Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Simple-Minded Conservative
It’s a well-established tenet of social psychology that political conservatives are narrow-minded, dogmatic, and prone to simplistic views. Study after study has shown this. We simply don’t possess the “cognitive complexity” of our left-wing counterparts.
Except that those studies are flawed. The problem with the methodology was that test subjects were asked about topics that tend to elicit more complex responses among the left.
According to Luke Conway, an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Montana, the results change dramatically if you broaden the range of topics:
… across four studies comprising over 2500 participants and covering over 40 topic domains, we found no evidence of the much-ballyhooed conservative simplicity effect. Rather, what we found instead was that for one set of topics, conservatives were less complex, and for another set of topics, liberals were less complex. And we barely came within a hint of anything like the now-famous effect suggesting that overall, conservatives are more simple than liberals. Comparing overall means that collapsed across multiple topics, the two groups of ideologues were consistently the same in their complexity levels. [my emphasis]
For example: In the original studies, subject were asked whether they agreed with this statement:
- A group that tolerates too much difference of opinion among its own members cannot exist for long.
Agreement was taken as a sign of dogmatism. Conservatives agreed more often.
Conway tried the same experiment, but he asked two questions:
- A religious group that tolerates too much difference of opinion among its own members cannot exist for long.
- An environmental group that tolerates too much difference of opinion among its own members cannot exist for long.
Surprise. That one shook out totally differently, dogmatism-wise. The left was every bit as simple-minded.
If you’re interested in scientists who struggle to contain the more extreme silliness emanating from their ranks, please allow me to recommend the Heterodox Academy blog.
Published in General, Science & Technology
I’m in the middle, simple on all issues.
I prefer the term common sense.
Actually it takes more mental energy and study to reduce complex phenomena to something simple, E=MC^2 for instance. But not always, “ghetto behavior, gangs, dysfunction, and poverty are caused by racism” is a simple thought but it’s wrong. My experience is that liberals see the world as so simple that they sincerely believe that their superior intellects and virtue can control almost everything better than just ordinary folks trying to sort things out on their own.
Why is “simple” automatically bad? A stoplight is “simple” (let’s not argue the nuances of the yellow light) and totally effective in controlling traffic. What would the left prefer? A traffic cop who determines which driver is “privileged” vs “oppressed” and directs traffic accordingly?
Rape is pretty simple too. It only becomes nuanced when committed by Muslims or Bill Clinton.
I like simple. It provides clarity and direction.
Nuance is a refuge for the indecisive.
There’s no inherent problem with simplicity:
The problem arises when that simplicity contradicts experience. Both the left and right are prone to do this. It’s human nature, to a large extent.
Occam’s razor.
If progressives are all that non-dogmatic, why is academia overwhelmingly progressive?
That which is preached differs from that which is practiced.
So the researchers took a true statement, and treated agreement with that true statement as proof of simple-mindedness? Like, “the Emperor has no clothes”?
Obviously, a “group” (as opposed to, say, a nation) that tolerates so much difference of opinion that they have nothing in common cannot exist for long as a group. Groups form around common interests or beliefs. That is the raison d’etre for a group in the first place.
Maybe the better test for simple-mindedness is whether you conduct stupid studies to validate your pre-existing beliefs.
I would just like to note that this post has been expanded considerably by the editors from my member post. The thrust has not changed and the words have probably been improved.
In your example, it is obviously true that too much difference of opinion will disintegrate the group. The weasel worded phrase “too much” necessarily leads us to think that indeed, at some point with enough difference of opinion no group will remain together. So how could it not be true, unless one believes in general group cohesion doesn’t depend on beliefs.
Were the researchers thinking of the question this way?
Man, this is way too complicated for me. I think I’ll just have another beer and vote for Trump…
The thing is that many problems are very simple. Good vs evil. All liberal open mindedness seems to be is just a way to justify bad or evil things because it is the easier path or feel good choice.