MoraI foundations test, by Johnathan Haidt

[bernie14]

Haidt's theory.....moral foundations

 

[bernie14]

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)

We have had this argument before and I do not wish for similar results.

I did read your responses to the questions. I don't think you should be concerned with how the test judges you....

 

[Gorbles]

Haidt's theory.....moral foundations

That's not the title buddy. But alright, finally on the same page. From the OP:

Moral Foundations Theory, developed by psychologists Jonathan Haidt and Craig Joseph, suggests that there are innate and universal psychological foundations underlying human morality. According to the theory, people's moral judgments are based on six primary foundations.

There have been many attempts at mapping out human behaviour into named categories that we can ascribe meaning to. I'm not an expert but I don't think any are infallible, and honestly a part of me thinks they can't be.

Does that mean they're "trash"? No.

Is this a separate question from any such foundations being "purely socialised"? Yes.

Like, what are you getting at? You think they're bad because you don't like what you think they say? That was clear when you jumped on Arwon for something he didn't say

What else you got?

 

[bernie14]

That's not the title buddy. But alright, finally on the same page. From the OP:

There have been many attempts at mapping out human behaviour into named categories that we can ascribe meaning to. I'm not an expert but I don't think any are infallible, and honestly a part of me thinks they can't be.

Does that mean they're "trash"? No.

Is this a separate question from any such foundations being "purely socialised"? Yes.

Like, what are you getting at? You think they're bad because you don't like what you think they say? That was clear when you jumped on Arwon for something he didn't say

What else you got?

Not at all, I think the "top three" and "bottom three" are neither good or bad.

 

[Gorbles]

Not at all, I think the "top three" and "bottom three" are neither good or bad.

Okay, and? Why are you grouping them into threes in the first place?

 

[bernie14]

Observation. I think the test is flawed

 

[Gorbles]

Cool. Like I said, I think all such tests are ultimately flawed.

But at the same time, that doesn't mean they don't have value. To me it's about how good of a job they can do. Do you not think it has value?

I don't normally ask stuff like this, because criticism is fine by itself, but what would a theory without flaws even look like?

 

[Gori the Grey]

I think the test is flawed

Almost everyone who has commented in the thread finds it dubious in one way or another!

 

[bernie14]

Ok, well, I still believe the theory is sound.

 

[bernie14]

Cool. Like I said, I think all such tests are ultimately flawed.

But at the same time, that doesn't mean they don't have value. To me it's about how good of a job they can do. Do you not think it has value?

I don't normally ask stuff like this, because criticism is fine by itself, but what would a theory without flaws even look like?

Oh, sorry no, don't confuse the test with the theory

 

[Gori the Grey]

Ok, well, I still believe the theory is sound.

Why is it, do you think, that the theorists haven't been able to devise an adequate test, one that would illustrate the validity of their theory?

 

[bernie14]

Why is it, do you think, that the theorists haven't been able to devise an adequate test, one that would illustrate the validity of their theory?

I think/my opinion is they have great difficulty teasing out the "l". I don't have a problem with nurture but I think that "socialization" is filtered through the individual. I think part of this is trying to differentiate between socialization from conditioning?

 

[Samson]

what would a theory without flaws even look like?

Maths?

Spoiler Obligatory xkcd :

 

[Angst]

We have had this argument before and I do not wish for similar results.

I did read your responses to the questions. I don't think you should be concerned with how the test judges you....

so i read a bit more on the context, so ok, it's haidt.

i'm kinda scatterbrained right now, but i'll do my best expression my views as clearly as possible. might amend certain things later. just wanted to answer while this had my attention.

there's some aspects to haidt i actually like quite a bit. moral values as kind of spread across certain axises kind of makes sense. that certain elements of morality are pronounced or even only valued among different parts of the political spectrum makes sense. certain people are predisposed to prefering certain things.

but that moral foundations aren't socialized from then is weird, it depends on what you mean by foundations. the outline is also kind of off as when it applies to the world.

the biggest problem i have with haidt is the weird weaponization of him. a big (and not wholly untrue) part of his point is that right-wingers generally value a larger quantity of the axises than the left. this easily gets mistranslated by right-wingers as right-wingers being more moral, when it's simply not how it works. the right treats some things as moral questions that the left simply doesn't. to the left, it's not moral. to the right, it is. some of this is predisposition, but some of it is indeed socialization. this is not what you're doing, i think (haven't read your responses throughout the thread)

however, that there's no socialization as to the pillars is wholly untrue.

good haidt-esque thinking: the right are naturally prone to believing that disgusting things should be worked against or removed.
bad haidt-esque thinking: what is disgusting isn't socialized. (this is you)

 

[Angst]

Maths?

Spoiler Obligatory xkcd :

the best thing about this comic is that the sociolist is just like minding her own business, chillin'

 

[Gori the Grey]

There should be a farmer to the left of the sociologist.

 

[Angst]

There should be a farmer to the left of the sociologist.

i wonder how many steps we need before musicologists and authors

 

[bernie14]

so i read a bit more on the context, so ok, it's haidt.

i'm kinda scatterbrained right now, but i'll do my best expression my views as clearly as possible. might amend certain things later. just wanted to answer while this had my attention.

there's some aspects to haidt i actually like quite a bit. moral values as kind of spread across certain axises kind of makes sense. that certain elements of morality are pronounced or even only valued among different parts of the political spectrum makes sense. certain people are predisposed to prefering certain things.

but that moral foundations aren't socialized from then is weird, it depends on what you mean by foundations. the outline is also kind of off as when it applies to the world.

the biggest problem i have with haidt is the weird weaponization of him. a big (and not wholly untrue) part of his point is that right-wingers generally value a larger quantity of the axises than the left. this easily gets mistranslated by right-wingers as right-wingers being more moral, when it's simply not how it works. the right treats some things as moral questions that the left simply doesn't. to the left, it's not moral. to the right, it is. some of this is predisposition, but some of it is indeed socialization. this is not what you're doing, i think (haven't read your responses throughout the thread)

however, that there's no socialization as to the pillars is wholly untrue.

good haidt-esque thinking: the right are naturally prone to believing that disgusting things should be worked against or removed.
bad haidt-esque thinking: what is disgusting isn't socialized. (this is you)

You really don't have to apologize for future revisions... don't know what you are mulling over in your third paragraph. Then it gets "weird"?

Why do you think Johnathan H has been weaponized? As I see it, the theory is the weapon. As for the you think that I think....can't help you there.

 

[Core Imposter]

• Your scores:

Care 89% Loyalty 67%
Fairness 69% Authority 72%
Purity 78%	Liberty 64%

Your strongest moral foundation is Care.

Your morality is closest to that of a Conservative.

 

[Angst]

You really don't have to apologize for future revisions... don't know what you are mulling over in your third paragraph. Then it gets "weird"?

Why do you think Johnathan H has been weaponized? As I see it, the theory is the weapon. As for the you think that I think....can't help you there.

as you noted, not much point divulging on most of this, as we both know how it goes when i talk to you. if you don't see the concrete of how morals are socialized, even following pillars, i don't know how to help you. this particularly pertains as to right wing attributions of naturality, when it comes to purity, biopolitics and disgust.

however, as to weaponization, since you asked. some right wingers literally claim that since haidt describes them as generally valuing more moral pillars, they are more moral. ie better people, leftists are naturally more evil, etc. when it's not how it works, not even for haidt. it's not particularly common, but knowledge of haidt isn't either.