Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[Go Wildcats]

Intolerant of intolerance. Homogeneous doesn't come close to defining liberals. They tend to be far more diverse in every category than conservatives.

As someone who has spent time in the military (as a dependent and active duty), professional world and varying levels of education, experience has led me to see that the typical academic is liberal because they value education and learning and not necessarily for a job. Conservatives, years ago, did as well. However, their pushing away from science and arts has left seats open to more liberals - which makes the hastening of the university facility makeup to liberal. Conservatives have ran toward faith based educations, trade schools and the like - away from traditional universities. This trend can not be placed at the feet of liberals. My view is that liberals tend to be more educated and diverse because that is what they seek out; the opposite of conservatives (modern day conservatives, that is).




Seems homogenous fits the left side of the above image, not the left side of US politics.

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

It's nothing new. It's been going on as long as I can remember but has gotten worse. The liberals are very intolerant and prefer an homogeneous existence.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Whoa… hold on. What I am quoting is long-established psychological and behavioural economic research. It’s as controversial as saying there are differences between the sexes. This is not some one-off, fringe research.

Well . . . there are people these days who say there are no differences btwn the sexes and claiming otherwise can be very controversial! Or that gender is not fixed at birth, that it's more about "gender persuasion," that "toxic masculinity" is the root of all evil, or that it can all be resolved by eliminating the "white male patriarchy." This is rather tongue-in-cheek on my part and not directed towards you.

More to the point, I never assume that what you post is one-off, fringe research or is otherwise unprofessional or contrived. On the contrary, I pay attention whether I find myself in agreement or not. But when I read the conclusion and immediately think of many people in my life who's personalities & political persuasions so obviously don't match up with this research, my natural skepticism kicks in. Anecdotal to be sure, but then I wonder to what end is this sort of research being done? Politics has now unfortunately infected so many realms of scientific, economic, psychological & sociological research that I find myself always questioning objectivity.

There is no intent to bash anyone here. The research shows there ARE psychological differences between those who profess to be liberals compared to those who claim to be conservatives. These are facts (the scientific term).

I'm sure you didn't intend to bash, and may just be unaware of the extent of the simplistic & unproductive stereotyping that is going on in an effort to pigeonhole & demonize people who don't like what's become of the liberal movement and their political parties. The same can and is said about conservatives & Republicans, of course, but the level of blind conformity and the intolerance that follows seems to have reached new heights with no relief in sight. That's why I think myself and others may recoil a bit when presented with the results of a research study -- no matter how "scientific" -- that purports to explain differences in political belief based on personalities or character traits as opposed to ideas.

I don’t mean to offend anyone, and there’s plenty of stuff to discuss here. I certainly don’t want to have this thread spiral off into never-never land. But I encourage you Ex to actually look into this research. It’s not new, and I’m sure you’ll find it fascinating.

I certainly wasn't offended, and rarely am. All I'm saying is that it's likely to encourage the type of retort that inevitably devolves into senseless partisanship, and there's already more than enough of that available outside the forum. What's frankly much more interesting to me is the topic more closely related to intellectual humility, namely the difficulty people have understanding where the other side is even coming from. I feel I'm often guilty of this, see it all the time, and we've already discussed some reasons which may explain it (media bias & your research paper). But I increasingly encounter friends and others from different sides of the political divide who not only disagree with opposing views, but (I believe) honestly cannot understand how others can even think the way they do. Good people, unquestionably sincere intentions, often shared end goals, but absolutely zero understanding where others are coming from. This is what I mean by making attempts to confront our own biases and the intolerance that inevitably follows.

[Go Wildcats]

This is an utter Fox News interpretation and based in fantasy land. Please be better...

What's True
The New York state legislature passed a law allowing abortions after 24 weeks if the mother's health is at risk or there is an absence of fetal viability.

What's False
The law does not allow for unrestricted abortion up through the normal term of pregnancy.

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Mike,


My jaw dropped when I read this quote from you.



"The five moral foundations:

• Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm"

Wasn't it the democrats in Virginia and New York who passed a law allowing infanticide for a baby born alive after a botched abortion?

