The Righteous Mind - Jonathan Haidt and Liberal vs Conservative ethics

Niall

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
AI said:
Liberals do have SOME of those other moral foundations, they're just not as strong as Care and Fairness. I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the extremes.
Yeah, it's not a clean fit. Haidt points out that Purity, for example, is also high for liberals, just not in the same way(s) as for conservatives. The example he gave was the liberal-led charge for 'organic, healthy foods'. On the Authority taste-bud, consider that while liberals may say they disregard it in moral consideration, in actuality they revere it - a certain form of it anyway. Look how easily they're swayed by 'the intelligence community' against Trump, for example. On Sanctity, they may have killed God as He was once conceived, but in a sense they have replaced Him with an artificial simulacrum: the religion of Science, Global Warming, etc.

Qualitative, rather than quantitative, differences may be the key.
 

John G

The Living Force
Niall said:
AI said:
Liberals do have SOME of those other moral foundations, they're just not as strong as Care and Fairness. I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the extremes.
Yeah, it's not a clean fit. Haidt points out that Purity, for example, is also high for liberals, just not in the same way(s) as for conservatives. The example he gave was the liberal-led charge for 'organic, healthy foods'. On the Authority taste-bud, consider that while liberals may say they disregard it in moral consideration, in actuality they revere it - a certain form of it anyway. Look how easily they're swayed by 'the intelligence community' against Trump, for example. On Sanctity, they may have killed God as He was once conceived, but in a sense they have replaced Him with an artificial simulacrum: the religion of Science, Global Warming, etc.

Qualitative, rather than quantitative, differences may be the key.
Yeah a liberal and a conservative could have the exact same outer behaviors but the motivation for it could be worlds apart. Conservatives may have natural "taste bud" built in respect for elders and other over time merit based authorities. Liberals on the other hand stereotypically flock in a natural lazy research way to the latest and greatest leading edge pontifications. They like glitzy research but can lack the "Protestant work ethic" to really dig into it. The openness for leading edge research can be great; as Joe mentioned, many of us likely came here via liberal-like openness. We do have to make sure we aren't too lazy (aka actually read the books) and don't have creeping relativism in our morals.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
An interesting book that goes well with Haidt's work and adds another dimension: "The H Factor of Personality: Why Some People are Manipulative, Self-Entitled, Materialistic, and Exploitive―And Why It Matters for Everyone"
https://www.amazon.com/Factor-Personality-Self-Entitled-Materialistic-Exploitive_And/dp/1554588340

It discusses the Openness factor in combination with high or low elements of other personality traits. It is most interesting.

The “H” in the H factor stands for “Honesty-Humility,” one of the six basic dimensions of the human personality. People who have high levels of H are sincere and modest; people who have low levels are deceitful and pretentious. It isn’t intuitively obvious that traits of honesty and humility go hand in hand, and until very recently the H factor hadn’t been recognized as a basic dimension of personality. But scientific evidence shows that traits of honesty and humility form a unified group of personality traits, separate from those of the other five groups identified several decades ago.

This book, written by the discoverers of the H factor, explores the scientific findings that show the importance of this personality dimension in various aspects of people’s lives: their approaches to money, power, and sex; their inclination to commit crimes or obey the law; their attitudes about society, politics, and religion; and their choice of friends and spouse. Finally, the book provides ways of identifying people who are low in the H factor, as well as advice on how to raise one’s own level of H.
Honesty-Humility
Emotionality
eXtraversion
Agreeableness (versus Anger)
Conscientiousness
Openness to Experience

The H factor seems to be important in this discussion of Openness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEXACO_model_of_personality_structure

The HEXACO model of personality structure is a six-dimensional model of human personality that was created by Ashton and Lee and explained in their book, The H Factor of Personality[1] based on findings from a series of lexical studies involving several European and Asian languages. The six factors, or dimensions, include Honesty-Humility (H), Emotionality (E), Extraversion (X), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), and Openness to Experience (O). Each factor is composed of traits with characteristics indicating high and low levels of the factor. The HEXACO model was developed through similar methods as other trait taxonomies and builds on the work of Costa and McCrae[2] and Goldberg.[3] The model, therefore, shares several common elements with other trait models. However, the HEXACO model is unique mainly due to the addition of the Honesty-Humility dimension.[4]
You can go here to find out more and take the test. http://hexaco.org/ The test is also included in the book.
 

