More science on the difference among personality types that determine different attitudes and behaviors.
The defense of hierarchy is what conservatism is all about, as Corey Robin reminded us all with his recent book, “The Reactionary Mind.”Salon
What’s more, the differences between how liberals and conservatives think are reflected in a range of divergent cognitive processes, as summarized in a 2003 paper by John T. Jost and three co-authors, “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,” a “meta-analysis” that brought together findings drawn from 88 study samples in 12 countries:
“The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat,” Jost and his co-authors wrote in the abstract. These are not merely American phenomena, nor is there any reason to think they’re particularly modern.
While Jost’s paper revealed a complicated array of different factors involved, two in particular have been shown to explain the lion’s share of intergroup prejudice: right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO)....
A few weeks ago, I came across a reference to an unpublished conference paper, with the intriguing title, “Does endorsement of hierarchy make you evil? SDO and psychopathy.”
So I contacted the lead author, Marc Wilson, a New Zealand psychologist at Victoria University of Wellington, to ask him about his research....
“When SDO was originally proposed, it was argued that group dominance (as measured by SDO) is not the same thing as individual level dominance, and indeed that’s what the original research appeared to show,” he explained. “More recently there have been a few studies that have suggested SDO and psychopathy are related, and I’ve collected a lot of data now that leads me to believe they’re flip sides of the same coin — interpersonal dominance (psychopathy) on one side and group dominance (SDO) on the other.”...
“Therefore, it makes sense that environments that promote social hierarchies will also be fertile breeding grounds for individual dominance, and vice versa,” he continued.
Conservatives, evil and psychopathy: Science makes the link!
Paul Rosenberg
8 comments:
"The defense of hierarchy is what conservatism is all about, "
I dont see how this can be... you have GOPers who would consider themselves BOTH conservative AND libertarian (ie ANTI-hierarchy) so this has to be wrong...
'the defense of hierarchy' is anti-libertarian or perhaps 'authoritarian'...
rsp
Libertarians, some at least, are conservatives in the sense that they hold that some people are better than others and deserve to be rewarded for this through the acquisition of asymmetrical status, power, and wealth in a propertarian hierarchy determined by success, merit, and just deserts. Their idea of freedom is that everyone is free to compete in what is essentially a zero-sum game in which there are winners and losers, and it's winner take all. That ends up as a hierarchy in which property is absolute, and those who own call the shots.
Tom,
The article is confused.
Go back to the 'compass'...
they are looking at the 'right-authoritarian' quadrant as if it is an entire half of humanity...
I dont think they think they are "better than others" as a rule, they think there are "winners and losers" after some sort of 'fair competition' takes place... the 'winners' are to be rewarded, etc... 99% of the 1% didnt start that way, they got an education, worked hard, saved and now have a lot of wealth, etc... they 'competed' and 'won'...
What they are ignorant of is that we are manifestly NOT 'all created equal' and there are huge amounts of people who simply cannot compete in their "game" that they advocate for in the form of this current 'system' they have in place...
"In as much as you do it to one of these, THE LEAST of My brethren, you do it to Me." Mat 25:40
There are those among us who ARE "the least"... there IS a hierarchy.
Are we to be believing that someone born deaf-blind is "equal" to someone who is not born so?
Someone born with cerebral palsy and quadrapalegic is "equal" to someone who can play in the NBA?
someone born with a learning disability/dyslexia/autism is equal to someone who can graduate 4.0?
We are manifestly NOT all 'created equal'
How we humans respond to this is imo the whole point of this era that Paul termed 'the present wicked eon' and 'man's day'...
step one imo is to first become aware that we are manifestly NOT 'created equal'... which unfortunately is a phrase that was put right in one of our nations founding documents... now you have all of these morons going all around with their lapel pins on saying 'hey we're all equal so I got mine fair and square, I won, you lost, you should have tried harder and made better free will choices, blah blah blah..."
imo the social Darwinists/Randian/libertarians all are ignorant of any of this...
rsp,
Corey Robin's post on his blog today, Clarence X was about how liberals are more dangerous, insidious and sociopathic than the worst conservative...
Civic-minded conservatives trying to stop endless terms of copyright and patents, ( Lessig posted on twitter) fighting the good fight against the liberal sociopaths.
