Just one belief separates Conservatives and Liberal?
I read an interesting article this morning. It is from Scientific American. It boils down to one 'belief' separating Conservatives from Liberals. It is as quoted;
"We find instead that the main difference between the left and right is the belief that the world is inherently hierarchical. Conservatives, our work shows, tend to have higher belief than liberals in a hierarchical world, which is essentially the view that the universe is a place where the lines between categories or concepts matter. A clearer understanding of that difference could help society better bridge political divides."
With wandering thought as I see it hierarchy has many components to it. One, for me, is hierarchy is natural, maybe even innate. We are born and there is a caregiver, mom. With Christianity there was God the Creator making Adam and Eve while giving them dominion over the plants and the animals while in Eden. There is a hierarchical order with those. With everyday life we have bosses and employees, we have teachers and students. and on and on it goes.
But, quickly. John Locke, is against Natural Hierarchy. "In chapters VI and VII of his 2d Treatise on Government: “Of Civil Government” makes a remarkable argument against natural hierarchy, whether patriarchy, the supposed "divine right of kings" or any other natural hierarchy—other than the voluntary deference people are often inspired to make to someone imbued with justice and wisdom."
Your thoughts?
The Scientific American article is:
Many Differences between Liberals and Conservatives May Boil Down to One Belief
Conservatives tend to believe that strict divisions are an inherent part of life. Liberals do not
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … ne-belief/
Source for Locke's position while open to other interpretations is the following guide to the conclusion made by the author. It has links to his articles explaining his view
John Locke Against Natural Hierarchy
https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post … -hierarchy
Note: I have only just starting reading the links from above seeking understanding.I also think 'hierarchy' is innate, a part of human nature. And it is the structure of human existence from Day 1 until our last day. There will be a concept of 'hierarchy' as long as there is human interaction.'
Nature created the first hierarchy - survival of the fittest, strong vs. weak. As a part of Nature, that was man's first hierarchy. All of the ones since are his own creations. Theat creation is instinctual. And that is not a bad thing. The concept of hierarchical structure is not a good or bad thing, it is a reality. The details of a particular hierarchy make it a good or bad thing.
GAVery well said, as I see it, GA. Thanks for the reply.
As shared with Cred I can get lost in thoughts seeking possibilities to consider. The last paragraph gives excellent insight prompting thoughts of nature vs. nurture and Locke's clean slate approach (tabula rasa) at birth.
I remember many times with employment being told by the owner of the company I worked for, "Tim, you're starting with a clean slate".
Now that was not always as forgiveness for doing something wrong. It also encompassed being promoted or transferred to a different store to manage. I took it as, yes, I did achieve results where I was, but it starts over again and what is in the past is in the past. A clean slate.
The past may be considered with tenure resulting in benefits, perks, and such, which in reality are granted privileges within a hierarchy. But, not with current business objectives and goals and my progress toward them - achievements within a hierarchy since he is the boss and I was under a regional manager.
Here I reflect on two things. Hegel's Master-Slave dialectic and self-consciousness. And, a bible passage: "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master." (Matthew 10:24-25) I bring that in only to share what goes through my mind personally while contemplating hierarchy.
I read the first link for the Locke stuff discussing patriarchy and matriarchy regarding hierarchy. The author suggests in reality, they are equal, thus no hierarchy. He suggests instead it should be 'parent' seen as equality. He further relates it to Locke's views of government as a metaphor of sorts.
Fascinating article.
"In politics, researchers usually define conservativism as a general tendency to resist change and tolerate social inequality. Liberalism is a tendency to embrace change and reject inequality."
The researcher goes on to challenge this premise and makes a good argument that the two tendencies are more based on the question of whether divisions matter. That may just be another way of saying the same thing. Liberals want to push the limits of the "lines between categories" and conservatives want the lines unchanged/unchallenged. It's the values that are measured by those lines that define where people fall on the spectrum.
I don't know. Now my head hurts. This subject may be too cerebral for me.My head doesn't hurt. Believing in hierarchies has little to do with whether one is a conservative or liberal. It is a logically & realistically concrete assessment that hierarchies exist. However, hierarchies have changed throughout history e.g. for instance, in Roman times, Christians were marginalized & seen as outcasts; however, in medieval times, it was those who outside the Christian hegemony who were marginalized & ostracized. Hierarchies aren't written in stone-hierarchies are also social constructs based upon the powers that be that rule at the time.
"It is a logically & realistically concrete assessment that hierarchies exist. " I don't think the article challenges that fact. It just defines the difference between those who accept them and those who challenge them. "Hierarchies aren't written in stone", which is why some people attempt to challenge and change them - and others even protect them.
Glad you head doesn't hurt.
To deny that there is a hierarchy in much of the world is just foolish. On the other hand, mankind has a habit of making hierarchal divisions that nature does not support, and that is nearly as foolish.
I do think, however, that the point that we could go far by simply recognizing these differences and working towards compromise within them is well taken. An example is the abortion issue, where neither side will even discuss the points of the other, preferring to think that their hierarchal lines are somehow the only ones possible.
Perhaps it would be good for all of us to examine our own feelings on these things...and then examine whether those feelings are true to nature or just something made up by mankind, and whether our feelings make a better world or a worse one.Great comment as I see it. Along your lines of thought, I think, is the following quote of the article; "Conservatives, our work shows, tend to have higher belief than liberals in a hierarchical world, which is essentially the view that the universe is a place where the lines between categories or concepts matter."
Key is "Conservatives . . . tend to have higher belief than liberals in a hierarchical world", thus they do have belief. Perhaps that lends to your last paragraph about examining/challenging our feelings or perhaps personal beliefs. I would think that is the first step to compromise becoming resolve.Of course it is ludicrous to deny that there is a hierarchy. Hierarchies are reality. Not everyone is equal- to believe that is being utopic. There are people who will always be more while there are people who will always be less. For example, a person who has a 100 IQ isn't equal to a person who has a 150 IQ by no stretch of the imagination.
It has nothing to do with "conservative" nor "liberal" but it is a realistic & logic assessment that hierarchies exist. There is no such thing as everyone being equal. C'mon now. A bum isn't equal to a doctor, a C student surely isn't equal to an A student.So now, we can assess the value of different people based on their IQ scores?
Surely you know that the varying abilities of human beings are almost of infinite nature. Can you really say that you are inherently "better" just because you have a higher IQ score than your neighbor?
I return to film "Trading Places", where a derelict, Eddie Murphy, traded places with a white privileged, Harvard graduate and you know what, the case was firmly made for nurture over nature. As the derelict took to the task of a commodities market manager as well as the well heeled Dan Akroyd in his initial role. The film had a subtle yet important message to convey.
"Conservatives tend to believe that strict divisions are an inherent part of life. Liberals do not"
Their excuse for one man to eternally keep his foot on the neck of another, and yet morally justifying it.
In my world, not being a respecter of personage, all people are fundamentally the same.
Their ideas of "strict divisions" means that there is no basis to dislodge caste mentality sort of thinking. Thus, The reason why they have been the most resistant to extending rights and privileges throughout history.You got me with what you presented giving me cause to ponder for a while in the future. It does make sense and I respect that view.