Adaryn

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
You can go here to find out more and take the test. http://hexaco.org/ The test is also included in the book.
Before beginning the test, you can choose between those 2 options:

Which test would you like to take?
Self-Report (fill out the questionnaire about yourself)
Observer-Report (fill out the questionnaire about someone else)
Note: For observer reports, "someone else" is usually someone who knows you, but you should also use the observer report form if you are describing a famous person who doesn't (or never did) know you.
The observer-report (ie, having someone taking the test on your behalf) would probably be more accurate than the self-report.
 

Maat

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
FWIW, here are my results for the bold traits :

Honesty-humilty : 4.13
Emotionality : 3.75
Extraversion : 2.06 (what a surprise ! I'm kidding, I know that I'm very introverted )
Agreeableness : 3.25
Conscientiousness : 3.56
Openness : 3.38

The traits for which I'm really off the middle zone are Honesty (up) and Extraversion (down) ; and for the non-bold traits, it's for those are up : sincerity, modesty, fearfulness, gentleness ; and down : social self-esteem, social boldness, sociability, liveliness - a coherent picture over all.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Maat said:
FWIW, here are my results for the bold traits :

Honesty-humilty : 4.13
Emotionality : 3.75
Extraversion : 2.06 (what a surprise ! I'm kidding, I know that I'm very introverted )
Agreeableness : 3.25
Conscientiousness : 3.56
Openness : 3.38

The traits for which I'm really off the middle zone are Honesty (up) and Extraversion (down) ; and for the non-bold traits, it's for those are up : sincerity, modesty, fearfulness, gentleness ; and down : social self-esteem, social boldness, sociability, liveliness - a coherent picture over all.
What is most interesting is to read the descriptions in the book about the different hi/lo combinations. The book isn't very long and is written in a simple way so it's not a difficult read.
 

John G

The Living Force
Laura said:
An interesting book that goes well with Haidt's work and adds another dimension: "The H Factor of Personality: Why Some People are Manipulative, Self-Entitled, Materialistic, and Exploitive―And Why It Matters for Everyone"
https://www.amazon.com/Factor-Personality-Self-Entitled-Materialistic-Exploitive_And/dp/1554588340

It discusses the Openness factor in combination with high or low elements of other personality traits. It is most interesting.

The “H” in the H factor stands for “Honesty-Humility,” one of the six basic dimensions of the human personality. People who have high levels of H are sincere and modest; people who have low levels are deceitful and pretentious. It isn’t intuitively obvious that traits of honesty and humility go hand in hand, and until very recently the H factor hadn’t been recognized as a basic dimension of personality. But scientific evidence shows that traits of honesty and humility form a unified group of personality traits, separate from those of the other five groups identified several decades ago.

This book, written by the discoverers of the H factor, explores the scientific findings that show the importance of this personality dimension in various aspects of people’s lives: their approaches to money, power, and sex; their inclination to commit crimes or obey the law; their attitudes about society, politics, and religion; and their choice of friends and spouse. Finally, the book provides ways of identifying people who are low in the H factor, as well as advice on how to raise one’s own level of H.
Honesty-Humility
Emotionality
eXtraversion
Agreeableness (versus Anger)
Conscientiousness
Openness to Experience

The H factor seems to be important in this discussion of Openness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEXACO_model_of_personality_structure

