re: #49 LudwigVanQuixote

So the premise of the talk was that right wing and left wing minds are fundamentally different before ideology even comes up - and the speaker waggled around a bunch of psych and sociological papers.

He started by arguing that the idea that right and left are the results of different people looking at the same information and just coming to different conclusions was fundamentally wrong. Rather, righties in particular have a certain mindset and views facts in a way that fit the mindset, then rationalization of the politics occurs after the forgone conclusion.

Because of this, scientists, who are almost all lefties, use the entirely wrong language and techniques to reach righties. In short, all the facts data and open-mindedness and emiprical rationalism and enlightenment we take for granted, simply does not come into play for the other side and we shoot ourselves in the foot by even trying.

He identified several axis.

One was hierarchy. Righties perceive the world as hierarchal and by extension fear anything that threatens their perceived place in it. Lefties (and most scientists) see most human hierarchies as fundamentally unjust. Another related facet was fear of the world reflected in simply being open to sharing and the idea that society has a right to demand something from the individual. The righty looks to himself and his own needs first and foremost because he sees the hierarchy as fundamental and some people must be on the bottom of it, and it won’t be him. Thus he resents anything being taken from him that might in his view, decrease his status.

Another was openness to new ideas and comfort with not knowing. Righties actually fear the unknown and take great comfort in simple explinations and neat world views. It is a form of control. Lefties by nature are excited by the new and unknown and very happy with saying “I don’t know” and incorporating new information as it comes along.

Another axis was frankly analytical ability - not defined as just reasoning, but rather defined as a need to see and evaluate for oneself with internal consistency.

The third axis was distinct from all extreme political axis but sine qua non for scientists.

What this view produced was a model that when you hit a right winger with new information the first question asked internally by him is “how does this affect me, my world view and my standing in the hierarchy.” If the information challenges that, it will be rejected violently and unless the information can be framed in a way that does not challenge that world view, it will be dismissed.

An example was that a vast majority of Americans by a wide margin like the idea of no insurance company being able to refuse coverage for an existing condition. But, if phrased as part of Obamacare, the party lines split right out.

There was also a discussion about the base and the higher ups of the right. The base has a markedly lower set of linguistic skills and mathematical ability. The higher ups of the GOP have those skills , but, in general, not to the level of academics, nor expressed like academics because of the natural hatred of nuance and non simple structures to hang world views on.

So charitably, right wingers have a mindset that damns them to right wingness just as much as certain other mindsets make one liberal - long before politics even come to play.

Uncharitably, the studies show that yes, these are unthinking, greedy, self absorbed, frightened people who cling to the simple.

Thoughts?

You leave out the root of all this on the right wing. Dominionist Religion and its laws, including the death penalty for some acts, attributed to some invisible force who told people so in the bronze age.