Are the left wing less tolerant of the views of others?

[anonymous-user]

longblackcoat said:

JMGS4 said:

they just shout and scream and/or cast aspersions if you don't happen to agree with their mostly odious views.

Some might say that there's a district display of precisely that behaviour on this very thread.

Exactly.

That actually describes the news politics and economics forum perfectly.

[turbobloke]

el stovey said:

longblackcoat said:

JMGS4 said:

they just shout and scream and/or cast aspersions if you don't happen to agree with their mostly odious views.

Some might say that there's a district display of precisely that behaviour on this very thread.

Exactly.

That actually describes the news politics and economics forum perfectly.

Not so, but from a position believing it to be so and by the same token, those comments also demonstrate a degree of intolerance by the left of the views expressed in this very thread

The views expressed on most threads by most people aren't odious, that's obviously a bito'banter rather than intolerance but tolerance should prevail anyway.

The odious comments refer more aptly to the bile that lefties spout on social media and in their criminal damage slogans.

[smn159]

This study seems to suggest that it's those with conservative views who are less tolerant

http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.p...

In 'The Moral Landscape',

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Moral-Landscape-Sam-Ha...

Sam Harris said:

The psychologist John Jost and his colleagues analysed data from 12 countries acquired from 23,000 subjects, and found a politically conservative attitude to be corelated with dogmatism, inflexibility, death anxiety, need for closure, and anticorrelated with openness to experience, cognitive complexity, self-esteem and social stability.

Any studies backing up the premise of the OP?

[dudleybloke]

Everything is the fault of whitey.

http://www.therebel.media/portland_community_colle...

[JMGS4]

dudleybloke said:

Everything is the fault of whitey.

http://www.therebel.media/portland_community_colle...

What a load of commie Scheiße....

[XM5ER]

smn159 said:

This study seems to suggest that it's those with conservative views who are less tolerant

http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.p...

Sam Harris said:

The psychologist John Jost and his colleagues analysed data from 12 countries acquired from 23,000 subjects, and found a politically conservative attitude to be corelated with dogmatism, inflexibility, death anxiety, need for closure, and anticorrelated with openness to experience, cognitive complexity, self-esteem and social stability.

Any studies backing up the premise of the OP?

Probably not. What do you think the chances are of getting funding for such a study?

That is an interesting study that I am going to read in greater depth at my leisure. A couple of comments; its old, a week in politics is a long time 15 years is forever.
Secondly, it's a meta analysis, in other words it is not a single study examining 23000 people as is implied by the quote from Sam Harris (that fact alone makes you wonder if Sam had an agenda in putting his book together or if he actually understood that fact). The papers in the analysis range from as early as the 1950s through to 2001, the majority coming from the early 1970s and mid 1990s. Again, times change.
The other issue with it is the assumption that right (or indeed the left) is a homogeneous group of people who all have the same views. Personally I find quite a lot of the views of people on the conservative religious right (US centric Breitbart country) equally abhorrent as the Corbynista militant left.

[BigMon]

I find it amusing, particularly relating to the thread title how this thread and the Corbyn thread are packed full of 'the right' slating lefties.

In reality both the far-left and far-right and as odious as one another. The vast majority of people, primarily those who aren't hard of thinking, will occupy the middle ground.

I grew up in Sheffield in the 70s and 80s which was about as Labour as it can get (and suffered mightily under a Tory government) and have now lived in South Devon for almost 20 years (which is about as Tory as it can get).

As a consequence of all this I don't think I particularly lean left or right. The local MP I vote for has always been the one who I think will work the hardest for the local area regardless of 'colours'.

[Tuna]

smn159 said:

This study seems to suggest that it's those with conservative views who are less tolerant

http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.p...

In 'The Moral Landscape',

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Moral-Landscape-Sam-Ha...

Sam Harris said:

The psychologist John Jost and his colleagues analysed data from 12 countries acquired from 23,000 subjects, and found a politically conservative attitude to be corelated with dogmatism, inflexibility, death anxiety, need for closure, and anticorrelated with openness to experience, cognitive complexity, self-esteem and social stability.