The HEXACO model of personality structure is a six-dimensional model of human personality that was created by Ashton and Lee and explained in their book, The H Factor of Personality[1] based on findings from a series of lexical studies involving several European and Asian languages. The six factors, or dimensions, include Honesty-Humility (H), Emotionality (E), Extraversion (X), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), and Openness to Experience (O). Each factor is composed of traits with characteristics indicating high and low levels of the factor. The HEXACO model was developed through similar methods as other trait taxonomies and builds on the work of Costa and McCrae[2] and Goldberg.[3] The model, therefore, shares several common elements with other trait models. However, the HEXACO model is unique mainly due to the addition of the Honesty-Humility dimension.[4]
You can go here to find out more and take the test. http://hexaco.org/ The test is also included in the book.
I'll be getting the book; seeing the Big Five traits combined (including the low-high scale ends) is something I've wanted to see to make it more like the Jungian models. If I had to guess right now, I think that I may end up thinking of the honesty-humility scale as redundant. That money/power thing along with great lack of humility kind of hints at Trump as an example of a low H score. Keirsey-wise (Jungian), Trump is an ESTP Promoter. That would be high extraversion, low agreeableness, low conscientiousness, and low openness using the Costa & McCrae conversion from Jungian to Big 5. Here's the Promotor's description:

https://keirsey.com/4temps/promoter.asp

There are lots of Promoters -- maybe ten or so percent of the population, and life is never dull around them. In a word, they are men and women of action. When a Promoter is present, things begin to happen: the lights come on, the music plays, the games begin. Clever and full of fun, Promoters live with a theatrical flourish which makes even the most routine events seem exciting. Not that they waste much time on routine events. In work and in play, Promoters demand new activities and new challenges. Bold and daring at heart, and ever-optimistic that things will go their way, Promoters will take tremendous risks to get what they want, and seem exhilarated by walking close to the edge of disaster. Because of this, they make the very best trouble-spot administrators and negotiators, and they can be outstanding entrepreneurs, able to swing deals and kick-start enterprises in a way no other type can.

Promoters also have a hearty appetite for the finer things of life, the best food, the best wine, expensive cars, and fashionable clothes. And they are extremely sophisticated in social circles, knowing many, many people by name, and knowing how to say just the right thing to most everyone they meet.

Charming, confident, and popular, Promoters delight their friends and investors with their endless supply of stories and jokes. At the same time, these smooth operators are usually something of a mystery to others. While they live in the moment and lend excitement - and unpredictability - to all their relationships, they rarely let anyone get really close to them. They have a low tolerance for authority and commitment, and are likely to leave situations where they are expected to toe the mark, or where they must play second fiddle. Promoters understand well the maxim, "He who travels fastest, travels alone," although they are not likely to be lonely for long, since their boldness and sense of adventure tends to make them highly attractive to many other people.
The opposite of the low H-like ESTP Promotor would be the high H-like INFJ Counselor. The Costa & McCrae conversion of the INFJ matches your big 5 scores (you and Trump are personality opposites). Here's the Counselor description:

https://keirsey.com/4temps/counselor.aspx

Counselors have an exceptionally strong desire to contribute to the welfare of others, and find great personal fulfillment interacting with people, nurturing their personal development, guiding them to realize their human potential. Although they are happy working at jobs (such as writing) that require solitude and close attention, Counselors do quite well with individuals or groups of people, provided that the personal interactions are not superficial, and that they find some quiet, private time every now and then to recharge their batteries. Counselors are both kind and positive in their handling of others; they are great listeners and seem naturally interested in helping people with their personal problems. Not usually visible leaders, Counselors prefer to work intensely with those close to them, especially on a one-to-one basis, quietly exerting their influence behind the scenes.

Counselors are scarce, little more than three percent of the population, and can be hard to get to know, since they tend not to share their innermost thoughts or their powerful emotional reactions except with their loved ones. They are highly private people, with an unusually rich, complicated inner life. Friends or colleagues who have known them for years may find sides emerging which come as a surprise. Not that Counselors are flighty or scattered; they value their integrity a great deal, but they have mysterious, intricately woven personalities which sometimes puzzle even them.

Counselors tend to work effectively in organizations. They value staff harmony and make every effort to help an organization run smoothly and pleasantly. They understand and use human systems creatively, and are good at consulting and cooperating with others. As employees or employers, Counselors are concerned with people's feelings and are able to act as a barometer of the feelings within the organization.

