Jump to content

Moral Foundations Theory-based Messaging (Addendum to Closed COVID-19 Thread)


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am glad you are taking the opportunity about talk with people and listen to them.  It sound like your BIL needs to be educated about what a 5G network is (Hint, it doesn't involve injections and, from a physics perspective, its not much different than WiFi)

Sometimes when talking to people, you kind of need to just go with their logic. (Wow, I didn't know how 5G involves injections!, How does that work?) Or (Why doesn't your 4G phone need the injections).

I remember when my sister told me that the vaccines caused magnetism in people, my first question was "Did the needle break off in the persons arm?" followed with "Have they measured the strength of the magnetic field in Teslas?" (she knows I studied electrical engineering so I know a couple of things about magnetic fields)  after these kind of questions she admitted that she wasn't quite sure about the claim anymore. What I didn't do, and knew not to do was say something like "the CDC says vaccines don't cause people to be magnetic"  

Sometimes, looking for sources that aren't part of their distrusted sources can help.

One thing you can do is sympathize with the wacky government rules that have been developed which don't seem to make any rational sense (What dark magic protects people sitting at a table without masks but doesn't protect them as they are walking in an empty resturant to that table).

Many people are just frustrated by rules and regulations that are made overnight and seemingly arbitary without any citizen imput and by people who they didn't know had the power to make such rules.  It can be about who makes the rules and who decides the rules more than what the rules are. 

I think some of these suggestions get closer to applying MFT in understanding and appreciating where oneself and others are coming from, both on a one-on-one and systemic basis.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

He alludes to that by saying "without hating each other" -- how do they go about doing that?

I only get aggravated when people are absolute, closed, manipulative, entitled or rude when interacting with someone’s differences.  As I’ve said before, my BFF is anti vax and my husband is republican and voted for Trump both times. I’ve not yet felt a need to punch either one in the nose :) .  We can talk openly about our concerns and there is compassion that is given. 

Link to comment
On 9/14/2021 at 12:01 PM, CV75 said:

My reply is: Using his moral foundations theory, the process is “simple”: to understand an opposing ideology, open the heart first. “If you can have at least one friendly interaction with a member of the “other” group, you’ll find it far easier to listen to what they’re saying, and maybe even see a controversial issue in a new light.” You needn’t compromise in your ideology*, but there may be mutually satisfying solutions that arise from balance instead of wa

 

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Alas, so many of the comments to your OP seem to entirely miss the point, CV75. :(

Seems to me all the posts here point to the above statement

Link to comment

@The Nehor

Nah.  If I have to stare into the eyes of some wild-eyed woman, actually, I'd prefer that it be this one (and that's saying something, since I'm tempted to disagree with virtually every word that comes out of her mouth):

image.jpeg.ae9d8ee623871caf06776ca02414e660.jpeg

Link to comment
3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

 

Seems to me all the posts here point to the above statement

I think what @Nofearis commenting on is the messaging to be developed in concert with that first step. It has to somehow touch each of the six foundations (psychological systems or cognitive modules that operate on a gut or intuitive level) that everyone has but prioritizes and uses differently as demonstrated in the political and religious ideologies to which they gravitate.

I will try to do a quick analysis of the First Presidency's recent message to members to see which of these moral foundations they touched upon. My guess is that they touched upon all of them.

ETA: analysis:

"Dear Brothers and Sisters:

"We [Loyalty/Betrayal] find ourselves fighting a war [Liberty/Oppression] against the ravages [Care/Harm, Sanctity/Degradation] of COVID-19 and its variants, an unrelenting [Fairness/Cheating] pandemic. We want to do all we can [Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal] to limit the spread of these viruses [Sanctity/Degradation]. We know [Authority/Subversion] that protection [Care/Harm] from the diseases they cause can only [Authority/Subversion] be achieved by immunizing a very high percentage of the population. [note: the references to “we” convey Authority/Subversion in some instances and Loyalty/Betrayal in others].

"To limit exposure to these viruses, we urge [Loyalty/Betrayal, Fairness/Cheating] the use of face masks in public meetings whenever [Liberty/Oppression] social distancing is not possible. To provide personal [Liberty/Oppression] protection [Care/Harm] from such severe infections, we urge [Loyalty/Betrayal] individuals [Liberty/Oppression] to be vaccinated. Available vaccines have proven to be both safe and effective [ Sanctity/Degradation].