However, I am stuck on a hierarchical structure, for myself at this time, while reading the second reference for John Locke saying Hierarchy is not natural.
I say I am stuck since most of my life I lived within hierarchical structures of some sort. Although there were times when I went over the head of someone for this or that. Sometimes leaping two levels all the way to the owner of the company."You got me with what you presented giving me cause to ponder for a while in the future. It does make sense and I respect that view."
Thanks, TSmog, I appreciate that. Hierarchy is a consignment between human beings. It is only natural for those that have something to gain by maintaining it.
Just remember that nobody is inherently better than you are.....Thank you, Cred, I will remember your wise words. I tend to overthink things at times, thus getting lost in thoughts with pondering while half the time do not come to resolve. Perhaps a blessing or a curse, I dun'no. It is entertaining in a sense ha-ha
"It is only natural for those that have something to gain by maintaining it." Again food for thought!
I will continue to read what the author presented about John Locke's view of hierarchy not being natural for more insight.As you consider your Locke readings, look at this one (a sublink of your link): Equality Before Natural Law in the Face of Manifest Differences in Station
I didn't like the quoted Locke blurb. It reads to me like he is talking about equality instead of hierarchy. The first part of the blurb seems to contradict itself. He seems to support the existence of natural hierarchy with his examples and then says they aren't natural. Hmm . . .
GAWhat blurb are you referring to? The first sub-link; "Thinking of Mothers and Fathers On a Par Undercuts a Misleading Autocratic Metaphor" referred to in a different post than the one you responded to here?
My link didn't work for me, now. Here it is again: https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post … in-station
The blurb was from your referenced Locke reading ( sections 55 and 56).
After several rereadings, I still think Locke is talking about equality and freedom, not the concept of hierarchies.
Here it is:
"Though I have said above, Chap. II. That all men by nature are equal, I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of equality: age or virtue may give men a just precedency: excellency of parts and merit may place others above the common level: birth may subject some, and alliance or benefits others, to pay an observance to those to whom nature, gratitude, or other respects, may have made it due: and yet all this consists with the equality, which all men are in, in respect of jurisdiction or dominion one over another; which was the equality I there spoke of, as proper to the business in hand, being that equal right, that every man hath, to his natural freedom, without being subjected to the will or authority of any other man.
Children, I confess, are not born in this full state of equality, though they are born to it. Their parents have a sort of rule and jurisdiction over them, when they come into the world, and for some time after; but it is but a temporary one. The bonds of this subjection are like the swaddling clothes they art wrapt up in, and supported by, in the weakness of their infancy: age and reason, as they grow up, loosen them, till at length they drop quite off, and leave a man at his own free disposal.
Adam was created a perfect man, his body and mind in full possession of their strength and reason, and so was capable, from the first instant of his being, to provide for his own support and preservation, and govern his actions according to the dictates of the law of reason which God had implanted in him. From him the world is peopled with his descendants, who are all born infants, weak and helpless, without knowledge or understanding: but to supply the defects of this imperfect state, till the improvement of growth and age hath removed them, Adam and Eve, and after them all parents were, by the law of nature, under an obligation to preserve, nourish, and educate the children they had begotten; not as their own workmanship, but the workmanship of their own maker, the Almighty, to whom they were to be accountable for them."]
Note that he starts off by saying there will be hierarchies:
"That all men by nature are equal, I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of equality: age or virtue may give men a just precedency: excellency of parts and merit may place others above the common level: . . ."
That's the point of hierarchy — degrees of difference; child to adult, corporal to commander, unskilled to skilled, etc., everywhere you look in life you find hierarchies.
I can't imagine Locke disagreeing with that. However, when the judges match my credentials against Locke's I don't think it will turn out well for me. ;-)
GAAnd that is at risk of being deconstructed right along with Mom and Dad, Man and Woman, Right and Wrong. Societal roles, mores, and norms are all being challenged/destroyed and replaced with... for lack of wanting to get overly verbose about it... Insanity.
Civilizations cannot long function without sanity and social norms, without people knowing what their roles are and what is expected of them.Are those roles of a "caste" hierarchal nature? Such a role deserves to be and should be challenged.
What, you don't know if those descriptions were of a caste hierarchy? But you do know what a woman is, right? ;-o
GAYeah, who doesn't know? But, I also remind people that in modern times a woman's place is wherever she wants it to be.
Beyond the XX verses XY chromosome and physical differences, does that justify assigning them to a caste, denying rights and opportunity to them because of differences that are attributed to them universally by men making them less than men? Who buys into that?Yep, within her abilities she sure can be wherever she wants. From the kitchen to the men's room.
Wait, wait. That was the devil talking. I tried to cut him off. ;-)
GA
Well hell. Your previous response was a good start to a Sunday morning. And now this one.
What better way to start your day than with a good fresh cup of coffee and a hearty dose of confirmation bias?
GA
Let me premise I am focused on liberals, not progressives with my pondering relating to the first referenced article. Liberals and Progressives in my view are two different concepts shall we say.
I get your point and the complexities Locke presented with equality and freedom with that portion of the author's presentation. My understanding at this point of the author with his presentation is Locke makes an argument that hierarchy is 'not natural'. That does not say hierarchies don't exist.
The author's thesis statement; "In chapters VI and VII of his 2d Treatise on Government: “Of Civil Government” makes a remarkable argument against natural hierarchy, whether patriarchy, the supposed "divine right of kings" or any other natural hierarchy—other than the voluntary 'deference' people are often inspired to make to someone imbued with justice and wisdom." Then the links are shared to support that view.
I may be off, yet the argument with points being discussed with freedom and equality is that if so, then there is no hierarchy, unless 'other than the voluntary 'deference' people are often inspired to make to someone imbued with justice and wisdom.
Notice, voluntary was used with deference. If not voluntary there is no freedom, right? To not be voluntary in essence is by force, right?
Note: I pondered that with the discussion between you and Cred discussing the military example. Before enlistment there is not hierarchy as in military structure. After enlistment 'deference' is granted to the military structure.
I am taking this in the context that it is Locke's 2nd treatise on 'government' leading to 'Democracy'. A quote; "The Second Treatise of Government places sovereignty into the hands of the people. Locke's fundamental argument is that people are equal and invested with natural rights in a state of nature in which they live free from outside rule."
Next, is how to connect those dots with the first referenced article, Many Differences between Liberals and Conservatives May Boil Down to One Belief. It is presented with;
"We find instead that the main difference between the left and right is the belief that the world is inherently hierarchical. Conservatives, our work shows, tend to have higher belief than liberals in a hierarchical world, which is essentially the view that the universe is a place where the lines between categories or concepts matter. A clearer understanding of that difference could help society better bridge political divides."
Note he states a higher belief (Perhaps, faith, too) with conservatives, thus liberals do have a belief, just not as high or, maybe, as much faith in it.
