The psychology of political correctness

Hi, Jon. A tendency toward self-criticism is a trait you and I seem to share. There always seems to be some sub-group within any group that, for whatever reason, is intensely bothered by the failings of the ingroup. I feel like that's the kind of person Jonathan Haidt (the author of the paper I read) is, too; and that's the motivation behind much of his professional work. This is probably true; and it's the core of the whole conservative, anti-PC movement. But, Haidt's paper actually found that both conservatives and liberals exaggerated the extremity of people's views, even within their own ingroup. It's just that liberals were somewhat more extreme about it.So, everybody thinks "lefties" fit way over there, and "righties" fit way over there, but I'm somewhere in between them.The prevailing trend is that people see themselves as more moderate than everyone else.So, you're right about compartmentalizing the world: and you're probably right that the academic left has taken it to the most extreme of anybody. You can see it everywhere. We humans seem to find some comfort in being able to assign names to things. As one example, consider TV commercials that say things like, "You don't have some freak problem, you're like these other people who understand what you're going through; there's a name for it, and now there's a pill for it!"----- Do you feel better now, having gotten that off your chest? That's certainly one thing that's happening. Back when I was a PhD student, I met another entomology grad student at a conference in Poland. I told her that my wife was expecting our second child, and she immediately asked, "are you going to have anymore?" I said that we hadn't decided. She instantly went into a diatribe about overpopulation, and said that if I wanted another child, I should adopt; she expressed her faith in my ability to be a good father to an adoptive child, and made sure it was clear that having 3 kids was too many.Keep in mind that I had just met this girl the day before, and had only held two conversations with her (in a group setting both times). Also, she was about 20 years old (I was 27). I was so blindsided by her speech, and so naturally non-confrontational, that I just kind of sat there dumbfounded for about half an hour (it was during a banquet, and I was kind of stuck sitting there). What was I supposed to do? I still don't know.So, yeah, there's a lot of overzealous behavior among liberals, and a lot of "so, you're one of them"-style tactics being used. And, like you, I really dislike it, even though I share a lot of the same worldview.

I don't even know if I'm touching the subject you're hoping to discuss, but here are some of my thoughts that I think are pertinent: Why a Liberal may over-shoot a Conservative:
To a Liberal, being "bigoted" or "set-in-your-ways" or other such things is a horrible, horrible thing. Therefore, when they characterize someone who is seen as those things... they think of them doing horrible, horrible, extreme things. Why a Conservative may under-shoot a Liberal:
If a Conservative is accused of being "bigoted" and "set-in-their-ways" over and over again... however, they still live their lives relatively the same as any liberal does (going to work, caring for family, friends, being nice when they can, losing their temper sometimes, feeling bad about losing their temper...) they're going to understand that being called "bigoted" doesn't really mean you're an extreme-horrible person. Therefore, even though a Conservative may think of a Liberal as "bigoted" in their own way... they will understand that "being bigoted" doesn't have to be quite as extreme as some Liberals may think it is.I dunno if that even makes sense.Anyway, those are my thoughts for the day.

Yeah, I think probably fits me to a tee.

Hi, RAZD. I wasn't sure how to respond to this, because I'm not quite clear on what you mean. But, Modulous brought up the relevant part of the paper in Message 13: I think this might comport with your first impression: conservatives evaluate morality using a larger set of criteria, so perhaps the added criteria serve as additional constraints. So, the conservatives' confidence intervals are narrower (that is, they allow less "wiggle-room" around their decision), and consequently they give much more rigid moral answers in specific scenarios?

And yet it's the conservatives who get bent out of shape if you call them on their bigotry.As I've probably mentioned before, people who are bigots seem to be more concerned about being called bigots than about whether or not they are bigots. If somebody calls me a bigot, I (being circumspect in every way - where's the smilie with the halo when you need it?) say, "I know. I'm working on that."

My guess is that RAZD is looking more at the result of it being moral or not rather than the "areas of moral concern."That is, the Conservative caricature is more binary. It's moral or it's not. Good or bad. 10 commandment style. Yes or no. The Liberal caricature is more on a good-to-bad spectrum.Binary system has 2 possible outcomes. Therefore, even a wild guess has 50% chance of "correctly predicting other's choices." A spectrum would have much more. Say 1000 possible outcomes. With that, the chances of predicting the moral decision accurately is much lower.I think that's what he was talking about, anyway...

