If you are clear about your meaning and empirical beliefs, your views can be falsified. If you are constantly saying unclear things and it's nearly impossible to determine any implications, then you can keep talking without worrying about contrary evidence.
If you do make an empirical claim that is clear enough to be falsified, you might get people challenging you on that claim. Not to worry. Highlight the fact that the information is dangerous and the person critiquing you is a bigot. Point out any unsavory associations they might have. Exclude them from any prestigious institutions and then use this exclusion to bolster the case that they're wrong. If they don't give up, threaten to get them fired. If that doesn't work, constantly harass them, send them death threats, etc. Use your newfound consensus as even more evidence that you're right.
Which is why I'm annoyed that Lee and the others reduced political ideology to left-right line. That's a stunningly crude thing to do, and far too common. Lots of people cannot place themselves on such a line. Libertarians are likely the most common example, but there are various other perspectives and reasons why that "political spectrum" has no utility to some.
I wonder what libertarians were expected to do, or if they mentioned them – I haven't read it yet. I don't answer such items, since I can't, and I see a lot of researchers throw out participants who don't (5% of the sample in one recent case).
I'm surprised that epistemology doesn't have a similar distribution as logic. Those two fields of philosophy seem to be the only ones that attract people with a greater than average degree of impartiality. Most other fields tend to have cultic tendencies that attract people with religious instincts but have been born into a secular world. As many have observed, most ideological leftists of modern America have a disposition towards their ideas and movements that is very reminiscent of religious zealotry.
I would also argue that (hot) emotional thinking does have utility in better environments. Often times, what is considered "rational" can be misled. For example, a popular ethical hypothetical posed to university students is whether or not a criminal should be punished if they lose all their memories and seem a different person after the act. I don't know when this question was first posed, but it received a lot of interest during Hume's time. Many want to punish the criminal anyway despite that choice coming across as "irrational." However, those feelings are actually incredibly informed on the subconscious level. In reality, people are largely driven to criminal acts as a result of their genetic profile. People understand that truth on a more visceral and intuitive level. Regardless of what happens to someone's memories, the genes remain. Therefore, the person must still be punished so that their tendencies aren't exposed to society again. The broad masses will always rely on hot thinking; the main issue now is that they are receiving the wrong social inputs.
There is no such thing as ''thinking'' without emotions. Thinking without emotions will lead you to paralysis analysis, whereby no determinant variable is valuable over the other. Which clothing piece? Which food? What quality? What characteristic? Tastiness, cost, fabric, durability. It also paralyzes you as a social animal as you are incapable of determining the social cues (i.e. Japan) of other people, what game-theoretic models are being played out over many generations, etc. In cognitive psychology, many different descriptive non-lexical hypothesis models have been formed, Jungian, MBTI, socionics. At a higher level abstraction, we find quadras and groups of characteristics that are generalized (mental dispositions). In the NT (rational) temperament, emotions are mainly derived from the assessment of factual (over social/feelings-based) outcomes http://www.erictb.info/erica.html Cognition/logical processing of outcomes, likelihoods can determine which method, path or course of actions are best to take based on the present-day state of the universe but it cannot intrinsically value outcomes nor can it spur one to make assessments or generalizations or characterizations of the social nature. Humans create fictional entities as means of social innovation (i.e. the government, the proleteriat, feminist revolution, legal entities). There is no such thing as large abstract entities that are responsible for your decisions, but because of things such as the ''social contract'', ''the rule of law'', ''borders'', ''human rights'' and other constructions which are not based on reality we are able to cooperate over long distances based on a shared mythological construction that is arbitrary, amorphous and ever-changing. In reality, you could kill anyone or harm anyone. The power of the group is always stronger than the individual, for it possesses more resources, more capabilities. Specialization is only possible due to the accumulation of knowledge and free-ing up of energy for other productive means which is dependent on the cognitive component/emotional component of our species to cooperate together. Thus as you mentioned, these cognitive biases are adaptive (guilt by association) because we share underlying homophilic structures, traits, ways of living, beliefs and the information networks that are formed tend to share a similar caricature (i.e. nodes, connections, resources). I would say the reason left-leaning idealism has high penetrance amongst the Anglo-Saxons because of the belief in the superlative and the superordinal. For millenias of years, we have created many abstract mythological constructions of entities above us, creatures, Gods, ideas -- scientism is now the new theocracy, even transhumanism. Kabbalistic mysticism, communism, whatever -- all are inherently intrinsic vestiges of cooperative ideologies, collectivist ideals which are transmitted to entice individuals to work together for the 'greater' good in some abstract sense, an ability to transcend present-day circumstances, to conceive what is inconceivable. Conservatism, mathematically on the other hand is the disposition towards opposing system ergodicity -- preserving energy over expending it to find new niches, exploitation vs exploration -- preserving the traits that have historically been advantageous to us. The other extreme ''present-day leftism'' is chaotic, for it believes anyone can be anything and to whatever extent, and perhaps that may come true in the future when we can create different DNA structures that may be triple-helix+ or entities or disembodied minds of distributed substances, but the core idea and belief is of the same nature, of the same quality, and same essence. Given that altruism and outbreeding has given the White people a better civilization measured by standards of living, technological advancement, etc due to better cooperation (also increases susceptibility towards ethnocentric interests are more cohesive), succumbing to such beliefs, whether the egaliterian Christian or good-samaritian-Catholic or new-age Atheist secular humanist -- it is all of the same nature and characteristic.