Blessed with vivid imaginations, Counselors are often seen as the most poetical of all the types, and in fact they use a lot of poetic imagery in their everyday language. Their great talent for language-both written and spoken-is usually directed toward communicating with people in a personalized way. Counselors are highly intuitive and can recognize another's emotions or intentions - good or evil - even before that person is aware of them. Counselors themselves can seldom tell how they came to read others' feelings so keenly. This extreme sensitivity to others could very well be the basis of the Counselor's remarkable ability to experience a whole array of psychic phenomena.
 

Pashalis

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
Maat said:
FWIW, here are my results for the bold traits :

Honesty-humilty : 4.13
Emotionality : 3.75
Extraversion : 2.06 (what a surprise ! I'm kidding, I know that I'm very introverted )
Agreeableness : 3.25
Conscientiousness : 3.56
Openness : 3.38

The traits for which I'm really off the middle zone are Honesty (up) and Extraversion (down) ; and for the non-bold traits, it's for those are up : sincerity, modesty, fearfulness, gentleness ; and down : social self-esteem, social boldness, sociability, liveliness - a coherent picture over all.
What is most interesting is to read the descriptions in the book about the different hi/lo combinations. The book isn't very long and is written in a simple way so it's not a difficult read.
After finishing the 100 questions and typing in the rest of the personal data and 4 questions at the end, at top of my end result was a red warning that read:

Warning: Your results are very likely invalid due to inattentive responding.
Maybe it was because I started the questions over after about 40 questions since I accidentally clicked the exact opposite of what I wanted to click in one question? So I started over in the hopes that this answer doesn't screw up the end result.

Here was my end result (see below for the full result):

Honesty-Humility: 4.00 [Medium Score = 3.22]
Emotionality: 3.13 [Medium Score = 3.34]
Extraversion: 1.39 [Medium Score = 3.50]
Agreeableness: 1.19 [Medium Score = 3.00]
Conscientiousness: 3.13 [Medium Score = 3.47]
Openness to Experience: 3.69 [Medium Score = 3.31]
There were quite a number of questions I was not sure how to answer (and from which frame of mind) in light of "the work" and what I do know about some of my faults and the knowledge we have about topics like politics, Ponerology, left versus right thinking (Haidt) etc. Some of those questions were the following:

I think that paying attention to radical ideas is a waste of time.

I make decisions based on the feeling of the moment rather than on careful thought.

I like people who have unconventional views.

I don't allow my impulses to govern my behavior.

I think that I am entitled to more respect than the average person is.
When you finish the questionnaire the end result divides into 6 categories (the ones above) which in turn further divide into sub categories that make up each of the six overall traits (if I understood correctly).
In the end result on the website, you can look at each of the 31 different trait results and click on it on the left to see a description of what a high or low score means. I clicked through all of those and indeed they are pretty interesting also in regards to the work.

You can also look at each description of the 31 traits here.

One description in particular caught my attention (because I scored very low in it) which wasn't something I expected from the usual automatic state of mind, but is perfectly in line with the work and how what one tends to think and do, actually is the opposite of what it actually is.

That low score was in Modesty and here is the description of what a high/low score means there:

The Modesty scale assesses a tendency to be modest and unassuming. Low scorers consider themselves as superior and as entitled to privileges that others do not have, whereas high scorers view themselves as ordinary people without any claim to special treatment.
So at first I was somewhat perplexed how they derived that result from those question and thought about it. Frankly, I was also surprised about that low score there at first. After thinking about it, I think they might have accessed it through evaluating how judgemental, critical and assumptious one is towards others and oneself. I can only say that they probably hit the mark there, although one usually wouldn't think about it in that way. It is not so apparent how modesty is measured exactly there, but the only thing I can think of that measures this might be judgement, being overly critical and assumptious. You would think that when one scores pretty low in needing and desiring stuff like money and being tempted to use stolen money and property that this would translate into a high score in modesty, which wasn't the case. I think that last point is something that I at first couldn't reconcile and left me perplexed there as well.

