Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Politics, Odors and Soap

"Conservatives may not like liberals, but they seem to understand them. In contrast, many liberals find conservative voters not just wrong but also bewildering.

One academic study asked 2,000 Americans to fill out questionnaires about moral questions. In some cases, they were asked to fill them out as they thought a “typical liberal” or a “typical conservative” would respond.

Moderates and conservatives were adept at guessing how liberals would answer questions. Liberals, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal,” were least able to put themselves in the minds of their adversaries and guess how conservatives would answer.

Now a fascinating new book comes along that, to a liberal like myself, helps demystify the right — and illuminates the kind of messaging that might connect with voters of all stripes. “The Righteous Mind,” by Jonathan Haidt, a University of Virginia psychology professor, argues that, for liberals, morality is largely a matter of three values: caring for the weak, fairness and liberty. Conservatives share those concerns (although they think of fairness and liberty differently) and add three others: loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity.

Those latter values bind groups together with a shared respect for symbols and institutions such as the flag or the military. They are a reminder that human moral judgments are often about far more than just helping others. Some of Haidt’s most interesting material is his examination of taboos.

http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/ar ... pub601.pdf

http://righteousmind.com/

Baldy wrote:Politics, Odors and Soap

"Conservatives may not like liberals, but they seem to understand them. In contrast, many liberals find conservative voters not just wrong but also bewildering.

One academic study asked 2,000 Americans to fill out questionnaires about moral questions. In some cases, they were asked to fill them out as they thought a “typical liberal” or a “typical conservative” would respond.

Moderates and conservatives were adept at guessing how liberals would answer questions. Liberals, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal,” were least able to put themselves in the minds of their adversaries and guess how conservatives would answer.

Now a fascinating new book comes along that, to a liberal like myself, helps demystify the right — and illuminates the kind of messaging that might connect with voters of all stripes. “The Righteous Mind,” by Jonathan Haidt, a University of Virginia psychology professor, argues that, for liberals, morality is largely a matter of three values: caring for the weak, fairness and liberty. Conservatives share those concerns (although they think of fairness and liberty differently) and add three others: loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity.

Those latter values bind groups together with a shared respect for symbols and institutions such as the flag or the military. They are a reminder that human moral judgments are often about far more than just helping others. Some of Haidt’s most interesting material is his examination of taboos.

http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/ar ... pub601.pdf

http://righteousmind.com/

Please define sanctity and authority.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote:Politics, Odors and Soap

"Conservatives may not like liberals, but they seem to understand them. In contrast, many liberals find conservative voters not just wrong but also bewildering.

One academic study asked 2,000 Americans to fill out questionnaires about moral questions. In some cases, they were asked to fill them out as they thought a “typical liberal” or a “typical conservative” would respond.

Moderates and conservatives were adept at guessing how liberals would answer questions. Liberals, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal,” were least able to put themselves in the minds of their adversaries and guess how conservatives would answer.

Now a fascinating new book comes along that, to a liberal like myself, helps demystify the right — and illuminates the kind of messaging that might connect with voters of all stripes. “The Righteous Mind,” by Jonathan Haidt, a University of Virginia psychology professor, argues that, for liberals, morality is largely a matter of three values: caring for the weak, fairness and liberty. Conservatives share those concerns (although they think of fairness and liberty differently) and add three others: loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity.

Those latter values bind groups together with a shared respect for symbols and institutions such as the flag or the military. They are a reminder that human moral judgments are often about far more than just helping others. Some of Haidt’s most interesting material is his examination of taboos.

http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/ar ... pub601.pdf

http://righteousmind.com/

Please define sanctity and authority.

Liberal

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote:Politics, Odors and Soap

"Conservatives may not like liberals, but they seem to understand them. In contrast, many liberals find conservative voters not just wrong but also bewildering.

One academic study asked 2,000 Americans to fill out questionnaires about moral questions. In some cases, they were asked to fill them out as they thought a “typical liberal” or a “typical conservative” would respond.

Moderates and conservatives were adept at guessing how liberals would answer questions. Liberals, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal,” were least able to put themselves in the minds of their adversaries and guess how conservatives would answer.

Now a fascinating new book comes along that, to a liberal like myself, helps demystify the right — and illuminates the kind of messaging that might connect with voters of all stripes. “The Righteous Mind,” by Jonathan Haidt, a University of Virginia psychology professor, argues that, for liberals, morality is largely a matter of three values: caring for the weak, fairness and liberty. Conservatives share those concerns (although they think of fairness and liberty differently)
and add three others: loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity.

Those latter values bind groups together with a shared respect for symbols and institutions such as the flag or the military. They are a reminder that human moral judgments are often about far more than just helping others. Some of Haidt’s most interesting material is his examination of taboos.


http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/ar ... pub601.pdf
http://righteousmind.com/

Please define sanctity and authority.

It's all in the Haidt report. Very illuminating read.

Kalm has but two rules.

1) Don't be a dick.

2) When you are a dick, own it.

Conks, always trying make more rules than are necessary.

kalm wrote:Kalm has but two rules.

1) Don't be a dick.

2) When you are a dick, own it.

Conks, always trying make more rules than are necessary.

Ain't that the truth!

Less government my *ss.

kalm wrote:Kalm has but two rules.

1) Don't be a dick.

2) When you are a dick, own it.

Conks, always trying make more rules than are necessary.

Oh, you must be talking about Dodd-Frank .... wait, those guys aren't conks.