"We [Loyalty/Betrayal] can win this war if everyone will follow [Fairness/Cheating] the wise and thoughtful [Sanctity/Degradation] recommendations [Liberty/Oppression] of medical experts and government leaders [Authority/Subversion, Liberty/Oppression]. Please know of our sincere love and great concern for all of God’s children [Care/Harm]."

The six foundations being the way we process and express the following “gut” reactions; one person might be drawn and another repulsed by the same thing:

-       Care/Harm

-       Fairness/Cheating

-       Loyalty/Betrayal

-       Authority/Subversion

-       Sanctity/Degradation

-       Liberty/Oppression

As a thought experiment, how might this have been worded differently to effectively entice the vaccine hesitant to get vaccinated? Not that this is a measure of their inspiration. Does breaking through another person’s instinct and bias manipulate and therefore undermine their agency, or better inform their choices?

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
On 9/14/2021 at 1:01 PM, CV75 said:

@BlueDreams

Okay, sorry for the delay – I decided to order the book (The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion  by Jonathan Haidt, 2012), rather than borrow it again from the library. To respond to your question in this link: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73926-covid-cases-hospitalizations-death-trends-and-other-touchy-subjects…/?do=findComment&comment=1210053481

My reply is: Using his moral foundations theory, the process is “simple”: to understand an opposing ideology, open the heart first. “If you can have at least one friendly interaction with a member of the “other” group, you’ll find it far easier to listen to what they’re saying, and maybe even see a controversial issue in a new light.” You needn’t compromise in your ideology*, but there may be mutually satisfying solutions that arise from balance instead of war.

* our minds are deeply intuitive, with our gut feelings driving our logic, explanations, rationale and strategic reasoning. Our minds are designed by genes and culture for “groupish righteousness” (our socially-binding moral foundations, values and sense) which binds us to each other and blinds us to the humanity of other groups.

Of course, it might require psychologists and political scientists to convince the powers that be to implement policy that encourages this sort of thing.

Here’s an article or two covering the development of messaging I’m talking about:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7577686/

https://theweek.com/feature/opinion/1003578/to-persuade-the-vaccine-hesitant-you-have-to-move-the-elephant-in-the-brain

I’m currently reading “anatomy of peace” which has very similar concepts to the book you bought and like. I’m liking the book so far and have also enjoyed recently “the book of forgiving” by Desmond and Mpho tutu. These are what have helped me maintain more of what is described as having a “heart at peace,” or the opposite of the “heart at war.” 
 

So I agree in the mutual communications, the grassroots convos, etc. Persuasion and understanding are always the preferred tools to change IMO. 
 

I am thinking more on that last line about policy implementation. Both the articles you give map the problem more than they do a feasible solution. Speaking to the values of others or to the “elephant” are good ideas, but need some so of practical implementation to be worthwhile. 
 

the other problem I have is with real risk. Some of the examples mentioned on this thread actually highlight the problem for me. Let’s take marriage therapy. Therapy for the vast majority of marriages are as mentioned: both coming together, learning how to let go of their war orientation and better hear each other to work together more healthily. It often takes time, but can slowly lead to change. These would also likewise fit with the parameters of the elephants mentioned. 
But this falls apart if there is a risk factor that is weighing the conversation between the couple. These would include abusive behaviors, affairs, chronic lying, even some severe mental health Concerns. If these aren’t being managed marital therapy isn’t just like to fail, but it may entrench the problem. This to me is like having an elephant that is actively stampeding in a neighborhood. That is not the time to slowly coax an elephant to change direction. That is when you need to yank out the tranq darts to reduce damage and then point the elephant in a better direction, once you’ve gotten them out of the village. 
 

