Red vs. Blue: Understanding the Differences

"A brain imaging study published in Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala — a structure that is electrically active during states of fear and anxiety."⁵

"greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity"⁶

"If you have a larger or more active anterior cingulate, you may experience greater empathy, and you'll be far less likely to react with anger and fear."⁷

"The anterior cingulate plays a major role in lowering anxiety and irritability, and also enhances social awareness"⁸

"The anterior cingulate allows you to experience God as loving and compassionate. It decreases religious anxiety, guilt, fear, and anger by suppressing activity in the amygdala."⁹

"Activities involving meditation and intensive prayer permanently strengthen neural functioning in specific parts of the brain that are involved with lowering anxiety and depression, enhancing social awareness and empathy, and improving cognitive and intellectual functioning. The neural circuits activated by meditation buffer you from the deleterious effects of aging and stress and give you better control over your emotions. At the very least, such practices help you remain calm, serene, peaceful, and alert. And for nearly everyone, it gives you a positive and optimistic outlook on life.¹⁰

This is my attempt to understand Conservatives. I myself am a progressive, though I don't know why. I'm also an INTP 'Rational' knowledge seeker.

My goal is to understand people who have a different worldview. Supposedly we all live in the same world, but different people have in their minds different models of the world and how the world works. We need these models in our minds so we can make decisions about what to do and how to interact with the world. But our models differ even though we all live in the same world. That's fascinating to me.

I used to think a person's worldview was just their opinion, but now I'm slowly realizing it's much more. A person's worldview is their belief of how the world works upon which they make all their decisions on what to do. A person's worldview is based on their entire life's experience; what they've seen, what they've been told, what they've read, everything.

I'm slowly beginning to realize even though we all supposedly live in the same world, we all create our own worldview, and it's quite possible for there to be many strikingly different worldviews which conflict with one another.

It's also psychologically traumatizing for a person to change their worldview. (If it wasn't people wouldn't have a solid worldview and they wouldn't be able to cope with the world, so I opine.) People can change their worldview; for example some Christians leave the faith and become non-Christians, but the change initially leaves them very unsettled. There is a period of adjustment they go through. Another example, I changed my worldview when I realized Santa Claus didn't exist. It was a big change to my worldview, and took some time to get used to (though not really traumatizing). Another example, I changed my worldview when I realized Jesus never existed. The whole story is a myth. I originally took the evemerist view that Jesus was a person whose story became embellished to the point he was made a deity. When I changed my worldview I was unsettled for about two months, even though I'm not a Christian.

So my goal now is to understand other people whose worldview is different from mine. Why is theirs different? Why do I have the worldview I have? Was I born with it? Did I learn it? At what age? Has it changed over the years? Where do other people get their worldview from? I have a "knowledge seeking" personality (INTP 'Rational') so I'm just compelled to ask these questions and seek out answers.

The quest to understand starts with the following book:

cover

MORAL POLITICS: How Liberals and Conservatives Think by George Lakoff. Year: 1996 (2nd edition 2002). “Contemporary American Politics is about worldview. Conservatives simply see the world differently than do progressives, and both often have a difficult time understanding accurately what the other’s worldview is.” Lakoff explains that Conservatives and Progressives have two very different concepts of Morality. This is an excellent book for anyone wanting to understand the other side's point of view. See a lecture given by George Lakoff at http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=11194
This book takes work to understand, so here is an outline of the main points in the book:

Cognitive science shows people understand abstract concepts in terms of metaphors which explain the abstract concept in terms of less abstract concepts.
God is an abstract concept. One metaphor we use to understand God is the family metaphor, where God is the parent and we are his children. "God the father...", "Our father which art in heaven...". Also God created us, as parents create their children.
Government is an abstract concept. One way we understand government is by using the family metaphor, with government as the parent and citizens the children. (We speak of nation's "founding fathers," who gave "birth" to our nation. When our nation was new it was in it's "infancy.")
Different concepts of what a family should be produce different concepts of what Religion should be and what Government should be.
How a parent should raise their children is an abstract concept which we understand by using metaphors to simpler concepts. Professor Lakoff identifies about two dozen of these metaphors we all use and understand.
Both Progressives and Conservatives use and understand the same metaphors when thinking about government or religion.
The difference between Progressives and Conservatives is how they prioritize these metaphors. When we order the metaphors in terms of priority we find that Progressives order the metaphors one way, and Conservatives order the metaphors in reverse order. The metaphors Progressives hold as most important are the ones Conservatives hold as least important, and vice versa.
One can not logically determine which metaphor is more important than another. People do not determine their moral priorities by logically analyzing the metaphors themselves.
Both progressive and conservative logic is sound. There are no fundamental flaws of reasoning to expose. Once you prioritize the metaphors, the rest follows.
However, you CAN observe the results of using the progressive philosophy vs. the conservative philosophy. In the last chapters of Lakoff's book he shows that:
1. Research clearly indicates the progressive "Nurturant Parent" model is superior as a method of child rearing.
2. The conservative "Strict Father" morality requires a view of human thought that is at odds with what we know about the way the mind works.
3. The conservative "Strict Father" morality often finds morality in harm; progressive "Nurturant Parent" morality does not.

Two Concepts of Morality
In my recent studies I've discovered quite to my surprise that according to George Lakoff there are two completely different concepts of Morality. One is "Morality is Empathy;" we care about what hurts others. This is the progressive view. The other is "Morality is Obedience;" to a set of rules, such as a list of sins you're not supposed to do. This is the conservative view.

Now I've been struggling to understand this dichotomy. It occurs to me that maybe children need a list of rules because they're too young to understand Empathy, and as we grow into adults some of us understand "Morality is Empathy" and switch to that, while others for whatever reason cling to the set of rules and never grow up. (This guess will probably prove to be wrong.)

Conservatives and Progressives make different assumptions about the nature of children in particular and human beings in general.¹

