.

I recall seeing a skit on Bill Maher’s show in which a conservative is sitting inside a sound-proof bubble while Maher and another liberal shout “truths” at the conservative. Conservatives feel the same about the filter liberals have installed in their ears. Rather than get into all of this here I highly recommend Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind. Haidt explains how each side (including libertarians) focus on certain aspects of morality while filtering out others so that both sides in a debate talk past one another.

By the way the very next day I was at the airport when I heard a story on TV about the $1 trillion US companies are sitting on rather than using it to expand their business. The reasons given were the exactly same reasons I cited to Jane.

Science Asks: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? - The Atlantic

I've been eagerly awaiting the publication of Jonathan Haidt's new book, The Righteous Mind, which I plan on reviewing here (one of these days). In the meantime here is a good summary of Haidt's approach. Science Asks: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? - The Atlantic