Liberal or conservative framing, arguments and minds can be used for good or evil purposes. I never vote for elephants but am always defending my people from unfair attack. #Awkward
"I dont see how this can be... you have GOPers who would consider themselves BOTH conservative AND libertarian (ie ANTI-hierarchy) so this has to be wrong..."
Thank you Matt Franko! That article is more than confused. It's a bunch of BS.
See the Wikipedia article on conservatism. There are many shades of conservatism.
Liberal conservatism
Liberal conservatism is a variant of conservatism that combines conservative values and policies with classical liberal stances.[23] As these latter two terms have had different meanings over time and across countries, liberal conservatism also has a wide variety of meanings.
Historically, the term often referred to the combination of economic liberalism, which champions laissez-faire markets, with the classical conservatism concern for established tradition, respect for authority and religious values. It contrasted itself with classical liberalism, which supported freedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres.
Over time, the general conservative ideology in many countries adopted economic liberal arguments, and the term liberal conservatism was replaced with conservatism. This is also the case in countries where liberal economic ideas have been the tradition, such as the United States, and are thus considered conservative. In other countries where liberal conservative movements have entered the political mainstream, such as Italy and Spain, the terms liberal and conservative may be synonymous. The liberal conservative tradition in the United States combines the economic individualism of the classical liberals with a Burkean form of conservatism (which has also become part of the American conservative tradition, such as in the writings of Russell Kirk).
A secondary meaning for the term liberal conservatism that has developed in Europe is a combination of more modern conservative (less traditionalist) views with those of social liberalism. This has developed as an opposition to the more collectivist views of socialism. Often this involves stressing what are now conservative views of free-market economics and belief in individual responsibility, with social liberal views on defence of civil rights, environmentalism and support for a limited welfare state. In continental Europe, this is sometimes also translated into English as social conservatism.
Conservative liberalism
Conservative liberalism is a variant of liberalism that combines liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, the right wing of the liberal movement.[24][25][26] The roots of conservative liberalism are found at the beginning of the history of liberalism. Until the two World Wars, in most European countries the political class was formed by conservative liberals, from Germany to Italy. Events after World War I brought the more radical version of classical liberalism to a more conservative (i.e. more moderate) type of liberalism.[27]
continued
continuation
Libertarian conservatism
Libertarian conservatism describes certain political ideologies within the United States and Canada which combine libertarian economic issues with aspects of conservatism. Its five main branches are Constitutionalism, paleolibertarianism, neolibertarianism, small government conservatism and Christian libertarianism. They generally differ from paleoconservatives, in that they are in favor of more personal and economic freedom.
Agorists such as Samuel Edward Konkin III labeled libertarian conservatism right-libertarianism.[28][29]
In contrast to paleoconservatives, libertarian conservatives support strict laissez-faire policies such as free trade, opposition to any national bank and opposition to business regulations. They are vehemently opposed to environmental regulations, corporate welfare, subsidies, and other areas of economic intervention.
Progressive conservatism
Progressive conservatism incorporates progressive policies alongside conservative policies. It stresses the importance of a social safety net to deal with poverty, support of limited redistribution of wealth along with government regulation to regulate markets in the interests of both consumers and producers.[47] Progressive conservatism first arose as a distinct ideology in the United Kingdom under Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli's "One Nation" Toryism.[47][48]
There have been a variety of progressive conservative governments. In the UK, the Prime Ministers Disraeli, Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan,[49] and present Prime Minister David Cameron are progressive conservatives.[50][51] The Catholic Church's Rerum Novarum (1891) advocates a progressive conservative doctrine known as social Catholicism.[52] In the United States, the administration of President William Howard Taft was progressive conservative and he described himself as "a believer in progressive conservatism"[53] and President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared himself an advocate of "progressive conservatism".[54] In Germany, Chancellor Leo von Caprivi promoted a progressive conservative agenda called the "New Course".[55] In Canada, a variety of conservative governments have been progressive conservative, with Canada's major conservative movement being officially named the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada from 1942 to 2003.[56] In Canada, the Prime Ministers Arthur Meighen, R.B. Bennett, John Diefenbaker, Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney, and Kim Campbell led progressive conservative federal governments.[56]
Matt,
authoritarian conservatives and libertarian conservatives both defend hierarchy, just in different ways.
Post a Comment