That’s kinda where I see the discussions now. The period of gentle dialogue to slowly change can’t outweigh the real risk and cost to people’s lives and the medical system. To get vaxxed or not isn’t an equally viable choice and to stall places the individual above the health and well-being of the entire community which can easily and quickly grow to strain the whole system. (That’s not said angrily or judgmentally to said individuals at this point for me.) so to me, learning to understand one another is absolutely important, but the current risk warrants intervention and boundaries be placed. Even if that initially causes problems and even resentment in the “other side”

with luv, 

BD 

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think what @Nofearis commenting on is the messaging to be developed in concert with that first step. It has to somehow touch each of the six foundations (psychological systems or cognitive modules that operate on a gut or intuitive level) that everyone has but prioritizes and uses differently as demonstrated in the political and religious ideologies to which they gravitate.

I will try to do a quick analysis of the First Presidency's recent message to members to see which of these moral foundations they touched upon. My guess is that they touched upon all of them.

ETA: analysis:

"Dear Brothers and Sisters:

"We [Loyalty/Betrayal] find ourselves fighting a war [Liberty/Oppression] against the ravages [Care/Harm, Sanctity/Degradation] of COVID-19 and its variants, an unrelenting [Fairness/Cheating] pandemic. We want to do all we can [Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal] to limit the spread of these viruses [Sanctity/Degradation]. We know [Authority/Subversion] that protection [Care/Harm] from the diseases they cause can only [Authority/Subversion] be achieved by immunizing a very high percentage of the population. [note: the references to “we” convey Authority/Subversion in some instances and Loyalty/Betrayal in others].

"To limit exposure to these viruses, we urge [Loyalty/Betrayal, Fairness/Cheating] the use of face masks in public meetings whenever [Liberty/Oppression] social distancing is not possible. To provide personal [Liberty/Oppression] protection [Care/Harm] from such severe infections, we urge [Loyalty/Betrayal] individuals [Liberty/Oppression] to be vaccinated. Available vaccines have proven to be both safe and effective [ Sanctity/Degradation].

"We [Loyalty/Betrayal] can win this war if everyone will follow [Fairness/Cheating] the wise and thoughtful [Sanctity/Degradation] recommendations [Liberty/Oppression] of medical experts and government leaders [Authority/Subversion, Liberty/Oppression]. Please know of our sincere love and great concern for all of God’s children [Care/Harm]."

The six foundations being the way we process and express the following “gut” reactions; one person might be drawn and another repulsed by the same thing:

-       Care/Harm

-       Fairness/Cheating

-       Loyalty/Betrayal

-       Authority/Subversion

-       Sanctity/Degradation

-       Liberty/Oppression

As a thought experiment, how might this have been worded differently to effectively entice the vaccine hesitant to get vaccinated? Not that this is a measure of their inspiration. Does breaking through another person’s instinct and bias manipulate and therefore undermine their agency, or better inform their choices?

Nice analysis. It does seem to try to hit people's buttons. Some will care about one more than others. Liberals tend to prioritize care/harm above all else and conservatives are more equitably spread among the five pillars. But an appeal to the other pillars one doesn't value as much doesn't usually make invalid the argument so long as it makes sense to those moral pillars one does prioritize. And really, the release is more directed at the more conservative than the more liberal since the care/harm will trump all else and they usually don't need vaccine prodding.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

@The Nehor

Nah.  If I have to stare into the eyes of some wild-eyed woman, actually, I'd prefer that it be this one (and that's saying something, since I'm tempted to disagree with virtually every word that comes out of her mouth):

image.jpeg.ae9d8ee623871caf06776ca02414e660.jpeg

I like her. Though admittedly Ilhan Omar was better at playing “Among Us”.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think what @Nofearis commenting on is the messaging to be developed in concert with that first step. It has to somehow touch each of the six foundations (psychological systems or cognitive modules that operate on a gut or intuitive level) that everyone has but prioritizes and uses differently as demonstrated in the political and religious ideologies to which they gravitate.

I will try to do a quick analysis of the First Presidency's recent message to members to see which of these moral foundations they touched upon. My guess is that they touched upon all of them.

ETA: analysis:

"Dear Brothers and Sisters:

"We [Loyalty/Betrayal] find ourselves fighting a war [Liberty/Oppression] against the ravages [Care/Harm, Sanctity/Degradation] of COVID-19 and its variants, an unrelenting [Fairness/Cheating] pandemic. We want to do all we can [Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal] to limit the spread of these viruses [Sanctity/Degradation]. We know [Authority/Subversion] that protection [Care/Harm] from the diseases they cause can only [Authority/Subversion] be achieved by immunizing a very high percentage of the population. [note: the references to “we” convey Authority/Subversion in some instances and Loyalty/Betrayal in others].

