A bit of jargon *, but can anyone offer reasonable opposition to these assessments? Recognize members of a certain political party?
Intolerance of ambiguity, by increasing cognitive and motivational tendencies to seek certainty, is hypothesized to lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliche ́s and stereotypes….
Whether evoked situationally or measured as a stable personality dimension, the need for closure has been found to produce the same consequences. Specifically, it 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….
On one hand, the need for closure suggests a perpetuation of the reigning ideology, whatever its contents. Thus, increasing the need for closure among people whose accessible ideological positions are conservative would result in a stronger relation between need for closure and conservatism. (links and citations in original)
* SOURCE: 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
Like almost any psychological or personality trait/attribute, in and of themselves the descriptions are just that—descriptive. No judgments; just defining commonly-accepted conclusions about the typical conservative subject.
But the “whatever its contents … perpetuation of the reigning ideology” aspect can be problematical, if the principles assigned to those core beliefs and values cause more harm for more fellow citizens than good. Knee-jerk responses cut down thinking time as well as introspection, but that shouldn’t necessarily be viewed as a compliment.
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. Shocking, perhaps, but there are times when those tactics are wrong. The likelihood of that increases exponentially the greater and broader the subject matter.
Is there enough justification to bypass a fuller range of information and opinions just to preserve the simpler ideologies? Shoehorning them into a variety of problems suggests other problems are at hand.
This shouldn’t be seen as a blanket rejection of any and all conservative principles. But the automatic application of ideology to today’s challenges with their increased complexity and widespread, profound consequences merits a more thoughtful and reasoned approach. That would include giving consideration to alternate, or even opposing, viewpoints. They’ve been known to be correct and better-suited to certain problems on more than a few occasions.
What matters more: preserving the ideology and affiliations with like-minded peers, or a better future? Sometimes giving up one is the only way to gain the other.
It all depends on priorities, and at times they are best determined after some thought about and consideration of perspectives and opinions from sources other than one’s “own.”
Top Comments Submission Made Easy
|