Liberals are smarter than conservatives

[Edward theurj Berge]

Continuing this thread from Gaia IPS (Google docs link here), here’s what a new Harris Poll revealed about Republicans:

 

67 percent believe that Obama is a socialist.

 

57 percent believe that Obama is a Muslim.

 

45 percent agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president."

 

38 percent say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did."

 

24 percent say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."

[xibalba]

Kant, Voltaire, Diderot, Karl Marx, Kropotkin, Max Stirner, Guy Debords, Habermas, Sartre, Chomsky, Marcuse, walter Benjamin, Bourdieu, Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault, Lacan were all very intelligent people of the left.

I would like to see the replique for conservatives
:-)

theurj said:

If anything the Democrats should learn something from Republicans about lying well, not badly.

So there should be no honesty and transparency in politics? Isn't this one reason Obama was elected, with the hope that this sort of thing would change? Should not the political "line" of development evolve toward such qualities? And if not, why not? Why should politics be the only line that stays in the gutter?

[Shashank Singh]

theurj said:
If anything the Democrats should learn something from Republicans about lying well, not badly.

So there should be no honesty and transparency in politics? Isn't this one reason Obama was elected, with the hope that this sort of thing would change? Should not the political "line" of development evolve toward such qualities? And if not, why not? Why should politics be the only line that stays in the gutter?

If you’re going to do something, do it well. That’s all I’m saying, instead of doing it anyway and then pretending like you didn’t want to. I’m all for movements toward transparency and real discourse in politics, but if that kind of talk is used to hide other motivations or intentions then it’s simply another form of lying, even more insidious because it’s also a form of self-lying.

Again because the left has idealized its position(like you are when you contrast transparency with the gutter), it is often unconscious of its power/aggressive motivation, which get glossed over in a naive rhetoric and before you know it you get very intelligent people like Sartre supporting violent dictatorships in the name of freedom or communism. The left in the 20th century, especially between 1930-1980 has a very scary tendency to side with violent revolutions which use liberal “ideology” to hide power. A handful of the people on Xibabla’s nice list did just this.

Further I don’t think politics is best viewed as a line of development, but more as a cultural development along with a systems fit. Those two aspects have a lot of inertia in them, and require a very complex approach to enact change, something Obama is learning the hard way.

I can’t think of as many conservatives, though a few on your list I don’t consider great thinkers (Marcuse, Diderot) but that’s just a personal opinion. Then again I’m no expert of the conservative tradition. Here a list including thinkers who are complex (neither left nor right) but both traditions have claimed as their own. Another reason why this simple two category view is woefully inadequate.

Edward Burke, Adam Smith, Henry Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Winston Churchill, Ludwig von Mises & Friedrich von Hayek, Hannah Arendt, José Ortega y Gasset, and in some ways: John Sturat Mill, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Charles Taylor.

I find it hilarious that I’m defending the conservative tradition, but you all are so one-sided, it’s like someone poking at you for a response.

[xibalba]

Well you have probably never red Diderot.
Well supporting violent revolution.
well Churchill was behind the overthrowing of Mosadeq in Iran in 1953, a terrible blow for democracy in that region.

in the case of Sartre that´s his problem. But it doesn´t mean all his work is a piece of crap like in many conservative hands. The John stuart Mills, etc.. are too much victorian england to be taken seriously in our contemporary world.

BTW I didn´t mention women intellectuals like Julia Kristeva, Sandra Harding, Judith Butler, Simone de Beauvoir, Jenny Wade, Melanie Klein, Jean Houston


Your bunch of economists you mentioned can´t be called intellectuals in the same sense as a Michel Foucault or Lacan

The so called think tanks around Bush was a perfect example of corrupted


cite>Shashank Singh said:

theurj said:
If anything the Democrats should learn something from Republicans about lying well, not badly.

So there should be no honesty and transparency in politics? Isn't this one reason Obama was elected, with the hope that this sort of thing would change? Should not the political "line" of development evolve toward such qualities? And if not, why not? Why should politics be the only line that stays in the gutter?

If you’re going to do something, do it well. That’s all I’m saying, instead of doing it anyway and then pretending like you didn’t want to. I’m all for movements toward transparency and real discourse in politics, but if that kind of talk is used to hide other motivations or intentions then it’s simply another form of lying, even more insidious because it’s also a form of self-lying.

Again because the left has idealized its position(like you are when you contrast transparency with the gutter), it is often unconscious of its power/aggressive motivation, which get glossed over in a naive rhetoric and before you know it you get very intelligent people like Sartre supporting violent dictatorships in the name of freedom or communism. The left in the 20th century, especially between 1930-1980 has a very scary tendency to side with violent revolutions which use liberal “ideology” to hide power. A handful of the people on Xibabla’s nice list did just this.