"To limit exposure to these viruses, we urge [Loyalty/Betrayal, Fairness/Cheating] the use of face masks in public meetings whenever [Liberty/Oppression] social distancing is not possible. To provide personal [Liberty/Oppression] protection [Care/Harm] from such severe infections, we urge [Loyalty/Betrayal] individuals [Liberty/Oppression] to be vaccinated. Available vaccines have proven to be both safe and effective [ Sanctity/Degradation].

"We [Loyalty/Betrayal] can win this war if everyone will follow [Fairness/Cheating] the wise and thoughtful [Sanctity/Degradation] recommendations [Liberty/Oppression] of medical experts and government leaders [Authority/Subversion, Liberty/Oppression]. Please know of our sincere love and great concern for all of God’s children [Care/Harm]."

The six foundations being the way we process and express the following “gut” reactions; one person might be drawn and another repulsed by the same thing:

-       Care/Harm

-       Fairness/Cheating

-       Loyalty/Betrayal

-       Authority/Subversion

-       Sanctity/Degradation

-       Liberty/Oppression

As a thought experiment, how might this have been worded differently to effectively entice the vaccine hesitant to get vaccinated? Not that this is a measure of their inspiration. Does breaking through another person’s instinct and bias manipulate and therefore undermine their agency, or better inform their choices?

In the six dichotomies I favor the following:

Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Subversion, Degradation, and Liberty.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, pogi said:

And a miracle or two :D

I think there are politicians who are very good at this though.  While I disagree with governor Cox on many issues, I think he is a good example of how it can be.  I think he has demonstrated the same openness and respect throughout his governorship.  We definitely need more of this.  I know I could use some work.

 

While I appreciate the sentiment I would find it more impressive if these were two candidates in a campaign that was not all but a foregone conclusion.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I’m currently reading “anatomy of peace” which has very similar concepts to the book you bought and like. I’m liking the book so far and have also enjoyed recently “the book of forgiving” by Desmond and Mpho tutu. These are what have helped me maintain more of what is described as having a “heart at peace,” or the opposite of the “heart at war.” 
 

So I agree in the mutual communications, the grassroots convos, etc. Persuasion and understanding are always the preferred tools to change IMO. 
 

I am thinking more on that last line about policy implementation. Both the articles you give map the problem more than they do a feasible solution. Speaking to the values of others or to the “elephant” are good ideas, but need some so of practical implementation to be worthwhile. 
 

the other problem I have is with real risk. Some of the examples mentioned on this thread actually highlight the problem for me. Let’s take marriage therapy. Therapy for the vast majority of marriages are as mentioned: both coming together, learning how to let go of their war orientation and better hear each other to work together more healthily. It often takes time, but can slowly lead to change. These would also likewise fit with the parameters of the elephants mentioned. 
But this falls apart if there is a risk factor that is weighing the conversation between the couple. These would include abusive behaviors, affairs, chronic lying, even some severe mental health Concerns. If these aren’t being managed marital therapy isn’t just like to fail, but it may entrench the problem. This to me is like having an elephant that is actively stampeding in a neighborhood. That is not the time to slowly coax an elephant to change direction. That is when you need to yank out the tranq darts to reduce damage and then point the elephant in a better direction, once you’ve gotten them out of the village. 
 

That’s kinda where I see the discussions now. The period of gentle dialogue to slowly change can’t outweigh the real risk and cost to people’s lives and the medical system. To get vaxxed or not isn’t an equally viable choice and to stall places the individual above the health and well-being of the entire community which can easily and quickly grow to strain the whole system. (That’s not said angrily or judgmentally to said individuals at this point for me.) so to me, learning to understand one another is absolutely important, but the current risk warrants intervention and boundaries be placed. Even if that initially causes problems and even resentment in the “other side”

with luv, 

BD 

Yes, we need to tap into the other’s foundations, the less rationally-driven cognitive processes (I’m reminded of another book, Thinking Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman). The links I provide help define the task that needs to be figured out. I agree that the comparison with marriage therapy can be taken only so far, as the application for this theory to COVID-19 messaging is orientated toward the political sensitivities within a much larger social group.

