"Understanding Libertarian Morality"

[william.scherk]

Reason's Ronald Bailey pens an intriguing look at Jonathan Haidt's newest work, “Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Roots of an Individualist Ideology.”

I had yet to hear about libertarians as amoral calculating rationalists . . . here's a few paragraphs from Bailey's piece. Full text at Reason.com

++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Science of Libertarian Morality

A social psychology study explores the formation of the libertarian personality.

Libertarians are often cast as amoral calculating rationalists with an unseemly hedonistic bent. Now new social science research upends that caricature. Libertarians are quite moral, the researchers argue—just not in the same way that conservatives and liberals are.

The University of Virginia social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has done a lot of work in the past probing the different moral attitudes of American liberals and conservatives. With time he realized that a significant proportion of Americans did not fit the simplistic left/right ideological dichotomy that dominates our social discourse. Instead of ignoring the outliers, Haidt and his colleagues chose to dig deeper.

The result: a fascinating new study, “Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Roots of an Individualist Ideology,” that is currently under review at the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. In probing libertarians’ moral thinking, Haidt and his colleagues—Ravi Iyer and Jesse Graham at the University of Southern California and Spassena Koleva and Peter Ditto at the University of California at Irvine—used the “largest dataset of psychological measures ever compiled on libertarians”: surveys of more than 10,000 self-identified libertarians gathered online at the website yourmorals.org.

In his earlier work, Haidt surveyed the attitudes of conservatives and liberals using what he calls the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, which measures how much a person relies on each of five different moral foundations: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Typically, conservatives scored lower than liberals on the harm and fairness scales—that is, they gave those issues less weight when making moral judgments—and scored much higher on ingroup, authority, and purity.

In the new study, Haidt and his colleagues note that libertarians score low on all five of these moral dimensions. “Libertarians share with liberals a distaste for the morality of Ingroup, Authority, and Purity characteristic of social conservatives, particularly those on the religious right,” Haidt et al. write. Libertarians scored slightly below conservatives on harm and slightly above on fairness. These results suggest that libertarians are “likely to be less responsive than liberals to moral appeals from groups who claim to be victimized, oppressed, or treated unfairly.”

[ . . . ]

Taking various measures into account, the researchers report that libertarians “score high on individualism, low on collectivism, and low on all other traits that involved bonding with, loving, or feeling a sense of common identity with others.” Haidt and his fellow researchers suggest that people who are dispositionally low on disgust sensitivity and high on openness to experience will be drawn to classically liberal philosophers who argue for the superordinate value of individual liberty. But also being highly individualistic and low on empathy, they feel little attraction to modern liberals’ emphasis on altruism and coercive social welfare policies. Haidt and his colleagues then speculate that an intellectual feedback loop develops in which such people will find more and more of the libertarian narrative agreeable and begin identifying themselves as libertarian. From Haidt’s social intuitionist perspective, “this process is no different from the psychological comfort that liberals attain in moralizing their empathic responses or that social conservatives attain in moralizing their connection to their groups.”

Edited January 23, 2011 by william.scherk

[Robert Campbell]

WSS,

I'm going to see whether I can get hold of Haidt et al.'s manuscript.

Robert Campbell

[william.scherk]

WSS,

I'm going to see whether I can get hold of Haidt et al.'s manuscript.

Robert Campbell

I added a link to the original post -- Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Roots of an Individualist Ideology. See also the blog put up by one of Haidt's co-authors, which has additional material.

[caroljane]

Reason's Ronald Bailey pens an intriguing look at Jonathan Haidt's newest work, “Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Roots of an Individualist Ideology.”

I had yet to hear about libertarians as amoral calculating rationalists . . . here's a few paragraphs from Bailey's piece. Full text at Reason.com

++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Science of Libertarian Morality

A social psychology study explores the formation of the libertarian personality.

Libertarians are often cast as amoral calculating rationalists with an unseemly hedonistic bent. Now new social science research upends that caricature. Libertarians are quite moral, the researchers argue—just not in the same way that conservatives and liberals are.

The University of Virginia social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has done a lot of work in the past probing the different moral attitudes of American liberals and conservatives. With time he realized that a significant proportion of Americans did not fit the simplistic left/right ideological dichotomy that dominates our social discourse. Instead of ignoring the outliers, Haidt and his colleagues chose to dig deeper.

The result: a fascinating new study, “Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Roots of an Individualist Ideology,” that is currently under review at the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. In probing libertarians’ moral thinking, Haidt and his colleagues—Ravi Iyer and Jesse Graham at the University of Southern California and Spassena Koleva and Peter Ditto at the University of California at Irvine—used the “largest dataset of psychological measures ever compiled on libertarians”: surveys of more than 10,000 self-identified libertarians gathered online at the website yourmorals.org.