(Most of the following attributes are extracted from Lakoff's book)
CONSERVATIVE	PROGRESSIVE
Morality is Obedience.	Morality is Empathy.
Children do things out of fear of punishment and obedience to authority.	Children do things to please their parents, gain respect, and out of a desire to display their mastery.
WORDS: Character, virtue, discipline, though it out, get tough, tough love, strong, self-reliance, individual responsibility, backbone, standards, authority, heritage, competition, earn, hard work, enterprise, property rights, reward, freedom, intrusion, interference, meddling, punishment, human nature, traditional, common sense, dependency, self-indulgent, elite, quotas, breakdown, corrupt, decay, rot, degenerate, deviant, lifestyle.	WORDS: social forces, social responsibility, free expression, human rights, equal rights, concern, care, help, health, safety, nutrition, basic human dignity, oppression, diversity, deprivation, alienation, big corporations, corporate welfare, ecology, ecosystem, biodiversity, pollution.
There exist "evils," both external and internal. It requires moral strength, self-control and self-discipline, to cope with these evils.	"Good" and "Evil" are children's words. The world is not black and white. The world is full of color and shades. Identifying something as "Good" or "Evil" is childish. However, there do exist Dangers: Drugs, cigarettes, cars without seat belts, dangerous toys, inflammable clothing, pollution, asbestos, lead paint, pesticides in food, toxic chemicals, diseases, unscrupulous businessmen, and so on. Evil is personified, dangers are not.
Metaphors Being Good is Being Upright. Being Bad is Being Low. Therefore, Doing Evil is Falling (high to low). Evil is a Force (either external or internal). Therefore, Morality is Strength (to resist the force of evil. Courage to face external evils; Will Power to resist external evils.) Morality is Wholeness. Immorality is Degeneration. Morality is Purity. Immorality is Impurity. Morality is Health. Immorality is Disease.
Children all start out morally weak. Children start with an overwhelming tendency to do immoral things.
People are basically bad. This is important. It means when a conservative thinks of a generic person they think of a person who is bad, irresponsible, and immoral. (Hence a generic woman seeking an abortion is a bad, irresponsible, immoral, unmarried person who shouldn't be having sex. She deserves to be punished.)	People are basically good. When a progressive thinks of a generic person they think of a person who is good, responsible, and moral. (Hence a generic woman seeking an abortion is a good, responsible, moral person who needs help.)
Conservatives think that people are basically rotten and have to be subject to authority and disciplined.	Progressives think that people are basically good and can decide what to do for themselves.
self-reliance. You're on your own.	Mutual cooperation. We're in this together.
Character is something you build. Self-discipline, self-reliance.	Character is a trait you are born with. Myers-Briggs, David Keirsey.
There is a universal, absolute, strict set of rules specifying what is right and what is wrong for all times, all cultures, and all stages of human development.	No single set of rules exists. There are hundreds of different church denominations, each believing they alone posses the one true absolute set of rules.
It is moral to follow the rules. It is immoral to break the rules.	It is moral to care about other people. It is immoral not to care about other people. It is moral to metaphorically feel other people's pain. It is immoral to be indifferent to the suffering of others.
Folk Behaviorism. People will make themselves do things they don't want to do in order to get rewards. People will refrain from doing things they do want to do to avoid punishment.	Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky, and a small army of co-workers have produced, over two decades, an enormous body of research (see References, sec. A5) detailing how people do not operate by folk behaviorism. Their experiments show in case after case that people just do not reason that way even when it matters a lot to them.² (See below quote by Carl Sagan on moral macaques who chose starvation rather than harming a fellow macaque.)
The morality of reward and punishment. People who follow the rules should be rewarded. People who break the rules must be punished. It is moral to reward obedience and punish disobedience.	The Bible's book of Job refutes this idea. It is a protest story about a wealthy, good, and virtuous person who has a string of bad things happen to him. The conclusion is bad things can happen to good people.
There is a "right kind of person." The right kind of person has: Self-discipline, Self-reliant, respect for legitimate authority, pursues his self-interest.	The right kind of person is self-nurturant and nurturant to others. Empathetic, happy, able to take care of themselves, responsible, creative, communicative, and fair. Develop their potential, meet the needs and expectations of those they love and respect, and become independent-minded. Empathize with others, develop social ties, become socially responsible, communicate well, respect others, and act fairly toward them.
Competition.	Cooperation.
God is a strict father. He promises to reward us if we obey; he punishes us if we disobey.	God is a nurturing parent. He/She cares about us and loves us. God does not punish us, but we will suffer the consequences of our own actions. (sometimes we suffer natural disasters. Sometimes bad things happen to good people. Jesus healed people, he was nice.
Natural Moral Order God above Man. Man above Nature. Adults above Children. Men above Women. Whites above non-Whites. Christians above non-Christians. Straights above Gays. America above Other Nations. Western Culture above non-Western Culture. Rich above Poor.	All Men are created Equal—including Women. Immoral to discriminate based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, wealth, or Status. The priority given to Morality As Fairness overwhelms Moral Order. There is virtually no place left for Moral Order to apply, except in the religious instances where God has moral authority over human beings. Among human beings, it disappears.³
