Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (73573)	8/28/2003 10:08:15 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I was aware of but not really following the flap about how conservatives were depicted in a recent article in a psychology magazine. The authors of the study have a piece in today's Post so I thought I'd post it for anyone who wants to hear from the horse's mouth. Taking Political Opinion, Not Pathology By Arie W. Kruglanski and John T. Jost Thursday, August 28, 2003; Page A27 In the May issue of Psychological Bulletin, we published a review that statistically summarizes dozens of studies conducted over 50 years dealing with psychological differences associated with left- vs. right-wing thinking. Based on this literature, we found that the likelihood of adopting conservative rather than liberal political opinions is significantly correlated, among other psychological dimensions, with a sense of societal instability, fear of death, intolerance of ambiguity, need for closure, lower cognitive complexity and a sense of threat. Apparently without reading our original articles or attempting to contact any of us, many commentators and syndicated columnists, including Ann Coulter and Cal Thomas -- George Will [op-ed, Aug. 10] apparently read but misunderstood our work) -- assumed that such a psychological analysis of ideology entails a judgment that conservatism must be abnormal, pathological or even the result of mental illness. The British media seem to have settled on the highly stigmatized and equally inaccurate term "neuroses." All of this reflects a crude and outdated perception of psychological research. Historically, some of the better known psychological analyses of right-wing thinking, especially the famous Adorno et al. volume on "The Authoritarian Personality" (1950), assumed that anti-Semitism and racial intolerance were consequences of faulty parenting styles and traumatic childhood experiences. The German psychologist Erich Jantsch in 1938 had described liberalism as morbid. We part ways with these and other theories based on a "medical model" that ranks political orientations on dimensions of abnormality. All the variables we have reviewed pertain to normal cognitive and motivational functioning. We would argue that all beliefs have a partial basis in one's needs, fears and desires, including beliefs that form one's political ideology. Our research has identified several factors that seem to underlie the propensity to find conservative vs. liberal thought systems appealing. It's wrong to conclude that our results provide only bad news for conservatives. True, we find some support for the traditional "rigidity-of-the-right" hypothesis, but it is also true that liberals could be characterized on the basis of our overall profile as relatively disorganized, indecisive and perhaps overly drawn to ambiguity -- all of which may be liabilities in mass politics and other public and professional domains. Because we assume that all beliefs (ideological, scientific and otherwise) are partially (but never completely) determined by one's needs, fears and desires, we see nothing pathological about this process. It is simply part of what it means to be human. Our "trade-off" model of human psychology assumes that any trait or motivation has potential advantages and disadvantages, depending on the situation. A heightened sensitivity to threat and uncertainty is by no means maladaptive in all contexts. Even closed-mindedness may be useful, provided one tends to have a closed mind about appropriate values and accurate opinions; a reluctance to abandon one's prior convictions in favor of new fads can be a good thing. The important task for social scientists is to identify the conditions under which each of these cognitive and motivational styles is beneficial, rather than touting one or the other as inherently and invariably superior. Our findings highlight the importance of situations and historical factors that can produce political shifts by affecting psychological needs pertaining to uncertainty and threat. The need to achieve closure and to resolve ambiguity, for example, are heightened under conditions of destabilizing uncertainty (for example, with the outbreak of terrorism, economic turmoil or political instability). Thus our research is best understood as addressing the cognitive and motivational bases of conservatism (and liberalism) rather than the personalities of conservatives (and liberals). We readily acknowledge that identifying the motivational underpinnings of a belief system does not constitute a valid argument in a political debate any more than it does in scientific debates. What counts is the cogency of the political arguments and the degree to which they fit with independently verifiable facts and reasonable assumptions. When the dust settles on the current debate, we hope that these important messages will be seen as the real focus of our research. Arie W. Kruglanski is distinguished university professor of psychology at the University of Maryland. John T. Jost is an associate professor in Stanford's Graduate School of Business. This article was written in collaboration with Jack Glaser and Frank J. Sulloway, both of the University of California at Berkeley. © 2003 The Washington Post Company

To: Lane3 who wrote (73573)	8/28/2003 2:14:45 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

”We have a system that depends upon truthful testimony but expects and tolerates lying. Fine kettle of fish. Does the issue at hand, whether people swear on the Bible or not, have any impact on that? This is what I was asking from the start. Around here they don’t bring out the Bible, they just have you hold up your right hand and respond with an, I do. Is it a true choice? I am convinced that it is simply an empty ritual for most people. We not only have a justice system based on determining the truthfulness of evidence, but we have a society that depends on its ability to trust. From the smallest working relationship (the milk man leaving cartons in the box on your porch) to the largest, the leader of the free world calling out for our support; we measure the quality of our relationships to the extent that we can trust the person(s) we are engaging. Every relationship, civil, business, political, or domestic is based on our ability to trust one another. Trust comes from believing that we can count on the other person to be and do what they say they will be and do. ”I'm telling you that I cannot imagine myself in a circumstance under which I would lie as a witness in a courtroom. I cannot say for certain that there is no circumstance under which I would lie, only that I cannot imagine one. So, apparently you have been blessed with a very sheltered situation and you cannot imagine that changing to any great extent. You do not expect to ever be put to any difficult tests of your veracity. ”My assertion that I would not lie under oath based solely on ethics stands unqualified, but not absolute.” I would not suggest you put yourself in harms way to test this out so that you could qualify your statements. I can examine my own ethics and the influences on my life that has compelled me to define and refine my ethical outlook. I am suspicious of claims to just have an ethic. I am just as suspicious of people who simply accept whatever religion was handed to them and claim to be the living standard upon which all other religious people should operate. These concerns stem from my personal philosophy. I have become convinced that to a large extent, life is a test of character; minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day, year after year until we die. At the heart of every test of character is a verisimilitudinous tug. For people to dismiss truthfulness as a value is equal to a dismissal of moral goodness in character. You have not done this at all, btw. However, I am fascinated by a humanity that lives in such paradox. And I am boggled by statements from people that say they just believe in something, or just have an ethical standard about something.