“People May Not Be Logical, But Few Of Them Are Crazy”
TED is one of the most interesting sites on the internet, and Jonathan Haidt’s talk is one of the most interesting on TED. [Thus his insight is one of the most interesting on the internet, Q.E.D.]
[Note: Sorry, I forgot to include a link to an interview that the excerpt and title are from.]
He specifically studies what different moral values people have and how it relates to their political identification and logical reasoning. I think his conclusions are far more insightful than all the talking head pundits put together.
How would you advise a proponent of Obama’s healthcare reform bill to go about persuading its opposition — or at least to turn the debate toward the actual validity of its proposals, rather than the sensationalist claims?
While it is useful to rebut charges and get your arguments out in circulation, you have to understand that arguments and evidence have little impact on people as long as their feelings tilt them against you. You’ve got to create trust and liking first, and then people will be willing to listen. People can believe pretty much whatever they want to believe about moral and political issues, as long as some other people near them believe it, so you have to focus on indirect methods to change what people want to believe. You have to get them to the point where they ask themselves “can I believe it?” about your claims, rather than about your opponents’ claims. The time to establish that trust and liking was months ago, and perhaps some of it was burned up in the giant bailouts and coziness with Wall Street. I’m not a political scientist; I can’t say why his poll numbers went down. But as a moral psychologist I can say that there’s now little that can be done to win over or calm down the town-hall protesters. They’ve formed a new gang, a new heroic moral identity of resistance.
My main suggestion is to boil the plan down to a few easy-to-understand ideas, each of which has some intuitive moral content. The compassion and caring-for-all ideas should be easy for Obama, but they are not going to win over non-liberals, particularly those like Congressman Joe Wilson who are offended by the prospect of caring for outsiders (i.e., immigrants). But Obama might have to reach beyond his moral comfort zone to bring in some conservative ideas of fairness, such as that laziness or personal irresponsibility must not be rewarded. Obama might want to consider discussing the role of lawyers, and the role of lawsuits in driving up the costs of medical care. Even if economists say that this is not a major economic factor, it is a major moral issue for many people: whiny, irresponsible patients team up with crooked lawyers to milk the system for multi-million dollar settlements. It’s outrageous, and Obama’s opponents specialize in mobilizing outrage. Opposition parties always do, and neither side has a deep respect for the truth, although I do think that the kind of populist moral outrage now being cultivated by Glenn Beck and other conservative media personalities shows the three principles of moral psychology in an unusually florid fashion: intuitive primacy, moral thinking is for social doing, and morality binds and builds. It’s very hard to combat such attacks with reasons and evidence. I hope the Obama team finds some more indirect ways to change feelings – perhaps by making progress on the economy, or by handling an international crisis well. When it comes to moral persuasion, the way to the head is through the heart.
50 Responses to ““People May Not Be Logical, But Few Of Them Are Crazy””
Man! This is what I keep telling people, only a bit less directed at the people I keep telling. Health Care is NOT a political issue, it is a moral/ethical one. All of these distractions that the opponents of reform are tossing about are merely intended to hide themselves from the moralities which they claim to uphold.
If Obama would take the moral high ground, & claim it as his own, this issue could be a done deal in next to no time.
I'm confused about the quote…is that Haidt answering the question? It doesn't seem to relate to the clip that you linked to.
I think his ideas are interesting, although it is hard as a conservative not to notice that he plays to the biases of the mostly liberal audience even as he's telling them that they need to put aside their biases. It's still overall a good talk though.
But the big elephant in the room that he seems to miss is why self avowed liberals so often don't see “government” as = to 'authority”. At one point talking about the morality of purity he alludes to the fact that this isn't a cut and dried right vs.left issue because really both right and left see the need for purity but they attribute the concerns to different behaviors (sex vs. food.) But similarly, on the authority issue, with today's progressives there's disdain for the authority of nongovernmental groups, but often little concern for the authority of govt (depending on the issue, and who's in control of the govt of course- that is, when the GOP is in control there's a whole lot of concern but not so much when Dems are running DC.)
Anyway, I think this is a huge lapse in his analysis because it relates to how the moral underpinnings inform one's political views. If 'liberals' were to correctly attach their stated moral views to their political ones, they'd be classical liberals (maybe most closely matched by today's libertarian label) not modern progressives.
And leaving this part out also massively misses the point of a lot of conservative opposition to certain progressive ideological pursuits. For instance, assuming that blockquote is Haidt's answer to how to approach conservatives who disagree with current attempts at healthcare reform, it isn't going to be enough to frame it as a moral issue. You would also have to explain how and why the federal govt should be trusted as the agent of that moral change.
CS – A very thoughtful comment.
For the edification of the ignorant among us (pointing at myself as I type), would you please share your definition of “classical liberal” so I can better understand your reference to classical liberals being closely matched to modern libertarians?
With the caveat that I've only skimmed it, I'd say that I'm basically using the definition as given by wikipedia here.
My basic understanding of classical liberalism is that there is a great deal more emphasis on freedom and constraint of govt authority, and much less tendency to use the govt as an instrument of social change or redistribution of wealth because of the concern of overreaching authoritarianism, than you see in current left wing ideology. That's why I'd say it's much more like modern day libertarianism than what we now call 'liberalism' or 'progressivism.'
Sorry I forgot to include a link to the interview that I excerpted from. He makes some important points in that that I felt were missing from the original talk, since it's some concrete examples.
For instance he says:
“In terms of the “five foundations” that I presented in my TEDTalk, I think that a big area of misunderstanding in the current debate concerns the role of purity/sanctity in biomedical issues, particularly abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell research. If your morality is based on the moral foundations of harm/care and fairness/reciprocity (as liberal morality is, in my data), then you're likely to take a very practical or utilitarian approach, one that aims to minimize suffering while maximizing the rights of the individuals involved. You take a “materialist” view of life, which doesn't mean materialistic as in greedy, it means you think the only thing that exists is matter – no souls – so you think life is a physical or mechanical process that can be tinkered with to optimize the welfare of human beings. Hence abortion, voluntary euthanasia, and stem cell research are all justified.