If you fill it out for yourselfm there is also a good point to be made (as said above in a post) that it is not that accurate since others can see you better. Although the further you go in "the work" the better you are probably able to be a better observer of yourself. There is also a point to be made how one thinks of oneself and how each question could be answered if you only look at your behaviour from an outside perspective and how that actually looks for others.

Here is the full explanation for each trait from the website:

Domain-Level Scales

Honesty-Humility: Persons with very high scores on the Honesty-Humility scale avoid manipulating others for personal gain, feel little temptation to break rules, are uninterested in lavish wealth and luxuries, and feel no special entitlement to elevated social status. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale will flatter others to get what they want, are inclined to break rules for personal profit, are motivated by material gain, and feel a strong sense of self-importance.

Emotionality: Persons with very high scores on the Emotionality scale experience fear of physical dangers, experience anxiety in response to life's stresses, feel a need for emotional support from others, and feel empathy and sentimental attachments with others. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale are not deterred by the prospect of physical harm, feel little worry even in stressful situations, have little need to share their concerns with others, and feel emotionally detached from others.

eXtraversion: Persons with very high scores on the Extraversion scale feel positively about themselves, feel confident when leading or addressing groups of people, enjoy social gatherings and interactions, and experience positive feelings of enthusiasm and energy. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale consider themselves unpopular, feel awkward when they are the center of social attention, are indifferent to social activities, and feel less lively and optimistic than others do.

Agreeableness (versus Anger): Persons with very high scores on the Agreeableness scale forgive the wrongs that they suffered, are lenient in judging others, are willing to compromise and cooperate with others, and can easily control their temper. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale hold grudges against those who have harmed them, are rather critical of others' shortcomings, are stubborn in defending their point of view, and feel anger readily in response to mistreatment.

Conscientiousness: Persons with very high scores on the Conscientiousness scale organize their time and their physical surroundings, work in a disciplined way toward their goals, strive for accuracy and perfection in their tasks, and deliberate carefully when making decisions. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale tend to be unconcerned with orderly surroundings or schedules, avoid difficult tasks or challenging goals, are satisfied with work that contains some errors, and make decisions on impulse or with little reflection.

Openness to Experience: Persons with very high scores on the Openness to Experience scale become absorbed in the beauty of art and nature, are inquisitive about various domains of knowledge, use their imagination freely in everyday life, and take an interest in unusual ideas or people. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale are rather unimpressed by most works of art, feel little intellectual curiosity, avoid creative pursuits, and feel little attraction toward ideas that may seem radical or unconventional.


Facet-Level Scales

Honesty-Humility Domain

The Sincerity scale assesses a tendency to be genuine in interpersonal relations. Low scorers will flatter others or pretend to like them in order to obtain favors, whereas high scorers are unwilling to manipulate others.

The Fairness scale assesses a tendency to avoid fraud and corruption. Low scorers are willing to gain by cheating or stealing, whereas high scorers are unwilling to take advantage of other individuals or of society at large.

The Greed Avoidance scale assesses a tendency to be uninterested in possessing lavish wealth, luxury goods, and signs of high social status. Low scorers want to enjoy and to display wealth and privilege, whereas high scorers are not especially motivated by monetary or social-status considerations.

The Modesty scale assesses a tendency to be modest and unassuming. Low scorers consider themselves as superior and as entitled to privileges that others do not have, whereas high scorers view themselves as ordinary people without any claim to special treatment.

Emotionality Domain

The Fearfulness scale assesses a tendency to experience fear. Low scorers feel little fear of injury and are relatively tough, brave, and insensitive to physical pain, whereas high scorers are strongly inclined to avoid physical harm.

The Anxiety scale assesses a tendency to worry in a variety of contexts. Low scorers feel little stress in response to difficulties, whereas high scorers tend to become preoccupied even by relatively minor problems.

The Dependence scale assesses one's need for emotional support from others. Low scorers feel self-assured and able to deal with problems without any help or advice, whereas high scorers want to share their difficulties with those who will provide encouragement and comfort.

