It could just be that a lot more people who identify as liberals decide to take the quiz. — Terrapin Station

It could be, but given the cultural milieu I doubt that the rate of conservatives being produced is greater than the rate of liberals being produced. Children end up being liberals simply because they're a lot more likely to be exposed to liberal thought and influences.

I doubt that the rate of conservatives being produced is greater than the rate of liberals being produced. Children end up being liberals simply because they're a lot more likely to be exposed to liberal thought and influences. — Agustino

Yeah, I agree with that, and it's pushed along by universities leaning so much towards the liberal side, and a culture where now it's more or less seen as a requirement for a reasonable career that one goes to university.

Yeah, I agree with that, and it's pushed along by universities leaning so much towards the liberal side, and a culture where now it's more or less seen as a requirement for a reasonable career that one goes to university. — Terrapin Station

Yes, so at least for the developed world that is the case, and I guess it will continue to be the case for quite awhile. In a way, it cannot NOT be the case - liberalism leads to more spending and more diverse markets than conservatism, so I wouldn't expect an economy leaning on capitalism to lean towards conservatism, especially in today's world when capitalism must adopt a "human" face, without sacrificing sales.

I mean you'll obviously have conservatives attending university (like myself for example), but the peer pressure washes most away, because they just seek to fit in. There's not actually many people who think for themselves, and who actually have their own views on things, not determined by what others encourage them to think.

There's not actually many people who think for themselves, and who actually have their own views on things, not determined by what others encourage them to think. — Agustino

And that is precisely what universities ought to be encouraging: independence of mind and the free play of ideas. But that's not what's happening now. I'm at risk of agreeing with you here.

Haidt says: "But if we turn down the disgust a few notches, we see vast difference between left and right over the use of concepts such as sanctity and purity. American conservatives are more likely to talk about the “ sanctity of life ” and the “ sanctity of marriage. ” Conservatives — particularly religious conservatives — are more likely to view the body as a temple, housing a soul within, rather than as a machine to be optimized, or as a playground to be used for fun.
(...)
On the left, however, the virtue of chastity is usually dismissed as outdated and sexist.
(...)
The Sanctity foundation is used most heavily by the religious right, but it is also used on the spiritual left. You can see the foundation’s original impurity avoidance function in New Age grocery stores, where you'll find a variety of products that promise to cleanse you of “ toxins. ” And you’ll find the Sanctity foundation underlying some of the moral passions of the environmental movement. Many environmentalists revile industrialism, capitalism, and automobiles not just for the physical pollution they create but also for a more symbolic kind of pollution — a degradation of nature, and of humanity’s original nature, before it was corrupted by industrial capitalism."

So leftist do care about purity, but this is expressed in different areas than right wingers, e.g. leftist are viled by the sight of this:



edit:

They also have shifted the meaning of the word "natural" to the equivalence of "good," hence appealing to nature. 'Nature in its pure form is good and human institutions ruin it.'

This reveals their deep rooted world view on nature, which is contrasted by conservatives, who are much more wary of nature and its dark aspects.

This reveals their deep rooted world view on nature, which is contrasted by conservatives, who are much more wary of nature and its dark aspects — Emptyheady

Notice how this is pretty much the opposite of the traditional understanding of these political positions. For conservatives, the status quo, e.g., class hierarchies or disparities in the treatment of men and women, is defended partly on the basis of its supposed naturalness, whereas leftists--at least in the old days--either point out that these things are social and amenable to change, or else deny that we must respect what is natural.

The confusion here is probably partly down to your American libertarian understanding of conservatism. In any case, it's one reason why I see much of the green movement and today's Left as conservative.

I'm a Leftist and I positively love cooling towers.

Conservatism as popularised by Burke, et al. has no fixed view on policy or dogmatism, but it is rather a political strategy to cope with human frailties. Traditionally, they dislike the state of nature (Rousseau) and ideological revolutions (Jacobinism) -- the appeal to nature has always been left wing, see Rousseau:

"People in their natural state are basically good. But this natural innocence,however, is corrupted by the evils of society."

Marketing people make use of this leftist phenomenon by labelling their products: "natural pureness." It is the leftist version of sanctity and purity that Haidt refers to.

Haidt continues: "Political views are multifaceted, but a single liberal– conservative (or left–right) continuum is a useful approximation that has predictive validity for voting behavior and opinions on a wide range of issues (Jost, 2006). In terms of political philosophy, the essential element of all forms of liberalism is individual liberty (Gutmann, 2001). Liberals have historically taken an optimistic view of human nature and of human perfectibility; they hold what Sowell (2002) calls an “unconstrained vision” in which people should be left as free as possible to pursue their own courses of personal development. Conservatism, in contrast, is best under- stood as a “positional ideology,” a reaction to the challenges to authority and institutions that are so often mounted by liberals (Muller, 1997). Conservatives have traditionally taken a more pessimistic view of human nature, believing that people are inherently selfish and imperfectible. They therefore hold what Sowell called a “constrained vision” in which people need the constraints of authority, institutions, and traditions to live civilly with each other."