But materialism is deeply and profoundly threatening to many people. It's the reason that the philosopher Peter Singer is so widely attacked, despite his humanitarian intentions. The current Pope and the last one both railed against this form of materialism. The materialism of the secular left opens it up to charges that it promotes a “culture of death.” Liberals are said to like to kill fetuses and the elderly; they don't treat anything as sacred. This term has been bandied about on the right for many years, and while it is a gross exaggeration, it is based in a real truth, a real difference on the question of the sacredness of life.”
This is an indirect answer to part of your question based on of his interpretation of his data.
It is way too late to think some sort of “here's what's in it for you guys” approach is going to have any appeal, much less fundamental credibility, at this point. You set the table for that by inviting the other views to the drafting session day one, not six months down the road after it is obvious you are sinking fast and needing to toss out life lines.
As for making it a moral issue, I would absolutely love for Emanuel and Axelrod to appoint Frith_Ra to run with that idea in an all out media blitz right now.
CS – Thank you. The opportunity to learn is always appreciated, and the link you provided was very enlightening.
Agreed…….”New Deal statists” will now be a favorite term in my TMV lexicon.
CStanley–
This is completely off topic, but I remember that you live in Georgia, and I wondered if you're doing okay in the flooding?
I certainly hope so!
I think there's a much more fundamental problem with this talk than just the specific problems brought up by CS et al.
The 5 foundations that the subsequent talk relies upon seem to me rather dubious. If they are in fact part of the “first draft” nature provides as he contends, wouldn't you see these traits in children? Any parent out there knows all too well that none of these traits exist in children; indeed, teaching kids about harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, etc takes years before they begin to demonstrate these traits outside direct supervision.
He also states that social anthropologists have collated these social pillars in various societies, but no mention of trait distribution within a single society is noted. All five may exist in all societies, but a better understanding of conservative/liberal spectrum could be inferred if the weighting of these values were measured. Clearly, individual societies stress a particular subset of these five, Japan may stress Fairness/reciprocity due to high population concentrations while rural societies may stress In group loyalty. Stating all five exist doesn't really provide the insight he'd like to derive.
To use these five traits as a means of defining left/right on the political spectrum seems to me rather a stretch in societal analysis, and stating that the “first draft” concept was reflected in the unsocialized mind of a child was just wishful thinking.
GS- We're fine, but we know many, many people who were affected and the interstate that is our main artery was closed just a few miles from our home. We were actually out of town during the entire event but were in frequent contact with friends, neighbors, and coworkers- many of whom suffered damage or inability to travel to and from work. It's very hilly around here and our neighborhood/home are on high ground, so no problems right here.
Thanks for asking!
Thanks, mikkel. I agree with his interpretation more in that second excerpt in your response compared to the first example you quoted.
I agree with you about the political spectrum point, although if liberal/conservative is used as temperament then I think he is relative accurate. Like CS noted, any individual position and its mapping onto “conservative/liberal” is widely variant in a given culture. However when it comes to moral reasoning, it maps much better.
I think you are also correct that distributions are different amongst different societies and times.
However, I agree with him that it is part of the “first draft.” To me this is clearly seen in animal socialization, particularly primates. Even though it's proven possible to teach them to act “moral” in some aspects, it's impossible in others (particularly males and dominance related issues). Abnormal psych also deals with some of this.
I don't think he is saying that people innately have these values, more that htey have the capacity and preference towards certain ones. This type of research is extremely hard to do, but there have been twin studies that suggest some causal link.
Ha!
No need to placate conservatives by “approaching them” anymore. Just SQUISH them in the next election!
People are clearly waking up to the ignoramus arguments Republicans are making against healthcare and everything else. These arguments in Washington are now mainly between Squish-able blue-dogs and their much loved majority party.
These Tea Party nitwits are merely remnants of the dieing away ra-ra team that make noise and threats, but make themselves look dumber than dumb in the process. They win no converts. They dump no tea. The tea trade is safe and so is healthcare reform. If not now, then next election will cinch it!
Any parent out there knows all too well that none of these traits exist in children; indeed, teaching kids about harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, etc takes years before they begin to demonstrate these traits outside direct supervision
I don't agree. I see a lot of innateness in my kids (as well as in observing their friends, and nieces, nephews, etc), and varying degrees to which the various values are weighted. Some kids have a very heightened sense of fairness (even if it initially is skewed toward a desire for everything to be more 'fair' to their own self interests.) Other kids really value loyalty. All of the values can be taught, but some of it 'takes' much more easily in one child vs. another- and that was the sense that I got from Haidt's analysis (that there's a hard wired ability to absorb the values, but then some of the weighting and interpretation of the values is taught or influenced by society.)
Prehaps the difference in the view of government as “authority” is the issue of control? Despite having socialed healthcare, Europe has remainded democratic. So, granting the government the power to provide healthcare has resulted in healthier populations and not the surrending of the republic. Plus, we have a voice in what the government does. You can force accountibility and transparancy. It is a much slower process to turn the boat, but the voters can do that.
The public has much less transparancy with and control over private businesses and certainly international corporations. Voters can set laws, and make sure the laws are enforced in this country, but if a company is determined to do bad things (child labor, polution, etc) in the pursuit of profits, they will just do it some place else.