I think that attempts to shut down the other side (by either side) is what has been going on without applying this theory, and I don’t think it can be accomplished using the principles this theory. Shutting down is an outcome of “war”.

As an alternative, I’m wondering how the moral foundations might be redirected toward a common goal, which can be done fairly quickly (the light coming on). This is my meager attempt with the First Presidency message, and I haven’t yet gotten into the “conservative” and “liberal” dynamics in the responses to their message relative to the moral foundations makeup of the broad audience.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Nofear said:

Nice analysis. It does seem to try to hit people's buttons. Some will care about one more than others. Liberals tend to prioritize care/harm above all else and conservatives are more equitably spread among the five pillars. But an appeal to the other pillars one doesn't value as much doesn't usually make invalid the argument so long as it makes sense to those moral pillars one does prioritize. And really, the release is more directed at the more conservative than the more liberal since the care/harm will trump all else and they usually don't need vaccine prodding.

And that's the rub: The conservative mindset is typically equally balanced among the six foundations while the liberal mindset is very heavily eared toward Care/Harm followed by Fairness/Cheating. In a highly polarized environment, sensitivities to negative triggers run very high. Amazingly to me, this is why a very conservatively designed message (by moral foundation standards) seems so poorly received by conservatively-oriented people while being well-received by the liberally-oriented who, for an odd change, are not picking up on the usual conservative offenses. I am wondering if generally, political ideology is trumping religious ideology, which is certainly a sign of the times.

This is why I'm wondering whether the First Presidency message might be reworded for such a politically-charged / polarized environment to appeal more to the conservative mindset without alienating the liberal mindset.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

In the six dichotomies I favor the following:

Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Subversion, Degradation, and Liberty.

I think it would depend on the situation at hand, since, for example, an instinct to favor liberty toward one thing is an instinct to oppress another.

For example, how might the First Presidency message be reworded so that it appeals to a conservative sense of Liberty, which seems to be one of the sources of vaccine hesitancy (mistrust of government)? Or Harm (fear of its safety and side effects)? Some may be more worried about themselves (personal autonomy (Liberty) than the economy (Care or Fairness).

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
17 hours ago, Nofear said:

Liberals tend to prioritize care/harm above all else and conservatives are more equitably spread among the five pillars. 

If you would "open your heart" to "understand the opposing ideology", I think you would find that this is not a fair representation of the views you oppose.  

Many people here probably think I am a hard-core liberal because of my passionate involvement and response to the pandemic, and my strong distaste for Trump/ism.  That is not true however.  I have always voter more republican than democrat.  I am economically conservative, I am religiously conservative, I am very much pro-life, but in relation to the pandemic I am a public health nurse...that is who I am.  I used to be affiliated with the republican party.  I no longer am.  I am independent.  I have come to resent the two party system and try to follow principle instead of party.  The pandemic has truly highlighted the   I think I understand liberals on this issue though, and I think they are much more equitable than you think. 

-       Care/Harm -  I agree this is important to liberals.

-       Fairness/Cheating  -  Liberals are deeply concerned about fairness in relation to the pandemic, and other social issues alike.  They are seeking to promote fairness by encouraging all to do their part.   They don't see it as fair that the general public is placed at risk due to the poor choices of others.   It is not fair that ICU care is becoming unavailable for some because unvaccinated people are overwhelming the hospital system.  Ask any ICU nurse if they think what is happening if fair.    It is not fair that our children are at greater risk at school because some parents are anti-mask.  It is not fair that high-risk individuals with compromised immune systems have to live in constant anxiety because other people are acting without consideration of the more vulnerable among us.  Unwilling to sacrifice for the good of the whole.   It is not fair that our economy will continue to suffer until we all take equal role in combating this virus.  Liberals (and many, many republicans agree) that what is happening is not fair.  

-       Loyalty/Betrayal  -  I think this is just as important for one side as it is the other.  I think loyalty to party is one of the biggest problems we have in America (and the church) right now.  We should be loyal to principle over party. 

-       Authority/Subversion  -  Liberals look to medical authorities in this.  They look to the best of the best.  They dismiss subversive political and propaganda attacks on authority.

