Originally posted by mrstabbyOf course I'm not right all the time, so you better agree with me or else. ðŸ˜
I agree with the conclusions here, what do the rest of you think?
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
Do people with opposing views to yourself have opinions of value or are you right all the time?
Originally posted by mrstabbyrational, reasonable people can differ and learn from one another's viewpoints.
I agree with the conclusions here, what do the rest of you think?
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
Do people with opposing views to yourself have opinions of value or are you right all the time?
being right all of the time is so improbable that if one feels one is always right or feels the need to be always right, that feeling is a symptom of some sort of disorder.
2 edits
Originally posted by mrstabbyThis post might be the single best post ever placed on the site.
I agree with the conclusions here, what do the rest of you think?
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
Do people with opposing views to yourself have opinions of value or are you right all the time?
Thank you.
EDIT: This is pretty much a Ph. D. - the best Ph. D. ever written - in eighteen minutes. Absolutely fascinating.
2nd EDIT: This hit me at exactly the right time. I just started my graduate degree. The topic of your post, in and of itself, is a lifetime's worth of study. Fascinating.
Originally posted by sasquatch672I agree, well done.
This post might be the single best post ever placed on the site.
Thank you.
EDIT: This is pretty much a Ph. D. - the best Ph. D. ever written - in eighteen minutes. Absolutely fascinating.
2nd EDIT: This hit me at exactly the right time. I just started my graduate degree. The topic of your post, in and of itself, is a lifetime's worth of study. Fascinating.
Makes you wonder about the 80/20 truth we run into in life, where we
get 20% of people's efforts that seem to carry 80% of the causes.
Kelly
Originally posted by sasquatch672Glad it's of use to someone 🙂 That site's a freakin' goldmine.
This post might be the single best post ever placed on the site.
Thank you.
EDIT: This is pretty much a Ph. D. - the best Ph. D. ever written - in eighteen minutes. Absolutely fascinating.
2nd EDIT: This hit me at exactly the right time. I just started my graduate degree. The topic of your post, in and of itself, is a lifetime's worth of study. Fascinating.
What's your degree in?
Originally posted by mrstabbyI love these kinds of "discoveries" -- especially when they confirm something I've thought for a long time!
I agree with the conclusions here, what do the rest of you think?
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
Do people with opposing views to yourself have opinions of value or are you right all the time?
To give it a sexist tone, one can think of conservatives as 'Father' -- 'Take care of your own damn self, boy! Stand up! Join the army! Be a man!' and socialists as 'Mother' -- 'Did you hurt yourself? Come to Mommy --I'll protect you. Wipe your nose, honey. Another piece of pie?'
The fact is -- BOTH are absolutely wonderful -- if not taken to an extreme. Most people want independence when they want it, but also want to be taken care of when they want it. Some guns, some butter.
Even WWII has been interpreted as a result of the rise of 'hypermasculine' ideals -- fascism, nationalism, and toughness culminating with Hitler, the ultimate Dark Father or Darth Vader -- only to be eventually reined in and defeated by the Yin of 'Mothering'/Socialism -- which defined post-WWII Europe and swept the world to a degree. Europe needed some TLC after that devastation.
We are now hanging between the extremes of the cycle at the moment, which is a nice place to be. Capitalist and socialist ideals are balanced in many countries.
The most troubling thing, really, is the polarization between the two sides in the political debate. Human history argues very convincingly that neither Mother nor Father is always right -- and that matches up with what most kids already know. Any family, from micro to macro, functions best when the two poles work together, when Yin does not hate Yang.
2 edits
Originally posted by spruce112358That's an oversimplified misrepresentation of the video. For example, conservatives also care more about harm than any other of the 5 channels, according to the video.
I love these kinds of "discoveries" -- especially when they confirm something I've thought for a long time!
To give it a sexist tone, one can think of conservatives as 'Father' -- 'Take care of your own damn self, boy! Stand up! Join the army! Be a man!' and socialists as 'Mother' -- 'Did you hurt yourself? Come to Mommy --I'll protect you. Wipe your o, functions best when the two poles work together, when Yin does not hate Yang.
Another reference to Jonathan Haidt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07Brooks.html?em&exprod=myyahoo
"Moral judgments are ... rapid intuitive decisions and involve the emotion-processing parts of the brain. Most of us make snap moral judgments about what feels fair or not, or what feels good or not. We start doing this when we are babies, before we have language. And even as adults, we often can’t explain to ourselves why something feels wrong."
So much for reasoning out your moral position. Sorry, Socrates...!
Originally posted by PalynkaOf course any model is a simplification. Any "lump" can be "split."
That's an oversimplified misrepresentation of the video. For example, conservatives also care more about harm than any other of the 5 channels, according to the video.
Usually, conservatives care more about harm to themselves and people close to them, whereas liberals are concerned about harm to a broader population of "any of us." At least that's the stereotype. I wonder how the question was posed.
Originally posted by spruce112358I'd like to know how you came up with your views on who both
Of course any model is a simplification. Any "lump" can be "split."
Usually, conservatives care more about harm to themselves and people close to them, whereas liberals are concerned about harm to a broader population of "any of us." At least that's the stereotype. I wonder how the question was posed.
the liberals and the conservatives care for, you stated that like it was
a fact. Personally, I think if you claim to care for everyone you really
don't care for anyone that much.
Kelly
5 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay….you stated that like it was a fact.
I'd like to know how you came up with your views on who both
the liberals and the conservatives care for, you stated that like it was
a fact. Personally, I think if you claim to care for everyone you really
don't care for anyone that much.
Kelly
..…
He didn’t quite do that. Reminder of his quote:
"…At least that's the stereotype..…"
….I think if you claim to care for everyone you really
don't care for anyone that much. .…
Why so? Can you explain your logic here?
If somebody did NOT claim to care for everyone then would you think he DOES care a lot for someone?
1 edit
Originally posted by mrstabbyI found the first part of that video link that showed the graphs very interesting (but then found the rest boring)
I agree with the conclusions here, what do the rest of you think?
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
Do people with opposing views to yourself have opinions of value or are you right all the time?
But could it be that I am personally not part of any “moral matrix” because I actually don’t think there is such thing as “moral” nor “immoral”? -so exactly were on that liberal-conservative graph would I be on? -I guess that IF I did believe there was such thing as “moral” and “immoral” then I would be to the very far left -but I don’t. Does that mean I am not on that graph?