Further I don’t think politics is best viewed as a line of development, but more as a cultural development along with a systems fit. Those two aspects have a lot of inertia in them, and require a very complex approach to enact change, something Obama is learning the hard way.

I can’t think of as many conservatives, though a few on your list I don’t consider great thinkers (Marcuse, Diderot) but that’s just a personal opinion. Then again I’m no expert of the conservative tradition. Here a list including thinkers who are complex (neither left nor right) but both traditions have claimed as their own. Another reason why this simple two category view is woefully inadequate.

Edward Burke, Adam Smith, Henry Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Winston Churchill, Ludwig von Mises & Friedrich von Hayek, Hannah Arendt, José Ortega y Gasset, and in some ways: John Sturat Mill, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Charles Taylor.

I find it hilarious that I’m defending the conservative tradition, but you all are so one-sided, it’s like someone poking at you for a response.

[Shashank Singh]

xibalba,

I have read Diderot and enjoyed him; just don’t think he’s a great thinker. Also I never said Sartre wasn’t a great thinker or his work valuable. And no, it wasn’t simply his problem; it was very fashionable during that time for liberals to support such violence. You seem to think I don’t appreciate the thinkers you keep mentioning, don’t know why since I never said any such thing.

Xibalba: The John stuart Mills, etc.. are too much victorian england to be taken seriously in our contemporary world.

Are you serious? Too Victorian England? Thats what you got?

If you have anything more to say then name dropping and random asides, along with a negative attitude, I’ll be happy to respond, otherwise don’t really have much to add to what I said before.

Best

[Christophe]

Hello Shashank,
You said:
I find it hilarious that I’m defending the conservative tradition, but you all are so one-sided, it’s like someone poking at you for a response.

First, I think that you are an Integral Orthodox guy. (sorry for pidgeonholing you, but I know that you use to hang out at the Integral Archipelago, and that's exactly what I would call Orthodox Integral). My observation is that many Integral folks in discussions like this one right here end up with defending the conservative cause. And I wonder why that is. No judgement, dude, just an observation.

Maybe I got you wrong, but I heard you say that the Right is more honest in their use of violence and rethoric, and thus more trustworthy, so that you prefer to believe in the right's propaganda instead of the Left's. IOW At least the conservatives say outright and openly that they are ready to kill you and don't cover it up with utopian promises of a better world for all. Is that what your saying?

I get the impression that you are motivated by balancing things out, by letting every voice be heard, all perspectives considered. That's a very noble thing to do, but in this case it clouds your judgement and makes you defend the status quo of a system that's gonna break down more sooner than later. You are well-intentioned, but unfortunately on the wrong side. Too bad :-(

cheers,

[xibalba]

Hi chill man

and what it is so highly interesting you bring here?


Shashank Singh said:

xibalba,

I have read Diderot and enjoyed him; just don’t think he’s a great thinker. Also I never said Sartre wasn’t a great thinker or his work valuable. And no, it wasn’t simply his problem; it was very fashionable during that time for liberals to support such violence. You seem to think I don’t appreciate the thinkers you keep mentioning, don’t know why since I never said any such thing.

Xibalba: The John stuart Mills, etc.. are too much victorian england to be taken seriously in our contemporary world.

Are you serious? Too Victorian England? Thats what you got?

If you have anything more to say then name dropping and random asides, along with a negative attitude, I’ll be happy to respond, otherwise don’t really have much to add to what I said before.

Best

[Shashank Singh]

Christopher,
Maybe I got you wrong, but I heard you say that the Right is more honest in their use of violence and rethoric, and thus more trustworthy, so that you prefer to believe in the right's propaganda instead of the Left's. IOW At least the conservatives say outright and openly that they are ready to kill you and don't cover it up with utopian promises of a better world for all. Is that what your saying?

Not quite. I never said the Right was more trustworthy. My point wasn’t even really integral, I was thinking more of Nietzsche as I mentioned. If you’re going to play the political game (which both demarcates and republicans do) there is something to be admired about playing it well. I don’t believe in either left/right propaganda, why the hell would you if you view it as propaganda? My point was about liberals falling into support of violence in the past because of an overly idealized position (more light the more shadow) was a causal criticism. They tend to fall prey to red elements just because they systematically distort red motives in others and themselves. I have not said a single thing to defend the status quo; the status quo hasn’t even been brought up directly. Of course this system is going to hell, all systems go to hell, and luckily hell has a lot of room.

By the way, if you’re going to pigeonhole someone, don’t say sorry right after. That dosen't even give me the pleasure of being anrgy. :-)

[Shashank Singh]

xibalba,

All I meant was I don’t have a more substantive response to your comments unless you wanted to say something more specific.

