Have you ever read Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind"? I think it was written in 2012 or so. He was a lefty who became a moderate/centrist after discovering, through researching for the book, that conservatives had more categories of understanding of their opponents than leftists did of theirs, despite believing that they understand everything, and pretty much own thinking. Sure, some rightwingers, especially certain religious ones, live in their own (usually theological) silos, too, and they annoy the piss outta me, but it's not to the same scale given the left's institutional heft.
I think it continues to explain the left's insularity and why they continue to fail to understand the Trump phenomenon. Because if you ask the average conservative-leaning person? They DISAGREE with several things that Trump says and does, and have few qualms saying so. But to hear the average cloistered lefty, they are all in a red hatter MAGA-cult. **shrug**
Yes. It's funny because progressives insist the "right" (whatever they think that is) is equally as silo'd and censorius as the left, by default. Because they just *assume* this to be true. But it's really not my experience at all. Some just told me on Facebook, in response to this piece:
"The idea that the right is super accepting of other ideas is absurd. You have to swear complete loyalty to Trump, but if you like to be part of a cult of personality and check your brain at the door go ahead. Most people on the left are not socialists, so not sure why you bring that up."
I didn't say any such thing, to start. But also... this just isn't true. Many on the left ARE critical of and don't like Trump! I feel like I like him more than lots of people who voted for him! I don't know anyone who is a blind Trump fan, honestly. These people just don't know anyone who voted for Trump or who is even right wing, so they assume, but it just doesn't play out irl.
Yep. And I think it's because leftists can afford to assume a lot of things to be true since they control so many cultural institutions, thinking themselves the possessors and final arbiters of what's good and true. It creates a self-referential feedback loop. Conservatives don't have that luxury. They HAVE to know how other people think to function in the world. I think that's a big part of what Haidt realized.
Yeah that’s a good point. They don’t lose by being ignorant to the other side… (I mean, they lost the election I guess, but I don’t doubt they can turn that around easily if we aren’t on the ball). Their lives aren’t impacted by “the right” at all, whereas ours were… In terms of our livelihoods, free speech, rights, etc. They pretend these things are under threat, but they aren’t at all…
And even when they lose elections, they don’t know how to take “no” for an answer because they still own the structural guts of so much. They can’t possibly imagine being wrong unless they are forced to. Everything is still reinforced and they view an election loss as just a temporary setback. The ideology is that strong. I mean look how hard it is just to get the WNBA to say that a woman is female. They still won’t budge.
I enjoyed your writing style and I also agree with most of what you have written.
I thought I would recommend a book that could give you a philosophical base line. It is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. If you haven’t read it you have to make up for lost time. warm regards from Sydney, Australia,
I actually just bought a copy at an antique/vintage store in Arizona when I drove through in May! Haven't gotten to it yet, but will. Thanks for the recommendation :)
I would LIKE to be in a cult. Please, sign me up for a cult! It would be so nice to not think very hard about anything and to have to make no personal decisions because the cult tells you what to do. It is so much easier to be in a cult, the constant appeal to authority must be such a relief for them.
Have you ever read Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind"? I think it was written in 2012 or so. He was a lefty who became a moderate/centrist after discovering, through researching for the book, that conservatives had more categories of understanding of their opponents than leftists did of theirs, despite believing that they understand everything, and pretty much own thinking. Sure, some rightwingers, especially certain religious ones, live in their own (usually theological) silos, too, and they annoy the piss outta me, but it's not to the same scale given the left's institutional heft.
I did read that yes!
I think it continues to explain the left's insularity and why they continue to fail to understand the Trump phenomenon. Because if you ask the average conservative-leaning person? They DISAGREE with several things that Trump says and does, and have few qualms saying so. But to hear the average cloistered lefty, they are all in a red hatter MAGA-cult. **shrug**
Yes. It's funny because progressives insist the "right" (whatever they think that is) is equally as silo'd and censorius as the left, by default. Because they just *assume* this to be true. But it's really not my experience at all. Some just told me on Facebook, in response to this piece:
"The idea that the right is super accepting of other ideas is absurd. You have to swear complete loyalty to Trump, but if you like to be part of a cult of personality and check your brain at the door go ahead. Most people on the left are not socialists, so not sure why you bring that up."
I didn't say any such thing, to start. But also... this just isn't true. Many on the left ARE critical of and don't like Trump! I feel like I like him more than lots of people who voted for him! I don't know anyone who is a blind Trump fan, honestly. These people just don't know anyone who voted for Trump or who is even right wing, so they assume, but it just doesn't play out irl.
Yep. And I think it's because leftists can afford to assume a lot of things to be true since they control so many cultural institutions, thinking themselves the possessors and final arbiters of what's good and true. It creates a self-referential feedback loop. Conservatives don't have that luxury. They HAVE to know how other people think to function in the world. I think that's a big part of what Haidt realized.
Yeah that’s a good point. They don’t lose by being ignorant to the other side… (I mean, they lost the election I guess, but I don’t doubt they can turn that around easily if we aren’t on the ball). Their lives aren’t impacted by “the right” at all, whereas ours were… In terms of our livelihoods, free speech, rights, etc. They pretend these things are under threat, but they aren’t at all…
And even when they lose elections, they don’t know how to take “no” for an answer because they still own the structural guts of so much. They can’t possibly imagine being wrong unless they are forced to. Everything is still reinforced and they view an election loss as just a temporary setback. The ideology is that strong. I mean look how hard it is just to get the WNBA to say that a woman is female. They still won’t budge.
Good on you.
Maybe one day you won’t have to recite your CV on a regular basis. Not that I mind reading it.
Haha I know I’m sorry I have to do this like once a year I get too frustrated 😑
Never apologize.
I enjoyed your writing style and I also agree with most of what you have written.
I thought I would recommend a book that could give you a philosophical base line. It is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. If you haven’t read it you have to make up for lost time. warm regards from Sydney, Australia,
Peter Halasz
I actually just bought a copy at an antique/vintage store in Arizona when I drove through in May! Haven't gotten to it yet, but will. Thanks for the recommendation :)
I would love too hear how you enjoyed the book, once you've read it.
Warm regards,
Peter
I would LIKE to be in a cult. Please, sign me up for a cult! It would be so nice to not think very hard about anything and to have to make no personal decisions because the cult tells you what to do. It is so much easier to be in a cult, the constant appeal to authority must be such a relief for them.