This phenomenon is even more apparent in Europe.

Conservatives have traditionally taken a more pessimistic view of human nature, believing that people are inherently selfish and imperfectible. — Emptyheady

What exactly are they trying to aim for then if they hold this view of human nature? Human perfectibility? Are you saying, in light of:

Liberals have historically taken an optimistic view of human nature and of human perfectibility — Emptyheady

That conservatives are trying to be liberals?

I disagree with this characterization.

In my experience the right is just as likely to appeal to naturalism as the left and each do so in turn as it serves their agenda.

In fact I seem to recall you have made an argument from nature for conservatism on the old forum.

I am not sure whether I have cited this here before, but here it goes:

"They are the different visions of human nature that underlie left-wing and right-wing ideologies. The distinction comes from the economist Thomas Sowell in his wonderful book "A Conflict of Visions." According to the Tragic Vision, humans are inherently limited in virtue, wisdom, and knowledge, and social arrangements must acknowledge those limits. According to the Utopian vision, these limits are “products” of our social arrangements, and we should strive to overcome them in a better society of the future. Out of this distinction come many right-left contrasts that would otherwise have no common denominator. Rightists tend to like tradition (because human nature does not change), small government (because no leader is wise enough to plan society), a strong police and military (because people will always be tempted by crime and conquest), and free markets (because they convert individual selfishness into collective wealth). Leftists believe that these positions are defeatist and cynical, because if we change parenting, education, the media, and social expectations, people could become wiser, nicer, and more peaceable and generous." (Pinker)

The rest is on the old site that I can't reach.

Leftist's view is utopian, hence all the ideological revolutionary/revolting push comes from the left. Children tend to be leftists, due to lack of life experience and abundance of naive world views.

edit: The reason Christians tend to be conservatives, is because they share the tragic vision of human nature --> "the fallen human creature."

I pointed out then that conservatives hold utopian visions as well.
Conservatives consistently insist that if we just lower taxes utopia will ensue.

Again it is a matter of convenience, if it is useful for furthering their agenda the right wingers are just as likely as any leftist to appeal to a utopian vision.

For conservatives, the status quo, e.g., class hierarchies or disparities in the treatment of men and women, is defended partly on the basis of its supposed naturalness — jamalrob

This is a little bit of a strawman with respect to some conservatives like me. I'm a rational conservative instead of a reason-skeptical conservative à la Burke (see here for distinction). As shown by the last chart I posted in this thread, I don't value authority as much as other conservatives. However, I am conservative in that I share many of their values/ideals with regards to, for example, sexual behaviour, values which you'd deem to be sexist or whatever, despite the fact that they would apply equally to men and women (such as chastity for both). Furthermore, I decide in the favor of such values based on reasoning, not based on tradition.

Leftist's view is utopian, hence all the ideological revolutionary/revolting push comes from the left. Children tend to be leftist, due to lack of life experience and abundance of naive world views. — Emptyheady

Taking a disparaging position by labeling leftists as 'children' to justify superiority in your political world-view does not legitimize it only because you proscribe the other and quote some people. When exactly will you be speaking? And I hardly think that in its sharp "adult" contrast a pessimistic view of humanity where the ends justify the means can be considered any different to the very source of your opposition.

The Nazi needs the Jew to preserve his ideological position.

Taking a disparaging position by labeling leftists as 'children' to justify superiority in your political world-view does not legitimize it only because you proscribe the other and quote some people. When exactly will you be speaking? And I hardly think that in its sharp "adult" contrast a pessimistic view of humanity where the ends justify the means can be considered any different to the very source of your opposition. — TimeLine

Well I do happen to share what Emptyheaded considers as the Tragic Vision of mankind with some contrasts - for example I don't place such a strong value on authority (for the sake of authority) or tradition (for the sake of tradition). Indeed, in my vision authoritarianism undermines all authority, because it removes the reasons one would have in the first place for obeying authority - it reduces authority to lawless tyranny. I also disagree that the ends justify the means, because I see means and ends as being connected together to begin with such that a nasty means cannot lead to a good end - indeed that would be nonsensical in my opinion.

