Conservative and liberal morality. Is there a biological basis? If so, then how could RRS succeed?
Offline I recently listened to this interesting lecture:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
Dr. Haidt explains how our moral and political affiliations may have a biological basis. Given that those of a conservative disposition crave order, hierarchy, authority and maintaing the status quo then there is a stronger likelihood that those folks will be drawn towards religion or any dogmatic ideology. So here's the dilemma. Short of any genetic manipulation of the masses, RRS, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris don't offer any concrete solutions to such hardwiring which can lead to authoritarian, theocratic behavior.
Folks often cite societies like Sweden or even Canada as success stories of overcoming dogmatic conservative tendencies. Is it possible that those with hardwired liberal affiliations historically have migrated to these regions, became the majority and thus shaped those cultures? Mind you in the United States, the majority of people who originally migrated there were conservative and relgious and faced persecution in their countries of origin.
Thus, if Haidt is correct, I see no long term secular changes in societies in which there is a significant population of individuals who are socially conservative who ultimately are the most religious.
- Login to post comments
Given that those of a conservative disposition crave order, hierarchy, authority and maintaing the status quo
As a Brit I consider myself reasoanbly moderate (which is communist by American standards) and I actually like order, hierachy and authority (don't like the status quo bit as change is a must but it must be slow careful change, evolution not revolution), so I don't actually get what the article means as its make an initial assumption which I simply don't agree with that only conservatives like hierachy etc.
I don't like religion because it is based on bullshit , its leaders have no useful qualities that benefit anyone
Which "order, hierarchy and authority" do you like? Mind you I'm not talking in the least about scientific authority which is always subject to change and fits in with a more liberal mindset. I'm referring to traditions and values. I'm talking about the person who has ritualistic behaviors that range from prayer on Sunday to eating at an Appleby's restaurant (a common diniing venue for most Americans) every Saturday with the family. I bet you don't fit into this mold.
The very fact that you are a member of RRS points out that you do question authority and the status quo. And that you are willing to accept change given that you most likely agree with science. You may not see it but you are most likely socially liberal and would have problems with conservatives.
It is an interesting concept. And also a worrying one. If it is true then we ought to accept it and maybe weep a little bit. I would say though that Britain used to be a conservative monarchical theocracy, like most of Europe. But it has over the last 300 years and mostly in the last 50 years become a liberal nation without a great deal of changes to the genetic make up of the people (ethnic minorities still only make up 7% of the population, although I never realised it was that low having been raised in one of the major cities where it's more like 30%). Americans are predominantly of European descent particularly English, Irish, Scotish and Spanish.
I think that it is more of a memetic phenomenon than a genetic phenomenon although both may be involved. America is a large country with a very spread out population. It is typically conservative values which hold small communities together, any free thinking individual is naturally seen as a threat, and so will often become pressured into silence. In the cities however ideas are more likely to flourish. The impression I get of Austin TX (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that it is a vibrant liberal city in the middle of the vast cultural graveyard that is known as Texas. The same applies to the UK, with the exception of the commuter towns/villages, or towns/villages which have been taken over by "city folk" after a quieter life. Many small villages, especially those with an older population are still centred on the church, will have people who see the Queen as being of greater importance than Parliament. Just as genetic evolution depends upon environmental conditions, so too does memetic evolution, but the environments are political, social and economic.
I didn't get to read the talk, I clicked on your url and it came up with the TED website telling me the page didn't exist. Was there any genetic evidence presented?
Atheist Books
Here's the lecture on Richard Dawkins website:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3132,The-real-difference-between-liberals-and-conservatives,Jonathan-Haidt-TED
I think there is a vast difference between the small town "conservative" living in a village in Wales compared to people living in a small town in Alabama or Arkansas. The folks living in villages In Britain accept universal healthcare and taxation. They are more likely to accept change than a farmer raised in the Bible belt.
Tolkien is emblematic of the folks you describe. Even though he was "conservative" his stories reflect IMO a liberal sentiment that is fairly widespread among Brits. Contrary to criticisms that Tolkien was a staunch Christian who yearned for the days of a ruling monarchy, the characters in his stories (eg. Bilbo, Frodo) reflected a pragmatic liberal working class mindset who are willing to accept change in the face of adversity. Look how Sauron and his armada in Mordor were defeated. The people of the Shire did not want an extreme right wing leader to go and bomb Baradur. Instead a humble open minded hobbit befriended the deranged back-stabbing ring obsessed Gollum without whom Sauron would have never been defeated. There are countless liberal elements in Lord of the Rings and other Tolkien stories which reflect the small town attitudes among the rural Brits. I think those folks are liberal and not conservative in the context that I am describing.
I see some major cognitive dissonance here. At the same time conservatives frame themselves as self-reliant, rugged individualists. And the capitalism they embrace has a strong tendency to disrupt social patterns and "moral" standards on a regular basis. Yet you wonder why they complain about the fact that successful businesses, playing by conservatives' free-market rules, often produce results they don't care for.