Truly, most liberals I know are generally inclined to be skeptical of authority. They aren't going to trust it unless it based on evidence, data, etc. Most conservatives I know seem to feel more comfortable with authority, provided it is 'their' authority (church authorities, politicians they trust, etc). These are broad generalizations, but what I'm trying to get at is that, for most liberals, this isn't a question of authority. They get skeptical of government very quickly when privacy and civil liberties are involved. They also wouldn't consider some of the things that disturb conservatives to be civil liberty issues. For instance, a tax on soda is not a civil liberty issue. The government raiding your house on the often incorrect suspicion of drugs is a civil liberty issue.
I think his problem is that even if he does a good job of academically describing something, his personal views are sometimes meshed in there in his emphasis. He alluded to the fact that there are different realizations of the moral aspects in the talk (and the bit about how fairness to liberals in health care debate is how many peopel have access but conservatives have more focus on whether “personal irresponsibility” is rewarded) but didn't really get specific. In his actual research he writes more about those differences.
Oh, I'm sure you're right that it's a difference of where one places the emphasis. The problem though is that then you just end up getting into differences of opinion as to where the emphasis should most correctly be placed. I think it's useful to some extent to examine how each group makes those determinations (and hopefully, then the opposing side has a better understanding of the other, and can view their disagreements as ones of differing emphasis instead of hypocrisy or being devoid of values altogether.)
For instance, in your examples, I simply disagree- because most of the authority figures that you mention that conservatives accept are based on voluntary associations which I feel are more easily severed as opposed to governmental authority which is imposed or, once ceded to govt are not easily reversed.
his personal views are sometimes meshed in there in his emphasis.
Yeah, that's what I thought too- that's why I said that I found it annoying but didn't cancel out the value of the overall talk.
Mikkel
You and CStanley seem to see the “first draft” as having more content at birth than I believe exists.
” However, I agree with him that it is part of the “first draft.” To me this is clearly seen in animal socialization, particularly primates. Even though it's proven possible to teach them to act “moral” in some aspects, it's impossible in others (particularly males and dominance related issues).”
“. I see a lot of innateness in my kids (as well as in observing their friends, and nieces, nephews, etc), and varying degrees to which the various values are weighted.”
CStanley
At birth, newborns do have certain “hard wired” capacities: the startle reflex, the ability to take nourishment, etc.; but consciousness is learned based solely upon interaction with the environment. Studies of feral children have demonstrated that the human “computer” is programmed by how adults react with that computer from the get go. If a child is neglected or abused, children grow up reflecting anti-social traits just as assuredly as “normal children” reflect the five pillars he is introduced to be caring parents.
What's missed in Haidt's analysis is the same that has been missed by many others. Our interaction with children starts immediately, is largely non-verbal, and unlike CStanley's contention, innateness is projected unto the young. Our subjective perceptions blind us to our interaction with the object being studied.
Don't take my word for it, check out this link::
http://www.damninteresting.com/clever-hans-the-…
what is ascribed to newborns is no different
Cs
I included some of my response to you under my reply to Mikkel.
When your kids were newborns, they didn't have any predilections save eating, sleeping, and staying warm. Every social interaction you perceive they show is merely learned from you or imaginary projection of a proud parent. I'm the same way with my kids, so don't read this as criticism.
If kids have any hard wired personality traits, those would be on the level of shy or outgoing, not greedy or sharing. You may have seen those studies where first born children are found to be more serious, responsible, or whatever, than second born children. If kids have innate traits hard wired at birth, one can believe that line of reasoning. Have you considered that parents unconsciously treat the first born with more protectiveness, more seriousness, and more tension than those that follow? Kids are only pre-programmed to learn, to imitate, and to react in any way required to get what they want.
Social values come from cues, not genes. Your kids could just as easily been brought up Democrats.
I strongly disagree Hemm. Your example of feral children isn't accurate because like I said above: neither cs nor I are claiming that ability is inherent, just that preference is.
I don't see why you consider shy/outgoing to be largely hard wired, while selfish or cooperative isn't. They are both personality traits.
In fact, your paragraph to cs is scattershot, because it first acknowledges that shyness is a genetic trait, but then talks about birth order — which has strong predictability of whether someone is outgoing or not.
To be fair, most personality traits I've read they've suggested 30-40% variance is explained by genetics while intelligence is 75% so environmental factors definitely are really strong. On the individual level they are the strongest, but on the population level you will see segmenting.
It would be nice if they did a large scale genetic study to get a grip on the different moral facets and how much is influenced by innate traits, but I don't think it's at all unreasonable for them to assume that they are based on the myriad of other cognitive/social traits that they have demonstrated.
Mikkel
I'll restate what my intent was in my original comment. The startle reflex is hard-wired. Fearfulness is learned. To state that personality traits as advanced as those listed in the talk are somehow inherent is wrong. CS actually stated ” I see a lot of innateness in my kids.” That statement is wishful thinking. Preference implies discernment between two different ideas. New borns don't have ideas, they have a capacity for thought. Capacity is not preference. A bucket does not hold one particular liquid over another.
As to shy or outgoing, perhaps a different word was needed. Given newborn twins, one may well appear dominate from the very beginning. The problem, of course, is newborn last about 4 hours without interaction with a care giver. The minute interaction takes place, person programming begins.
As to birth order, the order only matters in that parents unconsciously treat the 2nd child differently than the first born. They are less stressed, less fearful, less new to the experience. That's why the little computers differ; different input signals means a different program output.
The only other real singularity among kids is chemical. The adverse imbalances we all know about. I conjecture that more subtle chemical interplays are also at work in creating individuals, but I can't cite any proof of that.
In short, the fundamental “traits” that you believe exist are impossible to detect unless you interact with the child, and that interaction programs the child. It's sort of like a psychological Heisenberg uncertainty principal, to check the kid for traits imprints the kid with traits.
Hemm, you've misunderstood my comment in a number of ways, and I have to say that you're also just plain wrong on some of the science.
