There was a great topic on NPR with Cognitive scientist and linguist, George Lakoff who asserted that the red state/blue state division of America reflects different world-views which are based upon equal but different moral philosophies. His research finds that while people truly believe that they are voting solely on the issues, that their political affiliations directly correlate with the model under which they were disciplined as children. This causes a huge disconnect in the ways that liberals and conservatives see the world, despite both adhering to well thought out ethical systems. The researchers divided the discipline models into two main categories - "strict father model (SFM)" and "nuturing model(NM)" (with specific operational definitions and subcategories which are in the book), but the researchers found that conservatives correlated with the SFM, while liberals correlated with the NM. Yet, when self identified conservatives were asked to recall examples of the harshest punishments they received as children, and THEN were asked to state opinions on governmental policy issues, they expressed "liberal" positions. Conservatives who were not asked to recall childhood punishments, expressed the typical conservative opinions on those policy issues. It seems that all people (both liberal and conservative) were exhibiting emotional displacement when formulating their opinions on these policies. This explains why classic conservatives, for example, may object to the destruction of life at any stage (i.e. abortion), yet support the death penalty, since holding both positions doesn't stand up to ethical analysis. Similarly, classic liberal positions also illustrate this unconcious, emotive factor. The conclusion of the research was basically, that if people were more aware of this research, that "conservatives" and "liberals" might be able to break down some of the demonizing of the opposing viewpoints, that is so predominant, and help shed many of the sterotypes that prevent effective dialog between the two groups.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4105213
George Lakoff, author of Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley.
"Only a life lived for others, is the life worthwhile" - Albert Einstein
My brother and I are
My brother and I are political opposites, yet raised in the same house with the same parents. My husband and his brother have the same situation. Did they offer any explaination for that in this model?
Lovemy4 is a discussion leader for North Central Phoenix, tired mother of 4 great kids and wife to one great husband.
Well, it would SEEM that
Well, it would SEEM that siblings are raised in the same house, by the same parents, but each child is born to parents of a new experience, tolerance, patience, knowledge level, not to mention the varying influencing circumstances that ebb and flow as life moves along. Obviously, different temperments of the children vastly influence how they perceive their parents and childhood experiences. My sisters and I marvel at how remarkably different our perceptions of certain events were, despite all being present for the same one! The research didn't find a link between siblings' views and parenting styles, it found a link between the perceptual experience (right, wrong, or exagerated) of the individual as a child and their later worldview as an adult. Two children in a home may be punished for the same infraction, in the same way, while one child feels that the punishment was just, fair and deserved, the other child may feel that the punishment was unfair, unjust and undeserved. It's those perceptions, over time, that shape our worldviews and subsequently, our political views. The emotive factor goes largely unrecognized, making people quite defensive of their particular political viewpoint. Yet, since opposing worldviews may be equally founded in ethical principle, theoretically, it should be easier to intellectually accept the opposing view. This research offers an explaination as to why we too often feel that the person who holds an opposing worldview, is stupid and just doesn't 'get it".
"Only a life lived for others, is the life worthwhile" - Albert Einstein
I think George Lakoff is a
I think George Lakoff is a smart guy. Have you ever read his book "Don't think of an elephant"?
This issue of divisive values and beliefs is an important one, especially in the election year, and the resulting lack of empathy is cause for exasperated sighs whenever I read the news.
The question I have to ask myself is simply whether there is some way to, on a more grand scale, help people see beyond their differences to what we have in common. As a teacher in the communication field, it seems such a no-brainer that empathy could give people enough pause to prevent ever so much tragedy, ill-will, and poor decisionmaking...
Thanks for sharing your thoughts--it's nice to know there are people like you out there.