For your response this week, you have a couple of options:
1. For you, what explains people's political choices? Building on what the presenter has claimed, think about the origin of your own political decisions and your own stance on candidates and issues. What has driven you to make those choices?
--or--
2. Choose one of the presenter's assertions and discuss.
--or--
3. Choose one of the presenter's assertions and disagree with it.
Most people's political choices I believe are uneducated decisions that are stimulated and by mass media "peer" type pressure. My own political decisions are very simple and don't necessarily completely fit the presenter. The beginning and end of my political decisions and my stance is 100% the best biblical vote I can possibly cast. I have criteria that each candidate must meet or each law must meet before i cast a vote for or against it. Much like the presenter says one must humble them selves and look for the correct solution and not for the selfish solution. There is no one candidate that will fit anyones requirements completely. There for I start and end with the a Biblical view and that is how i guide my life and politics.
ReplyDeleteMany puritans guided themselves in this same fashion, then over the years there has been a separation of church and state since Biblical beliefs have led to atrocities such as the Salem Witch Trials, Lessening of women to the point that they are viewed as property, and in some cases the justification for taking over other people such as the Native Americans because they did not believe in God as Europeans understood Him.
DeleteIf anything the presenter hinted that religion was the start of civilization not the end of it, and much of history would agree with this stance. Since 'The New World' (America) was partly created so people could worship their God freely without censorship from the Catholic church in England.
I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with your political values just emphasizing that the start of civilization was in due part to religion or as my history professor would say Gold, Gold, and Glory.
DeleteTherefore, I guess what I should be saying is that I am aware of your belief and its origin, such beliefs started the foundation of America, and are still in our pledge of allegiance 'one nation under God'
Jonathan Haidt's short lecture on "The moral roots of liberals and conservatives" was very interesting. I especially liked how he used a little humor to convey his message. The presenter's assertion that we are not born with a blank slate was a bit skeptical to me because I strongly believe that we learn our behaviors, views and beliefs through the environment from with we grow up in. There is no way for a fetus to know that they have to care or be fair or be loyal. The only way that they would know or develop that kind of feeling is when they see their parents or family member doing it or by witnessing their peers doing it. It is then that individuals start to develop what morals are to them and which ones are not.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know if I would agree with the stats that he presented that compared the moral values of the liberals and conservative. I believe that each person is different. There may be some people who are conservative but only display the harm/care and fairness/ reciprocity. A liberal might believe in the other three ( in-group, authority and purity) and not what they say a liberal is more concerned about. I am not quite sure if I interpreted what the speaker said correctly but from what I heard, he was indirectly saying that the conservatives were more "better" than the liberals. That I do not agree with. I believe that both have morals that will work perfectly if it was put together.
I don't think the speaker was siding with any particular party in his video. The speaker broke down the basic views of liberals and conservationists and then underlined the problems that existed when one extreme began to believe that they were right and the other party wrong. He then questioned I believe, using many religions and philosophers, what constituted "right" and "wrong" and then gave us advice as to how we could reach a balance on the moral matrix. I could be wrong about everything else, but I'm pretty sure he didn't side with any party.
DeleteJonathan Haidt’s talk on "The moral roots of liberals and conservatives" opened my eyes to a new view of political stance. Personally, I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to why people choose the what party they declare, but this lecture allowed me to have a better glimpse of why and how some agree with certain issues, while others do not. One of Haidt’s assertions was he assumes that every conservative individual would react in the same way in any situation. When he uses the example of buying a new dog, he assumes that the liberal individual will encourage his dog to be friendly when the dog greets his guests. He also assumes that if the owner was a conservative individual he would want his new dog to only be loyal to the family and guard the house. In my opinion, it is not fair to say that their views on everything in their life would be based on the political party that they declared. I myself am a dog lover and though I have not declared a political party I would like to think that I wouldn’t want to change the way I make other decisions solely based on right wing or left wing politics. Through personal experiences I have observed different people react differently when it comes to extreme scenarios like the example he posed about a nude statue, but to say that this mind set is applied to everyday life would be something I would choose to question.
ReplyDeleteFor you, what explains people's political choices?
ReplyDeleteTo me a persons social standing explains their political choices, a wealthy person may want lower taxes and less government assistance to the needy; while a person barely making ends meet will definitely want lower taxes and more government assistance to send their children to school etc.