The Sentimentality scale assesses a tendency to feel strong emotional bonds with others. Low scorers feel little emotion when saying good-bye or in reaction to the concerns of others, whereas high scorers feel strong emotional attachments and an empathic sensitivity to the feelings of others.

Extraversion Domain

The Social Self-Esteem scale assesses a tendency to have positive self-regard, particularly in social contexts. High scorers are generally satisfied with themselves and consider themselves to have likable qualities, whereas low scorers tend to have a sense of personal worthlessness and to see themselves as unpopular.

The Social Boldness scale assesses one's comfort or confidence within a variety of social situations. Low scorers feel shy or awkward in positions of leadership or when speaking in public, whereas high scorers are willing to approach strangers and are willing to speak up within group settings.

The Sociability scale assesses a tendency to enjoy conversation, social interaction, and parties. Low scorers generally prefer solitary activities and do not seek out conversation, whereas high scorers enjoy talking, visiting, and celebrating with others.

The Liveliness scale assesses one's typical enthusiasm and energy. Low scorers tend not to feel especially cheerful or dynamic, whereas high scorers usually experience a sense of optimism and high spirits.

Agreeableness Domain

The Forgivingness scale assesses one's willingness to feel trust and liking toward those who may have caused one harm. Low scorers tend "hold a grudge" against those who have offended them, whereas high scorers are usually ready to trust others again and to re-establish friendly relations after having been treated badly.

The Gentleness scale assesses a tendency to be mild and lenient in dealings with other people. Low scorers tend to be critical in their evaluations of others, whereas high scorers are reluctant to judge others harshly.

The Flexibility scale assesses one's willingness to compromise and cooperate with others. Low scorers are seen as stubborn and are willing to argue, whereas high scorers avoid arguments and accommodate others' suggestions, even when these may be unreasonable.

The Patience scale assesses a tendency to remain calm rather than to become angry. Low scorers tend to lose their tempers quickly, whereas high scorers have a high threshold for feeling or expressing anger.

Conscientiousness Domain

The Organization scale assesses a tendency to seek order, particularly in one's physical surroundings. Low scorers tend to be sloppy and haphazard, whereas high scorers keep things tidy and prefer a structured approach to tasks.

The Diligence scale assesses a tendency to work hard. Low scorers have little self-discipline and are not strongly motivated to achieve, whereas high scorers have a strong "'work ethic" and are willing to exert themselves.

The Perfectionism scale assesses a tendency to be thorough and concerned with details. Low scorers tolerate some errors in their work and tend to neglect details, whereas high scorers check carefully for mistakes and potential improvements.

The Prudence scale assesses a tendency to deliberate carefully and to inhibit impulses. Low scorers act on impulse and tend not to consider consequences, whereas high scorers consider their options carefully and tend to be cautious and self-controlled.

Openness to Experience Domain

The Aesthetic Appreciation scale assesses one's enjoyment of beauty in art and in nature. Low scorers tend not to become absorbed in works of art or in natural wonders, whereas high scorers have a strong appreciation of various art forms and of natural wonders.

The Inquisitiveness scale assesses a tendency to seek information about, and experience with, the natural and human world. Low scorers have little curiosity about the natural or social sciences, whereas high scorers read widely and are interested in travel.

The Creativity scale assesses one's preference for innovation and experiment. Low scorers have little inclination for original thought, whereas high scorers actively seek new solutions to problems and express themselves in art.

The Unconventionality scale assesses a tendency to accept the unusual. Low scorers avoid eccentric or nonconforming persons, whereas high scorers are receptive to ideas that might seem strange or radical.
Interstitial Scale

The Altruism (versus Antagonism) scale assesses a tendency to be sympathetic and soft-hearted toward others. High scorers avoid causing harm and react with generosity toward those who are weak or in need of help, whereas low scorers are not upset by the prospect of hurting others and may be seen as hard-hearted.
Quite interesting!