A notation, I read the the 2nd article about Locke's argument that hierarchy is not natural I posted in the OP first and the 1st later in my wandering the web. I pondered or got stuck with the thought that not only do conservatives have a higher belief in/of hierarchies, but do they too have a belief that hierarchies are natural that Locke argues can't be true?
Of course, it is dependent if one accepts the author's presentation that Locke did make an argument that hierarchies are not natural, thus reject it.It looks like I'm the one wandering from the point of your OP. I purposely did not read your links before responding. Both are in open tabs and I will read them, but the point of the difference being degrees of belief in hierarchical structure immediately got my attention because it relates to everything about us.
And then, when the thought that hierarchical structure isn't natural popped up I focused on that. Thinking I would go back to your links and then address their points—once the hierarchy thing was settled.
I don't think I'm wrong about my view of humans and hierarchies. So I must be talking about something different than Locke or your links. I must be misunderstanding his proposed relationship between equality and freedom within the examples of 'hierarchy' he mentioned.
So now I'm stuck on stubborn. I'll go back to your links and start over. ;-)
GAIt is a learning experience, right? As you shared, I am not settled on there being a difference of degrees or a separation of natural hierarchy vs. (What?) one created by man meaning the people aimed at society (group of people) or government which excludes that of the relationship between man with animals or plants. Again, both articles did not say hierarchies don't exist.
I do understand your position and not in disagreement as yet. I am simply agnostic at this point.
Sharing, is I have read the authors supporting links for his thesis that Locke does make a case for there not being a natural hierarchy for the first section only. I have yet to venture into the next topic: Chapter VII: of Political or Civil Society.
The first topic gave greater insight to the case, yet I need more and hopefully the second topic will offer clarity along with future input from others?
I discovered an article of length as PDF file. It is titled; Hierarchy in America: Natural versus Artificial. It was written in the time of the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement, both of which I know little of except they occurred.
https://www.svsu.edu/media/writingprogr … orentz.pdf
I read the introduction followed by the second portion titled; Jefferson and Adams: Natural versus Artificial. It uses aristocracy as perhaps a substituted/synonymous term for hierarchy. It gave clarity for the concept of natural hierarchy.
Again, for me, my main pondering it is do Conservatives not only have a higher belief in hierarchies, but do they also believe it is natural? In other words, not of man while Locke says that is not true. And, does it matter? If so how?
With that knowledge can the gap between Conservative and Liberal be bridged through understanding giving cause to compromise. In other words the lines that do matter to a Conservative is a bold one (Higher belief/faith), and the Liberal one is dotted (Less belief/faith in). Can the dots be connect with compromise through understanding [edit] and the bold one lightened.
"We find instead that the main difference between the left and right is the belief that the world is inherently hierarchical. Conservatives, our work shows, tend to have higher belief than liberals in a hierarchical world, which is essentially the view that the universe is a place where the lines between categories or concepts matter. A clearer understanding of that difference could help society better bridge political divides."
The world is hierarchal and that is understood, but the hierarchy is based on agreement, merit and experience where anyone could rise into a position to be in it. My problem is with hierarchal structure based on castes, or the "divine Right of kings".
Conservatives talk about hierarchies coming from a foundation of one saying they are intrinsically better than another because of cultural and Social compacts, which are often oppressive in of themselves. America, through out its history is no stranger to the concept of caste based hierarchies.
My issue is with castes, not hierarchies.I had not thought of it as a caste system within a hierarchy. Yet, with my poking about it does exist in the context of stratification. What I learned is next;
"Systems of Stratification
Sociologists distinguish between two systems of stratification. Closed systems accommodate little change in social position and are typically based on ascribed status or some trait from birth. They do not allow people to shift levels and do not permit social relationships between levels. Open systems, which are based on achievement, allow movement and interaction between layers and classes. These different systems reflect, emphasize, and foster certain cultural values and shape individual beliefs. Some stratification systems include slavery, caste systems, feudal/estate systems, and class systems.
From that, with the little knowledge I possess other than cursory knowledge, I think what is occurring is a transition from a closed system to an open system regarding the black race. We are struggling to reach that and there is a lot of baggage that comes with struggle. Yet, I believe that pursuit is worthy.
To support your view of a caste system, which I now agree with, if time is of avail some time check out the article following. I caution it is of length and a stupid add gets in the way of text. I couldn't figure out to get rid of it.
America's 'untouchables': the silent power of the caste system published by the Guardian (Jul 28, 2020).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ … king-india
Note: That add made it impossible for me to post a quote.I have no problem with "open systems" of stratification as it is defined. I will check out the article, thanks.
I did read it and it supported my idea that America did have a caste system that superceded concepts of just race and social class.
Yes, there is the transition to open from a closed system for Blacks, but it is just long overdue and there still remains more resistance to the concept than I would have anticipated.
Just a note catching up where I am at with my question if Conservatives not only have a higher belief in hierarchy, but believe hierarchies are natural in the context Locke speaks of. Yesterday, I read both sections of the links the author presented to support Locke gives argument that hierarchies are not natural.
I am still digesting it kind of letting it stew like before editing an article. Quickly, the first section focuses on family and parental responsibilities. What stands out is the emphasis Locke made that parents are equal as in the man is not shall we say the overlord of firstly the wife. Hence there is not a natural hierarchy. And, it is through reasoning to make the conclusion. Reasoning is key throughout the links.
The second section of links looks at civil society leading to governing using the family as a metaphor and the truths he established with that seen through the first section of links.
I am still digesting that more than first section. There is a lot said about the father and son, the responsibilities of the father for bringing him to a shall we a state of being able to reason, and then upon arrival for that for the son he is then equal to father, thus no hierarchy.
That is where i am so far. Overall key to me is that there is hierarchy of the father over the son, until the son has reasoning at the age of 21, and then they are equal. Then no hierarchy meaning is not permanent. So, I surmise what distinguishes that hierarchy over being natural is reasoning combined with permanency.
Yet, again I am letting it stew for awhile, and may wind up saying the author's argument for Locke saying hierarchy is not natural does not make sense.
While you are stewing my stubbornness is getting stronger.
To be clear, I am not arguing your thoughts. Your examples make it more clear that I'm not talking about what Locke (and you) were talking about.
My logic goes like this: The most basic law of Nature is that of strength vs. weakness. The strongest survive the weakest don't. In between the strongest and the weakest is a scale of strength and weakness, as in some of the less weak will survive and some of the less strong will survive.
That is simply a ranking, just as any hierarchy is also a ranking. I say that 'hierarchy' came from nature and has never ceased to be a ranking of survival. The understanding of what survival is might change but the ranking of it never will. It will never cease to exist.
To Locke's quoted reasoning: His most basic logic, illustrated by the child/parent(s) thought, logically shows the ending of the "hierarchy" of natural automatic parental authority at some period of development. I won't argue against that. Instead, I argue that the hierarchy didn't cease to exist, the hierarchy simply changed. Now that 'basic law' hierarchy no longer applies to the child/parent ranking, now it applies to a one/many ranking. That ranking will continue for a lifetime in almost every facet of existence.