In his earlier work, Haidt surveyed the attitudes of conservatives and liberals using what he calls the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, which measures how much a person relies on each of five different moral foundations: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Typically, conservatives scored lower than liberals on the harm and fairness scales—that is, they gave those issues less weight when making moral judgments—and scored much higher on ingroup, authority, and purity.

In the new study, Haidt and his colleagues note that libertarians score low on all five of these moral dimensions. “Libertarians share with liberals a distaste for the morality of Ingroup, Authority, and Purity characteristic of social conservatives, particularly those on the religious right,” Haidt et al. write. Libertarians scored slightly below conservatives on harm and slightly above on fairness. These results suggest that libertarians are “likely to be less responsive than liberals to moral appeals from groups who claim to be victimized, oppressed, or treated unfairly.”

[ . . . ]

Taking various measures into account, the researchers report that libertarians “score high on individualism, low on collectivism, and low on all other traits that involved bonding with, loving, or feeling a sense of common identity with others.” Haidt and his fellow researchers suggest that people who are dispositionally low on disgust sensitivity and high on openness to experience will be drawn to classically liberal philosophers who argue for the superordinate value of individual liberty. But also being highly individualistic and low on empathy, they feel little attraction to modern liberals’ emphasis on altruism and coercive social welfare policies. Haidt and his colleagues then speculate that an intellectual feedback loop develops in which such people will find more and more of the libertarian narrative agreeable and begin identifying themselves as libertarian. From Haidt’s social intuitionist perspective, “this process is no different from the psychological comfort that liberals attain in moralizing their empathic responses or that social conservatives attain in moralizing their connection to their groups.”

So interesting!

If I can have a Canucki moment, where would our homegrown classical liberals, Black, Amiel, Jonas etal fit do you think? (We know Conrad has a crush on Ann Coulter).

[william.scherk]

If I can have a Canucki moment, where would our homegrown classical liberals, Black, Amiel, Jonas etal fit do you think?

The Baroness of Crossharbour is not likely to be a libertarian. Lord Black of Crossharbour and Lord Jonas of BombTheFuckOutOfThemAll hardly fit the profile, though I could be wrong.

Read the whole paper, if you get a chance. It is fascinating. Whether or not you accept that psychological differences can explain much of political orientation, there is a boatload of information about real folks and their personalities.

[Selene]

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2011/01/18/16936051.html

"OTTAWA – A suspicious package and a rash of phone calls threatening protests shut down the planned screening of an anti-Iran documentary at Library and Archives Canada Tuesday night.

Iran’s embassy in Ottawa had tried to censor the film, Iranium, by complaining to the national library, which cancelled it until Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore stepped in."

You guys just have to learn to be more tolerant of our Iranian brothers.

[william.scherk]

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2011/01/18/16936051.html

"OTTAWA – A suspicious package and a rash of phone calls threatening protests shut down the planned screening of an anti-Iran documentary at Library and Archives Canada Tuesday night.

Iran’s embassy in Ottawa had tried to censor the film, Iranium, by complaining to the national library, which cancelled it until Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore stepped in."

You guys just have to learn to be more tolerant of our Iranian brothers.

Huh?

Which 'you guys' are you referring to? The minister, who ordered the film shown at the archives and who protested the official Iranian position? The police, who responded to 'suspicious' letters? Carol and I? Lord and Lady Black?

And which "Iranian brothers" are you referring to with your cryptic comment, Adam? Do you have any idea the Canadian position with regard to the Islamic Republic, or to Carol's, or to mine? The Harper government, who expelled the Iranian ambassador in 2007?

Finally, what does your link and commentary have to do with Haidt et al or the subject of libertarian morality?

Edited January 24, 2011 by william.scherk

[Robert Campbell]

Here's another link to what appears to be the same manuscript by Haidt et al.

http://papers.ssrn.c...ract_id=1665934

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

http://www.winnipegs...8/16936051.html

"OTTAWA – A suspicious package and a rash of phone calls threatening protests shut down the planned screening of an anti-Iran documentary at Library and Archives Canada Tuesday night.

Iran’s embassy in Ottawa had tried to censor the film, Iranium, by complaining to the national library, which cancelled it until Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore stepped in."

You guys just have to learn to be more tolerant of our Iranian brothers.

Huh?

Which 'you guys' are you referring to? The minister, who ordered the film shown at the archives and who protested the official Iranian position? The police, who responded to 'suspicious' letters? Carol and I? Lord and Lady Black?

