MoraI foundations test, by Johnathan Haidt
- Thread starter Ronaldo_
- Start date
Was there a need to tag, or are you trying to satisfy your "conflict theory" quote before the end of the week?
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
Thanks, I think I found my answer in the third study on the .org page...
We used two versions of the moral foundations questionnaire with the target group being either abstract or specific ingroups or outgroups.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
There was.Was there a need to tag, or are you trying to satisfy your "conflict theory" quote before the end of the week?
I'm here, go on then!
If you think what you've said already is explanation enough, I'm (regretfully) here to (regretfully) inform you it regretfully not enough (no brackets needed).
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
Ok, here we go.
Moral foundations are not socialized.
EDIT: agree, disagree?
Moral foundations are not socialized.
EDIT: agree, disagree?
From Google:
socialized
1. having been made to behave in a way that is acceptable to a particular society.
"poorly socialized children who are ill-equipped to handle the responsibilities of adult life"
2. organized according to the principles of socialism.
"socialized economies"
I do not think either of those make sense to apply to moral foundations.
Why can't they be? It seems that you're arguing for some innate immutable quality that we as a society can't shape, improve, or remedy? I'm big into rehabilitation as a concept, and while there are challenges there that we haven't had the time, (mainly) interest or resource to address, I think it's a good starting point.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
Ok, well I think this THEORY assumes (from Wikipedia)
From their review of these earlier lines of research, they suggested that all individuals possess four "intuitive ethics", stemming from the process of human evolution as responses to adaptive challenges.[1] They labelled these four ethics as suffering, hierarchy, reciprocity, and purity.
I agree with the nature AND nurture argument.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
Well, I don't agree with you
And neither does this theory
EDIT: also, I think the whole dialectic materialism thing has, to date, been a spectacular failure.
Last edited:
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Alright - so going through this,
Question 9 - Will probably be a misrepresentation of my position; contempt is actually fine, because consumption is bad. But it's not an opener for public judgment, and the question even if worded as such does take into consideration people that are annoyed at trendy things independently of utility. Like, just being boomer angry at TikTok (which I do not use). I am not angry at TikTok. Rather, surveillance, face recognition, data owned & sold by China is all horrifying capitalism. Similarly, I wouldn't care about fast fashion if it weren't for the environmental footprint. So yea just consuming because of a trend is bad, but I don't think it should lead to public scrutiny & harassment over some kid posting catgirl cringe, neither is it ever bad buying new, nice jeans. But it does require contempt. So if I say Agree, I'm a boomer, and if I say Disagree, I'm a trend rider indifferent as to the material footprint. I assume it's how the questionaire will judge me.
Question 13 - Strongly disagree will probably mark me as a militant atheist. I really don't think either is better.
15 - Wars happen, so on and so on. I've mostly been annoyed with this question because, so... Like, killing people is awful and all. But I don't have any position beyond the core fact that invading countries doesn't actually help fix things. It's fixed stuff, like... twice? Historically? That I know of? Rest was just clay play or disastrous.
16 - The issue is not politeness, it's that being a butthole in your review usually doesn't work psychologically well for getting the best result. Politeness here is an empty signifier (which the question values and asks because of, but I don't); bluntness as worded would cause offense, but it leaves out the question that offense in itself is not important, rather being constructive and patient is just the way to get something done right. It's simply pragmatic not chewing out your consultant because she misspelled her email
If you need to scare someone to get the job done, they shouldn't work there, and/or you shouldn't be doing the business, it's the road to implosion
28 - Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh like no? Problem isn't dependency on others, problem is that the international economy is so god damn toxic and a housing crisis in the US where they bail out the criminals means a job implosion in Denmark. The problem is that the raising of the standard of living of international cooperation comes with a few caveats, so to say, that are unpreferable. But I know what people this question is for.
40 - This is a really big question and seriously abstracts away from what I support, and what I don't support, from government seizure. Government ordering Danish mink farmers to cull their mink because their backwards health situation caused a covid strain? Uhm, yea, the farmers deserve it. Sovjet asset seizure that destroys life arbitrarily for a military state? Nope.
And even so, in the abstract, seizure for public good is I dare say technically fine. My core beliefs would require it. The issue is that concretely it's often toxic.
42 - Weird post-postmodernist approach to the question of power and authority. Without having done the work themselves is not really a factor. Questioning is always fine. Trusting capability from profession is also always fine. "You weren't in the lab, shut up" is bad.
43 - Uhm yea so if I and everyone ever get to live happily forever under all of the laws, preventing all crime and everyone gets a pony, they are just and I will follow them blindly. But agreeing here, I only see myself labeled as someone who really loves arbitrary authority.
46 - I need my Bataille for this. It's something I both very much agree and disagree with depending on the nature of the individual heinousness.
results
so uh, myea i don't know.