That's my view of what Hierarchy is; a ranking structure. The ranking criteria may change or the thing being ranked may change, but the fact of ranking never will. ♫ That's my story and I'm sticking to it. ♫
However, that reasoning can be relative to your original 'conservatives believe more strongly in hierarchies' point. I agree. Hierarchy is natural, it is the reality of our existence. So, yeah, conservatives (as a general label) do support reality more than fantasy more strongly than liberals do.
GA
I think the concept of hierarchy in humans is one of difference, not equality.
As for no one being inherently better, better how? It can't be physical, that is obvious. Same with intelligence. What is our inherent equality?
The point is that 'inherent equality' is only a belief - not fact. It is a developed moral code. I don't think our need and instinctive use of the concept of hierarchies is a choice, I think it is built-in.
GAGA, when I speak of "better", I refer, as example, to King Charles of England. Because he was born of royal pedigree, does that make him innately better than me or just part of a hierarchy that assigned him that place?
Inherent equality is in direct opposition to the idea of hierarchal structure. And if I had to choose between the two......
As a young lieutenant, it was part of the oath that I took regarding the acceptance of a hierarchal structure in the military agreeing to obey senior officers appointed above me. But none of that was about innate superiority because in 15-20 years I probably would have been one of those senior officers myself, and another young lieutenant would then have to swear to the same oath.
Who is it that gets to decide who is inherently unequal? The idea of natural hierarchies is a dated on in my opinion and where it continues to persist is where it needs to be ferreted out.I understand your "King" example relating to what you meant by 'better.' In that sense I agree with you: someone is not better just because they say they are, as in your monarchy example. But, someone can certainly be shown, by their actions, to be better than me: mentally, physically, and as a human being.
The existence of a hierarchy is the result of those differences, not a determination of them.
Consider your military example: at the point you swore your oath you were not equal, in experience or knowledge, to those senior officers. That's reality and interacting in that reality requires a hierarchical structure. Then as you say, you gain experience and knowledge, a step at a time, rank by rank, until you could achieve the 'equality' status of a senior officer. You changed position in the hierarchy.
That's a hierarchy of skills. Also, consider the hierarchy of being a good human being; a benefit to yourself and your society. Now, say that young enlistee has made a lot of bad life choices; criminal record, dishonest and untrustworthy, etc. etc., and the senior officer has led a blemish-free life and spends all available effort improving his skills and doing things to benefit his fellow human society. Certainly, that enlistee can't be judged as an equal to the senior officer as a human being. Biologically maybe, but that's not a part of this hierarchy.
Your problem shouldn't be with hierarchies but with their contents. The contents of a hierarchy can be changed, but the fact of the hierarchy cannot.
Ga"Your problem shouldn't be with hierarchies but with their contents. The contents of a hierarchy can be changed, but the fact of the hierarchy cannot."
I guess that is what I have been trying to say.
The King Charles scenario is the one I complain about and I can extend that aversion to race, gender, religion, etc.
Hierarchy established based on experience, merit are attributes I can imitate and attain myself if I so desire, such in the military example. Caste type hierarchies do not allow such considerations.
Being a "good" human being is also subjective just looking at the political lay of the land. Who is the better human being? The one, who in courage sacrifices himself in war and captivity never betraying his country under great hardship and duress or the guy born with a 200 million dollar silver spoon in his mouth who speaks of "financial courage", who enriches himself beyond all dreams of avarice.
I know who I would prefer, but it has been made obvious to me that that evaluation is neither universal or absolute.
The point you make about the young enlistee is choice not some sort of inherent inferiority based on non merit factors.There is also the matter of deciding just what is better, even in being a human being.
Is the man giving away food and allowing people to live thereby "better" than the one teaching the group to farm and allowing the tribe to survive next year even if some die this year? As a people we do not always agree on what is a "better" action. More probably we seldom agree; personally I find that is one of the big differences between liberals and conservatives when it comes to providing for those that need it.The preservation of life should take precedence. Allowing people to starve over a principle may not be the way to go.
No, no, that logic won't work. The given example is the same as the 'lifeboat' example*. Surely you don't disagree with that one?
* A Titanic lifeboat is full of 100 lives. Down to the gunnels, the boat is absolutely at maximum capacity. One more body, even a baby, will cause the lifeboat to sink and dump all 100 lives into the sea to die.
You are the captain of the boat and you see one more person to save. What do you do?
Same principle as the given example: some pain one way, more pain the other.
GAPerhaps, but I don't see the examples as the same. In the case of pending starvation you could teach others how to fish for the next season and still give them fish to prevent immediate starvation assuming the resources are there.
I didn't get an inference that both couldn't be done. I read the inferences to be comparing the results of one vs. the other.
GANope. As long as we're making pretend scenarios you have a choice: either buy fish for today (but not tomorrow) or buy fishing poles, line and hooks for a decade's use.
Besides, if you simply supply fish there is no need to put forth the effort to learn to fish and do it every day. After all, you will be there with more fish every day...while the people in the next village starve with nothing for you have given away all the resources rather than teach fishing.
I agree with this. The preservation of life over the longest possible period of time and the most lives saved.
Do you understand how such disagreements take place? Not everyone feels the best response is to support everyone; that it is better to teach them to support themselves. You and I disagree here, but that is not unusual for this is a subject that has a large following on both sides.
"As for no one being inherently better, better how?"
A very good question. Mentioned several posts ago were two students, an "A" and a "C" student. Which is a superior person? The A student is smarter (assume that is true; it may not be) and thus "better", right? But the C student is the star of the football team, destined to entertain millions and earn wealth beyond the dreams of 99.99% of the rest of us.
Now which one is "better"? "Better" can only apply to a very small set of events (Who gets to be the Valedictorian?), not to the entire life.
But the liberal demand that all are "equal" is just as foolish, for there IS no "equal" when it comes to human beings. Just as the students are not "equal", neither are any other two people. One is better, one is worse...until the parameters and goals change, whereupon the "better" and "worse" may change as well. The equality of liberals is a pipe dream, a utopian concept that does not and cannot exist. At the same time the hierarchy of the conservative only exists in one tiny portion of all the attributes of a person - who is "higher", the Michelangelo painter or the bus driver carrying people to where they need to go? The politician, skilled at manipulating people, or the worker skilled at building the airplane the politician requires to get to the people they wish to manipulate?"Equal" depends on what it is that you choose to measure and exalt.
"All people are ignorant just in different subjects"
Will Rogers....Yep. Each of your mentions were just the details of a hierarchy, and those 'details' do change. But they change within the hierarchy, their change doesn't eliminate it.
Human equality isn't achievable as long as we remain human.
GA"Human equality isn't achievable as long as we remain human."
Or even animal. There are very few animal groups that does not exhibit a hierarchy of some kind, from ants to lions to dogs to chimpanzees.That was timely. Through several responses, I wanted to work in the example of animal cubs; lions, tigers, and bears, 'Oh my'. From suckle, the mothers don't teach their offspring to compete for dominance (beginning with 'playtime' antics), yet once mobile that's what the offspring do. Instinctually, even before they learn that 'their' hierarchy of dominance will get them more nourishment.