-       Sanctity/Degradation  -  Sanctity of life.  Sanctity in sacrifice for the good of the whole.  Sanctity in caring for the vulnerable.  Sanctity in fulfilling the second great commandment as it relates to this pandemic (see Elder Renlund's remarks on this).  This all maters to liberals.  It is ironic that in relation to abortion, the sanctity of life trumps liberty for republicans.  But when it comes to a deadly pandemic, liberty trumps the sanctity of life.  "Liberty, liberty, liberty", is all I hear - Just like the Liberty mutual jingle says.  It makes me wonder why they are not pro-choice then.  The same can be said for liberals on this issue.  I think both sides are equally inconsistent on these issues and values, and you will find me standing on opposite sides of the political spectrum on each of theses issues for that reason.  

-       Liberty/Oppression  -   Liberals view the virus as oppressive.  They want liberty from it.  "Liberty by law".  Liberty by breath.  Pulses over politics (which they see as oppressive to life, and thus liberty).  Liberals uphold liberty as a core American value, but very few believe that liberty is without limits and should not be regulated by law when it infringes upon the rights to life of others.

I am sure that many republicans will take offense, or at least find reason to attack this perspective instead of listen.  It is not meant to offend. You may disagree with how their values are framed, but they are core values to liberals too.  It would be wrong to dismiss them. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

I just want to say that this pandemic is a serious thing and the media circus we experience does not help. It seems we have full clown cars pulling up with new misinformation every day and I want to say that the japes, hijinks, and pratfallish nature of these communications weaken the overall response. So many of the people dealing with this information treat it as if they are putting on an act solely to amuse the people watching them.

 

 

 

 

On an unrelated note:

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

If you would "open your heart" to "understand the opposing ideology", I think you would find that this is not a fair representation of the views you oppose.  

Many people here probably think I am a hard-core liberal because of my passionate involvement and response to the pandemic, and my strong distaste for Trump/ism.  That is not true however.  I have always voter more republican than democrat.  I am economically conservative, I am religiously conservative, I am very much pro-life, but in relation to the pandemic I am a public health nurse...that is who I am.  I used to be affiliated with the republican party.  I no longer am.  I am independent.  I have come to resent the two party system and try to follow principle instead of party.  The pandemic has truly highlighted the   I think I understand liberals on this issue though, and I think they are much more equitable than you think. 

-       Care/Harm -  I agree this is important to liberals.

-       Fairness/Cheating  -  Liberals are deeply concerned about fairness in relation to the pandemic, and other social issues alike.  They are seeking to promote fairness by encouraging all to do their part.   They don't see it as fair that the general public is placed at risk due to the poor choices of others.   It is not fair that ICU care is becoming unavailable for some because unvaccinated people are overwhelming the hospital system.  Ask any ICU nurse if they think what is happening if fair.    It is not fair that our children are at greater risk at school because some parents are anti-mask.  It is not fair that high-risk individuals with compromised immune systems have to live in constant anxiety because other people are acting without consideration of the more vulnerable among us.  Unwilling to sacrifice for the good of the whole.   It is not fair that our economy will continue to suffer until we all take equal role in combating this virus.  Liberals (and many, many republicans agree) that what is happening is not fair.  

-       Loyalty/Betrayal  -  I think this is just as important for one side as it is the other.  I think loyalty to party is one of the biggest problems we have in America (and the church) right now.  We should be loyal to principle over party. 

-       Authority/Subversion  -  Liberals look to medical authorities in this.  They look to the best of the best.  They dismiss subversive political and propaganda attacks on authority.

-       Sanctity/Degradation  -  Sanctity of life.  Sanctity in sacrifice for the good of the whole.  Sanctity in caring for the vulnerable.  Sanctity in fulfilling the second great commandment as it relates to this pandemic (see Elder Renlund's remarks on this).  This all maters to liberals.  It is ironic that in relation to abortion, the sanctity of life trumps liberty for republicans.  But when it comes to a deadly pandemic, liberty trumps the sanctity of life.  "Liberty, liberty, liberty", is all I hear - Just like the Liberty mutual jingle says.  It makes me wonder why they are not pro-choice then.  The same can be said for liberals on this issue.  I think both sides are equally inconsistent on these issues and values, and you will find me standing on opposite sides of the political spectrum on each of theses issues for that reason.  