Thus, to me a person’s lifestyle/comfort with life affects their political choices.
...The origin of your own political decisions
My educators, the media, literature, and general opinions about certain candidates influence my political decisions.
… Your own stance on candidates and issues
I don’t identify myself with any party mainly because I haven’t researched what it means to be a liberal or conservative. I do advocate free education, healthcare, and the right for people to choose their leaders (no electoral college). Because my studies have shown that societies who operate in such a fashion have a much more educated and self-sustainable nation.
What has driven you to make those choices?
The main things that have driven me to endorse these choices are once again my radical educators over the years. As well as the studies they present to the classroom, along with hard statistical data to back up their claims.
Hey, I love Applebee's how dare him make a crack at that! That was funny...moving on...I really enjoyed the part on he compared religious figures to conservatives and liberals. Never saw the Yin and Yang or Shiva and Vishnu as representations of conservatives and liberals, that was brilliant. We do need both sides in order to find a happy middle on issues, it is a way of finding balance. Cooperation happens more when there is a punishment involved; makes complete sense...reminds me of McGregor Theory X.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Haidt’s talk on "The moral roots of liberals and conservatives" was very interesting. Haidt was able to break down and define a liberal and conservative in a way that was much easier for his audience to understand. He gave good examples of both which made me think a lot and I'm pretty sure, made his audience think beyond as well. This video gave me a better understanding of why people chose to be liberal or chose to be conservative. The example that helped me have better understanding was when he gave the examples about the dogs in each political side. He states that a conservative would expect his dog to be loyal and protect the owners but be the opposite with strangers, and that a liberal would expect his dog to be friendly to not only the family but to strangers as well. I found this interesting because it does help define each side. I found that a conservative will want to keep its traditional values and stay away from change but a liberal will fight for the opposite, opposing traditional values. I would like to say that change can be good especially if it can help our country. I would like to say that being liberal can be a good thing; we have the right to express ourselves so why not take advantage of it? But i also agree that conservatives are needed as well. We need both for society to function and I would not necessarily just go off of what Haidt stated; I would do more research and hear other peoples theories, examples, interpretations and opinions.
ReplyDeleteI think that most political choices are made because the person making them is following the opinion of someone that they trust. This is not to say that all people do this. I think though that many times we will find that people aren't as involved in politics as they pretend to be, but rather follow those around them that are deeply involved and truly care to know what is going on in the political world. These that are very involved share their opinions with the ones that they are close to, who will blindly follow or will be peer pressured into believing and therefore voting the same way. I have to admit that this used to be me, and still may be to some extent. I never used to have any interest in politics, and would often vote based on the opinions of my parents. And why shouldn't I? I trust and love my parents. I see them as good, upstanding citizens that have a good head on their shoulders. For this reason I always felt that I could trust their political opinions enough and just go along with what they thought. I think that this is true of many of the voters out there. It may not always be a parent that they are looking to, it could be a friend, spouse, etc, but the point is that they are looking to someone else. I have recentely tried to be more active in politics. This isn't to say that I no longer trust my parents views, but that I am wanting to understand why I believe the way I do and am voting the way I am. While we are all capable of being swayed by those around us, and most times are, I think that we all need to stop and think about what we truly believe, analyze our morals, and insert these morals into our political views rather than trusting someone else to do it for us.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all let me begin by saying that I really dislike politics, but only because I can never make up my mind as to who to side with. I think that peoples political choices are explained through the life style they've lived and the way their world is viewed. It sounds cliche but we are shaped by our experiences. Every day changes us. Our thoughts vary constantly as does the way we view the world. When it comes to politics and who people choose in the end it all comes down to whose views most reflect our own and who we think will lead us down the road we wish our lives would go.
