Hierarchy - Is This at the Center of the Lib/Con Debate?

[_Some Schmo]

by the way, honor, I didn't listen to the Jordan Peterson/Rogan conversation, so I've not wanted to comment on Peterson's idea of hierarchy. I've listened to him a couple times last spring or so. He's somewhat interesting but a bit rambling for me.

And personally, I suspect the hierarchy thing is an effect rather than a root cause of the debates between the left and the right. I think it's just a difference in brain chemistry that makes different people process, value and prioritize what happens in life differently.

The interesting twist these days is that the divide is largely along the lines of who values empirical data and who indulges in their own special, personal beliefs about life. If you like wacky conspiracy theories... have I got a political party for you!

[_honorentheos]

And personally, I suspect the hierarchy thing is an effect rather than a root cause of the debates between the left and the right.

I would disagree about this, but not just due to Peterson's comments. Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt had a TED talk from a few years back regarding the way liberals and conservatives place different emphasis on core values. Liberals tend to down play values like loyalty and authority while favoring fairness, for example, while conservatives place high value on loyalty and authority with a lesser emphasis on fairness. This provides a psychological basis for what Peterson describes. Hierarchies themselves are just how crap works. People pay more to see David Chappell and Jerry Seinfeld than they would to attend an open mic night because people recognize hierarchies form whenever we value something and multiple people participate in it. They aren't an effect, they are fundamental to human society. And if we tend to develop different emphasis around core values, we tend to focus on different aspects of social organization, or essentially how healthy the hierarchies are. Fairness v. loyalty and authority seem like good candidates for explaining why the tension Peterson describes exists.

Let's be clear about something. Despite my dislike of Trump and dismay over his Presidency I sincerely believe being a conservative doesn't make a person an idiot. And being a liberal doesn't make a person particularly intelligent. There are way too many crystal vibing incense burning liberals to be able to imagine it somehow selects for good critical thinking. Hell, one of my biggest issues with Trump is that he has turned some of the smarter conservative stances like fiscal responsibility on their heads so we seem to be getting the worst of all possible political options with this guy. I'm not interested in bashing conservatism broadly, and am similarly positioned towards that as I am towards ceebs' "fear the left" b.s. I think most of the people blindly following Trump unfortunately get feed by their sense that loyalty matters and he's sticking his thumb in the eye of the other side so he must be doing something right.

[_Maksutov]

Primate model vs Social insect model.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

doesn't mean being white, male and successful is a vice

Don't let Sarah Jeong hear that. ;)

Thanks for sharing the link. I'll listen to it today and maybe post some follow-on thoughts.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

honorentheos, as I noted in the previous post there are basic Jordan Peterson talks about that I largely agree with. He has interesting thoughts about religion which I may or may not be in complete agreement with. I find them interesting however.

I have sort of a different thought about identity politics. I supported Hillary. I even supported her on the local caucus level( I live in one of those states where we get together locally and argue face to face about who should be nominated). I was frustrated by a sense her message kept coming across as a bit mechanical and short of substance. She supported minorities, lgbt folks etc. that's fine but is not a lot of actual substance.

I think the Democrats have enacted the their actual ideas to a large part already and are stuck running on either status quo or tinkering improvements on that. I do not think Hillary is a identity politics radical but the phrases can help fill the spaces for her in her political speech.

100% agree. Going back to the old 'tropes' of identity politics sunk her campaign. If she had focused on infrastructure, ISIS, and whatever other tried and true political sloganeerings she would've won.

- Doc

[_huckelberry]

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haid ... moral_mind

link to the ted talk by Jonathan Haidt which Honorentheos mentioned above.

I found the talk quite interesting. He proposes we all have five basic structures of moral thought we are born with. We develop them with our experience. 1harm,care 2fairness and reciprocity 3 loyalty 4 respect authority 5 purity. Liberals are stronger on the first two, conservative on the latter three.

I notice that considerations of purity can create strong emotional reaction and can be manipulated. A cluster of issues today relate to that, (a wall). I grew up hearing from time to time about the horror of creeping socialism. I wonder if an inability or unwillingness to think in terms of societies with some admixture of capitalist and socialists structures is a purity thing. Then perhaps it also touches on strong hierarchy and loyalty.

That does not fit completely with the conservative theme of wishing smaller government and dispersed hierarchies (?)

[_Maksutov]

honorentheos, as I noted in the previous post there are basic Jordan Peterson talks about that I largely agree with. He has interesting thoughts about religion which I may or may not be in complete agreement with. I find them interesting however.

I have sort of a different thought about identity politics. I supported Hillary. I even supported her on the local caucus level( I live in one of those states where we get together locally and argue face to face about who should be nominated). I was frustrated by a sense her message kept coming across as a bit mechanical and short of substance. She supported minorities, lgbt folks etc. that's fine but is not a lot of actual substance.

I think the Democrats have enacted the their actual ideas to a large part already and are stuck running on either status quo or tinkering improvements on that. I do not think Hillary is a identity politics radical but the phrases can help fill the spaces for her in her political speech.

100% agree. Going back to the old 'tropes' of identity politics sunk her campaign. If she had focused on infrastructure, ISIS, and whatever other tried and true political sloganeerings she would've won.

- Doc

She would have still had Bill, Huma and by extension The Weiner and that crackpot Podesta hanging around her neck. It was going to be a $hitshow no matter what in 2016. A cursed year.

[_huckelberry]

She would have still had Bill, Huma and by extension The Weiner and that crackpot Podesta hanging around her neck. It was going to be a $hitshow no matter what in 2016. A cursed year.

Sorry Maksutov, you have lost me. Are you referring to pizza sex ring and spirit dinners, Satanic rituals?

Those sort of things certainly build the wall against communication.

[_Some Schmo]

Let's be clear about something. Despite my dislike of Trump and dismay over his Presidency I sincerely believe being a conservative doesn't make a person an idiot. And being a liberal doesn't make a person particularly intelligent.

I don't think I've ever said this. I don't consider Drumpf's base conservative (or the way the GOP has governed the last 40 years, for that matter), and I don't consider liberals smart by default. The thing is that I (and incidentally, most people from other countries I've spoken with about this subject) don't define liberalism and conservatism the way Americans do. In this country, those are arbitrary labels for certain kinds of religions in this country. They're brand names that have little to do with their content. The people I consider true conservatives are all never-Trumpers.

Also, I'm not saying that hierarchies themselves are an effect of the left/right divide. It's the contention around hierarchies you described that was the effect (reading what I wrote, I admit I was unclear about that). I was thinking about Haidt's work when I wrote it.

[_honorentheos]

Let's be clear about something. Despite my dislike of Trump and dismay over his Presidency I sincerely believe being a conservative doesn't make a person an idiot. And being a liberal doesn't make a person particularly intelligent.

I don't think I've ever said this. I don't consider Drumpf's base conservative (or the way the GOP has governed the last 40 years, for that matter), and I don't consider liberals smart by default. The thing is that I (and incidentally, most people from other countries I've spoken with about this subject) don't define liberalism and conservatism the way Americans do. In this country, those are arbitrary labels for certain kinds of religions in this country. They're brand names that have little to do with their content. The people I consider true conservatives are all never-Trumpers.

Also, I'm not saying that hierarchies themselves are an effect of the left/right divide. It's the contention around hierarchies you described that was the effect (reading what I wrote, I admit I was unclear about that). I was thinking about Haidt's work when I wrote it.

That's cool. I guess we don't have many non-Trump defending conservatives who come around to make it clear how people relate to the variety of ideas available.

I'm still unclear as to what you may mean about the contention being the effect. Could you use an example or something to help me out?