Why People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

[longknife]

Posted on Sunday, January 12, 2014 11:16:39 AM by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton

Why People Are Divided by Politics and Religion I wonder if any Freepers are aware of Jon Haidt. His theories explain a lot and explain why we are in this current battle of Freedom vs. Fairness.

He is a self-identified liberal so don’t let your friends when you explain this to them get away with saying he is a right wing wacko.

An interesting read @ Why People Are Divided by Politics and Religion that just might help us understand one another. And yes, he deals with certainties that don't exist in humans.

 

[editec]

Just to flesh this out for purpose of discusssion:

Six Moral Foundations

Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm.
Fairness/cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions (He has also referred to this dimension as Proportionality.)
Liberty/oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized.
Loyalty/betrayal to your group, family, nation. (He has also referred to this dimension as Ingroup.)
Authority/subversion for tradition and legitimate authority. (He has also connected this foundation to a notion of Respect.)
Sanctity/degradation, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions. (He has also referred to this as Purity.)

Moral Foundations Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I do not think any of the above (while significant to the question of morality as a fundamental human trait) can really address the fundamental differences between political groups.

However longknife, YOU seem to, so I would appreciate it if you would tell us how you think it works.

 

[Katzndogz]

We are divided because we no longer hold the same values. It's very simple. That division has become so deep and wide that there is no point of compromise. They are now either/or with no in between.

 

[longknife]

Katzndogz basically took the words out of my mouth.

We are being hammered, from cradle to grave, with "truths" that cause us to think of certain values as absolute. Many are taught, by their environments, that certain things are right and others wrong. By the time they reach adulthood, those values are imbedded and little can be done to change them.

This is nothing new as it has gone on for the entire length of Human history. It is just that with our new Information Age, the absolutes are spread wider and enhanced to the casual observer.

 

[Asclepias]

I think it can be summed up very simply. Everything is based on your filter. i see things from a certain point of view and you see things from your point of view. A very real phenomenon is 2 people witnessing the same event and coming out with 2 different versions of what happened. It happens all the time in trials.

 

[Mac1958]

Katzndogz basically took the words out of my mouth.

We are being hammered, from cradle to grave, with "truths" that cause us to think of certain values as absolute. Many are taught, by their environments, that certain things are right and others wrong. By the time they reach adulthood, those values are imbedded and little can be done to change them.

This is nothing new as it has gone on for the entire length of Human history. It is just that with our new Information Age, the absolutes are spread wider and enhanced to the casual observer.

Yes, bingo.

I look at it as narcissism, and it pervades our society from popular culture through politics. When you combine narcissism with absolutist thinking, and you're then able to disseminate it through virtually limitless communication channels, it feeds on itself rapidly.

The results are everywhere, and easily identifiable on this board. All thought is binary, either/or, us vs. them, you vs. me. Even the slightest nod to the "other side" is viewed as abject capitulation. This isn't the way mature adults should behave, in my opinion.

And everything is pushed along by the division pimps, those on both sides of the spectrum who have a significant professional and financial motivation to exacerbate the situation. It's sad to watch, and I have absolutely no idea how this situation gets turned around.

.

 

[zeke]

Politics and religion have ALWAYS been the dividing line for people.

Lots of people killed over both topics. When you are willing to kill over these subjects, you have to expect that opposing sides will not like each other.

What has changed is that before, in an effort to maintain a semblance of understanding that we have more in common than in opposition, you just didn't bring up politics and religion.

With the advent of no repercussion communication ie the inter net, you can now say what ever you want about who ever you want.

And the commonality we all share gets pushed to the background and religion and politics becomes the driving force in many peoples lives.

Of course some people just like to argue.

And there is nothing better to argue about than politics and religion.

 

[jwoodie]

Psychology>Religion>Politics: The dividing line between what is and what we would like it to be.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Posted on Sunday, January 12, 2014 11:16:39 AM by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton

Why People Are Divided by Politics and Religion I wonder if any Freepers are aware of Jon Haidt. His theories explain a lot and explain why we are in this current battle of Freedom vs. Fairness.

He is a self-identified liberal so don’t let your friends when you explain this to them get away with saying he is a right wing wacko.

An interesting read @ Why People Are Divided by Politics and Religion that just might help us understand one another. And yes, he deals with certainties that don't exist in humans.