Any studies backing up the premise of the OP?

I think their definition of conservative (small c) is different from ours, particularly for that study.

There was a study recently that showed that whilst left wing voters were more likely to call for tolerance when it came to homosexuality, they were much less likely to 'accept' it in members of their own family. Right wing voters were more likely to accept a member of their family coming out as gay.

The weird thing is that a left wing viewpoint is more often seen as a moral choice (being fair, supporting the weak and so on), and a right wing viewpoint as more self-serving (one rule for the rich). With that bias, left wing voters feel they have a moral high ground when it comes to open discussion.

[smn159]

XM5ER said:

Probably not. What do you think the chances are of getting funding for such a study?

That is an interesting study that I am going to read in greater depth at my leisure. A couple of comments; its old, a week in politics is a long time 15 years is forever.
Secondly, it's a meta analysis, in other words it is not a single study examining 23000 people as is implied by the quote from Sam Harris (that fact alone makes you wonder if Sam had an agenda in putting his book together or if he actually understood that fact). The papers in the analysis range from as early as the 1950s through to 2001, the majority coming from the early 1970s and mid 1990s. Again, times change.
The other issue with it is the assumption that right (or indeed the left) is a homogeneous group of people who all have the same views. Personally I find quite a lot of the views of people on the conservative religious right (US centric Breitbart country) equally abhorrent as the Corbynista militant left.

A bit OT but the Sam Harris book is worth a read as well. He's making the case that morality should be defined in terms of how it affects general well being, and that there is therefore an absolute answer to whether any act is moral or not - i.e. moral relativism is false. If you accept his premise, then there is a single, 'correct' (or most desirable) set of universal moral values, even if we haven't yet established what they are, that don't vary by culture or religion.

[smn159]

Tuna said:

I think their definition of conservative (small c) is different from ours, particularly for that study.

There was a study recently that showed that whilst left wing voters were more likely to call for tolerance when it came to homosexuality, they were much less likely to 'accept' it in members of their own family. Right wing voters were more likely to accept a member of their family coming out as gay.

The weird thing is that a left wing viewpoint is more often seen as a moral choice (being fair, supporting the weak and so on), and a right wing viewpoint as more self-serving (one rule for the rich). With that bias, left wing voters feel they have a moral high ground when it comes to open discussion.

There was also a study (in the US I think) suggesting that white liberal voters would be marginally more likely to sacrifice a white man if it meant saving 100 others than they would a black man in similar circumstances.

It's a complex subject, but it generates a lot of knee-jerk 'in group' type responses.

[Tuna]

smn159 said:

A bit OT but the Sam Harris book is worth a read as well. He's making the case that morality should be defined in terms of how it affects general well being, and that there is therefore an absolute answer to whether any act is moral or not - i.e. moral relativism is false. If you accept his premise, then there is a single, 'correct' (or most desirable) set of universal moral values, even if we haven't yet established what they are, that don't vary by culture or religion.

I think the outcome of such ideas is not as positive as you might think. In absolute terms, killing a terrorist before they can kill a thousand people is morally correct. But you can't know before the event with absolute certainty who is and isn't a terrorist - so even with an absolute moral code, you get into territory of asking whether killing someone on the grounds they *may* be a terrorist is moral.

Similarly with left and right wing economics - both sides want to raise the living standards of the general population. One side believes that small number of extremely wealthy people reduces the wealth available for a large number of extremely poor people. The other believes that those rich people become wealthy largely as a result of increasing the value available to the general population - so increasing everyone's wealth. The argument here isn't about the moral absolute (should people have a better quality of life), but the best way to achieve it.

I don't believe any 'normal' left or right wing voter wants to be intolerant to others. There are very different approaches to achieving tolerance though. You can ban all offensive and intolerant behaviour, or you can encourage free speech and open discussion of difficult subjects. That depends on whether you think that the general population can learn and make up their own minds, or wether they need to be led and controlled. Again, it's not the moral outcome, but the means to achieve it.