But I do believe that most human beings will be selfish and have a tendency towards immorality. Despite this, I think that people are perfectible, and they can improve and change for the better. There can also be exceptions, but this is just what the majority will always be like in my view. I am a conservative, though I wouldn't say I'm a conservative because I share the Tragic Vision. Indeed, I'm not a reason-skeptical conservative the way Empty is. I'm a conservative simply because I think conservative values make for a better society - greater social cohesion, greater levels of morality, people more likely to strive for what is higher, etc. Liberalism - in my opinion - naturally degrades into all of us striving for the lowest common denominator - what is worst in man - hedonism. Liberalism tends to see freedom as the freedom to do whatever you want - and so freedom ends up being equivalent bondage to lust. I tend to see freedom in a different and more positive way - freedom is the capacity to achieve virtue and act virtuously.

values which you'd deem to be sexist or whatever, despite the fact that they would apply equally to men and women (such as chastity for both) — Agustino

Talk about a straw man. If those values do equally apply to men and women, then how can they be sexist? Why do you think I would hold such an irrational position?

Talk about a straw man. If those values do equally apply to men and women, then how can they be sexist? Why do you think I would hold such an irrational position? — jamalrob

Okay that was my fault for not expressing myself correctly. That's something that most liberals would deem sexist, simply because that's how they label it when it is discussed. They do so out of ignorance or prejudice most of them. But then prejudice exists on both sides.

I don't recall agreeing with you in that debate. I remember you as one of my main adversaries, hence why I called you a petit bourgeois reactionary lickspittle or whatever. — jamalrob

Did you? I don't remember that. :D

Anyway, we agreed about the right to have an abortion in reasonable circumstances; that it should be legal in most cases; that there are morally excusable cases; and that the right attitude towards most cases is one of understanding, leniency and sympathy. We both disagree with typical "pro-lifers". And, in practice, I think that our positions play out more or less the same way, and that the difference is more theoretical. I wanted to conserve the current legal status quo here in the UK, and you wanted to scrap it, didn't you? But what difference would that actually make, if any?

We disagreed about your inclusion of what I consider to be unreasonable circumstances; that abortion should be legal even in those cases where a bad reason for abortion is given and where there is minimal risk; that there should be some sort of deterrent or means of discouragement; and I don't quite recall your view in this regard, but I think that getting an abortion is a bad decision in most cases, in an ethical sense, given the other available options - a bad decision which is either excusable or inexcusable.

There is a distinction between my ethical views and my political or legal views, in that there are cases which I'd consider to be morally wrong, but in which I think an abortion should be a legal option.

Children end up being liberals simply because they're a lot more likely to be exposed to liberal thought and influences. — Agustino

Oh, come on. You surely don't want a bunch of stuffy 8 year old conservatives.

Youth are liberal (even radical) because they have nothing to lose, if for no other reason (and there are other reasons, too).

But it's disastrous - if you look at the number of liberals compared to conservatives, only 20% are conservative. We're losing, and we have to do something about it. — Agustino

Yes, I agree, and I know what you should do about it. You should lose more.

Yes, I agree, and I know what you should do about it. You should lose more. — Sapientia

Motheryucker >:O

I think in general population polls it is closer to half.

I think in general population polls it is closer to half. — m-theory

That's not true, even there liberals dominate currently. It's not as bad as in universities though (especially social sciences universities >:O )

It was my understanding that most people fall towards the center.
With the left leaners having a slight numbers advantage.
But when it comes to far leaning the right has the numbers advantage.

But when it comes to far leaning the right has the numbers advantage. — m-theory

Fuck the far-leaning - they are crazies too >:O

Where can you take Haidt's moral foundations test?

After you give your credentials to those motheryuckers, you can take it here:
https://www.yourmorals.org/aboutus.php

You can see the foundation’s original impurity avoidance function in New Age grocery stores, where you'll find a variety of products that promise to cleanse you of “ toxins. ” And you’ll find the Sanctity foundation underlying some of the moral passions of the environmental movement. Many environmentalists revile industrialism, capitalism, and automobiles not just for the physical pollution they create but also for a more symbolic kind of pollution — a degradation of nature, and of humanity’s original nature, before it was corrupted by industrial capitalism. — Emptyheady

That's not me, though. Not that I don't care about pollution, but it has to actually be pollution and not some sort of (what I consider an irrational) blanket dismissal of heavy industry or technological items (like automobiles) related to it, or technological advances like genetically modified foods, etc. Also I don't at all agree with statements like "Nature in its pure form is good and human institutions ruin it."

I don't actually consider myself a liberal by the way, and politically I classify myself as a "libertarian socialist," where I have a lot of hardcore American Libertarian Party-styled views.

Nothing terribly surprising in my results.

Economic Left/Right: -9.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.85

And the other stated "solid liberal"

Yes, knowing your views on ethics I'd definitely class you as libertarian.