print“A team of social psychologists,” reports Gene Healy, “including the University of Virginia’s Jonathan Haidt, provides some of the most detailed answers yet, putting libertarians on the couch in a new study, ‘Understanding Libertarian Morality.'”
“For several years now, at YourMorals.org, they’ve let self-described liberals, conservatives, and libertarians speak for themselves, by voluntarily taking a battery of psychological tests measuring personality characteristics, cognitive style, and moral values. Along the way, they’ve compiled the ‘largest dataset of psychological measures ever compiled on libertarians’ — with more than 10,000 respondents.”
“Libertarians tend to be dispassionate and cerebral, less likely to moralize based on gut reactions like disgust (one source, the authors suggest, of our disagreement with conservatives on social issues).
“‘We found strong support,’ they write, for the proposition that libertarians ‘will rely upon reason more — and emotion less — than will either liberals or conservatives.’ Blubbery Clintonian empathy isn’t our bag, baby; we don’t ‘feel your pain.’ Where ‘liberals have the most ‘feminine’ cognitive style … libertarians have the most ‘masculine.’ And where others often ‘rely on peripheral cues, such as how attractive or credible a speaker is,’ when formulating opinions, libertarians are more likely to pay ‘close attention to relevant arguments.'”
[SNIP]
I prefer to put it a little differently, as I did in an interview with Everyman: A Men’s Journal:
“When people are rational, they observe reality as it is, and are more likely to be concerned with justice and avoid misplacing compassion. So the starting point is, unavoidably, a return to reason. … I certainly understand your concern and agree with you that the arguments we’ve made in favor of justice for men are less intuitive and less visceral than the arguments feminists make. But since we know our more complex arguments are the right ones, we have the answer: to make people fairer, kinder, and more compassionate, one has to first make them able to think and reason. In the introduction to F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, economist Milton Friedman underscores this point: ‘The argument for collectivism is simple if false; it is an immediate emotional argument. The argument for individualism is subtle and sophisticated; it is an indirect rational argument.”
“Sure, making people just isn’t easy. But it certainly won’t work if you aim for the gut instead of the gray matter. As usual, Oscar Wilde said it best in one of his plays: ‘She thought that because he was stupid he would be kindly, when of course, kindliness requires imagination and intellect.'”
Did you lose power at home after the quake, Ilana?
[What are you talking about, VW?]
You seem to be implying that women are not just men with breasts (you evil politically incorrect sexist!). Perhaps the TSA will validate these conjectures with their new probing! I found that Linda and I brought different strengths to our marriage with our somewhat COMPLIMENTARY but orthogonal skills – the following is excerpted from my speech at her memorial service on 11/11/2001:
“In many ways, we were very different. For example, she did not take a single physics course in college – and I endeavored to take nothing but physics. She was far better at reading people and I was far better at reading charts. I was concerned with getting places on time and she would be concerned with what we wore. And when things worked well, we were very complimentary to each other – using each other’s strengths to overcome our shortcomings. As Linda observed, we had both lived on our own for a long time and we had to both adjust. We generally agreed on almost all the big questions and fought like cats and dogs on the most trivial. We were there for each other during the highs and the lows and, sadly, until the end.”
[That’s beautiful, Myron. Linda was a special lady. You’re a special guy.]
Now we can throw this in liberals’ faces when they argue emotionally while simultaneously thinking of themselves as more intellectual and smart.
Making people able to think and reason. The weak link in the Libertarian’s chain. Come to think that’s the weak link in anybody’s chain.
Contemplationist, that would be the case if it were not for this habit of playing footsie with reactionary superstition.
Very Good article. My wife and I agree with it completely.
Hugo:
Please explain what you mean by- playing footsie with reactionary superstition. The phrase has no general meaning for a common person like me.
Robert, principally and primarily, evolution. I wrote a long piece for The New Individualist arguing that the American right will keep losing and deserve to lose if it insists on indulging creationism and the rest. You can find that column here:
http://www.atlassociety.org/tni/darwin-agonistes