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:Kalm has but two rules.

1) Don't be a dick.

2) When you are a dick, own it.

Conks, always trying make more rules than are necessary.

Oh, you must be talking about Dodd-Frank .... wait, those guys aren't conks.

He might be talking about the EPA Farm Dust Regulations, or the NLRB - Boeing complaint, but then again they aren't conks either...

Baldy wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Oh, you must be talking about Dodd-Frank .... wait, those guys aren't conks.

He might be talking about the EPA Farm Dust Regulations, or the NLRB - Boeing complaint, but then again they aren't conks either...

I was speaking morally, not legislatively.

A number of questions come to mind:

Are Haidt and the Harvard project attempting to elevate one or the other "type" of mind based upon the magnitude of their morality?

Are they implying the "side" with greater morality is more fit to govern? Their policies more sound?

Fascinating read, though Haidt's a little too progressive for my taste. He's trying to close the divide by singing kumbaya, and (IMHO) it's that divide which makes us wiser and stronger: Debate is good.

Liberals appear to be mad at Haidt because he "used to be one of them" until he completed his study. Now he's a radical centrist, like our kalmunist.

Ivytalk wrote:Liberals appear to be mad at Haidt because he "used to be one of them" until he completed his study. Now he's a radical centrist, like our kalmunist.

So would like me to speak to Haidt's research or to the thread title?

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Liberals appear to be mad at Haidt because he "used to be one of them" until he completed his study. Now he's a radical centrist, like our kalmunist.

So would like me to speak to Haidt's research or to the thread title?

One in the same.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Liberals appear to be mad at Haidt because he "used to be one of them" until he completed his study. Now he's a radical centrist, like our kalmunist.

So would like me to speak to Haidt's research or to the thread title?

Whatever you prefer.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
So would like me to speak to Haidt's research or to the thread title?

Whatever you prefer.

I like radical centrists and if truth be told, I don't base my opinions on other people's morality on their politics as both sides have their flaws, stereotypes, and prejudices.

See Baldy's above post.

This board has been far too civil this week.

Where's that skank-ass ho' D1B?

Ivytalk wrote:This board has been far too civil this week.

Where's that skank-ass ho' D1B?

Fuck off.............dick.

:

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:This board has been far too civil this week.

Where's that skank-ass ho' D1B?

**** off.............dick.

Ivytalk wrote:This board has been far too civil this week.

Where's that skank-ass ho' D1B?

...I scared him off.

Baldy wrote:Politics, Odors and Soap

"Conservatives may not like liberals, but they seem to understand them. In contrast, many liberals find conservative voters not just wrong but also bewildering.

One academic study asked 2,000 Americans to fill out questionnaires about moral questions. In some cases, they were asked to fill them out as they thought a “typical liberal” or a “typical conservative” would respond.

Moderates and conservatives were adept at guessing how liberals would answer questions. Liberals, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal,” were least able to put themselves in the minds of their adversaries and guess how conservatives would answer.

Now a fascinating new book comes along that, to a liberal like myself, helps demystify the right — and illuminates the kind of messaging that might connect with voters of all stripes. “The Righteous Mind,” by Jonathan Haidt, a University of Virginia psychology professor, argues that, for liberals, morality is largely a matter of three values: caring for the weak, fairness and liberty. Conservatives share those concerns (although they think of fairness and liberty differently) and add three others: loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity.

Those latter values bind groups together with a shared respect for symbols and institutions such as the flag or the military. They are a reminder that human moral judgments are often about far more than just helping others. Some of Haidt’s most interesting material is his examination of taboos.

http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/ar ... pub601.pdf

http://righteousmind.com/

holy shit I'm a conservative

DSUrocks07 wrote:

Baldy wrote:Politics, Odors and Soap

"Conservatives may not like liberals, but they seem to understand them. In contrast, many liberals find conservative voters not just wrong but also bewildering.

One academic study asked 2,000 Americans to fill out questionnaires about moral questions. In some cases, they were asked to fill them out as they thought a “typical liberal” or a “typical conservative” would respond.

Moderates and conservatives were adept at guessing how liberals would answer questions. Liberals, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal,” were least able to put themselves in the minds of their adversaries and guess how conservatives would answer.

Now a fascinating new book comes along that, to a liberal like myself, helps demystify the right — and illuminates the kind of messaging that might connect with voters of all stripes. “The Righteous Mind,” by Jonathan Haidt, a University of Virginia psychology professor, argues that, for liberals, morality is largely a matter of three values: caring for the
weak, fairness and liberty. Conservatives share those concerns (although they think of fairness and liberty differently) and add three others: loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity.

Those latter values bind groups together with a shared respect for symbols and institutions such as the flag or the military. They are a reminder that human moral judgments are often about far more than just helping others. Some of Haidt’s most interesting material is his examination of taboos.
http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/ar ... pub601.pdf

http://righteousmind.com/

holy **** I'm a conservative

glad to have you aboard!

Ivytalk wrote:It's all in the Haidt report. Very illuminating read.

Until it's published in Rolling Stone or Salon, don't expect him to read it.

89Hen wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:It's all in the Haidt report. Very illuminating read.

Until it's published in Rolling Stone or Salon, don't expect him to read it.

Ivytalk wrote:This board has been far too civil this week.

Where's that skank-ass ho' D1B?

Banging your mother in the confessional at St. Patricks.

travelinman67 wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:This board has been far too civil this week.

Where's that skank-ass ho' D1B?

...I scared him off.

Please.