For example, consider conservatives' disdain for "elite Hollywood liberals." How did these liberal entertainers make their money? Through their entrepreneurship, just like conservatives who make millions of dollars running car dealerships and such. Actors, directors, screen writers and producers offer their services on the entertainment market, and millions of voluntary transactions later they often wind up with respectable fortunes.
Yes, there appears to be contempt, if not outright scorn, for Hollywood liberals. I have to think this is due, at least in part, to the fact that Hollywood provides a gigantic platform or stage on which these people get to deliver their addresses from. This would give them an advantage in communication with a generally captive or at least receptive audience who has come to know and respect them.
That's not to imply that liberals completely own but rather that they merely seem to hold a controlling interest/majority in Hollywood. Nor is that to say the big company CEO's or the conservative car dealerships don't have a "fan base", but generally those such positioned conservatives are not in the limelight nearly as often. Unless of course, they've done something terribly wrong.
Actors, news people, media in general by its very nature come into contact with a wide range of people as they are often required to 'be' these people at least temporarily. This means they are least occassionaly going to be aware of those who are different from them. This probably means they are open to new ideas and that life is highly variable (my defintiion of a liberal (British version anyway)
Conservative people simply don't, they have their own groups which rarely mix, they don't like those who are different from them etc
Genetics might make a characteristic like authoritarianism more likely but it isn't enough to determine it.
Besides, if a kid with authoritarian tendencies grows up in an environment where their authorities encourage them to develop a different approach to thinking...
Agreed. No one human (personality) trait can be put down to genetics only, any more than it can be put down only to social conditioning.
Genes and upbringing always play together to form a personality. It's not genes making some parts of the personality and upbringing/social conditioning making other parts. It's always both.
You can raise a child to believe that sexuality is wrong no matter what, and that staying celebate forever is the only way to go (conditioning), but most of them will still have their sexual urges (genetic) win out in the end, when they become teenagers. They'll just be ashamed about it but they'll still do it (point in case, teen pregnancy and std's still flurish in abstinance only states).
And similarly, imagine that you can have a genetic disposition to alcoholism (this is highly dubious as I have understood the science, but entertain the thought, just as an example.) If you live in a culture in which alcohol quite simply is not available, how can you ever become an alcoholic, regardless of how predisposed you are?
So, I think political ideals have much more to do with your social conditioning than with genes, but even so, some things will be influenced by genetic disposition. Just not dictated by it.
For one, teenagers tend to be fairly anti-athoritarian by nature, because our genes make us rebel against our parents in that time, for natural reasons (so that we can shape our own self-image, and become independent adults, ready to have offspring of our own), and this is reflected in that many teenagers and twenty-somethings are anti-athoritarian in their political views.
But there are also conservative teenagers. They just tend to by found in areas were everyone else is conservative, and I'm sure they'll still have a streak of anti-athoritarianism about them.
*Edit*: A bumb in the hopes that Hamby discovers this, and maybe will throw in his knowledge on the subject. Don't know if editing bumbs though
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
I started to say that edits don't bump, but then... this was at the top of the recent posts, so.... maybe it bumps on the last post. I dunno. Will have to play around with that and see.
Anyway, you're exactly right. There is no such thing as an "authoritarian gene." However, we can see aspects of an authoritarian personality that are clearly the result of genetics, as in the case of children who demonstrate such tendencies at very young ages. It appears that, like many psychological descriptors such as neuroticism, antisocial tendencies, chronic depression, etc, authoritarianism does have a basis in the genes. I'm not aware of any direct evidence of this, but it seems all but certain based on the current understanding of how personality forms.
There's something I say from time to time -- I think it's an original -- to explain how genetics vs environment work. People's personalities don't change. The expression of their personality changes according to the environment. Take for example a friend of mine who, at the age of 17, admitted himself into narcotics anonymous because he was addicted to everything. (At least every drug you can think of.) He quit all illegal and prescription drugs cold turkey and started smoking three packs of cigarrettes every day. After a few years, he quit smoking cold turkey and went to school, getting a double major in three years in two of the hardest subjects available -- one of which, guitar performance, required him to take 30 hours of classes a week and practice 30 hours. You figure out where he made time for the other degree. I don't know. Anyway, after that, he decided music wasn't his thing, so he got a law degree. When he discovered that lawyers need to play golf, he spent six months practicing and became a scratch golfer. Now, he's a militant vegan, has two children that he has committed himself completely to raising, and has turned into SUPERDAD.
You see what I mean? His personality hasn't changed a bit, but over the years, his environment has changed, and he's made use of his compulsive nature towards constructive ends. This is the way personalities work. They're templates. The environment shapes them to either productive or counterproductive ends. We are given a set of baselines which include many possible expressions, but we can see in babies that some tendencies are pronounced. Parents aren't kidding when they say, "Little Joey is such a calm baby!" Even in infants, we can see the beginnings of things like what we used to call "Type A personalities," and other such general traits. These tend very strongly to hold throughout life. If you've ever known someone that was totally unflappable, you realize that they will never "turn into" a type A person. They may be able to function in a Type A environment, but they're doing it through the filter of their own tendency towards being laid back.
