Scott is usually more sceptical, but here he seems to be taking arguments at face value. I suspect that many people don't even have stances on issues such as federalism, and simply use it as a...
this isn’t to say those who have consistent principles are necessarily any better grounded. I’ve talked a lot about shifting views of federalism: when the national government was against gay marriage, conservatives supported top-down decision-making at the federal level, and liberals protested for states’ rights. Then when the national government came out in support, conservatives switched to wanting states’ rights and liberals switched to wanting top-down federal decisions. We can imagine some principled liberal who, in 1995, said “It seems to me right now that state rights are good, so I will support them forevermore, even when it hurts my side”. But her belief still would have ended up basically determined by random happenstance; in a world where the government started out supporting gay marriage but switched to oppose it, she would have – and stick to – the opposite principle
Scott is usually more sceptical, but here he seems to be taking arguments at face value. I suspect that many people don't even have stances on issues such as federalism, and simply use it as a talking point (or even a motte) when it interfaces with issues they are passionate about (guided by values). For others, federalism could simply be an aspect of an issue they are passionate about, such as rule of law / constitutionality (actual values: authority/respect).
The data behind Moral Foundations Theory doesn't say that liberals don't have ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity values, rather that they are less emphasised. It doesn't say that conservatives don't have harm/care and fairness/reciprocity values; they are still ranked higher than the other three, as with liberals, but by a much smaller margin. This isn't a set of binary options but a 5-dimensional spectrum. Of course you share values with everyone; the point is whether 2 are emphasised.
I'd love to see grey-tribe values data. My intuition is that it would be an exact match for liberals.
I find pieces like this somewhat reassuring in today's political climate, where it points out (in a logical way) how people are more alike than they are different.
I find pieces like this somewhat reassuring in today's political climate, where it points out (in a logical way) how people are more alike than they are different.
Scott is usually more sceptical, but here he seems to be taking arguments at face value. I suspect that many people don't even have stances on issues such as federalism, and simply use it as a talking point (or even a motte) when it interfaces with issues they are passionate about (guided by values). For others, federalism could simply be an aspect of an issue they are passionate about, such as rule of law / constitutionality (actual values: authority/respect).
The data behind Moral Foundations Theory doesn't say that liberals don't have ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity values, rather that they are less emphasised. It doesn't say that conservatives don't have harm/care and fairness/reciprocity values; they are still ranked higher than the other three, as with liberals, but by a much smaller margin. This isn't a set of binary options but a 5-dimensional spectrum. Of course you share values with everyone; the point is whether 2 are emphasised.
I'd love to see grey-tribe values data. My intuition is that it would be an exact match for liberals.
I find pieces like this somewhat reassuring in today's political climate, where it points out (in a logical way) how people are more alike than they are different.