Didn't read the article. And have no plans to do so. But with that said, in my experience the reason that people are divided is that they subscribe to opposing ideas.

There are people who seek security. These people eschew responsibility, because 'it's hard'.

There are people who seek opportunity. These people embrace responsibility, because it sustains their rights, which they unapologetically exercise, scaring the daylights out of the other people.

The former represent 'the problem'. The latter, the solution.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

We are divided because we no longer hold the same values. It's very simple. That division has become so deep and wide that there is no point of compromise. They are now either/or with no in between.

"Values"

I always approach this subject from an objective perspective.

I've found that others, reject objectivity and as a result, are incapable of seeing things from my perspective. But one eventually comes to recognize that such people, having no sense of 'truth", are unworthy of trust, therefore are in my book, sub-human.

This based upon the certainty that the only thing that separates human beings from the sub-species of mammals, is the means to reason soundly. Relativism, is unsound reasoning.

As a result, I general dismiss those people, recognizing them as an overt threat.

 

[hazlnut]

Politics and Religion are two aspects of a person's identity and sense of belonging.

There may be a hardwired tribal aspect to the "human condition" -- meaning all of us may be born predisposed to feel a need to define for ourselves the "us" (group I belong to) and "them" (the other group).

Belonging to a group is a form a security and personal identity, and we therefore become protective of the group.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Posted on Sunday, January 12, 2014 11:16:39 AM by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton

Why People Are Divided by Politics and Religion I wonder if any Freepers are aware of Jon Haidt. His theories explain a lot and explain why we are in this current battle of Freedom vs. Fairness.

He is a self-identified liberal so don’t let your friends when you explain this to them get away with saying he is a right wing wacko.

An interesting read @ Why People Are Divided by Politics and Religion that just might help us understand one another. And yes, he deals with certainties that don't exist in humans.

I think since humans have language both written and spoken, we naturally then categorize ourselves. Without the ability to express things via language we wouldn't be able to categorize ourselves, or at least not to the precision language enables. So as long as we use language, we'll categorize ourselves into ever shrinking 'us vs them' categories.

 

[Iceweasel]

Politics and religion are ideologies. As such are based on beliefs and beliefs aren't tangible things we can test or look at under a microscope and come away with a unanimous conclusion.

And as such, I find very few people are independant thinkers, left, right or middle. People tend to fall into groups for various reasons, upbringing, culture, peer pressure, propaganda, whatever.

That said, people tend to think of themselves as a member of a society as one would be a member of a family. The family is important and the family comes first. Your job is to be part of the family.

Others like to step out on their own (especially if the family is highly dysfuntional) call their own shots and do what they can do to better themselves. It's the dependant verses independant mentality. I think that's why women tend to be more liberal and men tend to be more conservative. But with so many factors no outcome is predetermined.

And I have no idea what a freeper is.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's the losers who accuse everyone who doesn't agree with them as being unable to think for themselves. Liberals, particularly, imagine that everyone who is not liberal doesn't think for themselves. Only being in liberal lockstep is an indicator of independence.

 

[Iceweasel]

Only being in liberal lockstep is an indicator of independence.

That's so true. I noticed it first in high school back in the early 70s. The hippies were called 'non-comformists'. In order to be a member of the non-conformist clique there was a standard to adhere to, tight bell bottoms, a half to a quarter inch too long for proper fraying, long uncombed hair, multi-colored clothes, etc. And that was just the clothing standards.

 

[Mac1958]

Only being in liberal lockstep is an indicator of independence.

That's so true. I noticed it first in high school back in the early 70s. The hippies were called 'non-comformists'. In order to be a member of the non-conformist clique there was a standard to adhere to, tight bell bottoms, a half to a quarter inch too long for proper fraying, long uncombed hair, multi-colored clothes, etc. And that was just the clothing standards.

Yep, it's fascinating to watch the side of the spectrum that formerly was so dead set against authority and "The Man" suddenly find itself in that very position. Now, instead of fighting for individualism and personal freedom, they're fighting FOR the very same authoritarianism they used to hate. They know what's best for us, and want to enforce it.

Talk about a 180, huh?

.