As far as what I bring...

Hell I know, that’s more a question for others, I bring myself...

[Christophe]

Hi Shashank,

I don't quite understand why you bring up Nietzsche in this context. What do you mean?

Shashank said:
If you’re going to play the political game there is something to be admired about playing it well.

Aha. So you are kind of a Machiavellist, an admirer of political wits and guts. Yes, this fits with Nietzsche's concept of the 'Will to Power'. But then I notice that you do not mention moral judgement, something that Nietzsche did (he wrote several books on the topic). Does for you morals or ethics play a role in politics?

You said:
I don’t believe in either left/right propaganda, why the hell would you if you view it as propaganda?

I would say that propaganda is inevitable in the context of society and social living. It's just a matter of having a choice about your worldview, and also a matter of transparency, a matter of how big the Lie is that they're telling you.

You said:
My point was about liberals falling into support of violence [...] They tend to fall prey to red elements just because they systematically distort red motives in others and themselves.

Can you give a concrete example to explain what you have in mind?

cheers,

[Edward theurj Berge]

I also brought up this topic with the same title in the Yahoo adult development forum, with all the heavy hitters in the MHC community. And in naturally brought up a lot of discussion, ongoing. Here a few of the latest discussions in chronological order:

Michael Commons:

What I think is that the tender tough scale of Burdick has become the "mother" versus "father" of *George Lakoff*:. That scale seems to be a right angles to the stage dimension. But as James Day and Lucas Commons-Miller have found, extreme position both may be acquired young and therefore "lower stage" and on the other hand may bias judgment to the degree that if interferes with detecting the relationships that underlie stage.

Herb Koplowitz:

I have a colleague who is a fundamentalist (every word of the Bible is true, even the words that seem to contradict others, and the world and all of the species within were created in six days) and is clearly Stratum-VI capable. (I forget - is that paradigmatic or cross-paradigmatic or some other stage?)

A couple of weeks ago I interviewed another fundamentalist, not yet 24 years old, clearly Stratum-V capable (metasystematic?), whose abilities will go off the charts as he matures.

These are both articulate people, able to consider evidence, very able to argue scientific method, epistemology, etc.

The most one can complain about them is that they have paradigms (in the Kuhn sense, not the Commons sense). They assimilate evidence to their conceptual frameworks and will only change their conceptual frameworks when they no longer allow them to make sense of data they have run across.

They can make identical claims about those whose conceptual framework is evolution. That we ignore the evidence of sources they judge reliable, evidence of those they consider experts. That we react with outrage at those who challenge our dogma.

I think back to the days of Spiro Agnew and references to pointy-headed intellectuals. Those of us on the atheist left are, as a group, considered arrogant by the religious right because, as a group, we are arrogant. I see no structural difference between fundamentalists and "scientific" atheists. Atheists are not above having a holier-than-thou attitude.

As Kuhn showed (to my satisfaction, at least), you can find the facts fit oxygen theory better than phlogiston theory, but that doesn't make phlogiston theory false and oxygen theory true. And both theories co-existed for a while. Evolution fits the data I have better than
creationism does, but it's the exact opposite for my colleague and my interviewee.

I have no idea whether on the whole creationists are at a higher or lower stage than evolutionists. But I am certain that belief in creationism is not itself and indication of lack of capability.

Bernardo A Merizalde:

I believe it is possible to operate at different stages in different domains (religion, business, politics, family life, etc.), and in different contexts. This was the general perspective of the participants at the last meeting of the Society for Research in Adult Development in Philadelphia.

Herb Koplowitz wrote:

I believe it is possible to operate at different levels in different domains, but that's not what I'm referring to. The folks I'm talking about discuss religion at the highest levels. Very conceptual and able to bring the abstract down to the concrete.

It's not like they are smart about business and dumb about religion. They just make sense of religion, origin of the species etc. differently from how I make sense of them.

Me:

I'm finding the interchange below between Herb and Bernardo interesting in relation to Michael's comments about Lakoff. Herb has observed that some individuals capable of more complex behavior still make sense of the world through a religious worldview. So it's not so much a matter of religious belief being less complex or not as "smart." So how then do developmentalists make sense of this, if fundamental religious belief is not a matter of being a less complex behavior within its own domain? Michael offered Lakoff's comparison of the stern father with the compassionate mother as alternative worldviews, and Lakoff associates these with conservative and liberal political views respectively. Are there domains outside of hierarchical complexity that are not accounted for by the latter?

