Leftism is not defined as an opposition to the status quo. — frank

The term "left" derives from opposition groups in the French Revolution and has been historically used to designate opposition movements. See Wikipedia articles above.

If you believe this to be the "wrong" definition, what is the "right" one? Why is that so difficult to answer?

Am I? One says that psyches needn't be same, the other that some methodical study might be the best way to find out if they are or not. — Isaac

By 'psychology' you mean modeling similar to climate models or models of the earth's em field, or the Yellowstone Caldera.

The OP is obviously not using the word that way.

Troll

Reductionism is not a flaw limited political psychology, nor is it a flaw which exhausts political psychology. — Isaac

Maybe you're misunderstanding what I'm specifically I'm targeting here. I'm talking about political psychology that says liberals are liberals and conservatives are conservatives because of they have X Y Z behavioral or personality traits. This is in response with the claims of the opening post and subsequent claims from the original poster. Your original, response to me, however, seems to be about political advertising targeting those who have specific political priors. That is not what I'm referring to.

Troll — frank

You must be talking about yourself given that this is a thread that I started.

By the way the "claims" you're talking about are not mine, they are from Psychology Today and other scientific publications. See the URL links I posted.

Is it possible that there are some personality traits that are statistically more commonly shared by liberals than conservatives and others more common to conservatives? If so, is there any value in identifying them?

However, by definition, the left represents opposition to the status quo. — Apollodorus

The problem with that definition is that to a greater or lesser degree the status quo is the result of the work of the left, and so, to that extent opposing the status quo would mean opposing themselves.

Is it possible that there are some personality traits that are statistically more commonly shared by liberals than conservatives and others more common to conservatives? If so, is there any value in identifying them? — Fooloso4

You changed to liberal/conservative. That's not the same as left/right, is it?

Maybe you're misunderstanding what I'm specifically I'm targeting here — Maw

The psychological analysis of political thought and behavior is a legitimate line of inquiry. It may be inconvenient to some for political reasons but that's their problem.

By 'psychology' you mean modeling similar to climate models or models of the earth's em field, or the Yellowstone Caldera.

The OP is obviously not using the word that way. — frank

Maybe. I wasn't really responding to the OP by then (which turns out to be just a thinly disguised repetition of the all-to-common neo-liberal whinging about not being taken seriously).

I assume you're referring the use of 'psychology' to mean a person's personality traits, yes? I mean, it's still the case that methodical study is the best way to answer the question, it's just that in that case the study's been done already and the answer is no.

I don't personaly hold that there even are such things as personality traits. I think any 'traits' we identify are socially mediated constructions, not features of the psyche that can be 'discovered' by any experimental set-up. So the premise is flawed from the start, but this has been at issue for over twenty years, so the likes of Klein and Haidt are just being disingenuous pretending otherwise. But then they're flailing, so will clutch at anything.

Is it possible that there are some personality traits that are statistically more commonly shared by liberals than conservatives and others more common to conservatives? If so, is there any value in identifying them? — Fooloso4

Sure, but these are just spurious correlations, therefore, no, there is no meaningful value in identifying them.

The problem with that definition is that to a greater or lesser degree the status quo is the result of the work of the left, and so, to that extent opposing the status quo would mean opposing themselves. — Fooloso4

Well, some leftists believe in "permanent revolution" so opposing what they stood for previously wouldn't be out of character.

Plus, @frank's definition isn't any better, in so far as he has one at all which I haven't seen yet.

don't personaly hold that there even are such things as personality traits. — Isaac

I know. You seemed to be agreeing with the OP when your real feeling is that she's wrong because we're all p-zombies.

To know you is to love you, man.

You changed to liberal/conservative. That's not the same as left/right, is it? — frank

The change was not intentional. I do not think there are hard and fast definitions of these terms. There may be a useful distinction between liberal and left or conservative and right, but I did not have one in mind.

Sure, but these are just spurious correlations, therefore, no, there is no meaningful value in identifying them. — Maw

I have not done or read about what those correlations might be, but I would think it worth identifying them before declaring them spurious.

The change was not intentional. I do not think there are hard and fast definitions of these terms. There may be a useful distinction between liberal and left or conservative and right, but I did not have one in mind. — Fooloso4

Conservative/liberal tends to signify an American context. But yes, as long as we pick a framework and stick to it, we're good.

Well, some leftists believe in "permanent revolution" — Apollodorus

Yes, that is true but I that does not describe most who consider themselves on the left. Some on the right/conservatives/Republicans will label them "leftists", but that is a rhetorical ploy.

Some on the right/conservatives/Republicans will label them "leftists", but that is a rhetorical ploy. — Fooloso4

I've never heard one say that. American conservatives actually are 21st Century liberals, though.

I think any 'traits' we identify are socially mediated constructions, not features of the psyche that can be 'discovered' by any experimental set-up. So the premise is flawed from the start, but this has been at issue for over twenty years, so the likes of Klein and Haidt are just being disingenuous pretending otherwise. — Isaac

It’s been awhile since I read Righteous Minds but I seem to recall the ‘foundations’ being regarded as social constructs. Constructs that are based on moral intuitions that we all possess. You’re against this intuitionism?