Question 9 - Will probably be a misrepresentation of my position; contempt is actually fine, because consumption is bad. But it's not an opener for public judgment, and the question even if worded as such does take into consideration people that are annoyed at trendy things independently of utility. Like, just being boomer angry at TikTok (which I do not use). I am not angry at TikTok. Rather, surveillance, face recognition, data owned & sold by China is all horrifying capitalism. Similarly, I wouldn't care about fast fashion if it weren't for the environmental footprint. So yea just consuming because of a trend is bad, but I don't think it should lead to public scrutiny & harassment over some kid posting catgirl cringe, neither is it ever bad buying new, nice jeans. But it does require contempt. So if I say Agree, I'm a boomer, and if I say Disagree, I'm a trend rider indifferent as to the material footprint. I assume it's how the questionaire will judge me.
Question 13 - Strongly disagree will probably mark me as a militant atheist. I really don't think either is better.
15 - Wars happen, so on and so on. I've mostly been annoyed with this question because, so... Like, killing people is awful and all. But I don't have any position beyond the core fact that invading countries doesn't actually help fix things. It's fixed stuff, like... twice? Historically? That I know of? Rest was just clay play or disastrous.
16 - The issue is not politeness, it's that being a butthole in your review usually doesn't work psychologically well for getting the best result. Politeness here is an empty signifier (which the question values and asks because of, but I don't); bluntness as worded would cause offense, but it leaves out the question that offense in itself is not important, rather being constructive and patient is just the way to get something done right. It's simply pragmatic not chewing out your consultant because she misspelled her email
If you need to scare someone to get the job done, they shouldn't work there, and/or you shouldn't be doing the business, it's the road to implosion
28 - Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh like no? Problem isn't dependency on others, problem is that the international economy is so god damn toxic and a housing crisis in the US where they bail out the criminals means a job implosion in Denmark. The problem is that the raising of the standard of living of international cooperation comes with a few caveats, so to say, that are unpreferable. But I know what people this question is for.
40 - This is a really big question and seriously abstracts away from what I support, and what I don't support, from government seizure. Government ordering Danish mink farmers to cull their mink because their backwards health situation caused a covid strain? Uhm, yea, the farmers deserve it. Sovjet asset seizure that destroys life arbitrarily for a military state? Nope.
And even so, in the abstract, seizure for public good is I dare say technically fine. My core beliefs would require it. The issue is that concretely it's often toxic.
42 - Weird post-postmodernist approach to the question of power and authority. Without having done the work themselves is not really a factor. Questioning is always fine. Trusting capability from profession is also always fine. "You weren't in the lab, shut up" is bad.
43 - Uhm yea so if I and everyone ever get to live happily forever under all of the laws, preventing all crime and everyone gets a pony, they are just and I will follow them blindly. But agreeing here, I only see myself labeled as someone who really loves arbitrary authority.
46 - I need my Bataille for this. It's something I both very much agree and disagree with depending on the nature of the individual heinousness.
results
so uh, myea i don't know.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
what in the world are you talking about
people can generally agree on three things; that good is good, that bad is bad, and that it's unpleasant being stabbed (unless it's sexual)
I tried reading that paper, thought I did not get through it this bit touches on that. It seem very strong for the provided evidence. How do they distinguish between nature and nurture experimentally, and assign different foundations to the categories?
We would like to take the opportunity afforded by this Dadalus issue on human nature to work through one aspect of the idea that morality is both innate and learned. We are not going to offer a wishy-washy, split-the-difference approach. Rather, we will present a modified nativist view that we believe fully respects the depth and importance of cultural variation in morality. We will do this by focusing attention on a heretofore ignored link : the link between intuitions, especially a subset of intuitions that we argue are innate in important respects, and virtues, which by and large are social constructions.
We propose that human beings come equipped with an intuitive ethics, an innate preparedness to feel flashes of approval or disapproval toward certain patterns of events involving other human beings. The four patterns for which we believe the evidence is best are those sur rounding suffering, hierarchy, reciprocity, and purity. These intuitions under gird the moral systems that cultures develop, including their understandings of virtues and character. By recognizing moralities on top of a foundation of shared intuitions, we can develop new approaches to moral education and to the moral conflicts that divide our diverse society.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
Ok, well my question to you and gorbl then would be "is this theory trash or not?
Well, I do not see the evidence that really supports it.
[EDIT]I would give more support for "fairness" being innate though.
Last edited:
What theory? You're jumping between this "thing" you want to disprove for no other reason than it seems connected to Marx, and our individual opinions. Pick a lane and stick in it, or ask GenMarshall who seems to understand what you're actually talking about.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
Read the title
Moral foundations test, by Johnathan Haidt.
Again - what theory? Be as specific as you need to be, assuming that go against whatever you're trying to get out of this.
