Why do conservatives become conservative? It’s not a rational choice.

Nor is it primarily the result of a rational choice (i.e., a systematic analysis of facts) that liberals become liberals. 

We’d like to believe that we adopt our political views rationally, only after careful consideration of the “facts.” That’s a pipe dream, however.  Jay Dixit’s article, “The Ideological Animal,” (published by Psychology Today) demonstrates that our political persuasion takes root well before the cerebrum kicks fully into gear.  There are deep triggers that lead individuals to crave one political ideology over the other.  For many of us, rational thought is post-facto justification.  As David Hume famously argued,

Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.

Dixit’s arguments dovetail with Hume’s beliefs.  As Dixit argues,

We tend to believe our political views evolve as a result of rational thought, in that we consider arguments, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions. But the truth is more complicated. Our political preferences are equally the result of factors we’re not aware of—such as how educated we are, how scary the world seems at a given moment, and personality traits that are first apparent in early childhood. Among the most potent motivators, it turns out, is fear.

What else correlates with political leaning?  You won’t be surprised at some of these differences:

conservatives and liberals boast markedly different home and office decor. Liberals are messier than conservatives, their rooms have more clutter and more color, and

Share

Continue ReadingWhy do conservatives become conservative? It’s not a rational choice.

Camus quotes

It's a gray and rainy day in St. Louis.  Not a sad day, but a thoughtful day.  I took a moment to read some Camus.  I respond intensely to much of his work.  His simple writing style elegantly carries deep thoughts.   Here are some of my favorite quotes by Camus: A…

Continue ReadingCamus quotes

The banality of burning coal

In October 2007, James E. Hansen testified with regard to an application to build a new coal-burning plant in Iowa.  Hanson is the Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and senior scientist in the Columbia University Earth Institute.  He said some harsh things about our substantial dependence on coal:

Global warming from continued burning of more and more fossil fuels poses clear dangers for the planet and for the planet’s present and future inhabitants. Coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase of CO2 in the air. Saving the planet and creation surely requires phase-out of coal use except where the CO2 is captured and sequestered (stored in one of several possible ways).

Hundreds of millions of people live less than 20 feet above sea level. Thus the number of people affected would be 1000 times greater than in the New Orleans Katrina disaster. Although Iowa would not be directly affected by sea level rise, repercussions would be worldwide. Ice sheet tipping points and disintegration necessarily unfold more slowly than tipping points for sea ice, on time scales of decades to centuries, because of the greater inertia of thick ice sheets. But that inertia is not our friend, as it also makes ice sheet disintegration more difficult to halt once it gets rolling. Moreover, unlike sea ice cover, ice sheet disintegration is practically irreversible . . .

The biologist E.O. Wilson (2006) explains that the 21st century is a “bottleneck” for species, because of extreme stresses

Share

Continue ReadingThe banality of burning coal