ReplyDeleteAs for my views, I hate politics. All I see is a struggle for power and corruption, a struggle in which the weak get walked over by those in control. If I were to put a name to my political views, they just don't encompass hate, they would fall somewhere on the librettist side of the political spectrum. I am a very open minded person and vote strongly for change as long as that change is right. I value other peoples customs and beliefs and try my hardest not to trample on anyone. I want to make a difference in this world, want to change so many of the things that I believe are wrong so badly that sometimes I want to drop out of school, and go out and do just that. But then I always stop and back track. I begin to ask myself "Who am I to change this? Who am I to decide what is wrong or what is right simply because I do not agree with how things are?" I said this when I answered the first part of the blog, but politics is not black and white. A person cannot simply go about and throw a tantrum and start a revolution, because they are unsatisfied with the way things are. Well the can, but where would that lead us? The scale politics is balanced upon is already fragile, already delicate, and one nudge in either direction can throw everything out of balance. These are the thoughts that stop me from going out, but then once again I begin to think. "Isn't chaos something we need? Doesn't the scale need to be tipped? If no one does anything, nothing will change. Things need to change" and I am back where I first started craving a revolution.
If there is any way to describe the dilemma that goes on inside my own head it would have to be in the way it was described in the video. I believe that I am a person who can see both sides of an issue. A quick example would be that of abortion. I strongly believe against having an abortion and would never have one no matter what the circumstances, but that does not mean I am going to become an advocate against it and preach about it to everyone and here is why. Who am I to try and control what another person wants to do? What gives me the right to push my views onto someone else? These thoughts are what stop me, this is how I am in regards to politics and after watching the video I realized that all along I've been standing outside of the moral matrix, and that is all I've been doing. I managed to take myself out of believing that there is only one true "good" and one true "bad", but I have never tried figuring out a way to use this ability to try and make the world a place we can all live in. I am also not trying to insinuate that I am always outside of the matrix. I am human and thus I feel and want and crave. I can just as easily be swayed by others as anyone else and be blinded by what I believe to be wrong and right. I always however, try to see both sides of the story and back track even if it takes me a long time.
Jonathan Haidt’s talk on “Ideology and Openness to Experience” was brilliant, along with the rest of his talk. I was fascinated by the way he talked about one man embracing the beauty of the naked statue of Michael Angelo, while the other man was embarrassed by the exposed body. This was a great opening to explain the reality of how people are so different from one another, either by music, food, and travel. Then he goes onto explain that once the openness to experience is understood, it can help better understand people’s political views on why one chooses to be liberal or conservative. I enjoyed the political viewpoints of the right-wing and the left-winged trait. I find myself being more left-winged, because of the fact that I am very open to diversity. It was also amazing how he compared the different political viewpoint to the movie, the Matrix-to take the blue pill or not to take the blue pill was great analogy! I feel that Jonathan Haidt’s talk really opened up my eyes to why and how people are they way there are. It was great insight and I would definitely recommend everyone to take a glimpse at this video because there is much truth behind it!
ReplyDeletePsychologist Jonathan Haidth points out how we make decisions based on our moral values. He then says that when people get together and unite as one and make decisions cause problems. I do agree with this because people do tend to make decisions based on what others chose. I think that they do tend to be pressured to make certain decisions and not be left out. I like the matrix example he used relating it to ones decisions about the political views. The five foundations of morality play a role in everyday decision making. With this in mind, people do tend to make decisions without knowing anything about the issue being uneducated decisions. For instance there are people who just don’t care and make decisions and caring less or how they impact others later. He also mentions how all moralities play the role in decision making, I’m not to sure if they all would apply.
ReplyDeleteThe part of Jonathan Haidt's presentation that interested me is when he is explaining that we all have problems to solve that are problems that require to change others. He explained that we have to understand ourselves, understand our moral psychology, and to understand that we think we are right before understanding others. He then goes on to say that we would then have to step out of ourselves and realize that everyone thinks they are right and that they think they have good reason for doing the things they do.
ReplyDeleteThis interested me because I felt like my theme for the T.C. Boyle assignment could be related. We do not understand others because they do not share the same moral psychology, and what they do is wrong because it is not something you agree with. You cannot control others, no matter how hard you try. The only thing, I think you could do, is to be understanding, and to not be blind to truths; truths about ourselves and truths about others. It seems pointless to argue "you're wrong, I'm right" situations. This can also be explained by Sent-ts'an who says, "If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease."
I agree with you and enjoyed Sent-ts'an's wise words as well. Understanding is key and putting all you effort into controlling people is useless and a non-stop battle.