First in regard to my comment, you seem to be assuming that I'm projecting based on wishful thinking or a desire to see my kids in a positive light. I was actually referring to a mixture of some positive and some negative traits that I see in my kids and other children that I've had extended contact with. It's not a matter of pride, especially when in some cases I'm thinking of values that have been particularly hard to instill in one of my kids and of some specific challenges that a temperamental trait has caused for my other child.
You see, my eldest- my first biological child- had an anxiety disorder related to social anxiety. She was tempermentally extremely anxious from birth. Now, you'll argue that as a first child, I may have interacted with her in ways that heightened her anxiety- and that may be somewhat true. But by all objective accounts, I was not an extremely anxious first time parent and yet she developed an anxiety disorder so severe that she could not speak outside of our home.
In my quest to understand and help her, I wound up studying a great deal of neurophysiology relating to early childhood development, and I was fortunate to not only read the work of, but also meet and interview this guy who is considered a pioneer in developmental psychology. He's done a lot of research, including twin studies, that suggest both innate and environmental contributors to personality traits like fearfulness. His ideas were quite controversial initially but now his theories of inhibited/noninhibited personality are widely accepted in developmental psychology.
Of course social interactions matter- I'm not arguing that hard traits are completely inherited- it's more a matter of nature PLUS nurture. That's why I can easily acknowledge that my daughter's hard wired tendency toward anxiety (which studies have shown is due to a lower threshhold of excitability in the amydala, so that fear responses are more easily triggered) might not have developed into a full fledged anxiety disorder if our early interactions with her had been different. I imagine that my own concerns about how she was interacting with people outside our home probably triggered more anxiety for her, and if I had known then what I know now I may have been able to have altered the course of her development. But at the same time, I'm quite certain that a genetically different child would not have had such an extreme tendency toward anxiety to begin with, and I know that my interactions with her were not the cause.
BTW, the daughter I'm referring to just returned from a youth leadership conference in Washington DC where she participated in a model Congress and other workshops with a couple of hundred kids that she'd just met. She's come home with email addresses of dozens of new friends…so she's doing quite well!
Oh, and a couple of asides about the anxiety disorder that she had…our nonprofit group helped sponsor a genetic study with UCLA which verified heritability of the disorder- and a relation to social anxiety disorder and general anxiety disorder. One reason I'm pretty adamant about setting the record straight is that there are still some psychologists who aren't aware of the current research and tend to blame bad parenting (just as parents, especially mothers, were often blamed for attachment problems and autism during the 70's.) So the basic concept of heritability of these traits, and having people understand the scientific data about it, is quite important to me and to all of these other parents who are struggling to find help for their kids.)
Again you're not looking at population studies that have been done that were adjusted as much as possible for environment, nor animal studies that have shown very similar outcomes (I mean with kittens and puppies you can tell their basic personality before they are even capable of being weaned) nor increasing microscale evidence based on brain structures and even protein expression.
Adopted children that have not been raised at all by their biological parents are statistically much closer to their biological parents when it comes to alcoholism (well addiction in general), depression, and extraversion…with even stuff as complex as political identity having some correlation.
What you are describing is the tabula rasa, which at this point is not accepted by any of the psychological schools as being completely accurate…even the behaviorists of the Skinner variety who are the most apt to ascribe environmental factors to behavior and psychology.
From wikipedia:
[As a quick side note, there is considerable difficulty in determining what is "genetic" i.e. programmed in DNA and what is "natal developmental" that is still "nature" because it occurs before birth, but is influenced more by hormonal development. For instance male homosexuality has relatively low (although positive) genetic correlates but higher birth order correlates based on the number of older brothers. There is a theory that the hormonal levels are affected in natal development -- which considering all the biological changes that are in homosexuals (on the population level) can't just be ascribed to environment.]
The nature vs. nurture debate is completely dead in the professional field. There is a consensus that there are genetic influences on nearly everything, that the strength varies depending on what you're talking about and that attempting to go against that causes problems. Most of the vigorous debate is on how to actually utilize that information for treatment/policy/etc. especially since (as I keep saying) the results are valid when talking about populations but not individuals.
Your daughter is very lucky you took such an active approach cs. I know several people with social anxiety that was undiagnosed for over a decade and their family was completely not understanding and thought they were lazy and worthless or sociopaths (pretending in order to get others to do things). One is doing better now that he's on medication, but he has few real life skills and despite being highly intelligent and well educated he is forced to work service jobs because he doesn't know how to approach people professionally.
Thanks, mikkel. As far as I was concerned, we had no choice but to figure out how to help her (and, she's a remarkable and strong willed individual who has fought to overcome her challenges, so she deserves so much of the credit)…but at the same time, I've come in contact with a lot of families who really had no clue and the lack of support from the community in general and extended family members in many cases, basically broke the families apart. I know of teens and young adults who have never been able to overcome this disorder (selective mutism) and live in complete dependency and isolation. It's really heartbreaking.
Mikkel
” Adopted children that have not been raised at all by their biological parents are statistically much closer to their biological parents when it comes to alcoholism (well addiction in general), depression, and extraversion…with even stuff as complex as political identity having some correlation.”
You point out just what I was saying, babies come with chemically significant traits that can be traced genetically. Depression, dependence have chemically collated markers. Remove or add the right chemical, physical depression disappears; however, the learned traits of a depressed individual can take years to unlearn. My point is that political affiliation is experiential. No one is born believing we should have a king or a commissar. Yet you contend that kids are born with a predilection to be Republicans, conservatives, or anarchists?
Kids don't come with political party affiliations.
The stats loosely cited in the wiki entry are also dubious in that the traits of personality are not explicitly defined. They track personality “traits,” but are hard pressed to give a clinical definition of personality. From that digest:
” That is, environmental effects that are typically thought to be life-shaping (such as family life) may have less of an impact than non-shared effects, which are harder to identify.”
This statement has no scientific meaning.