Edited by Tuna on Tuesday 26th January 16:46

[FredClogs]

smn159 said:

Tuna said:

I think their definition of conservative (small c) is different from ours, particularly for that study.

There was a study recently that showed that whilst left wing voters were more likely to call for tolerance when it came to homosexuality, they were much less likely to 'accept' it in members of their own family. Right wing voters were more likely to accept a member of their family coming out as gay.

The weird thing is that a left wing viewpoint is more often seen as a moral choice (being fair, supporting the weak and so on), and a right wing viewpoint as more self-serving (one rule for the rich). With that bias, left wing voters feel they have a moral high ground when it comes to open discussion.

There was also a study (in the US I think) suggesting that white liberal voters would be marginally more likely to sacrifice a white man if it meant saving 100 others than they would a black man in similar circumstances.

It's a complex subject, but it generates a lot of knee-jerk 'in group' type responses.

I've just done a survey which concluded that all Tory voters are s, there were only two respondents in the survey, one of which was me, but it's science never the less.

With respect to the last unquoted "survey" it sounds like it was probably part of some modified "trolley problem" practical philosophy/ethics research and at this point in "trolley problem" practical philosophical/ethical research you can use "trolley problem" questionnaires to pretty much prove any social/ethical/moral or cognitive philosophical point, it's the most questionnaire'd set of questions in academia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#Over...

[smn159]

FredClogs said:

With respect to the last unquoted "survey" it sounds like it was probably part of some modified "trolley problem" practical philosophy/ethics research and at this point in "trolley problem" practical philosophical/ethical research you can use "trolley problem" questionnaires to pretty much prove any social/ethical/moral or cognitive philosophical point, it's the most questionnaire'd set of questions in academia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#Over...

There you go;

http://journal.sjdm.org/9616/jdm9616.pdf

abstract said:

Five studies demonstrated that people selectively use general moral principles to rationalize preferred moral conclusions.

In Studies 1a and 1b, college students and community respondents were presented with variations on a traditional
moral scenario that asked whether it was permissible to sacrifice one innocent man in order to save a greater number
of people. Political liberals, but not relatively more conservative participants, were more likely to endorse consequentialism when the victim had a stereotypically White American name than when the victim had a stereotypically Black
American name.

Study 2 found evidence suggesting participants believe that the moral principles they are endorsing are
general in nature: when presented sequentially with both versions of the scenario, liberals again showed a bias in their
judgments to the initial scenario, but demonstrated consistency thereafter.

Study 3 found conservatives were more likely
to endorse the unintended killing of innocent civilians when Iraqis civilians were killed than when Americans civilians
were killed, while liberals showed no significant effect.

In Study 4, participants primed with patriotism were more likely
to endorse consequentialism when Iraqi civilians were killed by American forces than were participants primed with
multiculturalism. However, this was not the case when American civilians were killed by Iraqi forces. Implications for
the role of reason in moral judgment are discussed

[FredClogs]

smn159 said:

FredClogs said:

With respect to the last unquoted "survey" it sounds like it was probably part of some modified "trolley problem" practical philosophy/ethics research and at this point in "trolley problem" practical philosophical/ethical research you can use "trolley problem" questionnaires to pretty much prove any social/ethical/moral or cognitive philosophical point, it's the most questionnaire'd set of questions in academia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#Over...

There you go;

http://journal.sjdm.org/9616/jdm9616.pdf

abstract said:

Five studies demonstrated that people selectively use general moral principles to rationalize preferred moral conclusions.

In Studies 1a and 1b, college students and community respondents were presented with variations on a traditional
moral scenario that asked whether it was permissible to sacrifice one innocent man in order to save a greater number
of people. Political liberals, but not relatively more conservative participants, were more likely to endorse consequentialism when the victim had a stereotypically White American name than when the victim had a stereotypically Black
American name.