-       Liberty/Oppression  -   Liberals view the virus as oppressive.  They want liberty from it.  "Liberty by law".  Liberty by breath.  Pulses over politics (which they see as oppressive to life, and thus liberty).  Liberals uphold liberty as a core American value, but very few believe that liberty is without limits and should not be regulated by law when it infringes upon the rights to life of others.

I am sure that many republicans will take offense, or at least find reason to attack this perspective instead of listen.  It is not meant to offend. You may disagree with how their values are framed, but they are core values to liberals too.  It would be wrong to dismiss them. 

These various terms, including "conservative" and "liberal" need to be used as defined for use by the theory in order to avoid semantic issues. That is why I only  used "conservative" and "liberal" to describe a mindset or orientation and not a political affiliation.

Few people are so thoroughly one of the other in terms of the theory, but lean sufficiently in one direction or another to polarize any particular issue when innate intuitions are left unchecked. This is why science and data are so easily ignored and likewise doubled-down upon when other rationale might be more effective.

EGkLMUZ.png

A political application: the issue is the relative scores of each others' political ideology, not whether they are high or low scores. Ignore the "Green You", it's just somebody who took the survey and shared it online and I copied it.

Here's another one:

Haidt - Moral Judgment

 

 

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I just want to say that this pandemic is a serious thing and the media circus we experience does not help. It seems we have full clown cars pulling up with new misinformation every day and I want to say that the japes, hijinks, and pratfallish nature of these communications weaken the overall response. So many of the people dealing with this information treat it as if they are putting on an act solely to amuse the people watching them.

 

 

 

 

On an unrelated note:

I think the media certainly understands, on a visceral business level, how to keep feeding the innate drivers that keep their audiences tuning in. Ideally they provide the information necessary for a well-informed public to make good decisions personally and collectively. It is always a challenge to effectively deliver even the best of factual reporting due to the biases imposed by our (and the competing agencies') moral foundations.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

If you would "open your heart" to "understand the opposing ideology", I think you would find that this is not a fair representation of the views you oppose. 

Like you chose not to affiliate as either Republican or Democrat.
I'm not sure what you think I'm opposing though. I personally tend to put weight into other values as do conservatives, but it doesn't mean that I'm opposed to those that weigh their values differently.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Like you chose not to affiliate as either Republican or Democrat.

I'm not sure what you mean to say by this.

31 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I'm not sure what you think I'm opposing though. I personally tend to put weight into other values as do conservatives, but it doesn't mean that I'm opposed to those that weigh their values differently.

Are you're not opposed to those who are in favor of masks and vaccine mandates?

I don't think we can avoid opposition/confrontation.  I don't think that is the point of this theory either.  It should be about avoiding contention while addressing confrontation/opposition to others.  

I was trying to show you that your values are probably not as far apart as you may presume.  We just frame them in politically divisive ways.  Liberty, for example, is heralded by liberals more than republicans in prochoice vs pro-life issues.  While liberty for conservatives is heralded more than life in mask/vaccine mandates for example.  "It's my choice, its my life", conservatives love to say in regards to mask/vaccine mandates (despite their very real life/death risk to others).  It is literally the exact same argument we hear from liberals on pro-choice issues.   We all believe in these values.  We just frame them differently along party lines.   Loyalty seems to be the one value that both parties herald more than any other value.  It is really quite sad.  Party over principle.  They are two peas in the same pod.   I don' think it is fair to say that republicans are more equitable in these values.  I think that is a misunderstanding. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure what you mean to say by this.

Are you're not opposed to those who are in favor of masks and vaccine mandates?

I don't think we can avoid opposition/confrontation.  I don't think that is the point of this theory either.  It should be about avoiding contention while addressing confrontation/opposition to others.  

I was trying to show you that your values are probably not as far apart as you may presume.  We just frame them in politically divisive ways.  Liberty, for example, is heralded by liberals more than republicans in prochoice vs pro-life issues.  While liberty for conservatives is heralded more than life in mask/vaccine mandates for example.  "It's my choice, its my life", conservatives love to say in regards to mask/vaccine mandates (despite their very real life/death risk to others).  It is literally the exact same argument we hear from liberals on pro-choice issues.   We all believe in these values.  We just frame them differently along party lines.   Loyalty seems to be the one value that both parties herald more than any other value.  It is really quite sad.  Party over principle.  They are two peas in the same pod.   I don' think it is fair to say that republicans are more equitable in these values.  I think that is a misunderstanding. 