Likewise:
” Unexpectedly, some adoption studies indicate that by adulthood the personalities of adopted siblings are no more similar than random pairs of strangers. “
I got news, my sister and I grew up together in the same environment and you would never know we're related if you judged us by the five pillars of society, or any other arbitrary value system you choose. Are we adopted?
Mikkel, you rely too much on the “common wisdom” that passes for science. These studies can't define personality, can't agree on what traits come from genes and what comes from nurture, nor can they get around the fact the babies are affected by any interaction that takes place during their examination.
They are never working from the “a priori” of the human being, the brain that's compelled to take in any stimulus and thus develop a means of survival.
I got news, my sister and I grew up together in the same environment and you would never know we're related if you judged us by the five pillars of society, or any other arbitrary value system you choose. Are we adopted?
Maybe the hospital made a mistake at birth? Just kidding, of course…
But seriously, first you're overlooking that mikkel pointed out that the correlations apply more at a group level than an individual level. And second, you're overlooking the fact that your sister isn't your genetic twin (at least you didn't mention it if you two are identical twins) so you don't share all genes by any stretch. And third, you're arguing against a strawman because neither I, nor mikkel, nor Haidt, nor any of the developmental psychologists we're referring to are saying that these traits are immaleable. Nor that they predict something as complex as political party affiliation- we're just saying that the various ways that personality and values affect our views of the world can influence our acceptance or rejection of certain political ideology. And that those traits and values, while not immaleable due to genetics, are also not infinitely malleable when influenced by environment.
“Mikkel, you rely too much on the “common wisdom” that passes for science.”
If by common wisdom you mean statistical significance in population studies by testing specific hypotheses and finding biological and familial markers (for things such as personality the tools to measure it are standardized questionaires applied in a single blind way so the data collectors have no idea who the person is or who else they are related to in the study) then yes, I guess I rely too much on common wisdom.
Also, while political party preference is obviously not genetic, there have been repeated studies that show that political identity has a strong correlation with personality and reaction to stimulus. For example, authoritarian voters tend to actually be more “jumpy” when presented with an unexpected external stimulus. Physiologically speaking, they literally are more apt to have an initial impression of danger when confronted. If you study propaganda techniques, you will notice that authoritarian strains make use of imagery and rhetoric that triggers these responses and then channels them into feelings of loyalty and fealty to country/party/race/whatever is in their best interest. There are similar techniques that play into all the facets that Haidt talks about. It's the foundation of mass marketing.
Of course those things aren't the domain of one particular party. Sure ideological strains naturally align with certain facets, but they are in flux largely based on world events and political success. There is a cynical (although in my view correct) point of view that instead of democracies consisting of two largely groups that accept opposing ideologies and a rational moderate middle that is smaller and determines outcome, instead you have small groups of intellectual ideologues, larger groups of people that vote entirely based on the “team” analogy (look at some of elrod's posts on Appalachian voting patterns) and rationalize their decisions, and a “middle” that has weak loyalty but is very susceptible to political messaging and “gut feelings” that are manipulated; the success of which is based on what is going on in the world. [Rational moderates are nearly non-existent]
So yeah, I would go out on a limb and say that voting patterns are influenced by personality traits which are influenced by genetics. The strength of that is dependent on tons of factors though, so by no means is it fatalistic to say what any individual will think.
I actually do think they predict political party affiliation like I commented to HemmD. Or if not “party affiliation” they predict what type of messaging is most likely to be effective, and certain message types are associated with particular political strains. But as the classical liberal vs modern liberal point you brought up shows, the make up of political identity is rather haphazard at any given point of time. It's kind of amazing to me that our political debates are rather unchanged in 200 years, other than taking a bunch of positions and jumbling them up every so often.
CS
Just remember that your kids are closet democrats.
Seriously, go back to Haidt's talk, he clearly implies first that kids have certain traits that he then correlates to the five principles. My original contention was with that jump of logic. It still is my contention.
My original response to you was due to your statement about seeing innateness:
” I don't agree. I see a lot of innateness in my kids (as well as in observing their friends, and nieces, nephews, etc), and varying degrees to which the various values are weighted.
That innateness was learned from their parents. There is no genetic marker for innate personality traits. Again, as I said to mikkel, the fact that no clinical definition for personality has been defined makes this whole subject a little too subjective to call it scientific.
Please understand, I don't dispute that kids have definite personalities, I'm just refusing to take the incredibly intimate between parent and child out of the equation. If anything, I think it just puts more responsibility upon the parent if one accepts that the strengths and flaws we see in our children had to be learned somewhere.
As to your last response:
” But seriously, first you're overlooking that mikkel pointed out that the correlations apply more at a group level than an individual level”
Understanding personal predilections via a group level view really makes no logical sense. What groups do or become is something separate from any individual's personal traits, that's exactly the point. Drawing that relationship is not strictly logical. If I look at hundreds of clocks, do I know anything for sure about how the next clock I pick up works? Nope. Statistically, and argument can be made, but remember that statistics never prove, they only persuade.
Anyway, my point was that the talk started from a dubious set of assumptions, that was why any conclusions based upon the assumptions are in turn also dubious. I stand by that criticism.
Well, I'm sorry if I misrepresented your view then but what I mean is that the parties themselves change over time and that I do think that experience with a party that wields its influence and applies its ideology well will tend to influence a lot of people during their formative years, too (I'm pretty sure I've seen you argue as much in past discussions, so I think you'll agree.)
So in that sense, the predictive value of the genetically influenced personality markers becomes watered down. A teen or young adult who experiences a prosperous time when the more conservative party is in control, even if he/she has some tendency toward liberalism, is less likely to completely reject conservative ideas than one who experienced an economic meltdown and unpopular wars during a nominal conservative administration.
“Statistically, and argument can be made, but remember that statistics never prove, they only persuade.”