And which "Iranian brothers" are you referring to with your cryptic comment, Adam? Do you have any idea the Canadian position with regard to the Islamic Republic, or to Carol's, or to mine? The Harper government, who expelled the Iranian ambassador in 2007?

Finally, what does your link and commentary have to do with Haidt et al or the subject of libertarian morality?

It is being reported here in the US that the showing has been delayed until February or may be banned for good.

[william.scherk]

Finally, what does your link and commentary have to do with Haidt et al or the subject of libertarian morality?

It is being reported here in the US that the showing has been delayed until February or may be banned for good.

Can you please explain what this has to do with Haidt et al or the subject of libertarian morality?

[Selene]

Finally, what does your link and commentary have to do with Haidt et al or the subject of libertarian morality?

It is being reported here in the US that the showing has been delayed until February or may be banned for good.

Can you please explain what this has to do with Haidt et al or the subject of libertarian morality?

Actually, nothing. I should have posted it on another thread. This is what happens when you try to post during football time outs.

My apologies.

[caroljane]

I've read the Reason article, the abstract and some of the excluded material from the blog. If the paper passes review and becomes part of the literature, I can see a fair amount of "Aha! Just as I suspected!" and "We told you so" coming down the line. Very illuminating about the emotions and motivations we see around us all the time.

Just a first impression.

[caroljane]

Has anybody read the paper? I couldn't get it onto my computer for some reason, OK I didn't try too hard, but I am sufficiently intrigued to want to see it. I thought the Reason reviewer made kind of a leap from "libertarians really are different from you and me" to "libertarianism demonstrably eliminated poverty in the Western world", but I guess that was just a reflexive sign-off from a hack on deadline.

Edited January 27, 2011 by daunce lynam

[william.scherk]

Has anybody read the paper?

Yeah. Much food for thought. The idea that there are robust correlations between ideology and personality can bear some useful fruit, as long as we don't overinterpret the findings as presented by Haidt et al.

A lot of people seem to dismiss the very idea that adopting Objectivism or Libertarianism or Liberalism or Conservatism can have any relation to personality. I think this is because Objectivism is held by some to be the only proper result of reason, the only proper philosophy for man. In a perfect world, then, those who reject Objectivism reject reason itself, or have a kind of mental defect that prevents them from adopting the true philosophy. It sort of fits Rand's notions of a subhuman remnant who have not evolved a proper brain . . . even though this is a very pessimistic reading of her other notion, the human mind as tabula rasa.

On the one hand, Haidt's findings support the subhuman, missing link notion. The mental defects of Liberals and Conservatives can be picked out of the findings and made to fit. On the other hand, Liberals can find different mental defects to explain that which they do not like in the stances of their political foes.

The danger in overinterpretation is that the other becomes The Other, and studies like this a mere means of sorting into Good and Bad piles. Morksists and Right Thinkers. Rightists and The Elect. Dumbfucks and The Wise. Such crudities are par for the course in a game of 'Jane, you ignorant slut.'

In addition, a lot of folks here seem intellectually lazy to the Nth. They don't read things from 'the opposition,' save to fork up confirming instances of perfidy or morksism or evul or whatever makes us feel smart and wise and above it all.

Peikoff has that kind of attitude down to an art. Physics is fucked, science is fucked, transsexuals are fucked, liberals are fucked, Muslims are fucked, Warmistas are fucked, everything and everyone but me and my borg is fucked and USA is going down the drain to Fuckistan . . . you know that kind of attitude. We see the same kind of we are all fucked because of the other fucked fuckers stance in hardcore rants of all kinds, where it is hard to see the difference between Naomi Klein and Hardial Bains and the Canadian Free Press nutjob in terms of Everyone Who Doesn't Think Like Me Is Fucked In The Head.

Beyond that, I don't see Haidt's researches to be of any but passing interest to Objectivish folk for the most part. The very idea of personality partially determining one's own political ideology is pretty much a non-starter. It undercuts the whole notion of individuality.

Beyond that, reading this paper might underline a sense of being a permanent minority for Libertarians. Better to have hope that with enough argument and reasoning, the defective leftists and lunatic rightists can see the light, rather than despair that there will always be a psychological impediment for some folks to adopt the libertarian way . . .

[caroljane]

Has anybody read the paper?

Yeah. Much food for thought. The idea that there are robust correlations between ideology and personality can bear some useful fruit, as long as we don't overinterpret the findings as presented by Haidt et al.