American conservatives actually are 21st Century liberals — frank

Yes, there was a discussion of this on this or another thread a few days ago.

Yes, there was a discussion of this on this or another thread a few days ago. — Fooloso4

So you really did hear a Republican claim leftism? Could you fill in the details?

Pretty evident that I find it stupid, but not worthless, however if you just wanted to get a quick hit-in-run dig to make you feel a little better about yourself I'd understand. — Maw

Laziness and self-indulgence are two of my worst traits.

Maybe you're misunderstanding what I'm specifically I'm targeting here. — Maw

It wasn't so much a misunderstanding as a declining of your opening gambit.

I'm talking about political psychology that says liberals are liberals and conservatives are conservatives because of they have X Y Z behavioral or personality traits. — Maw

Indeed. As I said to Frank above, I don't even hold that there are such things as 'personality traits' in the sense of something one 'discovers' of oneself, so the entire question is meaningless, but such questions do not exhaust political psychology, at least half of which (in England anyway) is about disproving such nonsense.

Now we could do so by just blowing raspberries at it, but I prefer a more methodical approach.

The preferred terms these days are radical left, socialist (Trump throws in radical before socialist for good measure) and Marxist, and occasionally progressive, but progressive has positive connotations so is used less frequently.

According to Peter Beinart:

In America, what distinguishes leftists from liberals and progressives—as well as conservatives—is their commitment to radical equality. Leftists are more likely than liberals to argue that economic inequality renders America’s constitutional liberties hollow.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/democratic-party-moves-left/573946/

Interesting.

It wasn't so much a misunderstanding as a declining of your opening gambit. — Isaac

To be clear, any attempt to psychologically map out an explanation for why and how conservatives and liberals or whatever political appellation believe what they believe is nonsense. It's about as vague as astrology and just as predictive. — Maw

Not sure how my original post varies from what I've subsequently been saying, but whatever.

Yes, that is true but I that does not describe most who consider themselves on the left. Some on the right/conservatives/Republicans will label them "leftists", but that is a rhetorical ploy. — Fooloso4

I'm not talking about "rhetorical ploys".

Historically, liberals were opposed to the ruling conservatives, and socialists to the ruling liberals or conservatives. That's why in historical terms the left stands for opposition to the established order. This is confirmed by the Wikipedia articles quoted above.

"In politics, the term Left derives from the French Revolution as the political groups opposed to the royal veto privilege (Montagnard and Jacobin deputies from the Third Estate) generally sat to the left of the presiding member's chair in parliament while the ones in favour of the royal veto privilege sat on its right."

Wikipedia, Left-wing politics

"The Left Opposition was a faction within the Russian Communist Party (b) from 1923 to 1927 headed de facto by Leon Trotsky. The Left Opposition formed as part of the power struggle within the party leadership that began with the Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin 's illness and intensified with his death in January 1924."

Wikipedia, Left opposition

when they do provide a more accurate non-psychological explanation for why conservatives are minimizing the virus threat, viz. that they are digesting a wide apparatus of conservative messaging, including propaganda from the President, that is downplaying the virus for political reasons, — Maw

This is also a psychological explanation, albeit one not rooted in personality traits but social conditioning , the idea that individuals unthinkingly introject and internalize ‘conservative messaging’.

This shouldnt be surprising. The divide between
paychological theory and philosophy is an arbitrary one(Freud vs Nietzsche, Sartre vs embodied cogntition , Gergen vs Foucault, Heidegger vs Gendlin). If psychology is just a conventionalized form of philosophy, then so is political theory. Between psychology and polic theory I would argue that most philosophers of the past 200 years have been more closely tied to psychology and politics. Nietzsche called himself a psychologist. Husserl heaped praise on intentional psychology.

Tell me a little about your political philosophy and I’ll match it up with a parallel psychological model. I promise it will be more to your liking than Haidt.

@Isaac

I think any 'traits' we identify are socially mediated constructions, not features of the psyche that can be 'discovered' by any experimental set-up. So the premise is flawed from the start, but this has been at issue for over twenty years, so the likes of Klein and Haidt are just being disingenuous pretending otherwise.
— Isaac

It’s been awhile since I read Righteous Minds but I seem to recall the ‘foundations’ being regarded as social constructs. Constructs that are based on moral intuitions that we all possess. You’re against this intuitionism? — praxis

I'm guessing that you're not comfortable with the term 'trait' because it may imply inborn and immutable qualities rather than something like ingrained habits or socially mediated conditioning? We each have particular conditioning or ingrained habits. I can't see how that's disputable.

Also, there are studies on moral intuition that experiment with babies, such as the following.



Going back to the stupid article that Maw referenced, it appeared to intentionally stress a flawed premise to try proving that the whole enterprise is weak in its explanatory or predictive power. From my understanding of it that premise is not stressed or pivotal to the theory.