That would indeed be incredibly bad behavior on the part of liberals. Who have you noticed that consistently provides reasonable sounding conservative arguments? Maybe we just don't have enough conservative variety.

No, the implication of the study would be that they are misunderstanding and mischaracterising your views; it's just that you have even less understanding of theirs.But the idea that both sides misunderstand each other isn't so surprising is it? That this sort of thing happens regularly is immediately evident as soon as you observe people passionately debating a subject about which you have no strong views.

Finally getting around to replying to the opening post.I can believe that liberals are less accurate than conservatives in estimating the moral concerns of the other. The conservative press and airwaves are full of the most extreme conservative views, ones that probably aren't shared by many conservatives. The liberal press and airwaves consist of pretty mainstream liberal views that are shared by a great many liberals.For example, conservative support has been offered at EvC for Trump's proposal that we should follow Pershing's (supposed) example of executing 49 of 50 prisoners as an example to discourage further resistance, and it drew cheers from the crowd, and probably the conservative press and airwaves have been very supportive of Trump about this, but it doesn't seem likely to me that your average conservative feels the same way.But what are liberals to think conservatives think if their main source of information about what conservatives think is Trump and Fox News?--Percy

Not so much here, I feel. And maybe it happens the other way just as much, but I have seen points ignored in favour of pursuing proof that the Conservative is a villain or foolish in some way on sites of a more political slant.

Perhaps not you, but a lot of people use it like a filibuster. Often just the allegation alone is all they feel they need to make.

Therein lies the problem. Donald Trump says things so absurd that it looks like a parody (think Colbert parodying an ultra-conservative) or that he must be trolling. And if we look at the polls, what conclusion are liberals supposed to come to when it comes to analyzing the moral construct of the Right if this is their top candidate?I still believe, however, that these results are reactionary. Both Dems and Reps will get behind anyone they don't truly agree with so long as it isn't from the opposing Party. This is what American politics has done with the two-party system. The unofficial motto is, "Anybody but Hillary [or Trump] [or Obama] [or GWB]" And they are willing to back someone they know is a madman because, to them, he's still less of a madman than Sanders or Clinton, and vice versa. But they feel compelled to vote for them, because if they don't, the other guy [or gal] will be elected.And keeping in line with the topic at hand, I think Trump is seen as some kind of revolutionary non-politician politician because the man has no filter and says some really racist things. The fearmongering that goes on at FOX when it comes to things like illegal immigration or the threat of ISIS is bombarding these people so that the situation seems almost hopeless. I mean, listening to them you would think that ISIS is 50 miles from Washington D.C. and closing in.The inverse [here comes the dogpile] is that liberals are so affected by political correctness that they tend to only see the world in terms of victims and victimizers. If there is some problem in the world, it's because group A is oppressing group B. Group A is always in the wrong (whether they are or not) and Group B is always victimized. They are so terrified of being considered racist, homophobic, or just in general bigoted in some way or fashion, that it clouds their better judgment.This extreme polarization that shuns modernity is inflamed by media outlets like FOX on the right and MSNBC on the left.

I hope you are right about that. And apparently noting that what he says is racist is taken as calling Trump racist, which then gets you called PC. At least according to one poster here. There are some victims and at least some institutionalized victimization. But claiming that all liberals see all problems under this light is total BS. If that were true, then the term PC might mean something. Right now PC seems most often to mean, "Why can't I express myself about the bad things all [your choice] do without being called a racist."

Good point, because there are definitely times when being called "PC" (as a derogatory remark) is unwarranted. I was, of course, speaking in generalities about certain tendencies among Progressives. Well, you bring up a good point. In the same way that I was referring to the filibuster, this seems to be the conservative version of the filibuster. But at the same time, sometimes PC goes way too far so that if you notice any tendencies about a group, it had better only be complimentary.

I think that when the main source of data is news reports that everyone, both liberals, conservatives and all stripes in between, must recognize that tendencies we think we notice about groups are not scientific and and should be held *highly* suspect until there is reliable data.Going back to your previous Message 27: Your characterization of liberalism seems for like it comes from Fox rather than MSNBC. If there's any general rule for determining general bigotry maybe it would be this: if you're judging people as groups instead of as individuals then you're probably bigoted.--Percy