GAI was thinking more of the alpha wolf (dog) or the boss Chimp. The boss Bonobo is a female that "rules the roost", as is the elephant matriarch. Most animals have something like this; a "boss" that is "king" - something more than just dominance in getting food.
Yep, the instinctual hierarchy of strength over weakness. My example of getting more nourishment just used a different noun than yours. Your examples speak to the delegation of authority, aka 'control.' Mine also spoke of control—the strength/dominance to control food allotment. Same-same?
GAI think you're right. But isn't human hierarchy the same thing? The strength to be king over someone else?
Certainly the slavery of centuries past was that way. So is the social hierarchy today; the rich have a power the poor do not. The politicians have power over the regular citizen. The school teacher has power over the students. And so on for any hierarchy I can think of.Yes, I think they are the same thing. I think the very non-humanness of them exhibiting the behavior of the point is a hard-to-dispute fact. That's natural order, and hierarchy is a synonym for order.
GA
All people AREN'T the same. I have lived moe than 60 years & KNOW this. I have KNOWN this since I was A CHILD. NO, NO ,NOOOOO-there are some people who are BETTER than others while there are some who are WORSE than others.
Hierarchies are an undeniable fact of life. Even animals have hierarchies. Hierarchies are part of life & nature. Had better realize this & realize it fast. In school, there are the A, B, C, & failure students i.e. the D students. The A student is at the apex while the C & D students are at the nadir of the academic hierarchy. Then there are those in terms of attractiveness who are the 10s i.e. stunners while there are those on the lower scales of attractiveness i.e. the homely & the woefully unattractive.
There are the wealthy who are at the top while the poor are at the bottom. You cannot change hierarchical nature. You have to play the hierarchical game & be by the wayside. There are divisions in life- always & will be. I am not a conservative but a liberal; however, I am REALISTIC. I don't live in a child's world but in the real adult world.You are missing the point, people can become better through education, experience etc.
You should recognize that is not the same as some sort of hierarchal arrangement. You should already know that there is no INHERENT differences between people much like you would find in a monarchy.
Whatever divisions that there are would be based on merit and equal opportunity used well or used poorly. As a Black woman, you of all people should be appreciate the damage associated with a perception that some people are more equal than others.
It is not childish, but I avoid giving the very foundation of inequity and injustice a foothold. I will never accept any rationale for caste society thinking, and I don't practice it.
" The reason why they have been the most resistant to extending rights and privileges throughout history."
Why would you want to if you were the guy with your foot on somebody's neck? Now, the guy on the ground might feel differently.
I think that is a rather absurd notion. One easily disprovable.
I would give one profound example, a Conservative today is not interested in "identifying" a man as a woman, or a pedophile as a MAPs, a Conservative sticks to the reality of the situation and isn't interested in accommodating someone else's insanity.
A Liberal, AKA Progressive, expects people not to accept the world as it is, but as they believe it to be, or desire it to be, in other words, you have to accept their insanity.
In the Scientific American is an interesting sentence:
"Liberalism is a tendency to embrace change and reject inequality."
I would change that to represent today's beliefs:
"Liberalism is a tendency to embrace change and reject reality"
[EDIT]
I think we have moved past the Hierarchy argument state that is being discussed and whose positions have been well represented by Credence and GA in this thread.
They represent the two sides of this debate as it has been known and as the linked articles portray.
But we have strayed from that... what is being challenged today is Reality itself, we have wandered into progressive steps of insanity and that insanity expected to be accepted as normal... we see this in how Words are no longer being able to be used online, we see this when we are trying to allow children to determine if they should be allowed sex change operations, this isn't slowing by any means, its a progressive decline in the ability to function as a society/civilization.I thank you for your perspectives, Ken. I don't share your view that is absurd. Obscure in a sense, maybe, as it is not using a microscope with current events. It is a different perspective to be considered seeking understanding of likeness and unlikeness, which is a starting point.
I think the war with 'Progressives' is not the war with liberals. They are different and it is progressives pushing those topics you mentioned. I, too, am opposed to and do not accept the issues of gender with its baggage. As to reality, it is reality provable by just acknowledging it. That does not mean accepting it as a belief as I see it.
Along the lines of hierarchy, an article titled: New study helps pinpoint the key differences between liberals and progressives in the United States by PsyPost (Aug 26, 2022) states;
"Importantly, the researchers tested the Progressive Values Scale against the Left-Wing Authoritarianism Index, which assesses a person’s support for anti-hierarchical aggression, top-down censorship, and anti-conventionalism. There was not substantial overlap between the two measures, indicating that the Progressive Values Scale was measuring a distinct construct.
“In spite of common characterizations of this distinction (e.g., ‘progressive’ vs. ‘moderate’ liberals), progressives appear to differ from traditional liberals more as a matter of kind (i.e., holding different beliefs) than degree (i.e., being ‘extreme’ left-wingers),” Proulx said. “It remains to be determined whether these same differences in kind manifest within non-U.S. left-wing cultural contexts.”
https://www.psypost.org/2022/08/new-stu … ates-63768Thanks for weighing in, Ken
I never said in this discussions of hierarchies that a dog is the same as an eagle. There are obvious physical differences giving one abilities that the other lacks. People are fundamentally the same and thus cannot be quantified as to their innate ability in the same manner.
Your definition of liberalism basically says that from the hierarchal point of view there is a reality that intrinsically puts some people over others. I don't subscribe to that.
If I accepted the 'reality' as defined by those that happen to be at the top of a hierarchal structure, I would still be in chains or shining shoes without any expectation of rising above my "station" in life. As part of the human condition, who wants to be consigned to a "station", whether it be gender, ethnic or what have you?
This gender thing is a small parcel of a larger and more significant issue. Beyond merit, do you really have a right to say that you are "better", in any definitive, intrinsic way?
Change is as necessary and inevitable for society, just as oxygen is necessary to sustain human life."There are obvious physical <and mental, I might add> differences giving one abilities that the other lacks."
" People are fundamentally the same and thus cannot be quantified as to their innate ability in the same manner."
You completely lose me with these two statements. One seems to be the exact opposite of the other, one seems to contradict the other in every detail.
It seems to me that the only "fundamental" likeness between people is that they are all composed of pretty much the same thing...while ignoring that just how those things are put together is the difference between people and dogs or whales. It seems to be that "fundamental" part that so confuses. What are you considering as the "fundamental" equality that all are the same?A dog can't and will never fly, but there are women that can qualify to be firefighters.... We should not be so fast to try to circumscribe people and their abilities with some sort of absolute that is always too broad and presumptuous to be fairly applied to members of the human family.
My point is that there is no inherent basis for treating one group of people different from the other except from the standpoint of those wishing to maintain a standard of hierarchy to exalt themselves and oppress others while making it sound "natural". Hierarchy advocates spend endless time and letters justifying why they are "better" than "these people" from the point of conception.
Are those differences so defined that he or she is considered "better" than the next person? If someone is less, like one assigned to a caste, who gets to consign that?
The fundamental quality is that all should have the same opportunity to attain to satisfaction in life, and we don't dismiss people because they are "untouchable" without their receiving what every human being is entitled to in that regard.