Below is the my full result:

Honesty-Humility: 4.00 [Medium Score = 3.22]
Sincerity: 4.75 [Medium Score = 3.25]
Fairness: 4.00 [Medium Score = 3.38]
Greed Avoidance: 4.50 [Medium Score = 2.63]
Modesty: 2.75 [Medium Score = 3.63]
Emotionality: 3.13 [Medium Score = 3.34]
Fearfulness: 2.25 [Medium Score = 3.00]
Anxiety: 3.75 [Medium Score = 3.75]
Dependence: 3.25 [Medium Score = 3.25]
Sentimentality: 3.25 [Medium Score = 3.50]
Extraversion: 1.39 [Medium Score = 3.50]
Social Self-Esteem: 1.25 [Medium Score = 4.00]
Social Boldness: 1.25 [Medium Score = 3.13]
Sociability: 1.25 [Medium Score = 3.63]
Liveliness: 1.00 [Medium Score = 3.63]
Agreeableness: 1.69 [Medium Score = 3.00]
Forgivingness: 1.00 [Medium Score = 2.75]
Gentleness: 2.75 [Medium Score = 3.25]
Flexibility: 1.75 [Medium Score = 2.75]
Patience: 1.25 [Medium Score = 3.25]
Conscientiousness: 3.13 [Medium Score = 3.47]
Organization: 2.0 [Medium Score = 3.38]
Diligence: 4.0 [Medium Score = 3.88]
Perfectionism: 4.50 [Medium Score = 3.63]
Prudence: 2.0 [Medium Score = 3.25]
Openness to Experience: 3.69 [Medium Score = 3.31]
Aesthetic Experience: 3.75 [Medium Score = 3.25]
Inquisitiveness: 4.0 [Medium Score = 3.13]
Creativity: 3.25 [Medium Score = 3.63]
Unconventionality: 3.75 [Medium Score = 3.38]
Altruism: 4.00 [Medium Score = 3.88]
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
As for "inattentive responding", there were at least four questions that went something like: "just to check that you are paying attention respond strongly agree to this question" And each one suggested a different response; so you probably messed up on one or more of those.
 

Pashalis

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
As for "inattentive responding", there were at least four questions that went something like: "just to check that you are paying attention respond strongly agree to this question" And each one suggested a different response; so you probably messed up on one or more of those.
Most likely. I was a bit confused by those questions and thought they want to test how one would respond to "being asked to do something without knowing why, by an authority", or something like that, so I responded to a number of those differently as they were asked. For example, in the "strongly agree" question, I clicked strongly disagree instead.
 

Maat

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
I was surprised by these questions too and had a pause moment. After that, I told myself, if the time to answer is took into account, I'm bad :D
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I think those kinds of questions are there to weed out bots.
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I really enjoyed this book. In particular I enjoyed the summary given by Haidt on Jerry Muller's book Conservatism, in which he states:

Muller went through a series of claims about human nature and institutions, which he said are the core beliefs of conservatism. Conservatives believe that people are inherently imperfect and are prone to act badly when all constraints and accountability are removed (yes, I thought; see Gloucon, Tetlock, and Ariely in chapter 4). Our reasoning is flawed and prone to overconfidence, so it's dangerous to construct theories based on pure reason, unconstrained by intuition and historical experience (yes; see Hume in chapter 2 and Baron-Cohen on systemizing in chapter 6). Institutions emerge gradually as social facts, which we then respect and even sacralize, but if we strip these institutions of authority and treat them as arbitrary contrivances that exist only for out benefit, we render them less effective. We then expose ourselves to increased anomie and social disorder (yes; see Durkheim in chapters 8 and 11).
It really sheds a lot of light onto the idea of moral exoskeletons, such as that mentioned in this C session:

[quote author=September 7th 2013]
Q: (L) Alright. I think probably what our group members, at least on the FOTCM forum, would be interested in knowing is: What was the deal with {name redacted}?

A: Personality clash.

{snip}

Q: (L) Anything further than that, or deeper than that?

A: Usually a sign of those lacking a magnetic center.

