Comments for YourMorals.Org Moral Psychology Blog

Comment on The Tea Party and Compromise by RGC

RGC — Sat, 12 May 2012 03:02:37 +0000

It is also worth mentioning that empathy is not always a desirable trait, as “lacks empathy” implies.

Comment on Are Liberals and Conservatives Polar Opposites or Mirror Images? by DRT

DRT — Sun, 06 May 2012 22:21:32 +0000

This is tough. I agree that each side is using that rhetoric, but try as I might I cannot imagine that the repub leadership is actually honest about it….. I need to think…..

Comment on Personality profiles of readers vs. non-readers and saving your local bookstore. by Joan D. Kee

Joan D. Kee — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 01:51:55 +0000

You should include a chart that shows, how many students do not know how to read syllables, vocalization, pronunciation and etc.

Comment on Are Liberals and Conservatives Polar Opposites or Mirror Images? by ken

ken — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 02:34:25 +0000

Please don’t use this test. I don’t think it’s right even to ask these questions. Yes, or course, I have my bad opinion of Republicans, and individual by individual I will be defensive or treat them w/ a long-handled spoon. But in the complete abstract when asked about Democrats and Republicans I will say they are people each endowed with an equal vantage on the truth. kg

Comment on I did not make a mistake in disagreeing with Haidt by Haidt’s Moral Intuition (vs ethical reasoning) « Marmalade

Haidt’s Moral Intuition (vs ethical reasoning) « Marmalade — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:24:55 +0000

[...] http://www.yourmorals.org/blog/2010/08/i-did-not-make-a-mistake-in-disagreeing-with-haidt/ [...]

Comment on Perceptions of Scarcity & Responsibility inform Budget Negotiations by Lisa

Lisa — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 06:57:43 +0000

I found this blog. The author sounds like somebody you programmed based on your data. http://www.conservativecrusader.com/articles/the-american-people-need-to-grow-up

Comment on Haidt Requests Apology from Pigliucci by WatcherOnTheThreshold

WatcherOnTheThreshold — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 22:22:30 +0000

This action by Massimo offers a parallel with Peter Gleick’s phony Amazon review of The Donna Laframboise book.

He called her book a collection of lies, but he simply had not even bothered to find out what the content was. He rambled on even though he didn’t know the subject.

When publically challenged by bloggers and other scientists to name a lie, he could not produce one.

He self destructed within months of his first visible to the public showing of such scurrilous and unprofessional conduct.

Comment on Big 5 Personality Traits of would-be Owners vs. Renters by sam

sam — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 02:13:27 +0000

Is it objectively immoral to rape little children, gouge out their eyes, defecate into their eye sockets and set their bodies on fire for fun? Bear in mind that if you answer “yes,” you’re displaying the same dangerous narrow-mindedness that paved the way for history’s worst atrocities!

I mean…really? Come on.

If you want to relate moral foundations theory to history’s worst atrocities, a much simpler and more credible connection can be made: atrocities happen when the authority foundation gets out of hand. Period. Mass genocides, terrorism campaigns, etc. are characterized universally by abnormally strong deference to authority. Cripple the authority foundation and some unpleasant consequences might ensue, sure — but you’ll forestall any replay of Rwanda/Pol Pot/Hitler/etc.

Comment on Are Liberals and Conservatives Polar Opposites or Mirror Images? by CD-Host

CD-Host — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:35:43 +0000

I don’t know that mirror perceptions prove that there isn’t substance. Fear is an effective motivator. It is entirely possible that Republicans are trying to boost defense spending by exaggerating external threats and that Democrats are exaggerating environmental threats to boost environmental spending. Both or neither may be true. Psychology can’t answer the question about the objective truth of the degree of external threat from military enemies or the United States nor from environmental questions.

Bipartisanship is a better choice of psychology / sociology since that is subjective. And there I think the collapse of bipartisanship is because on many crucial issues the parties no longer disagree about means but also about ends.

In the 1960s government was frequently trying to allocate resources between groups that supported one another but saw their needs as greater than those of other groups. The government was playing a referee role but everyone was “on the same side”. NARAL and NRL aren’t fighting about how best to allocate resources to accomplish their common goals, they have opposite goals. Finding any areas of common interest is difficult and since they disagree so fundamentally on ends victory rather than cooperation may very well be a better strategy.

Comment on Differences between white male liberals and white male conservatives by Doug Hill

Doug Hill — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:27:30 +0000

Have you looked at what liberals and conservatives think of each other? In particular, is it true that "conservatives think liberals are stupid [and] liberals think conservatives are evil"? The sources at my blog post on the subject cite some anecdotes (and I wrote in response to a well-known recent example), but perhaps you have (or will have) the data to see whether this is true in general. Also, for lack of a better term, I call this the Epstein-Sowell-Krauthammer law (for reasons I explain). Does anyone know of the proper term?