The left is going over the cliff in their zeal to "out progressive" each other.
What's next? Offing old people against their will to save money for other progressive causes?

Wake up, people !

[Go Wildcats]

Social media (eg Facebook) does create echo chambers due to your own predilections. However, these algorithms used do not work to change behavior or thought, but to reinforce your already core beliefs and interests. It's yet another tool in their tool box to get a product which you will LIKELY want in front of you - all based on your past choices. Getting news from FaceBook, a place so many people over 50 get their news from, will reinforce the users existing beliefs. It will not provide disconfirming evidence. I'm a firm believer in listening to a range of sources, but only one social - Twiiter. I follow people I tend to disagree with but are thought leaders for their view and those I tend to agree with as well. Give it go.

Originally Posted by boatman61

You dont get a choice..
Do a search on Google and you get what Googles accumulated info on you believes will make you happiest.. if it cannot do that it goes to default and throws up stuff about bikes and boats for me.
FB and Instagram feed you with what your info says you prefer/believe..
I am not talking about fresh News as most will go to the sites like AJ, BBC,RT etc..

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Go Wildcats

Intolerant of intolerance. Homogeneous doesn't come close to defining liberals. They tend to be far more diverse in every category than conservatives.

As someone who has spent time in the military (as a dependent and active duty), professional world and varying levels of education, experience has led me to see that the typical academic is liberal because they value education and learning and not necessarily for a job. Conservatives, years ago, did as well. However, their pushing away from science and arts has left seats open to more liberals - which makes the hastening of the university facility makeup to liberal. Conservatives have ran toward faith based educations, trade schools and the like - away from traditional universities. This trend can not be placed at the feet of liberals. My view is that liberals tend to be more educated and diverse because that is what they seek out; the opposite of conservatives (modern day conservatives, that is).




Seems homogenous fits the left side of the above image, not the left side of US politics.

When I said liberals tend to like a homogeneous existence I meant a homogeneous belief, not ethnically homogeneous. It didn't take you long to play the race card did it?

[weavis]

Guys.... we are getting to the bottom of the slippery slope. You have been warned.

[john61ct]

The right to tolerance of race/ethnicity/religion, sexual identity and preferences / gay marriage, right to choose abortion, yes these are not open to debate anymore, but basic human rights and trying to deny them reprehensible.

Quality education, decent affordable housing, food security, universal health care, dignity in old age too afaic.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

I certainly wasn't offended, and rarely am. All I'm saying is that it's likely to encourage the type of retort that inevitably devolves into senseless partisanship, and there's already more than enough of that available outside the forum. What's frankly much more interesting to me is the topic more closely related to intellectual humility, namely the difficulty people have understanding where the other side is even coming from. I feel I'm often guilty of this, see it all the time, and we've already discussed some reasons which may explain it (media bias & your research paper). But I increasingly encounter friends and others from different sides of the political divide who not only disagree with opposing views, but (I believe) honestly cannot understand how others can even think the way they do. Good people, unquestionably sincere intentions, often shared end goals, but absolutely zero understanding where others are coming from. This is what I mean by making attempts to confront our own biases and the intolerance that inevitably follows.

Thanks Ex, I appreciate your comments, and your clarity, and your cautions. I certainly don’t want to lead this thread off the rails, and I definitely don’t want to get on the bad side of Weavis .

But if I may dare to walk this line just a bit further… the reason I brought up psychological research into our moral foundations is to perhaps illuminate the very question you raise: “… namely the difficulty people have understanding where the other side is even coming from.”

The research I cite, and have been engaged with myself over the last couple of years, is trying to understand this very question. And the reasons might be due, in some measure, to the very real and measurable differences between self-identified liberals and conservatives.

Viewed through the lens of moral foundation theory, one can see why "people from different sides of the political divide not only disagree with opposing views, but (I believe) honestly cannot understand how others can even think the way they do.” The reason may be that we truly do have very different moral/psychological foundations when it comes to these political questions.