Along this line I find the notion of memes fascinating. I'm not talking about the vmemes of Spiral Dynamics, just the more general idea that a meme is an idea or philosophy that takes on cultural, viral proportions, that masses of folks latch onto to and believe in heart and soul. (Perhaps sort of like Kuhn's paradigms?) It almost seems like liberal and conservative political philosophy are such memes and if the averages of HC of people from both views are not so different that what exactly makes them susceptible to one meme versus another?

Michael Commons:

Over the last two years, I have moved closer to the Robbie case notion of why we find décalage across tasks in different domains and circumstances. There are at least two sets of reasons and some interactions. The capacity to solve problems and address issues at a given stage should be constant across domains unless there are specific reasons for that not occurring. Here are some of my guesses.
1. Not all instruments are equally difficult or clear even when all the items have been checked for their order of hierarchical complexity. This is because some interments such as the ones that use vignettes do not have the information predominant as to that is a variable or what is a relationship. It is very clear in the science, logic and math ones but one has to pull that information out in the vignettes. it is the same as going from regular problem solving in equations to solving word problems.using the same material. This may be a decoding/encoding problem.
2. Content can mask the information is problems and vignettes. Emotionally charged material lowers stage. So religious views that do not match ones own might interfere with working memory space as Pascual Leone suggests. There is data to support this.
3. Does the task evoke an earlier way of thinking?
4. There are a number of personal variables such as having had trauma that stop reflection from occurring and therefore block stage of development on that issue
5. There are focal delusions that block reflection based on evidence or logic
6. People may use different sources of evidence, such as experiential versus empirical or logical

[Balder]

Interesting. I was thinking this morning about something like a "type/stage fallacy" or confusion, in relation to this thread and some other recent disagreements on forums, and some of the folks you've quoted seem to be discussing something along those lines.

I too have known so-called fundamentalists who are capable of high-level, seemingly post-formal operational cognition. One might explain this in terms of separate lines. But more may be involved than that.

[Shashank Singh]

Christopher:
You said:
My point was about liberals falling into support of violence [...] They tend to fall prey to red elements just because they systematically distort red motives in others and themselves.

Can you give a concrete example to explain what you have in mind?

There is no representative example, nor am I extending it to include all liberals, just pointing out that its one of the traps they specifically fall into. A somewhat light example, but recent is Seen Penn, supporting Hugo Chavez and rightfully getting called out on it: here’s the article

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/03/an-open-letter-to-sean-pen...

For a time Sartre denied the purgings of Stalin, despite overwhelming evidence. It isn’t ideals or goals I’m talking about, its idealized goals which are the problem. Extreme liberal activists are kind of a stereotype/parody of this, they love the earth so much they’ll hurt people and so on…


Christopher: I would say that propaganda is inevitable in the context of society and social living. It's just a matter of having a choice about your worldview, and also a matter of transparency, a matter of how big the Lie is that they're telling you.

I agree that propaganda is inevitable when one tries to address a large mass of people (at least in our present setup). I’m not sure what the second part refers to, the political parties or individual citizens having to make choices?


Christopher: So you are kind of a Machiavellist, an admirer of political wits and guts. Yes, this fits with Nietzsche's concept of the 'Will to Power'. But then I notice that you do not mention moral judgement, something that Nietzsche did (he wrote several books on the topic). Does for you morals or ethics play a role in politics

I didn’t mention moral judgment because I’m not really offering a grand view of politics, or anything; I certainly think ethics is important. I was responding to the article about Republicans exploiting the fear of their supporters and the anger this seemed to bring on here. So this doesn’t apply to all liberals or republicans, it’s more a response to the resentment liberals have toward Conservatives being dirty politically.

I use Nietzsche because he understood resentment clearly (there are other problems with him of course). As an aside, one of the reasons I like integral is that admiring Machiavelli doesn’t mean I can’t also admire Thomas Moore.

To paraphrase Nietzsche, the slave revolt in morality is the creativity of resentment. Noble morality is active and self-affirmative: “I am good, therefore [an afterthought] those others are bad”, while slave morality is reactive and other-negating : “The powerful others are evil, therefore I am good.”

Think of Odysseus in the Odyssey, he is admired by all men, whatever he does he does well, he lies well, he manipulates well, he loves well... His goodness comes from his overflowing…

Instead of complaining about how evil the republicans are, the liberals should get better at fundraising.


Thanks theurj for posting the comments from the other site, they are quite interesting.

Bruce: something like a "type/stage fallacy" or confusion, in relation to this thread and some other recent disagreements on forums

Growing up basically as an agnostic, I probably had a similar scientific world view from 13-20, but when I was 13 I held it as a concrete literal worldview, while when I was 18 I could actually hold it because of reasonable-reasons, having been able to think about it.