The Natural Moral Order Can NOT Change! Strict Father morality requires that there are natural, strict, uniform, unchanging standards of behavior that must be followed if society is to function. Moral standards that change with time, or social situation, or ethnicity are a danger to the functioning of society. There is no such thing as progress in morality; what is and is not moral is fixed for all time, and any change of standards in the name of would-be moral progress is really an evil, a chipping away at our moral foundations, a tearing of our moral fabric.	The Natural Moral Order Has Changed! Clauses have been removed. We have made moral progress since our nation was founded. Slavery was declared immoral and abolished. Discrimination against blacks was declared immoral and abolished. Subjugation of women declared immoral and abolished; Women declared equal to men and given the right to vote. This is moral progress. Progressives fought long and hard for it; Conservatives fought against it every inch of the way.
Conservatives are concerned that deviating from their moral standard will result in the destruction of our civilization. “Barring a miracle, the family as it has been known for more than five millennia will crumble, presaging the fall of Western civilization itself.”—James Dobson.	Civilization has not collapsed in other countries which have taken on progressive policies. (In fact they are doing better than us.)
Strict Father Morality leads to Social Darwinism. Evolution is sometimes mistakenly seen in terms of survival of the fittest. Such a view ignores nurturance. No species survives if it does not successfully nurture its young. Evolution can be thought of in terms of nurturance—the survival of species that adapt so as to continue successful nurturance. This idea may not change the theory of evolution itself, but it does change its metaphorical applications. I mention this because the idea of evolution is sometimes imbued with Strict Father morality: the species that survive are the fittest and strongest, the ones most successful in pursuing self-interest. This Strict Father interpretation of evolution can then be turned metaphorically into Social Darwinism, the survival of the fittest in society; and then, via the metaphor of the Moral Order Is the Natural Order, the social survival of the fittest can be seen as moral. None of this makes any sense under the interpretation of evolution in terms of nurturance. If evolution is understood in terms of the survival of the nurturant, it becomes nonsense to think of the social survival of the fittest as moral on the grounds of an evolutionary metaphor for society plus the Moral Order metaphor. —Lakoff pg. 134.	Nurturant Parent Morality is supported by Sociobiology. Natural Selection leads to animals which are nurturant toward their children. Altruism makes people happy. Altruism is hedonism. See Robert Wright The Moral Animal: Why we are the way we are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology.
Internal evils: Greed, lust, gluttony, sloth, pride, envy, anger. Desires & temptations — money, sex, food, comfort, glory, things other people have.
Vices: Self-indulgence.	Moral Failings: Lack of Social Responsibility, selfishness, self-righteousness, narrow-mindedness, inability to experience pleasure, aesthetic insensitivity, lack of curiosity, uncommunicativeness, uncooperativeness, meanness, self-centeredness, lack of self respect.
Virtues: Frugality. Self-Denial. Charity, chastity, temperance, industry, modesty, calmness, satisfaction with one's lot.	Virtues: Empathy, Nurturance, Compassion, Self-Nurturance, Social Nurturance, Happiness, Self-Development, social responsibility, generosity, respect for the values of others, open-mindedness, a capacity for pleasure, aesthetic sensitivity, inquisitiveness, ability to communicate, honesty, sensitivity to feelings, considerateness, cooperativeness, kindness, community-mindedness, self-respect.
Conservative Priorities: The Strength Group Moral Strength Moral Authority Moral Order Moral Boundaries Moral Essence Moral Wholeness Moral Purity Moral Health Moral Self-Interest Moral Nurturance	Progressive Priorities: The Nurturance Group Moral Nurturance Moral Empathy Nurturance of Social Ties Moral Self-Development Moral Happiness Fair Distribution Moral Self-Interest The Strength Group
Conservative Categories of Moral Action: Promoting Strict-Father morality in general. Promoting self-discipline, responsibility, and self-reliance. Upholding the Morality of Reward and Punishment Preventing interference with the pursuit of self-interest by self-disciplined, self-reliant people. Promoting punishment as a means of upholding authority. Insuring punishment for lack of self-discipline. Protecting moral people from external evils. Upholding the Moral Order.	Progressive Moral Action: Empathetic behavior and promoting fairness. Helping those who cannot help themselves. Protecting those who cannot protect themselves. Promoting fulfillment in life. Nurturing and strengthening oneself in order to do the above.
Conservative Model Citizens: have conservative values and act to support them; are self-disciplined and self-reliant; uphold the morality of reward and punishment; work to protect moral citizens; act in support of the moral order;	Progressive Model Citizens: empathetic; help the disadvantaged; protect those who need protection; promote and exemplify fulfillment in life; take care of themselves so they can do all this;
Successful businessmen are model citizens, from whom we have nothing to fear.	Government regulation protects citizens against unscrupulous or negligent businesses and individuals.