DeleteThe speech by Jonathan Haidt was very thought provoking and I was very intrigued by the whole speech. I especially like the when he brings up the "zen master's" ideology to not be for or against something and to step back and really look at the two sides and why they are in a feud. This is very wise to me, when you look back into history you can find two opposing sides and each side thinks they are justified and right. Then when step out of the ring and look at the both sides you find why one side is against the other and you are really able to get down to the source of why they are feuding in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI believe when it comes down to it, two opposing sides fuel off each other to be he winner but if you were to put out the fuel the two sides would subside and be peaceful. This is like a human mind. When you are constantly trying to justify your actions and then all of sudden you don't need too, you then are at peace. I think to step out of the box and to not be against or for something is very wise and very hard to do at the same time.
Sorry for the typos. This was done off my phone!
DeleteJonathan Haidt’s presentation was quite an interesting video to watch. I really liked the beginning of it when he was discussing the differences between liberals and conservatives. I thought that it was weird that liberals and conservatives are for two different things, but are similar in the fact that they both take harm and fairness seriously. I would consider myself a liberal because I am open to new experiences and changes. I definitely like travel and I like the diversity that we have in our society. The diversity brings change rather than having the same thing everywhere we go. Though there are people that are open minded and others that favor stability, they go hand in hand with each other which give a balance to our society. I agree that they work together such as yin and yang do. I think it is nice to have a little of both worlds in our society.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Haidt when he said if you understand this trait you can determine human behavior such as choices of food people like to eat, what types of books they like to read, and what types of places people like to travel too. Just by looking at those types of traits you are able to determine how high you are on openness to experience, which is quite mind boggling. It is unique how these traits are able to place you politically.
Haidt’s presentation on “moral roots” and our likeliness to be conservative or liberal was quite interesting. I went into the piece with little expectation, assuming his bias to be prevalent throughout. I was surprised, however, that he delivered a coherent and logical speech full of interesting examples that seem irrefutable. I think the way in which he discussed our moral “canvas,” and how it is not really blank at birth was quite thought provoking. I was rather interested in the 5 common traits we all have “protect/do no harm,” etc. as a civilization. His ascertains gave me a level of insight into why I affiliate myself with a particular party, and if it is in fact a hindrance or help to me as a person. I finished watching his presentation by visiting the site he mentions moralcompass.org, and took a few tests that were interesting and very dramatic. They really cause you to think about morality , and what you think is right or acceptable to do in some difficult situations. My answers surprised me often. I suggest you all do so as well, I learned quite a bit about myself that I didn’t know had so much power within my daily life and the decisions I make.
ReplyDelete2. I think the last point he made was the one that had the biggest effect on me. I agree with this assertion that we have to understand who we are, and the fact that in each and everyone one of our minds we believe we are right. This is mainly because the reasons you have to think a certain way can be valid for you; and vice versa for me my reasons are valid. We each are brought up to be individuals and have our own ideals and ideas and to fight for what we believe to be right. So I completely agree with Ted that we cannot fix any problem until we understand these two points.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Haidt video on The moral roots of liberals and conservatives was very interesting to watch. Considering I don’t dabble much in political discussions I really liked his view on where the morals of liberals and conservatives began and how they contribute to the decisions they make. I have to agree with what the presenter claims in that we begin with certain morals already genetically programmed into us. Then our environment contributes to our belief system and sort of molds our morals into something new. I grew up in a home where politics were never really discussed; I never paid much attention to it in school, and did not have friends who were interested in it. So therefore I was never interested in any sort of politics. Had I grown up in an environment with parents who held a strong stance in political issues, I feel as though I would most likely hold a strong stance as well. Now even as an adult I find it difficult to make a decision on what issues I stand for or what candidates I would follow. I find that media and my peers are the ones influencing my decisions when it comes to political choices. However, I believe that I could have started with those five innate morals that were just never really developed and divided into a stance as I grew up. This discussion has really made me think about why some believe in what they do given their cultures and environments.
ReplyDeleteOne of Jonathon Haidt's points really caught my attention and this was when he mentioned that many think religion is created in order to create a more cooperative and pro-social behavior. First off, I love talks like this because I am able to get a point of view that is almost completely opposite to what I grew up with and what I am used to hearing and seeing. However, if there is one thing that I've learned in life it's that my views are not always right and that I can learn an enormous amount from others. Having said that, Jonathon's comment really made me think. I consider myself religious as I am a Protestant Christian and so to hear that religion may be used to create a more cooperative society really challenged me to think about my beliefs in a different way. I am very used to thinking about my faith as this liberating spiritual experience that when I hear it being referred to as force to keep people under control I am shocked. However, it makes me think that maybe my faith is supposed to create a "pro-social" behavior, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Overall, it was a great talk and it really challenged me.