You can't pick and choose what you call scientific and not scientific because this is true for everything. There is no such thing as proving anything in science. You do have a general valid criticism about how hard it is to formally define “personality” but you have to look at how they actually apply the tests. If they use a standardized test with a blind test giver in order to have self reported personality and then correlate that with other things (amongst them genetics by looking at family lines) then I fail to see what the issue is.
Look, this sort of science is definitely “soft science” because it's impossible to test the mechanisms. I know tons of scientists that hate soft science because it's too mushy for them. However, they don't criticize it for the reason you are at all. If the statistics are valid then they say “yeah the correlations there, but so what? How do we perturb the system or figure out specific mechanisms.” All my neuroscientist coworkers would hate being cognitive scientists because they have more of an engineering mindset. [Of course the cognitive scientists say that neuroscience is boring, because who cares what a particular channel and gene expression does if it doesn't tell you how it changes what people think.]
If you are talking about individuals, then mechanism is extremely important because individuals work on cause/effect. However, when talking about populations and descriptive frameworks, then mechanism takes a back seat. People hate this and have the reaction you have (pointing out individual anecdotes, claiming it's impossible to know, etc.) because we're biologically programmed to be like that. This drives clinical doctors insane because if they say “if you have a good diet then statistically speaking you're 30% less likely to get X” then no one will do it, so they just lie and say good diet = good health so more people will. But then those people that do but still have poor health get angry because the cause and effect wasn't there…except it was, at the population level.
[By the way, the "chemical markers" you noted in depression etc that can be treated actually have a fairly low response rate to drugs until severe depression sets in, and even then for a lot of people it doesn't work or stops working. So even that mechanistic system have similar correlations as what we're discussing. There is a major debate whether to be more public about this.]
Anyway I don't have much more to add except that this is like when we talked about global warming. You seem to have a very mechanistic Newtonian viewpoint of what Science is that while it works ok in physics and chemistry, has no application to biology or other networked systems. While you seem to want to throw your hands up and declare that everything is unknowable, those fields operate on getting strong enough correlations that we can generalize something and then make cost/benefit calculations (more so with human biology than climate actually…) and as technology is getting better, we are getting more mechanistic, but fundamentally we are always going to be grasping at the truth. The point is not whether we can understand exactly every detail of what is going on, but whether we can use that knowledge to be better off than we are without it.
That is where the major debate is. For instance some people say that depression meds are so over prescribed and we could save tons by being more conservative and that it hurts patients when they think they should be getting better but they aren't, but other people say that it's better to have everyone taking it since a lot of them will be influenced by the placebo effect and those that get too depressed will already be on it and hopefully see efficacy, instead of being too down to come in in the first place.
So yeah, this topic is threatening if you look at it like you have little control and if everyone started believing that there was no point in debating or caring because everything is genetic, then things would be based on limiting the genetic opponents or somesuch. Or it could be used as a starting point for dialogue where you look at it that your actions and how you raise your kids does have an enormous impact on your kids, but that perhaps they (or others) will have different priorities for innate reasons and it is a reason to understand where they are coming from and communicate in a level they will be responsive to.
Just remember that your kids are closet democrats.
Yeah, mikkel's citation of the adoption study now has me worried…maybe my adopted son will become a liberal Democrat. YIKES! lol
Please understand, I don't dispute that kids have definite personalities, I'm just refusing to take the incredibly intimate between parent and child out of the equation.
But no one is saying that the parent/ child relationship should be taken out of the equation. Think about it…there are three possibilities- either a)the blank slate theory is true and all traits are completely formed by environment and social interaction, or b) everything is completely predetermined by genetics, or c) a combination of genetic tendencies and environment/social interactions determine the personality outcomes.
Your position is closest to a), ours is c), and no one is arguing for b).
Understanding personal predilections via a group level view really makes no logical sense. What groups do or become is something separate from any individual's personal traits, that's exactly the point.
What happens at the group level does indicate something about how the traits are acquired though (it also is useful in the political context, which I'll elaborate on in a minute.)
You gave the example of yourself and your sister, for instance. There are many reasons why you and your sister might not follow the group trend in being more alike than random sets of individuals are. One reason I already mentioned- you may not share a lot of the same dominant genes for the particular traits were talking about. Your example as a counterargument against the group phenomenon would be like saying that hair and eye color can't be genetically transmitted because one sibling has dark hair and green eyes while another is blond and blue eyed.
Another reason is that, as I keep repeating, we're not saying that these traits are set in stone. Environmental influences do matter, and if the predilections weren't particularly strong then it's possible that for some of the genetic tendencies that you do share, hers were influenced more in one direction and yours in another.
A final point is about the political implications. It really doesn't matter if the effect is true universally or just a statistically significant portion. If it's a sizable portion that are inflluenced by these hard wired traits, then it's politically useful to know that in order to better argue one's position in a way that might influence the portion of people who are differently wired, so that the messaging will be more likely to affect them positively.
That innateness was learned from their parents. There is no genetic marker for innate personality traits.
See, you keep declaring that this is all learned because that's your opinion- yet no research backs that up and a growing body of research actually does verify some hard wiring. You may want to check out some of the work by the guy I linked to earlier, Jerome Kagan. He has done studies indicating heritability of traits like inhibition (again, not saying that this is set in stone but that the tendency from birth is there for some children to withdraw from stimuli and develop fearful reactions while other children seek out novel stimuli and have very muted fear responses.) Basically the idea isn't that this isn't a learning or developmental process, but the process proceeds much differently in one individual vs another because of the genetic and biological features that are already present in the infant's developing brain. And all of that is independent of how the adults in the environment are interacting with the infant.