“There are many other examples of DNA-mediated delight in activities tending toward adaptive fitness -- including parental love for children, joy in exploration and discovery, courage, camaraderie, and altruism.”—Carl Sagan, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, pg. 224

“In a laboratory setting, macaques were fed if they were willing to pull a chain and electrically shock an unrelated macaque whose agony was in plain view through a one-way mirror. Otherwise, they starved. After learning the ropes, the monkeys frequently refused to pull the chain; in one experiment only 13% would do so -- 87% preferred to go hungry. One macaque went without food for nearly two weeks rather than hurt its fellow. Macaques who had themselves been shocked in previous experiments were even less willing to pull the chain. ... By conventional human standards, these macaques -- who have never gone to Sunday school, never heard of the Ten Commandments, never squirmed through a single junior high school civics lesson -- seem exemplary in their moral grounding and their courageous resistance to evil. Among the macaques, at least in this case, heroism is the norm. If the circumstances were reversed, and captive humans were offered the same deal by macaque scientists, would we do as well?”—Carl Sagan, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, pg. 117

“Characteristically, [John Stuart] Mill had hit on an important question: Are people inherently bad? Those who believe so have tended, like Samuel Smiles, to be morally conservative—to stress self-denial, abstinence, taming the beast within. Those who believe not have tended, like Mill, to be morally progressive, fairly relaxed about how people choose to behave. Evolutionary psychology, young though it is, has already shed much light on this debate. Its findings are at once comforting and unsettling.
“Altruism, compassion, empathy, love, conscience, the sense of justice—all of these things, the things that hold society together, the things that allow our species to think so highly of itself, can now confidently be said to have a firm genetic basis. That's the good news. The bad news is that, although these things are in some ways blessings for humanity as a whole, they didn't evolve for the "good of the species" and aren't reliably employed to that end. Quite the contrary: it is now clear that ever how (and precisely why) the moral sentiments are used with brutal flexibility, switched on and off in keeping with self-interest; and how naturally oblivious we often are to this switching. In the new view, human beings are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their constitutional ignorance of the misuse.”—Robert Wright The Moral Animal: Why we are the way we are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology.

“Children of authoritarian parents tend to lack social competence with peers: They tend to withdraw, not to take social initiative, to lack spontaneity. Although they do not behave differently from children of other types of parents on contrived measures of resistance to temptation, on projective tests and parent reports they do show lesser evidence of "conscience" and are more likely to have external, rather than internal, moral orientation in discussing what is the "right" behavior in situations of moral conflict. In boys, there is evidence that motivation for intellectual performance is low. Several studies link authoritarian parenting with low self-esteem and external locus of control.
“Whereas the parents of aggressive children tend to be authoritarian, children of authoritarian parents may or may not be aggressive, and so far the aspects of family interaction that are important in determining whether a child of authoritarian parenting will be subdued or "out of control" have not been satisfactorily identified.”—(B2, Maccoby and Martin, p. 44, as quoted by Lakoff, pg. 354)

“The authoritative-reciprocal pattern of parenting is associated with children's being independent, "agentic" in both the cognitive and social spheres, socially responsible, able to control aggression, self-confident, and high in self-esteem.”—(B2, Maccoby and Martin, p. 48, as quoted by Lakoff, pg. 356)

“Single moms are stupid. Not all are stupid. But plenty are. Too many of them are stupid, lazy and selfish.”—Phil Luciano, columnist for the Peoria journal Star (Illinois) (9/20/05)

"I kind of see things in black and white terms. I know there's gray up here (pointing to her brain), but right here (pointing to her heart) I really see things as a struggle between right and wrong."—Nancy Grace, anchor, CNN Headline News, Colbert Report 1/9/06.)

One's thoughts should be set free to explore wherever they please, to examine one's beliefs from every angle, and even to consider the possibility that they are not true — because if they are true, they will inevitably stand up to reality and so there is no harm in asking the question. On the other hand, if they are not true, we should want to know that so we can replace them with something better.