I do not mean to come across as an expert instructor of this theory, but I do know it is about understanding for the sake of communication and problem-solving, even absent any contention. It does explain why and how contention escalates, but that is a side note.

Values are framed in politically divisive ways because they are balanced differently with and by other values in different ways. Care that is balanced by Liberty, for example, is expressed differently than Care that is balanced less, or not at all, by Liberty or another moral foundation.

 

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I do not mean to come across as an expert instructor of this theory, but I do know it is about understanding for the sake of communication and problem-solving, even absent any contention. It does explain why and how contention escalates, but that is a side note.

Right, that is basically what I was saying.  I can't speak for the theory as I have not read it, but I believe that life should not be about avoiding conflict/opposition (which is why "problem-solving" is needed in the first place), but it should be about addressing conflict and opposition without contention.   Contention is condemned in scripture.  Conflict and opposition are necessary for eternal progression.  It is through understanding that contention can be avoided while not shying away from conflict/opposition.   

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Values are framed in politically divisive ways because they are balanced differently with and by other values in different ways. Care that is balanced by Liberty, for example, is expressed differently than Care that is not balanced less, or not at all, by Liberty or another moral foundation.

I agree.  I don't see any difference between care being balanced by liberty from a conservative perspective in the pro-life vs pro choice issue though.  Care without balance of liberty, is what I see on that issue.  It is basically the same balance between care and liberty that I see liberals taking on the mandate issue.   There is clear inconsistency with the exact same arguments being used be each party on different issues.  I truly think this arises because many people seem to value loyalty to party above all other values - otherwise there would be more consistency.   I see opposition to principles for no other reason than that the opposing party agrees with it - I see this on both sides.  It is so destructive. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

Right, that is basically what I was saying.  I can't speak for the theory as I have not read it, but I believe that life should not be about avoiding conflict/opposition (which is why "problem-solving" is needed in the first place), but it should be about addressing conflict and opposition without contention.   Contention is condemned in scripture.  Conflict and opposition are necessary for eternal progression.  It is through understanding that contention can be avoided while not shying away from conflict/opposition.   

I agree.  I don't see any difference between care being balanced by liberty from a conservative perspective in the pro-life vs pro choice issue though.  Care without balance of liberty, is what I see on that issue.  It is basically the same balance between care and liberty that I see liberals taking on the mandate issue.   There is clear inconsistency with the exact same arguments being used be each party on different issues.  I truly think this arises because many people seem to value loyalty to party above all other values - otherwise there would be more consistency.   I see opposition to principles for no other reason than that the opposing party agrees with it - I see this on both sides.  It is so destructive. 

I think the abortion debate highlights this (using the first graph):

Pro-Choice: Care/harm (of the fetus) is balanced by Fairness/cheating (justice, rights, and autonomy of the woman) with relatively weaker pressure from other moral considerations (except for some pressure from Liberty/oppression perhaps, bolstering the effects of the morality of the woman’s autonomy). The net is to focus on the Care/harm and Fairness/cheating of the woman.

Pro-Life: Care/Harm (of the fetus) is equally bolstered by every other moral consideration because they all provide relatively equal pressure. The net is that religious considerations (Authority/subversion and Sanctity/degradation) exert more pressure than they do in the Pro-Choice paradigm, so that even though Care/harm and Fairness/cheating are of relatively less significant than the Pro-Choice profile, the net effect a focus on the Care/harm and Fairness/cheating of the fetus.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

I was trying to show you that your values are probably not as far apart as you may presume

Honestly, I'm not sure what you are talking about. I don't know what you think I'm presuming. You can try to show me that I'm really saying this or that but I'm really mostly just confuzzled by your comments. Maybe your conflating my comments with another or something. Don't know, nor do I think it matters much. I'm not really trying to persuade anything. I was mostly just showing appreciation for CV75's approach. :)

Edited by Nofear
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...