Right. Some things are near impossible to overcome. Reproduction is one of the biggest hurdles for those wishing to "overcome nature." Speaking of abstinency only states, it's instructive to note that the number of sex partners, frequency of sex, and limits of sexual experimentation hardly differ between abstinence only and comprehensively taught teens. (If anything, those who are taught comprehensive programs are less promiscuous than those taught abstinence.) All that differs is their attitudes towards them and the formation of their adult attitudes. In other words, theist teens who experiment with sexuality tend to grow up into prudes who tell their children not to experiment with sexuality. Atheist teens who experiment with sexuality tend to grow up into adults who still like to experiment with sexuality and encourage their children to do so within safe limits. (I'm saying this somewhat as conjecture, but my "meta-conclusion" seems well founded, if not definitively proven.) {EDIT: I should add that the use of contraception is also substantially higher in comprehensively taught teens. My point, however, was that sexual experimentation isn't stopped by teaching, only the attitudes towards it, and therefore, the level of responsibility while doing it.}
Exactly. First, let me stress this as vehemently as possible. Alcoholism is not a disease. Let me say that again. Alcoholism is not a disease. It's a behavior pattern. Behavior patterns can be based in genetics, but they cannot be so target specific. In other words, it's ludicrous to suggest that humans have a genetic predisposition to eat oranges. They don't. They have a genetic predisposition to eat any nutritious fruit with a relatively high sugar and water content.
Alcohol does have addictive properties, and it is possible to suffer withdrawal after sustained high levels of use. This makes it a potentially addictive substance, not a disease. The consumption of alcohol is the manifestation of a tendency towards a behavior pattern. That pattern may be problem avoidance, shyness, frequent bouts of anger, or any of a number of others. In short, the consumption of alcohol is an effect, not a cause.
Right. Someone with authoritarian leanings will tend towards more conservative politics within the system he is raised. Certainly drastic situations can turn even natural authoritarians into hippies, but it's going to be a lot less common than those with genetic anti-authoritarian leanings raised by anti-authoritarians.
I have yet to see a historical survey of party beliefs graded against a scale of authoritarianism, measured against percentages of the population. It would certainly be interesting to know if, relative to the population, the percentages of authoritarians stays relatively constant, and the politics shift to accommodate the environment. In other words, can we look at the overall population and say that 52%, for instance, score moderate to high on the RWA scale, and during the depression era, the percentage of authoritarians was still around 50-52%, but since the environment encouraged more liberal politics, everybody took three steps to the left while still maintaining their general personality inclinations? (Think of liberals who are convinced that their version of liberal politics is the only right one!)
I'm not a hundred percent convinced of this, but I'm relatively sure that authoritarianism expresses even in teenage rebellion. The rebellion is not so much against all authority, but against current authority. Consider that a lot of teens will rebel against their parents while still maintaining the ideology that there is exactly one right way to do things. They've just changed their minds about who knows the right way.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Now how's that for a slice of fried gold?
Thanks so much Hamby. You're an asset to these boards, and no mistake.
You're right of course. My initial characterisation of teens was not thought through.
I too, find that teens are not really anti-authoritarian, but just anti-parents, and whatever authorities that comes with parents, like the political and cultural leanings of the parents.
Teens will make an authority, sometimes even an unquestionable authority, of their cool and confident, cigarette-smoking older friend with tatoos, of their favorite rock-star or media personality, of their smart, young, provocative philosophy teacher at college, and sometimes, unfortunately, of the young, good looking, charismatic missionary for evangilism.
I'm sure many born again christians, who were formerly catholics, or jews, or even atheists, were born again in their teens, precisely because they were more than willing to accept someone as an authority, as long as they were handsome and charismatic, and were representing an authority different from that of their parents.
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
Actually, I think we could probably go farther and suggest that teens with authoritarian tendencies are substantially more likely than adult authoritarians to blindly follow an authority. After all, they don't have the life experience to recognize that even with authoritarian ideology, sometimes we have to go against those we believe in.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I just watched the video. It didn't actually say that those who are liberals and those who are conservatives are specific genetic types, only that human beings are born with a natural moral compass, which will be altered by our environment as we grow older. Conservatives will be drawn to group mentality, to purity and to repect for authority, liberals will be drawn to freedom and fairness.
One of my politics lecturers once remarked that all Americans are liberals, they believe in individual rights, and in the notion of freedom. Freedom is actually George Bush' favourite word, he's constantly using it in speeches. It seems that Britain's conservatives too have liberal values. In the last century our national values have changed vastly. Post-Thatcherite Conservatives, are neo-liberal, while older term conservative refers to those who believe in the rights of the aristocracy, and the monarchy, to those Old Etonians who governed the country till the late 1950s. True conservatism in it's anti-liberal sense is a thing of the past, liberalism is an inevitable result of capitalism, which as the status quo is now the ideal society of those who seek to cling to authority and what they know. Conservatives have become liberals and liberals have become more left wing. Now the only division is between free-market liberalism and left-wing liberalism.
Atheist Books