You conservatives fuss about equal outcomes, I am concerned about equal opportunity and that merit should be something that can be attained earned by anyone. In that sense, no one is "better" than I.
Let me try to explain the point I was trying to make more clearly.
Your argument is both valid and what had always been the argument of the Liberal (Left).
The current Progressive Liberal argument is not that any longer.
The hierarchy I believe you speak of, is one where White People were told they were superior to Blacks, or Germans were purported to be the superior race and Jews were sub-human, or the Highly Educated and Economically well off are better and know better than the rest of society.
And I agree, those shouldn't be accepted.
But in a Merit based and opportunity based system, as we are supposed to have in America, those who are the very best are supposed to rise to the top, whether they are Athletes or Astronauts.
This is no longer the current Progressive effort nor the Democrats agenda.
The new administration has an opportunity to make a forceful case for racial equity by explaining the challenges, highlighting the areas of opportunity, and taking bold action to embed racial equity into our national fabric.
https://www.mckinsey.com/bem/our-insigh … ial-equity
This of course is all intellectual think-tank type fantasy, one of the many signs of a fast failing society.
You can force Equity, but that is a bad thing to do when at the same time you are removing all standards, producing the most incapable graduates in a hundred years... these young folks know all about social justice and safe spaces and how not to offend another... but few of them are learning calculus, physics, or engineering.
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is becoming a reality, in short, the book depicts a dystopian United States in which private businesses suffer under increasingly burdensome laws and regulations.
Governmental coercion like George Orwell's 1984 where words were twisted around, it was called Newspeak, propagandistic language characterized by euphemism, the inversion of customary meanings. It was "designed to diminish the range of thought."
In Orwell’s 1984 the elimination of certain words or the removal of unorthodox meanings from certain words; the substitution of one word for another (e.g., uncold instead of warm and ungood instead of bad).
Well today it is well beyond that, our "best and brightest" from the Supreme Court to Congress can no longer define what a woman is.
In a country where we are not supposed to see color of skin, everything in Equity is based on color of skin, or sexual identification. Where all are supposed to be treated equal the government is now making it policy that no one will be treated equal, they will be categorized by sexual identity, and racial background, not by ability.
He/Him She/They They/Them, He/She, kids will need to go to school just to learn how to identify the 76 and growing different sexes and identifiers, so that they can be sure not to offend anyone.
Hard to be productive, heck, hard to be certain about who you are, when you can't verify who everyone else is without a comprehensive dictionary at your side.
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/99631929 … uide-lgbtq
So yes, it is about Transgenders and sex changes for those under 10 and how words are used and Equity it is all part of a greater whole... social deconstruction for purposes of control, not raising up those who have been oppressed, but so all can be oppressed and made equally poor and powerless.Ken, seems like we are in agreement as to the first 5 paragraphs of your reply.
The best should be allowed to rise to the top, based on merit. Let's just make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to compete and earn that place. Merit can only truly be measured in a society where all get to compete equally and fairly.
As a society, it is up to educators to incite students who desire to go into math, physics and general science. There is no sinister plot to diminish the allure of these disciplines among students today.
There is a need for regulations of business as greed and avarice has a way of becoming its primary motivation and the needs of others for a clean environment, etc. goes by the wayside. So, I am all for more government regulation rather than less.
The focus of inequality in America has been based on skin color, gender, etc. so, it would follow that the solution would have to take those factors into account. We are far from being a "color blind" society. It is the stuff conservatives talk about that is not close to being reality on the ground.
Be sure everyone has the opportunity to compete from a equal basis and there should be no compromise on those standards of evaluation that are relevant and fairly applied.
Not to appear to be a hypocrite from the standpoint of the Rightwing, I have to resist preferential treatment regardless of the direction from which it may come.
Like you, I am willing to dispense with all the nonsense inbetween and focus on the major themes.
"Liberalism is a tendency to embrace change and reject reality"
As a liberal, I can accept that. Rejecting reality is how most societal improvements or corrections of injustices begin.To a point.
That is not the reality of which I speak however.
There is a point where improvements and corrections are no longer being made, instead it is regression and insanity being allowed to flourish, which leads to the decline of any/all civilizations.
There is often a correlation made between Rome and America, well considering Rome's own decline and fall, one could argue that we are seeing similar situations arise that are contributing to America's decline.
However, that requires far more delving into the comparisons than I am willing to make now.
I reread the article the OP is based on this morning. Then I have been exploring the links for a better understanding. Anyway, one link is to the survey that contributed to the study by gathering information from respondents.
There are three to choose from:
Six question
Eighteen question
Ninety-nine question
Being the curious sort I took the 99 questions one. It took about fifteen minutes. After taking the primal survey it was followed seeking info regarding the supernatural perspective of the respondent. Then, personal inconsequential info like age. Finally, the results were given and they are comprehensive too. There is an option to have them emailed to you for further review.
Here is the link if curious
https://myprimals.com/discover-your-primals/
Just looked at my email with my results. Key to their study is what is known as Primal Beliefs. As quoted they are; "Primal world beliefs, or “primals” for short, are extremely basic beliefs about the world as a whole, such as the belief the world is dangerous."
The link following is on that topic that may enhance the understanding and purpose of the study about Just One Belief Separates Conservatives and Liberals.
What Sort of World is this . . . Primal World Beliefs
https://myprimals.com/
Hint: The personal report, again, is comprehensive and will need time dedicated to it. Of course, if there is a value will vary.I checked out your Primals Link, I came out as having rather dismal views of the world and our place in it at the present time...
I am still digging into the 99 questions one I did first. Skimming I see of the 26 primals most I am pretty even with the nation as a whole, so I guess average one could say.
The six-question offers only one result with a graphic to compare to the nation. Mine was a 'Good World Belief' or a great world. That means;
"Folks in this group make up the largest percentage of the population. Their default slight tendency is to assume that ambiguity probably hides wonderful things to be thankful for, making everything wonderful until proven otherwise. "
The 18-question one gives more insight. With that one is the following:
Safe world belief
Enticing world belief
Alive world belief
Overall Good world belief
The 99 question one goes deep as it has 26 primals assessed. One is 'Hierarchal'. I was 3.0. It is above the national level, yet in the middle of the range. Next, is what is says about that topic.
"Those scoring low on Hierarchical believe that most hierarchies are artificial and most things actually have basically the same value and worth. Those scoring high believe that hierarchy is inherent to the universe and most things can be ranked from better to worse, because most things really are either better or worse."
I think at this time my score is immensely influenced by the last 12 years of my career where my job function was to assess and report the performances of the company/stores/sales staff/auto technicians I worked for. So, I was always ranking everything on different assessments. It is in my blood ha-ha by habit and is ingrained in my psych.I believed that my score was 2.79. I took the 99 question version.
Oh hell. Now I gotta take the damn thing too.
GAI haven't gone through the report yet, so I'm not sure what a score of "Good 3.48" really means. As in, good how? My hierarchical score was 4.6 with a 3.5 'interconnected rate.