Interestingly, and important for my brethren on the liberal left, some findings suggest conservatives are more able to see and understand the liberal perspective compared to the opposite. In other words, conservatives may be better at seeing both sides. The liberal mind scores high in the first two foundation categories (Care & Fairness), but low on the other three scales (Loyalty, Authority & Sanctity). Conservatives score more evenly across all five of these markers, making them better at seeing the broader range of factors.

Here is one of many hundreds of papers on the subject. This is a good one b/c it lays out the foundations of the research approach:

https://www.projectimplicit.net/nose...rs/GHN2009.pdf

And if you’re interested, you can take part in the research by completing the questionnaires at https://www.yourmorals.org/index.php.

Of course, all of this applies at a mass population level, and there are vast ranges within all groups. Individual humans are difficult to pigeonhole into simple camps. We are all more complex than any theory can encapsulate, so it’s important to be careful when applying group traits to any individual.

But I think this approach does attempt to answer why our societies seem have a growing divide along this liberal/conservative spectrum.

[Go Wildcats]

Mike, further to your examples of bias:
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xml.../22105/833.pdf

It was based on level of numeracy, higher numeracy as a stand in for higher education. As you look at data, when problem presented with politically neutral, high numeracy people were able to solve it. But then exact same Riddle was provided in context of a political problem, now same high numeracy people couldn’t solve it as it was against their political belief. I think this supports your position well.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Thanks Ex, I appreciate your comments, and your clarity, and your cautions. I certainly don’t want to lead this thread off the rails, and I definitely don’t want to get on the bad side of Weavis .

But if I may dare to walk this line just a bit further… the reason I brought up psychological research into our moral foundations is to perhaps illuminate the very question you raise: “… namely the difficulty people have understanding where the other side is even coming from.”

The research I cite, and have been engaged with myself over the last couple of years, is trying to understand this very question. And the reasons might be due, in some measure, to the very real and measurable differences between self-identified liberals and conservatives.

Viewed through the lens of moral foundation theory, one can see why "people from different sides of the political divide not only disagree with opposing views, but (I believe) honestly cannot understand how others can even think the way they do.” The reason may be that we truly do have very different moral/psychological foundations when it comes to these political questions.

Interestingly, and important for my brethren on the liberal left, some findings suggest conservatives are more able to see and understand the liberal perspective compared to the opposite. In other words, conservatives may be better at seeing both sides. The liberal mind scores high in the first two foundation categories (Care & Fairness), but low on the other three scales (Loyalty, Authority & Sanctity). Conservatives score more evenly across all five of these markers, making them better at seeing the broader range of factors.

Here is one of many hundreds of papers on the subject. This is a good one b/c it lays out the foundations of the research approach:

https://www.projectimplicit.net/nose...rs/GHN2009.pdf

And if you’re interested, you can take part in the research by completing the questionnaires at https://www.yourmorals.org/index.php.

Of course, all of this applies at a mass population level, and there are vast ranges within all groups. Individual humans are difficult to pigeonhole into simple camps. We are all more complex than any theory can encapsulate, so it’s important to be careful when applying group traits to any individual.

But I think this approach does attempt to answer why our societies seem have a growing divide along this liberal/conservative spectrum.

[kmacdonald]

Mike, I would post the answer but being on the bad side of Weavis already, I will refrain. I'll let you guys have all the fun and hash out the political discourse without me. My point was VERY clearly illuminated though.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Go Wildcats

Social media (eg Facebook) does create echo chambers due to your own predilections. However, these algorithms used do not work to change behavior or thought, but to reinforce your already core beliefs and interests. It's yet another tool in their tool box to get a product which you will LIKELY want in front of you - all based on your past choices. Getting news from FaceBook, a place so many people over 50 get their news from, will reinforce the users existing beliefs. It will not provide disconfirming evidence. I'm a firm believer in listening to a range of sources, but only one social - Twiiter. I follow people I tend to disagree with but are thought leaders for their view and those I tend to agree with as well. Give it go.

Played with FB for a while, thought it might broaden my base for deliveries.. unfortunately I started reading some of the things folks from here who had friended me were posting..
Next thing I knew I was being bombarded by American protest stuff, National Front and BNP right wing crap, and the.name calling started.. I quit it..
Twitter is just as full of idiots and a lot foul language but more fun..
But really its just the same old same old people shouting in their boxes.

