Alternatives? Pt 1

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday September 29, 2016 · 2:28 AM PDT

2016/09/29 · 02:28

Conservatives tend to be pessimistic because they doubt that more possibilities will make lives on the whole better. They believe that there are obstacles that stand in the way of the permanent overall improvement of the human condition.

richturc125

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday September 15, 2016 · 2:29 AM PDT

2016/09/15 · 02:29

To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. Familiar relationships and loyalties will be preferred to the allure of more profitable attachments; to acquire and to enlarge will be less important than to keep.

richturc125

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday August 25, 2016 · 2:29 AM PDT

2016/08/25 · 02:29

Specifically, [the need for closure] fosters the tendency to seize on information that affords closure and to freeze on closure once it has been attained. The need for closure, whether varied situationally or measured dispositionally, has been associated with tendencies to engage in social stereotyping … to resist persuasive influence ... and to reject opinion deviates. *

In matters of either great complexity or broad impact, a quick turn to the familiar and/or latching on to the first bit of evidence arguably supportive of one’s position—in the process dismissing any other information—and/or jumping to “premature conclusions” carries a certain amount of risk. Of course, it’s far and away an easier strategy to put into play, but still….There are times when those tactics are both wrong and entirely counter-productive if resolution is an objective. Shocking, Right?

The likelihood of making matters worse increases exponentially the greater and broader the subject matter. That also seems fairly obvious, although it’s just as obvious that it isn’t stopping the partisan wars from continuing at an accelerated pace. Reducing complexities to simplistic conclusions has some advantages and reduces dissonance, but if effective and enduring problem-solving is the objective, this falls woefully short.

Creating more problems by denying the current state of affairs or trivializing the details in favor of buttoning up the issue is probably not a wise choice, yet we seem conditioned to do just that much more often than we should. Perhaps a pause might be in order right about now? [We’ll certainly be doing us all one gigantic favor if we take that pause and ask ourselves—and then carefully consider—What Happens? if the Trump machine prevails.

The researchers found that being intolerant of ambiguity is associated with such conservative characteristics as unwavering certainty and strong loyalty to particular people and positions. Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions. They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white, the researchers concluded….

There’s a certain logic to all of this, if we understand that fear of change is one of the core foundations of conservatism. Regardless of the changes being proposed or imposed, the comfort of the familiar resonates more deeply with those inclined to conservative thought and principles.

But if those principles are likewise causing harm, the question which those of us on the Left want to desperately to ask is: Are you not paying attention? Right-wing extremists in particular, of course, but also a large segment of others presumably reasonable and rational conservatives ignore complexity at their peril. That makes it everyone’s problem. The failure to appreciate that complexity leads to the very outcomes they fear and object to the most.

How does the fear of change, and the corresponding unwillingness to consider new information or perspectives, merit greater loyalty than one’s own well-being—now and in the future? We’re presumably dealing with a lot of rational and intelligent adults, so how do those more basic fears outweigh the risks entailed in choosing to stand where they are in the face of so much evidence suggesting greater harm?

There aren’t many of us who actively seek out information or circumstances sure to create discomfort and anxieties, but … welcome to life! More information is usually a good thing if one is hoping to actually resolve a certain state of affairs. Is anyone denying we have more than a few issues on the table which would benefit from a bit more consideration?

That the information might not be all sunshine and roses is a given, but getting past that—possessed with the full range of facts and perspectives—will in the end make solutions more meaningful and enduring.

Perhaps a good first step is to become more aware of our various tendencies. Knowledge is also a good thing, and the more we possess, the better our chances of both avoiding knee-jerk anxieties and putting to bed whatever the current problem might be. Then, we can move on to the next one!

Conflicts and challenges and debates and their brethren will keep on showing up, but wouldn’t it be of greater benefit and more advantageous if they didn’t keep piling up on top of one another?

Adapted from a recent blog post of mine

* Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition by John T. Jost Stanford University; Arie W. Kruglanski University of Maryland at College Park; Jack Glaser University of California, Berkeley; Frank J. Sulloway University of California, Berkeley. Psychological Bulletin Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339–375

Are There Other Options? Pt 5

richturc125

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday August 18, 2016 · 2:29 AM PDT

2016/08/18 · 02:29

[A]uthoritarians are known to be high on the need for closure, yet another trait that’s linked to defensiveness and biased reasoning. The need for closure, notes Arie Kruglanski, means being more likely to look for belief affirmation (confirmation bias). It also means being more likely to defend one’s existing beliefs, to lash out against challenges to those beliefs (disconfirmation bias), and to persist in beliefs in the face of challenge. *

richturc125

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday August 11, 2016 · 2:28 AM PDT