I agree totally cs. That is part of what makes up the “go team” dynamics I referred to above. I am aware that you are probably commenting on it more idealistically (that the people would be more open to philosophical reasoning) but I am unsure how many people truly process on that level. A lot of them are open to the discussion but don't seem to be persuaded all that much, like when I've talked to family and friends about how Bush should make liberals rethink the role of the government. They agree with all my arguments, but in day to day life the sides are drawn in limestone (or so it seems), so few of them actually synthesize my points.
The “go team” dynamic is most apparent at the moment in certain democratic regions, where you'll have someone sound exactly like a hardcore southern Republican and after that full rant say they vote Democrat. Statistically speaking, it's pretty easy to guess where they are from.
CS
I hear hair color is also variable within one's own life. I know I got to blame this grayness on somebody besides my kids.
I simply repeat, my original criticism was at the very beginning of his talk. Those things you and mikkel are going on about and thinking that I'm arguing about are not what I said. The problem with the speech was the a priori relationship he drew between the draft and the subsequent five societal points. That's a clear apples to butterflies relationship.
Mikkel
Check back and see what I said, my critique was at the very beginning of the talk. Specifically, Haidt's bonding of new born “first draft” to the closely followed argument about the 5 pillars of society. That comparison is clearly illogical. That was all I said. I think you're arguing against assertions I never made.
In fact, I believe I previewed this last response of yours. I said the startle reflex was hard wired, but that fear was learned. To wit:
” For example, authoritarian voters tend to actually be more “jumpy” when presented with an unexpected external stimulus. Physiologically speaking, they literally are more apt to have an initial impression of danger when confronted.”
They have learned to be more jumpy due to upbringing, not genes. I'm not disagreeing with the psychology of masses, my argument has always been with the relationship he draws between the first draft and later societal values. One does not relate to the other in a logical fashion; at least not the way he inferred that correlation.
As to stats, as long as all variables are not known or accounted for in the study, the stats can be t5otally inaccurate and yet statistically valid.
Early second hand smoke studies found a higher correlation between consuming whole milk than with smoking family members. Statistically, that relationship was indisputable. Stats don't prove anything scientifically, and while they are a tool for understanding, they certainly are no substitute for proof. Mikkel, you know that.
“Early second hand smoke studies found a higher correlation between consuming whole milk than with smoking family members”
can you clarify? Do you mean a higher correlation with lung cancer was found based on drinking whole milk than smoking family members?
As for the rest, perhaps we were talking past each other this whole time. I read (and cs did too) you to repeatedly say that people had no innate inclinations and that everything was environmental. If instead you meant that people could have different genetic inclinations but that the social representation of those is not set in stone and dependent on society, I agree entirely.
Like, I am kind of confused about how you said it, that the startle reflex is hard wired but fear is learned. Then you said that they “learned” to be more jumpy due to upbringing.
cs and I (and modern psychology) argue that there are genetic reasons for being more inclined to be fearful or startled. However, people either learn to calm down and think it through, or to lash out or get terrified or become despondent or whatever, depending on their experiences.
So if you're saying Haidt is wrong to argue that the representation of his 5 moral dimensions are innate (which it was very unclear if he was) then I am sympathetic to your view. If you're syaing that he is wrong to say that some people are apt to be more caring, loyal, etc. — with the definitions of those things societally and experience dependent — and that people tend to cluster in self identity around that, then I disagree with you.
I'd have to go back and reread your initial comments but I think you did disagree with the whole draft concept (the idea that any predilections were inherent or inherited) to begin with, not just the extent to which Haidt argued that the predilections become set traits with regard to the pillars of morality.
With regard to a comment you directed to mikkel…
They have learned to be more jumpy due to upbringing, not genes.
To some extent, though, Hemm, Kagan's research and the neurodevelopmental research of the amygdala gating mechanism shows that they learned to be jumpy because of their genes. There's a learning/developmental process by which a frightening experience leads to feelings of anticipation of future fear- and some individuals are hard wired to have that learning imprinted very easily while others can have repeated episodes of a fear provoking incident and not become very anxious or 'jumpy' at all.
Hope this is coherent- I'm trying to cook dinner, help my son (the future Democrat!) with his homework, and blog all at the same time.
mikkel
just remember the old saw from hitchhikers guide
The number of planets in the universe is infinite.
the number of planets with intelligent life on them is finite.
Now everyone knows that a finite number divided by infinity is very close to zero,
thus, statistically, there is no intelligent life in the universe.
peace
CS
Inhibition is chemically based. Tests have shown that mice, when a certain neuro-hormone is removed, will waltz right up to cats and try to intimidate them. The test is reproducible, so scientifically, this is a matter of chemicals like I mentioned earlier. It's not hard to attribute inhibition or its lack to genetics in exactly the same way diabetes, depression, or hemophilia is traced back to chemical imbalances. This chemical relationship is set in stone, not enough of a specific chemical will cause a specific reaction in any functioning organism, and those that lack sufficient quantities due to genes show these responses.
It's this chemical makeup that is genetic, none of the five pillars, the point of this discussion, show that kind of chemical dependence. Those are learned, right along with nurturing, empathy, and aggression. In the case of aggression, if chemical imbalance is not a factor, it is largely modulated by learning. If aggression is encouraged, it increases. If it is squelched, it dissipates as a primary personality trait.
It's like the nursery rhyme:
What are little boys made of?
What are little girls made of?
Do girls love dolls because of a genetic marker?”
These rhymes don't exist as physical observations, but as social dictates. Did you give your boy a car or a doll? Not you, I'm not asking for you to examine your parenting, I'm pointing out that societal norms are pushed to the kids.
Do you think flaming liberals who come from staunch republican households exist because their relationship with their parents was calm, nurturing, and without conflict? Haidt's thesis fails to account for a person's life being manipulated by parental/child interaction, and so does mikkel's group studies. What we become is much more personal an activity than can be easily collated through group studies or genetic predictions.
cs and I (and modern psychology) argue that there are genetic reasons for being more inclined to be fearful or startled. However, people either learn to calm down and think it through, or to lash out or get terrified or become despondent or whatever, depending on their experiences.