[GordMay]

Many Americans do not treat climate change like a scientific issue. In the past, consensus from the scientific community, on factual issues, effectively ended serious disagreement among elites; whether it was about things like whether blacks and whites have the same kind of blood, or whether homosexuality was rooted in mental illness. This shift, toward treating climate change as a political rather than as a scientific issue, is relatively new.
A simplistic approach is often behind accusations by left-wing activists about right-leaning voters, and vice versa.
Too often, arguments on both sides of the debate draw on over-the-top stereotypes and exaggerations that make conflict more likely, not less. As in the US, this debate conjures up “culture wars” with most people in two polarised groups, which strongly disagree with each other on a range of issues, and look at each other like they are on separate planets.

This viewpoint is partially summed up in the following:

“Why Liberal Hearts Bleed and Conservatives Don't”
Why politicians have trouble listening to each other
➥ https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/b...es-don’t

But, here’s a review of an interesting book, with a totally different take:

“Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America” by ~ Morris P. Fiorina
Political science scholar debunks myth of America's cultural divide.
According to Fiorina, Americans are closely divided, but they are not deeply divided. "And we are closely divided because many of us are ambivalent and uncertain, and consequently reluctant to make firm commitments to parties, politicians or policies," he writes. "We divide evenly in elections or sit them out entirely because we instinctively seek the center while the parties and candidates hang out on the extremes."
In an engaging lecture illustrated by statistics and figures, Fiorina explained that although the nation's electorate is not divided, the nation's political elites are split. In turn, he said, the positions of this polarized minority get exaggerated into generalizations by journalists in search of a good news story. "Conflict, of course, is high in news value," Fiorina writes. "Disagreement, division, polarization, battles and war make good copy. Agreement, consensus, moderation, compromise and peace do not." He adds: "A polarized political class makes the citizenry appear polarized, but it is only that-an appearance."
More ➥ https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/...ation-106.html

[Pelagic]

As Weavis admonished, discussing ideology can be reduced to bickering very quickly.

It should always be remembered that ideas are simply that and we all can produce "facts" that prove or disprove them.

"In social studies, a*political ideology*is a certain set of ethical ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class or large group that explains how society should work and offers some*political*and cultural blueprint for a certain social order" Wiki

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Go Wildcats

Mike, further to your examples of bias:
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xml.../22105/833.pdf

It was based on level of numeracy, higher numeracy as a stand in for higher education. As you look at data, when problem presented with politically neutral, high numeracy people were able to solve it. But then exact same Riddle was provided in context of a political problem, now same high numeracy people couldn’t solve it as it was against their political belief. I think this supports your position well.

Wow … thanks for the paper. A good, and kinda depressing read .

Your summation is good, although it’s even worse than you say. The findings are that those with high numeracy capacity were even worse at coming up with the right answer when it conflicted with their political beliefs.

I encourage everyone to read the paper. Especially those of us who think highly of our ability to reason logically.

The bottom line finding that comes out of all this is, as they state, our societies must find ways of disentangling politics with some of these critical data-driven problems. Problems like climate change, vaccinations, nuclear power, gun control, etc.

Man, I wish it were Spring. I’d be on my boat…

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Many Americans do not treat climate change like a scientific issue. In the past, consensus from the scientific community, on factual issues, effectively ended serious disagreement among elites; whether it was about things like whether blacks and whites have the same kind of blood, or whether homosexuality was rooted in mental illness. This shift, toward treating climate change as a political rather than as a scientific issue, is relatively new.
….

Indeed. This is pretty much what the paper says that Go Wild just linked to. Its bottom line conclusion is that people are generally pretty good at coming to sound decisions, even around complex scientific issues. So it’s not the lack of scientific literacy that is the problem, as some of us often think.

The problem of motivated reasoning around certain questions only arises when political, or other group identities, gets wrapped around these issues.

When your group identity includes having a specific answer to a complex problem, then scientific reasoning takes a back seat to identity-motivated reasoning. So the real answer is not to increase scientific literacy, but to disentangle politics from these data-driven issues.