Overall, it looks like I see the world as a good place.
[EDIT]
I stopped to read the report. Between Ken's comments, and this report's near-perfect accuracy, I should wait until I sober up to comment. That was too much affirmation in too short a time.
GAThanks for the feedback, GA. I imagine you may have read a little of the report to find the answer to your questions. Maybe not. I skimmed reading only the ones above or below the USA average. Interesting! I will look deeper as the week transpires.
Seeing you mentioning the interconnected score I looked up what my score was and is 4.5. It is definitely higher than USA average. Then I read what the info was.
However, I think it was largely influenced by being diagnosed with prostate cancer (Stage 3) last June followed by radiation therapy for it. That ended Jan 30.
I experienced an immediate change in my mindset with a lot of reflection on my life and my place in shall we say the cosmos. And, a lot of reflection of this and that. When the radiation was over, my mindset changed again.
I pondered the results overall 'today' with what they might have been in the past. I think it would be interesting to take the survey say every ten years for a compare/contrast looking for growth/change."However, I think it was largely influenced by being diagnosed with prostate cancer (Stage 3) last June followed by radiation therapy for it. That ended Jan 30."
-------------
Sorry to hear that TSmog, All my Hopes that you can beat the rap.
How ironic, you spend a lifetime trying to figure out how things actually work and when you finally begin to makes sense of things, your body starts to go.Thanks for the sentiments, Cred.
As of this moment, I am considered in remission. For the next five years, I will be tested by a blood test every four months and meet with my radiation oncologist. When that is accomplished I am considered cancer free. Hooray!!
Wouldn't that have to do as much with the changes in the world around you as it would the changes in you?
I see in all of us, our responses in here of those I correspond with frequently, a consistency.
Therefore, that suggests our beliefs and our processing of information goes through certain filters that are relatively non-malleable.
Over the course of the last decade Credence has become more of a hardliner in his correspondence, GA has shifted slightly more conservative but I believe that is more due to the shift in America's culture to the Left (toward Anarchy even) than because he himself has shifted.
Sharlee, Esoteric, Valeant, etc.... I haven't seen much change. But the world around us and what we perceive to be going on in it, has.
Also, what "facts" we have to work with has changed... as much as there is a growing divide, a polarization of political sides, there is also a growing divide in what is actually fact.
Transgenderism is a great example... the sudden shift in effort to make the public accept that a man who feels they are a woman now needs to be accepted as a woman, allowed to compete as a woman, etc. there are two clearly different facts/sides... those who now accept that a man can be a woman just by declaring it so (hello Dylan Mulvaney) and those that refuse to accept a man as a woman.
And because this "fact" this "reality" has been changed, or challenged, you now have formulated an opinion on the matter based on your own past beliefs and experiences... however, you personally didn't change.. the fact that society is now imposing that you accept men as women has.Over the course of the last decade Credence has become more of a hardliner in his correspondence, GA has shifted slightly more conservative but I believe that is more due to the shift in America's culture to the Left (toward Anarchy even) than because he himself has shifted.
Well I guess that I have become more of a hard liner as the Right is more strident and obnoxious than ever.
Just since last year.....
They have doubled down on unreasonable interpretation of a woman's right to choose.
They have started a book burning bonfire to destroy the perogative of people to read and absorb the ideas that they wish.
And finally, they continue in this insane pattern of resisting the will of the electorate with lame excuses of election fraud, following in the footsteps of the pumpkin head that they all seem to worship.
So, yes I have become more hardline, since the conservatives, Rightwingers and Republicans have doubled down, I have to step UP my game."the sudden shift in effort to make the public accept that a man who feels they are a woman now needs to be accepted as a woman"
No. No one really cares what you accept or not. Your acceptance isn't needed or requested. Live and let live. Have your views but keep them in your own house. You don't have a right to inflict them on anyone else. If you're a man that now identifies as a woman, I don't really care. As for sports, let's get real. What's the difference? 99.9 aren't going on to play any sport at a high level and if so then the NCAA and professional organizations can deal with transgender issues in whatever way they see fit. They make their own rules. Stop already. You don't have to "accept" anything
No one is actually telling you that. Get over yourselfAs I see it you are completely right that we see it through our own personal lens with core values no matter how we obtained them or what side of the political fence they are on and our relationship with the world and cosmos that is in constant change. As they say, change is inevitable. It is a matter of how.
Wandering a little now . . .
The survey/test or whatever someone wants to call it is about different 'world beliefs' that are particular to each unique individual, though there may be likenesses that can be grouped among peoples.
And, I completely agree to a historical change in the world itself with all of its nuances and etc will impact one's change in one of their primals leading to a world belief or remaining as is or becoming more fixed. In an experiment, there is a control group and one or more variable groups.
I guess one can say the variable is each of us and the control group is the world with its changes. In other words, we each as unique individuals have world beliefs that are static based on core values, yet the changes of the world may give cause some world beliefs to become dynamic and there is a change.
From reading they do combine one or more primals to conclude a world belief of the twenty-six primals.
For instance, as I looked at the interconnected score for me that GA inspired me to look at by sharing his score. I had a very high score. Here is what they say for that:
"This primal is probably not part of overall Good world belief because, where the perceived interconnection of the world can be a source of beauty for some, it can be a source of anxiety for others. Interconnected is strongly correlated to having had a powerful transcendent experience where one feels connected to all things. It is unclear if Interconnected world belief results from or causes such experiences."
As shared earlier to GA is Jun last year I was diagnosed with prostate cancer stage 3. Thus, what is in italics above I believe influenced my some to many of my answers given? My mindset and heart changed with reflection and introspection. I imagine you understand what I mean.
However, it changed again once I was done with radiation therapy. In other words, the transition from OMG I am at the end of my rope to I have hope through the radiation treatment to Hooray! I kicked cancer's ass!!
However, it was a result of science, all the diagnostic procedures, various doctors, the radiation oncologist knowledge and skills, engineering to make the radiation machine, the medical techs doing the therapy, my faith and trust with those, my discipline to follow the instructions/guidance, interactions with those that were my support system, and my trust and faith of a spiritual belief system. That is interconnectedness.
For myself, I see great value in the survey/test for the twenty-six primals leading to world beliefs. And, as your example with the trans issue affecting your core values, though trans is a fact today, the premise of the survey/test is to share what world beliefs have been affected and seen through reflection and introspection.
There as I see no right or wrong with survery/test. It is only feedback of one's 'Self'. There may be value in that or not. All I can share, while saying I am only begun to assess it, I have a better understanding of my world beliefs
I guess, I may have wandered, maybe, from your point to some extent. Yet, I emphasize your first point; "Wouldn't that have to do as much with the changes in the world around you as it would the changes in you?" The answer for me to you is most definitely, Yes!!
P.S. Sorry for the length I was wandering . . .Yes, I do believe experiences can change our perspective, but as we age and have more experiences to compare our beliefs, or re-affirm our beliefs, they become more fixed.
When younger I was a Democrat, I believed that the Dems were for the working class, and that the Republicans were for the rich. The Democrats were the party of peace, and the Republicans were always looking for war.