A lot of people seem to dismiss the very idea that adopting Objectivism or Libertarianism or Liberalism or Conservatism can have any relation to personality. I think this is because Objectivism is held by some to be the only proper result of reason, the only proper philosophy for man. In a perfect world, then, those who reject Objectivism reject reason itself, or have a kind of mental defect that prevents them from adopting the true philosophy. It sort of fits Rand's notions of a subhuman remnant who have not evolved a proper brain . . . even though this is a very pessimistic reading of her other notion, the human mind as tabula rasa.

On the one hand, Haidt's findings support the subhuman, missing link notion. The mental defects of Liberals and Conservatives can be picked out of the findings and made to fit. On the other hand, Liberals can find different mental defects to explain that which they do not like in the stances of their political foes.

The danger in overinterpretation is that the other becomes The Other, and studies like this a mere means of sorting into Good and Bad piles. Morksists and Right Thinkers. Rightists and The Elect. Dumbfucks and The Wise. Such crudities are par for the course in a game of 'Jane, you ignorant slut.'

In addition, a lot of folks here seem intellectually lazy to the Nth. They don't read things from 'the opposition,' save to fork up confirming instances of perfidy or morksism or evul or whatever makes us feel smart and wise and above it all.

Peikoff has that kind of attitude down to an art. Physics is fucked, science is fucked, transsexuals are fucked, liberals are fucked, Muslims are fucked, Warmistas are fucked, everything and everyone but me and my borg is fucked and USA is going down the drain to Fuckistan . . . you know that kind of attitude. We see the same kind of we are all fucked because of the other fucked fuckers stance in hardcore rants of all kinds, where it is hard to see the difference between Naomi Klein and Hardial Bains and the Canadian Free Press nutjob in terms of Everyone Who Doesn't Think Like Me Is Fucked In The Head.

Beyond that, I don't see Haidt's researches to be of any but passing interest to Objectivish folk for the most part. The very idea of personality partially determining one's own political ideology is pretty much a non-starter. It undercuts the whole notion of individuality.

Beyond that, reading this paper might underline a sense of being a permanent minority for Libertarians. Better to have hope that with enough argument and reasoning, the defective leftists and lunatic rightists can see the light, rather than despair that there will always be a psychological impediment for some folks to adopt the libertarian way . . .

Thanks. This leads me off topic a bit to something I've observed in a very limited anecdotal way- that a main common characteristic of people who became and remained objectivists, is what I think of as the Central Injustice. This was a traumatic event or series of events in childhood or adolescence, a violation of rights so wounding that it could not be healed and needed to be explained. Different for each person, but perceived in much the same way.

Before anyone reads this and starts yelling, I do know well that intelligent people with normal, happy upbringings have come to Ayn Rand through pure intellectual and philosphical attraction, and remained enchanted. I am only speaking of the few people I knew personally, or knew slightly, or knew about, probably fewer than 30.

[pippi]

Thanks. This leads me off topic a bit to something I've observed in a very limited anecdotal way- that a main common characteristic of people who became and remained objectivists,

I am only speaking of the few people I knew personally, or knew slightly, or knew about, probably fewer than 30.

You draw a conclusion based on very very limited premises-you admit it yourself.

You are claiming Objectivists were traumatized and that is why they are Objectivists? Honestly!

Post all the catfight snarks you want but Daunce treats this place like a witty fluffy inconsequential tearoom rather than a serious forum, I think it deserves more but maybe I am wrong

[Selene]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahtTVqdAYso

[pippi]

Thanks selene but I just can't

I don't understand this place.

[caroljane]

Thanks. This leads me off topic a bit to something I've observed in a very limited anecdotal way- that a main common characteristic of people who became and remained objectivists,

I am only speaking of the few people I knew personally, or knew slightly, or knew about, probably fewer than 30.

You draw a conclusion based on very very limited premises-you admit it yourself.

You are claiming Objectivists were traumatized and that is why they are Objectivists? Honestly!

Post all the catfight snarks you want but Daunce treats this place like a witty fluffy inconsequential tearoom rather than a serious forum, I think it deserves more but maybe I am wrong

No, I reported a personal observation, and stated explicitly that I also knew of contrary observations. I implied causality, yes, but I don't claim it. What I was thinking about was the personality characteristics studied by Haidt and their intersections with philosophy. Many people suffer youthful trauma; most of them do not become Objectivists.

As to understanding this place, it belongs to Kat and Michael, and if they always understand everything that goes on here, they are ready to solve the problem of induction and take over the world.

Please don't mention Fluffy.

[caroljane]

Furthermore, tearooms and coffee houses were hotbeds of intellectual and political debate during the Enlightenment. Tea Parties are said to be their intellectual heirs.

