The Science of Libertarian Morality

[mrjarrell]

Here's a really interesting study, done by a social psychologist who did the same for conservative/liberals, that shows where the mindset of libertarians is in comparison to their counterparts. They're not, (as many of us have stated many times in the past) some type of conservative or some type of liberal. While we share some traits in common with both, we exceed them in many other areas and in some we score lower. For instance, we're not collectivists like liberals and conservatives. We value the individual more than the group. This is a truly interesting article and I found quite a bit to think about in it. It was nice to see that science confirmed what most of us already knew.

The Science of Libertarian Morality - Reason Magazine

 

[Fletch]

I want to marry this article and have like 10,000 of its babies.

 

[O2guy]

My sentiments exactly, glad to see its not just my mere opinion.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Here's a really interesting study, done by a social psychologist who did the same for conservative/liberals, that shows where the mindset of libertarians is in comparison to their counterparts. They're not, (as many of us have stated many times in the past) some type of conservative or some type of liberal. While we share some traits in common with both, we exceed them in many other areas and in some we score lower. For instance, we're not collectivists like liberals and conservatives. We value the individual more than the group. This is a truly interesting article and I found quite a bit to think about in it. It was nice to see that science confirmed what most of us already knew.

The Science of Libertarian Morality - Reason Magazine

Did you actually read the study? Not jut the article? I did. The very first thing it says was:

Draft Version - Please note that this paper has not yet been peer reviewed and has not yet been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. It represents our best effort to describe our research findings, but its conclusions may undergo revision during the review process. It is currently undergoing such review.

Let me know when it's published, peer reviewed and accepted.​

 

[mrjarrell]

The meat of the draft, and their conclusions based on the gathered data are highly unlikely to change in the slightest.

 

[Expat]

Did you actually read the study? Not jut the article? I did. The very first thing it says was:

Draft Version - Please note that this paper has not yet been peer reviewed and has not yet been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. It represents our best effort to describe our research findings, but its conclusions may undergo revision during the review process. It is currently undergoing such review.

Let me know when it's published, peer reviewed and accepted.​

Wow, publishing something like that prior to being peer reviewed is a slap in the face of good science and the scientific method.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I want to marry this article and have like 10,000 of its babies.

That's an unexpectedly emotional response

Wow, publishing something like that prior to being peer reviewed is a slap in the face of good science and the scientific method.

We're libertarians...you can stuff your scientific PEER reviews

Seriously though...very little will change upon review, as mrjarrell stated. Enough of it jives with my own observations that I'm glad to have read the article.

 

[Expat]

Seriously though...very little will change upon review, as mrjarrell stated. Enough of it jives with my own observations that I'm glad to have read the article.

Well as long as we have some anecdotal evidence to confirm it...

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Well as long as we have some anecdotal evidence to confirm it...

A lifelong, non-scientific study of every person I encounter in any sort of elevated interaction is hardly anecdotal (i.e. I didn't offer a story of one particular account). I just said "I'm glad to have read it"...not "I'm going to base my doctoral thesis upon this study". Would you seriously discount the entire paper because the teacher hasn't put a gold star on it yet? It would be unwise to discuss nuances & start throwing around numbers from the study...but giving a nod to the mostly obvious general ideas & findings is fine IMO.

 

[Expat]

Just some good natured ribbing there Paco.

 

[level.eleven]

Wow, publishing something like that prior to being peer reviewed is a slap in the face of good science and the scientific method.

Actually, it has nothing to do with the scientific method or good science. That would be found in the contents of their publication. By making their findings available, they are ASKING for peer review. This is how academia works with regards to research. Peer review, in science, is a constant, not a seal of approval that states - yes you can publish this. Your conclusion gathers more weight the more you can convince you peers of your findings.

As far as this study goes, I doubt a lot effort will be placed to shift the researchers conclusion one way or another. I imagine this was more of a simple grant research project - not hard science at all. Of course you could always contact the professors and let them know about your issues, all their info is right there. Or, you could always review the math yourself. That's the best way, in my opinion.

 

[TopDog]

You know I had a pretty good handle on what was what before I got so involved with this forum's politically orientated threads. As an example people that would have clearly been seen by me as Liberals claim to be Libertarian. Everything is not black and white but here on INGO things political get really heated and really blurry.

Its good to be exposed to so many different thoughts but then again to shred on a guy just because he says he will wait on drawing conclusions until its published? Sometimes I think we on the whole are little bit too defensive. I don't need to nitpick every minor detail of a persons statement to understand what he is trying to convey.

I'm also going to wait until its actually published to form a opinion.

 

[rambone]

Call me crazy but I think the same people would be picking the same fights even if God Himself published the damned article.

 

[Fletch]

You know I had a pretty good handle on what was what before I got so involved with this forum's politically orientated threads. As an example people that would have clearly been seen by me as Liberals claim to be Libertarian.

Maybe your definition of "liberal" is too loose. Or maybe it's archaic. Or maybe it just doesn't match what other people are using the word to describe.

Its good to be exposed to so many different thoughts but then again to shred on a guy just because he says he will wait on drawing conclusions until its published? Sometimes I think we on the whole are little bit too defensive. I don't need to nitpick every minor detail of a persons statement to understand what he is trying to convey.

On the other hand, there could be more in play here than just a simple statement about a study's state of publishing.

 

[christman]

I am a liberal conservative...

 

[level.eleven]

I figured the disagreement would come from the futility of quantifying political dispositions to fit within neat little grading scales and then tie that to personality traits.

 

[photoshooter]

Perhaps we can toss it in with all of the Climate Science that is "peer reviewed."

 

[Fletch]

Perhaps we can toss it in with all of the Climate Science that is "peer reviewed."

This is unfair on all levels, to psychology, sociology, and climatology. Each is an inexact science with a given level of (un)certainty, and each has been subjected to intense politicization. It is the politicization that leads to bad policy prescription, not necessarily the science itself or those who are doing the work. Granted, in the case of climatology, the science itself became increasingly warped by intrusive politicization, but that's not at work here, because libertarians are not a monolithic source of funding for further research.

This is merely an attempt to explain, in scientific terms, the apparently erroneous data points that libertarians leave on the standard measures of political behavior and morality. In other words, Republicans and Democrats are readily identified by using certain measures, but libertarians were not. The study attempted to figure out why, and found a new set of unifying characteristics that were previously not being measured in concert with one another. On the whole, it's not particularly controversial, and frankly I'm a bit puzzled as to why some feel the need to describe it as such.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Just some good natured ribbing there Paco.

I wasn't sure & we just got past the elections...so I did the natural thing & knee-jerked

 

[mrjarrell]

I'm also going to wait until its actually published to form a opinion.

Then you'll never read it. The likelihood is that it will be published in a professional journal that someone like you and I will never see, as they're not readily available to general public, only subscribers within a given profession. So, read the draft they made available or don't.