Have you ever read the work of Mitchell Heisman? He writes extensively on the phenomena you're describing, and you might be interested in it. All in all, I don't have much else to add. Generally speaking, I recognize that the biological constitution of organisms is what allows for normative values and a view of the world that demands action. A purely "rational" approach is devoid of any urge or preference, but instead is completely descriptive. This is a near impossibility among humans given that we have evolved to perceive the descriptive in so far as it serves the normative.
"Leftist" is doing a lot of work here; it seems to encompass both the traditional socialist-labour movement and the post 1960s incarnations of cultural politics. But in practice the cultural left usually target the old workers' movement and undermine it. Hence the frequent funding from liberal foundations, NED etc. Old school socialist parties receive no such funding.
Given the decline of the labour movement that is less of an imperative today but it was their primary target from the 1960s until about 2010.
I think result of survey is not sufficient for your last conclusion. Because majority are still in left. Additionally you ignored philosophy of science. And religion is not like "cold" thing.
If you are clear about your meaning and empirical beliefs, your views can be falsified. If you are constantly saying unclear things and it's nearly impossible to determine any implications, then you can keep talking without worrying about contrary evidence.
If you do make an empirical claim that is clear enough to be falsified, you might get people challenging you on that claim. Not to worry. Highlight the fact that the information is dangerous and the person critiquing you is a bigot. Point out any unsavory associations they might have. Exclude them from any prestigious institutions and then use this exclusion to bolster the case that they're wrong. If they don't give up, threaten to get them fired. If that doesn't work, constantly harass them, send them death threats, etc. Use your newfound consensus as even more evidence that you're right.
Lee Jussim, one of the co-authors, is one of my colleagues on this paper on the lack of intellectual diversity in research psychology, and how political bias invalidates some of the research: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/political-diversity-will-improve-social-psychological-science1/A54AD4878AED1AFC8BA6AF54A890149F#
Which is why I'm annoyed that Lee and the others reduced political ideology to left-right line. That's a stunningly crude thing to do, and far too common. Lots of people cannot place themselves on such a line. Libertarians are likely the most common example, but there are various other perspectives and reasons why that "political spectrum" has no utility to some.
I wonder what libertarians were expected to do, or if they mentioned them – I haven't read it yet. I don't answer such items, since I can't, and I see a lot of researchers throw out participants who don't (5% of the sample in one recent case).
I'm surprised that epistemology doesn't have a similar distribution as logic. Those two fields of philosophy seem to be the only ones that attract people with a greater than average degree of impartiality. Most other fields tend to have cultic tendencies that attract people with religious instincts but have been born into a secular world. As many have observed, most ideological leftists of modern America have a disposition towards their ideas and movements that is very reminiscent of religious zealotry.
I would also argue that (hot) emotional thinking does have utility in better environments. Often times, what is considered "rational" can be misled. For example, a popular ethical hypothetical posed to university students is whether or not a criminal should be punished if they lose all their memories and seem a different person after the act. I don't know when this question was first posed, but it received a lot of interest during Hume's time. Many want to punish the criminal anyway despite that choice coming across as "irrational." However, those feelings are actually incredibly informed on the subconscious level. In reality, people are largely driven to criminal acts as a result of their genetic profile. People understand that truth on a more visceral and intuitive level. Regardless of what happens to someone's memories, the genes remain. Therefore, the person must still be punished so that their tendencies aren't exposed to society again. The broad masses will always rely on hot thinking; the main issue now is that they are receiving the wrong social inputs.