I probably believed those things when younger because of what I learned in school and at home.
The Dems today represent things I do not embrace or believe in… but also, my understanding of politics and what is going on in the world has grown immensely, from my early years.
People who do not know what UN Agenda 2030 or the Global Compact on Migration or Biden’s recent EO on Equity are about have no idea what the Democratic Party truly represents today.
Most people my age and older believe the Democratic Party stands for the issues and ideas it espoused back in the 60s and 70s.
If I ever idolized a political figure, it was JFK. Part of that is we shared a heritage, we were Capers, but another was he was a very articulate and well-read individual, he was an excellent orator, and what he put forth I agreed with and believed in… still do.
But the Democratic Party today does not represent the ideals he espoused… others may disagree, but this is my perspective.
My views have also been jaded by how the system works, having worked in government, having run non-profit programs, having dispensed government funding for below-poverty/welfare services I have accrued a lot of experience that has helped mold my current beliefs.
I believe we are all like this, those of us on the forums here, for the most part we are al 50+ers and have had considerable experiences in the world, some more than others, but at this stage in life we have analyzed our experiences and come to believe certain things.
The issue is not that we are changing our beliefs at this stage in our lives, it is that the world around us is changing.
Conservative and Liberal do not mean what they used to 30 years ago.
What is a woman, is a question we can no longer answer.
Equality is no longer good enough, enforced Equity is required.
The Boy Scouts are no longer for Boys.
Being a minority no longer means the system will discriminate against you, today it means the system will give you preferential treatment.
Non-binary and a POC?…you go to the top of the list.
The changes occurring now are far outpacing society's ability to adapt and adjust to them without causing the turmoil and discontent we see today.
I appreciate your insights and reply, it takes a bit of wandering sometimes to get one's point across.The Dems were for the workers. It seems like they have forgotten that part of their party so it is no wonder the workers are now voting elsewhere.
Thanks for the reply, Ken! I appreciate the sharing of your history within politics while understanding where you are coming from. The points made regarding the rate of change with social issues affecting political posturing are well taken with agreement on several of the points.I don't feel cultural issues are changing, yet are becoming more prominent. But, what do I know? Next, about what little I know.
Sharing of political life. I graduated high school in 1972 (17 at the time of June then turned 18 in Sept) Just in time to vote for Nixon.
To preface, my dad was a 24-year career marine, republican, and Conservative. My mom leaned conservative more than liberal. We never talked politics at all and at my family gatherings today, we just don't out of courtesy.
I chose the Republican party to join getting a membership card to boot because my dad was a Republican and mentors at church and scouting leaders too. I asked them and they discussed and advised me. Done deal.
From that point, I always voted for the Republican ticket and flipped a coin on state and local initiatives. In other words, as they say, a sheeple. ha-ha
With my lifestyle and work life, I never gave any attention to politics. Beginning in 1972 with work and school I never watched any news. I left before the morning news came on and got home after the evening news was over. And, asleep before the 11 pm news. So, as far as any current events I was ignorant only getting news through word-of-mouth. It was like that until I retired in 2013.
About 2015 with doing this and that one day I asked myself why do I believe this and that and went on a journey. That same year seeking to understand politics I started following this forum as well as the other main one to keep up with HP. I wanted to write again.
A few years earlier I switched to being an independent voter based on a sad experience at the workplace, no need to go there. So, I took it upon myself a clean slate with my journey of discovery about my core beliefs and why I had them. And, what party would be the right one for me? Today, I like being an independent voter while on my journey learning.
So, you may surmise I had not any background or knowledge about politics, governing, and world affairs. In other words, a virgin in a sense. I voted for Teddy Roosevelt in the last two elections not liking any of the ticket candidates and knowing I did not know about the ideologies of either party. So, I gave particular attention to character as a guide.
My experience here in these forums is they have been very to extensively informational. Things such as your exposing me to world organizations you feel are not to America's benefit, the clash with China for economic dominance also in relation to other countries, and recently the Ukraine affair enlightens me not only to those, yet my ignorance shall we say.
Everyone is contributing to my education simply from the topics and exchanges with posts and hints along the way. For example, GA turned me onto classical liberalism. That is a continuing study bringing me now focused on looking into liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism and if one of those fits me. I have more conservative values than liberal ones, but I do have liberal values and cannot discount them. I am looking at the Libertarian Party too.
So, in essence, I am attending HP University with a major in Political Science. Hopefully, I will graduate. ha-ha
Great! There as you saw is a ton of information about your 'Self' to digest.
I have set aside a few days next week to digest it. It is quite lengthy, isn't it? Comprehensive. I suspect it will take a little effort to assimilate constructively the results if one discovers something that is not preferred and seeks change in a primal world belief if not desired.
I like very much the comparison of the graphic for each primal to the national level. It causes me to ponder.
Yet, at my age maybe it is not important enough since I am an old guy or an old codger. I think it has a greater value to generations following me being a boomer. However, it may give insight into understanding others.
Regarding the nature of hierarchies. Hierarchies will always exist but it is a game. Everything in life is a game. Who is going to win the game & who is going to lose. Hierarchies are based on a deeper level as to who is going to OWN & who is going to be...OWNED. To the winner, comes the spoils & ownership.
Here is a great perspective on Conservative - Liberal and America today.
How I see the US after living in Europe for 5 years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEjZk15SXaU
Related Discussions
- 64
Scientific American: succinct difference between Right and Left
by Credence2 7 months ago
The Scientific American article is not terribly long but...But it reinforces for me why I am on the correct side.But I hear that conservatives distrust higher education and scholarship. What is the palatable replacement for them? I would hazard to guess. So here are some excerpts for those without...
- 161
Why Do "Conservatives" Have a Worse Economic Record Than "Liberals"?
by Scott Belford 20 months ago
I was working on a different hub and in the process developed the following statistics about GDP growth throughout American history. Since George Washington, whose economic philosophy somewhat resembled those of today's liberals, there have been:- 10 periods where administrations who favored...
- 45
Do you believe that America was much better when the Conservatives ran it or wit
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
Do you believe that America was much better when the Conservatives ran it or with the Liberalscurrently running it? Why? Why not?
- 16
Have Liberals and Conservatives Changed Since The 1960s
by Sharlee 3 years ago
8 Core Principles of ConservatismIndividual FreedomLimited GovernmentThe Rule of Law. Peace through StrengthFiscal ResponsibilityFree Markets.Human DignityConservatives are not opposed to common-sense change. However, conservatives prefer gradualism when it comes to change.Conservatives support the...
- 94
Describe the difference between a liberal and a conservative.
by Allen Donald 12 years ago
My unbiased description is this: liberals turn to government to solve their problems. Conservatives turn to business to solve their problems.
- 73
Are liberals too tolerant for their own good?
by Susan Reid 10 years ago
excerpted from Liberals pride themselves on being tolerant. Are they really just suckers?"Does fear and intolerance actually work better? I find it interesting (not surprising) that research actually shows differences in the brains of liberals vs. conservatives!What do YOU think about Ms....