Why Liberalism? How our Sense of Empathy and Fairness Determines our Political Orientation
By Eric Balkan
()
About this ebook
Think your political opinions are the result of carefully reasoned thought? Think that everyone would agree with you if they just weren't so clueless? Think again! Big government vs small government, free market vs a regulated market, individual freedom vs group benefits, conservative vs liberal.... Political controversies sound like they're based on differences in philosophy or ideology or maybe just fact. But they're not. The differences are largely cultural. And, in particular, they’re based on how much a particular culture values empathy vs self-interest and fairness vs social stability.
We're all a product of the different cultural influences acting on us, via a property called neuro-plasticity. This makes us see what we expect to see. Literally. We don't just see the same things and consciously think about them differently, we actually see them differently. And unconsciously value the same things differently. With this in mind, we can get to the core of any issue, understanding why we feel strongly about an issue, and also why others feel the way they do.
Eric Balkan
ericbalkan@yahoo.com (Don't look for me on Facebook or Twitter, because I haven't used those accounts since I opened them.)
Related to Why Liberalism? How our Sense of Empathy and Fairness Determines our Political Orientation
Related ebooks
Inalienable Rights Versus Abuse: A Commonsense Approach to Public Policy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsOpus Dei Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsA Federal World Government Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAdventures in Pragmatic Psychotherapy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Human Society: Human, #6 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsUp From Slavery Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Campaign Finance Reform: The Shifting and Ambiguous Line Between Where Money Talks and Speech is Free Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsUnsolved: Cold-Case Homicides of Law Enforcement Officers Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Most Important Crisis Facing the 21St Century Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsEngineered Underground Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsI Am Not a Slut: Slut-Shaming in the Age of the Internet Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Myth, Ritual and Religion Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Uncovered: My Half-Century with the Cia Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWhistleblower Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLove in Captivity Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDarwin and International Relations: On the Evolutionary Origins of War and Ethnic Conflict Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Max Weber's Vision of History: Ethics and Methods Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPoverty and the Foundation of Economics Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Absolutely Essential Guide To Agnosticism Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAudacity: How to Make Fast and Efficient Decisions in Any Situation Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsEssays in Interactionist Sociology Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsMental Utopia Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCrowd Power in the Age of Human Potential Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsA Guide to Animal Behaviour Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsRituals, Myths and Religions Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsMessy Europe: Crisis, Race, and Nation-State in a Postcolonial World Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDead Souls Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPatriotic Professionalism in Urban China: Fostering Talent Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Politics For You
The Republic by Plato Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on the U.S.-Israeli War on the Palestinians Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5This Is How They Tell Me the World Ends: The Cyberweapons Arms Race Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Capitalism and Freedom Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5On Palestine Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Girl with Seven Names: A North Korean Defector’s Story Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Gulag Archipelago [Volume 1]: An Experiment in Literary Investigation Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Cult of Trump: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How the President Uses Mind Control Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Daily Stoic: A Daily Journal On Meditation, Stoicism, Wisdom and Philosophy to Improve Your Life Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Great Reset: And the War for the World Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Ever Wonder Why?: and Other Controversial Essays Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Fear: Trump in the White House Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Disloyal: A Memoir: The True Story of the Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The U.S. Constitution with The Declaration of Independence and The Articles of Confederation Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Humanity Archive: Recovering the Soul of Black History from a Whitewashed American Myth Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race: The Sunday Times Bestseller Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Freedom Is a Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the Foundations of a Movement Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Essential Chomsky Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Reviews for Why Liberalism? How our Sense of Empathy and Fairness Determines our Political Orientation
0 ratings0 reviews
Book preview
Why Liberalism? How our Sense of Empathy and Fairness Determines our Political Orientation - Eric Balkan
WHY LIBERALISM?
How our Sense of Empathy and Fairness
Determines our Political Orientation
By Eric Balkan
WHY LIBERALISM?