This is a good way of putting it. It's actually pretty fascinating because it all relates to the way the higher and lower brains are wired together and the gating areas between them. Fight/flight responses are triggered by the lower brain but there's a filter which is either a strong one or a weak one. If born with a weak filter, individuals can learn to strengthen it and certain drugs can have some effect too. The drugs probably aren't helping with 'chemical imbalance' as much as changing the responsiveness of receptors over time.
“As for the rest, perhaps we were talking past each other this whole time. I read (and cs did too) you to repeatedly say that people had no innate inclinations and that everything was environmental. If instead you meant that people could have different genetic inclinations but that the social representation of those is not set in stone and dependent on society, I agree entirely.”
then we agree. That which you and cs were talking about is after the fact, in terms of Haidt's starting point.
It's this chemical makeup that is genetic, none of the five pillars, the point of this discussion, show that kind of chemical dependence. Those are learned, right along with nurturing, empathy, and aggression. In the case of aggression, if chemical imbalance is not a factor, it is largely modulated by learning. If aggression is encouraged, it increases. If it is squelched, it dissipates as a primary personality trait.
I don't see how you don't see the relationship between what you call 'chemical' (which is actually both a function of chemicals and the neuronal wiring itself and the interplay between them- but call these the biological factors) and the subsequent tendency to develop the secondary personality traits that would be described in the 'pillar' traits. It's certainly not a direct correlation but common sense would indicate that a primary, biologically determined factor would influence how the individual then becomes molded by experiences.
CS
Cook and help our future democrat, this conversation either needs to start again or else go on forever.
Predilections at birth are chemical.
Said predilections are enhanced or squelched by interactive learning.
Politicians are made, not born.
Kids give parents gray hair.
Blogging is genetically addicting.
These are the things I learn a TMV.
“I don't see how you don't see the relationship between what you call 'chemical' (which is actually both a function of chemicals and the neuronal wiring itself and the interplay between them- but call these the biological factors) and the subsequent tendency to develop the secondary personality traits that would be described in the 'pillar' traits. It's certainly not a direct correlation but common sense would indicate that a primary, biologically determined factor would influence how the individual then becomes molded by experiences.”
Let's take the reverse brain, one that has a strong gate. If Mom regularly slams things down or screams around the baby, don't you have the functionally equivalent child as one with a weak gate? Both grow up skiddish.
As to the relationship between wiring and chemicals, it should be noted that the extraordinary nature of the brain is that it produces chemicals that lead to states of mind that in turn produce more chemicals. A functioning brain produces its own consciousness on a minute to minute basis. The brain also can change its chemical formulation by what it thinks.
Those who are clinically depressed show a lack of a specific chemical. Those who have “recovered” now produce that chemical. Which came first, the lack of chemical or the depression?
The brain, or at least consciousness, is a self-propagating process. Where we start at birth doesn't remain static for long.
Let's take the reverse brain, one that has a strong gate. If Mom regularly slams things down or screams around the baby, don't you have the functionally equivalent child as one with a weak gate? Both grow up skiddish.
Yes, quite possibly- and that's why the traits are generally a combination of nature and nurture (or one or the other.) I think the thing is that the heritable part is the limiting factor for a lot of people- because only a small segment of the population will have extreme experiences like emotional or physical abuse (well, at least I think/hope that that's the minority.) So, while a jittery temperament might be purely from genetics or might be from a 'normal' wired brain being subjected to a lot of chaotic or traumatic experiences, I think overall in the population there are more people that fall in the former category than the latter.
I noticed a couple of comments you made earlier that seemed to indicate that if people too strongly believe that traits are inherited, then parenting isn't being given enough credit for influencing the kids. I agree to an extent, and that's why it's important to see the balance between heritability and parental (as well as other social and environmental) influences. To me, the concept isn't much different than the idea that people have inherited talents. It's important to help figure out if your child has a predilection for certain things- music, art, scientific pursuits, etc…and guide them toward experiences that will help develop those leanings. It's not very good when a parent forces a child to take years of intensive music lessons if the kid just doesn't have innate abilities, or trying to make an athlete out of a kid who isn't very coordinated.
So when it comes to values, there's a certain degree that has to be cultivated no matter whether the child is particularly in tuned with the value or not, but some kids are going to naturally be more empathetic (to pick one example) and can easily choose a path that involves more nurturing (nursing, childcare, etc) while others just aren't suited for it. The core traits, in my opinion, are limiting factors for some kids and opportunities for others. A child that lacks a great deal of innate compassion certainly isn't doomed to become a sociopath, but he/she might fare better in a lifestyle and career that doesn't require him/her to provide care directly to other individuals, and there are some careers where a more objective or analytical mind is going to be a positive asset. But again, that child's development of a basic level of compassion shouldn't be neglected- it's just a matter of having a different expectation for how far that teaching will go in that case.
Agreed!
CS
“I noticed a couple of comments you made earlier that seemed to indicate that if people too strongly believe that traits are inherited, then parenting isn't being given enough credit for influencing the kids. I agree to an extent, and that's why it's important to see the balance between heritability and parental (as well as other social and environmental) influences.”
In this we totally agree. Parenting is so much more than layoing out rules, or providing formulaic rules. If one fails to stir a child's development based upon his or her capacities, a parent fails to open the child to the world's possibilities. Being a lawyer because Dad was a lawyer isn't living. We both know people who have had that midlife crisis, and my theory has always been that these people merely have never gotten to know who they really were until that time. That personal ignorance comes from learning rules at the cost of not learning their own values.
It comes down to what you want for your child, is success more important than happiness? Those who smack into a mid-life crisis may have been trained for success, but happiness wins out, maybe.