2016/08/11 · 02:28

Now consider another related trait implicated in our divide over reality: the ‘need for cognitive closure.’ This describes discomfort with uncertainty and a desire to resolve it into a firm belief. Someone with a high need for closure tends to seize on a piece of information that dispels doubt or ambiguity, and then freeze, refusing to consider new information. Those who have this trait can also be expected to spend less time processing information than those who are driven by different motivations, such as achieving accuracy. A number of studies show that conservatives tend to have a greater need for closure than do liberals, which is precisely what you would expect in light of the strong relationship between liberalism and openness. ‘The finding is very robust,’ explained Arie Kruglanski, a University of Maryland psychologist who has pioneered research in this area and worked to develop a scale for measuring the need for closure.

I don’t pretend to be a psychologist. I have no formal training of any kind in that discipline, either. I read a lot. So I’ll accept at face value that there is considerable value in and for all of us to have motivations other than accuracy when dealing with various issues.

But on matters of significance outside of our own four walls, when facts actually matter a great deal, where is the ultimate benefit to an individual or for the community at large if factual accuracy is not the objective in both the analysis and in the solutions? Can anyone rationally suggest that discounting the facts of income inequality; climate change; energy supply issues, or Donald Trump’s endless capacity to lie about … everything is of any practical or enduring benefit to our society?

At what point does the facilitation of stress-free and cognitive-clear days become the worst objective rather than the first?

A considerable body of evidence substantiated by a wide range of research, science, and the collective weight of individuals who actually know what they are talking about tells us that continuing our intense, energy-driven society is already causing us problems which show no sign of abating … ever. So what’s the benefit in knee-jerk denial to preserve today’s financial and psychological comforts?

Conservatives tend to dispute climate change not so much because they doubt the science. They instead allege nebulous conspiracies with the occasionally wild-ass rationale as to why such an extensive and diverse group would be plotting such a thing [to obtain research funding is one theory floated around … yikes!]; or as is closer to the truth, they don’t like what has to be done to actually address the problem: a much greater role for government and a matching impact on corporate practices and profits.

Several politicians with ties to the fossil fuel industry have also claimed that the consensus view is a hoax. For instance, US Senator James Inhofe of Kansas called climate change ‘the greatest hoax ever’ (Johnson , 2011) To claim that climate change science is the greatest hoax ever is at minimum, if not a lie, reckless disregard for the truth given the number of prestigious scientific organizations that have publicly supported the consensus view, the undeniable science supporting the conclusion that if greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere some warming should be expected, the clear link between rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and increases in fossil fuel use around the world, as well undeniable increases in warming being that have been experienced at the global scale.

Did you see the big smack down last night between MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)? The dean of disinformation mostly just repeated his well-worn falseshoods about global warming, which Maddow shot down.
But there was one remarkable admission from the former Chair of the Senate Environment Committee: ‘I was actually on your side of this issue when I was chairing that committee and I first heard about this. I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost.’ In short, learning about the (supposed) high cost of the solution is what turned him from a believer in climate science to a denier.

If we cannot depend on leaders to tell the truth and use their presumed better judgment to address matters affecting society, is it too much to expect that enough individuals—otherwise inclined to go along with whatever is said by their leaders of choice—might pause every now and then to ask What Happens Then?

Can even an irrational mind understand that postponing the examination and addressing of critical matters will only make matters worse? Should we be content to hope that unknown date will be well beyond our own demise [and that of our children and grandchildren so that no one we actually know and love will be impacted]? Is this our standard MO in everyday living also?

In isolation, the rationale for opposition makes sense and is certainly consistent with the limited role for government/support for free market solutions which are clearly prime components of the conservative ideology. But the scope of climate change’s impact—the facts—suggests a more reasoned assessment and actually addressing the problem is a more urgent approach than appeasing psychological inclinations. The facts and the impacts are going to make themselves known to even the hardiest and delusional of the hardy and delusion. That bodes well for exactly none of us.

That’s not the only significant political and cultural issue whose scope and impact extends well beyond the comforts of our own homes and personal motivations. Will any of us really “win” in the long term if only a select few are “winning” now [and have lassoed others into helping those few]?

What happens to most of us when reality on these major issues barrels though our front doors no matter how dedicated and how clever the opposition and has been in denial, delay, and avoidance? Finger-pointing won’t be terribly helpful at that late date.

