This is the twice-weekly hidden open thread. Post about anything you want, ask random questions, whatever. So Haidt can see who best understands others. The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness as equality , and you listen to the Reagan narrative, what else could you think?
The poor dog is suffering as a result. This is my first post, as I think this addresses the why they are still crying wolf, and will likely continue to do so, to their personal and political disadvantage.
And that panic trickles down to other ethnic and sexual minorities. The same way that the media reacted to the research on disgust reactions, where liberal subjects showed lowered disgust reactions to pictures of spiders or dead bodies, by calling conservatives prudish germophobes.
Conservatives beat liberals but neither of them were quite as good predictors as the fence-sitters. I guess it makes intuitive sense that someone in the middle should be able to see both sides more clearly but given that everyone was arguing for outright liberal or conservative dominance it was odd to see both of them being beaten by the independents.
On the ideological Turing test stuff, David Graeber makes arguments in his recent work on bureaucracy which is derived from earlier work of his, and also feminist standpoint theory that would also explain these differences. A great advantage of violence is that it is the one thing that allows you completely set aside the problem of what the other person is thinking. On the other differences, it seems worth noting the irony of singing their praises to a community that at least generally explicitly embraces rationalism, according to which these other ways of thinking pose a great risk of pursuing dumb or otherwise counter-productive actions, and should at least be carefully moderated by reasoning.