There is no such thing as ''thinking'' without emotions. Thinking without emotions will lead you to paralysis analysis, whereby no determinant variable is valuable over the other. Which clothing piece? Which food? What quality? What characteristic? Tastiness, cost, fabric, durability. It also paralyzes you as a social animal as you are incapable of determining the social cues (i.e. Japan) of other people, what game-theoretic models are being played out over many generations, etc. In cognitive psychology, many different descriptive non-lexical hypothesis models have been formed, Jungian, MBTI, socionics. At a higher level abstraction, we find quadras and groups of characteristics that are generalized (mental dispositions). In the NT (rational) temperament, emotions are mainly derived from the assessment of factual (over social/feelings-based) outcomes http://www.erictb.info/erica.html Cognition/logical processing of outcomes, likelihoods can determine which method, path or course of actions are best to take based on the present-day state of the universe but it cannot intrinsically value outcomes nor can it spur one to make assessments or generalizations or characterizations of the social nature. Humans create fictional entities as means of social innovation (i.e. the government, the proleteriat, feminist revolution, legal entities). There is no such thing as large abstract entities that are responsible for your decisions, but because of things such as the ''social contract'', ''the rule of law'', ''borders'', ''human rights'' and other constructions which are not based on reality we are able to cooperate over long distances based on a shared mythological construction that is arbitrary, amorphous and ever-changing. In reality, you could kill anyone or harm anyone. The power of the group is always stronger than the individual, for it possesses more resources, more capabilities. Specialization is only possible due to the accumulation of knowledge and free-ing up of energy for other productive means which is dependent on the cognitive component/emotional component of our species to cooperate together. Thus as you mentioned, these cognitive biases are adaptive (guilt by association) because we share underlying homophilic structures, traits, ways of living, beliefs and the information networks that are formed tend to share a similar caricature (i.e. nodes, connections, resources). I would say the reason left-leaning idealism has high penetrance amongst the Anglo-Saxons because of the belief in the superlative and the superordinal. For millenias of years, we have created many abstract mythological constructions of entities above us, creatures, Gods, ideas -- scientism is now the new theocracy, even transhumanism. Kabbalistic mysticism, communism, whatever -- all are inherently intrinsic vestiges of cooperative ideologies, collectivist ideals which are transmitted to entice individuals to work together for the 'greater' good in some abstract sense, an ability to transcend present-day circumstances, to conceive what is inconceivable. Conservatism, mathematically on the other hand is the disposition towards opposing system ergodicity -- preserving energy over expending it to find new niches, exploitation vs exploration -- preserving the traits that have historically been advantageous to us. The other extreme ''present-day leftism'' is chaotic, for it believes anyone can be anything and to whatever extent, and perhaps that may come true in the future when we can create different DNA structures that may be triple-helix+ or entities or disembodied minds of distributed substances, but the core idea and belief is of the same nature, of the same quality, and same essence. Given that altruism and outbreeding has given the White people a better civilization measured by standards of living, technological advancement, etc due to better cooperation (also increases susceptibility towards ethnocentric interests are more cohesive), succumbing to such beliefs, whether the egaliterian Christian or good-samaritian-Catholic or new-age Atheist secular humanist -- it is all of the same nature and characteristic.
Have you ever read the work of Mitchell Heisman? He writes extensively on the phenomena you're describing, and you might be interested in it. All in all, I don't have much else to add. Generally speaking, I recognize that the biological constitution of organisms is what allows for normative values and a view of the world that demands action. A purely "rational" approach is devoid of any urge or preference, but instead is completely descriptive. This is a near impossibility among humans given that we have evolved to perceive the descriptive in so far as it serves the normative.
Am I reading the chart wrong, or are the youngest participants consistently right-wing? It would be nice to see the data without the LOESS.
Came here to ask exactly this.
"Leftist" is doing a lot of work here; it seems to encompass both the traditional socialist-labour movement and the post 1960s incarnations of cultural politics. But in practice the cultural left usually target the old workers' movement and undermine it. Hence the frequent funding from liberal foundations, NED etc. Old school socialist parties receive no such funding.
Given the decline of the labour movement that is less of an imperative today but it was their primary target from the 1960s until about 2010.
I think result of survey is not sufficient for your last conclusion. Because majority are still in left. Additionally you ignored philosophy of science. And religion is not like "cold" thing.