In Aristotle's Ethics, it's clear that the ease and pleasure with which good acts are done, the absence of moral effort, is for him the symptom of virtue. (Osborne, pg. 25)

During the civil rights movement (1960's), white southerners worldview was that blacks could not be educated beyond a 6th grade education. Blacks were simply intellectually inferior. And blacks were happy with their lot. It was only those northerners who wanted to mess things up by forcing school integration. Putting blacks in white schools would only drag down the quality of education. Northerners worldview was that skin color has nothing to do with intelligence, blacks could be just as smart as whites. The black community carefully chose nine of their brightest students to integrate with the white school. What do we do with two conflicting worldviews? Obviously the southern worldview was wrong, as we now have numerous black college graduates who are very bright. Conflict boils down to a clash between two conflicting worldviews.

"common sense rules of parenting that worked well in this country for generations" --Arthur Sido (Amazon.com)

"I can't watch most modern day cartoons with my kids without being thoroughly disgusted with the values and content. These classic episodes portray good vs evil kind of values." -- M. Stephens (Amazon.com)

"Doesn't your child deserve the same instruction and discipline that laid the foundations for generations of parents and grand parents to achieve in the face of despair and uncertainty, and ultimately build the greatest country in the world, The United States of America? Let someone else's kid be a guinea pig for "modern enlightened parenting". Relearn what has been forgotten." -- M. Stephens (Amazon.com)

In a day of widespread drug use, immorality, sexually transmitted diseases, vandalism, and violence... (Amazon.com)

"Every child needs boundaries and limits and they even crave it.." -- True only of SJ Guardian children? (Amazon.com)

"This book shows the perfect way to raise a child contrary to progressive & foolish ideas a child's spirit won't be broken instead it will teach them discipline, respect for law, authority & others in case you disagree just watch the news & see how must of criminals are young, *wake up America*" (Amazon.com)

"I think the permissive attitudes are what is wrong in the world (particularly the U.S.) today." (Amazon.com)

Conservatives believe Progressives "want to give it away." (Whatever "it" is...)
Progressives see themselves as wanting to make it accessible to everyone, which is not exactly the same as "giving it away."
I see conservatives as the ones who want to keep the status quo. So when slavery was the status quo the conservatives supported slavery and wanted to keep it. No changes. Then conservatievs wanted to keep racism. Conservatives were against women's liberation. And now conservatives are against homosexuals. Conservatives don't want change. Progressives want change for the better. Progressives fought hard to end slavery, end racism, give women the right to vote, and are now fighting for gay rights. (It's not a choice. Homosexuals are born that way.)

Of course I'm sure Conservatives don't define themselves this way, and Conservatives don't see Progressives the way Progressives define themselves.

"we are far more dependent on other members of our species that any other ape or monkey. We are more like ants or termites who live as slaves to their societies. We define virtue almost exclusively as pro-social behavior and vice as anti-social behavior. One of the things that marks humanity out from other species and accounts for our ecological success, is our collection of hyper-social instincts." I might add that this is exactly what the economist Joseph Schumpeter had in mind when he referred to capitalism as a naturally occuring spontaneous ordering, a concept anathema to the collectivist, group oriented, anti-individualist souls on the political left. Hence, they call Ridley a Thatcherite while ignoring the evidence of this book which leads to an understanding of the correctness of Schumpeter's inescapable conclusion. Mutual cooperation and trust on an individual level lead to far greater surpluses for all than any concentration of power laid in the hands of government bureaucrats.

Matt Ridley is all grown up, and what interests him in this book is not so much the origin of virtue (although he does get heavily into that) but the restoration of the conservative agenda. Alas. He argues from biology (our nature) to what ought to be politically. This is doubly "alas" because Ridley preaches mightily against this very delusion, calling it a "reverse naturalistic fallacy" --Dennis Littrell (Amazon.com) on Ridley's "The Origins of Virtue"