Study 2 found evidence suggesting participants believe that the moral principles they are endorsing are
general in nature: when presented sequentially with both versions of the scenario, liberals again showed a bias in their
judgments to the initial scenario, but demonstrated consistency thereafter.

Study 3 found conservatives were more likely
to endorse the unintended killing of innocent civilians when Iraqis civilians were killed than when Americans civilians
were killed, while liberals showed no significant effect.

In Study 4, participants primed with patriotism were more likely
to endorse consequentialism when Iraqi civilians were killed by American forces than were participants primed with
multiculturalism. However, this was not the case when American civilians were killed by Iraqi forces. Implications for
the role of reason in moral judgment are discussed

I will read that later, because it's the sort of thing I find interesting, but in ethical research the trolley problem is such a trope - because whilst it's good at defining peoples ideals it neither really ever concludes on peoples actual actions or their reasoning for such actions, you'd have to look very closely at individuals argumentation and reasoning to gather any real knowledge of the cognitive reasoning that goes into these results and even then there's very little evidence that the answers given would reflect on what they would actually do in the circumstance. The trolley problem only really satisfies me when applied to children as a base description of humans ethical instinct, because adults are generally conditioned by social and other aspects to give answers and reasoning that "maybe" isn't accurate to what they would do in the real event.

That said, the suggestion that liberals are more consistent in their responses and also protective of what could be argued to be the more vulnerable in society is hardly surprising.

[XM5ER]

smn159 said:

A bit OT but the Sam Harris book is worth a read as well. He's making the case that morality should be defined in terms of how it affects general well being, and that there is therefore an absolute answer to whether any act is moral or not - i.e. moral relativism is false. If you accept his premise, then there is a single, 'correct' (or most desirable) set of universal moral values, even if we haven't yet established what they are, that don't vary by culture or religion.

Not sure I can fully accept the premise but it's worth a read by the sounds of it.

[XM5ER]

Tuna said:

Similarly with left and right wing economics - both sides want to raise the living standards of the general population. One side believes that small number of extremely wealthy people reduces the wealth available for a large number of extremely poor people. The other believes that those rich people become wealthy largely as a result of increasing the value available to the general population - so increasing everyone's wealth. The argument here isn't about the moral absolute (should people have a better quality of life), but the best way to achieve it.

Therein you have encapsulated the whole right/left problem in a nutshell. The problem is that the left have managed to spread the lie that capitalism and fascism sit in the same camp, they don't. It's a premise that most of us bought whilst growing up and sadly its a premise that has polluted political thinking for a hundred years (or more). True anarchists and capitalists have more in common than capitalists have with fascists.

[Tuna]

FredClogs said:

I've just done a survey which concluded that all Tory voters are s, there were only two respondents in the survey, one of which was me, but it's science never the less.

No. No, it's not science.

Another minor issue in these sorts of debates is the confusion between anecdote and genuine data, and the difficulty most people have in separating their personal experiences from those of the general population.

But you knew that, didn't you?

[irocfan]

there is an thought that occurred to me - while many of us mustered ambivalence, at worst, upon hearing about the demise of Healey (or indeed will do when Scargill goes) when Maggie T died there were virtually street parties and again with Parkinson there is joy that someone has died. I just don't see this happening with the 'nasty right' - though I'm happy to be put right!

[smn159]

irocfan said:

there is an thought that occurred to me - while many of us mustered ambivalence, at worst, upon hearing about the demise of Healey (or indeed will do when Scargill goes) when Maggie T died there were virtually street parties and again with Parkinson there is joy that someone has died. I just don't see this happening with the 'nasty right' - though I'm happy to be put right!

Where is this joy that Parkinson has died?

[Tuna]

smn159 said:

Where is this joy that Parkinson has died?

From the PH thread: "More Tory filth who got a Lordship as a sop purely because he knew more dirty secrets about them than they did about him."

or "He's the archetypal slime-laden reptilian. He's a prime candidate for purgaTory. Hopefully. "

or "Hope he burns in the pits of fire and damnation. He couldn't when he was alive as his party shut down the mines"