Q: (L) Hmm. Is it kind of like this article I was re-reading the other day about endoskeletons versus exoskeletons where exoskeleton-type people according to this guy's theory are kind of like people who need rules on the outside because they're unable to integrate anything on the inside? {See: http://www.sott.net/article/163349-Moral-Endo-skeletons-and-Exo-skeletons-A-Perspective-on-Americas-Cultural-Divide-and-Current-Crisis }

A: Close. What is inside is so infantile it cannot see beyond the self.[/quote]

Having read Haidt's book, looking back at the cited article it is obvious there were a LOT of gaps in knowledge and understanding. For example, there's an insinuation that the conservatives lacked some understanding of psychological reality. Often people do, but it was in the context of the liberal-conservative divide. Based on the work of Haidt and other psychology researchers, we now know that it is the liberals which have a harder time seeing things the way conservatives do and not vice versa. Because conservatives utilize all the liberal foundations and more, they simply emphasize or de-emphasize certain faculties in their thinking. Liberals on the other hand either lack (or have atrophied) instincts for authority, in-group loyalty, and purity so it is much harder for them to simulate conservative moral instincts in their heads.

There's also been some suggestion that people who depend entirely on moral exoskeletons for their functioning (i.e. the opinions of others) could be more likely to be OPs since they do not demonstrate the presence of a magnetic center, or some kind of inner attractor that cultivates our actions and behavior to more fully embody a future self. According to Righteous Mind there is a lot of evidence that this exoskeleton is necessary to set up the scaffolding of the psyche as an actor within a particular world and culture. But on its own that is insufficent for the seating of a soul, if my reading of Paul is correct. To paraphrase horribly: one must obey the law, but must have the law within one's own heart. If external works were all that one needed to ascend, there would have been no need for the self to "die" metaphorically speaking.

With regard to the genetics of political preferences, Haidt stated in the final chapter that twin studies show that genetics accounts for 30 to 50 percent of the variation, which leaves a lot of room for socialization to fill in the gaps and emphasize or de-emphasize certain moral instincts based on how the culture constitutes morality. In the WEIRD (white, educated, industrial, rich, democratic) countries, there's a greater tendency toward using only 2 or 3 instincts (care, fairness, liberty), those being the foundations for hyper-rationally organized moral systems like utilitarianism or Kantian categorical imperatives.

The religion section was interesting also in that it seemed to conclude that it is beneficial to group functioning that we utilize as much of these moral instincts as we can. An absence of religion (which isn't required to be metaphysical or theological) in a group places the group at a disadvantage compared to those groups which do have a religion. My own intuition on this is that if we do not have some kind of cultural institution that can channel and utilize these moral instincts (in those more strongly predisposed to them), there will arise spontaneously certain memes that will perform that function, in a less sophisticated manner. I'm thinking of the general decline of religiosity in the west, and how this culture seems to have also within it the greatest proliferation of subcultures as well. Think of the "tribes" formed by school cliques, sports clubs, and pop culture shows, movies, music, fiction, etc. These can provide belonging to people, but to what extent does it just serve the need to feel like one belongs? Wouldn't it be Wiser to one to make efforts to belong to a group or religion that actually has a mission of some kind? Do these subcultures match traditional religious communities in terms of how much they participate in charity, parochial or otherwise?

There's so much food for thought in this book. I'm tempted to read it all over again. :)
 

Gawan

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
I think those kinds of questions are there to weed out bots.
Yes, in the end such a test most likely will be not taken for further research and sorted out since it seems the person answered all questions just randomly. Control questions so to speak.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Pashalis said:
Laura said:
As for "inattentive responding", there were at least four questions that went something like: "just to check that you are paying attention respond strongly agree to this question" And each one suggested a different response; so you probably messed up on one or more of those.
Most likely. I was a bit confused by those questions and thought they want to test how one would respond to "being asked to do something without knowing why, by an authority", or something like that, so I responded to a number of those differently as they were asked. For example, in the "strongly agree" question, I clicked strongly disagree instead.
There was no need to be confused, only a need to draw a correct inference about the question and the possible reason for it. In short, it reveals that you are running significant thinking errors.
 
Top Bottom