How our Sense of Empathy and Fairness
Determines our Political Orientation
by Eric Balkan
Revision 2.3 5/27/11
Smashwords Edition
Copyright 2011 by Eric Balkan. All rights reserved.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Social Stability vs Fairness
Self-Interest vs Empathy
The Axes: EFG
Common Alternative Explanations
Individual Responsibility
Political Correctness
Something for Nothing
Respect for Authority
Faith-based Politics
Big Government vs Small Government
Sense of Duty
Individual Freedom
Why We Believe
Cultural Socialization via Neuro-Plasticity
Faith vs Reason
Ends and Means
Gender
Age
Mental Toughness
Dogma and Ideology
Theories in General
The Upshot
Epilogue
Addendum A: Reading List
Addendum B: Analyzing some Current Issues
Addendum C: Q&A
Addendum D: Mock Discussion
Introduction
Think your political opinions are the result of carefully reasoned thought? Think that everyone would agree with you if they just weren't so clueless? Think again! Big government vs small government, free market vs a regulated market, individual freedom vs group benefits, conservative vs liberal.... Political controversies sound like they're based on differences in philosophy or ideology or maybe just fact. But they're not. The differences are largely cultural. And, in particular, they’re based on how much a particular culture values empathy vs self-interest and fairness vs social stability.
This distinction between philosophy – commonly, how we choose to look at things -- and culture – the effect of all the varied influences on us during our lifetime -- is key. That’s because philosophy is amenable to rational discussion, but cultural differences are not. They're part of us -- and much harder to change.
I got interested in this topic after some 40+ years of arguing politics without actually convincing anyone of anything. It finally occurred to me that our opinions on various political topics were based on deep-down, core beliefs, and not on the specifics of any particular issue. I then went off to study whatever thinking and research I could find on what those beliefs might be, and where they might have came from.
I became drawn to the conclusion that we obtain our beliefs largely from what behavioral/social scientists call the socialization process, via what cognitive science researchers call neural plasticity – which is what inculcates cultural influences into our brains. Further, I’ve theorized, the differences in our political beliefs stem from differences in how our various cultures and subcultures treat the attributes of fairness, empathy, self-interest, and social stability.
I should warn here that, while this paper is inspired by current research, the interpretation of that research can vary. And this paper is my interpretation: a theory if you will.
One of the side-effects of my conclusion was the realization that we can never be unbiased. So, even though I’ve made some attempt at it, in the interests of full disclosure, I admit to being a liberal.
I wrote this paper both to better organize my own thinking on the subject by putting it into words, and to see what others thought of my theory. (My thanks to those (Howard and Freda) who have contributed feedback so far.) So, let’s get started.
Social Stability vs. Fairness
Theory 1:
Conservatives seek to maintain the current social order, even if it's unfair.
Liberals seek to make things fairer, even if it upsets the current social order.
Virtually no one takes one of these positions to an extreme. We tend to each fall somewhere along the scale between wanting total stability and wanting total fairness. Take this situation: the police have arrested two people, one of whom is positively a terrorist and the other one an ordinary, innocent person. And it's impossible to tell which the terrorist is -- we just know that one of them is. If we release them both, the terrorist will continue his activities. If we imprison them both, we will be imprisoning an innocent man. If you say release them both, which is what our legal system would do, then change the situation so that there's 3 people, two of whom are terrorists. Do you still release them all? How about 6 people, where 5 are terrorists? 20 people? 100 people?
Or the other way, if you said lock them both up: If there are 10 people, and 1 is guilty, do you still lock them all up? You can play with these numbers until you find some you're comfortable with. And your numbers will undoubtedly be different than someone else's numbers.
A momentary detour: I use the terms social stability and social order largely interchangeably throughout this paper. They’re not quite the same thing, but they’re parts of the same desire. And that is the desire, which we all have, to do things in the familiar way, in familiar settings. I suggest that this desire is simply greater in conservatives than in liberals.
And while we’re at it, what is fairness exactly? The absence of bias is often given as a definition, but I don’t think that goes far enough. For instance, if you were paid a salary not based on your work but on some random number chosen by a computer, that would not be biased, but it also wouldn’t be fair. So fairness implies also a non-arbitrary relationship between actions and consequences. Taking both criteria together, it comes down to: getting what an unbiased observer thinks you deserve.
Now back to validating the theory. Think about Guantanamo. Conservatives want to continue keeping the inmates locked up, because it's safer that way. Liberals are concerned that some of those inmates are innocent, and we'll never know who they are if we don't have trials.
The above examples involved safety issues, but the same thinking gets involved in a very many political, social, and economic issues. Think about the