Adapted from a recent blog post of mine

Are There Other Options? Pt. 3

richturc125

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday August 04, 2016 · 2:28 AM PDT

2016/08/04 · 02:28

Conservatives take a dim view of progress. They are not so foolish as to deny that great advances have been made in science, technology, medicine, communication, management, education, and so forth, and that they have changed human lives for the better. But they have also changed them for the worse. Advances have been both beneficial and harmful. They have certainly enlarged the stock of human possibilities, but the possibilities are for both good and evil, and new possibilities are seldom without new evils. Conservatives tend to be pessimistic because they doubt that more possibilities will make lives on the whole better. They believe that there are obstacles that stand in the way of the permanent overall improvement of the human condition.

richturc125

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday July 28, 2016 · 2:28 AM PDT

2016/07/28 · 02:28

[There is] the commonly held notion that conservatives are especially likely to value tradition, conformity, social order, and consensual adherence to rules, norms, and conventions....It is also consistent with the assumption that it is generally easier to establish common ground with respect to the status quo than with respect to its many possible alternatives and to communicate effectively by transmitting messages that are relatively simple and unambiguous rather than reflecting the kind of complex, nuanced, and perhaps ambivalent cognitive and rhetorical styles that seem to be more common on the political left than the right. (links/citations in original) [***]

richturc125

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday July 21, 2016 · 2:28 AM PDT

2016/07/21 · 02:28

Conservatives, argues researcher Philip Tetlock of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, are less tolerant of compromise; see the world in ‘us’ versus ‘them’ terms; are more willing to use force to gain an advantage; are ‘more prone to rely on simple (good vs. bad) evaluative rules in interpreting policy issues;’ are ‘motivated to punish violators of social norms (e.g., deviations from traditional norms of sexuality or responsible behavior) and to deter free riders….’ [citations in original].

richturc125

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday July 14, 2016 · 2:28 AM PDT

2016/07/14 · 02:28

Kekes * argues that ‘the fundamental aim of conservatism is to conserve the political arrangements that have shown themselves to be conducive to good lives’. And, he continues, ‘the conservative view is that history is the best guide to understanding the present and planning for the future because it indicates what political arrangements are likely to make lives good or bad’

* John Kekes is currently a Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the Univ of Albany [NY]. The reference above is from his article “What Is Conservatism?”

richturc125

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday July 07, 2016 · 2:28 AM PDT

2016/07/07 · 02:28

Traditionalism and hostility to social innovation were central to Mannheim’s … sociological analysis of conservatism. Rossiter … too, defined situational conservatism in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences as ‘an attitude of opposition to disruptive change in the social, economic, legal, religious, political, or cultural order….’ He added, The distinguishing mark of this conservatism, as indeed it is of any brand of conservatism, is the fear of change [italics added], which becomes transformed in the political arena into the fear of radicalism….’ Consistent with this notion, Conover and Feldman … found that the primary basis for self-definitions of liberals and conservatives has to do with acceptance of, versus resistance to, change. [***] [citations and references in original quote]

richturc125

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday June 23, 2016 · 2:28 AM PDT

2016/06/23 · 02:28

In a rapidly-evolving world, leading the way seems to be a better approach than trying to hold back the tides of change. Conservatism has much to offer, and a more cooperative approach to policy and problem-solving will afford the Right a more meaningful role to contribute--rather than merely obstruct [or, in the case of The Donald, offer dangerous nonsense].

The question, of course, is whether or not what’s left of the rational and reasonable segment of GOP leadership can not only appreciate that need, but are able to persuade other factions that current wars are both unwinnable and carry heavy, long-term costs to their own supporters. It’s an obvious question to ask. Obvious answers aren’t quite so easy to come by.

richturc125

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday June 16, 2016 · 2:28 AM PDT

2016/06/16 · 02:28

[I]t is reasonable to hypothesize that individuals who are physiologically and psychologically responsive to negative stimuli will tend to endorse public policies that minimize tangible threats by giving prominence to past, traditional solutions, which assumes those options are adequately suited for the newer challenges by limiting human discretion (or endorsing institutions, such as the free market, that do not require generosity, discretion, and altruism), by being protective, by promoting ingroups relative to out-groups, and by embracing strong, unifying policies and authority figures.

Newer
Older

RSS

Alternatives? Pt 1

Are There Other Options? Pt. 7

Are There Other Options? Pt. 6

Are There Other Options? Pt 5

Are There Other Options? Pt. 4

Are There Other Options? Pt. 3

Are There Other Options? Pt. 2

Are There Other Options? Pt. 1

Start With The Basics Pt 4

Start With The Basics Pt 3

Start With The Basics Pt 2

Start With The Basics Pt 1