 

[longknife]

Just to flesh this out for purpose of discusssion:

Six Moral Foundations

Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm.
Fairness/cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions (He has also referred to this dimension as Proportionality.)
Liberty/oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized.
Loyalty/betrayal to your group, family, nation. (He has also referred to this dimension as Ingroup.)
Authority/subversion for tradition and legitimate authority. (He has also connected this foundation to a notion of Respect.)
Sanctity/degradation, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions. (He has also referred to this as Purity.)

Moral Foundations Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I do not think any of the above (while significant to the question of morality as a fundamental human trait) can really address the fundamental differences between political groups.

However longknife, YOU seem to, so I would appreciate it if you would tell us how you think it works.

Okay, let's see if I can make this make sense:

It's in the degree to which each side takes these things.

Example: Fairness/cheating. Liberals use fairness as a mantra that everyone should be treated the same - ignoring individual differences and attitudes. If someone is smart and innovating enough to put themselves into a financially great position, "fairness" calls for them to give up some or all of those things to someone who has not taken the effort to do something similar.

A liberal considers fairness to not letting certain students excel and get good grades so the lesser gifted won't have their feelings hurt.

All I did in making this post was to show that my opinion of liberalism is that it is deeply harming this nation for its extremes.

 

[longknife]

Posted on Sunday, January 12, 2014 11:16:39 AM by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton

Why People Are Divided by Politics and Religion I wonder if any Freepers are aware of Jon Haidt. His theories explain a lot and explain why we are in this current battle of Freedom vs. Fairness.

He is a self-identified liberal so don’t let your friends when you explain this to them get away with saying he is a right wing wacko.

An interesting read @ Why People Are Divided by Politics and Religion that just might help us understand one another. And yes, he deals with certainties that don't exist in humans.

Didn't read the article. And have no plans to do so. But with that said, in my experience the reason that people are divided is that they subscribe to opposing ideas.

There are people who seek security. These people eschew responsibility, because 'it's hard'.

There are people who seek opportunity. These people embrace responsibility, because it sustains their rights, which they unapologetically exercise, scaring the daylights out of the other people.

The former represent 'the problem'. The latter, the solution.

Of all the things that are keeping people apart, it is the attitude bolded in your post! How can you make a judgement without know what was presented?

 

[longknife]

Politics and religion are ideologies. As such are based on beliefs and beliefs aren't tangible things we can test or look at under a microscope and come away with a unanimous conclusion.

And as such, I find very few people are independant thinkers, left, right or middle. People tend to fall into groups for various reasons, upbringing, culture, peer pressure, propaganda, whatever.

That said, people tend to think of themselves as a member of a society as one would be a member of a family. The family is important and the family comes first. Your job is to be part of the family.

Others like to step out on their own (especially if the family is highly dysfuntional) call their own shots and do what they can do to better themselves. It's the dependant verses independant mentality. I think that's why women tend to be more liberal and men tend to be more conservative. But with so many factors no outcome is predetermined.

And I have no idea what a freeper is.

Wow! I think you're on to something. We are becoming a dysfunctional society due to the increasing number of dysfunctional families we have. How many children get to grow up in a stable family with loving parents? How many children feel responsible for the breakup of their parents - something that tinges their beliefs forever?

 

[Katzndogz]

Only being in liberal lockstep is an indicator of independence.

That's so true. I noticed it first in high school back in the early 70s. The hippies were called 'non-comformists'. In order to be a member of the non-conformist clique there was a standard to adhere to, tight bell bottoms, a half to a quarter inch too long for proper fraying, long uncombed hair, multi-colored clothes, etc. And that was just the clothing standards.

I noticed this issue years ago with men. Particularly men who are abusive. They might drink, beat their wives, kick the dog and break the furniture. When confronted with a spouse that has had enough and walked out, the complaint is "She doesn't think for herself. She listens to her mother, her sister, her friends. She can't make up her own mind." The assumption is, if she though for herself, she would agree that his actions were reasonable and even kindly. That's what he thought they were. If he wife really thought for herself, she would agree with him. Because she finally had a gut full and left, she can't think for herself.

Everyone thinks for themselves. A leftist has made an independent decision that whatever the left stands for is what they stand for. A rightist has also made an independent decision that whatever the right stands for is what they stand for. Only the right is liberal enough to permit independents to make up their own minds. Liberals demand lockstep thinking. Dissent is not permitted to the slightest degree. That's what makes the left so dangerous.