ReplyDeleteI liked Jonathan Haidt's assertion at the end that we all need to step out and consider other people's views. He states that we all believe that we are right, but in order to make the changes we want to see we need to be able to understand who we are. We need to understand that we all have good reasons for doing what we are doing, and although we may not agree with them we can't brand them as wrong. He states that moral humility will be the only way to achieve change.
ReplyDelete1. For you, what explains people's political choices? Building on what the presenter has claimed, think about the origin of your own political decisions and your own stance on candidates and issues. What has driven you to make those choices?
ReplyDeleteIn self-examination of my political decisions I only have to look to my Father and the free range of choices he taught me about as a young teenager into my 18th year on this earth. He always expressed to me that making choices was a way of life here in the United States and that this was not the case in many other countries around the globe. He always gave me both sides of the argument and then had me go and research the facts and most importantly the history. All of politics has a history and a lot of the decisions that we have to make daily and during election cycles have face us before. My research always takes me back to my morality and family values. Facts needed for me to make these decisions are based on my moral beliefs, the question of is this right for individuals and finally what effect will this have on the country as a whole.
I have pretty strong moral beliefs that were developed in me by my parents, but not the way most people would do it. My parents gave me plenty of opportunity to venture out and explore issues for myself and make my own decisions since I was 16 years old. I am one who strongly believes in do no harm to the family, which by my nature and nurture makes me strongly vote against anything that will weaken families. Many time a lot if issues come up that pertain to the single parent. I am sympathetic to the needs of single parents and will vote down anything that will weaken their household also. I also believe in good and evil along with doing the right thing by your fellow man while at the same time incorporating the earnest belief that you should teach a man to fish and feed him forever, rather than giving him a fish every day.
BY THE WAY...THIS POST IS FROM DERRICK PERKINS...GOOD POST DERRICK!
DeleteMORE FROM DERRICK...
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the question of decisions being good for the individual, I lean strongly on the side of the individual unless the issue is for the good of the country as a whole. If a candidate stands on a platform of reducing an individual’s rights, then he or she needs to in the same breadth explain why this stance is good for the country as a whole. Failure to expand on the latter will definitely not get my vote at election time. After 9/11 here in the U.S. I have entirely understood the need to give up some liberties in order for the country to still pursue its daily routine and give its citizens the protection we need from those who wish to harm us. However, I keep a close eye on whether or not there are abuse of power issues regarding any laws that reduce the individual’s liberty.
Many citizens will argue that politicians from this party or that party want to create a Nazi state or a paranoid state that spies on its own people. With that you have to ask yourself one question; am I safer today than I was yesterday when such and such happened and those 100 people were killed? The answer will be a qualified yes you are safer. Our country has had two oceans and very agreeable neighbors to our north and south for quite some time. Unfortunately with the increase in the quality of jet travel and communications improvements we are truly now part of the rest of the world and bad things can be exported to our nation in only a matter of hours in regards to the former and a matter of milliseconds in regard to the latter. Does it do our nation any good to know of suspicious activity even if the activity is latter found to be harmless? Yes, it does. When legislation or political candidates propose new ideas or old ones from World War II, we as citizens cannot just freak out and think about ourselves and what we will not be able to do anymore. What we have to do is look into the history of an idea, research the candidate or the proposed law, for this is a duty for every American citizen and is something that many of us have been failing in.
What makes this country free is the thoughts and ideas the founding Fathers laid before us in the birth of this nation. Benjamin Franklin had it right when he spoke to a passerby who wanted to know what kind of government we would have; “a republic if we can keep it”. This is a representative republic and has endured for over 200 years like no other nation on earth. If you do not participate and educate yourself to the fact of issues and candidates, you will fall for anything and especially the 15 second campaign commercial.
I completely agree with the way this video keeps moving those who view it. I understand very little about conservatives and liberals but I love the way it chose its side and explained it well. We should all be open minded. To me that was the main point. At the end it didn't matter what the real message was, it was more important what we get out of the speakers proof. I am very interested in Psychology and explaining why we do what we do. Many times we think we are in control, yet we really arnt. we never have been.
ReplyDelete