[caroljane]

Has anybody read the paper?

Yeah. Much food for thought. The idea that there are robust correlations between ideology and personality can bear some useful fruit, as long as we don't overinterpret the findings as presented by Haidt et al.

A lot of people seem to dismiss the very idea that adopting Objectivism or Libertarianism or Liberalism or Conservatism can have any relation to personality. I think this is because Objectivism is held by some to be the only proper result of reason, the only proper philosophy for man. In a perfect world, then, those who reject Objectivism reject reason itself, or have a kind of mental defect that prevents them from adopting the true philosophy. It sort of fits Rand's notions of a subhuman remnant who have not evolved a proper brain . . . even though this is a very pessimistic reading of her other notion, the human mind as tabula rasa.

On the one hand, Haidt's findings support the subhuman, missing link notion. The mental defects of Liberals and Conservatives can be picked out of the findings and made to fit. On the other hand, Liberals can find different mental defects to explain that which they do not like in the stances of their political foes.

The danger in overinterpretation is that the other becomes The Other, and studies like this a mere means of sorting into Good and Bad piles. Morksists and Right Thinkers. Rightists and The Elect. Dumbfucks and The Wise. Such crudities are par for the course in a game of 'Jane, you ignorant slut.'

In addition, a lot of folks here seem intellectually lazy to the Nth. They don't read things from 'the opposition,' save to fork up confirming instances of perfidy or morksism or evul or whatever makes us feel smart and wise and above it all.

Peikoff has that kind of attitude down to an art. Physics is fucked, science is fucked, transsexuals are fucked, liberals are fucked, Muslims are fucked, Warmistas are fucked, everything and everyone but me and my borg is fucked and USA is going down the drain to Fuckistan . . . you know that kind of attitude. We see the same kind of we are all fucked because of the other fucked fuckers stance in hardcore rants of all kinds, where it is hard to see the difference between Naomi Klein and Hardial Bains and the Canadian Free Press nutjob in terms of Everyone Who Doesn't Think Like Me Is Fucked In The Head.

Beyond that, I don't see Haidt's researches to be of any but passing interest to Objectivish folk for the most part. The very idea of personality partially determining one's own political ideology is pretty much a non-starter. It undercuts the whole notion of individuality.

Beyond that, reading this paper might underline a sense of being a permanent minority for Libertarians. Better to have hope that with enough argument and reasoning, the defective leftists and lunatic rightists can see the light, rather than despair that there will always be a psychological impediment for some folks to adopt the libertarian way . . .

Thanks. This leads me off topic a bit to something I've observed in a very limited anecdotal way- that a main common characteristic of people who became and remained objectivists, is what I think of as the Central Injustice. This was a traumatic event or series of events in childhood or adolescence, a violation of rights so wounding that it could not be healed and needed to be explained. Different for each person, but perceived in much the same way.

Before anyone reads this and starts yelling, I do know well that intelligent people with normal, happy upbringings have come to Ayn Rand through pure intellectual and philosphical attraction, and remained enchanted. I am only speaking of the few people I knew personally, or knew slightly, or knew about, probably fewer than 30.

Well WSS, I see I was the first to do the very thing you were talking about, cherry-picking and extrapolating to fit my own experience, and which I myself was so lofty about.

I understand that Haidt is very well-respected in his field and has been engaged in his line of research for ten years. The aim of the study is to help "build bridges" and encourage political rivals to recignize each other as moral equals.

Some people never learn, as well I know.

[pippi]

Furthermore, tearooms and coffee houses were hotbeds of intellectual and political debate during the Enlightenment. Tea Parties are said to be their intellectual heirs.

whatever

[caroljane]

Furthermore, tearooms and coffee houses were hotbeds of intellectual and political debate during the Enlightenment. Tea Parties are said to be their intellectual heirs.

whatever

Well, if you're engaged in political activism, it might come in handy to know this stuff.

I'm just saying.

Edited January 29, 2011 by daunce lynam

[pippi]

Furthermore, tearooms and coffee houses were hotbeds of intellectual and political debate during the Enlightenment. Tea Parties are said to be their intellectual heirs.

whatever

Well, if you're engaged in political activism, it might come in handy to know this stuff.

I'm just saying.

I already knew it. Thanks anyway.

[caroljane]

Furthermore, tearooms and coffee houses were hotbeds of intellectual and political debate during the Enlightenment. Tea Parties are said to be their intellectual heirs.

whatever

Well, if you're engaged in political activism, it might come in handy to know this stuff.

I'm just saying.

I already knew it. Thanks anyway.

You're welcome.